![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Two questions need to be answered on the Neutrino talk page, that are beyond me:
Thanks! - Ravedave ( talk) 03:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest the Schools Wikipedia list is here. Proportionally science is a much high proportion of the Schools WP, including the Physics PortaL and comments on that list would be very welcome. -- BozMo talk 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't see the reader comment that the contents of Nuclear physics and Atomic nucleus could and should be basically switched with vast improvement to both articles. There's actually a template that suggests this, which we can put on both articles for awhile, or we can just be WP:BOLD and DO it, since we've had no comment to your TALK suggestion. Let me know. And thanks for noticing this gaff. The article on Atomic nucleus should be about the THING. The article on nuclear physics should be about the branch of physics that studies that thing. As it is, if you read these articles, they are basically reversed from that ideal. I propose that as a first stage in fixing this, we switch their contents, then clean up from there. What say you all? S B H arris 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added comments to Electron configuration (at Talk:Electron configuration#Redundancy with other articles) and Electron cloud (at Talk:Electron cloud#Merger proposal) commenting on redundancy and bad organisation of e.g. Atomic orbital, Electron cloud, Molecular orbital theory, Molecular orbital, but now I realise it is really a job for this project (for which I regret to say I have neither time nor expertise). PJTraill ( talk) 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (anchor added PJTraill ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC))
I've proposed that article for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativistic mass distortion. -- D.H ( talk) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Concern has been expressed that domain experts have not reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quark. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. 70.51.8.75 ( talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
User:SolarUSA ( Talk, Contributions) posted the article Cadmium telluride photovoltaics today. It's a shameless advertisement for the First Solar corporation, but has too much good content to outright delete (IMO). If someone wants a big clean-up project, here it is. I think it has the potential to eventually be a very nice article on an important topic. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Centrifugal force (planar motion) was sent for deletion at WP:AFD 70.51.10.188 ( talk) 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As you know, the Dirac equation is invariant under Lorentz transformations, but not (without modification) under the arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformations used in general relativity. I have seen texts which purport to generalize spinors to transform under such coordinate transformations. However, they are very hard to understand and I am not convinced that they work. Even if they do, it is not clear to me why it should be necessary to go beyond the formalism of tensors and tensor densities. Google gave a few papers mentioning a "tensor Dirac equation". One of them claimed to have proven that the wave function could be represented as a vector provided that the gamma matrices were replaced by rank 3 antisymmetric tensors (or some such, it was not very clear). Does anyone know more about this subject? JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from the self-importantly named Guild of Copyeditors and have just been working on Harry J. Lipkin. The article had been created by running the German equivalent through BabelFish, and took a lot of deciphering. I've knocked most of the biographical stuff into shape but found the sections on Lipkin's research in physics incomprehensible, and have moved them to the article's talk page. Could someone here take a look and see if sense can be made of it? Better still if you can read German - the original's here and may help you figure out what the article should have said. Many thanks. Gonzonoir ( talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone head over at matter and expand the section on solid/liquid/gas/plasma. I'm having a brain fart and I can't write short an accessible definitions. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
By any chance does somebody have a good example of an antisymmetric wave function I could use in Wikipedia (to represent the interaction of two identical particles)? I saw this image on the commons, but it is for a particle in a 2-D box. Thank you!— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
How about something like this
The left picture is a contour plot of the asymmetric ground state for two particle in a 1d box. The right picture is the corresponding symmetric wave function of the same energy. These are rough versions, I can tweak them further if this is the sort of thing you were looking for. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
(again this is a draft version, I can fine-tune the formatting if this is to your liking. In this case the left one is the second lowest energy state for two fermionic particles in an infinite square well potential. The right one is the symmetric state corresponding to the same 1-particle states. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
Comments would be appreciated in Talk:Age of the universe#Much ado about 0.1 standard deviation. -- BenRG ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose reducing the importance rating given to various particles. Currently, just about every subatomic particle is given Top importance - this makes WikiProject Physics look like WikiProject Particle Physics, and also leads to lots of Top importance / Stub class articles.
How about something like the following:
I realise this might be a controversial idea, hence discussing it here before going ahead and doing it! (Apologies if this has all been discussed before - I couldn't find anything obvious.)
Djr32 ( talk) 09:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, well it's been a week or so and we seem to be pretty well in agreement - Headbomb, unless you disagree then I'll get started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djr32 ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Speed of light has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Testing times ( talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Punctilius ( talk · contribs) had made a few edits to physics articles. It now turns out that this user was a sockpuppet of Scibaby, a notorious editor who has used hundreds of sockpuppets to engage in edit warring on global warming and other climate change related articles, see here and here.
The tactic used by these sockpuppets is to first edit some articles unrelated to climate change to hide their intention. This means that these edits are often bad edits, motivated more by trying to evade detection than improving the article. So, all the edits should be regarded as highly suspect, even if they don't look bad at first sight. Count Iblis ( talk) 02:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD here. I've also left a notice at WikiProject fluid dynamics, but it's not clear how active that project is anymore. VG ☎ 07:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I just created a very crude phi meson page. If some of you could expand and give a bit of history about it that would be nice. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Done : Approx 223 of 1583 unassessed articles checked of
WP:PHYSICS were autoassessed based on other projects assessment on the same page, by
TinucherianBot , per Bot request by
Headbomb . FYI --
Tinu
Cherian -
09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The Electron article has been put up for peer review here. I'm not exactly an expert, so I would greatly appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable could take a look to make sure all the facts are correct. Thank you!— RJH ( talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD link. VG ☎ 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone review this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Potential_difference&diff=247031229&oldid=245309042
Secondly, the same article's merge-tag may have also been vandalized
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Scalar potential. (Discuss)
but the discussion is about merging it with voltage and not scalar potential.
Lastly, can someone list some ways to improve the voltage article? The voltage article's talk page rates the article in its current state as a "C-class" article. It would be useful to know on the talk page why it has a C, especially if its partially inaccurate. Biologicithician ( talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The edits of 92.232.91.38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be all or nearly all nonsense. Could someone here please confirm? The poor grammar and idiosyncratic word choice makes it very difficult to determine if the editor actually intends to say something cogent, or if he/she is just having a nice laugh at our expense. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a FA article belonging to this project. Michael Kurtz, apparently an author of some of the articles used as source material, contacted me on my talk page and asked me to tag the unreferenced parts of the article. FA articles are currently being reevaluated to see if they continue to maintain FA standards. Hopefully, some editors from this project will update the page and endure that it still meets Featured article criteria. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Two questions need to be answered on the Neutrino talk page, that are beyond me:
Thanks! - Ravedave ( talk) 03:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest the Schools Wikipedia list is here. Proportionally science is a much high proportion of the Schools WP, including the Physics PortaL and comments on that list would be very welcome. -- BozMo talk 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't see the reader comment that the contents of Nuclear physics and Atomic nucleus could and should be basically switched with vast improvement to both articles. There's actually a template that suggests this, which we can put on both articles for awhile, or we can just be WP:BOLD and DO it, since we've had no comment to your TALK suggestion. Let me know. And thanks for noticing this gaff. The article on Atomic nucleus should be about the THING. The article on nuclear physics should be about the branch of physics that studies that thing. As it is, if you read these articles, they are basically reversed from that ideal. I propose that as a first stage in fixing this, we switch their contents, then clean up from there. What say you all? S B H arris 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added comments to Electron configuration (at Talk:Electron configuration#Redundancy with other articles) and Electron cloud (at Talk:Electron cloud#Merger proposal) commenting on redundancy and bad organisation of e.g. Atomic orbital, Electron cloud, Molecular orbital theory, Molecular orbital, but now I realise it is really a job for this project (for which I regret to say I have neither time nor expertise). PJTraill ( talk) 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (anchor added PJTraill ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC))
I've proposed that article for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativistic mass distortion. -- D.H ( talk) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Concern has been expressed that domain experts have not reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quark. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. 70.51.8.75 ( talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
User:SolarUSA ( Talk, Contributions) posted the article Cadmium telluride photovoltaics today. It's a shameless advertisement for the First Solar corporation, but has too much good content to outright delete (IMO). If someone wants a big clean-up project, here it is. I think it has the potential to eventually be a very nice article on an important topic. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Centrifugal force (planar motion) was sent for deletion at WP:AFD 70.51.10.188 ( talk) 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As you know, the Dirac equation is invariant under Lorentz transformations, but not (without modification) under the arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformations used in general relativity. I have seen texts which purport to generalize spinors to transform under such coordinate transformations. However, they are very hard to understand and I am not convinced that they work. Even if they do, it is not clear to me why it should be necessary to go beyond the formalism of tensors and tensor densities. Google gave a few papers mentioning a "tensor Dirac equation". One of them claimed to have proven that the wave function could be represented as a vector provided that the gamma matrices were replaced by rank 3 antisymmetric tensors (or some such, it was not very clear). Does anyone know more about this subject? JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from the self-importantly named Guild of Copyeditors and have just been working on Harry J. Lipkin. The article had been created by running the German equivalent through BabelFish, and took a lot of deciphering. I've knocked most of the biographical stuff into shape but found the sections on Lipkin's research in physics incomprehensible, and have moved them to the article's talk page. Could someone here take a look and see if sense can be made of it? Better still if you can read German - the original's here and may help you figure out what the article should have said. Many thanks. Gonzonoir ( talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone head over at matter and expand the section on solid/liquid/gas/plasma. I'm having a brain fart and I can't write short an accessible definitions. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
By any chance does somebody have a good example of an antisymmetric wave function I could use in Wikipedia (to represent the interaction of two identical particles)? I saw this image on the commons, but it is for a particle in a 2-D box. Thank you!— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
How about something like this
The left picture is a contour plot of the asymmetric ground state for two particle in a 1d box. The right picture is the corresponding symmetric wave function of the same energy. These are rough versions, I can tweak them further if this is the sort of thing you were looking for. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
(again this is a draft version, I can fine-tune the formatting if this is to your liking. In this case the left one is the second lowest energy state for two fermionic particles in an infinite square well potential. The right one is the symmetric state corresponding to the same 1-particle states. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
Comments would be appreciated in Talk:Age of the universe#Much ado about 0.1 standard deviation. -- BenRG ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose reducing the importance rating given to various particles. Currently, just about every subatomic particle is given Top importance - this makes WikiProject Physics look like WikiProject Particle Physics, and also leads to lots of Top importance / Stub class articles.
How about something like the following:
I realise this might be a controversial idea, hence discussing it here before going ahead and doing it! (Apologies if this has all been discussed before - I couldn't find anything obvious.)
Djr32 ( talk) 09:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, well it's been a week or so and we seem to be pretty well in agreement - Headbomb, unless you disagree then I'll get started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djr32 ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Speed of light has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Testing times ( talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Punctilius ( talk · contribs) had made a few edits to physics articles. It now turns out that this user was a sockpuppet of Scibaby, a notorious editor who has used hundreds of sockpuppets to engage in edit warring on global warming and other climate change related articles, see here and here.
The tactic used by these sockpuppets is to first edit some articles unrelated to climate change to hide their intention. This means that these edits are often bad edits, motivated more by trying to evade detection than improving the article. So, all the edits should be regarded as highly suspect, even if they don't look bad at first sight. Count Iblis ( talk) 02:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD here. I've also left a notice at WikiProject fluid dynamics, but it's not clear how active that project is anymore. VG ☎ 07:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I just created a very crude phi meson page. If some of you could expand and give a bit of history about it that would be nice. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Done : Approx 223 of 1583 unassessed articles checked of
WP:PHYSICS were autoassessed based on other projects assessment on the same page, by
TinucherianBot , per Bot request by
Headbomb . FYI --
Tinu
Cherian -
09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The Electron article has been put up for peer review here. I'm not exactly an expert, so I would greatly appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable could take a look to make sure all the facts are correct. Thank you!— RJH ( talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD link. VG ☎ 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone review this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Potential_difference&diff=247031229&oldid=245309042
Secondly, the same article's merge-tag may have also been vandalized
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Scalar potential. (Discuss)
but the discussion is about merging it with voltage and not scalar potential.
Lastly, can someone list some ways to improve the voltage article? The voltage article's talk page rates the article in its current state as a "C-class" article. It would be useful to know on the talk page why it has a C, especially if its partially inaccurate. Biologicithician ( talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The edits of 92.232.91.38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be all or nearly all nonsense. Could someone here please confirm? The poor grammar and idiosyncratic word choice makes it very difficult to determine if the editor actually intends to say something cogent, or if he/she is just having a nice laugh at our expense. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a FA article belonging to this project. Michael Kurtz, apparently an author of some of the articles used as source material, contacted me on my talk page and asked me to tag the unreferenced parts of the article. FA articles are currently being reevaluated to see if they continue to maintain FA standards. Hopefully, some editors from this project will update the page and endure that it still meets Featured article criteria. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)