![]() | 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. |
FYI, Foerster coupling has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone may want to take a look at the recent changes in a section title by anonymous IP. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Moose-32 ( talk · contribs) has been very busy adding links to this fluff piece to many Higgs related articles (and to Big Bang). My comment to them here sums up my concerns with the document in question. The reason why I'm bringing it up here is that their larger pattern of edits is also worrying, and I'm going to need help determining the degree of cleanup needed. They've extensively edited C.R. Hagen and 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers, in ways that might or might not be adding linkcruft or bias, but I don't have the expertise to determine this. If people familiar with the history of the development of the Higgs mechanism could take a look at these, I'd appreciate it. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Request comments on proposed merge of Kendrick unit into Kendrick mass and mend a POV fork. In 1963, Kendrick proposed a scale based on the mass of CH2 = 14.0000. [1] This scale is useful in organic mass spectrometry, particularly in high resolution mass spectrometry of hydrocarbons (see [2]). A Kendrick unit has not been proposed, although a paper published last month uses “Ke” in a manner parallel to the Dalton unit. [3] The basis of the merge is that the Kendrick unit article goes beyond what is stated in the literature and is therefore WP:SYNTHESIS. Kendrick mass is widely accepted and a balanced discussion of a Kendrick unit is appropriate within the Kendrick mass article. Additional discussion on Talk:Kendrick_mass. -- Kkmurray ( talk) 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I have noticed several physics pages using the term "finite probability", which I was told means "nonzero probability". I realize this term must make perfect sense to physicists, but unfortunately causes confusion for other scientists (I'm a mathematician and I find the choice of terminology baffling). Could we create a short article explicitly clearing this term up? Thanks Rschwieb ( talk) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, there was some article explaining that "finite" in physicists' lingo means "finite and non-zero". Anyway, I agree that we'd better say "non-zero probability" than "finite probability". A. di M. ( talk) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As Steve already mentioned: In physicists slang finite just means not-infinite and non-zero (or not- ;) ). But since it is just used in spoken language I don't know any reference.. It's just common... RolteVolte ( talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few differences between terminology in math and physics and also writing style, the requirement that every sentence be unambigous, even if the meaning is clear in the context etc. etc. If you have submitted articles to math journals, you'll be familiar with this these and other similar objections by mathematicians. While the typical referee report you get when submitting to a physics journal looks like: "Wonderful results, well written, I recommend publication", the referee report for a similar article submitted to a math journal will be many pages long, it will start with a sentence like: "Interesting results that should be published, but this manuscript is clearly written by physicists in "physics style" in vague nonrigorous language." And then a few pages detailing every non-rigorous word like "finite" for nonzero, every misplaced comma making some sentence not 100% clear etc. etc. follows.
Count Iblis (
talk)
15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The term 'finite' in physics can be used in three separate manners that I think need to be treated separately:
In terms of a general rules about writing encyclopedia articles, I disagree strongly with the mathematical approach described by Count Iblis above. There is another name for 'vague non-rigorous language'; its called English. The vagueness and non-rigor of language is not a bug but a feature; it focuses the listener on the big picture without swamping them in unneeded detail. Precision is to be applauded, except when it interferes with the main point of the article or sentence. Like including every tree in a forest on a map, precision comes with a cost.
Somehow we need to balance 'encyclopedic' with readable. TStein ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Introduction to atomic structure has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
User Efficiency1101e ( talk · contribs) has just added a couple of stub sections to Ultimate fate of the universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not in a position to vet the reference at present; more eyes would be appreciated. They've also recently been active at negative index metamaterials, telescope, and mechanics. A quick look there would also be appreciated if anyone has time.
They seem to be acting in good faith; I'm just concerned about well-meaning linkspamming or undue-weight happening (it looked ambiguous to me at first glance). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The original editor has added these sections to ultimate fate of the universe again. On one hand, they have slightly more content and a couple of additional links, but on the other hand, they have at least one of the same sources that was pruned last time around. If anyone feels like mentoring them and vetting the additions, go ahead. I have my hands full off-wiki. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi and sorry for my bad english :)
I'm an it.wiki contributor, looking for source for our article it:Ergosfera I look at the interwiki, that link Rotating black hole: here i found the same lack of inline citation of the italian version, but also a very "strange" section Rotating_black_hole#The_possibility_of_time_travel, also completely unsourced. I see that this section was added by an IP this summer, and similar teories appear also in the es.wiki es:Ergosfera and ca.wiki ca:Ergosfera, but, for what a read here and vaguely understand in the spanish language article, these explanations contradict what is written on the it.wiki article. Can someone take a look to this section? Yoggysot ( talk) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Project members, Earth's shadow is a new article that will soon be a DYK. It's specifically about the sky phenomenon which is visible from the Earth's surface. Would someone please take a look through the article and see if it seems OK as it is? I mean that it has no glaring errors of physics? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Over at Template_talk:Infobox_journal#ADS_bibcode, we are considering adding the bibcode to {{ Infobox journal}}. However we have a few options for where the link should take the clicker. Ideas welcome.. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on the German version, I completely rewrote the article, and included sections on Experimental verifications, Derivation, Methods of Measurements, Reality of contraction etc. (all of this was completely missing in the former version. But it contained three (!) sections mainly related to historical developments, which are now replaced by a single History section.) Opinions? -- D.H ( talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Specific gravity and relative density as they stand are covering the same material. They either need to be made distinct from each other or merged. A merge was tried (without much discussion that I could find) but it was de-merged shortly later without fixing the problem in my opinion. It would be nice if we can get more eyes and a discussion going so that we can fix this the right way one way or the other. Also, I would appreciated it if someone could contact other projects that might be interested. Relative density only has a physics tag now and specific gravity has none. TStein ( talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Extra pairs of eyes would be nice here. An editor has recently given a much-needed expansion of the article, however a lot of it seems to be based on preprints, and (to me at least) seems to be a tad bit too enthusiastic in embracing string theory as the ultimate truth. I toned down the article, but I'm woefully unequipped to tackle the subtleties. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Lithium burning#Dubious: Lithium burning is mentioned on a couple of pages and various different formulae are provided. It seems to me they can't all be correct but I am not educated enough in this area to find out the correct formula and a proper reference for the information. If somebody could provide this information on the Lithium burning page, I'd be much obliged! Once we get the facts straight on the main page, I'll see about updating the various pages that also refer to it incorrectly at the moment. — SkyLined ( talk) 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed today at the speed of light article that an editor has recorded in the history section the false fact that Maxwell's 1861 and 1864 theories involved the propagation of light in empty space. And interestingly this bizarre assertion was backed up by three in-line sources mid sentence. These three sources are all very modern, dated 1992, 2005, and 2009. They are secondary sources, exactly as is preferred by wikipedia's rules, and I checked them out, and they do actually try to assert that Maxwell's theory involved the propagation of light in empty space. Now we all know that that is wrong and it would be very easy to produce secondary sources that would refute these three sources. This therefore seems to illustrate the importance of unambiguous primary sources, otherwise we will soon see the entire history of physics re-written to the extent that 20th century physics was always there. The history section at 'speed of light' now contains a distorted view of Maxwell's 1861 paper, a modern interpretation of Weber and Kohlrausch's 1856 experiment, and a statement about the precision of modern instrumentation for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. And yet it still ends with the conclusion that the aether was abandoned post-1905 with the advent of Einstein's theory of relativity, even though it seems to have been abandoned throughout the entire history section. It would seem that more care needs to be taken not to confuse the past with the present when writing physics articles. David Tombe ( talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Dvdm, That's exactly what I said above. I acknowledged that your sources backed up the point which you are making. But it's known as 'revisionism'. It's pushing it beyond the bounds of reason to try and argue that Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices is nowadays called 'empty space'. Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices has been abandoned and forms no part of modern physics. That doesn't make it retrospectively become equivalent to 'empty space'. David Tombe ( talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Timothy, You'll find that Wilhelm Eduard Weber's theory of electrodynamics does not utilize an aether, although I have read that he believed in it nevertheless and that it comprised of some kind of dual particles. And as regards Kirchhoff's use of the terminology 'empty space', I cannot account for that. Kirchhoff's paper clearly does say that, as you say. But The section about Maxwell is not deferring to the Kirchhoff reference. There are plenty of references, primary, secondary, and tertiary, which make it quite clear that Maxwell's EM theory was definitely not in empty space, and one such reference appears to have been removed by yourself. The aether was a big factor in nineteenth century physics, and there is an important chronology of events in which Maxwell's role is central along with the 1856 Weber/Kohlrausch experiment. Yet the history section at speed of light does not even deal with the Lorentz contraction, which is the significant step between the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's special relativity in 1905, and the eventual abandoning of the aether. Even then, the abandoning of the aether wasn't just as abrupt as has been made out in the article. The 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica still gives details of the 'existing' theory of the propagation of light through a sea of tiny vortices. That may or may not have been Tesla's theory. I don't know because it doesn't specify the architect.
The point is that we know that you personally don't believe in the aether. And we know that modern physics doesn't believe in the aether. But it gets quite silly when people start to amend history sections in order to bring them into line with modern thinking. This is actually a very silly argument and I'm sorry that it has had to take place at all. As Christopher Thomas says, by all means go back and re-insert the reference to 'empty space'. But if you do so, stand back and have a look at how the whole history paragraph reads and ask yourself these questions,.
(1) Does the history section correctly portray the sequence of events? Or is it confusing and misleading the reader into believing that Maxwell never believed in the aether?
(2) Does it correctly inform the reader that Maxwell's 1861 theory involved the propagation of light in a sea of molecular vortices which was also an elastic solid, and which was made partly of aether and partly of ordinary matter? And does it portray the fact that in his 1864 paper, although less specific about the details, that nevertheless he was clearly talking about an medium which was dielectric?
(3)Does it let the readers know that the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to try and establish the motion of the Earth through what they were then referring to as 'Maxwell's aether'.
(4) Does it neatly summarize Lorentz's length contraction hypothesis in the wake of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fact that Einstein's theories followed on from Lorentz's theories?
(5) If somebody is confident that there is no aether, do they need to tamper with history sections to mislead readers into thinking that there was never an aether?
The bottom line is that we cannot start re-writing history because modern textbooks, and especially very modern textbooks, start to claim that the likes of Maxwell was wrong. That gets us into the realms of a disproportionate and bureaucratic application of all the literature that is available. David Tombe ( talk) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Timothy, I would agree that we shouldn't start a discussion on the vacuum, because such discussions tend to degenerate into prolonged debates about absolutely nothing at all. But in answer to A. di M. it should be pointed out that Maxwell's luminiferous medium was not just pure aether. It contained some ordinary matter a well. There was his electric particles which acted as idle wheels. So he was not exactly dealing in empty space. Maybe we don't need to elaborate too much for the purposes of the article, but why go to the opposite extreme and claim that he was dealing in empty space when we all know that that was not true. David Tombe ( talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No Timothy, You go and write whatever you like in the article. Maxwell was dealing in an elastic solid with hard balls. That is not 'empty space', and I'm not prepared to engage in the necessary doublethink that would be required to think of it in terms of being empty space. In my view, you have inserted wrong information into the article. I have brought the matter to attention and I am glad that you have concluded that I deserve the benefit of the doubt as regards whether or not I should be permanently banned from editing physics articles. If that's the way it works, then so be it. You write what you like at speed of light and I will not be showing up. David Tombe ( talk) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it is more important to emphasize that in the 19th century, the laws of physics were thought to be invariant under Galilean transformations instead of Lorentz transformations. Maxwell and his colleagues could thus never have dealt with empty space as we know it as they had to somehow impose Galilean invariance, one way or the other. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Shortly before his death, Maxwell wrote (around 1878) the article s:Encyclopædia Britannica Ninth Edition/Ether. He stated: "Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge." -- D.H ( talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Some feedback would be welcomed there. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Status of special relativity: This article appears to be at best a content fork of some sort. Also, I can't see anything in the article that describes the topic it is purpored to discuss. Also the title itself may just be someone's original idea, or a neologism. Mostly all I see is a rehash of an amalgam of facts already in other Wikipedia physics articles (that's why I say content fork). In any case, I was going to PROD it, but AfD appears to be more appropriate. Does anyone else think AfD is the way to go here? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Closely related: This article Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity appears to be a dissatisfied version of this History of general relativity. I hate to use the word content fork twice in one hour, but... Also, the first may also pertain to WP:NOTREPOSITORY, and does not conform to WP:MOS. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Special relativity is already big enough without Status of special relativity being merged into it, and the material in the latter does deserve a place in Wikipedia, though maybe a better title could be found. A. di M. ( talk) 20:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This article does not actually appear to describe the topic title. Also, it starts off sounding like a text book. Actually, I am not sure what is the point of the article as related to its title. Someone may want to look at this and assess. There is definitely some good information here. It looks like a good article, but may need to be renamed and copy edited (imho). ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I posed a question on the Coandă-1910 talk page which as yet has not been answered and thought that maybe someone here might be able to help. Basically, the Coandă-1910 was an aircraft built to test an experimental propulsion system comprising a rotary fan driven by a 50 hp conventional piston engine, argued as being the first jet engine (but that's another matter). This propulsion system was claimed to have generated approximately 485 lbf thrust with the piston engine running at 1,000 rpm, but it's not known whether this figure was achieved during static tests or while using a test bed at the front of a moving railway locomotive. Considering this was 1910 and that aircraft were typically reaching speeds of around 50 mph, my question is what thrust figure might be generated by a typical aircraft propeller of the day driven by the same 50 hp engine? There might be many variables to consider, and assumptions made to answer the question, but I'd just like to get an idea of how significant (or not) this propulsion system would have been had it not been destroyed in a crash.-- TransientVoyager ( talk) 19:28, 30 October 2010 (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. |
FYI, Foerster coupling has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone may want to take a look at the recent changes in a section title by anonymous IP. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Moose-32 ( talk · contribs) has been very busy adding links to this fluff piece to many Higgs related articles (and to Big Bang). My comment to them here sums up my concerns with the document in question. The reason why I'm bringing it up here is that their larger pattern of edits is also worrying, and I'm going to need help determining the degree of cleanup needed. They've extensively edited C.R. Hagen and 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers, in ways that might or might not be adding linkcruft or bias, but I don't have the expertise to determine this. If people familiar with the history of the development of the Higgs mechanism could take a look at these, I'd appreciate it. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Request comments on proposed merge of Kendrick unit into Kendrick mass and mend a POV fork. In 1963, Kendrick proposed a scale based on the mass of CH2 = 14.0000. [1] This scale is useful in organic mass spectrometry, particularly in high resolution mass spectrometry of hydrocarbons (see [2]). A Kendrick unit has not been proposed, although a paper published last month uses “Ke” in a manner parallel to the Dalton unit. [3] The basis of the merge is that the Kendrick unit article goes beyond what is stated in the literature and is therefore WP:SYNTHESIS. Kendrick mass is widely accepted and a balanced discussion of a Kendrick unit is appropriate within the Kendrick mass article. Additional discussion on Talk:Kendrick_mass. -- Kkmurray ( talk) 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I have noticed several physics pages using the term "finite probability", which I was told means "nonzero probability". I realize this term must make perfect sense to physicists, but unfortunately causes confusion for other scientists (I'm a mathematician and I find the choice of terminology baffling). Could we create a short article explicitly clearing this term up? Thanks Rschwieb ( talk) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, there was some article explaining that "finite" in physicists' lingo means "finite and non-zero". Anyway, I agree that we'd better say "non-zero probability" than "finite probability". A. di M. ( talk) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As Steve already mentioned: In physicists slang finite just means not-infinite and non-zero (or not- ;) ). But since it is just used in spoken language I don't know any reference.. It's just common... RolteVolte ( talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few differences between terminology in math and physics and also writing style, the requirement that every sentence be unambigous, even if the meaning is clear in the context etc. etc. If you have submitted articles to math journals, you'll be familiar with this these and other similar objections by mathematicians. While the typical referee report you get when submitting to a physics journal looks like: "Wonderful results, well written, I recommend publication", the referee report for a similar article submitted to a math journal will be many pages long, it will start with a sentence like: "Interesting results that should be published, but this manuscript is clearly written by physicists in "physics style" in vague nonrigorous language." And then a few pages detailing every non-rigorous word like "finite" for nonzero, every misplaced comma making some sentence not 100% clear etc. etc. follows.
Count Iblis (
talk)
15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The term 'finite' in physics can be used in three separate manners that I think need to be treated separately:
In terms of a general rules about writing encyclopedia articles, I disagree strongly with the mathematical approach described by Count Iblis above. There is another name for 'vague non-rigorous language'; its called English. The vagueness and non-rigor of language is not a bug but a feature; it focuses the listener on the big picture without swamping them in unneeded detail. Precision is to be applauded, except when it interferes with the main point of the article or sentence. Like including every tree in a forest on a map, precision comes with a cost.
Somehow we need to balance 'encyclopedic' with readable. TStein ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Introduction to atomic structure has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
User Efficiency1101e ( talk · contribs) has just added a couple of stub sections to Ultimate fate of the universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not in a position to vet the reference at present; more eyes would be appreciated. They've also recently been active at negative index metamaterials, telescope, and mechanics. A quick look there would also be appreciated if anyone has time.
They seem to be acting in good faith; I'm just concerned about well-meaning linkspamming or undue-weight happening (it looked ambiguous to me at first glance). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The original editor has added these sections to ultimate fate of the universe again. On one hand, they have slightly more content and a couple of additional links, but on the other hand, they have at least one of the same sources that was pruned last time around. If anyone feels like mentoring them and vetting the additions, go ahead. I have my hands full off-wiki. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi and sorry for my bad english :)
I'm an it.wiki contributor, looking for source for our article it:Ergosfera I look at the interwiki, that link Rotating black hole: here i found the same lack of inline citation of the italian version, but also a very "strange" section Rotating_black_hole#The_possibility_of_time_travel, also completely unsourced. I see that this section was added by an IP this summer, and similar teories appear also in the es.wiki es:Ergosfera and ca.wiki ca:Ergosfera, but, for what a read here and vaguely understand in the spanish language article, these explanations contradict what is written on the it.wiki article. Can someone take a look to this section? Yoggysot ( talk) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Project members, Earth's shadow is a new article that will soon be a DYK. It's specifically about the sky phenomenon which is visible from the Earth's surface. Would someone please take a look through the article and see if it seems OK as it is? I mean that it has no glaring errors of physics? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Over at Template_talk:Infobox_journal#ADS_bibcode, we are considering adding the bibcode to {{ Infobox journal}}. However we have a few options for where the link should take the clicker. Ideas welcome.. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on the German version, I completely rewrote the article, and included sections on Experimental verifications, Derivation, Methods of Measurements, Reality of contraction etc. (all of this was completely missing in the former version. But it contained three (!) sections mainly related to historical developments, which are now replaced by a single History section.) Opinions? -- D.H ( talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Specific gravity and relative density as they stand are covering the same material. They either need to be made distinct from each other or merged. A merge was tried (without much discussion that I could find) but it was de-merged shortly later without fixing the problem in my opinion. It would be nice if we can get more eyes and a discussion going so that we can fix this the right way one way or the other. Also, I would appreciated it if someone could contact other projects that might be interested. Relative density only has a physics tag now and specific gravity has none. TStein ( talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Extra pairs of eyes would be nice here. An editor has recently given a much-needed expansion of the article, however a lot of it seems to be based on preprints, and (to me at least) seems to be a tad bit too enthusiastic in embracing string theory as the ultimate truth. I toned down the article, but I'm woefully unequipped to tackle the subtleties. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Lithium burning#Dubious: Lithium burning is mentioned on a couple of pages and various different formulae are provided. It seems to me they can't all be correct but I am not educated enough in this area to find out the correct formula and a proper reference for the information. If somebody could provide this information on the Lithium burning page, I'd be much obliged! Once we get the facts straight on the main page, I'll see about updating the various pages that also refer to it incorrectly at the moment. — SkyLined ( talk) 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed today at the speed of light article that an editor has recorded in the history section the false fact that Maxwell's 1861 and 1864 theories involved the propagation of light in empty space. And interestingly this bizarre assertion was backed up by three in-line sources mid sentence. These three sources are all very modern, dated 1992, 2005, and 2009. They are secondary sources, exactly as is preferred by wikipedia's rules, and I checked them out, and they do actually try to assert that Maxwell's theory involved the propagation of light in empty space. Now we all know that that is wrong and it would be very easy to produce secondary sources that would refute these three sources. This therefore seems to illustrate the importance of unambiguous primary sources, otherwise we will soon see the entire history of physics re-written to the extent that 20th century physics was always there. The history section at 'speed of light' now contains a distorted view of Maxwell's 1861 paper, a modern interpretation of Weber and Kohlrausch's 1856 experiment, and a statement about the precision of modern instrumentation for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. And yet it still ends with the conclusion that the aether was abandoned post-1905 with the advent of Einstein's theory of relativity, even though it seems to have been abandoned throughout the entire history section. It would seem that more care needs to be taken not to confuse the past with the present when writing physics articles. David Tombe ( talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Dvdm, That's exactly what I said above. I acknowledged that your sources backed up the point which you are making. But it's known as 'revisionism'. It's pushing it beyond the bounds of reason to try and argue that Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices is nowadays called 'empty space'. Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices has been abandoned and forms no part of modern physics. That doesn't make it retrospectively become equivalent to 'empty space'. David Tombe ( talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Timothy, You'll find that Wilhelm Eduard Weber's theory of electrodynamics does not utilize an aether, although I have read that he believed in it nevertheless and that it comprised of some kind of dual particles. And as regards Kirchhoff's use of the terminology 'empty space', I cannot account for that. Kirchhoff's paper clearly does say that, as you say. But The section about Maxwell is not deferring to the Kirchhoff reference. There are plenty of references, primary, secondary, and tertiary, which make it quite clear that Maxwell's EM theory was definitely not in empty space, and one such reference appears to have been removed by yourself. The aether was a big factor in nineteenth century physics, and there is an important chronology of events in which Maxwell's role is central along with the 1856 Weber/Kohlrausch experiment. Yet the history section at speed of light does not even deal with the Lorentz contraction, which is the significant step between the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's special relativity in 1905, and the eventual abandoning of the aether. Even then, the abandoning of the aether wasn't just as abrupt as has been made out in the article. The 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica still gives details of the 'existing' theory of the propagation of light through a sea of tiny vortices. That may or may not have been Tesla's theory. I don't know because it doesn't specify the architect.
The point is that we know that you personally don't believe in the aether. And we know that modern physics doesn't believe in the aether. But it gets quite silly when people start to amend history sections in order to bring them into line with modern thinking. This is actually a very silly argument and I'm sorry that it has had to take place at all. As Christopher Thomas says, by all means go back and re-insert the reference to 'empty space'. But if you do so, stand back and have a look at how the whole history paragraph reads and ask yourself these questions,.
(1) Does the history section correctly portray the sequence of events? Or is it confusing and misleading the reader into believing that Maxwell never believed in the aether?
(2) Does it correctly inform the reader that Maxwell's 1861 theory involved the propagation of light in a sea of molecular vortices which was also an elastic solid, and which was made partly of aether and partly of ordinary matter? And does it portray the fact that in his 1864 paper, although less specific about the details, that nevertheless he was clearly talking about an medium which was dielectric?
(3)Does it let the readers know that the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to try and establish the motion of the Earth through what they were then referring to as 'Maxwell's aether'.
(4) Does it neatly summarize Lorentz's length contraction hypothesis in the wake of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fact that Einstein's theories followed on from Lorentz's theories?
(5) If somebody is confident that there is no aether, do they need to tamper with history sections to mislead readers into thinking that there was never an aether?
The bottom line is that we cannot start re-writing history because modern textbooks, and especially very modern textbooks, start to claim that the likes of Maxwell was wrong. That gets us into the realms of a disproportionate and bureaucratic application of all the literature that is available. David Tombe ( talk) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Timothy, I would agree that we shouldn't start a discussion on the vacuum, because such discussions tend to degenerate into prolonged debates about absolutely nothing at all. But in answer to A. di M. it should be pointed out that Maxwell's luminiferous medium was not just pure aether. It contained some ordinary matter a well. There was his electric particles which acted as idle wheels. So he was not exactly dealing in empty space. Maybe we don't need to elaborate too much for the purposes of the article, but why go to the opposite extreme and claim that he was dealing in empty space when we all know that that was not true. David Tombe ( talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No Timothy, You go and write whatever you like in the article. Maxwell was dealing in an elastic solid with hard balls. That is not 'empty space', and I'm not prepared to engage in the necessary doublethink that would be required to think of it in terms of being empty space. In my view, you have inserted wrong information into the article. I have brought the matter to attention and I am glad that you have concluded that I deserve the benefit of the doubt as regards whether or not I should be permanently banned from editing physics articles. If that's the way it works, then so be it. You write what you like at speed of light and I will not be showing up. David Tombe ( talk) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it is more important to emphasize that in the 19th century, the laws of physics were thought to be invariant under Galilean transformations instead of Lorentz transformations. Maxwell and his colleagues could thus never have dealt with empty space as we know it as they had to somehow impose Galilean invariance, one way or the other. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Shortly before his death, Maxwell wrote (around 1878) the article s:Encyclopædia Britannica Ninth Edition/Ether. He stated: "Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge." -- D.H ( talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Some feedback would be welcomed there. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Status of special relativity: This article appears to be at best a content fork of some sort. Also, I can't see anything in the article that describes the topic it is purpored to discuss. Also the title itself may just be someone's original idea, or a neologism. Mostly all I see is a rehash of an amalgam of facts already in other Wikipedia physics articles (that's why I say content fork). In any case, I was going to PROD it, but AfD appears to be more appropriate. Does anyone else think AfD is the way to go here? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Closely related: This article Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity appears to be a dissatisfied version of this History of general relativity. I hate to use the word content fork twice in one hour, but... Also, the first may also pertain to WP:NOTREPOSITORY, and does not conform to WP:MOS. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Special relativity is already big enough without Status of special relativity being merged into it, and the material in the latter does deserve a place in Wikipedia, though maybe a better title could be found. A. di M. ( talk) 20:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This article does not actually appear to describe the topic title. Also, it starts off sounding like a text book. Actually, I am not sure what is the point of the article as related to its title. Someone may want to look at this and assess. There is definitely some good information here. It looks like a good article, but may need to be renamed and copy edited (imho). ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I posed a question on the Coandă-1910 talk page which as yet has not been answered and thought that maybe someone here might be able to help. Basically, the Coandă-1910 was an aircraft built to test an experimental propulsion system comprising a rotary fan driven by a 50 hp conventional piston engine, argued as being the first jet engine (but that's another matter). This propulsion system was claimed to have generated approximately 485 lbf thrust with the piston engine running at 1,000 rpm, but it's not known whether this figure was achieved during static tests or while using a test bed at the front of a moving railway locomotive. Considering this was 1910 and that aircraft were typically reaching speeds of around 50 mph, my question is what thrust figure might be generated by a typical aircraft propeller of the day driven by the same 50 hp engine? There might be many variables to consider, and assumptions made to answer the question, but I'd just like to get an idea of how significant (or not) this propulsion system would have been had it not been destroyed in a crash.-- TransientVoyager ( talk) 19:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)