Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

In-House Admin

Hi all. I've been thinking about applying for admin, so that we'd have somebody who's active in the wikiproject and understands the issues that come up who's able to deal with pesky administrative stuff, vandalism, etc. directly. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why such an in-house admin is needed. I assume you know that admins are not supposed to deal with stuff in which they are themselves involved? Did anything come up where you wished you had such an admin? I think it should be sufficient to have some admins who know enough physics and are willing to help when asked. One of the participants of this project (User:Oleg Alexandrov) was recently made an admin, User:CSTAR is also an admin who knows quite some physics, and you can always try to ask me for help.

As for you (SCZenz) applying for adminship: Did you look through the recent applications to see which are successful and which are not? Looking at your contributions, I am not convinced that your application would pass: little over 1000 edits, some pictures, getting the list of particles featured, few AfD votes, some activity here at this wikiproject, not many edits elsewhere in Wikipedia: namespace. It's hard to predict what would happen, and you may well succeed, especially if you have a strong story, but you may also well fail. So, if you decide to apply, brace yourself for criticism. By the way, I'll support an application. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. The only times anyone has discussed needing an admin with me, it always involved bringing someone in from the outside the wikiproject. But it would seem that I was wrong about the situation, to some degree.

It also seems like they are looking for something specific in an editor, which seems to involve a lot of breadth and specific checkmarks. I'm mostly interested in improving physics articles, and being able to deal with vandals more directly would help with that. But I would have to, as you say, have a "strong story"--and I'll have to think about whether I feel like explaining, say, just how much effort goes into getting some of the pictures I've put up. You make this sound disturbingly similar to applying for college.

Thanks for your comments; this is why I asked about this here first. Unless other people have something more encouraging to say, I may think about this again when I have more experience. -- SCZenz 21:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you haven't checked it out yet, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards to evaluate your appeal to strangers. To give you an idea, I've seen people always vote oppose to those they have not run into, on the basis that the person must not be active enough; it's one of those things where everyone has their own very distinctive critera. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should all support SCZenz's application. If we want to have more expert people becoming more involved in wikipedia, then we can't say: "You only have 1000 edits on your name, so you are not qualified".Count Iblis 22:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I can wait a bit. I'm going to try out more general wikipedia-wide maintenence crap and see how I like it, then maybe apply later. -- SCZenz 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My latest silly idea (featured article)

I just went to what I would describe as "a lot" of effort to get some decent pictures to illustrate A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS. My question is: how close is the article, currently, to being worthy to put up for featured article status? -- SCZenz 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks nice! I think that it contains most of the relevant information about the detector. You should now concentrate on making it readable to everyone :). Perhaps you could explain a bit about particle accelerators etc. in the introduction so that people who know nothing about physics can understand a bit better what this is all about. Count Iblis 00:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, although it does raise the question: how much should an article duplicate material from other articles in order to be a comprehensive whole? I guess I'll assume the answer is "as little as possible while still giving non-physicists a clue as to what's going on". -- SCZenz 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't very easy. It's actually not that different when you write up results for a scientific paper. You need to write something in the introduction even though people could look most of it up in the refs. B.t.w. DAMA/NaI which I started some time ago, suffers from the same problem.Count Iblis 00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added some background information, and put it up for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS/archive1. -- SCZenz 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Stachnikov

Take a look at Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem and Stachnikov. I believe this is outright crankery; I can't find any record of even an actual publication. The biography listed by the author of these articles, User:Lionosmom, is not listed on Amazon, and the terms biflexian, triflexian, and so forth appear to be pure crank terms unknown to physics. The author alleges that Stacknikov has a placque in Red Square. If true, the article needs to be rewritten to accurately portray his lack of scientific notability. If not, the article probably should be nominated for deletion.

Be careful, User:Lionosmon added approving mention of Stachnikov to Albert Einstein, which I deleted.---CH (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have AfD'd them both. If he appears in red square, it's unverifiable without google appearences or the book actually existing. See:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stachnikov's_triflexian_quantum_multiplex_theorem
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stachnikov -- SCZenz 05:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If Stachnikov is deleted on the basis of being crank we should make sure the closing admin gets rid of Image:Stachnikov.jpg, too, as its source and copyright status would be unknown, not to mention becoming orphaned. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

One general comment about the handling of these articles. As I understand it, claims that nobody seems to have heard of do not have to be "debunked." If they're impossible to verify, that's sufficient to chuck the article. Is that right? -- SCZenz 07:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Particle beam weapon?

I was thinking that Particle beam weapon might need to be tied into our project in the process of wikification, until I started to read it. IANAP, but it looks largely like hooey to me, either of the pseudoscience or conspiracy theory flavors, perhaps a bit of both, spurred by old SDI stories and the B.E.A.R report cited in Talk. Any of the more knowledgable denizens care to have a look, and perhaps a laugh? --Kgf0 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I slapped it with a request for the sources to be cited. If they don't get cited soon, and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything reputable, we'd be justified in pruning the article to just the facts and/or putting it in "fictional weapons" or some such category. There's another article, Directed-energy weapon, that might be related and provide a guide for how to handle this one. -- SCZenz 22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobel

The Nobel Prize for Physics was recently awarded to John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch "for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique." Anyone knowledgable enough to start the missing article? I could probably work on the bios once I have time, but I can't begin to guess what OFCT is or does, or whether it even merits an article of its own. --Kgf0 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not exactly what I do, but since Hall's in my department it'd probably be easy to find out enough to get a start. Might take a bit though since I've got laser time now on top of lab visitors. — Laura Scudder | Talk 22:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A good start would be rewriting coherence (physics), and adding a section on coherence in quantum optics. At the moment it doesn't describe any of the things Roy Glauber figured out. I don't have time to do it at the moment, but it would make a good undergrad project. Thisrod 23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That's only half the award so it wouldn't cover Hall and Hänsch's work on using frequency combs to make high accuracy measurements. So it's a good start on half. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone on Talk:John L. Hall has proposed we need an article on JILA since two out of CU's three physics Nobel laureates had appointments there. It is however a smaller institution than it might sound in press releases (more like a second physics department and of about the same size, the only difference being that it's jointly run). I would be happy to expand such an article, but feel divided about whether it's really necessary so I'm not going to give into my departmental pride and start it. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hubble Flow

I feel this stub is redundant, being superseded by Hubble expansion. However, User:Worldtraveller feels there is a distinction between these two terms, and he claims that 'Hubble flow' is a standard term in cosmology with a meaning distinct from 'Hubble expansion' (at least, if I understand his comments correctly). I have requested a citation to a standard cosmology textbook. Can anyone here shed any light? ---CH (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This survived the AfD, but I still think the whole thing should be merged with Hubble expansion. Worldtraveller insists that "Hubble flow" is the standard term in cosmology rather than "Hubble expansion", but of two standard textbooks I consulted, neither Peebles, Principles of Physcial Cosmology, nor Peacock, Cosmological Physics even list "Hubble flow" in their index! This whole thing is very strange.---CH (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wave-particle duality

Can a few people take a look at StuRat's recent edits to Wave-particle duality. They look distinctly dodgy and naive to me, but rather than just remove them I thought I'd be tactful and sensitive for once. William M. Connolley 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC).

I don't think it's wrong, but it's kind of written like a textbook rather than an article, which may not be good. Other thoughts? -- SCZenz 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted. Actually, it seems that StuRat was trying to clean up someone-elses contribution. However, the additino was as clear as mud and did not seem to add anything, so I deleted. linas 22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, after looking further. There's now some kind of "vote" on Talk:Wave-particle duality about the section that we should keep an eye on. William was absolutely right to have a big issue with the original editor's assumption that wave phenomena require a medium in all cases. I'm also rather concerned about the notion that phonons (!) should be the first example of wave-particle duality--they're not even mentioned in the introductory QM courses I'm aware of. -- SCZenz 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

New experimental particle physics category?

Looking at the particle physics categories, it occurs to me we might benefit from having a Category:Experimental particle physics. It would be in Category:Experimental physics and Category:Particle physics, and contain the accelerator, detector, telescope, and "experimental concepts" categories currently at the top of particle physics. A possible variation would be to get rid of Category:Experimental particle physics concepts and put those articles directly in it. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Smells like the object model - I like it. Could we effect this simply by moving Category:Experimental particle physics concepts to Category:Experimental particle physics, and then RfDing the redirect once we clean up the article categories? (Yeah, I suppose that's me volunteering to do the edits - Mongo like grunt work.) --Kgf0 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You could save yourself a lot of edits by requesting the move at WP:CFD. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, if nobody disagrees. I guess Category:Experimental particle physics concepts doesn't really need to be separate from Category:Experimental particle physics--I originally created it because there was nowhere to put basic ideas about how one actually does experiments, but it's fine with me either way. -- SCZenz 21:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Light sources

Presumably in response to my comments on Talk:Beamline, Scottfisher left the following comment on my talk page:

Do you think maybe we should start a new page on light sources, since beamline is about beamlines, like components on a beam pipe? Maybe include a seperate topic like the end of an accelerator, END STATIONS? Experimental beamlines, as I think that is what you are saying, experimental facility beamlines for users?

I've moved it here because I think it needs wider discussion among experts. I'm not sure anyone would look up light source (which is presently a redir to Light) in that sense who wouldn't already know what one is, so I don't think it's the most useful title; at the same time, I have no counter-suggestion. End stations sounds more like it should be Category:Particle physics experiments or Category:Particle physics facilities, with articles for the notable ones. Being relatively new to the field and a non-physicist, I'm not really sure what the best solution would be here; I just know that the edits I did on Beamline are only a stop-gap - so have some discussion while I go get some coffee. --Kgf0 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Light source is a term in accelerator physics, whereas it doesn't really mean anything more commonly except "something that makes light," so you could make an article with that title, with an italicized bit at the top linking to light. There's probably other ways to title it too, like "X-ray source," and they may even have articles already.

How the articles you mention get categorized would depend quite a bit. If they're pieces of the accelerator, they'd get put under Category:particle accelerators. If they're experiments done at a light source, they'd be put on whatever field (often chemistry or biology) the experiment was in. If they're about the apparatus for holding such experiments, they'd probably go in Category:particle accelerators. But in any case, the ideas scott mentions are all fine for separate articles in my opinion. -- SCZenz 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Your point is valid, and understood. Light souces are a type of Particle accelerator. There are many accelerators and I'm thinking more like light sources doesn't fit with beamline or some specific facility. Of course a light source has a beamline, but a beamline is not necessarily just a light source. Also there are end stations that users and researchers use, and they are a beamline, some have many experimental beamlines, that's what they call them usually associated with end users. Sometimes they are called experimental beam lines as in E150 lines where E = experimental line with a number of the eperiment. A lot of facilities use this to tag a beamline to an experiment at the end of the accelerator.

Again, I'm thinking a conventional beamline with components on them for the Wiki beamline. More specifically, the typical components associated to an accelerator, ion chambers, vacuum stuff, diagnostic components, magnets, Etc. As I stated on the beamline discussion, there are all sorts of accelerators out there including ion implanter accelerators. They have a beam line too! See: [1]

My point is not to get critical in the beamline article and mention specific accelerators in the article, like light sources, a mention of end stations and or target article, and maybe an article on synchrotrons, storage rings, (accumulator rings of which SNS has), experimental beamlines that research users use at the end of a beamline as an end product. That's it from here, Coffee does sound good! Be back in a few hours I value opinions Regards, 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I took the liberty of modifying the format of the previous replies to make the thread easier to follow; hope no one minds, and if you do, well, change it back!

SCZenz, if I'm following you correctly, should we move the list of light sources out of Beamline? I'm cool with that; I'd also be cool with a name change for the section to make it less specific, with addition of other examples of notable beamlines. In terms of categorization, what would you say the differences are between Stanford Linear Accelerator, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory for example?

While we're at it, are accelerators notable in themselves (i.e., we should include as many as time and knowledge permit), or should we develop some criteria for determining which are notable and which are not? Or perhaps simply write pages for those that are referenced in articles as the need becomes apparent? Thoughts? --Kgf0 19:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Most accelerators are huge, expensive, and have some unique physics goal in mind. I'm not aware of any problem with non-notable ones being written up. Some of the early smallish ones (e.g. before WWII) might be put together in an article on early accelerator history, which I hope someone writes someday.

The list of light sources should be in light source, I think. -- SCZenz 01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Do it. You can even try to hijack light source from being a redirect, and then see who yells. If it turns out that everyone hates you for this, then you can always move it to light source (physics). File:Gavel.gif linas 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

---

There is even an article on Synchrotron also. Scott 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum Mechanics - simplified

Up for deletion. Maybe worth a look. -- SCZenz 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory

We've got someone creating sketchy articles on this theory and its creators. I first marked a few of the bios {{nn-bio}}, but put this one up for AfD. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone's nominated one of the bios at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Vincent. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I nominated the other one since Googling failed to suggest this person exists.---CH (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Alcubierre metric

I seem to be involved in an edit war with a new user, KED, which may be the result of some genuine misunderstanding since the term light cone is used loosely in the literature. But what really puzzles me is that KDE cites, not the research literature on warp drives (which I am familiar with) but the sci.physics FAQ entry, which does not even mention local versus global or warp drives, and which I believe is clearly inapplicable to the way that warp drive spacetimes achieve effective superluminal travel. (See my comments in the talk page.) Any feedback/assistance/clarification would be welcome! ---CH (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi CH, I read through the debate, and it is an interesting one. Here's the problem as I see it: KED is echoing a viewpoint that is commonly taught in introductory GR courses: that superluminal travel implies time travel. Thus, there is an obvious, appearant paradox that the Albacurrie drive somehow avoids. I don't quite know how it avoids this, but simply stating that "the worldline of the observer has no loops" while appearantly true, doesn't help most readers resolve the paradox. Take me, for example: I know enough GR to both mostly understand the article and to be familiar with the basis of KED's complaints. I do not know enough to be able to guess the correct resolution for the paradox (yes, the "no loops" is a good clue). Thus, I fully expect other educated readers to also stumble over this, and protest in a fashion not unlike KED. It would be best if the article tried to deal with this issue in as direct a way as possible, and (among other things) acknowledge that there is a real paradox. linas 00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Quantum indeterminacy

If you enjoy dispute resolution, and are also very knowledgable in quantum mechanics, particularly quantum measurement, then please note the dispute above, and help out. If you are not good at quantum, or like to shoot off snide remarks, then please do NOT "help out"; we don't need the waters to be stirred any further. Its already a rather long battle. P.S. yes, its another Carl Hewitt intervention. linas 00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Physics-stub split

A split of physics-stubs category has been proposed here. It certainly seems needed, given that there are over 1200 at present. If anyone has an idea of the optimal way of doing this, and especially, roughly how many stubs would be involved in each... Alai 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So far a wide range of possible new stubs has been proposed:

• quantum mechanics
• theoretical physics
• particle physics
• sub-atomic physics
• optics
• E&M
• astrophysics
• condensed matter physics

So far we've only gotten a handfull of opinions on this, so a few more voices would probably be helpful. — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How about low temperature, particle, and nuclear physics? --Dataphiliac 00:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many subcats make it hard to remember, and so people won't use them. Even the above are a bit much; suggest merging particle and subatomic into one, and merge optics and e&m into one. linas 00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I proposed exactly the opposite. I say having more categories makes it easier to find what you want to expand. And relatively few people actually write stubs on physics; for many of us, it will be intuitive to divide the articles by subfield, so it won't be too onerous if the names are obvious. -- SCZenz 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Linas makes a good point. A lot of these stubs are nice, but what happens when you get into stuff that is a mix of both? E&M and optics, particle physics, sub-atomic physics, and theoretical physics. Due to the nature of overlap in physics, we either have to get really descriptive or really broad. What do we do when there's an overlap? --Dataphiliac 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Double-stubbing is pretty commonplace. 3 or 4 is supposedly frowned upon, but I've certainly resorted to it a number of times. Basically, the rule of thumb would be, which category is the most likely to get it expanded by editors "happening by" from related articles? This is an issue in any number of areas, we just muddle on through: the point is that categories of 1200 are pretty unmanageable, so a split of some sort is a necessity. Doing it between too small a set of sub-categories reduces the utility, as it'll leave still-quite-large categories behind (between about 80 and 200 or so is supposedly about optimal), and hasten the point at which re-re-stubbing is required, after the new categories have also grown. Though naturally, coherence of the topic is crucial. Alai 02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally think we can safely add at least particle, condensed matter, some sort of optics or e&m, and some sort of quantum stub. That would pull maybe 850 stubs out of the ~1200 marked physics-stub, a good chunk. I agree with linas that too many subcategories won't work terribly well. — Laura Scudder | Talk 02:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Two other ideas, although I'm not sure how usefull they would be for stubs: biophysics (or "biological physics") and computational physics. Karol 09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we also need a category "mathematical physics".Count Iblis 13:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirects and computational chemistry

First off, I set up Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Physics as a redirect because I felt it was a bit inconvenient to have to remember the capital p. Also, I've noticed that computational chemistry is a subcategory of computational physics, which doesn't feel right to me. Anyone else share this opinion? --Dataphiliac 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It set up those categories. You're right, it should have been only in Category:Computational science. Fixed. Karol 06:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

peer review of manifold

Hello physics people, I've just asked for a peer review of manifold. Perhaps some of you would like to take a look.--MarSch 11:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for ATLAS

See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/A_Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS. I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so hopefully people won't be too hard on me there. And yes, I freely admit to being obsessed with writing a good article about my own experiment.. ;) -- SCZenz 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Electron vandalism

I need help to avoid running afoul of the 3RR. There's an anon repeatedly adding psuedoscientific material to electron. I have now asked him to review WP:NOR, and to discuss it on the talk page if he disagreed with my evaluation of the material as original research; I also warned him that further edits without discussion would be considered vandalism. So, if he edits it again, please treat them as exactly that. -- SCZenz 21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added electron to my watchlist, so I'll be looking out for it. Karol 23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Center of mass

Can someone fix the center of mass/center of inertia/center of gravity articles? Two of these terms mean the same thing, but the articles disagree about which. I don't know the answer and see conflicting uses online. — Omegatron 19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

New element

Thought you fellow physics geeks would be among the few to get the humor of Governmentium (created as a user page for easy future deletion). --Kgf0 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

funny :) --MarSch 10:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Application of tensor theory in physics

Application of tensor theory in physics is a new stub, which I'm thinking about pointing up for deletion. Does anyone want to salvage it? Salsb 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No real content tensor couldn't include in one line. Karol 07:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Or wait... it seems like part of a larger plan for organizing tensor, so there's a Application of tensor theory in engineering science and evven Glossary of tensor theory. I'll try to make it into something. Karol 07:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to put it all in tensor? -- SCZenz 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly not, although the lists in them could get quite lengthy. I cleaned them up a bit, although I won't object to a merge, of course. Karol 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming it ti List of tensors in physics? I don't see any potential for it being anything more than that. linas 13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's a good idea. So if we rename Application of tensor theory in physics to List of tensors in phsycis then should we rename also Application of tensor theory in engineering to List of tensors in engineering? Karol 12:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There is already an unimaginable mess of articles about tensors. It's really depressing/daunting. Three more don't even make much difference until someone has a grand vision about how to organize/merge this stuff. --MarSch 10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be right about the mess, and about the need to organize things. However, for myself, I am truly weary in general of grand attempts at integrating things. That rather often results in incomprihensible articles to anybody except the author.

As such, if such an attempt is taken, please use caution, ask for lots of advice, and don't be too ambitious. (And do a good job if started.)

By the way MarSch, do you have any plans to finish topological manifold, differential manifold, and eigenvalue, eigenvector, and eigenspace, articles which you started? (Never mind the latter though, it was finished by somebody else.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this is a collaborative project. Articles written by a single person or without a discussion page are inferior. I'm planning to check back on those articles when someone else has taken a go at them. --MarSch 09:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Once the {{attention}} tag is out of those articles, we can talk about starting a new project — dealing with tensors. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Physics portal

Is anyone maintaining Portal:Physics...? It hasn't been updated in a long time. Should we? -- SCZenz 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course! We need to coordinate something for that. I'll start digging for easy stuff (featured picture, news, etc), but I think we should be in concurrance on whatever we do. --Dataphiliac 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it has lacked attention. I guess it's one of the things we should include in this wikiproject. Karol 08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if not us then who? I'm happy to help, and I think we should definitely add it here. -- SCZenz 08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I added it to the scope and goals stuff on the project page. Someone elaborate please, I need to go to work now! :D Karol 08:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we start up a portal page specifically for discussion regarding the portal? --Dataphiliac 01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a talk page for the portal itself? -- SCZenz 01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

... Yes. I have no idea what I was thinking. Let's get to it then? --Dataphiliac 04:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, this wikiproject can serve as a "catalizer" and place for supporting discussions, though. Karol 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thermodynamics & Stat. Mechanics

I notice that alot of the same articles are in Category:Thermodynamics and Category:Statistical mechanics. Is there a distinction between the two cats here on Wikipedia, or should they be merged or one put inside another? Karol 08:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

being a new user I can't tell if something had been scheduled regarding this merge. All I can say is that I see pros and cons for such merging. On the one hand, the two theories are certainly linked (see thermodynamic limit), but on the other hand it is perfectly possible that someone would come searching for info about thermodynamics without caring the least about statistical mechanics (for example a chemist, or a 1st year university student).ThorinMuglindir 09:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I would leave both, but it would be nice to have one as a subcat inside another, to relate them somehow, or both of them in each other, but that would make a loop. Karol 13:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-linear elasticity?

Anyone knows where the subject is mentioned? I just found something about linear elasticity. It is important for me as I will soon start editing about the (entropy-driven) force between the tips of an ideal chain, which will lead me right to introducing non-linear elasticity of polymeric materials (ideal chain is AFAIK the simplest model that has non-linear elasticity as an emergent property)ThorinMuglindir 09:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would just go ahead and create the page on non-linear elasticity. Karol 13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

in fact I am confused: I redid the calculation, and finally the elasticity associated to the ideal chain seems to be... linear. I'll have to take a look into a couple of books tonight and see the truth on this subject, and check my formulas... Maybe non-linear elasticity arises only in models that have interactions between monomers, or maybe my formula is wrong. I'll keep you informed.(ThorinMuglindir 15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

OK I looked in my books, and it looks like I had the calculation right. So that it means I was wrong in thinking non-linear elasticity would be an emergent property of the ideal chain model. Which in turn means my need for non-linear elasticity as an article until new types of polymer models are introduced. In order to introduce more polymer models, there are a couple other articles I need to either find or make myself, mainly Van Der Waals Gas, liquid mixes, and the difference between long-range and short-range interactions. Maybe also a bit of electrostatics in solution. But I won't engage in all this until I'm done with what I want to finish on those edits I have begun, so that it's not a very short term project.(ThorinMuglindir 19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

VfD:Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics is nominated as original research. linas 14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

We could use some knowledgeable opinions on this article - as I mention in the discussion on the [[AfD page - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical Newtonian physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines is an interesting one - but need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -Trödel|talk 10:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific method portal, so many portals...

I'm just starting to get to know our own Physics Portal, and I noticed there is a new portal, started somewhere in May, a Scientific Method Portal. There is also the Science Portal, of course. So many portals... Karol 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The science portal should contain links to all these other portals :) Count Iblis 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Users will get confused with that many portals: we need a portals portal.ThorinMuglindir 15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Say, a kind of metaportal. :D Karol 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We just need a hierarchy such that science links to the method and physics etc. portals. --MarSch 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Those damned wiki linguists!

They took intensive from us! We are condemned to using intensive quantity instead.

Intensive is important in statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, and they won't give it back! At least I assume they won't, because at some point I didn't know of the existence of intensive quantity, so I wrote a bit about intensive in physics in the linguistics article, and some linguist said there was no need for what I wrote, as it was already covered in intensive quantity (which btw was wrong, what I wrote had a different meaning from what you can find in intensive quantity). So, not only they won't give it back, but they won't even share it!

But it won't be as easy as they thought 'cause I have a strategy which hopefully will let us regain what is ours... I just need to design the specifics, which should require a small amount of documentation on linguistics (maybe you can help me):

The idea would be to find a key concept of linguistics that they have yet to cover, start an article named after this concept, and give it a physics or pseudo-physics definition, categorizing all that in physics of course. Then, we keep the article in hostage until they give us back intensive!ThorinMuglindir 15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I never liked adjectives as article titles anyways. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That was me who removed the physics content, and I'm not a linguist :) Karol 17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah OK. I guess taking liguistic concepts in hostage wouldn't be too efficient then... Anyway, it's not that I care about the content, which was largely redundant with thermodynamic equilibrium, but it did set a precedent for us reconquering intensive. Although if the majority prefers intensive quantity, then ther's no point...ThorinMuglindir 19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro to physics

Herald88 has started strange discussion here. Karol 06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is the sky blue?

That's my idea for the title of an article that would strive to make it to featured article standard. Since I'm not able to do it all by myself, I just thought I'd come here to share the idea.

The question struck me as one that anyone can feel concerned about, whatever his sex, age, religion, cultural background etc.

Answering it can be done with very few formulas, and offers the opportunity to discuss a few concepts of physics:

• light wavelengths, their relation to color, and their superposition in white light, the visible light spectrum of the sun
• Light diffusion, which is diffraction by a set of randomly distributed coherent light sources (as a remark I don't think this phenemenon is the same as the one described under photon diffusion, though I'm not sure), direct light (sun) vs diffuse light (sky), quantitative differences in how different wavelengths are diffused.
• topics related to some corollary questions (see below about these): colloids (milk), colloids and electrostatics in solution (Bragg crystal), incidence angle of light on a surface etc.

And, the question brings many corrolary questions, which can be answered by using the same concepts of physics, and by introducing some other:

• Why is the day sun yellow, and the sunset red?
• Why is the sea blue (or blue-green)?
• Why is the sky bluer near the poles than in temperate regions and bluer in temperate regions than near the equator (in full daylight)?
• Why do white clouds appear white during daytime, and white or red during sunset?
• Why is milk milky? (with the fun experiment of a light source appearing red when you use a thin layer of milk as a filter)
• Why are so many gels and creams milky in color?
• Why does a Bragg crystal become milky in appearance if you add salt into it?

Existing articles

I did a short research myself, so that we have 3 relevant physics articles so far, and a general article. The physics ones look quite good actually, and relatively simple as far as concepts are concerned, but I think their jargon is technical enough to repel non-physicists. They are of course far from featured article standard. Feel free to add links to articles you feel relevant.

• sky
• diffuse sky radiation
• scattering
• Bragg diffraction

A Bragg crystal is made up of charged colloids and diffracts in the visible range (rather than X-ray for molecular crystals). The crystalline structure is maintained by electrostatic repulsion, but, if you add some salt into the solution, the repulsion between the colloids is screened and the crystalline structure is replaced by a solution of diffusing colloids. The diffraction fringes vanish, and the solution takes a milky appearance because of light diffusion.

Discussion of blue sky article project

Great idea! Perhaps we could even use the sky article for this. --MarSch 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. To me, that sounds more like it belongs in Wikibooks, perhaps with links there from the relevant related articles here. Somehow "Why" and "How" just don't seem encyclopedic to me, unlike "Who," "What," "When" and "Where." I do like the idea in general though - the article(s) sounds good, it's just a question of where it belongs. --Kgf0 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article on diffuse sky radiation. Karol 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and for the links. I've added a link to diffuse sky radiation in the sky article. Note that for the moment however, such a title such as this one is not really prone to attract a neophyte. Regarding wikibooks, well, I was more thinking of making a very catch-all article, and try to make some (good) vulgarisation about occurences of light diffusion in daily life, then open on Bragg crystals. Something less technical than what I usually write, and with no formula, just explanations, and if possible a tone that sustains curiosity.ThorinMuglindir 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

Dynamics in physics is not just relevant to mechanics, but also to diffusion, which can be dynamic and steady-state. I edited the article that disambiguates between music and physics, however that is probably not very satisfactorly. Please let me know here how you edit it if you edit it, I need it for my links.ThorinMuglindir 02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics by Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

You could put it on your watch list, so you'll see how anyone edits it automatically. -- SCZenz 02:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this part Oleg. SCZ, yes I did click on "watch," but then forgot that detail when I wrote here (I'm still familiarizing with the whole thing, hence I prefer to mention if I edit a disambiguation article). (Unsigigned, 19:43, 29 October 2005 ThorinMuglindir)

E. Marinchev 212.21.138.161 Universality

This "anon" user has added a useless article A_5_minutes_explanation_of_Relativity citing his own cranky website. (Note that the cited website 195.24.39.97 and the IP address of the anon user 212.21.138.161 both are registered in Sofia, Bulgaria.)

Current status: I have initiated an AfD ---16:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)