Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2009

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. 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.

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

I nominated this article for peer review. You can leave your comments here. This article may be interesting for the Physics Wikiproject as it contains a lot of physics. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating Spectroscopy articles

The research group I'm in is interested in helping update several spectroscopy articles. I want to start by working on X-ray absorption spectroscopy, but before I dive in, I wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. The discussion page directed me to this WikiProject.

My plan for XAS is write a good introduction (with pictures!) and divide the types (ie. XAS, XANES, EXAFS) into sections with brief introduction and links to other wiki pages.

Thoughts? Atenderholt (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Just make sure to respect conflicts of interest guidelines and read suggestions for COI compliance and there shouldn't be any problem. There's a quick help table on this project's main page if you get confused. You could also get WikiProject Chemistry involved if that's not already done. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hauke Harder

The article about German composer Hauke Harder is currently discussed for deletion. Harder also worked in the field of molecular spectroscopy before becoming a professional artist, lists of his publications can be found here and here. Maybe someone more into science than me can point out his work in one or two sentences, as I think he is certainly notable. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Statistical mechanics" or "statistical thermodynamics"?

The way that the merge of statistical thermodynamics into statistical mechanics was carried out made the article very unclear. Only one of the terms is actually defined and the article keeps switching between them. I have already posted a comment at Talk:Statistical mechanics#Mechanics or thermodynamics?, but since neither of the talk pages (Talk:Statistical mechanics, Talk:Statistical thermodynamics) has been modified for more than 4 months and the article is marked as Top-importance, I'm posting this here too to try to attract attention. Brian Jason Drake 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

squashed entanglement

Is squashed entanglement a valid topic? I don't know anything about the subject but it looks like it might be a vanity article. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD'ing since no response. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD alert Solid-state ionics

This AfD (Article for Deletion) was closed at 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC). The result was keep. Brian Jason Drake 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. The justification is that there is an article already on Fast ion conductors so the field of solid state ionics should be redirected to fast ion conductors, because, the latter has a more substantial article. No, I'm not kidding. You know en.wiki has some really great physics articles, many physics editors go out of their way to explain concepts well to the layman, much better than in every other science area on en.wiki as far as I can see, but some major articles are absent or improper stubs, and they readily become the targets of editors who seem to be nominating because the topic obscure to them and therefore must not be important. Both articles are certifiable disasters, by the way, and could use the most basic of help--no research necessary, just the least you know will be more than what is there. I edited a sentence or two, but it's beyond my time right now. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favor of merging and redirecting stubs into very closely related articles, or the article into the stub if the name is better. After reading the two articles--from an outside perspective, though--I don't see what is wrong with merging the two articles until enough is written about one or the other to split it out. If I could figure out what each article was trying to say I would do it myself. (It seems easiest to me to add a fast ion conductor section in solid state ionics then paste the, admittedly disasterous, fast ion conductor article there. Some parts then can be moved up. It wouldn't be terribly much better, but it would have more related information in the same spot and you would not lose any information.)

I agree with you in that it irritates me as well the way some people use a blunt instrument like deletion when the more surgical precision of merging and redirects is needed.TStein (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see a better article on Solid state ionics written, than do anything with the fast ion conductor article. The former is more important, and the latter could rest comfortably in it until it were better, if there were a usable solid state ionics article, which there isn't. It always surprises me how little effort people who think they are otherwise capable of editing an encyclopedia make to see if something is an important topic when it's something they simply don't understand. It's rampant on en.wiki, not so bad on the European wikis that I have seen--maybe fewer Simpsons's fans?

A merger would be inappropriate, in my opinion, for that very reason, the the way to merge would be to merge the fast ion conductor article into the solid state ionics article, if either way, and the solid state ionics article is in no state to carry its own weight much less that of another article. Both are huge topics, though, with plenty of general and scientific literature for writing the articles.

Because I write mostly taxa articles I'm not afraid of a stub, particularly as a place holder for something major.

But the most refined instrument is to simply post at a wiki project and find people in the know. --KP Botany (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid of stubs; I just think they are, mostly, evil. They make it very hard to find articles that need attention. Worse, they make it hard to organize articles and to keep a topic coherent. Every article becomes an island and every editor is alone.

I still favor merging them into solid state ionics. Someone who is interested in reading one article is most likely interested in reading the other. An editor interested in editing one will be more likely to edit the other as well, increasing the editing pool of both. There is one less bad article and solid state ionics becomes a little less stubbier of a stub. It is not right to force stubs together where they don't belong. That is not the case here, though.

It is great to notify wikiprojects. Unfortunately, there really are not enough participants (at least in physics) to handle all of the solid state ionics type articles out there, IMO. TStein (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just want to respond to some of the extremely bitey comments regarding this nomination. It is showing a lack of good faith to claim it was nominated because I do not understand it and have a "Simpsons" mentality (as if it is impossible to be a physicist and a Simpsons fan at the same time). I perfectly understand what the subject is about - I write mostly on electrical engineering subjects. I nominated it because there were two things in the article at the time, a more or less dictionary definition (which is not, in itself, a valid stub) and a plug for the Asian Society giving it undue weight. I could easily simply have redirected it unilaterally, but I thought it better to start a debate, AfD may possibly not have been the best way of doing this but is still more in the spirit of collaboration. I also note that User:DGG, who is an impressively careful researcher, has now agreed with me on the nature of the original article and has changed to supporting a redirect. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Doubly-special relativity

Doubly-special relativity was prodded. I removed the PROD because it didn't qualify for deletion under WP:PROD since it had previously survived WP:VFD. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

squashed entanglement (second request)

Could someone look at talk:squashed entanglement? The article's original author (Superperro (talk · contribs · logs), who hadn't edited in almost 2 years up to now) contested the PROD and wrote:

Someone has objected to this page as being a possible vanity page because "almost all references are unpublished preprints." The preprints are in ArXiv. They can be accessed by anyone. They have a time stamp. Thus they are published. Publishing does not mean publishing in paper. I haven't seen you point out anything incorrect in the article or the preprints.

I defer to the physics experts here but the article shows some symptoms of containing original research. The term "squashed entanglement" isn't in the index of Nielsen and Chuang's book on quantum computation, if that matters. I do find some hits for the term on google scholar, mostly to more arxiv preprints. I left a request for better citations. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing physics topics

I recently expanded and updated my page of missing topics related to physics and wonder if anyone of you could have a good look at it. It may be that some of the red links just require a redirect. Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks a bunch.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice list. Thank you for putting in the effort to make it. I took a quick look at it and I will probably dabble with it a bit. Should this not have a home with the project, though? TStein (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If Extension of the periodic table beyond the seventh period is correct that there's a limit to the number of elements, could we say why, tying it into Proton drip line or whatever else is relevant? kwami (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed and 3rd opinion request at matter

A dispute about the definition of matter and related concepts is ongoing. Outsider opinions are welcomed. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The nature of this dispute is not clear. Headbomb has not identified the issues, nor opened a section to contain any discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Matter

A long dispute has been simmering about the proper definition of matter here ff, without much progress towards resolution. I favor a definition ultimately based on the Exclusion principle:

"I continue to favor a definition based on the elementary fermion/boson disjunction, with no essential reference to mass/energy, which is a separate issue that all particles share alike. All particles share the same E² = p² + m² rule for mass/energy. But without the exclusion principle, atoms and the ordinary matter in our world would be utterly different. Notice how bosons composed of elementary fermions, like ⁴He, do occupy space, in the sense of the exclusion principle. And note also that there is no way to build a composite fermion out of bosons. These seem to me to be deep truths: one says we cannot make "matter" out of elementary bosons, and the other suggests that even composite bosons, if built up of elementary fermions, never lose their character as matter.

But I think that for the purposes of this article, the discussion should proceed from top (commonplace) to bottom (esoteric), starting with the familiar e, p, & n, which are the basic entities needed to describe 99% of the matter that makes up our everyday world. Every even slightly educated person should be familiar with these, and how they build up atoms and molecules."

—but no one seems to have been able to produce a definitive source, one way or the other. It may be that there really is no agreed-upon "correct" definition. If so we need to leave it as un unresolved loose end, I guess, and close off the argument until the wider community decides. But it seems that we could use fresh blood in this discussion. Requests for third opions have already been posted and deleted a few times. Thanks in advance. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter introduction has been rewritten to take a more historical perspective and to avoid a "right way" vs. "wrong way" mentality. I believe all objections have been met. There has been no effort made on the talk page to refine the discussion or identify further debate.

There is no purpose in trying to discredit the everyday definition of "occupies space and has mass", which is very prevalent. This definition simply is supplemented with the (at least as) venerable "building block" definition, which dates back to the "atoms" of Democritus about 400 BC and is compatible with subsequent historical developments. Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help with classical harmonic oscillator articles

I stumbled across a mess of articles relating to harmonic motion, that desperately need reorganizing. I was hoping to do some of it myself, but I need more input. The first thing I need is to determine if I have all of the relevant pages. Here is what I found:

Harmonic oscillator,Oscillator,Simple harmonic motion, Damping,Resonance,Resonator,Parametric oscillator,Q factor,Damping ratio,Vibration,Mechanical resonance,Electrical resonance,Acoustic resonance,Torsion spring#Torsional harmonic oscillators,Oscillator phase noise,

The second thing I need help with is to ensure that I have the appropriate use cases I want to redesign for. The different purposes came up with are:

readers looking for simple information about SHO and Damped oscillator
readers looking for detailed information about the math
readers looking for a general purpose overall article with links to all of the harmonic oscillator
engineer's looking for particular topics such as resonance, q factor, etc...

Is there anything I am missing here?

The third thing I was hoping for is if anyone sees any articles in the above list that should be merged?

Finally, I was hoping for input on a tentative plan to fix this:

Make Oscillator general purpose article with a sections (with corresponding main tags) dedicated to Simple harmonic motion, damping, Harmonic oscillator equation,Resonance, Q factor, Phase noise, and Parametric oscillator
Turn harmonic oscillator into a page dedicated to the mathematical aspects of the classical harmonic oscillators by moving out most of the too simple stuff.
Move the damped harmonic motion stuff out of the damping page to its own home. The music damping deserves its own maintenance and should not be forced to coexist with the other stuff in my opinion.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

TStein (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You might add to your list Quantum harmonic oscillator, which makes inadequate connection to such issues as field quantization, normal modes and black body radiation. Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding derivation of aberration formula to "Relativistic aberration"

I have been trying to understand the derivation for a while. Although there are some unclear points (for me), a source one of you have shown me is consistant, not so much difficult, and seems to give a good insight. I want to add the derivation, in some form, to the page, but I am worried about violating copyright, and if it is OK to rely only on the source. the source is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0409/0409013v4.pdf. And I may need help with drawing pictures once decided to add it. Like sushi (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Style manual

Is there some reason why the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) seem to challenge Wikipedia's physicists? In the past hour, I have edited these articles:

In interference, I found this:

$prob(\psi \Rightarrow \varphi )=|\langle \psi |\varphi \rangle |^{2}=|\sum _{i}\psi _{i}^{*}\varphi _{i}|^{2}=$ $=\sum _{ij}\psi _{i}^{*}\psi _{j}\varphi _{j}^{*}\varphi _{i}=\sum _{i}|\psi _{i}|^{2}|\varphi _{i}|^{2}+\sum _{ij;i\neq j}\psi _{i}^{*}\psi _{j}\varphi _{j}^{*}\varphi _{i}$

I changed it to this:

\operatorname {prob} (\psi \Rightarrow \varphi )=|\langle \psi |\varphi \rangle |^{2}=|\sum _{i}\psi _{i}^{*}\varphi _{i}|^{2}

=\sum _{ij}\psi _{i}^{*}\psi _{j}\varphi _{j}^{*}\varphi _{i}=\sum _{i}|\psi _{i}|^{2}|\varphi _{i}|^{2}+\sum _{ij;i\neq j}\psi _{i}^{*}\psi _{j}\varphi _{j}^{*}\varphi _{i}

The "displayed" TeX was not indented by a colon and \operatorname was not used (nor \text or the like), so that "prob" got italicized as if "p" "r" "o" "b" were four variables.

I found a number of TeX displays in which the period or comma at the end was OUTSIDE of the "math" environment. That is good usage when TeX is used in the usual way, as opposed to the Wikipedia way, but its effect within Wikipedia is that the punctuation gets misaligned and otherwise fails to match the text, and in one case I found the period alone on the next line after the TeX display (this last will go away if you vary the browser window geometry, but won't happen at all if you put it inside).

In several places I found -1 instead of −1. A minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen, and when it's in a superscript a hyphen can be hard to see.

In one place I found N=4 instead of N = 4 (italics for the N and proper spacing before and after "=" in non-TeX notation. (Of course, the "4" should not be italicized.))

I found this:

$Visibility(real)={\frac {max-min}{max+min}},$

and changed it to this:

{\text{Visibility}}({\text{real}})={\frac {\max -\min }{\max +\min }},

(\text for text and proper indentation.)

I found this:

where max is the maximum of the oscillations (also called fringes) and min the minimum of the oscillations.

and changed it to this:

where max is the maximum of the oscillations (also called fringes) and min the minimum of the oscillations.

Generally in non-TeX notation, one italicizes variables, but not digits and not punctuation (thus matching TeX style), and one uses proper minus signs, not stubby little hyphens, and one puts a space (often non-breakable) before and after "+", "=", etc. (no need to attend to that in TeX since the software does it automatically). (And no succeeding space in +5 or −5, where the "plus" or "minus" is unary rather than binary.)

I prefer to avoid "inline" use of TeX in things like N = 4, since it's often the wrong size (browser-dependent, I think) and very badly misaligend.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I have read the style, but I missed the punctuation in the formula. I even changed a few of them for the worse. I will do better, I promise. It is too easy to miss the details. That is particularly true when you are used to writing papers for journals. I made the inline Tex mistake as well, for the same reason. TStein (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that it's mostly ignorance of how Wikipedia handles the math tags, combined with some who just don't care. I'll update the links on the project page to give some place to MOSMATH. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of list of neutrino experiments

I've recently overhauled the list of neutrino experiments, but many things are missing. If you could take a look at it and add stuff you know (or know how to find), expand it to include other neutrino experiments etc... that would be great. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I've greatly expanded Template:Neutrino detectors. If you know of more neutrino detectors, facilities, experiments, please add them (and if you can remove some of these redlinks, even better!). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gas Laws merge

I've just been editing Charles's Law and I think that the comments I have made there (linking needed) should be repeated at the sites of the other gas laws. Could these all be merged into Gas laws, since they are not very substantial articles on their own. (Gay-Lussac's_law, Boyle's law) Might be an idea to get WP:WPHOS involved too. A.C. Norman (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to merge them (including Avogadro's law and combined gas law as well) then you also need to merge them into Ideal gas law. The problem is that some of the links to these articles are for historical purposes, but others are for physics/chemistry purposes. These laws are still used today. What you will probably have to do after the split/merge is sort through all of the links to the articles and relink, by hand, history links to gas laws and physics/chemistry links to Ideal gas law. It will be long and tedious I am afraid. TStein (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. I think I'd merge Charles, Boyle's, Gay-Lussac's, Avogadro's, Combined gas law into Gas laws. Probably it would be appropriate to leave the ideal gas law separate, as it is a much longer article and is more important in its own right (though obviously it could be mentioned briefly and linked to for further info - as is already the case). Presumably each law would get its own section in Gas laws, so could there be redirects to the section within that article, which would solve any links from e.g. chemistry articles. I think this might make Gas laws into a good article, which could touch on the historical development and the relevant physics, chemistry... I'm going to put up some "suggested merge" signs, to get some more discussion. A.C. Norman (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gas laws is a historical article; do the details that are necessary for physics/chemistry articles linking to charles law, etc. belong in a historical article? Many of the articles linking to these gas laws (Charles, Boyles, etc..) are looking for a simplified description not found in ideal gas law. TStein (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I (also) oppose the merging of all these articles. They have the right of being independent articles because they describe different principles and have their own history. They have several things in common, though, and these common parts could be described in an ideal gas laws article but with references to the existing main articles. I think that a bad example for merging too much is the Equation of state article, where almost nothing is left for the description of the single (but at least historically important) equations. Even the major difference between cubic equations and the virial equation is lost. --WilfriedC (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I support merging those laws which are special cases of PV = nRT, as long as the historical laws (Boyle, Charles, etc) can be found with redirects. Modern chemistry courses usually start with PV = nRT and just mention the others as special cases.

However I oppose the inclusion of other related laws which are not direct consequences of PV = nRT, such as Graham's law (where you have also posted a merge proposal, and Henry's law (though it is mentioned in Gas Laws). Dirac66 (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger and agree with WilfriedC. Each of the laws is individually notable in their historic sense even if they have been collectively overshadowed by the ideal gas law and thermodynamics.JHobbs103 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely oppose the merge while the articles are in their current states. To take Charles's law as an example, it needs:

a description of Gay-Lussac's original enunciation, with a comparison with the earlier work of Guillaume Amontons.
an explanation of why this implies an absolute temperature scale (something which didn't exist in Gay-Lussac's time, and which Gay-Lussac didn't propose, but which was deduced from the law)
a derivation from kinetic theory, which could show that the law only holds when intermolecular attraction is negligible
a derivation as a special case of the ideal gas law, and a discussion on non-ideality in relation to the V-T relation.

Similar comments could probably be made about the other gas law articles. To merge them into the very poor article on Gas laws would be an admission of defeat, that there is no interest in giving any more information than in the most elementary (and misleading) of introductory textbooks Physchim62 (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also historically misleading to describe Boyle's law and Charles's law as "special cases of the ideal gas law". I've just dug out Clapeyron's original 1834 paper on the subject from the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (pp. 153–90 (in French)), and he is quite specific that it is a combination of the two laws that he is proposing, for the purposes of further thermodynamic analysis (as we would call it now). This paper is also the first use of R for the gas constant, apparently from the French rapport, meaning "ratio" (Clapeyron isn't specific on the point, but he defines his constant R as a ratio). Now hands up all those who knew why we use the symbol R for the gas constant! Physchim62 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Still support, but only for the gas laws, and not for e.g. Graham's law of diffusion. I think the historical development is quite complex (I think you are the expert here, Physchim62 - the links you posted above are most informative [and no, my hand isn't up, but it's an interesting fact]). There is further discussion on Amontons' role at the Gay-Lussac's law talk page. I think this might actually be an argument for merging the pages. I am thinking along the lines of an introduction, section for each law, then a "history" section describing the development of these laws, the general gas equation and how it led to the ideal gas equation. At the ideal gas equation page, users could be pointed to Gas laws for the historical development.

Further thought, not directly related to this discussion: is anyone any good at computer graphics (I'm not) - I think illustrations would be great at Gay-Lussac's law (maybe a "chemical equation sequence") and also at Graham's law (a picture of the classic ammonia / HCl diffusion experiment, for example) A.C. Norman (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi! I'm an article reviewer at articles for creation and recently came across a proposed article that is outside my expertise. If someone has a moment, could you review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum Hall composite resonator? We have been known to get a few hoax articles and I want to make sure this is legit. Thanks in advance! TN X Man 15:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't find anything called QHCR, but I find many near-hits such as Quantum electromagnetic resonator (which has a page on wiki), quantum hall resonators, quantum composite resonators etc... From my 2-minutes long google search, and lack of trigger on my bullshitdar, this looks legit to me. 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I worry that this may be "original research" which is not supposed to be in Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. Notice that 17 of the 19 references are in Section 1.History, and the last two are in the introduction of Section 3.Quantum Antidots. I think we also require sources for Section 2.Theory. Dirac66 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. Since this does appear to be legit, I'm going to move it to the mainspace. However, please feel free to look in on it. TN X Man 19:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A further note: You may have a very valuable anonymous contributor out there. Check out User talk:195.47.212.108, where you can see that this IP has introduced several articles relating to quantum mechanics. TN X Man 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Čerenkov / Cherenkov

Why is it spelled Čerenkov radiation? I've only ever seen it spelled as Cherenkov radiation. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google Scholar and Google Books search gives that "Cerenkov radiation" and "Cherenkov radiation" are far more common than "Čerenkov radiation". I will change it to "Cherenkov radiation", in agreement with Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov. See also WP:COMMONNAME. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum fractal

Can anyone knowing Quantum Physics/ the Uncertainty Principle look this article over to see if its complete bollocks or a notable concept. Nobody at the AfD (which ends in 2 days) can make head or tail about this. Them From Space 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2006 North Korean nuclear test

Wouldn't the 2006 North Korean nuclear test be under WP:Physics? Afterall, it is a different event than a standard nuclear test. I don't recall of another test being a "nuclear fizzle" as it is described in some sources, so it would seem to have a different effect from the standard nuclear physics chain reaction explosion... somehow the chain is partially damped... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Try WP:MILHIST (there's a weapons taskforce if I recall). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is, I already added it. But as an example of experimental physics, a fizzled nuclear explosion would seem to be an appropriate topic for this wikiproject. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed tests don't usually get reported because it makes the testing country look inapt as weapons developers and as a military force. There's been plenty of those, and the reports on the failure of the test have the reliability of all war propaganda. That the test failed is of social and military importance, not of physical importance. As far as I'm concerned, all nuclear tests, prototypes, etc... made after the first nukes were dropped are outside of the physics project, although some bomb designs (Teller–Ulam design for example) could be included, and those related to the first steps of the Soviet nuclear program. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fizzles (failed tests) are quite common and there is no reason (from a scientific point of view) to pay special attention to this one, especially since the North Koreans are not providing details (or indeed any reliable information) about it. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Electromagnetic radiation and Light

Discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic radiation#Merge with light is currently underwhelming, but indicates that the topic area may be in need of a reorganization (for instance, we also have Visible spectrum). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Optics FA drive

A 9x expansion of the optics article has been undertaken by ScienceApologist. Assistance welcomed to help raise it to featured article level. Best wishes all, Durova^Charge! 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)