| Revision as of 16:35, 4 October 2005 editScottfisher (talk | contribs)3,692 edits →Out of← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022 edit undoMeters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,170 edits Undid revision 1066081862 by Aca1291 (talk) what are you doing? The user is allowed to archive his talk pageTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| * ] | |||
| Hello, and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also ]. | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! By the way, please be sure to ] and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! | |||
| == Particles == | |||
| Good work. I see that you and Xerxes have pretty much done the clean up that I thought I would do. I'd begun to remove the totally unnecessary pages on every antiparticle. Thanks for pitching in and especially for redoing the particle template. ] 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Crap == | |||
| I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. ] 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == particle classification == | |||
| The category "subatomic particles" is catch-all: analogy is to the main data tables in the particle data book (although there is no need to be so inclusive). The categories "fermion" and "boson" I believe are useless categorizations and should be removed. Particles can be in more than one category. | |||
| It's not totally clear to me whether one should go for a lepton/hadron classification or a elementary/composite classification. The 1st has the advantage that it already exists, and although there are particles which may not be either, the spillover can always be acccomodated into "subatomic particles". The 2nd makes more sense within the standard model (or its extensions), and with the article that you are writing/have written. The composite category can easily be subdivided into things like "hadron", "nuclear isotopes" etc. | |||
| I was wondering whether this discussion should be initiated in the wikiproject: particles, but that seems to have been started by some undergrads, and is anyway defunct. If you and one or two others are willing to revive it in order to put this discussion on record, then it may be useful. --] 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Black hole electron == | |||
| I just want to assure you that objections are unlikely, at least before we see what you do with it. The person most likely to object is Don, whose original research resulted in the creation of the ] page, and he has been very cooperative. | |||
| I personally want to see what you can do with that page. ''']'''. That page needs it. --] | ] 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I want to see what you can do with "Black hole electron" also. This | |||
| is not an easy task. As part of your research I invite you to look at | |||
| my user page. There are some quotations there and some numbers | |||
| that may be intersting. -- ] 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| thought I'd extend my welcome as well. The main physics project page is at ] although what you really want to watch (and participate in) is the discussion at ]. Note also that ] is also often highly relevant, and, as mathematics is a somewhat older project on WP, has a lot more activity/participation. Anyway, welcome! If you have questions, concerns, comments, uncertainty, complaints, etc. or find yourself irratated at some person or WP process, or ettiquette, please, don't hestitate to ask me or (better yet) voice them on the project talk pages. ] 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == As of 2005 == | |||
| Inserting "as of" links is - as far as I know - not an "official" Misplaced Pages policy, only a recommendation. Still, it is a systematic way of "currency tracking", and it is useful as such, although I would agree it is much more useful for more obscure pages that are not likely to be updated quickly after the facts change. ] 21:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. ] article says: "], string theory is unverified." This may also sound silly; if someone managed to prove that string theory is correct (or wrong) - well, to put it mildly, people would notice... ] 22:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Precisely. I can't imagine a scenario like: "Bang! String theory is now (dis)proved." Even if such a thing was within reach of today's physics, it would probably take a '''decade''' to decide one way or the other. String theory article going without an update for 10 years? I don't know... :) ] 22:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Kaons == | |||
| Certainly the lifetimes should be attributed only to K-long and K-short. The remainder are errors. Please feel free to correct. ] 06:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Sidam == | |||
| Hi, SCZenz. You, I and others have had to revert ]'s soliloquies many times. I'm not sure whether to classify him as a vandal or just someone who doesn't get the point of Misplaced Pages. I think it's about time we raised this issue on ]. This is the best way I can think of to bring this problem to wider attention. If I submit a complaint, would you be willing to countersign it? --] 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Neutralinos etc. == | |||
| With regard to neutralinos you have a good point. Rather than simply omitting any reference to them, however, I think a brief statement distinguishing the two would be better, as the name certainly invites confusion. You might want to try to craft it as a sort of see also. It wouldn't be strictly a disambiguation, but along the same lines. | |||
| With regard to the fourth generation point, I have read juried articles on neutrino mass that address that question. I'm sorry that I do not have references at hand, as I am writing from memory. In any case, it pretty much follows from the standard model itself that this is where you would look. | |||
| With regard to quantum gravity, many computer models have already looked at neutrinos as dark matter candidates (and rejected them) and the statement speaks for itself to some extent. | |||
| Apologies if I missed anything. ] 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == SLAC == | |||
| If you make SLAC a redir, you need to put a disambig notice on the destination page, and you need to create ]. Thanks. ] 18:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, for one, redlinks encourage growth, but the main reason I stuck in the ] was that I kept seeing references to SLACs on the discussion boards at the ], but when I looked up SLAC there was no mention of that meaning. As it stood, even without the article it still answered my question. I could have written a stub, but it would have had little more information than the dab page did. When people see bluelinks they tend to assume that there's an article there, when people see redlinks they realise that there is a need for articles, and if they know about the subject they may create the article. I don't have a problem with SLAC redirectin to the ] (since the vast majority of google hits go there), but I think the existence of other meanings is useful information. ] 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks; although you may need a posse to turn me into an admin. :) ] 00:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==LBL copyright info== | |||
| Technically LBL's copyright info means that it most likely cannot be used on Misplaced Pages under a "complying" license -- i.e., by their given terms -- because we no longer use licenses on Misplaced Pages which could not be exported under the GDFL (which does not prohibit non-educational, for-profit usage). The major exception to this is our use of "]" images, though, which is how this category of images could be used under specific circumstances (i.e., if there are no "free" substitute images, if the image we use is low-res, and if we specifically credit them so that other people could find them to license it). I'll put a note about that on the page. --] 14:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I think the current policy is a little contradictory (we won't allow images licensed for only educational use, but will allow images which are used completely without the permission of the copyright holder altogether), but it's what we've got for now. If you ''can'' take hi-res pictures of lab equipment and license them under a free license, it ''would'' be a tremendous addition to the world of "free culture". But you might have to make sure that wouldn't be violating any of the policies of the UC (which could be pretty strict, if I recall from my time as an employee there) or the lab itself. --] 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The best thing for photos of professors is talks of some sort... then you can pretend to be one of the crowd! (I got a really bad one of philosopher ] that way when I was at Berkeley.. it's awful, but honestly it's what he looks like these days!). Otherwise it's pretty obvious when the one photo you asked for ends up being the best-known one online... --] 02:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==You're a crazy guy== | |||
| In two months you've almost caught up to the number of edits that I have done in a year (although probably 20% of my edits are anons due to laziness). I thought graduate students were supposed to be busy? ] 23:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cool thing== | |||
| http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=USERNAME&dbname=enwiki | |||
| You can use this to get a precise picture of your edit history. ] 00:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == New Discussion == | |||
| New discussion just started on ] THought you may be interested. (Simple Electronics this time) :-)--] 01:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Bottom dab == | |||
| Thanks for fixing up my inept description of a bottom quark at ]. Just thought I'd let you know that ] and unnecessary wikilinks generally don't go on disambiguation pages. ] has more info. --] 16:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Large Hadron Collider== | |||
| Thanks for the message. I happened to look up the LHC and noticed that the words 'extra dimensions' showed up as a missing link. I thought that while I was there that I could easily correct this. However I had several attempts at selecting an article that covered this topic. The nearest I could get was 'Why 10 dimensions?' but feel free to change this link to something better. ] 07:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Sidam does he understand English? == | |||
| Do you think its possible that ] doesnt actually understand English and that is why he has not responded to our requests?--] 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Quantum Coral == | |||
| ''DON EIGLER | |||
| ''These are just the electrons which are trapped in the surface layer, but within the surface layer they're free to move around. These electrons are '''waves'''. And the waves when they move, they sometimes bang into features on our surface like the step edges or individual atoms which might be sticking out of the surface. Now when a wave bangs into something, it reflects off of that thing, and when you have reflected wave adding together with the incoming part of the wave, it sets up what we call a standing wave. These are regions where there are large oscillations which are fixed where they are in space, and regions where oscillations go to zero.'' | |||
| MICHAEL RIORDAN | |||
| ''I've always felt that the wave function was just a description of a reality and the reality was deeper, it was a particle. And the wave function was just something mathematical up in a physicists head. To actually see a physical wave function rippling across the surface is rather disturbing. If I was really honest I'd probably have to tell you that I need to go back and reassess the way I've pictured the world.'' | |||
| DON EIGLER | |||
| ''Well I'm probably somewhere in error or maybe I'm just a heretic. I don't believe in this wave particle duality mumbo-jumbo, I think it's mostly just the left over baggage of having started off to understand the world in terms of particles and then being forced because of the quantum revolution to think of the world in terms of waves. And we're stuck with this dualistic way of looking at these very small particles. Don't even think about them as particles, electrons are waves. And if you think of them in terms of '''waves''' you will always end up with the right answer. Always.'' | |||
| My bolding | |||
| Look up ] of IBM on Google. He has made some interesting progress on surfaces at the atomic level You can look here also . :-)--] 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==GOOD JOB== | |||
| Good job on the move! I think it really looks excellent! How about you? I owe you (two) now, LOL Regards, until we cross paths again; Thanks again ] 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request your help and opinion=== | |||
| 1) :SCZenz, | |||
| , Thanks ] 14:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 2) :SCZenz, Need your opinion, Sorry to be a pain in the you know what, Anyway, what do you think about merging ] and ] Pretty much the same, Let me know what you think, when you have a chance. Thanks again ] 01:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 3) :SCZenz, What do I owe you, Three now? I am obliged to you for your gracious time, courteousness, and technical expertise. Thank G-d you are not the unrealistic outer world type physicists, if you know what I mean.... There should be more people like you. | |||
| '''SCZenz , This one is definitly for you, from me!''' ]'''] 14:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)''' | |||
| Hang in there we'll get stuff done, Its just a matter of time. | |||
| See Want me to help, or not, No problem on what you want, up to you. | |||
| ==Edits== | |||
| Only 1000!? You must be working too hard at the day job!;-)--] 10:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Yep on your message, Life goes on, there will always be obsticles in our way. | |||
| ==Abuse== | |||
| Cease making personal attacks. ] 21:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : My comment on ], which Mr. Mabbett must be referring to, was intended to defuse an edit war, and wasn't intended to be an insult, or indeed to be read by anyone but Scott. -- ] 21:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I tag this properly and user continues to wipe it out, never getting anything constructive done. | |||
| == LEP == | |||
| I had some spare time so I had ago at cleaning up LEP. Hope you dont mind. Pls check my work for errors/omissions. THanks--] 23:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Page ''looks'' ver nice now!!--] 00:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Black Hole == | |||
| Yeah! Put it back if you like. I (as a novice on BH) just thought it was easier to digest the way I put it. But thanks for asking me. --] 21:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry . Didnt realise it was featured article.(should have looked more carefully at talk page) Wouldnt have touched it if I'd known.--] 22:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Out of== | |||
| They released me, actually Doc, I had to steal the keys while they were sleeping. Wanted to tell you before I got shut out last night funding for SNS is from the office of science and it looks good for OPERATIONS next year. SSRL is funded different than SLAC, It's the National Science Foudation while SLAC is office of science too. | |||
| Did you guys get your budget yet? Getting late here. | |||
| PS: Brookhaven looks bad next year. I have a picture od SLD @ SLC which is mothballed. The biggie for SLAC is LCLS, Light source from sector 10-20. Also astrophysics, GLAST. As always a pleasure, Have to run, Have a good weekend, Cheers Like your picture of the day! That is so cool NMR ] 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022
Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom.