Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:35, 7 April 2012 editDodger67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators92,438 edits →Stephen Hawking: Fix my error← Previous edit Revision as of 17:24, 7 April 2012 edit undoF=q(E+v^B) (talk | contribs)4,289 edits →Misplaced Pages:HighBeamNext edit →
Line 380: Line 380:
:::Academic journals on physics can provide source material for articles about physics. :::Academic journals on physics can provide source material for articles about physics.
:::—] (]) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC) :::—] (]) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

==Merge ] and ]==

It has been proposed to merge these ]. Any objections? Else it'll happen. =) <span style="font-family:'TW Cen MT';">] ] ]</span> 17:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:24, 7 April 2012

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk 		Members Quality Control
(talk) 		Welcome

Shortcuts
WikiProject iconPhysics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives
Big Bang – 2005


  1. Antiquity – September 2005
  2. October 2005 – October 2005
  3. November 2005 – December 2005
2006


  1. January 2006 – February 2006
  2. February 2006 – April 2006
  3. April 2006 – May 2006
  4. May 2006 – July 2006
  5. September 2006
  6. September 2006 (part 2)
  7. October 2006
  8. November 2006
  9. December 2006
2007


  1. January 2007
  2. February 2007
  3. March 2007
  4. April 2007
  5. May 2007
  6. June 2007
  7. July 2007
  8. August 2007
  9. September 2007
  10. October 2007
  11. November 2007
  12. December 2007
2008


  1. January 2008
  2. February 2008
  3. March 2008
  4. April 2008
  5. May 2008
  6. June 2008
  7. July 2008
  8. August 2008
  9. September 2008
  10. October 2008
  11. November 2008
  12. December 2008
2009


  1. January 2009
  2. February 2009
  3. March 2009
  4. April 2009
  5. May 2009
  6. June 2009
  7. July 2009
  8. August 2009
  9. September 2009
  10. October 2009
  11. November 2009
  12. December 2009
2010


  1. January 2010
  2. February 2010
  3. March 2010
  4. April 2010
  5. May 2010
  6. June 2010
  7. July 2010
  8. August 2010
  9. September 2010
  10. October 2010
  11. November 2010
  12. December 2010
2011


  1. January 2011
  2. February 2011
  3. March 2011
  4. April 2011
  5. May 2011
  6. June 2011
  7. July 2011
  8. August 2011
  9. September 2011
  10. October 2011
  11. November 2011
  12. December 2011
2012


  1. January 2012
  2. February 2012
  3. March 2012
  4. April 2012
  5. May 2012
  6. June 2012
  7. July 2012
  8. August 2012
  9. September 2012
  10. October 2012
  11. November 2012
  12. December 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Stephen Hawking

The Stephan Hawking article has been put up for Peer review as part of a long-term plan to push it in the direction of FA. Thought you guys might like to comment  :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now at FAC  :) Fayedizard (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
... and so is the article about his more famous brother Stephen :) Gandalf61 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)gg
Yeah, him too... *blush* Fayedizard (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is still at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1, and could benefit from review by members of WP:PHYSICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed at the total lack of interest from this project. The FAC has been withdrawn pending furter development and improvement of the article. One of the major shortcommings discussed during the FAC was the lack of in depth coverage of Hawking's work - See Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1. Members of this project are surely best equipped to contribute to this aspect of the article, please help get this article back to FAC. Roger (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I reckon Stephen Hawking is some kind of celebrity in England. I am afraid though that the number of people who really know what he did is very limited. --93.73.19.163 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a lot of work, getting an article to FA status, and quite frankly a big ask. Perhaps if you have some specific issues then members of the project would be happier to help out. Polyamorph (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The article currently contains very little information about his work, probably because most of the recent editing has been led by WikiProject Disability. For specific issues please see the review discussion at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1. (BTW I think calling him "some kind of celebrity in England" is a bit insulting - he is a Nobel Prize winner the recipient of many notable awards and accolades!) Roger (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category: Fundamental physics concepts

Category:Fundamental physics concepts has 361 article in it. Seems like it is no longer about fundamental physics concepts. I think it shoud be renamed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Should it not be just cleaned up? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That is an option but is the name of the category able to be used as an unequivocal means of defining what should be included? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If we keep the existing title, we need to decide whether we mean: (1) the first things a student must learn about physics before he is able to understand the rest of it, or (2) the ultimate constituents of the universe. These are not the same. So we need to make a decision here. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Certainly it is not the same, but unlikely different fundamental theories could agree on which "constituents of the universe" are ultimate. I think, we could first reach an interim agreement about which concepts are undisputably not fundamental and kick these out, which will make the category's content more reviewable. For example, I think that atomic nucleus is fundamental – this is a constituent not only of an atom, but also of an ion and, strictly speaking, of a molecule, so it cannot be reduced to the notion of "atom". Even if we knew anything about the atom, we still do not know something about nuclei. But proton is not fundamental – from one side, nucleons are a partial case of baryons whose properties are explained via fundamental interactions (most importantly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces), and from another side, protons and neutrons themselves do not explain the atomic nucleus, because without any knowledge of (yet another time) the strong nuclear force we are unable to propose a model. Attempt to explain what is the strong nuclear force will quickly lead to the notion of baryon, whose partial case the proton is. This is exactly opposite to the current categorization in articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Physics concepts perhaps. I think a lot of what is in the category aren't concepts, such as the many equations in the category. Maybe have a separate category for physics equations. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of entries that we could eliminate uncontroversially, regardless of the precise definition we use. For example, User:Jlancaster! RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I made an attempt to define "Fundamental physics concepts" on the category page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

{{template:Physics equations navbox}} "here to stay just because of user:F=q(E+v^B)"????

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I re-sectioned this thread as it's diverged slightly. To summarize my perspective on the following: I also disagree with the templates - preferably get rid of them - no harm at all to any articles since they will only disappear from the bottom of the pages which now have it, where not many readers will look through titles of equations there. It seems superficially user:F=q(E+v^B): a "formula-freak", is pissed off even at the thought of anyone touching them. If you care - you might continue. Maschen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but why does {{Physics equations navbox}} exist? Are there a lot of people at the article Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space who are dying to have a quick and convenient and direct way to navigate to the article Tsiolkovsky rocket equation??? --Steve (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very late to reply + realize, anyway SO WHAT???... You needn't become so heated, nor assume such extreme desires of people "dying" to see random equations: it’s NOT intentionally a tunnel from Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, or wherever to whatever, even if it allows. I created it for a few good reasons:
  1. Top-importance: it serves as a summary of all the main articles on WP which specifically describe the equations in the titles, rather than listing equations individually in the equation-list articles, and
  2. Mid-importance: allows interconnection of formula articles within the same or different fields, e.g. Kepler's laws of planetary motion -> Kepler's equation -> Newton's law of gravity -> Einstein field equations -> Geodesic equation, or perhaps -> Maxwell's equations -> Gauss's law -> Continuity equation -> Navier-Stokes equation etc.....
  3. Mid-importance: Presumably at some point, ALL the equation-list type articles will be deleted, hated from here down to hell and beyond by ALL professional physics editors on WP for various reasons,
  4. Least-important: it helps formula-freaks like me navigate around equation articles.
So what do people prefer??? which is more adapted to WP style??
  1. A long, "tiresome" list of formula after formula after more formulas etc with the inevitable requirement of explaining constants, variables/parameters and an providing background of the equation's applicability, or
  2. just a compact summary of the main particles all in a box which provide information about equations. If not liked - just close the box and never set eyes on it again, if interested use it, or better yet
  3. will this become a template for deletion at the pleasure of some??
ANY is fine and is allowed, and there is nothing I can/will do to prevent from happening, but the last irritates. I apologize for talking so crudely loud, but personally this is my #1 only really impressive and productive contribution (compared to everything else done on WP), which I would hope solves the problem of the numerous formula-list articles which always shoot up and sprout around, eventually to be deleted, its a "continuous life cycle of the equation-list article", and this article type is to many editors dismay which is NOT good. =( FOR ONCE, I'll NOT be so apologetic nor softy-squishy on this matter - the point has been made solid.
For those that suspect - I'm NOT "insulted by this run-by comment" either. This is the response with bold/underline/italic/capital emphasis; NOT assumption of bad faith by all other editors. =| F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting to run into this while reading the page. I personally prefer the formula list articles if there is any need to summarize and present equations. For reasons Steve indicated above, there is no need to have a separate template when the links are already in the articles (see also sections), or better yet the {{main]}} and {{see also]}} templates. Why another template?? Do you really think that many users could be bothered to use it way down at the bottom of the article ??? I wouldn't mind elimination of the template, but not fussed to keep. Anyway - you make such a stressed contradiction of yourself: why accuse Steve of getting angery when... look at yourself. Shame on you. Furthermore you can do better than create just a pile of equations (though other editors have done a better job at cleaning/tidying it up than you have - no offense, just a fact). Maschen (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The only thing relevant to your (although rather rude) "SO WHAT???" is the response against having a summary of equations on WP. For one thing you HAVE edited those articles.
For those that have no clue what lunatic F=q(E+v^B) and I are referring to the articles (I geuss) would be:
  1. List of elementary physics formulae,
  2. Constitutive equation,
  3. Mathematical descriptions of physical laws, and
  4. Laws of science.
Then of course these contain the many see also links to the main pages. There are also categories which organize articles, such as ] (which has equations and articles to the mathematical background), and similarly the main subject templates like {{quantum mechanics}} For one thing - if you don't like these pages, yet ironically are so obsessed with equations, why have you edited them?? You like them really... "=)"
My point is - there is no point in your template, and agree with Steve. (Its probably your most unproductive contribution aside from the Dirac notation article when you disobeyed rules and launched my incorrect images into the article WITHOUT my permission. Shame on you again).
Btw to everyone else - sorry for continuing this irrelevant thread. I'll stop now - its dead anyway, except for F=q(E+v^B) trying to re-light the thread. Maschen (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Maschen - WTF are you talking about "WP:STICK" (or in your unclear wordy language "re-light the thread", WTFH means) ??? That is fully irrelevant - and I'm so happy that you enthusiastically look for every possible way to organize and categorize equation articles!!! Except ... for the template which does it immediately anyway.
Let’s be very clear: it's not "my" template either just because I created it, articles or templates never belong to anyone, except of course EVERYONE simultaneously.
Furthermore, you (Maschen), for one, make many mistakes yourself, and are only copying out Steve's opinions because you are defenseless in decision making for editing things, and because of Steve's authority, experience and capabilities both in real life and on WP. And no I was NOT being rude or accusing him of anything personally or directly, again it was to stand out and place emphasis I would like to.
Furthermore - the first 3 of those articles you link to are a waste of time and energy, even if I did contribute, which is what I was saying above: they may soon be deleted since the scope of readership will be very low; who will read a list of formulas one after another??. The last is probably the best but needs a lot of work. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 16:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You know, some people actually like articles like those 3 "wastes of time and energy" articles, since they act as reference articles, sections and formulas don't have to be read one after the other - instead the reader can dip in and find what they like.
Also - I AM NOT copying out Steve's opinions, as you would typically assume. I may not be that productive on WP or smart in real life, but still have enough brain power to think for myself. The WP:STICK link is because the thread was dead (long ago), or in plain simple language you should understand but don't for some obscure reason: IT HAS BEEN FINISHED - START A NEW THREAD (AKA SECTION) SOMEWHERE ELSE (LIKE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE), lunatic. But it has naturally grown here. The templates you created should fuck off by rights (in case you didn't know what this means: DELETE THEM) for the reasons repeatedly discussed above, but perhaps that’s too far, so as I say again (for the 3rd time) they may be kept. I'll not touch them. Maschen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Lets try and be clear again: (in response to that numskull title you created)
  1. they are NOT MINE - they are for everyone, and its not just you - I also appreciate the effort everyone has put in to tidying them up/extending its scope where I didn't, so many thanks to those who did! =)
  2. Call me a LUNATIC as much as you like - you can even personally attack me for all I care (PROVIDED you don't do so to anyone else) and defeat WP:NPA (look another irrelevant link! - you should stop the blather of irrelevant points and concentrate on the discussion thread), childish name-calling changes nothing.
  3. All I ask is that the template remain - I'm NOT "pissed off" at anything.
It seems to be too much for some people... =( F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 17:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of pulling faces and using so many bold characters like a lunatic - you should see Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot!!! Maschen (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did I even try answering you Maschen? It had no effect. I have no interest or time for this discussion anymore - talk to yourself or someone else. Bye bye (or in your unsual language "fuck off, but that's too far"). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
What a waste of time this thread has been, I thought I was being reasonable, but you don't want to understand what is told to you. And I'll not say "fuck off": rather "good bye to you too"... Maschen (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to mention something IMPORTANT Maschen - I suggest you R ! E ! A ! D !
Can you beat the last one? Its red!! It says "A page with this title has previously been deleted."!!!
See this written by linas (who is certainly an experienced WP editor and physicist in real life, who even founded this wikiproject) from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of physics formulae?
"Yes, well, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this article should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"
See this written by Steve from Talk:Continuity equation (after he tried to explain basic calculus to you after you messed the article up!)?
"By the same token, I despise the lists of equations in those three articles you linked to at the top. I can barely even look at them. Grrr. --Steve (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)"
Hmmm... there is some very very strange consensus out there!! I wonder what this all means?
Not sure about you - but it seems as though equation-list pages are to be DELETED. Now do you comprehend? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Still carrying on about this "when you have no time or patience"??? Well, I left a message on Steve's user page, so we'll see what he has to say IF he does come to this section (VERY UNLIKELY). Actually which editors will come here??? As I said above the THREAD IS DEAD. No-one - except a LUNATIC like yourself, actually does care. You care too much about this fucktarded template. If you insist on continuing this - take it to another section LIKE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, or elsewhere.
AND who says "the equation-list pages WILL be deleted"??? None other than you. I have read those before and while the two quotes are true, the pages remain since there was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE THEM.
Hard to stomach, but just drop it already. I am not the cause - YOU are acting as a bastard lunatic for no reason. The link WP:STICK is certainly relevant now, not childish (ironically as yourself). Again - bye bye. Maschen (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue has already been dropped. Just made sure you ARE aware of the evidence and general consensus. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be planning something - why did you highlight those quotes above? Paranoid about "winning" and not losing" are you, when the game has already ended in a fail-fail draw?
I also have at least one stone to blunt your blade from talk:Mathematical descriptions of physical laws by Esoteric cybernetic (and in fairness I use the same box you used):
"Just a suggestion - I think the article is great!

Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)"

and

"OK, I see where you are coming from. And yes - I think that wikipedia has been lacking in a comprehensive directory of physical equations, so good job!

Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)"

How about that! NOT EVERYONE is hellbent on obliterating equation-list articles! There are odds against your argument. Maschen (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Not planning on anything at all, no intention to stab you with a knife that you try to blunt with one opinion. Even if there were more comments at Esoteric cybernetic's level of appreciation for these types of articles, I would still find the articles unhelpful for the more dominating reasons in the AfD and talk links provided above.
And you can't complain about the boxes now that you just used one.
Let’s stop this instant: I'm tired and have better things to do (like everyone else around here including yourself). We'll take it to yours or my talk page, doesn't matter which, as long as there is NOT a single post right hereafter. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 19:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed (sorry - already violated, but had to de-wikify a category I added above in the argument for it to be visible). "=)" Maschen (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Mirror photon → Mirror matter merge

This merge proposal has been on the CAT:MERGE backlog for over 3 years now, and only 2 comments have been made in the discussion (including the nom). I'd like to see this proposal resolved one way or the other soon, so I would appreciate it if some members of this project could join the discussion, and help reach consensus on this. The discussion is at Talk:Mirror matter#Merger proposal. Physics is not my area, but I am willing to help in any way I can if a consensus for merge is acheived. Many thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick look makes this merger seem like a good idea. However, this idea of mirror matter is so unrelated to anything real that I doubt anyone here is going to be willing to put much effort into it. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Accelerator physics category

Hello, i have written some arguments for a new category to Category talk:Particle accelerators#Accelerator physics category. Feel free to participate in the discussion. BR84 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Addison misspelled "Addision"

While checking my watch-list, I saw that a few times "Addision Wesley" had been corrected to "Addison Wesley" (which I verified is correct by looking at the external sites). A search indicates that there remain (at this moment) 18 articles in which the misspelling occurs. Could someone who knows how to use a bot please correct these! JRSpriggs (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this has now been corrected. I thank whoever fixed it. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A nuclear physics question

Hello physicists! I hope you can help me. I am writing astatine and I have a question about its alpha decay characteristics. At-211 has 126 neurtons, which is a magic number. Why then energy of alpha decay of At-211 exceeds that of At-210? Also notable that At-213 (N=128=126+2) has two more protons than 126. Its alpha decay half-life is in accordance: the shortest of all astatine isotopes. IS there a reason why At-211 is not the longest-lived astatine isotope? Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the development of articles on physics. A better forum for your question is the Reference desk. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, then, and thanks for pointing to the place--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

self-reference concerns on certain kinematics articles

Hello. I am not entirely sure the physics project is the right place to go to for this concern, so if I can post this at a more appropriate project, please let me know. Recently I noticed an unexplained term ("Watt topology") in kinematics that sent me searching the web for information. I could only find the term in publications by J.M. McCarthy, whose work is referenced in kinematics, kinematic chain, forward kinematics, inverse kinematics. I also notice that User:Prof McCarthy has extensively edited these articles. I have no idea if this is a case of self-referenced work, and I don't know a quick way to test if in fact someone used the reference independently. While this practice looks suspect, I think it was probably done with good will. I have just left a message for User:Prof McCarthy about providing different references. Please keep an eye on the situation, thank you. Rschwieb (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good place for the question. I don't think there is a problem, though - User:Prof McCarthy provides a citation of a book by Lung-Wen Tsai, and I found the page on which the two mechanisms are defined. I also changed the citation to point directly at that page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
OK I'm glad it can be resolved. At WP:MATH, the problem of an author self-citing as the only reference on a new idea is often much worse. As I half-expected, I just did not know the right search terms to look for, and the citation does not seem to be an issue. I'm sorry you have interpreted a good-will action as an accusation, J. M. McCarthy, but you have to consider how the circumstances might look to a stranger. Nine times out of ten in math articles, when a user makes hundreds of edits to a handful of articles and cites their own work, there is a breach in policy. I can tell you have ample knowledge of the literature to provide resources beyond your own work. Rschwieb (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You were right to bring the issue up, Rschwieb, and it led to improvement of the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of experimental data

Hi,

Does anyone know where to look for open-source images of experimental data? In particular, I'm looking for a typical data plot from a quantum oscillations experiment, something like this.

Thanks, SPat 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The straightforward way would be to email the authours of an appropriate paper (like the one cited by your link), explain that you want to make a wikipedia figure illustrating the subject, and ask if they'd be willing to contribute a data set to use. Then make your own plot of it.
If I understand correctly, it's not possible to copyright the data, just pictures of it; this means they'd be free to share the data set with you without stepping on the journal's toes (this is why you can't just ask them for permission to use an already-published figure). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I could try that. Also, I had a look at similar articles, and it seems that many of them use images from NIST/NASA etc. Would it be worthwhile searching for images on any US federal govt. agencies (DOE, DST, NIST,...) and national labs (LBL, LANL, FNL,...)? Thanks for the help, SPat 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Anything in the .gov domain is fair game, as long as the image was generated by the government. You can find other ideas at Misplaced Pages:Images#Finding_images_on_the_Internet. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Smolin

Knowledgeable eyes requested here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Center of pressure

A problem has arisen at our Center of pressure article. Originally, it seemed to be discussion the term as used in fluid mechanics, where it has a precise and well-defined meaning (though the article was less-then-clear with regard to some of the examples given, and could do with a little attention from someone with understanding of the subject). A recent edit added a section on 'center of pressure in biomechanics', which seems to me to be about another topic entirely, probably more related to solid mechanics, and as such in need of its own article (and perhaps with a disambiguation page). I raised the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure, but we seem to be at something of an impasse. Could someone from Project Physics perhaps help us find a solution: is there a general 'center of pressure' concept applied to both solid and fluid mechanics (in which case our article needs rewriting to cover both in general terms - with perhaps a section on biomechanics), or is this simply a case of two distinct meanings of the same phrase? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

HCPotter at Apeiron

I have been reverting a few recent edits (on article and on article talk) by user HCPotter (talk · contribs) today:

all seemingly nonsense, and all pointing to exactly the same pdf (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO3PDF/V18N3POT.pdf) at (fringe journal) Apeiron. One of my removals was reverted by another user. We might keep an eye on this. User is warned on talk page at User talk:HCPotter. DVdm (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The abstract in that linked pdf reminds me of SCIgen output. Is this patent nonsense, or something more insidious? TSchwenn (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, even if it was perfectly rational and printed in a peer reviewed journal it would still not have due weight for the associated articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ND Experiment & SND Experiment

There are two fairly new articles ND Experiment & SND Experiment which might use some expert help from this project. There are multiple issues with these articles by a new editor, but my initial concern is with the article names and structure of the lede. The title itself might be a neologism, should probably be in the plural, and have ND spelled out, so i thought it best to get some consensus before moving it. The lede, and the whole article for that matter, is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not clear whether it is about the detector, or the experiments carried out with it. The Results sections are next to useless in that they simply refer the reader to references which them selves seem far from useful to me. This article is somewhat beyond my expertise, so would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed - are there viable articles here, and what to do with them? Derek Andrews (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Condensed matter physics

Hi,

I'm working on an overhaul of the Condensed matter physics article (top-importance for this project!). I'd like to get some feedback, and if possible, help with expansion on this article - as I fear it might become too biased towards my research interests. In particular, I'm looking for suggestions for what all should go into the "experimental" and "applications" sections.

Thanks, SPat 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See my query at Talk:Condensed matter physics#Electromagnetic Forces, and keep up the good work! --TSchwenn (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OR at Dirac equation (still)

Hi, this is about HCPotter again. Recently he has been asking DVdm and me to restore his reference, our reply is "OR + primary source", and have pointed to him WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY before, but seems to insist. I pointed him to here so he can explain himself. Thanks. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Physics AfD

It seems someone has decided to be disruptive and nominate Physics for deletion, see here Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Physics_(2nd_nomination)#Physics. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems it was an april fools joke of some sort. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't have been done though - we aren't supposed to make jokes in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I was labeled genius on my talk page for reverting the AFD and templating the user. Neat. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
An AfD nomination can't be stopped by just removing the template, as you see, a bot automatically re-added the template. An Admin will eventually close it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Genius is what I say about the Google maps 'Quest' option for an 8-bit Nintendo version. Effin' eejit is what I say about people who just cause trouble for others. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There's precedent: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universe. The usual practice is for it to be closed as "speedy keep" on April 2nd. I particularly liked the "no independent sources" bit in that one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluctuation

Hi, guys.

I have recently created a physics wikiproject page in Ukranian wiki. You might wish to add it as an intewiki uk:Вікіпедія:Проект:Фізика. And IMHO you have to make something about fluctuation page. You have Thermal fluctuations and Quantum fluctuations but that does not cover the field, for instance, fluctuations of composition are not there. And Quantum fluctuations IMHO does not meet high Misplaced Pages standards. Sorry for telling people what they should do. --93.73.19.163 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was surprised to see that fluctuation was just a redirect to conjuncture. I have made it into a disambiguation page. I'm not sure that such disparate subjects should be combined in an article. If you have any specific ideas for Quantum fluctuation, you could discuss them on its talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HighBeam

Misplaced Pages:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Misplaced Pages editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the relevance to this wikiproject. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Academic journals on physics can provide source material for articles about physics.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Magnetic moment and Magnetic pole strength

It has been proposed to merge these here. Any objections? Else it'll happen. =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 17:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories: