Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:35, 26 October 2008 editMiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 31d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2008.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:50, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2024) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}		{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(31d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d
			\|algo = old(25d)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 3
			\|minthreadsleft=5
			}}
			{{shortcut\|WT:PHY\|WT:PHYS\|WT:PHYSICS}}
			{{tmbox \| text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011''' }}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
			{{WikiProject Physics}}
	}}		}}

	{{Physics\|class=NA\|importance=NA}}
	{{archive box\|		{{archive box\|
			{{hidden\|header=Big Bang – 2005 \|content= <br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2006 — 2019\|content=<br>
			{{hidden\|header=2006\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]

	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 19:		Line 29:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2007\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 31:		Line 43:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2008\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 43:		Line 57:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2009\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2010\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2011\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2012\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2013\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2014\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2015\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2016\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2017\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2018\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2019\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2020\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2021\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2022\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2023\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2024\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			\|search=yes
	}}		}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? ==
	== Gen Rel Intro ==

	] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].

	== Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Physics ==

	] is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The ] has made an .

	We would like to ask you to review the . These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at ]. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at ].

	A , sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with ], although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

	We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at ] of ]. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, ] 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Just my $.02 opinion here, but shouldn't the list of articles getting top priority be pruned back a bit to just a core list? I am curious to know why, for example, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] ranked as top. Why is ] top but not ] or ]? Do that many physicist articles really need to be top ranked? Why is ] ahead of ]? Why is ] high but ] top? ] is top, but then why is ] or ] only high? Why top for ] but high for ]? ] has a mid rating in Physics?!? The list seems somewhat inconsistent and top heavy. Thanks.—] (]) 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

	::Top heavy? Have you actually looked at the actual distribution? Out of the the nearly 5000 physics articles with an importance rating only 290 have a top rating and 908 are rated high. (low and mid have about 1500 each, and there are still about 5000 article that need to be rated most of which should probably get a low or mid rating) So, I don't think you can say the ratings are top heavy. If anything we are a bit "top-light"
	:::Fair enough. It was just a superficial observation.
	::I agree that some of the top ratings are odd such as ] which in my view is not a physics article at all.
	:::Perhaps the intent was to include ]? But that shouldn't be top I would think.
	::Others are there because of specific criteria: I think all SI base units are currently ranked as top (this explains ] and ]. So, should be all major subfields. (which explains the ratings for ] and ].
	::You make a good case for further sharpening the ]. (] (]) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
	:::Thanks.—] (]) 20:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

	Out of interest the Schools Misplaced Pages list is ]. Proportionally science is a much high proportion of the Schools WP, including the ] and comments on that list would be very welcome. --] ] 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Antisymmetric wave function image? ==

	]
	By any chance does somebody have a good example of an antisymmetric wave function I could use in Misplaced Pages (to represent the interaction of two ])? I saw this image on the commons, but it is for a particle in a 2-D box. Thank you!—] (]) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

	:Should be easy to make. What exactly are you looking for? (] (]) 10:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

	::Thank you. Perhaps an antisymmetric wave equation corresponding to the probability distribution shown here: http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanics/idpart.htm#Fermions —] (]) 20:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

	:::That would be difficult since that is a 2D system, making the two-particle wavefunctions 4D, which is hard to depict. This means we will be stuck with 1D systems. So what will it be: infinite well or harmonic oscillator?
	:::Furthermore, the resulting 2D functions can be plotted as either a contourplot or as a 3D plot. Do you have a preference? (] (]) 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

	How about something like this

	]]

	The left picture is a contour plot of the asymmetric ground state for two particle in a 1d box. The right picture is the corresponding symmetric wave function of the same energy. These are rough versions, I can tweak them further if this is the sort of thing you were looking for. (] (]) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
	:That looks good, except the second image just looks like the first after a rotation. Is there any possibility of a 3-D projection of your first image as in the 2D Wavefunction? That might help a reader get the picture, so to speak.—] (]) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

	::Sure, but I will be away for a couple of days si it i'll have to wait till next week. (Note that even in a 3D projection the second will look like a 90 degree rotation of the first, because coincidentally it happens the be one.) (] (]) 06:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
	:::Okay thanks. However, I don't think it will be too helpful if the symmetrical and antisymmetrical wave functions essentially look identical.—] (]) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

	Attempt 2:
	]]

	(again this is a draft version, I can fine-tune the formatting if this is to your liking. In this case the left one is the second lowest energy state for two fermionic particles in an infinite square well potential. The right one is the symmetric state corresponding to the same 1-particle states. (] (]) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
	:That looks pretty good to me. I think it immediately communicates some of the differences in the wave functions.—] (]) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

	:I updated the plots with a lit more fancy formatting. Should be ready for use now.(] (]) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
	::Thank you. So in the antisymmetric plot, when the particles switch positions the graph effectively rotates 90°? Or am I misinterpeting it?—] (]) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	{{user\|Punctilius}} had made a few edits to physics articles. It now turns out that this user was a sockpuppet of Scibaby, a notorious editor who has used hundreds of sockpuppets to engage in edit warring on global warming and other climate change related articles, .

	The tactic used by these sockpuppets is to first edit some articles unrelated to climate change to hide their intention. This means that these edits are often bad edits, motivated more by trying to evade detection than improving the article. So, all the edits should be regarded as highly suspect, even if they don't look bad at first sight. ] (]) 02:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

	:It would be nice to have some type of simple ranking system that shows up in the edit history page, based on total edit history, &c.—] (]) 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

	== "Cold fission" ==

	Found this at ]. Does anyone know ] ? ] (]) 05:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I know very little, but it appears to be legitimate, though stub-class. I cleaned it up a little. ] (]) 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

	== Help needed at Neutrino ==

	Two questions need to be answered on the ] talk page, that are beyond me:
	#Should the estimated mass be put in the infobox?
	#Are anti-neutrinos and neutrinos possibly the same particle?

	Thanks! -] (]) 03:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ] and ] ==

	I'm sorry I didn't see the reader comment that the contents of ] and ] could and should be basically ''switched'' with vast improvement to both articles. There's actually a template that suggests this, which we can put on both articles for awhile, or we can just be ] and DO it, since we've had no comment to your TALK suggestion. Let me know. And thanks for noticing this gaff. The article on ] should be about the THING. The article on nuclear physics should be about the branch of physics that studies that thing. As it is, if you read these articles, they are basically reversed from that ideal. I propose that as a first stage in fixing this, we switch their contents, then clean up from there. What say you all? ]]]] 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

	== {{Anchor\|Organisation of orbital articles}} Organisation of articles on orbitals / atomic / molecular strutcure ==

	I have added comments to ] (at ]) and ] (at ]) commenting on redundancy and bad organisation of e.g. ], ], ], ], but now I realise it is really a job for this project (for which I regret to say I have neither time nor expertise). ] (]) 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (anchor added ] (]) 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC))
	:Perhaps ] would be more interested? ] (]) 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
	:: I wouldn't know, I think I saw that one of the articles fell under this project. ] (]) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
	:::Both ] and ] were tagged only for the Physics project and should be in the Chemistry Project also. I have fixed that. ] is absolutely correct. This discussion should primarily be at the Chemistry Project. I will do that. ] (]) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ]‎ ==

	I've proposed that article for deletion. Please comment at ]‎. --] (]) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ] at FAC ==

	Concern has been expressed that domain experts have not reviewed ]. ] (]) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

	== conversions of tables to orbit diagrams ==

	A discussion at ] revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. ] (]) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	] <small>(], ])</small> posted the article ] today. It's a shameless advertisement for the ] corporation, but has too much good content to outright delete (IMO). If someone wants a big clean-up project, here it is. I think it has the potential to eventually be a very nice article on an important topic. :-) --] (]) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Tensor equivalent of Dirac equation ==

	As you know, the ] is invariant under Lorentz transformations, but not (without modification) under the arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformations used in general relativity. I have seen texts which purport to generalize spinors to transform under such coordinate transformations. However, they are very hard to understand and I am not convinced that they work. Even if they do, it is not clear to me why it should be necessary to go beyond the formalism of tensors and tensor densities. Google gave a few papers mentioning a "tensor Dirac equation". One of them claimed to have proven that the wave function could be represented as a vector provided that the gamma matrices were replaced by rank 3 antisymmetric tensors (or some such, it was not very clear). Does anyone know more about this subject? ] (]) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

	:Some original research on my part yields a tensor Lagrangian which I think should be equivalent to the Dirac equation. The spinor, <math>\psi \,,</math> is replaced by a sequence of antisymmetric tensors of every rank from 0 to 4, thusly
	::<math>\psi = ( \psi^{(0)} \mathbf{1} + \psi^{(1)}_{\alpha} \gamma^{\alpha} + \psi^{(2)}_{\alpha \beta} \gamma^{\alpha} \gamma^{\beta} + \psi^{(3)}_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \gamma^{\alpha} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\gamma} + \psi^{(4)}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \gamma^{\alpha} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\gamma} \gamma^{\delta} ) \, \xi \,</math>

	:where ξ is a constant spinor. The ] is then
	::<math>L = ( \frac12 m c^2 ( \psi^{(0)} \psi^{(0)} + \psi^{(1)}_{\alpha} g^{\alpha \beta} \psi^{(1)}_{\beta} + \ldots + \psi^{(4)}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} g^{\alpha \epsilon} g^{\beta \zeta} g^{\gamma \eta} g^{\delta \iota} \psi^{(4)}_{\epsilon \zeta \eta \iota} ) \, + \,</math>
	:::<math>i \hbar c ( \psi^{(1)}_{\alpha} g^{\alpha \beta} \partial_{\beta} \psi^{(0)} + \ldots + \psi^{(4)}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} g^{\alpha \epsilon} g^{\beta \zeta} g^{\gamma \eta} g^{\delta \iota} \partial_{\epsilon} \psi^{(3)}_{\zeta \eta \iota} ) ) \, \sqrt{-g} \,</math>
	:where the constant factors may need some adjustment, and the partial derivative could be replaced by the ] to link it to electromagnetism. Unfortunately, as OR, I cannot put this in an article. But if (as is highly probable) someone else has done essentially the same thing and published it, then we just need to find the reference and then we can have an article on it. It would be useful as a demonstration that spinors are non-essential and in showing how the electron can be handled in the context of general relativity. ] (]) 02:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

	:One commmon way to implement a covariant Dirac equation is discussed on page 29 and further of , which are lecture notes of a grad level cosmology course at Utrecht University. This approach uses the vierbein formalism for GR. (] (]) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

	== FYI Centrifugal force (planar motion) at AfD ==

	] was sent for deletion at ] ] (]) 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
	:Maybe we'll figure out if ] applies to ]s... --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

	:: Does that mean we need to slap {{tl\|in-universe}} on everything in this project except ]? - ] <small>(])</small> 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Reducing the importance rating of various subatomic particles? ==

	I propose reducing the importance rating given to various particles. Currently, just about every subatomic particle is given Top importance - this makes WikiProject Physics look like WikiProject Particle Physics, and also leads to lots of Top importance / Stub class articles.

	How about something like the following:

	:Constituents of everyday matter (proton, neutron, electron, possibly also up and down quarks) - Top

	:The remaining quarks - High

	:Composite particles (Xi baryon, J/ψ meson, etc.) - Mid

	I realise this might be a controversial idea, hence discussing it here before going ahead and doing it! (Apologies if this has all been discussed before - I couldn't find anything obvious.)

	] (]) 09:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

	:Well it's been somewhat discussed in ] ], but nothing very thourough. I'll let others discuss it first, then I'll chime in.] {] – ]: ]} 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

	::To Djr32: You did not mention the force-carrying bosons. At least the photon, gluon, W, and Z should be top. Graviton and Higgs boson should be high. Other hypothetical particles should be mid or low. Otherwise, I agree with you. ] (]) 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

	:I tend to agree. Also agree with JRSpriggs, photon and gluon should also be top, W/Z either top or high.
	:To further extend this. The broader topic ] should probably remain high, while ] and ] should be high. We might also want to rethink the importance ratings of the various quasiparticles. They tend to be somewhat specialized concepts. Maybe ] could qualify as top, but is probably better of as high, while the more exotic ones such as ]should be mid at best.
	:If others agree, somebody should draft a proposal for the importance guidelines. (] (]) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
	:My proposal would be:
	:*Top importance: ], ], ], ], ], ] and ];
	:*High importance: all other elementary particles in the Standard Model, as well as generic terms such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]...;
	:*Mid importance: most hypothetical elementary particles, as well as most composite particles and quasiparticles.
	:*Low importance: hypothetical composite particles; hypothetical elementary particle which are not predicted by any currently mainstream theory (e.g. ]; ] would fall in this classification, but I think it is a concept relevant enough for the article to have a higher importance).
	:<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF"> ]]]]</span> 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

	OK, well it's been a week or so and we seem to be pretty well in agreement - Headbomb, unless you disagree then I'll get started. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Have made some changes to the guidelines (actually less than I thought I'd need to - there were more things listed as being of top importance than the guidelines seemed to suggest - however, as a consequence I think I've not used every suggestion made here, even if only to keep the guidelines short) - if anyone objects then please feel free to make or suggest changes. ] (]) 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Harry Lipkin article ==

	Hi, I'm from the self-importantly named ] and have just been working on ]. The article had been created by running the through BabelFish, and took a lot of deciphering. I've knocked most of the biographical stuff into shape but found the sections on Lipkin's research in physics incomprehensible, and have moved them to the article's ]. Could someone here take a look and see if sense can be made of it? Better still if you can read German - the original's and may help you figure out what the article should have said. Many thanks. ] (]) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Matter ==

	Could someone head over at ] and expand the section on solid/liquid/gas/plasma. I'm having a brain fart and I can't write short an accessible definitions. ] {] – ]: ]} 07:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Electron PR ==

	The ] article has been put up for peer review ]. I'm not exactly an expert, so I would greatly appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable could take a look to make sure all the facts are correct. Thank you!—] (]) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
	:No interest at all? You folks have this ranked as top-importance and it's on the wkipedia's ] list. I guess I'm just a tad surprised. Ah well.—] (]) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Much ado about 0.1 standard deviation ==

	Comments would be appreciated in ]. -- ] (]) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ] up for deletion ==

	]. ] ] 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
	:The consensus was to keep the article.—] (]) 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

	== ] FAR ==

	] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. -- ] (]) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Opinion requested on Kepler's laws ==

			I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to ]. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on ]. The help article ] suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)</small>
	Could someone have a look at ]? I think the article needs to be rigorously pruned in the amount of mathematical proofs, since they are not illuminating the concepts, but rather tediously proving concepts that are rather easy to visualize. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. Please discuss on ]. ] (]) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
	:Has anybody considered using {{tl\|hidden}}? --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF"> ]]]]</span> 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

			== ] content issue ==
	::I agree, I've always been fond of show/hide boxes for proofs that are relevant but not central. See for example ] or ] for places I've used these. :-) --] (]) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

			@] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on
	:::The sentence "Thus, not only does the length of the orbit increase with distance, the orbital speed decreases, so that the increase of the orbital period is more than proportional" makes no sense. I can't see how something can be "more than" proportional, surely proportionality is a Boolean concept. The article needs more than pruning, it needs re-writing for the layman. By all means have derivations, but restrict these to a separate section and make the rest of the article readable by all. ] (]) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
			] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== ] nominated for deletion ==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			=="{{noredirect\|failed star}}"==
	AfD ]. I've also left a notice at WikiProject fluid dynamics, but it's not clear how active that project is anymore. ] ] 07:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
			FYI {{la\|failed star}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing. ==
	== Phi meson ==

			This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics:
	I just created a very crude ] page. If some of you could expand and give a bit of history about it that would be nice.] {] – ]: ]} 16:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
	== Autoassessment for WP:PHYSICS ==

			* {{citation\|title=''Princ-wiki-a mathematica'': Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics\|first1=D.\|last1=Eppstein\|first2=J. B.\|last2=Lewis\|first3=Russ\|last3=Woodroofe\|author4=XOR'easter\|journal=Notices of the AMS\|volume=72\|issue=1\|pages=65–73\|year=2025\|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202501/rnoti-p65.pdf}}. —] (]) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{done}} : Approx 223 of 1583 unassessed articles checked of ] were autoassessed based on other projects assessment on the same page, by ] , per Bot request by ] . FYI -- ] ] - 09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== Needs review ==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	Can someone review this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Potential_difference&diff=247031229&oldid=245309042
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	Secondly, the same article's merge-tag may have also been vandalized

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –] (]]) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	''It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Scalar potential. (Discuss)''

	but the discussion is about merging it with ''voltage'' and not ''scalar potential''.

			== String of new pages onPlatonists and similar ==
	Lastly, can someone list some ways to improve the ] article? The voltage article's talk page rates the article in its current state as a "C-class" article. It would be useful to know on the talk page why it has a C, especially if its partially inaccurate. ] (]) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

			There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user ], all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.
	== Nonsense edits by IP ==
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that ] is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) ] (]) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” ] (]) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	The edits of {{IPvandal\|92.232.91.38}} appear to be all or nearly all nonsense. Could someone here please confirm? The poor grammar and idiosyncratic word choice makes it very difficult to determine if the editor actually intends to say something cogent, or if he/she is just having a nice laugh at our expense. ] (]) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
			::The issue is not that ] isn't notable, it's that your article ] doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them ] (]) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at ]. The notability requirement for list articles is at ]. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a ] that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --] (]) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I see thank you for this guidance ] (]) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see ]. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) ] (]) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. ] might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--] (]) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic ] (]) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::These look like a decent start:
			:::::::* {{cite SEP\|url-id=philosophy-mathematics \|title=Philosophy of Mathematics \|date=2022-01-25 \|first=Leon \|last=Horsten}}
			:::::::* {{cite SEP\|url-id=platonism-mathematics \|title=Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics \|date=2023-03-28 \|first=Øystein \|last=Linnebo}}
			:::::::* {{cite web\|first=Julian C. \|last=Cole \|title=Mathematical Platonism \|url=https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ \|website=]}}
			:::::::] (]) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the ], and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @] to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. ] (]) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::There is a redirect at ] so we are out of luck on the move. ] (]) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was ]. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are ], which we shouldn't use; postings on the ] are almost always unusable per ], and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed ] for deletion. ] (]) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@], since your PROD of ] was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to ] where I have placed a request for a {{Tlx\|TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) ] (]) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::]. ] (]) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:] and ] must be deleted at least per ]. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a ] of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.
			:For reference, ] now has an AfD, the appropriateness of ] is being debated (independent of this discussion) while ] has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". ] (]) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. ] (]) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I am not convinced that ] meets the notability standards for ] or ]. One book generally isn't enough. ] (]) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for ]#C1 -- his papers ''The dual braid monoid'' and ''Finite complex reflection arrangements are <math>K(\pi, 1)</math>'' have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --] (]) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. ] (]) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:50, 3 January 2025

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

Shortcuts

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics

This 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

Archives

Big Bang – 2005

2006 — 2019

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?

I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to Megasonic cleaning. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on Ultrasonic cleaning. The help article Help:Introduction_to_talk_pages/All suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielittlewood (talk • contribs) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)

Principle of locality content issue

@ReyHahn and I have agreed on a change. @Tercer has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on Talk:Principle_of_locality#Fixing_an_issue_in_the_QM_section. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Noctilucent cloud

Noctilucent cloud has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"failed star"

Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing.

This was posted on WT:MATH but it mostly also related to physics:

Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fizeau experiment

Fizeau experiment has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Gravitomagnetic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gravitomagnetic is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gravitomagnetic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

String of new pages onPlatonists and similar

There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user Transhumanistnerd0, all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.

I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that WP:BURDEN is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not that Platonism isn't notable, it's that your article List of Platonist Mathematicians doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The notability requirement for list articles is at WP:NLIST. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a reliable source that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I see thank you for this guidance Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. Mathematical Platonism might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

These look like a decent start:

Horsten, Leon (2022-01-25). "Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Linnebo, Øystein (2023-03-28). "Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cole, Julian C. "Mathematical Platonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the philosophy of mathematics, and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @Transhumanistnerd0 to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a redirect at Mathematical Platonism so we are out of luck on the move. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was deleted back in April. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are primary sources, which we shouldn't use; postings on the arXiv are almost always unusable per WP:SPS, and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed Ruliad Theory of the Universe for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@XOR'easter, since your PROD of Ruliad Theory of the Universe was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to Talk:Ruliad Theory of the Universe where I have placed a request for a {{TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Platonist mathematicians and List of Platonist physicists must be deleted at least per WP:NPOV. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a WP:POV of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. D.Lazard (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.

For reference, Ruliad Theory of the Universe now has an AfD, the appropriateness of Wenitte Apiou is being debated (independent of this discussion) while David Bessis has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that David Bessis meets the notability standards for academics or authors. One book generally isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for WP:NPROF#C1 -- his papers The dual braid monoid and Finite complex reflection arrangements are $K(\pi ,1)$ have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --JBL (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: