Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:00, 15 July 2005

Category:Physics - general/basic/introductory concepts

This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics (besides the fact that it didn't exist yet). Now this is probably the best place to continue the discussion. A short summary of the pending discussion follows:

There have been discussions in several places on the structure of some subcategories in Category:Physics. Specifically, we are concerned with basic, general, and introductory phsysics articles. There is already a quite populated Category:Introductory physics, which probably gives a good overview of the most rudimental physics topics to the layman; so there is probably no point in changing it. During the big cleanup in May Category:General physics topics was created and populated by articles that were in the top level Category:Physics and didn't fit too well anywhere else. This category was then largely unpopulated and recently emptied and seems to have lost its purpose. Now there is the question whether we are actually in need of a new, similar category, which might be named Category:Basic physics concepts and would group together basic (fundamental) articles, such as time, space, vector, tensor, matter, energy, interaction, and so forth, which are now somewhat disperssed among various physics categories (please notice the difference between general and basic). If there is more positive feedback for this idea, we can either rename the existing Category:General phsyics topics or delete it and create a new one. The is also an idea about making something like Category:Mathematical tools in physics, which would encompass the mathematical concepts used in physics. Karol 11:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Note: This is a summary of the posts found in Category talk:Physics#General Physics Topics subcategory, Category talk:Physics#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Physics: general/basic/introductory concepts.

I think things like tensors should be in mathematics categories, but it would be great if they would contain some physics examples. Otherwise we're going to have to make 2 articles about every applied mathematical thingy. Also because one of the things that is seriously lacking from mathematics articles is good motivation and intuition-stimulation I think we should cooperate more.--MarSch 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Category:Basic physics concepts would be easily confused in purpose with Category:Introductory physics. Since you used the word fundamental, I think that Category:Fundamental physics concepts would be more appropriate as it makes clear that the topics aren't necessarily basic in the sense of simple.

I'm sure that physics students looking here would appreciate a Category:Mathematical tools in physics or some such category to cluster all the things we use everyday but don't own. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wild idea here - what if there was a Category:Mathematical tools in physics (or something suitably similar) that contained a lot of redirects to math pages. Of course, if that happened, it would be nice if those math pages contained physical examples.--StuTheSheep 09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is similar to what has been written above. We need to separate the introductory concepts, which should be accessible to a lay person, from the basic concepts, which generally are not. For example, you can talk about forces without talking about gauge bosons. I also think we only need two categories, Category:Introductory physics and Category:Fundamental physics concepts; general topics can be left on the main Category:Physics page..--StuTheSheep 09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you put it very clear - the introductory topics should be differentiated from the fundamental ones. For starters, I would identify fundamental topics (looking at Category:Physics) as: Fundamental interaction, Invariant (physics), Conservation law, Interaction, Time, and so on. So it seems we have a group of people that agree on this point. My mixed feelings remain only as to whether some of these articles should actually not appear in Category:Physics; after all, not much will be left... Karol 21:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

I have just created Category:Fundamental physics concepts and added some basic articles to it. Karol June 28, 2005 17:30 (UTC)

---

Some time has passed, so I nominated Category:General physics topics for deletion. Everyone intersted please see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:General_physics_topics. Karol June 28, 2005 20:12 (UTC)

World Year of Physics

I suppose I finally have an appropriate place to ask people to look at World Year of Physics 2005. I had originally thought it'd be a great idea to have it up to featured standard by the end of the year, but it hasn't really attracted any other editors recently and I feel like without feedback of other editors I may have taken it in a wrong direction (right now it mostly summarizes Annus Mirabilis Papers). So take a look if you're interested. --Laura Scudder | Talk 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The list of articles that attract crank edits

As there were voices that List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories is unsuitable in the article namespace, I've moved the physics section to the subpage Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. --Pjacobi 15:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

That list is not exclusively about bogus physics theories. Even if it was I wouldn't want it associated with physics in any way. Please remove that again. The physics portal is not the place for it. --MarSch 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please remove this list. Above all, WikiProjects are not intended to host subject articles, including original research. Karol 18:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. multiple problems with this list. 1) some of the theories are pure crackpot, e.g. timecube. 2) some of the topics are highly speculative but academically acceptable (possible changes in fine structure const, etc.) 3) some topics which are records of historical fiascos (polywater) or were once taken seriously but are not any more (luminiferous ether). linas 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, most of these theories are pure crackpot. For this reason, they are on the list. And the list is here, so that we can watch, what's going on there. Isn't the task of WikiProject Physics to ensure the correct presentation of physics in Misplaced Pages? --Pjacobi 20:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

And BTW, Heim theory is leaking out of its article. I've just spotted it in Neutrino#Notes. What's your opinion on that? --Pjacobi

I think that it would be desirable for part of the wikiproj to be helping keep dodgy psuedoscience in check. So if the list could be restructured to contain *only* the wacko psuedoscience, and a suitable header put on, would that be OK? William M. Connolley 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

The way you guys put it makes it sound reasonable :) that is to have such a repository for monitoring pseudophysics topics. Karol 23:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The list should be split into the different categories that linas identified. List 1) shouldn't be part of this project. What we need to keep in check is what is supposed to be physics and what is not. The other two lists would be very welcome. --MarSch 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood the purpose of the list. Lets change the name to The list of articles that attract crank edits. This is a list of (mostly) legit articles on (mostly) noteworthy topics, (most of which happen to be noteworthy crank topics), that, unfortunately, tend to get vandalized in subtle ways. The name change would completely resolve my initial discomfort on reading the list. We can add over unity and Wilhelm Reich to the list. We can add legit science topics to the list, if they happen to be topics that attract inappropriate attention and edits. linas 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Yikes! Surely what you understood when you read what I wrote can't possibly be what I meant when I wrote it?? We can add Afshar experiment and the entire Category:Quantum measurement; some of these articles are already subjects of long-running edit battles; note even User:Afshar is an active editor. linas 1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

1941 Reich-Einstein experiment

Has anybody a reference and quote what Einstein said about the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment? Reich's view and those of the "over unity researchers" are already presented. --Pjacobi June 30, 2005 08:19 (UTC)

There are only 4 google hits in this regard.--MarSch 30 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and TImes Reich is discussed on pages 689-90 paperback ed. "He also tried to ignore his involvement with W. R. This eccentric distraught figure seems already have slipped down the slope towards charlatanry or madness by the time he asked E to investigate his discovery... Reich called on E. in his Mercer St home on Jan 13, 1941. 'He told me,' his wife wrote later, ' that the conversation w. E. had been extremely friendly and cordial, that E. was easy to talk to , that their conversation had lasted almost five hours. E was willing to investigate the phenomena that R. had described to him , and a special little accumulator would have to be build and taken to him.' Certainly there was a further visit , and certainly E. tested the apparatus. ... E found a commonplace explanation of the phenomenon which R had noted, and said so in polite terms. The postscript -- contained in _the Einstein Affair_ a privately printed booklet from R's own press was spread across the following 3 yr of their correspondence. Reich disputed E's findings and E was dismayed that his name might be wrongly used to support R's theory" GangofOne 1 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Denis Brian, Einstein: A Life. Wiley, 1996. 325-327, 382, 399. "... a marathon conversation that lasted almost five hours, during which R. had him look through an instrument called an orgonoscope. Exactly what E saw has not been reported. ... E. seemed impressed. He agreed that if the temperature in an enclosed object was raised without any apparent source of energy, as R. asserted, it would be a remarkable discovery --"a bomb.".. They agreed to meet again, when R would bring an orgone-energy accumulator for E to put to the test. As Reich was leaving, he asked, "Can you understand now why everyoune thinks I'm mad?" "And how!" replied E. , perhaps recalling all those who had called his own ideas crazy. .... Reich took it to Princeton on Feb 1.... A week later E sent R his report. He wrote that although he observed a difference of temperature, there was a simple explanation that had nothing to do with the orgone-accumulators. Convection current ... E. advised the bitterly disappointed R not to be carried away by an illusion.... R bombared him with ... letters ... E did not reply. ... Reich's wife believed that "E saw the phenomena, may have had an inkling of their significance, but was unwilling to get involved in a highy controversial scientific discovery at a time when he was deeply engrossed with developing atomic energy" GangofOne 2 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

I've reverted a bulk copy from Talk:Aetherometry/Archive2#Reich-Einstein experiment. --Pjacobi July 5, 2005 08:49 (UTC)

Help needed: Generalized theory of gravitation

Can please someone check Generalized theory of gravitation and put it on his watchlist? --Pjacobi July 5, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

The article currently doesn't say much, and what little it says matches what little I know about Einstein. He was obsessed on the topic; he wasn't the only one; one of the earliest attempts is the Kaluza-Klein model. linas 5 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Oh, golly, that page started life as a crank page, making reference to secret experiments done by the Navy to make ships invisible ... gag. Indeed, it should be watched. linas 5 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

I'm currently having an edit war on that page with the tradiational tesla-phile anons. Please make sure you check which version yuo're looking at... here is a diff from my version to the anons . I think the anon is being too specific: from reading Pais, it seems to me that there is no one version of Einsteins theory, just a succession of papers looking for a theory. William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 09:24:25 (UTC).

I've tried to make this a real page on the early history of unified theories, as the title is appropriate for such an attempt. Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

Pseudoscience subject

I placed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pseudoscience as a subproject here, if anyone on the physics project objects please say so Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

Lack of References

The foundation of a good article should be good references or at least a reference. The following major articles in Physics don't have any references:

• Antimatter
• Electrostatics 01:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Electromagnetic radiation
• Force
• Gravity
• Harmonic oscillator 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Magnetism
• Optics
• Statistical mechanics

Some good, modern references can be found on the Physics page. Perhaps those are a good starting point. JabberWok 22:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)