Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Category:Physics - general/basic/introductory concepts

This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating Wikipedia: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#Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia 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)

I like this idea. The page itself should include the uses of the mathematical processes, while their derivations and such could be referenced to the math page. For instance, talking about something as simple as differential calculus and taking dx/dt for velocity. More of a "Uses of math in physics" thing. For students who wish to learn how to take the derivative, that page can be reference linked. --Dataphiliac 00:36, 10 August 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia? --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).

Heim Theory should not be lumped in with wacko pseudoscience. It is definitely not pseudoscience as, e.g. this year aerospace applicaitons thereof won a prize for best technical paper in one section of the AIAA. There is detailed maths here, from a protege of Heisenberg, unlike truly wacko nonsense. A web search on Heim theory recently discovered a physics discussion forum which immediately let the topic of Heim drop as it the Wikipedia article had this pseudoscience tag. So please remove this, as it is damaging and pejorative. Otherwise Wikipedia will look pretty stupid next year when the New Scientist article on Heim theory and its relations to LQt comes out. --hughey 12:06, 17 October 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 [Reich's] 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 [ORAC] 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 [1] 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 [2]. 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience as a subproject here, if anyone on the physics project objects please say so Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

• I object. I doesn't make sense to place it here. --MarSch 09:42, 19 July 2005 (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 02:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Electrostatics 01:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Electromagnetic radiation 01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Force 03:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Gravity 01:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Harmonic oscillator 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Magnetism 22:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Optics 03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Statistical mechanics 01:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

A lot of general physics pages could benefit from some of these:

• Halliday, David; Robert Resnick; Kenneth S. Krane (2001). Physics v. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0471320579.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Halliday, David; Robert Resnick; Kenneth S. Krane (2002). Physics v. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0471401943.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Serway, Raymond A. (2003). Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing. ISBN 0534408427.

--Laura Scudder | Talk 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In some branches of physics links are references. JabberWok: please note that some of your (well meant) edits which separate out references from external links do not reflect this. Maybe it would be better to go back to those edits and check whether indeed the separation is meaningful. Bambaiah 11:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agree, separating book references from article references from links is not a good idea, especially as a number of books and articles are online. linas 13:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I agree as well. Books, preprints, and published journal articles that are available online belong under References. In my flurry of adding reference sections this weekend I probably messed up (more than once). So by all means make changes you think will make things better. No need to ask me, but thanks for making me aware of my mistakes. JabberWok 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Chemical Physics

I created a Chemical physics category as a subcategory of applied and interdisciplinary physics. I was browsing through physics stubs and decided such a category was needed for some of the stubs. I then noticed that there was a Physical chemistry subcategory. The differences between Physical Chemistry and Chemical physics are hard to pin down, but, for example, a paper from the Journal of Chemical Physics paper is quite distinct from a Journal of Physical Chemistry A/B paper. What are peoples thoughts on having both categories, or should I ask for the category to be deleted and put any articles into Physical Chemistry? Salsb 00:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the categories you are looking for are Category:Quantum chemistry and Category:Molecular physics? I also notice that you uncategorized some articles I'd previously categorized: for example HOMO/LUMO, which surely is a topic in Category:Molecular physics and not a topic in Category:Physical chemistry? I'm not a chemist, but naively, to me, this seems like moving in the wrong direction. Especially since most of what you put in Category:Chemical physics strikes me as topics in quantum chemistry. Knight shift belongs in Category:Nuclear chemistry. Many of the articles in Category:Nuclear chemistry should go into Category:Nuclear physics, argh...

I recated HOMO/LUMO as this term is used extensively in the chemistry literature and only occasionally in the physics literature, so a categorization in physics, rather than chemistry is an error, one which would raise eyebrows on most chemists (and physicists who knew the term). I did the same for several other items, such as the semi-empricial quantum chemical theories, which were developed and are used by chemists. As far as nuclear chemistry versus nuclear physics, that's even hard to distinguish than physical chemistry vs chemical physics in many cases. Keep in mind, Glenn Seaborg was a chemist. Salsb 13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To me, nuclear physics is about pions, nucleons, the nuclear valley, gaussian random matrices, etc. By contrast, I always assumed that nuclear chemistry was about separating isotopes of uranium, hyperfine structure, NMR, etc. Isn't it? linas 01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC

I would more or less agree; although some nuclear chemists work on random matrices, and more on the nuclear valley and Island of stability, but I think even they would call their work nuclear physics. Classifying NMR as nuclear chemistry though is funny. I was a theoretician in an NMR group as a grad student and depending on what projects we did we called our work chemical physics, physical chemistry, biophysicis or solid state physics, but defintely not nuclear physics. Prehaps ~50 years ago Salsb 01:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. WP has no article on the Nuclear valley of Valley of nuclear stability but we do have Island of stability. Sigh. linas 01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, my approach to terminology may be naive; I'm not a chemist. However, keep in mind that most readers, and some writers, are going to be as naive as I; and a distinction between "physical chemistry" and "chemical physics" (I agree there is one, I might even be able to explain it) will be lost. That's why I went for "molecular physics". linas 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of putting all of chemical physics into molecular physics. I actually was surprised to see atomic physics and molecular physics separated. Usually atomic and molecular physics are lumped into one category, not molecular and chemical physics. See the American Physical Society divisions, which put atomic molecular and optical physics into one category, or browse through physics department web pages: where you will usually see atomic and molecular physics in one research group. Though to muddle the waters a little further, the journal "Molecular Physics", considers itself a journal in the field of chemical physics. Salsb 13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP is as much about historical divisions as about current research classification. I'd prefer to say that "atomic physics" is "that stuff that got figured out between 1895 to about 1935", with maybe a few more modern key concepts thrown in. I'm agnostic about other divisions, except to say I believe a category should never have more than 120 articles, ideally 30-40 articles, and never fewer than 5. It should also serve lay audiences as well as scholars. The divisions I created may be inappropriate, they where a rough cleaning-of-house; I recatted something like 500 articles in one day; some no doubt poorly; please do recat if you know better. linas 01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I noticed :) I agree with almost all your cats, though some of the molecular physics ones I have recated though into physical chemistry or chemical physics. Salsb 01:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the naive point of view expressed by linas 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) though (as Salsb 13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)) I don't agree in putting everything in molecular physics. My opinion is that one should merge physical chemistry and chemical physics. Though both fields are different, usually authors publishing in J. Chem. Phys. are also publishing in J. Phys. Chem. and vice versa. Of course there are some nuances and some papers definitively belong to one or the other journal but (as linas said) they are very vague for the lay. So I suggest to rename chemical physics physical chemistry but I would also agree with the other way around. Molecular physics should stand on its own. It could be merged with molecular chemistry if this category would exist. Moreover I would agree if one could make molecular physics and chemical physics/physical chemistry belong to both physics and chemistry. The chemists would of course prefer physical chemistry to chemical physics and the same would be true for chemical physics and physical chemistry (the last one preferred by the chemists, the second by the physicists).

Classical Items should not be forgotten

Physical Chemistry used to include a discussion of thermodynamic potentials and the like (Gibbs and Helholtz free energy, fugacity, enthalpy, free enthalpy and so on.) There are (or were) good texts on it and topnotch physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Michael Faraday built it and kept it alive. Unfortunately, some modern physics texts skip most of that stuff to do a lot of statistical mechanics, transport theory (usually idealized, for example so as to avoid dealing with excitation of different states of the colliding molecules, which are imagined to be elastic spheres). Wikipedia would offer a good place to keep up interest in physical chemistry or chemical physics. Obviously, practising chemical, solid state, and plasma (and so on) engineers know about these topics and many more advanced ones. Well, I see that some of the classical stuff is sketched under Physical Chemistry but it needs more development. Abstract equations are provided on some of the links, but little or no idea of how to use the quantities mentioned, and practically none on where to look for tables, or any guideline as to when recourse to tables and measurements is needed (most cases of real gases, liquids and I suppose solids - I am out my area with solids.) Pdn 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Astrophysics is currently nominated to be improved by on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you are interested, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 13:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Vfd in progress

If anyone is interested, there is a vfd in progress of several related math/physics/recreational-math interface pages (written mainly from the recreational math aspect):

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited1
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited2
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited4
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited5
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited6
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited7
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited8

I draw your attention to this because I think (for some of the pages at least) a delete is a little unjustified. I choose to use this page in the hope that, like me, many other inhabitants were drawn into physics partially through recreational maths. --Bambaiah 08:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the articles are up for VFD as neologistic categorisation by Karl Scherer. Coupled with a distinct lack of non-categorisation content, existing only to fluff the categorisation enough to have an article for each class. The 100+ that have already been VFD'd were done so for predominantly the same reason.

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and not something to push your POV of how things should be categorised. Neither is it a collection of all information under the sun.~~~~ 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, User:-Ril-'s remarks seem to be in direct contradiction with the content of what has actually been nominated for VfD. I detect no neologisms in these articles, I detect no fluff. Karl Scherer seems to be a capable author who creates reasonable, encyclopedic content. If you want POV pushing, fluff, non-encyclopedic content, and "everything under the sun", then dial up just about any pokemon character or TV sitcom or rock-n-roll album or nuclear submarine or underwater power line on WP; there are zillions of these. Seems immature to attack legit content when there is a vast ocean of stuff like that on WP. linas 01:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I must agree. Although, a few of the articles seem to be conceptual duplicates. Karol 06:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

nonsense at nonlinear magnetic field

We've got a new stub at nonlinear magnetic field from an anon. I would've marked it for speedy deletion, but didn't know if it quite qualified. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like it would qualify for deletion as original research, due to the "I have interpreted this question as being identical ...". But a redirection to magnetic field might work as well. Salsb 00:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the "I interpret" does imply that this is original research. Disagree with redirect to magnetic field (see Talk:nonlinear magnetic field). I think this should be deleted, but I gave the author a chance to explain Ulam's remarks (on talk page also). -- SCZenz 00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

X-ray nanochemistry nomination for deletion.

I have nominated it for deletion as it seems to be one author reinventing x-ray damage. Please comment on the deletion page if appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)