Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 12

This is the archive "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive12". It is for December 2006.

Scientific citation guidelines

Discussion of the proposed Scientific citation guidelines seems to have simmered down. I suspect the guidelines have consensus among math and physics editors. If you have strong feelings about the guidelines, please comment on the appropriate talk page. CMummert 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Verify Casimir effect edit

Can someone verify this? Casimir_effect diff None of the references in the article have the equations in the article.-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The edits are correct. I would rephrase the second sentence though: remove the reference to the Jacobian, and just say the 2 pi comes from the angular integration. (I don't like throwing around big words like "Jacobian" when they aren't necessary!) HEL 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits looks good to me; I'm probably the one who made the origianl mistake. (my excuse beng that I usually think about fermions). linas 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of communication between Wikiprojects

Looking at the posts here and in Wikipedia: WikiProject Astronomical objects, I see that a lot of people here could provide useful comments in the discussions at the Astronomical object WikiProject and vice versa. I would like to encourage people from both projects to look at the other project's talk pages more often and to participate more in cross-topic discussions. (Unfotunately, Wikipedia: WikiProject Astronomy is not used as frequently, but that could potentially be another useful forum someday.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:QED

The QED template is a bit outrageous to say the least. If no one has an objection, I would like to change it to make it look similar to other footers like (viz. Template:Physics-footer).—David618 ^t e 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome any comments on my new layout. —David618 ^t e 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The layout is in the template and nolonger in my sandbox. —David618 ^t e 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean you don't like the pousse cafe? --Trovatore 04:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the template, anyway? What criteria are used to put things in this template. For example, why is bremsstrahlung listed but synchrotron emission not listed? Am I missing something? Dr. Submillimeter 16:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the layout of Template:QED but I didn't change the content. I am not sure what would be the best set of links to include. —David618 ^t e 16:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pfft. Delete the thing. This is a text-book example of why templates are bad. linas 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:QED

Template:QED has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- linas 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Quantum graphity

I came across the article quantum graphity. This is not a misspelling, as I thought, but a quantum gravity theory based on graph theory. However, the theory seems to be posited in two arxiv papers last month. Other references are given, but they only give background. In my opinion, theories that have not yet undergone critical discussion are not fit for Wikipedia because they are not verifiable. However, quantum gravity is black magic to me. So, can somebody in the know cast a look at the articles and decide what to do with it? The article Event Symmetry is by the same editor. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like unadulterated bull-shit to me. Perhaps it is a hoax intended to satirize quantum gravity and/or graph theory. JRSpriggs 11:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know, how "valuable" this new theory is, but I agree with the observation that it is not verifiable. Arxiv articles are not part of the set of reliable sources we should use, since the papers are not peer-reviewed. Only if this would be a pre-print, with the same article being published by a peer-reviewed journal, soon, one could use this reference. Time to PROD this one? Awolf002 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Awolf002; an article "published" in ArXiv is not necessarily scientifically validated. It is generally used by people who want to distribute preprints of journal articles, but sometimes it is used to promote odd theories not accepted to any scientific journals. I would support a PROD on this basis. Someone may also want to look at Event Symmetry, created by the same user who created quantum graphity, and see if that is worth keeping. These both look like they may be promoting the "variable speed of light" theory, but they are both written incomprehensively. Both of these articles demonstrate that Wikipedia contributors need to be more pedagogical; not even the average person with a Ph.D. in physics or astronomy could understand this stuff. Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I contributed this article and am a new contributor to Wikipedia so I admit to being less than fully familiar with the protocol on acceptance. However I find the above comments missguided for the following reasons:

• Although Quantum Graphity as a term is new, the concepts behind it go back several years as shown by the references provided.

From the references/article I deduce there are established pieces/concepts here, yes, but Quantum Graphity is a "new" application of them and something WP likes to call original research. So it needs to be approached under that assumption. Awolf002 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a "theory". It is a mathematical model to explore features of the beginning of the universe. Nobody is claiming that space-time actaully is a random graph. The model has already been shown to possess interesting physical features that make it worth knowing about.

Not really relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:NOR for a small essay on "verifiability" and "reliable sources". Awolf002 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• One of the authors of the recent papers is Lee Smolin who is one of the most highly respected quantum gravity physicists. I would guess that anyone who calls any of his work "unadulterated bull-shit" is not likely to be qualified to comment.

Just concentrate on the issue of "verifiability". It is better to try to find consensus on what can be said in such an article like yours, than to qualify its "value". Awolf002 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the related article Event Symmetry several of the papers have been peer reviewed. Again this is not so much a theory as a proposed principle that has been applied as an interpretation of some features of the Matrix Models for string theory, amongst other things. It is not clear to me whether you are proposing to remove just the quantum graphity article or the event symmetry one as well. Please clarify.

Right now, we are discussing if Quantum graphity can be included into WP or not, based on the question of reliable sources being available on that topic. Nothing more (for now, as stated next). Awolf002 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would be very surprised if the recent quantum graphity articles were not accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal soon. If it is necessary to wait for that before inclusion then so be it. If it will not be acceptable for inclusion even then please let me know why so that I know not to resubmit it.

My vote right now is, that you wrote the article "too early". I would remove the current article and wait for such a publication. Additionally, WP has criteria on "notability". There needs to be some recognition by the relevant scientific community of that new concept. That hurdle needs to "overcome" as well for this article, so it can stay. Awolf002 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• On the subject of being more [[pedagogical], I think you need to read the cross referenced articles to understand more of the background. The same could be said of many of the more technical articles in Wikipedia, especially the mathematical ones.

Weburbia 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will delete it until it is better established. If the event symmetry article stays I will rewrite it to make it more pedagogical. Weburbia 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The subject matter seems too new, too speculative, and the article not informative enough. Basically, if one cares about this stuff, one will read the pre-print. But if one hasn't read the preprint, one won't really learn much from this WP article. I would be happier seeing articles on the pre-req's that actually have some meat to them. Five or ten years hence, I'll have a different opinion. However, currently, articles are lacking on far more basic subject matter.

I retract some of my earlier comments. After reading the article, it seems like an interesting enough idea. I'm surprised there was no mention of loop gravity; wouldn't the graphs be the loops of loop gravity? linas 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The preprint uses loop quantum gravity as motivation, not surprising given that co-author Lee Smolin was one of the founders of LQG, but there is no mathematical dependency on it. If I were to expand it I could mention it. Were you thinking of any specific examples when you said that "currently, articles are lacking on far more basic subject matter" Weburbia 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to single out any one particular article as lacking; rather, coverage of topics in physics in general is spotty, many articles are completely missing, or are stubs. As you get more familiar with WP, you'll see what I mean. linas 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll single out two. Scattering theory was a stub that was wrong before I whacked on it one day. Scattering matrix is ... in need of attention. Its currently written from a very QFT point of view, when it has a far more general (and more elegant) definition. But perhaps I'm being grouchy. WP is very much a work-in-progress, quite the mess at times. You should write about things that thrill and interest you, and avoid the rest, except out of a sense of public duty. Anyway, welcome to WP. Hope you enjoy it here, even though you stepped in with the type of controversial article that drives the regulars kind-of crazy. (There is a contingent of cranks that inhabit WP and write about perpetual motion machines, UFO's, and how Einstein was wrong, and quantum graphity was mistaken for one of those). linas 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would be more careful with interpreting other users mindset, Linas. I for one did not think this to be a UFO-like crank paper. Instead, I am trying to watch out for articles with no verifiable attributions. Not always with success, though, but it is still a worth-while effort. Awolf002 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Emergence dispute RfC

Talk:Emergence#RfC - We are having a heated dispute in the Emergence article over a proper definition for Emergence (specifically whether systems are irreducible and cannot be predicted/described by their constituent parts) and moreover what sort of citations should be required for this article. Please help us resolve these disputes and get the article unprotected. Fourdee 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Newton-Wigner localization

I just recently created Newton-Wigner localization, as it was listed on articles requested for over two years. I'm not a physicist, though, so my understanding of it was probably very feeble. In any case, I thought that I'd inform the project so that someone more able can properly cleanup and expand the article. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 18:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the description on Talk:Newton-Wigner localization? Should that be integrated with the article itself? Dr. Submillimeter 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, I'm not too happy about this kind of hacking. If you are not knowledgable about the topic, you should not be creating or editing articles on it. Especially when the subject matter is arcane. (I've got a PhD in quantum field theory, and this topic is too arcane for me. I don't think a non-physicist should attempt to tackle this.) linas 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, except that no one else was prepared to start it. Now that it exists perhaps someone who knows more will update it. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with linas; you should not attempt to write on a topic that you do not understand. Hopefully, that article contains no errors. Because Wikipedia appears near the top of the list produced by virtually any Google search, it is one of the first places that the general public looks for information on almost anything. We need to take responsibility for the factual accuracy of our articles. We cannot simply rely on other people to correct our mistakes. Dr. Submillimeter 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what we can rely on. Remember to be bold in updating pages--Michael C. Price ^talk 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Need article on Radiation reaction

I just noticed a red-link in Newton's laws of motion for Radiation reaction. This is an important but difficult topic. I think we should have an article on it. If no expert creates one in response to this message, I will have a try at it myself. JRSpriggs 10:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I created a stub! It is in a pathetic state so far, so anyone who can add something, please do. I found a discussion in Griffiths E&M but haven't had time to go through it carefully. HEL 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand the context of this phrase until the stub was created. This topic looks like it may already be addressed in some other articles. Radiation pressure discusses a very similar topic. Maybe Wikipedia contains an article that is even more closely related, such as an article on the momentum of light. I would suggest making radiation reaction a redirect if another article already covers this topic better. Dr. Submillimeter 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think radiation reaction merits its own article. Although connected to the issues that you've mentioned, it is a concept worth explaining on its own. I'd go so far as to suggest that if the concept of radiation reaction is explained in another article, that material might best be moved to radiation reaction. Joshua Davis 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out that it is proportional to the square of the charge times the jerk. However, I am having trouble finding the documents where I read about it. JRSpriggs 07:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it for some time but, as HEL mentioned, there is a discussion in Griffiths' E&M book. Probably also Jackson's text. Joshua Davis 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I found three books in my library which mention it. I put the best one in the references. I added a formula and some more explanation. Please check it out again at Radiation reaction. JRSpriggs 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector as FAC

I'm about to make Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector into a Featured Article candidate and would love any last-minute help, criticism — or praise. ;) I'll probably add it tomorrow, unless I hear from you about things that need to be fixed. Wish us luck! :) Willow 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC on 'gauge pressure' vs 'gauge pressure'

Debate over on Talk:Pressure as to whether that & related articles should refer to 'gauge pressure' or 'gage pressure', accompanied by reverting on the article. 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If we can change "gauge" to "gage", perhaps we should change it to "gag" (joke). JRSpriggs 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair FAC?!?

While happily frolicking through my indefinite wiki-sabbatical, I happened to discover that my old pet article, Bogdanov Affair, had been nominated for Featured status. I left a fairly detailed comment on the FAC page; others may wish to do the same. Anville 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tesla

I've stumbled over one of those Tesla articles, namely Tesla effect, significantly authored by Reddi, and put in AfD. It is now on the way of being kept, thanks to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal#Paranormal_AFD_Noticeboard. Is this the way AfD work nowadays? So I'm asking here for support and we do a brave street gang fight with the Paranormals? Arrrgggh. --Pjacobi 09:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just voted to delete; as it's written now (after very recent edits...) it looks like it's just induction. I've never heard of a "Tesla effect" either. As for the "earthquake machine" usage of the term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! HEL 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion, that only the crank-part of the article has connection to reality, in as much as that Bearden and Vassilatos and the usual suspects may use the term in their stories about death ray, Soviet psychics, new world order and whatsnot.

What physical effect, if any, may be related is total guesswork, displacement current my favorite. Perhaps something can be found in Norrie, H. S., "Induction Coils: How to make, use, and repair them", Norman H. Schneider, 1907, New York. 4th edition and Electrical experimenter, January 1919. pg. 615, and perhaps not. That's a typical problem with articles by Reddi.

Pjacobi 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics template

Hello, there are many articles relevant to quantum physics. Could/should one wikiproject be created to cover everything about quantum physics? Maybe it is not a project I am talking about: what would be useful on all such articles would be a box on the right with links to all the main quantum articles (physicists, quantum laws and equations, experiments, etc). What's the procedure to create such a box? AugustinMa 05:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If such a sub-project is needed, it should also be a sub-project of the Chemistry project. A lot of Physics project tags have been placed on articles that are much more in the province of quantum chemistry than quantum physics. The two Projects need to work closer together. --Bduke 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See the notice above about "lack of communication between wikiprojects"? I would be against having a QM sub-project; discussion, notices, commentary and posting can be placed here or at chemistry, as needed. If for some reason, the QM discussions became over-whelmingly voluminous, then yes, that would be the time to fork a sub-project. linas 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. What I meant actually is not a sub-project but a quantum box template. AugustinMa 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend against this. See the discussion below on Template:QED. A template box for quantum mechanics may also be equally unwieldly. Dr. Submillimeter 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"{equivalent noise} resistance" or "equivalent {noise resistance}" ?

Nearly a year and nine months ago, at talk:equivalent noise resistance, I wrote:

Is this a "noise resistance" that is "equivalent", or is it a "resistance" corresponding to an "equivalent noise"? If the latter, I think it should be hyphenated, thus: equivalent-noise resistance; since that way it's unambiguous.

No one's answered yet! Can anyone answer? Michael Hardy 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a resistance, there is a tempreature, and there is a noise. They are all "equivalent" since always this amount of resistance produces at this temperature this amount of noise. So knowing two of them one can tell the third. So where is the ambiguity? Jim 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the following two:

• Given a noise temperature, there is a thing we may call equivalent noise, and what is described here is the resistance corresponding to that equivalent noise.
• There is a thing called noise resistance, which may in some way be equivalent to a noise temperature, and what is described here is the noise resistance equivalent to a given noise temperature.

 --Lambiam^Talk 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Peelbot

Peelbot is collecting things for the Wikiproject Physics and it collected Yttrium orthovanadate, Uranyl sulfate, Uranyl acetate, Uranium hexafluoride which I would put closer to chemistry than to physics!--Stone 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I also removed its additions to Talk:Cyclol, which is also more chemistry/biochemistry than physics. Willow 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; it does seem that I was a bit overzealous with tagging articles. I'm now in the process of checking through the tagged physics articles, and removing any that aren't physics. I also have one batch of ~2000 articles to tag, which I'll make sure are all definitely physics articles before setting the bot running. Mike Peel 12:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed at Articles for deletion

• Spatial Doppler effect (AfD discussion)

Note the two-month-old merger discussion on Talk:Spatial Doppler effect. Uncle G 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Full moon cycle on AfD

Full moon cycle has been nominated for deletion. The article has original research problems, and it simply seems unnoteworthy and esoteric at best. Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects was unable to muster enough people to comment on the article; additional help would be nice. Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of circle topics

The "Physics" section of the list of circle topics needs work! Please help add appropriate physics articles. Michael Hardy 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of astronomical topics

I have nominated list of astronomical topics for deletion. The list simply looks so large, so incomplete, and so unwieldly that it is no longer useful for anything.

I am posting this notice here because the overzealous Peelbot labeled this article as a WikiProject Physics article. Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects does exist and does work on astronomy-related articles. Dr. Submillimeter 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Thermodynamic Equations are unacceptable

I did a massive rewrite of the Thermodynamic equations page. Prior to the rewrite, it was a disorganized mess of random thermodynamic equations, some using undefined terms. I believe I brought some theoretical order to the page while retaining a great majority (but not all) of the equations. There are some people who prefer the hodge-podge and are threatening reversion unless a consensus indicates otherwise. I will be glad to modify the page to insert the missing equations inside the structure, if that is deemed necessary, but first could anyone interested please check out the situation and give an opinion? The discussions are on talk:Thermodynamic equations#Rewrite and a message on my talk page at User talk:PAR#Your edits to Thermodynamic Equations are unacceptable.. Thanks PAR 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FEU

The Fusion Energy Unit seems to be non-notable, if it exists at all. I'm tempted to put it up on AfD, but decided to post here instead as the article can just be reverted to the original redirect to Far Eastern University, which I think is still necessary. Opinions/appropriate facts? Mike Peel 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmhh... where is the support for frequent usage merits notation? A simple Google search only yields WP (and clones) articles on the first result page. Awolf002 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are meaning that the quantity that 1 FEU is supposed to represent is commonly used, and as such should be named. In other words, they're trying to name something and popularize its usage.

I'm reverting the article back to the redirect; if anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert my revert, and discuss either here or on the talk page of the article. Mike Peel 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute at Near and far field

There's some sort of accuracy dispute at Near and far field; the article as a whole seems to need loving care, and/or a merger with whatever other article might already cover this subject. linas 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

urgent

The image(not the article) at Pitch drop experiment is threaten with deletion on the grounds that it's replasable fair use image.Can you please go and put your thauts in the talk page of the image Image talk:Pitch drop experiment.jpg.--Bootstrapping 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to report that I was able to solve this simply and easily with just a short email. Much easier to fix things than complain about them and fight about them.--Filll 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuff?

A Dicorpo seems to be adding links to articles from this "journal" to multiple articles. In addition, he seems to be pushing a theory that is the subject of an AFD. Can someone with a bit more domain expertise have a look at his additions? --Charlesknight 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The strange vital needs article was turned into a redirect for basic needs, which is a sociology term. Dr. Submillimeter 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - what set off my crack-o-meter was that it was a theory that started with physics and then started talking about it proved how people love their mother or something like that. --Charlesknight 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like people are needed to deal with retrocausality. This article also starts with some physical explanations that then lead into descriptions of how matter has consciousness. (By the way, have people seen WP:BOLLOCKS? It features one of my favorite Japanese mythological characters.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... retrocausality seems to use the Klein-Gordon equation and then runs away with pretty unsusal speculations. This strikes me as OR, but I have not given up to find "something" about this that is verifiable. However, chances are that there is actually nothing "out there." What about syntropy? Anybody have an oppinion? Awolf002 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like syntropy is at best a seldom-used synonym for negentropy, which AFAIK is not itself a very common term. I suggest merging the physics-related stuff from syntropy into negentropy and devoting the syntropy article to the software-design method. Leave a notice at the top saying, "For the complex systems term syntropy, see negentropy." Anville 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AfDs

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercausality. --ScienceApologist 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the work I've done on retrocausality has brought it up to the appropriate standard to merit surviving. I'd appreciate the help of anyone with more thorough physics knowledge to do a better job detailing Feynman's positron model and Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, however, as I know my limits. Serpent's Choice 01:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Physics

Over the last couple of days I've been working on the Physics portal, trying to get it up to Featured Portal standard, and keep it there. If people are interested in helping, there's always lots of work that can be done. The most important thing is to check that all of the physics on there is correct. Additionally, I've got the "Selected article" and "Selected picture" sections rotating weekly, with a queue system similar that used for Featured Articles, and new suggestions/entries are always welcome. There's also the News and "Did you know" sections that need updating as often as possible. Finally, I've introduced a new "Anniversaries" section, which lists upcoming anniversaries of important events in physics history, and new entries for that would be appreciated. Have a look! Mike Peel 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Physics is now a Featured Portal candidate. Mike Peel 21:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

GurchBot 2 messed up our archives! But I have repaired them.

GurchBot 2 (talk · contribs) moved all archives with non-standard names to standarized names. E.g. changing "Archive12" to "Archive 12" and leaving a redirect behind. By so doing, GurchBot 2 has messed up the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and probably many others which use Werdnabot to archive their talk pages. It did not change the Werdnabot invocations to show the new file name for the current archive so Werdnabot added the archived material to the redirects which were left behind. Also, a minor point, GurchBot 2 did not change the archive lists to point at the new file names so they are now all going thru the redirects. This is a real mess. JRSpriggs 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have repaired this problem for the Mathematics Project and for the Physics Project, but the others will have to fend for themselves. I adjusted our Werdnbot invocation and list of archive file names to reflect the new names given to the files by GurchBot 2. JRSpriggs 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone in this WikiProject for messing up your archives. I intended to change the archive lists and werndabot instructions soon after running the bot, but Christmas got in the way. If anyone notices any other pages that are wrong, feel free to fix them; I will try to find time later today to fix things and everything should be OK within 24 hours – Gurch 12:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Equations: Original research and verifiability

I have started a policy discussion concerning how much an equation can be changed before it becomes original research on the talk page of WP:NOR. If this topic interests you, please let your opinion be known. Lunokhod 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move debate opinions needed

Hi everyone, user DIV, i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting the articles on these views. This has been going on now for seven months. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple Introduction

Some science articles are starting to produce introductory versions of themselves to make them more accessible to the average encyclopedia reader. You can see what has been done so far at special relativity, general relativity and evolution, all of which now have special introductory articles. These are intermediate between the very simple articles on Simple Wikipedia and the regular encyclopedia articles. They serve a valuable function in producing something that is useful for getting someone up to speed so that they can then tackle the real article. Those who want even simpler explanations can drop down to Simple Wikipedia. What do you think?--Filll 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! linas 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Include Simplicity -- A big problem with many of the Wiki scientific and technical articles (and most college science texts---why the Dummies series of books are far more useful to even the person of above average intelligence) is that they do not build from the simple to the complex starting from the level of someone having only a rudimentary or incomplete acquaintance with the subject-matter. Relying solely on links for terms is insufficient, particularly when the term-defining links are themselves heavy in jargon and poorly written. The point should be to inform people of varying degrees of foreknowledge of a subject, not to show off. An ability to express complex ideas in plain English (or whatever language)---something Isaac Asimov and Bertrand Russell were particularly good at---is essential if the community-at-large is the intended audience instead of just a small group of tekkies vying to express the limits of their various fields. And just to be clear: including simplicity does NOT mean excluding complexity.

Tmangray 09:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

System of Expansion G

Please some of you researchers can take care of my idea system of expansion G I need your help !!! is in the page below mechanical singularity. It is an original research!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.166.218 (talk • contribs).

The edits you made to Mechanical singularity about this, and indeed the whole concept, sound like original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If it is not original research, then you need to provide references to peer-reviewed journal articles for it to be included here (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Please read the linked-to pages before continuing editing. I hope that this doesn't put you off editing Wikipedia; you just need to make sure you're contributing appropriate material. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes is original I made that on my own is my idea and all lot of people know this!!!! I have evidence of this. I need somebody to be my partner in this .....it is going to be fantastico!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.166.218 (talk • contribs).

Again, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. If it is not original research, then you need to cite either peer-reviewed journal articles or books that discuss it. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I added "unreferenced" and "original research" warnings to mechanical singularity. Maybe an "article for deletion" tag should also be added. Dr. Submillimeter 13:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article existed before 71.192.166.218 (talk · contribs) added his material to it. And all the (allegedly original) material that he added has been removed. Linas (talk · contribs) removed your tags. JRSpriggs 02:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "original research" tag was appropriate. However, I put the "unreferenced" tag back in mechanical singularity because the article still does not contain any references. Dr. Submillimeter 13:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly original if this is an accuse against the originality of my work, make that clear ..... Do not worry I will never put it again. Pay a bit of respect ...put your name before accusing somebody when everybody knows that i made that. GIOVANNI PIEPOLI (talk • contribs).

To GIOVANNI PIEPOLI: (1) I suggest that you create a registered account with a user-id and password so that we can know for sure that the edits which appear to be by you are actually by you rather than by someone else. (2) I said "allegedly original" not to disparage your claim of originality, but simply to indicate that I have neither studied this material nor the literature on this subject, so I cannot vouch for its originality myself. And I did sign my message. JRSpriggs 04:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BSTJ_papers as AfD

I have listed BSTJ_papers as an AfD based on WP:NOT#DIR. (I accidentally listed the article without logging in; the timeout of logins trips me up over and over again.) The information in BSTJ_papers is freely available on, for example, scholar.google.com. I see no need to reprint the table of contents of journals in WP. Since the papers are largely about physics, I thought that the participants here might care to comment. Alison Chaiken 07:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be nothing more than a overwhelmingly large list of journal papers. "The Bell System Technical Journal contains thousands of technical papers." I strongly encourage people to vote to delete this one. (I can only imagine how much worse it would be for an older journal, such as the Astrophysical Journal.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is now FAC

Hi, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be a Featured article candidate. Hopefully, you all think that the article is excellent and can support it. ;) But if not, please offer constructive criticisms on how it might be improved, which will be much appreciated. Thanks very much for your help and keep the fingers crossed! Willow 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)