Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alex Wissner-Gross

I do not want to be the annoying guy, but have you had a look at the article? For me relevance is not clear. Further the article has only 1 unknown author... Please have a look at it.--92.204.54.143 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

With a GS h-index of on;y 5 this BLP would be unlikely to survive WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC).
After a bit of digging around, I have to agree. Nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

March meeting

Any editors at March Meeting want to grab a beer or meet up at some point? a13ean (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th!!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you posting advertisements for your journals here? Is this specific to wikis or do you think that just because we might be able to use them to edit some articles that it's relevant? I think this is one of the reasons I don't like this "conflict of interest statement" nonsense. You say you're doing advertising so you get a free pass? Or maybe you're giving us useful information but then you get criticized because you're getting paid for it. Nonsense I say, nonsense. If you think it's interesting information write it in such a way that it explains why we should care, and if we do actually care why do we care whether or not you're being paid to give us information we should want? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@0x0077BE: I'm having a hard time understanding your objections to this post. The main purpose for the free access is to promote coverage of women scientists in Wikipedia (see this newspaper article), which is certainly relevant to this wikiproject, particularly the Biographies, Publications and History Taskforce. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Eh, not a big objection, I just wanted to push back a little because it's very obviously an advertisement and the relevance as written above is tenuous. There's a Wikipedia edit-a-thon, which if we were going to we would already have known about, and journal access is free those two days. It could easily be construed that the royal society feels it is "buying" the right to advertise their journals here by holding an event in which Wikipedia is edited, or simply because it's a targeted ad that people here might find useful. I'm probably over-reacting (which, again, is another reason why I hate COI statements - it biases me against the person writing the text), but I'd rather not have APS in here next month telling us that we can sign up for a free week of journal access with offer code WIKIPHYS so that we can work on our physics articles more easily. Surely it's relevant but I'm not sure that it's the right forum. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 23:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
When it gets to the point that we can't move in here for learned societies opening up their journals for free access then No, wait, that would be a sufficiently good thing for the world that I'd be happy to see us take the hit here. Djr32 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

MfD for fringe physics theories in user pages

As Wikipedia is not a free webhost, how about nominating some of the fringe theories that are maintained in user pages to deletion? Just searching for "theory of everything" in user namespace reveals dozens of non-contributing editors who are only using WP to host their original research or fringe theories. I have started with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tfleming111/Sandbox, could someone who knows about modern physics participate to this deletion discussion? It might benefit from expert opinions. Also Special:Contributions/Kuantan and Special:Contributions/Pmomentum (not yet in WP:MFD) need evaluation for their contributions' suitableness for encyclopedia. jni (delete)...just not interested 07:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And also
Would benefit from expert help. These are almost certainly just crackpot junk but some of my nominations got challenged by original author, so any outside editors joining to these discussions would be nice! jni (delete)...just not interested 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Further:

Second Quantization (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now created a deletion nomination Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pmomentum for the junk science and WP:STALEDRAFT's of Special:Contributions/Kuantan and Special:Contributions/Pmomentum, which are almost certainly a same user. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Mirror symmetry (string theory)

Hello,

I just wanted to let everyone know that the article mirror symmetry (string theory) is currently a featured article candidate. It would be great if some of the physicists on Wikipedia could review the article. If you're interested, you can leave a comment on this page. Instructions for reviewers can be found here. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict at Bending on slow brew

Some time ago I added the Continuum Mechanics navbox to Bending. Another editor has removed it and tried replacing it with various other compromises. In my opinion, I think he/she doesn't quite understand how navboxes work, but before this turns into a slow edit war, if someone neutral can pop in there and do a sanity check for me, I'd much appreciate it. The relevant section of the talk page is here. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE suggests discussing any changes to the template on its talk page, which is normally correct, but no one seems to be paying attention to that page. So I'll comment on it here. I think that the subject is too broad for a sidebar, but would make a good navbox for the bottom of the page. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Electromagnetic induction/Faraday's law demerger/CFORK

There's an attempt going on over at Electromagnetic induction to try to separate out Faraday's law of induction from it.

Unfortunately it's basically an ongoing WP:CFORK.

The overall problem is that Faraday's law was derived empirically to describe electromagnetic induction, the equation needs to be in both articles, and there's no way to cleanly disentangle them.

There's no difference in the history, the history of electromagnetic induction is the history of Faraday's law.

There's no difference in applications, the applications of electromagnetic induction is the history of application of Faraday's law.

The equation of course is the same.

Everything is the same.

The only argument they've made is that 'Faraday's Law' "deserves" it's own article; but there's no material to back that up. If the electromagnetic induction article was too big, we'd try to think of some bodge, but it's nothing like to big; it's only 15k of readable text.GliderMaven (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Faraday's law should get its own article indeed, as it is a more focused topic than that of induction in general. Taking a look at the talk page, the de-merging of the topic has consensus. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@GliderMaven: It doesn't have to be a size-based split if it's an independently notable subject, so I really don't think, "There's not enough material [right now] for both articles" is a good example. Unless one or more of the subjects by themselves is inherently small and not likely to be expanded, then it's OK to split them. It seems to me that notable physical laws should have their own articles independent of the article on the broader concept. I've said this before, but I'm in favor of creating stubs over deleting and waiting for article creation - stubs are listed in numerous places for expansion and I think people are more likely to expand a stub than to either create an article or especially in cases like this, to dramatically expand a subsection to the point that it provokes a fork. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, there isn't any broader topic in fact different people have tried to argue which one is broader; but they're actually the same topic within any sensible definition of 'same'. It's the same as 'Newtonian motion' and 'Newton's laws of motion' except that nobody has been silly enough to create the first article, unlike with electromagnetic induction/Faraday's law of induction POV split.GliderMaven (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an article on Motion, which is the analogous "broader topic". They're clearly not the "same topic" in that one is about a law which describes the nature of the other. Discussions of the law are thus a subset of discussions of the broader topic (i.e. you can talk about induction without ever mentioning Faraday's law of induction, but not the other way around). The question is whether the law is independently notable, which many people seem to think it is. In any case, that's all beside the point that I was making, which was that the fact that sufficient material does not exist yet for two articles is irrelevant to whether they should be two articles, unless you are arguing that it's a size-based split (which no one on the other side is arguing). 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Motion is not the same topic as Newtonian motion. You're perfectly allowed to have different articles on different, even similar topics. But you're not allowed two articles on the same topic like this.GliderMaven (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You said i.e. you can talk about induction without ever mentioning Faraday's law of induction, but not the other way around but this is absolutely and completely 100% false. You cannot cover electromagnetic induction without Faraday's law, because the academic knowledge of induction IS Faraday's law. GliderMaven (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
How about Pendulum vs. Pendulum (mathematics)? That's a separation similar to the one suggested here. And more generally, how about WP:DEADHORSE? This discussion is going nowhere. Better do something else for a while and let people flesh out the two articles. Then see if it's really as bad as you expect it now. — HHHIPPO 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No, unlike this, the pendulum thing is perfectly legitimate, they've put the relatively long derivations of the equations in the second article, and the first article is too long to include them; the policy is that you break up articles when they get too long. Faraday's law is an empirical law, there's no derivations like that and the article doesn't need breaking up it's not long.
And it's already much worse than I'd hoped. The quality of the articles have dropped markedly since they have been split. Hogbin has randomly divided the material between the two articles with no rhyme or reason, I think just to hide the fact that they're the same topic. There is and was absolutely no consistent plan. For example the article that gets four times the traffic has only the complicated equations in it that require calculus or numerical solution, whereas the simple equations are now only in the Faraday law article. So most people don't get the simple equations (which are actually more useful and more likely to be the equation they're referring to Wikipedia for.)
This has only happened to try to pretend that they are different articles, but they are not. This is WP:POINT. The point they're trying to make is that it is thought that Faraday's law is independently notable from electromagnetic inductance, and vice versa. It is very obvious that they are different topics; but very wrong. If you google 'electromagnetic induction' you will always get Faraday's law and vice versa. The pages will always cover both together. The same thing happens in textbooks. If they were independent topics that wouldn't happen.GliderMaven (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Amusingly, there seems to be no consensus that there is no consensus (or that there is consensus (or whatever (at least there is no consensus that there is consensus))). Don't think this will end any time soon. YohanN7 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Should you not be talking about Faraday's law of induction rather than Faraday's law which is just a disambiguation page? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
fixed.GliderMaven (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 10/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kapitza Number. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Entropy of entanglement

According to [1] there is no entropy of entanglement as a standalone expression. It is simply the Von Neumann entropy. In my opinion the articles should be merged under Von Neumann entropy --92.204.35.145 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ion thruster

In the second paragraph article: "Ion thrusters' exhaust velocity are often in the range of 15–50 kilometres per second (1,500–5,100 s), and will have a specific thrust usually below a newton per tonne. Thruster efficiency may reach 60–80%."

But Input power: 1 to 7 kilowatts Exhaust velocity: 20 to 50 kilometers per second Thrust: 20 to 250 millinewtons Efficiency: 60 to 80 percent. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Partons

This edit [2] is contrary to my understanding of how the field developed, doesn't seem to me to make sense just in terms of parsing the sentence (how can a model be an energy?) and in particular replaces the words in the sentence without changing the citation. I've also removed the same text from the parton shower article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

On further inspection, the parton shower article appears to be a content fork of the parton (particle physics) article. I've marked it for merging. -- The Anome (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Estakhr Constant

Dear physics experts: Here's an old abandoned Afc submission that appears to be relevant to this project. It will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Crank rubbish. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
Say! It almost sounds as if you didn't like it. I have nominated it for deletion. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Continuum mechanics

Template:Continuum mechanics has been nominated for merging with Template:Topics in continuum mechanics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Multiverse article

Since my English is not good, I copy the criticism included in http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6758). My comments are betwen []

I happened to take a look today at the Wikipedia entry for Multiverse, which is an outrageously one-sided promotional piece for pseudo-science.

It’s hard to know where to start with a document like this, and I’ve neither the time nor the Wikipedia expertise to start trying to edit it to something sensible (at this point I’d suggest that the most sensible edit would be to remove the whole thing).

I include just a couple of random examples of problems with the entry. The “criticism” section has little actual criticism, just some mild comments from Ellis and Davies, together with positive quotes from them about the multiverse as a research program. Nothing from Gross or Steinhardt, for instance. Much of the “criticism” section is actually defense of the multiverse. [Some points addressed have been corrected. However, the fact that the "criticism" section is about supporting the multiverse hypothesis speaks volumes about the lack of the objectivity of the article]

There’s a good case to be made that I pay too much attention to popular media nonsense about the multiverse. Unfortunately Wikipedia is taken a lot more seriously by the public than magazine stories. At this very moment, hundreds of high school students may be copying material out of it for their assigments… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.32.68.232 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is that it is structured around a word as opposed to a concept. Multiverse can refer to a multitude of ideas which only bear superficial similarities to each other. As a particular example, the many-worlds interpretation (a link to which sits at the top of the lead) doesn't have anything to do with physically real parallel universes that "split" (as noted here), and so linking to it right at the start is misleading, and talking about the "quantum multiverse" is even more misleading. In general, the article has too large a scope and as a consequence trips over itself. Some sections appear to fall into the very same trap that so many popularised accounts of theoretical physics fall into: presenting highly speculative ideas as established fact. -Anagogist (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute at Interpretations of quantum mechanics

There is a content dispute/edit war at Interpretations of quantum mechanics over whether the Cosmological interpretation, also called the Teichmuller interpretation, should be added to the list of "important" interpretations. Would appreciate additional opinions to try to reach consensus. See Talk:Interpretations of quantum mechanics#Adding wacky interpretations. Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 06:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Energy operator

Please check this article. In the german physics project the opinion is that it is nothing else than the hamilton operator.--92.204.117.27 (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This should be merged into Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics). — HHHIPPO 10:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
From the article:
The first equation is plain wrong. It would be true if the second equation held for all Ψ, but it doesn't. In other words, the energy operator and the Hamiltonian operator aren't the same operator. YohanN7 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
In what situation is the Hamiltonian operator not the Energy operator? That seems to contradict the Schrödinger equation: . 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The Schrödinger equation filters out the physically admissible Ψ from a larger set of functions (usually taken as the set of square-integrable functions with continuous partial derivatives if i recall correctly). YohanN7 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
To put in another way, the Schrödinger equation would be empty without content if the two operators were the same. (Would be like saying 2 = 2, true but quite pointless.) YohanN7 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
In general, in classical mechanics the Hamiltonian is not the total energy. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, section 2-6 towards the end of the section has the details. Basically, if (1) the generalized coordinates defining the Lagrangian have no explicit time dependence and (2) the potential is velocity independent, then one can identify the Hamiltonian with the total energy. But in general no. For quantum mechanics, the same reasoning holds. In general, the full time-dependent Schrodinger equation needs to be used. --Mark viking (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
YohanN7 is correct. Energy is the time-component of momentum (negated). The Hamiltonian is a function of the other things to which the energy must be equal for the equations of motion to be fulfilled. If we made the equations treat time like a spatial dimension, then for a single particle
holds on-shell where
because
JRSpriggs (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

Aurora (astronomy)

Currently we have the article Aurora (astronomy) which seems to deal exclusively with the Earth. Do we have a more generalized article covering aurora in other places? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. There is a section for Jupiter and a bare mention for Saturn. The name Aurora (astronomy) is a misnomer if it doesn't cover them. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Aurora will soon be renamed to plain "aurora" freeing up "(astronomy)" for a generalized article. As some research has already gone into exoplanet aurorae, a generalized article can be created, with judicious splitting and summarizing from the Earthly article. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The article has moved, so we can start on the general article -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But the section Aurora (astronomy)#On other planets does talk about other planets; the article is not exclusive to earth. --Mark viking (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The format of the article is Earth-bound, that section is like many other articles' mentions of similar things in other places, a type of "see also"/comparative. It doesn't really "cover" other places. Those other planets are compared to Earth instead of being dealt with as their own aurora. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plasmonic Filters

Dear physics experts: Here's another of those old abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable topic, and should it be kept and improved rather than being deleted as a stale draft? I know that this should probably be reported as well at one of the applied science projects, but in my ignorance I don't know which one. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The topic seems just about notable, but as far as I can see the three content sections of the article are at least close paraphrasing, with quite some literal copying, from the three sources cited. I don't think that can be fixed without re-writing the article from scratch. — HHHIPPO 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Boussinesq type equation

Because of the subject overlap of Boussinesq type equation with Boussinesq approximation (water waves), it is proposed to merge the former into the latter. Your input on the proposed merger is highly appreciated; the discussion on this is taking place here. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:RonaldDuncan/Shouryya Ray

Notable person or not? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In a word, no. What did this Shouryya Ray actually achieve which is notable and influential? M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Well he did win a national-level youth science competition - though the popular press did over-hype the significance of his entry. So even if he isn't notable in terms of the hard science considerations, some mainstream press coverage does exist - unfortunately I can't read German so some of the sources are not accessible to me. Maybe this project isn't the most appropriate to seek an opinion but I have no idea where else to ask. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that the BLP is unlikely to pass an AfD on the basis of WP:Prof, the policy guidelines for people contributing to research and scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

He may be a very bright kid way ahead of his peers and won some award(s), and that's great - I'm not disregarding his achievement. But this alone does not make him notable for WP. Genius' or prodigy's appear any time - they only know a lot of stuff which is already known. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Having slept over it, I think declining it per WP:BLP1E is the fairest decision. All the press coverage is about him winning the science prize. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 25th and 26th !!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am again pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 25th and 26th. This is in conjunction with the Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon on 25 March. The event is held by the Royal Society and there are currently a couple of places available, as well as online participation which is very welcome, as are suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Diversity in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 25th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 26th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events in May, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 24/03

User:MurrayatFTPI/Keith Olive. Notable under WP:ACADEMIC? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You could check if he passes WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

AfC submission - 25/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Founders Award. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends a little on how "local" or "global" the award is. And to be frank, how much $$$$. Some awarded people have own articles. YohanN7 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization of Magnetometers

I am proposing a reorganization of Magnetometers at Talk:Magnetometer#Organization. I would be interested in your feedback. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

A few weeks ago, I nominated the article mirror symmetry (string theory) for FA status. So far, I've managed to get one editor to give a very thorough review of the article, but I'm worried that the nomination will be closed if there aren't any more reviews.

Mirror symmetry is a topic in pure mathematics that was originally discovered by physicists studying string theory. It's somewhat more of a math topic than a physics topic, but I'd love to get some physicists to read the article and leave comments here. You don't have to be an expert to help out; in fact, I'd really like to know if laypeople find the article accessible.

Thanks for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vito Latora. Notable academic? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP is in an inadequate stub state at present and is too early for creation. You could see if he would pass WP:Prof#C1 yourself by looking at his entry in Google scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Merge List of moment of inertia tensors and List of moments of inertia

This may have been proposed before and seem trivial, but it needs consensus to prevent controversy. Should these not be merged? The "list of tensors" article simply gives trivial results from the "scalar" MOI article. If we have a list of MOIs, it should include all the general cases of tensors, with those cases that effectively reduce to scalars. Any objections? M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 09:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been proposed before at Talk:List of moments of inertia#Merge List of moment of inertia tensors and there was no consensus. Technically you're right--take the tensor, project along an axis and you get a scalar moment of inertia, so they are all closely related. But pedagogically, kids learn about scalar moments of inertia in high school and those presentations may not even involve calculus, much less vectors and tensors. So it would be nice to be able to keep the list accessible to someone who just wants to look up the MOI for a disk or sphere and not have to be confused by this tensor business. Hence I support a merge if the simple stuff can be kept simple. --Mark viking (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Franz Josef Giessibl

Hello physics experts: I accepted this article about a notable physicist. It needs some reorganization, since some items that are listed as references might be better in a list of selected publications or in external links. Someone more familiar with physics than I am may be able to fix this up. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 31/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabor Wavelet. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_March_2014&oldid=1136048781"