Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive November 2015

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

Bremstralung radiation

Bremstralung was moved to Bremstralung radiation, is this a good article title? --Stone (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
No - the spelling is wrong (should be Bremsstrahlung). RockMagnetist(talk) 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected the spelling. It is now at Bremsstrahlung radiation. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with an AfC draft?

I'm going to cut/paste this to three boards, so it'll be the same on each. Long story short, there's an article at AfC entitled Draft:Geophysical signal analysis. It was previously declined as reading like a report/essay, so it could use some help from someone familiar with the topic. It looks like it should be a notable topic, so I just want someone experienced with the topic to ensure that everything is in order (since I am not familiar with this at all). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been moved into article space, and definitely needs work. Sometimes the editor doesn't seem to have a clue what they are talking about, especially when it comes to gravity. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mis-links to Repulsion

Been going through what mis-links to Repulsion (the film) and found a few articles with what looks like repulsion (physics) or repulsion (chemistry). Are these just the same as Repulsion (magnetism)? or something that needs adding to Repulsion (disambiguation)?? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I linked the first three to Coulomb's law and the last one to Cohesion (chemistry). None of these had anything to do with magnetism. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Ask someone who knows :) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:JRSpriggs: found another mislink to the Roman Polanski film at South Atlantic Anomaly, temporarily changed it to repulsion (magnetism) per sentence but as non-science editor, am now thinking repulsion (magnetism) needs expunging from Repulsion (disambiguation) page? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well in this new case, it does seem to do with magnetism. Although it is more complicated than just magnetic south repelling magnetic south or magnetic north repelling magnetic north. The ions spiraling around lines of force in the Van Allen radiation belts create an effective magnetic field, like a solenoid, which is repelled by the Earth's permanent magnet. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Science

Slow Science has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Slow Science -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A request from a college physics professor active on Wikiversity

Hi-

If you go to Wikiversity:User:Guy vandegrift you will see that I have been very active on Wikiversity. For example, I am attempting to construct an open source bank of physics questions on Wikiversity:Quizbank/Index. I chose to work on Wikiversity because "Wikipedia is not a ... textbook. With 21 refereed physics articles under my belt I have no great urge to publish, but I do occasionally spot edit Wikipedia, and have even contributed to foreign wikis through diagrams (see fr:Zéro_absolu#Histoire for my image showing how the ideal gas law lead to the concept of absolute zero years before the era of cryogenics).

I was quite happy to develop Wikiversity, knowing that it might someday grow to become significant (and if it doesn't, at least I tried...). That all changed when I discovered Wikipedia:Wiki Ed. That extension permits instructors to incorporate Wikipedia/Wikiversity into teaching at unparalleled levels. As explained at v:Wikiversity:Education extension, we are unable to import this resource into Wikiversity. If this decision to exclude Wikiversity cannot be reversed, I will probably have to transplant all my efforts to Wikipedia.

Among all the sciences, education in Physics seems least compatible with a traditional view of Wikipedia. This is because:

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."

Encyclopedias are for stamp collectors. Physics professors need to do "F=ma" with and without calculus, then using classical Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics, and finally via Ehrenfest's theorem and the geodesics of General Relativity. I'm sure it's possible to link these together as Wikipedia articles, but I made the decision to instead focus on the first year courses that I teach each year.

The people at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed would gladly let me use their extension if I can find a way to use it to improve Wikipedia. Can you help me? Here is what I do:

  • Wikiversity:Physics equations is an equation sheet to accompany my open source testbank. I wrote software that writes banks of questions with randomized numbers in wikitext in a way that permits pdf files to printed out with page breaks.
  • I have two conceptual courses, Astronomy and something called "How things work" (sort of a physics-for-poets course that emphasizes technology). I am writing testbanks for these courses, but will never be very good courses until we can find a way to get the kids to write (which was what attracted me to Wikipedia:Wiki Ed in the first place).

So finally here is my request

  1. Is there a category of physics, astronomy, and technology articles called "pedagogical" that would allow short conceptual explanations, accompanied by practice multiple choice exam questions?
  2. Is there a category of such articles that would permit the concepts of college physics to be presented in a fashion more useful for our calculus and trig based first year college physics courses?
  3. If neither category exists, could some be created so that I could begin to contribute articles to it and thereby convince Wiki Ed to let me teach through their extension?

Don't rush to get this done. I'm still hoping that Wikipedia:Wiki Ed will allow Wikiversity to use their extension.

Thanks for listening (reading) --Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I suppose you could create an Introduction to ... article for each topic. If you're thinking of incorporating Quiz or Q&A sections into articles themselves, that's not possible -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That is an interesting idea. See update and link below.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: I am happy to report that WikiEd accepted my course at
In an email to me they extended to me the freedom to also develop Wikiversity materials on their extension, provided I also make contributions to Wikipedia. I intend to reciprocate this good faith by ensuring that every project on this extension is be designed to improve Wikiversity. A forum for discussing this topic is at v:Wikiversity:Education_extension#Discussion--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_November_2015&oldid=699555784"