User talk:Djr32

WikiProject Physics
Hi, I noticed that you spent some time giving ratings to many physics articles, so I want to thank you for that. You might also be interesting in joining WikiProject Physics. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

purpler123
I am a new user and thus need some advice on editing, can you give me any? Purpler123 (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Basic QM
Thank you for changes made to the Basic Quantum Mechanics article. If the errors in this article can be fixed it will give people a useful overview of the subject.

I just noticed that the section on Uncertainty principle still contains errors. If you will fix them, maybe your changes will stick.

Thanks.P0M (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Basics" article
You fixed a serious error. "In 1927, German physicist[Werner Heisenberg]] discovered a discrepancy between the measured position of a particle and its measured momentum." The facts are still not completely clear to me. I haven't done the research. But it appears that Heisenberg saw, as soon as he had the "rules for multiplication" (given in equation (10) in the Aitchison article), that there would be a difference in the results produced by applying these rules. My guess would be that he did not see that the difference would turn out to be ih/2π. The h/2π part almost shouts "quantum mechanics fundamental whatchmaycallit," and all he saw at the time he handed his paper over to Born was that there was a "difficulty." Born says he first recognized that the Heisenberg equation that is the "rule for multiplication" was the recipe for writing out a matrix, and then he says he immediately realized what the difference between any xy and yx matrix multiplications were going to be. (His math sense must have been amazingly powerful if, as it appears, he just "saw" this result.) That all occurred within the span of a month or so. Whose discovery it was is probably the wrong question, in a way, because the group working with Niels Bohr always collaborated very closely. It was there in essence in the original equations, so Heisenberg would have figured it out eventually, but he entrusted his work to Born to help get it ready for publication and Born spotted the result "just lying there." Whatever happened between then and two years later probably involved lots of conversations among group members. I know that Bohr did not want Heisenberg to publish the "Heisenberg's microscope" stuff. It was basically using classical physics to prove that classical physics would not let one get both position and momentum.

Anyway, the numerical value of h/2π is so tiny that I doubt that anybody would have been able to sort it out from experimental error. A good statistician could probably calculate how many qp measurements and pq measurements, performed under "identical" conditions, would be required to get averaged values so precise that they would end up showing such a tiny difference. In other words the experimental k in pq-qp= x ± k would have to be even smaller than h/2π.

I have not even been able to find experimental or theoretical values for anything other than the intensities of the visual part of the bright line spectrum of hydrogen.

I think it would be better if I stayed out of editing the Basic article because any involvement will likely be resented by its creator. But I appreciate your efforts to make it more accurate. As a teenage "nerd" I got seriously messed up in my thinking about physics by some of the "books for boys" kinds of things that I read. I was much better off when I stuck with George Gamow, and, amazingly, Einstein wrote clearly for the average well-informed reader, never took readers in over their heads, and never wrote anything that would be guaranteed to mislead the unsuspecting reader. Heisenberg is a good writer too. P0M (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LISA Article
Thanks for redirecting the Laser Interferometry Space Antenna article to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. . . I found it through "gravitational wave detector" and didn't notice the slight wording difference in the LISA acronym. I was wondering why there wasn't much detail in the former article for a relatively well-known NASA project. Chikinsawsage (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Point particle talk page
Hi. I was wondering if you could come over to the Point particle talk page. I noticed you have an entry there from 2008. Maybe you can read the latest discussion that is taking place and add your point of view to it, and perhaps add to the article itself. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to quantum mechanics
It's great that you've organized the article and are managing to merge it with the Basics article. There's just one minor thing: I think there should be some sort of summary, if only one or two paragraphs, at the top of the section "How the unexpected came to light". The section is rather long at this point (maybe it should be split off?), which makes it difficult for readers to skim. Strad (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I might have got rid of that section entirely by now! Djr32 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical_mechanics_task_force
Talk:Classical_mechanics

Proposed deletion of Turbulence modeling


The article Turbulence modeling has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Page has multiple issues. Information on page is already contained on pages such as computational fluid dynamics, turbulence, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, large eddy simulation, etc. Deletion of this page will prevent information creep, scattered information, and redundant efforts related to Wikipedia's coverage of turbulence and turbulence modeling. See Talk page for a vote on this issue.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I noticed you edited this page, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. You can vote on this at the Turbulence models talk page. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Herbig-Haro object FAR
Hi Djr32 - Are you interested in working on the issues brought up in the FAR for this article (the review page can be found at Featured article review/Herbig–Haro object/archive1)? It has moved to the FARC section, which is where keep/delist declarations are made, but if there is an editor willing to work on the article we can keep the review open longer to allow adequate time for improvement. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deposition (chemistry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deposition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reclassification of Lene Hau page
Hi Djr32, thanks for visiting the page, but I cannot agree with your reason for reclassifying it as mid importance "(Updated class and importance for WikiProject Physics. (importance=mid - high importance generally used for Nobel prize winners))". Two things - the Nobel in Physics is often awarded 40 years or so after a discovery is made (eg. Charles Townes and the laser), and there are many important contributions that would not be marked "top" or "high" if one went only by whether a Nobel had been given. Satyendra Nath Bose, after whom the boson is named, and who with Einstein formed the theory of Bose-Einstein condensation never even won a Nobel, a point of great consternation within Indian Physics. Note that Wolfgang Ketterle won a Nobel for actually making the condensate. Secondly, Hau's work literally turned classical physics on it's head by achieving something thought to be impossible, viz. stopping light. So much new work and research has flowed from her initial work (EIT, Nanotech, quantum processing, optics) that I cannot see how this work can be classified as anything but "top" or at the least "high" importance. Could you please reconsider. Thanking you Ybidzian (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Representation theory of the Lorentz group
Hi!

You have recently assessed the importance and quality of Representation theory of the Lorentz group. I fully agree that mid-importance and C-class are appropriate.

Do you have concrete suggestions for improvement?

I have been involved in the part about finite-dimensional representations. I have ideas, but I'd like to hear somebody else's opinion on what should be addressed for further improvement of the article. YohanN7 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really have much I can suggest - all I was really in a position to do was judge that it looked believable and seemed to have some decent references, which is enough for C class. Perhaps making it a bit more approachable to non-experts?  Djr32 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Star of Caledonia
The new sculpture's design pays tribute to James Clerk Maxwell. Because of this link, this is why I added it to the Physics WikiProject. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 22:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see... I'm still not sure I'd include it, but I don't feel strongly either way so if you put it back then I won't object.  Djr32 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think it is more than a tenuous link but importance is low. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, go for it. Djr32 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to assess the article? Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 23:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to cover the physics fine, but I'm really not qualified to judge an article about a public work of art, sorry! Djr32 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant Wikipedia assessment, not your own personal opinion unless I've misread something. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Matter wave clocks
Hi, you deleted my reference to matter wave clocks from the article on matter waves, on the grounds that it was unreferenced and irrelevant. I can easily provide a reference, but can you please explain why a "matter wave clock" is not a valid subtopic of the "matter wave"? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see my comment in Talk:Matter wave clock? I explained my reasoning there.  (A link in the edit comment would have helped - sorry!)  Djr32 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thank you. That makes sense now. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion
On this talk page (in 2010) you said, "I looked at the conference paper you mention - section 2.1 on Gryzinski's atomic physics alleges that the entire scientific establishment is conspiring to trick the world into believing in quantum mechanics" (It's at the bottom of the diff). Well, this article is now up for deletion per AfD.

Although I am impressed by Gryzinski's body of work being published in top tier physics journals, after seeing your comment on the talk page I am thinking maybe I need to be less impressed. I am wondering if you would care to say more about this, but I don't know what I am looking for. In your opinion, is this person's work to be trusted (for one thing)? If you have anything else I am interested. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well that takes me back! I remember the discussion from 6 years ago, and my view is still as I said on Headbomb's talk page back then: "Gryzinski was a real academic, and he seems to have made some notable contributions to atom-atom scattering theory back in the 50's, but I can't tell to what extent the free-fall model overlaps with this (at least without doing all the work of following up the references that the original editor should have done) vs being a crank theory that he developed late in life."


 * I'll try to write something more in the AfD in the next few days, but I think it's the usual problem with fringey theories - without a secondary source like a textbook we can't really tell where the boundary between mainstream work and this theory are, so the top-tier publications aren't definitive to me, and anyway the lack of secondary sources mean that the issues with the theory (i.e. why it's been ignored rather than replacing the Schrodinger model) aren't adequately covered. Djr32 (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)