User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2008/May

Follow current literature
Headbomb, thanks for your vote. I am not married to any of the details in the text—only the general principle. So long as the details don’t end up being so ambiguous that any editor can do anything they want (and will), then I’m fine with it. I’m looking forward to writing collaboratively ;-) with you to craft language that we supporters agree is the best way to accomplish the goal. Greg L (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Relation between isospin and up and down quark content
Hi Headbomb, This section seems to be confusing spin with I-spin. While the particle-quark-contents are accurate, the notes about quark I-spin alignment are every confusing. I am new here so I don't want to change it if that is not the right protocal. Should I change it in the live article or try to create some discussion on the matter?--Vectorboson (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually you can change things right away if you KNOW that what you'll write is accurate, and that there's nothing on that talk pages concerning the changes you'll make. I'm sort of new here too (only been serious for a month) so I'm not a pro at things either. I usually bring stuff to the talk page first if I'm not sure of what I'm saying, and if no one replies withing a day or two, I make the changes I had in mind. But I have some questions about that topic myself so I say start a discussion in the talk page and I'll head there after you.

BTW, I'm no expert on particle physics, so it's very possible the the section I wrote on isospin is not as accurate or clear as it could be.Headbomb (talk · contribs) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. But as you can see Im not good at wikiscript yet. The term I am calling Iz should be a capital "I" and subscript = lower-case "z". If you can tell me how to do that I will fix it. --Vectorboson (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make the edits to clean it up and merge with some of the old text I still find usefull. There are two ways I know of to make superscrits and lowerscripts. Either use A$B$ or AB to write AB. To write AB, either use A$B$ or AB .Headbomb (talk · contribs) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW if you haven't found the particle data group pages yet, it is a worthwhile resource for you

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/quarkmodrpp.pdf

...is especially pertinent to your current projects.--Vectorboson (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh! I see you are a follower of the Skeptikoi  -- and I applaud you for that.. However if there are any who dispute the ACCURACY of my changes, I encourage you to be equally skeptical! On the other hand, I never claimed my information to be pertinent or interesting.--Vectorboson (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Not) archiving the talk page of "List of baryons"
See Talk page guidelines and Help:Archiving a talk page. You deleted several sections of Talk:List of baryons without putting them into an archive (as far as I can see). This is not normal procedure here. Please do not delete messages from any talk page without archiving unless it is clearly: libel, vandalism, a mistake, your own message to which no reply has been made, your own talk page (i.e. this very page), or irrelevant nonsense. Even if the question has been disposed, people may want to refer back to it later. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Third attempt
Hello Headbomb, It looks like we were editing at the same time. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your constructive contribution. (It was getting a bit lonely out there). The downside is that the structure is a little unclear now. If you don't mind I'd like to present them as parallel proposals and see how people react to them. What do you think? Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section 4 is just way too long and should be re-written entirely. I'll comment on the MOSNUM shortly.Headbomb (&tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; · &kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&rho;&iota;&beta;&sigmaf;) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM
Headbomb, I've had a look and am totally confused as to what is what. The text I see in all of the coloured boxes needs copy-editing. Which one is /ones are the serious ongoing proposal(s)?

My other issue is that the text should be as short as possible, whereas there seems to have been a rather-too-expansive approach, right from the original contented green box. TONY  (talk)  08:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The greenbox I'm talking about is located in the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I should note that ALL are serious proposals. Greenbox covers everything not related to IEC prefixes. Bluebox will be the new section on Scientific notation/Uncertainties, and the. Purplebox is the section that aims to resolve the IEC prefixe debates once and for all. Each box are independent proposals.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Baryons
Salut, I replied on the talk page to list of baryons.

You also asked: I couldn't find a single book that could explain isospin or lie algebra starting from a fundamental reality or a fundamental concept. Let me take a shot.


 * 1) You need to have to study more math to get these, but they're not hard.
 * 2) isospin is mathematically identical to ordinary quantum spin. Since you are a grad student, I presume you have a decent grasp of spin now. From the physics point of view, isospin is just ... not in our 3D space, but in a differnt space.... but its still just a kind of spin.
 * 3) to understand lie algebras, you need to understand lie groups. To understand lie groups, you need to understand SU(2) and O(3), the rotation group etc. but if you are a physics student, you should have a good idea of rotations already.
 * Rotations yes, groups no. Mathematicians do not write to be understood.


 * 1) the group SU(2) is isomorphic to a 3-sphere. its a surface. its a manifold. The tangent plane to this manifold is the Lie algebra su(2). That's it.  its a tangent 3-plane. Its three-dimensional. The basis vectors for this 3D space are the pauli matrices.
 * 2) SU(2) and su(2) are just special cases. There are other lie groups and algebras. Basically, any set of n by n matrices, closed under multiplication, form a lie group. That's all. Nothing fancy.
 * Speaking chinese.


 * 1) lie algebras are always just the tangent space to the group, and nothing more.
 * Speaking chinese.


 * 1) Lie algebras (and groups) have representations: for example, "real-world" matricies that behave (almost) "just like" the abstract idea. So real 3x3 rotation matrices (spin 1) and complex 2x2 unitary matrices (spin 1/2) are two *different* reps of the same liegroup SU(2). In fact SU(2) has reps for spin 3/2, spin 2 ... ad infinitum. The representations of other lie groups is not so simple :-(
 * 2) representations can be combined using Clebsch-Gordon coefficients.  This too generalizes to lie algebras in general, although things get more complex.
 * 3) wait, there's more. Symmetric spaces, hypergeometric functions, orthogonal polynomials, all generalize in similar ways. then there's stuff about calabi-yau, etc.  Understanding lie groups/alegebras opens the door to vast new areas of math, and is fundamentally critical to many areas of physics, including statistical mechanics, dynamical systems, etc.

A bientot, linas (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But physically speaking it is meaningless. Isospin itself is nothing fundamentally meaningful, it's the number (I), whose has the same number of "projections" (I,I-1,I-2...,-I), than the number of particles in a particular mass group (aka the particles with the same number of u and d quark of a specific non-ud quark content can be "grouped" together), of a particular spin state. You call such a concept meaningful, I certainly won't. It's a leftover from the pre-quark models that should've been thrown out the window the moment the quark model came into the picture. I'm sorry but when a formula such as the Gell-Man–Nishijima formula along with the concepts of flavour quantum numbers (or hypercharge) to describe charge is considered to be more interesting than the fundamental depiction of nature (Charge of a particle is the sum of the charge of its constituent quarks, baryon number is 1/3 of the number of quarks) there is something very wrong.
 * That's the thing, I tried to study them, but the books are so cryptic they are useless. I've even picked one called "Lie groups for pedestrians". I browsed about 10-15 books on Lie algebra, Young tableaux, Group theory and not one of them could tell me anything usefully about anything, oh sure I can see a shadow of something around a corner every once in a while, stuff like when I see SU(4)xSU(2)xU(1) when they speak of 4 quarks, and SU(6)xSU(2)xU(1) so I guess that the first SU(x) is related to the number of quarks. The SU(2) I can only guess is somehow related to spin, but I can't be sure so no once seems to bother saying it, and I'm completely lost about whatever U(1) might be.
 * "So real 3x3 rotation matrices (spin 1) and complex 2x2 unitary matrices (spin 1/2) are two *different* reps of the same liegroup SU(2). In fact SU(2) has reps for spin 3/2, spin 2 ... ad infinitum..." and "lie algebras are always just the tangent space to the group, and nothing more." You might as well be speaking chinese.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Indeed Headbomb, Talk:MOSNUM (∆ here), is not the proper venue for allegations that DavidPaulHamilton is a sockpuppet. Go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton instead. Omegatron has been carefully laying out evidence that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of Fnagaton. A simple “check user” should have resolved this a long time ago and I can only conclude that Omegatron and Fnagaton have no love lost between them. I have no idea who DavidPaulHamilton is but I can see that Fnagaton is thoroughly annoyed at the suggestion that he is using sockpuppets of any sort. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, do you have any more evidence to contribute to Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton? To me, it's very obvious that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of someone, and all the evidence points to Fnagaton. But, apparently, the evidence I presented at Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton isn't convincing enough for User:Shalom. Fnagaton has gotten other accounts blocked just for editing similar articles. I guess the odd mannerisms and writing style are not as obvious to someone who hasn't interacted with him very much, so we need to spell it out more clearly. — Omegatron (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you can trace back the IP someone used to vandalise your edit, perhaps that'll lead somewhere. The maneurism of DPH and Fnagaton are too similar to be coincidence IMO. Also the fact that Fnagaton took a "break" almost as soon as DPH was formally accused of sockpuppetry is further evidence against him... and that he reappeared to vote on the purple box as soon as there was a box for the vote is most damning. And given that DPH started editing the binary prefix section of the MOS in his first two weeks on wiki while showing a knowledge of wiki jargon is ... The cherry on the Sunday IMO is that DPH seems most concerned to defend himself accusations of being Fnagaton than about being a sock. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It might also be worth investigating if Greg L is the sockmaster and that Fnagaton and DPH are both socks. It was my first impression since DPH/Fnagaton always seemed to follow Greg L or vice-verse, and Fnagaton he just gave permission to Greg L to change his vote if Greg L felt like it.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sillyness. Fnagaton lives in England. I e-mail the guy. I live in Spokane Washington (unless I created all the “Mt. St. Helens” stuff as part of a master plan to cover my ass for sockpuppetry. Fnagaton and I edit at entirely different times and I’d never get any sleep if I was the puppetmaster of both editors. The “permission” to vote on his behalf is because he knows our views are in full alignment, he trusts me, and he’s busy. And he never let on to me that he was a sockmaster of DPH. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have debated on and off with Fnagaton, DavidPaulHamilton and with Greg L. The first two share the same matter of fact "you are wrong" style and I would not be at all surprised to hear that they are one and the same person.  The reactions of Greg L could not be more different from this, and he has a far wider range of interests. On this basis alone I am convinced that he is not behind either Fnagaton or DavidPaulHamilton.  I have not looked at the editing times, but I am pretty sure that it would confirm this view. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clear something up, I went on a holiday break a full day before Omegatron made the formal accusation report, not after it. Check the edit times of my talk page for adding the holiday template with the time the report page was created. Obviously being on holiday and with limited internet access (virtually no web access to Wikipedia and text emails) means I relied on update emails to tell me what weas going on which is why I was able to eventaully log on for a short while and make some comments at one point. Obviously DPH was editing at a time when I had limited internet access. Wiki-jargon is also not anything new these days. Fnagaton 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes
Search entry were in the "kilobyte OR kilobytes - wikipedia" format, all pages, in the last year.

Possible solution MB2, MB10?

{{#if:|{{#if:|$$}}{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb { }}|Headbomb { }}{{#if:— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|$— Write so you cannot be misunderstood. — ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week$}}]]|{{#if:|$$}}{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|$\overline{Headbomb { }}|Headbomb { }}}$ 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)