User talk:TimothyRias/Archives/2009

7d physics
Hi Tim, good timing on your part. I was away until today (arrived a little after deletion).

Anyways, the article had very little or no OR. Mathematical conclusions do not equate to original research (otherwise if you put the answer to the equation 5+5 in an article, it would be OR). Perhaps speculative portions of the article without exact mathematical descriptions supported by empirical data could be said to be OR, but it is these sections of the article which should be singled out, rather than the whole article which has completely valid portions from a mathematical and physically predictive standpoint (referring to any of the equations in the article). The math is testable, and directly falsifiable (for the most part) if you are inclined to check it (not that this has anything to do with whether it is OR or not).

Not to mention the fact that I haven't seen the trig relationship of the de broglie wavelength mentioned anywhere (ever), and that is a simple mathematical fact which can't be counted as OR (mathematical fact != OR). Not to mention how important this mathematical relationship is for confirmation of physical theories with greater than 4 dimensions of spacetime: at the very least this relationship should be preserved on wikipedia in some form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Benesi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference request
Hi,

This is in regards to your image File:Asymmetricwave2.png that I added it to the electron page. The electron article is currently undergoing a FAC and I have been tasked with finding better referencing for that illustration. Would it be possible for you to let me know how the illustration was generated so that I could add that source as a reference? Was it via a commercial software package, or something from a university? Thank you kindly.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. The the picture was generated with mathematica 6.0. I will add the full command used to the picture description. I didn't do this at first because I was still tinkering with the picture, but it should be done anyway. This it also need some kind of reference that the function depicted is indeed the two particle fermionic ground state for the infinite square well? If so, a ref to Griffiths will probably do. (TimothyRias (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC))


 * PS. It may take a few days for to actual do this, since I won't access to the computer I used to generate the image this weekend. (TimothyRias (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC))


 * That would be very helpful, thank you. By Griffiths, do you mean, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David J. Griffiths? I'm afraid my intro to QM was a decade before that was published, so I'm unfamiliar with it.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That one yes. But any intro to QM book should cover this in someway. (TimothyRias (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
 * As Google doesn't have a scanned version, I'll take your word for it. Would it be possible for you to provide an edition number and page range for the appropriate section of Griffiths?&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in section 5.1.1 from D.J. Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics prentice hall 1995. (TimothyRias (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I have added full descriptions at the image pages on commons. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
 * That should do the job. Thank you for your help.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Black Hole edits
Hi Timothy. Thanks for the edits to my sandbox article on black hole. I've been ill for a few days (British weather!), and haven't been on the net. I might still be away from WP for a few days yet, so feel free to make any edits you see fit to the article. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this edit. Even if the humor should turn out to have been completely unintentional. Markus Poessel (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking the discussion of Hermitian/Self-Adjoint/Symmetric operators to your talk page
I would like to follow up on your comment that it is important to learn that the non-degenerate eigenvectors of Hermitian/Self-Adjoint/Symmetric operators are orthogonal. I am moving this discussion to your talk page, since it is somewhat off-topic for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page. The orthogonality of the eigenvectors of Hermitian operators is covered fairly early in Shankar (Theorem 10, pg 36, if you happen to have a copy of the text). However, in Chapter 12 (equation 12.5.32, pg 335), Shankar simply declares that the spherical harmonics are solutions to the differential equation he has set up to find a common basis for L^2 and L[z] (where [] represents a subscript). So, I was left with two options: 1) just trust Shankar and move along, or 2) see if I could at least confirm that the spherical harmonics are orthonormal. It is my nature to attempt to understand things as I learn them and not to take things on trust. So, I set about attempting to prove that the spherical harmonics are orthonormal. When you keep theta and phi constant, showing the functions resulting from varying the radial coordinate are orthonormal is pretty straight forward. However, the orthonormality of the spherical harmonics when the radial parameter is constant requires the orthonormality of the Associated Legendre Functions. This is how I ventured into the territory that led to the two proposals I have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. So, while I understand that Hermitian operators (Shankar doesn't use the Symmetric/Self-Adjoint terminology) with non-degenerate eigenvectors have orthogonal bases, it wasn't clear that the spherical harmonics in fact form the common eigenbasis of L^2 and L[z]. Dnessett (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually you had a third option: Show that the spherical harmonics are actual eigenfunctions of the Hermitian operators L2 and L2. Since this is just checking that solutions of a PDE are solutions it is just elementary calculus. Their orthonamility is then a trivial consequence. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

That is not as easy as it might seem. The spherical harmonics are complicated functions that include the l-m derivative of $$\sin^{2l} \theta $$. The operators L2 and Lz are (in Shankar) represented as infinite dimensional matrices in the |l,m> basis, Lz having off-diagonal elements. So, directly showing that the spherical harmonics are an eigenbasis for either would be a difficult task. Dnessett (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Physics project links on nuclear weapon article talk pages
The various WW 2 nuclear weapons articles have been associated with the physics wikiproject for years, please don't delete those links. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Matrix GA Review
Hi, just a brief note: I'm pretty busy with non-wiki stuff this week. It would be nice if you could give me a few days, til the weekend or so, to address the few remaining points. I think it will be done quickly once I get to it. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Wrong message
I am proud to find out that one Wikipedian I welcomed has become such a tireless contributor.

I got this message on my discussion page, which I believe should have been directed to you. Please respond to the new user who asked that question.

Cheers!

&Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 21:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

black hole update question
Thanks for the explanation of WP & OR. It seems I have just another problem touching "black hole" My change in the article "gravitational singularity" was removed with the short comment "no OR". I wonder whether this, Compton length of a mass M, thus no true singularity exist, even a magnitude estimate how far the matter density may be increased due to uncertainty principle, can be given, should be put on "your" :-) black hole page. BTW: I hope I have used your talk-page correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not "my" black hole page. Wikipedia editors do not in anyway "own" the articles they edit in anyway. It is actually extremely frowned upon if editors act like they own an article. (see WP:OWN for details, getting tired of all these guidelines yet ;-) ).
 * To reply to your actual question. The argument you raise about compton wavelength is part actually part of the reason of why physicists heuristically believe that in quantum gravity there should be no singularities. This immediately leads to the problem with your argument: it combines facts from general relativity with facts from quantum mechanics, and since there is no known consistent way of uniting the two, it is unclear if this argument is in any way valid.
 * As to including anything about this in the article. If we wanted to do that we should have a reference treating that argument (again because of WP:V). I think it is better to just leave it at the remark: "It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities." and not go into technical detail as to why. The article is too technical as it is. Also there a quite some different arguments that for that statement and it would hard to treat them without giving some undue weight. (again a guideline WP:UNDUE. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Semiconductor manufacturing processes
Yo. You removed the physics project tag from the 22 nm article. However, there are a lot of links in Template:Semiconductor manufacturing processes to all kinds of different processes. If 22 nm is not in that project, surely the other are not there either? Or did you only remove some of the processes, on purpose? --Ysangkok (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of them already were not in the Physics project, I removed the last two that slipped through. If you feel that this is not how it should be, please bring the issue up on the WP Physics talk page so it can be discussed and consensus can be reached. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Materials and Processes Simulations
Dear Timothy, Like I tried to explain to on my reply to the deletion suggestion, Materials and processes Simulation technology is a tool for the researchers and developers and I personally think it should be added to wiki, as a chemist I have used several softwares which can also be found in wiki with less to offer. It is possible that I am having a formatting issue with the page, but I thought I have followed the page creation documentation closely. If you would like to learn more about Materials Processes Simulation, please follow this link http://www.scienomics.com/Products/maps/index.php, I would be glad if you would give me a helpful suggestion on how to retain this information on the iki so that other chemists can help populate it too.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Cordially,

--RosaWeber (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The proper place to respond to the AfD nomination is Articles_for_deletion/Materials_and_Processes_Simulations. Make your case there. The problem is that the article doesn't in anyway establish that MAPS is in anyway notable as a piece of software. It doesn't matter if it is useful or not, it matters if the world has taken note of it. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Flavour names
Could you opine on which of these two version you find better? Two paragraphs vs one, chronological order vs "type of reason" for naming? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessement BS

 * Thanks, I really appreciate the gesture. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

I need to contact you in private.
This concerns a conflict of interest between two users who are currently editing Quark-gluon plasma-related articles (and you seem to know a thing about it). Is there a way I could contact you by email or similar? If not email, then we could contact each other through IRC on #wikipedia-en (see WP:IRC for details). I know you are wary of your privacy, so I would not divulge anything if you used a work-email (or you could register a dummy account). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Silicon photonics assessment
Would you please provide a slightly more detailed assessment of the silicon photonics article? (Preferably on the talk page.) I am slightly disappointed with the "C" grade, and would like to know the best targets for improvement.

Thanks

&mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly a Great and Mighty Nickname. I advise you to check the Google of MIT, the Google of the Harvard University, the Google of the Princeton University, and the Google of the US Government. Check them, please, for my noname: Yuri Kornyushin. I hope you will have enough guts to inform me about your findings. YK, jacqie@bluewin.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.187.150 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilbert space
Hi Tim,

I've made quite a few changes to the Hilbert space article in response to the good article review (which is currently on hold). I think I can get it to pass GA without significantly more work, but I would still like your input on the article in its current form. If you have time to give some more gestalten impressions, I would find that really valuable. Thanks, Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Timothy I have written a small book on Special Theory of relativity primarily for students in India. I have derived the mass energy relation using Doppler shifted frequencies. if you would like to see the derivation I will be happy to email you the same. In the second edition of the book I would very much like to use the red shifted spectral lines that you have shown. i want your permission for the same -- i will of course acknowledge this in the caption and also in the Preface. My email address is ajoykghatak@gmail.com I have recently retired from IIT Delhi (in India). Many thanks Ajoy

Ajoy K Ghatak Department of Physics IITDelhi NEW DELHI 110016 Home: D42 Hauz Khas NEW DELHI 110016 Phone: +91 11 3068 3891 M: +91 9810493018

Quarks
Could you give a look at up quark, down quark and strange quark to double check my work (and fill out the weak isospin/weak hypercharge of the later two)? Thanks Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

General Notes / Speed of Light
This is David A. Smith from a different IP address.

Re: third paragraph. There was no uncertainty in which wavelength of light was to be used for measuring c between early 1960s and 1983. One wavelength was chosen, and then another (shorter) was chosen later as being better because it was sharper. But wavelengths do not derive from classical equations, and mapping from quantum processes to the macroscopic world leaves uncertainty.

Re: Section "The nature of light", subsection "Light as photons" Peer review implies that the text is controlled in some sense, to be edited by others. So my 'bold' contribution might be to add this sentence: The [photoelectric effect] shows that light is comprised of discrete packets of energy, that do not merge to fewer, more energetic, packets as waves would.

Re: Section "Fundamental importance in physics", subsection "Variations with time and frequency" What is made is a blanket statement, implying that we did not look for the mass of a photon. We did. I suggest that if the wording stays as is, it is preceded by a statement referring to experimental testing of a photon's rest mass.

David A. Smith 216.161.188.207 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light - metrology term "realization"
Hi. Regarding your comment, " 'Realization' is a jargon word used in metrology. It refers to the logical difference between the definition and the precision with it can put into reality (can be realized)."

Could you clarify the second sentence in this comment? I didn't quite understand it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The definition of the metre is by its very nature exact. (Well, at least at the scales we are looking at. I'm not vouching for any quantum gravitie ambiguities that may arise.) So, the phrase "the definition becomes more precise" is logically nonsense. However, the is a finite precision due to technology with which that exact definition may be constructed in a lab. Such a construction is called a realisation. (TimothyRias (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC))
 * First off, I am not promoting the use of the word "definition" in the subject under discussion. I recognized the problems with it early in the discussions. My purpose in coming to your talk page is to clarify the meaning of the metrology term "realisation" for my own information, and to possibly improve wikipedia by including an explanation of what the term means.
 * When you mentioned "construction", did you mean the apparatus and its use, which shows the length of the metre? In other words, are you saying that the realisation of a unit consists of the apparatus and its use, which shows the unit? In the former cases of units of length, the realisation would be a bar of metal, in a controlled environment, etc. In the present case I think it is something involving light generated by lasers, etc. Does this sound correct? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Quark weak interactions (ALT).svg
File:Quark weak interactions (ALT).svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Quark weak interactions.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lederman and electron radius
Thanks for pointing out my error - you wrote "Lederman's book does not say that the electron has a radius or that it was realized. It just gives the upperbound for the electron". I totally missed it, and I have read this page more than once. Somehow I overlooked the words "less than". Thinking that a radius was given for the electron all these months was confusing, because in the same paragraph he was saying "consistent with zero radius" yet he seemed to follow that with an electron radius. Now I see that isn't true. Anyway thanks a again - it clears up the confusion, and gives a different meaning to what Lederman was saying. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC))