Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2007

Participants in this project
Hello. Does this WikiProject have a sign up list? Where? Thank you in advance. -Susanlesch 07:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Physics/Participants --Steve 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

recent articles
Auger electron spectroscopy, Stranski-Krastanov Growth and surface plasmon are very recent creation having to do with surface and condensed matter physics. If you people could look around to do any relevant crosslinking back to them (as I have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever), it would be appreciated, as I'll spend a while copyediting them. Circeus (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thermodynamics: NEW THEORY ADDED! :-)
Some time since 28 Nov 07 somebody has added a new section to Thermodynamics: "Unified thermodynamics", which is not wikified and which features such assertions as "'The second major theme of this theory is that of gravity and its overwhelming domination of the actual form of the universe, at all scales. The combination of these themes is not accidental; they are point and counterpoint to the thesis that the time asymmetries are connectable to and perhaps even determined by the master asymmetry given by the gravity of general relativity: the remorseless cosmological expansion. Only that expansion can provide the unification of time asymmetries and the UNSATURABLE SINK for radiation, which, in turn, permits the establishment of gradients in temperature and density, which provide the basis for the physical process that leads to life. The new theory criticizes the sloppy and improper use of the concepts of entropy 'and the related notions in information theory', especially as covers for an inadequate understanding of temporal asymmetries.'" (The ALL CAPS of course spike the alert-o-meter if nothing else does. :-) ) Can somebody take a look at this and determine what % is worth keeping? Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ilya Prigogine needs expansion
Ilya Prigogine is still basically a stub. Can anyone add to this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to expand any article as long as the additions are sourced, preferably with complete inline citations (so a future editor doesn't need to re-retrieve everything). Are you familiar with WP:CITET? -Susanlesch (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, familiar, thanks. I don't know anything about this subject and would prefer that the article be edited by people who do. Have a good one. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

New participant
Hello. Does this WikiProject have a sign up list? Where? Thank you in advance. -Susanlesch (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a couple articles—List of pharmaceutical companies (the article English Wikipedia search sends one to at the moment for the search phrase "big pharma") and Pharmaceutical company—to the project just now. I rated them NA for the time being. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see how Pharmaceuticals can be considered part of Physics. Please explain that! Otherwise, revert your additions of such articles to this project. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The laws of physics also apply to pharmaceuticals... Count Iblis (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with JRSpriggs; I don't really see what pharmaceuticals have to do with physics. Joshua Davis (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that perhaps she mistakenly thinks that "physics" is the plural of "physic" meaning "a medicinal substance or preparation". JRSpriggs (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Are you all physicists by trade or training? I wonder where. I have only limited introductory study in college in the USA (science at the time was not my forte although it was of interest). Anyway, thank you for allowing me to post here? -Susanlesch 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To Susanlesch: You have still neither explained here why you think those articles (which you added to this project) belong in this project nor removed them from it. Please do one or the other. Otherwise, I will remove them. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you continued to ignore my reasonable request, I have removed them. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-organization vs. entropy needs attention
In the article Self-organization, the short section Self-organization vs. entropy is currently tagged with "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed" and "The quality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words", as well as multiple "citation needed" tags. (I assume that this is within the scope of WikiProject Physics.) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that someone went overboard with the "citation needed" tags. Some tagged sentences are simply basic facts about thermodynamics, which would be better served with links to the appropriate wiki-articles. The warning about weasel words also looks to me like a case of letting the letter of the law get in the way of the spirit. This subsection is devoted to dispelling a common argument that the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the appearance of structure in the universe (this is a common confusion which is sometimes used by creationists and such to attack science). To do so, one has to first set up that argument before breaking it down. I think it perfectly fine to set up such an incorrect argument with "One might say..." or "It may appear...". The point is the statements that follow the weasel words in this case are in fact wrong and subsequently shown to be so.
 * That said, the section could perhaps be written a little better. The comment about lasers should be cited or explained. Joshua Davis (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Physics wiki
I am going out on a limb here to invite other wikipedians to take a look at a physics and mathematics wiki that I have been maintaining for about a year and a half. It is not meant to compete with Wikipedia, which I view as encyclopedic and meant to be accessible (in scope) to everyone. Rather, it is meant to be chiefly academic in nature. I hope that perhaps that some people would like to contribute to the project alongside their involvement in Wikipedia, and welcome exchange between the two projects (the wiki is also released under the GNU FDL).

The chief difference (besides scope) is that some form of accountability is required in order to prevent vandalism and the like, but other than that editing is open to anyone. Some immediate answers to your questions may be found here, though feel free to [mailto:lionelbrits@phas.ubc.ca contact me]. I hope this message is received in good faith --Lionelbrits (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice there's no help page, or forum for new users... 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Unfortunately the project takes a lot of time and effort, which is why I am inviting others to help. I obviously have to strike a balance between adding content and documentation, although there is already some documentation. What would you suggest regarding a forum for new users? The main site, of which the wikis are a part, has forums, but these are not well integrated into the wiki. On the other hand, talk pages don't make good forums. Thank you for your suggestions, I will take them under advisement. --Lionelbrits (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as for help, see Help:Contents... something to help non-Wiki users start wiki'ing. Content discussions in a centralized forum (like Wikipedia's Village pump) might be useful. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've incorporated some of the basic mediawiki documentation into the help pages, and created talk pages for the "community portal". Any suggestions on making the project more visible?--Lionelbrits (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaos (physics) Deletion?
In my humble opinion, his article should be moved (copied and pasted) either to entropy or chaos theory and then deleted. And why it has a link to Evolution, I may never know- there seems to be equivalent relevance to carpets... Does anyone have any suggestions? Beast of traal  T   C   _  03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open
Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.


 * General information about the project: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
 * Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Delayed Choice Expt.
I came across Wheeler's delayed choice experiment today. It has been written largely by one user, Patrick0Moran. It's rather long, dense reading, and there are 0 citations to a first approximation. I thought it might benefit from outside perspective. Anyone who's familiar with this experiment, or any double-slit-type experiments, could do this article a favor by hopping over for a moment to slim it down, spruce it up, and/or add some sources. Thanks! JFlav (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnsen-Rahbek effect - expand
Could someone please write a good introductory paragraph explaining the Johnsen-Rahbek effect? I was revising amplifier, and added that page to support Edison's "chalk telephone" invention from 1874. Edison discovered materials where the surface friction changes with voltage across the contact point, and built an early audio amplifier using that effect. But he didn't understand the underlying physics; he thought the material was outgassing hydrogen. That's not what's happening. It's some kind of electrostatic phenomenon, and wasn't understood properly until the semiconductor era. There are references on the Web, but they're to pay sites. ($30 to read the good reference.) No free on-line source seems to have a decent explanation of the underlying physics. So Wikipedia should have one. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

physics-org-stub
A new stub for stub sorting has been proposed here. It is supposed to include the institutes, organizations and similar that deal with physics. We are currently discussing the category name and image for the template, some comments will be appreciated. --Tone 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed
I need help with the content found in Nuclear pulse propulsion a article within the scope of this project, I explained the issue with further detail on ‎Talk:Nuclear pulse propulsion‎ but I think only someone with at least a basic level of physics can help me with this issue, thanks in advance for your help. 24.138.199.139 (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Isometries_in_physics
Found this page (Isometries_in_physics) while on WP:CLEANUP duty. I had a look at it, but I'm way out of my depth. So I thought I'd throw it to you guys to see if anyone here can adopt it. Manning (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that request for help. We need someone who knows something about this to help us out.  Please? Unschool (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you to User:Reuben, who responded to our request, and has improved the article many times over! Unschool (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New Page - Configuration integral (statistical mechanics)
Hello - We've been having a discussion on the talk page of a new page - Configuration integral (statistical mechanics) concerning editing style and we need some outside opinions. Thanks! PAR (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * hm, that article has, as least stylistic, problems. knowledgable folks may wanna have a look. Mct mht (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. In particular, the editor uses a coding style that is idosyncratic and may need to be changed to make the article accessible to other editors. PAR (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I might be able to help a bit tomorrow. However, it seems to me that the article is far, far, far too long, and has huge sections that might be better off not existing. For example, why is there a derivation of the 1D time-indep Schrodinger eq in there? The article really looks like something that would might be great as an essay or possibly even as part of a Wikibook, but not as an encyclopedia article. --Philosophus T 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * at first glance it's got more problems than just that. the whole things reads like someone's very detailed notes and the material is not necessarily presented in the most sensible way. for example, arguably the simplest system is one of non-interacting and indistinguishable particles. but this is placed at the end of a pretty long article and what should be an obvious result is treated in a non-concise way. the motivation section is also idiosyncratic. Mct mht (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only had a very quick first glance, so it's quite probable that you're right. Has anyone considered just afding it? Is there any content that isn't already covered elsewhere? --Philosophus T 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't want to afd it until I looked at the content closely, but what I am concerned about is the coding, the way that it is written in the edit mode. There are many many carriage returns, /displaystyle is used rather than \, etc, etc and it is difficult to edit. The author justifies this because its convenient to do on his/her vim editor, and asks that it not be changed, and to concentrate on the content. But as an editor, "concentrate" means to edit! This is a new author who, I think, does not fully understand how things work, that a page is not only designed for the readers, but for other editors as well. I don't want to begin editing these things out until the author understands that its not just my arbitrary ideas about how an article should be written (encoded) but rather that there are agreed upon conventions that most technical editors conform to. If I am wrong, well, thats ok, too, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one discussion anymore because its not very productive. If anyone could put in their two cents on that talk page, I would appreciate it, because if i am right, it will be easier to modify the page, and if Im wrong, well, Ill back off. PAR (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the coding issues are the least of our worries. The article seems to be written as an attempt at an essay, not an article, and actually appears to discuss the configuration integral itself only very briefly. Most of the content consists of derivation of a huge portion of basic statistical mechanics from scratch, which is completely unnecessary, and I can't really understand the organization and point of the whole thing. Vql needs to understand that we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a textbook or collection of essays. Each article should only pertain to its subject, with a minimum of extra material required for understanding. I think that while there probably should be an article on the topic, the current article is essentially unsalvageable and will need to be completely redone. I'll look around at some sources if I have time. It's unfortunate that Vql went to all the trouble of painstakingly writing this, but it just isn't right for Wikipedia. --Philosophus T 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, now it appears that I've pushed the new user away and deleted the page... Does anyone want to add information about the configuration integral into Partition function (statistical mechanics)? --Philosophus T 08:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for input re Science Super-Categories
There is a CFD discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15 regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An important RfC
Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another RfC of possible interest
Just posting notification of another somewhat relevant RfC:

Talk:Kilometres per hour.

Oli Filth(talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)