Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2008

Physics quality statistics table now has link to unrated-importance articles.
For some reason, the Physics quality statistics table did not link to the category:unrated-importance_physics_articles page. After a quick and dirty fix it now does. (The bot generating the table automatically links to the unknown-importance category if it exists, so I created that and redirected to the already existing unrated-importance category. This way I was pretty sure nothing would get broken by my meddling with things.)

We can now search through that heap of 3000+ articles with a rating but no importance for those high and top priority article we were missing. Yay! (TimothyRias (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

Cool and thanks! Now we'll have to destroy the Category:Unrated-importance physics articles and update physics accordingly. And it's more like a 6000+ articles. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll
I've made a poll to gather feedback on various WikiProject Physics-related things. I would appreciate it if you took some time to answer it. The whole poll is rather long, but you can just pick the most interesting questions if you don't feel like spending too much time on it. I will contact have contated all members of WikiProject Physics who've said on the member list that it was OK to contact them soon (probably tonight). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}


 * Where/how do I complete the poll? Besselfunctions (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Physics/Poll (the link was given above, but I guess it doesn't stand out). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So just edit that page? Besselfunctions (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much yeah. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, it's got my support. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested article: Kapitza-Dirac effect
Hi. I've seen that there is no article about the Kapitza-Dirac effect, so there is some expert to write it? I can give some help but... I should study it before ;D. If you want you can leave me a message on my talk page in Italian Wikipedia, here. Goodbye --CristianCantoro (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is. Sorry. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

From here:
 * The Kapitza - Dirac effect is the diffraction of a well - collimated particle beam by a standing wave of light.

Not sure if the rest of the article is useful or not; it appears to be a review paper, but is in the quant-ph arxiv and so might only cover things from that angle. --Starwed (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition above in correct, the effect has been proposed in 1933 by Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac and Pyotr Kapitsa (also spelled Kapitza) - I don't know if together or not - I've found this on 'S. Gasiorowicz - Quantum physics': <> follows images of the apparatus and results of the experiment. This is almost everything I know. --CristianCantoro (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you could create a stub for now. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to make it. Ciao --CristianCantoro (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your corrections, Headbomb - I'm not an english-speaking native... and I usually make easy things more complicated, even in italian :P. --CristianCantoro (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm not a native speaker either, but being Canadian, I've been surrounded by the English language for most of my life. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion issue
A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PotW Articles 2008-07-07
2008-07-07 : This week's articles are: Delta baryon, Density, Electroweak interaction, Elementary charge, Experimental physics, Field_(physics), Geiger-Marsden_experiment (Rutherford's Experiment), Geophysics
 * Biographies: None this week.
 * Articles: Individual quarks pages (Up quark, Down quark, Strange quark, Charm quark, Bottom quark, Top quark) Not all need work, but as they all are very closely related, might as well do them all together.
 * Lists: List of quasiparticles

Happy editing! Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Category table
I've added a category table, (see front page, PotW, Current status...). Makes it easier to pick a particular quality/importance bunch of articles Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments in the template
Do we need them? I've kept them and re-wrote the section as it was in the old code, but is it really necessary? I mean there's the talk page for that... Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AMO question
I'm doing a bit of editing at elementary charge (one of the "projects of the week"!), and I think it could use a brief section on how it's measured. I know, in principle, how to measure the charge of an electron with (a) Drops of oil, and (b) Shot noise, but these are both pretty crude, and I doubt that's how it's done in modern standards-setting AMO laboratories. Anyone know what the better methods are? Thanks!! --Steve (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Headbomb take 2
I've reapplied for request for Adminship. Since I want to be an Admin because of this project, I figure I should (same as last time) let you guys know that I've applied for it, so you can give your opinions. If you comment, please indicate that your are a WikiProject Physics participant. Feel free to not support me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To Headbomb: If I were you, I would have waited longer after a failed application before applying again. You need to let people cool off; and you need to build your reputation further which takes time. You do not want to become a joke like the perennial presidential candidate Harold Stassen. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's closed now. A real shame. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Patience, patience... - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a good case can be made for wikipedia to be carved up in different sectors (a general sector, a politics sector, a science sector), all with their own variants of the wiki rules. Admins should be appointed based on dscussions within the relevant sector. In this case Headbomb's RFA would be decided by the wikiproject physics members. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree if we had no admins who understand physics, but we do have some. They (or, rather, we) can translate the concerns of the physics community to other admins if necessary; I haven't seen many problems with this, actually. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, as I said on your last RfA, being an administrator isn't really necessary for working on WikiProject Physics. For adminship, the community expects a broad understanding of the rules and procedures on Wikipedia, almost none of which have anything to do with improving physics articles. The tools that come with being an admin, correspondingly, don't help very much with working on physics in particular. Yes, obviously it's nice to be able to delete redirects to move a page, or to block vandals, but you already have people who can help with that as the need arises. The way you link adminship with being head of this project will cause people to imagine you view administration as a prestige position; in fact, it means access to a set of tools. True, you have to be knowledgeable and trusted by the community to get access to those tools, but they don't confer any special authority &mdash; or anyway, we all agree they shouldn't, even if the reality is sometimes a bit more complicated.

I like the work you're doing in organizing the WikiProject, as I've said before, and I am very happy to see you focusing on that rather than RFA's and RFArb's and AfD's and RfC's and all the other acronyms associated with Wikipedia culture and administration. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I link adminship with access to tools: the ability to edit protected template, lower or raise protection levels, view deleted pages to see if there was not some content worth something in there, etc... I'm not much concerned about vandalism, because there's not a lot of it on the physics pages, plus the RC patrol is usually faster than me.


 * I don't care one bit for prestige, nor do I ask for "recognition". I want the tools, not the title. If there were a way to get them without being an admin, believe me, I'd never even have bothered to apply. But as of now, when I make editprotected requests, it can take 2-3 days to get an answer. Semi-protection or protection requests are faster, but can still takes many hours to get answers. You can build houses without hammers, but things are easier when you have them.


 * Doesn't really matter now since the RfA is closed. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI Blue shift
On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. 70.51.9.237 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did blueshift/redshift are the same phenomenon. Blueshift was a stub, while the treatment of the FA redshift was more than sufficient. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Timothy's reasoning is sound. I would've done the same. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the redirect is a sensible thing to do. But when you do it, you should think of it as one step of a merge, and not just create the redirect and call it a day. That means (1) systematically making sure that there's no useful information on the blueshift page that's not also on the redshift page (for example, the redshift page has no mention of blazers, the Tully-Fisher relation, or chronons...did you not move this information because you consciously decided it wasn't important? Or because you didn't bother to check?), (2) moving over the link to blue shift (disambiguation) (it took a week before 70.51.9.237 finally did that today), (3) making sure the redshift article doesn't have self-links to blue shift (as you did today) and other such odds and ends. If you don't want to bother doing a proper merge, I think it's better to just put in a merge tag and let someone else do it, rather than throwing out potentially-good content and hurting the navigability of this site. --Steve (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heat transfer and visible color
Hi all, I would like to request that an expert take a look at Talk:Heat sink and try to provide an answer to the question of whether a dark/black heat sink should perform better than a naturally-colored one. Preferably, with scientific sources so that the information can be cited in the article, especially if it is contradictory to what the manufacturers are claiming. Thank you. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of chemical elements discoveries
I saw the article is rated as High-importance for this project. I have stumped onto a problem and I posted a sort of poll on its talk-page. Please leave your opinions. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A template to welcome newcomers
Is there a substitution template we can use somewhere to welcome newcomers to the physics working group. I am looking for something that will have a quick welcome message plus links to useful sites including how to join the work group and tips and tricks for the newcomer with a bits that I can personalize.

TStein (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're aware, but Welcome exists and can be customized to suit the project. Gary King ( talk ) 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no welcoming template for WikiProject Physics, but that would be a real neat addition. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a lot I am not aware of about wikipedia even after being here for 2 months. I figured there must be a substitution template only by stumbling across a welcome in a user page that seemed too templatish.  Thanks for pointing that out.  TStein (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started to write a template WP Physics Welcome (or will soon if you see a redlink). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PotW Articles (2008-07-16):
2008-07-16 : This week's articles are:
 * Biographies: None this week.
 * Articles: Hadron, Quasiparticle, Solid-state physics, Statistical physics, Solid
 * Lists: List of physical quantities

"Note: There are a bit less than usual since it's later in the week, and last week's articles didn't get much attention. Hopefully fewer articles means more attention."

Sorry for the delay. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the sorting with the sorting of "by importance" categories.
For some reason the "physics articles by importance" categories list a large number of articles under the "T" (of talk I presume.) I suspect a problem with the physics template. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes I know. I still haven't been able to figure it out. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems the template is not providing the right sort keys for the category links. All the category entries in the template should end in |]], as to provide the right sort key. (namely the name of the article page). I'm not really familiar with the code of the physics-template, so I'm not sure where all the category links are, but adding this to the template should fix our problem.(TimothyRias (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

So... every category should be like ? If you confirm, I'll make the changes.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Categories take the format .  returns the name of the article (even when used on the respective talk page). The reason that some page were sorted correctly, is probably because some template was already setting the default sort key to  on those talk pages. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Planets beyond Neptune
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just HAVE to share this with you


And they say scientists don't have a sense of humour. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the joke? JRSpriggs (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to look it up myself. See Lars Onsager, if you want the punchline. Compare the two epitaphs on the picture if you don't want to be spoiled.  TStein (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the cemetary's website gives some context:


 * Anyway, I acknowledge the space constraints, but I think Kirkwood could have done a better job with his gravestone-CV. Where's the citation count? And the "References" section?? And contact info??? :-) --Steve (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bragg diffraction
Some sections are in dire need of a rewrite. If you could take a look at things it would greatly help. I'd do it myself, but I'm currently going through physics articles with AWB and that's taking a while. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have re-written the Mechanics section and renamed it The Bragg Condition. The Reciprocal space section could also do with a re-write, I'll have a look at this later.  I also removed two images which had no real use. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to wikiproject member list on the template
Do you think this would be a good idea to recruit more people? Would a text similar to "Become a WikiProject Physics member to coordinate your efforts with those of the WikiProject Physics community." be excessive? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Memristor
The article Memristor needs to be assessed. —  C M B J  19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic field line
An article linked to magnetic field lines, so I created a redirect with that title, pointing to the singular magnetic field line. But that turned out to be a red link. It ought to redirect to something, but I am uncertain about which article it should point to. Probably someone here can attend to that. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The link is now blue, and points to Magnetic field. --Steve (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to consider redirecting it to Line of force instead. In any case, I would recommend that in future you choose a target for redirection and verify that it exists as an article with the appropriate content before attempting to create the redirect. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, is this comment and link to Line of force, supposed to be a lightly concealed slam against it? --Firefly322 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, if anyone understands the distinction between line of force and field line, they should put the explanation into the articles. :-) --Steve (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any actual sources for field line? Since the fixed phrase line of force has a long conceptual history (see mention of this fact at electricity and references in line of force article), I wrote the article based on actually readings of such references.  One reference is from a Cornell history professor, another is from a doctorate of history who studied under Karl Popper. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Field lines are discussed in every intro E&M textbook I've seen. I just added one as a reference in the article. Anyway, we should continue this conversation on the appropriate pages, not here. :-) --Steve (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To Firefly322: A lightly concealed slam against what? I had no such hidden intention. I thought that the word "line" in "Magnetic field line" was, perhaps, not being given enough weight. Due to quantum mechanics, these lines exist at least when magnetic fields begin to penetrate superconductors.
 * Sorry, but I had to ask. Glad to hear it's a negative. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To Steve: I am not aware of any difference between a field line and a line of force. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wacky assessments
has been giving some rather odd assessments to physics articles. For example, assigning "top" to obscure parts of general relativity and "low" to the Magnetic potential. Also rating Friedmann equations as "stub" which it is not. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been assessing a lot of physics articles in the past few days and I may have judged some of the incorrectly. My opinion is as good as anyone else's, and you're welcome to change the assessments. Personally, I think Magnetic potential is not a very important topic, but I agree it needs to be of "mid" importance and not "low" - my mistake. As for Friedmann equations, you're right, I've changed it to "start" class. Barak Sh (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that I wasn't aware of the importance guidelines. I'll try my best to obey them from now on. Barak Sh (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Remember that they are ballpark guidelines. Try to follow the general idea rather than a strict application of these. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To Barak Sh: Thank you for being cooperative and acting quickly to fix this.
 * To everyone: Perhaps we should merge Magnetic potential with Vector potential or replace it. The former article appears to be about what I would expect the latter article to be about. The latter article does not give a treatment specific to the electromagnetic field's potential, but rather just a general statement that a Solenoidal vector field (i.e. a divergence free vector field) is the Curl (mathematics) of a vector potential. So "Vector potential" merely duplicates "Solenoidal vector field" and should be merged with it. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to have an article about the general mathematical theory of vector potentials, and a different article about the specific "magnetic vector potential". There is some overlap, to be sure, but I think they're legitimately independent topics, one an important math topic, the other an important physics topic. Anyway, I added a disambiguating note at the top of vector potential to help readers find their way to the correct article.


 * On a slightly-related note, I would advocate splitting the magnetic potential article so that the magnetic scalar potential and magnetic vector potential are in different articles. Putting them both in the same place, at least as it's done now, ends up sorta implying that each is equally valid and equally widely used, when really the magnetic vector potential is way more important. :-) --Steve (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A little peer review...
Could I get some eyeballs on HiPER? I'd like to clean it up as much as possible. I can't really go for FA because the project is currently entering the late design phase, but that's no excuse for not having the best possible article on it in the meantime. Also, if anyone has the original 1994 paper on fast ignition, could they shoot me a copy? Maury (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MoS suggestion?
I'm pretty annoyed by reading things like "Force is mass times acceleration" when it should (IMO) read like "Force is the product of mass and acceleration". Would you agree that the former is weaker and innacurate and that the these should be prescribed by the MoS?

A plus B --> Addition of B to A (or A to B) / Sum of A and B A minus B --> Subtraction of B from A / Difference between A and B A times B --> Multiplication of A by B / Product of A and B A divided by B --> Division of A by B / Quotient of A and B

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly. We need to remain accessible to the laity, but there is no need to sacrifice precision and common terminology. I also formatted the above list for presentation - Eldereft (cont.) 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, although I do believe simple equations like F=ma are supposed to be understandable even to laymen. It's very basic math, and there should be no reason to explain it in words if the equation is already there. Barak Sh (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have two qualms with this:
 * (1) I think readers might have to think a bit to decide whether "Subtraction of B from A / Difference between A and B" was "A minus B" or "B minus A". Ditto "A/B" vs. "B/A". I'd recommend against blindly changing the subtraction and division terminology: Read the text, think about whether the sign/reciprocation is obvious from context, and above all make sure that your rewrite is not going to create ambiguity. There's nothing grammatically incorrect, after all, about "A minus B" ("minus" is a preposition), and there are times when it's the best way to say something and other times when it's not.


 * (2) Even when there's no risk of ambiguity (as is the case for + and ×), there remains the fact that your proposed switches add wordiness. There are times when conciseness is at a premium, such as a brief parenthetical in the middle of a longer thought, and in those cases "A times B" might well be better than the wordier "product of A and B".


 * I hate being contrarian, but I think that this is a case where it makes the most sense to leave individual editors to write as they think is best, rather than imposing a blanket preference for one synonym over another. Just my two cents. :-) --Steve (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over table content at Standard conditions for temperature and pressure
If you could give your feedback on the talk page, that would be helpful.

Main issues are:
 * Which units to include
 * Where to place the "publishing entities"

Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)