|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
This is just crackpottery, right? — Omegatron 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Pink noise?
I wonder what people think about merging this article into the main pink noise article?
I would argue for this on two grounds. One is that this is a very short article and, since flicker noise is a special case of 1/f noise, it can easily be included in the more general article, gaining from the wider context provided. The second is that, conversely, flicker noise is of great historical importance to the general subject since it was the first observed (and one of the most widely studied) examples of 1/f noise.
Thoughts, anyone? —WebDrake 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Deary me, that'll teach me to post without checking all related talk pages. I hope I haven't offended those who bravely struck out to make this as a separate article only a short while ago. Nevertheless I feel that as things stand it might be good to bring the articles back together. If the flicker noise info grows we can expand it into a separate article again (with which I will gladly assist:-). As it is, I've added some important early references that are also included in the pink noise article. —WebDrake 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Think of it like an actual color. We have an article about the color pink, just like we have an article about the noise color pink. But things that happen to be pink, like flamingos, don't go in a subsection of the pink article. Likewise, noise processes that happen to be pink, like flicker noise, get their own distinct articles. — Omegatron 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, accepted. Let's get back to the 1/f noise argument on Talk:Pink noise. —WebDrake 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - this article was split from pink noise because it's just a type of noise that happens to be pink. — Omegatron 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - following your argument, I'm with you on this one. The addition of the official merge suggestion was not my doing. —WebDrake 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Omegatron's argument.--Srleffler 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Favor: I think the split is a bit arbitrary. Or at any rate, it doesn't follow natural lines of division, since the "pink noise" article includes the sorts of quasi-equilibrium effects which account for most 1/f noise in materials mushed in together with the dynamical systems noises, which typically don't have an exponent particularly close to 1.0. [User:Mbweissman] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbweissman (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I support a merge. We're not building a dictionary. It is is better encyclopedic form to cover multiple closely related topics in a single article. --Kvng (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
1/f Noise Corner
The article should be edited to point out that the 1/f noise corner is completely dependent upon the broadband/thermal noise floor.
126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I agree. I will do it along adding a 6db/octave filter to the article; more realistic for both 1/f and 1/f + white. Then, I hope, the wiggles will straighten out. Although they are visible with oscilloscopes and certain filters. It seems to me that "drift rate" is central to 1/f measurements. The trouble is the expressions get more and more complicated; and not obviously meaningful. Rrogers314 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OTOH: I just read Wikipedia's no original work policy. Part of the reason I did the derivation for drift on the flicker noise page was that I haven't found a derivation that made sense to me. This story goes back a long way; basically the academic approach wanders into lala land. In reality (engineering) there are no substantive problems. And so on. Unless somebody complains (or explains) I will take the drift section out in one mo nth; 5/18/2010, I have made a copy and will put it up on a blog. Rrogers314 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I do think it is alarming that no-one has presented a reasonable argument for where 1/f (flicker) noise comes from. Recent experiments at the GEO600 gravity wave experiment in Germany show excess noise that cannot be accounted for. A possible explanation for this has be given by American physicist Craig Hogan by way of what he calls 'holographic noise'. Physicists have long suspected that if you examine space-time at very short lengths (around the Planck length) it would start to appear blurry and noisy, but to examine the universe at such lengths is beyond current science. If you zoom in on a digital image on your computer it will eventually become blurry because there is only a limited amount of information in any digital image. What Craig Hogan is basically saying is that there may be far less information in the universe than many people think and that as you zoom in on the universe it may become blurry/noisy far sooner than is currently expected. That noise in space-time may be far easier to detect than was previously thought possible. It is easy to forget that transistors are sophisticated quantum mechanical devices. If there is far less information in the universe than most people think then one of the most likely places for the resulting blur/noise in space-time to show up would be in such a quantum mechanical device. Resulting in an unexplainable additional noise source such as 1/f (flicker) noise. Sean O'Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I am the original author of the measurement section. It was removed and reinterpreted in 2010. I don't disagree since I didn't cite sources; and I am not sure it really belonged here. Perhaps in a electronic noise section? Also it was mislabeled in the follower sense: it was intended to address the engineering evaluation (interpreted as "drift") of the effects of 1/f noise sources on measurement. These occur frequently in Infrared Eng. and compensation requires frequent re-zeroing/re-calibration of the system. By calculating the drift we are able to determine how often this needs to be done. Comments on putting it in a new category; and references for the calculation are welcome. They are simple enough but probably should be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrogers314 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)