User talk:Guy vandegrift

Welcome!

Hello, Guy vandegrift, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Electrostatics

Hello! I noticed you removed a large amount of material from Electrostatics. Your edit summary indicates this was completely unintentional. You are allowed to create as many sandboxes in your own user space as you would like. If you have questions on how to do this, let me know. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing material from the article. You may copy this to your sandbox, and print for you class, if that is what you intend, but you are causing disruption on the "live" article on Electrostatics. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm EuroCarGT. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Electrostatics, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ///EuroCarGT 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable VisualEditor. It will be available in the following namespaces: \$1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Physics equations II

I moved Physics equations II to your userspace: [[User:Guy vandegrift/Physics equations II]] – Njol #T·C 09:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Was this something I should have done myself? Guy vandegrift (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The template {{user draft}} and the non-encypledic content suggests that you didn't want to create an article, but a user (sub)page, which should be created in your userspace, i.e. start with 'User:YourUsername/'. Thus next time directly create the article in the correct place to not "pollute" the article namespace. – Njol #T·C 09:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carnot's theorem (thermodynamics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• when heat is transferred from the hot and into the cold reservoir. However, if $\eta_M>\eta_L$, then the net heat flow would be out of the cold and into the hot reservoir, since:
• [[Heat_engine#Efficiency|Efficiency]], η, is defined as |W|/|Q<sub>h</sub>|). The figure is consistent with this definition for both engines:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

To the editors of Wikipedia,

I just wrote a section on Gibbs paradox, should I have instead submitted it to you?

I got involved with Wikiversity about two months ago, and it took me a while to realize that Wikiversity and Wikipedia have different rules. I have been making small edits in Wikipedia up till now until I decided to write the section on Gibbs Paradox. ---guyvan52 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there Guy. You don't need to submit this particular piece to articles for creation because it is an addition to an existing article. We only deal with completely new articles at AfC. I think what you need is some guidance and encouragement from the folks at the tea house.Rankersbo (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Hello! Guy vandegrift, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Relative velocity may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• the theory of special relativity, we must adopt a different convention. Continuing to work in the (non-relativistic [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian limit]] we begin with a [[Galilean transformation]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydraulic analogy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• can be ignored, and then electric potential is equivalent to [[pressure]]. The [[voltage]] (or [[voltage drop]] or ''potential difference'' is a difference in pressure between two points.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I might be violating the rules, but no harm is being done.

Hello, I have made a number of contributions to Wikipedia, and many more to Wikiversity, which I believe has growth potential. The goal is to create open source textbooks for college students. Two Wikiversity projects are sufficiently developed for current use in two courses that I teach. (See v:Physics equations and v:Astronomy college course.) I have also contributed these images to commons.

My Astronomy course focuses on scientific literacy, and for my students Wikipedia articles are too long. Up to now, I have ported Wikipedia articles into Wikiversity, using a permalink to credit the authors. Then I heavily edited the articles in Wikiversity. A couple of days ago I realized that it is much easier to place these essays in my Wikipedia user space, where I do not need to waste time fussing with redlinks and templates that are incompatible with Wikiversity.

Is this allowed?--guyvan52 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I never thought about "featured articles" so I looked around and found this list: Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Physics_and_astronomy

The list seems somewhat meaningless to me, so I see no reason for attempting to make any article "featured". Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. At least that is how I understand it. I glanced at your work and it seems that you made the article better, but I tend to carefully watch only pages where I have been active. Apparently the other "watchers" of that page like what you did. Does that answer your question?--guyvan52 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Response.

A response is on my page. DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Brackets

Hi, apologies for reverting your bracket non-improvement, a classic sore issue that comes up relentlessly in WP and is discussed to no end in Talk pages, and with no satisfactory universal resolution...Talk:Bra–ket_notation#Bracket_characters.

Indeed, in the majority of browsers, ⟨A|B ⟩ , |z ψ| , a|b appear visible and elegant, anything but the <a|b> you put in in desperation. WP suggests lots of ways for you to adjust/tweak your WP preferences to access the proper fonts, which your computer has, but your browser settings fail to use. But, if any of the symbols on the list Except <a|b> works for you, also see List_of_mathematical_symbols#Symbols_that_point_left_or_right, I suppose it is anodyne for you to utilize that alternative, instead. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

With no knowledge that this is a widespread problem among browsers I will defer to your judgement. --guyvan52 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wavepackets

Hello Guy, you had put up my contents in 'wavepacket' article to wikiversity. Where did I was wrong. There is no proper explanation to it in quantum mechanical regime. Even I as a student didn't quite get it, so I edited which was quite fine. Other editors had given the reasons for the deletion of my section which are absurd. How do I proceed, what changes I must incorporate to put it back to main wiki article. Please help. --Farhan babra (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You have three choices and I recommend the first:
1. Open your essay at Wavepackets and uncertainty in quantum mechanics, and paste it into a new Wikiversity page that you can create by opening this redlink: v:Quantum_mechanics#Lessons.
2. Begin a parallel article on your user space at User:Farhan babra\Wavepackets in quantum mechanics
3. Create a new article in Wikipedia mainspace called "[[Wavepackets in quantum mechanics]]". This may or may not violate the rules of Wikipedia; I don't know. But there is a very old rule that precedes Wikipedia, and all young writers need to learn it: NEVER IRRITATE THE EDITORS
--guyvan52 (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
A fourth option: Looking through Wikipedia, I found this wizard for creating an article on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Article_wizard. They warn you that it will be deleted if it lacks references. --guyvan52 (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You should have chosen one of options one, two or four.
First off, I believe there is a place for an article Wavepackets in quantum mechanics, the subject being notable. One application, perhaps the most important one, is to show that wave packet treatments are (paradoxically) not necessary to consider in standard scattering processes.
Now, there were reasons that your previous contributions were deleted; these still remain – even if you don't recognize them. After all, you are a student who admits to not understanding wave packet, even though it gives a fairly basic standard example of a QM wave package. You are new to Wikipedia and are obviously not acquainted with common practice and guidelines, and are equally obviously inexperienced in writing articles. The combination of these things should deter you from persisting with this against the advice of others.
If you yourself nominate your new article for deletion (and support deletion), I promise to help you creating a good new article with the same title. Some other experienced editor (perhaps an experienced physicist) might come along to help a bit. If you choose to do so, please begin with a user page as per the suggestion above by Guy. Then when an acceptable draft is in place, submit it for creation using the Wikipedia:Article_wizard. This process gives a sanity check (so that it meets Wikipedia's minimum standards), and allows for polishing of the prospective article before it is reviewed. As the article now stands, it cannot stay. By itself, it is (at best) harmless, but it will deter readers from wave packet when they type in the search box. YohanN7 (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
In a nutshell: Don't use main space articles as your personal sandbox.
I see at talk:wave function that Guy too has offered help in the past. YohanN7 (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

Okay, I nominate for deletion of the the page. As two more editors had also edited the page, its difficult for me to delete it completely. --Farhan babra (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Guy van I followed your first option. I have the article in my sandbox however. Shall I follow through the article wizard. ?I had submitted for the review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Farhan_babra/sandbox. But the box below there says it may take weeks. --Farhan babra (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Since an editor moved it to Draft:Wave_packets_in_quantum_mechanics, I presume that this is where it should reside. I erased the copy of your effort that I put on Wikiversity. I will put comments regarding the article in this talk page. Do you have any questions?--guyvan52 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I just saw that this draft was rejected. For the record, I believe the author attempted to withdraw it, but he did it on my talk page. Too bad editors aren't omnipotent. I presume the article is supposed to go back to the author's userspace. Is that correct???--guyvan52 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please undo the erasing of my Wikiversity copy. Article is not in my userspace. --Farhan babra (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The draft can remain where it is. You can edit it and resubmit it. You should do it in just that order, edit and make a real article of it first, then submit it. I'll make suggestion on its talk page if you want me to. YohanN7 (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will restore the wikiversity copy if it is still there. Otherwise we can copy/paste from the wikipedia article.guyvan52 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to review an article

Hi, I have created and developed a page on Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for SU(3). This is my first article. The article is a bit technical and require expert opinion. It will be really helpful if you find some time to take a look at the article and propose any improvements if necessary. Thank you. Arkadipta Sarkar (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Arkadipta Sarkar

I haven't thought seriously about Clebsch Gordan coefficients for many decades. They are important an an article of them belongs in Wikipedia. What you wrote looks professional, but somebody more active in Quantum Mechanics needs to verify that it is technically correct.

Let's continue this conversation on the article's talk page at Talk:Clebsch–Gordan_coefficient_for_SU(3).--guyvan52 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A physics prof who thinks you need to add something.

Hi, I write for Wikiversity and like to link to Wikipedia on resources I write. See for example v:Physics equations. By relying on Wikipedia I find myself able to focus on the higher priority problem of assembling an open source course. I already have almost enough practice problems for an entire course in v:Category:Physics_equations/Quizzes. But I wanted to add impulse, which requires the concept of a time-averaged force over the interval over which a collision takes place. It's a really important topic, but the only thing I can find on Wikipedia is Expected_value#Univariate_continuous_random_variable.

It's an important generalization of this article, and you need either a good link, or a brief explanation in language a physics or engineering student would appreciate.

I would be happy to write a short section if you approve.--guyvan52 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask where you intend to edit? Better yet, just edit or create a new article (or draft if you, like me, prefer to go via articles for creation) YohanN7 (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping someone had already done it. As I understand it, there are only two Wikipedia articles on the subject:
1. Average is all about discrete systems and the averages I refer to are continuous. The two are related by the Riemann sum.
2. Expected_value#Univariate_continuous_random_variable is not written in a language that many first year engineering students understand.
I don't want to derail the first article by going on a tangent, and I don't want to dumb down the second article by restating the same concept in different notations. The one place I know this discrete/continuous "bridge" belongs is Wikiversity's v:Physics equations. I posted the question because I like to link out of w:Physics equations and into Wikipedia articles whenever possible.
You asked about writing a new Wikipedia article. Now that I think about it, the article would be on the transition from discrete to continuous systems using a variety of well-known problems. For a collision that occurs over a finite time interval, $\Delta t$, we break that collision time into much smaller intervals $\delta t$. (The former might be the collision time between a golf ball and the club, while the latter would be the time interval of an ultra high-speed camera.) Let $F_n$ be the force associated with the n-th frame of a camera that processed N frames. The discretely defined average force associated with that camera is:
$\bar F \Delta t=\frac {\sum_n F_n}{N} \cdot \Delta t = \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ F_n \cdot \left\{ \frac{\Delta t / \delta t}{N} \right\} \cdot \delta t \right] = \sum_{n=1}^N F_n \cdot \delta t \rightarrow \int_0^{\Delta t}F(t)\,dt$
Thanks for responding, YohanN7. The time I spent answering your question did not go to waste, because I now have the equation I needed. Someday I will write for Wikiversity a more systematic lesson on how to make the transition from discrete to continuous expressions; it might make for a good Wikipedia article.

Plase check talk

See Talk:Wave–particle_duality#Old_mainstream_is_the_Truth.3F and PS. --Krauss (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal of request for alternate account "Guy vandegrift's student"

I retract my effort to create this account. sorry for the inconvenience.

Have a stroopwafel!

 Thanks a bunch for your hard work! Morgan1747 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)