User talk:Teply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Science Service, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Your article, ANTARES, was selected for DYK![edit]

Updated DYK query On June 11, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ANTARES, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK for Phonon noise[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Einstein-Cartan theory[edit]

Wow, after rewriting a whole bunch of this article, I have found that it is even more messed up then it looks at first glance. I feel like blindly deleting half of it, but I am worried about slighting others' contributions just in case they happen to be better at explaining this really difficult subject to a general audience. Maybe I'll back off for a while now that I've set things up better for the next editor. Cesiumfrog, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by rjpetti's version. The citations I placed in the intro belong to what is usually meant by Einstein-Cartan theory. As for the rest of the article's wild ramblings, which without looking closely I presume are mostly rjpetti's contributions, I'm going to have to assume good faith. Most likely it is a semi-lay person's politicized "spin" on an otherwise perfectly legit theory well known to the gr-qc community.

The point you may be missing is that rjpetti seems to be the very author of most of the research cited on that page.

(Not sure why someone's wikipedia contributions should appear as such "messed up" "wild ramblings" if the same person's scientific contributions pass peer review.)

Please do continue! Your improvements so far are greatly appreciated. There is only one contributor who I think you unfortunately risk slighting (one who claims total possession of that page and is using it as a platform for self-advertising and POV pushing) but I hope that won't cause you to "back off" - there seems to be an extreme shortage of other contributors (probably because it is already such a specialised topic; my own knowledge is too limited to standard GR). Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Context[edit]

Please notice this edit. Neither the phrase "Given a metric tensor" nor anything else in the first sentence sufficiently tells the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. That needs to be there. Sometimes it's clear from the article's title. Sometimes "In geometry" or the like does it. But "In category theory" or the like does not: the lay reader has never heard of that. And a tensor is a type of muscle, so this could be about anatomy, and the word also may have meanings in other fields. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Cuzkatzimhut#entropic uncertainty principle[edit]

Maybe we could continue the discussion here, as it is not a topic too interesting to many. Admittedly, I may be deficient in NPOV in the Wehrl entropy, and perhaps it might fall on your shoulders to rebalance it. Personally, I am sufficiently familiar with the Wigner-Weyl-Moyal rep, that I don't see good reasons to use others, but they are all equivalent changes of language. I am put off by the unstated arguable errors perpetrated, which are probably shifts in POV... For example, information scientists rarely use their signal to compute expectation values of observables (e.g. moments) with, so small wonder they don't focus much on the dropped star product of Husimi... The consumers of the Wehrl rep are coherent-state quantum optics people, and they should get a voice in there, someplace, I suspect... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, small alarm on otherwise good idea section Uncertainty_principle#Phase_space. You chose a specific f, with coeffs (1,1,1), so the corresponding linear combination of eigenvalues of that matrix is semi-pos-def. But the point of the proof is that all lin-combs of e'ves with positive coeffs are semi-positive definite, so all 3 e'ves are such, and so the determinant. That is, all f's must be considered, so all (a,b,c)s, such that all e'ves are semipositive-definite. Nothing a half line or so of tweaking won't fix, but one should be all but relieved no ref for the still incomplete version here was adduced. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Sort of fixed. Maybe you can make it clearer + add a ref? And if you're not aware of any "special" kind of entropic principle unique to quasi-probabilities, then oh well. The biggest change, however, is in starting a new article on the phase space formulation of quantum mechanics. This unifies the otherwise somewhat disparate ideas presented in articles like Weyl quantization, Wigner quasi-probability distribution, and Moyal bracket. You may be very interested in editing it. Teply (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Did the ref. I'm not sure how to make it clearer, without perorating endlessly on why the f*f expectation really parallels the positivity of the norm in Hilbert space, and how it devises a clever modality for arranging that. I think the interested reader could hit the literature... No, I fear I can't think of entropic information principles in phase space. I don't have time just now, but the Weyl quantizaiton stub could ultimately merge into the new article on phase-space quantization. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the penumbral articles and stubs introduced in support of the massive improvement of the uncertainty principle overhaul underway. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to second this, and would have awarded you myself if no-one else, had but Cuzkatzimhut did. Thanks for your immense efforts into the article, and sorry to arrive late for this and being completely useless as help towards the article back then. Maschen (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phase space formulation[edit]

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Schwinger limit[edit]

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roundy Coughlin[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Archives on talk pages[edit]

Hi, I placed them there ready for archiving when needed. It's not a problem that you deleted the one on Talk:Manifest covariance, just thought to let you know. Maschen (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Notation for ADM Formalism?[edit]

Hello,

I noticed the articles on the ADM formalism, Canonical quantum gravity, and others, use different notation for the three-metric. (Heck, even on the ADM formalism article, inconsistent notation is used!) I also suspect you are more familiar with wiki-protocol than I, so I wanted to ask: how can we try to standardize the notation for this?

Wikipedia already does (as I understand it) use West coast time signature for relativity articles, East coast signatures for particle physics articles, etc. It seems that similarly standardized notation for the three-metric, and so on, should be used...am I mistaken?

I would like to hear your two-cents on the matter, since I am confused what to make of the situation.

Regards, Pqnelson (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question. If your only concern is where to use Greek/Latin and 4/3 when splitting off a 3-metric, then you may as well follow Deser.
The de facto protocol for the sign convention is, frankly, first-come, first-served. As with the different spellings of words in the English language per WP:RETAIN, whoever writes the article first gets to decide which spelling to use. For a pair of closely related articles like ADM formalism and canonical quantum gravity, they should probably share the same convention, whichever you choose. Just write something like "changing sign convention to look more like article X" in the edit summary. The usual strategies of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR always apply.
If that seems unsatisfactory to you, that's because it is. Most articles will declare up front which convention is to be used, will use the more common convention for that application in the literature [unfortunately distinct conventions (+---) for HEP vs. (-+++) for GR], and will be consistent throughout the article. You can sidestep this with a few alternative methods. One is to refer to the convention-independent proper time instead of the convention-dependent line element. I did that for Peres metric, and quickly looking I see most of the major familiar solutions (Schwarzschild metric, Reissner–Nordström metric, Kerr metric) follow suit. Another is to present both conventions side by side. That can get messy, and I wouldn't recommend it unless you're making a special point about the differences. Finally, you can be inconsistent in your use of sign convention as long as you're really, really clear about it. This method is risky, but popular books like Robert Wald's General Relativity (book) get away with it. See that book's chapter 13 compared to everywhere else. My personal feeling is that owing to his need to switch to (+---) there, he should have used it everywhere.
The original ADM papers, like most GR literature, use (-+++). In a way, it makes sense for ADM because it singles out a separate 3-metric for space that may as well be positive. On the other hand, that's not necessarily a reason to repeat the signature in Wikipedia. Again, my personal feeling is to go with (+---) everywhere. My reasoning is slightly unconventional, namely that (+---) is the most naturally related to the spacetime algebra. You will note that although the spacelike basis vectors square to -1 in STA, the basis vectors of the 3-D algebra of physical space still square to +1 as you'd want in an all positive 3-metric. To my knowledge, nobody has actually gone through with this program of producing a Hamiltonian version of gravitation starting from geometric algebra though I'd be thrilled to see how it looks. Teply (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lanczos tensor[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Lanczos tensor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lanczos tensor[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement![edit]

Hello Teply, thank you very much for your encouragement and the cup of tea! I was totally occupied from early September to late October, but from now on, I will be able to continuously contribute to Wikipedia again within my academic ability. With my best regards! --David W. Tian 10:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWTian (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genoese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mắm nêm[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mắm nêm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Uberaccount (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Binasuan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filipino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Outermorphism, Teply!

Wikipedia editor Falkirks just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I passed you new page. Great article!

To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geometric calculus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vectors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Geometric algebra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Integration, Scalar, Differentiation, Parallel and Vector

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Relativistic angular momentum[edit]

While we're discussing rotations, and since this new article was badly needed, which includes mention of angular momentum in GA, you may like to edit the article. Also, I'm clueless on AM in general relativity, even while looking into the literature it just doesn't absorb. There is a stub section on this in the article, and there's no rush to expand it of course. Best, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a little bit. I think of angular momentum in SR as being mostly trivial. Rotation is just another Lorentz transformation, and it's of the easier, non-boost variety. There is one important caveat, however, that is still missing from the article. You can't have a rigid body that rotates too fast. Otherwise the farther a point of the object is from the axis of rotation, the faster that point moves, with no bound. In reality, as you rotate the object faster and faster, the outermost constituent particles get more and more energy, until eventually their kinetic energy (heat) overcomes the binding forces. To some degree GR is not much different. The major questions are mostly from the related subjects, like what the claim "the active galactic nucleus in NGC 1365 is a near-maximally rotating black hole" is supposed to mean. Teply (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of the tangential velocity bounded by c should be in there, it was quickly pasted in light of what you suggested, and there's more to add on the relation to angular velocity, moment of inertia, and torque, and all their subtitles/surprises, and 3d Lorentz transformations of components would be instructive (drafted but need to confirm), maybe even more on the Thomas precession and Ehrenfest paradox than just in the see also section (or not, can leave for now without loss of continuity)...
Also need to pin down the nature of the mass moment: partially its name(s) and symbol(s) but more importantly it's relativistic 3d definition as a component of the AM tensor. The one I wrote is consistent (aside from typos), but there must by subtleties... It can wait a while.
With GR it's probably just me, but I can't seem to pin down the definition of general relativistic AM since Killing vectors fields (unfamiliar) and the stress-energy tensor (intuitive since it contains the energy-momentum fluxes and densities) enter the equations for the AM tensor and there are sometimes mentions of Komar quantities, sometimes additionally the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector as well.
Finally some illuminating examples of astrophysical applications would be nice, especially for planetary motion, neutron stars, galaxies, even black holes... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 06:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally: Spherical basis[edit]

I finally started it for now. Spherical harmonics are familiar from and quantum mechanics, but what we really need to be careful on is the notations/conventions various authors seem to use (and the errors in some pdfs floating around). It is a huge mess, incomplete and probably full of typos/inaccuracies, and I intend to finish it soon, though as you say at least others can edit it now. Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve University of Science and Technology of Hanoi[edit]

Hi, I'm King Of The Wise. Teply, thanks for creating University of Science and Technology of Hanoi!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Add some references (for example from where did you get this Since 2010 it has been operating in temporary facilities shared with Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology.) facts like these need references. Also try expanding it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. King Of The Wise (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gravitation waves ITN[edit]

I left this note on ITN too, but since the item will cycle off the page soon, I wanted to make sure you saw it:

If you could spend some time referencing (and making sure everythign is accurate) in the rest of gravitational wave, I will be happy to do the update part. Adding references for existing material is not a COI violation.

Writing about the new discovery is simple enough, but referencing all the existing technical stuff is beyond my abilities. Together, maybe we can get this story featured. Right now, we still have two stories from 3/15 on ITN, so it is not too late to get the story posted if we act quickly. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)