Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Faster than light travel?

There is discussion at the Talk:Tachyon#Removal of content page regarding whether it is acceptable to have the article say that faster than light travel is impossible. All informed input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: in the above statement, faster than light travel and faster than light communication are being confused. FTL travel does not imply FTL comms: see tachyon for details. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the members of this project know enough about the subject that they not need to be insulted by you by having you talking down to them in that way. However, I acknowledge that what is being discussed is "communication". John Carter 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although, if FTL is technically possible, would that not mean that FTL communication would also be possible? Considering that FTL travel has been stated by several parties to be at least marginally possible in a number of admittedly bizarre situations, one would think that any body engaged in FTL travel would be at least potentially capable of communicating information. And in my eyes the operative question is the use of the word "impossible" and synonyms. I have very serious reservations about anyone saying that anything is "impossible", particular in this field, given the relative dearth of truly universal data. Were the content to be altered to at least indicate that there is, or at least was, some disagreement regarding the subject, as there has regularly been, that would probably be sufficient. John Carter 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Although, if FTL is technically possible, would that not mean that FTL communication would also be possible? " No it would not. You need to read (and understand) the Feinberg reference, which is explained (not doubt inadequately) in the article. Feinberg's demonstration of this, within the framework of quantum field theory, is watertight and accepted by experts in the field. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it is accepted by experts in the field. The question is whether it is accepted by such a overwhelming number of experts in the field that there is no real disagreement. If there is disagreement by reliable, verifiable sources, even "cranks", then that disagreement should at least be indicated. I'm not necessarily saying that explicit reference to them should be included in the article, but simply indicating that there is some disagreement would probably be sufficient. John Carter 15:23, 14 November 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)

Portal:Physics

Due to a lack of much free time at present, and for the foreseeable future, I've stopped updating Portal:Physics. As it was set up, the portal needed a new selected article and image each month, and ideally also needed the news updating, and new anniversaries adding. 199.125.109.136 (talk · contribs) has effectively frozen the portal as it is for the time being. I'd encourage anyone interested in doing so to keep updating the portal. Otherwise, I expect that it will loose its' featured portal status at some point in the next few months. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Beast of traal T C _ 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal

FAR for Carl Friedrich Gauss

Carl Friedrich Gauss has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tired light

User:Harald88 continues to insist that certain extremely fringe publications that are only cited by the authors get included at tired light which was a proposal made by Fritz Zwicky o so many years ago and now has been consigned to the dustbin of history. As it is, these references look very much to me like soapboxing. I'm not sure if Harald is associated with Marmet, Masreliez , or Accardi, but he seems to be peculiarly convinced that their papers have relevance to physics beyond the astrophysics community where these cranks have received little to no recognition for their ideas. I would appreciate a third opinion on the matter as I cannot seem to get Harald to understand that these references do not belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. Thanks. Please comment at Talk:Tired light. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New user help

how do i start participating in this project? Sai2020 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Found the participants page.. sorry Sai2020 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Help: review Gamow factor

Wrote an article Gamow factor regarding a quantum mechanical correction to nuclei overwinning the Coulomb Barrier. But I don't understand physics formulae (only mathematical ones), so the Gamow factor stub might need a formula. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Slotin

I'm no expert on nuclear physics, so I was hoping someone more experienced in the field could take a look at Louis Slotin and make sure all the facts are straight (especially the nuclear details of accident). I hope to take this article to featured article status in a few weeks. Thanks in advance, Nishkid64 (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion -> Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Cold fusion has been proposed to be renamed low energy nuclear reaction (LENR), see talk:Cold fusion for details. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template programming challenge

Hi all -- Template:electromagnetism3 was recently programmed by DJIndica. The idea was to keep the template from being overwhelmingly long by using show/hide boxes, and moreover the template has the nice feature that pages can call it with the most relevent show/hide box showing (e.g. in Biot-Savart law, the template starts out with "magnetostatics" box open). However, at some font sizes, the text in the box can overlap the text that says "show" or "hide". The challenge is to fix that.

Note the discussion page, where Alanwillemsen demonstrates a different way to set up the template, which appears to fix the text-overlap issue (albeit the expense of awkward line-breaking), but it does not have the feature mentioned above (i.e., pages can't call it with a particular box showing).

Once the bugs are worked out, I think there are some other overwhelmingly-long physics templates that would benefit from an analogous reformatting (I'm thinking of template:quantum and template:condensed matter physics in particular). --Steve (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Röntgen

The X-ray article shows the first radiograph of Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand while the article of Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen shows the exact same picture entitled radiograph taken by Röntgen of Albert von Kölliker's hand. One radiograph was taken in November 1895 the other early 1896 but which one is shown in this image? The google search gives more blured images stating that they were taken of Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand. Can anybody help with this problem?--Stone (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delta-v (physics) for deletion

Delta-v (physics) has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics). A suggestion has been made to perhaps merge with Delta-v, the orbital dynamics article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia: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)

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 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 Wikipedia:Village pump) might be useful. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:43, 10 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)

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)

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)

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)

FAR listing for Plate tectonics

Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.