User talk:Spacepotato

Archives

I will reply here to messages left on this page. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will expect a reply there.

Sagittarius A*

No need to reply, but I thought I'd swing by and say thanks for the work on the Sgr A* article. The SMBH section is now much clearer about what Sgr A* is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrickball (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trigintillion

For the sake of completeness, here is a copy of what in my talk page followed by my response. --Champaign (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk page of the Names of large numbers article under the section No existence of "trigintillion"? I beg to differ!:

I have removed the sentence, "Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.)." Trigintillion would seem like a very logical name for 10⁹³ as triginta is Latin for thirty, so the name can obviously thus be easily created and used for this particular large number and the section on Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers uses this word just fine.--Champaign (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note from Champaign (talk): My edit was reverted by Spacepotato with this edit summary: 09:13, 8 January 2009 Spacepotato (talk|contribs) (32,208 bytes) ("Trigintillion" isn't in the cited dictionaries. It's in this article, but this article is not a dictionary.)

Ok. I concede your point. However, the sentence reads in its entirety:

Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of large numbers, in not included in any of them [dictionary numbers], nor in the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.). [strong emphasis and italics added]

Extending the naming pattern accordingly (by the way the third item on the list of examples should be trevigintillion and not "duoquinquagintillion," which would correspond to duoquinquaginta, the Latin for 52, and to 10¹⁵⁹ numerically in short scale...well, perhaps the writer was jumping numbers, but no matter), one would unavoidably end up at novemvigintillion or 10⁹⁰ and this number times 1000 (10⁹³) can have no other name "by extending the naming pattern," except trigintillion. Also, while it may be true that it is not a dictionary number, I have never heard this number name come up anywhere "in discussions of names of large numbers" I've ever had, which brings up another point: what source could be cited to support the assertion that trigintillion is "often cited as a word in discussions" like these? I figured, why even bring up trigintillon at all whether it's a dictionary number or not? I don't think the word is notable and I defy anyone to please show me a source that says it is. Anyway, I would like to give one week from writing this for someone to please show me a good reason why this sentence is relavent to this article. After that, if such is either not forthcoming or insufficient, I shall see no other alternative but to remove the entire sentence. --Champaign (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I replied to this on Talk:Names of large numbers.] Spacepotato (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developed County

Dear Spacepotato,

I noticed you didn't like the addition of OECD: developed country club - the ref I put in http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/57/39370725.pdf that you deleted has this in: "The OECD has taken a somewhat different route than the Commission, though its concerns, as befits a developed country ‘club’ are similar." on page 4. I don't think it is contentious to those working in development to refer to the OECD in this way.

Also you deleted FTSEgroup's list of developed countries and I would like to put it back. I have raised some issues with your deletion of that on the Developed country talk page. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As I mentioned in my edit summary, we need more substantiation than a mention in passing in an OECD report before saying that the OECD is "widely known as the 'developed country club'". This is a tendentious statement as it gives the impression that being in the OECD is synonymous with being developed.
As for the FTSE list, this is a ranking of financial markets and has nothing to do with the status of the country's economy overall. Spacepotato (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrt to developed countries club is it your argument that it the OECD is not referred to in this way or that it wasn't sufficiently referenced. In my view it is widely refered to as such and a quick look on Google's search engine yielded these:

If you think these would warrant your reverting your deletions feel free to put the thing back. PS wrt FTSE I have put my response of the developed country talk page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Altair GAN on hold

Hello, I have performed a Good Article review on Altair, and have placed it on hold until concerns left on its talk page are addressed. It will remain on hold for seven days. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born rule

Thanks for clarifying my edit, I only studied QM as an undergrad and I don't think we covered the idea that eigenstates might not just be 1D eigenvectors. Out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a physical variable where the eigenvalues of the measurement operator are discrete rather than continuous and the eigenstates have more than one dimension? Also, in such a case could we still say the probability of getting a given eigenstate is $|<\lambda _{i}|\psi >|^{2}$ , or does this only work when eigenstates are 1D eigenvectors? Hypnosifl (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we have two uncoupled spin-1/2 particles, and we observe S_z, the total spin in the z-direction of the whole system, then the eigenspace where S_z is zero will be 2-dimensional, spanned by |up>|down> and |down>|up>.
The formula $|<\lambda _{i}|\psi >|^{2}$ only works when eigenspaces are 1-dimensional. If an eigenspace has a finite number $q>1$ of dimensions, then $<\psi |P_{i}|\psi >$ can be expressed in terms of an orthonormal basis $|\lambda _{i}^{(1)}>$ , ..., $|\lambda _{i}^{(q)}>$ of the eigenspace as

<\psi |P_{i}|\psi >=|<\lambda _{i}^{(1)}|\psi >|^{2}+...+|<\lambda _{i}^{(q)}|\psi >|^{2}.

Spacepotato (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your example makes me think of another question: do eigenspaces with more than one dimension only occur when we're dealing with multiparticle wavefunctions, or could there be an observable of a single-particle wavefunction with eigenspaces of more than one dimension? Hypnosifl (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an example with one particle, you can take a single spin-3/2 particle and observe the operator T, where T is defined to be +1 if the z-component of the spin is positive and -1 if the z-component of the spin is negative. Spacepotato (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of an expanding universe

Hi. I was wondering why you undid my edit at "Future of an expanding universe." One of my study books shows Red Dwarf Evolution and I can see that the star just fades (because it can start helium and turn into a Red Giant) and collapses into a Black Dwarf. Thanks for some clarification, 68.40.189.45 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest consulting Figure 1 in The End of the Main Sequence (Gregory Laughlin, Peter Bodenheimer, and Fred C. Adams, The Astrophysical Journal, 482 (June 10, 1997), pp. 420–432, Bibcode:1997ApJ...482..420L, doi:10.1086/304125.) This figure gives the projected future evolution of a 0.1 solar mass red dwarf. As can be seen, even at a point where nuclear fusion has almost ceased the star is still quite hot, with an effective temperature of several thousand kelvin. It is certainly not a black dwarf at this point. Spacepotato (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that is true or outdated. In the study book I was reading (Which by the way is called "Universe") is shows a low mass star, about a third of the Sun's mass. The book says that once these stars finally use up all of their Hydrogen, they do not have enough energy to even start burning Helium, now the majority of the star. So, the star just collapses on itself with no massive explosion and slowly cools into a Black Dwarf once they finish shedding their gas very slowly. Thanks! 68.40.189.45 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a star becomes a white dwarf and then cools slowly. Spacepotato (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but its core had shut down and was cooling inside the collapsing gases. And, I'm not sure if you quite understand me, because I'm talking about M1-5 stars and not G or F (larger) stars. 68.40.189.45 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I understand that perfectly well. Spacepotato (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can you please look that up in another book or website and confirm the Red Dwarfs do expel their gas into a White Dwarf, instead of collapsing on themselves and then slowly shedding their gas and emerging as a Black Dwarf? 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the star becomes a white dwarf or not, not what evolutionary process it used to get there. However, if you are interested in the evolution of red dwarfs, I would suggest reading the Laughlin et al. paper I mentioned earlier. Spacepotato (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but my Study Book condradicts that, since Red Dwarfs never start burning their Helium, so can you please try looking at other websites? 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper does not say that low-mass red dwarfs ever go through a helium-burning stage. If you are equating becoming a white dwarf with going through a helium-burning stage, this is not correct. Spacepotato (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said that they never burn their Helium, and instead just fade into Black Dwarfs after finishing their Hydrogen burning stage. And, I think my book might be wrong since a lot of websites say that Red Dwarfs turn into Red or White Dwarfs after fading. 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase a portion of the paper for you, it states that for a 0.1 solar mass red dwarf, after several trillion years of fully convective hydrogen burning, a radiative core will develop at the center. Shortly thereafter, hydrogen will be exhausted at the center, the star will contract and become hotter, and hydrogen will burn in a shell around the center. Eventually the center will become degenerate, and some time after this the star will start to cool as it shrinks, finally becoming a helium white dwarf which will subsequently cool further. Spacepotato (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would also make sense, thanks for explaining that to me. Ok, see you around! 68.40.189.45 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant star

Spacepotato, you reverting my edit that changed the "Red giant" that was really correct. Above, you said Red dwarfs contract and the core with stop burning, and become a helium white dwarf. My point is that you said Red dwarfs never become Red giants, which I also knew before. So why did you change it back to giant if that is not correct, I don't think Red giants are still burning Hydrogen. . . 68.40.189.45 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fredric Alan Shapiro

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fredric Alan Shapiro, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-existent redirect, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Fredric Shapiro

RfD nomination of Fredric Alan Shapiro

Template:Expand-using-translation

Great minds think alike, I guess! Just recently User:Dr. Blofeld, User:AlbertHerring, and I developed a suite of similar templates independently, and I've taken the liberty of replacing yours with ours because ours have additional functionality. See {{Expand Spanish}}, {{Expand Japanese}}, etc. Would you mind if I deleted Template:Expand-using-translation as well? If you have any other ideas about how we can best deploy these templates, we'd love to have another collaborator. Keep up the good work! Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can delete Template:Expand-using-translation. Spacepotato (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Capella (star)

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone working on the issues brought up in the GAN review? It's been a week, and nothing has been done. Unless something happens in the next day or two, I will fail the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]