User talk:Brews ohare

On improving the editing climate

• On drafting clear sanctions   

• Filtering ArbCom cases     

• Handling minority views    

• What administrators should do 

• Trouble on WP: an open letter

►      …      ♫       …       ◄      ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

20:26, 29 March 2010

Discuss this

Other editors' restrictions

Situation

Physchim62 and rollback.

To set things straight concerning this, Psychim62 did not rollback anything, Happy-melon oversighted. (See this.) This is typically done to remove personal information that identifies users who wishes to keep anonymous. If you want to make sure oversight was appropriate and complied with the oversight policy, ask Happy-melon about it. It you still think it was inappropriate, make a request at the Audit Subcommitee. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Great to have you back!

Hey Brews. I just noticed you'd returned to editing and wanted to let you know that it's great having you back. I was never too clear on exactly what the ArbCom drama was all about and didn't want to interfere, but I'm glad that it's finally over. Anyway, hope you weren't too discouraged and that we'll be able to work on some articles again in the future. -Roger (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Thanks for the welcome. Of course, I still have a couple of months of sanctions, but for the moment the hornets chasing my every step have left. However, my enthusiasm for WP has been seriously wounded, as I never before had any idea of the population in its upper bureaucracy. Had I explored the web, I'd have learned much sooner and more easily. It taints the whole enterprise, and makes it exactly like dealing with city hall: no utopia, just venal politicking and posturing. As it is, I am struggling still to adjust to the idea that WP has such clay feet. Brews ohare (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Priority

In view of the fact that I published the "proof using differentials" of the Pythagorean several years before Mike Staring published the same proof, could you restore some mention of that fact to the relevant section? My paper is still listed among the references. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael: I was unable to locate your original work, as the original paper in The Mathematical Intelligencer apparently is not archived. As you know, Proof #40 already is referenced, and it leads off with this proof attributed to yourself. The only accessible source for your argument is Proof #40, which is unsatisfactory because it assumes the differential triangle containing dx and dy is right, but does not attempt to establish it. That presentation concludes with some skeptical remarks.

I fleshed the argument out in a version here, but found great resistance to it, and had to abandon it.

How would you suggest this matter should be handled? Can you track down the details of The Mathematical Intelligencer source (title, volume, etc.)? Brews ohare (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jacobi Identity and the sine of an angle in the vector cross product

Brews, I will copy out the proof from my applied maths notes which links the sine of the angle in the cross prodcut to the Jacobi identity. I am not good with the mathematical symbols and so it would be good if you could make a perfected version of this proof.

I'll copy it out verbatim as best as I can improvise with the symbols. David Tombe (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My translation:

Exercise: Show that the Jacobi identity,

$\mathbf {a\times (b\times c)} +\mathbf {b\times (c\times a)} +\mathbf {c\times (a\times b)} =0\ ,$

together with:

$\mathbf {a\times b} =ab\ f(\theta )\mathbf {\hat {n}} \ ,$

where θ is the angle between the vectors and $\mathbf {\hat {n}}$ is perpendicular to the vectors a and b, requires that

$f(2\theta )=2\cos \theta \ f(\theta )\ ,$

so that

$f(\theta )=\sin \theta \ ,$

taking

$f(\pi /2)=1\ .$

Solution: Take a, b, and c to be coplanar and choose the angle between a and b, and between b and c to be θ, and the angle between a and c to be 2θ. Then,

$\mathbf {a\times (b\times c)} =abc\ f(\theta )\ \mathbf {{\hat {a}}\times {\hat {n}}} \ ,$

$\mathbf {c\times (a\times b)} =abc\ f(\theta )\ \mathbf {{\hat {c}}\times {\hat {n}}} \ ,$

$\mathbf {b\times (c\times a)} =abc\ f(2\theta )\ \mathbf {{\hat {n}}\times {\hat {b}}} \ ,$

and so,

$\mathbf {({\hat {a}}+{\hat {c}})\times {\hat {n}}} \ f(\theta )=\mathbf {{\hat {b}}\times {\hat {n}}} \ f(2\theta )\ .$

Now,

$\mathbf {{\hat {a}}+{\hat {c}}} =2\cos \theta \ \mathbf {\hat {b}} \ ,$

and so:

$2\cos \theta \ f(\theta )=f(2\theta )\ .$

Since

$\sin(2\theta )=2\cos \theta \sin \theta \ ,$

it follows that:

${\frac {\sin(2\theta )}{\sin \theta }}\ f(\theta )=f(2\theta )\,$

or, for arbitrary values of θ:

$g(\theta )=g(2\theta )\ ,$

wheθre:

$g(\theta )={\frac {f(\theta )}{\sin \theta }}\ .$

Hence:

$g(\theta )=\mathrm {constant} \ ,$

and so:

$f(\theta )=\sin \theta ,\ \mathrm {taking} \ f(\pi /2)=1\ .$ Brews ohare (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, That's excellent. David Tombe (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Testing the limits?

Is Eccentric anomaly not "physics, broadly construed"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dick, I am touched by your concern that I might stray off the reservation. However, the eccentric anomaly is nothing more than a mathematical device used to simplify description of a point traveling around an ellipse by use of an image point (the corresponding point) traveling around a circle. No physics here, just a mathematical device. Here is the definition:

The eccentric anomaly of a point P located upon an ellipse is determined by drawing a vertical line from the major axis of the ellipse through the point P and locating its intercept P′ with the auxiliary circle, a circle of radius ‘a’ (the semi-major axis of the ellipse) that enscribes the entire ellipse. The line from the center to the point P' makes an angle called the eccentric anomaly with the major axis of the ellipse.

It is a common failing of non-technical and even some technical WP editors to read physics into mathematics, as math shows up so often in physics. However, as you are aware, the two complement each other, but are not to be confounded with each other. Thank you for the opportunity to point out once again this important but often misunderstood point.

Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article starts "In celestial mechanics, ...". I guess it's just a question of how broadly construed, hence my question. Dicklyon (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Dick, as you can see, there is absolutely zero physics in this article, and the phrase "in celestial mechanics" doesn't imply some physical content is to follow, but only that the term crops up there. There is nothing here but mathematical formalism connecting a location P on an ellipse to its corresponding point P′ on a circumscribing circle. Do you see anything beyond math here, or are you simply concerned that others might be confused? Brews ohare (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How's it Hanging Brews?

Hey I was checking out the Citzendieum started by Larry Sanger. I'm not suggesting you leave wikipedia or anything of the sort but the way that site is set up with your credentials I think you would make a excellent addition to their Editor ranks. They require you to be a expert but you would have a part in reviewing submitted content and making sure it is correct. Not advocating for you, just figured to point out that you could also contribute there with your qualifications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi H in a B: That is Likebox's decision, I take it. Who knows how it will roll out in the long run? If WP can limp along with misguided allocation of arbitration to the uninformed and ineducable, it may remain more or less as it now is. If it adopts new methods based upon accommodating outside agencies like the British Museum, giving them WP "editors in residence" with greater control than other editors, where will that lead? Added authority for those embedded in expert environments may make sense, but how about the creation of ever more layers of bureaucracy that insulate decision makers from responsible behavior? If new authority for admins like "pending changes" further empowers cabals to enforce dubious "principles" and dubious judgment, who knows? My present guess is that it still is early to jump ship. Brews ohare (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass of the proton

Hi,

I recently came across the edits you did to the mass of the proton section and I wanted to point out that the critiques you put there to a recent lattice determination of the proton mass are unfounded.

As I am one of the original authors of the study cited there, I will of course refrain from editing the Wikipedia entry, but I wanted to let you know, that what you present in the article is, according to Wiki standards, either original research or unfounded claims.

First of all, you are claiming that chiral extrapolations are an unaccounted source of systematic error. This is not true. We took meticulous care to conservatively estimate the possible systematic effects due to this very tiny extrapolation. In fact, we employed several different methods of estimating this error, that are all documented in our paper. This error estimation is very conservative and has not been challenged scientifically by anyone I know of.

Then you claim that the results are still controversial. The citation you provide to back up these claims however is to HEP-PH/0612014, which predates the article in question by almost 2 years and deals with the totally unrelated topic of electromagnetic form factors. I challenge you to find any article that marks our results as controversial. On the contrary, over the past 2 years, many groups have reproduced our result in various settings and here is a (possibly incomplete) list: arxiv:0910.2419 - Phys. Rev. D80, 114503 (2009) arXiv:0911.2561 - Phys.Rev.D81:074503,2010 arXiv:0807.1661 - Phys.Rev.D79:034503,2009 arXiv:0903.3598 arXiv:1003.1114 - Phys.Lett.B690:436-441,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.195.105.33 (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you take these observations to the article Talk page and create an account, rather than using an anonymous account number. Brews ohare (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem / History

Hi, I found an interesting text about the Plimpton 322 tablet: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2695324, maybe the section needs some complement? Sorry, I can't help much because my English is not good enough, good luck on making the article featured. AmigoDoPaulo (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this paper. As you said, it is very interesting. I'll add it to the two articles as a reference. Brews ohare (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to physics!

		Welcome back to physics!
		Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Count Iblis: Thanks for the welcome back. I think it may still be a few days for it to officially happen.

I'd note that this episode has had its effect upon me, though. I believe there are a number of changes in the way things are done that would greatly improve matters on WP. I also believe they aren't going to happen, mainly because there are very few involved in the WP bureaucracy that have an interest in improving the encyclopedia editing environment, and even fewer with any idea of how to do it. Brews ohare (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on AfD

Hello. Just wanted to let you know I responded to your comment and answered the questions posed to me on the AfD discussion here: [1] . Thanks for the thoughtful discourse. Minor4th • talk 03:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

|Likewise commenting on the article that was just deleted. Without getting into a long debate, you asked an important point of principle and I didn't comment on it during the debate itself.

"Do we have to wait for the NY Times to do an article on the failures of administrators and administrative procedures so as to escape the rubric of WP:OR" - yes we do. Or some other reliable source. See my comment at User talk:Jorge Stolfi#Admin abuse article for why, and what happens if we don't. Notice that claims related to this very article were substantiated by what were - upon review - inaccurate claims made to "prove a point" (not claiming deliberateness or bad faith, just that factually they were not being accurately described).

Academics, bloggers, opinion formers and writers, and the like, do write original material where their own views are stated. That's their role and job. Ours isn't that.

In articles on Wikipedia, where we may have bias, it's more important, not less, to be careful not to misrepresent what's "known" in reliable sources even by accident. Making a claim that "source X says Y" when it doesn't would be near-suicide in an academic or most other reference sources context. Whether in paid or charitable work people get fired for it. It's crucial to know how to report what is said, not what one believes should have been said, if documenting what others have opined. The same logic that aims to stop cults and pseudoscientists from making unfounded claims on Wikipedia acts here - we report what's said, or could be cited, from reliable sources. While we may at times stretch a point and not cite everything, that's for ease rather than because we don't have to or can't. If challenged then material generally would require proof (verifiability) or removal.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FT2: I've no problem with what you say. My problem is this: WP needs to evolve. That requires assessment of what is going on here. Although there are forums for that, they lack the ability to summarize and assess, and tend to be rambling rants that never stay on topic and never get to proper assessment. Essays are marginalized. Project pages deal with minutiae. That impedes the ability of WP to monitor what it is trying to do to improve and evolve. Brews ohare (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceleration Image

I've left a comment on your image for acceleration. I can't figure out how you got 1/mag(v) as the coefficient. It can't be right, because then the units on acceleration would be 1/length (a = 1/mag(v)*d/dt ut = 1/(length/time)*(unit-less/time) = 1/length). I suggest correcting the image to be v*v/R.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.78.2 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this problem. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing other editors comments

You should know by now it is never acceptable to edit or remove other editors comments, and that includes headings: you made your comment a reply to mine, which includes the heading. Your heading seems to presume the answer to the question "what should the table heading be" so is hardly neutral.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

John, you mischaracterize my actions. I had already opened a section on this topic before you made your section on the same thing. So I collapsed the two sections into one. I did not edit your comment. You are making mountains out of molehills, again. Brews ohare (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia editors have fairly broad discretion to "refactor" comments even on article talk pages. I've seen Jimbo Wales remove long discussion threads from his user page recently - so far as I know he wasn't invoking a special privilege but expressing any user's right to clear out a discussion he's gotten tired of. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue in question is long passed, but I should point out there's a big difference between a user's talk pages, which within reason the user can edit as they please, and other talk pages which no-one owns. It sometimes seems like Talk:Jimbo Wales is a formal part of WP, but it's really just another editor's talk page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right there (some confusion on my part) - even so, I've had my article talk page headings changed on occasion (I remember some spoil-fun altered my heading "Roast nuts?" at Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253...). Some others love to run around deleting comments claiming that article talk pages are not a forum, even when you've asked a legitimate science question. This wasn't a high crime or misdemeanor, but on consideration I suppose there wasn't any real reason for him to mess with your heading - sorry for stirring up a passed point. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

formatting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

I had to fix the formatting of your contribution to the AfD discussion as it was inconsistent with normal AfD practice; in particular the use of a heading broke the transclusion at the log page. I hope I've preserved the sense of your comments in doing so.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus

Please, please don't add material just because you find it interesting. It needs to be directly relevant to the article and be well sourced. Especially when there's an AFD in progress, for Christ's sake. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Please don't add original research to articles as you did with this string of edits on Redefinition of the metre in 1983. I have removed the entire section and left a note on the talk page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw mention of the arbitration case just recently - I am quite convinced that [2] was the wrong decision. I am not sure whether this is due to some technical misunderstanding on their part about what you were saying about the speed of light, or due to what I perceive as a pronounced tendency of punishing people on both sides of every case, even if that means targeting some innocents to balance it out. The edits they cite as improper editing are quite reasonable and generally patient explanations of the underlying physics, with perhaps one exception where your annoyance started to show, but certainly nothing outrageous.

Even so, I'm concerned that you're allowing your quite reasonable indignation and commendable persistence to get in the way of the better work you could be doing here. The section you most recently contributed is not unsourced, but it is a bit lengthy and has something of an argumentative rather than encyclopedic tone, and I don't think it educates the reader as well as the first work you did on this at speed of light. I think you should broaden your focus and look for new, interesting information to bring to the table.

For example, the article Length is in a fairly sorry state, short, and, interestingly to note, altogether undeletable. I know that length can be measured by comparison to a platinum reference meter (i.e. by assuming invariant bond length between metal atoms at a certain temperature and pressure), or by the time it takes light to cover the distance assuming a strictly invariant c. I think you've mentioned other ways by which length might be measured, including wavelengths of light at a known emission frequency? and some others I didn't quite understand. Since wavelength is related to frequency by c I don't know whether it would change if c changed, and since chemical bonds are electromagnetic I'd think even those might change with it.. it could be interesting to know more. I think that a comprehensive discussion of various means by which length can be measured would greatly improve that article, while allowing others more background to understand what I take to be one of your main points: that the meter is now a unit of time, and so it is not meaningful to measure the speed of light in m/s but it has become meaningful to measure how long a meter is. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, have you really invited a "comprehensive discussion" from Brews? Stand back! You may get more than you imagine. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wnt: I appreciate your comments and suggestions. The article on interferometry, a major method for determining length, also is a bit short on technical details that would clarify what the sources of error are. If my energy holds up, perhaps we can meet on one of these venues. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions about interferometer picture

An interferometric determination of length. Top: constructive interference; bottom: destructive interference.

I had some questions about this picture. The first is very mundane: could you do an SVG version of this to make it scale better?

The second is more involved. Although I get the general gist of the diagram, the details are a bit confusing. The bottom part of each interferometer seems to suggest that the interference is determined by have the beams entire some cavity from opposite sides and forming a standing wave there. This is not the most usual setup for an interferometer, most use the Michelson setup where the different beams are united and project on a screen where they form one of the familiar ring interference patterns. I'm assuming that this suggestion is not intentional, but since I'm a bit confused by it others maybe as well. Maybe something can be done to make it clearer?TimothyRias (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Timothy: You bring up some good points. As for SVG, I confess to not understanding how to to that, and having some misgivings about how long it might take me to learn how.

As for the structure of the diagram, it is very schematic. As you know, there are a number of interferometers out there: the Michelson interferometer, the Rayleigh interferometer, the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the Sagnac inerferometer being the most often discussed. The diagram doesn't approximate any of these in anything like the complexity they really involve. It is simply intended to get the idea across of path-difference and its relation to constructive and destructive interference. The issues of Newton's rings or other types of fringe patterns is not even envisioned.

It may be that another diagram could incorporate more real-world complications without involving one in a maze of explanation: you never know what artistic conception can do. However, at the moment I've got no great ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the SVG bit. What program did you use to make this graphic? I assume it is some vector based drawing package ala illustrator or corel draw. I would be surprised if modern versions of these did not have the ability to export to SVG. As for the rest, I'll see if I can come up with any good ideas. TimothyRias (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim: What I've been doing is making pictures in Excel and saving them as JPEG or PING files. My options don't include SVG. They do include GIF or TIFF. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unconventional, but I guess it works. May I suggest you try Inkscape, it is pretty good freeware vector based graphics package. Functionality is similar to using the rudimentary graphics capabilities of MS office, but more user friendly, which can output SVG graphics. (You might even try copying and pasting your office graphics into the program, I'm always surprised in how many situations that actually works. In the meantime I think I have an idea for graphic based on a simple diagram of a michelson interferometer. I'll make a quick mock up tomorrow.TimothyRias (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this. (Some labels need to added, maybe some arrows to indicate the direction of the rays. TimothyRias (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful

Please review Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. My concern with your proposals relates to WP:NOR and what I feel is your ignoring my request[3] for the excerpt from the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)