User talk:TStein

 This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

Thanks a bunch.

Any help is really, really appreciated. There's a lot of work to do and doing it alone is just plain evil.Headbomb {— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.
ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week
03:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TNX-Man 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you were trying to add something to the talk page of this article (which you can find here), but accidentally created a page instead. I nominated the page you accidentally created for deletion. I hope this helps. Cheers. TNX-Man 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

category-->cat

Why are you changing them?

I am trying to clear the unassessed articles a little. Category is not class that the bot recognizes for physics. You can check Template:Physics to see that cat is recognized. I figured that cat was the correct value and people just did not know it. I was a little worried that cat meant catalog or catatonic, but the result did mention category on the evaluation. The bot doesn't recognize list either, but there is nothing I can do about that.
It is not a big deal to me. I only changed 2 or 3 articles.

TStein (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I frigged around with the cat category and saw what it did. I switched them back to cat since it made them properly categorized. I've tried to change the {{physics}} code but the page is locked and I don't know who to contact to have it unlocked/have the code changed.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 04:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Man (or woman) you really don't know how glad I am that you're back.

For a while, it felt like I was working in a vacuum. Thanks for helping with the behind the scene stuff! Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Navigation panel is not working correctly

See for example: Covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism

Brews ohare (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There was vandalism on Template:electromagnetism page which Bdodo1992 (talk) fixed about an hour after it was vandalized and a little after you commented here. I cannot see any problems with the current template. If there is another problem let me know and I will do what I can. (My ability with templates is limited to hacking away until I get something that works.) Headbomb (talk) and others are better at that then I am.

Tagging.

I noticed that you've been tagging some articles with the bio parameter. You might as well save yourself the trouble, the bot will run over all these pages soon and do it for us. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I figured that out but late. It is amusing that I did everything in the wrong order. First I tagged a bunch of articles. Then I gave up and searched for a bot. After a lot of searching I finally found the right bot only to find that you were already there. Finally I stumbled across the talk page at BPH to find the link to the bot I took so long to find. The only way it could be funnier if it was someone else who stumbled around instead of me. TStein (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well to be honest, I was going to ask you to build a category list since I'm rather busy, but in building my request for help (finding example of what to include, what to exclude, etc...) I ended up having 80% of it done. So I just finished the job instead of bothering you. However, since you have an interest in tagging, and now have an example of a bot request for tagging, perhaps you could investigate the categories for the publications taskforce (perhaps it's there's no category suitable for tagging, perhaps there is). I haven't touched that yet, and don't plan to do so for a couple of days at least. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb, the list is up on BPH. I did what I could with no guarantees. It can be tricky to find all possible ways to sort something. I did not post it on the bot site since the bot administrator wants concensus first; although he has waived that requirement for you in the past. I would not say I have a huge interest in tagging, though. I just want to do what I can to help with the project as a whole. TStein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it'll be a good starting point and is a huge help, I'll review them soon and go through your suggestion of invertigating the history of science categories and wikiproject. Thumbs up. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tstein, I noticed your comments about the time varying and convective components of Faraday's law on the magnetic field talk page. It's the first time that I've seen somebody else on wikipedia who can see the situation clearly for what it is. You described the situation exactly. It can all be explained as follows,

Consider that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} }$ is,

${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =-({\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}-\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} )}$

Then taking the curl, we get,

${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {E} =-({\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+({\mathbf {v} \cdot \nabla })\mathbf {B} )=-{{d\mathbf {B} } \over dt}}$

I tried to put this into the main article at Faraday's law but it met with strenuous resistance. I never would have believed that such confusion could be stirred up because of differing semantics spread over a range of different sources. And yet when you lay the bare facts on the table, nobody wants to know. Nobody wants to see the simple underlying pattern behind it. Have a look at the talk page on Faraday's law to see what I mean. David Tombe (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. I have visited, Faraday's Law before and I agree it is a mess. I could put my two cents in there, but I am not quite sure that it would do any good. The opinions are so strong that I don't think I can convince anyone. (The same can be said about me, of course.) Perhaps I could come up with a better solution that works, but I wonder if it is worth the effort.
Truth be told, there are so many things that need to be fixed in WP that it is just easier to move on to something else where my efforts will hopefully be more appreciated and without someone else undoing my work.
I will probably come back to magnetic field etc.. once I calm down a little and don't feel like going on a mass revert spree. I am fixing up another mess with harmonic oscillators and my time is limited, though.
I agree with the spirit of your derivation, although the starting equation is not a commonly known relation, so you would first have to derive it. There are a lot of silly things in E&M where the even authors of textbooks get caught up in arguments. One of these is the craziness about what to call Faraday's law. Personally, I put the blame on Heaviside who forced Maxwell's equations into their modern 'symmetric form' and eliminated A and Phi as 'parasites' in favor of E and B. This has the unfortunate side effect of obfuscating the relativistic relationship between E and B. What elementary physic E&M textbook can afford (while discussing Faraday's law) to divert to a discussion of the symmettries of the electromagnetic field tensor.
In short, I will see what I can do but it might take a while.TStein (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tstein, Absolutely. I also put the blame on Heaviside. In fact, I wrote about that very point here [1]. Heaviside allowed the v×B term to disappear from Maxwell's equations. The equation which you said that I would have to derive first is aleady equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper. This was all dealt with in detail by Maxwell. Maxwell gave detailed physical explanations for the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. The mess came when Lorentz and Einstein started putting the v×B term back in a again (when it got the name 'The Lorentz Force'). Feynman has got nothing to do with it all apart from the fact that he noticed that there were two aspects, but couldn't fully rationalize with the fact. David Tombe (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Attenuation (brewing)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Attenuation (brewing), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.realbeer.com/spencer/attenuation.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Teach me not to move stuff out from a larger article-in this case Attenuation TStein (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops! I forgot the reflist. That should hopefully fix the problem. TStein (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

SHO pages

I'd be happy to help with our reorganization of the oscillator pages, provided it's after 1 June (since I have exams next week). I totally agree with your comments at WP Physics talk that this could be much improved. A.C. Norman (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't be anywhere near done by then. Any input and any thing you can do is greatly appreciated. TStein (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gauge invariance

Hi TStein:

Can you tell me how to set up a trial page like you have made for Gauge invariance?

Many thanks, Brews ohare (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi TStein: I figured out how to do it. See User:Brews ohare/Wavelength. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gauge theory

Hello, take a look at Gauge theory, for a simplified introduction. I could probably do a decent history of Gauge theory (that would be amneable to editing), and I could expand the simplified introduction a little further. Also, I welcome your input Ti-30X (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that I think your article "TStein/Gauge invariance" is a really good start for an article. In fact it may be more than a start. I hope you are able to do something with it. Ti-30X (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I thought you might be interested in the recent activity in Gauge theory and Nontechnical introduction to gauge theory. Both articles could still use work. --76.167.77.165 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to all of you sooner. I have noticed the activity at those two articles. I hope to be able to be able to participate soon. I wish I could be in two places at once, but I can't. My wikipedia time for now is focused elsewhere; plus I have to get ready to teach soon. TStein (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Electric Permittivity

Tstein, I understand that you are a physics teacher. I have a 1979 version of Nelkon & Parker "Advanced Level Physics" which describes the experiment that is done in order to measure the value of electric permittivity (ε). We use an electrical capacitor circuit with a vibrating reed switch, along with a formula for electric current (I), which has been derived from the relationships Q = CV, and C = εA/d.

Does that experiment still appear in modern physics textbooks? I have been informed that since the 1983 definition of the metre in terms of the speed of light, that it is no longer possible to perform that experiment. I cannot see why not, because it doesn't actually matter how the metre is defined, so long as we can actually measure the distance, d, between the capacitor plates.

Anyhow, the argument now apparently stands that since c and μ are both defined quantities, then ε also becomes a defined quantity through the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ), and hence it is now impossible to conduct the above experiment in SI units.

My counter argument is twofold,

(1) It is still absolutely possible to conduct that experiment. The experiment is a variation of one of the most historically important experiments in the history of electromagnetism ie. the 1856 experiment by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch in which they measured the electromagnetic /electrostatic charge unit ratio using a Leyden jar, and in which the result produced a number that was related to the speed of light. Maxwell then of course used this result in Newton's equation for the speed of sound in his 1861 paper. He linked transverse elasticity to the dielectric constant and density to the magnetic constant.

I refuse to believe that a mere re-definition of the metre in 1983 could in anyway undermine the potency of the above experiments. It makes no difference how we define the metre so long as we can measure d in the above experiment.

(2) The modern method of using the defined speed of light in the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is a tautology because it uses an equation that only exists in the first place because of the measured value of ε. We cannot use an equation that arises from a measured result in order to define that measured result. The measurements of c and ε have traditionally been independent measurements, and it has always been a matter of great curiosity that the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) holds, where c is close to the measured speed of light. We cannot bury the physical significance of that equation in modern definitions.

So I will be very interested to know if the above experiment still apears in the up to date versions of Nelkon & Parker, or indeed in any modern advanced level physics textbook. David Tombe (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Tstein, You are probably aware that the speed of light controversy has gone to arbitration. You may want to make some comments on the associated talk page. I do believe that you can see what the real problem is here. David Tombe (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Departure

TStein: Thanks for your interaction on several pages in WP, and your contributions in the Speed of light fiasco. That experience has been so negative and so unbelievably unprofessional and scurrilous that I just have to go. Thank you again. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking discussion

You will notice that a motion has been made to prevent further discussion of a topic by setting a time limit of one year before anyone is allowed to bring up the subject. This action appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of WP, as well as being totally unnecessary. What is your opinion? Brews ohare (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. I've had a chance now to look into why the AUTOFIX tools are not working for you. From what I can see you've got them installed correctly; can I ask which skin and browser you are using please? - TB (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am using firefox 7.0.1. The skin is the default of vector. For gadgets, all I am using is HotCat wikEd and Navigation Popups and the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article". TStein (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it's the wikEd gadget that's conflicting, I'll have look and see why and get back to you. - TB (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Passive voice

I don't know whether you are interested or not, but I thought I would just mention that in this edit you actually did the opposite of what your edit summary said. You removed an impersonal expression in the active voice ("One can also formulate..."), and introduced a clause with it verb in the passive voice ("is called") in place of a phrase introduced by a participle ("called"). NOt important, but I thought you might be interested - if you aren't then ignore it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Doh!! I hate making elementary mistakes like that.
The reason for the edit was to make the sentence less 'wishy washy'. 'Is called' is more assertive than 'can formulate'.
Do you have any recommendations on how title my edit summary for edits similar to this? Or am I being too picky? (If the net gain of an edit isn't large enough then I don't want to make that edit. I am worried that I am too sensitive to 'wishy washy' words like 'can' and 'could', etc. and that I should refrain from edits to remove them.)
TStein (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)