User talk:Ulflund

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


Hello, Ulflund! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug.(talk contribs) 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do


if color is a property it should bee seen by other animals too. The retina of human eye containing 'cones' are responsible for color perception. it has been proved that color does not exist in external world it is perception of mind only. refer-Psychology - Core Concepts 7th ed. (intro txt) - P. Zimbardo, et al., (Pearson, 2012) BBS page-no.-98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeev.singh3 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Colors can be seen by other animals too, although different animals have different types of light sensitive cells and different number of types. Many birds can percieve ultraviolet light for instance. Yes, the cones are responsible for our color perception, but it is not possible to prove what color is. That is a matter of definition. Color is comonly spoken of as a property. E.g. grass is said to be green because it reflects light in the center of the visual spectrum. Green is thus a property of the grass independent of the mind of any observer. Colors are in a way human-specific since they are defined based on our perception of different light spectra.
I do not own the book you refer to, but my guess is that it uses a different meaning of the word color than what is used in every day life and the lead section of the color article. One can say that the real world contains light spectra and these are turned into colors in the eye, but it is usually simpler to directly talk about a color as a property of a spectrum. I hope this expained why i reverted your edit. What you had written is true in one sence, but not with the most common usage of the word color, and therefore does not belong in the lead section. Ulflund (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ulflund. I was just driving by and saw this little discussion about color. I decided to drop a note, because color has always intrigued me .I agree that it appears to be both a distinct property of not only matter, but also of light ... or any other wave for that matter. My first encounter with this was as a small child, when I was trying to find out how my music teacher, who had perfect-pitch hearing, could tell you what note any sound was. He told me, "Just listen to it naturally. 'C' is red, 'D' is orange, 'E' is yellow. Can't you hear it?" Unfortunately, I never could hear it, but later in life I discovered that, in terms of harmonic resonance, the math adds up. 'C' is indeed resonant with red, and so on. I once wrote a little something about it on my user page, (mainly as an example of synthesis). I had to search for it, but found it on an older version of my page, here.
I also noticed that my digital camera can photograph infrared, and took many photos showing what the camera "sees." Things like flashtubes show up differently on camera than they do to the eye because of this. Interestingly, 800 nm appears on camera exacly the way 400 nm appears to the eye. 900 nm looks on camera exactly like 450 nm looks to the eye, (or how 450 looks on the camera too). I just thought I'd share that with you because I found your statement above to be rather insightful. Have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zaereth and thanks for the comment. I don't agree with you that there is any strong connection between colors and sound. You can of course connect a color with a tone as [1], but there is no unique way of doing this that would be more useful than others. Sound and light share properties since they are both wave phenomena, but they are totaly different things. Ulflund (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


I do not think so. There is an article air separation, and a link to it is visible enough in the Oxygen article. If one is not able to search for his/her question in a well-structured article, then we cannot help him/her. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I marked it as helpful since it gives us the information that air separation might be too dificult to find in the article. I think knowing what people want to find but fails to find is helpful contrary to most of the comments ("Great!", "oxygen",...). Ulflund (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Accepted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment[edit]

Hey Ulflund - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Ulflund; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Table of x-ray wavelengths[edit]

Hi Ulflund,

Please take a look at my comment on the X-ray talk page, and consider the issues raised.

Many thanks, scwimbush (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Ulflund. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Refractive index[edit]

Hey, sorry to bring bad news, but I've felt compelled to quickfail this article on the simple grounds that a number of sections are unreferenced. I don't doubt that this can be remedied reasonably straightforwardly, and on a quick inspection the rest of the article looks well-written, so I'd encourage you to resubmit when ready, but the rules on GA are fairly clear on this situation. (BTW something went terribly wrong with the article's talk page, I think it may have been the math tags that were present, so I've cut the old material. It will need to be restored or better archived in due course - but the auto archiving seems to be stuck too. Odd.) All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Refractive index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extinction coefficient. 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) 09:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutron structure negative proof[edit]

Hi Ulflund! I see that you are a physicist. I ask you therefore what do you know about the proof of the neutron not consisting in a proton and electron as conceived by Rutherford, proof by Franz N. D. Kurie? How can the details of the proof be traced? What articles by Kurie before 1934 could contains the details?-- (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know anything about that proof. Ulflund (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Me either, I don't know anything about that proof, just that it exists according to the mentioned report in Science News Letters. The question is how can an article by Kurie with details of the proof can be traced? Where to start searching? Google search is not very useful. Some suggestions fom you would be useful.-- (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If there is no reference in the Science News Letter you can try looking through his publications using Google Scholar: [2]. They seems to be mostly in German though. Ulflund (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Google Scholar has relevant results to the issue, namely a Phys Rev article from 15 September 1933. The German results are not relevant by not being authored by F. N. D. Kurie. The details of the proof from that article can be discussed for mentioning in the article. Thanks again.-- (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help. Ulflund (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you interested as a physics professional in taking the chalenge to examine the details of the proof and calculations in the article [3]?-- (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment. Ulflund (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't mean for the moment, just an issue to reflect upon at some convenient moment in the future (next months?) when you'll have a moment to analyse this issue.-- (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Electron radius[edit]

Hi, Ulflund! I want to ask you about what info are avalailable for the electron radius. It seems that some books say that the electron may have a shakesperean dillemma, to be or not to be a point particle. If it is a point particle then mathematical difficulties occur, if not a point particle then an inconsistency to the theory of relativity appears. How do you see this situation?-- (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not read those books and have not encountered the mathematical difficulties you mention. I will consider the electron a point particle until there is reason to believe otherwise. That being said I often use the classical electron radius in my calculations knowing that it is not the size of an electron. Ulflund (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The difficulties are mentioned in the foreign language source that has been mentioned in the context of NOENG sources. One aspect connected to this issue of electron radius is based on ionic radiuses in crystal lattices and in ionic solution for the electride category of compounds and the solvated electron.-- (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
A formula for ionic diameter in solutions is given in the activity coefficient.-- (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It can sometimes be convenient to model the electron as spread out over some volume. That doesn't mean it is not a point particle. Ulflund (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an interesting (not to say paradoxical) situation. Please give some further details.-- (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Spin units[edit]

Ulflund, how do you view the aspects raised on the talk:spin (physics) on the integer odd and even values of spin instead of 1/2 and integer made by user:Bo Jacoby.-- (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I mention here for convenience his reasoning from his talk page:-- (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, spin is angular momentum. Our article on Planck constant says that h/2π is called the reduced Planck constant, and then that: The reduced Planck constant is the quantum of angular momentum in quantum mechanics. This latter statement is not quite true. The z-component of the angular momentum of an electron is either h/4π or -h/4π, so the quantum of angular momentum is actually h/4π rather that h/2π. Expressed in units of h/2π the electron has spin 1/2 but expressed in units of h/4π the electron has spin 1. (1/2)⋅(h/2π)=1⋅(h/4π). Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC).
Wikipedia should use the same definitions as are commonly used in the field. I find the convention of negative charge of electrons and the use of pi instead of Tau (2π) more inconvenient. If your proposal ever finds common use in textbooks and scientific papers we will probably adopt it on wikipedia to. Ulflund (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

X ray production[edit]

Hi Ulflund, I do not agree with your recent change of X-ray. By definition, fluorescence means emission of electromagnetic radiation due to impinging electromagnetic radiation. If x-rays are produced by impinging electrons, it is not fluorecence. HPaul (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Fluorescence is not the right word to use although the emission process is the same. I was too sure of myself. I still think it is misleading to write two types of x-rays. I have partly reverted to your version, and I will accept any further changes you make. Ulflund (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you!HPaul (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-Newtonian gravitation[edit]

Hi, Ulflund! How do you see the implications of this article for the gravitational force to take part in (nuclear) particle interaction?-- (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From just reading the abstract I see no implications whatsoever. They are investigating this hypothesis, but there is nothing to indicate that it is true. Ulflund (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The non-Newtonian gravity (additional terms) has a long history starting with Newton himself, who has proposed the addition of an inverse cube term to the law of gravitation in connection to the movement of the Moon. Other known investigators are Georgi Manev,Yusuke Hagihara, Herbert Goldstein, Florin Diacu, etc.-- (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The extensions to the law of gravitation can be very important to the identification of nuclear forces. When conceptualizing the nuclear forces, gravity has been tacitly neglected. There is no justification for the neglect of gravitation in nuclear realm when considering additional terms discussed here.-- (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Occams razor is a good guide in science. Don't complicate things unless there is a reason to. Nuclear physics works well without gravity. When you have an experiment that contradicts current theories, then there is a reason to find a better theory, but not before that. Ulflund (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the use of Occam's razor. It seems that nuclear physics in absence of gravity has a set of rather convoluted exotic postulated concepts like strong and weak force, quarks, etc. These exotic concepts are against the use of Occam's razor. A consistent use of the razor should have implied a continuity with the extensions of gravity proposed earlier also in connection to intermolecular forces instead of assuming that gravity is neglectable at nuclear level and introducing instead exotic concepts.-- (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a lot of groping regarding the nature of nuclear forces which is not clarified and their calculation, unlike electromagnetic forces.-- (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard model agrees with the particle physics experiments that we can do now and that is why it is the basis for particle physics. You will not be able to get that agreement using gravity even if you add a strange terms to it. The standard model is more complicated than Newtons law of gravitation, but that is because that is necessary to get agreement with experiments. Ulflund (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
So it seems that agrement with experiments (by curve fitting) is the key aspect. To my knowledge the main (if not the only) type of particle physics experiment is the scattering of particles where force expression(s) are required. The nature of the force is a qualitative aspect where Occam's razor intervenes. The question is then: what quantitative aspects of the Standard Model give it better agreement than alternative theories, since it's about force laws?-- (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Electric charge detection[edit]

Hi Ulflund! I want to ask you how can the electric charge (of charge carriers) be detected in a metallic conductor with a steady electric current flowing through it?-- (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The easiest way I know of is to use the Hall effect. Ulflund (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Can an Hall-based electrometer be build?-- (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean. Ulflund (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-English source[edit]

Hi Ulflund! I want to ask your feedback in the following issue: There is a book by Dmitri Ivanenko and Arseny Sokolov caled Classical theory of fields (in Russian Klasicheskaya teoria polia) which I intend to use as source in some articles. The problem is that an English language edition seems to be non-existent and therefore the source will have to cited after its Romanian edition to which I have access and the Russian edition which can be accessed by user:R8R Gtrs. I ask a suggestion from you how can you verify the text of the source if you want to? A scanned file perhaps?-- (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You can find the wikipedia policy on the subject here: WP:NONENG. Ulflund (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turbofan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron (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) 10:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)