User talk:WillowW/Archive19

List of Sci.Pub. by Einstein

I regret to inform you that there were actually some Featured Lists within WikiProject Physics before yours (lost in the bowels of non-rigourousness of classification). They were tagged by WP Astronomy as FA-class, but should've been tagged FA-class. See List of molecules in interstellar space and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. I hope that doesn't ruin your day, but I had to mention it.

Oh, and my List of baryons made it the 2nd time around. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Headbomb! And thank you also for all your work on other physics articles. As for me, I wouldn't mind being 529th; I'm all the happier knowing that I'm not alone. To know that there are others also working in the Garden, even if we don't Talk much, tinges my world with magic. As an aside, I'm not entirely happy with the Einstein publication list, since I never finished the notes, but perhaps I'll visit her again soon. Willow (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Obscurity

Dear Willow, although I generally appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia, I must say that the new section Noether's theorem#Field-theoretic derivation is massively unclear to me. What does the arrow mean? what does the over-line on δ mean? What does ξ mean? What does α mean? Really, if I, who am used to working with component notation in General Relativity, cannot figure out what you are doing, I suspect that very few other readers will either. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi JR, thank you for your nice note!

I see the problem, but I don't have time to fix it right now, sorry! There's still a bazillion details left to take care of for this wedding, and my sister's depending on me. Just this morning, a flower girl ripped her dress badly enough that I have to sew a new one... :P

Here's a brief summary that might help you and others, though. The arrow represents the infinitesimal symmetry transformation. It transforms the old space-time coordinates x^μ into the new coordinates ξ^μ, and the old field φ(x^μ) into the new field α(ξ^μ). I didn't use the usual primed variables, e.g., φ′ because I find them notationally cumbersome. The δ with a bar overhead is the infinitesimal variation of the field evaluated at the same event in spacetime. For clarity,

$\delta \phi (x^{\mu })=\alpha (\xi ^{\mu })-\phi (x^{\mu })$

${\bar {\delta }}\phi (x^{\mu })=\alpha (x^{\mu })-\phi (x^{\mu })$

Hoping that this helps and thanks again for your really kind note that brought a smile to my face, Willow (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

After an enormous amount of effort, I was able to figure out how to derive the simplest case of Noether's theorem in a rigorous way. It is now the new section Noether's theorem#One independent variable. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Frame-dragging

Somewhat wrong with the units in this formula:

$\Omega ={\frac {r_{s}\alpha r}{\rho ^{2}\left(r^{2}+\alpha ^{2}\right)+r_{s}\alpha ^{2}r\sin ^{2}\theta }}$

Please check the formula again, there is an apparent mistake in the formula, but I cannot correct it.--79.111.163.130 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The c in the numerator is missing in your formula, but it seems to have been restored in the article. I amended the Kerr metric over there, so that everything should be consistent in the derivation. Hoping that this helps, Willow (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck

...with the wedding, and please let me know when Problem of Apollonius is about ready to hit FAC so I can copyedit it again. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

expert point of view

Hi WillowW. I just wanted to point out that Moon Duchin, one of the sources in the Noether article, has kindly accepted to review the article. I see she has left a message on the talk page today discussing various issues. There is still room for improvement! Best, Randomblue (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

Heard this, thought of you

Planets hurling and
Atoms splitting, and
A sweater for your love
You sit there knitting.

- All That We Let In, IG

Heard it on the radio just now. Astrophysics and knitting? Is Willow trying to reach me through the radio? "Talk to me, Willow!" I shouted at the speakers. All they did was sing back, then turn to "Play that Funky Music White Boy". You are puzzling, indeed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should I talk to you through the radio, when I can Talk to you so much more directly here? :) Your story made me laugh and happy; that is one of my favorite parts of one of my favorite IG songs, which is saying a lot. I can play that song over and over and never grow tired of it. :)

Divorced from its context, I think your story would also make an awesome Zen koan. Willow and stone, atom and knitting — mu. ;)

The wedding preps are going well, although sometimes people get a little stressed out. I'm trying to keep everyone serene while holding it together myself. We decided to do something simpler for the party favors, so that's good. I'm a little stuck writing out my toast to my sister, but it's not too bad even now. :)

I also got to see my goddaughter for a few days, which was wonderful. She's nine and one of the people I love most on Earth, and I think the feeling is mutual. Unlike the song, I'm not knitting a sweater for her just now, but rather a pair of socks, done in the finest lace knitting with deep red yarn.

I have to run now, but I've been thinking of you and your wedding as well. Sweet loving wishes for thee and thine, Willow (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Lupus

Not sure what happened to the comment on your userpage about expansion to the lupus article, but at any rate I have nominated systemic lupus erythematosus for medical collaboration of the week. JFW | T@lk 05:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Everglades Barnstar

		The Everglades Barnstar
		"It's curious that the ignorance about the Everglades has persisted all these years"—Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 1987. Thank you, Willow, for helping in our small wiki-corner, to right that wrong. It was extraordinarily generous for you to give a peer review of Geography and ecology of the Everglades while you were neck high in ring theory and abstract math and God knows what else. Please accept this limited-edition barnstar as a token of my gratitude and affection. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeay — I'm so happy that the FA-magic happened at Geography and ecology of the Everglades! :) I'm not at all surprised, given its ministering angel. ;) I'm glad that I was able to help you, although I feel a slight pang of conscience that I didn't help more; but I really couldn't, as I think you know. But as you wrote earlier: between us, no pangs. :)

The wedding came off beautifully. :) It was held outdoors under a willow tree, next to a lovely, still pond; the weather was gorgeous. For the Entrance, we walked around the sunny side of the pond. The rambunctious flower-girl I was most worried about pulled off her role with aplomb and dignity. :) It was a small wedding, just the closest friends and family, which I liked because you could talk to everyone. Of course, there's tons more details to describe, but I save them for a less encyclopedic setting. I'm very happy, and I think everyone else was, too. Willow (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean we'll be able to hang out with you now here on Wiki? Because I've been ever so bereft of poeticals since your hiatus. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :D I've missed you as keenly as you've missed me, and when I'm Talking with you, a smile spreads across my face like a flower opening up in the morning and turning to the sun. :) Affectionately, Willow (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear the wedding went well. Are there pictures? Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make you jealous, we should admit our conspiracy-type sins. I get to have lunch with Scartol and Mrs. Scartol. We may have talked about you, but we won't say what we said... (just kidding, but the lunch was very nice) --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and like Emmy Noether, Moni "gesticulated wildly" as she ate and "spilled her food constantly". Of course, I did too, so the table was a real mess when we got done. =) Mmm, Leonardo's. (What, no downtown website!?) – Scartol • Tok 21:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to dash off this instant to work, but you both made me laugh! :D I'm super-glad you all got together and we'll Talk more tomorrow; ta-ta, Willow (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point you to a thread here that displays my absolute lack of discipline yesterday. You are mentioned in it. Read the links. They're more than completely worth it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Serious bidnezz here. In his GA review, Brianboulton suggested cutting portions of the Everglades article, specifically the history section to avoid problems with size in FAC and improve readability. What is in the Everglades article now has not been substantially cut. However, in my sandbox, I have the same section cut by 10% and by 50%. What are your thoughts on cutting material in this section? --Moni3 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

X-ray crystallography

Hi WilloW, regarding the animation showing the motions possible with a four-circle kappa goniometer, I'd like to know if it could be possible to get the source files of the 3D model in order to incorporate it in our control software for a future protein crystallography beamline. Thanks in advance. Guifre.cuni (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course! I'm very honored that you ask. The only thing I'd ask in return is that you pass on any improvements to us; I'm keenly conscious of the shortcomings of that animation, especially its filesize. I'm not sure how to this, but I'd like to cover the file under the GFDL, so that everyone can share in it.

Thanks a lot, we only want to have a simulated environment with our real control software, but any improvements will be sen't back, sure! Guifre.cuni (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By any chance, are you the same person as wrote to me last month? Willow (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that one.Guifre.cuni (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that I can't upload BLENDER files to the Commons. I'll try to send it to you by Wiki e-mail, but if that fails, you'll have to send me your e-mail address. Hoping it reaches you somehow, Willow (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Wiki-email failed as well. :( How shall I get you the file, Guifre? Willow (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

try the gmail account. Guess the user name :-D. Thanks again. Guifre.cuni (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I go the blender file. We will start playing around it and find a way to interface that model so a piece of software could move some of the axis. I'll let you know. Guifre.cuni (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

groups in preparation for FAC

Hi Willow, welcome back. If you are up to it, let's finish up group (mathematics) for a later FAC. I have done some simplifications and additional explanations, so I'm eager to see whether you still consider it impenetrable (and how we can amend this, if so). I'm away in the 2nd and 3rd week in August, so perhaps we can achieve some progress before that? See you around, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll throw myself into it. :) I'm reminded of Plato's Parmenides, where Parmenides is begged to participate in a philosophical debate; he agrees reluctantly but says that he trembles like an aged race-horse, one who knows all too well the rigors that lie before him. ;)

I agree that it's very important to make this article as beautiful and translucent as possible. This article will likely be the Musterbeispiel for many Featured Articles in abstract algebra to follow, methinks.

Before I begin, what level of impenetrability are you willing to live with? I hope you agree that an article intelligible only to mathematicians would serve no useful purpose, since they do not need it and would be unlikely to read it. Conversely, it's probably too daring to hope that most eight-year-olds will grasp it, although a few might. :)

My own preference would be to make the lead and the beginning of the body simple enough for a typical humanities freshman at college, or to use a German example, verständlich einer netten jungen Dame die gerade Abitur gemacht hat (Deutsch und Geschichte als LK), die gerne in Vorlesungen strickt und die mit besten Willen versucht, den Artikel zu verstehen. After a gentle beginning, we can work up gradually to a more complex and more demanding level. By making a linear gradient in difficulty, people can drop out along the way as the article gets too thorny. Does that seem a reasonable approach to you? Willow (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The essence of what a group is, i.e. the first section, should hopefully be understandable to the girl above, even an interested high-school kid. The sections on basic group theory notions may be less interesting to the said girl. But one should get some grasp of the versatility of groups by the examples section, which should not, on the other hand, try to hide complexity inherent to these topics.

Da Du anscheinend Querbezüge magst, und ich hinter der netten jungen Dame die Inhaberin dieser Talkseite vermute, hier noch ein Rätsel aus der Literaturkiste: welche 3 Autoren (und wo) beschäftigen sich mit "Wanderer, kommst Du nach..."? 2 sind recht einfach, das 3. hat mit jemandem zu tun, den ich Dir schon mal vorgestellt habe.... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jakob!

Thanks for the quick answer and the clever and charming riddle! :) I'll look at the group (mathematics) article tonight, and hope to have some ideas for you by this time tomorrow. Willow (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. There might be a faint resemblance. ;)

As the unofficial GA reviewier :-), I've rewatchlisted this, and will weigh in with help when I can. Geometry guy 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now my own road is strewn with roses. :) But while you're waiting for me, perhaps you might cast a new glance over the problem of Apollonius? I've been gradually tinkering with it. Perhaps I should group the solution methods together more strongly? Willow (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been admiring the restructuring but haven't yet read through the article again in detail. That wasn't mere tinkering: you've transformed the article! (And for the better, in case that's not clear ;) Although it was nice that the history previously added colour to other sections, I think a separate section was inevitable and the article as a whole works better now: for me the ease of writing a good lead is a big clue as to whether an article is good, and now the lead is so much easier.

I like having solution methods next too, with special cases, generalizations and applications last. The solutions could be grouped into the algebraic and the geometric, or into some historical scheme, but I don't think either approach is essential. Well, I will look more closely and see if I develop a prejudice :-) Geometry guy 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Oh, about your peer review, what's the proper technical math-word for the ten types of Apollonius problem? Maybe I should move Limiting cases of Apollonius' problem to Special cases of Apollonius' problem or something like that? Any advice would be very welcome, Willow (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The software is really good at handling edit conflicts these days! Anyway, "Special cases" is surely better than "Limiting cases". It is slightly unencyclopedic in the sense that we are defining which cases are "special", but I support the move you suggest. Geometry guy 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a start, but ran into problems in the history section, which digresses from pure history rather quickly. Ruler-and-straightedge stuff is fine (it adds interest and greater accessibility to a general audience) but it needs to be treated encyclopedically. I will try harder to raise and fix such problems, but hope you see what I am getting at. Geometry guy 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Atiyah

Hi Willow: Fowler&fowler suggested getting Michael Atiyah up to FA status so that it can appear on the main page for his 80th birthday. We need someone who knows math and can also write readable english, so can I interest you in joining in? It's not urgent as his birthday is still several months away. (Ignore the fight on the talk page; it seems to be dying out.) R.e.b. (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi R.e.b., I'm willing to help, and I notice that his birthday isn't until April 22nd, so we do have some time. Coincidentally, that's also St. George's Eve, when evil things are at the height of their powers; perhaps we'll see lots of vandals? ;) If we allow one month for the FAC process, and seven weeks for getting it onto the Main Page, then perhaps we ought to try to finish the article by February 1st?

I'm sure that you'll have others helping you, which is great because you need to realize how meagre and spotty my math is. I've tried to help out at a few math articles like Emmy Noether and the problem of Apollonius, but mainly just to charm my friends. I'll do my very best for you, but I really don't "know math"; for example, until you wrote this morning, I'd never heard of Michael Atiyah or even his fields of study, e.g., topological K-theory. Since I'm only half caught up on 19th century math, it's lucky that I'll have some months to learn to mimick understanding 20th century math. ;) Willow (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Judging by the talk page, some vandalism is indeed a possibility, but I guess wikipedia's immune system will be able to handle it. I'm going to ignore your implausible claims that you don't know math. There are several editors on the page (me, F&F, Mathsci) who know enough about Atiyah's work to describe it; the problem is that none of us are that good at explaining it to average readers. If you've got access to a good library, volumes 1 and 6 of his collected works have several expository lectures about his work and some interviews he gave. R.e.b. (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article caught my attention recently: if the immaterial disputes on the talk page continue to cause problems I'll be happy to chip in, but I agree with R.e.b.'s approach of letting the smoke waft away to reveal the complete absence of fire. I very much support the proposed FA plans: I have some relevant geometry and maths phys. knowledge (not untypical for an Atiyah grandchild) but seem to spend most of my time here on reviewing and copyediting; I hope that means I'll be able to contribute very usefully! Geometry guy 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

J'Excuse!

Willow, you know you don't need an excuse to chat with me – although of course I'd be delighted if you were to have a look at Peau, especially since it hasn't received much in-depth commentary aside from the ever-vigiliant A. (And she'd already read it once, heh.)

I'm glad the wedding went well; I assume you like the guy? I must say that "I left them a little surprise present in their apartment for when they return" is a tad vague. I'm thinking perhaps it was a wooden crate filled with delicious pastries, or perhaps it was a rotting moose carcass. (I admit to having a deranged imagination on occasion.)

As for myself, I'm currently enmeshed in a 30-minute documentary that I'm editing about a road trip my wife and I took around the southeastern US. I stupidly forgot to bring the camera when I had lunch with Moni3, but she's definitely in the thank-yous. It should be ready by the end of the week.

It was really nice to find a message from you on my talk, W. I know that you know that I knew that you knew that I knew you never expressed anger toward me during Emmy, but I've been worried that you may have felt some lingering frustration in the way I rushed the nom and proved myself useless when it came time to polish the math and science bits. But your request for my input on future math/sci articles indicates that maybe I'm just being silly (which happens often).

BFF, yo. – Scartol • Tok 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bestest Friend :)

I'm really proud of you and honored that you shared how you felt with me, Eric. It's a paradox, but I feel the strength of our friendship in your doubts, in your trusting enough to talk about it.

That said, you are silly. ;) I don't think you can yet understand how much it meant to me that you stood by me during action potential, when it seemed like all the world was turning its back. I think I would walk on coals, or on water, for thee.

It's funny that we both feel that we let each other down; shall we forgive each another, too? :) Neither of us knew what was before us, but I think it's better to be brave than practical, and I think we both would do it again. I did feel frustrated at myself for being so excruciatingly slow in learning Emmy's math, and I don't think I was able to help you very much. Still, I'm continuing to learn, and I plan to keep improving Emmy's article, as I outlined on her Talk page. Thanks to you and Emmy, whole vistas of mathematics have opened up in my mind; I'll probably never again have the pleasure and privilege of seeing a century of mathematics unfold before my eyes. :)

I did over-react at one point during Emmy's FAC, for which I'm very sorry. :( I was under stress then and criticizing myself pretty unforgivingly for being so lame in developing Emmy's article; so I was trying to ward off arrows whose barbs I made myself. :P

I do like the guy, especially the way he looks at her and she at him. :) I can close my eyes and still feel the warmth. But after getting your message, I wish I'd been more creative with my apartment-warming gift! ;) My gift was just a pretty copper bowl for beating egg whites; they both love to cook. You know the old saying: give a couple a pastry and they eat for a day; give them baking pans and they'll love each other for a lifetime. (Wait, is that how it goes? ;)

Good luck with your documentary and your ongoing amazing work here at Wikipedia. In my eyes, the road you walk is strewn with roses, Willow (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, of course, many times over. I wish I had time to write something worthwhile back. I will look at the articles you mentioned soon – but it may be a couple of days. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 04:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

BFF -- I finally got the movie posted. I thought you'd appreciate all the silliness. Tomorrow: group (mathematics)! – Scartol • Tok 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note – do you think this diff is vandalism? The second part looks legit, but why remove the word above? – Scartol • Tok 12:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at group (mathematics), and it definitely helped me understand the concept more. I'd say the comprehension for "a sophmore English-literature major in college, one who was sincerely trying to understand the article" would be around 40%. I also feel that this is probably impossible to increase – it seems to me that mathematics, more than any other field, requires so intensely prerequisite knowledge, that I think some things are just simply going to be out of reach of those who aren't in the field itself. I've gathered some more specific comments as well – should I post them on the article's talk page, or just send them to you?

Now that I've got some time to respond to the above: Let's both just forgive the other for whatever they might or might not have done wrong (I think you have nothing to apologize for, but I don't want to analyze it), and move on. As Dead Mike said: "Let the past be the past." I doubt the esteem in which you hold me is as high as that in which I hold you. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the sweetest sort of argument among friends: "I like you more — no, I like you more — etc." ever so escalating until we dissolve into laughter. ;)

I enjoyed your documentary a lot! It was kind of hard to believe that you could be cooler in person than online, but I was so impressed. Your wife seems amazingly cool, and you two seem to go great together. Your friends seemed really nice, too; I especially appreciated the hike through the woods, all the energetic children, your faithful pup, and the flash of wild raspberries. Your forthright friend who gave the climactic answer to "what America needs" seemed pretty darn cool, too: "What does America need? Let me tell you. 1. Get Obama elected. 2. Get out of Iraq. 3. Get America's financial house in order." Like — duh, dude! Although I probably would've said, "more friendships and more faithful pups." ;) Oh yeah, and some footage of Moni, if she were open to that. :)

Your production on the documentary was pretty impressive. How did you make all those special effects? I liked the running jokes, like the snarling munching blackouts. But what's so special about the "La Fiesta" restaurant — did you go to it as a kid, maybe? The Zarathustra music and Hallelujah chorus were pretty funny. :)

Thanks for looking at group (mathematics), by the way! I'm pleased that you thought it was as high as 40%; I was guessing it would be closer to 20%. :( I think we could do better, but maybe this isn't the right article for that; maybe in the context of an Introduction to mathematical groups article instead? If you could just post the comments here, that'd be great.

I'm not sure if I've divulged this to you, but I have a soft spot not only for the Bard but also for romantic vampire novels. Tonight is a special night, the unveiling of Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer, so I might be incommunicado for a few days. ;) I've been trying to catch up on the earlier ones as well. Hoping that doesn't suck the blood out of your esteem for me ;) Willow (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Some of my students have been badgering me to read Twilight for months. I dunno, tho – gimme Stoker and Pratchett and I'm set for vampires.

Thanks for your kind feedback on the movie. I agree that Annie has the best response to The Question. She's way cool. The effects were all done in Final Cut Express, and I definitely agree that the next one must feature Moni3 in person. (I joked with her about how if she preferred, I could disguise her voice and image – maybe put up a still from Mulholland Drive when she's onscreen.)

"What's so special about La Fiesta?" How to answer this? It's like trying to explain a religious experience. =) I just really, really like their food. You know what's sad, though? I've been eating there regularly since 1992 – thousands of meals over a decade and a half – and I've only ever had one dish: the cheese 'n' onion enchilada dinner. What can I say? If it ain't broke, right? I'll post the group comments in a new topic below. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Scartol neglects to say that Moni is hideously disfigured in the style of Renfield. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here! ;) I suspect that it will be a long while before I appear on Scartol's camera, too, perhaps for some similar reasons. Just like vampires, shadow-people can't be seen on film or even in mirrors. ;) Willow (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)