Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive January 2015

Astronomical unit

There's a discussion at talk:Astronomical unit where the abbreviation/unit symbol of this unit is under discussion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly "Au" is the gold standard here. ;-) JRSpriggs (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Eyes at Four-velocity?

A few more voices at Talk:Four-velocity#Four-velocity_is_not_a_four_vector_under_time_inversion. would be appreciated. —Quondum 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology

NOTE, there's a newly created project related to astrophysics (a topic area covered by this project), WP:WikiProject Cosmology -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about it here! I was going to do that now. I hope we can bring more people from here to there to help! Tetra quark (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Physics is a very broad subject, so the ones who are more into space stuff can join us there. It's still a new project, so there are still improvements to be done on the main page and the templates Tetra quark (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Tool to create and simulate dynamic Systems.

A friend of mine did a nice app to create and simulate dynamic systems.

It really helped me understanding a couple of physic rules and the math behind it, by simply playing around with the formulas:-) The project is available at http://henri.macrozone.ch/ and the code is on github https://github.com/macrozone/henri.

It grew out of a student assignment and has therefore some (german) background documents. They also include the mathematical and physical priniciples that were used and how they've mapped it to code.

I'd like to add some links to it where I see fit.

--84.226.80.249 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't. There are many issues with it that mean it is not a valuable site, but mostly that's not how to improve the encyclopaedia. The way to do so is work on improving the content of the encyclopaedia, not just adding links, especially not just adding links to a site you or your friend did. There are many pages that need attention of one sort or another. See the main page for links to many of them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is wonderful if, for example, the page on the three-body problem has an external link to some interactive simulator of the three-body problem. But that link should really be more-or-less the very best interactive three-body-problem simulator on the whole internet—and if you search you'll see that there are many hundreds of such simulators.

Just my opinion, but I don't think that your friend's site has the very best interactive simulator on any given topic. (I'm not saying that they're terrible, just that other people have made better ones.) Therefore you probably should add few if any links to that site onto wikipedia. --Steve (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles

Dear physicists: There was a lively discussion about this AfC submission last June (it's archived now). Should this draft be kept in Draft space for more improvement, or should it be deleted as stale (db-g13)? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Although obviously a lot of work went into the creation of this draft, the article is built from primary references of a single author, some peer-review published, some not. I was unable to find secondary reliable refs about this topic. This is a fringe topic, that is, a non-mainstream physics theory for which there are few adherents. The lack of secondary refs, and thus notability, coupled with the fringe nature of the topic (suggesting no secondary RS popping up in the near future) suggests that we should let this one go. --Mark viking (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would echo that. I tried to help clean it up at the time but it proved intractable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. The only real source is the strange writings of a single physicist. It doesn't look that way, because N4tur4le has cited other physicists too ... who seem to be discussing this same theory ... but actually those physicists are discussing things that are superficially similar-sounding rather than truly related. --Steve (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking one more look; it's gone now.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hidden Variables (Network Science)

Dear physicists: Here's a draft article that's up for review at AfC. Is this a notable topic, or is the information already covered on one of the pages listed at Hidden variable? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be related to Latent variable, but it has many more formulas in it. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a table comparing the four fundamental forces

I'm pasting it here as a template, so it won't take up much space. Also, I intend to post this in a few articles. So... tell me what you think.

The four fundamental forces of nature

Property/Interaction	Gravitation	Weak	Electromagnetic	Strong
		(Electroweak)		Fundamental	Residual
Acts on:	Mass - Energy	Flavor	Electric charge	Color charge	Atomic nuclei
Particles experiencing:	All	Quarks, leptons	Electrically charged	Quarks, Gluons	Hadrons
Particles mediating:	Graviton (not yet observed)	W+ W- Z0	γ	Gluons	Mesons
Strength in the scale of quarks:	10−41	10−4	1	60	Not applicable to quarks
Strength in the scale of protons/neutrons:	10−36	10−7	1	Not applicable to hadrons	20

Source [1] (Template page)

I'm curious as to which articles you want to post this in, as the main articles already have similar comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: The article about force didn't have a comparison, for example. The Standard Model also didn't. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't find any article with the comparison. Suggestion: Make "Gravitation" etc clickable blue links. Actually, make pretty much everything clickable. YohanN7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@YohanN7: I agree, it'd be better. However, I'd have to change the background colors for a better visibility, but that is not a problem. I will add some hyperlinks tomorrow Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 01:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You should not (cannot?) reference a gif for the source of your information. _{(even if the creators are from Berkeley)} Primefac (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You have electric charged particles for EM force. Anything about magnetic moment (for the magnetic part)? (I'm probably confused).

I'd find it very interesting to see a F = f(d) equation for each force, assuming a spherical source (well dipole for a magnet). This is interesting because Fgravity and Felectric have the identical form. I've never seen the form that the force formulas take for the other forces. Lehasa (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lehasa: The magnetic part also depends on electrically charged particles. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your strength scales need more explanation. "Strength in the scale of quarks" should have a 1 under the quark column -- that's how any similar situation is handled (e.g. planet size relative to earth, earth=1). Lehasa (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you compare the intensity of a force with a quark? This isn't about size, like in the example you meantioned Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Article quality bot?

Hi, can someone tell me how often the bot runs? The one that checks the articles for quality and upgrades their rating from stub-class to C-class to B-class? Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no bot, the process is done by real-life humans. Bots wouldn't be able to figure out the ratings. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics#Current_status_of_physics_articles says that it is automatically updated by a bot. If you look at the bot log page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality_log#Assessed) , it actually lists articles that it has assessed. Please clarify what's happening. Thanks! Lehasa (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The bot, User:WP 1.0 bot, is not doing the assessments; it is merely summarizing information about assessments done by humans in a table. As it says at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot#Output, the bot runs roughly once per three days. It does a lot since it analyzes many projects. So it takes a long time to run and should not be run too often. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

JRSpriggs is spot on. You can check this yourself--go to the talk page of an article the bot has "assessed" and look at the edit history--you will see a human has recently made the assessment, e.g., the recent GA assessment of John Archibald Wheeler. --Mark viking (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much guys. Lehasa (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you can always suspect quite a few of the Wikipedia editors of actually being bots (maybe unjustifiably so in some cases). Some articles rating seems to be based on length only. You will rarely see a two-page article or shorter rated C or better, no matter how good they are. A topic in physics, and especially math, can be both notable enough for an article and yet very narrow, motivating a page only. A purely length-based assessment in the range Stub through B class wouldn't be extremely off the current rating. Then start counting references, automatically checking the "reliability" of those, and images, check spelling and grammar, presence of "mandatory sections", blue links to related buzzwords, count page watchers and views per day, number of edits, "who" has edited (is he/she associated with good or bad articles) and you'll get a good approximation. YohanN7 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncertainty principle

I have had a discussion on the Uncertainty principle article about the lack of citations in a large part of the article. I was reprimanded by an editor who said:

Inappropriate complaint. The sections that were defaced by counterproductive citation templates, all in the name of improving the article!, are amply referenced in the main articles linked, to which the reader who does no appreciate the elementary nature of the remarks involved should turn to for help. The formal examples are standard quantum mechanics, and it is egregiously unreasonable to expect a truckload of one's preferred quantum mechanics texts tacked on for "verification"?! The reader unable to recognize these summary examples (not learn about them--this is not a tutorial!) should do due diligence and go inform himself in the main articles. I find the citation templates pointless, distracting, and tendentious. Please remove them.

Is this the standard in Physics articles? The project page says that one of the aims of the project is "Making sure all articles are properly referenced." I have also questioned the lack of references in Introduction to quantum mechanics. Myrvin (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think that you are correct in this instance. If a reference exists on another Wikipedia page, it is a two-minute process to copy and paste that reference to the first article. Saying "those references are out there, somewhere, just go find them!" is a deflection and an improper attitude to have. The entire point of a {{citation needed}} tag is to be annoying and point out that there needs to be a reference! Primefac (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors have varied opinions about citation density, but one guideline a lot of us follow is WP:SCICITE. The guideline suggests that for uncontroversial knowledge, at least one citation per section or one citation per paragraph, is appropriate. The idea is that these citations show the reader where more information may be found, rather than verifying specific sentences. The Uncertainty principle article does have some unreferenced sections and would be improved by references there. That said, I tend to use the {{citation needed}} template for controversial sentences and use the {{Refimprove section}} and {{Refimprove}} templates for encouraging references for sections or articles with uncontroversial material. --Mark viking (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, and thanks for that Mark. If I knew about WP:SCICITE, I'd forgotten it. I was wondering if there was some sort of get-out clause for Physics articles - something like: 'If they don't understand the material in this article, they shouldn't be reading it.' I doubt if the refimprove tag would be any better received than the citation one. Myrvin (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed seems almost like dubious in that it casts doubt on the sentence or formula to which it is attached. Since reference improve is applied to whole sections, it is not so offensive. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Plasma (physics) vandalism needs repair

Could somebody please take a look at Plasma (physics). There was some vandalism done to the lede a little while ago, and it's currently in kind of a garbled state. I don't know enough about the subject to be sure my corrections would make sense, so looking for a subject matter expert to take a look. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the lead to the 14 January version, which looks more sensible to me. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Ryzhou (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kirkwood-Buff solution theory

I'm guessing that this draft which is up for review at AfC is about physics. If not, can someone suggest where I should post a notice about it? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong, it's a thermodynamics article, which fits. It could use some more sources, though, as currently the only references are from the creators of the theory. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but obviously I don't have the knowledge to do it. The theory appears to be mentioned in a number of books (SEE HERE). If this is a useful topic, maybe one of this project's members will help out the editor.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)