Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 5 August 2009

• WT:PHY
• WT:PHYS
• WT:PHYSICS

Physics Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Antiquity - 2005 Antiquity – September 2005 October 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 September 2006 September 2006 (part 2) October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 2007 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 2008 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 2009 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Discussion about html formatted style for simple tex formatted equations

The many people who have the (I believe default) setting for equation rendering as using html for simple equations, have been seeing the equations as being too small relative to the ping equivalents. This is fairly simple to fix in the style file; although it may cause other problems, in particular with inline math equations. (Those should be removed in general principle anyway.)

I started a discussion about changing the font size for the span.texhtml element that is used for the html rendered equations at MediaWiki talk:Common.css about this issue.

• Current rendering of a simple equation: ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0}$.
• Forced to render with png using \,: ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0\,}$.
• One proposed solution changing style: ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0}$.

I probably should have discussed it here and in WP:math or in WP:village pump (technical) but I got a little ahead of myself I am afraid. In any case I think it is worth discussing and hope to get your input.

Merge point mass, point charge in point particle

Hi, everybosy. As I've suggested here, I think is better to merge point mass and point charge as section in the general article point particle. I think it's better that, if someone look for point charge for example, before they'll learn about the general idea of point particle in physics. We can make a single good article from three stubs and I can't see any reason not to do so. --CristianCantoro (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd go even further, and try go get some order into subatomic particle, elementary particle, list of particles as well. Particle (physics) redirects to elementary particle, which is a synonym of point particle: however, there are many important particles in physics which are not elementary! Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Point mass and point charge and point particle are "point" as in "infinitely localized", and only exist in classical physics due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. An elementary particle is a real-world thing with a spread-out wavefunction, so is not a "point" particle. --Steve (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, point masses and point charges existed (in Physical theory) well before the Schrödinger equation and the uncertainty principle. What exactly is your objection to discussing the distinctions in a single article, rather than spreading coverage over many articles, none of which is accurate? Physchim62 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Point masses and point charge exist in classical physics theory but do not exist in the universe. Elementary particles are real things that exist in the universe. So I don't think point particle and elementary particle should be combined into the same article. Of course, I think the articles should be accurate however they're arranged. :-) --Steve (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You-all might want to consider whether Test particle should also be part of the merger. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(<=) I agree with Steve. My two cents: elementary particles are (forgetting for a moment QM and QFT) point particles, but (not all) point particles are elementary particles. They are different models used in rather different ways. Anyway, I think it's a good thing to get some order between articles (but I don't know your situation, since I'm mostly active here. Instead, test particle is the same thing of point particle (I've only heard about test particles when introducing the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field as a synonym for point charge or point mass). --CristianCantoro (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the point particle articles should be merged. Ti-30X (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge test particle and point particle; they are different physical concepts. The defining property of a test particle is that doesn't effect the field configuration it is supposed to be testing. That is it charge and mass are assumed to be negligible. Point masses and point charges are point-like sources for gravitational and electromagnetic fields. (TimothyRias (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I for one did not understand that - it sounded like you were saying that x is not y because x has the same attributes as y. Where did I go wrong? Abtract (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's try it again then. Point masses and point charges are typically sources of gravitational en electromagnetic fields. For example you can calculate the gravitational field generated by a system of point masses. Test particles on the other hand are assumed NOT to generate a gravitation (or electromagnetic) field of their own (are at least it is assumed to negligible.), instead they are used as a theoretical tool to explore an existing gravitational (or electromagnetic) field. As an example take the reduced three body problem this describes three masses the first two are very massive and orbit each other according to the solution of the two body problem, while the last one is a test particle that is assumed to be very light compared to the other masses so that its influence on the other orbits can be safely ignored. (TimothyRias (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I can see your point, TimothyRias. Anyway I wonder if it's worth to keep separeted articles only beacause test particles are point(-like) particles that generate negligible (EM, gravitational) fields. IMHO, I believe it's better to merge the articles and make "test particle" a subsection of "point particle". --CristianCantoro (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No you can't calculate the gravitational field of point particles, that is the crux of the conflict between GR and QM. A point particle has an infinite field; and hence the non-linear interaction of gravitons would cause the field to grow without limit at arbitrarily close points to the point mass. However, I take your point that a test particle is not the same as a point particle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouRang? (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to quantum mechanics

There is a discussion at Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics (mainly between two editors) on how a good introductory article to quantum mechanics should look like. Now we have two competing versions, Introduction to quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. I am not too keen on studying the long-drawn-out discussion, but in particular, I am not a physicist, so I cannot really judge any inaccuracies. Is there someone to take pity on the two articles? :-) I guess there is a lot of good content in both, but the two should be well dissociated (Is that correct English?) or merged. -- Momotaro (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Momotaro, I just noticed your question. Yes, that is very correct English. Ti-30X (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -- Momotaro (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit late, but I agree with you - I've put a merger proposal on the page, will try to follow it up. Any helpful thoughts from WP Physics folks would be appreciated! Djr32 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Point Particle Questions

I have some questions regarding point particles (this is for an article on Misplaced Pages).

• Are the muon and tau lepton considered to be point particles? I know that they have no internal structure, like the electron so, these are elementary particles. But the fact that they decay during the weak interaction, and the size of the tau lepton have me wondering if these are point particles. (There was one other thing, but I can't recall at the moment what it was.)

• What is the momentum of the electron? Is this is a conserved property? I am having a difficult time determining what it is. Ti-30X (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by a point particle? That's not a very useful concept in physics. And electron momentum is not conserved; momentum in conserved in closed systems, but it can move between components of the system. It is also uncertain. But if you know the wavenumber, it's proportional to that, with a factor of Planck's constant. Of course, the point particle concept doesn't have the concept of wavenumber, so maybe that's not what you want to know. Dicklyon (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I am equating point particle with elementary or fundamental particles. It seems there is a well known Nobel laureate in particle physics (Leon Lederman) who stated that the electron was a point particle. It has spin, mass, and charge, but is considered to be without dimension. It is counterintuitive to the human perspective. He wrote that a particle with point mass, point spin, and point charge does create conceptual problems (IMHO a conceptual problem, doesn't seem to be much of a problem). Anyway here is the link in Google Books. If you have time - enter "point particle" in the search box, click on page 142, scroll back to the bottom of page 141, and then read bottom of page 141, and the whole of page 142, you will see what I mean. (If you have time) Let me know what you think. Thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Point particles" are a pedagogical tool for teaching classical physics. They're not real things. --Steve (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking "what is the momentum of the electron" is somewhat like asking "what is the velocity of the football". A given electron will have a momentum, then it gets bumped, and then it has a new momentum, then it gets bumped again... --Steve (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, your football analogy agrees with what I was thinking. But for some reason I got the idea there was an established momentum involved for the electron. I don't know where this idea came from. Probably from something I mis-read. The fog is clearing - (not about what I misread) - just as Diklyon wrote, above, momentum is conserved in a closed system. Somehow I must have mixed that up with my question. Ti-30X (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

According to string theory, there are no point particles, only little strings which are entities with extension in time and limited extension in one spatial direction (they may be open-ended or loops). If point particles existed, they would require infinite strength of interaction (producing other infinities, previously fixed by renormalization when possible) because the probability of two points colliding is zero. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

JRSpriggs - this is interesting because renormalization is what is used today. And, (probably as everyone here already knows), around the time QED was being developed there were those pesky infinities. As a solution, Feynman and colleagues came up with renormalization. So this aspect of string theory supports that. Ti-30X (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To Ti-30X: What? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. By "previously", I meant in the dark ages before string theory, which unfortunately still continues in most of particle physics. QED et al implicitly assumes that particles are points (and thus not strings). So of course, they got infinities because of the problem which I mentioned (i.e. no collisions between points). So I cannot see how you can say that string theory supports renormalization and such; it does not. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

JRSpriggs - Sorry. After re-reading what you wrote - I see that I misunderstood what you were saying. You are right I missed the part where you said "previously". OK I got it now. Thanks for pointing out my error. Ti-30X (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The electron, muon, tau, and the other elementary particles described in the Standard Model are indeed treated as "point particles", in that they don't have a "size" beyond that described by their wavelength. Compare this with an atom, which has an electron cloud of well-defined size, or with a proton, which has a size defined by the wavefunctions of the bound quarks within it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Christopher. Ti-30X Ti-30X (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Standard Model

I downloaded a new image of the Standard Model from Fermilab a little while ago. It has the Higgs Boson. In case you are interested here is the link at Wikimedia Commons: Fermilab Standard Model. It also over at the Standard Model (physics) category for images. Ti-30X (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages however, as it might leave impressions that the Higgs someone the origins of all other particles.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you would not want someone to jump to the conclusion that the Higgs boson is the God particle. :) JRSpriggs (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! of course I was thinking of the hypothesized particle, the Higgs boson along with the Higgs Field. Personally, I am hopeful the Large Hadron Collider can give us evidence of the HIggs boson. Of course I suppose it could go either way. But, I thought that I read somewhere that CERN began to discover evidence that tentatively suggeste the exsitence of the Higgs before it had to shut down. Maybe that source was unreliable. Ti-30X (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, they'd made statements to the effect that they'd found 2-sigma evidence for it (evidence that has about a 5% chance of having occurred by chance). Normally, proof of a particle's existence requires 6-sigma evidence (extremely unlikely to be chance). It's been a while, so I might be misremembering the confidence values they claimed, but long story short, they were getting tantalizing hints, and wanted to keep looking with their existing accelerator rather than be shut down for several years for the upgrade and maybe have someone else scoop them on the result. As far as I know, we're still looking for it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to be careful with confident levels in HEP. They usually refer to the confidence in a single channel. That means that 5% of the channels you are observing will show 2 sigma signals even if what you are getting is pure noise. Hence finding a 2sigma signal doesn't really mean that much in HEP. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

At least one experiment at LEP saw a tantalizing hint near the end of its run, while at least one other did not. What was seen wasn't anything conclusive at all -- essentially a "bump" that could either be the beginnings of a signal or just a random fluctuation -- but the committee in charge of LEP was convinced to extend the run (and delay the beginning of the conversion to the LHC) for at least a month. The "bump" didn't get more convincing during that extension, so LEP was shut down for good. If I recall correctly, in later, more complete analyses, the bump pretty much disappeared, suggesting it was in fact just a random fluctuation. But it's been a while since I heard this (from this four-year old talk, "The Higgs Saga at LEP" by Pippa Wells of CERN), so I may be misremembering some details. -David Schaich /_Cont 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine image, but we should all agree that it's promotional literature (at least in part). The particle physics community (Fermilab in particular) has a vested interest in people thinking the Higgs is incredibly important. --Steve (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

-- Mr.Z-man 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be very usefull!Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some articles may be in need of a multidisciplinary approach

I have been trying to add some physical context to the meaning of the R-value and have encountered some opposition to this effort. The article is currently undergoing a process of reduction and the point of view is becoming somewhat restrictive. Science is being downgraded. This raises the question of the scope of Misplaced Pages articles.

One assumes that we are writing for the general public and that Misplaced Pages is not a trade journal. Often articles are group projects since very few individuals are competent to speak for society as a whole. In this case the R-value has meaning to the professional sector which not everyone in the trade industry is aware of. The R-value can be defined as the ratio of the temperature difference across a conductor and the heat flux through it and is relevant since the purpose of insulation is to reduce heat flow and the associated temperature regulation costs. I personally do not know who introduced the R-value. Joseph Fourier identifies a constant, H, for the problem of conductance through the air in The Analytical Theory of Heat. He distinguishes it from h, the thermal conductivity. This was in 1822 and there is no need to clutter an article with excessive detail. But some science is essential in the understanding of the R-value which is used to rate insulating material.

The article is in need of improvement and greater expertise would help. The discussion at the level of building codes is often minimal and I doubt that there is a code of silence involved here. Building codes originate as professional codes. They are often adopted as is by the legal community. It is the case of a private code being imposed on the public. The problem one encounters is that of transmission losses along a chain. Information is lost. Misplaced Pages can offset this through the inclusion of material in its articles. People have a right to understand public code. They have a right to know what is in the public domain and a free press is a means to this end.

It might help if more than one group involved with Misplaced Pages shared responsibility for the content of and setting goals for articles. This would reduce the power of some "czar" to restrict the flow of information. --Jbergquist (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Got a question? Don't ask here!

Talk:Black hole has the advisory note "Got a question? Don't ask here!" and provides a list of sites where one can get answers to physics questions. I don't know if this is common practice for physics articles. But I wonder if it's a good idea. Questions from readers can help indicate what should be better explained in the article. For example, if someone asks, "So what is a black hole made out of, exactly?" that indicates the subject is not adequately addressed in the article. It's often difficult for editors to put themselves in the position of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter and imagine what that person might not understand. I remember on Talk:Baseball, a reader asked something along the lines of how many points you get for reaching each base. That indicated the article did not properly explain the basic concept of how runs are scored. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can recall, the template was added because the talk page was inundated with questions from people who hadn't thoroughly read the article and hadn't read the talk page (the same questions would come up over and over). While I agree in principle that questions could point to flaws in the article, in practice, for this article, I think the template is justified. The vast majority of the questions that showed up at Talk:Black hole should have been at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science instead. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On the positive side, most of the links related to the template look like really good ones. One could probably do well, asking a physics question at any one of those links, except for the first one - they are no longer taking any questions. However, browsing through the questions and responses listed at the first site may be of help. In any case, I think the editors at that article have provided some really good resources. IMHO. Ti-30X (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki History of the Universe in 200 Words or Less

Here is something that is based on Eric Schulma's The History of the Universe in 200 Words or Less. The Wiki history has all the words linked to a Wiki physics, astrophysics, or other article, relevant to the link. It is interesting, and I think humorous, because it is a very witty piece written by Eric Schulman. Here is the link to the Wiki History of the Universe.... Ti-30X (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Variational principle#Variational principle in quantum mechanics be merged into Variational method (quantum mechanics)?

(See Talk:Variational principle. --A. di M. – 2009 Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout 12:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Help with an anonymous IP

I could use a bit of help responding to talk page posts by 76.126.215.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They _sound_ reasonably well-educated, based on their posts at Talk:Magnetic monopole (among other things), but 1) they've mostly made hostile critiques of articles, rather than proposing helpful corrections, and 2) for the two talk threads I responded to (at Talk:Antimatter and Talk:Electroweak interaction), they seemed to be missing a couple of rather basic concepts.

Long story short, I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise than I have could respond to Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Is_this_just_a_silly_topic.3F, Talk:Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Are_Physicists_retarded.3F, and Talk:Bell's_theorem#Cute_theorem_but_trivially_refutable.3B_why_so_much_space.3F. There's also some borderline-trolling at Talk:Earth's atmosphere diff, though I'll assume good faith, as they seem to have adopted a somewhat less-hostile tone as time has gone on. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied to all three, for what it's worth. -- BenRG (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher, I'll be coming over to see if I can lend a hand. Ti-30X (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Black hole information paradox

An anonymous IP has recently added Main approaches to the solution of the paradox to the article Black hole information paradox.

Looks very OR-ish to me, but maybe not such a bad idea in principle. Would anyone care to take a look? Jheald (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although unsourced it seems fairly accurate. (Some of the advantages and disadvantages mentioned are not the first thing I would mention about each option, but that is mostly a matter of taste.) It pretty much covers the options I know of, and I think it should be possible to source most of the claims being made. Many of what is said belongs to the general lore of the field, which may make sourcing the some of the statements somewhat hard if we cannot find a good recent review of the subject. (this is the typo of knowledge that is transmitted through workshops and conferences not through papers.) There definitely is no OR going on.

Ofcourse, the section could use some work. Each of the approaches should probably be worked out as a three paragraph subsection: 1)explaining the approach, 2)the advantages 3)the disadvantages. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Stuff that is missing in a lot of physics articles

As I've been reading a lot of the articles about physics, I have noticed that a lot of basic information is missing, or is hard to find without reading through the entire article. For example, in articles about physical quantities, I think some of the most important things are that it should be easy to find: 1. which sign (letter) is usually used for that physical quantity, 2. the unit of that physical quantity, 3. how to calculate its value as a function of other physical quantities (if possible) and 4. as many ways as possible that the physical quantity is commonly used in. Often when you open an article about a physical quantity, you are only looking to find one of the two or three first of these things. However, it is not always that easy to find, if even present in the article. Often it is hidden somewhere in the text.

What really should be done is that, for example, in every article about a physical quantity, it should be made sure that at least the first three of these things are easy to find.

To help making this a reality, we should make more use of physics infoboxes. There is already a proposed infobox for units, which is great; it should be approved and then it should be made sure it comes to use. We also need an infobox for physical quantities, similar to that one.

What can be done about this? What is done about this today? Is this anything WikiProject Physics deals with or can deal with? If not, is there any other Misplaced Pages project which has this aim today? Otherwise one should be started. A lot of physics articles need this type of maintenance. But it is worth it, I promise.

--Kri (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that most articles on units and quantities have not been worked on much and could use a lot of work. Having some good standardized infoboxes for these articles may provide some backbone for these articles. I'll try to whip up a {{Infobox Unit}} later today following that 3 year old proposal.

Moreover, many of these article tend to fall in between projects. WikiProject Meaurement may also be a good place to bring this up. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

OK, how about something like this? Most of the parameters are optional so the last few items do not need to be included in tautological cases like this one. Any suggestions for other items? (TimothyRias (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

How many electrons are in -1 Coulomb? JRSpriggs (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The charge on an electron is considered to be the elementary charge (ie none smaller can be detected - despite quarks having 1/3 or 2/3 of that charge). This elementary charge e is ~ 1.602 x 10^-19 C. Protons have a charge of the same magnitude. Abtract (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems really good! We could use a similar one for physical quantities (which we can put in the electric charge article!), I shall make a proposal for one later. What we really need is an organized attempt to improve every article in this way – just put in one of those infoboxes in every article which needs one. Later on when we see that it works some other criterias for maintaining good physics articles can be added as well. Probably a new wikiproject would be the best for this reason, anyone who knows how to start one? --Kri (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have now created an Infobox Physical quantity, it is a little bit small compared to that one for units, but what more is needed? Anything more you can come to think of? Couldn't come up with anything more. It has now been proposed on the proposal page.

By the way, now when the infobox templates are finished, do they even need approval, isn't it just to use them? --Kri (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're in the clear. Nothing special needed to use them. Also the relevant project would probably be WP:MEASURE.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue raised by JRSpriggs is that there may be other common nonstandard units in which a unit may be commonly expressed. That is a good point. I could simply add an "other units" parameter. A more sophisticated approach would be to add "otherunit=" and "inotherunit=" parameters allowing custom defined units. How many of these should I add? 2 or 3 probably would suffice, and with them in place more can easily be added as needed without breaking the template for article already using it.

I could also replace all the inXXXunits options with pairs "unit1=" and "inunit1=", what would be preferable? (TimothyRias (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

So -1 C = 6.242×10 electrons. Which fact should be included in the table. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have used the last option to make the template more flexible. See template documentation for details. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Well, now we have created two infobox templates, that is great. Currently no articles are using them, so, what is needed to get these templates to use? Is it possible to start a new project, or a subproject, which aims to make every physics article have certain information easily accessible, and which puts some requirements on every article (depending on what type of physics article it is)? How should we make these templates come to use? I shall start myself (so long) to implement these wherever I feel they are needed. --Kri (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do you think some of the names of the arguments should be changed? For example, "derivations" in the Infobox Physical quantity, I don't know if that is the best name for that variable. Probably the names should be changed as fast as possible if they need to be changed. Anyway, I'm starting to use the templates, we will just have to find all implementations later and change in them at the time. --Kri (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you are talking about creating a project or subproject just to add a few infoboxes to a few pages. That would be very unusual, a waste of resources, and unlikely to succeed. The way to do it is to do it. (I am not going to do it, though, as I am busy with other things.) Hans Adler 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you need to do:

1. Extract list of physical quantities and units from List of physical quantities see also the category:physical quantities
2. Copy these into 2 lists on your user page (one for quantities; the other for units)
3. Post the link here and invite others to go through list scratching off <s></s> ones they have done
4. Optional: get Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser if you can to help speed the process up
5. Check the results and make changes. there is a template:done template

TStein (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We also have to be careful with incompatible units, e.g. the CGS unit of charge is not dimensionally compatible with the SI unit of charge. The conversion factor in the table is thus not useful (because CGS doesn't mean that we can only use centimeters, grams and seconds). It is better to say that q_{si}/sqrt(4 pi epsilon_0) -----> q_{cgs}. Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Count Iblis...for example, the template above ("Coulomb") should say "2997924580 statC × sqrt(4pi epsilon_0)".

Also, maybe conversions should be in the table? Or a separate/add-on template? For example, the left column could say conversions and the right column could say

1 atm = 101325 Pa

1 bar = 100000 Pa

1 torr = 133.322 Pa

1 psi = 6.894×10 Pa

Obviously for pressure, there's too many units to list every pair...But even just conversions into SI would be nice. But come to think of it, maybe every pair could be included by using show/hide boxes or something along those lines. (i.e., you select "Pa" to see all units expressed in Pa like above, or instead you select "atm" to see all units expressed in atm, and so on.) That would be really nice if it could be done in an elegant and unobtrusive way...wiki-syntax challenge anyone? :-) --Steve (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to include every pair. On the Pascal page it is not relevant how to express an atm in a psi, just how to express Pa in atm and psi etc. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Personally, I think having conversions and/or expressing the unit in other system is too complicated. I would prefer to have just the units with a link to the relevant article. For example:

Name: Pascal

Abreviation: Pa

Unit of: Pressure

Named after: Blaise Pascal

Type: SI derived unit

1 Pa = 1 N/m

Common units of pressure:

pascal, Torr, psi, atmosphere, bar

Description: A small unit of pressure. Atmospheric pressure is around 100,000 Pa

I added the description category here as well just to see how it would work and as an idea to allow both for simplicity and for flexibility. TStein (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of your proposals seem nice! I am on a vacation right now. Maybe I will create a page on my user listing articles that still need infoboxes when I get back from the vacation, if not anybody else has done it before. There are some things that may be good to discuss, for example, are the infoboxes finished enough for starting to put them in a lot of articles, or do we have to change something in them before? In that case I guess it is just to start using them. --Kri (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dry ice

Spotlight An article covered by this WikiProject, Dry ice, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

The necessary condition to obtain interference fringes

In many articles that involve interferometry it is suggested that lasers facilitate interferometry 'because they produce coherent light'. That is in fact an incorrect attribution.

Before laser sources were available an often used light source for interference experiments was light from a Sodium lamp, as that light is so nearly monochromatic. Of course, monochromatic light helps accuracy, but it is not a condition for obtaining interference fringes. For instance, Newton's rings are obtained with daylight. Newton's rings are a stark illustration of the fact that to obtain interference fringes the light does not have to be coherent.

In a Young double slit experiment the crucial requirement is that the source of light is a point source.
If the interferometry uses sunlight two screens must be employed: one with a single slit, to obtain the equivalent of a point source, the second screen has the double slit. Without the first screen there will be no visible interference effects; the Sun is not a point source.

The hyperphysics site from Georgia State University shows a picture of Interference fringes in a Michelson interferometer obtained with a small incandescent bulb

Experimentally and theoretically we know that if we reduce the luminosity in an interference experiment down to such a low level that at any point in time only a single photon is present then an interference pattern will still build up. It is as if each photon interferes with itself.

If we assume that each photon that passes the first screen will subsequently only interfere with itself then there is no need for coherency. (Quite a leap of interpretation that, but it's a remarkably effective heuristic.)
Laser light leaves the laser cavity through such a small aperture that effectively it's a point source. That why laser light gives good interference fringes. (Interestingly, whether or not laserlight is coherent is moot.)

I don't think this is high priority, but when articles that involve interferometry are edited I think it's worthwile to address this matter as well. --Cleonis | Talk 11:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Coherence (physics)#Spatial coherence explains it pretty well. The require for two-slit diffraction is that the incoming light is spatially coherent over the two slits. Lasers tend to produce light with good spatial coherence. So does a point source (like in the diagram above). Other kinds of interference have virtually no requirement whatsoever for spatial coherence in order to see the interference--e.g., Newton's rings, or the rainbows you see when there's a tiny bit of oil on a puddle of water.

Intensity of the light has nothing to do with anything. A source without enough spatial coherence will produce no diffraction at any intensity, even one photon at a time. The photons coming from the left side of the filament will build up a diffraction pattern, and the photons coming from the right side of the filament will build up a diffraction pattern, but when everything's put together there's no pattern, the different parts of the filament wash each other out.

So I guess I agree with some of what you wrote. :-) --Steve (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But lasers do facilitate interferometry because of their high coherence. This is different than saying you can't do interferometry with incandescent sources. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help determining if polymer physics publication is important

I have slowly been going through list of important publications in physics. In list of important publications in physics#Polymer physics there are three publications by Eugene Guth that I can't find any reference to other then in[REDACTED] or the hundreds of mirrors of this article. Can someone with knowledge of polymer physics help me out? TStein (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to a relevant wikiProject that might help. WP:WikiProject Polymers seems to be inactive.TStein (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEM? Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Softvision (talk · contribs)

Over the last few weeks, I've noticed rather strange edits to physics-related articles by Softvision (talk · contribs). As near as I can tell, he comes up with long, rambing proclaimations on the nature of things like time, time dilation, and a few other topics (based on his edit history), and has been making large numbers of edits to talk pages to expound on this. I'm at a loss as to what to do, and I've also reached the limits of my available time/patience with the thread at Talk:Time. Suggestions and assistance would be appreciated.

Active or recently-active articles seem to be:

• Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Time dilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Photon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My understanding was that he used to create new articles with material along these lines, but if so, that's before my encounters with him. Now, he just dumps material on to talk pages spun as questions or suggestions for article improvement. The thread at time seems to have started with him listening to a television documentary, taking one sentence out of context, and using it as the basis for the entire thread.

If anyone's feeling up to mentoring him, be my guest. With or without that, however, it's been disruptive enough that I'm considering going on wikibreak again. More eyes would be welcome. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. No mentoring, too much time committment, but I'll watch the pages and comment against philosophical extrapolations. Awickert (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am a little more ruthless about enforcing WP:TPG. This will hopefully bring sanity. Awickert (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone with more patience than I have can take a look at Talk:Imaginary time, too. I'm approaching the limit of my ability to useful contribute there. Talk:Speed of light seems to be an active area again, too. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you've tried advising him on his talk page, nor notified him of this incident report. And he hasn't been that active the last few days, just tweaking details of his rant at Talk:Speed of light, where there are worse problems going on and he's just being ignored, pretty much. If all he does is talk, ignoring him might be the best strategy – looks to me like he has no article-space edits at all. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you feel I should say on his talk page that isn't more appropriately placed in the threads in question? I have neither the time nor the desire to mentor him at length. I am just one of several people trying to nudge him towards understanding of what is and is not suitable content to add to Misplaced Pages.

He has edited article-space in the past; check back several hundred edits in his history (he makes large numbers of small edits in any given thread, so even a modest time means it'll be quite a ways back). The fact that he's attempting to work with others by going through the talk pages first is a promising sign, but there is considerably more mentoring that needs to be done to have him contribute usefully to Misplaced Pages rather than debatably-disrupting talk pages (certainly makes the history tab nearly useless, but beyond that disruption is marginal).

I'd certainly notify him if I launched an RFC regarding him, but I am not launching an RFC (he hasn't done anything seriously wrong). Consider this thread a call for volunteers for mentoring (probably a distributed effort, as nobody seems to want to do it one-on-one). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More trouble brewing

In the last week or so, Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has focused his attention on Speed of light. In his usual mode, he rewrites before discussing, and then spends full time dominating the discussion page, too, making it impossible for even dedicated editors to fend him off. In the last five days, the article has had over 100 edits, and the talk page over 400, with the majority of both being from Brews ohare in spite of the relatively large number of others trying to participate. This rapid-fire full-time article-focused editing style is how he gets his way. Does anything think that this project would be better off if we asked him to back off and let others collaborate in articles that he is interested in? Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Brews is doing aything wrong. At least, I don't think he is wrong on the physics, and the discussions on the talk page are more about semantics, which is irrelevant in physics. I really think that the other editors are at fault here for not being able to discuss things in an effective way.

Thought experiment: Suppose I were to edit the article too, let's say, I change the flawed statement in the article about faster than light signals being forbidden because in some frames effect would precede cause and edit in the correct argument (which is that faster than light signals can allow you to create causal paradoxes, but there are exceptions, e.g the Sharnhorst effect, proving that my edit is correct, and the old is false), and removing the citation to the Book by Wheeler and editing in another source. How would the discussion on the talk page proceed? Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear what the point is. As far as I can see Brews' edits were correct. He has even compromised on points where technically he is correct and the others were wrong after some discussions. E.g. on c being just a conversion factor. This is the standard view in theoretical physics, but in many textbooks it is (wrongly) stated that c is a fundamental constant of nature (the fact that c is not dimensionless is besides the point, dimensions are just human constructs).

So, when Brews is challenged, he does take the time to discuss things, but I think he is challenged on too large a number of issues, which leads to many unecessary discussions on the talk page. Clearly that is the fault of the other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is not whether you agree with the content of the edits, but that the aggressive editing style makes it very difficult for other editors to collaborate. I've editing with Brews enough to know that among his edits are a fair number of errors, and idiosyncratic viewpoints, and that it's very hard to get him to let go of either. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you two are arguing all the time about things that are not so relevant to the actual physics. I've just made some edits to the article and I had no difficulties whatsoever. So, the dispute with Brews is not going to prevent someone from contributing to the article at all. What you and Brews are arguing about on this and other articles usually has to do with textbook definitions, like how to define wavelength. Such definitions from textbooks are often not perfect and you can discuss about that for ages.

Why not just step away from these sorts of disputes and focus more on the actual physics? Who says that you need to define everything in one sentence? Why can't you have a general description that is perhaps a bit vague in one paragraph? Count Iblis (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right that my complaint is about the behavior, not about the physics. The trouble is that the behavior makes it very hard to "just step away from these sorts of disputes and focus more on the actual physics" since he doesn't leave time for other editors to have a say in what he's pushing through. Most of us don't have full time to devote to defending an article against his onslaughts. When I've tried that, like on Wavelength, it was exhausting. On Speed of light, I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what the argument is, physics wise, as I don't have time to read the 400 talk page edits of the last four days. It's clear that there's trouble brewing, and quite a few editors trying to push back on him, but there doesn't seem to be room to actually understand the issues due to his overwhelming style and devotion. Dicklyon (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon's comment that "I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what the argument is, physics wise" is typical, and indicative of his style of "hit-and-run" editing based upon an instant analysis and decision to revert with no understanding of the issues, just gut instinct. My "aggressive style of editing" certainly has not impeded Dicklyon's participation on any article one iota, nor caused him to try to understand the issues before his reversions. Brews ohare (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What a strange baseless assertion; how can you know how much you have impeded me? And my edit history is open for others to inspect, and I'm sure will plainly contradict what you're claiming about instant analysis and no understanding of the issues. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon says: The point is not whether you agree with the content of the edits, but that the aggressive editing style makes it very difficult for other editors to collaborate. Dick, it should matter whether the content of the edits is correct. And the claim that other editors have difficulty contributing is not factual, as the Talk page history shows clearly. Also, the majority of my edits on the actual article are minor, like adding a See Also or correcting the citation template for a source. Pretending an edit count indicates a host of major revisions is distortion, what ever else it might be (e.g. sloppy observation, laziness, building a case, venting). Brews ohare (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that correctness doesn't matter. But claiming to be correct should not be a license to dominate an article by aggressive full-time editing. Leave some room for collaborators to check and comment on your changes, instead of trying to leave them in the dust by opening several fronts in one article and dominating the talk page, too. Apparently we interpret the recent talk page evidence rather differently. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you had the desire to "check and comment", but I see little of that compared to reversion with a cryptic Edit summary line, and very limited tolerance of sourced additions that do not fit your own personal selection criteria. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if what is added is correct and improves the old version, Brews Ohare could have an edit rate of 1000 edits per hour. If you can't keep up, I suggest that you take a break from trying to monitor every tiny change to the article (or the talk page), and instead compare differences over an entire day. This will allow you to get a good feel of what has been changed, and you will be able to create a well-focused discussion more easily. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If I thought his edits were usually improvements, I wouldn't be talking about them. Dicklyon (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is all about your thoughts, your actions would make sense. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that one can either complain about flawed physics being edited in artciles or one should shut up. If Brews is editing a lot and if that somehow causes "Brews to get his way", then it shouldn't be difficult to come here and show specific examples of erroneous edits that one has difficulty correcting because Brews (allegedly) doesn't give anyone the chance to do so.

The focus of discussions here should be on the physics. But the complaint now is 100% about Brews' editing style and 0% about any problems related to the physics of the topic. I think that's unacceptable and the next time we should simply delete such attack threads here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard alot of bogus complaints lately. One of those bogus complaints that is getting parroted alot has been that other editors can't edit on certain pages because of Brews ohare. If a person has a contribution to make to an article, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from making that contribution. The fact that Brews ohare is doing alot of edits on that same page shouldn't make any difference. If they have an important point to make, then it is arrant nonsense to claim that they can't make that point because Brews ohare is making too many edits on that page.

When some of these complaints were investigated in more detail at the recent circus, it transpired that those complaining didn't even know anything about the topic in question. They were nevertheless expecting us all to believe that they would have been making edits on the page, only for Brews ohare, and that it was their right to do so even though they knew nothing about the content matter. These bogus complaints will have to stop.

Brews is very good at typing the mathematical symbolism. He is good at providing diagrams. He is honest and open minded. Challenge him on a point of physics and he will go away and think about it. He may not concede on the spot, but give a day or two and you will notice the debate progressing. He is trying to learn. He already has a university level knowledge of the topics in question. He wants to make difficult topics easier for the lay readership to grasp. So let's end this witch hunt once and for all. It's time to make a closer scrutiny of those who have been opposing Brews and complaining about him. David Tombe (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, except for the conclusion. We have to assume good faith not only on the part of Brews but also of those who oppose his editing. As far as I can tell everyone involved is doing the best they can to improve the articles. Both sides have legitimate complaints. Both sides, I believe, are willing to listen to reason and work together. It is time we find a solution rather then broadening the fight. The first step of which is finding out exactly what the problem is. TStein (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since writing the above section, I have realized beyond any doubt that it is actually Martin Hogbin and not Brews ohare who is the cause of the trouble at speed of light. Martin seems to insist that any short description in the history section of Maxwell's work in 1861 needs to be recorded in a distorted fashion. Martin is clearly very strongly opposed to the historical work of Maxwell in which Maxwell equated the transverse elasticity of his sea of molecular vortices to dielectric constant, and the density to magnetic permeability, and then substituted the numerical ratio of the two electromagnetic constants (based on the 1856 experimental results of Weber and Kohlrausch) into Newton's mechanical equation for the speed of sound to obtain a value equal to the speed of light, as measured by Fizeau. Martin will not allow this historical fact to be recorded. This strong prejudice against any physical rationale behind the speed of light is clearly behind his ongoing edit war with Brews, and it is Martin who is clearly in breach of wikipedia's rules in this intance.

I tried to mediate in the dispute between Brews and Martin in order to establish what exactly they were arguing about. Brews told me his point of view on the matter. Martin did not tell me his point of view. Brews indicated to me that he thought that Martin saw the speed of light as something in the realms of a platonic constant like π. Martin denied this. Meanwhile I decided to rectify the historical account of Maxwell's work in the history section. Martin's instant reversion of this correction was a clear sign of his strong prejudices against anything that might give a hint of physical meaning to the speed of light. My guess is that Brews has been encountering the exact same unacceptable behaviour. I have no doubt that Brews has been trying his best to explain a tricky topic and that Martin has been opposing him because Martin thinks that all these things are cut and dried. David Tombe (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In responce to Count Iblis:The focus of discussions here shoud be about improving physics articles, IMO. Most of the time that means dealing with the physics, but it can include other things as well. There is obviously a problem here that needs to be fixed. I agree that the problem is not Brews ohare's physics. Perhaps deleting attack threads here is a solution, but I don't think it will go away if we ignore it. This has to be a common enough problem, that[REDACTED] has to have a resolving mechanism. Does anyone know what it is? Does it work?

In the meantime it might help to better define the 'conflict', for lack of a better term. I have been to a number of these articles in the hopes of being able to help, but I have had to leave since the 'conflict' ends up being too undefined. I agree strongly with Count Iblis that if Dicklyon and others need help from us they need to be more specific with their examples. I can understand his frustration. I don't want to loose him or Brews due to this. My sense of the problem is that Brews has a more detailed oriented editing style that is conflicting with other editors who want the article to be more concise and focused. (My personal bias may be shining through here, though.) If this is the case then a general discussion here about what is appropriate where along with links to appropriate[REDACTED] policies may help.TStein (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Dicklyon, he does have a strong emphasis upon keeping articles short and at a simple level. My own view is different, and I believe that over the life of an article, it might begin with sections of different levels of difficulty and end with the more technical discussions spun off to separate articles as they developed further. Ultimately, one ends up with an overview accessible to anyone with a lot of "main article" templates to the spin-offs. However, I find Dicklyon does not wish to subscribe to this scenario. He wants WP to consist entirely of short & simple articles on the topics he is interested in. If I want to make a separate more technical article that he has no interest in, I think he'd go along with that. However, it would lead to a lot of stubs, and I have doubts that Dicklyon would agree to having "main article" templates directing to these one paragraph stubs in "his" articles. He would object that these stubs were either irrelevant, too technical, or deficient according to some other criteria. For example, I have tried to introduce Fourier series in the wavelength and dispersion articles, and just have this topic reverted on a variety of pretexts despite many efforts at reformulation. Of course, there are articles on Fourier series as a mathematical topic, but do we want a stub called "Wavelength (Fourier series)" or "Dispersion (Fourier series)" just to show how this tool works in particular contexts? Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantum field theory, want second opinion

Could someone who knows quantum field theory double-check the accuracy of my edit here? Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok, except when you write "mediated by virtual photons", because then you suggest that the pertubative expansion is the same as the real effect. But we know that there are non-perturbative effects that vanish to all orders in perturbation theory. Of course, the problem here is that in many popular books this statement about virtual photons can be found. Perhaps you can write that one can heuristically picture electromagnetic interactions in this way.

Perhaps you can also write about some quantum effects. E.g., even if we consider a classical magnetic field, the coupling of the magnetic field with the Dirac field causes the vacuum to become birefringent, so you have two effective indices of refraction when there is a region in the vacuum with a magnetic field (dependent on the polarization of the light w.r.t. the direction of the magnetic field). Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the connection between the phrase "mediated by virtual photons" and perturbative field theory. I can see how the phrase "mediated by virtual photons" would be evocative of a Feynman-diagram QED expansion, but is it a necessary implication? I mean, everyone says that quarks are held together by gluons, despite the fact that you can't do a perturbative Feynman-diagram expansion to quantify it. Do you think saying just "mediated by the photon field" would be better? Your suggestion (using the word "heuristic") would also work fine of course. Thanks again. :-) --Steve (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge categories scattering and scattering theory

There are two separate categories for Scattering ] and Scattering Theory. Shouldn't these be merged? Is there an easy way to do this without changing each category on each page by hand? Njerseyguy (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's consensus for the merge, bots can handle it.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, see WP:CfD for guidance about how to propose a merge and related stuff.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IP creating questionable articles

See Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants. Seems like definite OR in places, but I can't make much sense of it. Maybe there's good material in there somewhere?? Anyone else have an opinion? --Steve (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it and I agree with both not being able to make much sense of it and that places seemed like OR. On the other hand, this would not be the first article that does not make sense to me. The main contributor is an anonymous IP with an interesting history. From a very cursory look, some of the other articles seem to be skirting OR as well. TStein (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TStein on this. I never heard of "self-consistent constants", nor is "self-consistent" ever defined (at least clearly). I say let's send it to AfD on grounds of WP:OR/WP:Neologism and we can give it bigger scrutinity then. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded (you actually beat me to it, as I was about to make a post about this IP contributor). Long story short, 195.47.212.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making a very large number of minor edits to selected physics articles (mostly good-faith equation formatting tweaks, as far as I can tell). They've also been creating a large number of rather dubious articles and linking to them. As near as I can tell, their behaviour pattern has been to submit requests at "articles for creation", wait until they're rubber-stamped, and fill in the resulting blank articles. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Project-Class physics pages
• NA-importance physics pages
• Project-Class physics articles of NA-importance