Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 17 February 2017

• 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.

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011

Archives

Big Bang – 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 2010 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 2012 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 2013 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 2014 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 2015 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 2016 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 2017 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Missing topics lists

My lists of missing topics about physics, part 1 & part are updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this list was generated, but a lot of these pages exist under a slightly different name. e.g. 750 GeV diphoton resonance exists as 750 GeV diphoton excess and eta-meson exists as eta meson. Dukwon (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created redirect pages for both of these. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Need help with article on the Four dimensional shape, the Cubinder.

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I am in the process of creating an article about the 4D shape, the “cubinder”. It was previously red linked on other articles, and I was surprised to see it was not already an item listed for creation by Wiki Projects Mathematics, as the duocylinder and spheriender are already articles. I require help to improve the draft, as I require more formulae, sources, and additional information to create this article. You can access this page at User:Darnburn98/Cubinder, please come on over and help improve this article to get into the main space! Darnburn98 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I find the flashing lights really irritating, and they would dissuade me from reading the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

Merger Proposal: Pair distribution function and Radial distribution function

I have proposed a merge of Pair distribution function and Radial distribution function, since they're essentially the same thing. The terms are often used interchangeably. The discussion is at Talk: Radial distribution function. I'm looking for a few editors agreement before making the merge. Polyamorph (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Misplaced Pages's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Misplaced Pages gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Misplaced Pages. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Misplaced Pages page, or only a stub/start Misplaced Pages articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group. Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Misplaced Pages-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Point particle talk page discussion

There is a discussion taking place here: . This is what it is about: An editor removed the infobox on this page saying " removed figure ((Standard model|cTopic=Background)) which is not a good fit for the topic and content of this article". I reverted with an explanation "Restore image and infobox - this exactly fits with this article. Please open a discussion on the talk page if you still disagree before removing this - thanks".

I was unaware the editor opened a discussion on this on January 20th. Had I known I would have posted here sooner, and responded there sooner. Anyway, hopefully project members will chime in over there. It would be very much appreciated. I mean, I might be wrong about this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Rounding of scientific numbers

There is a discussion which is incredibly relevant to this project regarding rounding as it pertains to scientific physical constants. Your input is requested at this template's talk page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is more or less closed, but a new one has arisen. Input is requested at this discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New(ish) user being slightly too BOLD

I came across some edits made by Fmadd today, and I'm not entirely sure they're constructive. They've been creating a whole ton of random redirects (most of which I've deleted) and created General relativity and quantum mechanics (which at the very least probably needs to be renamed). A second or third set of eyes on this would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I undid quite a few of their edits today. As the subject is treated in Quantum gravity already, I have db-a10-ed General relativity and quantum mechanics. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I need to bump this post. Fmadd has created a stupid number of rather implausible redirects, basically turning phrases into wikilinks. Basically, they're trying to avoid the pipe trick by making redirects. I could use some help looking through them all. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, I call this a "stupid" number because they've made over 200 redirects in the last three weeks. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Why would you object to this? I dont know when I create a redirect where else it is used (because I haven't read the whole of wikipedia yet!!!), or where it might be used in future. Often the links ARE applicable in multiple places. The redirects make it easier to FIND links, because you dont always know what to search for (if you dont already know what something is called). Every link increases the knowledge encoded in the system. If you think this is a problem in any way, why dont you get on the suggestions box and come up with improvements to the platform ('overlinking'? NONSENSE, there should be a way to prioritize the links, rather than having to make a binary choice 'link or no link'. Look at the new hovercards feature, it's great having definitions pop up below things. The physics articles are full of jargon that isn't at all obvious. and so on.Fmadd (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, you should slow down since people object – not only here, but at your talk page too, and it is not entirely new. Please sort this out before proceeding in the same manner. Otherwise, if it turns out to be "bad" (or if community consensus has it that it is bad, whether actually good or bad), it will be a too massive job for anyone to rectify. YohanN7 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have also not been happy with some of the edits made by this editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

What gets me are things that are self-explanatory, like particle–antiparticle pair in the antiparticle article (which inexplicably links to pair production) and combinations of two concepts, like scattering event (which links to event (particle physics) but not scattering). These edits often demonstrate a lack of understanding of the terms being wikilinked, and sometimes they end up pointing to a misleading or confusing target. Dukwon (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, and now lots of non-particle-physics articles containing the two-word phrase "scattering event" are linking to event (particle physics). Now I have to fix these mistakes. These sorts of edits are not helping. Dukwon (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Many of the redirects are sensible, though don't create a redirect if you don't know where to point it. Also don't point mainspace redirects at categories. Also a disambig page does not have one entry only. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Some are not. Also, this editor has a habit of bolding some words in a haphazard way, inconsistent with Misplaced Pages style MOS:NOBOLD.Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

The lack of edit summaries, and inappropriate markings of non-minor edits as minor, is also a problem. Not all of these supposedly minor edits are good, and they should be carefully reviewed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor has now been indefinitely blocked. Now the mess he made has to be cleaned up. Is there a bot for that? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

Bouncing ball

I have just created this. I've looked at it for too long, and can't find any more issues with it due to being too familiar with the words I wrote. Feedback is appreciated (as would a GA review, which I've nominated it for). I'm also citing my own work (doi:10.1139/cjp-2015-0378) for a few things. While I don't believe this is very controversial given the statements it supports, a second set of eyes wouldn't hurt either..Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Two forms of Ampere's force law - looking for citation for proof of equivalence

Ampere's force law can be written in two ways:

${\displaystyle {\vec {F}}_{12}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\int _{L_{1}}\int _{L_{2}}{\frac {I_{1}d{\vec {\ell }}_{1}\ \mathbf {\times } \ (I_{2}d{\vec {\ell }}_{2}\ \mathbf {\times } \ {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}_{21})}{|r|^{2}}}}$,

${\displaystyle {\vec {F}}_{12}=-{\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\int _{L_{1}}\int _{L_{2}}{\frac {(I_{1}d{\vec {\ell }}_{1}\ \mathbf {\cdot } \ I_{2}d{\vec {\ell }}_{2})\ {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}_{21}}{|r|^{2}}}.}$

There's a proof that the two forms are equivalent (expand the vector triple product then use Stokes theorem), but it's hard to find online or in textbooks. I could only find it at citizendium . So I cited citizendium, but then someone deleted that citation - I guess they think that citizendium is never a reliable source. (I disagree, but that's an issue for a different forum.) My question for y'all is: Has anyone seen the proof of equivalence in any textbook, online lecture notes, or somewhere else I can cite other than citizendium? Thanks in advance! --Steve (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue is that this particular Citizendium article has yet to be approved (i.e. be peer-reviewed). It's an interesting (and certainly valid) proof. I've never seen this version of the law before. I wonder why, since dot products tend to be much easier to understand, and a geometric proof showing that ${\displaystyle d{\vec {\ell }}_{1}\times \left(d{\vec {\ell }}_{2}\times {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}_{21}\right)=-d{\vec {\ell }}_{1}\cdot d{\vec {\ell }}_{2}{\hat {\mathbf {r} }}_{21}}$ should be fairly straightforward to have (unless this doesn't hold true, of course).Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not true that ${\displaystyle d{\vec {\ell }}_{1}\times \left(d{\vec {\ell }}_{2}\times {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}_{21}\right)=-d{\vec {\ell }}_{1}\cdot d{\vec {\ell }}_{2}{\hat {\mathbf {r} }}_{21}}$. The integral is the same, but the integrands are different.  :-D --Steve (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried it at home, and it's almost the same, but not quite. If you call θ₁, θ₁, and θ₁₂ the angles between dl₁ and r₂₁, dl₂ and r₂₁, and between dl₁ and dl₂, you end up with dl₁ dl₂ sin θ₂ = - dl₁ dl₂cos θ₁₂. Those must be equivalent under integration, but not before. And at this point, attempting that proof would be no simpler than expanding the vector triple product and doing the Stokes' thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: I found it, I'm all set now. The proof is briefly summarized (in passing) in an American Journal of Physics article from 1988. Apparently Maxwell himself knew that these forms were equivalent! --Steve (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Shortcuts,_revisited

There is currently an RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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