Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:04, 13 September 2007 editNondistinguished (talk \| contribs)497 edits →Fluid physics contra Fluid mechanics ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:50, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,774 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2024) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(21d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d
			\|algo = old(25d)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 3
			\|minthreadsleft=5
			}}
			{{shortcut\|WT:PHY\|WT:PHYS\|WT:PHYSICS}}
			{{tmbox \| text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011''' }}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
			{{WikiProject Physics}}
	}}		}}

	{{Physics\|class=NA\|importance=NA}}
	{{archive box\|		{{archive box\|
			{{hidden\|header=Big Bang – 2005 \|content= <br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2006 — 2019\|content=<br>
			{{hidden\|header=2006\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]

	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 18:		Line 29:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2007\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 25:		Line 38:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2008\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2009\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2010\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2011\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2012\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2013\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2014\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2015\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2016\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2017\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2018\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2019\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2020\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2021\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2022\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2023\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2024\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			\|search=yes
	}}		}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? ==
	== Planck mass with 84.158.. insertions ==

	As part of the ongoing issue with W. Kehler posting from 84.158.. I have just found another page where he has made modifications, unnoticed since July 2. I would appreciate another physics person having a look at ].

	I cannot follow the changes. The English is atrocious, there is the recurring linkage being made to Tired Light, and the whole article seems to be used as yet another case where Kehler can slide in his rather unique perspective without being noticed. Relevance of the additions to Planck mass look dubious to me; but a real physicist better look at it please.

	Is there any tool at Misplaced Pages where one can look at contributions from a range of IP addresses? ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	:There's an off-wikipedia tool that can search a range (maybe limited to the last octet). It might time out a lot as it is getting some publicity at the present time. ] 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

	:: Thanks. I couldn't make that one work; but I have since found a useful tool at tools.wikimedia.de that scans a recent database dump. See . It's a bit limited; you can't search for 84.158.200-255. But you can enter "84.158" in the IP range, and "enwiki_p" in the pull down box of databases. This works like a charm. Here is a query all set up: . He has since registered as ], which is a good idea. I recently set up a user page to engage him directly. He's been busy on that over the last week or so. I've wasted a horrifying amount of time on it, which has to put my judgment in serious question. But at least it has been harmless. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	===ANSWER, see ]]]===
	::: Back from vacancy I see that and how we were IP-chased and will begin to provoke: In 20 years Chinese will dominate the world. Chinese will become then more and more the dominant language and country, if you like it or not. You have to learn Chinese now instead to mock about English defects. Enhance bad English instead to attack serious work!

	::: Our club decided today to resign. As cited Dr.Kießlinger wrote correctly: Wikipedian Admins are unable to “hear”. Who ignores a photon's mass (you confessed to know it) is not qualified for physics and maths, sorry! We have given enough other evidences to ]: Not any GR-solution was found in the related article but some good "recipes for cooking" for experts only. When some few well-known solutions were given they were erased; and if the EXACT SOLUTIONS article begin with a (false) contravariant Einstein formula, both shows for every expert what the responsible ones know.

	::: I got tired as well to search and search and link and link again and again serious evidences if noboby reads and cares. This manner of communication by bare (arbitrary or BB-infected?) ignorance makes no sense. If even you not try to understand basic maths, we cannot help.

	::: ALSO TO RELATED SPECIAL MATTER HERE: An indicated “ambiguous PLANCK MASS” not comes from me! It was formerly seen mainly as THE photon's PLANCK MASS, I was told. For each mass you can calculate a mass to its frequency as given by PLANCK's E=hf and EINSTEIN's E=mc². If you have understood the principle of the COMPTON WAVELENGTH (or "Compton frequency") you must see:

	::: It is only one special, modified form of "our" – by you even confirmed but in WIKI furthermore ignored – main formula for a phonon's mass:
	::: m=hf/c².

	::: If you know that c=fλ, replace c by fλ (and also all vice versa) in our formula above, you have simply to multiply both sides by λ and divide it by m (or all vice versa). So you CAN transform a SPECIAL "COMPTON WAVELENGTH" (or C.-frequency) for each(!) related MASS by any multiplying factor right- and leftside only; also getting it for a photon's mass of course its frequency and vice versa!

	::: Sorry, but former physicists can not be guilty if Planck’s name was taken then for a certain group of natural constants, also taking a special mass only (multiply the formula with a - to photons or electrons, e.g. - related constant and we have all we want). May be in order to support BB and to forget old-fashioned physics? If old men know from 70 years ago, that a PHOTON'S "PLANCK MASS" had dominated anyhow, you can not change it, as I cannot! I was told that this is found so in old papers. I think that a 90 y.o. Professor certainly knows such ancient facts better than you and I and if he wrote it, I have to accept it; or not?

	::: "Followers of fashion” or “modern physicists” make not only such banal faults as we over here: They need many, many, many “mysteries” and in each case GOD!!!

	- Everything came from nothing!
	- And from one point in spacetime!
	- Normally any time would be unable to begin within its SCHWARZSCHILD-Radius of a BB!
	- Only a GOD can do all such miracles and mysteries - ok?

	::: All mysteries and miracles (as finally now also a not existing “dark matter”) must save BB-people and its followers of fashion! Or are they followers of religions only? For them all (such old-fashioned) physics make of course no sense at all. Religion - with all here mentioned and not mentioned mysteries and miracles - must replace then physics and maths...

	::: I would like to send you 2 pictures of another impeded man who died meanwhile. German texts, trans.: “1. It is better to be as stupid as everyone” because “2. stupor is able to do everything”. The first picture shows a (too intelligent) sheep in middle of its sheep-herd (fearing dogs around); the other pic shows a helmed soldier trying to split a rock by running steadily against the rock with the peak of his helmet ahead...

	::: Here involved ], incl. you, are a too big rock for us. We will not copy that stupid soldier but follow the intelligent sheep not to be bitten. Therefore our club-section decided to resign (of course each for his own can do what one wants). I’m tired as well and have to care my family and baby and have to work since Monday...
	] 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I have no idea what any of that means... --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
	::No doubt we'd understand if we hadn't been ]. :)
	::@DeepBlueDiamond: Misplaced Pages reflects the current state of knowledge: it declines to be a front in any war against modern physics. Any POV which is widely held can be included, but only with plenty of verifiable, reputable sources, and even then only with the proper context. --] 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

	::: Ignorance and lack of crucial knowlede is no stupor. But it effects misunderstandings and mental "wars" partly comparable to religious wars. Please see what was written to that matter in
	].
	::: Not only Duae acts without referring to the main object. Ignoring linked and cited content of (partly famous, original) papers, even of most famous physicists. Thus, nobody can understand - as here - the discussion: Nobody can build the 10th floor of a building before having build 9 floors. Confusion like here is the (wanted?) effect.
	::: We reprimanded even multiply with masses of crucial evidences: WIKI is no more objective as it really was initially. Serious physics and maths and its basic - simply ignored! Thus hidden to people searching for information. Thus, ignorance - also by Wiki-Admins - perform real "wars" of physicians by bare lack of knowledge of alternatives as shown there.
	::: Wiki-Admins seem to be "infected" by bare opinions instead. Especially according to Big Bang utilizing (not only above mentioned) "mysteries" (as Duae even confessed!) in masses needed by BB-theories! Instead by a "BB-religion" infected people abuse the fact that alternatives have relatively minor faults, but at least obviously not needing any miracles at all...
	] 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

	== allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles ==

	I'm seeking consensus at ] for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. ] 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Accelerating Universe ==

	I have just noticed some recent changes made on August 20 to ], by {{User\|Gevgiorbran}}. The result seems to have all kinds of subtle problems. I'll have a closer look; but another view would be appreciated. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 05:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	== One-way Glass ==

	Would it be possible for someone fluent with Optical Coatings to have a look at ]? It would be helpful to have the input from an expert on what the actual reflective substances are in this case and how they are applied to the glass. Also, I admit that I tend to understand its use from a ] point of view and balance is required in the article. <font style="background-color:#ddcef2;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]</font><small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Fluid physics contra Fluid mechanics ==

	The physics of fluids IS NOT fluid mechanics.

	The physics of fluids is much larger, a new and quickly developing branch of physics.

			I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to ]. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on ]. The help article ] suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)</small>
	The deletion of the article is inappropriate and the redirect incorrect. See and compare:

			== ] content issue ==
	and --] 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

			@] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on
	:In case it isn't clear, the above comment is regarding the recent redirect of ]. ] 07:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
			] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	Looked at the above. Are they not covered in fluid mechanics? Maybe Im missing something.
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			=="{{noredirect\|failed star}}"==
	] 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
			FYI {{la\|failed star}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing. ==
	::I can't for the life of me determine what the difference between fluid physics and fluid mechanics is. That's why I redirected the page. ] 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::As a branch of ], ] ignores the existence of molecules. This becomes problematic when you are talking about phenomena on a scale comparable to or smaller than the mean free path of molecules (i.e. high ]s), and breaks down when you are actually talking about the molecules themselves. A couple of things that would be fluid physics, but not fluid mechanics, are the study of the structure and properties of water and "large-scale numerical computations determine the trajectories of individual molecules" . (Of course, all of fluid mechanics would be included in fluid physics.) So I support the existence of a separate fluid physics page. ] 10:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::Kinetic and atomic theories are not properly found fluid physics. Fluid physics in its proper form assumes the fluid approximation and therefore is automatically only subject to continuum mechanics. When you start dealing with an atomized constituents you are no longer doing fluid physics. ] 20:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Are there any reliable sources to support a distinction? ] 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

			This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics:
	The usual definition of a fluid is that it is substance with a shear strength of zero. There is no requirement for the continuum approximation to be valid. So, there is the possibility of fluids, for which the continuum approximation is not valid, and physicists can study them. (Analogously, solid state physicists are allowed to discuss atoms.) It would be useful to have a name for the study of the physics of ‘’all’’ fluids. I suggest “fluid physics”. (Fluid mechanics is the part of fluid physics that can be done using the continuum approximation.

			* {{citation\|title=''Princ-wiki-a mathematica'': Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics\|first1=D.\|last1=Eppstein\|first2=J. B.\|last2=Lewis\|first3=Russ\|last3=Woodroofe\|author4=XOR'easter\|journal=Notices of the AMS\|volume=72\|issue=1\|pages=65–73\|year=2025\|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202501/rnoti-p65.pdf}}. —] (]) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Even if you insist on treating fluids using the continuum approximation, there is no way to know why they have properties they do without talking about what they are really made of. For example, people sometimes add long polymers to fluids injected into declining oil wells in order to increase the viscosity of the fluid so as to reduce ] and enhance the recovery of the oil. In order to talk rationally about how this works, and how to improve it, we pretty much need to talk about the polymers as being long molecules. As another example, consider ]s. To explain how and why they work, people use quantum mechanics. Both these phenomena are definitely physics and definitely deal with fluids, neither one falls within fluid mechanics, because you can’t really explain them while using the continuum approximation. So we need another name for topics in the physics of fluids that are not fluid mechanics. Again, I suggest “fluid physics”.
			] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	Is this suggestion compatible with how people actually use the words “fluid physics”? From a couple of NASA websites: “Fluid physics is the study of the properties and motions of liquids and gases” from NASA and “Fluid physics is the study of the basic behavior of liquids and gases” These definitions are similar to what I have been suggesting, although perhaps not quite as broad. They say nothing about the continuum approximation needing to be valid. How about the relation between fluid physics and fluid mechanics? Another site from NASA says “Fluid physics research consists of basic and applied research in fluid mechanics, heat and mass transport and other physical principles governing the behavior and dynamics of processes that involve fluids.” treats fluid mechanics as a subfield of fluid physics. Here’s a quote from a book which seems to consider fluid mechanics to be a “special branch” of fluid physics when it says : “The term "fluid physics" is appropriate in the context of this report. However, owing to the broad range of interests of its practitioners, it uses several names, each of which is proper in its own context. Therefore, terms such as "fluid mechanics," "gasdynamics," and "biofluid mechanics" are often used to describe special branches. “. So, yes, there seem to be at least some reliable sources that consider fluid mechanics to be a subfield of fluid physics. (To garner more, I might have to visit a good university library.) ] 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Allowing for the definition of a fluid to be one where shear strength is zero automatically implies the continuum approximation since allowing for relaxation through an applied force would yield a film of infinitessimal thickness and that cannot happen if there are any atoms. Such an occurrence can only happen if fluid is a continuum. It is also not true that one doesn't use the continuum approximation to explain superfluids. Such a statement is akin to claiming that one cannot study thermodynamics without understanding statistical mechanics. One can study a fluid based on its atomic/molecular constituents, but then one is not studying the subject ''as a fluid''. We can get insights into various terms of the Navier-Stokes equation by studying the atomic/molecular constituents, but ultimately fluid mechanics happens at the level of the fluid approximation not at the level of quantum mechanics or statistical mechanics. I recognize that many times people need to consider the atoms of a fluid to understand certain fluid behaviors (intermolecular forces determine a lot of fluid variables, for example), but ultimately that consideration is made to aid in the understanding of fluid equations when one is doing fluid physics: fluid mechanics is not separable from the endeavor.

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	:As for the insistence that there are those who distinguish between fluid physics and fluid mechanics, I must insist that these sources are either nebulous in their attempt at making distinctions without differences or they are weirdly misleading. In particular, the NASA quotes all seem to give a rather basic grade-school definition of fluid physics without distinguishing it from fluid mechanics. The study of liquids and gases is, of course, fluid physics and fluid mechanics because those are the kinds of fluids we find in the physical world. However, in principle, fluid mechanics and fluid physics can be studied on any extended system for which the continuum approximation holds and the shear strength is zero. The NASA citations do not refer to the continuum approximation because they are not interested in rigorously defining the subject: they are not offering even a basic physics course in the subject. The book provided is one that was trying to define the current state of the fields of plasma and fluid physics as of 1986. The book is not distinguishing between fluid physics and fluid mechanics but is rather positing a direct equivalence! That there are apparently "subdisciplines" is not evident in my reading of the text. There is no indication that the gasdynamicists and those working on biofluids are somehow not doing fluid mechanics. Instead, it is a recounting of subfield jargon and is indicating that different people use different terms to mean the same thing. To put it another way, imagine if someone writing a book today were to write about ] were to write "The term "astronomy" is appropriate in the context of this report. However, owing to the broad range of interest of its practiioners, it uses several names, each of which is proper in its own context. Therefore terms such as "]" are often used to describe special branches." Does this mean that astronomy and astrophysics are different subjects? Of course not: it merely means that there is different jargon.
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	:I think that the way to consider whether there is a separation between fluid physics and fluid mechanics is to consider the texts written on the subject. Are there texts written on fluid physics that are not about fluid mechanics? It would appear not. For example, the standard Landau and Lifshitz treatment of fluid physics is called '''', Toktay's treatment of the history and philosophy of the subject is called: ''''. The challenge is, can you find a book which is broader in scope than either of these classic texts that covers fluid physics rather than "just" fluid mechanics? I don't think you can.

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –] (]]) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	:] 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

			== String of new pages onPlatonists and similar ==
	::There are no texts on geophysics which are not about geology, but that doesn't mean that geophysics should be made a redirect to geology. ] 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::PS The editor is gone, so there's no point in discussing this. She wrote very well on a technical subject at an appropriate level for Misplaced Pages. ] 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

			There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user ], all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.
	::A few comments. 1) Assuming zero shear strength does NOT imply the continuum approximation. A good counter-example is the molecular flow regime in a vacuum system, in which the mean free path of gas molecules is large compared to the smallest dimension of the apparatus you are talking about. (If you are talking about a pipe used in pumping down a vacuum system to ], the molecular flow regime would be when the mean free path is large compared to the diameter of the pipe.) In the molecular flow regime, the continuum approximation does not apply, yet the shear strength is obviously zero.
			# ]
	::2) I'm not aware of any policy that the ''names'' of articles must be exhaustively cited.
			# ]
	::3) The current issue (August 2007) of ] has a couple articles that do not seem to use the continuum approximation.
			# ]
	::There is more that I could say but it may be moot if the editor has left. ] 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
			# ]
	:::1) The shear strength isn't exactly zero in the molecular flow regime. It's close, but not arbitrarily so.
			# ]
	:::2) I wasn't really concerned with citing the name as much as I was concerned with how others treat the subject.
			I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that ] is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) ] (]) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::3) I actually don't see the articles to which you are referring. Every article I checked used the continuum approximation or at least obliquely referred to it.
	:::] 12:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

			:Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” ] (]) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Your unsourced statements on the topic are original research and not a part of Misplaced Pages--if this is why she was hounded out of here, then more shame. Interesting the article she wrote is exactly what Misplaced Pages should strive for, and it was replaced by an article that is being used on a web blog to show the unreadable crap on Misplaced Pages. No need to respond, I won't be watching this page any more. ] 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
			::The issue is not that ] isn't notable, it's that your article ] doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them ] (]) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at ]. The notability requirement for list articles is at ]. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a ] that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --] (]) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I see thank you for this guidance ] (]) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see ]. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) ] (]) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. ] might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--] (]) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic ] (]) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::These look like a decent start:
			:::::::* {{cite SEP\|url-id=philosophy-mathematics \|title=Philosophy of Mathematics \|date=2022-01-25 \|first=Leon \|last=Horsten}}
			:::::::* {{cite SEP\|url-id=platonism-mathematics \|title=Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics \|date=2023-03-28 \|first=Øystein \|last=Linnebo}}
			:::::::* {{cite web\|first=Julian C. \|last=Cole \|title=Mathematical Platonism \|url=https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ \|website=]}}
			:::::::] (]) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the ], and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @] to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. ] (]) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::There is a redirect at ] so we are out of luck on the move. ] (]) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was ]. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are ], which we shouldn't use; postings on the ] are almost always unusable per ], and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed ] for deletion. ] (]) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@], since your PROD of ] was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to ] where I have placed a request for a {{Tlx\|TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) ] (]) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::]. ] (]) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:] and ] must be deleted at least per ]. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a ] of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.
			:For reference, ] now has an AfD, the appropriateness of ] is being debated (independent of this discussion) while ] has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". ] (]) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. ] (]) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I am not convinced that ] meets the notability standards for ] or ]. One book generally isn't enough. ] (]) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for ]#C1 -- his papers ''The dual braid monoid'' and ''Finite complex reflection arrangements are <math>K(\pi, 1)</math>'' have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --] (]) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. ] (]) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:50, 3 January 2025

WikiProject Physics v t e
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Shortcuts

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

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics

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

Archives

Big Bang – 2005

2006 — 2019

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

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

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?

I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to Megasonic cleaning. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on Ultrasonic cleaning. The help article Help:Introduction_to_talk_pages/All suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielittlewood (talk • contribs) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)

Principle of locality content issue

@ReyHahn and I have agreed on a change. @Tercer has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on Talk:Principle_of_locality#Fixing_an_issue_in_the_QM_section. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Noctilucent cloud

Noctilucent cloud has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"failed star"

Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing.

This was posted on WT:MATH but it mostly also related to physics:

Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fizeau experiment

Fizeau experiment has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Gravitomagnetic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gravitomagnetic is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gravitomagnetic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

String of new pages onPlatonists and similar

There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user Transhumanistnerd0, all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.

I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that WP:BURDEN is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not that Platonism isn't notable, it's that your article List of Platonist Mathematicians doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The notability requirement for list articles is at WP:NLIST. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a reliable source that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I see thank you for this guidance Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. Mathematical Platonism might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

These look like a decent start:

Horsten, Leon (2022-01-25). "Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Linnebo, Øystein (2023-03-28). "Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cole, Julian C. "Mathematical Platonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the philosophy of mathematics, and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @Transhumanistnerd0 to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a redirect at Mathematical Platonism so we are out of luck on the move. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was deleted back in April. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are primary sources, which we shouldn't use; postings on the arXiv are almost always unusable per WP:SPS, and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed Ruliad Theory of the Universe for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@XOR'easter, since your PROD of Ruliad Theory of the Universe was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to Talk:Ruliad Theory of the Universe where I have placed a request for a {{TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Platonist mathematicians and List of Platonist physicists must be deleted at least per WP:NPOV. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a WP:POV of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. D.Lazard (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.

For reference, Ruliad Theory of the Universe now has an AfD, the appropriateness of Wenitte Apiou is being debated (independent of this discussion) while David Bessis has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that David Bessis meets the notability standards for academics or authors. One book generally isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for WP:NPROF#C1 -- his papers The dual braid monoid and Finite complex reflection arrangements are $K(\pi ,1)$ have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --JBL (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: