Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:34, 26 October 2010 editBrews ohare (talk \| contribs)47,831 edits →Vandalism on Free space?: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:39, 10 January 2025 edit undoXOR'easter (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users32,800 edits →How many timelines of the universe we need?: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|algo = old(25d)		\|algo = old(25d)
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 3		\|minthreadstoarchive = 3
			\|minthreadsleft=5
	}}		}}
	{{shortcut\|WT:PHY\|WT:PHYS\|WT:PHYSICS}}		{{shortcut\|WT:PHY\|WT:PHYS\|WT:PHYSICS}}
			{{tmbox \| text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011''' }}
	{{Physics\|class=Project\|importance=NA}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
			{{WikiProject Physics}}
			}}
	{{archive box\|		{{archive box\|
	{{hidden\|header=Big Bang – 2005 \|content= <br>		{{hidden\|header=Big Bang – 2005 \|content= <br>
Line 13:		Line 17:
	# ]		# ]
	}}		}}
			{{hidden\|header=2006 — 2019\|content=<br>
	{{hidden\|header=2006\|content=<br>		{{hidden\|header=2006\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
Line 18:		Line 23:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]

	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 79:		Line 85:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{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		\|search=yes
Line 84:		Line 287:
	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? ==
	== Resolve POV Fork: Kendrick Mass and Kendrick Unit ==

	Request comments on proposed merge of ] into ] and mend a ]. In 1963, Kendrick proposed a scale based on the mass of CH<sub>2</sub> = 14.0000. This scale is useful in organic ], particularly in high resolution mass spectrometry of hydrocarbons (see ). A Kendrick unit has not been proposed, although a paper published last month uses “Ke” in a manner parallel to the ] unit. The basis of the merge is that the Kendrick unit article goes beyond what is stated in the literature and is therefore ]. Kendrick mass is widely accepted and a balanced discussion of a Kendrick unit is appropriate within the Kendrick mass article. Additional discussion on ]. --] (]) 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	:If you haven't already, also try contacting ]. Pretty sure you'll find lots of people that could help there. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	::It's posted to ]; still hoping to get some input from ]. --] (]) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Foerster coupling ==

	FYI, ] has been requested to be renamed. ] (]) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Intro to QM ==

	Someone may want to take a look at the recent changes in a section title by anonymous IP. ---- ] (]) 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
	:See ]. Is this not one of those British English spelling versus American English spelling controversies? We are not supposed to change the spelling in such cases, but reverting them seems equally pointless. ] (]) 04:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Possible Higgs-related spamming ==

	{{user\|Moose-32}} has been very busy adding links to to many Higgs related articles (and to Big Bang). My comment to them sums up my concerns with the document in question. The reason why I'm bringing it up here is that their larger pattern of edits is also worrying, and I'm going to need help determining the degree of cleanup needed. They've extensively edited ] and ], in ways that might or might not be adding linkcruft or bias, but I don't have the expertise to determine this. If people familiar with the history of the development of the Higgs mechanism could take a look at these, I'd appreciate it. --] (]) 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

	== "Finite Probability" ==

	Hello! I have noticed several physics pages using the term "finite probability", which I was told means "nonzero probability". I realize this term must make perfect sense to physicists, but unfortunately causes confusion for other scientists (I'm a mathematician and I find the choice of terminology baffling). Could we create a short article explicitly clearing this term up? Thanks ] (]) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

	:I thought that we might have an article on ] (zero probability, the negation of finite probability). But apparently that redirects to ] (probability one) which does not mention "almost never". An event would happen almost never if the measure of the set of events is zero. None the less, such an event could have occurred, but only if it is defined in hindsight. It could never happen again. ] (]) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

	::I agree:
	::(1) We should replace "finite" with "nonzero" or "positive" when possible and appropriate, especially in articles that non-physicists might read. (This also applies to "finite mass", "finite resistance", etc. etc.)
	::(2) When that's not possible, "finite" should link to...something, but I'm not sure what. I could make an article ], but it would just be one sentence: "'Finite' usually means 'nonzero and non-infinite' in physics." But a one-sentence article seems wrong. Is it possible to link to a certain entry in wiktionary? Any other possibilities? --] (]) 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

	:::I think the term '''finite''' is very common in physics, eventhough (especially for mathematicians) it might be confusing, since it is not very precise. So I would prefer to keep it, since it is quite commonly used and thus I think it will often appear again in many physics related articles. I think a link to the wikitionary would be the best choice, since it is really only a matter of what physisist understand when they use this word. But maybe, there is enough to say for an article Steve mentioned..? ] (]) 08:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

	IIRC, there was ''some'' article explaining that "finite" in physicists' lingo means "finite and non-zero". Anyway, I agree that we'd better say "non-zero probability" than "finite probability". ] (]) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

	:Although physics was part of my first years at university and I had an intuitive grasp for this peculiar unetymological use of "finite", I would never have thought that this is actually considered standard. I agree that (1) if it ''is'' standard it should be used to some extent in physics articles, and (2) it needs unobtrusive explanation to minimise confusion. This is similar to the problem of different variants of English. I looked for a glossary of physics terms that could contain that definition, but I only found ], which is very neglected and doesn't really seem to fit. ] ] 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	::In ] "finite" might mean larger than ], but smaller than ]. ] (]) 13:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

	As Steve already mentioned: In physicists slang finite just means not-infinite and non-zero (or not-<math>\frac{1}{\infty}</math> ;) ). But since it is just used in spoken language I don't know any reference.. It's just common... ] (]) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	: I saw right now its mentioned here: ], so I think there is no need for a new article, maybe it can just be avoided, or if used, then one can link there.. ] (]) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


	There are quite a few differences between terminology in math and physics and also writing style, the requirement that every sentence be unambigous, even if the meaning is clear in the context etc. etc. If you have submitted articles to math journals, you'll be familiar with this these and other similar objections by mathematicians. While the typical referee report you get when submitting to a physics journal looks like: "Wonderful results, well written, I recommend publication", the referee report for a similar article submitted to a math journal will be many pages long, it will start with a sentence like: "Interesting results that should be published, but this manuscript is clearly written by physicists in "physics style" in vague nonrigorous language." And then a few pages detailing every non-rigorous word like "finite" for nonzero, every misplaced comma making some sentence not 100% clear etc. etc. follows. ] (]) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

	The term 'finite' in physics can be used in three separate manners that I think need to be treated separately:
	*'''The good''': Non-infinite. We should keep.
	*'''The bad''': Non-infinitesimal (or non-zero). We need to replace this use in an encyclopedic setting. I have never seen this use cause troubles with students and I doubt that any half-ways proficient reader will be confused by this use, but it is non-professional. The only problem is that 'non-zero' is too clunky.
	*'''The ugly''': Non-infinite and non-zero. We should use our best judgment leaning toward replacing. The use of the word, to me, in this case is similar to the use of few for 3-5. Few doesn't have to be 3-5 but in certain contexts where it is obvious that the speaker would say ''one'' if there is one or a ''couple'' if there are two or ''several'' if there are around 7 or so then ''few'' implies 3-5. Finite only says that it is less then infinity, but if it is obvious from the context that the author would say zero if it was zero then the non-zero can be implied. '''Edit''': Fixed the definition in the ''ugly'' section.

	In terms of a general rules about writing encyclopedia articles, I disagree strongly with the mathematical approach described by Count Iblis above. There is another name for 'vague non-rigorous language'; its called English. The vagueness and non-rigor of language is not a bug but a feature; it focuses the listener on the big picture without swamping them in unneeded detail. Precision is to be applauded, except when it interferes with the main point of the article or sentence. Like including every tree in a forest on a map, precision comes with a cost.

	Somehow we need to balance 'encyclopedic' with readable. ] (]) 18:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

	:Does anyone work on Wiktionary? Perhaps it just needs some link to a wiktionary entry. And that wouldn't contravene ]. Be aware, if you've never worked on Wiktionary, that they are not overly friendly, and tend to delete things out of hand, won't explain why things are not copacetic and seemingly hand out 24-hour bans like candy. ] (]) 03:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I agree with TStein, except I don't think "non-zero" is that clunky. ] (]) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	::What's wrong with "positive"? --] (]) 15:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	::: The term "positive" may indeed be the best term for some cases. (My thoughts above are addressed to the general case of the use of 'finite' anywhere and not just in probability). Some care must be taken using the term ''positive'', though, since many people think of zero as being a positive value; even some people who should know better do. I prefer ''non-zero'' to ''positive'' since it says directly what is meant. ] (]) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::I endorse "nonzero probability" (with or without the hyphen). --] (]) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I think the definition of "positive" that includes 0 is the standard definition in French, and I am sure that explains part of the confusion around that term. (As a mathematician I would obviously prefer "non-zero" because that's how we say it and it sounds natural to me. But I realise that my opinion shouldn't count for much here.) ] ] 19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Even in English, I mentally expand "positive" to "non-negative non-zero", so "positive probability" (expanding to "non-negative non-zero probability") sound weirdly redundant to me as a probability cannot be negative. (Compare with "odd prime number greater than 17", where all prime numbers greater than 2 are odd.) The presence/absence of the hyphen is slightly ]-related, "non-zero" being about 2.8 times as common as "nonzero" in BrE and "nonzero" being about 3.3 times as common as "non-zero" in AmE (at least in the ] and the ]). <small>(A thing which I similarly dislike is when people say "''x'' is real" when their point is not that ''x'' can't be complex but that it needn't be rational.)</small> ] (]) 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

	:I don't see the problem with "finite". It universally refers to any larger-than-infinitesimal, smaller-than-infinite value. I don't see what's ambiguous or non-clear about it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 09:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::''ambiguous or non-clear''? Zero is not infinite, therefore it is finite. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Ah yes, the mathematicians... The value is finite in that it is ''smaller-than-infinite'' and ''larger-than-infinitesimal''. Compare with the ], which uses elements of ''finite'' length/area/volume/etc... <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 10:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

	:::Add "engineers" to your list too, then. I've always treated "finite" as meaning "not infinite" and nothing more, and mentally expanded "finite probability" to "finite, nonzero probability". I reserve judgement as to whether it's worth the bother of revising articles, but I do feel that "nonzero probability" would be a) more correct, and b) closer to what is literally meant (after all, saying a probability value is ''non-infinite'' is rather redundant). --] (]) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Based on the German version, I completely rewrote the article, and included sections on Experimental verifications, Derivation, Methods of Measurements, Reality of contraction etc. (all of this was completely missing in the version. But it contained three (!) sections mainly related to historical developments, which are now replaced by a single History section.) Opinions? --] (]) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

	:If some of your new text was the result of translating from the German Misplaced Pages, then you should say so in your edit summaries to comply with the attribution requirements of our CC-BY-SA license. ] (]) 08:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

	::In fact, also the German version was written by me so it's not really a "translation" of a foreign text (although the German text was created by me before the English one). --] (]) 18:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

	:::I guess we could give you a special dispensation not to have to credit yourself. :) ] (]) 22:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

	::::Looks good to me, except one should explain somewhere (probably with pictures) how and why electrostatic fields are deformed in motion. That's important because all intermolecular forces are of electrostatic origin. ] might also benefit from this.] (]) 15:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Additions to ] and elsewhere ==

	User {{user\|Efficiency1101e}} has just added a couple of stub sections to {{article\|ultimate fate of the universe}}. I'm not in a position to vet the reference at present; more eyes would be appreciated. They've also recently been active at ], ], and ]. A quick look there would also be appreciated if anyone has time.

	They seem to be acting in good faith; I'm just concerned about well-meaning linkspamming or undue-weight happening (it looked ambiguous to me at first glance). --] (]) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

	:The stub sections have been extended by {{user\|Dermiel}}, as that user's only edits. The text looks like a rehashed version of popular-press description, not making much sense as-is. The new sections still need vetting. --] (]) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

	The original editor has added these sections to ] again. On one hand, they have slightly more content and a couple of additional links, but on the other hand, they have at least one of the same sources that was pruned last time around. If anyone feels like mentoring them and vetting the additions, go ahead. I have my hands full off-wiki. --] (]) 04:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	:To play devil's advocate, it's entirely possible that the editor is right about a Scientific American write-up existing, despite the editor's difficulty providing useful reference links. That doesn't necessarily make the added content noteworthy, of course. --] (]) 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
	::There have been a number of ScAm articles about the ultimate fate of the universe. Quite a notable subject, I think, and one that readers find interesting. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

	:::To clarify my position, while the topic is notable, and while the existence (if true) of an article in a popular science magazine such as Scientific American is usually a point in favour of a given view or conjecture being notable enough to have mention somewhere on Misplaced Pages, I don't think the existence of a SciAm article ''necessarily'' means that the specific concepts mentioned in that one article are noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in an article on a larger topic (such as ]). That would require an evaluation of the references provided, and of degree of impact on the field, per ].

	:::I am not in a position to perform this evaluation at present (my first impression is that the sections give undue weight to not-very-significant hypotheses, but it's possible I'm mistaken). Hence, asking if anyone was willing to vet it. The "devil's advocate" note was posted as a response to the "undo as probable hoax" edit summary (an edit which presumably occurred in response to my previous post in this thread).

	:::I apologize for any confusion that my posts in this thread have caused. I'm juggling several off-wiki tasks at the moment, so I might not have been spending sufficient time checking my statements for clarity. --] (]) 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

	::::Well, I agree that the article needs cleaning up. It's not, in places, very encyclopedic, but in general I think this is a worthy topic to cover. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Introduction to atomic structure ==

	FYI, ] has been prodded for deletion. ] (]) 06:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Rotating black hole ==

	Hi and sorry for my bad english :)

	I'm an it.wiki contributor, looking for source for our article ] I look at the interwiki, that link ]: here i found the same lack of ] of the italian version, but also a very "strange" section ], also completely unsourced. I see that this section was added by an IP this summer, and similar teories appear also in the es.wiki ] and ca.wiki ], but, for what a read here and vaguely understand in the spanish language article, these explanations contradict what is written on the it.wiki article. Can someone take a look to this section? ] (]) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	:I've put a "multiple issues" cleanup tag on the section, as an interim measure.

	:It seems to be confusing two (valid, published) ideas. One is that the singularity of a rotating black hole, being ring-shaped, can be passed through. Where you end up is rather vague, if I understand correctly, but the conjecture I've seen quoted most often is a universe not otherwise connected to our own. The second idea is that the singularity of a rotating black hole ends up causing ] with a speed exceeding that of light as far as an external observer is concerned. If you have an ] where the singularity isn't within the event horizon, you can hitch a ride and end up at your starting point before you left, given appropriate choices of reference frame. Similar ]s exist in other rotating solutions that don't involve black holes, but they tend to be unphysical (things like one of the rotating dust solutions where angular velocity is proportional to radius, out to infinite radius, for instance).

	:Long story short, a coherent, well-referenced section about something not too dissimilar to the anon's concept could probably be written, but as-is it's a rambling essay without much redeeming content. --] (]) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	:My Italian is close to non-existent, but shouldn't the interwiki of ] point to ]?] (]) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	::Yes, the interwiki are wrong, i correct some of them. For what i see in the history, they was putted in the article when ] was only a redirect to ], so they link the main article ( )--] (]) 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	== ] article to be an upcoming DYK ==

	Hi Project members, ] is a new article that will soon be a DYK. It's specifically about the sky phenomenon which is visible from the Earth's surface. Would someone please take a look through the article and see if it seems OK as it is? I mean that it has no glaring errors of physics? Thanks, ] (]) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	== ADS bibcode on articles about journals ==

	Over at ], we are considering adding the bibcode to {{tl\|Infobox journal}}. However we have a few options for where the link should take the clicker. Ideas welcome.. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Lithium burning - exact reaction formula needed ==

	See ]: Lithium burning is mentioned on a couple of pages and various different formulae are provided. It seems to me they can't all be correct but I am not educated enough in this area to find out the correct formula and a proper reference for the information. If somebody could provide this information on the ] page, I'd be much obliged! Once we get the facts straight on the main page, I'll see about updating the various pages that also refer to it incorrectly at the moment.     — ] <small>(])</small> 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Specific gravity and relative density ==

	] and ] as they stand are covering the same material. They either need to be made distinct from each other or merged. A merge was tried (without much discussion that I could find) but it was de-merged shortly later without fixing the problem in my opinion. It would be nice if we can get more eyes and a discussion going so that we can fix this the right way one way or the other. Also, I would appreciated it if someone could contact other projects that might be interested. Relative density only has a physics tag now and specific gravity has none. ] (]) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

	== The Lorentz Force Equation and Maxwell's Equation (77) ==

	Take a look at equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper '']''. It can be found on page 342 which is on page 31 of the pdf file. This same equation appears again as equation '''(D)''' in the list of eight original Maxwell's equations in his 1864/65 paper . It can be found at page 484 of the original paper on the supplied web link (page 26 of the pdf file).
	I'd be interested to hear comments on the similarity between this equation and the Lorentz force equation. The Lorentz force equation looks like this,

	: <math>\mathbf{F} = q \left(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}- \frac { \partial \mathbf{A} } { \partial t } - \nabla \psi\right)</math>

	Below equation '''(D)''' in the 1864/5 paper, Maxwell writes,

	The first term on the right hand side of each equation (he splits it into the three cartesian components x, y, and z) represents the electromotive force arising from the motion of the conductor itself. This electromotive force is perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the lines of magnetic force; - - - - - The second term in each equation indicates the effect of changes in the position or strength of magnets or currents in the field. The third term shows the effect of the electric potential Ψ. ] (]) 00:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	:In view of the fact (see ]) that
	::<math>\mathbf{E} = -\mathbf{\nabla} \phi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t} \,</math>
	:this is not at all surprising. The usual expression for ] is
	:: <math>\mathbf{F} = q \,</math>
	:which is equivalent as our article on that mentions. So what is your point or question? ] (]) 07:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	JRSpriggs, Thank you very much indeed. That is exactly the answer I was hoping to hear. I was worried that some people might have tried to argue that the equation which I listed above was not the Lorentz force. And if that had happened, I had planned to produce exactly the equation,

	::<math>\mathbf{E} = -\mathbf{\nabla} \phi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t} \,</math>

	which you have just produced above in order to show them how it relates to the form that they are more familiar with.

	OK. The point of my enquiry was to establish that it is perfectly in order for me to go now to the ] article and to record the fact in the history section that in 1861 Maxwell produced an equation which is mathematically identical to the Lorentz force equation. And that I can do so without being accused of inserting original research. As the ] article stands right now, Maxwell's involvement with this equation has been totally erased from the history section, and the history section is extremely misleading in that it gives the impression that it wasn't until 1881 that a half baked version of the Lorentz force first arrived on the stage in the hands of JJ Thomson. And as an aside, I don't doubt that JJ Thomson turned up with that half baked version of the Lorentz force, but what I do doubt is that he derived it in relation to any considerations regarding the displacement current. The reason for my doubts is that the dispalcement current is closely connected with that other Maxwell equation known as ] whereas the Lorentz force is closely connected with the Maxwell equation which was originally referred to as ] by ]. ] (]) 10:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	:Well, I do see the equations there on page 484. So if we were allowed to use primary sources, then you would be good to go. However, we are supposed to use secondary sources. That is, you need to find a reliable source (someone commenting on Maxwell, rather than Maxwell himself) which says what you and I have both seen for ourselves. ] (]) 11:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	JRSpriggs, That of course is exactly the problem. But I think that you may be applying too strict an interpretation of the rule on primary sources. You of course would not be alone in doing so. I once read the rules on primary sources and it was quite clear about the fact, that where the information is unambiguous, there is no problem in using a primary source for verification. I think that this is one such case in which the interpretation is totally unambiguous. It would be a shame to have to mislead readers at the ] article when we all know that Maxwell came up with this equation in 1861. It would be a shame to hide this information from the readers purely on the basis of an overly strict interpratation of the rules on primary sources. Meanwhile, I have left an enquiry at the 'no original research' noticeboard because I believe that there are editors there who know exactly where to draw the line. All too often I have seen good physics in primary sources being distorted by modern sources often written in the last 15 years. There should be more of a collective effort made to examine the contents of primary sources, especially when the contents are written in plain English. I would have taken 'original research' more to have been something like making further inferences from the material in primary sources, but not to be merely pointing out the obvious existence of an equation or a statement. ] (]) 12:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	:Well obviously if you ''just'' want to say that Maxwell derived this in 1864/5 and established that this was done before Thomson in 1881, there's no problem. For anything more (i.e. interpretations), you should have solid sources for it. Personally, I'm fine with the original papers for this topic, as long as we keep in mind that they were written in the pre-relativity era (i.e. often written with the aether mindset).

	:And as a general note, I hope there is no need to remind you that Misplaced Pages is not the ''''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	Headbomb, Thanks for your response. I'll insert the material into the article while keeping your comments in mind. I'm actually glad that FyzixFighter drew my attention to JJ Thomson's half baked version of the Lorentz force because I didn't previously known about it, and I intend to fully investigate it. But I believe that nevertheless it is important to let the readers know that the full equation in its correct form had been around since Maxwell's 1861 paper. ] (]) 14:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	:There is no absolute bar on using primary sources, just that secondary sources are preferred. Logically, of course, the Lorentz force law can't post-date Maxwell's equations, since there is no coefficient between E and B in the Lorentz force. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	Michael, I've got a pdf file with Heaviside's 1889 paper. Is there any way that I can get it into a form that the readers here can read, because it contains some very interesting information. Equation (5) is the '''v'''×'''B''' aspect of the Lorentz force as applied to charged particles and he comments how this is Maxwell's electromagnetic force equation, and he notes that it is double JJ Thomson's result. It would be good to have a direct link to this paper, because there seems to be no end of confusion regarding these historical subtleties. ] (]) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Perhaps upload it to Wikisource, or commons? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Is it one of these two (already at Wikisource)?:
	:::*] (1888-1889)
	:::*] (1889)
	::--] <sup>]</sup> 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
	Despite this exchange, and despite the fact that it has been agreed that Maxwell's 1861 paper can be used for verification in the circumstances, FyzixFighter as usual has completely desecrated all my corrections at ]. The history section is now inaccurate and omits any mention of Maxwell's important historical role in this equation. The section now wrongly states that Heaviside invented the Lorentz force.

	Now I don't intend to involve myself any further in this matter. FyzixFighter has done this to my physics edits consistently since I began at wikipedia. What he is doing is wrong, but at the end of the day, it is not my personal responsibility to ensure that the electromagnetic history sections are correct. You guys here can see exactly what has been going on. I was lured into a physics topic ban for a year because of this kind of behaviour on the part of FyzixFighter, and so I will leave you guys to sort the matter out whatever way you all see fit. Misplaced Pages needs to make its mind up as to whether readers should be allowed to read what ] says, or whether they should be reading what FyzixFighter says that Darigol says that Heaviside says. And who is Darigol anyway? I gave a reference which said verbatim what Heaviside said. Heaviside said that the '''v'''×'''B''' force is Maxwell's electromagnetic force and that it is double the JJ Thomson result. But FyzixFighter is saying that Darigol says that Heaviside invented the '''v'''×'''B''' force, and FyzixFighter is ensuring that the readers don't get to know about Maxwell's involvement. Is that the way you all want wikipedia to operate? ] (]) 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	::Michael, Thanks alot for obtaining that source. The second one of the two is exactly the one that I wanted, and the relevant section is section 5. ]

	::Section 5., which is very short, tells the story from the horse's mouth. Heaviside has derived the '''v'''×'''B''' force on a charged particle, and he acknowledges that it is Maxwell's electromagnetic force. This ties in with the Maxwell sources listed above which tell us that Maxwell produced that force at equation (77) in his 1861 paper. But if you go now to the history section at ], you will see that FyzixFighter has erased Maxwell's contribution. FyzixFighter argues that we can't use primary sources. If that were true, then it would mean that we would have to heed what we hear from the likes of Darrigol even though we all know that Darrigol is wrong, since what he says contradicts what we can clearly see written in the primary source. This means that all the history sections in physics articles can be very easily vandalised by anybody who knows how to selectively use secondary sources. And we all know that very few secondary sources ever agree with each other on historical details. So basically, wikipedia has a problem. Having said that, I also understood that sources are not actually needed at all unless somebody doubts the material and demands verification. But in this particular case does FyzixFighter actually doubt the material? ] (]) 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

	:As even basic physics text books (I can give some examples from German text books) contain some observations about this issue, ''inter alia'' that the Maxwell equations are invariant with regard to Lorentz transformations, it should be possible to find secondary sources on this. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

	::In fairness to the other side, I should say that: although the mathematical form of the equations on page 484 is correct, someone might doubt whether the variables used in it were given the modern meaning by Maxwell. To decide that would require, at least, a careful study of the whole paper. ] (]) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

	Cs32en, Thanks for your help. But the issue of Maxwell's equations being invariant with regard to Lorentz transformations is further along in the historical chronology. As a quick summary, the chronology seems to be,

	(1) In 1861, Maxwell derives what later became known as 'The Lorentz Force'. It contains three terms on the rhs. One of these terms is '''v'''×'''B'''. He derives it in relation to the force on electric currents as opposed to the force on charged particles.

	(2) In 1881, JJ Thomson derives a half baked version of the '''v'''×'''B''' force in relation to a charged object.

	(3) In 1889, Heaviside derives the Maxwell version for the purpose of applying it to a charged particle, and notes that it is Maxwell's electromagnetic force.

	(4) Heaviside, just like Maxwell, drops the '''v'''×'''B''' term when deriving the EM wave equation.

	(5) Heaviside selects a group of 4 equations which are used in the derivation of the EM wave equation/telegraphy equation. This group of 4 of course does not include the '''v'''×'''B''' term.

	(6) Lorentz uses the Heaviside 4, without the '''v'''×'''B''' term, and he produces the '''v'''×'''B''' term by subjecting them to a Lorentz transformation. Hence '''v'''×'''B''' becomes associated with Lorentz.

	The major omission in the history section at ] is the fact that Maxwell's specific role has been eliminated from the chronology, and credit for the '''v'''×'''B''' term has been falsely ascribed to Heaviside. And Lord Kelvin is largely irrelevant in the context, but has been elevated to a parallel position to Maxwell, hence diluting the importance of Maxwell in the context. ] (]) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

	:::JRSpriggs, Heaviside himself was happy enough that it was the same equation. He said so in section 5 of that web link which is supplied above. What else could the variables mean? I don't get your point. It's a force equation. The terms correspond exactly to the modern form. Maxwell even describes the parallegram of the cross product vividly. We can see the v×B term, the -(partial)dA/dt term, and the grad(phi) term. There is no doubt about this issue. If you leave the history chronology as it stands now, it will be wrong, plain and simple. ] (]) 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Heim theory (again) ==

	Links to ] have been added to the following articles:
	* {{article\|Theory of everything}}
	* {{lt\|Beyond the Standard Model}}
	My feeling, per my comments ] with regard to other articles (), is that Heim theory is not notable enough to be mentioned at that article and that template (which discuss ToE options and standard model extensions that appear in mainstream literature, for the most part). That said, a) I could be wrong, and b) I might count as "involved" at this point, so additional eyes/opinions would be handy. --] (]) 07:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Extra pairs of eyes would be nice here. An editor has recently given a much-needed expansion of the article, however a lot of it seems to be based on preprints, and (to me at least) seems to be a tad bit too enthusiastic in embracing string theory as the ultimate truth. I toned down the article, but I'm woefully unequipped to tackle the subtleties. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

			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>
	== Using modern sources to re-write history ==

			== ] content issue ==
	I noticed today at the ] article that an editor has recorded in the history section the false fact that Maxwell's 1861 and 1864 theories involved the propagation of light in empty space. And interestingly this bizarre assertion was backed up by three in-line sources mid sentence. These three sources are all very modern, dated 1992, 2005, and 2009. They are secondary sources, exactly as is preferred by wikipedia's rules, and I checked them out, and they do actually try to assert that Maxwell's theory involved the propagation of light in empty space. Now we all know that that is wrong and it would be very easy to produce secondary sources that would refute these three sources. This therefore seems to illustrate the importance of unambiguous primary sources, otherwise we will soon see the entire history of physics re-written to the extent that 20th century physics was always there. The history section at 'speed of light' now contains a distorted view of Maxwell's 1861 paper, a modern interpretation of Weber and Kohlrausch's 1856 experiment, and a statement about the precision of modern instrumentation for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. And yet it still ends with the conclusion that the aether was abandoned post-1905 with the advent of Einstein's theory of relativity, even though it seems to have been abandoned throughout the entire history section. It would seem that more care needs to be taken not to confuse the past with the present when writing physics articles. ] (]) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

			@] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on
	:If you have a careful look at the sources, you will notice that they acknowledge the fact that the thing that Maxwell called a "luminiferous medium", or "ether", or whatever, is nowadays called "empty space". ] (]) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
			] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	Dvdm, That's exactly what I said above. I acknowledged that your sources backed up the point which you are making. But it's known as 'revisionism'. It's pushing it beyond the bounds of reason to try and argue that Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices is nowadays called 'empty space'. Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices has been abandoned and forms no part of modern physics. That doesn't make it retrospectively become equivalent to 'empty space'. ] (]) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (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. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			=="{{noredirect\|failed star}}"==
	:I don't think it is known as 'revisionism', but as 'citing sources' which say that nowadays that "luminiferous medium" is called "empty space". ] (]) 21:13, 25 October 2010 (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. ==
	::For once, I agree with David here. In modern physics, Maxwell's equations describe the propagation of light in empty space, but that wasn't what Maxwell thought they meant in the 1860's. "Luminiferous aether, non-existence thereof" was an important result in the history of science, but it came later - to quote the Giordano reference, "eventually (around 1900) the existence of the ether was disproved". None of the three sources given above claim that the aether is now called empty space - they all make clear that the aether is a disproved theory.
	::In the context of the current discussion, though, surely the problem is solved simply by removing the words "in empty space"? The sentence doesn't need them, they are anachronistic, and the whole aether issue is perfectly clearly covered in the subsequent paragraph. ] (]) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

			This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics:
	:::I've removed "in empty space", per this suggestion. --] (]) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

			* {{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)
	:::I disagree that the use of the qualification "in empty space" is anachronistic this is supported by Kirchoff reference from 1857 which uses the same qualification for velocity measured by Fizeau (and its apparent equality to the quantity measured by Weber and Kohlrausch) Since Maxwell was comparing to the same measurement, he apparently also considered his result to be "in empty space". He (and his contemporaries) had very different idea about the physical nature of empty space, but they stilled called it "empty space".
			] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I also disagree that the qualification "in empty space" is unnecessary, since with out it it is unclear how Maxwell's result distinguished itself from Kirchoff's mentioned in the preceding sentence.] (]) 05:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	::::I think that writing "in empty space" gives modern readers a misleading impression, as they'll tend to interpret that as "aether-free vacuum". If you can see a good way of putting it back in while keeping that point clear, though, by all means go ahead. --] (]) 06:04, 26 October 2010 (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)
	:::::Well, literally the next sentence explains that, at the time, there was a different understanding of "empty space". I also think that most modern readers would actually just get the most down to Earth interpretation of "empty space", i.e. space which is free of physical objects.] (]) 07:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	Timothy, You'll find that ]'s theory of electrodynamics does not utilize an aether, although I have read that he believed in it nevertheless and that it comprised of some kind of dual particles. And as regards Kirchhoff's use of the terminology 'empty space', I cannot account for that. Kirchhoff's paper clearly does say that, as you say. But The section about Maxwell is not deferring to the Kirchhoff reference. There are plenty of references, primary, secondary, and tertiary, which make it quite clear that Maxwell's EM theory was definitely not in empty space, and one such reference appears to have been removed by yourself. The aether was a big factor in ] physics, and there is an important chronology of events in which Maxwell's role is central along with the 1856 Weber/Kohlrausch experiment. Yet the history section at ] does not even deal with the ], which is the significant step between the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's special relativity in 1905, and the eventual abandoning of the aether. Even then, the abandoning of the aether wasn't just as abrupt as has been made out in the article. The 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica still gives details of the 'existing' theory of the propagation of light through a sea of tiny vortices. That may or may not have been Tesla's theory. I don't know because it doesn't specify the architect.
			<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.
	The point is that we know that you personally don't believe in the aether. And we know that modern physics doesn't believe in the aether. But it gets quite silly when people start to amend history sections in order to bring them into line with modern thinking. This is actually a very silly argument and I'm sorry that it has had to take place at all. As Christopher Thomas says, by all means go back and re-insert the reference to 'empty space'. But if you do so, stand back and have a look at how the whole history paragraph reads and ask yourself these questions,.

			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)
	(1) Does the history section correctly portray the sequence of events? Or is it confusing and misleading the reader into believing that Maxwell never believed in the aether?

			== String of new pages onPlatonists and similar ==
	(2) Does it correctly inform the reader that Maxwell's 1861 theory involved the propagation of light in a sea of molecular vortices which was also an elastic solid, and which was made partly of aether and partly of ordinary matter? And does it portray the fact that in his 1864 paper, although less specific about the details, that nevertheless he was clearly talking about an medium which was dielectric?

			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.
	(3)Does it let the readers know that the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to try and establish the motion of the Earth through what they were then referring to as 'Maxwell's aether'.
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			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)

			: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)
	(4) Does it neatly summarize Lorentz's length contraction hypothesis in the wake of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fact that Einstein's theories followed on from Lorentz's theories?
			::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)

			== invitation to comment: we ought to correct the “thermodynamic deception” ==
	(5) If somebody is confident that there is no aether, do they need to tamper with history sections to mislead readers into thinking that there was never an aether?
			{{atop\|reason=] as unsuitable. ] (]) 04:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I submit this invitation to comment pursuant to suggestion (=OxF= another) on the talk:thermodynamics page.

			I suggest<ref>”The single all-encompassing problem of thermodynamics is the determination of the equilibrium state that eventually results after the removal of internal constraints in a closed, composite system” p.26, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref> this alternative at this time:
	The bottom line is that we cannot start re-writing history because modern textbooks, and especially very modern textbooks, start to claim that the likes of Maxwell was wrong. That gets us into the realms of a disproportionate and bureaucratic application of all the literature that is available. ] (]) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:David, I would quickly stop with rampantly accusing other users of "historical revisionism". That is a blatant violation of ], and in your case likely to get you a permaban. (This is meant as a piece of friendly advise, rather than a threat. I believe you have made great progress in amending your ways, and currently deserve the benefit of the doubt.)
	:To respond to your questions: (reading the section as if the "in empty space" qualification is restored:
	:(1)Yes, although brief, it portrays the right sequence of events. And "No" it does not suggest that Maxwell did not believe in the ether. To make this more explicit the start of the second paragraph could be changed to: "Maxwell, like most of his contemporaries, thought that empty space was filled with a medium called the aether in which the electromagnetic field existed." Or something like it.
	:(2)No, it does neither of those. But, it say both those facts are beyond the level of detail of that section.
	:(3)Yes. (Although, it doesn't specifically attribute the idea of an ether to Maxwell, probably rightly so, because the idea was not specific to Maxwell.)
	:(4) Again, this is beyond the level of detail in that section. Note that this article is about the constant called the speed of light. The relevant historical events from the 19th century are: 1) the measurements made by Fizeau and Foucault 2)the connection made between the electromagnetic constants and light. (experimentally by Weber and Kohlrausch and theoretically by Maxwell by postulating that light was an EM wave) 3)Postulation of the observer invariance of this constant at the start of the 20th century by Einstein.
	:Some mention of the ether is necessary to relate the last point since the failed search for experimental evidence for the ether was part of Einstein's motivation. Since this article is not a history of the ether or a history of special relativity, I don't see much reason for mentioning Lorentz contractions.
	:(5)No, and I extremely resent the implications you are making. (See my piece of advice at the top of this post.)
	:] (]) 09:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			govern --> still--> constrain, but we add (revamped with Callen) instead:
	::This issue of whether ''empty space'' is really empty persists even to this day. See ] and ]. ] (]) 09:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::Of course, which is why don't see the problem with using the phrase "empty space" for something that neither now or then was thought to be completely empty. The me (and I think most people now and then) the phrase simply means, space as devoid of matter as possible. If people feel more at easy with the term vacuum (a term that Maxwell also uses in the introduction of his 1964 paper, when noting that his idea of EM fields can exist in what is known as a vacuum), I'd be Okay with it as well. Although, that term has some other connotations.] (]) 09:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, ''vacuum'' seems like a good way to mean "space containing aether and/or vacuum energy and/or other stuff thought to be found throughout the universe, but containing no other matter such as water or glass". ] (]) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::] has two distinguishing characteristics: (1) it is as symmetrical as can be, and (2) it has the lowest energy per unit volume of any bulk substance. The first implies that vacuum does not resist the movement of other things through it or into it. ] (]) 10:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The vacuum is not ''necessarily'' symmetric, although there is no complelling evidence for any unsymmetry. So I would go with (2) alone. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Let's not have a discussion about the definition of vacuum. (off-topic: The standard model assumes that the vacuum is not completely symmetric, i.e. it breaks electroweak symmetry.)] (]) 11:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	Timothy, I would agree that we shouldn't start a discussion on the vacuum, because such discussions tend to degenerate into prolonged debates about absolutely nothing at all. But in answer to A. di M. it should be pointed out that Maxwell's luminiferous medium was not just pure aether. It contained some ordinary matter a well. There was his electric particles which acted as idle wheels. So he was not exactly dealing in empty space. Maybe we don't need to elaborate too much for the purposes of the article, but why go to the opposite extreme and claim that he was dealing in empty space when we all know that that was not true. ] (]) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			As “thermodynamics” is a famous misnomer (thermostatics),<ref>” As useful as the characterization of equilibrium states by thermostatic theory has proven to be, it must be conceded that our primary interest is frequently in processes rather than in states. In biology, particularly, it is the life process that captures our imagination, rather than the eventual equilibrium state to which each organism inevitably proceeds. Thermostatics does provide two methods that permit us to infer some limited information about processes, but each of these methods is indirect and each yields only the most meager return.” p.307, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref> it is worth noting out front here that thermodynamics/thermostatics is a ''conceptual framework'' to which reality significantly conforms,<ref>“The choice is between these calculations and no calculations at all. Results for reversible processes in combination with appropriate efficiencies yield reasonable approximations of the work for actual processes.” p.40, “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” J.M. Smith, H.C. VanNess, M.M. Abbott, 5th edition </ref> though “quite different” <ref>“Thermodynamics is quite different.” p.2, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref> from relativity and quantum mechanics- “in the sense that thermodynamics does not predict specific numerical values for observable quantities. Instead, thermodynamics sets limits (inequalities) on permissible physical processes, and it establishes relationships among apparently unrelated properties.”<ref>p.3, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref>
	== Possible content forks ==

			This is not at all controversial, so there should be no fatal objection. This is not at all controversial, so Misplaced Pages is in a superb position to disseminate the cure. This is not at all controversial, so we Could usher in a world-wide, first-order, phase-transition of Wisdom- in the =x= pr%c3$$ (see ]).
	]:
	This article appears to be at best a content fork of some sort. Also, I can't see anything in the article that describes the topic it is purpored to discuss. Also the title itself may just be someone's original idea, or a neologism. Mostly all I see is a rehash of an amalgam of facts already in other Misplaced Pages physics articles (that's why I say content fork). In any case, I was going to PROD it, but AfD appears to be more appropriate. Does anyone else think AfD is the way to go here? ---- ] (]) 03:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			Personally yours,
	Closely related:
	This article ] appears to be a dissatisfied version of this ]. I hate to use the word content fork twice in one hour, but... Also, the first may also pertain to ], and does not conform to ]. ---- ] (]) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			] (]) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I've consolidated these threads, as I suspect we'll get a fair bit of commentary that applies to both. Regarding {{article\|status of special relativity}}, its edit history indicates that it was explicitly started as a "fork" in 2005, though whether that was intended to mean "content fork" is unclear (it might just have been an article split to move an overly-detailed section to its own page). If we have a better article that addresses the topic, a merge might be the best approach, especially since this one seems to be an orphan.

			:I edited your post to remove hidden external links. ] (]) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Regarding {{article\|timeline of gravitational physics and relativity}}, it seems to be little more than a bulletted list, so a merge would again be my suggestion. There are a handful of articles that link to it (along with a few talk pages), and it was started in 2002, so I suspect it was developed in parallel with ] in good faith (without either page's editors aware of the other).
			::(We are all worse for it* and) you are responsible
			::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=1268081945
			::Consolations for the notice though,
			::] (]) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{reflisttalk}}
	:Regarding putting the pages up for AfD, that would be a low-risk and fairly prompt way of getting more opinions on what to do with the pages (WT:PHYS isn't a cabal, after all). On the other hand, if the logical thing to do is merge/redirect, the AfD will just be closed with a statement that we should do that ourselves, so it arguably doesn't really serve a point. The other option is to stick "mergeto" and "mergefrom" templates on appropriate pages with pointers to centralized discussion threads (probably on the more popular pages). I'd be willing to do this if people think merging is the way to go. --] (]) 04:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
			'''Strong oppose'''. The above was never suggested on ], it is appearing in the above form here for the first time. This is ] and ] from an editor with unconventional views, the most recent being an attempt to redefine thermodynamics as fake and use Misplaced Pages as a ] for their unconventional science. ] (]) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Thanks Christopher. We can see what the consensus is here, which is sensible. ---- ] (]) 05:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:*Also, you might be interested that I just merged content into ] from an article which consisted of someone's POV commentary, and a timeline. You can read about in the edit histories. I had to request speedy delete for the resulting redirect because it appears to be synthesis of some sort. I might need to leave a comment on the History of GR's talk page. ---- ] (]) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			:Bro, this is what thermodynamics is; stop and smell the flowers (reversibly, ideally!)
	:WRT ]. This article is currently "summarized" in the ] article (in the section with the same name). In itself this is the way that forks should be done per ]. The article currently has sever issues though, starting with a complete lack of references. No valid reason for deletion though.] (]) 09:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
			:] (]) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Oppose''' as ]. ] (]) 03:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC).

			'''Ignore''' This is just a troll. ] (]) 04:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			{{abot}}

			== How many timelines of the universe we need? ==
	This article does not actually appear to describe the topic title. Also, it starts off sounding like a text book. Actually, I am not sure what is the point of the article as related to its title. Someone may want to look at this and assess. There is definitely some good information here. It looks like a good article, but may need to be renamed and copy edited (imho). ---- ] (]) 06:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:How about "Comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity"? ] (]) 09:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

			I just stumbled with the issue of the merges and moves of timeline of the universe article. If we include ], there are at least 3 articles on the timeline of the universe, see ]. I do not see why we need so many versions of it. ] is itself a compilation of sections, where each section is a timeline of the universe. I think this should be reduced to a single detailed timeline and a chronology of the universe article that has two sections, the first discussing an overview and the second section detailing the different epochs. Such a merge requires some coordinate editing which I am do not know if it is feasible. ] (]) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Vandalism on ]? ==

			:Some observations:
	It appears that the link in ] for footnote 31 has been altered to refer to an incorrect web page. The correct link is , bottom of page 36. I'd be delighted to fix this myself, but I am forbidden to do such things. ] (]) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
			:* Most of ] is a series of summaries of detailed articles on each era/epoch. This serves as a route to a detailed reading. The rest of the article is a hodge-podge, including a compact version and a tabular version of itself.
			:* ] is really ]. Conceptually it could be a compact version of ] but in practice is incomplete, poorly sourced and chock-a-block with cruft.
			:* ] a disambiguation page.
			:* ] a redirect to the disambiguation page.
			:* ] has two versions of a double log graph with two columns. One reference. I think this one should be deleted.
			:* ] compact one page, log-scale timeline. One website source. The log scale is not helpful because it focuses attention on that part of the timeline that we know the least about. The single-page overview is helpful.
			:* ] no sources, also not what it claims to be. Delete.
			:* ] Timeline scaled onto a day. Poorly sourced but otherwise nice, an independent concept. Maybe to add a few entries to the Cosmology table.
			:* The articles named "Graphical" use a markup feature called <code><nowiki><timeline></nowiki></code>, but not (of course!) the ones named "Timeline".
			:* ] Wow. 236 references. Here is a quote: "Earliest known twisted rope." No source ;-)
			:* ] Basically two sections called Lists which are actually tables.
			:* ] An article that wraps around a text-based timeline of the far future.
			:* ] compact graphic used on many pages. Fairly effective.
			:My suggestion:
			:* Delete a couple of the Graphical pages that are unsalvageable.
			:* Cut down ] to one or two pages, link into Chronology, and rename it ]].
			:* Cleanup ] into a summary of the cosmogenesis articles. Maybe transclude "Timeline of the early universe"
			:] (]) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'd say we should delete all three "graphical timeline" pages. ] is, at best, an image description page like you'd see on Wikimedia Commons. It's not an encyclopedia article. The image itself is not great, either (the very top line has two labels printed on top of each other, for example). Presenting all that information as text ''inside images'' is bad for accessibility and gets in the way of editors modifying it. {{pb}} I tried to clean up ] a bit. I pruned a lot on ] grounds (it's not our job to pick which events to list and do all the calculations ourselves). My first thought was to selectively merge it somewhere, but there's no uniquely good merge target, since one book and two TV series have equally good claims to it. ] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The best use of editor time is, I think, cleaning up and reorganizing ]. It gets more pageviews than ] by about a factor of 5. It's significantly under-cited. ] (]) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I also agree with the deletion of graphical timelines. --] (]) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Discussion now happening at ]. ] (]) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:39, 10 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)

invitation to comment: we ought to correct the “thermodynamic deception”

Snow closing as unsuitable. XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I submit this invitation to comment pursuant to this suggestion (=OxF= another) on the talk:thermodynamics page.

I suggest this alternative at this time:

govern --> still--> constrain, but we add (revamped with Callen) instead:

As “thermodynamics” is a famous misnomer (thermostatics), it is worth noting out front here that thermodynamics/thermostatics is a conceptual framework to which reality significantly conforms, though “quite different” from relativity and quantum mechanics- “in the sense that thermodynamics does not predict specific numerical values for observable quantities. Instead, thermodynamics sets limits (inequalities) on permissible physical processes, and it establishes relationships among apparently unrelated properties.”

This is not at all controversial, so there should be no fatal objection. This is not at all controversial, so Misplaced Pages is in a superb position to disseminate the cure. This is not at all controversial, so we Could usher in a world-wide, first-order, phase-transition of Wisdom- in the =x= pr%c3$$ (see mutual-uncertainty mediated, co-thermostatic systemics).

Personally yours,

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) NedBoomerson (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I edited your post to remove hidden external links. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

(We are all worse for it* and) you are responsible

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=1268081945

Consolations for the notice though,

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

References

”The single all-encompassing problem of thermodynamics is the determination of the equilibrium state that eventually results after the removal of internal constraints in a closed, composite system” p.26, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
” As useful as the characterization of equilibrium states by thermostatic theory has proven to be, it must be conceded that our primary interest is frequently in processes rather than in states. In biology, particularly, it is the life process that captures our imagination, rather than the eventual equilibrium state to which each organism inevitably proceeds. Thermostatics does provide two methods that permit us to infer some limited information about processes, but each of these methods is indirect and each yields only the most meager return.” p.307, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
“The choice is between these calculations and no calculations at all. Results for reversible processes in combination with appropriate efficiencies yield reasonable approximations of the work for actual processes.” p.40, “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” J.M. Smith, H.C. VanNess, M.M. Abbott, 5th edition
“Thermodynamics is quite different.” p.2, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
p.3, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

Strong oppose. The above was never suggested on Talk:Thermodynamics, it is appearing in the above form here for the first time. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH from an editor with unconventional views, the most recent being an attempt to redefine thermodynamics as fake and use Misplaced Pages as a bully pulpit for their unconventional science. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bro, this is what thermodynamics is; stop and smell the flowers (reversibly, ideally!)

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as WP:SYNTH. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC).

Ignore This is just a troll. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many timelines of the universe we need?

I just stumbled with the issue of the merges and moves of timeline of the universe article. If we include chronology of the universe, there are at least 3 articles on the timeline of the universe, see Timeline of the universe. I do not see why we need so many versions of it. Chronology of the universe is itself a compilation of sections, where each section is a timeline of the universe. I think this should be reduced to a single detailed timeline and a chronology of the universe article that has two sections, the first discussing an overview and the second section detailing the different epochs. Such a merge requires some coordinate editing which I am do not know if it is feasible. ReyHahn (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Some observations:

Most of Chronology of the universe is a series of summaries of detailed articles on each era/epoch. This serves as a route to a detailed reading. The rest of the article is a hodge-podge, including a compact version and a tabular version of itself.
Timeline of the early universe is really Timeline of the Universe. Conceptually it could be a compact version of Chronology of the universe but in practice is incomplete, poorly sourced and chock-a-block with cruft.
Timeline of the Universe a disambiguation page.
Timeline of the universe a redirect to the disambiguation page.
Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe has two versions of a double log graph with two columns. One reference. I think this one should be deleted.
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang compact one page, log-scale timeline. One website source. The log scale is not helpful because it focuses attention on that part of the timeline that we know the least about. The single-page overview is helpful.
Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era no sources, also not what it claims to be. Delete.
Cosmic Calendar Timeline scaled onto a day. Poorly sourced but otherwise nice, an independent concept. Maybe to add a few entries to the Cosmology table.
The articles named "Graphical" use a markup feature called <timeline>, but not (of course!) the ones named "Timeline".
Detailed logarithmic timeline Wow. 236 references. Here is a quote: "Earliest known twisted rope." No source ;-)
Timeline of the far future Basically two sections called Lists which are actually tables.
Future of an expanding universe An article that wraps around a text-based timeline of the far future.
Template:Nature_timeline compact graphic used on many pages. Fairly effective.

My suggestion:

Delete a couple of the Graphical pages that are unsalvageable.
Cut down Timeline of the early universe to one or two pages, link into Chronology, and rename it Timeline of the universe].
Cleanup Chronology of the universe into a summary of the cosmogenesis articles. Maybe transclude "Timeline of the early universe"

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say we should delete all three "graphical timeline" pages. Graphical timeline of the Big Bang is, at best, an image description page like you'd see on Wikimedia Commons. It's not an encyclopedia article. The image itself is not great, either (the very top line has two labels printed on top of each other, for example). Presenting all that information as text inside images is bad for accessibility and gets in the way of editors modifying it. I tried to clean up Cosmic Calendar a bit. I pruned a lot on synthesis grounds (it's not our job to pick which events to list and do all the calculations ourselves). My first thought was to selectively merge it somewhere, but there's no uniquely good merge target, since one book and two TV series have equally good claims to it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The best use of editor time is, I think, cleaning up and reorganizing Chronology of the universe. It gets more pageviews than Timeline of the early universe by about a factor of 5. It's significantly under-cited. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with the deletion of graphical timelines. --ReyHahn (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion now happening at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: