Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 13 October 2009

• WT:PHY
• WT:PHYS
• WT:PHYSICS

Physics Project‑class

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

Archives

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

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

Discussion about html formatted style for simple tex formatted equations

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

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

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

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

Dry ice

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

Poincare better than Einstein edits by Schlafly?

FYI and FWIW, user Schlafly (talk) seems to be pushing some kind of agenda at , , , , , , . I undid some of the edits and made some changes. DVdm (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly is doing this since July.... --D.H (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To commit the association fallacy by way of explanation, Schlafly's brother's site Conservapedia has a long history of linking relativity with moral relativism, and thus evil to be defeated. It could be a family thing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. DVdm (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's beginning again, see the contributions of Schlafly and Flegelpuss. I've reverted most of their edits. --D.H (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. This new wp:SPA sounds awfully Arian. Checkuser might reveal something nasty. DVdm (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a page for personal attacks on me? If you have some disagreement with my edits, then I suggest that you address my actual edits. Roger (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think all contributors should try to resolve this conflict at Talk:History of special relativity#Local time, which might be a better place. --D.H (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

|astro=

After deleting Category:Pages within the scope of WikiProject Physics (WP Astronomy Banner) as an empty category, TimothyRias wrote a message in my talk page that the template "is used for a legacy feature of the {{astronomy}} template, which allows the astro=yes switch to tag articles which should also have the {{physics}} template. This category lists the articles that use that switch (which should then be tagged and assessed.) If this seems like a roundabout way of doing things, thats because it is. But as long as that option exists on the {{astronomy}} template, this category should exist to record its use."'.

So there are some things:

• This parameter doesn't appear in the manual and it's use is not explained,
• None used this parameter the last 20 days at least.
• I think this parameter totally unnecessary. If an article was to be tagged additionally with another banner then this is what it has to be done. I see no reason that some editors add the parameter and other finish the job.

I wrote the same message some days ago in Template talk:Astronomy.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Like TimothyRias said, it's a legacy feature. The category should be there until it's removed from the template, IMO. I personally don't have an objection to removing that old thing from the astronomy template, but that's up to the Astronomy project more than it's up to the Physics project IMO. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, my last edit summary was "ew", which was a typo for "re", not an expression of digust. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Let's centralise the discussion in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy then please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero Point Field

Hi.

I've recently noticed problems over at the article Zero-point field -- namely it seems biased to champion certain alternative theories about ZPF and cosmology. Yet of course Misplaced Pages is not for championing any theories, it's supposed to be neutral. Most of it appears to be being written and defended by a group of anon editors and there's uncited statements that look like they may be original research. I already have tagged it with neutrality dispute tags and started discussions on the talk page. What do you think should be done here? I'd think those theories should be gotten out of the article or reduced to a minor section, with citations to outside-WP sources if any can be found for any relevant claims. If the theories are themselves worthy of note (I've seen theories by Puthoff, Haisch, etc. mentioned), then they should be written about in their own articles or on other articles more relevant to them, yet of course in a neutral manner free of original research. And then the main focus of the article should be simply pointing out the relevant concepts from quantum field theory. Some of it seems to be a rehash of the article zero-point energy (while zero-point field is not just a rehash of ZPE, it has to do with ZPE in quantum fields, so it's more specific). I can't find much in there relating to the quantum-field-theory stuff... mike4ty4 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I went looking for an old version to revert to, but the article seems to have been a disaster since it was created in mid-2007. I think it should be merged into vacuum state—by which I mean it should be replaced by a redirect to vacuum state, since there's probably nothing worth saving. -- BenRG (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Possibly. But the problem is, they could always revert it and then a revert war could start. I've got some threads going over on the page's talk page, and am wondering if anyone here would like to add input or something. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, they seem to be threatening to remove the NPOV dispute banner soon, too, and I don't want to get into an edit war on that too. But I think something needs to be done about this page as it doesn't seem up to snuff with WP policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Poincaré-POV-pushing

User:Flegelpuss tries to push the (non-mainstream)-notion that Poincaré invented relativity before Einstein (see also this discussion). See his edits in History of special relativity, Introduction to special relativity, Lorentz ether theory, Annus Mirabilis papers‎. I already reverted those changes, but they were reverted again. Maybe an administrator can help... --D.H (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this Flegelpuss (talk · contribs) obviously (see my promptly resulting in and ) is a highly experienced single-purpose -let's get rid of Einstein- account without any fear for risking wp:3rr sanctions. Those who don't play by rules can only be plaid by administrators. DVdm (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they created two more special purpose accounts (aka Schlafly-sock/meat puppets):

• Cardinality (talk · contribs)
• Iphegenia (talk · contribs)

Most interesting edits: and bringing in and sustaining Bjerkness from and . From website - No comment needed I guess?

As I predicted, Flegelpuss (talk · contribs) got blocked for 3rr. These are next and others will follow. Interesting.

DVdm (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted those edits. Maybe semi-protection of History of special relativity is the solution... --D.H (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-pr protects against anonymous edits only. And this is not just one article. This kind of attack needs wp:checkuser and someone with a lot of time and patience. DVdm (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting a checkuser usually takes some evidence of abuse. The Flegelpuss (talk · contribs) was created on 19 September and blocked for edit warring on the 20th. Now Cardinality and Iphegenia were created on 21 September, but seem not to have done very much so far. I asked another admin about this but the answer on whether blocks are justified is not yet clear. If Cardinality and Iphegenia get into edit wars then it becomes an easier question. Someone made a remark about this Italian website. Is the use of that site an indication of POV editing? EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a world-famous crackpot site.

By the way, after his block expiration, Flagelpuss (talk · contribs) started to revert again. DVdm (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical system of units

User:HarryAlffa has proposed that solar mass , jupiter mass , earth mass , lunar mass all be merged into Astronomical system of units. see Talk:Astronomical system of units.

76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Planetary nebula

I have nominated Planetary nebula for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero-point field: Getting consensus on what to do

Hi.

It seems that per the discussions on the Talk:Zero-point field page (go to the thread "timetable for resolution of dispute"), the guy seems to have decided to stop editing, however made seeming warnings about "consequences" from the Misplaced Pages community if I go and "delete" things from the article. So what I'd like to do is ask here, or find out where would be the best place to ask, for trying to find out what the best consensus of the Misplaced Pages community would be for the action here. I'd suggest also to read my discussions (threads "Casting the neutrality of this into dispute. Time for overhaul?" and "Timetable for resolution of dispute") and those of other people on the same talk page, as well. He was saying that I should go and dig up sources to address the verifiability, etc. concerns myself, but seemed not to hear what I said about not being able to do that research due to my situation and also not to hear or at least focus on what I was saying about the neutrality concerns, instead focusing more on the sources question.

Would you have any answers? mike4ty4 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say redirect it. And I did :). The zero-point field article has never undergone collaborative editing. Please see the history, but this is how it looks to me. In May 2007, it was started by user:Sadi Carnot. Two users I believe have expertise in physics, user:Pjacobi and user:Linas, attempted to redirect it to Vacuum state. The article was briefly made into a stated pseudoscience subject by Linas. Not long after, all three of these editors left the article.

Enter the unregistered editor 75.6.xxxx / 75.7.xxxx. This editor has made almost all contributions for the last two years (!). Further, the name he uses is the same as a reference in the article (see footnote 11 here). And, surprise surprise, it's not from a reliable source either. The article has been a de facto playground of original research for a user who has never declared an obvious conflict of interest.

Mike4ty4 has done a yeoman's job challenging on the talk page, and posting here and to the fringe noticeboard, but hasn’t got much response. I went ahead and re-redirected to Vacuum state. See the talk page for an idea of the bizarre twists and turns of the article. It would be good if others could help watch that the article does not return to anything resembling its long, sad state. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gravitational potential

Could a few other people please take a look at Gravitational potential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page? There's an ongoing dispute between Fransepans (talk · contribs) and a couple of other editors (myself included) over whether (and why) gravitational potentials and gravitational potential energy are considered to be negative. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: This seems to have been resolved amicably. Sorry for the trouble (and thanks for the editing pass!). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Physics error in Featured Image for 9/23/2009, Snell's Law !!

The image, in the article at "Explanation#Derivations", is incorrect in the lower part, below the interface. It shows the wavefronts as becoming hyperbolic, so that the portions at large distances from the central axis asymptotically become straight lines. However, the refracted rays below the interface would then not appear to diverge from a point, and that is not the case in reality. The point source position is shifted (upwards, in the figure), but the light source seen from below the interface still appears as a point. This means the wavefronts must continue to diverge from a point, and thus remain segments of a sphere, with only the center of the sphere being shifted. The figure needs to be corrected by someone with a facility in graphics animation. A few other editors should verify and confirm my conclusion, but it is really quite obvious, and easily apparent visually so that it needs to be fixed quickly.

Can some of our project members please verify my reasoning (? on the article talk page I guess, where I have made the same point) ASAP, so the figure can be fixed quickly, as it is embarrassing to the Misplaced Pages in general, and to the physics project in particular, in my opinion. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not 100% certain because the equations are close to impossible to solve, but I think the diagrams are correct. When I solve for the location of the beam that has traveled an arbitrary distance d as a function of the incident angle on a planar surface from a given location at a distance s from the plane then I obtain a plot that is very similar. (The equations are messy but I checked a number of limiting cases and they appeared correct.) I think the problem is that images are formed for planes only in the small angle approximation.

Putting it a different way. Perfect images are formed only for a cartesian ovoid. (See equation 2-7 in Pedrotti, Pedrotti, and Pedrotti on page 27.) I have no clue what a cartesian ovoid is, and I couldn't find any good references to it. I have no clue whether or not a plane is a particular type of 'cartesian ovoid'. It does not appear to be the case, by my rudimentary calculations, though. TStein (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rayleigh's method of dimensional analysis

Rayleigh's method of dimensional analysis could use a couple minutes of work to clean it up. I know 0 about the subject and have not been able to get a good enough grasp of it through google. Thanks for any assistance.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion watchlist

I don't know if you noticed, but there is a new link in the WikiProject Physics tabs called Current Discussions. It follows all the talk pages of tagged with {{physics}}, but right now it is buggy (as you'll see if you click the link. Fixing this would allow this sort of watchlist to be deployed on a larger-scale (AKA all wikiprojects could have one), and would fix this projects watchlist. If you could vote on Bug#16129 (simply create an account, then vote) that would make that fix quicker to come around. Thanks. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks that could use your help

There's quite a large list of redlinks at Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#Physics. If there are any other Wikiprojects which could help with this list, please let them know as well. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mendel Sachs

He was a professor of physics at SUNY Buffalo for 30 years, now retired. He rejects post-1920s physics for philosophical reasons and claims to have realized Einstein's dream of explaining everything with classical fields. Nobody listened to him. He now has a blog where he complains about the blinkered establishment. His Misplaced Pages article was mostly written by SJRubenstein (talk · contribs), who also seems to be the only commenter on Sachs's blog (every blog post has 0 or 1 reply, and when there is one reply it is always by Steven Rubenstein). The article's only reference not written by Sachs is Subtle is the Lord, which doesn't mention Sachs (according to Google Book Search). Google Book Search did turn up a few mentions of his name in print. Does he meet notability requirements? It seems like a borderline case. If he does, the article needs a rewrite. -- BenRG (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Article status challenge

Here's a challenge: by the end of the year, let's try to get all of our top-importance articles up to at least C class and our high-importance articles up to at least start class. We currently have 35 start-class/top-importance articles and 54 stub-class/high-importance articles. With 3 months to go in the year (decade...) then if a few people join in, we should be able to get both of these numbers down to 0 with a bit of effort! Djr32 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(To find the articles in question, go to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control#Table of articles by quality and importance and click "show" on the green bar, and then click any of the numbers in the table that appears.) :-) --Steve (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point Steve! I've edited my original post to add links directly to the relevant categories. Djr32 (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, although I think that more than 10% of these articles should be merged into their "parents". ___A. di M. 18:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some articles are likely to be merged - I've done one or two of these already, and proposed a few more. Progress so far: we now have 31 start-class/top-importance articles, 48 stub-class/high-importance articles, but unfortunately we've gained 1 stub-class/top-importance article. Djr32 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Should that one article be merged into physical quantity? (Or can "physical property" also refer to non-quantitative properties?) ___A. di M. 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it can, at least according to the first sentence of Physical quantity: "Informally, a physical quantity is a physical property that can be quantified." I'm not sure there's much to be added to Physical property, or indeed much to be said about non-quantitative physical properties (but then I am a physicist...) Perhaps the two articles could be merged but under the heading Physical property?

No-communication theorem

The article is incomprehensible for a non-expert. Can you please rewrite it such that an ordinary user can understand it? --rtc (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuous x-ray

Hi, can someone please have a look at the merits of this article? Looks like a deletion candidate to me, and at least needs a better title. --Pgallert (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added mergeto/mergefrom templates, with discussion at Talk:Bremsstrahlung#Merge_from_Continuous_x-ray. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IP creating questionable articles, part II

We had a discussion in August (link) about 195.47.212.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has created 11+ dubious physics-y articles. Nothing seems to have happened since then. So I figure I'll get the ball rolling...I proposed deletion for one of those articles, selfconsistent electromagnetic constants. Please contribute to the AfD discussion. --Steve (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We need more science-types taking a look at this AfD, especially if it's intended to be a trial balloon for the rest of the IP's articles. So far only two people from WT:PHYS posted (along with the IP and one self-stated non-expert). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All articles created by this editor need to be looked at. If it doesn't yet exist, why don't you create a page for physics AfDs like this one Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators? Interested people could then put it on their watch list. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

There was at one point a "Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention/Physics" index page, but that's been unmaintained for years now. Problematic articles mostly just get flagged here, as far as I know. Article improvements, as opposed to problems, do get handled by a centralized system of some kind (the article sorting/classification mentioned in another thread), but I haven't worked with it.

Regarding the "walled garden" of synthesis works this used appears to be creating, if people feel they should be deleted, they can probably be flagged in one omnibus AfD. These are usually titled "(Article), and related (Article), (Article), (Article), ...", and listed only under the first article. This only actually simplifies the process if the articles are similar enough that people vote the same way for all of the ones named. May be worth a try, if the present AfD results in a deletion consensus. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we now have the Article Alerts system going on (see WP:PHYS, on the right) as do most active projects. Simply tag the talk page with the relevant projects' banner and they'll be notified in the next 24 hours. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The closest delsort is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science, which has five articles listed at the moment. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I supported deletion of the above article, but in studying these interrelated articles, there does seem to be more substance than I would expect from standard fringe/original research contributions. Are participants in this discussion knowledgeable enough in current research in gravitation and electromagnetism to verify that these are not legitimate attempts to summarize notable research topics? The topic of mathematical connections between general relativity and maxwell's equations goes back a long way (Kaluza-Klein_theory) and I'm not familiar with all the contemporary approaches. Perhaps some dialogue with the author might be attempted? Ben Kidwell (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The content of most of these articles looks valid, actually. The problem is not WP:FRINGE, but WP:SYN: Anon seems to be trying to write a book about the topic, not an encyclopedia article. They're also completely ignoring the content that already exists (duplicating material rather than improving existing articles). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these articles, even if accurate, do not correctly present and integrate their material with the rest of the enyclopedia. I also think that only someone who already understands all of the content is going to be able to parse any of it! At the same time the contributor seems to be working in good faith and has the knowledge to be a useful editor, so hopefully their energies can be directed to improving articles and creating new ones that fit with the current organization of content. Quite a bit of time and effort seems to have been invested and I'm concerned that wholesale deletion without trying to engage the editor may seem like an unfriendly community reaction to good faith contributions. Ben Kidwell (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to mentor them if you want. I'm mostly returning to wiki-sabbatical, and so am not in a position to do so. They also didn't display much comprehension of the issues involved in their comments on the AfD, so I'd expect this to be an uphill struggle. Arguably worthwhile, still, but I'm not going to be the one doing it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective and information. I will try to stay engaged in a constructive way but without the expertise to differentiate between what is well-established consensus in the field and what is an original synthesis I don't feel very confident in engaging with this material in the detail which it demands. (Later) After seeing some additional comments of this user at the AfD discussion which seem to indicate that he thinks his work stands in contrast to conventional field theory, I'm inclined to think the fringe issue is real and en-masse deletion is probably the necessary solution. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See Here...there's some idea that modern quantum mechanics doesn't discuss capacitances and inductances enough, and is overly-focused on electric and magnetic fields. (That's what he or she may have meant by "feeld theory" at the AfD discussion.) That whole article is very strange, by the way. In reality, the quantum treatment of an electromagnetic cavity is very well known: The classical electromagnetic standing waves get quantized into photons, etc. This article does it differently, creates a nonsense Hamiltonian in "charge space", and calls the result "nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics, which considers elementary particles from the intrinsic point of view. Note that, the standard quantum electrodynamics conciders elementary particles from the external point of view." It infers that the electron isn't a point charge but has a uniform mass distribution over a sphere of a certain radius, and that the electron mass comes from these quantum electromagnetic resonator oscillations or something.

OK, I found how to AfD multiple articles at once. I'll wait for this AfD discussion end first though. --Steve (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there is anything that can be salvaged from all this work? For instance, we have an LC_circuit article and I do find a fairly significant amount of published research about the Quantum_LC_Circuit. I tried to compare the IPs treatment of the topic with this and it seemed like they were at least starting out from roughly the same place - but then the article moves to the concluding sections such as "photon as LC circuit" that are non-standard. Would it be possible to prune the OR material and leave anything meaningful? Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well...

• Quantum capacitance isn't all bad, but would need a lot of work...Maybe this one shouldn't be deleted.
• Quantum LC Circuit (not created by IP): I had no problem telling which sections were written by the IP and which were written by other people, and I think the former should be deleted wholesale.
• Quantum inductance is a real (albeit obscure) concept but totally unrelated to anything in the article, as far as I can tell. For example, if you click the first reference, it doesn't even mention quantum inductance!
• Stoney scale units starts out sounding ok, then you realize that it's almost entirely OR. I think "Stoney units" do exist, and sometimes are a synonym for Planck units. Sometimes they're similar to Planck units apart from factors of ${\displaystyle \pi }$ or whatever. I'm not sure it's sufficiently notable for wikipedia. Even if it were, there would be little or nothing in the article that should be kept.
• Gravitational characteristic impedance of free space is non-notable (there are a couple obscure unpublished papers that mention it) and I can't find anything in there that should be salvaged.
• Stoney mass ditto
• Maxwell-like gravitational equations ditto
• Quantum Hall composite resonator doesn't exist as a separate concept outside of wikipedia, as far as I can tell, and all the involved derivations and discussion seems to be OR.
• Quantum Gravitational Resonator ditto
• Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants ditto

In general, I haven't seen any valuable discussion or derivation of standard physics anywhere here. There's a tiny little bit, but all the "meat" of the articles is weird OR, in my opinion. Quantum capacitance is marginally better than the others, it has some sentences and equations and references that might be kept during a rewrite.

By the way, the same IP is putting nonsense into other articles, like Quantum harmonic oscillator and Planck mass. Worse, the nonsense doesn't get deleted very quickly, since it's so technical-looking. --Steve (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell-like gravitational equations seems to be about the same topic as gravitomagnetism; while not something of top importance, that's not fringe nor too obscure for Misplaced Pages. Stoney units are units in which c = G = e = 4πε₀ = 1 and ħ = 1/α; they might not be commonly used today, but they are of historical interest as the first system of natural units ever used. Not sure of whether they deserve their own article or it should be merged into Natural units; the Stoney mass itself clearly doesn't deserve its own article. (Of course, OR-y stuff should go away.) ___A. di M. 01:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to give them a formal request to stop adding non-mainstream material? I don't have a strong enough QM background to be able to state what material was objectionable. If they've been warned, and continue putting in material that's demonstrably bogus, then further steps in WP:DR can be taken, but we should be trying to talk to them first. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to wade through all that. Hopefully the cleanup process won't be too difficult. Ben Kidwell (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP is active on the AfD again. I've reached my "dealing with this crud" limit, and I think they'll only accept responses from someone who can critique the math. I'm bowing out. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Emission Spectrum Lines Images Proposal

I am learning about emission lines in physics right now, and I noticed that we don't have very many diagrams of them, and that it would be nice if they were standardized. So I am proposing that we make standard images for them according to the following plan:

• Make it in SVG format. This is a vector format, and so the lines can be placed with arbitrary precision, and the image can be scaled as much as necessary without losing any information.
• Use the same color scheme for all of them. I'm not sure what would be best as there are several problems in displaying the spectrum on a RGB monitor. See and also the discussion at the visible spectrum talk page.
• Use the same reliable source for each image. I don't really know enough about this yet to know what a good source would be, so some suggestions here would be appreciated.

Also, although not as aesthetically pleasing, it might be useful to include a "ruler" next to the spectrum like in this one File:Helium_spectrum.jpg. Additionally, to make these images easily created and edited by others, I was thinking that I (or someone) could create a continuous spectrum, and then black out the unseen parts in each specific picture. This method could work for the absorption lines as well. I'm not sure that we really need an image like this for every element, but it would be nice on ones named after their emission lines like Indium and Thallium. Any suggestions welcome. Jkasd 09:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion, and I've posted a link to WT:CHEMISTRY in case any other chemists want to come through and give their opinions.

We currently have three types of images of atomic emission spectra.

1. This image of the iron spectrum was created roughly in the way you suggest. For me it has two main problems:

• It is not a good representation of the differences in intensities of the different lines. Some spectral lines are brighter than others, but it is very difficult to express this by the simple method that is proposed here.
• Related to the above, the image is a poor representation of what you would actually see looking through a spectroscope – we have better, but not for all the elements by any means.

1. We also have 19th-century artists impressions of spectra, such as this and this. The spectra of thallium and indium are the fourth and fifth from the top (respectively) on the right-hand side of the second image.
2. We also have a small set of images which appear to have been taken directly through a spectroscope, such as this helium spectrum. I'd say that we're lucky to have them, as they must have taken a great deal of work to obtain. I'm not sure if this caesium spectrum was taken from a photograph or created from data, but it is a very good image all the same.

I am hesitent as to the utility of spectral diagrams such as the iron spectrum – they seem to given a certain "false impression" to me – but I look forward to other comments. Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well due to the limitations of the average monitor color space, there will be a trade-off between color and intensity. We could either accurately depict the brightness of each line, or the color of each line, but not both. Figuring out a good compromise is probably the hardest part of this project. Jkasd 22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question to ask is: "What purpose would such pictures have and what information would we like them to convey?" Then we could have some sort of guiding principle for deciding on the details. Jkasd 05:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Orthotomic in geometrical optics

Could someone with some knowledge of geometrical optics please look at the Orthotomic article? Right now it's written as a purely mathematical subject and as such it's basically an alternate name for something else and is flagged for a merge. My research has turned up a possibly broader meaning in optics though so I'm raising the issue here to see if anyone wants to expand the article from that perspective.--RDBury (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the optics definition I know of : "A normal ray congruence (also called orthotomic system of rays) is a set of rays whose trajectories are normal to a one-parameter family of surfaces, which are the wavefronts. For instance, the rays issuing from a point form a normal congruence" (with spherical wavefronts). Seems to me that this is totally unrelated to the math definition, so it should be a separate article. Is this the same definition you're thinking of? Is there a relation I don't see? --Steve (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not totally unrelated, maybe 70%-80% unrelated. As I understand it, if the light from a point source is reflected off a curved surface, then the resulting rays will be an orthotomic (physics) system and the family of surfaces they are normal to are the orthotomic (math) of the surface and the surfaces parallel to the orthotomic. It sounds like the name of the optics article would be orthotomic system of rays and a disambiguation page would be more in order.--RDBury (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the article is now merged and changed to a redirect.--RDBury (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking and correcting my list

Hi all! I just completed a major rewrite and expansion of the list of elementary physics formulae. I'm just a student myself so I feel it would be smart to have someone check my work. The list attempts to be a complete 'cheat-sheet' or list of theorems for a first year two-semester college course or for non-specialists who need to keep the basics handy. I've tried to keep the theorems as unit-system agnostic as possible while avoiding changes which would render the material into an unrecognisable form to students (IE I've kept the SI magnetic and electric constants). I would be overjoyed if anyone would like to take a look and offer advice or corrections. Also I've lost the fluid dynamics section of my notes, so that still needs to be filled in. Stuff needs DABed too but I'm working on it. Regards, -Craig Pemberton (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Leadership?

A bit off-topic -- but -- virtually all of the edits I do at WP are on math articles, with some spill-over to physics and comp-sci. I've not been active for the last few years, because I got tired of the editorial nonsense that goes on. Despite being inactive, I recently was attacked, more or less unprovoked, by a new-age editor who had vandalized an obscure math article I wrote, and someone else reverted. When I told him off, I was promptly piled-on by five admins who blocked me for several weeks. I'm kind of shocked that the power structure here has changed so much that we've got these kinds of nasty, abusive people in admin roles. I complained to the Arb, but they ignored the case. I don't know what to do, other than to complain here, and ask everyone to try to band together, and to figure out how to get the ugly admins and the (incompetent?) leadership out of power, redo Misplaced Pages leadership, and restore some sanity. linas (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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