Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2012

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

{{template:Physics equations navbox}} "here to stay just because of user:F=q(E+v^B)"????

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I re-sectioned this thread as it's diverged slightly. To summarize my perspective on the following: I also disagree with the templates - preferably get rid of them - no harm at all to any articles since they will only disappear from the bottom of the pages which now have it, where not many readers will look through titles of equations there. It seems superficially user:F=q(E+v^B): a "formula-freak", is pissed off even at the thought of anyone touching them. If you care - you might continue. Maschen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but why does {{Physics equations navbox}} exist? Are there a lot of people at the article Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space who are dying to have a quick and convenient and direct way to navigate to the article Tsiolkovsky rocket equation??? --Steve (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very late to reply + realize, anyway SO WHAT???... You needn't become so heated, nor assume such extreme desires of people "dying" to see random equations: it’s NOT intentionally a tunnel from Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, or wherever to whatever, even if it allows. I created it for a few good reasons:

Top-importance: it serves as a summary of all the main articles on WP which specifically describe the equations in the titles, rather than listing equations individually in the equation-list articles, and
Mid-importance: allows interconnection of formula articles within the same or different fields, e.g. Kepler's laws of planetary motion -> Kepler's equation -> Newton's law of gravity -> Einstein field equations -> Geodesic equation, or perhaps -> Maxwell's equations -> Gauss's law -> Continuity equation -> Navier-Stokes equation etc.....
Mid-importance: Presumably at some point, ALL the equation-list type articles will be deleted, hated from here down to hell and beyond by ALL professional physics editors on WP for various reasons,
Least-important: it helps formula-freaks like me navigate around equation articles.

So what do people prefer??? which is more adapted to WP style??

A long, "tiresome" list of formula after formula after more formulas etc with the inevitable requirement of explaining constants, variables/parameters and an providing background of the equation's applicability, or
just a compact summary of the main particles all in a box which provide information about equations. If not liked - just close the box and never set eyes on it again, if interested use it, or better yet
will this become a template for deletion at the pleasure of some??

ANY is fine and is allowed, and there is nothing I can/will do to prevent from happening, but the last irritates. I apologize for talking so crudely loud, but personally this is my #1 only really impressive and productive contribution (compared to everything else done on WP), which I would hope solves the problem of the numerous formula-list articles which always shoot up and sprout around, eventually to be deleted, its a "continuous life cycle of the equation-list article", and this article type is to many editors dismay which is NOT good. =( FOR ONCE, I'll NOT be so apologetic nor softy-squishy on this matter - the point has been made solid.

For those that suspect - I'm NOT "insulted by this run-by comment" either. This is the response with bold/underline/italic/capital emphasis; NOT assumption of bad faith by all other editors. =| F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to run into this while reading the page. I personally prefer the formula list articles if there is any need to summarize and present equations. For reasons Steve indicated above, there is no need to have a separate template when the links are already in the articles (see also sections), or better yet the {{main]}} and {{see also]}} templates. Why another template?? Do you really think that many users could be bothered to use it way down at the bottom of the article ??? I wouldn't mind elimination of the template, but not fussed to keep. Anyway - you make such a stressed contradiction of yourself: why accuse Steve of getting angery when... look at yourself. Shame on you. Furthermore you can do better than create just a pile of equations (though other editors have done a better job at cleaning/tidying it up than you have - no offense, just a fact). Maschen (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing relevant to your (although rather rude) "SO WHAT???" is the response against having a summary of equations on WP. For one thing you HAVE edited those articles.

For those that have no clue what lunatic F=q(E+v^B) and I are referring to the articles (I geuss) would be:

Then of course these contain the many see also links to the main pages. There are also categories which organize articles, such as [[Category:Theoretical physics]] (which has equations and articles to the mathematical background), and similarly the main subject templates like {{quantum mechanics}} For one thing - if you don't like these pages, yet ironically are so obsessed with equations, why have you edited them?? You like them really... "=)"

My point is - there is no point in your template, and agree with Steve. (Its probably your most unproductive contribution aside from the Dirac notation article when you disobeyed rules and launched my incorrect images into the article WITHOUT my permission. Shame on you again).

Btw to everyone else - sorry for continuing this irrelevant thread. I'll stop now - its dead anyway, except for F=q(E+v^B) trying to re-light the thread. Maschen (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Maschen - WTF are you talking about "WP:STICK" (or in your unclear wordy language "re-light the thread", WTFH means) ??? That is fully irrelevant - and I'm so happy that you enthusiastically look for every possible way to organize and categorize equation articles!!! Except ... for the template which does it immediately anyway.

Let’s be very clear: it's not "my" template either just because I created it, articles or templates never belong to anyone, except of course EVERYONE simultaneously.

Furthermore, you (Maschen), for one, make many mistakes yourself, and are only copying out Steve's opinions because you are defenseless in decision making for editing things, and because of Steve's authority, experience and capabilities both in real life and on WP. And no I was NOT being rude or accusing him of anything personally or directly, again it was to stand out and place emphasis I would like to.

Furthermore - the first 3 of those articles you link to are a waste of time and energy, even if I did contribute, which is what I was saying above: they may soon be deleted since the scope of readership will be very low; who will read a list of formulas one after another??. The last is probably the best but needs a lot of work. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 16:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, some people actually like articles like those 3 "wastes of time and energy" articles, since they act as reference articles, sections and formulas don't have to be read one after the other - instead the reader can dip in and find what they like.

Also - I AM NOT copying out Steve's opinions, as you would typically assume. I may not be that productive on WP or smart in real life, but still have enough brain power to think for myself. The WP:STICK link is because the thread was dead (long ago), or in plain simple language you should understand but don't for some obscure reason: IT HAS BEEN FINISHED - START A NEW THREAD (AKA SECTION) SOMEWHERE ELSE (LIKE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE), lunatic. But it has naturally grown here. The templates you created should fuck off by rights (in case you didn't know what this means: DELETE THEM) for the reasons repeatedly discussed above, but perhaps that’s too far, so as I say again (for the 3rd time) they may be kept. I'll not touch them. Maschen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets try and be clear again: (in response to that numskull title you created)

they are NOT MINE - they are for everyone, and its not just you - I also appreciate the effort everyone has put in to tidying them up/extending its scope where I didn't, so many thanks to those who did! =)
Call me a LUNATIC as much as you like - you can even personally attack me for all I care (PROVIDED you don't do so to anyone else) and defeat WP:NPA (look another irrelevant link! - you should stop the blather of irrelevant points and concentrate on the discussion thread), childish name-calling changes nothing.
All I ask is that the template remain - I'm NOT "pissed off" at anything.

It seems to be too much for some people... =( F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of pulling faces and using so many bold characters like a lunatic - you should see Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot!!! Maschen (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did I even try answering you Maschen? It had no effect. I have no interest or time for this discussion anymore - talk to yourself or someone else. Bye bye (or in your unsual language "fuck off, but that's too far"). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What a waste of time this thread has been, I thought I was being reasonable, but you don't want to understand what is told to you. And I'll not say "fuck off": rather "good bye to you too"... Maschen (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention something IMPORTANT Maschen - I suggest you R ! E ! A ! D !

Talk:List of elementary physics formulae (ignoring your own useless comments of course),
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics formulae, and
Physics equations.

Can you beat the last one? Its red!! It says "A page with this title has previously been deleted."!!!

See this written by linas (who is certainly an experienced WP editor and physicist in real life, who even founded this wikiproject) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics formulae?

"Yes, well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this article should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

See this written by Steve from Talk:Continuity equation (after he tried to explain basic calculus to you after you messed the article up!)?

"By the same token, I despise the lists of equations in those three articles you linked to at the top. I can barely even look at them. Grrr. --Steve (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)"

Hmmm... there is some very very strange consensus out there!! I wonder what this all means?

Not sure about you - but it seems as though equation-list pages are to be DELETED. Now do you comprehend? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Still carrying on about this "when you have no time or patience"??? Well, I left a message on Steve's user page, so we'll see what he has to say IF he does come to this section (VERY UNLIKELY). Actually which editors will come here??? As I said above the THREAD IS DEAD. No-one - except a LUNATIC like yourself, actually does care. You care too much about this fucktarded template. If you insist on continuing this - take it to another section LIKE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, or elsewhere.

AND who says "the equation-list pages WILL be deleted"??? None other than you. I have read those before and while the two quotes are true, the pages remain since there was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE THEM.

Hard to stomach, but just drop it already. I am not the cause - YOU are acting as a bastard lunatic for no reason. The link WP:STICK is certainly relevant now, not childish (ironically as yourself). Again - bye bye. Maschen (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue has already been dropped. Just made sure you ARE aware of the evidence and general consensus. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be planning something - why did you highlight those quotes above? Paranoid about "winning" and not losing" are you, when the game has already ended in a fail-fail draw?

I also have at least one stone to blunt your blade from talk:Mathematical descriptions of physical laws by Esoteric cybernetic (and in fairness I use the same box you used):

"Just a suggestion - I think the article is great!

Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)"

and

"OK, I see where you are coming from. And yes - I think that wikipedia has been lacking in a comprehensive directory of physical equations, so good job!

Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)"

How about that! NOT EVERYONE is hellbent on obliterating equation-list articles! There are odds against your argument. Maschen (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not planning on anything at all, no intention to stab you with a knife that you try to blunt with one opinion. Even if there were more comments at Esoteric cybernetic's level of appreciation for these types of articles, I would still find the articles unhelpful for the more dominating reasons in the AfD and talk links provided above.

And you can't complain about the boxes now that you just used one.

Let’s stop this instant: I'm tired and have better things to do (like everyone else around here including yourself). We'll take it to yours or my talk page, doesn't matter which, as long as there is NOT a single post right hereafter. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 19:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (sorry - already violated, but had to de-wikify a category I added above in the argument for it to be visible). "=)" Maschen (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (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.

Condensed matter physics

Hi,

I'm working on an overhaul of the Condensed matter physics article (top-importance for this project!). I'd like to get some feedback, and if possible, help with expansion on this article - as I fear it might become too biased towards my research interests. In particular, I'm looking for suggestions for what all should go into the "experimental" and "applications" sections.

Thanks, SPat ^talk 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See my query at Talk:Condensed matter physics#Electromagnetic Forces, and keep up the good work! --TSchwenn (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OR at Dirac equation (still)

Hi, this is about HCPotter again. Recently he has been asking DVdm and me to restore his reference, our reply is "OR + primary source", and have pointed to him WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY before, but seems to insist. I pointed him to here so he can explain himself. Thanks. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Physics AfD

It seems someone has decided to be disruptive and nominate Physics for deletion, see here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physics_(2nd_nomination)#Physics. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems it was an april fools joke of some sort. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been done though - we aren't supposed to make jokes in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was labeled genius on my talk page for reverting the AFD and templating the user. Neat. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An AfD nomination can't be stopped by just removing the template, as you see, a bot automatically re-added the template. An Admin will eventually close it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Genius is what I say about the Google maps 'Quest' option for an 8-bit Nintendo version. Effin' eejit is what I say about people who just cause trouble for others. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There's precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe. The usual practice is for it to be closed as "speedy keep" on April 2nd. I particularly liked the "no independent sources" bit in that one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

The Stephan Hawking article has been put up for Peer review as part of a long-term plan to push it in the direction of FA. Thought you guys might like to comment :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now at FAC :) Fayedizard (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

... and so is the article about his more famous brother Stephen :) Gandalf61 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)gg

Yeah, him too... *blush* Fayedizard (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is still at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1, and could benefit from review by members of WP:PHYSICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed at the total lack of interest from this project. The FAC has been withdrawn pending furter development and improvement of the article. One of the major shortcommings discussed during the FAC was the lack of in depth coverage of Hawking's work - See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1. Members of this project are surely best equipped to contribute to this aspect of the article, please help get this article back to FAC. Roger (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I reckon Stephen Hawking is some kind of celebrity in England. I am afraid though that the number of people who really know what he did is very limited. --93.73.19.163 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot of work, getting an article to FA status, and quite frankly a big ask. Perhaps if you have some specific issues then members of the project would be happier to help out. Polyamorph (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The article currently contains very little information about his work, probably because most of the recent editing has been led by WikiProject Disability. For specific issues please see the review discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1. (BTW I think calling him "some kind of celebrity in England" is a bit insulting - he is ~~a Nobel Prize winner~~ the recipient of many notable awards and accolades!) Roger (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think he would only be an ordinary professor of general relativity rather than a celebrity were it not for the fact that he has managed to endure a disease which would have long since killed most people. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

He wrote a very popular book about cosmology and other assorted topics. My non-scientist friends may not know much about his work, but they'll remember that he wrote that. Among the scientific community, my understanding is that Hawking radiation and his various other proofs related to black holes are what got him "rock star" status. There's a reason people keep comparing him to Einstein: while he's neither infallible nor unambiguously the best in his field, he's certainly _one of_ the best, and was savvy enough to spin that to get publicity among the wider public. Celebrity status seems justified under those circumstances. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... Look at this. I don't think his academic achievements alone explain that. His Wikipedia bio gets three times as many visits as Brian Cox's and eleven times as many as Neil deGrasse Tyson's or Brian May's, and sixteen times as many as Michio Kaku's, who are the only living people I found in the list before getting tired of looking. And honestly, on academic merits (incl. popular books) alone I don't think he deserves being much more famous than, say, Roger Penrose. (In Italy we have a similar – but even worse – situation with Antonino Zichichi, who's the first living physicist who springs in any non-physicist's mind, but he's out-and-out ridiculed by any other physicist I know. [People tell me “Wow, you're a physicist! Like Zichichi!” all the time believing they're complimenting me, and I feel compelled to stop to explain them they're actually insulting me.] At least Hawking is among the few dozen most academically important living physicists.) ― A. di M. 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluctuation

Hi, guys.

I have recently created a physics wikiproject page in Ukranian wiki. You might wish to add it as an intewiki uk:Вікіпедія:Проект:Фізика. And IMHO you have to make something about fluctuation page. You have Thermal fluctuations and Quantum fluctuations but that does not cover the field, for instance, fluctuations of composition are not there. And Quantum fluctuations IMHO does not meet high Wikipedia standards. Sorry for telling people what they should do. --93.73.19.163 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was surprised to see that fluctuation was just a redirect to conjuncture. I have made it into a disambiguation page. I'm not sure that such disparate subjects should be combined in an article. If you have any specific ideas for Quantum fluctuation, you could discuss them on its talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed to merge Magnetic moment and Magnetic pole strength here. Any objections? =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It has been blanked and re-directed to magnetic moment, as suggested on that talk page. Revert only if you really think its a mistake. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Single-purpose pusher of non-notable fringe

SDLEECY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's sole activity here has been to promote the fringe ideas of one person and it seems highly likely SDLEECY either is that person or is intimately connected. Current problems are at Lorentz covariance, which could definitely benefit from attention for other reasons as well. Not that it should matter, but the fringe paper SDLEECY is fighting to include at the moment was convincingly debunked in the same journal. Tim Shuba (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the relevance to this wikiproject. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic journals on physics can provide source material for articles about physics.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just that they appear to have a very limited supply of journals available which are also of low quality. [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

but issues of Science ranging from 1983 to 2007 might be great [2] − MIRROR (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Physicist uses math to beat traffic ticket

This incident might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

Buzz Blog: Physicist Uses Math to Beat Traffic Ticket

—Wavelength (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't see that it's sufficiently notable.Polyamorph (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but very cool! :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the date in the left margin of the paper: [3]. It's amazing that none of the blog commenters noticed it. Looks like Buzz Blog got pulled a leg. - DVdm (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yang–Mills existence and mass gap

What is arguably the least popular Millenium Question here on the wiki is slowly dying. I've been watching Yang–Mills existence and mass gap anonymously, and we desperately need a expert physicist to help. 1.170.216.93 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merging Convection–diffusion equation + Smoluchowski equation + Generic scalar transport equation

Three articles about the same equation, I plan to merge them. Any comments / suggestions / objections can please go at Talk:Convection–diffusion equation. Thanks! --Steve (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible linkspamming

Virtually all of the contributions of new user Astrohap (talk · contribs) involve adding links to a specific physics organization, which they've also created a page about (via AfC, which tends to rubber-stamp things). This could be legitimate, or it could be well-meant but not sufficiently notable, or it could be linkspam. If someone with more knowledge of Europe's physics organizations could vet the contributions, that would be handy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lorentz force velocimetry

I just patrolled Lorentz force velocimetry, and I couldn't find any secondary sources about it, though primary sources obviously exist and are listed in the article. Does this deserve to be kept? And if not, is there a suitable merge target that anyone might be aware of? I would appreciate advice from people who know their physics. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge help requested - Clearing factor

Could someone who knows Physics please either merge Clearing factor with K-factor (centrifugation) or delete the merge tags? Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology linking

User Aarghdvaark (talk · contribs) has been adding links to Plasma cosmology to several astronomy-related articles. Vetting of the additions would be handy, as I feel that in most cases this gives undue weight to the model. I'm not prepared to put in the time required myself (on semi-sabbatical).

Be warned that plasma cosmology has come up at arbcom in the past (it was one of the main dispute areas that prompted WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, per the "findings of fact" heading on that page). So, there's a nonzero chance of spirited debate occurring. --Christopher Thomas (talk)

This post was cross-posted. The discussion is taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Plasma cosmology linking. Please don't post anything here. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Hamilton's principle and Principle of least action

This was also proposed by JRSpriggs way back in 2007, and it has not even happened all this time. I plan to just do it since they are only two different titles for the same thing (assuming no objections...hopefully not). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no reason to wait, nor should there be any objections. Two articles about the same principle? Pointless... ~~Principle of least action will be moved to the correct name Principle of stationary action leaving a redirect behind "least action", and~~ Hamilton's principle will be transferred to this moved article leaving a redirect there also. And I'll try not to leave behind so many spelling errors/maths typos also (honestly I try, yet fail chaotically, even with a spelling checker...) Here I go... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I should also add - there is an under-developed article Analytical mechanics which can be used as a qualitative description and summary of the principle and its relations to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics etc... leaving the mathematical details to the main articles.F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 16:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The merge is basically done. All thats needed is to clean up, I'm in the process of that now. And yes there was no move since the edit history would be lost. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There are quite some references stating that Hamilton's principle is a form of the principle of least action, so they are not identical. Maupertuis' principle is another principle of least action. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I suppose you all like the merge to be undone (which is easily possible using the undo buttons in the edit history). Shall I change it back now? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought I feel extremely bad and stupid for doing this: the older versions were probably better than now and I have spectacularly spoiled the culminated hard work of past editors who made Principle of least action a historical masterpiece, and Hamilton's principle mathematical and specific... I'll revert back to the separate articles (but will keep the bits of clean up from Hamilton's principle that were transferred to Principle of least action). Apologies for messing things around... anyone can merge/move/revert my changes/do what they like from there and I'll leave them alone (well except for occasional edits perhaps...). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's really not a big deal. Everyone makes mistakes. (Allegedly, even Dirac did from time to time.) :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea... Thanks for your kind comment. =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No bad feelings needed. The merge proposal was there for 5 years and nobody had objections beforehand. And, on the positive side, it points out that these articles are missing clear information (incl. refs) on their relationship to each other. So there are possible improvements to be made on these articles. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Wavelength

There is a discussion posted at this RfC concerning the article Wavelength. The question at issue is whether it is an undue elaboration to add a few sentences to Wavelength pointing out the connection of the wavelength of a spatially periodic function to its Fourier series. Please take a look. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang RfC (Part II)

The latest RfC (administratively closed on 18 March) confirmed that there should be a presence of a brief "religious and philosophical implications" section in the Big Bang article. Which draft should be selected to appear in the section? Please participate in the RfC if you feel called to do so. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Quantum Bayesianism

Would appreciate any knowledgeable Project members taking a look at this newly-created article. The one reference [4] from "Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research "- I find the source somewhat troubling and am not sure it is a reliable source. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at this article, as I would prefer it remain in a superposition of deleted and not deleted.-Dilaton (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put it up for speedy, it looks like a promotion of some unnotable work. That it's marked as being in "the early stages of development" is a strong indicator that the article is purely promotional. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I did not write this purely promotionally. I am not involved with its development at all. It has been developed for the last decade and is taught in physics courses(see removed reference). Relative to other theories, it is new. What criteria is needed for speedy deletion and how does this article meet them?129.2.129.220 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussions usually focus on "criteria for keeping", rather than "criteria for deletion." The most relevant of these are the reliable sourcing policy (WP:RS) and the notabilty guideline (WP:N).

Speedy deletion is a different process, intended to delete pages that are clearly of no merit without going through the usual deletion-discussion process. The criteria for speedy deletion are at WP:SPEEDY. If you believe that the article was tagged for speedy deletion inappropriately, the correct thing to do is to put a {{hangon}} tag under the speedy deletion template on that page, then make a talk-page thread describing why you think the speedy nature of the deletion is inappropriate. The administrator evaluating your argument will either disagree, and delete the page, or agree that it isn't open-and-closed, and suggest that it be taken through the full WP:AFD process where multiple editors make arguments for or against deletion. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy was declined, I've put it up for AfD as being an interpretation with no significant following and no real coverage in RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems the article is slowly filling up with primary sources and needs some serious copyediting if anyone is interested. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Text on calculating electron chemical potential within density functional theory

I'm in the process of deleting some text with mathematical details about how to calculate electron chemical potential within DFT. It is this section here. It is too specialized to keep within the general chemical potential article. If someone knows a good home for it, please feel free to put it there. (I'm also putting this note at Talk:Density functional theory.) Thanks! --Steve (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed at Talk:chemical potential, not here, but I see it has already been changed. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon once more

We could do with a third opinion on Tachyon, details on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlackburne (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 April 2012‎ (UTC)