PHYSICSWIKI talk:WikiProject Physics

From PHYSICSWIKI
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk
Taskforces
Members Quality Control
(talk)
Welcome

<span />

WikiProject Physics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on PhysicsWiki. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

LHCb confirms existence of exotic hadrons

The LHCb experiment has confirmed the existence of exotic hadrons - I've added one simple sentence citing Cern's press release, but I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable about particle physics could synthesisze the sources and update the article accordingly - it was only discovered yesterday, so lets keep enwp on top of current scientific developments! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cough cough. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Trace and tensors

Hi!

It seems like information is extremely sparse when it comes to trace and tensors. At least, I haven't been able to find anything useful. Yet, the physics literature is full of expressions like "traceless", "extracting traces", etc. I have an idea about what things mean, but I don't have enough knowledge to write an article or write a section in trace myself. What I'd like to see is information about

  • Trace of general tensors.
  • Dependence on metric.
  • How to "extract trace", i.e. how to separate the trace part and the traceless part.
  • What it is good for, i.e. applications. (I personally have representation theory in mind.)
  • Examples.
  • More?

I'd like to see a component form formulation instead of some category theory style super-general abstract nonsense, but that's me.

Does anyone agree that we need this? Or do we perhaps have it already? YohanN7 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi YohanN7, it may be that some of the information you seek is in Tensor contraction and Partial trace. Tensor contraction is roughly a synonym for tensor trace. --Mark viking (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, some, but far from all I have in mind, appears to be in Tensor contraction. I managed to miss that one. YohanN7 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You might want to look at Talk:Einstein field equations/Archive 1#Trace-free version of EFE. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the first three equations encapsulate the principles of what I am after. Thanks. I have certain linear spaces of (presumably) high rank tensors (no spacetime dependence at this point) that I want to fully reduce into traceless parts. You can see om Mark Vikings talk page what I'm up to. YohanN7 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Elastic recoil detection

Maybe one of you can have a look at this series of edits. They strike me as good-faith edits but they totally mess up the article; I hate to roll them back and it's best if an expert has a look. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it definitely shouldn't be reverted. A new user has massively expanded the article, which previously was little more than a stub. All of the content looks reasonable. The mess can be fixed, but it's more important that we keep the content, and don't drive away new editors. Djr32 (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article has the look of a possible copyvio. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite frankly, the new version is a dreadful mess, well below the standards expected in PhysicsWiki. The sensitivities of new editors do not get precedence over PhysicsWiki's standards of quality. I support reversion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
Quality improves in multiple directions, not all simultaneous. Addition of reasonable, accurate content is one. Writing presentation is another. The latter is a mess right now, but the stub was short and lacked the added content. The stub was also much better written. As a starting point, I will restore all the stub's verbiage and install it as the lead, which gives the article back any virtues that it once had. The stub was much more like a lead than anything else anyway. I'll also try to touch on a couple of other details within the new additions to get at some of the most glaring mess. I'm not a physicist; I just have certain knowledge in the sciences, and this article is mostly out of my depth technically speaking. Watch what I do and make any technical corrections necessary. But I'm usually able to get close enough to the mark to make progress towards recasting content into a better presentation. My commitment to this one has limits, but hopefully I can position it well enough to enable others to step in also. Evensteven (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: I don't think the new editor is a native English-speaker. Evensteven (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that continued discussion be taken over to Talk:Elastic recoil detection#Initial discussion. Evensteven (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To all those who've taken this on: Good work! It's good to see that we can take the work of an enthusiastic and knowledgeable new editor and combine it with WP-expertise to create a much improved article. Djr32 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense article on time correction

User Magravat seems to be putting a lot of work in an article about his own "research" at PhysicsWiki talk:Articles for creation/Time correction. I have no idea how to let him know that it's not going to work. To me it looks like extreme nonsense. Two reviewers already rejected it but I don't think they really knew what it is about. Does someone know how to prevent this user wasting his time here? See also PhysicsWiki talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Article on time correction - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think AfC has a "this is never going to be accepted" option. Has anyone tried posting a message on Magravat's talk page to say just that? Djr32 (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I wouldn't know how to gently break the news... - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've posted this: [1]. You can decide for yourself whether this is gently breaking the news or not... Djr32 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, quite gentle. I hope that this will help, although I have some doubts: after your message (23:46, 28 April 2014) he already made two more edits (00:23, 29 April 2014 and 00:36, 29 April 2014 )... - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Shrug... Well, if s/he really wants to spend time writing about this stuff on WP, I'd rather it was going in an AfC article that will never be accepted rather than adding to the clean-up workload on existing articles. Djr32 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 PhysicsWikins free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the Italian physicist Vito Latora notable?

Is PhysicsWiki talk:Articles for creation/Vito Latora notable? See the existing discussions linked near the top of that page. Note: Some of the references are in Italian. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

have a look at the citations [2]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC).
Isn't that one hell of a lot (excuse my bad French) of citations? I don't know what the "norm" is, but it looks plenty. YohanN7 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
And then some.TR 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The submission is now an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 14/05

User:Meea/Total absorption spectroscopy. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)