Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive January 2016

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Physics experiments in glorious HD

Hello everyone, our organization Shared Knowledge in Macedonia made a twenty high-definition videos of experiments conducted to demonstrate various laws and principles of physics. These 20 demonstrations were performed by Prof. Oliver Zajkov at the Physics Institute at the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje. The videos are without narration, so they can be used in every article in every Wikipedia, so finally we can explain some important articles. The experiments are in the process of receiving their proper descriptions in Macedonian and English, but if some of you, know what that means you can use. For every question, please write me --Ehrlich91 (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ehrlich91: I work on en:Wikiversity and am attempting to create a format for assigning students with the task of writing educational content. For example, v:Wright State University Lake Campus/2016-1/Phy1060 is designed for students to improve the quality of multiple choice exams in an astronomy course. They are given space for a journal where they document their contributions, and these contributions count for the final grade. It seems to me that physics courses could do the same thing with twenty high-definition videos of experiments--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: That`s good idea. We have a similar project in one of public high school in Skopje, with which we have a great cooperation and students write variety of articles in the past period. We had just one lesson about Wikipedia in the Physics Institute, but your proposal and idea is better. Thanks for idea. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested, I could construct a table for you and your students just like v:Wright State University Lake Campus/2016-1/Phy1060. It would allow you to monitor your student's efforts from one WV page. I am a 64 year old associate professor who decided to give up on publishing enough papers to get full professor for two reasons: (1) I don't think I could do it, and (2) I am committed to the promotion of open source teaching. Credit card debt in the USA is now exceeded by student loan debt. If Google can make a car that drives Los Angeles traffic, it should be possible for at least half of college education to be automated and provided at almost zero cost to anybody on this planet. The way I put it, there are 1000 things no teacher should never have to teach. These are facts that are easily learned on Wikipedia, and where mastery can be verified by a simple multiple choice test. See v:Quizbank/Index, v:Physics equations, and v:Astronomy college course.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission

Any comments on Draft:Lattice Delay Networks? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Vibration

Could someone please help and reassess the above article ? Thanks Anthere (talk)

I don't have time to proof read it or check the equations. If I were to outline what I believe should go into a junior/senior level college course for physics majors, this is what I would include (I have taught such a course on several occasions). Looks first rate. My experience is that errors and mistakes (if any) would be expected to disappear as physics students read and study the article. Sorry but I am too busy to do more.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Associate Professor of Physics at Wright State Lake Campus.

Ok. Does anyone have the mean to contact/ask physics students to read and study it ? Anthere (talk)

I don't teach the course myself, but if I did, and it was a small class I would make the attempt to publish in the peer-reviewed Wikiversity:First Journal of Science a course requirement. In a large class I would assign a number of such projects and have them work in groups of two or three, with the understanding that I can track their edits and assign grades individually. You should know that I created FJS last weekend and it has yet to referee or even receive one manuscript. The three articles currently posted are "fake" submissions by me to show folks how this journal will work. Are you interested in submitting or refereeing or serving on a very small board of editors? See also the journal's facebook page.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you aware of m:Wikipedia_Scientific_Journal. I contacted the person leading that one. Maybe it makes sense to team on this ? Anthere (talk)

Thanks for the info. I left a message on their talk page.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an online Journal

I really like Wikipedia, but have you ever noticed that Wikipedia articles occasionally lose focus as a committee of editors attempts to balance competing visions? I have, and proceeded to create an online journal that would highlight Wikiversity's best articles and store them in page-protected PDF format so that teachers may refer to them, confident that future edits won't muddy things. Then I almost accidentally discovered that this same journal (hosted on Wikiversity) could also accomplish nearly the same thing on Wikipedia articles.

The journal also credits authors in a byline (by username only). This might be used to flesh out the resume of a young scientist who has yet to make an impression in the established journals in his or her field.

Interested? Leave a message or post your reply below: --Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There were two things that popped into my head immediately when reading this, which you may want to take into consideration. First, it is possible to link directly to an old version of a page, which is basically what your "page-protected PDF format" would do. Second, are you saying any author that had edited the page gets a byline? In your PDF format, there would be no way to show what edits were made by specific individual. You could have someone in the byline that simply copy-edited the page go on to claim they wrote the whole thing. Dunno, just seems like more hassle than it's worth.

Three things, actually. Who's to say one version of a page is "better" than another? Generally speaking, articles reach their best and don't significantly change after that point, often being improved further when new information comes out (especially on physics pages). Primefac (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments show that you are thinking about this.

First, about the "page protection": Yes, a permalink is exactly how it is done, it is the first of three ways each article is presented.

Second, about the "byline", I was referring to the TOC in the image, adjacent to the permalinked version (the red "1"). Note the option for an attribution to author or some sort of "editor-in-chief" next to it (in the journal issue, not the pdf). Many Wikipedia articles would be better reads if they were condensed, and the journal credits the editor who did that. One of many good reasons for condensing and republishing a fully developed WP article is discussed next.

Third, I didn't start this journal because I wanted to start a journal. I need a journal like this for my teaching. I teach college physics, nowadays mostly at the first-year level, and have noticed that virtually all of the information taught for most undergraduate majors is already on Wikipedia, at no cost. What we need, is a way to organize it and to incorporate it into the classroom. Wikibooks and Wikiversity are coming along (slowly), and this journal cross-wikis with little effort. One thing teacher's need is static (i.e. permalinked) course materials. You can't have students changing the textbook the night before an exam! An essential ingredient for education is allowing students to verify compentency. I wrote this quizbank in order to get that process started. It needs work, especially in the Astronomy class where students can just memorize the multiple choice exams. So, I wrote this class roster so that students can get credit for improving the quizzs. This Tuesday they will begin to add individual images so that the roster looks like this and be less likely to accidentally edit each other's pages. (The idea is they post brief statement on the roster next to the small icon, but do their work in a personal log subpage like this). Instructions for improving the quizzes are given here. I also want to give students credit for improving the labs ( like this one). As an incentive, I want a journal where the best reports will be "published" (not every worthwhile report can be placed in WP due to notability and verification issues). These reports and other documents will attribute a student's username only, but most college students don't have distinguished resume's yet. At a job interview they could easily verify the identity if their own username.

Generally ... articles reach their best and don't significantly change after that point. Yes, I agree, and the option to read that latest version is available in the journal entry (red "2"). It's a brilliant layout that I copied from the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. A journal like this might offer a remedy when readers think to themselves, "this would be a much better article if only that section were cut". Your comment that the journal idea "seems like more hassle than it's worth" is quite apt, but the wanna-be editor could easily copy/paste/attribute his so-called "improved" essay into thier own userspace and then submit it to a journal. Yes, these journals are essentially glorified pages of links. They are easy-to-start, but not too easy because we want it to be "a bit of a hassle" (otherwise everybody would write their own journal). If a moderate number of such journals appeared on Wikivesity, people might try to write coherent essays that synthesize what is already on Wikipedia and get them "published" in one of the journals. There would be good journals and there would be stupid ones, and the readers would decide which is which.

Most physicists probably don't care if a WP article lacks overall focus. We welcome a generalization of the divergence theorem into N dimensions, even it is totally irrelevant to the problem at hand. But people in the social sciences like coherent overall structure in their essays (at least that what the profs told me when they graded my essays so harshly). I think the idea of Wikiversity journals to supplement Wikipedia articles is compatible with all the sciences.-Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Physics of Fluids

Dear all, since November there has been quite some editing on the above article. The journal Physics of Fluids (PoF) was published until last year by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) with cooperation of the American Physical Society (APS). Now, the APS is starting its on fluids journal, Physical Review Fluids (PRFluids). The editors-in-chief of PoF are becoming the first editors-in-chief of PRFluids, and PoF got a new editor-in-chief.
In the edits over the past months, references to the old and new situation, with and without the APS and PRFluids, have been added and removed frequently. Fresh input and looks on the matter from other editors is highly appreciated. Thanks, Crowsnest (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly questionable links at Gravitoelectromagnetism

I have removed a few possibly inappropriate external links at Gravitoelectromagnetism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See edit summary of [1]. Links were added by IP 147.91.1.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 176.221.76.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). IPs were warned on user talk pages. Looks fishy to me but I'm not specialised in the subject. Can some have a look at this? Thx. - DVdm (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How convenient, 'looks fishy' and 'not expert in the subject'. Why didn't you discuss before removing and warning about IYO 'possible' fishy links? It appears you distrust Gravity Research Foundation and consider yourself greater expert. What do you have a problem with actually? 178.222.64.31 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Fishy because the two IP's share the same location and because I couldn't find anything about "Douglas Snyder". Not being a recognized authority, he doesn' belong in an External links section per wp:ELNO item 11.

Anyone else heard of this person or of this research? - DVdm (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

you probably checked all the other ELs? no?178.222.64.31 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See wp:OTHERCRAP. If you think that other links are inappropriate, please remove them. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:TASTE 178.222.64.31 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant of course, if you think that other links are inappropriate per wp:ELNO, please remove them. Sorry for the omission. - DVdm (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, 'I think' is not an argument. see WP:TASTE. you have not specified any single from 19 points mentioned in WP:ELNO. not sure why you cited it. 178.222.64.31 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

wp:ELNO #1 and #2: unverifiable research. Anyone can post his research at arxiv. - DVdm (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, I just tried posting something on arxiv, and was unable. Second, you claim Gravity Research Foundation gives awards without reviewing papers. Do you have any other brilliant observation? 178.222.82.146 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Link should be removed per WP:ELNO #1 and #2 and WP:ONEWAY. EL sections should not be used as a repository for tangential fringe theories. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

what makes you think GRF awards tangential fringe theories? 178.223.20.63 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one think that GRF awards tangential fringe theories because I read that paper and saw that it's a tangential fringe theory (in that someone is trying to discuss a new fundamental relationship between gravity and electromagnetism without reconciling or even mentioning anything about quantum electrodynamics and general relativity) ... So if it got an award from GRF then it's fair to conclude that "GRF awards tangential fringe theories". :-P

Arxiv does have a barrier these days but it's a pretty low one, and more specifically the barrier does not require any individual to have approved your paper, or even to have read your paper. So the barrier is not "peer-review" in any sense. This is a bit beside the point, in that this paper could surely get through peer review at some journal, maybe even a respectable journal (peer review can be pretty random). That's why the criterion for wikipedia coverage is not just peer-review but indicators of mainstream acceptance, e.g. coverage in widely-used textbooks. If this paper were peer-reviewed, it still should not be cited in the wikipedia article. --Steve (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, so you are more competent for review than GRF stuff. How modest. 94.189.151.97 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"what makes you think GRF awards tangential fringe theories?" Something surrounded with the words pseudoscience and crack-pot?[2][3][4]... dunno where I got that idea ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah.. can you cite actually notable person? 94.189.151.97 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Thermal Management"

The usage and topic of Thermal Management is under discussion, see talk:Thermal management of electronic devices and systems -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Climate change denial

There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only the article, but its very title, are highly biased. The climate is changing and it has always been changing. However, the effect of human activity on it is very small. And there is no rational reason to think that any human-caused part of climate change will have catastrophic consequences or even to think that the consequences will be harmful rather than helpful. Certainly, the proposals to 'stop climate change' would have catastrophic consequences for the world economy. The hysteria about climate change is just an excuse to increase the power of governments over ordinary people. The so-called science behind it consists of fraudulent 'research' by pseudo-scientists who are the paid minions of power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)