Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 14

This is the archive "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 14". It is for February 2007.

Magnetic Field for WP:AID

Magnetic field has been nominated for WP:AID. You can see its nomination here. -- Iotha 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speed of gravity Evaluation

Can someone have look at this article Speed of gravity? Its been tagged as needing expert attention which I can not give. Phatom87 03:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While I can't provide the expert attention needed, it does seem to need some basic writing clean up, which I'll take a look at. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbharris and Kinetic energy

Does anyone here know how to explain things to Sbharris (talk · contribs)? He has a misconception of what special relativity is all about and is trying to put it into Kinetic energy and probably other articles. The result is a mess which is undoubtedly confusing to anyone who is just trying to learn what kinetic energy is for the first time. It appears to me that he is unable to distinguish between what is relative to the reference frame (and so not invariant) and what is a collective property of matter (rather like Mach's principle). JRSpriggs 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he was also involved in heated discussions about the article on mass. With him, it helps to discuss specifc examples, and perhaps to include an example in the article. I'm not 100% sure what the nature of the disagreement is this time. If it is related to the fact theat kinetic energy ids relative, then there are plenty of examples one can analyze in the article.

E.g., you throw a ball inside a moving train. What is the kinetic energy of the ball to an observer in the train and to an observer at rest outside the train? How much work did the person throwing the ball perform on the ball? How much work did the train perform on the ball? How much energy is released if the ball collides completely inelastically with an object inside the train, and how much if it collides completely inelastically with an object outside the train? Count Iblis 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion to Planck's law discussion

To update people: for two weeks or so, a lengthy discussion was held here on an off-topic, inappropriately-written section by C. Trifle in Planck's law. Following what appeared to be consensus, I have removed the section on The use of Stirling's formula in the theory of black body radiation and placed it on the article's talk page. Dr. Submillimeter 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to voice support for your edit. I agree that the section was quite off-topic. -Joshua Davis 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(2+0)⁽²⁺⁰⁾/2² 0⁰ suggests that the system is either not isolated or, if isolated, has not reached the maximum yet. If this is off-topic, then I abstain. Study the definition of integer and admire the view of the left classic column displaced to the left almost twice as far as expected. --C. Trifle 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Phenomenology (science) into Particle physics phenomenology

Phenomenology (science) does not seem to be the same thing as Particle physics phenomenology. Particle physics phenomenology is currently a stub in reasonably good shape, but Phenomenology (science) is kind of a mish-mash and needs to be pared down and then built up again perhaps from a philosophy of science point of view. Please comment on the merger talk page. Thanks! HEL 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is that the two separate articles should remain. I'm therefore going to remove the merger tags. Thanks! HEL 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

AFD List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs)

The AfD closed with a speedy keep; however, now there are some folks on the talk page that are trying to circumvent this decision by gutting the article, and replacing with a thin "proposed draft". I sense they will try to make a move soon. linas 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rfc on image

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Frame-dragging again: a request for help

This article is now almost entirely about a controversy about a single experiment, which is presented in great detail, with extensive citations of the literature, yet falls somewhat short of NPOV. At the same time, the article contains no mathematical treatment of frame-dragging whatsoever. This is the result of a seemingly endless dispute between anonymous IP editors who edit the article to and fro, centering solely on this dispute.

Among other things, the references are now almost completely devoted to papers that concern the disputed results, with papers like Einstein's early papers on frame-dragging pushed down the list. Any attempts to summarize the dispute, or to give prominence to frame-dragging as a topic over this specific dispute about a single experimental result, are repeatedly deleted by the edit-warring IP editors.

This is not good. It needs fixing. Unfortunately, my knowledge of general relativity is not up to the job, and my earlier attempts at NPOV summarization of this dispute have failed to satisfy either of the combatants, so all I can do it to bring it to the attention of readers here and request their help. -- The Anome 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

NOνA

I have just massively expanded NOνA and would appreciate someone taking a look at it. I took most of the text from a paper I wrote a while ago and so it's hard for me to tell how well it works here. --Strait 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous article! One comment-- in the Physics Goals section you mention things like the near detector before they are defined. Would it make sense to move the Design section before the Physics Goals section, since then readers will have the physical setup in their heads when reading about what it can do? Then again, having the physics goals up front is also good, so I'm not sure if this is a good idea. HEL 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the goals stated first and the experimental design described second. My main comment is that the article could be slightly more pedagogical. Many of the higher-level physical phenomena should be explained at a level that a general audience can understand. For example, the introduction should explain what neutrino oscillation is in plainer terms (although the term "neutrino oscillation" should also be introduced here). It should also explain what the mixing angle, the CP-violating phase δ, and the neutrino mass hierarchy are. This will make the article accessible to a much broader audience. Dr. Submillimeter 13:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your intent, but I don't think we should duplicate too much of the content at neutrino oscillation. Perhaps just a bit of recap, plus some rearranging and judicious links would do the trick?

I have no particular opinion on the order of topics in the article. Please be bold and mess around with it. --Strait 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief summary on neutrino oscillation would be fine. The entire subject does not need to be explained in depth, but the average reader needs to understand what neutrino oscillation is. One or two sentences would be sufficient. The same may be said for the bulleted items in the introduction of NOνA. (I do this all the time in astronomy articles. Otherwise, people would not understand things like surface brightness fluctuations.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice article! (Wish we had more HEP experimental articles)linas 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Voice Phenomenon

I think this article could benefit from the attention of some scientists. It seems that those who believe in the paranormal are saying some somewhat absurd things, such as, science has not studied EVP, therefore it cannot be disproved. They also seem to oppose using words like "claimed" to refer to EVP.-MsHyde 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the article now includes blatantly apologist statements such as "EVP has not been studied by physical scientists, and therefore, research substantiating or disproving the existence of EVP has not been published in physical science peer reviewed literature." Also note that one of the editors making these types of contributions is Tom Butler, director of the AA-EVP, whose association stands to gain from credible views of EVP-- which in itself is a WP:Conflict of interest. --- LuckyLouie 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please come to the article talkpage, perhaps?-MsHyde 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the archives, I have been active there for months, and in the thick of controversy. The article has been a battleground, and the site of several edit wars. It seldom remains stable. Both pro-skeptic and pro-paranormal changes are made frequently. The result is an ongoing mess. Having been worn down by EVP proponents,I am taking a break from that article for a while. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism --- LuckyLouie 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New Universe theory (Big Bang/Rip/Crunch etc)

See [1]. Recently slashdotted, we were lucky that no Wikipedia articles were linked. Summing it up, it combines the theories of Big Crunch and Big Rip, where our Universe will shatter into billions of shards, then collapse into themselves, eventually forming many new universes. I'm bringing this up since I have a hunch that this theory will develop a bit more and we should all be aware of it in case any new information pops up, and becomes notable enough to be put in Wikipedia (maybe it already is?). This theory solves the problem of Entropy (arrow of time). - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I hear of the Big Rip, I wonder if I am the one who is being ripped off. What evidence is there that the pressure could ever be more negative than the density is positive? What bizarre equation of state would give that? In this Rip-Crunch-Bounce scenario, what makes it change from Rip to Crunch or from Crunch to Bounce? JRSpriggs 11:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Precision tests of QED

I've just finished writing this article and would appreciate someone taking a look at it. Also, if anyone here knows about the measurement of the fine structure constant from the quantum Hall effect or the AC Josephson effect, it would be nice if you could take a look at the last section; I am not an expert in that area. Thanks! HEL 17:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vacuum oven

I found this article on Dead-End Pages; it's also Orphaned. It looks like a real subject that you folks can help with, so please take a look. YechielMan 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD The science is settled

Please take a look at this article Count Iblis 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! An article about pattern recognition run awry. Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its more important to work on "stable versions", so that users can have some assurance that they are not looking at vandalized content. Once "stable version" infrastructure is in place, then we can talk about editorial roles. I envision something akin to scientific journal editorial boards: an editorial board, after conducting a review (and making needed corrections), places its "seal of approval" on a given "stable version". linas 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Physics project picture

Currently the logo used for this project is a visualization of the Rutherford model. Pictures like this have ruined the life of many students by making them believe that atoms are really like our solar system, with little spheres going round and round. Because of the simple beauty and intuitive feel of this picture, students just refuse to accept the quantum model of the atom. Even when presented with the mountain of evidence against Bohr's model and the necessity to adopt a quantum mechanical perspective, they continue to ask questions like "But where IS the electron?"

As a result, concepts of physics and chemistry become increasingly alien to them In understanding fundamentally non-classical concepts they keep trying to reconcile with it the classical picture, an effort that has its origins in the Bohr atom which was "quantum on Sundays and classical rest of the week". I think such a misleading picture has no place in the Physics WikiProject, definitely not as our logo. I appeal for its substitution with something more scientific. Loom91 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I you are referring to Image:Stylised Lithium Atom.png, its nucleus is much too large relative to the atom. I strongly suspect that your students would be asking "But where IS the electron?" in any case. It is not just this picture, but the whole conventional way of thinking about matter which leads them to ask that. JRSpriggs 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you / does anyone have any suggestions for a replacement? Mike Peel 09:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a probability density map/constant cumulative probability plot of the dz2 orbital? Loom91 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I like the cartoon-atom logo, because it is near-universally recognizable. Quantum orbitals are less so. But if we are thinking about changing, how about something non-atomic, like the electric field lines between + and - point charges? HEL 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A picture of Mickey Mouse would be even more recognisable. The point is that this picture is physically incorrect according to our current knowledge. I would be in favour of some image from QM because of its profound impact on our understanding of the world. Loom91 08:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important that the picture be recognizable. This is meant to represent physics not show everything about it. If we could find some picture that is nearly as universally recognizable and that is closer to being acturate, that would be fine. However, it is rather hard to display even a small part of physics in a picture. For example the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is possibly the most important thing to understand but that can not be expressed in a easily recognizable picture. I would suggest keeping the current picture but if anyone has a clear picture of some aspect of physics (preferrably dealing with modern physics) than that could certainly be an acceptable alternative. —David618 ^t 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture of a Van de Graaff generator. It is interesting; and most people have seen one; and is recognizably about physics. JRSpriggs 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Van de Graaf generator will do at least on a temporary basis. Anything is better than this. It may be recognisable, but it is not physics. Not only does it reflect the grossly outdated and inaccurate Rutherford model of the atom, it does even that incorrectly because of the large size of the nucleus and electrons relative to the empty spaces. Why on Earth should the physics project be represented by a picture that has nothing to do with physics? Why not use something from astrophysics? How about one of the beautiful photos taken by the Hubble Space Telescope? Say, the Horseshoe nebulla. Loom91 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly advocate for any proposed change in the WikiProject Physics logo to be put up for a vote by the community. HEL 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the stylized atom is a dated and inaccurate logo. How about a one-particle exchange Feynman diagram?

1. It symbolizes the connection between math and physics (Feynman diagrams are precisely, concretely speaking formulas, and not "artists conceptions")
2. Feynman diagrams appear widely, not just in particle physics, but also in condensed matter, and to some degree chemistry and cosmology. Even perturbative expansions in classical mechanics and celestial mechanics can be rendered as Feynman diagrams -- Thus, they are general enough to be symbolic of all physics, not just some physics.
3. They are iconic of the bloom of 20th century physics.

linas 21:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A Feynman diagram would be cool. I just worry that it would confuse non-physicists. Dr. Submillimeter 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Confuse them how? Are you saying that they don't have a pop-culture pedigree that makes them "instantly recognizable"? linas 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Maybe we could try using the cheesy $E=mc^{2}$ (although $E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m_{0}^{2}c^{4}$ is more enlightening). I still like the Feynman idea better, but if people want something recognizable to everyone, then Einstein's energy equation would be better. Dr. Submillimeter 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support $E=mc^{2}$. I think "the public" associates it with physics, whereas a Feynman diagram is a little esoteric (although it would probably look better...)--Falcorian ^(talk) 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a Feynman diagram. $E=mc^{2}$ would be a distant second since, although recognizably physics, it's not visually interesting. So far as I know, the picture is always somewhere near the words "physics", so the picture really doesn't need to be immediately recognizable by a layperson as respresenting physics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Showing physics in action (i.e. experimental physics) is important to show that it is real and not just a branch of mathematics or a game played by self-important people. That is why I think that a picture of Einstein (or some other well-known physicist) with his hair standing on end as he holds his hand on a Van de Graaff generator would be ideal. JRSpriggs 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

actually I am not completely opposed to the current picture... Its a pictogram, not a photograph. Sure, the scale is a little off, but if it were not, we would not be able to see anything. (Has any of you, trying to explain a real atom to students, ever used a picture to scale?) Also, it does provide some insight, namely that the nucleus is in the center of the atom and that the electrons are somewhere outside the nucleus.The current picture may not be to most accurate or precise but it does get the point across: 'we're talking about physics. ' Regardless, if a better alternative presents its self, I would certainly support it. here are some ideas to get started.

In the category 'recognizable '

• a bucky ball, that should look familiar to many people
• how about a water molecule, it kind of looks like mickey mouse
• a picture of einstein
• maybe an apple falling from a tree

In the category 'relevant'

• a picture of a wave (say, a wave produced by a drop of water in a pond). After all, most of quantum mechanics is about waves. Dont we always try to reduce some problem to a harmonic oscillator?
• speaking of harmonic oscillators: how about a pendulum?
• E=mc^2 is indeed pretty fundamental to physics but it is subtle to see where it fits in to the bigger picture.

personally I like the wave idea. --V. 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Feynman once said that if all scientific knowledge were to be lost, the one idea that he would pass on to future generations to start them down the right track again would be "everything is made of atoms." Even a highly stylized representation of an atom contains some pretty important ideas. HEL 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Once you get down to it, I actually have no problem with the atom... --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Also, it does provide some insight, namely that the nucleus is in the center of the atom and that the electrons are somewhere outside the nucleus." This is not strictly true. Electrons with zero orbital angular momentum do not vanish at the nucleus, and this is the reason why electron capture reactions occur. As this shows, the picture gets across some pretty but dangorously wrong ideas. It's not simply lacking in information, it's full of wrong information. A student who aquires the idea that electrons are 'actually' tiny little spheres going round and round will have a very hard time learning any physics or chemistry.

E=mc^2 is not something pictorial and in any case is too much of a cliche. I've no objections to Feynman diagrams, but they are not pretty on the eye. A picture of Einsteine is not good, for physics is not about any person. Bucky balls and water molecules are usually (though somewhat arbitrarily) placed in the realm of chemistry rather than physics. A magnified view of a ripple in a glass of water is pleasing on the eye, signifies the presence of physics in our daily life, is scientifically stimulating and easily available, so it's a good option. But something from cosmology (Horsehead nebulla) is visually more striking. Loom91 08:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Horsehead nebula is more astronomy and astrophysics than cosmology (it's within our galaxy). Also, it would fit Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy or Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects much better than it would physics. Mike Peel 08:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that that throwing out an intuitive picture because the truth is more subtle, would not allow us any pictures. In this particular case let me give two arguments why the pictograph that currently represents the physics project is by no means a disgrace. First off, the electrons *are* actually outside the nucleus for the enormous majority of the time (remember that even though the radial wave function is nonzero at the origin, the probability of finding the electron at a distance d away from the origin goes to 0 for d->0). Second, the Schroedinger model for the atom, with all its fine and hyperfine structure does a spectacular job at calculating spectra and cross sections and all based on the assumption that the electron is a point particle *outside* the charge distribution of the nucleus. So the picture of an electron being a point and outside the nucleus is not so strange. the strange part is that we do not know *where* that point is, but that hardly makes the pictograph "dangerously wrong". By the way, I do still like the ripple idea.--V. 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Galileo's principle of inertia is more subtle than the 'intuitive' Aristotelian view of motion. Does that mean it would be ok to have a picture that reflects the latter? Intuition is often wrong, and it is the job of physics to replace vaugue things like intuition with more concrete calculations. Loom91 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Image:Logo physics.svg which is used on fr: and looks good at small sizes: . _R_ 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to be? Dr. Submillimeter 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a pictorial representation of the truism that when you shoot a granny smith apple with an arrow, it emits sound waves. ;-) HEL 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why has the discussion come to a standstill? Should I open an approval poll for the water wave suggestion? Loom91 07:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As there was no response, I decided to be WP:BOLD and change the picture. If this does not find support, I also advance the following as a suggestion:-

. Loom91 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you forgive me for tweaking your comment, but the picture was too big to fit on my screen. Anville 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new picture. --V. 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category "Contributers to general relativity" was deleted and no one told ME!

The Category:Contributors to general relativity was CFD-ed without anyone telling me. This pulls the rug out from under Charles W. Misner and many other biographical articles about physicists who specialize in General relativity. Quoting from the CFD:

Delete Category:Contributors to general relativity - The inclusion criteria set forth in the category are arbitrary and vague. (According to the category, "the criterion for being listed here is having made a major contribution to the research literature on general relativity, roughly defined as one discussed in well-known textbooks, or featured in major review papers published in mainstream gravitation physics journals.") As a professional astronomer (or astrophysicist), I do not understand why some of these people are listed in this category while others are not. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be a reason to add individuals to the category or subtract individuals from it, but that is NOT a reason to delete the category itself. Where do these biographies go now? Every article should be in some category; and many of these are not stubs, e.g. Kip Thorne (the other categories in which he is located seem much less relevant to me). JRSpriggs 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to reopen the debate you can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Not knowing that a category is going is up for deletion seems to be a recuring problem as they are often under advertised and few have the cats on their watchlists. --Salix alba (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been hovering around WP:CFD for a while now. Compared to many other nominated categories, the category name "Contributor to general relativity" was vague, as it could include anyone who ever addresses general relativity in their work. The textual description in the category was not useful, either, as it set an arbitrary inclusion limit. In particular, it is asking every editor to make a subjective assessment as to what is a "well-known textbook", or what is a "major review paper". Subjective assessments in categorization should be avoided; otherwise we end up with garbage (and I can name many examples). I also failed to see why some people were included in the category (e.g. Harlow Shapley). Given the arbitrary nature of the category's inclusion criteria, it was not worth keeping. If I saw a similar category for another scientific field (e.g. "contributors to galactic dynamics", "contributors to electromagnetic theory", "contributors to the history of Iowa", "contributors to the Indianapolis Colts' Super Bowl victory", etc.), I would also recommend deletion.

The categorization of scientists in general is very lousy. It needs clean-up. Dr. Submillimeter 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, stop that! The categorization of *all* physics articles was really lousy about two years ago, and I recatted thousands (yes, thousands) of articles at the time. It was a major chore. The answer to lousy categorization is to clean up the cats, and not CfD them; cats can be deleted after it becomes clear that they are useless, and have been emptied. At any rate, something controversial like this, and physics related, should have gotten a courtesy notice on this talk page. linas 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not the person who nominated the category for discussion in the first place, so do not blame me for not posting a courtesy notice. I suggesting using something like Peelbot to tag the categories with the WikiProject Physics template. It might compel people to indicate any CfD-related activity here. As for a category on relativity, I suggest creating a category with a simple name ("Relativists"?) and not using arbitrary inclusion criteria. It is also worth looking at the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1 to understand why people voted to delete the category in the first place. Dr. Submillimeter 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that by destroying the category, you-all have also destroyed all the evidence both for and against the category. And the discussion you referenced is grossly inadequate to justify such drastic action: (1) it does not identify who put the category up for deletion or why. (2) the category is lumped together with several other "contributer to" categories which might have been quite different cases. JRSpriggs 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a replacement Category:Relativists. Please add (or delete) people as appropriate. JRSpriggs 07:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly missing topics

I have a list of missing topics related to physics. I've tried to find if there is any similar articles but I'd appreciate is somebody more proficient could have a look at the list. Thank you - Skysmith 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Some were typos, some were simple redirects, some remain red links. linas 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic ray assessment

Cosmic ray is currently assesed as mid importance, but I would have thought that "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia" would be true for this topic. I mean, how many particles were first identified in cosmic rays? Muons, pions, all sorts of strange particles? Probably more than half of all current particle physics experiments deal with cosmic rays, and they're a background to all dark matter searches. I didn't change it (yet) because I am about a biased observer for this topic as is possible. Please let me know if you feel the same way. Flying fish 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic ray should definitely be in a print encyclopedia (it is, actually, in most). HEL 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Stirling engine

I have recently done some work on stirling engine trying to add some information on the stirling cycle itself. Unfortunately im a biochemist and my memory of thermodynamic cycles is failing me... Can anyone help? - Zephyris _Talk 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ATLAS experiment featured article review

ATLAS experiment has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Atomic1609 13:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)