Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 3

1182:

avoids. I don't quite know how it avoids this, but simply stating that "the worldline of the observer has no loops" while appearantly true, doesn't help most readers resolve the paradox. Take me, for example: I know enough GR to both mostly understand the article and to be familiar with the basis of KED's complaints. I do not know enough to be able to guess the correct resolution for the paradox (yes, the "no loops" is a good clue). Thus, I fully expect other educated readers to also stumble over this, and protest in a fashion not unlike KED. It would be best if the article tried to deal with this issue in as direct a way as possible, and (among other things) acknowledge that there is a real paradox.

31: 935:. There are many accelerators and I'm thinking more like light sources doesn't fit with beamline or some specific facility. Of course a light source has a beamline, but a beamline is not necessarily just a light source. Also there are end stations that users and researchers use, and they are a beamline, some have many experimental beamlines, that's what they call them usually associated with end users. Sometimes they are called 1980:

introduced. In order to introduce more polymer models, there are a couple other articles I need to either find or make myself, mainly Van Der Waals Gas, liquid mixes, and the difference between long-range and short-range interactions. Maybe also a bit of electrostatics in solution. But I won't engage in all this until I'm done with what I want to finish on those edits I have begun, so that it's not a very short term project.(

1312:

of areas, we just muddle on through: the point is that categories of 1200 are pretty unmanageable, so a split of some sort is a necessity. Doing it between too small a set of sub-categories reduces the utility, as it'll leave still-quite-large categories behind (between about 80 and 200 or so is supposedly about optimal), and hasten the point at which re-

128:

few AfD votes, some activity here at this wikiproject, not many edits elsewhere in Knowledge: namespace. It's hard to predict what would happen, and you may well succeed, especially if you have a strong story, but you may also well fail. So, if you decide to apply, brace yourself for criticism. By the way, I'll support an application. --

2404:

article. Note that for the moment however, such a title such as this one is not really prone to attract a neophyte. Regarding wikibooks, well, I was more thinking of making a very catch-all article, and try to make some (good) vulgarisation about occurences of light diffusion in daily life, then open

1311:

Double-stubbing is pretty commonplace. 3 or 4 is supposedly frowned upon, but I've certainly resorted to it a number of times. Basically, the rule of thumb would be, which category is the most likely to get it expanded by editors "happening by" from related articles? This is an issue in any number

1301:

makes a good point. A lot of these stubs are nice, but what happens when you get into stuff that is a mix of both? E&M and optics, particle physics, sub-atomic physics, and theoretical physics. Due to the nature of overlap in physics, we either have to get really descriptive or really broad. What

1167:

is used loosely in the literature. But what really puzzles me is that KDE cites, not the research literature on warp drives (which I am familiar with) but the sci.physics FAQ entry, which does not even mention local versus global or warp drives, and which I believe is clearly inapplicable to the way

2020:

physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines is an interesting one - but need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx

1288:

I proposed exactly the opposite. I say having more categories makes it easier to find what you want to expand. And relatively few people actually write stubs on physics; for many of us, it will be intuitive to divide the articles by subfield, so it won't be too onerous if the names are obvious. --

601:

since two out of CU's three physics Nobel laureates had appointments there. It is however a smaller institution than it might sound in press releases (more like a second physics department and of about the same size, the only difference being that it's jointly run). I would be happy to expand such

113:

I'm not sure why such an in-house admin is needed. I assume you know that admins are not supposed to deal with stuff in which they are themselves involved? Did anything come up where you wished you had such an admin? I think it should be sufficient to have some admins who know enough physics and are

1199:

If you enjoy dispute resolution, and are also very knowledgable in quantum mechanics, particularly quantum measurement, then please note the dispute above, and help out. If you are not good at quantum, or like to shoot off snide remarks, then please do NOT "help out"; we don't need the waters to be

1181:

Hi CH, I read through the debate, and it is an interesting one. Here's the problem as I see it: KED is echoing a viewpoint that is commonly taught in introductory GR courses: that superluminal travel implies time travel. Thus, there is an obvious, appearant paradox that the Albacurrie drive somehow

1965:

in fact I am confused: I redid the calculation, and finally the elasticity associated to the ideal chain seems to be... linear. I'll have to take a look into a couple of books tonight and see the truth on this subject, and check my formulas... Maybe non-linear elasticity arises only in models that

1337:

I personally think we can safely add at least particle, condensed matter, some sort of optics or e&m, and some sort of quantum stub. That would pull maybe 850 stubs out of the ~1200 marked physics-stub, a good chunk. I agree with linas that too many subcategories won't work terribly well. —

631:

feels there is a distinction between these two terms, and he claims that 'Hubble flow' is a standard term in cosmology with a meaning distinct from 'Hubble expansion' (at least, if I understand his comments correctly). I have requested a citation to a standard cosmology textbook. Can anyone here

494:

I slapped it with a request for the sources to be cited. If they don't get cited soon, and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything reputable, we'd be justified in pruning the article to just the facts and/or putting it in "fictional weapons" or some such category. There's another article,

127:

As for you (SCZenz) applying for adminship: Did you look through the recent applications to see which are successful and which are not? Looking at your contributions, I am not convinced that your application would pass: little over 1000 edits, some pictures, getting the list of particles featured,

2313:

I did a short research myself, so that we have 3 relevant physics articles so far, and a general article. The physics ones look quite good actually, and relatively simple as far as concepts are concerned, but I think their jargon is technical enough to repel non-physicists. They are of course far

910:

in accelerator physics, whereas it doesn't really mean anything more commonly except "something that makes light," so you could make an article with that title, with an italicized bit at the top linking to light. There's probably other ways to title it too, like "X-ray source," and they may even

150:

It also seems like they are looking for something specific in an editor, which seems to involve a lot of breadth and specific checkmarks. I'm mostly interested in improving physics articles, and being able to deal with vandals more directly would help with that. But I would have to, as you say,

2425:

in physics is not just relevant to mechanics, but also to diffusion, which can be dynamic and steady-state. I edited the article that disambiguates between music and physics, however that is probably not very satisfactorly. Please let me know here how you edit it if you edit it, I need it for my

1979:

OK I looked in my books, and it looks like I had the calculation right. So that it means I was wrong in thinking non-linear elasticity would be an emergent property of the ideal chain model. Which in turn means my need for non-linear elasticity as an article until new types of polymer models are

992:

While we're at it, are accelerators notable in themselves (i.e., we should include as many as time and knowledge permit), or should we develop some criteria for determining which are notable and which are not? Or perhaps simply write pages for those that are referenced in articles as the need

364:, and so forth appear to be pure crank terms unknown to physics. The author alleges that Stacknikov has a placque in Red Square. If true, the article needs to be rewritten to accurately portray his lack of scientific notability. If not, the article probably should be nominated for deletion. 2339:

A Bragg crystal is made up of charged colloids and diffracts in the visible range (rather than X-ray for molecular crystals). The crystalline structure is maintained by electrostatic repulsion, but, if you add some salt into the solution, the repulsion between the colloids is screened and the

959:

My point is not to get critical in the beamline article and mention specific accelerators in the article, like light sources, a mention of end stations and or target article, and maybe an article on synchrotrons, storage rings, (accumulator rings of which SNS has), experimental beamlines that

867:

Do you think maybe we should start a new page on light sources, since beamline is about beamlines, like components on a beam pipe? Maybe include a seperate topic like the end of an accelerator, END STATIONS? Experimental beamlines, as I think that is what you are saying, experimental facility

261:

It looks nice! I think that it contains most of the relevant information about the detector. You should now concentrate on making it readable to everyone :). Perhaps you could explain a bit about particle accelerators etc. in the introduction so that people who know nothing about physics can

2368:, perhaps with links there from the relevant related articles here. Somehow "Why" and "How" just don't seem encyclopedic to me, unlike "Who," "What," "When" and "Where." I do like the idea in general though - the article(s) sounds good, it's just a question of where it belongs. -- 2158:

The idea would be to find a key concept of linguistics that they have yet to cover, start an article named after this concept, and give it a physics or pseudo-physics definition, categorizing all that in physics of course. Then, we keep the article in hostage until they give us back

275:

I agree, although it does raise the question: how much should an article duplicate material from other articles in order to be a comprehensive whole? I guess I'll assume the answer is "as little as possible while still giving non-physicists a clue as to what's going on". --

1461:, and to discuss it on the talk page if he disagreed with my evaluation of the material as original research; I also warned him that further edits without discussion would be considered vandalism. So, if he edits it again, please treat them as exactly that. -- 2468:

Thanks for moving this part Oleg. SCZ, yes I did click on "watch," but then forgot that detail when I wrote here (I'm still familiarizing with the whole thing, hence I prefer to mention if I edit a disambiguation article). (Unsigigned, 19:43, 29 October 2005

102:

Hi all. I've been thinking about applying for admin, so that we'd have somebody who's active in the wikiproject and understands the issues that come up who's able to deal with pesky administrative stuff, vandalism, etc. directly. Any thoughts? --

2154:

But it won't be as easy as they thought 'cause I have a strategy which hopefully will let us regain what is ours... I just need to design the specifics, which should require a small amount of documentation on linguistics (maybe you can help me):

1387:

as a redirect because I felt it was a bit inconvenient to have to remember the capital p. Also, I've noticed that computational chemistry is a subcategory of computational physics, which doesn't feel right to me. Anyone else share this opinion?

434:

One general comment about the handling of these articles. As I understand it, claims that nobody seems to have heard of do not have to be "debunked." If they're impossible to verify, that's sufficient to chuck the article. Is that right? --

1685:

You may be right about the mess, and about the need to organize things. However, for myself, I am truly weary in general of grand attempts at integrating things. That rather often results in incomprihensible articles to anybody except the

730:

about the section that we should keep an eye on. William was absolutely right to have a big issue with the original editor's assumption that wave phenomena require a medium in all cases. I'm also rather concerned about the notion that

977:? I'm cool with that; I'd also be cool with a name change for the section to make it less specific, with addition of other examples of notable beamlines. In terms of categorization, what would you say the differences are between 151:

have a "strong story"--and I'll have to think about whether I feel like explaining, say, just how much effort goes into getting some of the pictures I've put up. You make this sound disturbingly similar to applying for college.

1904:), but on the other hand it is perfectly possible that someone would come searching for info about thermodynamics without caring the least about statistical mechanics (for example a chemist, or a 1st year university student). 293:

Yes, this isn't very easy. It's actually not that different when you write up results for a scientific paper. You need to write something in the introduction even though people could look most of it up in the refs. B.t.w.

563:, and adding a section on coherence in quantum optics. At the moment it doesn't describe any of the things Roy Glauber figured out. I don't have time to do it at the moment, but it would make a good undergrad project. 345: 918:. If they're experiments done at a light source, they'd be put on whatever field (often chemistry or biology) the experiment was in. If they're about the apparatus for holding such experiments, they'd probably go in 391: 1674:

There is already an unimaginable mess of articles about tensors. It's really depressing/daunting. Three more don't even make much difference until someone has a grand vision about how to organize/merge this stuff.

534:." Anyone knowledgable enough to start the missing article? I could probably work on the bios once I have time, but I can't begin to guess what OFCT is or does, or whether it even merits an article of its own. -- 2013: 1999: 819: 785: 767: 205:

I think we should all support SCZenz's application. If we want to have more expert people becoming more involved in wikipedia, then we can't say: "You only have 1000 edits on your name, so you are not qualified".

1085: 146:

Hmm. The only times anyone has discussed needing an admin with me, it always involved bringing someone in from the outside the wikiproject. But it would seem that I was wrong about the situation, to some

1899:

being a new user I can't tell if something had been scheduled regarding this merge. All I can say is that I see pros and cons for such merging. On the one hand, the two theories are certainly linked (see

1726:

Hey, this is a collaborative project. Articles written by a single person or without a discussion page are inferior. I'm planning to check back on those articles when someone else has taken a go at them.

1439:. I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so hopefully people won't be too hard on me there. And yes, I freely admit to being obsessed with writing a good article about my own experiment.. ;) -- 544:

It's not exactly what I do, but since Hall's in my department it'd probably be easy to find out enough to get a start. Might take a bit though since I've got laser time now on top of lab visitors. —

1218:. It certainly seems needed, given that there are over 1200 at present. If anyone has an idea of the optimal way of doing this, and especially, roughly how many stubs would be involved in each... 1006:

Most accelerators are huge, expensive, and have some unique physics goal in mind. I'm not aware of any problem with non-notable ones being written up. Some of the early smallish ones (e.g. before

1110: 2489: 2250:

That's my idea for the title of an article that would strive to make it to featured article standard. Since I'm not able to do it all by myself, I just thought I'd come here to share the idea.

885: 1279:

Too many subcats make it hard to remember, and so people won't use them. Even the above are a bit much; suggest merging particle and subatomic into one, and merge optics and e&m into one.

1828: 1086: 1069: 154:

Thanks for your comments; this is why I asked about this here first. Unless other people have something more encouraging to say, I may think about this again when I have more experience. --

892:, with articles for the notable ones. Being relatively new to the field and a non-physicist, I'm not really sure what the best solution would be here; I just know that the edits I did on 960:

research users use at the end of a beamline as an end product. That's it from here, Coffee does sound good! Be back in a few hours I value opinions Regards, 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2278:

topics related to some corollary questions (see below about these): colloids (milk), colloids and electrostatics in solution (Bragg crystal), incidence angle of light on a surface etc.

709:

I reverted. Actually, it seems that StuRat was trying to clean up someone-elses contribution. However, the additino was as clear as mud and did not seem to add anything, so I deleted.

1080: 531: 1784:

Of course! We need to coordinate something for that. I'll start digging for easy stuff (featured picture, news, etc), but I think we should be in concurrance on whatever we do. --

1653: 766:, and contain the accelerator, detector, telescope, and "experimental concepts" categories currently at the top of particle physics. A possible variation would be to get rid of 1436: 1070: 2340:

crystalline structure is replaced by a solution of diffusing colloids. The diffraction fringes vanish, and the solution takes a milky appearance because of light diffusion.

2006: 1990: 1913:

Exactly. I would leave both, but it would be nice to have one as a subcat inside another, to relate them somehow, or both of them in each other, but that would make a loop.

1215: 2060: 179:

to those they have not run into, on the basis that the person must not be active enough; it's one of those things where everyone has their own very distinctive critera. —

1645: 1628: 651:. Worldtraveller insists that "Hubble flow" is the standard term in cosmology rather than "Hubble expansion", but of two standard textbooks I consulted, neither Peebles, 2449: 2409: 2213: 2192: 2094: 1970: 1960: 1917: 1908: 2479: 2197:

Ah OK. I guess taking liguistic concepts in hostage wouldn't be too efficient then... Anyway, it's not that I care about the content, which was largely redundant with

2181: 2049: 2492:

citing his own cranky website. (Note that the cited website 195.24.39.97 and the IP address of the anon user 212.21.138.161 both are registered in Sofia, Bulgaria.)

2387: 2081: 700: 576:

That's only half the award so it wouldn't cover Hall and Hänsch's work on using frequency combs to make high accuracy measurements. So it's a good start on half. —

2110: 1361: 966:

Note: I took the liberty of modifying the format of the previous replies to make the thread easier to follow; hope no one minds, and if you do, well, change it back!

2072: 1893: 1864: 1797: 1406: 1346: 1128: 774: 1392: 1274: 1168:

that warp drive spacetimes achieve effective superluminal travel. (See my comments in the talk page.) Any feedback/assistance/clarification would be welcome! ---

1035: 2143:, so I wrote a bit about intensive in physics in the linguistics article, and some linguist said there was no need for what I wrote, as it was already covered in 2463: 2343: 1953: 1755: 1731: 1717: 320: 1679: 943:

lines where E = experimental line with a number of the eperiment. A lot of facilities use this to tag a beamline to an experiment at the end of the accelerator.

468:

might need to be tied into our project in the process of wikification, until I started to read it. IANAP, but it looks largely like hooey to me, either of the

255: 2357: 1815: 1806: 1607: 1598: 1552: 1479: 1144: 584: 428: 2405:

on Bragg crystals. Something less technical than what I usually write, and with no formula, just explanations, and if possible a tone that sustains curiosity.

2167: 1660: 1635: 1585: 950:. More specifically, the typical components associated to an accelerator, ion chambers, vacuum stuff, diagnostic components, magnets, Etc. As I stated on the 834: 453: 187: 158: 137: 2372: 1855: 1846: 1837: 1788: 1443: 792:, and then RfDing the redirect once we clean up the article categories? (Yeah, I suppose that's me volunteering to do the edits - Mongo like grunt work.) -- 628: 417: 327: 302: 280: 266: 230: 209: 1306: 1283: 1265: 813: 689: 610: 552: 2039: 1320: 666: 1574: 749: 403: 1984: 1946: 1186: 2430: 2033: 1502:

articles? Two of these terms mean the same thing, but the articles disagree about which. I don't know the answer and see conflicting uses online. —

1293: 739: 713: 567: 1534: 1021: 926: 796: 503: 352:. I believe this is outright crankery; I can't find any record of even an actual publication. The biography listed by the author of these articles, 1992: 1049: 880:) in that sense who wouldn't already know what one is, so I don't think it's the most useful title; at the same time, I have no counter-suggestion. 997: 368: 353: 1204: 1540: 242: 2240: 1425: 1373: 2282:

And, the question brings many corrolary questions, which can be answered by using the same concepts of physics, and by introducing some other:

881: 226:

I think I can wait a bit. I'm going to try out more general wikipedia-wide maintenence crap and see how I like it, then maybe apply later. --

1691:

As such, if such an attempt is taken, please use caution, ask for lots of advice, and don't be too ambitious. (And do a good job if started.)

1378: 1117: 89: 1357:

Two other ideas, although I'm not sure how usefull they would be for stubs: biophysics (or "biological physics") and computational physics.

488: 1876: 1465: 1430: 1175: 1064: 413: 349: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2271:

by a set of randomly distributed coherent light sources (as a remark I don't think this phenemenon is the same as the one described under

1603:

Possibly not, although the lists in them could get quite lengthy. I cleaned them up a bit, although I won't object to a merge, of course.

1506: 1649: 1222: 388:

I have AfD'd them both. If he appears in red square, it's unverifiable without google appearences or the book actually existing. See:

2229: 1778: 1160: 396: 172: 107: 2292:

Why is the sky bluer near the poles than in temperate regions and bluer in temperate regions than near the equator (in full daylight)?

2275:, though I'm not sure), direct light (sun) vs diffuse light (sky), quantitative differences in how different wavelengths are diffused. 735:(!) should be the first example of wave-particle duality--they're not even mentioned in the introductory QM courses I'm aware of. -- 696:

I don't think it's wrong, but it's kind of written like a textbook rather than an article, which may not be good. Other thoughts? --

602:

an article, but feel divided about whether it's really necessary so I'm not going to give into my departmental pride and start it. —

986: 639: 900: 382: 914:

How the articles you mention get categorized would depend quite a bit. If they're pieces of the accelerator, they'd get put under

439: 1524: 1705: 1641: 1545: 1034:

from being a redirect, and then see who yells. If it turns out that everyone hates you for this, then you can always move it to

954:

discussion, there are all sorts of accelerators out there including ion implanter accelerators. They have a beam line too! See:

685:. They look distinctly dodgy and naive to me, but rather than just remove them I thought I'd be tactful and sensitive for once. 2233: 823: 789: 755: 538: 2115: 889: 2477: 2308: 2298:

Why is milk milky? (with the fun experiment of a light source appearing red when you use a thin layer of milk as a filter)

2264:

light wavelengths, their relation to color, and their superposition in white light, the visible light spectrum of the sun

1316:-stubbing is required, after the new categories have also grown. Though naturally, coherence of the topic is crucial. 1192: 982: 47: 17: 2139:, and they won't give it back! At least I assume they won't, because at some point I didn't know of the existence of 1889:. Is there a distinction between the two cats here on Knowledge, or should they be merged or one put inside another? 1811:

I added it to the scope and goals stuff on the project page. Someone elaborate please, I need to go to work now! :D

2260:

Answering it can be done with very few formulas, and offers the opportunity to discuss a few concepts of physics:

251:. My question is: how close is the article, currently, to being worthy to put up for featured article status? -- 1412: 1925: 1886: 1399: 1092:

We've got someone creating sketchy articles on this theory and its creators. I first marked a few of the bios

919: 915: 872:

I've moved it here because I think it needs wider discussion among experts. I'm not sure anyone would look up

1934:. It is important for me as I will soon start editing about the (entropy-driven) force between the tips of an 1453:

I need help to avoid running afoul of the 3RR. There's an anon repeatedly adding psuedoscientific material to

2437: 2417: 1384: 759: 674: 459: 1257:

So far we've only gotten a handfull of opinions on this, so a few more voices would probably be helpful. —

2245: 477: 978: 1010:) might be put together in an article on early accelerator history, which I hope someone writes someday. 1448: 1209: 1200:

stirred any further. Its already a rather long battle. P.S. yes, its another Carl Hewitt intervention.

1193: 727: 38: 2445: 2198: 1751: 1713: 1578: 1152: 763: 686: 481: 1793:

Yes, it has lacked attention. I guess it's one of the things we should include in this wikiproject.

1040: 936: 247:

I just went to what I would describe as "a lot" of effort to get some decent pictures to illustrate

2221: 2012:

We could use some knowledgeable opinions on this article - as I mention in the discussion on the [[

1860:

Exactly, this wikiproject can serve as a "catalizer" and place for supporting discussions, though.

248: 1548:

is a new stub, which I'm thinking about pointing up for deletion. Does anyone want to salvage it?

922:. But in any case, the ideas scott mentions are all fine for separate articles in my opinion. -- 1882: 1517: 830:

to put basic ideas about how one actually does experiments, but it's fine with me either way. --

530:"for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the 420:, too, as its source and copyright status would be unknown, not to mention becoming orphaned. — 1708:, articles which you started? (Never mind the latter though, it was finished by somebody else.) 2178: 1765: 1746:

tag is out of those articles, we can talk about starting a new project — dealing with tensors.

1485: 1343: 1262: 1125: 1107: 810: 607: 581: 549: 496: 450: 425: 184: 133: 97: 1802:

Yes, if not us then who? I'm happy to help, and I think we should definitely add it here. --

2397: 2380: 2323: 2132: 1701: 844: 682: 675: 2441: 2427: 2406: 2210: 2164: 2106:

We just need a hierarchy such that science links to the method and physics etc. portals. --

2078: 1981: 1967: 1943: 1905: 1747: 1709: 1697: 955: 932: 754:

Looking at the particle physics categories, it occurs to me we might benefit from having a

465: 115: 1966:

have interactions between monomers, or maybe my formula is wrong. I'll keep you informed.(

527: 519: 8: 1901: 1511: 616: 560: 416:

is deleted on the basis of being crank we should make sure the closing admin gets rid of

175:

to evaluate your appeal to strangers. To give you an idea, I've seen people always vote

122:

is also an admin who knows quite some physics, and you can always try to ask me for help.

2027: 1938:, which will lead me right to introducing non-linear elasticity of polymeric materials ( 2384: 2237: 2206: 2189: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2125: 2091: 2057: 1957: 1914: 1890: 1861: 1812: 1794: 1740: 1657: 1604: 1582: 1564: 1476: 1403: 1358: 781: 339: 2314:

from featured article standard. Feel free to add links to articles you feel relevant.

2333: 2174: 2147:(which btw was wrong, what I wrote had a different meaning from what you can find in 1931: 1499: 1495: 1339: 1258: 1172: 1153: 1141: 1121: 1103: 806: 663: 636: 603: 594: 577: 545: 484:. Any of the more knowledgable denizens care to have a look, and perhaps a laugh? -- 473: 446: 421: 379: 180: 129: 2257:

can feel concerned about, whatever his sex, age, religion, cultural background etc.

1942:

is AFAIK the simplest model that has non-linear elasticity as an emergent property)

2272: 2069: 1852: 1834: 1785: 1389: 1370: 1303: 1271: 1061: 856: 648: 624: 299: 263: 206: 973:, if I'm following you correctly, should we move the list of light sources out of 2000:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

1137:

I nominated the other one since Googling failed to suggest this person exists.---

1096: 946:

Again, I'm thinking a conventional beamline with components on them for the Wiki

392:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Stachnikov's_triflexian_quantum_multiplex_theorem

372: 2295:

Why do white clouds appear white during daytime, and white or red during sunset?

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2136: 2053: 2045: 1771: 1503: 1491: 860: 647:

This survived the AfD, but I still think the whole thing should be merged with

2023: 659:

even list "Hubble flow" in their index! This whole thing is very strange.---

1458: 896:

are only a stop-gap - so have some discussion while I go get some coffee. --

852: 802: 509: 469: 2304:

Why does a Bragg crystal become milky in appearance if you add salt into it?

1516:

Thought you fellow physics geeks would be among the few to get the humor of

499:, that might be related and provide a guide for how to handle this one. -- 1169: 1138: 1031: 1014: 873: 845: 660: 633: 564: 523: 376: 1930:

Anyone knows where the subject is mentioned? I just found something about

1163:, which may be the result of some genuine misunderstanding since the term 2460: 2354: 2268: 2107: 2077:

Users will get confused with that many portals: we need a portals portal.

1939: 1935: 1843: 1803: 1775: 1728: 1676: 1595: 1531: 1462: 1440: 1422: 1290: 1077: 1057: 1018: 970: 940: 923: 831: 771: 736: 697: 617: 515: 500: 436: 400: 324: 277: 252: 227: 155: 104: 2495:

Current status: I have initiated an AfD ---16:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

2328: 2188:

That was me who removed the physics content, and I'm not a linguist :)

2151:). So, not only they won't give it back, but they won't even share it! 2003: 1632: 1549: 1298: 1280: 1201: 1183: 1046: 710: 319:

I've added some background information, and put it up for peer review:

119: 2068:

The science portal should contain links to all these other portals :)

1398:

It set up those categories. You're right, it should have been only in

1087:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory

2369: 2365: 2202: 2160: 2121: 1851:... Yes. I have no idea what I was thinking. Let's get to it then? -- 1521: 1317: 1219: 994: 897: 793: 535: 485: 114:

willing to help when asked. One of the participants of this project (

726:

I agree, after looking further. There's now some kind of "vote" on

2422: 2048:, and I noticed there is a new portal, started somewhere in May, a 2016:- I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical 1472: 1454: 1418: 974: 951: 947: 893: 295: 1631:? I don't see any potential for it being anything more than that. 2396:

Thanks for your comments and for the links. I've added a link to

2223: 801:

You could save yourself a lot of edits by requesting the move at

931:

Your point is valid, and understood. Light souces are a type of

1591: 1570: 1560: 2482: 1569:

Or wait... it seems like part of a larger plan for organizing

1437:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/A_Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS

1071:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum Mechanics - simplified

171:

If you haven't checked it out yet, you might be interested in

1228:

So far a wide range of possible new stubs has been proposed:

877: 298:

which I started some time ago, suffers from the same problem.

1774:...? It hasn't been updated in a long time. Should we? -- 1270:

How about low temperature, particle, and nuclear physics? --

2173:

Eh, I never liked adjectives as article titles anyways. —

1417:

Hello physics people, I've just asked for a peer review of

1007: 598: 2401: 2350: 2318: 770:

and put those articles directly in it. Any thoughts? --

681:

Can a few people take a look at StuRat's recent edits to

2455:

You could put it on your watch list, so you'll see how

1369:

Perhaps we also need a category "mathematical physics".

321:

Knowledge:Peer review/A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS/archive1

1159:

I seem to be involved in an edit war with a new user,

2364:

I dunno. To me, that sounds more like it belongs in

1520:(created as a user page for easy future deletion). -- 1214:

A split of physics-stubs category has been proposed

784:- I like it. Could we effect this simply by moving 1696:By the way MarSch, do you have any plans to finish 1575:

Application of tensor theory in engineering science

623:I feel this stub is redundant, being superseded by 1842:Isn't there a talk page for the portal itself? -- 1831:specifically for discussion regarding the portal? 1421:. Perhaps some of you would like to take a look.-- 818:Sounds like a plan, if nobody disagrees. I guess 2201:, but it did set a precedent for us reconquering 1993:Philosophical interpretation of classical physics 346:Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem 1475:to my watchlist, so I'll be looking out for it. 262:understand a bit better what this is all about. 2301:Why are so many gels and creams milky in color? 1881:I notice that alot of the same articles are in 820:Category:Experimental particle physics concepts 786:Category:Experimental particle physics concepts 768:Category:Experimental particle physics concepts 476:flavors, perhaps a bit of both, spurred by old 2286:Why is the day sun yellow, and the sunset red? 2488:This "anon" user has added a useless article 1952:I would just go ahead and create the page on 1118:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Peter Vincent 2040:Scientific method portal, so many portals... 1640:I guess that's a good idea. So if we rename 826:--I originally created it because there was 1650:Application of tensor theory in engineering 750:New experimental particle physics category? 2349:Great idea! Perhaps we could even use the 397:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Stachnikov 173:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Standards 2044:I'm just starting to get to know our own 1076:Up for deletion. Maybe worth a look. -- 1039: 987:Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory 851:Presumably in response to my comments on 371:added approving mention of Stachnikov to 356:, is not listed on Amazon, and the terms 1013:The list of light sources should be in 822:doesn't really need to be separate from 480:stories and the B.E.A.R report cited in 1706:eigenvalue, eigenvector, and eigenspace 1642:Application of tensor theory in physics 1590:Is there a reason not to put it all in 1546:Application of tensor theory in physics 1541:Application of tensor theory in physics 1116:Someone's nominated one of the bios at 243:My latest silly idea (featured article) 14: 2344:Discussion of blue sky article project 1581:. I'll try to make it into something. 824:Category:Experimental particle physics 790:Category:Experimental particle physics 756:Category:Experimental particle physics 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2490:A_5_minutes_explanation_of_Relativity 1379:Redirects and computational chemistry 886:Category:Particle physics experiments 2289:Why is the sea blue (or blue-green)? 1877:Thermodynamics & Stat. Mechanics 1431:Featured article candidacy for ATLAS 1302:do we do when there's an overlap? -- 890:Category:Particle physics facilities 25: 2253:The question struck me as one that 2205:. Although if the majority prefers 2124:from us! We are condemned to using 2002:is nominated as original research. 597:has proposed we need an article on 23: 1457:. I have now asked him to review 1102:, but put this one up for AfD. — 1030:Do it. You can even try to hijack 983:Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 24: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics 2504: 859:left the following comment on my 2056:, of course. So many portals... 653:Principles of Physcial Cosmology 559:A good start would be rewriting 532:optical frequency comb technique 29: 2379:There is already an article on 2232:has started strange discussion 993:becomes apparent? Thoughts? -- 876:(which is presently a redir to 1887:Category:Statistical mechanics 1654:List of tensors in engineering 1563:couldn't include in one line. 1400:Category:Computational science 920:Category:particle accelerators 916:Category:particle accelerators 884:sounds more like it should be 256:23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 231:23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 210:22:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 188:21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 159:21:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 138:20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 118:) was recently made an admin, 108:17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 13: 1: 2438:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 1385:Knowledge:Wikiproject_Physics 760:Category:Experimental physics 2464:02:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 2450:02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 2431:02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 2410:20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2388:19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2373:18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2358:13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2241:06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2214:19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2193:17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2182:16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2168:15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2116:Those damned wiki linguists! 2111:13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2095:17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2082:15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2073:14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2061:12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2034:10:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 2007:14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1985:19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1971:15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1961:13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1947:09:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1918:13:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1909:09:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1894:08:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1865:12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 1856:04:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 1847:01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 1838:01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 1816:08:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1807:08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1798:08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1789:02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1779:07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1756:10:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1732:09:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1718:11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1680:10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1661:12:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 1636:13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 1608:07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1599:07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1586:07:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1567:07:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1553:00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1535:10:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1525:23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 1507:19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 1480:23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 1466:21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 1444:22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 1426:11:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 1407:06:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 1393:00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 1374:13:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1362:09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1347:02:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1321:02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1307:00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1294:00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1284:00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1275:00:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 1266:05:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1223:04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1205:00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1187:00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1176:03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1145:03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1129:18:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1111:17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1081:01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1065:00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1056:There is even an article on 1050:00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1022:01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 998:19:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 927:18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 901:16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 835:21:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 814:18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 797:17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 775:16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 667:03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 7: 2459:edits it automatically. -- 1648:then should we rename also 979:Stanford Linear Accelerator 740:17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC) 714:22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 701:21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 690:14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 640:01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 611:23:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 585:23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 568:23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 553:22:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 539:21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 504:22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 489:21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 454:16:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 440:07:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 429:07:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 404:05:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 383:03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 328:00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 303:00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 281:00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 267:00:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 10: 2509: 2267:Light diffusion, which is 2131:Intensive is important in 1646:List of tensors in phsycis 1629:List of tensors in physics 1194:Talk:Quantum indeterminacy 728:Talk:Wave-particle duality 2209:, then ther's no point... 2199:thermodynamic equilibrium 1627:How about renaming it ti 1579:Glossary of tensor theory 764:Category:Particle physics 2050:Scientific Method Portal 1252:condensed matter physics 249:A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS 1883:Category:Thermodynamics 1413:peer review of manifold 937:experimental beam lines 1926:Non-linear elasticity? 1770:Is anyone maintaining 1036:light source (physics) 911:have articles already. 870: 497:Directed-energy weapon 445:Makes sense to me. — 2418:Disambiguation needed 2398:diffuse sky radiation 2381:diffuse sky radiation 2324:diffuse sky radiation 2133:statistical mechanics 1954:non-linear elasticity 1827:Should we start up a 1702:differential manifold 865: 683:Wave-particle duality 676:Wave-particle duality 460:Particle beam weapon? 375:, which I deleted.--- 42:of past discussions. 2353:article for this. -- 2246:Why is the sky blue? 2052:. There is also the 1698:topological manifold 1490:Can someone fix the 1383:First off, I set up 933:Particle accelerator 868:beamlines for users? 687:William M. Connolley 657:Cosmological Physics 466:Particle beam weapon 464:I was thinking that 418:Image:Stachnikov.jpg 116:User:Oleg Alexandrov 1902:thermodynamic limit 1234:theoretical physics 632:shed any light? --- 629:User:Worldtraveller 561:coherence (physics) 2207:intensive quantity 2149:intensive quantity 2145:intensive quantity 2141:intensive quantity 2126:intensive quantity 1832: 1449:Electron vandalism 1240:sub-atomic physics 1210:Physics-stub split 906:Light source is a 758:. It would be in 2334:Bragg diffraction 2309:Existing articles 2032: 1932:linear elasticity 1826: 1500:center of gravity 1496:center of inertia 1231:quantum mechanics 1154:Alcubierre metric 595:Talk:John L. Hall 528:Theodor W. Hänsch 474:conspiracy theory 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2500: 2469:ThorinMuglindir) 2273:photon diffusion 2030: 2022: 1745: 1739: 1736:Great! Once the 1559:No real content 1237:particle physics 1101: 1095: 1045: 1043: 780:Smells like the 649:Hubble expansion 625:Hubble expansion 520:recently awarded 518:for Physics was 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2508: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2486: 2442:Oleg Alexandrov 2428:ThorinMuglindir 2420: 2407:ThorinMuglindir 2346: 2311: 2248: 2227: 2211:ThorinMuglindir 2165:ThorinMuglindir 2118: 2086:Say, a kind of 2079:ThorinMuglindir 2042: 2028: 1996: 1982:ThorinMuglindir 1968:ThorinMuglindir 1944:ThorinMuglindir 1928: 1906:ThorinMuglindir 1879: 1768: 1748:Oleg Alexandrov 1743: 1737: 1710:Oleg Alexandrov 1573:, so there's a 1543: 1514: 1488: 1451: 1433: 1415: 1381: 1212: 1197: 1157: 1099: 1093: 1090: 1074: 1041: 849: 752: 679: 655:, nor Peacock, 621: 512: 462: 373:Albert Einstein 344:Take a look at 342: 245: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2506: 2485: 2480:212.21.138.161 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2391: 2390: 2376: 2375: 2361: 2360: 2345: 2342: 2337: 2336: 2331: 2326: 2321: 2310: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2265: 2247: 2244: 2226: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2185: 2184: 2137:thermodynamics 2117: 2114: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2054:Science Portal 2046:Physics Portal 2041: 2038: 2037: 2036: 1995: 1989: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1878: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1772:Portal:Physics 1767: 1766:Physics portal 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1721: 1720: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1617: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1513: 1510: 1492:center of mass 1487: 1486:Center of mass 1484: 1483: 1482: 1450: 1447: 1432: 1429: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1380: 1377: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1296: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1235: 1232: 1211: 1208: 1196: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1132: 1131: 1089: 1084: 1073: 1068: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1042:File:Gavel.gif 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1017:, I think. -- 1011: 1001: 1000: 990: 968: 963: 962: 961: 957: 944: 912: 848: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 751: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 719: 718: 717: 716: 704: 703: 678: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 620: 615: 614: 613: 590: 589: 588: 587: 571: 570: 556: 555: 511: 508: 507: 506: 461: 458: 457: 456: 432: 431: 409: 408: 407: 406: 394: 369:User:Lionosmon 354:User:Lionosmom 341: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 286: 285: 284: 283: 270: 269: 244: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 197: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 164: 163: 162: 161: 152: 148: 141: 140: 124: 123: 99: 98:In-House Admin 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2505: 2496: 2493: 2491: 2484: 2481: 2478:E. Marinchev 2467: 2466: 2465: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2436:(moved from 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2429: 2424: 2411: 2408: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347: 2341: 2335: 2332: 2330: 2327: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2277: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2258: 2256: 2251: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2225: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2176: 2175:Laura Scudder 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2156: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2129: 2127: 2123: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2096: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2035: 2031: 2025: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2005: 2001: 1994: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1972: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1919: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1830: 1825: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1742: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1662: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1518:Governmentium 1509: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1391: 1386: 1376: 1375: 1372: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1340:Laura Scudder 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1300: 1297: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1259:Laura Scudder 1256: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1195: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1155: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1122:Laura Scudder 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1104:Laura Scudder 1098: 1088: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 996: 991: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 969: 967: 964: 958: 956: 953: 949: 945: 942: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 904: 903: 902: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 869: 864: 862: 858: 854: 853:Talk:Beamline 847: 846:Light sources 836: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 815: 812: 808: 807:Laura Scudder 804: 800: 799: 798: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 778: 777: 776: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 741: 738: 734: 729: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 715: 712: 708: 707: 706: 705: 702: 699: 695: 694: 693: 691: 688: 684: 677: 668: 665: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 638: 635: 630: 626: 619: 612: 609: 605: 604:Laura Scudder 600: 596: 592: 591: 586: 583: 579: 578:Laura Scudder 575: 574: 573: 572: 569: 566: 562: 558: 557: 554: 551: 547: 546:Laura Scudder 543: 542: 541: 540: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 505: 502: 498: 493: 492: 491: 490: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 470:pseudoscience 467: 455: 452: 448: 447:Laura Scudder 444: 443: 442: 441: 438: 430: 427: 423: 422:Laura Scudder 419: 415: 411: 410: 405: 402: 398: 395: 393: 390: 389: 387: 386: 385: 384: 381: 378: 374: 370: 365: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 329: 326: 322: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 304: 301: 297: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 282: 279: 274: 273: 272: 271: 268: 265: 260: 259: 258: 257: 254: 250: 232: 229: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 211: 208: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 189: 186: 182: 181:Laura Scudder 178: 174: 170: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 160: 157: 153: 149: 145: 144: 143: 142: 139: 135: 131: 126: 125: 121: 117: 112: 111: 110: 109: 106: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2494: 2487: 2483:Universality 2456: 2421: 2338: 2312: 2281: 2259: 2254: 2252: 2249: 2228: 2157: 2153: 2130: 2119: 2105: 2087: 2043: 2017: 1997: 1978: 1929: 1880: 1769: 1673: 1616: 1558: 1544: 1515: 1489: 1452: 1434: 1416: 1382: 1368: 1313: 1249:astrophysics 1213: 1198: 1164: 1158: 1091: 1075: 1055: 1032:light source 1015:light source 989:for example? 965: 907: 882:End stations 874:light source 871: 866: 850: 827: 782:object model 753: 732: 680: 656: 652: 627:. However, 622: 524:John L. Hall 513: 463: 433: 367:Be careful, 366: 361: 357: 343: 246: 196: 176: 130:Jitse Niesen 101: 70: 43: 37: 2269:diffraction 2090:portal. :D 2070:Count Iblis 1940:ideal chain 1936:ideal chain 1853:Dataphiliac 1835:Dataphiliac 1829:portal page 1786:Dataphiliac 1530:funny :) -- 1512:New element 1471:I've added 1390:Dataphiliac 1371:Count Iblis 1304:Dataphiliac 1272:Dataphiliac 1058:Synchrotron 857:Scottfisher 618:Hubble Flow 593:Someone on 516:Nobel Prize 300:Count Iblis 264:Count Iblis 207:Count Iblis 36:This is an 2329:scattering 2120:They took 1577:and evven 1165:light cone 985:, and the 414:Stachnikov 362:triflexian 350:Stachnikov 340:Stachnikov 120:User:CSTAR 90:Archive 10 2366:Wikibooks 2222:Intro to 2203:intensive 2161:intensive 2128:instead. 2122:intensive 2018:Newtonian 1741:attention 1504:Omegatron 1402:. Fixed. 861:talk page 358:biflexian 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2423:Dynamics 2230:Herald88 2021:in adv - 2014:AfD page 1473:electron 1455:electron 1419:manifold 975:Beamline 952:beamline 948:beamline 894:Beamline 296:DAMA/NaI 2400:in the 2224:physics 1686:author. 1246:E&M 828:nowhere 733:phonons 565:Thisrod 147:degree. 39:archive 2461:SCZenz 2457:anyone 2426:links. 2355:MarSch 2255:anyone 2108:MarSch 2024:Trödel 1844:SCZenz 1804:SCZenz 1776:SCZenz 1729:MarSch 1704:, and 1677:MarSch 1596:SCZenz 1592:tensor 1571:tensor 1561:tensor 1532:MarSch 1463:SCZenz 1459:WP:NOR 1441:SCZenz 1423:MarSch 1291:SCZenz 1243:optics 1173:(talk) 1142:(talk) 1097:nn-bio 1078:SCZenz 1060:also. 1019:SCZenz 971:SCZenz 939:as in 924:SCZenz 832:SCZenz 803:WP:CFD 772:SCZenz 737:SCZenz 698:SCZenz 664:(talk) 637:(talk) 501:SCZenz 437:SCZenz 401:SCZenz 380:(talk) 325:SCZenz 278:SCZenz 253:SCZenz 228:SCZenz 177:oppose 156:SCZenz 105:SCZenz 2385:Karol 2238:Karol 2190:Karol 2092:Karol 2058:Karol 2004:linas 1998:FYI, 1958:Karol 1915:Karol 1891:Karol 1862:Karol 1813:Karol 1795:Karol 1658:Karol 1633:linas 1605:Karol 1594:? -- 1583:Karol 1565:Karol 1550:Salsb 1477:Karol 1404:Karol 1359:Karol 1299:Linas 1281:linas 1202:linas 1184:linas 1120:. — 1062:Scott 1047:linas 878:Light 805:. — 711:linas 510:Nobel 323:. -- 16:< 2446:talk 2370:Kgf0 2234:here 2179:Talk 2135:and 2088:meta 2029:talk 1991:VfD: 1885:and 1752:talk 1714:talk 1522:Kgf0 1435:See 1344:Talk 1318:Alai 1263:Talk 1220:Alai 1216:here 1126:Talk 1108:Talk 1008:WWII 995:Kgf0 941:E150 908:term 898:Kgf0 811:Talk 794:Kgf0 762:and 608:Talk 599:JILA 582:Talk 550:Talk 536:Kgf0 526:and 514:The 486:Kgf0 482:Talk 451:Talk 426:Talk 348:and 185:Talk 134:talk 2440:by 2402:sky 2351:sky 2319:sky 1652:to 1644:to 1170:CH 1161:KED 1139:CH 888:or 788:to 661:CH 634:CH 522:to 478:SDI 472:or 412:If 399:-- 377:CH 2452:) 2448:) 2383:. 2236:. 2177:| 1987:) 1956:. 1833:-- 1754:) 1744:}} 1738:{{ 1727:-- 1716:) 1700:, 1675:-- 1656:? 1388:-- 1342:| 1314:re 1261:| 1124:| 1106:| 1100:}} 1094:{{ 1038:. 981:, 863:: 855:, 809:| 692:. 606:| 580:| 548:| 449:| 424:| 360:, 183:| 136:) 86:→ 2444:( 2163:! 2026:| 1973:) 1750:( 1712:( 1498:/ 1494:/ 132:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 3 - Knowledge

Index