Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 4

1809:). I think that what the Adelberger article argues is that the types of interactions that could cause antimatter to fall differently in an relativistic field theory – vector interactions are the only ones that can do it – are very strongly constrained. That means that there is no way to write down a theory, like the standard model + gravity + some vector interaction that messes with the gravitational acceleration of antimatter that is (i) consistent with experiments and (ii) has antimatter that falls with an acceleration different by more than one part in a million. This is pretty strong as theoretical arguments go, but of course until you go out and test it, it is always possible to be contrary and say that there is some theory, somewhere, in a completely different formalism, that reproduces all the experimental successes of gravity and the standard model, except that positronium falls up. That doesn't strike me as a very constructive approach. – 2682:

be associated with "negative mass". Unfortunately, Chardin fails to clarify (at least to me) whether he also has in mind some quite different notions often called "repulsive gravity". This is a whole nother can o worms and has to do with an alleged "reversal of direction of centrifugal force". In my view, people who talk this way are misinterpeting their mathematics. It would be even more tedious to try to explain why mass parameters are so tricky in gtr and why various exact solutions are so often so drastically misinterpreted, even by physicists who really ought to know better. Anyway, I think we all agree that this is a controversial topic but too complicated for a non expert to write the article, so I am flagging it and making a few short term suggestions for you in the talk page. ---

2874:

perturbabibnibble QED. Of course, many of the statements in the current revision seem misleadingly biased in SED's favor, one might come to the conclusion that any minute now SED will be shown to be a GUT, heh. I believe that many of the ideas which might lead to mass seem to have been shown to be dead ends, the Casimir Force for one isn't nearly strong enough. The prevalence of this kind of stuff probably discourages physicists from using it. Anyways, if one ignores the masscruft, the whole formulation is philosophically neat. Its yet another answer to the question asking, "which of the principles/phenomena are fundamental?" --

632:, but if viewed in modern light, is surely some branch of materials science. That said, there are many articles in WP that are mis-categorized or poorly categorized, and clearly, the various Hall effect articles are examples thereof. These should be fixed on a case-by-case basis. Also, it is quite alright to have one article bleong to many different categories. Also, there is no requirement that categories be strictly heirarchical; a category itself can be a subcat of multiple categories. 31: 302:

that part of the article is called "pattern dependence" not "proximity effect." Is the term "proximity effect" really used in atomic physics? I don't find references in scitation.aip.org and a search for "proximity effect" "atomic physics" points you to Knowledge. Perhaps if superconductivity and acoustics are the only fields where the term is used, proximity effect should be split into two articles and replaced with a disambiguation page? I have put similar comments on the

1796:

taking their sweet time publishing. If you know if/where they published their results that would be awesome! Anyways that paper you referenced is just showing that a certain class of alternative theories(those that use gravitons + some other bosons I guess) are already constrained by experiments involving only normal matter. Basically, I think it is saying that a model in which gravity fell up would (unsurprisingly) be substantially different from the graviton models.

931:

atomic theory, yet we are not classifying articles on the propagation of cracks in steel under AMO, nor are we lumping theory of transistors in there. I'd claim a better organization for reference works are according to the titles of commonly taught college courses, rather than the departments they are taught by. (Resists painful urge to note that theoretical physics is an obsolete term, and is nothing but a synonym for string theory, ahem, I mean M-theory.).

1820:

each other. What bothers me is that particles which are their own antiparticle, like photons, neutral pions and such, would seem to have to roll both ways. It seems like they would have no reason to roll uphill rather than downhill or vice versa. Yet we observe photons to 'roll downhill'. So I would guess that any such theory would at least be inconsistant with spacetime geometry theories like GR. --

1959:

masses for particles and anti-particles if you break Lorentz invariance. You can "break" Lorentz invariance without violating Special or General Relativity, simply by assuming that it is broken spontaneously. So, you introduce a 4-vector field that acquires a vacuum expectation value. If this field couples to particles, then the masses of particles and anti-particles will be different.

2092:

interesting/informative companion images. I've been working at this for a few articles on my own recently, and want to invite any other WikiProject Physics members to help contribute/link to more helpful imagry in relevant physics articles. I've found the US government laboratories to be a gold mine of public domain images about physics. (watch out for contractors, like

1987:

the old arguments in what is currently the best(and most referenced) article on the issue. They give a special mention to the work of Chardin(in the Errata), where he reversed the 'Good argument' and showed that the degree of Kaon regeneration(CP violation) is correctly predicted by this 'antigravity'. Chardin went on to show how any resulting vacuum instability

1465:. When we assert that the mass of an anti-particle is equal to its counterpart we are asserting something which has no experimental support. As it is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed, assertions of its truth can only be speculation. Everytime we don't properly couch such a statement as a belief(ie According to theory XYZ...) we misrepresent our knowledge. 1113:. Take a look at their proposed intro topics: addressing those on even the most obscure subject won't actually explain any of the physics, but is probably most of what someone in another field would find useful. If following those intro guidelines works for the popular articles, I think it should definitely be broad enough for the more obscure ones. — 2603:

don't know how long he'll be willing to do that. If you know EMS, he can also forward your email addie to me. (Why do I use this whitelist? That's a long and ultimately unedifying story!) I wouldn't mind being put in email contact with WikiProject Physics members, but if this roundabout procedure seems like too much trouble in connection with this

1506:

overcome such difficulties, and much research has been done on the subject of what theories are possible. That's why physicists are confident, not because we're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Knowledge doesn't have to give non-expert minority points of view anything approaching equal time with experts; that's not what

1099:. I have assumed that these topics are of interest only to specialists and thus have written them for an audience of working physicists who are in another field. Is this a mistake? Should every article have a paragraph accessible to a high school student? If not, which articles should have such an introduction? -- 2864:

seems to start by assuming Zero Point Fluctuations and reinterpretes that phenomena as a fundamental principle from which they derive the uncertainty principle and all the consequent quantum-style behavior- while still using old-fashioned particles. Supposedly this has good numerical agreement with perturbative theory.

1879:

over the past decade. Couple these points with the cosmological niceties and we have a compelling fringe science article. Interestingly, there would seem to be an utter lack of information on the web about this stuff outside of the journals. Usenet for one is apparently clueless. So, I'm gonna write an article on

3380:, it's okay to upload images already loaded on WP to the Commons, so that's the path of least resistance, I guess. I do think that having a central repository of freely usable physics images will be useful, particularly for lecturers preparing course notes. Certainly one repository is better than two. 3035:

article? It is currently being edited by a number of cold fusion true believers who are starting to push it into the realm of the surreal. I would try to fix it up, but I don't have the expertise and don't fancy arguing with a cabal of highly motivated, POV-pushing editors. It is also – justly, in my

2658:

The entire article is definitely not based on the (potentially cranky) Hyperfine Interactions reference. More like the last two sentences! Most of the article is based around Nieto and Goldman's very highly cited 1991 paper, "The arguments against 'Antigravity'...". I cited the Hyperfine Interactions

1972:

Can you start by posting some or all of these references here? I like crazy ideas, but I dislike it when crazy ideas are presented as if they're true. And, for a topic like this, the references should indicate that the author has mastery of both gravitation and quantum field theory; else I'd conclude

1505:

Nobody knows how to make a self-consistent theory of relativistic quantum mechanics with particle and antiparticle masses are different. There are several major stumbling blocks which would interfere with very fundamental ideas about how the universe works. There are no credible theories at all that

881:

Hmm. Well, in an article like that, it is important to keep a list of "central theories" short, since that emphasizes the coherency of physics: in a way, it really does "flow out" from a handful of concepts. Yet, in the category listing, I'd like to see the "richness" of results: that physics is deep

826:

I dunno. People who don't know much about physics are probably not interested in physics, and thus probably won't be looking at the category. Those who are interested will promptly notice that the WP organization is odd: Astronomy, the subject made famous by Galileo and Newton and Einstein, the most

1995:

of GR. Chardin doesn't seem to deny the possibility of energy non-conservation(Morrison's argument against antigravity) but he argues that even if it did it still wouldn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I couldn't find anything refuting Chardin's assertions(anything which Google Scholar said

1878:

is precisely predicted by this antigravity. In addition, my intuition about GR is totally wrong. In fact, the current argument is that GR may in fact predict antimatter antigravity. Every classic argument against the gravitational repulsion of antimatter has been seriously challenged in the journals

1873:

Anyways, I've found enough new information on the 'antigravity' point that I feel that it deserves its own article. It would seem that the theoretical landscape has actually reversed, the theoretical arguments for antimatter falling up are now stronger than for those for falling down. It would seem

1819:

Yeah, I have no clue how it could be done. Case in point, lets say the space around normal particles is like a valley and around antiparticles it is like a mountain and that normal matter 'rolls downhill' and antimatter rolls uphill- or alternatively they 'see ' the conjugate spacetime geometry from

1795:

Yeah! I remember finding references to the LEAR stuff before. Unfortunately, the experiment was proposed in 1986 and that paper says they were just then preparing to do it(that was 1990). I never could find any references to experimental results. I presumed they didn't do it, or failed, or were just

1629:

Clearly your coffee cup is a matter of normal induction. Every matter coffee cup we have observed so far falls as we think it should. It is not so clear when your coffee cup is made of antimatter, considering we have never observed even one. There is no inductive argument in this case! The statement

1546:

I'm not asking for equal time or weight. I am merely asking that we make distinctions between how we represent unobserved and observed consequences of theories. And yes! We do need reputable sources, especially for the fringy stuff when we aren't sure whether we have observed something. Only experts

1474:

The larger point I'm trying to make is that problem is bad enough that it is hard to even pick out the speculations like this, I know I can't do it. No one expects an assumption to be wrong if they don't even know that it is an assumption. Fortunately we reward the scientists who do realize and make

354:

article. There is a disagreement on whether it should be confined to C and the development made without reference to particular quantities being held constant, or whether a description of Cp and Cv etc. should be included. The discussion is in the talk page under "Is Cx necessary". I know it's a lot

2863:

I was already intending to do a lot of research on SED for a philosophy paper, so I'd be happy to start revising the article sometime soon. SED seems to be the bastard step-brother of QED. Only a handful of people contribute to it. From what I have gathered the underlying idea is neat. Basically it

2681:

misinterpret "negative mass region". I suspect this refers to part of the "deep interior" of the usual maximally extended Kerr vacuum (see any good textbook with a Penrose diagram and look near one of the timelike singularities). It would be tedious to explain why this region is sometimes held to

1720:

is complete with tables of studies showing striking favorable empirical evidence. Unfortunately, nowhere in the article is it explicitly mentioned that the none of the studies tested EP for antimatter. I think that the writers of that article likely missed the bias(both in sample and in article) as

968:

about the issue of relativistic mass versus rest mass, and their relative prevalence and importance in physics. I probably made some overly harsh criticisms of another user, and he asked if it wouldn't be a good idea to get a third party to settle the issue. I agree with this, so I won't make any

804:

I think the question is, at the root, whether we're organizing the category by "what people who don't know much physics are likely to want to read, and how they'll want to navigate" or "how the study of physics is actually organized." I think the way things are now is an attempt (not necessarily a

736:

I was surprised that classical mecahnics and electrodynamics and astronomy and cosmology and statistical mechanics and quantum field theory and physical chemistry and solid-state physics and plasma physics and electronics and gravitation and general relativity and nuclear physics were not top-level

3322:. Since no one else in WP:physics has put thumbnails on a category page (at least as far as I have noticed), I assume that this is undesirable. Is there a place that we are gathering links to physics images that I haven't stumbled upon? If not, should be we be categorizing physics images? 1986:

Sure thing. I haven't finished the article yet because I had to go to the library for the journals which I don't have an electronic subscription to. I think I might be able to get a first draft of the article done tonight. Anyways, it all started in 1991 with Nieto and Goldman critically reviewing

1358:

A while back I did some research looking for the scientific consensus on whether the gravitational mass of antimatter had been empirically verified. I couldn't find this information on Knowledge. I looked elsewhere, and was a little surprised to find that the antimatter experts felt that it hadn't

594:

Your point about an individual category getting uselessly large is well-taken. I agree that a potentially enormous category like CMP should have useful sub-categories, but SSP is an obsolete synonym to CMP, not a sub-category. A better choice would be for the organization of the physics WP to

301:

article. Has anyone actually heard the term "proximity effect" used outside of superconductivity? The portion of the article about microphones and acoustics sounds real to me, but I'm dubious about the electron-beam lithography portion. In my experience the phenomenon that is discussed in

930:

Yes, well, AMO departments abound. Again, this is more a statement about where modern research is occuring, rather than about how pedagogical/reference material should be organized. Virtually all modern materials science is underpinned by the idea that it can be derived from first principles from

790:

Basically, the top level seemed to consist of categories that were only marginally relevant to physics, a collection of peripheral and adjunct topics. By contrast, the real "meat" of physics, where almost all of the articles are, and where all of the real physics is, were jammed into sub-sub-sub

516:

categories. Some people continue to use "solid state physics" but the battle is essentially over and the "condensed matter" folks have won. I would like to see "solid state physics" removed as a category, not because I really prefer that term, but because there really should be only one page.

2779:. As enticement, I have included a quote of Feynman's musings on the uncertainty principle there. On a lighter note, for my alliterative amusement, I have endeavored for my position to be supported solely by citing several scholarly Stephen sources. Also, I've decided to join this project. =) -- 2602:

Hmmm... I haven't enabled the email option because I have a low maintanance low level mailfilter (post the usual spamassassin) which dumps everything not originating from a small whitelist. Jitse Niesen has been very kind in forwarding email addies to me so I can put them in my whitelist, but I

180:

I've actually done some research into this. ISI Web of Knowledge returns 31 articles published in peer-reviewed journals since 1945 with the phrase "zero point field" in the title, compared to 174 with "zero point energy". So it seems people use the phrase in the field, albeit not too often. The

2638:

FYI, I was concerned that the article would be cranky, however, it looks reasonable to me. John Baez has a usenet FAQ on it, which reviews the supernova results better than this article. Also there are several experimental proposals to measure this stuff, they appear to be reasonable, from real

1958:

Intangir, you can edit or create any (physics) article here on wikipedia to correct any bias that you see. People writing articles may sometimes be a bit biased, not necessarily intentionally, but usually because they think of certain things in certain ways. It is e.g. possible to get different

1591:

Further discussion requires a deep dive into philosophy. In physics, the "standard accepted theory" is that theory which captures all of the facts, and so it becomes difficult to make distinctions between "true facts" and the "commonly accepted theory". Forget anti-matter; have you measured the

3013:

I've stumbled into this controversy, and I have also noticed POV pushing by 69.22.98.162. I tracked this page down after noticing an unnecessary and obviously POV edit to the Einstein article made a few minutes ago. Hopefully a few more eyeballs on these articles will help stabilize them in a

527:

I don't quite understand these remarks. At least on WP, "solid-state physics" deals primarily with the properties of semiconductors, and more broadly with properties of crystals (mostly at room temperature). By contrast, on WP, "condensed matter physics" includes notions of superfluidity and

2986:

Einstein's work certainly built on work by Poincare and others. Doubt about the originality of his theory should not be rejected out of hand. On the other hand, controversial edits by an anonymous user citing a questionable website promoting a particular book are justifiably viewed with some

2676:

Thanks, Karol, and a couple of quick comments addressed to Intangir: First, I definitely think you should avoid non peer reviewed papers unless you are sure you know what you are talking about, which you agree you do not entirely. Second, having glanced at the paper in question, I think you

553:

Thanks for your response. My proposal is essentially that the terms "condensed matter physics" and "solid state physics" be used on WP in the same way that they are used by the broader physics community. I confess that I don't know how these names might be used outside the US, but the

2659:

just to have a discussion involving GR in the article, its not even necessary. I don't think this qualifies as Original Research, as I have merely compiled a couple (mostly) peer-reviewed results together. Also, I would be happy to email any articles to anyone without electronic access. --

678:

has a similar problem, where the subject classification scheme presented by the American Mathematical Society has proven to be a mediocre match for WP math articles, for essentially the same reasons (its focused on categorizing current research, not on categorizing reference material).

3680:

I'm interested in helping, though I'd want experts to sanity-check my edit suggestions before addition (I'm a Comp Eng who's been doing physics as a hobby for many years, as opposed to a trained physicist). I know my limits, so I feel that the edits that I do contribute will be useful.

2873:

The fringe stuff enters in because those that favor it seem to feel that it is a convenient framework for thinking about the ways that inertia and gravity might arise as unforseen effects of the other forces. Some even argue that they get many of the same promising results using normal

1416:

that this is the case. If there have been lab experiments, it is acceptable to mention those (briefly, in keeping with the overall length of the article). However, WP is not the place to make personal speculations, or to make blanket assertions that scientists don't know what they're

2464:

to my attention, which starts "Flutoride is a placeholder particle constructed primarily as a vehicle for representing in concrete fashion the notion of particulate timeliness." This sounds even stranger than the usual string theory / cosmology to me, but I thought the same about

994:

I think it would be a good call to agree on a standard usage of the word mass on wikipedia - to avoid confusion. Other mass related quantaties should not be called simply "mass". I think the same thing might apply for energy (in relation to "rest energy" vs "relativistic energy")

2091:

Perhaps it's my own shallowness, but I tend to evaluate wikipedia articles as being more "complete" when they have an accompanying image or two. Many concepts or entities in physics can be visually represented, and I believe that many physics articles would be much better with

1411:

That said: It is true that standard theory predicts that the mass of anti-particles equals that of particles. It is probably true that the gravitational attraction of anti-matter has probably never been measured in the lab. Its probably acceptable to mention in the article on

1158:

looks like a reasonable historical review of what newton thought, and a discussion of gravity waves. But then we get to the section on experimental tests, and leave the known universe. Deleting this content is easy, fighting the anon editors will be harder. Volunteers, please!

3199:

is likely one of the more highly viewed physics articles. Can we contact the user who posted them to find out if he/she owns the copyright? Or should we just make new figures? (I'm volunteering to do this myself but don't want to duplicate others' work unnecessarily.)

1233:

As to gravity shadowing: if you could cast a gravity shadow, or shield it in some way, you'd essentially have a form of anti-gravity -- objects in the shadow would be lighter. More nobel prizes if this was actually verifiable, because right now, it just plain doesn't happen.

562:

that solid-state physicists have been merged into already. The current usage on WP may put certain kinds of articles into SSP and other kinds into CMP but to the extent that these categories don't reflect typical usage, the division will be confusing to readers. Why is

1197:

First of all, I don't know enough about the experimental stuff to judge the editors contribution, but I wonder if the editor's poor english may be confused with wierdness. I mean "shady gravity" sounds strange but "gravitational shading" less so. Anyway, I will watch it.

2639:

people who do this stuff for a living. Finally, there is also a Arxiv preprint about the theoretical motivations, I added it to be bottom of the references section. I recognize at least one author as being "reputable". (Disclaimer, haven't read it, I'll do that now).

1422:

Beleive it or not, physicists would love to see an experiment that directly measured the gravitional attraction of anti-matter in some clear-cut, unambiguous way. The more precision, the better. If very well done, it be worth a prize. However, such experiments are

1406:, no matter how good or astounding it is. In particular, WP is not the place to write articles about fringe science, unless those topics and ideas have somehow gained notoriety independently of WP (i.e. by being published in newspapers, books, conventions, etc). 2973:), all of which I think have been reverted (by me and others). I don't really know much about the history of the development of relativity, (beyond what little I've read on Knowledge), if anyone can shed any useful light on this, your help would be welcome. 903:

is really a top-level subdivision in physics (for instance, my department basically bills itself as an AMO institute). It makes perfect sense seeing as how light is the primary means of probing atoms and molecules. The field used to be concerned mostly with

2155:

on the project page. If there were more requests there it'd be more likely that someone into making diagrams would find something they want to illustrate. I'm certainly not averse to making diagrams on topics I know something about, although I've only done

1438:. Unfortunately, no one expects a surprise by measuring the gravitional attraction of anti-matter, so there is not much incentive to do the experiment: it probably will result in a confirmation of the standard theory, which is one of the more boring outcomes. 528:

non-room-temperature physics. (as well as solid-state as a sub-category). I find this to be a useful distinction. Of course, there are lots of grey areas, (and maybe all modern research is in the grey area) but that can be debated on a case-by-case basis.

3172:

09:29, 10 December 2005 JesseW deleted "Image:Superconducting-transition.png" (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status"which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when

539:

As to "one category", I think the real goal is to have categories with less than several hundred articles in them; (less than one hundred, even). This will often require that any given article will need to be in several categories at once, but that is OK.

3176:

09:29, 10 December 2005 JesseW deleted "Image:Superconductor-b-vs-h.png" (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status"which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when

3594:

I've certainly never heard the term "homeostasis" used with respect to E&M. I'm not sure on skimming the article whether there is a language problem or a real science problem. Also I suspect that the author couldn't figure out how to make

1833:

Yes, well, "its like a mountain/valley" is sometimes used to illlustrate particle/hole duality in a casual, simplified way. However, this simplified picture is not a correct model of reality, so of course it appears to be inconsistent with reality!

2582:. The paper is by Gabriel Chardin and appears in a Springer journal called Hyperfine Interactions, which is described by Springer as devoted to "border areas", which may or may not be suggestive. Can anyone contribute any useful information? --- 1086:

as the former topics are more likely to attract general readers than the latter. I think articles on topics of general interest should at least start with a widely accessible paragraph. So far I've been writing on topics that appear on the

3152:

but no one has responded. I don't know enough about how WP works to figure out why or by whom the figures have been deleted. Anyone? I could make more figures with the same content if there's no way to revert the ones that were there.

3287: 287:? I created the article and wrote most of it, and as I am a software developer and know next to nothing about the subject, I am certain there is more that should be included, and concerned that parts may be inaccurate. Thanks in advance - 135:

I would delete it. It's not a phrase that is used by physicists in the context of zero point energy in QFT. Redirecting it to such topics could make google to associate "zero point field" to this and that has to be prevented at all costs.

1547:

can be expected to be familiar with the countless relevant experiments. I don't think my sources as to the state of empirical scientific knowledge are unreputable(ATHENA and the website everyone, including experts like ATHENA, refer to).

1667:. This is the same principle that applies to the coffee cup: it states that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same, and we have already measured inertial mass of antimatter. My point is this: within a standard theory, there 3707:

In the article, or the talk page? If it's the article, I'd prefer that you be the one to add it, to remove any possible misinterpretation of my edit (that, and you'll have your own preference on where it looks prettiest in the text).

1335:

I've moved the participants list over to its own subpage, and used the same layout as on WikiProject mathematics, which includes areas to list a few interests and make some comments. All are invited to come re-introduce themselves at

1401:

Yes, WP "suffers" a systematic bias in favor of standard theory. This is because WP is, by its very charter, an encyclopedia describing notable and well-agreed upon subjects and topics, physics or otherwise. WP is not the place for

3065:

I cross-posted this as an RfC. I disagree with your view of who is doing the POV pushing, but it doesn't matter, the article is not a very good statement of either side in the controversy. This definitely needs more eyes on it.

782:

I was surprised to see a measly 12 articles in the category, grand-total. There are at least 50-odd articles that discuss physics in such broad terms that they should be top-level articles, and yet, they are now subcategorized

1271:

is filled with this stuff. Googling shows that there seems to be some legit academic interest in this stuff, but wow! writing articles with the same insane tone of voice that pseudoscience authors use is a great dis-service.

3350:

Yes, assigning images to Knowledge categories is considered undesirable. The better way to do it is to put the images on the Wikimedia Commons. I'm not very familiar with how the Commons works, but I do know that it has its

371:

Can someone who knows something about relativity pl take a look at this article, the related AfDs, and the recent edit diputes? Is the article legit - is it POV, are attempts to change it POV, vandalism, or valid? Thanks.

1215:

for the legit version. All substances feel gravity in the same way; if they didn't there'd be a fifth force and more than a couple of nobel prizes. Anything is possible I suppose: that's why there's keen interest in the

3501:. Anybody knowledgeble willing to spend some time understanding the changes and see how to deal with all this matter? Note that a plain revert is not an option, it seems that the user spent half a day on that article. 2573:

seen the abstract, but this didn't tell me enough to make even a tentative guess about whether or not the paper is cranky. However, on the basis of general background knowledge and reading the abstract, I guess that

1354:

It is necessary to know the important consequences of our most respected theories which have been observed, after all thats what we call evidence! However it also seems important to know which haven't been observed.

791:

categories. If one were to graph the tree, one would see almost all the articles about physics were in only two or three subcats, and all of the other current top-level cats only add up to a drop in the bucket.

3787:

Although I'm generally supportive, I haven't signed up because the details haven't yet been fully fleshed out, etc. If you are interested, you should review the proposal and bring up any questions on its talk page.

3303: 2592:

I can tell you that the article has been cited only 4 times in peer-reviewed journals since 1997. If you want to read it, I can send you a PDF copy. In my opinion, it's really still OR and doesn't belong here.

3462: 3413: 3409: 1169:

I'm up for it. Can you edit it until you're satisfied? Then I'll know which version to revert to, or at least have a baseline to see if changes are reasonable. But I'll definitely keep an eye on it. --

1460:

I agree with everything you just said! I think you missed the point I was trying to convey. Merely because an assumption is popular does not make it neutral. In order to have a NPOV, we must assert only

1928: 1716:

fallacy. The less representative your sample, the less trust you can place in inducting over a generalized principle. It is important to know how much to trust a theory. Infact, the article on the

1444: 1375: 2379:

above) and Myron Evans are both lionized by many free-energy websites, of which there are quite a few. Freelunchers appear to be quite active at WP, so these situations will continue arise. ---

1004:

I think it should be called "mass" when it's clear from context, as it almost always is. When it's not, it should be made clear. My view of the E=mc dispute is on that article's talk page. --

3405: 3497:. The new article is more elementary, which is good. To me both the original version looks good, and the rewritten version looks good, although the latter is full of newbie mistakes. See the 1479:. But when we represent a theoretical assumption the same as we represent empirical fact we help to keep scientists(or people wondering how the world works) from knowing what they are doing. 1384:

How widespread is this problem? Does Knowledge suffer a systemic bias in favor of standard theory so badly that the line between respected theory and empirical fact is hopelessly blurred?

981:

I left my comment at the bottom of that talk page, but some reinforcement/clarification is a good idea, if someone else can take a look too. Those guys are at each others' throats over

2649:

After looking through it, I also think the article's fine, but don't you think the whole topic is still really OR? That's how I see it, but then again I'm not a gravitationologist.

2835:

on their watch lists? Based on the discussion page, this article has attracted the interest of the pseudoscientific community. Also, it does not currently seem to be well-written.

3653: 2257: 328: 2821:

While looking at the casimir effect, I tripped over the above, which as far as I can tell is 100% unadulterated pseudoscience masquerading as something real. Anyone up for this?

718:

Atomic, molecular, and optical physics being lumped into one. Atomic leads to particle physics and to chemistry, I have no idea what optical shares in common with atomic physics.

1870:

Well, no one seems too supportive of my larger point, that we would benefit from an increased seperation of scientific theory from empirical fact in our articles. So, oh well.

1088: 568: 513: 3408:, I see that the suggested way of noting that you participate in a particular project is to put a standard notice on your user page. I did this but then I saw that so far 1574:

been measured, and it is identical to the mass of the particles (to within measurement errors). The gravitational attraction of anti-particles has probably not been measured.

1103: 3119: 2205: 1381:

When our articles say things like the (unqualified) mass of the anti-so&so is the same as the so&so, are we misleading our readers by taking an unverified position?

727:

I was surprised to see as top-level categories: Physics events, Physics education, Physics literature, Physics organizations. These could be lumped together in some subcat.

624:

the categorization of subjects. Its even less applicable to subjects of pedagogical/educational interest, where there is no active research, or of historical interest, e.g.

1065: 3663: 3613: 1712:

the inertial mass is the same as their normal counterparts. To say that the equivalence principle inductively follows for antimatter too would be to clearly fall for a

2286: 2157: 392: 2878: 2793: 1488:

Increased interest in the fringe science topics which are notable should work to help us notice when we are representing conflicting speculative assumptions as fact.

3652: 3525: 3213: 3051: 3037: 2192: 404: 3826: 3737: 3712: 3702: 3685: 1854:

revised 1999 . The USENET FAQs are a bunch of articles written by various people, topically arranged, ie they are an encyclopedia (a free one), and high quality.

1447:

would be an acceptable article, provided it was not your list (no original research!), but was instead based on some list published in, say, Phys Rev, or wherever.

140: 3359:. You'll have to read the help pages for information on how to put images there, and categorize them. Images there can be easily linked from Knowledge articles. -- 2854: 2806: 2110: 1721:

it is so often hard to see where evidence stops and theory begins. Few traditional sources do a good job in seperating theory from evidence. Can't we do better? --

1291: 3510: 3018: 2264: 310: 2663: 2586: 2520: 2506: 2488: 3543: 3296: 3289: 3070: 2991: 2628: 2615: 2597: 950: 705: 447:

more accesible would work just as well; this is different than special relativity or quantum mechanics, where the main articles are inherently mathematical. --

3473: 3452: 3343: 3273: 3127: 3103: 3079: 2643: 1122: 844:

I'm responsible for a fair amount of the changes you described above. As to the "real" physics stuff, I was trying to be in line with the tree sketched out in

451: 438: 429: 340: 199: 2756: 2653: 2242: 1756: 1324: 1276: 886: 868: 795: 2269: 2212: 2199: 2172: 2143: 1944: 1935: 1910: 1897: 1190: 1163: 1008: 999: 935: 917: 212:. (Technically, the zero-point energy is the vacuum expectation value of the Hamiltonian; in other words, the vacuum is described by the zero-point fields.) 3384: 3363: 2134: 1977: 1922: 3640: 3623: 2686: 2383: 2370: 2353: 2349: 2335: 2313: 2185: 1824: 1800: 1141: 306:

page. I also removed some references at the bottom to some rather obscure research and replaced them with a link to an authoritative book by de Gennes.

181:

current text is of course OR, so we could delete or put in a stub. I'm don't grasp yet, however, in what aspect the zero point field is different from the

3589: 3431: 2197: 1551: 1529: 1070:

I don't see a discussion here or in the archives about the desirable technical level of the physics articles. Clearly writers should aim articles like

975: 607: 3808: 3762: 3673: 3058: 2413: 2121: 2037: 1838: 1725: 1675: 1634: 1492: 1451: 1060: 488: 3866: 3853: 3792: 3204: 3186: 3004: 2980: 1261: 683: 659: 636: 583: 544: 532: 173: 3580: 3490: 2275: 1608: 1174: 989: 831: 813: 411: 216: 2839: 2344:

That was one of the clues that made me think this was nonsense. I didn't recall a massive marketing campaign by Schrödinger for his Wave Equation™. |

521: 498: 2932: 2167: 2081: 3427:

link an internal wikilink. I can't figure out how to do it to save my life. Someone make this change if you know how so I can see how to do it!

2716: 2445: 1966: 1238: 1202: 3840: 3318:

to some of the pages that contain image files I uploaded. I saw that a side-effect of doing this was to actually put thumbnails of the images at

2712:, should be a disambiguation page or about the physical concept of critical mass. Interested parties might want to join in the discussion there. -- 2139:

Yes, most are run by contractors for the DOE, and have their own copyright arrangements. Kind of a sham in my opinion, but such is how it works. --

2100: 149: 111:

a used phrase (I don't know), or should this page just be deleted (right now it's gibberishy). If so, what should it merged with or redirected to (

2825: 291: 2783: 2562: 2435: 2345: 2309: 2051: 1887: 1301: 900: 3570: 2730: 1320:

to that list. These "things" are published and well cited, so they have a right to stay - which doesn't say anything about their value, though.

1310: 189: 127: 3372:

When I first started working on WP, I uploaded my images to it directly. Lately I've been uploading them to the Commons and putting them in

3326: 2403: 1604:

cup? Should we add a statement stating that maybe gravitation doesn't apply to my coffee cup, as this would be the true neutral thing to do?

1428:

There is another reason such an experiment might not be undertaken: physicists get fame, promotion and funding for designing experiments that

1296: 261: 240: 1858: 3244: 2292: 1395: 1344: 1286: 1146: 1053: 1042: 882:

and varied and broad, that its a candy-store of interesting things, there to enjoy, rather than protected and compartmentalized in cabinets.

94: 3239: 3134: 2789:

I'm putting this up on PNA/Physics, and rolling back changes until they can be vetted, for reasons discussed more fully on the talk page. --

1813: 1789: 378: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2902: 2557: 3819: 3809: 3157: 2461: 1031: 478: 159: 2478: 2020:

G. Chardin, Motivations for antigravity in General Relativity, Hyperfine Interactions, Volume 109, Issue 1 - 4, Mar 1997, Pages 83 - 94

809:, in fact, what we should be doing. (P.S. I removed physics software from physics--it was already in computational physics anyway.) -- 273: 250: 3466: 3438: 2247: 1337: 955: 3377: 3265:

completely as I see no need for it anyway. As matters stands, readers may be deflected from the much better alternates articles by

2317: 359: 3373: 3356: 3044: 2847: 1036: 1023:

Hi guys. I've nominated myself for adminship. I think the folks here know best if I'd be good; if you think I would be, vote here:

355:

to wade through, but the crux of the matter occurs between the bolded terms "Explanation 1" and "Explanation 2". Thanks for any help

3481: 3395: 2569:

This article seems to be largely based upon a (possibly cranky) paper in a Springer journal which I cannot convenientyl access. I

693: 316: 3730: 3376:

as you suggest. That's what got me to wondering if images loaded to WP directly should somehow be categorized. According to

2563: 1915: 1024: 231:

Thanks to everyone who voted in the previous AfD I brought to your attention. Those hoaxes have now been deleted, fortunately.

1782:

is strong evidence that antimatter should fall in the same way as matter, and that even small deviations can be ruled out (e.g.

3846:

I'm pretty sure it is Vladimir Glaser, and Henri Epstein, but finding biographical details for them is hard. I found some here

2219: 853: 764:

I was surpised to see formula needs explantion, physics stubs both in the top level. Physics theorems shouldn't be top-level.

2696: 620:

Please keep in mind that the organization at APS reflects the current research and publication interests of its members, and

3118:

Among other things, I have proposed a new category scheme for controversial topics which somehow pertain to physics over at

3093: 2937: 2215:

This looks like a page documenting a joke shared by a small group of people i.e. an 'in-joke'. 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1600:

coffee cup. See, my cup could be different, and so how do we prove that the standard theory is consistent until we measure

503: 443:

I'm not sure. At minimum it needs a huge rewrite to avoid being a random collection of factoids. I think making astronomy

3758:

So we physicists are supposed to sign up at the main project page for stable versions? Isn't anybody else signing up?

2726:

I'd just like to wish all the other Christmas-going wikiphysicists warm and peaceful holidays, and a successful New Year!

2457: 1128: 3050:

I've voted that the article should be removed until it's better cited and fixed up. I urge everyone here to check out

2814: 2000:

is good evidence otherwise, but there is a ~10% chance they didn't observe any normal neutrinos. Anyways here they are:

1134: 47: 17: 3585:

What exactly are you worried about in this article? I haven't read it in detail, but it doesn't look too bad to me...

2235: 2047:

Well, it's up. There is still a lot that I haven't added yet, but it is getting late. I'll finish it after finals =).

1906:

I can cite everything. All of this information comes directly from peer-reviewed, well-respected physics journals. --

3831: 3498: 3319: 3315: 2611:

to either provide reliable verification that the article in question is not cranky, or else to delete the article.---

2428: 2418: 675: 576: 509: 1962:

Sean Carrol has pointed out that spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance is a promising mechanism for baryogenesis.

3551: 2907: 2537: 2152: 1246: 773:

I was surprised to see computational physics as a top level category. Ditto for Physics software. These are one-off

324: 317: 2011:

M.M. Nieto and T. Goldman, Physics Reports 205 (1991) 221. -note there is an errata issued in 1992 in volume 216

1752:

Nota bene, it strikes me that I am drinking coffee while reading this... do physicists drink too much coffee? ;)

1340:. Please -- add a few words about yourself; it gives everyone a quick way of seeing what you are interested in. 398: 3054:

and take a look. The number of pseudoscientific POV pushers on that page is disconcerting to say the least. --

3355:

categories, into which images can be grouped. The Commons already has a category for condensed matter physics,

3228: 2762: 2621: 2393: 2086: 1863: 1851: 461: 1991:

would be no worse than Hawking radiation. Chardin also showed how all of this would be framed in terms of the

1778:. The mass is very well measured, and is known to correspond to very good accuracy to the mass of matter. The 3309: 3253:

is embarassing. I can't see why this article with its grab-bag of topics needs this discussion anyway, as

2308:

on it, but perhaps someone from this group can come clean it up or AfD it or whatever is required. Thanks. |

1330: 1110: 384:

This article is locked? Why? Its contents should be merged (perhaps the article itself should be deleted) to

2970: 1367:). Not knowing where in the Knowledge to put this information, I added a blurb about this to the article on 2705: 2427:

that even the author can't explain. Can someone who understands electrodynamics please have a look at the

755:

I was surprised to see fundamental physics concepts, introductory physics both as distinct top-level cats.

331:. Thought everyone might be interested in another of these simplified/for beginners type discussions. — 3258: 3223: 2987:

skepticism, and could perhaps be reverted without further consideration until a better source is found.--

2547: 2466: 466:

I'm a bit of a categorization nut. Can someone help me convince two editors that these pages don't go in

3209:

It's probably fastest just to make new figures. I'd do it, but my figure-drawing package is "xfig"... --

701:

Hi Linas, so wrotes wrong with the organization of the physics category now? I'm interested in helping.

2943: 2916: 2815: 2127: 2068: 1771: 1349: 116: 38: 2966: 2298:

This new article sounds like pseudoscience to me, but my last physics class was in high school. I put

3849:

for Glaser. Epstein was at the IHES when he retired, so you might be able to find info there on him.

3695: 3506: 3300: 3113: 2886: 2494: 861: 385: 3195:

We can all agree that leaving the article with missing figures is not a good idea, especially since

3633: 3616: 3552: 2721: 1525:, which are hard to find for many fringe science topics; some guy's website just doesn't count. -- 1254: 1247: 1018: 652: 345: 278: 102: 2228: 2130:. I think they can do this because they're usually run by somebody other than the government. -- 264:

in the electronics project, but it's more appropriate here. Here's an external article about it:

148:

I find 40k googlehits for "zero point field", 300k for "zero point energy", 888 for both combined

3709: 3682: 3333: 3210: 3139: 2851: 2790: 2469:

which is apparently not totally nonsense. Does anyone know about this or should it go to AfD? --

1630:

we need to add is that we mean inertial mass when we say things like the mass has been measured.

629: 474: 3494: 3483: 3449: 3340: 3299:. I don't know if this is going to fly - it may depend on peoples views - but its interesting. 3149: 2920: 2528: 2516: 2502: 2474: 2164: 1880: 1864: 1185: 1117: 912: 335: 224: 3815: 3669:

I think it's a great idea. I would be happy to help out, at least in my areas of expertise. –

3001: 2977: 2775:

articles. I'm not an expert, so I would appreciate it if interested experts would contribute

2410: 2181: 2174: 2078: 1779: 1717: 1664: 1515: 1212: 389: 376: 364: 303: 3598: 1511: 265: 235:, I already have another one for you guys :-/ See the article, then see my comments in the 3539: 3521: 3502: 2928: 2741: 1992: 1083: 625: 288: 255: 267: 8: 3629: 3559: 3024: 2776: 2376: 2291: 2279: 572: 236: 195:

Dirac sea provides a justification for antiparticles. This is about virtual particles. --

3100: 3096: 3067: 2959: 2727: 2650: 2625: 2594: 2261: 2239: 2107: 2074: 1753: 1708:

particles inertial & gravitational mass are the same & We observe that for all

1321: 1258: 1138: 969:

of the edits that I threatened to. Could any interested parties take a look? Thanks -

947: 865: 702: 495: 435: 408: 186: 124: 1663:

an inductive argument that the weight of anti-matter is the same as matter: it is the

3563: 3446: 3337: 3196: 3145: 2909: 2832: 2512: 2498: 2470: 2451: 2161: 1807: 1770:

I know this is tangential, but the weight of antimatter is being tested at LEAR, the

1182: 1114: 909: 332: 247: 209: 152: 112: 3424: 3417: 3401: 2951: 3442: 3232: 3015: 2998: 2974: 2895: 2768: 2140: 1963: 1221: 1155: 1148: 996: 695: 484: 467: 373: 298: 284: 137: 108: 1783: 849: 845: 3535: 3534:

I tried to merge stuff from both versions. Take a look if it looks okay. Thanks.

3517: 3266: 3262: 3250: 2947: 2924: 2737: 2424: 2097: 1893:

Unless you can cite sources, in detail, I recommend against creating this page.--

1268: 1224:. However, funkiness observed on the surface of the earth would be headline news. 1217: 973: 857: 283:

Would anyone who has any knowledge of this please see if you can add anything to

46:

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

3360: 3280: 3254: 3182:

Looks like they were both deleted as unsourced or un-copyright-tagged image. --

2988: 2772: 2554: 2485: 2249: 1932: 1894: 1855: 1507: 1388: 864:; and analogically for the other specific fields. Maybe my approach was wrong. 270: 225: 3847: 2328: 965: 208:

That article was wrong in so many ways that it was laughable. I redirected to

3729:

misinterpretation? anyway, i have created the signup section. please sign at

3637: 3586: 3131: 2955: 2891: 2875: 2780: 2709: 2698: 2660: 2608: 2575: 2302: 2062: 2048: 2034: 1941: 1919: 1907: 1884: 1847: 1821: 1797: 1722: 1713: 1631: 1548: 1489: 1403: 1392: 1368: 1092: 1079: 1075: 365: 351: 3423:

By the way, I've been studying the help files to figure out how to make the

2258:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_15#Thermodynamic_evolution

1852:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatterFall.html

1181:

I don't really know much about this stuff, but it's on my watchlist now. —

3863: 3837: 3759: 3670: 3620: 3566:

treatment, but not sure. Anyone care to either cleanup or initiate an AfD?

3470: 3428: 3381: 3323: 3270: 3201: 3154: 3041: 2898:. Support the article with your vote if you would like it to be improved.-- 2683: 2612: 2583: 2380: 2367: 2332: 2283: 1875: 1810: 1786: 1522: 1317: 1100: 1049: 1038: 905: 604: 580: 518: 307: 244: 169:. I'll AfD it later today, unless someone disagrees or beats me to it. -- 166: 3836:

Does anybody have full names and bio-data for H. Epstein and V. Glaser? --

1806:

Yeah, I was confused about that as well. It turns out LEAR was cancelled (

746:

I was surprised to see Constants, and physical quantity both as top level.

3823: 3734: 3699: 3660: 3577: 3236: 3164: 3076: 3055: 3032: 3025: 2899: 2131: 1973:

its just pseudoscience, failing to even qualify for "crazy idea" status.

1526: 1413: 1171: 1028: 1005: 986: 810: 564: 448: 426: 196: 170: 156: 856:, which you talk about. If someone oriented in physics were looking for 3850: 3789: 3567: 3412:

lists only me. Perhaps someone who knows what they're doing can make

3183: 2836: 2822: 2803: 2753: 2640: 2432: 2189: 1974: 1835: 1672: 1605: 1448: 1341: 1307: 1273: 1235: 1160: 1057: 970: 932: 883: 828: 792: 680: 656: 633: 541: 529: 213: 2274:

Can anybody give an informed comment whether RW Ziolkowskis papers on

1592:

gravitational attraction between my coffee cup and the earth? No, not

3694:

very well! please create a sign up section and add your signature at

2713: 2324: 1096: 418: 182: 120: 2126:

Most DOE labs have copyright policies that exclude such usage. See

1282:

As there seems to be physics content in these articles, please see:

961: 2749: 2442: 2399: 2118: 2106:

I am 100% with you, although I have limited time for WP rifht now.

1997: 1364: 1199: 579:

for example? These articles should be listed in the same place.

356: 2958:, essentially questioning the originality of Einstein's theory of 2056: 3859: 2014:

G. Chardin and J.-M. Rax, Physal Review Letters B 282 (1992) 256.

1071: 737:

categories. Surely, these are the things that really are physics.

2607:

matter, it probably is! It seems to me that the burden is upon

329:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Special relativity for beginners

3615:. Certainly the content is not what I would expect to find at 3261:

are decent articles. Unless someone objects, I will delete

2620:

Fine mess you got there ;) I'll make it easier - download from

2431:

section and tell us whether it's true or not? Thanks a lot. --

1360: 2915:

I'd appreciate comments on moving this page to something like

1940:

I don't get any google hits for that, so I chose to use 'for'

1089:

Knowledge:Requested_articles/Mathematical_and_Natural_Sciences

2745: 2206:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

3235:. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.-- 2484:

Speedy delete request added. It looks like nonsense to me.--

1704:

As I see it your premises are that: We observe that for all

3659:

would you like to create certified articles in physics? --

2282:? He is called as witness there, and I suppose unjustly. -- 1775: 1462: 596: 421:, it's that it uses a fairly extensive English vocabulary, 3822:. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. -- 3297:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika

3290:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika

628:, which, by history, should be considered to be a part of 3052:

Knowledge:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Cold_fusion

2093: 1363:

scientists are familiar with all the evidence, including

2963: 1391:

WikiProject to counteract any bias? (I'm not qualified)

1292:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Principles of energetics

1091:

list and all of them have been fairly specialized, like

600: 3858:

Thanks. Added to the (somewhat strange) German article

165:

I think it's an unused term, and the article itself is

3731:

Knowledge:Stable versions#Certification Project Signup

559: 555: 3601: 3576:

Is there any evidence it's not original research? --

3437:

I think you're looking for ], which looks like this:

3036:

opinion – up on featured article removal candidates,

2186:

Knowledge:Peer review/Wave-particle duality/archive1

1570:

Two quick remarks: First, the mass of antiparticles

1066:

Technical level of and audience for physics articles

3336:, although image categories are very underused. — 2493:Well, let's see what happens. It doesn't look like 2429:

Faraday paradox#Configuration without a return path

1374:Do we have a better place for this kind of info? A 1078:at a different technical level than articles about 3607: 2188:. History, physics, and style comments solicited. 3654:Knowledge talk:Stable versions#Certification gang 2511:Okay, it worked. Good, saves one trip to AfD. -- 2323:He is the archetypical crackpot. See point 25 in 1883:with all the juicy details. Keep me honest =P -- 1989:(Schiff's argument against antigravity, I think) 1109:There's some guidelines for popular articles at 2073:Can we have some physicists here look over the 1850:Item 28. original by Scott I. Chase 1995 1302:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Maximum empower 901:Category:atomic, molecular, and optical physics 860:, I guess he/she would know to go further into 827:famous names of physics, doesn't even show up! 3636:link in the title! :) Now I see what you mean 2533:A notice: two new physics-related stub types, 2497:to me, but I won't mind seeing it deleted. -- 2404:Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Redshift 2278:have any connection with the pseudoscientific 1671:inductive arguments connecting all the facts! 1359:yet been conclusively observed(presumably the 1297:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Energy quality 2402:article for FA. Please leave comments on the 2270:RW Ziolkowski and Localized Wave Transmission 1287:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Maximum power 425:that it's got scientific jargon. Sheesh. -- 3463:Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics 3414:Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics 3410:Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics 3163:You can look for deleted articles/images at 3810:Knowledge:Science collaboration of the week 3404:, which is a good idea. Poking around at 597:Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme 595:follow a widely accepted standard like the 3461:I have set the redirect I proposed above: 2017:G. Chardin, Nucl. Phys. A 558 (1993) 477c. 1848:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/part4 1387:Have I convinced anyone enough to start a 1338:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics/Participants 3374:Commons:Category:Condensed matter physics 3357:Commons:Category:Condensed matter physics 2848:Knowledge:Pages_needing_attention/Physics 1929:Gravitational interaction with antimatter 1846:FYI: "Does Antimatter Fall Up or Down?" 711:Several things surprised me. These were: 417:If there's "hard-to-understand lingo" in 2831:While I'm at it, can I ask folks to put 2077:article and check for physics errors? -- 1434:the accepted theories. These are called 260:I posted a request for an article about 2564:Gravitational interaction of antimatter 2117:What is a short list of needed images? 1916:gravitational interaction of antimatter 1025:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/SCZenz 14: 2704:There is currently a vote going on at 1445:list of unverified physics assumptions 1376:list of unverified physics assumptions 854:Atomic, molecular, and optical physics 805:perfect one) to do the former. Which 434:So, do you think it should go to AfD? 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3406:Category:Participants_in_WikiProjects 3031:Can somone please have a look at the 2971:Talk:Albert_Einstein#Nobel prise edit 2580:negative mass part of the Kerr metric 2198:Requests for comment page now lists: 3862:. Will do a Glaser bio-stub soon. -- 3632:link in Linas' post, and not on the 3558:This is a non-standard treatment of 3288:Potentially interesting proposal at 2708:regarding whether the main article, 2153:Knowledge:Requested pictures#Physics 560:Division of Condensed Matter Physics 239:for a chuckle, before voting in the 25: 3126:better way to organize them beyond 2997:Yes I agree with all of the above. 2458:Knowledge:Village pump (assistance) 2423:Help please! We have a section in 508:There really shouldn't be separate 23: 3602: 3320:Category: Condensed matter physics 3316:Category: Condensed matter physics 3075:It's an RfC? What's the link? -- 2767:I'm disputing recent edits to the 1918:is probably a better name, eh? -- 1659:You miss my point entirely. There 1135:Knowledge:Requests for publication 956:relativistic mass versus rest mass 24: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics 3880: 3628:Ooooops! Sorry. I clicked on the 3148:. Someone raised the issue on 1521:Fringe science topics still need 964:, some dispute has arisen in its 676:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics 577:Category:Condensed matter physics 510:Category:Condensed matter physics 3396:WikiProject Physics participants 2151:Perhaps we should add a link to 2061:Please help us out of a pickle: 908:, but it's now branched out. — 852:. There you have, for instance, 325:Special relativity for beginners 318:Special relativity for beginners 29: 2967:Talk:Albert_Einstein#His Theory 2802:I rewrote most of the article. 1267:Ugh. what ugliness. Seems that 3818:is a current candidate on the 3229:Asteroid deflection strategies 2227:I turn your attention to this 2096:, however!) Who's with me? - 13: 1: 3304:22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 3274:22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 3240:22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3214:22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3205:22:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3187:20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3158:19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3144:Two figures are missing from 3135:07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3130:of controversial theories. -- 3059:05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3045:02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3005:19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 2992:19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 2981:01:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 2933:08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 2919:; please go to the bottom of 2903:08:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2879:12:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2855:07:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2846:One more page to be added to 2840:06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2826:06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2807:06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2794:19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2784:08:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2757:02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 2731:16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2717:19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2687:17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2664:17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2654:15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2644:15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2629:15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2616:14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2598:14:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2587:13:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2558:17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2521:02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2507:00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2489:23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 2479:23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 2446:01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2436:18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 2414:19:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 2384:23:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 2371:22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 2354:15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 2336:07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 2318:02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 2287:20:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 2265:06:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 2243:06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 2193:14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2168:20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 2144:03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2135:08:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2122:08:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2111:07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2101:21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 2052:06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2038:01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1978:14:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1967:13:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1945:06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1936:18:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1923:08:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1911:08:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1898:08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1888:08:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1277:23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1262:08:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1239:23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1203:06:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1191:06:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1175:05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1164:05:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 1142:09:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 1123:07:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 1111:Knowledge:WikiProject Science 1104:04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 1061:19:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 1032:21:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 1009:05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 1000:03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 990:00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 976:00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 951:10:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 936:16:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 918:09:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 887:16:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 869:07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 832:21:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 814:18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 796:18:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 706:17:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 684:03:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 660:03:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 637:03:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 608:18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 584:18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 545:16:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 533:16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 522:07:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 514:Category: Solid state physics 499:12:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 452:16:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 439:10:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 430:10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 412:09:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 393:23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 379:01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 360:20:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 341:17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 311:20:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 297:I worked a little bit on the 292:19:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 217:16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 3867:13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3854:01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 3019:20:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 2706:Talk:Critical mass (nuclear) 2082:08:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1996:cited him anyway). Oh yeah, 1859:00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1839:15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1825:06:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1814:05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1801:05:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1790:04:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1757:20:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1726:06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1676:04:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1635:18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1609:14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1552:18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1530:09:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1493:09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1452:06:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1396:04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1345:03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1325:06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 1311:20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 569:Category:Solid state physics 504:Yet another category problem 274:15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 251:01:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 200:10:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 190:18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 174:17:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 160:17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 141:12:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 128:10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 7: 3841:16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 3827:07:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 3793:17:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 3763:05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 3738:06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 3713:05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 3703:05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 3686:04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 3674:03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 3664:03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 3641:16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 3624:15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 3590:07:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 3581:00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 3571:00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 3544:06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 3526:05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 3511:22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3474:05:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 3453:21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3432:21:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3416:a redirect to the existing 3385:18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3364:04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3344:22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 3327:22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 3259:Auger electron spectroscopy 3245:Embarassing "Auger" article 3120:Category talk:Pseudophysics 3104:02:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 3080:02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 3071:02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2962:, giving as a source this: 2946:) has been making edits to 2467:modified Newtonian dynamics 2276:Localized Wave Transmission 2180:I've created a request for 1316:You might also want to add 1129:Publishing physics articles 350:We need some help with the 10: 3885: 3516:I'll take a look. Cheers! 3400:I see that someone made a 3095:. The discussion is here 2938:Anon's editing of Einstein 2917:Mass in special relativity 2816:Stochastic electrodynamics 2128:Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE 1772:Low Energy Antiproton Ring 185:. Can anyone help me out? 117:stochastic electrodynamics 3832:H. Epstein and V. Glaser, 3696:Knowledge:Stable versions 3283:for solving this problem. 3267:Auger#Solid_state_physics 3263:Auger#Solid_state_physics 3251:Auger#Solid_state_physics 2495:Knowledge:Patent nonsense 2419:Faraday paradox - problem 862:Category:Particle physics 556:American Physical Society 403:Another from the series: 386:transverse Doppler effect 3634:Laws of electromagnetism 3617:Laws of electromagnetism 3553:Laws of electromagnetism 2578:may be misunderstanding 2366:Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. --- 2220:External peer review by 2173:Request peer review for 1255:principles of energetics 1248:principles of energetics 899:As to your first point, 850:Physics#Central_theories 846:Physics#Central_theories 653:Category:Aether theories 3608:{\displaystyle \nabla } 3334:Category:Physics images 3249:The physics content in 2538:classicalmechanics-stub 655:as an extreme example. 630:Category:Atomic physics 603:has something similar. 475:Category:Plasma physics 405:Astronomy for beginners 399:Astronomy for beginners 151:the fourth of which is 3609: 3495:Simple harmonic motion 3484:Simple harmonic motion 3231:has been nominated on 3150:Talk:Superconductivity 2921:Talk:Relativistic mass 2894:has been nominated on 2763:Casimir Effect Dispute 2441:I'm thinking about it 2394:Redshift FA nomination 2375:P.S. Tom Bearden (see 2087:Project - More Images! 1881:antimatter and gravity 1865:Antimatter and gravity 1718:equivalence principles 462:Categoriation problems 3820:Science collaboration 3816:Physical oceanography 3610: 3310:Images and categories 3295:You may like to view 2624:during the next 24h. 2553:, have been created. 2398:I have nominated the 2182:Knowledge:Peer review 2175:Wave-particle duality 1780:equivalence principle 1665:equivalence principle 1516:WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience 1331:New paritcipants list 1213:Equivalence principle 1147:Pseudoscience alert: 304:Talk:Proximity_effect 42:of past discussions. 3599: 3441:. The key is using 3301:William M. Connolley 3097:Talk:Cold fusion#RfC 2460:brought the article 2236:Knowledge's response 1993:Kerr-Newman solution 1512:WP:NPOV#Undue weight 626:photoelectric effect 3630:Maxwell's equations 3560:Maxwell's equations 3128:that frightful list 3122:. We at least need 3014:consensus version. 2377:Scalar field theory 2280:Scalar field theory 2213:Piper (temperature) 2200:Piper (temperature) 1084:Fermi's Golden Rule 573:quantum Hall effect 323:There's an AfD for 3710:Christopher Thomas 3683:Christopher Thomas 3605: 3467:participants table 3439:participants table 3425:participants table 3418:participants table 3402:participants table 3211:Christopher Thomas 2960:special relativity 2942:IP, 69.22.98.162 ( 2852:Christopher Thomas 2791:Christopher Thomas 2548:fluiddynamics-stub 2075:modern geocentrism 2069:Modern geocentrism 1350:Accusation of bias 1154:The first half of 1056:as hoax articles. 946:So what do we do? 3564:geometric algebra 3465:now redirects to 3224:Improvement drive 3197:superconductivity 3146:superconductivity 3114:Category Proposal 2910:Relativistic mass 2887:Improvement drive 2833:Zero-point energy 2777:to the discussion 2352: 2316: 1523:reputable sources 1404:original research 210:zero-point energy 167:original research 153:zero point energy 113:zero point energy 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3876: 3614: 3612: 3611: 3606: 3562:, sounds like a 2769:virtual particle 2722:Christmas wishes 2697:Main article of 2552: 2546: 2542: 2536: 2411:ScienceApologist 2348: 2312: 2307: 2301: 2160:here so far. — 2079:ScienceApologist 1222:STEP (satellite) 1156:speed of gravity 1149:Speed of gravity 1048:FYI, nominated 1019:Admin nomination 696:Category:Physics 694:Organization of 485:Optical tweezers 468:Category:Physics 390:ScienceApologist 346:Is Cx necessary? 299:proximity effect 285:Proximity effect 279:Proximity effect 109:zero point field 103:Zero point field 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3834: 3813: 3657: 3600: 3597: 3596: 3556: 3503:Oleg Alexandrov 3487: 3398: 3314:I tried adding 3312: 3293: 3247: 3226: 3167:. In this case: 3142: 3140:Missing figures 3116: 3029: 2948:Albert Einstein 2940: 2913: 2889: 2819: 2765: 2742:Neopagan sabbat 2738:Winter solstice 2724: 2702: 2567: 2550: 2544: 2540: 2534: 2531: 2454: 2425:Faraday paradox 2421: 2396: 2305: 2299: 2296: 2272: 2254: 2225: 2203: 2178: 2089: 2071: 2059: 1868: 1352: 1333: 1269:Category:Emergy 1251: 1218:Pioneer anomaly 1188: 1152: 1131: 1120: 1068: 1046: 1021: 960:In the article 958: 915: 858:Nuclear physics 699: 506: 464: 401: 369: 348: 338: 321: 289:KillerChihuahua 281: 258: 229: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3882: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3833: 3830: 3812: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3760:Alison Chaiken 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3689: 3688: 3677: 3676: 3656: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3621:Alison Chaiken 3604: 3555: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3529: 3528: 3486: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3471:Alison Chaiken 3456: 3455: 3429:Alison Chaiken 3397: 3394: 3392: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3382:Alison Chaiken 3367: 3366: 3347: 3346: 3324:Alison Chaiken 3311: 3308: 3292: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3271:Alison Chaiken 3255:Auger electron 3246: 3243: 3225: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3202:Alison Chaiken 3190: 3189: 3179: 3178: 3174: 3169: 3168: 3155:Alison Chaiken 3141: 3138: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3062: 3061: 3028: 3023: 3022: 3021: 2995: 2994: 2952:Henri Poincaré 2939: 2936: 2912: 2906: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2858: 2857: 2843: 2842: 2818: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2797: 2796: 2773:casimir effect 2764: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2723: 2720: 2701: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2566: 2561: 2530: 2529:New stub types 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2509: 2453: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2420: 2417: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2373: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2339: 2338: 2329:Crackpot index 2295: 2290: 2271: 2268: 2253: 2250:thermodynamics 2246: 2224: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2202: 2196: 2177: 2171: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2124: 2114: 2113: 2088: 2085: 2070: 2067: 2058: 2055: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2012: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1981: 1980: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1901: 1900: 1867: 1862: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1828: 1827: 1804: 1803: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1519: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1455: 1454: 1440: 1439: 1425: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1408: 1407: 1389:fringe science 1351: 1348: 1332: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1305: 1304: 1299: 1294: 1289: 1280: 1279: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1206: 1205: 1194: 1193: 1186: 1178: 1177: 1151: 1145: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1118: 1101:Alison Chaiken 1067: 1064: 1045: 1035: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 957: 954: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 923: 922: 921: 920: 913: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 874: 873: 872: 871: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 819: 818: 817: 816: 799: 798: 787: 786: 785: 784: 777: 776: 775: 774: 768: 767: 766: 765: 759: 758: 757: 756: 750: 749: 748: 747: 741: 740: 739: 738: 731: 730: 729: 728: 722: 721: 720: 719: 713: 712: 698: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 613: 612: 611: 610: 605:Alison Chaiken 589: 588: 587: 586: 581:Alison Chaiken 548: 547: 536: 535: 519:Alison Chaiken 505: 502: 493: 492: 482: 463: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 400: 397: 396: 395: 368: 363: 347: 344: 336: 320: 315: 314: 313: 308:Alison Chaiken 280: 277: 257: 254: 228: 226:Scalar Gravity 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 203: 202: 178: 177: 176: 146: 145: 144: 143: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3881: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3852: 3848: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3839: 3829: 3828: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3811: 3794: 3791: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3764: 3761: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3739: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3714: 3711: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3679: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3662: 3655: 3642: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3618: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3554: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3485: 3475: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3451: 3448: 3447:Laura Scudder 3444: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3393: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3338:Laura Scudder 3335: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3307: 3305: 3302: 3298: 3291: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3215: 3212: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3185: 3181: 3180: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3156: 3151: 3147: 3137: 3136: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3105: 3102: 3101:ObsidianOrder 3098: 3094: 3092:Link is here 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3081: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3068:ObsidianOrder 3064: 3063: 3060: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3043: 3039: 3034: 3027: 3020: 3017: 3012: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2993: 2990: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2957: 2956:David Hilbert 2953: 2949: 2945: 2944:contributions 2935: 2934: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2911: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2892:Thomas Edison 2880: 2877: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2850:, perhaps? -- 2849: 2845: 2844: 2841: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2824: 2817: 2808: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2758: 2755: 2752:wikilinkers! 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2711: 2710:critical mass 2707: 2700: 2699:critical mass 2688: 2685: 2680: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2665: 2662: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2642: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2609:User:Intangir 2606: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2596: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2576:User:Intangir 2572: 2565: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2549: 2539: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2447: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2407: 2405: 2401: 2385: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2304: 2294: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2251: 2248:A section of 2245: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2223: 2214: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2207: 2201: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2176: 2170: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2162:Laura Scudder 2159: 2154: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2095: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2066: 2064: 2063:Talk:Redshift 2054: 2053: 2050: 2039: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1979: 1976: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1960: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1871: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1840: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1802: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1727: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1714:Biased sample 1711: 1710:antiparticles 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1636: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1553: 1550: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1531: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1478: 1477:breakthroughs 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1464: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1436:breakthroughs 1433: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1421: 1420: 1415: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1377: 1372: 1370: 1369:negative mass 1366: 1362: 1356: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1309: 1303: 1300: 1298: 1295: 1293: 1290: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1278: 1275: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1253:See also the 1249: 1240: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1196: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1183:Laura Scudder 1180: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1157: 1150: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1124: 1121: 1116: 1115:Laura Scudder 1112: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093:exchange bias 1090: 1085: 1081: 1080:Hilbert space 1077: 1076:string theory 1073: 1063: 1062: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1044: 1040: 1034: 1033: 1030: 1026: 1010: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 993: 992: 991: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 977: 974: 972: 967: 963: 953: 952: 949: 937: 934: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 919: 916: 911: 910:Laura Scudder 907: 902: 898: 897: 896: 895: 888: 885: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 870: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 842: 841: 840: 833: 830: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 815: 812: 808: 803: 802: 801: 800: 797: 794: 789: 788: 781: 780: 779: 778: 772: 771: 770: 769: 763: 762: 761: 760: 754: 753: 752: 751: 745: 744: 743: 742: 735: 734: 733: 732: 726: 725: 724: 723: 717: 716: 715: 714: 710: 709: 708: 707: 704: 697: 685: 682: 677: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 661: 658: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 638: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 609: 606: 602: 598: 593: 592: 591: 590: 585: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 561: 557: 552: 551: 550: 549: 546: 543: 538: 537: 534: 531: 526: 525: 524: 523: 520: 515: 511: 501: 500: 497: 490: 486: 483: 480: 476: 473: 472: 471: 469: 453: 450: 446: 442: 441: 440: 437: 433: 432: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 415: 414: 413: 410: 406: 394: 391: 387: 383: 382: 381: 380: 377: 375: 367: 366:False Doppler 362: 361: 358: 353: 352:heat capacity 343: 342: 339: 334: 333:Laura Scudder 330: 326: 319: 312: 309: 305: 300: 296: 295: 294: 293: 290: 286: 276: 275: 272: 268: 266: 263: 253: 252: 249: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233:Unfortunately 227: 218: 215: 211: 207: 206: 205: 204: 201: 198: 194: 193: 192: 191: 188: 184: 175: 172: 168: 164: 163: 162: 161: 158: 154: 150: 142: 139: 134: 133: 132: 131: 130: 129: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3835: 3814: 3658: 3557: 3488: 3422: 3399: 3391: 3352: 3313: 3294: 3248: 3227: 3165:Special:Logs 3143: 3123: 3117: 3030: 3010: 2996: 2941: 2927: 2923:, thanks. - 2914: 2890: 2820: 2766: 2736:And a merry 2725: 2703: 2678: 2637: 2604: 2579: 2570: 2568: 2532: 2513:Jitse Niesen 2499:Jitse Niesen 2471:Jitse Niesen 2455: 2422: 2408: 2397: 2297: 2273: 2255: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2204: 2179: 2150: 2090: 2072: 2060: 2057:Redshift RfC 2046: 1988: 1961: 1957: 1876:CP violation 1872: 1869: 1845: 1805: 1769: 1709: 1705: 1668: 1660: 1601: 1597: 1596:coffee cup, 1593: 1571: 1476: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1373: 1357: 1353: 1334: 1318:Transformity 1306: 1281: 1252: 1153: 1132: 1069: 1050:Pasen series 1047: 1039:Pasen series 1022: 982: 959: 945: 906:spectroscopy 806: 700: 621: 599:. Perhaps 507: 494: 465: 444: 422: 402: 370: 349: 322: 282: 262:charge decay 259: 256:Charge decay 232: 230: 179: 147: 106: 75: 43: 37: 3491:Itzchinoboi 3378:Commons FAQ 3184:Bob Mellish 3177:uploaded.") 3173:uploaded.") 3040:. Thanks. – 3033:cold fusion 3026:Cold fusion 3016:Ben Kidwell 2999:Paul August 2975:Paul August 2293:Myron Evans 2229:article by 2208:now lists: 2141:Fastfission 1964:Count Iblis 1414:anti-matter 1054:Katz series 1043:Katz series 997:Fresheneesz 565:Hall effect 138:Count Iblis 36:This is an 3536:deeptrivia 3518:deeptrivia 3493:, rewrote 3489:A newbie, 3482:Help with 3279:Thanks to 2605:particular 2456:A post at 2409:Thanks, -- 2098:JustinWick 1874:that Kaon 1510:says. See 783:somewhere. 489:discussion 479:discussion 243:. TIA --- 95:Archive 10 3361:Srleffler 3281:Srleffler 3233:WP:IDRIVE 2989:Srleffler 2896:WP:IDRIVE 2555:Conscious 2486:Srleffler 2462:Flutoride 2452:Flutoride 2325:John Baez 1933:Srleffler 1895:Srleffler 1856:GangofOne 1475:go on to 1097:spin wave 966:talk page 651:Consider 419:astronomy 271:Omegatron 237:talk page 183:Dirac sea 121:Dirac sea 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3638:O. Prytz 3587:O. Prytz 3332:There's 3132:Intangir 2876:Intangir 2781:Intangir 2750:neopagan 2744:for the 2661:Intangir 2400:redshift 2350:¡digame! 2314:¡digame! 2158:a couple 2049:Intangir 2035:Intangir 1998:SN 1987A 1942:Intangir 1927:Perhaps 1920:Intangir 1908:Intangir 1885:Intangir 1822:Intangir 1798:Intangir 1723:Intangir 1632:Intangir 1549:Intangir 1490:Intangir 1431:disprove 1393:Intangir 1365:SN 1987A 445:slightly 241:AfD page 3864:Pjacobi 3860:de:FQFT 3838:Pjacobi 2908:Moving 2333:Pjacobi 2284:Pjacobi 1508:WP:NPOV 1072:gravity 985:..! -- 983:nothing 39:archive 3824:Fenice 3735:Zondor 3700:Zondor 3661:Zondor 3578:SCZenz 3443:piping 3237:Fenice 3077:SCZenz 3056:SCZenz 3011:Update 2900:Fenice 2406:page. 2252:on AfD 2231:Nature 2222:Nature 2132:SCZenz 1706:normal 1527:SCZenz 1417:doing. 1361:ATHENA 1172:SCZenz 1029:SCZenz 1006:SCZenz 987:SCZenz 811:SCZenz 558:has a 449:SCZenz 427:SCZenz 248:(talk) 197:MarSch 171:SCZenz 157:MarSch 3851:Salsb 3790:linas 3733:. -- 3698:. -- 3568:linas 3445:. — 2965:(see 2837:linas 2823:linas 2804:linas 2754:linas 2746:pagan 2728:Karol 2651:Karol 2641:linas 2626:Karol 2595:Karol 2433:Heron 2262:Karol 2240:Karol 2190:linas 2108:Karol 1975:linas 1836:linas 1754:Karol 1673:linas 1606:linas 1463:facts 1449:linas 1423:hard. 1342:linas 1322:Karol 1308:linas 1274:linas 1259:Karol 1236:linas 1161:linas 1139:Karol 1058:linas 1037:AfD: 1027:. -- 971:lethe 962:E=mc² 948:Karol 933:linas 884:linas 866:Karol 829:linas 793:linas 703:Karol 681:linas 657:linas 634:linas 601:IUPAP 542:linas 530:linas 496:Karol 487:(see 477:(see 436:Karol 409:Karol 214:linas 187:Karol 125:Karol 119:, or 16:< 3671:Joke 3540:talk 3522:talk 3507:talk 3499:diff 3257:and 3124:some 3042:Joke 3038:here 2969:and 2954:and 2771:and 2748:and 2714:Yath 2622:here 2571:have 2543:and 2517:talk 2503:talk 2475:talk 2346:Klaw 2331:. -- 2310:Klaw 2303:npov 2256:See 2234:and 2184:for 1811:Joke 1787:Joke 1785:). – 1776:CERN 1594:your 1514:and 1211:See 1133:See 1095:and 1052:and 1041:and 848:and 674:The 571:and 512:and 388:. -- 155:. -- 3469:. 3353:own 2925:mak 2740:or 2679:did 2443:PAR 2119:PAR 2094:JPL 2033:-- 1931:?-- 1774:at 1669:are 1572:has 1220:or 1200:PAR 1082:or 1074:or 622:not 575:in 567:in 423:not 374:Doc 357:PAR 327:at 245:CH 123:)? 107:Is 3708:-- 3681:-- 3619:. 3603:∇ 3542:) 3524:) 3509:) 3420:. 3306:. 3269:. 3099:. 2950:, 2684:CH 2613:CH 2584:CH 2551:}} 2545:{{ 2541:}} 2535:{{ 2519:) 2505:) 2477:) 2381:CH 2368:CH 2327:' 2306:}} 2300:{{ 2260:. 2238:. 2065:. 1661:is 1602:my 1598:my 1443:A 1378:? 1371:. 1257:. 1137:. 807:is 470:? 407:. 372:-- 269:— 115:, 91:→ 3538:( 3520:( 3505:( 3450:☎ 3341:☎ 3002:☎ 2978:☎ 2929:o 2515:( 2501:( 2473:( 2165:☎ 1518:. 1187:☎ 1119:☎ 914:☎ 491:) 481:) 337:☎ 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index