Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality/1

needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It has passed, and received FA status. Badbilltucker 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

                        thanks to theproviders.                                                                       topians@hotmail.com (edit comment)

--Meno25 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemists and engineers (particlurly chemical engineers) working in a great many industries . I have classified it as Class A because it has been well-written, extremely well referenced, and organized well as per Wikipedia practice. It serves a highly useful function by documenting the fact that there two commonly used expressions for the Henry Law (each the invert of the other) and they are often confused one for the other. It also serves a useful function in exemplifying how to convert from one set of units to another since there are many sets of units in use.- mbeychok 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemists and engineers who work in a great many industries. I have classified it as Class A because it has been well-written, organized well as per Wikipedia practice and includes an excellent Bibliography of pertinent reference texts. - mbeychok 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article is well-written with an appropriate series of sections identified by headings. It does have external references to scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. It also has a history of years of contribution and refinement so I believe it represents a consensus. Myself, I already knew the material, but I do believe this article would be very useful to non-expert readers. Personally I would recommend it to colleagues in other fields of interest.

--GoodElfNo3 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of High

This article contributes a depth of knowledge about a topic of broad concern, the physics underlying the existence of a loophole in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That makes the importance "High" in my opinion.

--GoodElfNo3 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of High importance to chemists and to chemical engineers. I cannot speak for its importance to Physicists. - mbeychok 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemical engineers, refrigeration engineers and HVAC engineers. (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemists and engineers as well as to a great many industries (such as the natural gas industry, for example). I have classified it as Class A because it has been well-written, extremely well referenced, and organized well as per Wikipedia practice. It serves a most useful function by documenting the fact that there is no universally accepted set of standard conditions, and therefore one must always define the standard being used in any particular case. - mbeychok 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Who rated this article "Low Importance" ? It should of course be "Top Importance". (edit comment)

the Electromagnetic spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) seems to have big categories like : -Gama rays 1-10pm -X rays 10pm-10nm -UV rays 10nm-380nm -Visible Light 380nm-780nm -Infra Red 750nm-1mm -Microwave 1 mm-30 cm -Radio Wave 1 mm-1m /!\ it does overlap :) -Long radio wave 1m-

shall we put microvawe inside Radio Wave or find an other way to call the wave between 30cm and 1m ? (edit comment)

A few issues are treated in my textbook "Elementary Lectures in Statistical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag). In particular, in the actual book by Gibbs, which is reasonably a reliable source on what Gibbs wrote:

1) Gibbs used a different fundamental postulate, _not_ the principle of equal a priori probabilities, because Gibbs viewed the canonical ensemble as primary and the microcanonical ensemble as secondary. In modern notation, Gibbs viewed W_j = exp(- beta E_j) as fundamental.

2) The notion that statistical mechanics is only applicable to large systems is not found in Gibbs' book. Indeed, he deliberately compares his treatment with a treatment that he does not identify as Boltzmann's, showing the differences in the predictions of teh two models.

3) Gibbs certainly does not speak of the H-Theorem. After all, in Gibbsian statistical mecahnics the entropy is a constant of the motion. (edit comment)

1 wikipedia says i have messages but how do i read them? I want to add a picture to a page? How do I edit a comment below a picture? How do I get help. How do I sign this so that I can get an answer? Thanks for any help that I can get. (edit comment)

I made a stab at rating the importance/class of the article. I think the article qualifies as "high" importance since the Annus Mirabilis is not only a significant historical event, but also significant for the development of physics. (Not to mention a great deal of "lore" surrounding the publication of these papers). I put it as "B-class" since it seemed things were a bit unstable (eg, the merge suggestions) but it seemed that the article was in pretty good shape, well referenced and written, etc.

If I could weigh in on the suggestion of GR inclusion. Not sure what the poster intended to mean, exactly. Certainly a link to an explanation of GR or the description of the GR page would be warranted. But GR wasn't published in the Annus Mirabilis... Wesino 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

1. No published experimental evidence of the properties or structure is presented for dark matter. Rather, all concepts of dark matter are inferred from the lack of evidence in other theories, such as the missing matter for a flat, critical density, or to explain an apparent acceleration of the universe.

2. Dark matter properties should be predictable from current inflationary models but the article states no prediction or experimental evidence based on these models.

3. The suggestion that dark matter should exist to make up for "missing" matter that is predicted by a theory is a circular argument. The lack of evidence to support a theory should not be rationalized by presenting another theory which in itself is pure speculation.

4. The search for dark matter goes back several decades and with the current lack of experimental evidence for it's existence, theories that predict a required mass of the universe (which appears to be missing based on observation) should be re-examined. (edit comment)

Amplitude A is not always positive. When omega is less than 1, A is positive, other wise A should be negtive. (edit comment)

This article still needs work in order to be helpful at a glance: better formatting and more precise wording. Progress has been made since the article failed GA nomination in June.

BailesB 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Snailwalker | talk 16:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

My God, did the author of this article think there would be people unfamiliar with the use of a mirror, but logging onto the Internet and using Wikipedia to discover they could see their face in one? (edit comment)

The "B"-class assessment is due to this article needing extensive work to be a quality article. Perhaps once the current edit cycle is complete, it may be appropriate to reconsider this designation. --EMS | Talk 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Intro is too long, see Wikipedia:Lead section. No equations or pictures. I think it should have sections on the major aspects with links to there main articles, e.g. Basic Equations, Nozzles Diffusers and Wind Tunnels, Shock Waves, Mach number - Supersonic and Subsonic, Lineralised theory, Numerical Non-linear models (picking some topics from Anderson, John D. (1984). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. ISBN 0-07-001656-9.) No sources. (edit comment)

• Needs more links to related concepts such as angular momentum and angular motion in general. A template grouping the most important concepts in rotational kinetics at the bottom would help too.
• Real world examples of angular acceleration (I made the suggestion of hula hoops) would help, as well as some examples of fields where calculations using angular velocity are regularly used.
• Mathematical section is covered quite well
  • A diagram showing velocity resolved into parallel and perpendicular components could be useful in the derivation section

Richard001 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

The wavelength is related to the frequency by

   \lambda = { c \over \nu }.

The law is sometimes written in terms of the spectral energy density

   u(\nu,T) = { 4\pi \over c } I(\nu,T) = \frac{8\pi h\nu^3 }{c^3}~\frac{1}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1}

which has units of energy per unit volume per unit frequency (joule per cubic meter per hertz). Integrated over frequency, this expression yields the total energy density. The radiation field of a black body may be thought of as a photon gas, in which case this energy density would be one of the thermodynamic parameters of that gas.

The spectral energy density can also be expressed as a function of wavelength:

   u(\lambda,T) = {8\pi h c\over \lambda^5}{1\over e^{\frac{h c}{\lambda kT}}-1}

as shown in the derivation below.

??? nu3/c3 = c/lambda5 ??? (edit comment)

One minor motivational issue: the sum(p.r) expression looks like something whose usefulness would be severly limited by its strong dependency on the frame of reference. Is one supposed to be thinking in terms of a coordinate system centered on, and moving with, the center of mass? If not, I wonder why anybody studied this expression long enough to discover how useful it is.

The electromagnetic part at the end seemed a bit much. (edit comment)