Talk:Physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Do you think you can improve the physics article?

Major revisions are being conducted at the development page. Please offer your input.



Good article A Wikipedian removed Physics from the good article list after consensus was reached to do so. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top importance within physics.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The scientific peer review symbol, a compasss. This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Physics: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Improve continuity. Transitions could use work after a recent reorganization.
  • Verify: This page has almost no citations. Please help!
  • Cleanup: History section. Some sentences and paragraphs are out of place after recent reorganization.
  • Other: Add to this list!


Contents

[edit] New "Category:Thermodynamicists" started

I collected all of the famous thermodynamicists I could think of (~15 so far) and grouped them here: Category:Thermodynamicists. If you know of more please add them. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! --MichaelMaggs 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (adopting wording used elsewhere by Noetica)

[edit] In the categories of Physics

I think some physicists would be offended that there is no non-linear physics in there. Fields like biophysics seem to be gone. These are major fields of study into chaos. Yes it does blend with other field s such as AMO but it should probably still be there. maybe im the only one --Blckavnger 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhh

Why were all the images removed and never restored? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=86470595&oldid=86468622 this is why i hate wiki sometimes, how can you not notice something like this for months? can you revert changes made on a edit previous edit to the last without loosing intervening edits? --Deglr6328 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked back at the history, and a HUGE number of pictures and photos were removed. Surely they were not all in violation? What is going on?--ReasonIsBest 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree to this. --Meno25 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't they been added back? --68.224.247.53 04:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added back the images that were removed a month ago by this edit. --MichaelMaggs 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discredited theories

I suggest these theories be listed in chronological order rather than the roughly reverse chronological order they are in at present. --Wfaxon 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lead

"Physics is a study of the inorganic, physical world..." This statement in the lead is incorrect, IMO. The laws of physics apply to both organic and inorganic matter. Yeah, I know there's a citation ot the Encyclopedia Britannica, but, sorry, they're wrong too :-) There are also a lot of mistakes in grammar and punctuation in the lead. I'm going to go ahead and do a rewrite of the lead.--24.52.254.62 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In the opening, the second translation, of the word, phusiké from greek does not mean "knowledge of," the -iké suffix was very common, it just meant "pertaining to" or "in the manner of".

The main problem is trying to give a quick definition of the original word, phúsis. In its Greek definition it was usually defined in contradistinction to "nomos", which meant customs, laws, usage etc. Now if it is defined as being that "which is different to law," then giving a definition of it as "discovering the fundamental laws" of nature is problematic outside of theology.

Also the word nature is just a translation of phúsis, so the definition would be circular. Nor is a link to the page on nature any better, since it assumes phusis means mainly plants and trees. (as one might expect from a page on "nature").

As a 21st century science, it is not so much based upon the early modern faith in "eternal and immutable laws," as much as, giving a consensus and creating or discovering models, usually mathematical models, of the physical world. Of course, this is within the ideal of finding and assuring the more stable models (or, if you are a pragmatist, the more useful, or powerful, models).

On whether or not the models of physics apply to organic systems I am not so sure. As far as I know, the models used in organic chemistry cannot be built, all the way up, from physics, even though the parts of organic systems are subject to the same physics as everything else. This is the problem of reduction, and it might be good to place a "health warning" in the article on where physics cannot be applied.

In the history section it misses the fact that medicine was a part of physics until the middle of the Christian era. Also I think it is not very generous to call historical physics, "wrong", since it is not beyond one's imagination to see that, in the distant future, we too could be written off as "wrong."

I'm not editing the article myself since I see it is under review, contentious etc. it is just my two cents. Lucas

Lucas, please be bold and make your changes! You sound like you have some good ideas. Gnixon 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Roger Bacon to early part of History

I would like the editors to consider adding a reference to Roger Bacon, due to his emphasis on the so-called scientific method in the 13th century, and the impact of his treatises on later 16th and 17th century minds. Add to the para:

"As the influence of the Arab Empire expanded to Europe, the works of Aristotle preserved by the Arabs, and the works of the Indians and Persians, became known in Europe by the 12th and 13th centuries."

Tony 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to restart the improvement process

As you might know, there has been a slow article improvement process ongoing for the last few months at Talk:Physics/wip. One of the tasks understaken was a "vote" on several proposed leads for physics at Talk:Physics/wip/leadvote. However, the process has ground down to a halt. We need input and possibly a moderator to assist us.--Filll 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of trying to push the editing to subpages unless it's limited to a specific part of the article (e.g., the lead) that needs a major, potentially controversial revision. We shouldn't be cutting off people's well-intentioned edits by telling them to go off to Talk:Physics/wip. If the concern is that new edits tend to be dis-improvements, the process can be controlled by organizing this talk page to illustrate consensus on certain parts of the article. A FAQ might be useful. Gnixon 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section Review

The discussions on the improvement to the lead section are now continuing following the vote that was taken. All opinions and suggestions are welcome and should be directed here, thank you. Krea 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


The draft definition that has been drawn up is this:

Physics — from the Greek φύσις (phusis) "nature", and φυσικῆ (phusike) "knowledge of nature" — in everyday terms, is the science that seeks to understand objects in nature, such as particles or fields, through principles such as forces, energies, and conservation laws, amongst others. At its most fundamental description, physics can be described to be the science whose goal it is to understand nature.

If anybody has any comments to make, no matter how trivial, could they please be made at the review page. Just butt in and express an opinion! Krea 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Índeed Vexperiential

This sentence might need an "and" in it, perhaps? Physics attempts to describe the natural world by the application of logic the scientific method, including modelling by theoreticians.

Grammatically, I don't see much wrong with the sentence myself, but if you have a better structure for it let me know. I'd prefer to keep logic out of the definition: I'm not convinced that it is fundamental. It might be, but I am not aware of any discussion or argument that states so. For example, concerning the problem of "where did existence stem from", logic seems to break down doesn't it? Then again, I may be wrong. I'd be grateful if anyone would care to enlighten me if I am indeed mistaken. Krea 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version in the article is much better. Gnixon 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temp pages

Hello. The temp pages for the physics article, in particular Physics/wip, Physics/wip/leadproposal1, Physics/wip/leadproposal2 and Physics/wip/leadproposal3 should all be moved to either the user or talk namespaces. Otherwise, chances are me or someone equally uninvolved in this rewriting process will move it to some place that you guys will feel is inconvenient! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'll bring this up with the other editors on the Physics/wip page so as not to surprise them with a change. Krea 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made the moves in order to comply with Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses but left links on the original pages. The pages should be deleted altogether after awhile. Gnixon 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline references

This article needs good inline references and fewer of the mishmash references found under the Further reading section. Nevertheless, the Britannica Concise reference is a particularly lousy choice.

  • It doesn't directly support the text in the introductory paragraph to which it is/was attached.
  • It's vague and not very accurate anyway. For instance, this statement - "the different forces of nature are related and are, in fact, interconvertible because they are forms of energy" - is nonsense. Neither forces nor fundamental interactions are forms of energy. Tim Shuba 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, it's silly for this encyclopedia to reference another one. This article does need a lot of work on its citations. Gnixon 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I've reorganized much of the page over a series of recent edits. Most of the content was untouched. Major changes are:

  • Limited main topics to
  • Introduction
  • Central theories
  • Research
  • History
  • See also
  • Notes
Most other topics in the prior version fit nicely within "Central theories," "Research," or "History."

These changes brought the article to a reasonable size and I think better organized its contents. Some of the gross changes may have slightly hurt continuity, especially in the History section, so some work on transitions would be helpful. As mentioned above, this article is seriously deficient in its references, and needs a lot of work there. Thoughts? Gnixon 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/y/Talk%7EPhysics_d311.html"