Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Current Discussion

As a result of numerous problems a new approach is being taken (see bottom of Archive 2 for discussion on the origins). In short, as many editors as want to can create a lead section. All these various versions will then be put to the vote - with the version with the least amount of support being dropped. Once we have three versions then a wikipedia wide poll will be taken to attempt to establish a "best fit" lead section. (see a rough outline of the rules here). We are never going to be able to come up with something that is 100% suitable to everyone (the last 2 months and countless tens of thousands of words has proven that) - so the best we can hope for is creating something that mostly satisfies most people.

Each proposal can be situated in a suitable location. To separate them out from each other I think it best that each proposal goes on a separate page - a / down into the hierarchy here inside the WIP should be fine (e.g. wip/leadproposal1). Proposals are welcomed from all - I suggest a week for people to submit their version - I know most already have one from above, but that should give time for those who either didn't previously submit or who wish to alter some of what they have written. A week of commenting and voting will them commence, and then the process will repeat (time frames can be shorter if all are happy). SFC9394 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to vote? Nick Mks 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think we need a vote - we have only three proposals - the number that was prescribed for a wikipedia wide vote. I was giving it plenty of time to ensure that anyone who wanted to add a proposal could. SFC9394 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have given it a few more days and nobody has come forward with any other proposal. I have therefore enacted a wikipedia wide request for votes. I have posted a bullet on the Community Portal, other locations may be useful as well but I presumed that would be the highest traffic location. The vote page is here - hopefully we will have a good deal of votes and comments enabling this behemoth WIP to get moving and actually start to get some improvement going on the main mass of the article. SFC9394 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a table under "applied physics" that has no purpose whatsoever, semantically speaking, when compared to the two others. It's not organized data: it's a list that sneaked in. Either make it a proper list or prose, but the table HAS to go. It should either be like under "Central theories," with definition in the article (which would also fix this one-paragraph section), or refer the reader to something like a List of fields in applied physics. As a notice, shouldn't that list be present in Applied physics too?? Circeus 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the vote is now well underway, and it is fairly clear which ways things are starting to go in the voting, I am a bit late with this. However, having multiple graduate degrees in physics, I think I might weigh in here a bit (even though I have almost never edited physics articles here for some reason). I think one could forge a very accessible, accurate reasonable introduction drawing on the present introduction and lead, and all three proposals. None of them I would classify as optimal, for various reasons. But it is probably best to let the vote proceed. I hope people do not decide when this is all done that the job is complete and that the result should be defended to the death, without thinking about this vote as one step on a process.--Filll 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Community Portal notice will be pulled on the 19th so at that point we will have a sort of finality. I think the pattern of the vote suggests both what the general form should be as well as a few specifics. Once we have things in a state of finality then we can work on some intensive consensus reaching based on the vote and comments. SFC9394 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I hope it is not inappropriate for me to put a few comments down here on what I have seen by glancing at the archives and in all three proposals:

Do you really want to define physics=all of science? Is this useful, even if true in some sense? It is a bit difficult for me to believe that so many are racing towards defining physics=biology or physics=chemistry or physics=sociology or physics=anthropology or physics=psychology. While it is true that physical processes underly all these other fields (or at least some believe that they do, without anything else being involved), at least at this point in time, the gap between the study of penguins or manic depressive disorder or dreams or the tribal mating rituals in New Guinea and the study of behaviors of plasmas under various conditions is pretty big. The people who study penguins, dreams, OCD and mating rituals are not physicists, and do not need training in what we call physics to study these phenomena at the present time. In 200 years or 500 years, physics might be necessary for studying these phenomena, but it is not needed now. And people who study them do not use physics except possibly indirectly through the equipment they use. In this sense, for a student, or a layperson, who will probably form well over 90% of your intended audience, to start off with a definition or statements that unequivocally state that all of science is physics is not particularly helpful. I would also point out that in fields like Psychology or Biology, they are not likely to be particularly pleased to find out that their field is just a subfield of physics, and that their own training and contributions are viewed as irrelevant since Psychology or Biology are just physics. All of these other fields of science have their own traditions and methods and training and approaches. Some might experience the well known physics envy, but they are not physics. At least not yet. If someone wanted to discuss this lower in the text, that would be fine, but putting it in the lead I think is asking for trouble.

Humans start sorting their world out with things on their own scale. Stone are just stones until somebody really looks closely at one and detects structures within. Animals are just things to eat until somebody like Plato realizes that they have organic structures. Stars and planets are all the same until somebody notices that planets move with relation to the stars. As we made progress, our question was "what is underneath" the phenomena that we could observe. It took a long time before we could achieve sufficient clarity that we could predict relatively macro-scale things that we did not already know. For instance, the chemical components of water were well known for a great long time before knowledge about oxygen and hydrogen could be used to predict characteristics of water. In a sense, nature has already done the math for us so it is only an academic exercise to compute the properties of water. However, it turns out that with computers to speed up the calculations it can be very helpful to apply physics to chemistry.

All of our searching seems to me to point, by various avenues, toward the "grand unfired theory," something that explains how all complex phenomena emerge from the same root. Exactly what to call this/these simplest and most fundamental things escapes me, but I think that the article should point out that even when physicists are looking at galaxies they are looking for the underlying processes, the fundaments.

It's purely a matter of academic interest, since no empirical studies or scientific method is involved, but the Chinese built a metaphysical sand castle in pursuit of the same goal. They started with 64 situational categories, observed that they could be reduced by halving until you had two fundamental phenomenal categories, Yin and Yang... and then asked what would happen if you reduced them to one by collapsing the two into a "something" that was the source of the most fundamental categories of experience (black and white, hot and cold, plenum and void...). What happens if you collapse plenum and void, being and non-being, into one? They called the one the Tai-ji (T'ai Chi in the old Wade-Giles romanization). Once you had that basic structure you could double up to 64 and then go on to 128, 256... In the process you get something that looks like binary numbers, which blew Leibniz's mind when he learn of it shortly after he had invented binary math himself. So it's a grand metaphysical sandcastle is there ever was one. It's only linked to experience by dogmatic assertions, so it hasn't been productive of technological goodies or predictions of hitherto unseen phenomena. But it does point to a very human desire to trace things back to fundamental building blocks that can be used to understand the structures that are built up from them. P0M 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Physics is not just an experimental science. I have seen many comments to the effect that physics is an experimental science, or an empirical science, and so on. It is true that there are experiments done in physics. However, huge branches of physics are observational sciences, where experiments are usually not possible (astrophysics, geophysics, ocean physics/physical oceanography, etc). Are these branches or subbranches of physics to be excluded? They include some of the most exciting arenas for physics, and some of the oldest.
Physics is not just defined by its use of mathematics. I have seen many discussions about physics being only about discovering mathematical laws. I would disagree. Quantitative reasoning is important in many areas of physics, but there is qualitative reasoning and qualitative observations in many areas still. And historically, qualitative approaches were very prevalent in areas we would call physics. All fields have a tendency to become more quantitative with time as they mature. Physics is older than most, and the phenomena it studied were more amenable to quantitative reasoning, so it is farther ahead in this regard than many other fields.
Matter=energy. To someone who knows a little, this is obvious, so they do not need to be listed separately in a description. To someone who does not know a little, they will not know what energy is. So it is not useful to include it either way.
Why discuss the scientific method in the first few sentences?. This can be down later in the lead, but it need not be described in detail as it is in proposal 1. All one needs to do is say that physics is a science. If you wanted, you could say that physics uses the scientific method.
The scale of physics is important to note, from the very small to the very large in the first few paragraphs.
I would move the subfields of physics (nuclear physics, astrophysics, biophysics, etc, broken into modern and classical physics), or the types of physics (applied physics, experimental physics, mathematical physics, theoretical physics) to a separate section with a separate heading.
Actions are a bit sophisticated for a lead, depending on what is meant by the somewhat ambiguous term "action". If by action, interaction or movement is implied, then it might be permissible, but the wording is not helpful. I would choose another word besides action. (proposal 2)
Disagreement over the definition of physics should not appear in the lead even if it is true (which I am not sure is particularly true). This can be put lower in the body. (proposal 2)
Heat is not a field. (proposal 3).
Experimental test is not the ultimate test of any theory. (proposal 3). Agreement of the predictions of the theory with the data is. And the data can be observational or experimental data.
Physics is usually a drive towards simpler rules (proposal 3). Although I do not like the wording, this is a feature of physics in general.
Can we not say electromagnetism? (proposal 3). I think that the term has been around long enough now that most people will know what it is. Why separate electricity and magnetism?
Relativity = Classical physics? (proposal 3). That sounds like a pretty doubtful claim to me.
Theoretical physics= mathematics? Not really true. There are theories that are qualitative, or which have qualitative aspects. I admit that these are few in number. However, theoretical physics deals with theories, which are not necessarily quantitative. The wording of this section of Proposal 3 is very awkward, frankly.
Is there an impractical experiment? I see many references to "practical experiments". What on earth does that mean? I would get rid of the word "practical".

--Filll 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

I merged the three proposals to try to help the situation a little and maybe help to focus the conversation after the voting. I put labels/section headings over the sections but I do not suggest they remain. I just wanted to make clear how I was organizing the ideas. I am not sure where the boundary between the lead and the introduction should be. I think an introduction like that in chemistry might fall right between the section on "physics is quantitative" and "fields of physics" so the last two, plus some more material might go in an introduction.

General description

Physics is the science of matter and how matter interacts. Physics is used to describe the physical universe around us, and to predict how it will behave. Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and characterization of the universal laws which govern matter, movement and forces, space and time, and other features of the natural world.

Breadth and goals of physics

The sweep of physics is broad, from the tiniest components of matter and the forces that hold it together, to galaxies and even larger structures. There are only four forces that appear to operate over this entire range. However, even these four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force associated with radioactivity, and the strong force which holds atoms together) are believed to be different aspects of a single force.

Physics is primarily focused on the goal of formulating ever simpler, more general, and more accurate rules that govern the character and behavior of matter and space itself. One of the major goals of physics is the formulation of theories of universal applicability. Therefore, physics can be viewed as the study of those univeral laws which define, at the most fundamental level possible, the behaviour of the physical universe.

Physics uses the scientific method

Physics uses the scientific method. That is, data from experiments and observations are collected. Theories which attempt to explain these data are produced. Physics uses these theories to not only describe physical phenomena, but to model physical systems and predict how these physical systems will behave. These predictions can then be compared to observations or experimental evidence to verify or falsify the theory.

The theories that are well supported by data and are especially simple and general are sometimes called scientific laws. Of course, all theories, including those known as laws, can be replaced by more accurate and more general laws, when a disagreement with data is found.^[1]

Physics is Quantitative

Physics is more quantitative than most other sciences. That is, many of the observations in physics are numerical measurements. Most of the theories in physics use mathematics to express their principles. Most of the predictions from these theories are numerical. This is because of the areas which physics has addressed are more amenable to quantitative approaches than other areas. Sciences also tend to become more quantitative with time as they become more highly developed, and physics is one of the older sciences.

Fields of physics

Classical physics traditionally included the fields of mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism, acoustics and thermodynamics. Modern physics is a term normally used to cover fields which rely on quantum theory, including quantum mechanics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics and condensed matter physics, as well as the more modern fields of general and special relativity. Although this distinction can be commonly found in older writings, it is of limited current significance as quantum effects are now understood to be of importance even in fields previously considered purely classical.^[2]

Approaches in physics

There are many approaches to studying physics, and many different kinds of actitivies in physics. There are two main types of activities in physics; the collection of data and the development of theories.

The data in some subfields of physics is amenable to experiment. For example, condensed matter physics and nuclear physics benefit from the ability to perform experiments. Experimental physics focuses mainly on an empirical approach. Sometimes experiments are done to explore nature, and in other cases experiments are performed to produce data to compare with the predictions of theories.

Some other fields in physics like astrophysics and geophysics are primarily observational sciences because most their data has to be collected passively instead of through experimentation. Nevertheless, observational programs in these fields uses many of the same tools and technology that are used in the experimental subfields of physics.

Theoretical physics often uses quantitative approaches to develop the theories that attempt to explain the data. In this way, theoretical physics often relies heavily on tools from mathematics. Theoretical physics often can involve creating quantitative predictions of physical theories, and comparing these predictions quantitatively with data. Theoretical physics sometimes creates models of physical systems before data is available to test and validate these models.

These two main activities in physics, data collection and theory production and testing, draw on many different skills. This has lead to a lot of specialization in physics, and the introduction, development and use of tools from other fields. For example, theoretical physicists apply mathematics and numerical analysis and statistics and probability and computers and computer software in their work. Experimental physicists develop instruments and techniques for collecting data, drawing on engineering and computer technology and many other fields of technology. Often the tools from these other areas are not quite appropriate for the needs of physics, and need to be adapted or more advanced versions have to be produced.--Filll 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes

^ Some principles, such as Newton's laws of motion, are still generally called "laws" even though they are now known not to be of such universal applicability as was once thought.
^ Different people, however, have different definitions of what they regard physics to be, and another common definition is that, "physics is the science of nature" [1,2,3,4,5,6].

Another comment. I see that the current article has some etymological information about the word physics. Would that be better in a footnote? I do not know if there is enough material about the etymology of the word to justify its own section, as in some articles.--Filll 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Filll, The end of the structure discussion page lays out how the article will flow, chapter 3. History & Foundations, has been pencilled to include detailed etymology. Regards, SFC9394 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good. You guys are so organized I am impressed. Sorry I am an interloper here but I wanted to just throw in my 2 cents.--Filll 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Now having glanced at your structure, the main difficulty that pops out at me is the neglect of the observational sciences that are part of physics; astrophysics, geophysics and a few other fields that might or might not be part of physics or another field (ocean physics and atmospheric physics might be called part of geophysics for example).--Filll 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

C4 &/or C5 would happily cover those areas I would imagine - bearing in mind there are articles on astrophysics/geophysics so we don't need to delve into vast depths on the subjects. SFC9394 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance. What are C4 and C5? I do not think one needs more than to acknowledge that astrophysics and geophysics are observational sciences, and wikify the names. No details are necessary because these are huge fields in their own rights. I just sometimes cringe when I see too much emphasis placed on experiment, since observation is still a mainstay in huge areas of science and even of physics.--Filll 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it should have been C5 and C6 - C being chapter, 5. Current Topics/Current Research – A brief outline of the current areas of principle research and 6. Applications and Influence – Where physics is used, how it is used and how that use impinges on the world. SFC9394 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok no problem. I just want people to remember when writing this that some parts of physics are observational, not just experimental. A bit tough to do experiments on the flipping of the solar or terrestrial dynamo. Hard to do earthquake experiments (although it has been tried). Hard to do experiments on a supernova or a volcano. Etc. I am just suggesting a slight wording change in a place or two as these proposals are mulled over. That is all.--Filll 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

After looking a bit at the comments on the three proposals, I find myself agreeing with many of them. I did not consider those when writing my suggestion above. I would suggest we pay very careful attention to all of these comments on the voting page.--Filll 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, I do think that the concepts of "energy" and "fields" are uniquely physics contributions to ways of viewing the world and organizing the observations. These might deserve prominence or mention for this reason. Also, there are certain inherent assumptions in science about univeral applicability of the laws in time and space, and other assumptions that start to veer in philosophy of science. I am not sure that this sort of discussion deserves to be in this article, and certainly not in the introduction.--Filll 17:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AllGoodNamesTaken

I'm kinda new here, but from the WikiProject Physics talk page it sounds like nothing as yet is decided, so I may as well throw in my two cents.

I'm not fond of any of the three proposals for the lead section; the first and third seem to get too caught up in the minutae in physics, whilst the second one doesn't give enough of a "sense" of physics (I know that's vague, but I really can't think of a way to explain what I mean). The first paragraph of the third proposal seems to me to have the most potential, and a lengthened version of the second proposal would also work. I really disagree with the first proposal as it to me excludes some disciplines within physics.

In my mind a clear and concise - but technically inaccurate - lead is better then one that attempts to be accurate. I honestly don't think it's possible to write one that's accurate, so a broad description of physics appeals to me more then one that involves more details than is necessary, such as distinctions between classical and modern physics. Basically, one that attempts to capture the "essence" of physics without getting bogged down in details.

I'd written a lead to the article... and then I went and read the archives. Wow. From that discussion I guess it'd be classed as broadphysics, rules and study based with a nod to history and the demarcation problem. I'll put it here just in case anyone is interested...

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσικῆ (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") is the branch of science concerned with the observation, measurement and description of natural phomonia and the interactions between them. In particular it aims to measure and describe these phomonia and interactions quantitatively through the use of theorems and mathematics, allowing for the accurate prediction and manipulation of their properties and behaviour in other areas (for example, Engineering). It has roots in both Natural Philosophy and Mathematics, and the breadth of phomonia studied as a part of physics makes it difficult to properly define (see the Demarcation Problem).

... but I realise people are going to disagree and that it's probably a couple of months too late to really be useful to this discussion. It'd need some work anyways, and it'd be easier to edit one of the previously proposed leads.

I'm also not going to vote - I feel like I'd be voting more against the other proposals then for one. I really dislike doing that, so I'll just comment here instead. Anyways, cheers! - AllGoodNamesTaken 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AllGoodNamesTaken, I as well have misgivings about all of them. I wonder about including the etymology of the word in the lead; won't it clog things up and make them less accessible? And I am a big fan of etymologies! I think that introducing the demarcation problem so early is tough for the average reader too. I wonder about interactions of natural phenomena. Does this allow all of science to be classified as physics?--Filll 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much copied the etymology straight from the current lead, so I don't have much of an opinion either way there. Reading over this page it looks like the consensus is that it's out, so I guess that means it's out. In hindsight I also (very much) agree with leaving out the demarcation problem and the difficulty involved with creating a good definition. It's a rewording of the second paragraph of the second proposal, and that was the part I disliked the most of all three proposals.

Yep, it pretty much leaves anything and everything open to be classified as physics - can you think of any way to restrict the definition without also removing legitimate disciplines in physics? Or, for that matter, a definition that doesn't also include large parts of chemistry? I'd much prefer an inclusive intro over an exclusive one, but it sounds like that's the one detail that's stopped a consensus from developing. Looking at the wiki pages for Engineering, Chemistry and Music, it seems like they're all fine with inclusive definitions, which could actually be an interesting point in this discussion - do other disciplines use inclusive or exclusive leads for their Wiki articles? I guess seeing if there's any consensus there could be useful in deciding how this one should read (I should also see if that's answered in the archives. It probably is).

In all honesty I was really debating posting yet another lead, and the only reason I eventually did was to show that I disliked the current alternatives enough to attempt to come up with something better. I'm not even sure if I like it more then the first and third proposals, and the only reason I like it more then the second is because it's basically a more detailed version of it.

I think my biggest complaint against the proposals is for their use of confusing details; I've only got a little less then one year of physics at the tertiary level, so I'm very nearly a layperson here. I hadn't seen much of a distinction between classical and modern physics in anything other then dynamics and I hadn't realized that physics could describe everything in terms of space, time and mass (but to be fair, I probably should have). Without that little bit of physics (and my physics 101 testbook to refer to) I would have been much more confused on both those counts, so I really don't think they'd help with providing a definition of physics for someone with no knowledge of physics.

My other main complaint is the length of the proposals, but that's due to the details. Without all those all three would be one or two paragraphs.

I guess in a nutshell my philosophy is to look at the forest only in the intro and leave the trees to the later sections. That's also the point of contention though, and it's not like I've said anything that hasn't already been said before. I should probably have left this alone, but I just don't think it's worth replacing the current intro with any of the three proposals (or my version, for that matter) as they currently are. Anyways, thanks for the comments (and especially for phrasing them as light criticism), hopefully all that answers all of them? Cheers! - AllGoodNamesTaken 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I do not like the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd proposal. But I do like the fact that it is short, and I do love the first paragraph, which is whhy I chose it. I and the author of the 2nd paragraph are professional physicists with a handful of graduate degrees in physics, so we have a bit more idea about things than many here do I think. Too inclusive in the first paragraph or two is not good, because then you say "Physics includes ALL of Science!" which is true in a certain sense, but not helpful for someone just starting. That kind of thing can be lower in the article. Because frankly, Physics and Chemistry and biology take different approaches to understanding nature. Classical and Modern physics is interesting, but should be lower down. And all of physics pretty much comes down to (1) matter and (2) interactions. That is all. Space and time come out of that. Energy of course is matter. Forces are interactions. You have it all right there. I would also agree with you about the forest for the trees. If you look above, you can see some of the rough chicken scratch I threw down for a LEAD and then some sections for an Introduction section as well. Hang in there. --Filll 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead proposal 1: Lead proposal 1 by MichaelMaggs

Lead proposal 2: Lead proposal 2 by Krea

Lead proposal 3: Lead proposal 3 by BryanD

Lead proposal 4:

Final Thoughts

Just to put a bit of an end cap on this process, obviously things have slowed to the point of stopping. Due to time constraints I am going to have to step back for this process. Someone else can take it on if they wish (and I hope someone does), but failing that then this can be laid to rest. Unfortunately I don't really have the time required. I do have the time to jump into WP for 10 minutes, revert a few vandals and do a bit of 'soft' editing, but this process is very much a 'hard' task - requiring a good deal of time to be spend reading thousands of words and attempting to coax all the sheep into a small pen. Perhaps this kind of process doesn't work at all - or perhaps it just doesn't work for something with as much latitude, spectrum of views and contention as Physics has. The debates about the lead really are something that folks can write a 100,000 words of philosophical debate on - and unfortunately that is what happened here. We got a good way down the road and took it to a wikipedia wide vote - it is a good position to continue from, and I hope someone has enough time and temperament to pick up the baton. Regards, SFC9394 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First Thoughts

Well, SFC9394, I can understand the fact that you feel that you cannot continue to moderate the review process, but I disagree that things have slowed down to the point of stopping - we were, or at least I was, waiting for the vote to conclude. Has that now happened? If it has, I at least am willing to continue on the project (although not as a new moderator). It is not fair to conclude that just because a lot of things were said - not all of them relevent - that the process probably doesn't work: in such situations, a verbal blackout can sometimes help to reflect on what has been said so far in order for certain comprimises to be made (at least speaking for my own views) and for progress to continue. In any case, I wish to thank you for the effort you have placed so far, and hope that you will not be a complete stranger to the process (if it is still extant, of course). What now interests me to know is how many editors out there are still interested? Can those who are still interested and feel that they could contribute re-emerge from latency and make themselves known - and possibly suggest ideas on how discussions will now continue, or suggest the nomination of a new moderator. Krea 14:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to thank SFC9394. I came to this process late, but voted and offered some comments above. I was somewhat surprised when I recieved no response to my suggestions and comments, even over a period of weeks, since I had had the impression that this was a topic of intense interest and discussion. It seems like it has been completely abandoned to me. I of course cannot unilaterally push other editors to show up to continue this process. I think that a good start has been made, and I synthesized what I thought was best out of the 3 proposals, above. I have been waiting to hear a response to what I wrote above. If anyone wants to comment, I am certainly interested. I am loathe to move ahead unilaterally however, since there has often been quite a bit of heated discussion on this issue in the past. Perhaps if we posted a notice at the Physics portal? Let me try that and see if we can get things going again.--Filll 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where to go from here

I am also relatively new to this project, and I have to say I am a little intimidated, and I feel others might be as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but heres how I think things stand: we are leaving the lead vote open for comments, but in the meantime, I say we move full steam into editing the work page. I see user:filll has made some good contributions, and I will be contributing as well. I also think the policy of "discuss then edit" should be changed to "edit, and then if need be, discuss". Things will go more efficiently. So far, we have a solid framework to build off (see archive2), and now we need to write the prose and hone the details. I might also recommend adding a template:to-do box so we can go through things in a orderly fashion, and so that would-be editors know what they can do. Danski14 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree Danski14. After pondering this for more than a month, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and just implement a merger of my synthesis of the three proposals and the current material at Physics/wip, and then see what people think. Please look at the current version at Physics/wip. It has a few rough edges still, but I think it incorporates the best of the 3 proposals, and does not leave out any major information. It might need to be trimmed down a bit of course, but this can be discussed.--Filll 18:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, great! So, to get the ball rolling on some useful edits, heres my list of things we can focus on :

Lead: Your lead is ok, but I think we should replace it with Lead Proposal 3, which was the fruits of much discussion and labor, and is currently the one with the most votes. However, we leave the vote open for more comments/discussion if people want.
Layout: Here is the layout that was decided upon in archive2 : I will be re-organizing what we have to this layout.
- 1. Definition
- 2. Introduction - Background, relation to other sciences
- 3. History & Foundations – History of the subject, origins, detailed etymology, philosophical considerations
- 4. Principles/Concepts - The basic areas, with relatively contained explanation and linkage to each full article
- 5. Current Topics/Current Research – A brief outline of the current areas of principle research
- 6. Applications and Influence – Where physics is used, how it is used and how that use impinges on the world
- 7. References
- 8. External Links / Further Reading - inclusion left open pending review after article completed
Further Reading This is the one unresolved issue left from the layout discussion. It seems most editors thought it should be removed, and I also agree it clogs up too much of the page. However, I think we could move that information into a new page "Further Reading in Physics" or "List of Physics Books". ~~Does anyone agree?~~. Update: this will be done after we have finished the rest of the article.
Applied Physics, needs some work I think.
Pictures look for pictures representative of physics.
References: if this article is ever going to reach GA or even FA status, it will need references.
Additions to Prose I will review the prose. Some parts need to be filled in. Also, "History" is over linked.

Danski14 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) updated 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Danski14, there are small points which need updating, in wiki-style. Because of the previous agreement to leave the wip page alone, no one was helping you or Filll. But now that the wip page seems to be fair game for edits, I would like to clean up the small things which are popping out at me. --Ancheta Wis 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More comments on the lead

Please discuss only the lead paragraphs in this section.

Comments:

There are a few problems with 3 as a lead.
- First, it makes it impossible to distinguish between physics and psychology, or physics and chemistry.
- It shoves way too much up too early into the lead. I prefer leads that are short and sweet if at all possible. Most people will not read past the lead, and if we hit them with too much technical material too early they are overwhelmed and will not understand.
- It neglects the distinction between observational and experimental physics. This is huge and often forgotten. Astrophysics is not an experimental science. Neither is geophysics and ocean physics and atmospheric physics and space physics and cosmology and solar physics and cosmic ray physics (including neutrino detector work etc) and many other areas. So discussing just experimental physics instead of both empirical activities (experiment and observation) is inaccurate.
The outline is not too bad, however there needs to be a completely new section written on applications of physics. The previous section was muddled and contained minimal information except a list of fields, and included pure fields in with applied fields, and put in related fields that were not really physics but are physical sciences or engineering. This is useful to enumerate the fields to give an idea of the breadth of physics and its relations with other areas, but it has to be done carefully. I would favor keeping the information but dividing it up differently if possible.
I do not object to describing physics as "all of nature" but this should be done parenthetically or in a footnote, because as I said above, then one runs into a very difficult situation as describing all of science as physics.
I think it would be a good idea to remove the further reading to another page.
I think one could do with a much shorter History of physics section. I have not looked at the article History of physics however.
The applied physics table was just plain inaccurate. I tried to improve it a bit.
There is nothing wrong with the picture of the earth but it has an awful caption and should be moved further down into the body. More pictures spread throughout the text would be highly advisable.
I am torn about having the etymology of the word "physics" in the first sentence. I had suggested taking it out, as all 3 proposals did, but an editor above suggested keeping it in.

Comments?--Filll 19:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think anymore comments on the lead should go on the vote page. Try to remember that we are going for a consensus here. I think this lead is suitably sized for this article under WP:LEAD, and is very well presented. I don't think the difference between observational and experimental is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, but can certainty be mentioned elsewhere. As for the outline, it to is the result of much consensus, and I think we should build off of it. As far as your other comments, I agree for the most part. I will be back later to work on this. Danski14 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I commented both on the vote page and here, and it was like talking to an empty room. No response. But maybe if we can stir up some interest, things will move.--Filll 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the only way we will generate interest is to throw a bunch of proposals against the wall and make them stick. If we have to have more voting to get more participation, then I say great. We can even formulate more proposals for another round of voting if necessary. In fact, my experience on WP tells me that this is the main way to get people to move; RfCs, AfDs, etc; places where people's input on a choice is requested.--Filll 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, your comments make a lot of sense and are useful. I think the lack of response was not due to lack of interest but that you indavertently came in at the end of the discussions when the consensus was not to waste more words going around in circles (again!) but rather to see what the result of the vote was, and to go from there. You made a number of suggestions that weren't at that stage up for public vote. Sorry if we seemed uninterested or overly procedural, but at around 100,000 words already expended, we were all worn out and were awaiting a consensus to emerge from the vote. As I've suggested below, I do think that this project is impossible to deal with unless we are pretty organised and procedural. --MichaelMaggs 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to see at least some indications of interest.--Filll 02:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a latecomer, so I do not understand much of what has gone on here. I do have considerable background in physics (2 undergrad degrees, 3 grad degrees) and a lot of experience. I could recruit a neutral party from another field if someone felt that was best; I have been mainly dabbling in biology here. I have some strong views, and some other things that are not as important to me. I have just been amazed that things have been stuck for weeks or months on end. Surely the views here are not as strong as those I have dealt with at creationism or evolution or black people.--Filll 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, odd isn't it? I wouldn't have believed it either. But there are indeed some very strongly held views here, and not just by one or two editors, either. --MichaelMaggs 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am mystified by the movement to try to equate physics=all of science. It might be true in some sense, but definitely counterproductive for the beginning reader. And the overemphasis on experiment at the expense of observation tells me we are dealing with people of limited experience in physics.--Filll 22:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That question of whether to put physics = all science was pretty much the cause of the disagrement. Whether it is useful for it to be included in the lead (although in not so much a brash manner) is a fair point, but some argued that it was merely not true. Personally, my view was to have this as the definition (with all its vagueries and bold consequences) supplemented with more digestable definitions with the appropriate disclaimers. But, i'm now prepared to relegate it to another section provided that the definition in the lead still has the disclaimer on it. <snipped comments on procedure retained below>Krea 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that physics=all of science IS true in a certain sense, but would that be the first thing that I would tell a bright 12 year old that wanted to learn about physics and science? It might be the 10th or 20th thing I told him, but not the first. Because a casual reader will want to say here is physics, here is chemistry, here is psychology, here is anthropology; what is the difference? If physics says, "well we are all of those things" then it is a bit difficult for the casual reader to make sense of it and distinctions; why for example are there separate departments of science on campuses then? <snipped comments on procedure retained below>--Filll 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

<snipped comments on procedure retained below> To Filll: please note that none of the leads explicitly state physics=all of science, but rather give specific definitions. (except for proposal 2 of course). The realization that all of science could theoretically be reduced to physics is a big conceptual leap, and one I agree shouldn't be in the lead. It should be in "relation to other sciences section" in some form or another. There are also issues (philosophical questions) which many believe could never be answered via physics alone or (hence metaphysics). This is another thing some people have strong opinions about, and people may have confused this with what we were talking about, which is physics as it relates to science, not science as it relates to all of human knowledge. Still, perhaps we could do some research on this and add it to the "Philosophical implications" section. See logical positivism for more info. Danski14 00:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely cautious about putting too much philosophy in the lead physics article.--Filll 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What about a (Everyday-Life) low-energy discussion first: Louis Bloomfield, a professor of physics at the University of Virginia, has written several books which introduce physics to laymen by explaining physics in terms of everyday life. "This is a book about the real world and real physics; I merely report on both."^[1]. A Nobel laureate, Carl Wieman has used these books in his own physics classes with great success^[2]. Bloomfield writes that the most rewarding experience is when his students can explain just why it is that some part of their lives have just illustrated physics concepts, such as a scuba diver who could explain why the color of the lobsters she was seeing also gave her the depth to which she had dived. --Ancheta Wis 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that approach come to that we don't already have? I don't agree with making any of the leads any simpler, if thats what your asking for. (Physics is big and complicated, and needs a thorough definition, and coincidently this complies with WP:LEAD). (Also I think the leads are simple enough to be understood by anyone 5th grade and up). And I certainly don't want to dumb things down so people miss out on the deeper aspects of physics altogether, modern physics, etc. Also, what you mention reminds me of Richard Feynman, who was able to take even the most complex physics concepts and relate them to everyday life. Danski14 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all for simplifying things, but only so far. What we can do to make things more accessible, however, is to make sure that we make available alternate articles. For example, there is quantum mechanics, and introduction to quantum mechanics. There is evolution and introduction to evolution. And so on. So we could make a slightly simpler introduction to physics and provide a prominent link, as has been done for a good 5-10 other science articles. If that is not simple enough, there is always physics, the Simple Wikipedia article on physics which we can provide a link to. That way, there is a step ladder all the way from elementary school through graduate school available. This of course is exactly the approach that Encyclopedia Britannica takes, except they have 6 or more levels.--Filll 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Plan to continue the Physics/WIP project

Please discuss only procedure in this section.

The editors who started up this /WIP page, several months ago, worked out and agreed to follow quite a strict procedure to re-write the Physics article. Under the guidance of a moderator (SFC9394) we established the section headings the new article is to have, and we agreed to work up each section in turn, one by one. The agreed structure can be found at Article Structure - Layout & Chapter Focus. So far, we have worked only on the lead paragraphs, and that has proved extremely challenging. Of course, there's no reason why a new set of editors should continue to follow this procedure, if they don't want to, but experience has shown that - surprisingly - this article generates very strong views, and unless the discussions are kept closely focussed and to the point by a moderator who's been accepted by the community, the project will end in argument and disarray. The need for structure and direction in these discussions is pretty obvious from the edit wars and general degradation that has been seen at the main Physics article over the last year or so.

I'd suggest that if we still have enough old or new editors who are interested, we should carry on with the plan as previously agreed. As SFC9394 can no longer act as moderator, a new one will be needed. Any suggestions or volunteers? I might tentatively put myself forward, if that would help, but some editors may quite reasonably prefer someone more 'neutral' on the ground that I've been quite involved up to now with proposals for the detailed drafting of the lead paras. I won't be offended if that's the case. --MichaelMaggs 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, odd isn't it? I wouldn't have believed it either. But there are indeed some very strongly held views here, and not just by one or two editors, either. --MichaelMaggs 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now, we need a new moderator. Michael, I personally wouldn't mind you moderating (the real question is whether you, yourself, think that you can keep neutral - it's a LOT harder than most people understand). Ideally, however, it would probably be better if we had someone who has no interest on what the final version of the lead looks like, but who has the patience to follow that arguments made. I don't think there's much left to debate on the lead now, personally, so I don't think that the arguments will be as protracted as before, and so won't demand too much of the new moderator. Krea 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I Support having MichaelMaggs as moderator. Perhaps one of the roadblocks was forbidding update of the wip page (not the talk page). This may have had the unfortunate effect of freezing out the wiki-action. My analogy is Watt/Newcomen's steam engine; Watt separated the boiler from Newcomen's condenser, thus allowing a constant heat bath, instead of pouring cold water on possibly fruitful development. So the analogy is boiler=wip page, condenser=talk page. Keep the wip page at high-enough level of interest to allow the wiki-action, use the talk page to moderate/control the development. Krea, might you second the nomination, or am I seconding your nomination. --Ancheta Wis 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We should recruit a biologist or a librarian or something as moderator. But I would go along with anyone that offered and could be neutral.--Filll 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also support MihcaelMaggs as moderator. I also like the boiler analogy (a little abstruse, but very clever). Danski14 00:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fill, do you have anybody in mind? Whilst I wouldn't mind Michael moderating, I think that somebody who is intrinsically neutral (or as close to as possible) would be more preferable. Michael has opinions on the lead, which he may find difficult to disclose in order to keep his neutrality (or vice versa), which would be a shame since more input is ultimately beneficial. Krea 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have some people I would approach, but I have no idea if they would accept. I will if people want. These are experienced people from WP with no interest in physics, but very good writers.--Filll 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

??"Edits to the Physics/wip page that do not comply should be reverted on sight, and the editor directed to this discussion. --MichaelMaggs 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)" ?? Is this sentence still operational? Or is it history??? I see edits occurring on the wip page. --Ancheta Wis 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)??
Ancheta Wis, even if those edits are reversed, or saved in some place, they are valuable for one main reason: They have jump-started the conversation which was dead here for many many weeks. I started it because I was unable to get a response, in spite of repeated attempts for weeks and weeks. So if the edits got people interested in returning, then they served a major purpose.--Filll 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I personally do not object to the edits. The article dynamic which previously existed was to serialize the article development process, which seemed to me to be counterproductive. To me, the article dynamic was perplexing, because it seemed to stifle the methods which have made wikipedia grow so quickly. As I have mentioned to SFC9394, before, we seemed to have recreated a Nupedia, and I urged a parallel editorship process instead of serial decision-making. When SFC9394 suggested a parallel editorship process (throw the wip page open to general editing), the concept was voted down. But that was then. After the general wikipedia vote on the 3 proposals, the article development ground to a halt. I believe it was because of the article dynamic then extant.

I have had the pleasure of collaborating on some large-scale pages, such as History of science, in which dozens of editors collaborated, in wiki-fashion, and the article grew from nothing very quickly, generating an entire series of subpages.

Andrew Lih is writing a book on Wikipedia; at Wikimania 2006, I learned that he wrote a program to gather statistics on Wikipedia article development. Andrew Lih's measurements suggest that parallel editorship of an article with 20 editors seems to be the threshold for a successful article. The example which we have before us seems to suggest that serial development recreates Nupedia, while parallel development makes a Wikipedia. This suggests that throwing open the wip page to general development, while using this Talk page to discuss editorial matters, ought to get the article development going again.

Might I propose that we return to this tried-and-true method of article development. We simply start adding to the wip page, using the agreed-upon outline. Anyone can edit the wip page, anyone can discuss on the talk page

Evidence suggests that we change the editorial policy on the wip page lest this wip page die. Might we start general editing on the wip page? Any objections? Anyone?

--Ancheta Wis 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Ancheta. Write-then-discuss seems to be a much more productive route for us than discuss-then-write. —BryanD 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not the moderator here. If you have a small change, why not put it there. If you have a big change, why not put it here first so we can look at it and discuss it first. I only have a few principles I would like in the article:

a lead that is not too complicated or inaccessible or too long
at least in the first few sentences, lets try not to tell the reader that physics=all of science (either directly or indirectly). Even if this is true, I think it hurts our exposition.
Please lets not forget the difference between experimental sciences and observational sciences.
Lets try not to define mathematics as a science
Lets try not to shove too much material too close to the front of the article and thus make it unreadable.
Lets try to have text that is broken up in digestable size sentences and paragraphs.

I might think of some more guiding principles later. I hope this material is not in the wrong section. --Filll 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea: the fact that people will be able to edit and make a quick contribution to the lead without the need for talking and arguing about minor details in the talk page will greatly help its development. Of course, major changes to the lead should be talked about first, as Fill mentions, and I think that the guidlines given by Fill above are appropriate. There are other things that will need to be discussed concerning how this parallel devopment will practically work, but for now, I think, we can take a blind eye to most edits in order to attract interest. As for the problem of a new moderator, we really need to know how people feel, so I'm setting up a specific section for that... Krea 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I propose implementing a request of User:Joke137 to delete some tables. OK? --Ancheta Wis 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I never liked the "concepts" table personally! Krea 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about those tables, at least for the main article. I have no problem with farming them out to daughter articles so that we have a sort of organized display of links that are related to physics available. It is not that suitable for the main article however, I suspect. If nothing else, it is sort of ugly and breaks up the flow.--Filll 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am also ok with removing the tables, but perhaps using them elsewhere. Danski14 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they are valuable to show people the range of articles WP has available on the subjects and to organize them. So they should definitely be kept, but maybe some in a daughter article.--Filll 13:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New Moderator

Since the retirement of SFC9394 as this development page's moderator, general consensus is held that a new moderator is required. So far, only MichaelMaggs has voluntered; but such an appointment could raise objections on possible conflicts of interest, and some have expressed a preference for a moderator with no direct interest in this project. Please voice your opinions on this matter in this section; thank you. Krea 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest that Fill asks anybody he has in mind if they would like the job. If Michael is still interested as well, then we merely vote on who we would prefer. I'd also argue that the issue of the lack of large numbers of editors right now is not a major concern: if later editors object to the appointment of a new moderator when such low numbers of people were voting, we can merely hold a second vote - right now, we need at temporary moderator at least. Krea 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In view of the concerns that have been expressed by one or two editors, I think it best if I don't put myself forward. --MichaelMaggs 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that MichaelMaggs, author of Lead Proposal 1, made the above statement before my subsequent edits to the wip page. --Ancheta Wis 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted now on about 5 or 6 pages of librarians and biologists asking for ideas about moderation. If none of them accept, or put us in touch with anyone else, then we might be left rudderless. I am new so I am not aware of any past history. I do not care who wants to do it. I have no objection to MichaelMaggs but then I know nothing about past history here. I am new enough that it probably would be inadvisable for me to do it myself, and being a physicist myself I am a bit biased probably.--Filll 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Great. If nobody does offer to moderate I'm happy for you, Michael, to do it (so I hope that your retraction isn't an unconditional one): I'd just prefer that it was somebody completely neutral for the sake of pedantry. How long should we give it? 3 days? 4 days? I don't want to wait forever! 3-5 days should be enough for someone to say something surely? Krea 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I hope so. I will wait a day, and try another round of prodding. If we get no volunteers, then we will see what we do next.--Filll 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion

Well folks, I left this Physics/WIP some time back. As I said then, people were not ready to meet in the middle. I found myself compromising and accommodating in a proposal I put forward for the lead and introduction, but I saw little genuine engagement or movement from the "opposition". Little comprehension, in fact. I still intend to stay clear of this place. Earlier I put in a great deal of time and care, for no return. Also, I don't want to get nasty with people, or have them get nasty with me.

That said, I have a suggestion to make. It will not help to find a librarian or a biologist to moderate here – not qua librarian or biologist, anyway. If there is a solution to this seemingly interminable floundering, it is to involve a competent and experienced philosopher, preferably a specialist in philosophy of science. These issues of definition and demarcation will never be settled until you have moderation from someone outside the discipline of physics who nevertheless studies that discipline. Such a study is done in philosophy. Even then, I have reservations about the possibility of success in reforming the Physics article. The field is too broad and popular to be managed well and stably within Wikipedia's democratic paradigm. Alas! Anyway, good luck.

– Noetica 01:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so. I personally do not care very much for philosophy of science types. I might find that this exercise is so distasteful that it is not worth my time and I give it up. I suspect there are a number of articles here like that; I hope this is not one of them, but I might be incorrect in that judgement. I guess I am willing to try, but if I am met with brutal resistance, then I will withdraw too. I tried very hard to build consensus at black people for example; basically, I learned one thing. I could not do it. And people were much too angry about much too little. So I gave up. We will see what happens here.--Filll 02:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone still on #Plan to continue the Physics/WIP project? I personally would like to add content to the WIP page. Danski14 had a q. on the talk:Maxwell's equations page which I would like to answer, but using the WIP page, instead. This involves getting the assent of the current community of editors, by the present policy; in 4 days, it will have been 6 months for this dysfunctional policy, which evidence you see before you. I propose that we reverse the present policy to the 'equal access to all articles' which is the default stance of the encyclopedia. A collaborative stance is proven to be workable for Wikipedia. Some articles have taken years to stabilize, but we got there.

What say you? Anyone?

The Institute of Physics web site notes that 3/4 of the physicists they polled use Wikipedia for their professional work.

On a more ominous note, University of Reading is discontinuing their physics department by 2010.

--Ancheta Wis 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[Sigh...] As I have said, Ancheta Wis: good luck! – Noetica 11:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with returning to the standard rules for articles on this one. Surely the rancor and edit warring cannot be worse here than other places. I have read about University of Reading physics and the closure of some other science departments in the UK [1] and I have to say I am somewhat shocked. I do not understand what on earth is going on in the UK. We have problems in the US, but nothing like this.--Filll 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either, Ancheta Wis.

Quite frankly, I'm getting a bit impatient now about this moderator issue. Perhaps we are nearing the time to accept that no further requests are likely to be made?

I remember reading about Reading closing their physics department, but I think that was an isolated case (for now); although a few other universities closed, or at least reported worrying drops in the number of students in their chemistry courses. What's more worrying is the drop in school kids taking a physical science for their A-levels just before they leave for university (biology is still doing ok if I remember correctly). I have my own conjectures as to the cause - none of which are easily remedied unfortunately. Krea 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Moderator search

I have asked my previous three choices again. One turned me down. I have also filed a request at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Filll.--Filll 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the people Filll poked, I'm still a bit confused about why a formal moderator arrangement is necessary. Without being familiar with the history here, it seems that the rewrite attempt might have gotten bogged down precisely because of all the associated chatter and 'procedure'. While an article on such a broad subject obviously requires careful writing, there are few enough people here that normal collaborative editing would suffice, no? If not, what's the roadblock, besides 'we've been doing it this way for six months'? (As an aside, I'm not sure that this is the sort of thing the AMA does, but I'm not too familiar with them.) Opabinia regalis 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That was due to the history of the community that arose. I hope we can tick along with an informal relationship which arises from normal editing. As an aside, as more editors contribute, I expect that the respect which each accords the others will serve as reward and motivation for adding to the WIP page. --Ancheta Wis 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Do we need a moderator? Things like archiving discussions and general book-keeping need to be done, but I suppose we don't need anybody special for that - one of the editors here will suffice. The problem is, what happens when there is a protracted dispute such as the one we had for the lead? I think we'll need somebody impartial to just step in and make some suggestions. Having thought about it, I propose this: the day-to-day running of the WIP (book-keeping essentially) will be done by the editors here (not necessarily anybody specifically); but, we still have a "formal" moderator who will only be required to settle a serious dispute, and will not be involved in menial matters. This circumvents the "threat of bureaucracy" in the every-day running, but still provides the reassurance of an ultimate impartial moderator. In addition, it will mean that the "formal" moderator need not have to keep up with discussions (which may be too daunting), but merely prvide assistance when required. How about that then? Krea 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you just need a neutral outsider to keep roughly abreast of what's going on and prevent lines from being drawn in the sand, I can do that. I'm sure you're right that the management stuff can be done by the locals. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow great! The advantages of OR are:

She knows a lot of science, but is not a specialist in this area
She is a very good writer
She has 5 eyes and a toothy grin, but I don't think she bites too hard.

--Filll 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, welcome. --Ancheta Wis 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't usually bite, though I generally reserve the right to smack people with my proboscis. Opabinia regalis 07:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha!! Ok, shall we get back to the lead then...? Krea 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannot find David Coward's book

Can someone point me to an online reference to David Coward's book in WorldCat, Amazon, LOC, a book seller, etc.? I have been working on cleaning up problematic ISBNs, and the one listed with this book in the article (the main article and the WIP) appear to be invalid. Curiously, the ISBN listed for Coward's book is surprisingly close to that listed for Rogers' book (which is correct). Thanks for your help. Keesiewonder ^talk 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Coward, David (1988). An Advanced Guide to Physics. Bantam.

This is a bit disturbing. I have not been able to stumble across it with a bit of light searching. We might need an expert.--Filll 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. There is, apparently, one David Coward, "Emeritus Professor of French at the University of Leeds, England" however! Thanks Keesiewonder for bringing this to our attention, but I think we decided that we wouldn't have a list of recommended books in the final version of the article anyway. Still, strange isn't it? Krea 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked in a few libraries including the Library of Congress and the UK national library catalog and was not able to find it easily. I am prepared to believe that this is either a mistake, or a very obscure book. In either case, it does not belong on a reading list. I also agree that the reading list is much too long. I would not object to a separate article with a reading list, but in the main article, it should be no more than maybe 5 books.--Filll 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this David Coward in my travels; he's at the U of Western Australia. May I remove the ISBN for Coward's book from the main article, and trust that as you review the WIP, you'll deal with it as you see fit? Keesiewonder ^talk 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "bad" ISBN from both articles; the author & title remains, and the ISBN is in the history files should you need it. Thanks for your help! Keesiewonder ^talk 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in removing that reference from the main article, and I doubt it will remain in this one; so, you may remove it if you wish. Well spotted! and let us know if you see anything suspect again. Krea 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the book, which I can't find either, was added in this edit [2] Cardamon 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that book from Physics. Cardamon 00:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit information just makes the book look more suspect doesn't it? Ok. Thanks for removing it. Now, I wonder if it will reappear... Krea 16:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

Fellow editors,

In my experience, collaborations are the best part of Wikipedia. The current History of Science Collaboration of the Month is History of scientific method. Thus I plan to shift focus for this month to this collaboration, and to keep the WIP article in the background. See you in a month. --Ancheta Wis 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section Discussion

For reference, the vote page is here and the three proposed leads were: Proposal 1, Proposal 2, Proposal 3. For the truly brave, the archives for the lead discussion are: Archive 1, Archive 2. -- Krea 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some comments were already made about the lead above and I'd just like to add my opinions. I agree with Fill in that I'd prefer a short lead that does not get bogged down on details since anything else, I believe, will bore and deter the reader from reading on. I also feel that we should add something that people can relate to. The lead needs to be sharp and to the point; something that will make the reader interested in reading the rest of the article and make him/her feel as it would be worthwhile. Krea 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Short, pithy, succinct. Grandiose waffling about the scientific method and how much mathematics is in physics can go in the introduction or further down. It does not have to cover all extreme cases (like physics=all of science), since I do not think that is helpful for the beginner. Why tell the beginner that psychology is physics and genetics is physics and anthropology is physics? Even if true in some extreme sense, what anthropologists do, and psychologists do, and geneticists do, is far different than what most physicists do. And experts in those fields do not have to study a lot of physics to be trained, and in some cases might have no background in physics at all! So this is not helpful to declare physics as being so wide that it covers all of nature or all of science, at least for the LEAD.--Filll 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. From proposal 3, I would argue that the only thing that should be in the lead are the first two clauses of the first sentence:

Physics is the branch of science whose goal is to understand nature."

The rest of the first sentence, "...in terms of simple and universal truths," is not a necessary condition. Desirable. But not necessary. I would like to add to this:

In everyday terms, this means to understand objects in nature - such as particles and fields - through principles such as forces, energies, and conservation laws amonst others.

Krea 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind this statement from proposal 3, but I would prefer to put it after a statement like yours, which states something like "physics is the science of matter and its interactions". To me, that encapsulates the field of physics, at least the core of physics as it is practiced. a sentence or two later, or in a later paragraph it is fine to say it is understanding nature in terms of simplest possible principles/rules/truths, etc.--Filll 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine; but I'd be loath to remove the phrase "in everyday terms," without replacing it with a suitable alternative. My argument for this is that I would like it to be made explicitly clear that if one seeks a "philosopho-mathematical-esque" definition (yes, I doubt that word is correct too), rather than a "practical" definition, then most physicists would use the nature-defined statement, rather than the energy/fields statement. I think that any bright and inquisitive kids that come to the article would appreciate being told how professionals view their subject. I was certainly very satisfied with the definition that physics was the "science of nature" (or something similar) when I was a kid, and was unhappy with my teacher's definition as "Chemistry is this, biology is that, and physics is everything else." Krea 14:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll propose this as the preliminary lead:

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.

Also, once we've decided we're happy with the lead, does anybody want to post it on the physics talk page to see if anybody has anything to add (although I think we should block any large proposed changes)? It might inject some more interest, and convince people that we are making progress - so that involvement would not be a waste of time. On the other hand, it might be a waste of time. Krea 16:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Actions speak louder than words. I can do so if no one else will. Footnotes too. --Ancheta Wis 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall I take it that since nobody (bar Ancheta) has said anything in 4 days that there are no major objections? I will post this definition on the Physics talk page and give it a few days for comments to be made. Krea 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few comments:

I am not convinced that having big long dashes is very reasonable in most text, but in particular in the first sentence of an article. Is it good English? I am not so sure.
I am somewhat unconvinced that it is a good idea to put the Greek etymology in the first sentence. I would suggest putting it lower down so it is not so pedantic.
I think a field is a pretty advanced concept for the first paragraph.
forces, energy and conservation laws are likewise pretty advanced for an intro
Here is a suggestion:

Physics is the science of matter and how matter interacts. Physics is used to describe the physical universe around us, and to predict how it will behave. Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and characterization of the universal laws which govern matter, movement and forces, space and time, and other features of the natural world.

The first sentence I took from Krea's previous suggestion (more or less). It is also very similar to the first descriptions I ever encountered, and separates physics from chemistry and biology. It is also very simple, so anyone can understand it. More advanced material can follow. Comments?--Filll 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Are we doomed to repeat the entire history of this wip page? Proposal three was the consensus choice of the community. --Ancheta Wis 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example from Tony Rothman (1995), Instant Physics ISBN 0-449-90697-3 p.viii, who uses

"Physics is best thought of as the search for the rules that govern the behavior of the universe."

The dashes aren't bad english. In fact, I thought that they broke up the sentence quite clearly; more so than just brackets or commas.
I don't mind having the etymology at the start of the intro section instead. However, I think it's fine there as it is with the long dashes: without the dashes it will be messy and unclear. We'll probably need a vote on this issue; although fortunately it is a trivial one.
I had the exact same worry about fields myself.
You're probably right in that it could be explained in a more intuitive way instead of jumping straight into forces, conservation laws etc.

However, can we please keep the, "physics can be described to be the science whose goal it is to understand nature," part? I appreciate your worry that it will be too technical or subtle for the youngsters, but I really don't think it will be too much of a problem. A few editors here, would prefer its inclusion; so unless you have a really serious objection to it, can we keep it in for the sake of comprimise? Krea 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of these issues are very small. I am no expert on the use of the dash for example, I just have a vague discomfort with it and I would bow to someone with a Masters in English. I love etymologies myself, but I just am not sure about putting them in first sentence or two, but again I do not have a super strong feeling about it. Rothman's introduction is very nice; I slept on his floor for a few days once. Understanding nature is fine, but I would mix it with something like that thing I stole from Krea's proposal about matter and forces. How about:

Physics is the science that seeks to understand nature, and uncover the rules the universe follows. In particular, physics is primarily concerned with understanding matter and how it interacts.

Then after these sentences, we can go on with other stuff. Comments?--Filll 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will note that this is not perfect in my view because of the potential confusion with the word "nature". I would prefer physical universe or something, because nature tends to evoke images of birds, trees, insects, etc, and therefore biology. Also, it might be viewed as being associated with streams, mountains, plains, etc and therefore geology. However, maybe juxtaposing it with the other statements will dispell this a bit. I would prefer to have nature further down. Although it is not FALSE, it is somewhat misleading at least in the sense of nature that most beginners will know it.--Filll 14:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to start off simply. So, can I take what you said before and modify it slightly:

"Physics is the science of matter and how matter interacts. Physics is used to describe the physical universe around us, and to predict how it will behave."

Physics is the science of how the objects that we see around us behave.

Simple, concise and intuitive I hope: I think that "objects" give more of a feel than "matter" does.

"Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and characterization of the universal laws which govern matter, movement and forces, space and time, and other features of the natural world."

Physics is the process in which we attempt to explain ideas, such as motion, through principles like forces and energy.

This hopefully builds on the first line and gives a better idea of what physics is through a concept that everyone can relate to: motion.

Finally, I would add:

In general, it is the science whose goal it is to understand nature.

Rounding off with a general view of what physics is.

I agree that "nature" can mislead, but I can't think of a better word. To try to pin down what "nature" means (like using "Physical Universe") leaves me a bit awkward: I feel as if we are making unnescessary assumptions about the character of our world. In principle, what we mean is "all things in existence," but this is too sloppy. I think that, as you have said, we might be ok: people will hopefully realize that what was said previously should not contradict what we are saying now, and that they will grasp that "nature" really means the whole Universe. Krea 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "physical universe" is that it might seem circular to some people, to define physics as having to do with the physical universe, and also as our understanding of the universe or multiverse or whatever we live in becomes more complicated, it is a bit tougher to know what to call it, especially for beginners. I was going to call it the physical world, but then sometimes world means "earth" so that is not good either. Matter also might be too complicated; I am not sure. Perhaps if we defined it using the word "objects" ? Here is another random idea (not necessarily related to our previous attempts, but eventually we can boil these down perhaps):

Physics is the science which attempts to explain the natural world by finding the rules the universe follows. For example, physics describes what the objects around us are made of, how these objects move, and how they interact with each other.

Comments?--Filll 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

"By finding the rules the Universe follows," seems a bit redundant to me. But this, again, leaves the problem of what to call "nature". Maybe we should just accept that whatever we choose will be vague, and resign ourselves to explaining what exactly we mean in the introduction section?
The second sentence gives quite a good idea of what physics is: I'm happy for it, or something like it, to replace, "Physics is the process in which we attempt to explain ideas, such as motion, through principles like forces and energy." which is what I suggested above. Krea 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to wrap this up soon and complete the lead section, so do you want to make a suggestion for the lead, Fill? Krea 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to the wip

Fellow editors,

I propose to re-enter this article, but with a different approach; Wikipedia has succeeded by writing on the article topic, on the article page (here understood to be the physics/wip page). Historically, we can make better progress by writing on the wip page, and critiquing on the talk page, or better, by altering the words on the wip page. Unless anyone has a better idea, I plan to go forward with this. Everyone is welcome to alter the wip page.

The subject of physics is its principles; the object of physics is to understand our world (which has expanded greatly, of course). As one who has studied physics, I claim we (i.e., the entire world) are subject to its principles. In a play on words, we are subject to the subject.

Feynman's diagram

Feynman was one of my teachers (perhaps I might upload a picture of the Feynman diagram he inscribed in his Quantum Mechanics volume for me -- if you can't read the symbols, they are $γ μ$ to $γ μ$ and $1 / q 2$ ). I would like to include pictures of the equations of physics in the wip page, as iconic representations of the principles of physics.

The plan for development of the wip page is to fill in the TOC developed earlier. But I am against sequential serial development, and prefer parallel development on multiple sections by multiple editors simultaneously. This is the Wiki Way. --Ancheta Wis 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as we are people who seem get things done very slowly. This might be a good idea. In fact, it is a good idea. I'm fed up with this slow process of bureaucracy. Let's just get it done. I even suggest not to wait for the views of the other editor's, Ancheta. If there is mass objection (which I doubt), it can be undone: I will just make edits myself regardless (maybe not for a few days though because of more pressing commitments). Having a Feynman diagram by Feynman himself would be brilliant for the article: I'm very impressed that you were a student of his - I would have loved to attended his famous lecture series! Creativity and progress has always been through an unconstrained free flowing of ideas; so let's just do it. All edits to the Physics/wip article are permitted, with conflicts to be discussed at this talk page. Krea 23:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Current Discussion

Comments

A suggestion

General description

Breadth and goals of physics

Physics uses the scientific method

Physics is Quantitative

Fields of physics

Approaches in physics

Notes

AllGoodNamesTaken

Lead proposal 1: Lead proposal 1 by MichaelMaggs

Lead proposal 2: Lead proposal 2 by Krea

Lead proposal 3: Lead proposal 3 by BryanD

Lead proposal 4:

Final Thoughts

First Thoughts

Where to go from here

More comments on the lead

Plan to continue the Physics/WIP project

New Moderator

An alternative suggestion

Moderator search

Cannot find David Coward's book

Collaboration

Lead Section Discussion

Back to the wip

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search