Talk:Physics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Copyvio

I realized while writing the reply above, that there is a much more serious problem with the introduction. Three quarters of the introduction are cribbed word for word from Encarta's introduction to its physics article. A citation is provided, but this does not prevent this from being a copyright violation, since the copied text is not set off as a quotation. (Nor would it be acceptable for the introduction to a Wikipedia article to consist mainly of a quotation from another source.) No one can argue that taking a chunk of the introduction to an encyclopedia article and using it in the introduction to another encyclopedia's article on that subject is "fair use". This text must be removed, and may NOT be restored. --Srleffler 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I said the same thing a couple of months ago (see above) and it was just re-edited in. This article seems to be suffering in the long term. SFC9394 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Applied physics is physics that is intended for a particular technological or practical use, as for example in engineering, as opposed to basic research. As such, the fields of pure physics should not go under a category with that name. Also, applied physics is not related to the dichotomy between classical and modern physics, which have not even been defined completely. The "Overview of physics research" needs to be directly after the "Introduction" section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.247.234 (talk • contribs) .

See the discussion at template talk:Physics in a box, for consideration of the details of what is in that chart. I happen to agree with you. The chart itself can be edited at Template:Physics in a box.--Srleffler 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Classical and Modern Physics

Whoever wrote this section didn't quite grasp the meanings of these words. I myself think it's pointless to have a section of it's own for these terms, but I'll correct what is said anyway. If there any objections, please discuss. Krea 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The source was a respectable encyclopedia, so indeed you do not quite grasp the meanings if you find them in error. Further, it seems odd not to define these terms in a physics article; this concept is comparable to the distinction between "old quantum theory" and "new quantum theory," which is always described in a proper introduction to quantum mechanics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.247.234 (talk • contribs) .

Nonetheless, the section was in error. The special and general theories of relativity fall under the rubric of classical physics, whereas quantum mechanics does not. That is the difference, no matter what your source says. See, e.g semiclassical for a typical use of the term. Many popular books – particularly older ones – get this wrong, but the conventional usage has now been established. –Joke 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One still must be aware that modern physics has had more than one meaning, i.e., relativity, quantum mechanics, and those areas formulated on the basis of quantum theory or quantum mechanics and quantum-based theories. 68.224.247.234 14:00, 14 July 2006

Yes, that is true, but in this case "modern" is not the opposite of "classical." You could say that relativity is modern-classical, but then you'd start to sound like an art critic. –Joke 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to me when you say "so indeed you do not quite grasp the meanings if you find them in error"? I think we all know that "respectable encyclopedias" don't know jack about physics (generally). Anyway, the important thing to clear up was that Classical and Modern physics were not complementary terms, and that we have made clear. What I thought odd was having a subsection for it: it could have just been mentioned somewhere else in the article don't you think? Finally, I'd hesitate to say, "...it has become clear that the laws of nature follow the postulates of quantum mechanics," and, "...the changes brought by these two frameworks to the physicist's world view were revolutionary" because the first statement is unfounded (it only appears to us that nature follows QM) and the second is opinion (I personally put quotation marks around the word revolutionary to signify that that was what some people may regard them as being). These are minor points however and I'm prepared to let them be (although I still prefer the way I said it as it was more eloquent).

Krea 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if you believe encyclopedias may not be very accurate about physics in general, the information certainly was not erroneous. I agree that your revision was more eloquent than the other. However, the best might have been the original definitions. 68.224.247.234 22:20, 14 July 2006

I agree that it seems strange to have a subsection for it. Is it really such an important point that it needs its own section? As for the first correction, yes, "appears to follow the postulates of quantum mechanics" is more correct. But relativity and quantum mechanics were revolutionary, and equivocating about it seems weaselly. It is opinion, but an opinion shared by the vast majority of people who know anything about the history of physics in the period 1890–1940. Finally, the word "theorem" is infrequently used in physics. I have removed it from the section. –Joke 02:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I wouldn't disagree that it was revolutionary either. Although I don't like "classical theories continue to be understood better". I would say that I know QM just as well as I do classical physics, it's just that classical physics seems more intuitive (but only because we were taught classical physics as being intuitively true as children). Could you clarify what you mean by that sentence?

Krea 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In Quantum Theory, Bohm shows that quantum mechanics is intuitive, just like classical physics.

68.224.247.234 22:34, 14 July 2006

That's a good point. I don't mean better than QM (although that is true too, as almost all gauge theories are better understood clasically than as quantum theories). That phrase is somewhat awkward. I mean that there have been major new developments relatively recently – like understanding integrability and chaos in classical mechanics. –Joke 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Entire texts may focus on classical theories (e.g. Menzel's Mathematical Physics), or point to modern approaches. It's not strange to have a subsection on these topics. 68.224.247.234 22:34, 14 July 2006

To "68.224.247.234": Intuitivity (no dictionary seems to include this word) is, of course, a relative thing, and after a while QM does begin to become more intuitive. The issue of its own subsection is only a minor quibble to which I accede. To "Joke": Can I propose: "Classical theories are, generally, much easier to work with and much research is still being conducted on them without the express aim of quantization."? Is this closer to what you wanted to say? Krea 14:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the changes being made (as I write) about classical vs modern physics. Have a look at classical physics (and its talk page) and you will see that we're going over old ground and making mistakes.

Classical = anything without planck's constant (i.e. includes relativity)

Modern = anything with planck's constant and (sometimes) relativity/20c+ physics.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to realise is that classical and modern physics are not converses. Classical and quantum physics are converses and modern physics is a somewhat fluid looser term that sit in between, with overlaps at each side. I'm sorry to say that most of the recent changes will probably have to be reverted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, we realise this and changed this section to reflect precisely those sentiments. However, "68.224.247.234", what are you doing? It is not elegent and parts of it are indeed wrong. Why engange in a discussion, and then slyly change the section back? Krea 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my comment were in response to the changes happening (which alarmed me), rather than to the previous discussions. Thanks for restoring the previous text. (No doubt some tweaking is still in order, but no major rewrites.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the section were not wrong. Modern physics can be defined as the aspects necessary to describe the changes in the physicist's world view wrought by the revolutionary theories in the last century, including relativity, or as physics of the twentieth century and henceforth, or just as those theories that are quantized. With classical physics defined such that its equations do not contain Planck's constant, which is used to describe the sizes of quanta, then relativity certainly is included. Thus, both definitions can include relativity and only modern physics contains quantum mechanics. My definitions never stated that relativity was not a classical theory. Furthermore, these terms were designated so as to allude to chronological distinctions, though a theory does not have to be old for it to be classical. Nonetheless, most of classical physics was well established long ago. Therefore, classical physics does not usually deal with the energy scales of modern physics. 68.224.247.234 17:27, 16 July 2006

Those who proclaimed that those definitions were wrong are actually incorrect and illogical. (Note: "Converse" means reversing the order of the hypothesis and the conclusion; you meant "inverse.") 68.224.247.234 17:39, 16 July 2006

OED also defines converse in the much more general sense as "A situation, object, or statement that is the opposite of another." Anyway, reading what was previously written, I accept that it was not tehnically wrong, but it was slightly misleading. I accept all the arguments you have made above are true, but take for example:

Most of classical physics is concerned with matter and energy on the normal scale of observation; by contrast, much of modern physics is concerned with the behavior of matter and energy under extreme conditions or on the very large or very small scale.

Whilst this is indeed true, it is not a definition, and thus is liable to change as our definitions or viewpoints change. First define what the terms mean, and then you can indentify the terms with current principles and notions of chronology. Krea 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms classical and modern are not opposites, whereas classical and quantum are. Changed article to reflect this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of physics

I wish to propose changing the definition of physics on the physics page. The current definition (as of 16 July) is:

Physics…is the science of Nature, from the quarks to the cosmos. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are best understood in terms of these fundamental principles.

My main objections are that a definition of physics should be independent of our current description of it, and it is too vague: “from the quarks to the cosmos,” tells you nothing. I propose the following:

In everyday terms, physics is the science of the world around us that attempts to describe how objects behave under different situations. To illustrate, physics tells us that objects at rest like to remain at rest (Newton's First Law of Motion), or that all known processes increase the total entropy of the system and its surroundings (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

You say "physics should be independent of our current description of it", yet now you are talking about Newton's Laws and thermodynamics.  ??? Just accept "from the quarks to the cosmos" as poetical if you have problems with quarks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of, how physical objects interact, if they indeed do so. The word "interaction" is understood to mean the influence of one "physical object" on another such "physical object"; and "physical objects" are objects that have been observed to have "interacted" in some way with other such "physical objects". It should be noted that the definition makes no predictions about nature: it does not say what form the "interactions" take, or what the "physical objects" are.

Physics, as defined above, appears to be based on a circular definition between the terms "interaction" and "physical objects". To explain the reason for this, let us remark that we would like physics to be the description of how nature truly behaves, and, as a first attempt at a definition, this is what we may naively assert. However, such an ideal is not thought to presently be possible. If, as observed, no person (or more generally no "entity", which we do not elaborate further on, which can inquire about physics) has any prior, inherent knowledge of the true behaviour of nature, then they may only infer what laws are likely to be followed by nature solely through an act of observation. This conclusion inevitably leads one to accept that it is not currently possible to give any intrinsic meaning to the words "interaction" or "physical objects" that is independent of the other.

Krea 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs some work, but I like your definition better. "the science of Nature, from the quarks to the cosmos" is meaningless. — Omegatron 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not meaningless, just an expression of the fact that physics is the fundamental empirical science of everything (as opposed to mathematics, which is tautological or, say, biology which has a narrower domain). --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph is merely an introduction for the lay, the more formal part is "independent of our current description of it". Any suggestions for improvement? Krea 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Howabout

Physics…is the empirical science of the fundamentals of Nature, i.e. of everything. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its not completely meaningless, but I don't think it's really required. Where do you want to put your suggested sentence? As an addition or a replacement?

Krea 01:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A rewording of the opening sentence. I thought that was clear. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about:

In everyday terms, physics is the science of the world around us that attempts to describe how objects behave under different situations; which it does through empirical observations with the ultimate aim of describing the entirety of nature. To illustrate, physics tells us that objects at rest like to remain at rest (Newton's First Law of Motion), or that all known processes increase the total entropy of the system and its surroundings (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Krea 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest we take this to talk:physics and I'll see you there? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but now I need to sleep.... Krea 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too... here's my current proposal to sleep on, that the article's intro read:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phýsis), "nature" and φυσικός (physikós), "natural") is the empirical science of the fundamental operations of Nature, of everything from the quarks to the cosmos. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are best understood in terms of these fundamental principles.

I don't feel we should mention things like thermodynamics or Newton until we get into the article proper. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should not mention thermodynamics or Newton. And I like this last version the best. However, "Quarks to cosmos" is nicely poetic but on the otherhand only someone who already knows what a quark or cosmos is will understand that this is just an eloquent way of saying "from the smallest constituent to the largest constituent." Something that is poetic but also explanatory would be perfect.--J S Lundeen 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don’t see why we need, "…fundamental operations of…" In fact, I don’t know what is meant by an "operation of nature" (do you mean operations on physical equations?). I also think that quarks assume a level of knowledge that may not exist in the casual reader. Also, it's not expecting too much from the reader to assume they know that "Nature" means everything is it? Lastly, this may be a bit pedantic, but, "…best understood…" seems surplus to requirements. What about:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phýsis), "nature" and φυσικός (physikós), "natural") is the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are composed of or derived from these fundamental principles.

Krea 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, except that "fundamental" is needed, right from the outset, to distinguish physics from biology, chemistry etc. Once we have added this qualifer then I think the second sentence is redundant and/or too specific in that it presupposes the atomic hypothesis. So I suggest:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phýsis), "nature" and φυσικός (physikós), "natural") is the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature at a fundamental level.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. It looks a little bare though: when I formulated my definition, I thought I might add some examples, which is why I put Newton and 2Thermo in. But, if that is all that needs to be said, then so be it. Krea 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated. There are links to science, empirical and Nature, so concise but informative (I hope). --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following concise definition: Physics is the fundamental natural science concerned with the basic principles of the Universe.

Would an unscientific reader understand that "natural" excludes maths? I would replace "fundamental" with "empirical" so as exclude the tautological mathematics. And I'm not sure what "natural" adds as an adjective: the converse would be "unnatural"! So I would suggest

Physics is the empirical science of the basic principles of the Universe.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem may be resolved by linking to natural science.

BTW, you can use the 3rd button in from the right at the top of the edit box to sign posts at talk pages. And sadly natural science and natural philosophy seem confused -- & I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm still not happy with the second sentence in the intro' either -- this seems to be a description of how physics has evolved as a reductionistic science, but it isn't part of the definition of physics (i.e. we can imagine non-reductionistic physics as logically possible.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sentence, "Physics is the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature at the most fundamental level possible." is fine: it is relatively clear and unambiguous. Which is the "second sentence in the intro" to which you are refering? Is it the, "However, a more formal definition..." bit? Krea 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where it says:

Physics treats of a small number of fundamental concepts, equations, and assumptions to generate simplicity in its physical theories and, essentially, alter and expand our knowledge of Nature

It implies that physics by definition is about simplicity, whereas I don't that is correct. Simplicity is just an empirical fact, not a defining feature of physics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That sentence should not be included in a definition. At least you and I have agreed on the first paragraph (as above). Do you have any opinions on the rest of the definition? Krea 21:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the 1st sentence as indicated and delete the 2nd. Although we should mention somewhere that physics is mostly reductionistic -- not sure where though. Any preferences? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Straight after the first sentence I suppose: it depends on far into it we want to go. So, place it wherever you think it would be most suitable. Go ahead and I'll take a look at it tomorrow: this is my last post for now. Later. Krea 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Although physics is intended to be purely empirical, Superstring theory has no experimental vindication or hint of testability of its predictions. Hence, is it not dubious to declare physics as an empirical science? --68.224.247.234 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No -- even if you're right (and you're not) then it would only mean superstrings were not part of physics. Take your dubious claim to the superstring talk pages. Your edits here are looking increasingly like bad faith or ill-informed edits and will be treated as such. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see 68.224.247.234 is still ploughing ahead with ill-informed edits, contrary to the talk page consensus. They will be reverted before very long.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my edits are not ill-informed as they clearly show an insight into the essence of physics. Second, if one believes that there are not debates as to whether string theory is even science (let alone empirical science), you are ill-informed and need to read on the philosophy of physics. The reversion pertaining to Classical and Modern Physics was accidental, not ploughing ahead (and, thus, a baseless claim was forged by you and founded on incomplete information). Further, the definition of physics I have included in the article is even more concise and less debatable (as it is incorrect to wholly classify physics as empirical). Your edits will now be treated as bad faith. --68.224.247.234 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the debate about superstrings, but it wholely irrelevant; it just means they are speculative, that's all, not that physics is non-empirical (as you yourself say there are debates as to whether string theory is even science -- my point exactly, it is not the definition of physics that is being debated there). As for ploughing ahead, well that is what it looked like before you posted your explanation about accidental reverts and I can hardly be blamed for that confusion. And as for whether your definition of physics is less debatable, we'll see tomorrow -- for myself anything that fails to stress empiricism overlaps with maths too much; the empirical, non-tautological nature of physics has to be emphasized. The physics is physical science tack smacks of circularity. Finally, I'm glad you're now signing your posts. That's good. The next step is to create a login account. It will only take a few minutes and you will find that edits by registered users are treated with less suspicion generally (sockpuppets and all that). Sorry if I rubbed you up the wrong way, but it did look like bad faith editting for awhile. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition of physics you have placed on the physics article is at best convoluted: "the most fundamental level possible" is excessive and not eloquent, empirical science ignores the modern approach of particle theory to formulate experimentally unfounded results (though efforts are of course in work to empirically verify the claims of this so-called "theory" -- theories must be directly empirically based), and explicitly states that physics seeks such principles which is passive grammatically. What do you mean that string theory is irrelevant to the empiricism of physics when it is considered a portion of physics and is not directly empirical? Note: I enjoy superstring theory, a constituent of particle physics, but it remains in the domain of mathematical science fiction until testable predictions can be developed from the premise of the "String Conjecture". --68.224.247.234 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By your definition of empirical science then, any hypothesis before testing is non-empirical. Most people understand hypothesis-testing to be a central part of the scientific method. Your last sentence is a strawman; it is not what I said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by my definition and all definitons of empiricism in the philosophy of science, any hypothesis which contains predictions that are testable are empirically-based inherently (i.e., allowing for the testing of its empirical basis). Thus, your statement was a strawman. This claim made by you implies that I would not consider Einstein's general theory of relativity empirical before 1919. --68.224.247.234 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course general relativity was empirically-based before confirmed in 1919 since it contained testable predictions (which is not the case for string theory). This follows from the definition of empiricism I declared. Further, it is not circular to define physics as the fundamental physical science if a definition of physical science is carefully developed independent of physics -- merely a relation would have to exist between the two notions. The statement I had made that was said to be a strawman was indeed not as you apparently believe string theory to be a portion of physics and also hold that string theory is irrelavant to the empiricism and definition of physics (while I have shown a correlation between string theory and the empiricism of physics that is factual and a relation to the definition of physics you support, below). In addition, if physics is wholly empirical, then string theory is not a part of physics (but string theory is a part of physics as I have claimed as a matter of fact -- only further evidence that physics is not wholly empirical which is my claim). Note: earlier you said that believing string theory or physics (uncertain as to which you did not believe me on since you have not stated) is not empirical implies that it is not part of physics and irrelevant to the definition of physics (which you insist is defined as an empirical science -- it is the ideal case for physics to be empirical, but since the advent of string theory, physics has strayed from this goal in part) which is incorrect. My initial question on string theory asked is it not not dubious (i.e., is it certain) to consider physics as empirical and you responded no, but should have stated yes if you disagree that physics has a questionable status as an empirical science. --68.224.247.234 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard the commentary I made that has been stricken out (by me) as I was far too critical of the standpoint that physics was an empirical science -- in fact I find physics to have empiricism as a foundation and only to have failed in one minor respect (string theory as it stands, though efforts are in the works to test the theory). However, I contend that the definition of physics I have proposed is more elegant than the other aforementioned defintion and consider the application of the adjective "empirical" superflous (as science is inherently, excluding formal science) since the introduction discusses that physics is founded upon the scientific method. The more proper adjectives to precede the term "science" in characterizing physics are "natural" or "physical." (Note: As discussed previously including the terms "physical science" is not circular in describing physics.) --68.224.247.234 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your definition is doubly circular: re "most fundamental" / "basic principle" and "physics" / "physical". And you don't mention empirical. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who likes the current definition

the most fundamental physical science, is concerned with the basic principles of the Universe.

over the previous:

the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature at the most fundamental level possible.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, Michael, I should say that I think both are equally inelegant and unhelpful. Perhaps I'll just observe that it is a relatively modern notion that physics, or indeed science in general, must of its essence be empirical. So any use of this idea in a purportedly fundamental and timeless definition of physics misses the mark. Beyond that, for the moment I'll just watch. Right now there's too much going on for further input to be useful – or even properly attended to. Noetica 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was Galileo and Newton who kicked off the empirical tradition: it was only after them that natural philosophy and physics separated (which was why the Principia referred to natural philosophy, not physics). I would never claim that the definition of physics is timeless -- but has been inextricably linked to empiricism for the last 3+ centuries. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Michael, we might add Francis Bacon and a few others there, too. Three centuries or so? Is that all? Not good enough, for a durable definition. Best to go for the essence of this extremely broad field of enquiry – not something so time-bound (O, and culture-bound) as this presumption of empirical falsifiability. After all, perhaps string theory, trends in modern cosmology, etc., are effectively and fundamentally challenging that assumption, anyway. But I'll back off... Noetica 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Heck, let's mention Roger Bacon, so make it 7 - 8 centuries. But why bother, surely it is the current definition that is relevant? Otherwise we are back to angels dancing on the heads of pins and all that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was only going to be a lay introduction: not necessarily rigorous. I tried a more formal defn as follows:

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of, how physical objects interact, if they indeed do so. The word "interaction" is understood to mean the influence of one "physical object" on another such "physical object"; and "physical objects" are objects that have been observed to have "interacted" in some way with other such "physical objects". It should be noted that the definition makes no predictions about nature: it does not say what form the "interactions" take, or what the "physical objects" are.

In which case, I think we are getting overexcited about which sentence is better. Shall we concentrate on the "proper" definition first, and then go back to the lay one? Krea 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that seems a reasonable procedure, although I don't really see why the formal definition needs to differ much (at all?) from the lay description. I would rather say that we need a rigorous concise definition, followed by a less concise explanation which would, amongst other things, detail the relationship between maths, physics and the other physical sciences. The major problem I see with your proposed "formal definition" is that the term "physical object" is meaningless or at the very least undefined. Are virtual particles "physical objects"? What about ghost particles? And ripples in the metric tensor? If it can mean anything then it means nothing and can be removed (along with "interaction" which is defined in terms of "physical object") and we arrive at a rather more concise definition.

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of the laws that describe reality. Known as the laws of physics. :-)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do your examples interact in some way with something else? If so, they may be described by physics (even if it is a very rudimentary description). These "physical objects" are necessarily vague becasue as I say:

Physics, as defined above, appears to be based on a circular definition between the terms "interaction" and "physical objects". To explain the reason for this, let us remark that we would like physics to be the description of how nature truly behaves, and, as a first attempt at a definition, this is what we may naively assert. However, such an ideal is not thought to presently be possible. If, as observed, no person (or more generally no "entity", which we do not elaborate further on, which can inquire about physics) has any prior, inherent knowledge of the true behaviour of nature, then they may only infer what laws are likely to be followed by nature solely through an act of observation. This conclusion inevitably leads one to accept that it is not currently possible to give any intrinsic meaning to the words "interaction" or "physical objects" that is independent of the other.

Your definition is certainly concise! But, people generally do wonder about the objects to which such laws apply, and you have made no mention of these objects; so, can your definition be considered to be complete? The point is that something that in no way has been seen to interact with anything else cannot be described by physics (such as a hypothetical Creator for which no evidence of any interaction has been found). Have I at least convinced you of the necessity to include "physical objects" in a definition? Krea 14:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but you've certainly convinced me (once again) that empiricism is at the heart of post-Bacon physics and that this point needs stressing. Any object with no observable consequences (such as a deistic creator or demiurge that lights the blue-touch paper of creation and departs) is non-empirical. And yes, people do wonder about the nature of objects (or of reality in general) -- I do myself -- but that is not part of the definition of physics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A definition of physics is of course a subjective thing, and I acknowledge that one could define physics as just the set of its laws; but, could we not define physics to be the sum "knowledge of nature", in which case we would need to include the objects? I would prefer the latter so that nobody could say, "hey, wait a minute, what about quarks and leptons etc, why aren't they there?" and then we'd have to explain that we are choosing to define physics this way, rather than in another way. Krea 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that we're blurring the distinction between how, what and why here. But once we start describing objects in the definition where do we stop? With shoes, ships and sealing wax? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to list all the ojects are we?! Just a generic one will do. The definition tries to be as general as possible (there are some statements that have been implied to be true which will need to be justified in the future), and, to this effect, I essentially try to say that physics is our way of describing what happens when some object is seen to interact with another object (photons on retinal cells, em repulsion between to electrons etc). What the object actually is will affect the details of that interaction. But what I have described in that "definition" is, I believe, the foundation upon which any physical statement of nature is formulated. Krea 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have elaborated on the definition by including a second statement. --Kasparov 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"treats of" means nothing to me (UK). Is this American English? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny. I assumed it was British English. It seems that there is one editor (or perhaps a couple) around, who love obscure words for their own sake. Personally, I much prefer clarity. A commonly understood word is always preferable to a rare and obscure one, even if the latter is more precise.--Srleffler 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Srleffler, such gratuitous asides as your last will keep this futile discussion churning indefinitely ("It seems that there is one editor (or perhaps a couple) around, who love obscure words for their own sake"). If you and Michael don't know or appreciate the usage "treats of", consider this possibility: it may show your own stylistic ineptness more than anything else. I'm all for clarity, but so far I see only a general wallowing in search of a sound definition. There is obviously no point joining in; I'll just look in from time to time to see if things are beginning to settle down. Meanwhile, spare us your insults. It would easy to respond in kind, if those of us you attack were inclined that way. Michael, the fact that the phrase means nothing to you reflects poorly on your command of the language. Good luck to you all! Noetica 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(some lost exchanges followed)

It's a shame the last few exchanges were lost, but I was amused ar how quick Noetica is to accuse others of tossing out "gratuitous asides" whilst strenously proclaiming innocence hirself on the grounds that hir comments were "correct" (I paraphrase since the text is lost). Whether a comment is perceived as correct is a matter of opinion.

Anyway, that aside, yes, my unfamilarity with the phrase "treats of" indicates my poor level of educational attainment, but it also indicates that the phrase is obscure and should be avoided. As I said before, is that such a difficult message to take onboard? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to mention energy, matter etc in a definition because they are not "fundamental" in the sense that nature needed to include them in her laws. Michael, or anybody else, do you have a counter argument for my response above? Krea 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason I would also prefer not to mention objects! --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but these generic "physical objects" are fundamental: if there were no objects, then there would be no physics. Remember, I do not specify what these objects are, just that they must exist for the "idea of physics" to exist. Agree or disagree? Krea 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Same with "matter", but it doesn't come with the discreteness baggage implied by the plural "objects". Also I don't like the circularity of "physical" in "physical objects". It says nothing. I think we can both agree that "energy" is more derivative, being a post Newtonian concept. For starters I'll delete "energy" from the lead definition. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The "physical" in "physical objects" was just to make clear that the objects were under the domain of this definition: you could argue that there are no other objects, leaving the adjective superfluous, to which I agree; so, you can safely remove it. Now, "matter" is an ambiguous word: what does it mean? Objects that have mass, or any object. If it is the latter, then it is precisely the same as "objects" in my definition: merely a generic "thing" to which laws apply. I would prefer not to include the word "matter" because it can mislead the reader (and I certainly didn't recognise it as being equivalent to "objects" when I first read the offending addition, and flagged it is not being "fundamental"). Ok, we both agree that physics is the description of the laws of the interactions, right? Why don't you also want to include the objects to which these laws apply in a definition of physics? Krea 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You say "Now, "matter" is an ambiguous word: what does it mean?". My point also, but I repeat it about all the terms we've considered: we can't define matter, objects, things .... so we should just remove them from the definition, which is none the poorer for the lack of the undefined terms. But I've said this all before and I'm getting quite tired of it, to be frank. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that then also include the word "interaction"? If we can't define that, then why not leave that out too and be left with nothing? Ok, let's reverse roles: what do you suggest as our definition? Krea 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics is the empirical science of Nature/existence/reality/the universe.

Then we can proceed to explain that physics has discovered that matter is made of atoms, quarks and describes their interactions etc etc --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But what does "science of nature", "science of reality" etc. mean? It really is a vague concept when you think about it: "science" can be regarded in both a broad and specific sense. For the sake of clarity, this should be defined properly, especially with regard to physics. Krea 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I can guess what your answer probably will be: "science of nature" = "knowledge of nature". But, again, what is "knowledge of nature"? What constitutes knowing something about nature? And then you come to what I have already said: the observation of one object interacting with another object. When we "know" something about nature this is what we really mean: that we have observed that something has interacted with something else. Exempli gratia, when I "know" that an electron is repulsed by another electron, I have seen one object, which I call an electron, repell a like object. Every (as far as I can think) piece of knowledge of nature is precisely this statement in disguise. Therefore, why should it not be considered to be the defining statement of physics. You say, "we can't define matter, objects, things..."; but, I did define both an object and an interaction. You say that you are, "getting quite tired of it, to be frank"; well, I apologise, but you have not given me a satisfactory reason why "objects" should not be included in a definition of an interaction, and why "interactions" do not define what physics is. Is it that you are not happy with the definitions that I gave? Krea 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unhappy because all the descriptions are circular -- as indeed they must be. You define objects as things that interact together and interactions as the "influence" of one object on another. To my mind that says absolutely nothing whatsoever and certainly has no place in a definition of physics. It has a place in the description of what physics has revealed about the world, but not until then. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, because the definitions are circular, "it says absolutely nothing whatsoever" about the words themselves. If I gather correctly, you wish to say, "Physics is the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of nature." I also agree that this is as fundamental a definition as you can probably get. But, where do you think the business of interactions comes in then? As an empirical or logical consequence? Krea 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not a logical consequence. I'll go with empirical consequence. Howabout:

Physics is the empirical science, or study, of the nature of the universe. The study of physics describes the dynamics or behaviour of matter in terms of laws or formulations, which are themselves expressed as mathematical constraints or equations. These are known as the laws of physics.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "treat(s)", as an intransitive verb, can mean to deal with a subject or topic. In this case the term is often used with the word "of" (e.g., the essay treats of courtly love). Source: Dictionary. --68.224.247.234 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Deals with" would be clearer. And please don't delete stuff without asking first, such as the Hubble image. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, on first thought I would have said it was a logical consequence: Objects don't exist => No physics; Objects exist but don't interact => No physics (as we could never determine their existence); Objects exist and interact => Physics exists. Ergo (although further thought is required for me to believe this outright), the existence of physics is a direct consequence of the fact that objects exist and interact. I can think of one possible thorn in this chain of logic: the empirical observation that we do not already possess knowledge of nature. This, however, probably deserves a separate discussion and so I shall leave these ideas until I have given them more thought. Right, "Physics is the empirical science, or study, of the nature of the universe." I suggest we not use the word "science" in the definition of physics but instead just use the word "knowledge". We know that the aim of science is knowledge (I once read that "scientia" is the greek word for "knowledge", but this may be mistaken) but let's not assume the reader knows this and let us avoid the possibility that they must then look up the word "science". Also, hoping that I will not slur Noetica's meaning, Noetica said something about the assumption of empiricability. The empiricability of physical knowledge is itself an observation of nature: it need not have been like that. Thus, we should leave that out of the definition, but explain that we believe this to be true (and is a very important realisation). Penultimately, "nature of the Universe," seems too bold a statement to put in the definition: what is a "Universe"? Is there a physical necessity for its existence? Maybe we should just leave it as "nature". Finally, must we try to define "knowledge" and "nature" further? I will humbly make an attempt to if anybody deems it necessary, but am currently loth to try. Krea 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the term "objects" (as I have previously indicated) since the plurality presupposes some sort of atomic hypothesis. "Matter" is a more neutral term.

It is pointless (& impossible) to define all the terms in any definition. Just Wikilink them and be done with it. Which is one reason why we should call it an empirical science.

What suggestions do you have to improve

Physics is the empirical science, or study, of the nature of the universe. The study of physics describes the dynamics or behaviour of matter in terms of laws or formulations, which are themselves expressed as mathematical equations or constraints. These are known as the laws of physics.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First sentence first: But why not just say, "Physics is the desire to acquire knowledge of nature."? I said before that we shouldn't mention "empirical" in the definition because that itself is an observation of nature (do you want me to justify this?). Also, "nature of the universe" is waffly: just say "of nature". Krea 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think physics is a desire. I don't think physics being empirical is an observation. But I have no desire to continue going around in circles. Do what you like. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What if every person was born with a knowledge of how nature truly behaved? Do you think this is not possible? Do you argue that physics would then be empirical? Krea 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I can only apologise for not being as intelligent as you, but please explain to me again why you don't think physics is a "desire to acquire knowledge"? Perhaps your definition is a noun: that physics is "the knowledge of nature"? Krea 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

physics certainly isn't a desire, it's defined as a science. IMO it's the most general natural science. Harald88 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That looks like as a good a definition as we're ever going to get. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok: it is not a desire, I shall accept that. But it is not as good as it is going to get. You haven't responded to my other questions (13:42 19 July 2006), nor explained the reason why "nature of the universe" should not be changed to just "of nature". Krea 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and I don't intend to. I can tell when a discussion is going nowhere. I have made plenty of points that have been left unanswered and have nothing new to contribute. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither will I now continue: I will say no more besides that I suggest that in search of the most general principles of physics that we should all think very hard why it is that physics is empirical, and whether it was required to be. And to Michael, and anybody else, I apologise for not responding to your questions, and causing any offense. Krea 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's think very hard about why physics is empirical. Whilst we're thinking so very hard, let's not forget that for the purposes of defining physics here, all we need do is note that physics is empirical. BTW I notice that 68.224.247.234 is updating the definition with no regard to the points covered here previously; I note that the last two sentences of the intro can be replaced by the adjective "empirical" arggghhhh. You're wasting your time 68.224.247.234, I'll be reverting it all shortly unless you explain yourself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW I offer this suggestion as to why physics is empirical: those bits that are not empirical must be tautological and we define them as part of mathematics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Professional encyclopedias don't feel overly-compelled to emphasize physics as an empirical endeavor, as it is already implied in mentioning that it is a science, physical science or natural science. There is nothing unclear about physics using the scientific method; in fact, it is mentioned in the Introduction section. This is superfluous nonsense. --68.224.247.234 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Describing something as "superfluous nonsense" when you haven't addressed the preceeding point (maths vs physics) is a good way of ensuring your edits get reverted pronto. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current definition is convoluted, including rather many definitions that are particularly unhelpful in conveying the essence of physics, and even includes nonsense as to how physics is an empirical natural science — the term natural science means that physics is an empirical investigation of Nature. Further, physics is not the science of Nature; all branches of natural science are indeed sciences of Nature; physics is the most fundamental natural science, but this does not elucidate as to what physics treats of. Also, what elementary constituents of the Universe are referred to? These must be stated in the definition for completeness. I propose the following concise defintion: Physics is the branch of natural science that treats of the nature of matter and energy and the dynamics of the cosmos. --68.224.247.234 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus? --68.224.247.234 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No: you haven't distinguished it from maths, nor from the other more applied sciences. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This definition does exactly distinguish physics from mathematics. Mathematics is not a natural science as natural sciences are empirically founded investigations of Nature and mathematics cannot be defined as treating of the nature of matter and energy and the dynamics of the cosmos. --68.224.247.234 19:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than go through that torturous chain of logic (which I don't agree with BTW) wouldn't it be easier just to say that physics is empirical? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to state that physics is empirical, but you cannot state that physics is an empirical natural science as the term science means that body of knowledge or study conducted via the scientific method (i.e., via empiricism). In fact, I emphasized its empirical nature by inclusion of an entire sentence on the matter in the introduction before it was reverted. I agree that the empirical nature of physics should be emphasized, but also note that it should be done correctly so that it does not become superflous (e.g., empirical natural science, which is equivalent to stating the empirical empirical investigation of nature). --68.224.247.234 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, what do you mean that you disagree with my statement? Mathematics is not a natural science as a matter of fact. Also, mathematics does not deal principally with the nature of matter and energy and the dynamics of the cosmos as a matter of fact. These facts cannot be disputed as they are exactly facts. --68.224.247.234 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, then there's no point debating with me, is there? I can see why you don't like using talk pages. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, you can be certain that when I make an edit to the physics article, that it is precise as I am a High-energy astrophysicist and Professor of Theoretical Physics. I will accede to the current definition that I have made minor adjustments to for now, but it is not perfect and the article is in constant flux (due to unqualified users). I have been wasting my time in these discussions. --68.224.247.234 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As I thought, you already think you have all the answers, so why ask any questions. Everything's black-and-white, isn't it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

concepts/fields tables

Is it really neccessary to list all subconcepts, sub-sub-concepts and so on, in ugly tables that distorts the reading experience? Spiff 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with spiff. The tables should be replaced. - Kookykman|(t)e 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody even uses them? They do seem pedantically pointless. I'd definately delete the "concepts" columns (but keep the rest): you could put hundreds (well, maybe not that many, but certainly a lot) of things in there. Some of them may be useful, but some of them are definately not. I mean, most of us (I hope) have already realised that "motion" is one of the concepts of classical mechanics. So, who's going to dare to delete them? I'm not going down that minefield. Since he brought it up, I say spliff deletes them. All in favour...

Krea 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There. Someone has to formulate new paragraphs containing a lot of the previous info. Anyone care to start? Spiff 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the tables, but feel that the concept sections are convoluted. --68.224.247.234 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There were descussions in the past that tables are the most efficient way to provide an overview of all the fields and central concepts of physics. Although my POV on the tables is neutral, they do contain an overview, and it would be wiser to build on that than starting something completely new. Karol 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Horace Lamb Quote

I have heard a similar quote attributed to Heisenberg. Wolfram's site http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Heisenberg.html also suggests there is an ambiguity of this quote. Does anybody have an original source? --Bjsamelsonjones 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Information

Proposed deletion of the tables has put the article in a "larval stage." --68.224.247.234 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's growing now. Spiff 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Is it time to request semiprotection for physics? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this. We have one anon editor (who has about a dozen sock accounts) who simply has no comprehension (or the desire to comprehend) the wiki process. The user simply wants the page to read exactly as they want - the word compromise doesn’t come into it. It is a mess - and over the last 3 months this page has decreased in quality. We now have a section that reads as nothing more than:

Quantum Electrodynamics

Quantum electrodynamics

That is just crazy - and not helpful to anyone (nor fitting in with the MOS of how a page should look). An article on one of the fundamental sciences should not be a sandbox for someone to have a play with when they choose. If that editor can't respect the process of Consensus (or the rules on Sockpuppetry) then they should not be allowed to dictate what this (or any other) article must look like by simply constantly reverting the changes made by numerous established editors. SFC9394 13:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's crazy. The quality of the article has definitely decreased. We need to impose permanent semiprotection. Some articles attract cranks, and that ain't ever going to change. I see Einstein has had it's semiprotection lifted by some "helpful" admin -- no doubt it will now be vandalised by a tide of pent-up cranks again. The whole Wiki culture needs changing w.r.t. semiprotection. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not likely to happen. While my sympathies are with you, the semiprotection feature was approved only because it was agreed that it would not be allowed to become a permanent state. There are many in the wikipedia community who hold that it is very important that naive editors coming to the site for the first time must be allowed to edit immediately, without registering an account. It does draw people in. I edited as anon for the first month or two. I'm sure lots of others here did as well. We need to find other ways to reach consensus.--Srleffler 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would favor a temporary semi-protection of this page, however, to help get it back on track.--Srleffler 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued...

On a related note, were all the tables (I really liked them) taken down by this anon? I've taken a vacation from wikipedia for some time, and I'm shocked with how this article has been degraded. Karol 09:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which tables were deleted by whom, but the presence of the crusading anons didn't help. I suggest we get semi-protected and revert back to when the various tables were present.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of these edits were actually made by User:Phusis, with the exception of the tables, not an anon. As for the tables, I have always supported their inclusion. Also, when I reverted the article to a previous form (one with the tables and without the larval state currently prevalent), the article was reverted once again to the current article. When I have mentioned the article's lack of information (refer to the section on lack of information here on the talk page), people tell me that work is being done to correct this, when actually I am the only one to have primarily expanded one of these sections (refer to central theories in the article). I am not a sockpuppet and edit with only this account. Criticizing one for remaining anonymous is foolish. Note: I believe the descriptions required to fill in the gaps left by the removal of the tables are too verbose. --68.224.247.234 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spiff removed the tables and User:Phusis restructured the article into its present form with the blank sections. Unfortunately, Phusis did not decide to fill in these sections. (No offense, Phusis.) The set of edits you have deemed poor are by these two users (neither anons). --68.224.247.234 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, note that when I reverted the article to a state having the tables and devoid of the "larval stage" left by the massive restructuring of the sections (with a minor adjustment to the definition) — a state which you now wish to return to — Michael C. Price reverted these edits and immediately and unfairly suggested semiprotection. Now, as this discussion has progressed you wrongly blame one anonymous user (perhaps me), have concluded on imposing semiprotection and have come to the judgment that the structure I reverted to is best for the article (quite ironically, since it was this strucure's reinclusion that has generated this suggestion of semiprotection, which would do away with me). --68.224.247.234 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below (which you may not have read when you posted the further note) - I am explicitly not blaming you, I have outlined the problems we have and the person (who changes handle every time he/she edits so I can call nothing but "anon") who seems to be causing the problems. If I were to refer to you I would refer by 68.224, since you are consistent in editing under than handle. I have suggested an alternative which would allow you to participate in the improvement of this article, principally because any editor who is interested in improving the article is an asset. SFC9394 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions and kindness, SFC9394. --68.224.247.234 19:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out, 68.224.. I was specifically not referring to you when criticising the anon - you have been completely consistent in editing under 1 IP addy, and while I may not agree with all your edits, I am perfectly happy for you to contribute, not least because you are prepared to get involved, add a different view and are not using umpteen different accounts to do it. When I refer to the "anon", I refer to the person that has created multiple accounts and only edits from each one once before moving on - there is a pretty large list now, and all link into someone who is editing from India. Checkuser (a function we have here at wikipedia that can tie an account to an IP address) would obviously be needed to prove it beyond doubt, but all other evidence points to it being the case (for example 30 minutes before User:Phusis made all his edits we have User:61.1.232.133 editing in the same vain - the IP addy is from India, and the other contribs from that addy are on Indian subjects). The pic removed by an anon tonight was from an Indian IP addy. This has gone on for the last couple months, all with the same Indian connection (New Delhi, it appears), spread over about 7 or 8 separate accounts (see here for a connection made through a whole swath of them), all being used once before being abandoned (User:Phusis has made no more contribs – and likely never will) – it is a editing methodology that is questionable at best, may be assumed by many to be in bad faith, and at worst purposeful to aid vandalism and to make dealing with that vandalism difficult.

I am mulling over the options on this situation. I am leaning towards a proposal of setting up a secondary WIP page addressed at /physics/wip for all the folks interested in coming together to create a proper consensus article to work on. Each area of the article could be looked at, discussed, consensus reached, and then implemented. I realise this goes slightly against the "up front" wiki ethos, and is much more towards a local implementation of the "frozen version / editable version" concept. The reason I suggest it here is that the article is very big, unwieldy, complex and any discussion related to it can get very semantical. Basically I (and others) have tried to direct people to talk, but discussion is not happening, and discussion amongst the editors who are serious (such as the ones that have posted in this section) is a waste of time if our friend who creates a new account every time he wants to edit comes along and reverts whatever consensus material we have changed in the article. I don't know what other editors think about this - but something needs to be done, as this article is suffering, and I can't think of any other solution. Semi-protection is only a short-term patch that can't remain in place indefinitely. SP is generally only going to be implemented when there is a big vandal hit – an editor not familiar with this articles history would view our situation as a content dispute, not vandalism, despite the fact that what the anon doing is tantamount to vandalism because repeated long term reverting without any attempt to discuss and reach consensus and understanding is vandalism. Even with SP a new account only has to be a certain no. of days old (I think it is 20 or so) before they can edit a semi article anyway (plus SP has the additional downside of blocking people who want to contrib such as 68.224.247 - which is just cutting off our nose despite our face).

With a secondary WIP article page we could work on sorting it out without causing problems for the person who wants it always to be exactly as they see it (e.g. just removed a pic. tonight for no apparent reason other than they personally didn't like it – coming up with a illogical reason about it being artificial – last time I checked superconductivity most defiantly was part of physics and the subject of physics most definitely isn’t just the study of things created by "mother nature"). With a notice on the physics page detailing that there is a review underway and that the article is having major work done to it at the WIP page then we should be able to attract in useful contributors who can add to the debate. What can't continue indefinitely is the continual downward spiral of this article. Thoughts? SFC9394 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I converted the talk page comment you referred to above into a template, {{PhysInd anon}}, that can be used to help communicate with and keep track of The Anon. As new identities emerge, just add them to the list in the template, and include the template on the new account's talk page. Don't substitute, so that the list will auto-update. Accounts so tagged appear in Category:Multiple identities of the PhysInd anon.--Srleffler 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - it will at least allow a track to be kept on things. Unfortunately it appears the person is now generally choosing to edit as an IP (2 more blanket reverts today) - if it was static we would be fine, but it appears to be dynamic, so it is just going to be continual situation. SFC9394 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on whether or not the page should be reverted to a prior state with the tables (and excluding the blank sections)? --68.224.247.234 20:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created "Physics as of 23:38, 16 July 2006 by Noetica" at Physics/wip. I suggest we all refrain from editing it without agreeing a consensus on its talk page first. Sound reasonable, or are we going to get a repeat process of what happened here? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Physics as of 23:37, 28 July 2006". --68.224.247.234 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I picked the older version because it still has the venn diagram. But let's agree the rules of the game here, before we get down to specifics. Do others think what is proposed at talk:physics/wip is a way forward or not? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the proposition. --68.224.247.234 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, sounds like the idea has found some support. I will do some posting about to try and get some more people involved in the process (the more people come together to reach consensus, the more valid and legitimate that consensus will be). I will let folks know who have previously shown an interest in editing this page, but who have stopped (in quite a few cases because they weren't getting anywhere due to the constant state of flux/immediate reversion of material) of the process that we have started to try and improve the article from top to bottom. Once everyone who wants to be involved has let us know then we can get started on the improvement. SFC9394 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply decide on a revert as fast as possible, and work from there on the actual article. No point in sitting ona subpage... that would be, in my view, the wiki way. Karol 11:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind a revert on the main article and working there -- I suspect we'll need semiprotection unless the majority of editors co-ordinate well (and I'll be delighted to be proven wrong). --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just had to revert an anon's revert. Note the anon lied in the edit summary -- typical behaviour over the last month or so. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of how many of us there will be watching the page and reverting them. It's tedious, but these people usually get tired pretty soon. Karol 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

True, perhaps we have sufficient critical mass -- I'm beginning to think this may work.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems things have quieted a little. Karol 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"weaker sciences" in first paragraph of Introduction

This seems a singularly poor choice of words. David R. Ingham 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. However you look at it, it's either POV, or unencyclopedic tone. Easily fixed, however. --Srleffler 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it (again?), David R. Ingham 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent questionable edit

It appears that an anonymous editor completely re-wrote the article from start to finish. I'm posing the question here as to whether or not this user should be reverted, as the edits appear to be good, however the reinsertion of slight POV and the removal of a lot of text is extremely off. Ryūlóng 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion two sections above, and talk:physics/wip. Karol 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New Questionable Edit

I have created a sandbox for some major editing at User:Tmcsheery/rewrite_of_Physics Please comment there, and I'll try to get the cleanup through the whole article. Only about 1/4 along so far. Tmcsheery 17:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you coordinate your efforts with physics/wip, as mentioned above, to avoid wasted effort. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On the importance of physics to mankind and its relation to engineering, applied sciences, and technology

In the introduction, I had included a paragraph describing the significance of physics to modern ways of life and another on the relation of physics to engineering, technology, and applied sciences. However, they have since been removed. Their inclusion required some restructuring of the introduction, but no information previously displayed was removed. These additions, as I believe, were improvements to the article as it currently lacks sufficient discussion on these topics. Suppose one had never been informed of physics. If this were the only resource for one's information, one would not understand the significance of physics to engineering, technology, and medicine except in an understated way via the applied physics section. If their inclusion in the introduction section is contested, maybe they can be placed in the applied physics section. --68.224.247.234 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that some of this info. was copyvio as this data was originally added by a different user last week. I apologize for my inclusion of the material. I supported its inclusion without the knowledge of its status. --68.224.247.234 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Good article" delisting

I've delisted this page from "Good Article" status, particularly for violation of attribute 5 (stability), but also for violating attributes 1b (logical structure) and 4a (NPOV). See WP:WIAGA. Gnixon 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Venn Diagram removal

Classification of physics fields by the types of effects that need to be accounted for

I've removed the Venn diagram. While the concept of a physics Venn diagram seems like a good idea, this version needs a lot of work. For example, geometric optics lies inexplicably outside the diagram; the relativity section is restricted to special relativity, placing GR outside the diagram; and thermodynamics/stat. mech is excluded despite its important relationships with mechanics, E&M, and quantum theory. Generally speaking, the diagram seems to fail the NPOV test by focusing on QFT. Gnixon 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This diagram is pretty badly flawed, and very QFT POV-ish.--Srleffler 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

GR is outside because GR has not (yet) been merged with the rest of physics. Thermodynamics is a top down approach, as opposed to the bottom up approach of other fields and so naturally faqlls into a parallel category. GFT / QED is the focus because it is the most precisely verified (as the diagram states) and has formed the basis for later developments. Diagram reinserted. Any complaints, then improve the diagram, don't delete it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This still seems like POV to me. GR and QFT are mutually incompatible, and both are parts of Physics. I see little justification for arbitrarily placing one or the other "outside". Physics is a big field. Clearly you work in an area where QFT is of paramount importance. This is not true for all physicists. Many work in fields where GR is of greater importance. They might well draw a Venn diagram in which QFT is relegated to the outer corners. --Srleffler 23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, GR is less well integrated into the rest of verified physics than QFT/QED. I don't think that's POV, nor is it in any way meant to demean GR (a wonderful theory) - just a statement about where we are at the moment: we have QED, EW and QCD, but not quantum gravity. And I don't work in a field where QFT is of importance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I meant GR's exclusion as an example of one of a number of flaws. Listing GR and thermo under "other effects" along with "most experimental physics" is POVish to the point of being almost offensive. (Full disclosure: I work on experiments that study GR by observing the thermal CMB.) Geometric optics is floating in space at the top of the diagram with no explanation. Shot noise is promoted to the domain of QFT. Etc., etc. This diagram is just not ready for prime time. Frankly, if people feel strongly about having a Venn diagram here, I would recommend starting from scratch. I'm going to delete it once again. If more than one person wants to keep it, I'd be glad to have a vote on the issue. Gnixon 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned that it needs work, but would have taken it out myself if I did not think it is useful in this form. (Euclidean) Geometric optics is outside the circles because it does not require any of the concepts of Particles, Waves or Relativity. That is why it is one of the first things taught. The circles are intended to show relationships, not to exhaust the subject. (This is interesting, historically. Newton and Huygens and their followers had differing opinions about whether light was a wave or particle, because geometric optics can be an approximation to either particle or wave motion.)

General relativity and statistical physics are outside for different reason, but basically because it is only a two dimensional diagram. General relativity could be included at the bottom with special relativity, but it does not interact (yet) with as much of other parts of physics as the circled concepts do. In terms of importance in engineering, and research, statistical physics could replace special relativity, but it is not so basic to physics as the other circled concepts. Statistics applies to other subject than physics, and the Bose and Fermi statistics can be derived from other parts of quantum mechanics. I do not regard the probabilities in quantum experiments to be among the most basic physics (See [[1]].)

I am not sure my statement that the most accurate agreements have been in QED. I have been reading of very accurate agreements with GR. (But that doesn't make GR a good example of the unity of physics.)

I have no objection with starting from scratch, as long as the objective is preserved. My only qualification is having worked in a variety of fields of pure and applied physics.

I have been reading that newcomers do not see the unity of physics, so I wanted to call attention to a significant part of that unity in a way that is easy to see. I don't think anyone will mistake it for a map of the relative importance of the fields of physics. David R. Ingham 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the graphic concentrated on QFT? QFT is a unifying theory in two distinct senses: (1) it unifies the concepts of particles, waves, and relativity (or fields, quanta, and relativity), and (2) it unifies three of the fundamental forces. A graphic with a pair of Venn diagrams might be interesting.

I'm not sure how one would illustrate the unity of physics in one diagram. In this one, for example, there isn't a good way to show GR as an extension of SR, or to show how stat mech touches many fields at a deep level. Other interesting diagrams I could imagine would be (1) a quasi-historical flow diagram of unification in physics, starting with Newton's universal law of gravity, through stat mech and Maxwell's equations to QED and the standard model, leaving quantum gravity as an open problem, and (2) a diagram of length/energy scales showing the various subfields and how theories apply to them and overlap.

I'm really all for having diagrams like these, but maybe in its current state this one is trying to do too much. My main concern isn't so much whether it weights subjects according to their importance, but rather that the assortment of subjects and statements in the diagram seem a little random. I'd love to see people participate in some kind of interactive diagram-building project. On the upside, this diagram is hardly among the worst of the problems with the Physics article.  :-) Gnixon 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Alas you final statement is all too true.

Focussing on QFT can't be wrong, although I thought this was your objection: "Generally speaking, the diagram seems to fail the NPOV test by focusing on QFT."  :-) Anyway I glad there seems to be agreement that a diagram is needed and we are merely arguing about details. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on QFT in a graphic about QFT would be great, but the same diagram wouldn't work to illustrate unity in physics generally. I think *a* diagram is a great idea, but I'm not sure that *this* diagram is helpful as it currently exists. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I think at this point the article has a much greater need for pruning than it does for new content (consider, e.g., the sprawling history section). Gnixon 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Central theories

I undid a revert by Karol of the edit by 203.99.195.4 68.224.247.234 because the edit seemed like a good one and no reason was given for reverting. I thought using bullets in the list of central theories was particularly useful. Gnixon 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who created the bullets. --68.224.247.234 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that, it got caught in a "batch revert", I think. Karol 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)