User talk:DJIndica

Rydberg atom

Thank you for your contributions to Rydberg atom, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Christopher Thomas 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stark effect

Please look at the discussion of the Stark effect (I'm proposing to remove your nice drawing)--P.wormer 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opinion about the Stark drawing. Could you perhaps add to the caption an explanation why all levels are split into 7 sublevels? If I counted correctly it seems to me that n=9 has 6 sublevels and n=14 splits into 11. I probably overlook something, but it is likely that I am not alone in that. So please add some extra clarification, thank you--P.wormer 09:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing is OK and also illuminating. But could you re-enter the magnetic quantum number m to the caption? This is a nice qn because it indicates axial symmetry.--P.wormer 13:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euler-Cromer method

Hello. I'm intrigued by the article on the Euler-Cromer algorithm that you created, because it looks like I should know about this method. I have a couple of questions which I hope you could answer:

You wrote it performs better for oscillatory solutions. What is the basis for the statement? I find it hard to believe that this is true in general, but it may well be true in special cases (and these special cases may constitute the majority of problems of interest).
Can you look at the method again and tell me where the functions a and v that appear in the ODE come in? I suppose that $a_{n}$ stands for $a(v_{n},x_{n},t_{n})$ ?
Any references? Where did you get the method from? Mr Google confirms that the method exist, but I can't find much analysis. To be honest, the method looks very similar to Verlet integration (which sorely needs to be cleaned up; there is always so much more work to be done here).

I realize that you may not know all the answers, but anything you can say would be much appreciated. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Could you please check this edit of mine where I tried to clarify a couple of things, especially about the form of the equation? ~~After quickly reading Verlet integration, it seems that that article describes a different method than the method I have in mind; I need to find out what's going on here.~~ I'll need to think a bit more about the connection with the Verlet method. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied our discussion to Talk:Euler–Cromer algorithm, so that other people interested in the article can also find it, and added another comment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

impedance

Hey, glad to see someone fixing that page up, it really needed it. I responded on its talk page. Fresheneesz 19:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template for electromagnetism

Yes, the new template certainly does address my concerns. Thanks!Bless sins 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Physics Poll

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Electronics collaboration

Hi, I am writing to you because you have listed yourself as a member of the Electronics WikiProject. Sadly, this project is pretty dead, but I propose to resuscitate it with a collaboration. The idea is to have a concerted effort on improving one article per month, hopefully to GA or FA status and nominate the very best of them for the front page. I have prepared a page to control this process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration (actually, I mostly shamelessly stole it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals where a collaboration of this sort was succesfully run). There you can make nominations for articles for collaboration or comment on the nominations of others.

If you want to take part you might like to place this template {{WikiProject Electronics Collaboration}} on your userpage which will give you a link to the current collaboration. If you are no longer interested in Wikiproject Electronics, please remove yourself from the members list, which is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Members

Thanks for listening, SpinningSpark 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I won't be joining as my knowledge of biology and biochemistry is rather limited and has been acquired in a somewhat haphazard manner. I started the chrysolaminarin article because I saw it mentioned as one of the most commonly occurring biopolymers.--DJIndica (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transition dipole moment "parity" disambiguation

Hello DJIndica! On 18 June you added the text "This result is reflected in the parity selection rule for electric dipole transitions" to the Transition dipole moment article, and I am now seeking to disambiguate parity. Is this referring to parity (physics) or is there a different even/oddness property that is being discussed? -- Thinking of England (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement does indeed refer to Parity (physics) (specifically the quantum mechanics section). The dipole operator is an odd function, hence it can only couple states with opposite parity. Off-diagonal matrix elements of the dipole operator are given by the integral:

\mathbf {d} _{i,j}=\int _{allspace}\psi _{j}*(\mathbf {r} ){\hat {\mathbf {d} }}\psi _{i}(\mathbf {r} )d^{3}r

.

If ψ_i and ψ_j are states with similar parity then the integrand is an odd function and hence the integral is identically zero.--DJIndica (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. -- Thinking of England (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]