User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/July

Journal stats

Just wanted to give you an FYI update so you know I a working on the project.  :)

I have completed a run through the dump, but found the results to contain a large amount of "garbage" where people had entered more than just the journal's name in the field. Thus, I am going to add some filters and rerun. Each run takes 36-48 hours and after that I to run through the data I've extracted to sort it, so it'll be a few more days before I have good results to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Perhaps it would be worth creating a "pages with weird journal parameters" list for cleanup purposes? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I could probably do that on the next pass. Of course, we have to define what actually needs cleanup. Some examples of the type of things I've found (in addition to things that are simple formatting errors):

• "Journal" or “Journal”
• In: Journal or From Journal
• Journal, volume 1, page 26
• (unknown) or Online or Newspaper
• http://journal.org or www.journal.org
• name of a website (something like "The Coolstuff website")
• sentence long explanations of where the info came from (something like "a research paper by Dr. X presented and the 3rd annual convention of ...)
• {{fact}} or some other wiki tag by itself

For purposes of generating the list I will just "correct" the most obvious errors. Later we can go back and create a list of things which are usually errors that can be flagged for human checking - things like: contains "website", is over 75 characters long, contains numbers, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Or by bots.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The list is finally complete. Check out the results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/ and let me know what you think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

w00t! I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to go over it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just a quick thank you note for making the main page look (and read) much better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but it's not a lot compared to doing the actual coding of that thing :P. Anyway check this out for future bot runs.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty sweet :) - I will definitely use those templates in future runs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"keep track of"

This phrase is very much tied to the English vernacular. It needs to be avoided in Quark. If you feel the alternative is weak, feel free to improve it, but the old phrasing should not be used. I trust you will not make another simple revert when at least two people have informed you that the old phrasing doesn't make the cut. By doing so, you're hampering progress in the prose and increasing the workload. As I say, let's try and work on the alternative rather than battling between the old and the new. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vernacular it may be, but replacing it by something worse is not the solution. It accurately describes what the CKM and PMNS matrices do in an accessible and accurate way. I'm not closed to an alternative, but the alternative must at least be as good as what it is replacing. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is worse. This constant reversion is not acceptable. I asked you to not revert, in favour of proper discussion. I will not revert again, but this is showing of poor communication and compromising skills on your part. Please join me in seeking a better phrasing; I sincerely hope you will not simply leave the sentence the way it is. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And accessibility doesn't come into it. Your wording is no easier to understand than mine. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And I obviously disagree that it is better. This is not indicative of any poor communication skills or compromising skills, this is simply indicative that I don't think your version is better. The cycle is BRD. You've been bold, I reverted, and we're discussing. No need to get in a fuss over it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, yes. The only difference is that you've been told your version isn't sound, and not just by me. Agreed, it's not worth getting fussed about. Let's just try and improve the wording. I'll be back in a few hours to attempt something different. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my" version, it's simply the version that's there at the moment. I said numerous times now that I'm not closed to the idea of phrasing it differently. Any version that's as accessible and accurate as this version is fine by me.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CMBR

I wasn't sure if you were interested, but this article is currently undergoing a GA reassessment at Talk:Cosmic microwave background radiation/GA1. I noticed you were making improvements, I just wasn't sure if you were aware of this, thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I was making them.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Definition of "joule"

Dear Headbomb:

Sorry if this posting is the wrong forum or is not following protocol, I'm navigating the physics webpages the first and possibly last time. I just wanted to report a shortcoming in the defintion of "Joule" The Wikipedia page defines Joule this way:

"The joule (symbol J) is the derived unit of energy in the International System of Units. It is the energy exerted by a force of one newton acting to move a one kilogram mass through a distance of one metre. Algebraically:" (one Correct expression for a joule here)

Although the text is technically correct in saying that a joule is the energy (consumed) by a force of one newton acting to move a one Kg mass through a distance of one metre, the definition is grossly and misleadlingly narrow; be aware that a joule of energy is consumed *whenever* a force of one newton is acting on ANYTHING through a distance of one metre.

When you break the definition down into it's basic units (kg m/(second squared) x m), don't be confused by the kg term in the algebraically derived definition. It is there just to define the newton in terms of F = mA. That doesn't mean the force of one newton has to act upon a mass of one kilogram in order to be a newton. A force of one newton can act on *anything*. If that particular *anything* moves a distance of one metre, then a joule of energy was used to produce that motion.

In order to provide a clearer definition of a joule, remove the "to move a one kilogram mass" from the definition, and to make it even better, include other equivalent expressions for a joule, including the electrical equivalents.

I don't care about credit for this, many college physics 101 students could tell you the same thing. It's just that I hate to see shortcomings in Wikipedia.

Again, I apologize if I've inadvertently broken any code of conduct or if there are any insider-only protocols I've missed. This posting is sincerely of the best intent.

Wes Nichols, shredpile-a@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarElectrician (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you Wes, you are indeed right. I have corrected the article accordingly. I am surprised that the mistake was not corrected earlier, as it is a pretty obvious one. In case you worry, you haven't broken any "protocol" or anything like that. Usually people post on the article talk page, but directly messaging active users (like you did) usually gets a quicker response, which is also perfectly normal. An even quicker solution is to simply edit the page yourself. Again thanks for pointing this out. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit, the mistake appears to have been added on July 10th, so I guess this was indeed a quick catch.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cat deletion

Category:Val maintenance still has 6 pages in it, so why does it qualify for CSD#C1? MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The old "category takes a while to update" thing. It was a maintenance category used to check some of the inputs of {{val}}. I've checked them and the category has no use anymore. The categories have been removed from the template, and it's just a matter of time before the server catches up with the situation.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. I deleted it. MBisanz ^talk 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiphysics inquiry

Hello Headbomb,

This is Brett Stone, the main author of the article titled "Multiphysics Methods Group". I noticed that you added a notability tag to the article and I was wondering what you think I could do to make the article more "notable". Do you have any specific suggestions of what needs improvement? Thanks,

Brett StoneBrett R. Stone (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tauon name

Hi, I hate to bring this up again, but I noticed that you did not respond to the last 3 requested move discussion updates at Talk:Tauon. Did we convince you that the name "tauon" is sufficiently far from the mainstream that the name should be changed? If so, I suspect that GrooveDog would have marked it "consensus" and moved the page, given that the only other opposed contributor was anonymous and thus not available for continuance of the discussion. If you are convinced, would you mind re-listing the page for moving (or just moving it yourself, I suppose)? I am willing to help change other wikipedia references to tauon as needed; just let me know. The Wilschon (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CKM and PMNS

(I'm raising this here because the discussion at the quark page is complicated enough as it is.) Do the CKM and PMNS matrix really describe all weak decays? What about decays of the Higgs boson mediated by W bosons? The statement that 'Together, the CKM and PMNS matrices describe all weak decays' feels troublesome.

As a side note. Why do you feel it is so important to talk about quark-lepton complementarity? To me it is just one of many possible extensions of the standard model proposed to explain the values of the quark and lepton parameters. There doesn't seem to be any more evidence for this than for any of the other models. Speaking of quark-lepton complementarity and not other forms of family physics feels very much like WP:UNDUE to me. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm, I didn't think of the Higgs. And then there's also the Z which I don't think is included in the CKM/PMNS. I now realize that the current sentence does not convey what I mean by it: AKA that these two matrices described all flavour mixing (which is what I meant by weak decays, but weak decays are indeed larger than the flavour mixing). I'll rephrase for accuracy.

Considering the complementarity, I agree that speaking of leptoquarks was WP:UNDUE, because that's only one way of doing things, but I really don't see how mentionning the quark-lepton complementarity is WP:UNDUE. The matrices are related, but how exactly is unknown. The q-l complementarity article has more details on it, and so is mentionned.

As for the other family physics, which do you feel is on the same level as q-l comp. for explaining the relation between the matrices?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole zoo of non-abelian discrete symmetry (mostly A(4)) based extensions of the SM, that try to explain the values of the mixing matrices. (It is not really my field of expertise, I tend to phase out a talks trying to explain this at the institute, so don't ask me to explain how this works exactly.) These models typically have some difficulty with simultaneously reproducing both quark and lepton mixings, but some more or less succeed.

I think I disagree that it is clear that the PMNS and CKM matrices are related. A priori, coming from the SM there is no reason to suspect any relation what so ever. Any precieved correlation between the values of the matrices could just be pure coincidence. Of course there is the general expectation that the SM should derive from a more fundamental theory with fewer parameters and thus providing relations between the SM parameters, but that is mostly idle speculation which has no place the quark article.(TimothyRias (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I have things to do right now, I'll try to get back to you on that by the end of the night.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright sorry for the delay, stuff happened (and I still won't be able to give that extended reply until tonight at least). Concerning the complementarity, at least as far as I understand it (and it is very possible that I don't), it's just a placeholder name for whatever explains the link between the CKM and PMNS matrices. I agree that from the SM, there's no relation, but from the SM, neutrinos don't mix either. Would rephrasing the last sentence to "Together, the CKM and PMNS matrices describe all flavor mixing, but the links between the two (if any) are not yet clear (see quark–lepton complementarity).[48]" ease your mind here?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That might explain why we feel differently about this. To me quark-lepton complementarity refers to the assumption that certain observed correlations between the CKM and PMNS matrix are exact. To be more exact it refers to the assumption that

$\theta _{12}^{PMNS}+\theta _{12}^{CKM}=45^{\circ }\ ,$ and

$\quad \quad \theta _{23}^{PMNS}+\theta _{23}^{CKM}=45^{\circ }\ .$

The see that this assumption is not universal take a look at this paper that claims that QLC and tribimaximal mixing (a phemonological assumption central to the most approaches using nonabelian discrete symmetries) are mutually exclusive. Now, of course, the paper may be wrong (or not) about that assertion, but it nicely illustrates that QLC is not synonymic with any mechanism that explains the relation between the two matrices. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm... Alright, after checking those and other articles on the arxiv, I yield the argument. I distinctly recall reading something on QLC that referred to something other than that relation, but it seems to be apparent that this use of QLC to refer to something other than those pi/4 relation was either a mistake from the author, a minority (and thus misleading for our purpose) use of the QLC term or that I recall incorrectly/confuse the article with something on leptoquarks (likeliest scenario). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Flavour mixing

"Flavour mixing" is a problem. I don't even understand what you mean by it. We've not used the term before. It's starting to smell like reference to the PMNS matrix, or at least to the "all-descriptiveness" of the CKM+PMNS, is becoming more and more troublesome. Can we clarify this, or should we uproot the whole paragraph and kill the bug in the system? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a reply. "flavour mixing" is still unexplained. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was extremely busy during the last week and hadn't much time to address wiki related stuff. I notice that the wording has been changed to "flavour transformation". Is that sufficient or is it still unclear?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who changed it, so I guess I'm really the one who should be asking you if the new wording is okay. Is it? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the usual jargon, but it's not incorrect. Probably more accessible, so I'm ok with it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the APS position on global warming

You have helped to sway the decision on this article to "delete". Per group recommendation I have tried to add a single truly notable person (Nobel laureate in physics) from the list to the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. As I have predicted, my addition was swiftly reversed by William M. Connolley. This is just to let you know that while discussing the deletion you were misled (or misleading me). I am not going to challenge the deletion or argue with WMC, I do not even expect an answer to this message. I just hope that next time you will take a more weighted position on some other issue. Dimawik (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Start an RFC on the inclusion of some of these scientist on the main list. POV forks are not the way to solve things. That list isn't notable, especially for a standalone article. And I really don't see which should be included though, as none of these people are (as I recall) notable for their opposition to the "mainstream" ideas, but consensus may differ from my opinion here. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I asked you not to revert again. In a previous discussion, you cited Bold, Revert, Discuss as a principle you stuck to when you edit. This is not happening. You made a bold edit ("try something"), and I undid it. Your Bold edit was taken out. And yet you have continually re-inserted it. The two-paragraph structure you have inserted does not make sense. The break between the two is arbitrary. This is in contrast with my version, which is separated logically. In my version, the first paragraph discusses the origins of flavor names, and the second the little note about truth and beauty. With yours, it's all over the place. It is not Logical/Arbitrary – "strange" is not arbitrary. The argument about "heaviness" of the paragraph is entirely void, because being logical trumps any sense of "heaviness". I am going to ask you to re-install the previous version. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it some more, and I've decided I don't care enough. Your version is fine, and what's the point in arguing? Quark's FA; we should be celebrating. Thanks for all your help over the past months. Do you think we could agree to stop fiddling with what "ain't broken" now? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is going to sound weird, but I really honestly prefer your version. I really hope we're not in a situation in which we now prefer the other's version. It would be extremely ironic to war over the other person's version. >_< In all seriousness, can we go back to your old version? I think the current para is too blocky, and I don't really like the idea of an intro sentence. Surely you haven't actually begun to dislike your old layout, so if we're both fine with it, why not go back to it? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I honestly prefer yours (since it goes with chronological order). This is so weird. If we really need to, we could ask Tim to provide an opinion on which wording he prefers. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is really a shame. Strictly speaking, the current version isn't actually my version. It has the intro sentence, which I think is a bit redundant. The old adage, "don't say what you're going to say, just say it" is very relevant here. To save what will probably be a lot of time wasted and a lot of faffing about, could we just take a trip down easy street and go back to your version, which you must still like somewhat and which I also like? Put it this way: I'm assuming you like your version, and I like your version. 2 points. You like the current version, but I don't (since it actually isn't my version anyway). 1 point. What do you say? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I say let's ask Tim. I'll message him.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutronium

I'm not sure that neutronium should be considered an "element" for the purpose of automatic categories (such as Category:Isotopes of neutronium, and I'm sure there's not enough about dineutron and tetraneutron to be worthy of an article. I've proposed deletion of the category, and merger of the "isotope" articles into neutronium. Please discuss at Talk:Neutronium and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Neutronium isotopes.

I'm sorry if the WikiProject has already made a decision that it is an "element", but I don't see it in the recent archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

MAPS

User:Headbomb/MAPS. Thanks, Black Kite 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

controversial changes

Headbomb, controversial changes refers to the fact that MichaelCPrice proceeded unilaterally to change a section that was under intense discussion. Please take the time to read the corresponding thread in the talk page and then (if you feel like) give your opinion about it. I want to stress again that I am not trying to block MichaelCPrice from changing the section, I just want him to propose his changes on the talk page and get consensus on them before implementing them. The only time he did propose a change in advance, it resulted in an untenable sentence: Of the possible discoveries the LHC might make, only the discovery of the Higgs particle is expected, but even this is not considered a certainty. I tried to engage him in a discussion on that sentence but he just stopped talking about it and moved on. Then BenRG implemented a change that seemed to placate the discussion, until this morning MichaelCPrice turned the tables again by completely altering the meaning of the paragraph. Anyway, your input in this discussion will be welcome. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid that before actively taking sides in this discussion (such as reverting my changes) you should at least do me the favour of going through the thread and see what we are discussing about. I posted some quick replies to your comment on the talk page but I really cannot summarize the whole thing again. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quark

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your efforts in bringing quark to FA-level, as well as putting up with my somewhat limited and amateur knowledge of the topic these past months. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC); A. di M. 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to look like a copycat, but I could never accept an award without giving you one right back. :-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Might want to user your signature instead of mine in the barnstar's box, otherwise it looks like I gave myself one :P. But thanks, it's really appreciated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry. Sloppy job. Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)