User talk:Sbyrnes321/Archives/2017

navbox

Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to help you with that because I don't think it's a useful navbox for wikipedia articles. (It's a fine thing to put on your user-page, like a list of things you find interesting and related.) Just my opinion. --Steve (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You can see similar navboxes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Composition OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biological_organisation that used in some articles. my navbox is about evolution of a science from observation to science, in the Outline of scientific method you can see the original source. I'm not sure about title of navbox. please help me and tell me what's wrong in my navbox? Plutonium 23:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You can show me many comparable navboxes, but that won't convince me, because I think that those navboxes are bad too. There are just a lot of unhelpful navboxes on wikipedia. I don't waste my time trying to get them deleted, or anything like that, because it's unpleasant to pick fights, and because I suspect (extrapolating from my own experience) that most readers quit reading when they get to the, references and probably don't even realize that the navboxes are there at the bottom, so it doesn't matter much anyway.

Take any nonfiction book out of the library, chosen at random, and open it to a random page. Based on the things discussed on this page, you can make a list of maybe 20 wikipedia articles. These articles will be related to each other, and if somebody sat down for a day and read them all, they would really get a pretty deep understanding of the area. You could imagine constructing a short pedagogical course around those 20 articles.

Yes, you have found a set of articles that are related to each other, and whose relationship is worth thinking about. But that's too low a bar to warrant a navbox. There are probably billions of conceivable navboxes that satisfy this criterion. Your navbox reminds me of a music playlist. I have a playlist of rock ballads that I really love listening to, and I would recommend it to anyone. I might post it on my personal website. The songs all go together and complement each other, and I think you can appreciate each song better in the context of my playlist. But it's still just my personal playlist, I would not make it into a wikipedia navbox and forcibly shove it in front of anyone looking at any of the songs on it.

I think that for a navbox to deserve to exist, it has to be among the very most natural groupings of articles, such that almost everyone reading any of the articles will recognize that as part of its very most natural grouping, and where almost everybody reading any of the articles will probably want to read the other articles too. I don't think that most people reading Deep learning will feel the need to immediately also read the wikipedia articles about Knowledge and Positivism. I think hardly any would. --Steve (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, currently i stopped working on it, i just think that i start to reading wikipedia articles about the subject of scientific method and collect them into a navobx, but as i think this not my personal view, i read too many of articles and some books about this subject and found this idea, for me it's not useful but if some one want to start this subject can use my experience by just a short look at this navbox. i planed to delete OTHER and just keep DIKY pyramid and Scientific method because other is just for me as writer to think. Both of us are programmer(i think you're programmer too!) and we know there are too many algorithms for doing one thing but we just choose most optimized algorithm and for a group of things we can create a general algorithm. In philosophy of science the process of forming a branch of science start by observation but a theory may start by a question or a branch of science like philosophy, but in general use we start our workflow by observe the world and then ask question,then step by step move. i know there are different views about philosophy of science like bacon and kuhn. i think this navbox(when finished) help too many people to understand the process of scientific method.Plutonium 17:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)

Data file for S-Q Voc

Hello Sbyrnes321, I would like to request the data file for the S-Q Voc plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ShockleyQueisserVOC.svg Origin or ASCII is fine. Cheers, m2mayer M2mayer (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the Talk page of linear optics

Dear Sbyrnes321, we can discuss here or in the Talk page of Linear Optics. I am happy with most of the modifications you have made there, but not with all. Please see the Talk page there. Thanks a lot Tal Mor (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Fresnel_equations page edits - may be wrong

Hi,

If I have interpreted the history edits correctly it looks like you changed the Fresnel equations for Rs and Rp. I have derived these myself and checked with a two other references and I believe your edits may be wrong

ie rs (ignoring the squared Rs to ease typing) =

  (Z1 cos(theta_1) - Z2 cos(theta_2)/(Z1 cos(theta_1) + Z2 cos(theta_2))

and rp = Z2 cos theta_1 - Z1 cos theta_2/(Z2 cos theta1 + Z1 cos theta 2)

regards Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.168.202 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well I've been wrong before. First, what references are you referring to? Second, just to be very sure, you're not confusing Z and n are you? (They're inversely proportional.) For reference, the current article versions are:

$R_{\mathrm {s} }=\left|{\frac {Z_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }-Z_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }}{Z_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }+Z_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }}}\right|^{2},$

$R_{\mathrm {s} }=\left|{\frac {n_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }-n_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }}{n_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }+n_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }}}\right|^{2},$

$R_{\mathrm {p} }=\left|{\frac {Z_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }-Z_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }}{Z_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }+Z_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }}}\right|^{2},$

$R_{\mathrm {p} }=\left|{\frac {n_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }-n_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }}{n_{1}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {t} }+n_{2}\cos \theta _{\mathrm {i} }}}\right|^{2},$

Do you think the Z versions and n versions are both wrong? At a glance, they seem consistent with each other, right? --Steve (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeking support for proposed Wikiproject Quantum Mechanics

Hi, thanks for all your contributions! I'm reaching out to members of the community who might be interested in a Wikiproject dedicated to QM. The goal is to create articles which can be read and understood by laypersons but that also thoroughly present the technical details of the subject. As it stands now, too many QM articles feature ledes filled with jargon and lack introduction or overview sections.

I hope you'll support the proposal and contribute as a member when the time comes.

Thanks

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that improving QM articles is a fine goal, but I don't see how creating a wikiproject will help you get there. If you want to reach out to physicist editors and encourage them to do something, you can post a call to action at Wikiproject Physics Talk. I could be wrong, but I bet that pretty much anyone who might join WP:QM is already part of WP:PHYS and will see your messages.

Maybe I'm extrapolating too much from my own experience, but I always figure that improving articles requires time, energy, and skill, and that there are only so many wikipedia editors with only so much time, and that people mostly just work on the articles that they are personally motivated to work on for whatever personal reasons, e.g. articles on topics that they are currently learning or teaching or researching. If you show me an article that's really bad, I will probably spend a few minutes discussing how and why it's bad, and discussing how it might be improved, but I'm much less likely to spend the many hours or days or weeks required to actually improve it in a major way. This is even more true for long and high-traffic and pedagogy-centric articles like intro QM. To substantially change articles in this category is an extremely time-consuming and usually frustrating process, for various reasons. I do it to a certain extent because it's valuable, but I can't do it much.

So usually when I've seen people say "Hey let's all do such-and-such", usually various people will agree in principle that it would be a nice thing to do, but often nobody does anything about it, particularly if doing such-and-such requires days of effort. This is the fundamental problem, and I don't see how forming a wikiproject would help solve it.

The main thing that a Wikiproject does (in my experience) is have a talk page which is a valuable forum for people with shared interests. But again, I feel like Wikiproject Physics talk page is good enough in the context of quantum mechanics. I figure that 90% of people on wikiproject physics are at least marginally interested in quantum mechanics articles, and that 90% of people competent to edit quantum mechanics articles are on wikiproject physics, and that wikiproject physics is not so high-traffic that it urgently needs to be subdivided.

But having said all that, if you successfully make WP:QM, I'm sure I'll put its talk page on my watchlist. :-D --Steve (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sbyrnes321: thanks for responding. btw, here's the proposal page. Forgot that last time.  :-| I think where the WikiProject (or task force) could help is in prioritization. Identifying the articles that are important enough and the ones that need the most work. Alas, I think you're right about the level of interest/effort. It is what it is. A dedicated WikiProject seems like a way to make it easier to do the work. Also, there are other possible ways it would help, with templates, banners, etc. But it certainly is a major task... Again, that's for getting back so promptly Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)