Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2008

Particle Review 2008

The PDG just released their 2008 review. Many decimals added to many things. The biggest thing I've seen so far is pentaquarks = officially dead. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gerber

This article might need some attention from someone knowing the subject. --Crusio (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article which cannot make up its mind whether it is about Paul Gerber or about his theory of gravity. If the latter, then it should be linked from Alternatives to general relativity. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nobel icon proposed for deletion

A TfD has been convened, as to whether to prohibit all the little gold icons in Nobel prizewinners' infoboxes. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoffman and Johnson

There is a dispute on Talk:Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness as well as Talk:d'Alembert's paradox, on the inclusion of material from a paper and book by Hoffman and Johnson. Since most of the discussion is between two editors, Egbertus and me, I would be very glad if someone else could contribute to the discussion. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Z0 boson

Are Z⁰ bosons and photons completely interchangeable? More specifically, are things like

Λ⁰
→
Σ⁰
+ Z⁰, where Z⁰ →
e⁻
+
e⁺
and/or

Λ⁰
→
Σ⁰
+ Z⁰, where Z⁰ →
μ⁻
+
μ⁺
and/or

Λ⁰
→
Σ⁰
+ Z⁰, where Z⁰ →
τ⁻
+
τ⁺

allowed? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I just realized that these reactions are prohibited as the Z is more massive than the mass energy difference between the Lambdo0 and Sigma0. Nonetheless, aside for mass, can the Z and photon be interchanged? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the Z boson as discussed at W and Z bosons, then the answer is a resounding no. The Z boson is rather massive while the photon is massless. This implies any number of important phenomenological differences, for example the photon cannot decay into massive particles while the Z boson can. So to be more specific, the Z⁰ →
e⁻
+
e⁺
type decays are permissible but
γ
→
e⁻
+
e⁺
type decays are not. Furthermore, the
Λ⁰
and
Σ⁰
are both rather light compared to the Z so neither can contain the Z as a decay product. Now the above statements refer to real or on-shell processes; the forbidden processes can still occur as virtual processes but the amplitudes/probabilities are different for the photon and the Z so they are not interchangeable in that sense either. Hope that helps. Joshua Davis (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, even without the differences in mass, the photon and Z fields couple differently to various particles. The photon couples to particles with electric charge, with the strength of the electromagnetic interaction (the famed 1/137). In contrast, the Z boson couples to particles which carry weak isospin charge with the strength of the electroweak interaction, which is numerically different from that of electromagnetism. The Z boson couples directly (that is, at tree level) to the Higgs and neutrinos while the photon does not. There are surely other differences which I'm not thinking of at the moment, too. Joshua Davis (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak isospin... why must particle physics be cluttered by physically meaningless and near incomprehensible quantities? Sigh... Anyway.

1. Under my understanding, processes such as γ → e⁺ + e⁻ are allowed (albeit perhaps as parts of a larger process such as e⁺ + e⁻ → γ → e⁺ + e⁻). So why not something like e⁺ + e⁻ → Z⁰ → e⁺ + e⁻?
2. If the above decay (Λ⁰ → Σ⁰ + Z⁰, where Z⁰ → e⁺ + e⁻) is not allowed due to the mass of the Z⁰, then why is n⁰ → p⁺ + W⁻, where W⁻ → e⁻ +
   ν
   _e⁰ allowed? The mass difference of protons and neutrons is much less than that of the Sigma0 and the Lambda0.

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of the nomenclature is historical artifact and so made more sense at the time it was adopted. Also, one has to deal with properties that are rather outside the intuition and using a more familiar language (for example, "color" in strong interactions) can be just as confusing. But you need a name for anything you would like to talk about so you don't have much choice.

Anyway, yes it true e⁺ + e⁻ → γ → e⁺ + e⁻ is allowed and so is e⁺ + e⁻ → Z⁰ → e⁺ + e⁻. In these cases, the Z and photon are virtual processes and so the intermediate particle does not have to be exactly at its "proper mass". But the further it is away from that mass, the more the probability for that process is reduced. (I'm not an expert in hadron physics but maybe
Λ⁰
→
Σ⁰
+ Z⁰ is allowed too in a virtual process.) So these two processes have different amplitudes (probabilities) so in that sense, the Z and photon are not interchangeable. Further, as I was stating above, even leaving the mass aside some things are still forbidden. If we replaced the electrons and positrons in the above example with neutrinos and anti-neutrinos (of any generation), then there is a process with an intermediate Z boson but no such process with the intermediate photon. There are other differences as well.

There's a reason why the photon and Z are somewhat similar though. In the theory of electroweak symmetry breaking, the Z and photon are both parts of a single larger theoretical structure. Joshua Davis (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok good, this makes sense and was pretty much what I was expected. The no-neutrino with photons thing is interesting though but I'm not there yet (JRSpriggs below says it has to do with parity conservation so I'll keep that in mind). Thanks. As for the nomenclature, color isn't really confusing because it corresponds to something. It's "real". Isospin and flavor quantum numbers however, are relics from the past that the particles physics community should have purged a long time ago. And it's problem the same with C-parity and G-parity, but I can't make much sense of mesons right now so I'll withhold judgment for the time being. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I follow why color is "real" and other quantities aren't. These are useful concepts for describing the outcomes of experiments (maybe not C-parity and G-parity, I'm not sure what they are). If you need something to be more real than that, your standards are perhaps too high. Anyway, the no photon-neutrino coupling isn't really related to parity conservation. Photons only interact directly with electricly charged particles, and the neutrino is electrically neutral (hence the name). The photon also won't couple directly to other photons or the Z boson, for that matter. I think JRSpriggs was simply referring to another difference between photons and Z bosons, although I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

As an aside, I second the recommendation below of Griffith's book; he goes through much of the experiments and major concepts without getting bogged down into technical aspects of renormalization. Another book which might be of some use is Gordon Kane's Modern Elementary Particle Physics. But I haven't looked at it for a while so I may be misremembering it's level of technicality. Joshua Davis (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by color being real is that color represents something that is physically real, like the quantum numbers n, m, m_l, and m_s. Consider what isospin itself represents. The projections of isospin are associated with particles, based on wheter or not they are in the same mass group. Isospin itself is undefined, but can be given a "length" that has to be determined post-hoc after we know the number of particles in the "mass group". "Particles in the same mass group" means "particles which have the same number of up and down quarks which are in an otherwise identical quantum state". Something that depends on two of only 6 just-as-fundamental entities is not something I consider "physically real" or even meaningful. It's even downright ugly.

And this "physical unreality" leads to insane things when you try to build things upon it, such as the particle nomenclature. We can only be glad that pentaquarks and tetraquarks went out the window with the Particle Review 2008, although pentaquarks and tetraquarks perhaps would've made the need to revamp the current nomenclature a more pressing matter to resolve. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to weak isospin which is precisely analogous to color in that it is associated with a gauge symmetry and conserved quantities. I admit the nomenclature is confusing in that it isn't related to strong isospin which I think is what you are talking about. While I'm not going to defend the particular nomenclature, the experts evidently find it useful so I would doubt that it qualifies as insane. It is likely that they know something we don't. Joshua Davis (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well like I said, I don't understanding weak isospin, nor do I know what it's supposed to represent, so I won't take a stand on whether it's real or not for now. Isospin however is a relic, and the only reason it's still in use is because the up and down quarks are approximately of the same mass (and form an approximate symmetry because of it) and when the down decays into the up, it stays in the same mass group (aka "conservation of isospin"), which we defined in terms of total up and down quark content. This works... if you forget about strange/charm/bottom/top quarks and photon decays... and about photonic decay. There's also the fact that no one bothered to build a better nomenclature and so it is still needed for nomenclature. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interactions involving the photon conserve parity. Interactions involving Z⁰ may fail to do so. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These are hard questions to answer in this medium; if I had a blackboard, I could explain a few things, but I think the best I can do is recommend a book to read. The most accessible book I know of that does a fairly good job is Griffiths' Introduction to Elementary Particles; it's good reading, and the math is at the upper-level undergraduate level. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes the lack of black board. I too often have this problem. I'll check Griffith's book if I can afford it (else the university library probably has it). Right now all I have is my head, Feynman diagrams, and a good understanding of atomic and solid state physics. Books and the internet really haven't been helpful at all as far as parsing information goes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's a second edition coming out on October 20, so I guess I'll wait until then to buy it. Library will have to do in the meantime. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can also recommend the book "Quantum Field Theory" by Lewis. H Ryder. This is actually an introductory book that covers the standard model in some detail. You only need a basic understanding of quantum mechanics to be able to understand this book. I.e. familiarity with nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, perturbation theory, Heisenberg and interaction picture etc., but not much more. This book is not expensive and covers a many subjects. Count Iblis (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well apparently my library sucks and have neither Griffith's nor Ryder's book. I guess I'll go bother a teacher here that worked for CERN and HERA and see if he has them. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Current status of physics articles

There are now less than 2,000 articles within the scope of WikiProject Physics in need of assessement (aka more than 75% of articles are assessed). Also importance ratings have been given to more than 40% of articles.

This means ~600 articles have been given quality ratings and ~1150 articles importance ratings since June 24. Keep up the good work. At this rate we'll have everything covered in 4-5 months. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of particles

I've rewrote things and put them in a table format. If someone could review the boson table, as well as hypothetical particles tables, that would be nice.

Amongst other things:

• I find it strange that squarks and sleptons are of spin 0.
• Are charginos supersymmetric of charged bosons or charged hadrons?
• Are neutralino supersymmetric partners of neutral bosons (hadrons?)?
• I've put ? next to things I'm unsure of.
• There was an axion entry as well as a combined axino and saxion entry. Going by nomenclature alone, rewrote things this was: There are an axion and a saxion (s-axion) as well as axinos and saxinos. Axino and saxinos would be supersymmetric partners of axions and saxions. If someone could verify that this makes sense it would be nice.

Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Being mostly ignorant of supersymmetry, I have also wondered why they say the superpartners have spin which is 1/2 less than the normal particle rather than 1/2 more. And is there a Higgsino or SHiggs particle? Would it not have to have a spin of 1/2 rather than -1/2 and thus break that rule? JRSpriggs (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The math is a bit more subtle than that. Supersymmetry, like other symmetries, consists of some algebra/group and any set of particles with this symmetry will form representations of the algebra/group. Different particles in the representation are separated by spin 1/2 but there's no constraint on which type of particle (boson or fermion) is the top element of the representation. There is a representation with a spin zero and a spin 1/2 particle (chiral multiplet), another with particles spin 0, 1/2 and 1 (vector multiplet); and also one with spins ranging from 0 to 2 (supergravity multiplet). At first sight, one might imagine that one makes these representations just from the known particles (say, putting the Higgs and electron in the same representation). But I guess the details make this possibility extremely disfavored by observations. Anyway, it's all actually pretty technical and so there are more types of representations as well (and different types of supersymmetry) but they probably aren't of much physical relevance, at least for anything explored at the LHC.

Part of the confusion stems from how supersymmetry, if real, is actually substantiated in nature. If supersymmetry exists then it is a broken symmetry, similar to the weak gauge symmetry. If the symmetry weren't broken, then "particles" and "superparticles" would have the same mass and it would just be semantics as to which is the "superpartner". As it stands, to be consistent with observation, supersymmetry must be broken leading to one or the other of the partners being more massive. By convention, the less massive one that is already known to exist in the Standard Model is simply called the "particle" and the hypothetical, more massive one is known as the "superpartner".

Also, for what its worth, I've heard the term Higgsino a lot but never SHiggs. The rough rule of nomenclature for superpartners (which of course has exceptions) is that you take the name of the Standard Model particle and if its a fermion (say, "quark") add an "s-" to the beginning (to get, say, "squark") and if it's a boson (say, gluon) maybe drop some end letters and then add "-ino" ("gluino"). Joshua Davis (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

About the axion and its superpartners, I actually remember editing in that stuff but some extra information that I wrote in there had been removed since then (about R parity). So, I just looked it up from an older version of that page. It said: "The saxion (spin-0, scalar, R parity=1) and the axino (spin-1/2, R parity = -1) form together with the axion a supermultiplet in supersymmetric extensions of Peccei-Quinn theory."

So, this means that you have an axion, which is a pseudoscalar particle and a scalar particle (the saxion). Both have R parity of 1, which what all the "ordinary" particles have. Then there is a superpartner which is the axino which has spin 1/2 and an R-parity of -1 (all the superpartners of the "ordinary" particles have an R parity of -1). There is no "saxino", you have three particles in the supermultiplet, two with R partity 1, and 1 with R parity -1. Count Iblis (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To Joshua Davis: Thank you for the information about supersymmetry and when to use "-ino" versus "s-". JRSpriggs (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Joshua Davis (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

MRI naming

I have submitted a challenge on the meaning of the name MRI on the article's talk page. I think that the page should be moved from Magnetic resonance imaging to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging or at least mention its correct technical name. Please leave your opinions. Nergaal (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Charge conjugation by another name, or two, or three

Why is the article C parity separate from C-symmetry? Perhaps they should be merged together. Similarly, if G-parity is just a generalization of C-parity, then perhaps it should be merged with them also. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, C-parity is something else than C-symmetry. C-parity is the eigenvalue of an eigenstate of charge conjugation. (i.e. it specifies how neutral particles transform under C) So, there is at least some argument for them having separate articles. Then again it might be easier to discuss them in a single article. But I don't think it's necessary.

G-parity is a much more specialized generalization, resulting from combining C with an isospin rotation making it something quite different from C. (Just as CP is something different from just P). (TimothyRias (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Tim, since you seem to understand that kind of stuff, could you head over to the list of mesons and write something about G-parity and C-parity in the overview? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Atiyah

is up for peer review. Comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Atiyah/archive1 or talk:Michael Atiyah. R.e.b. (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Two peer reviews

Hi, I'm intending on taking Newton's theorem of revolving orbits to FAC sometime soon, and I would appreciate any advice before we descend into maelstrom. ;) There's an open peer review here.

Another article, much closer to FAC, is the problem of Apollonius. It's more geometry than physics, but if it interests you, I'd appreciate any advice there as well.

As always, thank you for your help! :) Willow (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Willow, as I indicated before, I cannot even view that article let alone help you with it until you fix the moving images which bring my computer down. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about that and I'm looking into possible solutions. We'll have to wait for your review until such a solution is found. I haven't the faintest notion why the GIF file has such a dramatic effect on your computer; perhaps it's a memory issue? Can you see the other physics animations on the Commons without your computer crashing?

Two options seem to be to re-make the image as a Theora video or to use a JavaScript frame to hold the image still until the mouse is placed over it. The former is straightforward, but many people seem to find Theora — inadequate as a video file format, so I'm holding off on that solution for the moment.

I should add that I asked the nice people at Math WikiProject to look over both articles a week ago. I also asked here a week ago, but perhaps too subtly, by adding the peer-review request to the "Current Activity" window of the Physics WikiProject front page. I just wanted to call it to people's attention in case they missed the request. If we fix things now, we won't have to fix them at FAC! Willow (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Category:Physics and several of its subcategories which included moving pictures. The only one which caused the memory overflow problem was Category:Animation for physics. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the three animated GIFs with OGG Theora files. Please let me know whether they work for you! :) Hopefully, they'll be at least good enough for you and others to review the article; thanks for your patience! Willow (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To Willow: Thanks. Now the page loads immediately without any problem. However, when I tried to look at the animated images individually by clicking on the arrows, nothing (either good or bad) happened. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no clue why they're not working for you? Since your letter, I've tried them in different browsers at home and at my local library , and they always worked. Perhaps you just need to wait a bit for them to kick in? Willow (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Styleguide

I know there have been discussion about how we render numbers ({{val}}) and particles ({{SubatomicParticle}}), but I can't ever find them. Do people know where these discussion took place and do we have a style guide specific to such things? I don't think the general style guide covers things like making particles italic and which font to use... IMHO we should have a link on this page to the styleguide for displaying this kind of thing.     — SkyLined {^talk_contribs 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just adopt the style guide from the Physical Review? Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of seeing waves and the blackhole in the template, let's hold a contest to find new pictures

I say that for the portal, we find a cool picture/diagram/etc..., and that for the project, we make a logo. The logo could also be on the front page of the project too (I guess what's one the front page right now could be the logo, but I wonder what people can come up with). What say you? I'll notice the physics portal as well. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest we list a couple candidates here and then vote. Beast of traal T C _ 01:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

How about a stylized feynman diagram? Like this, but darker... [1] :

Beast of traal T C _ 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

How about this? The fuzziness would need to be corrected.

Beast of traal T C _ 04:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

I like the idea of a Feynman diagram as a logo. To resolve the fuzziness it is better to make it an SVG though. (It will also allow us to use it at multiple places at different sizes. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

If we are gonna use a Feynman diagram, I think it should be some interesting process. Maybe, one of the possible diagrams involving creation of an intermediate Higgs particle as expected in the LHC. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm going to pull a space-program naming sort of BS here, and I'm going to suggest (if we opt for a Feynman diagramm) that we use the Top quark production mechanism as we want to produce "top" quality work here. I'll submit my suggestion later. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I am being picky, but the diagram suggested by Beast of traal seems to have the gluon going nowhere. I believe that that is impossible. Thus it is an unacceptable option. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article on Feynman diagrams used that exact diagram ... Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Is high energy particle people use outgoing gluons in feynnman diagrams quite regularly. For example, when discussing corrections from soft gluon radiation. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

If it had an arrow-head on the gluon, indicating that it left the diagram, then it would not be so bad. However, free gluons do not exist. It would have to be absorbed or decay immediately. And that is not shown. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's whats bothering you, you should also be disturbed by the two outgoing quarks in the same diagram. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

I guess that should be something to change about that image in general. Sounds like a job for the Graphic Lab. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the diagram. Feynman diagrams are only defined at weak coupling where there are free quarks and gluons. In application to the real world, the above diagram is a good approximation in the asymptotically free regime relevant for scattering at high energies. But if all this bothers everyone so much, maybe just use a QED diagram? Joshua Davis (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's some related old discussion here, about what picture to use for the project page. Might be good to mine for ideas. --Starwed (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My first instinct is to agree with the links that the icon should be instantly recognizable as being physics. On further thought, though, maybe it could be anything as long as it is pleasing to the eye and distinctive. We should think of this as being a corporate logo. Certain shapes like Nike's swoosh, Disney's Mouse ears, or Microsoft's flag thingamajig are distinctive enough that we know exactly what they are before we read any words. That may be what we want. Some of the pictures below may work for that purpose. I can't see the Feynman diagram working, though, both because it is too associated with a particular subcategory of physics already and because it really doesn't have that much visual appeal (at least to me)

TStein (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is so many problems with the picture, perhaps it it should be removed from {{Quantum field theory}}?

Here are some more candidates. It seems (to me at least) that high energy events tend to look good as logo: File:First Gold Beam-Beam Collision Events at RHIC at 100 100 GeV c per beam recorded by STAR.jpg, , , , and possibly a controversial one .

Beast of traal T C _ 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

If icons are going to be that small then preferably choose something that has one, big object in it rather than many small ones so it's easier to see and quickly grasp what it's showing. I think that it should be obvious to a typical reader what the object is (such as a galaxy, , fiber optics, etc.) Gary King (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is important that we quickly grasp what the object is. The importance of the icon is that it represents the Physics Work Group. We don't want people thinking of it as a galaxy or a fiber optics or whatever; we want them to think of the work group. TStein (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the images above, I prefer the first. The second doesn't look that good expanded (and it looks quite different, imo, from the smaller version. The next three are too astronomy. I like the last one as well. The first image looks good and is visually distinct enough to be a good brand, I think. The only problem I have is that the dark edge needs to be trimmed. TStein (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think of an eye for the first image, unsurprisingly... Gary King (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the one on the right (i.e. the one that's used on the project page)? It's instantly recognizable as an atom, which is physics-y, and is already a transparent SVG. It works well at multiple sizes, too. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the atom myself. I'd like to have a hammer and a construction hat or something around though, to signify that we're building something. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We're physicists, not engineers! (... I say, despite being involved in putting a telescope receiver together, which probably falls broadly under engineering...) Whilst my favourite is the atom, a few more suggestions:

File:FluidPhysics-Wake.jpg

Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want Einstein then might be better. But anyways, I don't think Einstein is a good choice. Gary King (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want Einstein, then shows him with experimental physicists. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's way too fussy for a logo, though. I was ideally after the cult icon version of Einstein (with tongue), but that doesn't seem to be on wikipedia at present. Mike Peel (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the atom icon. 1) For the objections made against in the discussion referenced earlier. (i.e. it represents bad physics). 2) I think it is just plain ugly. I still like the idea of a Feynman diagram, and if desired it wouldn't be to hard to make an SVG of that from scratch. I also sort of like the idea of having Einstein as an icon. (He is easily to most recognisable face of modern physics.) (TimothyRias (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

What about this one? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that one. It is nice visually crisp. It is physicsy and recognizable. How about replacing the WP physics logo with

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Physics

(TimothyRias (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Any further comments on this? Otherwise I will proceed to add this image to the template, but I'd prefer a little more consensus on this. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

I kinda find it hard to read "WP Physics". I wonder if it's really necessary to have it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the text is somewhat hard to read, but having the text is probably necessary as clicking on the logo will link to the project page, while clicking on the portal logo will link to the portal. Having some sort text is necessary to distinguish between the two. As an alternative we can put the text on the white background or even behind the rest of the icon.(TimothyRias (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea... I'll have a look. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)