Talk:Newtonian gauge

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Improvements to article and tags[edit]

At present, the article describes the Newtonian gauge in a way that a specialist can understand. As regards it's status as a Wikipedia article, it is rather poor - this is not meant as an insult, rather, it discusses vector and tensor perturbations and it's not clear what significance this has to the the concept of a Newtonian gauge. True, links are given to the technical terms, but the article needs to be cleaned up to give the general (relativity) reader the main gist of the idea and then discuss it's significance, use, limitations (?) etc. in GR. Related to this, it is clear that only an expert is likely to improve this article to satisfy the above criteria. Therefore, I think the tags should remain. MP (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have tried to revise it with a clear enough link to the main page, scalar-vector-tensor decomposition which describes the decomposition of metric perturbations under the group of spatial rotations. I hope this is satisfactory, because I don't think there is much more to say, and this is never likely to be a high traffic article. –Joke 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me why vector and tensor perturbations are discussed anyway-- it should be sufficient to say that only scalar perturbations are being considered. Still, I've changed the statement on the tensor perturbation to highlight the fact that the first order tensor perturbation is really gauge *independent*. Ajcz (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Stuff is Just Wrong[edit]

I'm pretty sure that it's Psi not Phi that is the Newtonian potential. Also, different authors use different sign conventions on Phi and Psi.

You are correct: I have changed Phi to Psi. Ajcz (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some rogue commas. Roscrad (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]