User talk:Footlessmouse/Archive 1

Missing cites in A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

The article cites "Whittaker 1951" and "Whittaker 1953" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: Those sources are used in the content summary section and point to sections of the 1910, 1951, and 1953 versions of the book that are listed under the volumes section. I can easily set up the reflist so that it points to the volume section when the links are clicked on in the references section. However, quick question, the 1951 and 1953 links are necessary as they refer to quotes from the book, but do you think I should remove all the 1910 references from the content section of the first edition? I had them there to try to give a summary of each of the chapters, which are quite dense, but only some book articles go into detail in the summary. I don't want to put a lot more work in finishing these summaries if they are not necessary / subject to deletion in the future. I will work on this later today when I get some free time. Thanks for the help. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the 1951 and 1953 editions should be added to the reference section so that when someone clicks on the link "Whittaker 1951", they are taken to the full book details. I personally think the detailed summary of a non-fiction book is not needed. A short summary with key points is all that is needed. Wikipedia should not become a version of CliffsNotes. Renata (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: That makes sense, and I suppose I can remove the extra details. I want to point out, however, that I in no way was attempting a detailed summary of the book. Virtually everything written in the content section is taken from the table of contents in the 1910 book, which breaks it into detailed sections, I basically made them into complete sentences and added links. My main intention was to link to the names of all the major scientists the book discusses, but that itself is probably not necessary. Thanks again. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Classical Electrodynamics" and special relativity

If you check the table of contents of that book, you will find that special relativity is a key part of it. It is not mentioned in passing. It has one chapter on the special theory of relativity, another one on relativistic dynamics and electrodynamics and extensive discussions of electromagnetic radiation that involve relativistic effects. Nerd271 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nerd271:, I did not remove it a second time, I just fixed the publications task force thing and made a note. That was just my opinion and I have no intention on changing it again. All the books on CM, QM, and E&M discuss relativity where it is applicable. Even in Griffiths' rather introductory text to E&M, it is discussed. I therefore do not believe the textbooks fall under their jurisdiction as that would give them jurisdiction on ALL physics textbooks, which is simply not necessary. I don't think the relativity task force was ever necessary. It should have gone by established modern fields: CM, HEP, Astro, Cosmo, nuclear, medical, etc. Relativity, like QM, is not a field of physics and is shared by many of the actual fields of physics.Footlessmouse (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I realized you did not remove it. This is just a response to a comment you made in the summary. Intermediate and advanced books on fundamental physics discuss special relativity to varying extents as they should. In the case of electrodynamics, since you are a physicist you already know why it makes sense to include special relativity in an advanced text on electrodynamics. I disagree that special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are not branches of physics. If anything, they are some of the fundamental branches as many of other ones derive from them. The Relativity Task Force was probably established for the purposes of covering general relativity, but in order to understand it, you first need to grasp special relativity. So it is only natural that all articles that pertains to the latter fall under the umbrella of that task force. Nerd271 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271:, No real arguments. So many things end up devolving into semantics. Of course QM and relativity are more fundamental than the others, but they are not the same, whatever the words be, no one specializes in special relativity or QM, when we are told to choose a discipline, it tends to be one of the ones listed above, all of which use QM and relativity where necessary. I see where you're coming from though and respect it, I will not remove any more of them.Footlessmouse (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are thinking about specialties or research topics rather than branches of physics. But thank you for clarifying. Nerd271 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271:, I always thought of research area as a synonym for specialty, which I think of as a super duper specific sub field. Like, I am a CM physicist, but my research is in electromagnetic characterizations of 2D materials.Footlessmouse (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I make a finer distinction. A research specialty is always a branch, more usually, sub-branch, of physics, but the converse is false because some have reached internal exhaustion, like classical mechanics proper. Thus, while there are those who research, for example, chaos theory or fluid mechanics, no one specializes in classical mechanics. Nerd271 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: That makes sense. Maybe that applies to QM too? The base of QM and relativity have been worked out, so nobody specializes in them anymore, we specialize in fields that incorporate those models. It is interesting to note, though, that we never had a field of QM or relativity, it was just called "theoretical physics" and overlapped experimentally with fields that already existed. Side note: I once met a graduate student going to specialize in what he-himself told me was "classical mechanics", referring to chaos.Footlessmouse (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, quantum mechanics proper is a branch of physics but is no longer an active research topic. General relativity, on the other hand, remains both. There are still general relativists out there, though their number is tiny compared to condensed-matter or high-energy physicists, according to my personal observations. Nerd271 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Interesting, I thought they all went with astro or cosmo, but that's cool. I'm not sure if you've seen, but you may have an opinion on the matter of the Talk:Quantum mechanics debate. The bottom two sections on the talk page are about resolving QP versus QM with multiple options and new options welcome (we separated a discussion from a voting section).Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, in order to be an astrophysicist or a cosmologist, you definitely need to understand general relativity. I have seen some schools group general relativity, astrophysics, and cosmology as a single bloc, which makes sense.

Thank you for the invitation. I voted. Nerd271 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Hi. I noticed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Theater Productions you advocated for a merge and delete outcome. This presents issues with our content license. You can read more at Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: thank you for letting me know, I see my vote was safely interpreted as a redirect, or at least it was redirected. I must admit, I did not put enough consideration into licensing requirements and will avoid making the same vote again without a pressing reason. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)