670:. Wiley, 1996. 325-327, 382, 399. "... a marathon conversation that lasted almost five hours, during which R. had him look through an instrument called an orgonoscope. Exactly what E saw has not been reported. ... E. seemed impressed. He agreed that if the temperature in an enclosed object was raised without any apparent source of energy, as R. asserted, it would be a remarkable discovery --"a bomb.".. They agreed to meet again, when R would bring an orgone-energy accumulator for E to put to the test. As Reich was leaving, he asked, "Can you understand now why everyoune thinks I'm mad?" "And how!" replied E. , perhaps recalling all those who had called his own ideas crazy. .... Reich took it to Princeton on Feb 1.... A week later E sent R his report. He wrote that although he observed a difference of temperature, there was a simple explanation that had nothing to do with the orgone-accumulators. Convection current ... E. advised the bitterly disappointed R not to be carried away by an illusion.... R bombared him with ... letters ... E did not reply. ... Reich's wife believed that "E saw the phenomena, may have had an inkling of their significance, but was unwilling to get involved in a highy controversial scientific discovery at a time when he was deeply engrossed with developing atomic energy"
657:
home on Jan 13, 1941. 'He told me,' his wife wrote later, ' that the conversation w. E. had been extremely friendly and cordial, that E. was easy to talk to , that their conversation had lasted almost five hours. E was willing to investigate the phenomena that R. had described to him , and a special little accumulator would have to be build and taken to him.' Certainly there was a further visit , and certainly E. tested the apparatus. ... E found a commonplace explanation of the phenomenon which R had noted, and said so in polite terms. The postscript -- contained in _the
Einstein Affair_ a privately printed booklet from R's own press was spread across the following 3 yr of their correspondence. Reich disputed E's findings and E was dismayed that his name might be wrongly used to support R's theory"
1278:
alive. Unfortunately, some modern physics texts skip most of that stuff to do a lot of statistical mechanics, transport theory (usually idealized, for example so as to avoid dealing with excitation of different states of the colliding molecules, which are imagined to be elastic spheres). Knowledge would offer a good place to keep up interest in physical chemistry or chemical physics. Obviously, practising chemical, solid state, and plasma (and so on) engineers know about these topics and many more advanced ones. Well, I see that some of the classical stuff is sketched under
31:
539:. There is detailed maths here, from a protege of Heisenberg, unlike truly wacko nonsense. A web search on Heim theory recently discovered a physics discussion forum which immediately let the topic of Heim drop as it the Knowledge article had this pseudoscience tag. So please remove this, as it is damaging and pejorative. Otherwise Knowledge will look pretty stupid next year when the New Scientist article on Heim theory and its relations to LQt comes out. --
1255:) I don't agree in putting everything in molecular physics. My opinion is that one should merge physical chemistry and chemical physics. Though both fields are different, usually authors publishing in J. Chem. Phys. are also publishing in J. Phys. Chem. and vice versa. Of course there are some nuances and some papers definitively belong to one or the other journal but (as
1210:
except to say I believe a category should never have more than 120 articles, ideally 30-40 articles, and never fewer than 5. It should also serve lay audiences as well as scholars. The divisions I created may be inappropriate, they where a rough cleaning-of-house; I recatted something like 500 articles in one day; some no doubt poorly; please do recat if you know better.
1192:
divisions, which put atomic molecular and optical physics into one category, or browse through physics department web pages: where you will usually see atomic and molecular physics in one research group. Though to muddle the waters a little further, the journal "Molecular
Physics", considers itself a journal in the field of chemical physics.
1037:
Chemistry and
Chemical physics are hard to pin down, but, for example, a paper from the Journal of Chemical Physics paper is quite distinct from a Journal of Physical Chemistry A/B paper. What are peoples thoughts on having both categories, or should I ask for the category to be deleted and put any articles into Physical Chemistry?
1386:
pushing, fluff, non-encyclopedic content, and "everything under the sun", then dial up just about any pokemon character or TV sitcom or rock-n-roll album or nuclear submarine or underwater power line on WP; there are zillions of these. Seems immature to attack legit content when there is a vast ocean of stuff like that on WP.
1260:
could make molecular physics and chemical physics/physical chemistry belong to both physics and chemistry. The chemists would of course prefer physical chemistry to chemical physics and the same would be true for chemical physics and physical chemistry (the last one preferred by the chemists, the second by the physicists).
1128:
I would more or less agree; although some nuclear chemists work on random matrices, and more on the nuclear valley and Island of stability, but I think even they would call their work nuclear physics. Classifying NMR as nuclear chemistry though is funny. I was a theoretician in an NMR group as a grad
1177:
Again, my approach to terminology may be naive; I'm not a chemist. However, keep in mind that most readers, and some writers, are going to be as naive as I; and a distinction between "physical chemistry" and "chemical physics" (I agree there is one, I might even be able to explain it) will be lost.
1098:
as this term is used extensively in the chemistry literature and only occasionally in the physics literature, so a categorization in physics, rather than chemistry is an error, one which would raise eyebrows on most chemists (and physicists who knew the term). I did the same for several other items,
1385:
For the record, User:-Ril-'s remarks seem to be in direct contradiction with the content of what has actually been nominated for VfD. I detect no neologisms in these articles, I detect no fluff. Karl
Scherer seems to be a capable author who creates reasonable, encyclopedic content. If you want POV
271:
I like this idea. The page itself should include the uses of the mathematical processes, while their derivations and such could be referenced to the math page. For instance, talking about something as simple as differential calculus and taking dx/dt for velocity. More of a "Uses of math in physics"
1282:
but it needs more development. Abstract equations are provided on some of the links, but little or no idea of how to use the quantities mentioned, and practically none on where to look for tables, or any guideline as to when recourse to tables and measurements is needed (most cases of real gases,
1259:
said) they are very vague for the lay. So I suggest to rename chemical physics physical chemistry but I would also agree with the other way around. Molecular physics should stand on its own. It could be merged with molecular chemistry if this category would exist. Moreover I would agree if one
1371:
It should be noted that the articles are up for VFD as neologistic categorisation by Karl
Scherer. Coupled with a distinct lack of non-categorisation content, existing only to fluff the categorisation enough to have an article for each class. The 100+ that have already been VFD'd were done so for
1191:
I don't like the idea of putting all of chemical physics into molecular physics. I actually was surprised to see atomic physics and molecular physics separated. Usually atomic and molecular physics are lumped into one category, not molecular and chemical physics. See the
American Physical Society
656:
Reich is discussed on pages 689-90 paperback ed. "He also tried to ignore his involvement with W. R. This eccentric distraught figure seems already have slipped down the slope towards charlatanry or madness by the time he asked E to investigate his discovery... Reich called on E. in his Mercer St
1277:
Physical
Chemistry used to include a discussion of thermodynamic potentials and the like (Gibbs and Helholtz free energy, fugacity, enthalpy, free enthalpy and so on.) There are (or were) good texts on it and topnotch physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Michael Faraday built it and kept it
1209:
Keep in mind that WP is as much about historical divisions as about current research classification. I'd prefer to say that "atomic physics" is "that stuff that got figured out between 1895 to about 1935", with maybe a few more modern key concepts thrown in. I'm agnostic about other divisions,
192:
I think things like tensors should be in mathematics categories, but it would be great if they would contain some physics examples. Otherwise we're going to have to make 2 articles about every applied mathematical thingy. Also because one of the things that is seriously lacking from mathematics
1036:
I created a
Chemical physics category as a subcategory of applied and interdisciplinary physics. I was browsing through physics stubs and decided such a category was needed for some of the stubs. I then noticed that there was a Physical chemistry subcategory. The differences between Physical
400:. I had originally thought it'd be a great idea to have it up to featured standard by the end of the year, but it hasn't really attracted any other editors recently and I feel like without feedback of other editors I may have taken it in a wrong direction (right now it mostly summarizes
458:
Ugh. multiple problems with this list. 1) some of the theories are pure crackpot, e.g. timecube. 2) some of the topics are highly speculative but academically acceptable (possible changes in fine structure const, etc.) 3) some topics which are records of historical fiascos
1099:
such as the semi-empricial quantum chemical theories, which were developed and are used by chemists. As far as nuclear chemistry versus nuclear physics, that's even hard to distinguish than physical chemistry vs chemical physics in many cases. Keep in mind,
482:
Of course, most of these theories are pure crackpot. For this reason, they are on the list. And the list is here, so that we can watch, what's going on there. Isn't the task of WikiProject
Physics to ensure the correct presentation of physics in Knowledge?
1363:
I draw your attention to this because I think (for some of the pages at least) a delete is a little unjustified. I choose to use this page in the hope that, like me, many other inhabitants were drawn into physics partially through recreational maths.
985:
references. JabberWok: please note that some of your (well meant) edits which separate out references from external links do not reflect this. Maybe it would be better to go back to those edits and check whether indeed the separation is meaningful.
120:
and didn't fit too well anywhere else. This category was then largely unpopulated and recently emptied and seems to have lost its purpose. Now there is the question whether we are actually in need of a new, similar category, which might be named
575:
The list should be split into the different categories that linas identified. List 1) shouldn't be part of this project. What we need to keep in check is what is supposed to be physics and what is not. The other two lists would be very welcome.
526:
I think that it would be desirable for part of the wikiproj to be helping keep dodgy psuedoscience in check. So if the list could be restructured to contain *only* the wacko psuedoscience, and a suitable header put on, would that be OK?
1120:
To me, nuclear physics is about pions, nucleons, the nuclear valley, gaussian random matrices, etc. By contrast, I always assumed that nuclear chemistry was about separating isotopes of uranium, hyperfine structure, NMR, etc. Isn't it?
289:
My suggestion is similar to what has been written above. We need to separate the introductory concepts, which should be accessible to a lay person, from the basic concepts, which generally are not. For example, you can talk about
1021:. In my flurry of adding reference sections this weekend I probably messed up (more than once). So by all means make changes you think will make things better. No need to ask me, but thanks for making me aware of my mistakes.
425:
534:
Heim Theory should not be lumped in with wacko pseudoscience. It is definitely not pseudoscience as, e.g. this year aerospace applicaitons thereof won a prize for best technical paper in one section of the
436:
That list is not exclusively about bogus physics theories. Even if it was I wouldn't want it associated with physics in any way. Please remove that again. The physics portal is not the place for it. --
709:
The article currently doesn't say much, and what little it says matches what little I know about
Einstein. He was obsessed on the topic; he wasn't the only one; one of the earliest attempts is the
1129:
student and depending on what projects we did we called our work chemical physics, physical chemistry, biophysicis or solid state physics, but defintely not nuclear physics. Prehaps ~50 years ago
249:
226:
166:
1435:
It sounds like it would qualify for deletion as original research, due to the "I have interpreted this question as being identical ...". But a redirection to magnetic field might work as well.
734:
I'm currently having an edit war on that page with the tradiational tesla-phile anons. Please make sure you check which version yuo're looking at... here is a diff from my version to the anons
363:
303:
213:
377:
205:
184:
162:
122:
113:
276:
299:
252:(or something suitably similar) that contained a lot of redirects to math pages. Of course, if that happened, it would be nice if those math pages contained physical examples.--
209:
109:
737:. I think the anon is being too specific: from reading Pais, it seems to me that there is no one version of Einsteins theory, just a succession of papers looking for a theory.
87:
1375:
Knowledge is meant to be an encyclopedia, and not something to push your POV of how things should be categorised. Neither is it a collection of all information under the sun.
345:, and so on. So it seems we have a group of people that agree on this point. My mixed feelings remain only as to whether some of these articles should actually not appear in
1155:
682:
1318:
If anyone is interested, there is a vfd in progress of several related math/physics/recreational-math interface pages (written mainly from the recreational math aspect):
724:
Oh, golly, that page started life as a crank page, making reference to secret experiments done by the Navy to make ships invisible ... gag. Indeed, it should be watched.
112:, which probably gives a good overview of the most rudimental physics topics to the layman; so there is probably no point in changing it. During the big cleanup in May
321:
Yes, you put it very clear - the introductory topics should be differentiated from the fundamental ones. For starters, I would identify fundamental topics (looking at
543:
592:
topics), that, unfortunately, tend to get vandalized in subtle ways. The name change would completely resolve my initial discomfort on reading the list. We can add
1429:
975:
421:
100:(besides the fact that it didn't exist yet). Now this is probably the best place to continue the discussion. A short summary of the pending discussion follows:
1461:
1439:
1287:
1219:
I noticedĀ :) I agree with almost all your cats, though some of the molecular physics ones I have recated though into physical chemistry or chemical physics.
415:
1477:
1025:
1214:
1452:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1390:
1252:
1223:
1196:
1182:
1166:
1133:
1107:
381:
942:
912:
994:
Agree, separating book references from article references from links is not a good idea, especially as a number of books and articles are online.
1460:
1272:
880:
772:
1468:
I have nominated it for deletion as it seems to be one author reinventing x-ray damage. Please comment on the deletion page if appropriate.
1409:
79:
71:
66:
1308:
998:
1041:
1379:
1284:
692:
600:
to the list. We can add legit science topics to the list, if they happen to be topics that attract inappropriate attention and edits.
1301:
679:
1067:? I'm not a chemist, but naively, to me, this seems like moving in the wrong direction. Especially since most of what you put in
735:
176:
744:
I've tried to make this a real page on the early history of unified theories, as the title is appropriate for such an attempt.
180:
446:
Yes, please remove this list. Above all, WikiProjects are not intended to host subject articles, including original research.
108:. Specifically, we are concerned with basic, general, and introductory phsysics articles. There is already a quite populated
562:
The way you guys put it makes it sound reasonableĀ :) that is to have such a repository for monitoring pseudophysics topics.
607:
Yikes! Surely what you understood when you read what I wrote can't possibly be what I meant when I wrote it?? We can add
1444:
You're right, the "I interpret" does imply that this is original research. Disagree with redirect to magnetic field (see
757:
153:, and so forth, which are now somewhat disperssed among various physics categories (please notice the difference between
47:
17:
1448:). I think this should be deleted, but I gave the author a chance to explain Ulam's remarks (on talk page also). --
698:
588:. This is a list of (mostly) legit articles on (mostly) noteworthy topics, (most of which happen to be noteworthy
958:
928:
898:
632:
1445:
751:
97:
216:
would be more appropriate as it makes clear that the topics aren't necessarily basic in the sense of simple.
612:
1064:
1080:
1076:
1060:
1052:
1048:
778:
397:
272:
thing. For students who wish to learn how to take the derivative, that page can be reference linked. --
38:
626:
1292:
1068:
816:
738:
528:
1421:
from an anon. I would've marked it for speedy deletion, but didn't know if it quite qualified. --
1418:
1411:
1084:
1031:
1313:
326:
1426:
972:
409:
401:
234:
1055:? I also notice that you uncategorized some articles I'd previously categorized: for example
864:
185:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Physics: general/basic/introductory concepts
96:
This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating
8:
1159:
840:
330:
193:
articles is good motivation and intuition-stimulation I think we should cooperate more.--
104:
There have been discussions in several places on the structure of some subcategories in
1400:
1279:
936:
906:
710:
563:
464:
447:
385:
367:
350:
170:
161:). If there is more positive feedback for this idea, we can either rename the existing
615:; some of these articles are already subjects of long-running edit battles; note even
424:
is unsuitable in the article namespace, I've moved the physics section to the subpage
1473:
1422:
968:
955:
925:
895:
608:
405:
230:
426:
Knowledge:WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories
391:
346:
334:
322:
311:
307:
273:
253:
165:
or delete it and create a new one. The is also an idea about making something like
117:
105:
88:
635:? Reich's view and those of the "over unity researchers" are already presented. --
229:
or some such category to cluster all the things we use everyday but don't own. --
919:
889:
1399:
I must agree. Although, a few of the articles seem to be conceptual duplicates.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1151:
1022:
877:
808:
671:
658:
1365:
1100:
987:
760:
as a subproject here, if anyone on the physics project objects please say so
597:
1469:
1297:
1072:
702:
686:
636:
509:
484:
429:
1449:
1305:
769:
644:
616:
577:
540:
505:
501:
437:
338:
295:
194:
150:
1436:
1387:
1376:
1256:
1249:
1245:
1220:
1211:
1193:
1179:
1163:
1130:
1122:
1104:
1038:
995:
800:
783:
The foundation of a good article should be good references or at least
761:
745:
725:
714:
620:
601:
593:
468:
396:
I suppose I finally have an appropriate place to ask people to look at
1095:
1056:
848:
460:
169:, which would encompass the mathematical concepts used in physics.
886:
A lot of general physics pages could benefit from some of these:
873:
832:
788:
584:
I misunderstood the purpose of the list. Lets change the name to
382:
Knowledge:Categories_for_deletion#Category:General_physics_topics
116:
was created and populated by articles that were in the top level
856:
631:
Has anybody a reference and quote what Einstein said about the
225:
I'm sure that physics students looking here would appreciate a
146:
142:
138:
134:
125:
and would group together basic (fundamental) articles, such as
1283:
liquids and I suppose solids - I am out my area with solids.)
824:
291:
130:
536:
342:
126:
920:
Halliday, David; Robert Resnick; Kenneth S. Krane (2002).
890:
Halliday, David; Robert Resnick; Kenneth S. Krane (2001).
504:
is leaking out of its article. I've just spotted it in
177:
Category talk:Physics#General Physics Topics subcategory
181:
Category talk:Physics#Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
422:
List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories
1304:. If you are interested, you can vote for it there.--
463:) or were once taken seriously but are not any more (
212:. Since you used the word fundamental, I think that
683:
Talk:Aetherometry/Archive2#Reich-Einstein experiment
768:
I object. I doesn't make sense to place it here. --
1358:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited8
1353:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited7
1348:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited6
1343:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited5
1338:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited4
1333:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3
1328:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited2
1323:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited1
1244:I agree with the naive point of view expressed by
949:
876:page. Perhaps those are a good starting point.
872:Some good, modern references can be found on the
1047:Perhaps the categories you are looking for are
693:Help needed: Generalized theory of gravitation
643:There are only 4 google hits in this regard.--
586:The list of articles that attract crank edits
175:Note: This is a summary of the posts found in
954:. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.
416:The list of articles that attract crank edits
1300:is currently nominated to be improved by on
941:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
911:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
787:reference. The following major articles in
404:). So take a look if you're interested. --
380:for deletion. Everyone intersted please see
298:. I also think we only need two categories,
1178:That's why I went for "molecular physics".
1071:strikes me as topics in quantum chemistry.
306:; general topics can be left on the main
208:would be easily confused in purpose with
1302:Knowledge:This week's improvement drive
1273:Classical Items should not be forgotten
1017:that are available online belong under
14:
349:; after all, not much will be left...
250:Category:Mathematical tools in physics
227:Category:Mathematical tools in physics
167:Category:Mathematical tools in physics
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1248:13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) though (as
376:Some time has passed, so I nominated
366:and added some basic articles to it.
364:Category:Fundamental physics concepts
304:Category:Fundamental physics concepts
248:Wild idea here - what if there was a
214:Category:Fundamental physics concepts
91:- general/basic/introductory concepts
952:Physics for Scientists and Engineers
25:
924:. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
894:. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
758:Knowledge:WikiProject Pseudoscience
23:
981:In some branches of physics links
24:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics
1488:
699:Generalized theory of gravitation
508:. What's your opinion on that? --
1372:predominantly the same reason.
29:
701:and put it on his watchlist? --
378:Category:General physics topics
206:Category:Basic physics concepts
163:Category:General phsyics topics
123:Category:Basic physics concepts
114:Category:General physics topics
1150:Wow. WP has no article on the
633:1941 Reich-Einstein experiment
627:1941 Reich-Einstein experiment
13:
1:
1478:22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1446:Talk:nonlinear magnetic field
1288:17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
1059:, which surely is a topic in
300:Category:Introductory physics
210:Category:Introductory physics
110:Category:Introductory physics
98:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
654:Einstein: The Life and TImes
613:Category:Quantum measurement
544:12:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7:
1368:08:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
1156:Valley of nuclear stability
1065:Category:Physical chemistry
990:11:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
950:Serway, Raymond A. (2003).
741:2005-07-06 09:24:25 (UTC).
277:00:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
10:
1493:
1403:06:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
1081:Category:Nuclear chemistry
1079:. Many of the articles in
1077:Category:Nuclear chemistry
1061:Category:Molecular physics
1053:Category:Molecular physics
1049:Category:Quantum chemistry
1015:published journal articles
678:I've reverted a bulk copy
639:June 30, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
531:21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
420:As there were voices that
398:World Year of Physics 2005
388:June 28, 2005 20:12 (UTC)
370:June 28, 2005 17:30 (UTC)
173:11:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
1453:00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
1440:00:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
1430:23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
1391:01:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
1380:22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1309:13:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
1253:13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
1224:01:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1215:01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1197:13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
1183:13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
1167:01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1134:01:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1125:01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC
1108:13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
1069:Category:Chemical physics
1042:00:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
1026:22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
999:13:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
976:01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
881:22:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
868:01:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
860:03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
852:22:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
844:22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
836:01:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
828:03:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
820:01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
817:Electromagnetic radiation
812:01:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
804:02:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
773:09:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
705:July 5, 2005 18:30 (UTC)
697:Can please someone check
689:July 5, 2005 08:49 (UTC)
566:23:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
450:18:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
432:15:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
412:15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
353:21:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
1464:nomination for deletion.
1419:nonlinear magnetic field
1417:We've got a new stub at
1412:nonlinear magnetic field
1085:Category:Nuclear physics
1005:Oops. I agree as well.
764:8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
748:8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
647:30 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)
623:1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
604:1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
580:10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
487:20:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
471:19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
440:17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
314:09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
256:09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
237:05:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
197:14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
728:5 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
717:5 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)
674:2 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
661:1 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
327:Fundamental interaction
619:is an active editor.
402:Annus Mirabilis Papers
294:without talking about
865:Statistical mechanics
752:Pseudoscience subject
392:World Year of Physics
42:of past discussions.
739:William M. Connolley
529:William M. Connolley
362:I have just created
1462:X-ray nanochemistry
1160:Island of stability
1063:and not a topic in
841:Harmonic oscillator
331:Invariant (physics)
1280:Physical Chemistry
779:Lack of references
711:Kaluza-Klein model
465:luminiferous ether
1293:Improvement drive
609:Afshar experiment
188:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1484:
1103:was a chemist.
1032:Chemical Physics
962:
946:
940:
932:
916:
910:
902:
668:Einstein: A Life
347:Category:Physics
335:Conservation law
323:Category:Physics
308:Category:Physics
174:
118:Category:Physics
106:Category:Physics
89:Category:Physics
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1466:
1415:
1316:
1314:Vfd in progress
1295:
1275:
1158:but we do have
1083:should go into
1034:
934:
933:
904:
903:
781:
754:
695:
629:
611:and the entire
418:
394:
93:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1490:
1465:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1414:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1394:
1393:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1315:
1312:
1294:
1291:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1186:
1185:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1152:Nuclear valley
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1089:
1088:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1002:
1001:
979:
978:
965:
964:
963:
947:
917:
870:
869:
861:
853:
845:
837:
829:
821:
813:
809:Electrostatics
805:
780:
777:
776:
775:
753:
750:
732:
731:
730:
729:
719:
718:
694:
691:
676:
675:
663:
662:
652:Ronald Clark,
649:
648:
628:
625:
582:
581:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
506:Neutrino#Notes
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
475:
474:
473:
472:
453:
452:
442:
441:
417:
414:
393:
390:
357:
356:
355:
354:
316:
315:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
241:
240:
239:
238:
220:
219:
218:
217:
199:
198:
92:
86:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1489:
1480:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1463:
1454:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1424:
1423:Laura Scudder
1420:
1413:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1367:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1281:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1198:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1176:
1175:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1126:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1101:Glenn Seaborg
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1000:
997:
993:
992:
991:
989:
984:
977:
974:
970:
969:Laura Scudder
966:
960:
957:
953:
948:
944:
938:
930:
927:
923:
918:
914:
908:
900:
897:
893:
888:
887:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
875:
867:
866:
862:
859:
858:
854:
851:
850:
846:
843:
842:
838:
835:
834:
830:
827:
826:
822:
819:
818:
814:
811:
810:
806:
803:
802:
798:
797:
796:
794:
790:
786:
774:
771:
767:
766:
765:
763:
759:
749:
747:
742:
740:
736:
727:
723:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
708:
707:
706:
704:
700:
690:
688:
684:
680:
673:
669:
666:Denis Brian,
665:
664:
660:
655:
651:
650:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
634:
624:
622:
618:
614:
610:
605:
603:
599:
598:Wilhelm Reich
595:
591:
587:
579:
574:
573:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
545:
542:
538:
533:
532:
530:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
486:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
449:
444:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
431:
427:
423:
413:
411:
407:
406:Laura Scudder
403:
399:
389:
387:
383:
379:
374:
371:
369:
365:
360:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
278:
275:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
236:
232:
231:Laura Scudder
228:
224:
223:
222:
221:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
191:
190:
189:
186:
182:
178:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
101:
99:
90:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1467:
1416:
1410:nonsense at
1374:
1370:
1362:
1317:
1298:Astrophysics
1296:
1276:
1073:Knight shift
1035:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
982:
980:
951:
922:Physics v. 2
921:
892:Physics v. 1
891:
871:
863:
855:
847:
839:
831:
823:
815:
807:
799:
795:references:
792:
784:
782:
755:
743:
733:
696:
677:
667:
653:
630:
606:
589:
585:
583:
445:
419:
395:
375:
372:
361:
358:
296:gauge bosons
158:
154:
103:
95:
94:
60:
43:
37:
1075:belongs in
791:don't have
617:User:Afshar
502:Heim theory
339:Interaction
312:StuTheSheep
274:Dataphiliac
254:StuTheSheep
151:interaction
36:This is an
1094:I recated
1019:References
959:0534408427
929:0471401943
899:0471320579
801:Antimatter
594:over unity
1162:. Sigh.
1096:HOMO/LUMO
1087:, argh...
1057:HOMO/LUMO
1023:JabberWok
1011:preprints
937:cite book
907:cite book
878:JabberWok
849:Magnetism
756:I placed
672:GangofOne
659:GangofOne
500:And BTW,
461:polywater
80:ArchiveĀ 5
72:ArchiveĀ 3
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
1366:Bambaiah
988:Bambaiah
310:page..--
204:I think
1470:Ldm1954
874:Physics
833:Gravity
789:Physics
703:Pjacobi
687:Pjacobi
637:Pjacobi
510:Pjacobi
485:Pjacobi
430:Pjacobi
155:general
39:archive
1450:SCZenz
1306:Fenice
1013:, and
857:Optics
770:MarSch
645:MarSch
578:MarSch
541:hughey
438:MarSch
325:) as:
292:forces
195:MarSch
183:, and
147:energy
143:matter
139:tensor
135:vector
1437:Salsb
1401:Karol
1388:linas
1257:linas
1250:Salsb
1246:linas
1221:Salsb
1212:linas
1194:Salsb
1180:linas
1164:linas
1131:Salsb
1123:linas
1105:Salsb
1039:Salsb
1007:Books
996:linas
825:Force
762:Salsb
746:Salsb
726:linas
715:linas
681:from
621:linas
602:linas
590:crank
564:Karol
469:linas
448:Karol
386:Karol
368:Karol
351:Karol
171:Karol
159:basic
131:space
16:<
1474:talk
1427:Talk
1377:~~~~
1051:and
973:Talk
956:ISBN
943:link
926:ISBN
913:link
896:ISBN
685:. --
596:and
537:AIAA
428:. --
410:Talk
373:---
359:---
343:Time
302:and
235:Talk
157:and
127:time
1285:Pdn
1154:of
983:are
793:any
467:).
1476:)
1425:|
1364:--
1009:,
971:|
967:--
939:}}
935:{{
909:}}
905:{{
713:.
576:--
483:--
408:|
384:.
341:,
337:,
333:,
329:,
233:|
179:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
133:,
129:,
76:ā
1472:(
961:.
945:)
931:.
915:)
901:.
785:a
459:(
187:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.