1182:
avoids. I don't quite know how it avoids this, but simply stating that "the worldline of the observer has no loops" while appearantly true, doesn't help most readers resolve the paradox. Take me, for example: I know enough GR to both mostly understand the article and to be familiar with the basis of KED's complaints. I do not know enough to be able to guess the correct resolution for the paradox (yes, the "no loops" is a good clue). Thus, I fully expect other educated readers to also stumble over this, and protest in a fashion not unlike KED. It would be best if the article tried to deal with this issue in as direct a way as possible, and (among other things) acknowledge that there is a real paradox.
31:
935:. There are many accelerators and I'm thinking more like light sources doesn't fit with beamline or some specific facility. Of course a light source has a beamline, but a beamline is not necessarily just a light source. Also there are end stations that users and researchers use, and they are a beamline, some have many experimental beamlines, that's what they call them usually associated with end users. Sometimes they are called
1980:
introduced. In order to introduce more polymer models, there are a couple other articles I need to either find or make myself, mainly Van Der Waals Gas, liquid mixes, and the difference between long-range and short-range interactions. Maybe also a bit of electrostatics in solution. But I won't engage in all this until I'm done with what I want to finish on those edits I have begun, so that it's not a very short term project.(
1312:
of areas, we just muddle on through: the point is that categories of 1200 are pretty unmanageable, so a split of some sort is a necessity. Doing it between too small a set of sub-categories reduces the utility, as it'll leave still-quite-large categories behind (between about 80 and 200 or so is supposedly about optimal), and hasten the point at which re-
128:
few AfD votes, some activity here at this wikiproject, not many edits elsewhere in
Knowledge: namespace. It's hard to predict what would happen, and you may well succeed, especially if you have a strong story, but you may also well fail. So, if you decide to apply, brace yourself for criticism. By the way, I'll support an application. --
2404:
article. Note that for the moment however, such a title such as this one is not really prone to attract a neophyte. Regarding wikibooks, well, I was more thinking of making a very catch-all article, and try to make some (good) vulgarisation about occurences of light diffusion in daily life, then open
1311:
Double-stubbing is pretty commonplace. 3 or 4 is supposedly frowned upon, but I've certainly resorted to it a number of times. Basically, the rule of thumb would be, which category is the most likely to get it expanded by editors "happening by" from related articles? This is an issue in any number
1301:
makes a good point. A lot of these stubs are nice, but what happens when you get into stuff that is a mix of both? E&M and optics, particle physics, sub-atomic physics, and theoretical physics. Due to the nature of overlap in physics, we either have to get really descriptive or really broad. What
1167:
is used loosely in the literature. But what really puzzles me is that KDE cites, not the research literature on warp drives (which I am familiar with) but the sci.physics FAQ entry, which does not even mention local versus global or warp drives, and which I believe is clearly inapplicable to the way
2020:
physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines is an interesting one - but need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx
1288:
I proposed exactly the opposite. I say having more categories makes it easier to find what you want to expand. And relatively few people actually write stubs on physics; for many of us, it will be intuitive to divide the articles by subfield, so it won't be too onerous if the names are obvious. --
601:
since two out of CU's three physics Nobel laureates had appointments there. It is however a smaller institution than it might sound in press releases (more like a second physics department and of about the same size, the only difference being that it's jointly run). I would be happy to expand such
113:
I'm not sure why such an in-house admin is needed. I assume you know that admins are not supposed to deal with stuff in which they are themselves involved? Did anything come up where you wished you had such an admin? I think it should be sufficient to have some admins who know enough physics and are
1199:
If you enjoy dispute resolution, and are also very knowledgable in quantum mechanics, particularly quantum measurement, then please note the dispute above, and help out. If you are not good at quantum, or like to shoot off snide remarks, then please do NOT "help out"; we don't need the waters to be
1181:
Hi CH, I read through the debate, and it is an interesting one. Here's the problem as I see it: KED is echoing a viewpoint that is commonly taught in introductory GR courses: that superluminal travel implies time travel. Thus, there is an obvious, appearant paradox that the
Albacurrie drive somehow
1965:
in fact I am confused: I redid the calculation, and finally the elasticity associated to the ideal chain seems to be... linear. I'll have to take a look into a couple of books tonight and see the truth on this subject, and check my formulas... Maybe non-linear elasticity arises only in models that
1337:
I personally think we can safely add at least particle, condensed matter, some sort of optics or e&m, and some sort of quantum stub. That would pull maybe 850 stubs out of the ~1200 marked physics-stub, a good chunk. I agree with linas that too many subcategories won't work terribly well. —
631:
feels there is a distinction between these two terms, and he claims that 'Hubble flow' is a standard term in cosmology with a meaning distinct from 'Hubble expansion' (at least, if I understand his comments correctly). I have requested a citation to a standard cosmology textbook. Can anyone here
494:
I slapped it with a request for the sources to be cited. If they don't get cited soon, and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything reputable, we'd be justified in pruning the article to just the facts and/or putting it in "fictional weapons" or some such category. There's another article,
127:
As for you (SCZenz) applying for adminship: Did you look through the recent applications to see which are successful and which are not? Looking at your contributions, I am not convinced that your application would pass: little over 1000 edits, some pictures, getting the list of particles featured,
2313:
I did a short research myself, so that we have 3 relevant physics articles so far, and a general article. The physics ones look quite good actually, and relatively simple as far as concepts are concerned, but I think their jargon is technical enough to repel non-physicists. They are of course far
910:
in accelerator physics, whereas it doesn't really mean anything more commonly except "something that makes light," so you could make an article with that title, with an italicized bit at the top linking to light. There's probably other ways to title it too, like "X-ray source," and they may even
150:
It also seems like they are looking for something specific in an editor, which seems to involve a lot of breadth and specific checkmarks. I'm mostly interested in improving physics articles, and being able to deal with vandals more directly would help with that. But I would have to, as you say,
2425:
in physics is not just relevant to mechanics, but also to diffusion, which can be dynamic and steady-state. I edited the article that disambiguates between music and physics, however that is probably not very satisfactorly. Please let me know here how you edit it if you edit it, I need it for my
1979:
OK I looked in my books, and it looks like I had the calculation right. So that it means I was wrong in thinking non-linear elasticity would be an emergent property of the ideal chain model. Which in turn means my need for non-linear elasticity as an article until new types of polymer models are
992:
While we're at it, are accelerators notable in themselves (i.e., we should include as many as time and knowledge permit), or should we develop some criteria for determining which are notable and which are not? Or perhaps simply write pages for those that are referenced in articles as the need
364:, and so forth appear to be pure crank terms unknown to physics. The author alleges that Stacknikov has a placque in Red Square. If true, the article needs to be rewritten to accurately portray his lack of scientific notability. If not, the article probably should be nominated for deletion.
2339:
A Bragg crystal is made up of charged colloids and diffracts in the visible range (rather than X-ray for molecular crystals). The crystalline structure is maintained by electrostatic repulsion, but, if you add some salt into the solution, the repulsion between the colloids is screened and the
959:
My point is not to get critical in the beamline article and mention specific accelerators in the article, like light sources, a mention of end stations and or target article, and maybe an article on synchrotrons, storage rings, (accumulator rings of which SNS has), experimental beamlines that
867:
Do you think maybe we should start a new page on light sources, since beamline is about beamlines, like components on a beam pipe? Maybe include a seperate topic like the end of an accelerator, END STATIONS? Experimental beamlines, as I think that is what you are saying, experimental facility
261:
It looks nice! I think that it contains most of the relevant information about the detector. You should now concentrate on making it readable to everyone :). Perhaps you could explain a bit about particle accelerators etc. in the introduction so that people who know nothing about physics can
2368:, perhaps with links there from the relevant related articles here. Somehow "Why" and "How" just don't seem encyclopedic to me, unlike "Who," "What," "When" and "Where." I do like the idea in general though - the article(s) sounds good, it's just a question of where it belongs. --
2158:
The idea would be to find a key concept of linguistics that they have yet to cover, start an article named after this concept, and give it a physics or pseudo-physics definition, categorizing all that in physics of course. Then, we keep the article in hostage until they give us back
275:
I agree, although it does raise the question: how much should an article duplicate material from other articles in order to be a comprehensive whole? I guess I'll assume the answer is "as little as possible while still giving non-physicists a clue as to what's going on". --
1461:, and to discuss it on the talk page if he disagreed with my evaluation of the material as original research; I also warned him that further edits without discussion would be considered vandalism. So, if he edits it again, please treat them as exactly that. --
2468:
Thanks for moving this part Oleg. SCZ, yes I did click on "watch," but then forgot that detail when I wrote here (I'm still familiarizing with the whole thing, hence I prefer to mention if I edit a disambiguation article). (Unsigigned, 19:43, 29 October 2005
102:
Hi all. I've been thinking about applying for admin, so that we'd have somebody who's active in the wikiproject and understands the issues that come up who's able to deal with pesky administrative stuff, vandalism, etc. directly. Any thoughts? --
2154:
But it won't be as easy as they thought 'cause I have a strategy which hopefully will let us regain what is ours... I just need to design the specifics, which should require a small amount of documentation on linguistics (maybe you can help me):
1387:
as a redirect because I felt it was a bit inconvenient to have to remember the capital p. Also, I've noticed that computational chemistry is a subcategory of computational physics, which doesn't feel right to me. Anyone else share this opinion?
434:
One general comment about the handling of these articles. As I understand it, claims that nobody seems to have heard of do not have to be "debunked." If they're impossible to verify, that's sufficient to chuck the article. Is that right? --
1685:
You may be right about the mess, and about the need to organize things. However, for myself, I am truly weary in general of grand attempts at integrating things. That rather often results in incomprihensible articles to anybody except the
730:
about the section that we should keep an eye on. William was absolutely right to have a big issue with the original editor's assumption that wave phenomena require a medium in all cases. I'm also rather concerned about the notion that
977:? I'm cool with that; I'd also be cool with a name change for the section to make it less specific, with addition of other examples of notable beamlines. In terms of categorization, what would you say the differences are between
151:
have a "strong story"--and I'll have to think about whether I feel like explaining, say, just how much effort goes into getting some of the pictures I've put up. You make this sound disturbingly similar to applying for college.
1904:), but on the other hand it is perfectly possible that someone would come searching for info about thermodynamics without caring the least about statistical mechanics (for example a chemist, or a 1st year university student).
293:
Yes, this isn't very easy. It's actually not that different when you write up results for a scientific paper. You need to write something in the introduction even though people could look most of it up in the refs. B.t.w.
563:, and adding a section on coherence in quantum optics. At the moment it doesn't describe any of the things Roy Glauber figured out. I don't have time to do it at the moment, but it would make a good undergrad project.
345:
918:. If they're experiments done at a light source, they'd be put on whatever field (often chemistry or biology) the experiment was in. If they're about the apparatus for holding such experiments, they'd probably go in
391:
1674:
There is already an unimaginable mess of articles about tensors. It's really depressing/daunting. Three more don't even make much difference until someone has a grand vision about how to organize/merge this stuff.
534:." Anyone knowledgable enough to start the missing article? I could probably work on the bios once I have time, but I can't begin to guess what OFCT is or does, or whether it even merits an article of its own. --
2013:
1999:
819:
785:
767:
205:
I think we should all support SCZenz's application. If we want to have more expert people becoming more involved in wikipedia, then we can't say: "You only have 1000 edits on your name, so you are not qualified".
1085:
146:
Hmm. The only times anyone has discussed needing an admin with me, it always involved bringing someone in from the outside the wikiproject. But it would seem that I was wrong about the situation, to some
1899:
being a new user I can't tell if something had been scheduled regarding this merge. All I can say is that I see pros and cons for such merging. On the one hand, the two theories are certainly linked (see
1726:
Hey, this is a collaborative project. Articles written by a single person or without a discussion page are inferior. I'm planning to check back on those articles when someone else has taken a go at them.
1439:. I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so hopefully people won't be too hard on me there. And yes, I freely admit to being obsessed with writing a good article about my own experiment.. ;) --
544:
It's not exactly what I do, but since Hall's in my department it'd probably be easy to find out enough to get a start. Might take a bit though since I've got laser time now on top of lab visitors. —
1218:. It certainly seems needed, given that there are over 1200 at present. If anyone has an idea of the optimal way of doing this, and especially, roughly how many stubs would be involved in each...
1006:
Most accelerators are huge, expensive, and have some unique physics goal in mind. I'm not aware of any problem with non-notable ones being written up. Some of the early smallish ones (e.g. before
1110:
2489:
2250:
That's my idea for the title of an article that would strive to make it to featured article standard. Since I'm not able to do it all by myself, I just thought I'd come here to share the idea.
885:
1279:
Too many subcats make it hard to remember, and so people won't use them. Even the above are a bit much; suggest merging particle and subatomic into one, and merge optics and e&m into one.
1828:
1086:
1069:
154:
Thanks for your comments; this is why I asked about this here first. Unless other people have something more encouraging to say, I may think about this again when I have more experience. --
892:, with articles for the notable ones. Being relatively new to the field and a non-physicist, I'm not really sure what the best solution would be here; I just know that the edits I did on
960:
research users use at the end of a beamline as an end product. That's it from here, Coffee does sound good! Be back in a few hours I value opinions
Regards, 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2278:
topics related to some corollary questions (see below about these): colloids (milk), colloids and electrostatics in solution (Bragg crystal), incidence angle of light on a surface etc.
709:
I reverted. Actually, it seems that StuRat was trying to clean up someone-elses contribution. However, the additino was as clear as mud and did not seem to add anything, so I deleted.
1080:
531:
1784:
Of course! We need to coordinate something for that. I'll start digging for easy stuff (featured picture, news, etc), but I think we should be in concurrance on whatever we do. --
1653:
766:, and contain the accelerator, detector, telescope, and "experimental concepts" categories currently at the top of particle physics. A possible variation would be to get rid of
1436:
1070:
2340:
crystalline structure is replaced by a solution of diffusing colloids. The diffraction fringes vanish, and the solution takes a milky appearance because of light diffusion.
2006:
1990:
1913:
Exactly. I would leave both, but it would be nice to have one as a subcat inside another, to relate them somehow, or both of them in each other, but that would make a loop.
1215:
2060:
179:
to those they have not run into, on the basis that the person must not be active enough; it's one of those things where everyone has their own very distinctive critera. —
1645:
1628:
651:. Worldtraveller insists that "Hubble flow" is the standard term in cosmology rather than "Hubble expansion", but of two standard textbooks I consulted, neither Peebles,
2449:
2409:
2213:
2192:
2094:
1970:
1960:
1917:
1908:
2479:
2197:
Ah OK. I guess taking liguistic concepts in hostage wouldn't be too efficient then... Anyway, it's not that I care about the content, which was largely redundant with
2181:
2049:
2492:
citing his own cranky website. (Note that the cited website 195.24.39.97 and the IP address of the anon user 212.21.138.161 both are registered in Sofia, Bulgaria.)
2387:
2081:
700:
576:
That's only half the award so it wouldn't cover Hall and Hänsch's work on using frequency combs to make high accuracy measurements. So it's a good start on half. —
2110:
1361:
966:
Note: I took the liberty of modifying the format of the previous replies to make the thread easier to follow; hope no one minds, and if you do, well, change it back!
2072:
1893:
1864:
1797:
1406:
1346:
1128:
774:
1392:
1274:
1168:
that warp drive spacetimes achieve effective superluminal travel. (See my comments in the talk page.) Any feedback/assistance/clarification would be welcome! ---
1035:
2143:, so I wrote a bit about intensive in physics in the linguistics article, and some linguist said there was no need for what I wrote, as it was already covered in
2463:
2343:
1953:
1755:
1731:
1717:
320:
1679:
943:
lines where E = experimental line with a number of the eperiment. A lot of facilities use this to tag a beamline to an experiment at the end of the accelerator.
468:
might need to be tied into our project in the process of wikification, until I started to read it. IANAP, but it looks largely like hooey to me, either of the
255:
2357:
1815:
1806:
1607:
1598:
1552:
1479:
1144:
584:
428:
2405:
on Bragg crystals. Something less technical than what I usually write, and with no formula, just explanations, and if possible a tone that sustains curiosity.
2167:
1660:
1635:
1585:
950:. More specifically, the typical components associated to an accelerator, ion chambers, vacuum stuff, diagnostic components, magnets, Etc. As I stated on the
834:
453:
187:
158:
137:
2372:
1855:
1846:
1837:
1788:
1443:
792:, and then RfDing the redirect once we clean up the article categories? (Yeah, I suppose that's me volunteering to do the edits - Mongo like grunt work.) --
628:
417:
327:
302:
280:
266:
230:
209:
1306:
1283:
1265:
813:
689:
610:
552:
2039:
1320:
666:
1574:
749:
403:
1984:
1946:
1186:
2430:
2033:
1502:
articles? Two of these terms mean the same thing, but the articles disagree about which. I don't know the answer and see conflicting uses online. —
1293:
739:
713:
567:
1534:
1021:
926:
796:
503:
352:. I believe this is outright crankery; I can't find any record of even an actual publication. The biography listed by the author of these articles,
1992:
1049:
880:) in that sense who wouldn't already know what one is, so I don't think it's the most useful title; at the same time, I have no counter-suggestion.
997:
368:
353:
1204:
1540:
242:
2240:
1425:
1373:
2282:
And, the question brings many corrolary questions, which can be answered by using the same concepts of physics, and by introducing some other:
881:
226:
I think I can wait a bit. I'm going to try out more general wikipedia-wide maintenence crap and see how I like it, then maybe apply later. --
1691:
As such, if such an attempt is taken, please use caution, ask for lots of advice, and don't be too ambitious. (And do a good job if started.)
1378:
1117:
89:
1357:
Two other ideas, although I'm not sure how usefull they would be for stubs: biophysics (or "biological physics") and computational physics.
488:
1876:
1465:
1430:
1175:
1064:
413:
349:
81:
76:
64:
59:
2271:
by a set of randomly distributed coherent light sources (as a remark I don't think this phenemenon is the same as the one described under
1603:
Possibly not, although the lists in them could get quite lengthy. I cleaned them up a bit, although I won't object to a merge, of course.
1506:
1649:
1222:
388:
I have AfD'd them both. If he appears in red square, it's unverifiable without google appearences or the book actually existing. See:
2229:
1778:
1160:
396:
172:
107:
2292:
Why is the sky bluer near the poles than in temperate regions and bluer in temperate regions than near the equator (in full daylight)?
2275:, though I'm not sure), direct light (sun) vs diffuse light (sky), quantitative differences in how different wavelengths are diffused.
735:(!) should be the first example of wave-particle duality--they're not even mentioned in the introductory QM courses I'm aware of. --
696:
I don't think it's wrong, but it's kind of written like a textbook rather than an article, which may not be good. Other thoughts? --
602:
an article, but feel divided about whether it's really necessary so I'm not going to give into my departmental pride and start it. —
986:
639:
900:
382:
914:
How the articles you mention get categorized would depend quite a bit. If they're pieces of the accelerator, they'd get put under
439:
1524:
1705:
1641:
1545:
1034:
from being a redirect, and then see who yells. If it turns out that everyone hates you for this, then you can always move it to
954:
discussion, there are all sorts of accelerators out there including ion implanter accelerators. They have a beam line too! See:
685:. They look distinctly dodgy and naive to me, but rather than just remove them I thought I'd be tactful and sensitive for once.
2233:
823:
789:
755:
538:
2115:
889:
2477:
2308:
2298:
Why is milk milky? (with the fun experiment of a light source appearing red when you use a thin layer of milk as a filter)
2264:
light wavelengths, their relation to color, and their superposition in white light, the visible light spectrum of the sun
1316:-stubbing is required, after the new categories have also grown. Though naturally, coherence of the topic is crucial.
1192:
982:
47:
17:
2139:, and they won't give it back! At least I assume they won't, because at some point I didn't know of the existence of
1889:. Is there a distinction between the two cats here on Knowledge, or should they be merged or one put inside another?
1811:
I added it to the scope and goals stuff on the project page. Someone elaborate please, I need to go to work now! :D
2260:
Answering it can be done with very few formulas, and offers the opportunity to discuss a few concepts of physics:
251:. My question is: how close is the article, currently, to being worthy to put up for featured article status? --
1412:
1925:
1886:
1399:
1092:
We've got someone creating sketchy articles on this theory and its creators. I first marked a few of the bios
919:
915:
872:
I've moved it here because I think it needs wider discussion among experts. I'm not sure anyone would look up
1934:. It is important for me as I will soon start editing about the (entropy-driven) force between the tips of an
1453:
I need help to avoid running afoul of the 3RR. There's an anon repeatedly adding psuedoscientific material to
2437:
2417:
1384:
759:
674:
459:
1257:
So far we've only gotten a handfull of opinions on this, so a few more voices would probably be helpful. —
2245:
477:
978:
1010:) might be put together in an article on early accelerator history, which I hope someone writes someday.
1448:
1209:
1200:
stirred any further. Its already a rather long battle. P.S. yes, its another Carl Hewitt intervention.
1193:
727:
38:
2445:
2198:
1751:
1713:
1578:
1152:
763:
686:
481:
1793:
Yes, it has lacked attention. I guess it's one of the things we should include in this wikiproject.
1040:
936:
247:
I just went to what I would describe as "a lot" of effort to get some decent pictures to illustrate
2221:
2012:
We could use some knowledgeable opinions on this article - as I mention in the discussion on the [[
1860:
Exactly, this wikiproject can serve as a "catalizer" and place for supporting discussions, though.
248:
1548:
is a new stub, which I'm thinking about pointing up for deletion. Does anyone want to salvage it?
922:. But in any case, the ideas scott mentions are all fine for separate articles in my opinion. --
1882:
1517:
830:
to put basic ideas about how one actually does experiments, but it's fine with me either way. --
530:"for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the
420:, too, as its source and copyright status would be unknown, not to mention becoming orphaned. —
1708:, articles which you started? (Never mind the latter though, it was finished by somebody else.)
2178:
1765:
1746:
tag is out of those articles, we can talk about starting a new project — dealing with tensors.
1485:
1343:
1262:
1125:
1107:
810:
607:
581:
549:
496:
450:
425:
184:
133:
97:
1802:
Yes, if not us then who? I'm happy to help, and I think we should definitely add it here. --
2397:
2380:
2323:
2132:
1701:
844:
682:
675:
2441:
2427:
2406:
2210:
2164:
2106:
We just need a hierarchy such that science links to the method and physics etc. portals. --
2078:
1981:
1967:
1943:
1905:
1747:
1709:
1697:
955:
932:
754:
Looking at the particle physics categories, it occurs to me we might benefit from having a
465:
115:
1966:
have interactions between monomers, or maybe my formula is wrong. I'll keep you informed.(
527:
519:
8:
1901:
1511:
616:
560:
416:
is deleted on the basis of being crank we should make sure the closing admin gets rid of
175:
to evaluate your appeal to strangers. To give you an idea, I've seen people always vote
122:
is also an admin who knows quite some physics, and you can always try to ask me for help.
2027:
1938:, which will lead me right to introducing non-linear elasticity of polymeric materials (
2384:
2237:
2206:
2189:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2125:
2091:
2057:
1957:
1914:
1890:
1861:
1812:
1794:
1740:
1657:
1604:
1582:
1564:
1476:
1403:
1358:
781:
339:
2314:
from featured article standard. Feel free to add links to articles you feel relevant.
2333:
2174:
2147:(which btw was wrong, what I wrote had a different meaning from what you can find in
1931:
1499:
1495:
1339:
1258:
1172:
1153:
1141:
1121:
1103:
806:
663:
636:
603:
594:
577:
545:
484:. Any of the more knowledgable denizens care to have a look, and perhaps a laugh? --
473:
446:
421:
379:
180:
129:
2257:
can feel concerned about, whatever his sex, age, religion, cultural background etc.
1942:
is AFAIK the simplest model that has non-linear elasticity as an emergent property)
2272:
2069:
1852:
1834:
1785:
1389:
1370:
1303:
1271:
1061:
856:
648:
624:
299:
263:
206:
973:, if I'm following you correctly, should we move the list of light sources out of
2000:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics
1137:
I nominated the other one since
Googling failed to suggest this person exists.---
1096:
946:
Again, I'm thinking a conventional beamline with components on them for the Wiki
392:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Stachnikov's_triflexian_quantum_multiplex_theorem
372:
2295:
Why do white clouds appear white during daytime, and white or red during sunset?
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2136:
2053:
2045:
1771:
1503:
1491:
860:
647:
This survived the AfD, but I still think the whole thing should be merged with
2023:
659:
even list "Hubble flow" in their index! This whole thing is very strange.---
1458:
896:
are only a stop-gap - so have some discussion while I go get some coffee. --
852:
802:
509:
469:
2304:
Why does a Bragg crystal become milky in appearance if you add salt into it?
1516:
Thought you fellow physics geeks would be among the few to get the humor of
499:, that might be related and provide a guide for how to handle this one. --
1169:
1138:
1031:
1014:
873:
845:
660:
633:
564:
523:
376:
1930:
Anyone knows where the subject is mentioned? I just found something about
1163:, which may be the result of some genuine misunderstanding since the term
2460:
2354:
2268:
2107:
2077:
Users will get confused with that many portals: we need a portals portal.
1939:
1935:
1843:
1803:
1775:
1728:
1676:
1595:
1531:
1462:
1440:
1422:
1290:
1077:
1057:
1018:
970:
940:
923:
831:
771:
736:
697:
617:
515:
500:
436:
400:
324:
277:
252:
227:
155:
104:
2495:
Current status: I have initiated an AfD ---16:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
2328:
2188:
That was me who removed the physics content, and I'm not a linguist :)
2151:). So, not only they won't give it back, but they won't even share it!
2003:
1632:
1549:
1298:
1280:
1201:
1183:
1046:
710:
319:
I've added some background information, and put it up for peer review:
119:
2068:
The science portal should contain links to all these other portals :)
1398:
It set up those categories. You're right, it should have been only in
1087:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gravitational
Oscillating Plane Theory
2369:
2365:
2202:
2160:
2121:
1851:... Yes. I have no idea what I was thinking. Let's get to it then? --
1521:
1317:
1219:
994:
897:
793:
535:
485:
114:
willing to help when asked. One of the participants of this project (
726:
I agree, after looking further. There's now some kind of "vote" on
2422:
2048:, and I noticed there is a new portal, started somewhere in May, a
2016:- I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical
1472:
1454:
1418:
974:
951:
947:
893:
295:
1631:? I don't see any potential for it being anything more than that.
2396:
Thanks for your comments and for the links. I've added a link to
2223:
801:
You could save yourself a lot of edits by requesting the move at
931:
Your point is valid, and understood. Light souces are a type of
1591:
1570:
1560:
2482:
1569:
Or wait... it seems like part of a larger plan for organizing
1437:
Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/A_Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS
1071:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum
Mechanics - simplified
171:
If you haven't checked it out yet, you might be interested in
1228:
So far a wide range of possible new stubs has been proposed:
877:
298:
which I started some time ago, suffers from the same problem.
1774:...? It hasn't been updated in a long time. Should we? --
1270:
How about low temperature, particle, and nuclear physics? --
2173:
Eh, I never liked adjectives as article titles anyways. —
1417:
Hello physics people, I've just asked for a peer review of
1007:
598:
2401:
2350:
2318:
770:
and put those articles directly in it. Any thoughts? --
681:
Can a few people take a look at StuRat's recent edits to
2455:
You could put it on your watch list, so you'll see how
1369:
Perhaps we also need a category "mathematical physics".
321:
Knowledge:Peer review/A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS/archive1
1159:
I seem to be involved in an edit war with a new user,
2364:
I dunno. To me, that sounds more like it belongs in
1520:(created as a user page for easy future deletion). --
1214:
A split of physics-stubs category has been proposed
784:- I like it. Could we effect this simply by moving
1696:By the way MarSch, do you have any plans to finish
1575:
Application of tensor theory in engineering science
623:I feel this stub is redundant, being superseded by
1842:Isn't there a talk page for the portal itself? --
1831:specifically for discussion regarding the portal?
1421:. Perhaps some of you would like to take a look.--
818:Sounds like a plan, if nobody disagrees. I guess
2201:, but it did set a precedent for us reconquering
1993:Philosophical interpretation of classical physics
346:Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem
1475:to my watchlist, so I'll be looking out for it.
262:understand a bit better what this is all about.
2301:Why are so many gels and creams milky in color?
1881:I notice that alot of the same articles are in
820:Category:Experimental particle physics concepts
786:Category:Experimental particle physics concepts
768:Category:Experimental particle physics concepts
476:flavors, perhaps a bit of both, spurred by old
2286:Why is the day sun yellow, and the sunset red?
2488:This "anon" user has added a useless article
1952:I would just go ahead and create the page on
1118:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Peter Vincent
2040:Scientific method portal, so many portals...
1640:I guess that's a good idea. So if we rename
826:--I originally created it because there was
1650:Application of tensor theory in engineering
750:New experimental particle physics category?
2349:Great idea! Perhaps we could even use the
397:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Stachnikov
173:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Standards
2044:I'm just starting to get to know our own
1076:Up for deletion. Maybe worth a look. --
1039:
987:Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory
851:Presumably in response to my comments on
371:added approving mention of Stachnikov to
356:, is not listed on Amazon, and the terms
1013:The list of light sources should be in
822:doesn't really need to be separate from
480:stories and the B.E.A.R report cited in
1706:eigenvalue, eigenvector, and eigenspace
1642:Application of tensor theory in physics
1590:Is there a reason not to put it all in
1546:Application of tensor theory in physics
1541:Application of tensor theory in physics
1116:Someone's nominated one of the bios at
243:My latest silly idea (featured article)
14:
2344:Discussion of blue sky article project
1581:. I'll try to make it into something.
824:Category:Experimental particle physics
790:Category:Experimental particle physics
756:Category:Experimental particle physics
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2490:A_5_minutes_explanation_of_Relativity
1379:Redirects and computational chemistry
886:Category:Particle physics experiments
2289:Why is the sea blue (or blue-green)?
1877:Thermodynamics & Stat. Mechanics
1431:Featured article candidacy for ATLAS
1302:do we do when there's an overlap? --
890:Category:Particle physics facilities
25:
2253:The question struck me as one that
2205:. Although if the majority prefers
2124:from us! We are condemned to using
2002:is nominated as original research.
597:has proposed we need an article on
23:
1457:. I have now asked him to review
1102:, but put this one up for AfD. —
1030:Do it. You can even try to hijack
983:Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
24:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics
2504:
859:left the following comment on my
2056:, of course. So many portals...
653:Principles of Physcial Cosmology
559:A good start would be rewriting
532:optical frequency comb technique
29:
2379:There is already an article on
2232:has started strange discussion
993:becomes apparent? Thoughts? --
876:(which is presently a redir to
1887:Category:Statistical mechanics
1654:List of tensors in engineering
1563:couldn't include in one line.
1400:Category:Computational science
920:Category:particle accelerators
916:Category:particle accelerators
884:sounds more like it should be
256:23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
231:23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
210:22:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
188:21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
159:21:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
138:20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
118:) was recently made an admin,
108:17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
13:
1:
2438:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
1385:Knowledge:Wikiproject_Physics
760:Category:Experimental physics
2464:02:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
2450:02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
2431:02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
2410:20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2388:19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2373:18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2358:13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2241:06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2214:19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2193:17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2182:16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2168:15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2116:Those damned wiki linguists!
2111:13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2095:17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2082:15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2073:14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2061:12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2034:10:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
2007:14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1985:19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1971:15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1961:13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1947:09:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1918:13:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1909:09:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1894:08:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1865:12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
1856:04:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
1847:01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
1838:01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
1816:08:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1807:08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1798:08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1789:02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1779:07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1756:10:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1732:09:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1718:11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1680:10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1661:12:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
1636:13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
1608:07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1599:07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1586:07:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1567:07:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1553:00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1535:10:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
1525:23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
1507:19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
1480:23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
1466:21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
1444:22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
1426:11:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
1407:06:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
1393:00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
1374:13:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1362:09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1347:02:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1321:02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1307:00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1294:00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1284:00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
1275:00:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
1266:05:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
1223:04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
1205:00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
1187:00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
1176:03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
1145:03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
1129:18:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
1111:17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
1081:01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
1065:00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
1056:There is even an article on
1050:00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
1022:01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
998:19:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
927:18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
901:16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
835:21:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
814:18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
797:17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
775:16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
667:03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
7:
2459:edits it automatically. --
1648:then should we rename also
979:Stanford Linear Accelerator
740:17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
714:22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
701:21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
690:14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
640:01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
611:23:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
585:23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
568:23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
553:22:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
539:21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
504:22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
489:21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
454:16:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
440:07:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
429:07:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
404:05:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
383:03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
328:00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
303:00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
281:00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
267:00:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
10:
2509:
2267:Light diffusion, which is
2131:Intensive is important in
1646:List of tensors in phsycis
1629:List of tensors in physics
1194:Talk:Quantum indeterminacy
728:Talk:Wave-particle duality
2209:, then ther's no point...
2199:thermodynamic equilibrium
1627:How about renaming it ti
1579:Glossary of tensor theory
764:Category:Particle physics
2050:Scientific Method Portal
1252:condensed matter physics
249:A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS
1883:Category:Thermodynamics
1413:peer review of manifold
937:experimental beam lines
1926:Non-linear elasticity?
1770:Is anyone maintaining
1036:light source (physics)
911:have articles already.
870:
497:Directed-energy weapon
445:Makes sense to me. —
2418:Disambiguation needed
2398:diffuse sky radiation
2381:diffuse sky radiation
2324:diffuse sky radiation
2133:statistical mechanics
1954:non-linear elasticity
1827:Should we start up a
1702:differential manifold
865:
683:Wave-particle duality
676:Wave-particle duality
460:Particle beam weapon?
375:, which I deleted.---
42:of past discussions.
2353:article for this. --
2246:Why is the sky blue?
2052:. There is also the
1698:topological manifold
1490:Can someone fix the
1383:First off, I set up
933:Particle accelerator
868:beamlines for users?
687:William M. Connolley
657:Cosmological Physics
466:Particle beam weapon
464:I was thinking that
418:Image:Stachnikov.jpg
116:User:Oleg Alexandrov
1902:thermodynamic limit
1234:theoretical physics
632:shed any light? ---
629:User:Worldtraveller
561:coherence (physics)
2207:intensive quantity
2149:intensive quantity
2145:intensive quantity
2141:intensive quantity
2126:intensive quantity
1832:
1449:Electron vandalism
1240:sub-atomic physics
1210:Physics-stub split
906:Light source is a
758:. It would be in
2334:Bragg diffraction
2309:Existing articles
2032:
1932:linear elasticity
1826:
1500:center of gravity
1496:center of inertia
1231:quantum mechanics
1154:Alcubierre metric
595:Talk:John L. Hall
528:Theodor W. Hänsch
474:conspiracy theory
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2500:
2469:ThorinMuglindir)
2273:photon diffusion
2030:
2022:
1745:
1739:
1736:Great! Once the
1559:No real content
1237:particle physics
1101:
1095:
1045:
1043:
780:Smells like the
649:Hubble expansion
625:Hubble expansion
520:recently awarded
518:for Physics was
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2508:
2507:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2486:
2442:Oleg Alexandrov
2428:ThorinMuglindir
2420:
2407:ThorinMuglindir
2346:
2311:
2248:
2227:
2211:ThorinMuglindir
2165:ThorinMuglindir
2118:
2086:Say, a kind of
2079:ThorinMuglindir
2042:
2028:
1996:
1982:ThorinMuglindir
1968:ThorinMuglindir
1944:ThorinMuglindir
1928:
1906:ThorinMuglindir
1879:
1768:
1748:Oleg Alexandrov
1743:
1737:
1710:Oleg Alexandrov
1573:, so there's a
1543:
1514:
1488:
1451:
1433:
1415:
1381:
1212:
1197:
1157:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1074:
1041:
849:
752:
679:
655:, nor Peacock,
621:
512:
462:
373:Albert Einstein
344:Take a look at
342:
245:
100:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2506:
2485:
2480:212.21.138.161
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2419:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2391:
2390:
2376:
2375:
2361:
2360:
2345:
2342:
2337:
2336:
2331:
2326:
2321:
2310:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2302:
2299:
2296:
2293:
2290:
2287:
2280:
2279:
2276:
2265:
2247:
2244:
2226:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2185:
2184:
2137:thermodynamics
2117:
2114:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2054:Science Portal
2046:Physics Portal
2041:
2038:
2037:
2036:
1995:
1989:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1927:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1878:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1772:Portal:Physics
1767:
1766:Physics portal
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1721:
1720:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1617:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1542:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1513:
1510:
1492:center of mass
1487:
1486:Center of mass
1484:
1483:
1482:
1450:
1447:
1432:
1429:
1414:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1380:
1377:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1296:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1235:
1232:
1211:
1208:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1132:
1131:
1089:
1084:
1073:
1068:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1042:File:Gavel.gif
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1017:, I think. --
1011:
1001:
1000:
990:
968:
963:
962:
961:
957:
944:
912:
848:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
751:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
719:
718:
717:
716:
704:
703:
678:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
620:
615:
614:
613:
590:
589:
588:
587:
571:
570:
556:
555:
511:
508:
507:
506:
461:
458:
457:
456:
432:
431:
409:
408:
407:
406:
394:
369:User:Lionosmon
354:User:Lionosmom
341:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
286:
285:
284:
283:
270:
269:
244:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
197:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
164:
163:
162:
161:
152:
148:
141:
140:
124:
123:
99:
98:In-House Admin
96:
93:
92:
87:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2505:
2496:
2493:
2491:
2484:
2481:
2478:E. Marinchev
2467:
2466:
2465:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2453:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2436:(moved from
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2429:
2424:
2411:
2408:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2389:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2374:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2359:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2347:
2341:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2327:
2325:
2322:
2320:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2303:
2300:
2297:
2294:
2291:
2288:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2277:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2258:
2256:
2251:
2243:
2242:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2225:
2215:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2191:
2187:
2186:
2183:
2180:
2176:
2175:Laura Scudder
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2166:
2162:
2156:
2152:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2129:
2127:
2123:
2113:
2112:
2109:
2096:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2080:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2035:
2031:
2025:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2005:
2001:
1994:
1988:
1986:
1983:
1972:
1969:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1919:
1916:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1907:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1866:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1836:
1830:
1825:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1787:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1777:
1773:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1742:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1609:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1547:
1536:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1523:
1519:
1518:Governmentium
1509:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1481:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1446:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1386:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1348:
1345:
1341:
1340:Laura Scudder
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1322:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1305:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1259:Laura Scudder
1256:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1195:
1188:
1185:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1166:
1162:
1155:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1122:Laura Scudder
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1104:Laura Scudder
1098:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
996:
991:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
967:
964:
958:
956:
953:
949:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
929:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
869:
864:
862:
858:
854:
853:Talk:Beamline
847:
846:Light sources
836:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
816:
815:
812:
808:
807:Laura Scudder
804:
800:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
741:
738:
734:
729:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
715:
712:
708:
707:
706:
705:
702:
699:
695:
694:
693:
691:
688:
684:
677:
668:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
638:
635:
630:
626:
619:
612:
609:
605:
604:Laura Scudder
600:
596:
592:
591:
586:
583:
579:
578:Laura Scudder
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
566:
562:
558:
557:
554:
551:
547:
546:Laura Scudder
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
505:
502:
498:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
470:pseudoscience
467:
455:
452:
448:
447:Laura Scudder
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
430:
427:
423:
422:Laura Scudder
419:
415:
411:
410:
405:
402:
398:
395:
393:
390:
389:
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:
378:
374:
370:
365:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
329:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
304:
301:
297:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
282:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
268:
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
232:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
211:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
189:
186:
182:
181:Laura Scudder
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
160:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
135:
131:
126:
125:
121:
117:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2494:
2487:
2483:Universality
2456:
2421:
2338:
2312:
2281:
2259:
2254:
2252:
2249:
2228:
2157:
2153:
2130:
2119:
2105:
2087:
2043:
2017:
1997:
1978:
1929:
1880:
1769:
1673:
1616:
1558:
1544:
1515:
1489:
1452:
1434:
1416:
1382:
1368:
1313:
1249:astrophysics
1213:
1198:
1164:
1158:
1091:
1075:
1055:
1032:light source
1015:light source
989:for example?
965:
907:
882:End stations
874:light source
871:
866:
850:
827:
782:object model
753:
732:
680:
656:
652:
627:. However,
622:
524:John L. Hall
513:
463:
433:
367:Be careful,
366:
361:
357:
343:
246:
196:
176:
130:Jitse Niesen
101:
70:
43:
37:
2269:diffraction
2090:portal. :D
2070:Count Iblis
1940:ideal chain
1936:ideal chain
1853:Dataphiliac
1835:Dataphiliac
1829:portal page
1786:Dataphiliac
1530:funny :) --
1512:New element
1471:I've added
1390:Dataphiliac
1371:Count Iblis
1304:Dataphiliac
1272:Dataphiliac
1058:Synchrotron
857:Scottfisher
618:Hubble Flow
593:Someone on
516:Nobel Prize
300:Count Iblis
264:Count Iblis
207:Count Iblis
36:This is an
2329:scattering
2120:They took
1577:and evven
1165:light cone
985:, and the
414:Stachnikov
362:triflexian
350:Stachnikov
340:Stachnikov
120:User:CSTAR
90:Archive 10
2366:Wikibooks
2222:Intro to
2203:intensive
2161:intensive
2128:instead.
2122:intensive
2018:Newtonian
1741:attention
1504:Omegatron
1402:. Fixed.
861:talk page
358:biflexian
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
71:Archive 3
65:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
2423:Dynamics
2230:Herald88
2021:in adv -
2014:AfD page
1473:electron
1455:electron
1419:manifold
975:Beamline
952:beamline
948:beamline
894:Beamline
296:DAMA/NaI
2400:in the
2224:physics
1686:author.
1246:E&M
828:nowhere
733:phonons
565:Thisrod
147:degree.
39:archive
2461:SCZenz
2457:anyone
2426:links.
2355:MarSch
2255:anyone
2108:MarSch
2024:Trödel
1844:SCZenz
1804:SCZenz
1776:SCZenz
1729:MarSch
1704:, and
1677:MarSch
1596:SCZenz
1592:tensor
1571:tensor
1561:tensor
1532:MarSch
1463:SCZenz
1459:WP:NOR
1441:SCZenz
1423:MarSch
1291:SCZenz
1243:optics
1173:(talk)
1142:(talk)
1097:nn-bio
1078:SCZenz
1060:also.
1019:SCZenz
971:SCZenz
939:as in
924:SCZenz
832:SCZenz
803:WP:CFD
772:SCZenz
737:SCZenz
698:SCZenz
664:(talk)
637:(talk)
501:SCZenz
437:SCZenz
401:SCZenz
380:(talk)
325:SCZenz
278:SCZenz
253:SCZenz
228:SCZenz
177:oppose
156:SCZenz
105:SCZenz
2385:Karol
2238:Karol
2190:Karol
2092:Karol
2058:Karol
2004:linas
1998:FYI,
1958:Karol
1915:Karol
1891:Karol
1862:Karol
1813:Karol
1795:Karol
1658:Karol
1633:linas
1605:Karol
1594:? --
1583:Karol
1565:Karol
1550:Salsb
1477:Karol
1404:Karol
1359:Karol
1299:Linas
1281:linas
1202:linas
1184:linas
1120:. —
1062:Scott
1047:linas
878:Light
805:. —
711:linas
510:Nobel
323:. --
16:<
2446:talk
2370:Kgf0
2234:here
2179:Talk
2135:and
2088:meta
2029:talk
1991:VfD:
1885:and
1752:talk
1714:talk
1522:Kgf0
1435:See
1344:Talk
1318:Alai
1263:Talk
1220:Alai
1216:here
1126:Talk
1108:Talk
1008:WWII
995:Kgf0
941:E150
908:term
898:Kgf0
811:Talk
794:Kgf0
762:and
608:Talk
599:JILA
582:Talk
550:Talk
536:Kgf0
526:and
514:The
486:Kgf0
482:Talk
451:Talk
426:Talk
348:and
185:Talk
134:talk
2440:by
2402:sky
2351:sky
2319:sky
1652:to
1644:to
1170:CH
1161:KED
1139:CH
888:or
788:to
661:CH
634:CH
522:to
478:SDI
472:or
412:If
399:--
377:CH
2452:)
2448:)
2383:.
2236:.
2177:|
1987:)
1956:.
1833:--
1754:)
1744:}}
1738:{{
1727:--
1716:)
1700:,
1675:--
1656:?
1388:--
1342:|
1314:re
1261:|
1124:|
1106:|
1100:}}
1094:{{
1038:.
981:,
863::
855:,
809:|
692:.
606:|
580:|
548:|
449:|
424:|
360:,
183:|
136:)
86:→
2444:(
2163:!
2026:|
1973:)
1750:(
1712:(
1498:/
1494:/
132:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.