Physics

Ah - there is a cut-off occurring because you can only have 200 links on a page.

So the quantum mechanics category and page aren t linked from here!

Serious need to categorise some pages, here.

19:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I came looking for a link to Particle Physics, but it seems to be cut off. This page needs to be cleaned up, particularly the individual articles in the category. 20:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC) : : :You are free to restore the notice if you believe the issue is not yet properly addressed. I merely commented out the notice. 08:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

= How to add categories to the physics articles =

You can add relevant categories to help populate the subcategory lists. To do this, at the foot of a Physics article (see section below for Physics subcategory), add the text        

By saving your edit, you will produce a link to the physics subcategory. To test out the view, you can hit the Preview button to check whether your chosen subcategory is working. A colon ( : ) before the category tag , e.g., , will allow you to include the link to a physics subcategory in an article, without placing the article in that physics subcategory. By convention, the category tags are placed before the interwiki links, which are usually the very last tags on the article.

Note: To navigate the category lists, you can use the Category TOC links. Just click on the letter corresponding to the first letter of the article or subcategory which you seek. Alternatively, click on the next 200 or previous 200 links on the category page.

For more information, see also: -- See the source text (click Edit this page above) for an example of the pipe trick , which forces an alphabetization in the category sequence for an item.

=How to assign physics subcategories to the physics category=

To add subcategories to the at the foot of the physics subcategory page, above the interwiki links.

(The category software currently allocates 200 links per category page, whether they are subcategory or article links.)

=Cleanup still needed=

There are too many articles in this category. They need to be sorted into subcategories so that they are arranged by topic, not by alphabet. (If you don t already know the name of the article you re looking for, and you don t already know what each article is about, it can be really hard to find things on a very long alphabetical list like this.) -- 23:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=Cleanup almost done=

OK, I think I just whacked about 150 articles or so. I m getting sleepy, time to go to bed, can someone review the remaining 70 or so, and see if they can prune another 20-40 away Please leave a core of 10-40 articles covering general topics. 09:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I am done. 18:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

=General Physics Topics subcategory=

Should we create a General Physics Topics subcategory for things like Thought Experiments and Fermi Problems I ll wait for responses before I make that change. 18:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea – I was just looking for this category! I ll create it. — 16:55, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

So i did it now, and it worked very well for the categories, but now that i m starting to categorize the articles, it becomes fuzzy. E.g. would someone who just read 10:47, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

: In my opinion, 06:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

:: I m actually inclined to agree. It didn t quite work out the way I thought it would. The categories in 04:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

::: OK, I have emptied this category. According to wiki policy, we can make it a candidate for deletion 24h after the last change. 08:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

::: Having recategorized hundreds of physics articles, I agree overall. 16:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Deletion==

I m not happy about the way this went, although everybody complied with existing policies.

What happened was a waste of time: Stu s request has been sitting here uncontested for two weeks until I acted on it. Then again no protest for 4 weeks. Then all of a sudden, within 2 days, everything is changed. I don t really see a need for this and I spent some time categorizing and recategorizing. If a majority were to vote against the change we would have to spend the same time for a third time.

I see the following problems in this process:

Categories have no history.

By the time a category reaches CfD, it has been emptied. There is an a priori bias for deleting because there is no apparent reason to keep it.

The existing discussion is devalued.

I m not sure what to do about this. I d hate to further complicate our policies. But all I can think of at the moment is an amendment. Maybe we can work it out together so that it isn t a complication. How about something like this: # The intention to delete a category (with more than n entries) should be announced on CfD before the category is emptied. ## If there is already a discussion on the pertinent talk page then it should be kept there and the timing will be governed by that discussion. ## Else, CfD s 1-week deadline applies. # Once consensus is reached the category will be emptied and deleted immediately. — 05:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

---

: After having emptied 09:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) :: Thank you! You re obviously a sensible contributor. I gotta go now, but I m looking forward to working on this with you in the future. — 16:12, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

==Motivation for the general category==

One reason for creating the category was to make it easier to separate the articles that belonged into subcategories from those that genuinely pertain to physics in general. This made some sense because there were over 100 articles in 05:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

: As much as I think 10:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

:: I d be fine with the name Basic physics concepts . I assume you mean this as a name for the merge of general and introductory :: We might also consider a category like 07:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

::: Hi all, just wanted to mention that in honor of the 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

== Individual changes==

It seems to me some of the changes were a bit hasty. E.g. many people will have trouble finding 05:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

: A propos 09:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) :: I agree about square 1; that introductory is a good category for waves; and about the overlap. It doesn t mean that the distinction is completely unnecessary, though. But a merge to basic concepts seems to make sense. — 07:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

: A propos , I think. :: Yes, that or 07:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

== Discussion on ==

I have started a

= =

Since we do not have a 16:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Thanks for the hint. Since the conversation is already taking place here, I ll go there and invite people. — 07:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) ::: I had noticed myself a while ago that 08:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: There is now a 11:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

= Definition of Physics =

I utterly disagree with the given definition of physics.

Energy does not interact with matter but particles, people, animals interact with each other. It is a bit like saying pears interact with apples.

When energy interacts with a bicycle, does this mean that the bicycle is beginning to move No. When a person interacts with a bicycle (pushs the pedals) the bicycle begins to move. Energy is an abstract concept that does not interact with anything!

I would switch to the etymological definition :

: Physics is the science of nature

but I would add

: In practice, Physics is the science performed within the scientific method as applied by the physics community and defined by the works of physicists like Gallilei, Descartes, Planck, Einstein, Dirac or Feynman.

because I believe a science is not only defined by its object but also by its methods and the community of people doing it.

Alike we could have

: Chemistry is the science of chemical compounds

and

: In practice, Chemistry is the science performed within the scientific method as applied by the chemistry community and defined by the works of chemists like Lavoisier, Proust, Dalton, Gay-Lussac, etc...

And

: Biology is the science of life

and

: In practice, Biology is the science performed within the scientific method as applied by the biology community and defined by the works of chemists like Pasteur, etc...

The definition I propose allows the subsequent defintion of Physical Biology, Biophysics, Physical Chemistry, Chemical Physics, Physical Biochemistry and so on. For example Physical Chemistry is the science of chemical compounds performed with the methods of Physics in the Chemistry community and Chemical Physics is the science of chemical compounds performed in the Physics Community (have a look at the journal Journal of Chemical Physics and Journal of Physical Chemistry to understand this subtle nuance).

Of course I understand not everybody agree with that. I let this topic open for discussion. And if nobody disagree or if a concensus is found I shall change the definition of physics accordingly.

: I think you re trying to change the wrong page, because this intro is to a category and shouldn t really be too elaborate. I think no one has changed it since like a year, becuase it jsut isn t important, so I reduced it to a minimum. A complete definition and anything else about physics should be found simply in the article about 12:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)