User talk:TimothyRias

Home

Talk

Works

Sandboxes

notification of proposed deletion of Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)

Quarks

Could you give a look at up quark, down quark and strange quark to double check my work (and fill out the weak isospin/weak hypercharge of the later two)? Thanks Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

General Notes / Speed of Light

This is David A. Smith from a different IP address.

Re: third paragraph. There was no uncertainty in which wavelength of light was to be used for measuring c between early 1960s and 1983. One wavelength was chosen, and then another (shorter) was chosen later as being better because it was sharper. But wavelengths do not derive from classical equations, and mapping from quantum processes to the macroscopic world leaves uncertainty.

Re: Section "The nature of light", subsection "Light as photons" Peer review implies that the text is controlled in some sense, to be edited by others. So my 'bold' contribution might be to add this sentence: The [photoelectric effect] shows that light is comprised of discrete packets of energy, that do not merge to fewer, more energetic, packets as waves would.

Re: Section "Fundamental importance in physics", subsection "Variations with time and frequency" What is made is a blanket statement, implying that we did not look for the mass of a photon. We did. I suggest that if the wording stays as is, it is preceded by a statement referring to experimental testing of a photon's rest mass.

David A. Smith 216.161.188.207 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light - metrology term "realization"

Hi. Regarding your comment, " 'Realization' is a jargon word used in metrology. It refers to the logical difference between the definition and the precision with it can put into reality (can be realized)."

Could you clarify the second sentence in this comment? I didn't quite understand it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition of the metre is by its very nature exact. (Well, at least at the scales we are looking at. I'm not vouching for any quantum gravitie ambiguities that may arise.) So, the phrase "the definition becomes more precise" is logically nonsense. However, the is a finite precision due to technology with which that exact definition may be constructed in a lab. Such a construction is called a realisation. (TimothyRias (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

First off, I am not promoting the use of the word "definition" in the subject under discussion. I recognized the problems with it early in the discussions. My purpose in coming to your talk page is to clarify the meaning of the metrology term "realisation" for my own information, and to possibly improve wikipedia by including an explanation of what the term means.

When you mentioned "construction", did you mean the apparatus and its use, which shows the length of the metre? In other words, are you saying that the realisation of a unit consists of the apparatus and its use, which shows the unit? In the former cases of units of length, the realisation would be a bar of metal, in a controlled environment, etc. In the present case I think it is something involving light generated by lasers, etc. Does this sound correct? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Quark weak interactions (ALT).svg

File:Quark weak interactions (ALT).svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Quark weak interactions.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Quark weak interactions.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lederman and electron radius

Thanks for pointing out my error - you wrote "Lederman's book does not say that the electron has a radius or that it was realized. It just gives the upperbound for the electron". I totally missed it, and I have read this page more than once. Somehow I overlooked the words "less than". Thinking that a radius was given for the electron all these months was confusing, because in the same paragraph he was saying "consistent with zero radius" yet he seemed to follow that with an electron radius. Now I see that isn't true. Anyway thanks a again - it clears up the confusion, and gives a different meaning to what Lederman was saying. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Quick question

If someone were to bring up a request that the topic ban for Brews Ohare and David Tombe be lifted, would you support it? I don't want to do anything which would be opposed.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No. First of all, I was not a party in the ArbCom case. Second, I think this place is better off without them, and enjoy getting some constructive work done without having to deal with there misguided view of physics and inability to interpret sources. TimothyRias (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had to deal with similarly misinformed people, and it's a hassle, but these same people can make constructive contributions too, like clarifying points for lay readers or adding diagrams. It's just part of life. Since you weren't involved in the original ArbCom case, I won't bother you again.Likebox (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)