User talk:CYD

Hi CYD. Good work defending the Lee Kuan Yew article and keeping it objective. A few of the 'contributors' were really prejudiced. -- Yik Lin

Hi CYD. I'll write this at your talk page since your main page is reserved for your personal data. I am joining with all who had sent you messages that it is very fine thing to have some good physicists around. But a question is also what a good physicist is. We all agree that physicists as Newton, Einsten, Feynman, Dyson, Sakharov, Pauli, Bethe and still 'some' more really are. But who 'in fact' understand physics or even worse the physical reality itself? Are there only physicists able to understand it as it was a case in Einstein's, Arthur Stanley Eddington's or Hilbert's time in the first 20 years of the 20th century. I do belive not. But don't ask me why :) Let me just say - keep on your good work on telling the silent Tao story of physics as Fritjof Capra once had dreamed. You can check and correct my contributions to the three main fields of natural sciences at my users page. It is worth seeing also the articles of two famous Slovene phisicists Joz<caron>ef Stefan and Janez Strnad. Very soon I'll translate into English an article about John Stewart Bell from the Slovene wikipedia. There's also a pretty extended article of Eistein's life, conceived somehow as his 'personal' diary all the way to his afterlife and 'beyond'. Of course there's still a lot say about the physis, but let us just stop for now. Best regards. -- XJamRastafire 19:57 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Hi CYD, and welcome! Thanks for you contributions in the physics area. There's a lot to do there :-) --AxelBoldt

Hi CYD - I've checked out your work and it's of a very high standard - congrats :) So an extra big welcome to the 'pedia. Regards - ManningBartlett

Hello, CYD and welcome - we need good physicists!

I removed the text at Standard text editor as it is a copy of a (admittedly amusing) Usenet post and the original author still holds the copyright. -- The Anome

Would you have an interest in the math behind Dyson Sphere comparisons against Earth? I'll stab at it eventually, but as much as tickles your fancy I can fill in more. --Romaq

Where do

search for the Higgs boson
search for Supersymmetry

fit in?

They're not what anyone would seriously call theories.

Let's discuss this in talk:Physics --CYD

Hi CYD. I liked the article you started on Shor's algorithm (at least I think it was you). Any chance you might be able to finish it?

I'll try. It turned out to be a bigger job than I thought, so I stopped. I'll probably have another go at it soon, since summer holidays are coming up; but I'll be just happy if someone finishes it for me :-)

Great work on The Ring of the Nibelung! AstroNomer

Plz try to integrate copyrighted info rather than simply deleting it. Lir 16:57 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename of degeneracy to degenerate matter. On thinking it over, I agree that it is the preferable title. So many articles from both the astrophysics and the quantum mechanics sides agreed that the concept of degeneracy merited an article by making it a link, but were not that careful about agreeing a title for the main page. I earlier added a couple of sentences to the liquid drop model about the relevance of the concept to the asymmetry term which now should have a link too. I plan to do some more work on degenerate matter to at least include the details of the derivation of the fermi vector from the particle in a box model (kay-eff-cubed-equals-six-pi-squared-en-over-twice-spin-plus-one). Alan Peakall 09:45 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Hi CYD - quick question about Richard Wagner - I was just wondering what sort of stuff you were planning to add to the article? Will it be mainly biographical, or stylistic analysis, or something else? I just ask because I was planning on adding some stuff on his musical style and development to balance out the article a bit more, but don't want to do it if you're planning on do it (especially as I don't really like Wagner's music that much!). All the best --Camembert

Thanks for the response. Hopefully we'll end up with a nice article at the end of all this. Cheers --Camembert

CYD, thank you for your insight and suggestions on Richard Wagner. --Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

CYD's comment on User Talk:Tim Starling:

A suggestion: I find the various articles on electrical conduction (such as conduction band, band gap, and valence band) quite fragmented, even though they are individually well-written. IMO, the fact that the material is split into little articles makes it difficult to understand the actual phenomenon of conduction. Maybe it would be better to consolidate them into a big article on electrical conduction (to which electric current can redirect.)

Not a bad idea -- I'll think about it. Probably the closest thing we've got to that now is semiconductor -- the "electronic structure" section could theoretically be expanded to talk more about conduction. But it's quite possible that people looking for information on electrical conduction won't think to look there. It's a big job though: to do it right, we'd probably want to talk about metals, drift and Ohm's law as well as the other stuff. I don't think we would want to replace current with a redirect - that's quite a useful article, with about 120 pages linking to it. -- Tim Starling

Done. -- Tim Starling

Heh, and I never even knew Al-Raschid existed, uncultured peon that I am :). Thanks! Any idea why he's called "Haroun" in the article title and "Harun" throughout the article, though? --AW

CYD, your diagram Image:Epr.png didn't work on my browser (IE6). It just came up as a black box. Apparently the problem was the alpha channel – I replaced the transparent background with white and it started working. I've uploaded the corrected image. I thought I'd better warn you here – I'm not sure if you have images on your watchlist. -- Tim Starling 12:15 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

IE does not correctly handle PNG images with alpha channels. This is a known bug that MS doesn't seem interested in fixing. -- Zwilson

CYD, It occurs to me that your work on Richard Wagner has been rather a thankless task, so: Thank you. Not just for expanding the original stub into an actual encyclopedia article, but for managing to "defend" it against determined view-point advocacy. Sometimes I don't know how people manage to remain calm. --- Someone else 22:20 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC) (BTW, I have a slightly less sanguine view of whether RW's antisemitism made it into his libretti than you, but I still think you've done a great job on his life and works)

Thank you for the awesome work you did on the new Hanna Reitsch page! Her life is fascinating to me. Jaimenote

Why did you cut a para in Tintin ? Ericd 09:34 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

By the way, you might be interested in knowing that someone nominated you to become an admin about a week ago, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and reply there if you are interested. If you reply there quickly, you could be number 100! כסיף Cyp 20:49 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Whoa, you have a lower user ID than even I do. You are also now our 100th administrator -- congratulations! As a bonus, I won't paste you my boilerplate text. :-) You probably already know that you find the relevant guidelines on Wikipedia:Administrators anyway. Please do take a look, and have fun with your newfound privileges. --Eloquence 00:29 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Heh. Think I had the joy of being Sysop 69. :-) Evercat 00:31 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the Feynman quote on the Schrodinger equation:

The Schrodinger equation does not include gravity

I heard him say it myself, so why do you think it is misleading?

By the way, it was said casually as part of a stream of information, but it was so clear, I wrote it down. 169.207.85.28 00:45, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't include electromagnetism either. -- Tim Starling 01:02, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

See Talk:Quantum mechanics. -- CYD

In Dirac equation is that correct: "where B = $\nabla$ ×A is the magnetic field acting on the particle. This is precisely the Pauli equation for a non-relativistic spin-1/2 particle" ?Plàcid

I made some pictures for quarks, baryons and mesons. I have no time to insert English Wikipedia. If you have, two of them are at http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvark and the GIMP source at my webpage http://www.szgti.bmf.hu/harp/gnu/particle-physics/barion.xcf and http://www.szgti.bmf.hu/harp/gnu/particle-physics/meson.xcf Harp 16:19, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi CYD I do see your point, but do you happen to be an expert in the Bell tests? If you want to know about the actual experiments and the various "loopholes", I'm afraid I just happen to be effectively the world authority! Ask Abner Shimony (his address is given with his encyclopaedia article that I reference), or various others, including Franck Laloe, Philippe Grangier, even Anton Zeilinger. They may not always agree with me but I think you will find that they respect my work. There is no other paper out there to rival my Chaotic Ball one. OK, so perhaps it's bad form to reference others that are only the the quantum physics archive, but surely where they have been published in refereed journals it is reasonable to cite them? This is what I was told when I first started in wikipedia, and I have almost kept to it. I said then that my aim was to replace links to my own site by wiki pages, and this I still mean to do, but for the time being I'm reverting all your edits. Caroline Thompson 08:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CYD has a point, although "self-promotion" is not the right word. The problem is that your point of view and your suggestions with "problems" with quantum mechanics is under, any reasonable interpretation, a minority view. I'm not an expert on Bell inequalities and don't want to become one, but I do think we should in the main articles --- particularly the EPR article, keep to the more conventional view.

You already have an article "loopholes" which I think gives ample opportunity to discuss alternatives and refer to your papers. CSTAR 13:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional comments on EPR article[edit]

This is a reply to your comments on the uniqueness of the spin state which I put in the EPR talk page. I am duplicating it here since there is no threading in the talk pages.

CYD I disagree that the uniqueness of the spin state is irrelevant. It is equivalent to the following remark in Box 2.7 on page 113 of Nielsen and Chuang:

It turns out that no matter what choice of ${\vec {v}}$ we make, the results of the two measurements are always opposite to one another.

Notice the argument given in Nielsen and Chuang in the following lines is a disguised form of what the Wikipedia article currently says.CSTAR 18:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey CYD, BerkeleyMBA here doing a class project on wikis. Wonder if I can interview you for it. Email me at dquiec@yahoo.com. Thanks and sorry for using this venue to get in touch with you. David

Changes to RSA[edit]

I think some of your changes to RSA were incorrect. In general anything with \equiv should have a \pmod, and anything with = should have a \mod, at least this is the way I've seen it written in book and journals. CryptoDerk 19:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Identical Particles[edit]

Hello - Sorry about that exchange operator. I was trying to clarify the statement that the eigenvalues of the exchange operator are +1 and -1. What I should have said was:

Since the eigenvalues α of the exchange operator obey P(ψφ)=α(ψφ) and since the exchange operator applied twice must give back the same wavefunction, i.e. P²(ψφ)=(ψφ), it follows that the eigenvalues of the exchange operator are +1 and -1.

I'll put this in soon (but following the notation exactly) unless you have a problem with it. Paul Reiser 17:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Linear crystal shape.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading the above image. I have added an {{unverified}} tag, could you please add the appropriate copyright tag?

Thousands of images have no copyright tags. You can help!

Thanks so much, Duk 20:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I am writing with a small suggestion. I wonder if you could write an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). Even a short summary helps. To see how often you have done so in the past, you may go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=YOUR USERNAME.

Edit summaries are important for a number of reasons. Every time you change an article, a record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on their watchlist. Most people have an article on their watchlist because they care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a time-saver and a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you. Accurate edit summaries are important because they create trust regarding your contributions and help resolve disputes.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Wikipedia:Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing!

This is about the Wikipedia:Text editor support page. Oleg Alexandrov 18:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Romantic Music[edit]

Crap man... you re-edited while I was in the middle of one... you going to make any more changes tonight? --bleh fu talk fu 06:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

PS. Glad to see other people doing the copyediting dirty work... a lot of these need work --bleh fu talk fu 06:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oops my mistake... I was viewing the history change from your first copyedit -- I have those changes already in the version I started with. I'll add your most recent changes to my edit. --bleh fu talk fu 06:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bell's thm graphic[edit]

It would be very easy to change the graphicas you suggested (I have the XFIG sources), but the corresponding text of the article would also have to be changed to match the picture (in other words, the Y_A, Y_B variables throughout the article would have to be changed to Z_A,Z_B, unless of course I am misunderstandng something) Now if you agree to change the text to match the figure then by all means let's do it. It's not hard, it's just that I'm still recovering from editing that page. (See its talk page) CSTAR 05:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually why I don't I just produce another one, to use in the EPR paradox page. I'm doing that now. They don't have to be exactly the same graphic.CSTAR 06:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done and inserted in EPR page. CSTAR 06:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bell's theorem[edit]

Do you have any specific suggestions on how to make it better? Unfortunately, the discussion on the page doesn't center around improving the article, but on dealing with extremely marginal (i.e. cranky) theories that were diffused throughout that article and related articles. Please have at it.CSTAR 15:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board[edit]

Our very own notice board is up! Do try to look through and contribute. ;)--Huaiwei 08:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thermodynamic state, phase equilibrium, & state of matter[edit]

We seem to disagree on the basic concept of phase (matter). Admittedly, my perspective is not that of a condensed matter physicist: I'm a materials scientist. No one I work in that field with would call oil and water the same phase. There is a clear phase boundary between them; in fact, they're the paradigm example of phase equilibrium in two-component systems. I had guessed that your educational background was more focused on the thermodynamics of gasses than of condensed phases, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope you don't also believe that the many phases of ice are all alike simply because they are all solid, since phase boundaries can also be observed within this one-component system, and also entirely within the solid state. The phrase "solid state" is generally accepted since myriad solid phases exist, but I'll grant that all gasses are the same phase, as are (to my limited knowlege) all plasmas. I hope we can reach a compromise without this discussion degenerating into a revert war.

Respectfully, --Polyparadigm 19:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your example of oil and water is not very useful. Would you consider the superconducting phase of tin and the superconducting phase of lead to be the "same" phase? -- CYD

We can talk here: I put your talk page on my watch list.

Oil and water is a very instructive example, because we have all experienced the low driving force for mixing in this case, and the resulting stable phase boundaries. When I say "paradigm example", I mean that this was the example used in all of my undergraduate classes to help us develop an intuition for the basic phenomena involved.

Exotic examples don't serve too well in this role. The low thermal activation energy at cryogenic temperatures would make it difficult to gauge the chemical behavior of the two-component system in this case , so that the only interesting transitions at these temperatures will occur without a compoisition change, such as changes in magnetism, martensitic transformations, and (as you brought up) the onset of superconductivity.

In the case of lead and tin, I believe that a eutectic transformation is observed, meaning that a thermodynamically stable phase boundary exists between solid lead with some dissolved tin and solid tin with some dissolved lead even at relatively high temperatures. I imagine that this boundary would remain in place at lower temperatures, but (due to the slow kinetics mentioned above) I don't think that a good empirical test exists for the stability of this boundary, which could call their identity as seperate phases (in the strictest sense) into question. But perhaps that's not your question.

Kinetics aside, I would say that different critical temperatures would add to the structural & chemical evidence of a profound difference between the ordinary phases of lead and tin. The same arguments (especially structural) would then carry over to the respective superconducting phases. I'd also expect Cooper pairs to scatter at the phase boundary, since lead and tin have different crystalline structures, which implies that both phonons and electrons travel differently in each phase. Then again, I know relatively little about superconductivity. I imagine that if enough mixing occured for higher-temperature phase stability, Tc would become quite low in both cases. Does this clarify anything? I have the feeling I've misunderstood your question.--Polyparadigm 01:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You're so tied up with the details of crystal structure that the phrase "the same phase" loses its meaning. The idea is this: phase phenomena are independent of the underlying microscopic details. It is possible to speak of two systems as being in the "same" phase even if the underlying materials are different. In this sense, we can call both oil and water "liquids" -- i.e. a phase exhibiting hydrodynamics and low compressibility.

The reason I brought up superconductivity is that it's the canonical demonstration of this insensitivity to microscopic details. The BCS Hamiltonian is a terribly oversimplified model; it uses the simplest possible interaction between two fermions, which no one believes real electrons obey even approximately. Yet it captures the physics of superconductivity with fantastic accuracy. One reasons that because superconductivity emerges from such a simple interaction, it should also emerge for a broad class of electron-phonon-electron interactions, including a "realistic" one that takes crystal structure and electron orbitals into detailed account. However, the realistic model cannot be solved! Luckily, we don't really need to solve it, because the oversimplified model captures the relevant physics of superconductivity. That's why we can speak of a "superconducting phase", regardless of whether the underlying material is tin, or lead, or whatever. -- CYD

I see your point, and understand that the way you use the word "phase" is consistent and useful to you, and I have never suggested that it be removed from the article. However, in my field the word is used differently, as per the definition (rather than the examples) at the head of the article. That usage is also consistent and useful in its context, so I believe that the article should reflect both meanings of the word. Notice also that my first arguments were about macroscopic behavior: eutectic behavior means that the solids are prone to phase separation, regardless of the underlying details of crystal structure or electron affinity. I only mentioned microstructure and composition as an easy way to distinguish one phase from another; the important thing is that some nonuniformity arises. In my use of the term, a stable boundary is what really defines distinct phases, rather than quantitative differences in their viscoelasticity, compressibility, ionization state, etc.--Polyparadigm 17:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I will put back some of the material that you reverted--especially the oil and water example--in the next couple of days. I believe that both of our understandings of this concept belong in the article: limiting it to your definition may lead to confusion of its own, since my understanding is more consistent with the use of the term "phase" in some of the other articles on the site (ice, as mentioned above, but also eutectic etc.). You have given me some good perspective on the differences between solid state physics and materials science, so I'll be careful to only make assertions about my own field, but I would like your assurance that changes you make to my contribution will be constructive this time. Please feel free to give whatever other input you wish of course, either before or after I make the changes, or alternatively to add material back in a form which you find acceptable. Regards, Joel 23:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I took a while. I am still opposed to the oil and water example. The different phases of ice are a better example, since it fits both our definitions (see the section Relevant thermodynamic parameters in the article.) Note, for example, that it is entirely possible to undergo a phase transition between Ice I and Ice II, whereas it is nonsensical to speak of a phase transition from an "oil phase" to a "water phase". Also, the statement the phrase "state of matter" may be more common among scientist who work with condensed matter is still wrong. Nevertheless, you can go ahead and make the change if you like; I'll edit accordingly. -- CYD

I agree that the part you quoted is wrong, and won't try to include it. I'll also try to be careful to distinguish between phase in the transition sense of the word vs. phase in the equilibrium sense of the word. I have some ideas; we'll see what you think of them. Thanks for discussing, it has been (& will probably continue to be) illuminating.--Joel 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BCS "Cutoff"[edit]

Regarding your recent reversal of an edit I made [1] to unsolved problems in physics where I changed the mention of high temp. superconductors as being above 50K instead of 20K. I think you may be underestimating the theoretical maximum cutoff for conventional superconductors (BCS superconductors). MgB₂ is indeed a BCS superconductor [2] and I think the current theoretical max for BCS is thought to be around no more than 10K higher than the Tc for the diboride.....--Deglr6328 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dynamic theory of gravity[edit]

Re Dynamic theory of gravity - hi, not sure how you feel about this. I've been trying to keep it sane agaist the tesla-philes. In particular, you restored Few mathematical details of the theory are available, as it was never fully published whereas I would prefer *no* math details (no one has ever advanced any...) and never published at all.

Oh, and I removed the controversial header from the page - it should be on the talk page if anywhere. And I didn't put it on talk because I wasn't quite sure it was -put it back if you want, though William M. Connolley 09:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Argh, back again... anyway, there is a tag on the talk page anyway. Is it time to VFD this thing?

CYD, the edit you did was a pretty good NPOV edit. Thanks.

William M. Connolley, your "tesla-philes" comment shows your POV and bias in editing. As to the "*no* math details", did you read the quote? There is a equation in there.

(William M. Connolley 10:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Sign your edits, oh hiding one. And there is no equation (other than the std one for the kinetic energy of a body, which is in words, and doesn't count, since its not of the theory) (CYD, apologies for arguing on your talk page... any more should go on t:DTOG).

Hello CYD: sorry for an off-topic issue, being an editor of an e-journal (www.unifr.ch/econophysics) we'd like to learn in&out about wiki, to make scientists cooperate in wiki ways. people like you (i guess) both physicist and hackers can make helpful comments or contribute. we have a joint project btwn swiss and singapore..

a question for you[edit]

this was originally written in discussion of exculsion principle by then i looked at the history and it seems no one has been there for a long long time, so i put it here (you may need to refer back to what you wrote:

for CYD: do you mean the exclusion principle holds only at short distances? because i just dont fully understand it, if no two 1/2 spin particles can occupy the same quantum state every atom of the same element will be different, and (i dunno much, just a guess) worse since the energy levels are quantized we wont have that many hydrogen atoms in the universe, but we do.

also, forgot to add, (remember i'm only a beginner at this stuff, so dont laugh at my questions), when the electrons in a lithum are not observed, so they remain in "waves", their spin is in superposition, so how can the exclusion principle apply to them??? i mean, doesnt it only work when you have an eigenvalue of the obserable? i know atomes will collapse that way but can you tell me why it doesnt?

thanks

-protecter

sorry my computer seems to be having a bug it posted twice

Britney's guide to physics...[edit]

Thought you might enjoy this serious physics material posted by a doctoral student with a light touch. http://britneyspears.ac/physics/basics/basics.htm -- Sitearm | Talk 19:54, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Electrodynamics[edit]

I saw that u had transformed (a long time ago i wasnt wp users then) the article electrodynamics to a redirect to electromagnetism. It is true that this article wasnt good enough. What is the difference between electrodynamics and electromagnetism? for me it is obvius (I am a native greek speeker and I know physics). Electromagnetism (greek: Ηλεκτρομαγνητισμός) is a name for the electric and magnetic phenomena (and the knowledge about them). Electrodynamics (greek: Ηλεκτροδυναμική) is the theory (mathematical model) that describes the electromagnetic force (the interaction of electric charged particles). So these terms are not the same.

Is the title of the article electromagnetism right?

yes. The article deals with "the physics of the electromagnetic field" so electromagnetism is the best term.

I see that it is not right electrodynamics be a redirect page to electromagnetism

Is there a need of a electrodynamics article?

I think no. there already exist the articles electromagnetism, classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics. an article electrodynamics would just dublicate information.

What I see is best (and as u can see I done it) is to be a disambiguation page

There is a problem. The title classical electromagnetism is simply wrong as it deals with the theory. the right title is classical electrodynamics and so there it has to be moved. The problem is that I cant do it as the last is already a redirection page. I am going to request the move by admins but I would like to hear the view of someone else. --Lucinos 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt said electrodynamics it should be its own article, I say that it should be disambiguation page. --Lucinos 05:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Phase Transitions[edit]

I added the above table to phase transition and you deleted it (via revert). My placement was admitadely inperfect but I think this table is a valuable addition to the page. Vicarious 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be in the habit of reverting things he doesn't agree with, rather than bringing them up on the article's "talk" page. But good luck in your endeavor, Vicarious, and I hope you can come to a compromise where I've failed.--Joel 02:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unavoidable fact that Wikipedia articles about scientific topics will occasionally receive contributions from Wikipedians who know little or nothing about the topic. As a rule, I delete the material if it's inaccurate or misleading (though no doubt well-meaning.) If the contributor objects to the deletion, I'm always more than happy to explain my reasoning on the talk page and work out a resolution if necessary.

(I dunno what the deal with "Joel" is. Occasionally, Wikipedians refuse to accept the fact that one of their edits may be wrong; even when a detailed explanation is given, they insist that they are right. My guess is that this once happened to him.) -- CYD

Thanks for the encouragement Joel, whether or not it's necessary. My response is at the talk page. Vicarious 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CYD: Sorry, that was impolite of me. I am happy to accept that my edits are wrong, unless the facts in question are backed up by all of the literature in my field as well as every class lecture, seminar, or conference that I have attended and countless well-written Wikipedia articles that I have not edited. I'm still baffled by the results of our debate on the definitions of the word "phase", and my colleagues laugh when I explain it to them, but I've decided to work on other things for a while and leave that conundrum until later. I also gave up because at one point I was worried that you would go through materials/geology articles and force their use of "phase" to conform to yours, but now I think that gives you too little credit. Again, sorry for my lack of tact.--Joel 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mechanics introduction backwards change fix[edit]

Thanks for putting reletivity back in. I reverted the rest of the edit and added more discussion. David R. Ingham 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi, did you create these images Image:Rainbowrays.png and Image:Rainbowrays2.png, if so could you please add copyright tags. Thanks--nixie 06:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QM[edit]

Hi CYD,

I noticed you removed a reference to Fritjof Capra from the QM article. I would suggest leaving it in the philosophical consequences as it was. It may not be hard science per se, but that's why it's in that section, and I think it's a perfectly valid work as a serious discussion of philosophies.

In as much as QM is a way of looking at the universe, not just a calculation scheme for energy levels of atoms, I think Capra's ideas actually do have a place (maybe not the most prominent place) in a discussion. It's not a religious, crackpot self-help book but a relatively serious look at how QM ideas relate to other views of the universe.

And, just for reference, I am actually an atheist physicist who generally has little time for woolly psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, so don't think I'm coming from the point of view of "how QM is so like how crystals and the pyramids and lentil stews all fit together man!" :-)

Regards Paulc1001 21:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of quantum mechanics[edit]

I've added a bit to Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I was hoping that you could look at it and view the talk page, and offer an opinion on what information we should present in the article, and how this information should be organized. Thanks for your time. RK 16:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cx necessary?[edit]

Hello - We have been having a discussion about the proper direction of the heat capacity article. Could you take a look at the talk page under "Is Cx necessary", especially between the bold "Explanation 1" and "Explanation 2" and please give us your opinion? I know its a lot of back and forth to wade through, but we really need your help - thanks - PAR 20:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Phase-diag.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Phase-diag.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 09:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your name[edit]

"CYD" eh? Sorry if I took your name on sito.org, cause that's what I ended up using. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page name for temperature articles[edit]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A TeXnical issue[edit]

Hello. In Dirac equation on October 11th, 2003, you wrote this:

\epsilon \sim {\frac {p^{2}}{2m}}<<pc

Notice the difference between that and this:

\epsilon \sim {\frac {p^{2}}{2m}}\ll pc

The latter is achieved by typing \ll (a backslash followed by two lower-case "l"s). Michael Hardy 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac equation[edit]

Could you comment on my question in the talk section on the Dirac equation? I'd like to introduce the ENERGY eigenvalues of the positron spinor components, as basically adding to 50% of the kinetic energy increase of the electron. Thus antiparticle spinor components basically appear in relativistic wave equation solutions, because as kinetic energy is increased, a way is demanded by the equation to increase momentum-current without increasing charge-current, and antiparticle wavefunctions added in, do that. How else to explain the odd fact that the antiparticle energies are half the kinetic energy, finally reaching the energy of a real positron when the electron total energy reaches 3 times rest mass (kinetic energy twice rest mass)? S B H arris 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Article WIP proposal[edit]

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Exp5.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Exp5.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Linear crystal shape.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Linear crystal shape.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Editor war[edit]

Editor war, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Editor war satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editor war and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Editor war during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Hello, I found your user page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 06:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

..on still being around! Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

Ring spin

Thank you for quality articles around quantum mechanics, beginning with Feynman diagram in 2001 to Spin-½ in 2005, and about Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, with Das Rheingold in 2002, for "try to work [Wagner's] anti-semitism section into a repectable state", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1976 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Dear CYD,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]