User talk:Edguy99

Please feel free to leave any comments you have that would be of interest by editing this discussion page.Edguy99 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about User:Edguy99/Nuclear Physics and User:Edguy99/Matter and Energy

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your user subpage User:Edguy99/Nuclear Physics and User:Edguy99/Matter and Energy, and I am concerned that they might not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. After you look over that guideline, could we discuss that concern here? I'd appreciate hearing your views, such as your reasons for wanting this particular page and any alternatives you might accept.

There are several options available for resolving this matter:

If you can relieve my concerns through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If you decide to delete the page yourself, please add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it.
If the two of us can't agree on what needs to be done, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's user pages for discussion, which may result in the page in question being deleted.

Thank you. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like he's using his user page for self promotion rather than as a user page. The chemistry stuff looks okay as science (at first glance, at least), but the nuclear physics is fringe, to be polite. kwami (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I would appreciate some time to remove the files as the graphics are hard to reproduce. I have started an animatedphysics at sites.google and it will take me some time to convert as much of the editing is different and most of the layout I will have to redo.Edguy99 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your positive response. As I wrote at commons:User talk:Edguy99#Questionable visualisations, my concern is primarily with your nuclear models, and they are not animations. Your animations are mostly about chemical bonding. I do not think those sequences represent what present-day chemists have in their heads, but it might be close to the thinking in the cubic-atom picture. So I appreciate the effort, and I do not propose to delete them from commons, just to move to their own categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regarding the physics, I would appreciate your feedback on a couple of thoughts Edguy99 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a pretty standard picture of the water molecule done with space filling software Water molecule. It is a powerful representation because it conveys a couple of things very well (there are 2 hydrogen, 1 oxygen, seem to take about that amount of space, oxygen is a bit bigger, there seems to be a certain amount of overlapping going on) - the overlapping shell is important to me in the visual representation as it suggest that hydrogen and oxygen although represented as being very large (53picometers radius for Hydrogen), do not actually crash into each other at this distance, but seem to interact. (from experment 1-2femtometers distance for a crash, I think).

This picture can be extended by trying to represent the electrons. People agree, I think, that at least the valance electrons are in some way associated with the bonding. (Ie, if you knock out these electrons, the bond falls apart). We dont really "see" exactly where they are, but we can tell "generally" where they have an influence hence the Lewis dot structure and other types of pictures may be useful where electrons are tossed in "about" where you think they have an influence to help represent visually the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen.

Moving to the Hydrogen and Oxygen. An important issue to convey in a visual representation of the nucleus is the allowed ratios of protons and neutrons. For instance, you could never have 2 protons without a neutron (stable over time, I mean). Continuing the representation as shells works very well if you layer the shells with the rule that you must have a neutron shell seperating each proton shell (call it an insulator). This provides a very neat pictorial representation of all the elements. If you also allow that certain numbers of extra neutron shells can be added in, you have all of the allowed element nucleus isotopes pictorially represented. The strong force, pictorially, can now be represented as the amount of force required to seperate the shells or energy released by combining them.

The shell layers represent a place we can pictorially represent even more information about the nucleus. If I add structure to the picture of the shell by saying inside the nucleus the shell can form 3 layers and ammend the insulator rule to be a layer rather then a shell, we get a visual representation of the quarks involved here. Up (+2/3) and Down (-1/3) are given different colors and you always have a jump of +/-1 between the quarks inside the nucleus. Now the weak force can be represented as a change (and the resulting change cascade) in the color of the quarks. Edguy99/Nuclear_Physics

To me, this is simply a different way (one of many) of representing information. To use the chemistry shell representation of a hydrogen nucleus for physics does look a little different but does lead to some interesting thoughts. I would be appreciate any comments you would have or if you see an inconsistency with the physics.