On 6/30/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
K P schreef:
On 6/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
...it cites us as explanatory references:
Our physics articles are obviously of citable quality now.
Wow, that's a new high for Wikipedia, sorta, and a new low for particle physics, my apologies to all particle physicists on list for not alluding to infinite boundaries and all the rest.
- That is not particle physics. It is theoretical quantum field theory.
Completely different subject, and hard to see why you would confuse those two.
On behalf of all particle physicists on the list, Eugene
It may be hard to see how I would, but the article on "Unified Field Theories" does, and it's hard to read any further once they do. And how could I resist lobbing such a pretty one to any particle physicists out there?
Wikipedia covers theoretical physics fairly well, and applications of particle physics, too. But falls down on a lot of the related math, not being able to explain the math, simply showing the math, and on technological applications of physics in areas outside of particle physics.
On behalf of those who wouldn't know a Unified Field Theory if one fell out of an apple tree onto their head,
KP