Talk:Waves
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
I've added navigation to some of the sub pages here, but before I go ahead and do the rest, is it a good idea to do this? -- Jimregan 16:07 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hey Jimregan, I tweaked the navigation of the first subpage on the first chapter. I think the new way is a little bit better, and would like to see all of the pages linked this way. What do you think ? Karl Wick 20:43 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- What I think is, it'd be best if we get the sub-page editing that's just come onto the english wikipedia; you can edit the whole page or just a particular section, and it generates a hideable table of contents. -- Jimregan 00:49 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Sub page editing is a very cool feature. My preference is still smaller pages but I am not actively working on the book and the way with the TOC works too.--Karl Wick 03:52 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit]
I went through and standardized all the navigation on these pages, as well as the rest of the book. Every page now begins with a {{ModernPhysicsNav}} template, that provides a back-link to the main page, and to this section. Also, every page has--at top and at bottom--one of the individual navigation templates for use within that particular progression:
All of these templates add pages to the Category:Waves category.
--Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Little Well Earned Praise
From just a quick overview, this book looks like an excellent primer for modern physics regarding the applied mathematics of waves. I have linked to it from several places. Please keep up the good work! mirwin @ Wikiversity.
______________________________________________________________________________
I agree. Thankyou very much for this wonderful resource, it has helped me immensely at school and I can understand it better than my school textbook!
[edit] Stubs
[edit] Thoughts on Merger
This wave article is off to a very good start. Work to do, lots of work to do, but still good work indeed.
The proposal to Merge it with optics, which I removed, has been in place since 7 August 2006 (for over 8 months) without a single comment. I normally discuss before I remove - but if no one supports for 8 months....
As to why I removed, I fully agree that wave mechanics is important to optics, just as it is to:
- Mechanical vibrations - from the violin string to fatigue damage
- Quantum mechanics - wave particle duality, neutrinos, x-rays, gamma rays, etc.,
- Electrodynamics - radio waves, microwaves & all of Maxwell's Equations implications
- Hydraulics - already discussed although much more to say - for example solitons
- Sounds waves - the phonons in solids (lattice oscillations) make a perfectly interesting wave phenomena - supersonic shock waves - atmoshperic waves (or perhaps they belong in hydrodynamics)- blast waves
- Seismic waves - earthquake waves are different enough to warrant their own discussion - you'll never get a Rayleigh Wave (surface acoustic waves) in optics
- Graviational waves - Einstein's and Wheeler's contribution of gravitational physics, with some elegant tensor waves, shouldn't be completely neglected.
- Chemical reactions front - for example the wave effect of the propagation for a deflgration to a detonation is very much a wave phenomena
- Plasma physics includes a complex set of wave phenomena - e.g., the Alfvén wave in a plasma is a traveling oscillation of the ions and the magnetic field.
- Other wave phenomena - e.g., the Fir wave - alternating bands of fir trees in sequential stages of development, observed in forests on exposed mountain slopes - are subject to analytic prediction as well
So yes optics is best understood by understanding wave phenomena, but no - we should NOT merge Waves with Optics. If we do, we wind up merging 80% of all physics with wave phenomena.
Williamborg 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
