Talk:Free space (electromagnetism)

Disambiguation page

The introduction to this article uses the same references as the first paragraph of the article on WP. However, it is constructed around these references differently. John R. Brews 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a disambiguation page, since free space also is used in computer disk management and hydraulic engineering? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Does Citizendium have a For..see.. template? I've just added a line myself. John R. Brews 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I intended to do that, but could not find an article describing free space on a computer. John R. Brews 15:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I set up Free space (disambiguation). "electromagnetism" is a placeholder for whatever disambiguating term you want to use for your article. If you like, I'll move the article to the new name and do the necessary housekeeping -- there are tricky parts.

When creating an article, and you think there should be disambiguation, just go ahead and set up a page, such as I did, for the missing articles -- you don't even need to create a preliminary definition, since a redlink will still show up in text search. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

John, is this what you want? {{dambigbox|Free space (xxxx)|Free space}} , where xxxx could be "physics" or "electromagnetism" or whatever, and this article could be moved to the new title as Howard has offered to do for you. The template produces this:

This article is about Free space (electromagnetism). For other uses of the term Free space, please see Free space (disambiguation).

Milton Beychok 17:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Milton: I'd elect Free space (electromagnetism) as the new title. Can you implement this for me? John R. Brews 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Since it will take some time, please stop any main article edits and talk page posts for the next 30 minutes. Milton Beychok 18:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Milton Beychok 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The F, N, and A terms need to be defined

John, the first two equations in the "Classical case" section assume that the reader knows what F, N and A are ... and that may not be a correct assumption. I think the article would benefit from having those terms defined. Milton Beychok 06:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done that. John R. Brews 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum case

This section needs some attention to make it more understandable. That may involve either (i) writing another article that goes into the details of response functions and how they are computed for vacuum, or (ii) adding more detail here, but not so extensive as that. Can anyone help out here? John R. Brews 15:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, my inclination would be option (ii) and a {{See also|Response functions}} or a {{Main|Response functions}} template just under the section header. Although the links would be red, that's okay. Hopefully, red links may motivate others to write the those articles.. Milton Beychok 20:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions

John, Citizendium has existing articles for Speed of light, Electric constant and Magnetic constant , all of which you have defined by in-text hyper-links to NIST. I suggest that those in-text hyper-links be replaced by simply wiki linking those phrases to our existing articles rather than sending the readers off to the NIST website,

There is also an existing article on Vacuum permittivity and the Magnetism article discusses magnetic permeability. I suggest using those two wiki links which would mean that reference (6) would not be needed (it could be placed in the Bibliography subpage when you populate that subpage).

I haven't gone through the entire article as yet ... but perhaps there are even other hyper-linked phrases or phrase references that could also be replaced by wiki links to other existing Citizendium articles.

Please consider these suggestions. And now I'm off to a Thanksgiving dinner for a few hours. Milton Beychok 00:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at this more, but a few instant reactions:

The NIST website is a global source for these numbers; if you go to BIPM for example, they redirect you here. The site also is a useful source for commentary and for other data as well. So it seems to me to be an excellent resource as well as providing clear authority for the values, and the fact that they are exact values. I do think linking the CZ articles is important, though.

I don't think a general article on magnetism is pertinent. The article on Vacuum permittivity covers some of the same ground, and Free space might benefit from some rearrangement to take that into account. I'll look at that more carefully in a few days.

Thanks for your help and for these suggestions. John R. Brews 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Milton Beychok 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Milton: There is a can of worms here that I hesitate to involve myself in. On WP they led to a huge brouhaha that sputters on and off to this day. The underlying issue is that the SI units replace the unit of length by the transit time of light, so how long is it? is answered in seconds of transit for light. That makes c a defined quantity because the metre is how far light travels in 1/c₀ seconds.

I'm not familiar with the treatment of this topic on CZ. Perhaps you can guide me through it. I modified Gaussian units in this respect. John R. Brews 13:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)