Misplaced Pages

User talk:SCZenz

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohwilleke (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 19 August 2005 (→Neutralinos etc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:38, 19 August 2005 by Ohwilleke (talk | contribs) (→Neutralinos etc.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Particles

Good work. I see that you and Xerxes have pretty much done the clean up that I thought I would do. I'd begun to remove the totally unnecessary pages on every antiparticle. Thanks for pitching in and especially for redoing the particle template. Bambaiah 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Crap

I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. DirectorStratton 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

particle classification

The category "subatomic particles" is catch-all: analogy is to the main data tables in the particle data book (although there is no need to be so inclusive). The categories "fermion" and "boson" I believe are useless categorizations and should be removed. Particles can be in more than one category.

It's not totally clear to me whether one should go for a lepton/hadron classification or a elementary/composite classification. The 1st has the advantage that it already exists, and although there are particles which may not be either, the spillover can always be acccomodated into "subatomic particles". The 2nd makes more sense within the standard model (or its extensions), and with the article that you are writing/have written. The composite category can easily be subdivided into things like "hadron", "nuclear isotopes" etc.

I was wondering whether this discussion should be initiated in the wikiproject: particles, but that seems to have been started by some undergrads, and is anyway defunct. If you and one or two others are willing to revive it in order to put this discussion on record, then it may be useful. --Bambaiah 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Black hole electron

I just want to assure you that objections are unlikely, at least before we see what you do with it. The person most likely to object is Don, whose original research resulted in the creation of the black hole electron page, and he has been very cooperative.

I personally want to see what you can do with that page. Be bold. That page needs it. --EMS | Talk 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi,

thought I'd extend my welcome as well. The main physics project page is at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics although what you really want to watch (and participate in) is the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics. Note also that Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics is also often highly relevant, and, as mathematics is a somewhat older project on WP, has a lot more activity/participation. Anyway, welcome! If you have questions, concerns, comments, uncertainty, complaints, etc. or find yourself irratated at some person or WP process, or ettiquette, please, don't hestitate to ask me or (better yet) voice them on the project talk pages. linas 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As of 2005

Inserting "as of" links is - as far as I know - not an "official" Misplaced Pages policy, only a recommendation. Still, it is a systematic way of "currency tracking", and it is useful as such, although I would agree it is much more useful for more obscure pages that are not likely to be updated quickly after the facts change. GregorB 21:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. String theory article says: "As of 2005, string theory is unverified." This may also sound silly; if someone managed to prove that string theory is correct (or wrong) - well, to put it mildly, people would notice... GregorB 22:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. I can't imagine a scenario like: "Bang! String theory is now (dis)proved." Even if such a thing was within reach of today's physics, it would probably take a decade to decide one way or the other. String theory article going without an update for 10 years? I don't know... :) GregorB 22:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kaons

Certainly the lifetimes should be attributed only to K-long and K-short. The remainder are errors. Please feel free to correct. Bambaiah 06:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sidam

Hi, SCZenz. You, I and others have had to revert User:Sidam's soliloquies many times. I'm not sure whether to classify him as a vandal or just someone who doesn't get the point of Misplaced Pages. I think it's about time we raised this issue on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. This is the best way I can think of to bring this problem to wider attention. If I submit a complaint, would you be willing to countersign it? --Heron 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutralinos etc.

With regard to neutralinos you have a good point. Rather than simply omitting any reference to them, however, I think a brief statement distinguishing the two would be better, as the name certainly invites confusion. You might want to try to craft it as a sort of see also. It wouldn't be strictly a disambiguation, but along the same lines.

With regard to the fourth generation point, I have read juried articles on neutrino mass that address that question. I'm sorry that I do not have references at hand, as I am writing from memory. In any case, it pretty much follows from the standard model itself that this is where you would look.

With regard to quantum gravity, many computer models have already looked at neutrinos as dark matter candidates (and rejected them) and the statement speaks for itself to some extent.

Apologies if I missed anything. Ohwilleke 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)