Talk:Particle physics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Chart

Does wiki already have a chart like this [1]? I think it would make a nice addition to this (and other) articles.--Deglr6328 07:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Particle physics" or "Particle Physics"

Should this article be redirected from "Particle physics" to "Particle Physics"? Irpen 23:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't redirect. "Particle physics" is in line with Wikipedia's policies on capitalization of article names. -- CYD

I sure won't if you say so. I just asked. Irpen

Template of Particle physics

I proposed to create the "template:particle_physics". See the prototype Template:Particle physics.

Long Lived Particles

I was searching the internet for information about long lived particles and didn't see a wikipedia page about them. Could someone make a page link it to the particle physics page?

The French version of this article is superior

French version: ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physique_des_particules )( http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physique_des_particules&oldid=91556062 )

English version: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics )( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Particle_physics&oldid=552953925 )

It is clear by this comparison which one is better. The present French version is rated B in its Talk page. The present English version is rated C in its Talk page. The English version is actually much too short at the moment to serve as a proper depiction of particle physics, and the French version shows this quite clearly. Furthermore, particle physics topics naturally should be expressed in a hierarchical manner. The French version groups various topics under subheadings as any subject with substantial content should, yet the English version has a single-level table of contents—evidence of its unthoroughness.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Particle physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621201554/http://legacy.kek.jp/intra-e/index.html to http://legacy.kek.jp/intra-e/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Particle physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002214053/http://novelresearchinstitute.org/library/PhysNuclphys196p.pdf to http://novelresearchinstitute.org/library/PhysNuclphys196p.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Particle physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201061558/http://english.ihep.cas.cn/au/ to http://english.ihep.cas.cn/au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Particle Table

Particle table

I made this table (using Wikipedia data), and I thought that it may be useful in this article. Lemesb (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

With a few stylistic alterations for legibility, this should indeed go into the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"High energy physics compared to low energy physics"

A persistent editor has twice added this section. It rambles on about particle masses, includes far too many numbers, states several opinions and violates WP:NOR. The part comparing the scales of interactions in HEP vs chemistry and nuclear physics is good. The rest is not. The definition of "low-energy" physics being physics on the macroscopic scale is utterly wrong. Compare cold-atom physics for an extreme example. This whole section just needs to be a couple of sentences at most. Dukwon (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. I have two issues with this section. First, it gets "low-energy" wrong. There are branches of physics that call themselves low-energy, but in those branches the term has nothing to do with the rest mass of bulk matter. Second, I never thought term "high energy" was counterintuitive at all, even when I was first introduced to the subject as a young grad student. Nor have I seen any articles, blogs, books, or reports that made such a claim. So to me, the entire section is going into great depth to preempt an argument that no one is making.

I have no objections to one or two sentences about why we use the term "high energy" (which I would base on the fact that, almost uniquely among branches of physics, the interaction energies are much higher than the rest mass of the objects that are doing the interacting). But as it stands, I think this section gives the reader a false impression that there is some sort of need to defend the term "high energy". Gdlong (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)