Talk:Relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution

Would anyone object if I rewrote this page from a particle physics point of view? The main article on the Cauchy distribution already covers the mathematical properties of the function. I'll wait a while before messing around with it to see if there are any comments. Thanks. HEL 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a shot at rewriting the page. If anyone objects to the changes, please let me know! HEL 00:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Graph

Could someone post a graph of the PDF and/or it's integral? Craig Pemberton (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Graph provided in 3 linked articles, on resonance, the forced oscillator, and the Cauchy distribution. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference

Could someone give a reference for a textbook or a paper which covers the theoretical background, especially the mentioned connection to propagators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.114.141 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

L S Brown QFT text adduced is hard to beat. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference

Here, you can find the original paper which introduce this theory. Could you add this reference in the article? Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Formula

The provided formula is, of course, incorrect. It is not E^2 - M^2 in the denominator (subtraction of two quantities out of which one is Lorentz-invariant and the other is not is a rare thing). It is P^2 - M^2, where P is the 4-momentum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.65.1 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Skip the aggressively clueless "of course", please. It is reiterated, twice, that the relativistically invariant variable involved is evaluated at the center of mass of the decaying particle to E ². Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Resonance DE

I reinstated the correct resonance DE which was removed today. It is harmless, and connects to the forced damped oscillator article and the Cauchy distribution which the physics student might or might not easily connect to, and so go through life wondering why particle and nuclear resonances are called that! The experienced reader might be able to work this out in their head, but one really does not welcome "huh?"s. If editors feels strongly, the DE could readily be demoted to a footnote, but dropping it altogether cannot be helpful to the novice.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)