Talk:Domain wall

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Domain wall was copied or moved into Domain wall (magnetism) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Domain wall was copied or moved into Domain wall (optics) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Domain wall was copied or moved into Domain wall (string theory) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Comments

I don't think that this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5496 is a meaningful reference - just has the word "soliton" in the abstract... so often the references in abstruse technical uncontroversial subjects on this site are just randomly tossed in simply because the abstract or title "seems" somehow related, which makes it appear that the writer is a first-year student somewhere...

Please respect the talk page guidelines, <- No! sod off! =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.226 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domain wall in string theory

For some reason the section was removed entirely in this edit. I don't think it was meant to be vandalism, but I kind of came here (from Cosmic string) to read about that domain wall and wouldn't know where else to look, so I've restored it for now.

I'm aware it has a 'in need of attention' tag, but I don't think that warrants removing it outright without mention on the talk page? ...I honestly don't know. -pinkgothic (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about sting theory section

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

The string theory section isn't very clear. The article left some open questions for me:

I've been lead to believe that domain walls in this context are a cosmological phenomenon. Is this true, or would it be expected on a smaller scale as well?
Can some explanation of particular domain wall models be given? How are these models related to the cosmological constant? Do these models explain isotropy?
If I was staring at a domain wall, would I see it, i.e., is it a visible structure?
Per the lead section, a domain wall is a result of symmetry breaking, but what symmetry is broken, and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.164.231 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, this article has been split into three different articles. I will place the expert talk template on the three respective articles. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barkhausen and hysteresis

I'm not sure where the information that the former effect was the cause for the latter came from? It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate, offhand, but it's not cited so I can't see for myself. 150.35.244.246 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

It seems like this article is about three separate things, depending on subfield. If that's the case, we should split the article into those separate topics. If there is something to unite the three concepts (or two of them) other than the name, thereby justifying having just one article, what is it? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point in saying that three different types of domain walls are stated in this article. I would support the splitting of this article; however, there isn't enough content within the three different sections to constitute entire articles. If these sections were expanded, I would support their split later on. Just the fact that they are called the same thing is, in my opinion, enough to support just having one article until there is enough content to be split. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But articles are normally about things, not terms. Could the content go somewhere else if not in newly created articles? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to put them in [en.wiktionary.org], but that is just for defining terms. Looking up "domain wall" on that websites, it provides two sentences on two different types of it. The text in this article looks like it is explaining the history behind the three different kinds of it, which means it belongs here. It could be put into a disambiguation page, but that is also just for providing one-sentence summaries of it, and then linking to their respective articles. In fact, I think your idea might just work. We could just split them into three different articles and mark them as stubs. I don't see anything wrong with it. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think it would be a good idea to merge the Bloch and Neel articles into the resulting Domain Wall (magnetics) and make them redirects. a13ean (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can split this article into three pages and a disambiguation page tomorrow, but as for the merger of the Bloch and Neel articles into Domain Wall (magnetics), I will put up some tags to inform any other people who might care about this enough to talk about it. After about a week, with consensus, we can merge them. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Domain wall has been split into Domain wall (magnetism), Domain wall (optics), and Domain wall (string theory), but the edit history for the text on those articles remains in this article's history. However, this article was moved from "Domain wall" to "Domain wall (disambiguation)", meaning the proposal to merge Bloch wall and Neel wall lead here instead of Domain wall magnetism. There's also a possible copyright violation on that page. That was actually a lot to do. Glad I got that over with! OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only three cases of domain wall appearance

Come on. The page in the present form is almost a disambiguation page between three most important cases of the domain wall appearance in the theoretical physics models. While this is not too bad, it can leave the reader with impression that these are the only cases. I'm going to clarify that "whenever a discrete symmetry is spontaneously broken" can happen in other cases too. And yeah, link from topological soliton page should lead here, not at particular string theory example. VeNoo (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added two examples. Actually I'm quite uneasy with the present disambiguation status of this page. Hey, the Soliton page is not a disambiguation, why the page about domain walls should be? This page can describe general features of domain walls and give an example of some simple model (phi^4 for example) VeNoo (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Bloch wall and Néel wall into Domain wall (magnetism). OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Bloch wall and Néel wall should be merged into Domain wall (magnetism). Both articles talk about domain walls; it is just that these articles focus on two different types of domain walls. They both fall under the category of magnetic walls, so I (User:OmnipotentArchetype0309) and User:A13ean believe that these articles should be merged. Anyone may feel free to leave comments. Consensus will be conducted within a week to determine whether the articles should be merged or not. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.