Talk:Proton spin crisis

Comments

Article should be updated with results reported here: http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.012001

Comments by 197.237.156.10

Dear,

To me it looks correct - the s-wave being the lowest known energy state in QM. Also, the link to "wave" opens with the statement regarding a QM wave.

I assume you may lift the "TBD" on this page.

Thanks,

John Molenaar (Biochemical Analyst, studying Quantum Physics remotely at e-learning programme of the MIT).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.237.156.10 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Please see my concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Comay. (Though now that that page has been deleted, it is not immediately apparent what the problem is.) I believe that an expert should check the article for POV problems, though it is possible that there aren't any. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

s-wave

Is the mention of s-wave the correct type? The hyperlink seems to be of an actual physical wave, versus the s-waveFUNCTION that is implied when discussing protons in their ground state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.105.57 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update/newer source

The reference for "...and possibly additional pairs of quark and anti-quark" is from 1984. I was under the impression that deep inelastic scattering results have confirmed the "sea quarks" with confidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.84.161 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]