Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive February 2022

Featured article review speed of light

I have nominated Speed of light for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on this, and I think the article is in pretty good shape overall. Standard material remains standard material. There's a 2007 study on photon mass bounds which may be of less interest now than when it was added in 2009. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Cyclotron good article nomination

Hey folks - I've torn the article for Cyclotron back to the studs and polished the entire thing up to (I hope) close to Good Article status. I've made the nomination, and would greatly appreciate any help in dragging it across the finish line. The last time I went through the GA process was a decade ago for Show Boat, which is obviously not a terribly similar article. :) Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that's a substantial improvement! Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at it and made some suggestions. ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Atomic clock Good Article Nomination

I am nominating Atomic Clock for GA status. ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Problematic string theory editor

I'd like to point out an editor who has made several edits to string-theory related articles which are of poor quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.238.226.146

I've spotted problems such as:

- Removing valid information for apparently no reason

- Rephrasing wording to make conjectural claims sound definitively, inappropriately.

- Adding dubious or false claims to articles, with citations that are of questionable relatedness or themselves of questionable quality.

Apologies for not going through and reverting all the edits myself -- I am not an expert so I hope someone with more expertise could clean up this mess. 199.111.226.72 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to our attention. It seems to be resolved now. XOR'easter (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on the classification of uncertain radioactive decay modes on Wikipedia

Hi everybody. I'm here to discuss the classification of radioactive decay modes, since I'm currently working on updating the numerical values on the "Isotopes" pages to the (at the time of writing) most recent AME2020 and NUBASE2020 values. However, the different radioactive decay mode notation between the original papers and Wikipedia has kind of thrown a spanner in the works for some of the decay mode intensities. In the NUBASE2020 paper (accessible here), it uses this notation:

(note: α is used as an example in the original paper)

α ? means that the α-decay mode is energetically allowed, but not experimentally observed

α=? means that the α-decay is observed, but its intensity is not experimentally known

I have already posted the same question on the "Radioactive decay" and "Isotopes of hydrogen" talk pages, but have so far received no responses. I'd like to reach a consensus here quickly so that I can edit the articles in one go. Thoughts?

— MeasureWell (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like hoping for consistency ACROSS Wikipedia is pretty optimistic, but if you're updating all of a certain class of pages, it's fine to update them all to the latest standard. Whatever you pick, I would definitely add a note explaining the notation to the page. I always thought "?" meant a doubtful move, and "??" meant one that would probably lead to mate or significant loss of material. :) PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

@PianoDan: Yeah, I figured as much with adding the new notation - after all, it doesn't help introducing new notation if no one understands it, right? :) As for your question on the "?" notation, I'm quite sure that it's just used in the original paper to refer to different states of uncertainty about the decay modes of certain isotopes - it's got nothing to do with Wikipedia's policy (I left a link to the appropriate page in my original message; just scroll down a little bit). Here's the notation expressed using layman's language:

(again, α is used as an example)

α ? means that while it is physically possible for alpha decay to occur in a certain isotope, we haven't seen it occur in an experiment

α=? means that we know that α-decay occurs in a certain isotope, but we don't know the probability of it occurring

Also, I've looked through the "Radioactive decay" talk page, and I've found that the current table is based on NUBASE2016, which uses pretty much the same notation as NUBASE2020 (give or take the notation presented above). If no one else raises any objections, I'll add it to the tables on the "Isotopes" pages later.

— MeasureWell (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment about "?" and "??" was a poor excuse for a joke - that's how they're used in chess notation. PianoDan (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan: This is made even worse by the fact that I do actually play chess and know my chess notation, yet didn't notice the joke. (facepalms) Anyways, since no one seems to have raised any objections, I'll go add the new notation a bit later.

MeasureWell (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan: Actually, I've just realised that there is a slight spanner in the works - the isotope tables use the template use Template:Isotopes table, and as far I as I can tell, the table footnotes do not support the proposed notation. Now, I'm still a relatively new user here, so I'm not 100 % sure how to go about this. Do I just add a separate footnote next to that notation, or do I propose something on the template talk page, or do I do something else?

MeasureWell (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm out of my depth as well. I THINK you can add arbitrary footnotes (See, for instance Mo92), but I'm not sure that's the right approach here. Probably we need adult supervision on this one - is there a regular contributor to the isotope pages you could ping? PianoDan (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan: Sorry for the late reply! I checked the "Isotopes of hydrogen" talk page recently (where I put basically the same question), and users Dirac66 and DePiep are currently on it. I think what I'll do is add a link to this discussion over on the other talk page, mention the "α=?" notation as well, and call this matter resolved for now. Thanks! :)

MeasureWell (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vacuum angle#Requested move 9 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vacuum angle#Requested move 9 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding beta decay of Promethium-147

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask and draw a significant number of eyeballs, but I figured why not here. I already raised this issue on the talk page of Talk:Isotopes of samarium and Talk:Isotopes of promethium, so if it is deemed a bad thing to discuss this at numerous places at once, it can be removed from places where it isn't needed. My question boils down to this: Why is Samarium-147 + one electron a greater mass than Promethium-147? I do not understand where the extra mass/energy comes from. Am I making some mistake here? Is the data wrong? Or is there a beta decay mechanism (which mind you, has a pretty short half life as these things go, unlike double beta decays or some exotic stuff requiring quantum tunneling) which consumes outside energy on the order of half an electron mass? I know there are endothermic chemical reactions which "happen voluntarily" because of entropy, but that still raises the question of where the energy is coming from and whether Promethium-147 can (even in theory) be stopped from decaying if it never receives enough energy to "produce" the electron? Sorry if this is not the place to raise this, but short of calling a nuclear physics department at some university, this seemed to me the quickest way to get an answer... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: I'm not a physicist, but here goes. The more tightly bound a nucleus is, the more energy it takes to separate its component nucleons. Equivalently, you could say that the more tightly bound a nucleus is, the less energy it has altogether, all other things being equal. Due to the equivalence principle, this means that tightly-bound nuclei have less mass than loosely-bound nuclei, all other things being equal.

Samarium-147 (with 62 protons 85 neutrons 62 electrons, mass 146.9148979(26) Da) weighs less than promethium-147 (with 61 protons 86 neutrons 61 electrons, mass 146.9151385(26) Da). Note that the heavier promethium-147 undergoes beta decay, emitting an electron and an antineutrino, and becoming the lighter samarium-147. Where does the mass/energy go, if the created electron somehow remains with the new daughter promethium-147 (i.e. bound-state beta decay, which probably doesn't happen here, but suppose)? Well some energy would be carried away by the emitted antineutrino (in both the antineutrino's rest mass and its kinetic energy), but then the electron will probably be in an excited atomic orbital which, upon relaxation, will release a photon, which has energy.

"Where is the energy coming from" for promethium-147 to be heavier than samarium-147? Well, promethium-147 does have one nucleon being a neutron instead of a proton, and bare neutrons do weigh slightly more than protons. But it could be the case that samarium-147 is just more tightly-bound (and thus lighter) compared to promethium-147 due to some nuclear shell or spin-pairing reason that I don't understand.

"whether Promethium-147 can (even in theory) be stopped from decaying if it never receives enough energy to "produce" the electron" Promethium-147 already has enough energy to create an electron and antineutrino and transmute into samarium-147, and it does so with a half-life of 2.6234(2) y, apparently. BirdValiant (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(I wrote this while BirdValiant was typing. I AM a physicist, but they basically nailed it.) The concept you're looking for is Nuclear binding energy. Some nuclei are more tightly bound than others. The exact reasons why are complicated, and very hard to analyze quantitatively, but they boil down to the possible quantum configurations of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The more tightly bound the nucleus, the lower the mass. Samarium-147 is more tightly bound than Promethium-147, so has lower mass. But you're also asking why that difference isn't the same as the emitted electron.

The short answer is that that difference in binding energy mostly goes into the kinetic energy of the electron (with a tiny bit in the neutrino). Since the mass difference between the two nuclei is always the same, the total energy that is emitted in the decay is ALSO always the same, although there can sometimes be intermediate steps. For this particular reaction, the electron has a kinetic energy of 61 keV. You can get more detail than you ever wanted about this reaction here: [1] by clicking through to Pm-147, and selecting "Decay Radiation". PianoDan (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand my question. I know what happens to "lost mass" in nuclear reactions but the difference between the two masses is smaller than the mass of an electron. Or did I do the calculation wrong? By the by, if you enter "mass of promethium-147" (minus) "mass of samarium-147" (minus) "mass of an electron" into Wolfram Alpha (I know, their database has flaws) you get a negative value. That is: the two nuclei are closer to each other in weight than the electron that's emited weighs. So unless I made a significant math error somewhere (which, again, I think is the most likely explanation) there has to be some place that delivers the "extra mass". The Q-value has a value the other side of zero than what I was expecting, to put it plainly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: As far as I know, atomic mass measures the mass of the neutral atom. So the listed mass of promethium-147 already includes 61 electrons (and their binding energy), and the listed mass for samarium-147 already includes 62 electrons (and their binding energy). There is never a need to "add an electron". BirdValiant (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So to get the correct Q-value you must pretend conservation of charge is violated and ignore the electron? Do you also get values wrong by two electrons (one way or the other) for alpha decay (since helium has two electrons, but the alpha particle doesn't) ?Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: It doesn't happen as far as I know, but it might help to imagine that the electron emitted by the promethium-147 nucleus is immediately captured by the electron cloud. In this case, there is no emitted electron from the system, so there is no reason to add an electron's mass in your calculation. You could also imagine two promethium-147 atoms undergoing the decay, and then imagine that the emitted electrons go toward the two samarium-147+ cations, get slowed down by intervening collisions, and then are captured to produce two neutral samarium-147 atoms. Again, there is no need to "add the electron mass" into the calculation, because they are self-contained in the whole reaction. BirdValiant (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess what I could add is that beta-minus decay of promethium-147 produces a samarium-147+ cation, a high energy electron, and an antineutrino. If you have a lump of promethium-147 that's decaying, the electrons could be captured by the samarium-147+ cations and are self-contained, but the antineutrinos will escape. If the electrons escape (which depends on how big the lump of promethium-147 you have is, and how close the atom you're interested in is located to the edge of the lump), then the lump will become positively charged as the electron escapes away, but then the lump will attract an electron from the surrounding medium and become neutral again in short order. BirdValiant (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Should the article on Q-values (which cites only the example of the beta decay of a free neutron, where the mass of the electron is part of the equation) be edited accordingly? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: The mass of the electron is already part of the reaction of Pm-147 -> Sm-147, because the atomic mass of Sm-147 includes 62 electrons. So, it is incorrect to subtract the mass of an electron, because then your calculation does not reflect the actual physical situation. When you look at what happens when two Pm-147 atoms decay, try to imagine that the electrons get absorbed by each resulting cation. Before they can be absorbed, though, they must lose energy, which they do by bumping into various intervening atoms, imparting energy to them, which is emitted as photons. So the result is that the two Pm-147 atoms turn into two Sm-147 atoms, and the only thing that's emitted from the system is two antineutrinos and the bunch of photons resulting from the high-energy electrons bumping into stuff. BirdValiant (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

First off - the Q-Values article is a mess, and should definitely be cleaned up by a subject matter expert. (I'll think about giving it a go if I have a chance, but it's not quite my area of expertise.)

Second - I really don't understand the arguments about charge conservation. Promethium-147 is neutral. (61 electrons, 61 protons) To convert to a nucleus of Samarium-147, you need to convert a neutron to a proton. You now have 62 protons in the nucleus. To balance that equation, you need to emit a new electron. So when a lump of promethium-147 decays, it emits electrons. Just to be clear - this isn't one of the pre-existing electrons in atomic orbitals. This is a brand new product of the nuclear decay, which is created with too much energy to be captured in orbit around the nucleus.

Third - It is important to note that protons and neutrons don't have the same mass. They also don't have the same effect on binding energy. So converting a neutron to a proton in a nucleus isn't as simple as just counting up the masses of the nucleons. What the Q-Value tells you is that converting a Promethium-147 atom to a Samarium-147(+1) cation (added by BirdValiant) plus an electron plus a neutrino leaves you with 224 keV of energy to allocate. That energy isn't just coming from the mass difference, but also from the reconfiguration of the binding energies.

Fourth - I was actually wrong about the relative allocation between the electron and the neutrino - its 62 keV to the electron, and 162 to the neutrino. PianoDan (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Something else that just occurred to me that may not be obvious, and reading my comments, I DEFINITELY haven't been clear on - beta decays result in charged particles. The equation is in fact Pm-147 -> Sm-147(+1) + electron + neutrino. Probably shoulda led with that. PianoDan (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan: I have edited your reply, I hope that you are okay with it, since I think that leaving it unedited makes things more confusing. BirdValiant (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not bent out of shape at all, but in general that's considered a pretty big no-no, so I'd be very careful doing that in the future. "Cation" is more of a chemistry usage than a nuclear physics one - but then, nuclear physicists tend to ignore the electron shells entirely anyway, which is why it took me so long to remember to include that fact. :) PianoDan (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

if you turn a proton into a neutron (or vice versa) you have not conserved charge. You need to add (or subtract) one elemental charge to the appropriate side of the reaction. Of course this willy-nilly "the electron is implied" thing doesn't make things easier. Maybe it'd help to say: you create a new ion with a single positive elemental charge and an electron that flies on its merry way. (This is of course eventually neutralized, but we do not observe for such a long period in this case). So properly speaking the mass of the product of a beta decay is not the mass of the atom but the mass of the atom with one less electron. Now add the electron back in and it all makes sense. Of course the hyper shortened notation ^xA (-,β) ^xB makes it easy to think that the total mass produced on the product side of the equation is B + β and not B¹⁺ + β - or for lazy people B. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: Sounds like you got it. 😊 I think that the reason why the standard is to write the neutral elements for radioactive decay processes is that experimenters will usually be working with the neutral elements, so those are the ones whose properties (such as atomic mass) will be listed. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not sure how long it would take for an average daughter product of beta decay to become electrically neutral. If the decay happens inside a block of conductive metal, it'd probably happen almost instantly, seeing as how beta particles are stopped by a thin sheet of aluminum foil, which then easily conducts electricity. In a material which is a poor conductor, such as most minerals or air, then I still doubt that it would take very long. Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to the wall, and it won't last more than a few minutes as the charges leak away. So when all is said and done, on a macroscopic level, the "product" will be electrically neutral. BirdValiant (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite true. It's also important to note that even for HIGHLY active sources, the actual CURRENT represented by the emitted electrons is tiny. For example, a 1 Ci lump of substance (which is a LOT of activity) would emit 3.7E10 electrons per second. That's a current of about 6 nA. PianoDan (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Carpet-bombing of articles on Thermodynamics with undeclared self-citations

I bring the attention of physics editors to a thread[2] on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It concerns an editor who I have estimated has added 101 undeclared self-citations to articles on thermodynamics. The justification he gives for doing this is his high and deep level of expertise. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC).

Help with article about Gallery of Atomic Orbitals

I made a draft article you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gallery_of_Atomic_Orbitals. The article is a gallery of complex and real hydrogen-like atomic orbitals up to $n=6$. It was recently rejected on grounds summarized as "Wikipedia is not a gallery". I knew about this and some other risks in making this article. I'd like to make a case for the publication of this article here, or at least get advice for what I should be doing going forward.

First I want to list what I perceive as specific difficulties that will be face publishing this on Wikipedia (based on what I've learned as a recent new editor on Wikipedia so far). (1) Gallery articles are discouraged. It's a little tricky for me to see why this is the case. I will discuss more below. (2) While there are similar visualizations in the literature (I've made some citations), these exact visualizations do not appear in the literature. Especially this many complex and real orbitals up to $n=6$. I could see this being construed as "original research". (3) Finally, earlier this week, there was controversy on this article regarding a naming convention for the real articles. They had been named using only $(\ell ,m)$ in accordance with some conventions at Spherical harmonics#Real_form. A disputer wanted the real orbitals to be named according to "atomic orbital" conventions, like $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$. I labelled the low orbital states using this convention, but there doesn't seem to be a reference which gives names for higher orbitals so I had to leave these off. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there is a reference which shows the real orbitals labeled by $(\ell ,m)$ so this labelling could also be considered unique or original research in some way. (4) The material I present could better fit in existing articles.

Second, I want to list, independent of the "arguments against" above, why this article would be very valuable on Wikipedia. (1) This article addresses an important knowledge gap between the complex and real atomic orbitals. Some atomic physicists or quantum chemists might know that the real orbitals are related to the real parts of complex spherical harmonics, but this knowledge seems to be confined to especially math oriented scientists, and others are left with confusion about the relationship between the real orbitals they learned about in high school chemistry class, and the $m$ labelled orbitals they learn about in their first quantum class. I argue that this understanding gap is related to a lack of available visualizations of the complex orbitals, and especially due to a lack of a nice side-by-side comparison of the complex and real orbitals, along with explanations of each and how they relate to the mathematical wavefunctions. This article directly addresses all of those concerns. (2) This article helps give readers intuition about the geometric patterns in the atomic orbitals. It was years before I understood these patterns myself. "Why do $d$ orbitals look like that and why do $f$ have such crazy names?" (3) Related to (1) and (2), my feeling is that many physicists and chemists would welcome this page as something that clarifies common confusion/curiosity. (4) There is a lot clutter about atomic orbitals on Wikipedia now. There are three pages which cover similar material Atomic Orbital, Hydrogen-like Atom and Hydrogen Atom. Two other pages of relevance are Spherical Harmonics and Hydrogen. I think the introduction of a page dedicated to the expression for hydrogen orbitals and its visualization would allow the declutter, reorganization and merging of these pages. For example, there could be more focus/emphasis on alternative or historical approaches to describing orbitals, or more modern techniques for more complicated orbitals.

Third, my response to the 4 reasons above why this might not be a good candidate article. (1) Wikipedia is not a gallery. Any math or physics person knows that the pictures give so much more detail and intuition so much more quickly than the algebraic formula for the atomic orbitals. This gallery is a tabulation of possible forms of that equation, all for the purpose of giving the reader a better understanding of that equation, how it is used, and what it means. Though it is pretty to look at, the gallery is not sitting there as a repository of image to be looked at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links,_images,_or_media_files), it is there to increase mathematical understanding. Perhaps someone can better explain to me why such a gallery isn't suited for Wikipedia, beyond just quoting some "guideline". (2) Original research on visualizations. The same code that generates the real p-orbital visualization (which appears in every chemistry textbook) generates that complex f-orbitals. It is all visualizations of the same equation. Beyond this I don't have much more rebuttal. It may be that the high order orbital visualization do constitute original research by Wikipedia's definition. (3) Original research on orbital nomenclature, Again I don't have a strong rebuttal here. I'm using formulas available on Wikipedia and in my references that I cite. I don't think labelling an equation is original research but maybe others know better than me. (4) Material could fit on existing page. I don't disagree with this point, but I do think the material stands best on its own page. There it can take up the necessary amount of space to show a number of images without rapidly cluttering up another article that is meant to do many different things at once. Of course, putting it on this page at first would be redundant with the other pages, so there would be work to be done in de-duplicating things and making appropriate merges.

Fourth, finally my questions. (1) I'm curious for a general response to all I have said above. Especially explanations on why Wikipedia shouldn't have galleries and what I've been doing may constitute original research. (2) What is an appropriate venue to discuss the reorganization ideas I have in mind for atomic orbital content? (3) Would you, as a physicist or chemist be excited to see this page? (4) If this article can fly, what should I do at this point? (5) If this article really can't fly, would it be appropriate to dump these images onto the atomic orbitals page? (6) If these images aren't fit for Wikipedia at all could someone please suggest an alternative publication venue for me that I could pursue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistar48 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for being eager to improve Wikipedia. This is a LOT to respond to, so you may have editors deciding that they don't have the spoons to go through and respond to everything. I am afraid that includes me at the moment. BUT, let me start you off by pointing you to the relevant official policy about galleries: WP:GALLERY. This outlines some of the reasons why they are generally discouraged, but also points to a few that have survived. If you want to nominate your article via AfC, I'd suggest tailoring it around the policy there. Alternatively, you could simply publish it on WP:COMMONS. PianoDan (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:PianoDan, thank you for your comment. I've went ahead and made an appeal through AfC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#07:13:37,_22_February_2022_review_of_submission_by_Twistar48. I'm leveraging the language you pointed me towards in WP:GALLERY to try to support that this a "valuable" rather than "forbidden" gallery for Wikipedia. Any support I could get from physics/chem folks would be valuable I think.

I do realize that, given the existing content in atomic orbital, [hydrogen atom]] and hydrogen-like atom, some of the support for my article relies on pending re-organization of those pages which I think would be beneficial with or without the existence of my new draft page. As I say in my appeal, those three articles have a lot of redundant material as they jockey to all cover essentially the material I would like to have in my draft page. As I say in the appeal again, this article would relieve those three articles of that burden so they could more clearly address their stated topics. Of course, an alternative approach would be to identify one of those articles as the single article which will carry all of the info and visualizations about the mathematical solutions to the non-relativistic schrodinger equation in which case there would be a clear spot to put such a gallery within an article. However, that would require deleting a lot of material from the other 2, and I think it would be a difficult case to get authors to agree on a merge strategy. In any case, while I think the dedicated article is a more clear way to organize things, I'm open to and welcome alternative suggestions about how to improve the nexus of Wikipedia's presentation of atomic orbitals.Twistar48 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Odderon Discovery

To a chemist, this draft looks like it might be either good particle physics, fringe particle physics, or technical bafflegab intended to read like good physics. Comment, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:XOR'easter, maybe? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is good particle physics. Here's the non-technical summary from CERN: [3] PianoDan (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

However, is there any reason for this to be a separate article from odderon? I shouldn't think so. PianoDan (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've declined it as there was already an article on odderon, expanded from a redirect in January a month before the draft was started. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like the right move. Language like The paragraphs below reflect the personal views of the Hungarian-Swedish team and not the one of D0 and TOTEM collaborations suggests that significant amounts of text may have been copied from elsewhere, or at the very least, odderon needs editing for tone. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've cut down the draft significantly. The draft and article were part of a conflict about who actually did the discovery - a competing analysis of the data by people not on the teams collecting the data, or the analysis of the data by the teams collecting the data. So the articles were about papers and preprints, not physics. I made some suggestions of web sources for explanation of the physics on the talk page, but if someone has access to the Nature source

• Leader, Elliot (October 2021). "Discovery of the odderon". Nature Reviews Physics. 3 (10): 680. Bibcode:2021NatRP...3..680L. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00375-6. S2CID 239686382.

and could add something to the article that would be great. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)