Talk:Muon g-2

Minor editorial notes
The sentence with quotes "will either eliminate the discrepancy" is not clearly related to the preceding paragraphs. The discrepancy is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:159:17E0:B56D:2116:5288:5302 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I added an explanation (please put new talk sections at the end of pages). --mfb (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Glukicov (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The aim of this page is to summarise the current status of the g-2 (E989) experiment at Fermilab for the general public, as well as to provide a motivation for doing the experiment and introducing basic theory behind the the magnetic moments of the muon.

This page is not promoting an idea, person, product or organisation. It serves an educational purpose, concerning academic research in high energy particle physics.

Requested move 7 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, while the particle is pronounced gee minus two a hyphen is used in its official name (non-admin closure) Polyamorph (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Muon g-2 → Muon g&minus;2 – The lead says Muon g−2 (pronounced "gee minus two") but the page title uses a hyphen, not a minus sign. RSes use hyphen but COMMONNAME doesn't apply to incorrect/asciified punctuation.  Nixinova   T   C   23:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Was previously at this title but was moved due to the %-encoding making an "unnatural link", which is an invalid move reason.  Nixinova   T   C   23:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: Yes, move it back. Had there even been a discussion? 73.81.124.202 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: See my comment below on user friendliness. --Ferdilouw (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm generally opposed to making things purposefully wrong just because it's easier. We're supposedly aiming for a professional presentation.
 * As for a search not getting any hits, that's a valid concern, but not one that affects the title itself. For the text, there are ways to deal with search engines. I'm not familiar with that, but we could get feedback from WP tech. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Hyphen isn't just in the common name but the official name everywhere at https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov/. The logo also has a short line like a hyphen, not a minus. So do other images . They do say "Muon g-2 (pronounced gee minus two)", but if they wanted the symbol to actually be or look like a minus, I'm sure a big group of particle physicists could figure it out. It doesn't look like an accidental or convenient asciification to use a hyphen. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As a physicist I want to say this: For Python (1-2) is (-1'), but (1−2) gives the ouput ('SyntaxError: invalid character '−' (U+2212)'). My message is: Writing "Muon g-2" is not unprofessional, it is just natural for a person who works a lot with computers for numerical calculations. I think this explains the official website. --Kallichore (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the hyphen is correct. That's what the collaboration uses who named the experiment, that's what secondary sources use as well. There is no "Muon g&minus;2 experiment". Fabricating new names isn't covered by the MOS. WP:COMMONNAME makes no exception for punctuation and the typographic minus sign is clearly against criterion 2 (naturalness). --mfb (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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.
 * Comment Most of these opposes are invalid because Wikipedia's naming policy is to correct incorrect punctuation, as the hyphen is just used for exactly the reasoning Kallichore gave above (it is just natural for a person who works a lot with computers for numerical calculations) <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Update please?
PRL PRA PRD all published today Apr 7, 2021 on the Fermilab results. 73.81.122.198 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

But Nature also published today a paper suggesting the QCD correction is not as big as previously claimed, and the results are actually further confirmation of SM, not a hint of beyond SM. 73.81.122.198 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

aµ
aµ is used with out introducing it. I guess it is (g - 2)/2 but would appreciate an edit from someone more expert than I. It would help the reader follow the numbers being stated. PeterGrecian (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. --mfb (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User-friendly -
For better user friendliness, I'm in favour of using hyphen-minus to make it easier to find the text g-2 using common search facilities like Ctrl-f. Most WP users will not differentiate between hyphen-minus and a proper minus sign −. For typesetting see Hyphen, minus, en-dash, and em-dash: difference and usage in English by Jakub Marian --Ferdilouw (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Strange uncited output number
The output section mentions “The total data output of the experiment is estimated at 2 PB”. I can not find that number in the linked arXiv, and it’s a strange number to come up. Normally experiments like this do not predict what total output vill be other than an upper limit for the current budget period. The paper does mention ~100MB/s processed output. Will not edit right now, a second pair of eyes would be appreciated. 85.228.100.181 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The article cites the ratio of muon mass to electron mass as 220. The correct value is 207.
24.94.26.237 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the values of the PDG 2020 Review of Particle Physics the first 3 digits of the ratio are indeed 207. The number 220 is from this reference. Maybe this reference is outdated and should be replaced by a more recent one. --Kallichore (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Kallichore, thanks for the response, my faith in Wiki was wavering. The reference is interesting – I learned quite a bit – but it seems rather casually written. There are several other flaws, such as noting that they are contributing in five areas: .. and following with a list of four. I don’t think that “outdated” can explain this – my 1978 (paper) PDG handbook gives values for the masses which are each about 1 part in 100,000 higher than the 2020 values, but the ratio has changed by only 1.5 ppm. 206.77 in either case.

Perhaps you could use Fermilab as a reference for this number - https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov/the-physics-of-g-2.html

Philip 24.94.26.237 (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph was a copyright violation, I removed it for now. The discussion is useful, but it needs to be rewritten (using the right ratio). --mfb (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)