Talk:Neutrino theory of light

Context
What we need for the introductory section is a clear statement of what the theory is, who discovered it and when, and why it is important. This should be written in a way that somebody who has a moderate interest in popular science coverage can understand. The rest of the article can be more detailed and specialised but the general reader should be able to at least get a flavour of what this is about. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Introductory section is now good. I think it is important to link the main people behind the theory. I will try to do that now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an odd article. It is a well written piece about a physics theory that is completely wrong. However, it is honest in conceding that. Odd indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC).

Update refs
Anyone who cares could install these recent primary sources in refereed journals, cited in arXiv:1511.07058: [18] W.A. Perkins, The Antiparticles of Neutral Bosons, J. Mod. Physics 4, 12 (2013) [19] W.A. Perkins, Composite Photon Theory versus Elementary Photon Theory, J. Mod. Physics 5, 2089 (2014)05:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layzeeboi (talk • contribs)

Big Red Error Message
Some part of MathML is not being found for generating equation 6 GematriaPublic (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)