Talk:Rydberg matter

The research is questionable
It is worth pointing out that most of the atomic physics community does not share the interpretations described in this article. That community does not find the "Rydberg matter hypothesis" compelling or plausible. Some evidence of these doubts in the community can be deduced from the record of citations, which, if you look them up, are almost all self-citations, with the non-self-citations expressing strong doubts about this research credibility in nearly all cases. It seems important, at the very least, for this skepticism to be pointed out somewhere in this article.--QMlad (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The above statement is unjustified. There were no controversial publications in the literature on Rydberg matter. It would be good to give at least a citation from the above "comminity" against solid data and publications available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.128.192 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer: The comment above does not follow guidelines and is unscientific
The comment above tells more about the person giving the comment than he or she realizes... It also demonstrates a strange neglect of the scientific process which relies on peer-reviewed published evidence and not on "common belief". The comment above clearly does not follow the talk page guidelines.

My first reflection on this type of comment to the research on Rydberg Matter that I have been involved in for more than 20 years is that Rydberg Matter is not atomc physics at all but cluster physics, chemical physics and condensed matter (metal) physics, and thus that few members of the atomic physics community probably have anything valuable to say on this subject. To make a simple analogy, the atomic physicist is like a very skilled carpenter making a very efficient boat in a fleet of vessels. However, the use of the boat for example in a sea-battle or in a race or whatever use it is applied to is far beyond the horizon of the carpenter. As a chemist, I am often forced to observe a similar analogy in the interaction with atomic physicists, since they believe deeply that they can apply atomic physics to molecules and the condensed phase with no adaption of their methods or theories. As most other scientists know, this is a false approach. As a simple example, I can mention that the most common argument against the existence of Rydberg Matter is that there are no Rydberg series in the spectrum of Rydberg Matter, that is, no highly excited electrons moving between different principal quantum numbers n around the ion cores in the atoms in Rydberg Matter. This may seem as a clear argument against Rydberg Matter which should be formed by the condensation of Rydberg states.

However, this argument is not only false but false in such a spectacular way. My first question is if there is a sodium spectrum (absorption or emission) to be observed from a piece of solid or liquid sodium metal (convenient since alkali atoms most easily form Rydberg Matter)? I believe that many atomic physicists would answer yes to this question but such an answer is of course wrong, since the outermost electrons in the Na stoms are involved in the metallic bonds in the sodium metal and thus in entirely different levels than in the Na atom. My second question is then if it is possible to observe the hydrogen atom spectrum (possibly even as Rydberg series) in absorption or emission from hydrogen molecules. I will not speculate on the answer to this question from any atomic physicist, but the answer is of course no, since the electrons are in entirely different quantum mechanical levels, giving the covalent bond between the atoms, and thus forming the hydrogen molecule.

Now, I just want to point out that the outermost electrons in the atoms forming the Rydberg Matter are delocalized in metallic states which give the metallic-type bonding in the Rydberg Matter clusters. Thus, they are not able to give any Rydberg series since they do not belong to just one atom but are delocalized over the whole cluster, or even over the whole stack of clusters which is easily formed. Thus, they form states much more resembling delocalized molecular orbitals in large polyatomic conjugated or aromatic molecules. These facts are well understood, but are possibly not considered relevant within the field of atomic physics.

Of course, our research in this field has not stopped at this fundamental understanding. Even if the outermost electrons are involved in metallic delocalized bonds, the inner electrons in the atoms in the Rydberg Matter are still available for experimentation, and they should indeed be able to exist in Rydberg orbits and should be able to be observed as such. Of course, no full Rydberg series are expected for these inner electrons, but the Rydberg levels should be observable. As shown in a few papers, this is indeed possible. Direct experimental proof is given in "Stimulated emission spectroscopy of Rydberg Matter: observation of Rydberg orbits in the core ions", Appl. Phys. B 87 (2007) 273-281; "Nuclear spin transitions in the kHz range in Rydberg Matter clusters give precise values of the internal magnetic field from orbiting Rydberg electrons", Chem. Phys. 358 (2009) 61–67. Also papers like "The diffuse interstellar band carriers in interstellar space: all intense bands calculated from He doubly excited states embedded in Rydberg Matter", Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 384 (2008) 764–774 and "Direct observation of circular Rydberg electrons in a Rydberg Matter surface layer by electronic circular dichroism", J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 276206 are of direct relevance to these questions. Thus, it is shown that Rydberg electrons exist in the condensed phase Rydberg Matter. I can only regret that some individuals are not willing to study the available evidence. Holmlid (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

COI
Holmlid, it is clear that you are having a conflict of interest (please read this page in details, it will save you a lot of frustrations) by editing this article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your research. Please recuse from editing this article, otherwise, I fear a edit war is upon us. This is not a comment on you or your research, it simply is that one cannot be trusted to be neutral about his own self.

I've contacted WikiProject Physics (where several physics PhD and other expert abound) for feedback on this article. If the article is indeed neutral, then it will be found neutral. If the article isn't neutral, it will be edited and made neutral. Thus you shouldn't have anything to fear from an enhanced level of scrutiny. You are welcomed to comment on the revisions made by other editors (for example, if an important aspect is left out), but from experience, it is best to not interfere (aka revert their edits, or restore deleted material) with them.

In the meantime, you could contribute to the project by going through WikiProject Physics' cleanup listing. There is plenty of things to edit there (divided by the type of editing that needs to be done), and your expertise will be very helpful.

Cordially. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the editing
Headbomb it seems that you have misundertood the editing of the article. I have no conflict of interest with this article. I have written it together with other scientists in this field. All information is referenced and the references are published in refereed scientific journals. No relevant publications have been excluded. What has been removed from my recent editing is the attempt to include and correctly answer the worries presented by the talker QMlad in the first item of this discussion page. Thus your editing and actions are non-productive since you (or someone else?) have removed the answer I was obliged to put into this article. Holmlid (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You cite your own work, and not only once (out of 42 references, 26 are from you). That's a major conflict of interest (please read that page). Also, on Wikipedia, when concerns are raised on the talk page, the answer it not to write a rant such as "Since this type of research is not mainstream within the field of atomic physics, some scientists within atomic physics have strong objections towards the numerous experimental studies of Rydberg Matter (see the discussion page)." in the article. That is why it was removed by User:MaterialsScientist (I would have removed it too).


 * In general, the further away from original papers we can stay, the better off we are, at it lessens the chance of original synthetis happening (see WP:PRIMARY). Aka, in an ideal world, literature reviews and books from several different authors, and original papers only for historical references. See the quark article for an example of a good Book/Review/Papers balance.


 * Regards, Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Stubbify
"Rydberg matter" seems to this reader, from a theoretical point of view, to be scientifically implausible. The claim is made that when Rydberg atoms become bound together into a condensed state the electron orbitals remain circular and of large radius. This is unlikely because the interactions between the outer orbitals, which give the binding, will inevitably mix them into extended states to produce what has commonly been known for a long time as a metal. It is also implausible that inner orbitals retain circular shape, as the thermodynamic tendency will be for the system to condense into its lowest energy state, which is a compact metallic particle with compact orbitals. Theory aside, two things concern me. First, there does not seem to be any definitive and generally accepted experimental evidence that "Rydberg matter" does actually exist. Second, most of the references in the article are to original research literature and the article reads like a paper of original research pushing the particular POV that Rydberg matter does actually exist. Because of these preconceptions of the article, an innocent reader could be misled into thinking that the subject has more mainstream acceptance than it does. This leads me to think that the topic is on the fringe and therefore not suitable for a full encyclopaedic treatment at this stage. I suggest that it be stubified, its speculative and non-mainstream nature made manifest and its references cut down to three or four. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Theory should not dominate over reality
The views expressed by [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe] place (bad) theory in front of experiment and reality. This has been shown to be a false procedure in the history of science. The studies cited in the article on Rydberg Matter are almost all experimental and they show that Rydberg Matter exists and can be studied by numerous methods. If this is understandable to atomic physicists or not should not be a point to deal with for Wikipedia. The theory of Rydberg Matter is anyway well understood. Of course it is a metal, that is very clear from both theory and experiments. However, it is a metal with high-l electrons, which might help [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe] to understand that it does not shrink to a normal metal with l=0. A shortening of the article on Rydberg Matter is of course feasible, as long as reality is in front of theory. Holmlid (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that, in physics, experiment always outranks theory, so the scepticism that I expressed on theoretical grounds about the existence of Rydberg matter may be ignored, if wished. What cannot be ignored, however, is the paucity of experimental evidence that Rydberg matter actually exists. The structure of bulk crystalline and amorphous condensed matter can be identified directly by X-ray diffraction, by electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. The structure of buckyballs and nanotubes is clearly observed by electron microscopy. Even the structure of graphene is on firm foundations. The same cannot be said for Rydberg matter: the evidence for it is based only on spectroscopy and speculative modelling. There does not seem to be direct observational evidence and the jury of mainstream opinion is still out. Until there is widespread acceptance of the subject, it is best to treat it as a fringe topic as I have suggested above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Or phrased differently, we should stick to reviews and books on this topic, unless detailing history (such as Bob Smith hypothesized X in 1985). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments by [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe] are wrong. Rydberg Matter exists mainly in the form of various shaped clusters with relatively weak bond energies. This means that none of the mentioned techniques can be used. For example, even a large particle of almost any material is destroyed by electron microscopy and that its structure is clearly observed is not in general true. What is observed in most cases is only the gold deposition cover on the particle or macromolecule, not the particle or molecule itself. In the case of an ordinary molecule, its structure cannot be determined by any of these methods, definitely not in the case of a free molecule. The methods used to find the shape of molecules (without support) are spectroscopic, exactly as we have used in our group. For small molecules, also electron scattering is useful, but not the methods mentioned by [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]. The methods to find the shape of weakly bonded clusters are also mainly spectroscopic. For example, the method used to determine the shape of the C60 molecule (the first fullerene) was mass spectrometry, which is also one of the main methods used in our group. The rotational RF spectroscopy we use for the Rydberg Matter clusters is the best method known for a highly symmetric molecule. Thus, we use the best methods possible, contrary to the belief of [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]. You need to realize that the normal referee process is much more thorough than you can even approximate: we would not be able to publish these results if our methods were not the best ones possible.Holmlid (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing oneself
User [User:Headbomb|Headbomb] states that it is incorrect for an editor to cite oneself. However, the policy is "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." I have indeed followed this policy in the Rydberg matter article, only citing refereed scientific papers published in main-stream scientific journals. The allegation is incorrect. Holmlid (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please examine WP:COI and WP:UNDUE. The article lacks modesty in citing yourself. Just to give one example, "Rydberg matter can exist for days in the experiments" is not to be supported by refs. 12,35. Materialscientist (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the parts COI and UNDUE, and there is no conflict with anything written there. If you believe otherwise, please be specific. Concerning the cited sentence "Rydberg matter can exist for days in the experiments" the references are correct since the experiments take several days to perform, that is the measuring time is days during which the Rydberg Matter exists in the equipment and is constant. This should be obvious from the description of the experiments. In Ref. 12 it is even stated more precisely "After a few days at room temperature, the Rabi-flopping signal is restored" that is the Rydberg Matter is reformed on the surface and exists there continuously after that. Thus the comment by [User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist] is wrong.Holmlid (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a conflict. You cite yourself, and that's a big no. There is nothing wrong with citing oneself' provided that your own work does not form the bulk of the references given, that you cite yourself for historical purposes, and that your work has had a great level of scrutiny than mere publication (I use 'mere publication', fully knowing that it's no easy feat to get published). This is not what is happening here, you are citing yourself to make claims than cannot be found elsewhere aka original synthesis. If they can be found elsewhere, aka in secondary or tertiary sources, such as reviews or books, then use those reviews (and you will see opposition to the inclusion of your work disappear).


 * This is not a critique on the quality of your work, or on your quality as a scientist, it simply means that your research, like all things which have not yet been suject to reviews, is not mature enough for Wikipedia yet. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is definitely and clearly a WP:COI violation (among others). The article look just like a research review, which is not what Wikipedia is about. That is great, but not here. So please root out all the (evil) self references and clean up the text so it is neutral and aesthetically simple. Wikipedia is full of examples of way more important and fundamental research articles that only have a few references. So for this I'd like to see a maximum of 5-10 refs. from DIFFERENT and INDEPENDENT authors. If this is not done, I think there are strong reasons to completely remove or rewrite the article. Jahibadkaret (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that simple - there are almost no independent sources, this rare topic has been exclusively developed by the group of Holmlid. We tried to have the article deleted (see top of this page). This is not to say it should be left alone. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I Think you applying WP:UNDUE very strongly. All it suggests is that heavy self-citation is strongly discouraged (emphasis mine). However, this is a science article, and not only that, but a highly focused and specific area of condensed matter physics. As you are probably well aware, it is not unheard of that two adjacent PIs in a condensed matter physics wing might need to attend a seminar course and read a stack of articles in order to understand each others' work. I would like to think that primarily the in-field peer-review process should be the primary gatekeeper (which has already been invoked through the actual publication process of the citations), not a bunch of WP editors - even if they might be experts in CM. (The impact factor/reliability/neutrality/etc. of the journals to which the primary author has published do bother me a little bit, but I'm not going to open that can of worms and I don't think it's relevant to go there here). I do agree more on the Notability problem and possibly the SYNTH problem, although we might be still be able to salvage the article if someone took the time to go through it and actually read the citations to remove egregious unsubstantiated statements. If you really really feel the article should not be included, then you should rely on the Notability guidelines (which this topic clearly fails to meet - no reliable 3rd party/secondary sources) and not WP:COI (since, as I said before, the peer review process of the original sources should theoretically automatically make them verifiable and reliable). In your previous attempt to AfD it was clearly keep with only a single stubbify vote. Cowbert (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to the AfD is here Articles for deletion/Rydberg matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Ok seeing as how most of the keep votes on the previous AfD were all in bad faith (by various now-banned sockpuppets, etc.), feel free to AfD it again. Cowbert (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with User:Cowbert on this. In a highly specific, one might say even obscure area of science it's not impossible that there are only a couple of researchers well-informed in it. Consequently, we as the community should not scare them off with relentless and tendentious Wikilawyering. Speaking of reliability of the peer-review, the Nature article on this shows the not invented here syndrome that the Western science establishment suffers from. In the BBC article that claimed the first synthesis of Rydberg matter, Chris Greene says that he invented Rydberg matter. The article is from 2009, while Holmlid has publications from 1992 and 1998 indirect and direct detection of Rydberg matter, respectively. OK, that may not be that bad as is, as it's possible that he and Manykin worked in parallel as often happens, but the Nature article referred to has zero references to Manykin or Holmlid. Consequently, any rational person must recognize that either the review process simply failed (which is the likely explanation), or that it was tendentious (possible, although a bit tinfoily). I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but not citing the original discoverer is either sloppy or malicious. In this case, Wikipedia is doing a great job here in publishing encyclopedic accounts of up-to-date research, and we should recognize this, encouraging the participation of even active researchers. They should be aware that Wikipedia is not a scientific publication. (Disclaimer: I work in an unrelated field, chemical engineering, and with an unrelated topic, and don't know Manykin, Holmlid, Greene, owners, editors, etc. of Nature, Wikipedia, University of Stuttgart, etc. etc. etc.) --vuo (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Section in Deuterium article
The Deuterium article has a section on "ultradense deuterium" that has all the same problems that this article has.--75.83.76.23 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

expert-subject tag
I've added the expert-subject tag, since there seems to be little evidence that the material in this article is taken seriously by anyone in the field of condensed matter physics, other than Holmlid and some cold-fusion kooks. The article should probably be deleted entirely.--207.233.87.87 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see the article was AfD'd before but was supported by a fan club. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC).
 * If it it true "little evidence that the material in this article is taken seriously by anyone in the field of condensed matter physics", then by, now there should be textbooks or review articles that devote a sentence to the theory, and mention the contrary experimental evidence. Where are they?165.121.80.216 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

More discussion of experiments?
I came across this article while looking for more general information on "radio recombination lines" than that from nrao.edu. (An article on that subject is still needed.) But it was disappointing to see the above comments about this article. One of the few agreements seems to be that "experiment outranks theory". Since the critics have not supplied references showing the supposed disagreements, why not do a rewrite that includes more explanation of experimental results?

For instance, the introduction could say "... it was predicted around 1980... and seems to [explain, agree with, etc ...] observations [list chronologically..] ..."

The article contents, before the "Physical, Lifetime, etc sections, could start with "Observations" or "Experiments", describing generally what was measured using what methods, what results were consistent with the theory described below, and what was not or was undetermined. I would guess most of the references are already there, you just need to add names to them to cite them earlier in the article.  This section  would also be the place for a paragraph giving new references denying any observable effect at all, if there are such articles.

For instance, did the 1980 theory explain any prior anomalous observation of any kind, or was it necessary to design specific experiments to see anything? Hope to learn more about this subject after a rewrite! 165.121.80.61 (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As a non scientist it is interesting to come to WikiP and learn more in the talk section than the main body of an article! I can understand every ones point here, but agree totally with 165.121.80.61 - don't delete the article, or diminish its importance - but maybe start with a history of why Rydburg matter is even believed to exist! Was this belief based on a theoretical indication or an experimental observation/anomaly? Who first observed it or theorised it? How did that observation or theory come about ie what was the precedence? Show any counter arguments. Describe the experiments made to test any theories or repeat any observation/anomalies. Describe the result of these tests. Show, with logical & rigorous connections, why the author of any papers referenced may be entitled to their conclusion. With the same rigour, show any counter arguments that may have been lodged over the procedure or interpretation of those experiments.

This way of writing the article will solve all points of view expressed here in this talk, of being neutral - whilst still being educational on a "cutting edge" and still debated physics phenomena. 60.240.181.62 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rydberg matter vs. Rydberg polaron... umm...
It's kind of hard to get to the point of this article, but is Rydberg polaron the same thing as this? They both appear to be talking about nested atomic nuclei inside the valence shells of other atoms of the same type. Just by reading this page (at least what I could gather, the summary is lacking, no other general info is available, and I'm not about to tackle particle physics / chemistry research papers right now) and comparing with summaries of the polaron research online, they look very similar, or like two different areas of research into the same thing. Both involve limited-size condensates of same-element atoms anyway. Somebody with more knowledge of the subject might want to look into that and maybe coordinate with the polaron page. Similarly I'm kinda failing to see how Rydberg molecule differs semantically from Rydberg matter, the only difference being that the molecule page is claiming experimental results that are much newer and from a different research group. They even mention seeing if they can produce multi-atom versions now that they've managed an atom-atom bond. Purdue 2016 Press Release ...   If there is a fundamental difference here, perhaps it should be explained somewhere. Otherwise these pages should probably be merged... :P   A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly Gravitas, as far as I can tell this isn't a real thing. The two non Homlid citations the article starts with appear to probably be real, but they're also not things you can verify yourself because one is some obscure Soviet journal and the other is a conference abstract. Another problem is that as far as I can tell Homlid wrote this entire article, and based off of what's said in the article/what I saw in one of his reviews, he has a lower than undergrad understanding of quantum mechanics, so who knows if those papers actually predict Rydberg matter, and if they do, I guarantee that they don't predict the "ultra dense" stuff he's trying to shove. In general, while I haven't counted/verified everything, I would be surprised if the number of correct sentences in this article outnumbers the number of incorrect sentences. I'll maybe give it another go at deletion later on that focuses more on how this topic has no mainstream acceptance which makes it worthy of a stub at the very best and how as is most of the info is verifiably incorrect and less on Homlid's COI.


 * It's not clear to me how this is supposed to differ from Rydberg polarons, but Rydberg polarons are definitely real and don't have the properties claimed in this article. The boundedness of them is more akin to the Lamb shift which definitely wouldn't have the super short bond lengths claimed, albeit I don't think that particular claim made it into the wiki page. As for Rydberg molecules, they're definitely different. It sounds like that particular butterfly rydberg molecule might be basically the same thing as a rydberg polaron, but in general rydberg molecules refer to the molecule analogue to rydberg atoms and have been studied for almost a century now. The big distinction there being that the butterfly molecule is made by combining two rydberg atoms, while a rydberg molecule is made by exciting an already existing molecule. Even if we were to discover that they're all the same phenonmenon, Rydberg molecules would still deserve its own page because they're a historically important scientific concept. Even today there are some particularly hard to study systems whose only experimental spectrums come from Herzberg's old rydberg molecule studies. 198.137.18.248 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article (still) exist?
There are no references papers since 2013, and no normal talk discussion centering on the usual matters of improving an article. More baffling is how there is no WP cautionary questionability-note at the top of the page of any sort, with the whole thing sounding like vixra junk-science, to the extent that it should have been deleted years ago JohndanR (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not wikipedia savvy enough to know how to properly get this article deleted, but you're right. This article needs to be deleted. This is the kind of stuff that litters my university spam folder. It's pure and simply cold fusion crackpots using wikipedia as a guise of legitimacy. Even worse, Rydberg matter as a concept, that is a lattice of rydberg atoms, does make sense. The problem is that it would not have the properties described. It has Rydberg atoms in it. Rydberg atoms are really big and are therefore not dense. 2600:6C5A:467F:EBBA:4C61:E608:9426:C1F2 (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC) 05:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is an improvement still being looked upon?
Is there actually an interest in seeing improvements to the article? I have a broad, general knowledge on the subject and familiarity with the papers published by Holmlid's group(s), but if the article is in a limbo just waiting to get deleted, it might not be worth the effort here. Perhaps it might be useful to identify first what other people think (as of 2020) this article needs the most.

Disclosure: I have been involved with related experimentation, but do not have published papers on the subject. Graybeard Timer (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I will make an attempt to get this article deleted as it is just and outdated advertisement of Holmlid obscure research. Unfortunately nobody that actually knows the field of Rydberg atoms has bothered to clean up and rewrite the topic in an appropriate way (which would be pointing out that its a speculative and unverified ideas from the 80s). Roeschter (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . I think the next step is an WP:AFD. In my opinion, the easiest way to AFD an article is to install WP:TWINKLE, then in the Twinkle menu, click on XFD, and fill out the form that pops up. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated, though I can barely suppress laughter at the Kafkaeske proceeding Wikipedia editing has become. Roeschter (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . If I knew what that was, maybe I would laugh too ;P – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(novel) by Franz Kafka Roeschter (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Boson condensate, intermediate to polymers, wattage
Please remove the comment about boson condensate. It's irrelevant. Also, please mention that this is an intermediate to polymers. That's why they said the excited outer electrons become a more stable state when binding to other molecules.

This is a good page, though, because it describes short lived chemical reactions in an arc flash such as a krypton (neon as you know it) sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.250.254 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that someone should mention.... The excited electrons on the outer shell can just be considered wattage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.250.254 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello friend. Feel free to edit the article and improve it yourself. Just make sure to cite your sources. Let us know if you need help. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)