User talk:Ptrslv72

ouch
Hey, I have a number of people in my watch list tankersly, ebonence etc from the early days of the whole LHC furore, one of them is oldnoah who was a I thought was Mr. 50/50. Someone just added to his talk page an old blog link which I've just read looks like someone has done a bit of homework, first thing that went through my head was OMFG! Here's what was linked and when you look deeper at the whole lot I'm gobsmacked. Still reading but WOW, am I the only one who didn't know this? Khu kri  17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He he I read the first article some time ago, I must have missed the second. This Eric is a member of the super-secret paramilitary organization "UCF" that was unmasked by Tankersley in this immortal post (actually the first version of the post was even more paranoid, but Tankersley changed it after the UCF guys started making fun of him). BTW let's brace for a fresh onslaught of idiocy now that the LHC is (hopefully) about to restart... Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel like I missed out on so much fun and games, I kept reading after I left you the message, there was me trying to argue with all seriousness and should have looked more about what was going on elsewhere. I have become a fervent admirer of UCF, and their attitude of why play nice with the fundies. I see WW is still posting on Sciforums and someone brings up the daily show almost every time, but JT has just gone.
 * FlashForward started on British television last night so I'm surprised that hasn't brought in more edits.... yet. Everything's cooling down nicely with most around 2K, access is restricted now to most areas, so fingers crossed. When it starts up again I'll do the update posts as I did for the original startup. Cheers Khu  kri  09:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the "fundies" brought it on themselves. BTW, here is the original version of Tankersley's post on UCF. Keep up the good work at CERN, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go mate, think you might like this one. Regards Khu  kri  17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It's an old (and sad) story, but recently there was an article about it on NYT. I hope there won't be a repeat of the "time travel" dispute of last year... For some reactions in the blogosphere, see this and this. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * enjoy Khu  kri  08:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, it ended up directly in my facebook page. Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anychance you could respond to Apis-o-tangs question on the LHC talk page please, he's been around a while, and always handy to keep some people on our side so to speak. I would respond but I have no idea of why we use pb ions, but thought there was talk once of Ca being done but I got no ideas. Many thanks Khu  kri  17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not connect for a while but I see that Wwheaton has replied in the meantime. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The mu problem
Hi, Thanks for your remark. I'll try to check that soon (hopefully this weekend). If you are certain at what you wrote, feel free to correct the article (or maybe you have already done that) and when I have time I'll check it, and in case I disagree we can continue discussing. Dan Gluck (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already made some corrections, if you need clarifications just drop me a line. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks....
I do appreciate your patience. Not to mention you awesome labors over the past year or two. I know you must get awfully frustrated at times. Wwheaton (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks. I'm slow too, just in and out as I have time for, which should really be almost nothing. Anyhow, if we can just sort out the issues and settle them one by one, it may not matter if it takes a while. May help us to stay cooler, fending off vandals for fun meanwhile. I do wish I really understood the theory better, my education in HE physics pretty much ended in 1967, when quarks were barely respectable. (But! Jack Sarfatti was a classmate at UCSD!)  Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature
Hi, I didn't understand what the "Preceding unsigned comment added by ..." was about, until I realized that it's because I was logged out. It should be fixed by now and this is a test if you don't mind, greetings Michel sharp (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak interaction
If you feel that the old-style interaction can be split from the new-style interaction, if you could try to do that as soon as possible (I know how life is!). I don't think it is as big a problem as one might think, as the former is not "wrong" per se, and most of gauge theory is detailed in the other sections. Accordingly, I'm putting it up for GA on the assumption it'll take a couple of weeks to find a reviewer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Higgs Boson
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Higgs Boson. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Khu  kri  15:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Higgs boson, December 2011
Just a note to say "good edits" for the amendments made after I had edited the article earlier :) FT2 (Talk 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Higgs boson nominated for GA
Hi,

You recently contributed to the Higgs boson article.

Now that the article is stable, relatively consistent, comprehensive, easy to read, and balanced, I wondered what more you think it needs to get to Good Article quality? It would be nice to get it there as it's a "top importance" article in its field, and the Higgs boson is of considerable popular interest.

I've summed up the points I can think of on its talk page and linked a few others to the post. Thorough review, fixes, and comments appreciated, and - shall we go for it :)

GA criteria are here.

FT2 (Talk 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The section you've deleted
Pls see the talk page of Higgs boson --Rongended (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Images in the particle physics articles
I've responded to your comment on my talk page. Cjean42 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson again
I'm a bit concerned that the "History" section is more like a "History of the Standard Model". Not a surprise, as the history of the Higgs boson (and electroweak theory, Higgs mechanism etc) to a great extent is the history of the Standard Model or greatly overlaps it.

To fix this, much like the "search" section, a lot of this ought to be moved off to an article History of the Standard Model and summarized here. We have "history of..." articles for many aspects of physics but not for the SM itself. If we had such an article then this section could be (rightly) cut down a lot.

I've made a start at working on such an article here if interested and would like to ask for your help to keep an eye on it and suggest when it's at least capable of going mainspace. That way we can cut down the HB article history and link to that (new) article for the detail which would be good.

FT2 (Talk 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am rather busy with my work these days and I cannot contribute much beyond minimal maintenance (such as reverting the anonymous who keeps deleting the sentence on Peter Higgs in the lead). I'll try to have a look at your stuff next week, please feel free to send me a reminder. Anyway, writing an article such as "history of the SM" might not be easy. I mean, one needs a rather detailed knowledge of the old papers, and very reliable secondary sources (matters of priority become important, and one must be able to put things that now seem obvious in the context of what was known forty/fifty years ago...) Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Update - before TR comes along can you sanity-check my non-expert work on the "Higgs terminology" box. I've tried to follow closely the wording TR changed, the talk page, and the gauge boson article, and not increase its length inappropriately. It should be short and simple, so hopefully it won't be an imposition. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Vacuum instability Higgs Boson
Thanks for catching that. I added the section for non technical readers since fireballs of doom explains it in plain english rather than jargon. However, I disagree and the reason I do is that curiousity killed the cat. CERN is playing with our lives if this is true and caution in proceeding with this type of research is advised. So no, its not inappropriate. What are your thoughts on this. I am a former weapons designer and worked on reactor design and nuclear kinetics and I know more than most the danger of this type of research. If they believe this those particle accelerators need to be shut down and remodeled before destroying the planet. Based upon my review of their calculations, such an event would lower gravity ratios in space time on the planet and the effect would cause nukes to simply detonate in place if what Lykken said is really true and they actually create such a particle. It has characteristics of a tachyon, and tachyon's as modeled posesses infinite power -- BOOM!. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The net of their calculations indicate that the flow of time would accelerate (the invariant result of the vacuum itself) -- a coke can would become radioactive, trees, people, iron and lighter elements would start emiting alpha particles and beta decay as the weak force gets even weaker. Dangerous stuff to play with -- all they have to do is get just the right alignment and they may just create a higgs boson.  There is a reason that particular particle is hidden beneath the structure of reality.  It's pretty clear things like this happen out in the cosmos naturally, which is why quasars and neutron stars exist -- let's not create one on the surface of this planet.  This particle they are attempting to model and create may just turn the earth into a star in seconds.  get the picture. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a physicist and I know this topic rather well. Leaving aside the fact that you just wrote a huge pile of nonsense (don't even get me started picking it apart), Wikipedia is not a soapbox for this or that editor's personal speculations, every statement in an article must be based on reliable sources. You won't find any such source suggesting that the production of Higgs bosons at the LHC can trigger doomsday scenarios: first, because there is no physical mechanism through which this could happen; second, because collisions involving high-energy cosmic rays, with energies comparable to or even higher than the ones of the LHC collisions, happen continuously on the Earth and everywhere else in the Universe. If such collisions could trigger catastrophic consequences, they would have done it already, and we wouldn't be here worrying about it. Your sentence on neutron stars and quasars only shows that you have no idea of what those things are (try reading the corresponding Wikipedia articles). Besides, you are not even up-to-date with the news: the LHC experiments may have already produced lots of Higgs bosons, and the Universe is still there (I wrote may just because the 125-GeV particle discovered last July is not yet officially identified as a Higgs boson, but hardly anybody doubts that it is). In summary, the issue of vacuum stability is interesting from the point of view of our full understanding of the theory, but it has no practical consequences.

Anyway, I am not (repeat: not) interested in starting another doomsday debate with somebody who has no idea of what he/she is talking about. I've had enough of that, and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you have a bad feeling about this, I am sorry for you, perhaps you could read the CERN webpage on the safety of the LHC and learn something from it. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

By all means, start picking at at, or perhaps you can explain the ghost image seen in the data of the "alleged" higgs boson (we think its two particles and not one) then model it against the models for a tachyon where the line of symmetry breaks into two pieces with two distinct wave fronts. I was designing reaction lenses for warheads and modeling fast neutron reactions when you were in grade school most probably. A talk page is not a soapbox, a place for discussions. It's not a higgs boson because the higgs boson does not exist nor does a higgs field. The structure of space time is a cubic force model, and the fields that constrain it are infinite in power, and no, I think Lykken is an idiot and he is completely wrong. But he is right that a local effect would propogate rapidly, but it would only extend to the Kuiper belt and destroy everything within that radius. I would be happy to post the equations, but I am not certain you would understand them, or you would have responded with math and not myopic and obtuse arguments. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Go post your equations somewhere else, the internet is big enough and I definitely have no time or patience for you. Just leave the Wikipedia articles alone (or stick to the guidelines). Bye, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Higgs images?
Among the feedback, there's a lot we can't action (or not easily), but we do get a continual trickle of requests for "more pictures". I'm not sure what people want (quantum theory isn't especially well known for easy-comprehension pictures: my mind conjures up some weird "My Quantum Field Theory Coloring Book" - now with new Higgs boson and Symmetry Breaking section and End of the Universe! in its more mischievous moments!) but if you have any ideas, I thought I'd mention the point to ask more seriously, any ideas what diagrams might help and how we might present them?

In particular, there is one picture that has jarred with me for ages. I'm wondering if the "one loop first order correction" diagram adds much, and whether it justifies the space it takes. It seems so simple that it's hard to imagine the image per se conveys or educates much to a layperson (who won't understand the Feynman diagram, only the textual narrative) or the physics-aware reader (who "gets it" without a very simple Feynman diagram of this point).

I'm also wondering about that particular picture because if it were were removed, we would have a little more freedom/space to re-order two other images which would make a difference, I think, and put them alongside the actual subsections to which they closely relate: - the "Summary of interactions" next to "Properties of the SM Higgs boson" which is perhaps its best and closest related location, and the "Understanding symmetry breaking" next to "Theoretical need for the Higgs" which is more clearly its best location and may be helpful for lay people needing that kind of diagram. Right now there isn't really room for this, I've tried to organize the images in preview and haven't yet found on a way to do it that doesn't leave one section with too many images. If the one loop Feynman wasn't essential and could be left out, we could organize those better, I think. FT2 (Talk 14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the diagram with the correction to the Higgs mass looks a bit as if it's just hanging there. However, that diagram is important, because in the SM those corrections are potentially enormous, giving rise to the so-called Hierarchy problem and leading us to believe that the SM must be extended (e.g. by Supersymmetry). The problem is rather that the diagram (and most importantly the hierarchy problem) should be discussed in the text of the article. Who knows, perhaps they were discussed in the past and the discussion was removed. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at coverage of the hierarchy problem, but it feels shaky right now, as (like some previous aspects) this is a technial and complex area where lay writers can easily get subtleties incorrect. Can you take a look and correct as you see fit? (Also do any other "further aspects" exist that we ought to cover?) Thanks. FT2 (Talk 11:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm busy with other stuff right now. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For your info:
 * it's enough, and there's work to do. FT2 (Talk 01:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update FT2 (Talk 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Higgs cites!
Frank Close cites now on talk page. Unambiguous and repeated. Original article text was accurate. FT2 (Talk 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion requested about an addition to the Higgs boson page you reverted
For your information I have posted a third opinion request regarding Talk:Higgs_bosonFred1810 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)