Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2017

Merge concepts of "air conditioning" and "refrigeration"? Comments requested
Please see I think that descriptions of "air cooling" are all the same concept but somehow started to be described in multiples places. I am seeking advice on what can be merged together and where.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments requested on merging "air cooling" process descriptions from multiple Wikipedia articles

Nomination for merging of Template:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Template:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has been nominated for merging with Template:IEEE councils. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Real neutral particle
I've never seen this phrase be used like this in the literature. I strongly suspect it was made up for Wikipedia. There are some examples of real neutral particle being used to distinguish it from a fake one (e.g. a random combination of tracks or calorimeter hits in a detector). Can I get some input from HEP people? — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the first link actually mentions "real neutral particles" - I have removed the others. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the distinction being made: "neutral particle" usually means electrically neutral, whereas "real neutral particle" is apparently meant to refer to particles that are their own antiparticle. For instance, the neutron is a neutral particle but not a "real neutral particle", and the photon would be both. That said, I don't think I've ever come across this specific term before. A cursory look at google scholar results for "real neutral particle" or "true neutral particle" seems to turn up a handful of sources that refer to such a thing. However, I think the subject is already mostly covered at Majorana fermion? Perhaps someone else has a clearer idea of the overlap. That article doesn't really talk about bosons, for one. 786b6364 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel that the concept is covered well enough in C parity and C-symmetry. The single remaining reference in the article, despite the journal it's published in and the affiliation of the author, is rambling, weirdly written, poorly formatted, departs from conventional notation and contains quite a few basic mistakes about particle physics (e.g. it asserts a colour-singlet gluon). I'm surprised it passed peer-review. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. PROD, then? 786b6364 (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with a deletion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about deletion. The concept is legit, and some pages we have relate to it (e.g. onium/quarkonium) for truly neutral bound states of quarks). However the name seems off, and the article is way underdeveloped. Truly neutral particle might be better. Then many of our articles discuss particles that are their on antiparticles (and thus are truly neutral) like majorana fermions, which opens up the possibility that neutrinos are truly neutral. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, it is an actual concept. But I'm not sure there's a standardized term for it (though "truly neutral particle" does sound better to me, in any case). And I'm not sure what more one would say about it that isn't already covered in the aforementioned pages. Is the idea to try to bring that information more together? 786b6364 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm of the opinion that we're probably better off with something to tie all of these articles together. A bit like how particle ties up the the many related concept to the core idea, while leaving the nitty gritty details of each aspects to their own article. So basically we probably need something along WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, more or less.
 * The question is now what exactly has been published on this. Based on the abstract, the IJMPE article seems decent enough, but I don't have access to the whole thing at home or at work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The full text is available via HAL . It strikes me as being written by someone unfamiliar with particle physics. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently making my way through it, and it reads more like something a non-English native speaker would write than someone unfamiliar with particle physics would. E.g. "For example, like mass, halflife of a particle should be the same as its antiparticle." Many of my Asian/Arabic/African students write like this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up the current version, and generalized it a bit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, yeah, looks keepable now. Thanks for putting in the work! 786b6364 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS shorcut updated
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.


 * WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
 * WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
 * WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible conversion of list to cat
I'm looking for other opinions on List of scattering experiments. There are obviously many more pages that could be added to the list, but should they be added? Or should a "scattering experiment" category be created? Primefac (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was confused as to why the page exists at all, and why those particular examples have been chosen, but I see it's another example of Fmadd's work. The scope is too broad, and the term is too ambiguous. Pretty much all particle physics experiments (except maybe the ones which just sit and wait for something to decay, such as GERDA) could be classed as a "scattering experiment". — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to AFD. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)