![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Most of the page is about small physics particles which have basically no effect to health. SomeoneCantThinkOfAnything ( talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe this article should be deleted as not having a good basic topic. Where is there a single book or chapter or paper about this idea of particle? Please supply a source soon or I'll be submitting this for AfD. Dmcq ( talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
it is not a good imformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.234.119 ( talk) 19:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In this revert you removed some tags that indicate a number of the things written are unsourced.
In this revert you removed some tags that indicate a number of the things written are unsourced.
Additionally, you may wish to research smooth particle hydrodynamics. The justification for particle number has nothing to do with the scale of stars compared to galaxies. The smallest dwarf galaxies have a very small number of stars and therefore the statement that you can consider a star to be a particle compared to the size of the galaxy alone is a wild overgeneralization.
IvoryMeerkat ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
elementary particles are truly punctual
The above sentence appears in the Composition section with punctual pipe-linked to Point particle. I disagree with this summary of the cited source ( [2]). To me the words "truly punctual" imply an infinitessimal point but that is not what the source claims. Point particle states it is an idealized concept. I think it needs a rewrite. I am no expert, but I'll start with "are closer to idealized points". Unless there are sources that show electrons have a cross-section of exactly zero - all I have found is that its size is small but still unknown. I was also under the impression that linear extent became meaningless below are certain scale. - 84user ( talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
An IP added the following to the stability section
Particles can be either on-mass-shell, then called "real," or off-mass-shell, then called "virtual" and considered present only for very short times, within the constraint of energy-time uncertainty relations. [1]
- ^ Jaeger, Gregg (2019). "Are virtual particles less real?" (PDF). Entropy. 21 (2): 141. Bibcode: 2019Entrp..21..141J. doi: 10.3390/e21020141.
I removed it from that section, as it's not related to stability. But maybe there's a place for it elsewhere. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Most of the page is about small physics particles which have basically no effect to health. SomeoneCantThinkOfAnything ( talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe this article should be deleted as not having a good basic topic. Where is there a single book or chapter or paper about this idea of particle? Please supply a source soon or I'll be submitting this for AfD. Dmcq ( talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
it is not a good imformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.234.119 ( talk) 19:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In this revert you removed some tags that indicate a number of the things written are unsourced.
In this revert you removed some tags that indicate a number of the things written are unsourced.
Additionally, you may wish to research smooth particle hydrodynamics. The justification for particle number has nothing to do with the scale of stars compared to galaxies. The smallest dwarf galaxies have a very small number of stars and therefore the statement that you can consider a star to be a particle compared to the size of the galaxy alone is a wild overgeneralization.
IvoryMeerkat ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
elementary particles are truly punctual
The above sentence appears in the Composition section with punctual pipe-linked to Point particle. I disagree with this summary of the cited source ( [2]). To me the words "truly punctual" imply an infinitessimal point but that is not what the source claims. Point particle states it is an idealized concept. I think it needs a rewrite. I am no expert, but I'll start with "are closer to idealized points". Unless there are sources that show electrons have a cross-section of exactly zero - all I have found is that its size is small but still unknown. I was also under the impression that linear extent became meaningless below are certain scale. - 84user ( talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
An IP added the following to the stability section
Particles can be either on-mass-shell, then called "real," or off-mass-shell, then called "virtual" and considered present only for very short times, within the constraint of energy-time uncertainty relations. [1]
- ^ Jaeger, Gregg (2019). "Are virtual particles less real?" (PDF). Entropy. 21 (2): 141. Bibcode: 2019Entrp..21..141J. doi: 10.3390/e21020141.
I removed it from that section, as it's not related to stability. But maybe there's a place for it elsewhere. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)