User talk:Headbomb

Welcome!

Hello, Headbomb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox & Useful stuff

This is my sandbox.

Template:ScientificValue

Template:PhysicsParticle

Template:SubatomicParticle

Real Gas

Hey! thanks for the help. I'm trying to make sure that all the articles that are in reference to gases have reference to all the topics pertinent to that subject. I re-wrote Gas so that it has all the assumptions of all the simplified models of gases. When you write the Real gas article, make sure you mention all of those topics that are there so far. The article that needs the most work that has a lot of incorrect information is Ideal gas but at this point I am so scared of that article that I have no idea where to start with it. But anyway... thanks for the help on Real gas. If you need anything or want to discuss something about it, I've got some resources that may be of assistance. Katanada (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{{SubatomicParticle}}

Saw you overhaul, nice work! It looks a lot better and it's more organised.-- SkyLined (talk) local time:09:38, 14 April 2008 (CET), server time: 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Isospin values

I noticed you {{frac}}-ed the spin and added isospin values to the unobserved omegas. not that i'm necessarily opposed to this, but i did refrain from doing so because they were unobserved (and merely theorized to exist). i suppose theyre perfectly acceptable tho', as the † marker notes the uncertainty of values presented, but i was looking for a more visually distinctive way to identify them... doesn't really matter tho. Wing gundam (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that you didn't put them because they were unobserved, but the bottom Sigmas and double bottom/charm Xis had there isospin values in the table, and they had that † thingy. Anyway, it's not like their isospin values would not be the one indicated, since if it was different, it wouldn't be those particles. Same goes for charge, bottomness etc... The only thing that I would have a problem listing would be mass, lifetimes and decays.Headbomb (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for the list of baryons/Val template

<SkyLined>Moving this to your talk page - it was on my user page</SkyLined>

I just asked for a Peer Review of the List of baryons. I've contacted just about everyone with an interest in Particle physics in the Physics project to give help with that page. So I suggest we move forward with the {{val}} template to seperate things with spaces instead of commas, especially since that is what the SI strongly recommends. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to decide which way to go without getting concensus - otherwise we may have to undo a lot of our work. We can leave that page as is and replace those values with {{val}} later - I'm talking to somebody who owns a bot to see if it's possible to replace values automatically. For the time being, I would suggest you use "&thinsp;" as a seperator - that way it's easy to recognise the complete value automatically later and replace it.-- SkyLined (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep that in mind when fixing things.

Re: List of baryons

I'm just a first year but i plan to pursue Particle Physics as my major. I have my exams right now until the 2nd of May. After that I'll do all I can. Σαι ( Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My interest in Particle Physics is really just an interest, as in, I haven't studied much about it at all. The article, unfortunately, contains more than I don't know than what I know. I'm sure I have the "book" resources to investigate further, but my time is "booked" (haha) for thesis work (not-so-haha) at this time. I will be back in a big way once that's done, though! --Qrystal (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heading to the Talk page :-D Tatonzolo (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

top-containing baryons

i noticed you recently added a lot of baryons containing top quarks. I should tell you, these baryons don't exist, as in they cannot exist. the top quark decays too quickly for it to form strong bonds with other quarks, so, in essence, there is no, say, triple-topped omega. they stop at bottom, and most of those still remain unconfirmed. i think it would be wise to hold off expanding the article until these particles listed are actually scientifically discovered (for those that even exist). Wing gundam (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

as an afterthought, i don't believe it is necessary to cite every single particle, especially since they're all from the exact, same place, and located in the same list. Marking the proton with a small reference link to the PDG page from which they were all obtained from should more than suffice the need to source. frankly, these citation marks clog the article, detracting from both its asthetic quality, and its actual readability and information quality (which, cutting through a mile of BS, is the primary goal of this encyclopedia!!!). Wing gundam (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the top quark containing baryons in the isospin section so it was clear where they would be, would the t quark have a decent lifetime. I wouldn't be opposed to slashing them down from that list, but I feel that t quarks should still have some sort of mention somewhere in the article, sort of like magnetic monopoles have in electromagnetism.

References were done this way because I find that it is much more useful to have the relevant document directly linked (in the relevant section no less) so people can easily check the references to see that what is written is accurate and to get more info about that particular particle. Linking to the PDG main page will make things more difficult to find for people who don't know where to look. At worse it's a minor ugliness, but it shows that proper referencing was done and that data is reliable, and saves a lot of trouble to those who wants to read more. Benefits greatly outweighs the drawbacks IMO.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow current literature

Headbomb, thanks for your vote. I am not married to any of the details in the text—only the general principle. So long as the details don’t end up being so ambiguous that any editor can do anything they want (and will), then I’m fine with it. I’m looking forward to writing collaboratively ;-) with you to craft language that we supporters agree is the best way to accomplish the goal. Greg L (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Relation between isospin and up and down quark content Hi Headbomb, This section seems to be confusing spin with I-spin. While the particle-quark-contents are accurate, the notes about quark I-spin alignment are every confusing. I am new here so I don't want to change it if that is not the right protocal. Should I change it in the live article or try to create some discussion on the matter?--Vectorboson (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)