|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Please define symbols
Would anyone care to define each of the symbols on this page explicitly? That would be a service to the general public. Symbols make things brief for those who already understand, but impenetrable for those who are learning.
- I came here to make exactly the same request! But an elapsed time of 1.4 years probably indicates there are no active WP editors familiar with the physics of this article. Maybe someone will show up in another year or two and the article will be edited so it won't require preexisting intimate knowledge of the topic.
- I love WP even with its many elegant but obscure articles in physics and mathematics. Perhaps due to intellectual arrogance, physicists and mathematicians seem much more likely than anthropologists, linguists, and other professionals to use jargon, undue compactness, and to assume significant specialized knowledge on the part of the reader. Then, again, maybe I'm just cranky today because I'm stuck in bed with a cold. David spector (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've decided, based on these comments and my own observations, to flag this article for jargon. Compare this article with the one on the Strong Force, for instance, which is much more understandable; the first paragraph of this article, which starts
- 'Hideki Yukawa showed in the 1930s that such a potential arises from the exchange of a massive scalar field such as the field of the pion whose mass is m. Since the field mediator is massive the corresponding force has a certain range, which is inversely proportional to the mass. '
- A bit confusing to the layperson, as you can see. What do you mean by potential? What scalar field? Why a pion? What's a field mediator? Why does the corresponding force have a "certain" range and what is meant by the adjective "certain?" Etcetera. I am unfortunately not an expert on this topic, but hopefully a perspicuous physics PhD will help us refine this. Slugmaster (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The first equation given is wrong
Hi, I am not a physicist, but just performing a basic dimensional analysis, with the parameters defined as the article does, you can see the exponent in the 1st equation (-mr) is not dimensionless. I am tempted to fix it myself but the article goes further and that is well beyond my abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfloccinaucinihilipilification (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. In units where speed of light c and h are set to be 1, then mass and reciprocal length are in the same units. Vis mass =(c)= energy =(h)= 1/time =(c)= 1/distance. Anyway, yall should not be editing articles you don't understand, but flagging them for attention from someone who does. 2001:BB8:2002:200:E870:BC4D:B4ED:31DD (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. There is of course another scaling constant in the exponent to ensure its non-dimensionality. I've stuck one in as a "k". This is meant only to give the form of the equation, and the h-bars and c's are often left out. In this case, k probably is dimentionalized by some multiple of c/h. SBHarris 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the k you introduced in the first formula is in conflict to the V(k) in the last formula. Using formula 1, Fourier transform yields V(k) ~ 4π / ((km)^2 + k^2). In quantum mechanics, k is always reserved for calculations in momentum space ( p = hk/2π). 14:28, 02 November 2013 (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|The article lacks a consistent convention on constants. In the coordinate representation and are kept, but in fourier space they're not!|
Last edited at 13:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)