User talk:Headbomb

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Zeta_u^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Zeta_d^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Zeta_c^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Zeta_s^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Zeta_t^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Zeta_b^{-}\rangle$

[edit] Κ ¹⁄₂

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{ud}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{uc}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{us}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{ut}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{ub}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{du}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{dc}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{ds}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{dt}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{db}^{-}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{cu}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{cd}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{cs}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{ct}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{cb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{su}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{sd}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{sc}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{st}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{sb}^{-}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{tu}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{td}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{tc}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{ts}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{tb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{bu}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{bd}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{bc}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{bs}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Kappa_{bt}^{0}\rangle$

[edit] Κ ³⁄₂

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{ud}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{uc}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{us}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{ut}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{ub}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{du}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{dc}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{ds}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{dt}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{db}^{-}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{cu}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{cd}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{cs}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{ct}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{cb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{su}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{sd}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{sc}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{st}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{sb}^{-}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{tu}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{td}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{tc}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{ts}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{tb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{bu}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{bd}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{bc}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{bs}^{-}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Kappa_{bt}^{0}\rangle$

[edit] Χ ¹⁄₂

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{udc}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{uds}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{udt}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{udb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ucs}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{uct}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ucb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ust}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{usb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{utb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dcs}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dct}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dcb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dst}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dsb}^{-}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dtb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{cst}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{csb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ctb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{stb}^{0}\rangle$

[edit] Χ′ ¹⁄₂

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{udc}^{\prime +}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{uds}^{\prime 0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{udt}^{\prime +}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{udb}^{\prime 0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ucs}^{\prime +}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{uct}^{\prime ++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ucb}^{\prime +}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ust}^{\prime +}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{usb}^{\prime 0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{utb}^{\prime +}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dcs}^{\prime 0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dct}^{\prime +}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dcb}^{\prime 0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dst}^{\prime 0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dsb}^{\prime -}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{dtb}^{\prime 0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{cst}^{\prime +}\rangle$ $|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{csb}^{\prime 0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{ctb}^{\prime +}\rangle$

$|_\frac{1}{2}^+\Chi_{stb}^{\prime 0}\rangle$

[edit] Χ ³⁄₂

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{udc}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{uds}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{udt}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{udb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{ucs}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{uct}^{++}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{ucb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{ust}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{usb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{utb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{dcs}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{dct}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{dcb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{dst}^{0}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{dsb}^{-}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{dtb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{cst}^{+}\rangle$ $|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{csb}^{0}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{ctb}^{+}\rangle$

$|_\frac{3}{2}^+\Chi_{stb}^{0}\rangle$

[edit] Baryon wavefunctions

[edit] Spin

Fully Symmetrical
$|\frac{3}{2},-\frac{3}{2}\rangle = |---\rangle$
$|\frac{3}{2},-\frac{1}{2}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|+--\rangle + |-+-\rangle + |--+\rangle)$
$|\frac{3}{2},+\frac{1}{2}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|-++\rangle + |+-+\rangle + |++-\rangle)$
$|\frac{3}{2},+\frac{3}{2}\rangle = |+++\rangle$

Symmetrical under 1/2 exchange, no symmetry under 1/3 exchange
$|\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}\rangle = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2|--+\rangle - |-+-\rangle - |+--\rangle)$
$|\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2|++-\rangle - |+-+\rangle - |-++\rangle)$

Antisymmetrical under 1/2 exchange, no symmetry under 1/3 exchange
$|\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})(|+--\rangle - 1|-+-\rangle)$
$|\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})(|-++\rangle - 1|+-+\rangle)$

[edit] Flavour

Fully Symmetrical
$|AAA\rangle = |AAA\rangle$

$|AAB\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|AAB\rangle + |ABA\rangle + |BAA\rangle )$

$|ABC\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(|ABC\rangle + |ACB\rangle + |BAC\rangle + |BCA\rangle + |CAB\rangle + |CBA\rangle )$

Symmetrical 1<->2
Perhaps a - in front of the wave function $|AAB\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2|AAB\rangle - |ABA\rangle - |BAA\rangle )$

Antisymmetrical 1<->2
$|AAB\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|ABA\rangle - |BAA\rangle )$

Fully antisymmetrical
$|ABC\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1|ABC\rangle -1|ACB\rangle - 1|BAC\rangle + 1|BCA\rangle +1|CAB\rangle -1|CBA\rangle )$

[edit] Combined

[edit] Zeta 3/2

$|_\frac{3}{2},_{+\frac{3}{2}}\Zeta_a\rangle = |a\rangle |a\rangle|a\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle$
$|_\frac{3}{2},_{-\frac{3}{2}}\Zeta_a\rangle = |a\rangle |a\rangle|a\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle$

[edit] Kappa 3/2

$|_\frac{3}{2},_{+\frac{1}{2}}\Kappa_{ab} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |a\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |a\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$
$|_\frac{3}{2},_{+\frac{1}{2}}\Kappa_{ab} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{9}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |a\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |a\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |+\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_\frac{3}{2},_{-\frac{1}{2}}\Kappa_{ab} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{9}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |a\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |a\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |-\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_\frac{3}{2},_{-\frac{1}{2}}\Kappa_{ab} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |a\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |a\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$

[edit] Kappa 1/2

$|_\frac{1}{2},_{+\frac{1}{2}}\Kappa_{ab} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |a\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |a\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 2 & -1 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 & -1 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |+\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_\frac{1}{2},_{-\frac{1}{2}}\Kappa_{ab} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |a\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |a\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 2 & -1 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 & -1 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |-\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$

[edit] Xi 3/2

$|_\frac{3}{2},_{+\frac{3}{2}} \Chi_{abc} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |b\rangle |c\rangle; & |a\rangle |c\rangle |b\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |c\rangle; & |b\rangle |c\rangle |a\rangle; & |c\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |c\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_{\frac{3}{2}},_{+\frac{1}{2}}\Chi_{abc} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |b\rangle |c\rangle; & |a\rangle |c\rangle |b\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |c\rangle; & |b\rangle |c\rangle |a\rangle; & |c\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |c\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |+\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |+\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_{\frac{3}{2}},_{-\frac{1}{2}}\Chi_{abc} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |b\rangle |c\rangle; & |a\rangle |c\rangle |b\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |c\rangle; & |b\rangle |c\rangle |a\rangle; & |c\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |c\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |-\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_\frac{3}{2},_{-\frac{3}{2}} \Chi_{abc} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |b\rangle |c\rangle; & |a\rangle |c\rangle |b\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |c\rangle; & |b\rangle |c\rangle |a\rangle; & |c\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |c\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |-\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$

[edit] Xi 1/2

$|_{\frac{1}{2}},_{+\frac{1}{2}}\Chi_{abc} \rangle = \frac{1}{6} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |b\rangle |c\rangle; & |a\rangle |c\rangle |b\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |c\rangle; & |b\rangle |c\rangle |a\rangle; & |c\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |c\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\ 2 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & -1 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 2 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |+\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$ $|_{\frac{1}{2}},_{-\frac{1}{2}}\Chi_{abc} \rangle = \frac{1}{6} \begin{bmatrix} |a\rangle |b\rangle |c\rangle; & |a\rangle |c\rangle |b\rangle; & |b\rangle |a\rangle |c\rangle; & |b\rangle |c\rangle |a\rangle; & |c\rangle |a\rangle |b\rangle; & |c\rangle |b\rangle |a\rangle; \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\ 2 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & -1 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 2 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} |-\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ |-\rangle |+\rangle |-\rangle \\ |+\rangle |-\rangle |+\rangle \\ \end{bmatrix}$

[edit] Third attempt

Hello Headbomb, It looks like we were editing at the same time. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your constructive contribution. (It was getting a bit lonely out there). The downside is that the structure is a little unclear now. If you don't mind I'd like to present them as parallel proposals and see how people react to them. What do you think? Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section 4 is just way too long and should be re-written entirely. I'll comment on the MOSNUM shortly.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Indeed Headbomb, Talk:MOSNUM (∆ here), is not the proper venue for allegations that DavidPaulHamilton is a sockpuppet. Go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton instead. Omegatron has been carefully laying out evidence that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of Fnagaton. A simple “check user” should have resolved this a long time ago and I can only conclude that Omegatron and Fnagaton have no love lost between them. I have no idea who DavidPaulHamilton is but I can see that Fnagaton is thoroughly annoyed at the suggestion that he is using sockpuppets of any sort. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, do you have any more evidence to contribute to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton? To me, it's very obvious that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of someone, and all the evidence points to Fnagaton. But, apparently, the evidence I presented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton isn't convincing enough for User:Shalom. Fnagaton has gotten other accounts blocked just for editing similar articles. I guess the odd mannerisms and writing style are not as obvious to someone who hasn't interacted with him very much, so we need to spell it out more clearly. — Omegatron (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you can trace back the IP someone used to vandalise your edit, perhaps that'll lead somewhere. The maneurism of DPH and Fnagaton are too similar to be coincidence IMO. Also the fact that Fnagaton took a "break" almost as soon as DPH was formally accused of sockpuppetry is further evidence against him... and that he reappeared to vote on the purple box as soon as there was a box for the vote is most damning. And given that DPH started editing the binary prefix section of the MOS in his first two weeks on wiki while showing a knowledge of wiki jargon is ... The cherry on the Sunday IMO is that DPH seems most concerned to defend himself accusations of being Fnagaton than about being a sock. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It might also be worth investigating if Greg L is the sockmaster and that Fnagaton and DPH are both socks. It was my first impression since DPH/Fnagaton always seemed to follow Greg L or vice-verse, and Fnagaton he just gave permission to Greg L to change his vote if Greg L felt like it.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sillyness. Fnagaton lives in England. I e-mail the guy. I live in Spokane Washington (unless I created all the “Mt. St. Helens” stuff as part of a master plan to cover my ass for sockpuppetry. Fnagaton and I edit at entirely different times and I’d never get any sleep if I was the puppetmaster of both editors. The “permission” to vote on his behalf is because he knows our views are in full alignment, he trusts me, and he’s busy. And he never let on to me that he was a sockmaster of DPH. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have debated on and off with Fnagaton, DavidPaulHamilton and with Greg L. The first two share the same matter of fact "you are wrong" style and I would not be at all surprised to hear that they are one and the same person. The reactions of Greg L could not be more different from this, and he has a far wider range of interests. On this basis alone I am convinced that he is not behind either Fnagaton or DavidPaulHamilton. I have not looked at the editing times, but I am pretty sure that it would confirm this view. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear something up, I went on a holiday break a full day before Omegatron made the formal accusation report, not after it. Check the edit times of my talk page for adding the holiday template with the time the report page was created. Obviously being on holiday and with limited internet access (virtually no web access to Wikipedia and text emails) means I relied on update emails to tell me what weas going on which is why I was able to eventaully log on for a short while and make some comments at one point. Obviously DPH was editing at a time when I had limited internet access. Wiki-jargon is also not anything new these days. Fnag aton 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IEC prefixes

Google hits for last year pages
(May 21, 2008)
prefix	Standard	IEC	%Standard	%IEC
K	267 000	3 540	98.7	1.3
M	433 000	3430	99.2	0.8
G	674 000	4 000	99.4	0.6
T	283 000	1 100	99.6	0.4
P	468 000	344	99.9	0.1
Z	8 450	219	98.5	2.5
Yotta	6 960	259	96.4	4.6
Total	2 140 410	12 892	99.4	0.6

Search entry were in the "kilobyte OR kilobytes - wikipedia" format, all pages, in the last year.

Possible solution MB₂, MB₁₀?

[edit] MOSNUM

Headbomb, I've had a look and am totally confused as to what is what. The text I see in all of the coloured boxes needs copy-editing. Which one is /ones are the serious ongoing proposal(s)?

My other issue is that the text should be as short as possible, whereas there seems to have been a rather-too-expansive approach, right from the original contented green box. TONY (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The greenbox I'm talking about is located in the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Complete rewrite of section 4 (Greenbox) Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I should note that ALL are serious proposals. Greenbox covers everything not related to IEC prefixes. Bluebox will be the new section on Scientific notation/Uncertainties, and the. Purplebox is the section that aims to resolve the IEC prefixe debates once and for all. Each box are independent proposals.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Baryons

Salut,

I replied on the talk page to list of baryons.

You also asked: I couldn't find a single book that could explain isospin or lie algebra starting from a fundamental reality or a fundamental concept. Let me take a shot.

You need to have to study more math to get these, but they're not hard.
isospin is mathematically identical to ordinary quantum spin. Since you are a grad student, I presume you have a decent grasp of spin now. From the physics point of view, isospin is just ... not in our 3D space, but in a differnt space.... but its still just a kind of spin.
to understand lie algebras, you need to understand lie groups. To understand lie groups, you need to understand SU(2) and O(3), the rotation group etc. but if you are a physics student, you should have a good idea of rotations already.

Rotations yes, groups no. Mathematicians do not write to be understood.

the group SU(2) is isomorphic to a 3-sphere. its a surface. its a manifold. The tangent plane to this manifold is the Lie algebra su(2). That's it. its a tangent 3-plane. Its three-dimensional. The basis vectors for this 3D space are the pauli matrices.
SU(2) and su(2) are just special cases. There are other lie groups and algebras. Basically, any set of n by n matrices, closed under multiplication, form a lie group. That's all. Nothing fancy.

Speaking chinese.

lie algebras are always just the tangent space to the group, and nothing more.

Speaking chinese.

Lie algebras (and groups) have representations: for example, "real-world" matricies that behave (almost) "just like" the abstract idea. So real 3x3 rotation matrices (spin 1) and complex 2x2 unitary matrices (spin 1/2) are two *different* reps of the same liegroup SU(2). In fact SU(2) has reps for spin 3/2, spin 2 ... ad infinitum. The representations of other lie groups is not so simple :-(
representations can be combined using Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. This too generalizes to lie algebras in general, although things get more complex.
wait, there's more. Symmetric spaces, hypergeometric functions, orthogonal polynomials, all generalize in similar ways. then there's stuff about calabi-yau, etc. Understanding lie groups/alegebras opens the door to vast new areas of math, and is fundamentally critical to many areas of physics, including statistical mechanics, dynamical systems, etc.

A bientot, linas (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But physically speaking it is meaningless. Isospin itself is nothing fundamentally meaningful, it's the number (I), whose has the same number of "projections" (I,I-1,I-2...,-I), than the number of particles in a particular mass group (aka the particles with the same number of u and d quark of a specific non-ud quark content can be "grouped" together), of a particular spin state. You call such a concept meaningful, I certainly won't. It's a leftover from the pre-quark models that should've been thrown out the window the moment the quark model came into the picture. I'm sorry but when a formula such as the Gell-Man–Nishijima formula along with the concepts of flavour quantum numbers (or hypercharge) to describe charge is considered to be more interesting than the fundamental depiction of nature (Charge of a particle is the sum of the charge of its constituent quarks, baryon number is 1/3 of the number of quarks) there is something very wrong.
That's the thing, I tried to study them, but the books are so cryptic they are useless. I've even picked one called "Lie groups for pedestrians". I browsed about 10-15 books on Lie algebra, Young tableaux, Group theory and not one of them could tell me anything usefully about anything, oh sure I can see a shadow of something around a corner every once in a while, stuff like when I see SU(4)xSU(2)xU(1) when they speak of 4 quarks, and SU(6)xSU(2)xU(1) so I guess that the first SU(x) is related to the number of quarks. The SU(2) I can only guess is somehow related to spin, but I can't be sure so no once seems to bother saying it, and I'm completely lost about whatever U(1) might be.
"So real 3x3 rotation matrices (spin 1) and complex 2x2 unitary matrices (spin 1/2) are two *different* reps of the same liegroup SU(2). In fact SU(2) has reps for spin 3/2, spin 2 ... ad infinitum..." and "lie algebras are always just the tangent space to the group, and nothing more." You might as we be speaking chinese.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:list of baryons

Yeah, it still doesn't look normal. Those 1/2 and 1/3 numbers are not wrapped correctly when they are with "+" and "*" signs. Screen shot#1, Screen shot #2, as you could see there is a pretty long horizontal scroll bar, as well. The interesting part is that there is no content when I scroll to the right, so that scrollbar becomes just an unwanted decoration.--Crzy cheetah 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried something. Tell me if it looks better now (try to play with the widths if it doesn't). Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look better, those *+ signs look as they should. Screen Shot #3 The widths are fine, the only problem is that 3/2 does not change the height of the cells. If you look closely, you'll see that whenever the height of the cells is unaltered, the 3/2 can't be seen fully. Also, the scroll bar still remains.--Crzy cheetah 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay try it now. It should look alright (the heights have been adjusted), if it doesn't play with the heights. Take a screenshot if you can't fix it.

As for the sidebar, try to select all the text (crtl+a) and try to see what's lengthening it so much. Or try edit/preview each section individually to narrow the problem to specific sections. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU! All info in cells can be seen now. I didn't know that a function for height existed. As for the scroll bar, it only appears in "Particle classification" and "references" subsections. More specifically the following paragraph in "Particle classification",

the rules above say that the {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma}} contains a b and some combination of two u and/or d quarks. A {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma0}} must be one u quark {{nowrap begin}}(Q = {{frac|2|3}}){{nowrap end}}, one d quark {{nowrap begin}}(Q = −{{frac|1|3}}){{nowrap end}}, and one b quark {{nowrap begin}}(Q = −{{frac|1|3}}){{nowrap end}} to have the correct charge {{nowrap begin}}(Q = 0){{nowrap end}}.

As for the references, T. Aaltonen et al. (2007a) and T. Aaltonen et al. (2007b) references create that scroll bar. Again, thanks for fixing the tables.--Crzy cheetah 04:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried something. The refs should be fine (removed {{SubatomicParticle}} at the expense of unaligned symbols), and I removed the {{nowrap}}s from the particle classification. If that doesn't work, I have an alternative.

Refs section is fine now. {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma0}} is the only obstacle in the "Particle classification" section.--Crzy cheetah 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, try it now. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I remove {{PhysicsParticle|Σ|TR=0|BR=b}} part, the scroll bar disappears. I feel really helpless here.--Crzy cheetah 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Same.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the particle used as an example, perhaps that'll work.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The scroll bar is still there. {{SubatomicParticle|charmed Xi+}} still creates it, but when I remove the plus sign and preview with {{SubatomicParticle|charmed Xi}}, the scroll bar is gone.--Crzy cheetah 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] changes to MOSNUM

I have just returned to MOSNUM after a couple of days away, and I see there is an attempt to move things forward. I tried to comment on the page itself but was unable to do so (presumably due to its elephantine size - again), so I came here instead, to let you know that I intend to update my votes tomorrow morning, when I will have access to a better computer, reflecting any changes since I last visited.

One thing that concerns me though from what I have just read is your stated intention is to upload the purple box with its clear deprecation of IEC units. I have explained many times that I oppose this because there is no consensus for it. You claim that the arguments against deprecation are unsubstantiated, but I don't understand what you mean. Surely you understand the need to gain consensus for a statement before making it part of a guideline?

The arguments for and against IEC units have been repeated many times. In essence they are very simple:

for = the units form part of an international standard and allow simple disambiguation
against = the units are unfamiliar to the average reader

Both arguments are perfectly valid, so why do claim that the arguments against deprecation are unsubstantiated? No consensus has been reached during the past months for either promoting IEC units or for deprecating them. Therefoe the guideline should do neither. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you are concerned about the deprecation of IEC units, you just don't give reasons for it other than "there is no consensus". However, as of now the votes are 7 for vs. 3 against. Removing your vote, it's 7 for vs. 2 against the upload, and those against don't give reasons other than "this deprecates IEC units" and that IEC units have been adopted by some people. However that is not a reason, that is simply a factual statement. No one ever says why is that partial deprecation a bad thing, while plenty of people say why it's a good thing. How is 78% not consensus, especially considering that opposition is unsubstantiated, and especially considering that not even 0.1% of scientific organization even use IEC prefixes?

Just to let you know, I'm proposing a bunch of text for uploading on Saturday morning. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb. I also think undue weight applies here to this situation. "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." The IEC prefixes are really a tiny minority so we simply cannot use them for general purpose disambiguation in articles. Fnag aton 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FCL and "consensus"

Headbomb: In the interests of helping to get the entire greenbox its much needed consensus, I've voted to support it and have given Fnagaton my permission to vote on my behalf. I just can't be watching over this frequently enough to adapt to rapidly changing events. I do ask that you make sure that what is going to MOSNUM has a proper consensus. Although Omegatron and Thunderbird2 complain that FCL didn't have a proper consensus when it was posted, outside, uninvolved editors agree that it did. And it is now on MOSNUM, where it calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. If push came to shove, I'd organize a big-ass, Wikipedia-wide vote and FCL would have seriously deep tap roots. I would see it as a step backwards if the greenbox replaces everything--including FCL--only to be followed immediately by bitter complaints about how it didn't achieve a proper consensus. I'll very quickly take a strong stand that FCL goes right back in if some elements prevail in their claims that the binary prefix-related portion of the greenbox didn't have a consensus. Do things the right way. Good luck. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From MOSNUM talk page (too big to load)

First, it wasn't an argument for anything. Greg wants things to be done the "right way" so there's no revert war à la FCL, and I agree with that. And, BTW, that form of word is not acceptable to all parties. If it were, it wouldn't have been reverted now would it? Fact is that that form moves about 3 votes up, and about 8 votes down (which is hard to consider an "increase" in consensus). It's not that we "ignore" you "just because you're against the IEC units", it's that your arguments are weak. You've got I don't like it (aka not an argument worth anything) and 2) Wikipedia is a democracy (while it's not).

Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that familiarity is needed, that IEC units have near-zero adoption, and that Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything (which is a shame IMO, else we could use IEC units legitimatly), then it follows that IEC units shouldn't be used here. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 13:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are weak? Let’s analyse yours:

that form of word is not acceptable to all parties. If it were, it wouldn't have been reverted now would it? You tell me. Name me one editor, other than yourself, to whom the FCL wording on binary prefixes is not acceptable.
Wikipedia is [not] a democracy: Sure, but then what is the relevance of “3 votes up, and about 8 votes down”?
Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything: Again, agreed, but it does not follow that “IEC units shouldn't be used here”. Use and promotion are quite different things. Where there is no consensus on a statement, the best policy is silence.

Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well other than me, there's Greg L, Fnagaton, Dfmclean, Pyrotec...

Precision: I meant that these people agree with me that my proposed wording is better than yours.

You brought votes as an absolute mesure of consensus, and said that your wording increased it. Why then did the votes not aligned themselves to "support" when you struck the section about disambiguation?
Yes, it follows. The deprecation is partial, as in you can use IEC units when quoting sources, when a a clear majority of relevant sources consistently use then, and on articles pertaining to IEC units. I've asked you (and others) give me one example of a use of IEC unit that is currently forbidden by the MOSNUM but which should be allowed because it would follow the spirit of the MOS. It's been over two weeks now, so I'm lead to believe that you don't provide one because you can't provide one.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's precisely my point. Greg L makes it clear above that he does support FCL. So why do you insist that he doesn't?
That's a very good question, but I cannot answer it. You need to ask Greg L why he would vote against something that he supports. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding (Greg is often quick to question my motives).
er ... what are you talking about? The wording forbids all use of IEC units except in very limited exceptions. There is no point in picking out any one article because my reasoning applies to all articles that do not currently disambiguate. Are you saying there are none left?

Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And Greg L also made it clear that this wording summarizes the core FCL in a concise and efficient way.
You should ask yourself if your interpretation of Greg L's post isn't flawed. Greg did not vote "against" something he supports, he voted that this wording was at least equivalent, but I'm under the impression that he finds it superior to the old FCL since it is more concise, and more to the point.
If your reasoning applies to all article, then it shouldn't be a problem finding an example. But considering I've asked you at least 10 times by now to give an example of how the letter of the proposal prohibits a use of IEC units that should be allowed under the spirit of the MOS, and considering that you repeatedly failed to provide any, I'm forced to conclude that you simply can't. Unless you bother giving examples, this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

he was indeed right about the consensus of the FCL section at the time (8 vs. 3 vote)

But the whole point of this is that an 8 vs 3 vote does not represent consensus. There are dozens of other editors who have opinions about the subject who were not included in the vote. If I went around canvassing to all those who voted in favor of IEC in 2003 (which I wouldn't do, because it's blatantly prohibited), the vote outcome would have been much different. As you said, another poll was then taken with a different outcome, demonstrating that consensus had not actually been reached.

You can't canvass a bunch of like-minded people, claim a 51% majority, and then use that to justify completely ignoring the position of the other 49%. Wikipedia is not a majority-rule democracy, and Greg's repeated attempts to use votes to subdue others is, as the policy says, antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works.

I consider this to be disruptive editing from Omegatron's part

I also (of course :) ) completely disagree that my removal of the section constituted "disruptive editing". In disputes, the burden of proof for demonstrating consensus is on those who seek to add new rules to a guideline. Removing something that's disputed is not prohibited, and certainly not disruptive. It still shouldn't be on the page, and I would remove it myself if it wasn't going to fuel even more baseless criticism.

You said that I should be ashamed of my conduct, but I'm not at all. I don't believe that I've done anything wrong here. If you still think I have, please help me understand why. I expect Fnagaton and Greg to attack me with all sorts of nonsense at this point, but I wasn't expecting serious criticism from anyone else. — Omegatron (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron said "the burden of proof for demonstrating consensus is on those who seek to add new rules to a guideline" and the burdon of proof was demonstrated, many many many times, yet Omegatron did not accept that truth and instead used revert warring, that is disruptive. What Omegatron did is wrong, there is nothing that can be said which can be an excuse for the revert warring and disruptive editing from Omegatron's part. There is now consensus for the change due to the weak unsubstantiated arguments for keeping IEC compared to the much stronger arguments for the partial deprecating of IEC prefixes. Fnag aton 08:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

~~There never was an 8:3 vote.~~ The vote did not end 8:3. The archive shows 7 votes in favour, 5 against and 1 of "ambivalence". Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Without any substantiated reasons given with the against votes. So they are much weaker. Consensus is not made from votes, consensus is made by giving good reasons. Fnag aton 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

8 vs. 3 vote Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that votes cast after that date (21:23, 7 May 2008) should be ignored? or that a sock's vote should be included in the count? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you said there was never a 8 vs. 3 vote, and I corrected you since there was one. Don't put words I never said in my mouth. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't mean to imply it had never been 8:3 and have corrected my earlier post accordingly. Can we agree that it did not end 8:3? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] size of MOSNUM talk

Headbomb, It is slow going, but I've been able to edit OK at the talk page so far today. But it really is huge and my request to break it into more manageable chunks was ignored. It bothers me that there may be editors who are unaware of the discussion taking place because they cannot load the page. This remark suggests that other editors have difficulties even on considerably smaller pages. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

TB2 it would help if you didn't keep on pasting large sections of text [1] [2] from archives back into the talk page. By the way I have no problems at all from the UK so maybe it is localised to your ISP. Fnag aton 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving Talk:MOSNUM

Congratulations on MOSNUM!!! While you are busy archiving, could you please be sure to track down what the robots archived into archives 100 and 101 and get all that stuff into a B12 archive? Greg L (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But to be honest, I'm pretty drained from archiving the rewrite, and I really don't feel like going through archives again right now. Perhaps ask Fganaton. Or ask me in a day or two. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 18:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Headbomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sandbox

[edit] Templates

[edit] New baryons names

[edit] Ζ ³⁄₂

[edit] Κ ¹⁄₂

[edit] Κ ³⁄₂

[edit] Χ ¹⁄₂

[edit] Χ′ ¹⁄₂

[edit] Χ ³⁄₂

[edit] Baryon wavefunctions

[edit] Spin

[edit] Flavour

[edit] Combined

[edit] Zeta 3/2

[edit] Kappa 3/2

[edit] Kappa 1/2

[edit] Xi 3/2

[edit] Xi 1/2

[edit] Third attempt

[edit] Sockpuppetry

[edit] IEC prefixes

[edit] MOSNUM

[edit] List of Baryons

[edit] Re:list of baryons

[edit] changes to MOSNUM

[edit] FCL and "consensus"

[edit] RfC

[edit] size of MOSNUM talk

[edit] Archiving Talk:MOSNUM

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search

User talk:Headbomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sandbox

[edit] Templates

[edit] New baryons names

[edit] Ζ 3⁄2

[edit] Κ 1⁄2

[edit] Κ 3⁄2

[edit] Χ 1⁄2

[edit] Χ′ 1⁄2

[edit] Χ 3⁄2

[edit] Baryon wavefunctions

[edit] Spin

[edit] Flavour

[edit] Combined

[edit] Zeta 3/2

[edit] Kappa 3/2

[edit] Kappa 1/2

[edit] Xi 3/2

[edit] Xi 1/2

[edit] Third attempt

[edit] Sockpuppetry

[edit] IEC prefixes

[edit] MOSNUM

[edit] List of Baryons

[edit] Re:list of baryons

[edit] changes to MOSNUM

[edit] FCL and "consensus"

[edit] RfC

[edit] size of MOSNUM talk

[edit] Archiving Talk:MOSNUM

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search

[edit] Ζ ³⁄₂

[edit] Κ ¹⁄₂

[edit] Κ ³⁄₂

[edit] Χ ¹⁄₂

[edit] Χ′ ¹⁄₂

[edit] Χ ³⁄₂