User talk:Wing gundam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Wing gundam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! PaddyLeahy 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your comment at Theory of Everything

I saw your comment about the "family tree" of theories. The best place for such comments is on the "Talk" page of the article, which you can access via the discussion tab at the top of each page (but here is a direct link to the talk page relevant in this case: Talk:Theory of everything). So I moved your comment there and provided an answer of sorts. Feel free to respond there. PaddyLeahy 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I had hoped it would be corrected in context. In any case, I posted a reply to your comment. (posted after debate, so impossible to accurately sign)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Will Peters

A tag has been placed on Will Peters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Blake01 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention for Baryons

Thank you!Thank you!Thank you!Thank you!Thank you!Thank you!

Now it all makes sense!

Headbomb (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. They seem confusing and ambiguous, but in actuality few people know the structure of the baryon naming system. If i may comment on your work thus far on the article, i notice that you've added various resonance values for certain heavy baryons, i.e. Sigma0(I=1/2) and Sigma0(I=3/2). I would advise against this, as there are actually a great deal isospin values. It is possible that you may be confusing spin and isospin values, as this chart fails to differentiate between the two (an error i have meant to correct for some time).
I do note your impressive progress, as the last time i viewed this article was several months ago, and i found it both missing information and somewhat disorganized. I would recommend not including higher spin values for the various non-nucleons. For a definitive reference on this matter, there is no better authority than the particle data group. Here is a link to their most recent listings: "click me"; also check the citation on the baryonic nomenclature paragraph for their complete 2006 summary, which discusses in full the complete status of particle physics as of 2006 as well as numerous other topics of interest as of its publication. Wing gundam (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also remarked that the spin values are confusing, and kinda clutter things up. I first added them because the only difference between a proton and a delta was the different spin value, and thus I felt there was a need to distinguish between say a Xi (1/2) and a Xi(3/2) and so I started listing the 1/2 and 3/2 states for each particle. I'll clean it up sometimes this week and I'll let you distinguish between spin and isospin values as you see fit.

Headbomb (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, i see. The situation you are describing has somewhat confusing origins, and plagued me for months before i worked it out. It arises from the fact that a baryon has in fact three 'spin-like' numbers to be taken into account: spin, isospin I, and spin parity Jp. Spin can vary between resonances of the same letter group, isospin identifies each letter group (and, thus, by definition cannot vary between constituents), and Jp almost invariably varies between resonances (in integer increments off of the spin, interestingly enough).
protons and neutrons, in ground state, have equal spin and isospin, and so do delta baryons, so it may appear that either of these two are used to differentiate between the two. Lambda and sigma's, however, do not. while they both are available in the fractional spins, they are defined by their integer isospins. However, these numbers are sometimes confused or switched, possibly due to the reader, but the sad truth is that more often than not, due to unreliable material, even that of supposedly reliable and/or highly reputable sources. In such cases, the 1/2 and 3/2 values of spins are noticed for sigma/lambda/other heavy baryons, and assumed to play a fundamental differentiation role as they do with protons and neutrons, and listed as fundamental particles, even though they are in fact energized resonances. Hopefully this will make some sense, and guide you in understanding baryons. Wing gundam (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I might also add that it would be unnecessary to list the spin parity number of baryons in addition to the other two, as i think it's identical to the standard spin in the ground state, which is all the list should be listing (there are hundreds of resonances, both confirmed and hypothesized).

[edit] Peer review for the List of baryons

Since you already contributed to that page, I'm letting you know that I requested for a Peer Review. If you want to help, that would be peachy. Headbomb (talk ยท contribs) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)