Talk:Mirror matter

message: I suggest that the article on mirror photons be merged with this article on mirror matter.  Mirror matter and mirror photons are both consitutents of mirror symmetry models.  These models, although have attracted some attention from the public, are only advocated by a handful of particle physicists.  Unlike, e.g., supersymmetry, they are not studied by the majority of mainstream particle physicists.  In my opinion, one WP article devoted to the subject of mirror models is quite sufficient.  There is no need for one article per particle of the theory. Puffino (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but before we can merge, the text about mirror photons should be corrected. Count Iblis (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: FWIW, mirror matter has appeared in popular culture.
There's some theory that the Tunguska event was caused by a collision with a mirror matter meteor. 
65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: John G. Cramer's 1989 novel Twistor also references mirror matter - postulating the existence of (at least one) parallel Earth made of shadow matter - along with shadow-trees, shadow-kittens, and very large shadow-bears. Jimw338 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  popculture refs 

message: Needs to note when it was coined and who by - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term 

message: I'm removing the text below from the article, under the heading Alternate terminology.  This is because this text is not really relevant to the article's topic.  It has more relevance to the antimatter article, or possibly on a disambiguation page, but I don't feel strongly enough about its merits to add it to either of those.  In this article, it is just a distraction, as there is already a hatnote to redirect a user that may be mistaken about the terminology.  My feeling is that if further clarification is required, it should be done at the disambiguation level, and should simply include appropriate disambiguation context, such as the author or book mentioned below. 70.247.165.221 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing text 

message: Have there been any updates to this theory or its relation to physics experiments since 2006? Or have physicists abandoned it/ruled it out? 2601:441:4102:9010:B5D3:FD7:2650:2FA1 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From searching Google Scholar I have found articles discussing this subject from 2007 to 2017. The references section here stops at 2006. I don't know whether this article needs updating with new information. But from looking at the titles and abstracts of those recent papers, I see several recent experimental results have been taken as evidence for mirror matter, and an upcoming XENON experiment is said in one paper to be capable of proving or ruling out mirror matter. I think this page should be updated. 2601:441:4102:9010:9018:4977:B2A5:F64A (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Update? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mirror matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213124927/http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-preprint/fermilab-pub-89-193-a.shtml to http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-preprint/fermilab-pub-89-193-a.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As others have mentioned on the talk page, this article seems to be in serious need of update. For example: "An experiment to measure this effect is currently being planned.[19]" that reference is 16 years old--is it really "current" any more? I do not have the physics background myself to perform the update. I am adding an Update template to the article in hopes of flagging down a qualified person. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I was anticipated. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeating question about how current this is 

message: The article uses the phrase "radiative corrections" and links to Effective field theory ... which never uses that phrase. Well, I'm not helped at all by that link, and I probably know more physics than the average person. Like many physics articles on Wikipedia, this one seems to be written for specialists, not the general public. (I did part of a physics major without, as far as I can remember, ever hearing either phrase.) IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Radiative corrections" is a synonym for one-loop diagrams. I'll change the wikilink. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiative Correction?