Talk:Exciton

message: The figure caption is confusing. In the first figure, the "Frenkel" exciton is shown to have a range that extends across multiple unit cells. In the second figure, the "Wannier-Mott exciton" has a smaller range. This directly contradicts the definitions given in the article, which contrast small Frenkel radii with large Wannier-Mott radii ("[Frenkel] excitons thus tend to be small, of the same order as the size of the unit cell").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayschrenn (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Figure error?

message: To the person who alleged this article was copied from :  it's the other way around.  There are all kinds of sites that use content from Wikipedia, and it's probably legal. Tantalate 22:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: web copies

message: In case anyone is interested, the image shown on this page was not created by Mark Wolverton at Argonne National Laboratory.  This image was created by the research group of Peter Abbamonte, in the Physics Department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, using facilities at the data visualization lab at the Beckman Institute.  The "permission" section in the file description, which says this image is a product of a DOE lab, is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.199.197 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct attribution of the figure 

message: The introduction should be corrected. Excitons can be formed by charge injection into a Quantum well not just by absorption of a photon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.2 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exciton creation 

message: :"(holes actually don't exist, the term is an abstraction for the location from which an electron was moved; they have no charge in and of themselves)"
This statement seems somewhat questionable ontologically.  Let's put it in a different context:
:"(holes actually don't exist, the term is an abstraction for the location from which dirt has been removed; they have no mass in and of themselves)" But the non-existent mass of the non-existent hole is certainly less than the surronding non-hole.Cloudswrest (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holes don't actually exist" 

message: The moving Wannier Mott exciton was not a figure of my choice. Since I don't have the privilege to upload yet I chose one from Wikimedia Commons. For instance, I would prefer the representation on this website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpathy (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wannier Mott exciton figure 

message: A July 25, 2018 news release reports: "EPFL researchers have developed a transistor based on excitons – a type of particle most people have not heard of – that is able to function at room temperature. This breakthrough could lead to a new breed of faster, more energy efficient and smaller electronics. The study was published today in Nature." See: https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/e/ep/epflmedia/www/20180725_%20Excitons/Excitons%20Communique%CC%81%20ENG.pdf  
If this turns out to be reliable information about an important advance, it should be mentioned in the article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPFL researchers have developed a transistor based on excitons 

message: The article fails to mention this particular kind of superconductivity, mediated by excitons.  See e.g. http://www.novam-research.com/resources/Research_Project_Room_Temperature_Superconductors.pdf - yoyo (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That presentation includes a link to this paper: http://www.novam-research.com/resources/Article-on-special-oxides_2008.pdf, which specifically mentions "the excitonic type of superconductivity" in its Abstract on page 1.  Interestingly, the term exciton is not mentioned in either of the two Wikipedia articles Superconductivity and, more importantly, High-temperature superconductivity.  yoyo (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sounds reasonable to add content on excitonic superconductivity, why not. So why don't you go ahead and add some content on it...? --Blue.painting (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excitonic superconductivity 

message: The Rytova–Keldysh potential seems to be given in cgs units, without explicitly mentioning it. I propose using SI units as the default, i.e.
:V(r)= -\frac{e^2}{8 \epsilon_0 r_0}\left[\text{H}_0\left(\frac{\kappa r}{r_0}\right)-Y_0\left(\frac{\kappa r}{r_0}\right)\right].
Zamomin9 (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. -- Blue.painting (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rytova–Keldysh Potential Units