Talk:Infraparticle

message: Considering concerns on the AFD and on my talk page, I've removed the OR portions of the article and kept the first paragraph only. It will be almost like re-building from scratch.  --JForget  20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reduced

message: This article explained two things which are both related: one of which is the Noether procedure for gauge symmetries. You expect that a gauge symmetry will produce an infinite number of conservation laws, one for each point in space, because there are an infinite number of symmetries, one for each point in space. Everybody knows that this doesn't work, because the Noether procedure gives a charge which is a perfect divergence.
But what this article shows is that this procedure actually does work, because the gauge transformation at infinity gives rise to a conserved current for each gauge transformation at infinity. This then allows you to define different superselection sectors, which are defined by the electric and magnetic fields at infinity. This is encyclopedic content of the highest quality, written by one of the best physics contributors ever (User:Phys, who left the site very early on). It is important not to delete what you don't understand--- just leave it alone. If it really is bad content, someone who does understand it will delete it. This used to be, hands down, the best article in the encyclopdia.Likebox (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: The original source for this seems to be this article﻿: D. Buchholz, Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 331. There, the discussion of Gauss's law is extended for the infraparticle case, and this parallels the discussion here. I have not had time to review this source in any detail (it was just linked from the one reference found here), and there might be an earlier one.Likebox (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: All the sections here can be easily sourced--- give the editors time to review the literature and find the appropriate citations. This is well known material, and there is no reason to hastily delete it. Deleting long discussions without consensus can be construed as vandalism.Likebox (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold Your Horses on Adding Unsourced Content! When you source the content, you can restore the content. See WP:BURDEN.—Finell 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sourced it from a 1982 article instead.Likebox (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hold Your Horses on Deletion! 

message: The (well known) statement about soft photon measurement threshold is copied verbatim from infrared divergence. If you have issues with this statement, please take your concerns there, because this is a topic too elemetary to deal with for this article.Likebox (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead tags 

message: Infraparticle#Noether's theorem for gauge transformations contains the follwing: "... at the boundary at spatial infinity is zero, which is satisfied if the current density J falls off sufficiently fast ..." The link is to electromagnetic current density. Should the link be changed to probability current? Or to Probability density function?—Finell 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For a charged particle, they're proportional to each other, so it may not matter. --Michael C. Price talk 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Michael Price is talking about the relation between the charged particle current and probability density, but in this case, the author is talking about current and field densities, but whatever, it is correct as written. Anyway, all the sourcing (except for Buchholz) is to stuff that is absurdly well known and must be intuitively familiar before this article makes any sense.Likebox (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion here is phrased carefully so that it applies to the classical and quantum case, and to an arbitrary source of electric current in the quantum case. It is not proper to replace "current density" with "probability current density", since they are only proportional in the nonrelativistic limit for a single particle with charge. This discussion is for all possible sources. This question is not at all relevant to infraparticle, but is part of the assumed background that every reader should know, so I please ask: put in the effort to learn the background and learn the subject before making changes.Likebox (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Headbomb made that change. Perhaps you need to clarify the text.—Finell 00:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current density 

message: See . I've reverted to the stub version in the meantime, so we make sure to not mislead readers. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This comment is saying that the editors here did not bring up any of the substantive issues with infraparticles, and instead asked for sourcing of the most obvious, simple to source, trivialities which have nothing to do with the subject. Providing such sourcing is smoke and mirrors--- it distracts from the real issues with infraparticles. The sources I provided were accurate for the material that was challenged, it's just that the challenges were not very astute.Likebox (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've also only had about two days to review the article, during the week-end, while most of us are not at university where we can't check the given sources. If you want more serious challenges, give it time, and they will come. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until you produce those challenges, you should leave the article alone.Likebox (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, per admission of deceptive sourcing by Likebox 

message: :That version can be found here.
Here, we can work on this in the meantime. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that a talk subpage, rather than this hidden section, would be a more convenient platform for editing a draft?—Finell 05:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. I don't care either way, as long as we get to review the sources in details and make sure they support what they are claimed to support. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: You two should be ashamed of yourselves. --Michael C. Price talk 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, striving for quality articles with quality referencing, factual accuracy and no original synthesis is abhorrent, we are aware. In the meantime, if you're so disgusted by us, I suggest you disengage and come back after you more concerned with the quality of this article than in discussing the personal character of Finell and I. The world won't end if they stumble upon a stub version of this article for one more week or so, and it's a much better situation than having them read a deceptively sourced article, potentially containing falsehoods and original synthesis. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft version 

message: The article has been full protected as a result of User:Count Iblis's repeated re-addition of the unsourced, disputed content.
Count: If adding the sources is "trivial", as you edit content says, why don't you just do it, instead of scolding and pontificating to everyone else. This was your modus operandi at Speed of light, where
*You said that the article's editors were irresponsible for having inaccurate information in the article—but you didn't correct.
*You told us all how we could easily resolve the year long dispute with Brews ohare, and the dispute with Tombe—but you didn't employ your methods to resolve these serious disputes.
Your preaching without helping is getting really old.—Finell 06:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: As Scienceapologists points out below, first we need to know what needs to be sourced. But then I also think we're putting the horse behind the cart here. We need to first agree on what the introductory paragraph should explain. My opinion is that you cannot then just say that we are a priori bound to what some article on infraparticles is writing about. I think this is the real source of the dispute. If you add a good introductory paragraph then you may need to go beyond what the source ion the subject itself is itself explaining, thereby making sourcing to satisfy the die hard wiki-fundamentalists more difficult. If you want to make sourcing very easy, then the article will probably remain in stub form. Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Count: I would very much like to see a good introduction to this article, especially one that is helpful to the general reader (to the extent that is possible). I have never taken the position that fairly summarizing what sources say, or translating them into non-technical (or less technical) language, is WP:OR. I don't even mind connecting the dots between sources, provided the connections are non-controversial. To me, WP:SYNTH is where a Wikipedian reaches a new conclusion, using conclusions from multiple sources as premises, but where no reliable source draws the same conclusion. I also agree with your statement that a good introduction would lay a foundation for the concepts that a journal article on infraparticles would expect the reader of that article, in that journal, to know. Some history on the coining and first uses of the word infraparticle (the meaning of the root words is obvious) would also be helpful. Why don't you try drafting an introduction along these lines?—Finell 02:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Finell, ok., it seems that the dispute has been resolved. Now, I won't be able to spend much time on this. Unlike me, Likebox has already read the articles on this subject in detail and he seems to have more time for Wikipedia than I have. Also he knows much more about QFT than I do. So, I see no reason why you cannot work with Likebox on this matter. Perhaps get BenRG involved here as he's also very knowlegable in QFT. It may be unhealthy if you have only one expert editor contributing to an article... Count Iblis (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Could an admin please add  and  to the article?--Rockfang (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems uncontroversial.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: As far as I can tell the problems with the article in the original state were mainly with sourcing, style and exposition, not with content. The article was written without any sourcing in an very expository style, which creates the suggestion the the ideas are original to the author. This is bad for a gazzilion reasons, but deleting the content and editprotecting the article is counter productive. The topic, although somewhat obscure, seems fairly valid and there is literature around to improve it. Some of the deleted content could quite probably be improved to get a good article from this. (Although, I see some problem with 60% percent of the article talking about Noether's theorem instead of infraparticles.) TimothyRias (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  And so is everybody else, it seems.  So who's going to unprotect it? --Michael C. Price talk 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask someone on IRC. Should happen in a couple of seconds. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just unprotect this article and get some progress going? 

message: Up above this comment is the evidence of a huge edit war, from Jan-Feb 2010. The current article seems to be fine to me: it explains a concept that is of continuing interest, and challenging to students of QFT. I like it, its a good article. 
To the best of my incomplete knowledge, it can be extended: at least a part of Hawking radiation and of Unruh radiation can be understood as the Bremsstrahlung of infraparticles. To the best of my knowledge, one can go deeper still, and reinterpret the classical polarization density of a charged particle in classical media as the vacuum polarization (so that the vacuum looks like "media" and experiences conventional "polarization".) The analog of Bremsstrahlung during acceleration then becomes plain-old pair creation, (manifesting as Unruh radiation). I believe that it is possible for the explanation given in this article to be extended to this "polarization density", which gives gives a (semi-)classical (non-quantum) explanation to the shedding of soft particle radiation in accelerated frames. (I call it "non-quantum", because there are no one-loop diagrams, because there's no perturbative calculation that is needed to obtain the result. You can get this with "tree-level" diagrams, albeit infinite trees, due to the infrared divergence.) I do not have references to establish the above, but (to the best of my knowledge) this is all "well-known" to people working on Unruh/Hawking radiation type stuff. I'd love to see the actual calculation, as it would clarify an otherwise opaque idea. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bremsstrahlung]]  --> [[Hawking radiation]]