lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fermi's interaction

message: feynman & gell-mann (1959) theory of the fermi interaction  linked with spinor potentials (used in doran, lasenby, gull, somaroo & challinor (2005) spacetime algebra & electron physics). see also (gsponer & hurni (1998) lanczos-einstein-petiau: from dirac's equation to NL wave mechanics) for the link with lanczos equation (found in 1933), kramers equation (as relativitic pauli's equation in gsponer). i'm looking for sudarshan...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.130.77.49 (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: In the introduction it says : "For example, this interaction explains beta decay of a neutron by direct coupling of a neutron with: [...] virtual W- boson". Fermi's theory did not mention a W boson(read for instance the translation of the original article in the reference section). In fact according to the wikipedia article on W and Z bosons, they were theorized in 1968. I think this part should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaerLaer (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: W boson is not part of fermi theory

message: It would be between neutron, proton, beta particle and antineutrino.  Four particles, not five.
Spope3 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree that W boson not part of Fermi interaction

message: I added an attempt at making this article what I was hoping it would be when coming here: mostly, a summary of the key mathematical and physical results from the Tentativo. It needs some work on formatting and encyclopedic style, but I'm in even deeper over my head there than I am with the physics. At some point, I'd like to fill out the "Influence" section with some more on the "Fermi field theory" of nuclear forces.
2601:647:4501:2510:A177:3796:2927:E9F9 (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, Heisenberg’s “shower theory” of cosmic radiation was inspired by the catastrophic failure of treating the Fermi theory with standard perturbation theory (likely sources would be Brown/Rechenberg or the Pauli correspondence). 23.115.162.60 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates July 2016
Talk:City (New Jersey)

message: There are no citations in this article.  Also, Asbury Park, NJ is a city, but residents vote for a council.  They do not vote directly for the mayor.  The mayor is chosen by an internal vote by the council; typically they choose to vote for the person who recieved the most votes. Thelema418 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? Fact Checking?
Talk:Moduli (physics)

message: As far as I know, the term "moduli" entered physics from algebraic geometry, through string theory.  So the way it is represented here is somewhat backwards at the moment.
Shambolic Entity (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

message: References would be good.  Also, is the term "moduli space" as used in "In string theory, the term "moduli space" is often used specifically to refer to the space of all possible string backgrounds." connected to thesame term in algebraic geometry?  Richard Pinch (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References and terminology

message: The Quintessence page states that Quintessence can solve the "cosmological constant problem".  I am wondering whether there are any similar attractions to Moduli Theory.  Further questions about whether Moduli can be attractive as well as repulsive are also worth answering in the article.  
If I have misunderstood Moduli Theory, I would appreciate correction.  
ASavantDude (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What problems does Moduli Theory actually solve?

message: I propose merging Vacuum manifold into Moduli (physics) since they are two names for the same thing; the space of degenerate vacuum states. This article already talks about both, making the vacuum manifold page unnecessary. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger
Talk:Haag's theorem

message: I don't remember exactly what the policies are, but shouldn't we wait before citing a recently written paper? Specially from the amateur part. --181.31.86.55 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Seidewitz 

message: The current opening sentence
: Rudolf Haag postulated that the interaction picture does not exist in an interacting, relativistic quantum field theory (QFT), something now commonly known as Haag's theorem.
is a contradiction in terms: if you postulate something it becomes an axiom, not a theorem. Contributions/95.199.143.153 (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you postulate something, it becomes a postulate, not an axiom. But yes, I too would be grateful for enlightenment as to how this became "Haag's Theorem" when the cited 1955 paper contains no proof. Was there some additional, perhaps unpublished work that I am not aware of? Cgoakley (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postulated?
Talk:American Film Theatre

message: I used the incorrect spelling in creating this page, all references at Kino Video and IMDB indicate that Landau did indeed call it American Film Theatre. An intentional anachronism, since theater is the correct American spelling. Currently awaiting help from a Wiki-mentor to tell me how to resolve this efficaciously. -- David Spalding 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Caesium iodide

message: Could somebody explain "The drawbacks of CsI are a high temperature gradient". It could only have a temperature gradient if there was some heat source on one side. Should it mean that some property that is strongly depend on temperature? Please could it be made more clear, or deleted. --88.107.19.63 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is it "scintillation efficiency of CsI has a high thermal gradient"? 172.103.222.67 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  high temperature gradient 

message: Okay
CsI's Knoop's hardness is  claimed to be 137.9 kPa (20 lbf/in^2)
while its Young's Modulus is claimed to be Young's modulus: 5.3 GPa (769 lbf/in^2)
If I plug these into  google calculator, I find the first is correct and that Young's Modulus should
be 5.3 MPa.  However, given the other examples on Knoop's hardness scale (gold being about 700 MPa)
and Young's modulus for rubber being 100 MPa, I don't think that this can possibly be correct.
Should it be that its Knoop's hardness is 137.9 MPa (20,000 lbf/in^2) and its Young's modulus be 5.3 GPa (769,000 lbf/in^2)?
jay (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young's Modulus and Knoop's hardness 

message: Is this chemical also known as Crystolon and used in grinding/abrasives? Sitush (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dug deeper - it's silicon carbide, tradename. Sitush (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystolon 

message: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ever-elusive-neutrinos-spotted-bouncing-off-nuclei-for-the-first-time/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.217.132 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesium iodide was used in a new form of neutrino detection
Talk:Ward–Takahashi identity

message: I added the actual formulas for the Ward-Takahashi identity and for the Ward identity (since Ward identity redirects here).  HEL 00:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the actual formulas for the identity 

message: There is obviously a mistake in this formula. I don't feel qualified enough to edit it myself, but I believe the last integral should be a path integral (instead of being a space-time integral). Thanks.
:\int \delta_\epsilon \left(\mathcal{F} e^{iS}\right) \mathcal{D}\phi = \int \epsilon \lambda \mathcal{F} e^{iS} \mathrm{d}^dx   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B8:0:408:36E6:D7FF:FE1D:A653 (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is obviously a mistake 

message: The abstract expression from the path integral formalism does not seem to be so friendly expressible to the explicit expression given at the beginning of the page. Can anybody help on establishing the link between these? True bsmile 14:08, 14 Janunary 2010 (UTC) 
And what is the connection with Noether's theorem except that Mμ formally looks like a conserved current in momentum space? Well, that's explained a bit in the last section. I would still like to see some more exposition though. YohanN7 (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could anybody comment on how to express the rather abstract expression into the explicit expression for the Ward-Takahashi identity
Talk:Aviation Partners

message: In the AfD discussion linked above, there were a number of references brought up by Whpq. Please add these in at some point. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Rotational transition

message: I don't think that Mass Spectrometry (the title of the link) or Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (the actual linked article) are appropriate links to support this article. These perform a measure of "the mass-to-charge ratio of ions", and have nothing to do with spectral lines emitted during a rotational transition, which are a measure of "electromagnetic radiation ... absorbed or emitted" as the article correctly states.
Link changed to Rotational spectroscopy.
HexAmp 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Mass Spectrometry?

message: Maybe this stubby article could be generalized (by expanding) to Molecular rotational energy with this material transfered to a section called "Rotational transition".  There used to be a Vibrational transition article, whose content was moved to Molecular vibration and it was turned into a Redirect.  The reason I did not suggest calling the article "Molecular rotation" is because this new article would only cover rotational energy levels and transitions, not hypothetical molecular rotations for the sake of comparing or studying symmetry (point groups) or chirality.  Other possible titles for such a generalized article could be Molecular rotational level, Molecular rotational energy level, or Molecular rotational mode.  H Padleckas (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest generalizing this article to [[Molecular rotational energy]]
Talk:Euclidean quantum gravity

message: This article states that "It is also assumed that the manifolds are compact, connected and boundaryless (i.e. no singularities)."    The first assumption is incorrect; in fact, it is assumed that the manifolds are noncompact.  The metrics over which one integrates are assumed to the Asymptotically Euclidean, meaning that in each asymptotic region, there is a coordinate chart such that the metric takes the form (1+4I/(3\pi r^2) (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2+dt^2) for n>0, where r^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2, and I is the value of the action.  See Shoen & Yau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (1979) 547. For confirmation and further discussion, see, e.g., Gibbons & Pope, Comm.Math.Phys. 66 (1979) 267.   The manifolds can have boundaries, so long as they remain noncompact and so long as you modify the action integral with an appropriate boundary term, as prescribed by Hawking.  See, e.g., Gibbons & Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15 (1976) 2752.  Whether the region must be connected, I'm not sure, but I think not.  This gets into questions of "baby universes".   In fact, I don't think one need speak of the manifold at all; it is just an integral over a function space defined by certain constraints on the functions.  I hope whoever wrote this article will rewrite carefully.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidwestGeek (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Definition of Euclidean Path Integral 

message: Currently the article has a long section on Wick rotation, which is useless as on general manifolds it cannot be performed, and very little about Euclidean quantum gravity. It would need a complete rewriting in my opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplesso (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article would need a major rewriting
Talk:Lattice QCD

message: Added:
"At the moment, this is the most well established non - perturbative approach to solving the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics.", since the article presents Lattice QCD simply as "a lattice model of QCD" which is true alas, IMHO, Lattice QCD is nowadays the way to go in order to compute hadronic observables from first principles to say the least.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.66.243 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Talk:Charge qubit

message: In the articles of flux qubit and phase qubit, I added a link to superconducting quantum computing, right at the first line.
I am much more reluctant about where to mention superconducting quantum computing here, because a charge qubit exists in various implementations of quantum computing devices (e.g. in quantum dots as well). Currently the first line does (somewhat) make the wrong impression that charge qubit is intimately connected to supercondting quantum computing, so maybe this also ought to be modified.Tal Mor (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link to superconducting quantum computing
Talk:Quantum field theory in curved spacetime

message: This is said a lot, and it is misleading. The definition of "particle" here is the occupation number for a global field mode, an asymptotic definition. There is a second definition of particle which is local, where the particle is what you get when you apply a local field operator to the vacuum.
Then the excitations of the quantum field theory are represented as a sum over these local particle paths. The local particles are not different in different frames. The new particles in Unruh's and Hawking's calculation can, in the local particle picture, be traced back to the horizon, and they get to the detector by meandering around in the usual way.
The source of the confusion is the fact that the local-particle interpretation was confined to Feynman and a few others until the seventies. Everybody else followed Wigner and defined a particle as a global excitation which serves as an in or out state. This changed when quarks became particles, which was a catalyst for a linguistic transformation that caused people to redefine particles as local constructions in Feynman diagrams or in path integrals which follow particle trajectories, not as asymptotic excitations of global field modes.
I tried to make the distinction clear.Likebox (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particles Depend on Observer 

message: Has Quantum field theory in curved spacetime been confirmed by experimental evidence ? and which experiment? 222.252.111.226 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental evidence
Talk:Top-down cosmology

message: I think this stub could be added to Multi-Universe unless someone wants to expand this. Nescio sed Scio 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate.  SchreiberBike talk 00:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of capitalization of ''universe'' 

message: An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of request for comment 

message: There is no sources in the article. Was it really Feynman who was the mastermind behind the concept? Do you have an literature? Now we have some evidence regarding the concept:  "The only way to reconcile all the observations, Cotler says, is to conclude that the photon went through multiple histories in parallel." Kartasto (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources plus progress 

message: "The only way to reconcile all the observations, Cotler says, is to conclude that the photon went through multiple histories in parallel."
Kartasto (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence
Talk:Cluster decomposition

message: could someone please give an intuitive proof of this theorem I know that Weinberg in his book first vol on QFT dedicated a whole chapter but the way he introduced the connected part of the S-matrix wasn't that clear to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.139.149.193 (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

message: I went ahead and rewrote this article after extensive research concerning this topic. There does not seem to be much on it actually. Having visited the Cambridge University Library, I found a very limited amount of material on it, mainly in axiomatic QFT books. The main possible extension to this article I could imagine is for a deeper dive into axiomatic QFT, but even then this would be very limited. So I would say that this is a very comprehensive article that does hence deserve at least a C-class rating (assuming it is well written). OpenScience709 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite
Talk:Einselection

message: In the following sentence:
"The einselected states lack coherence, and therefore do not exhibit the quantum behaviours of entanglement and superposition"  Wouldn't "interference" be more adequate to describe in a simple manner quantum behavior rather than "entanglement and superposition"?  At least I think that it might fit better the quantum behavior that we might see in this particular case if decoherence had not taken place. Normally we would just make many measurements of the system in question prepared every time in the same way and then look at the statistics (distribution) of the results. While entanglement would imply a correlation between two systems (particles in the case of EPR), here we just need to look at one system. A simple example might be a double-slit experiment with some massive particle, where some interaction with the environment might destroy coherence before the particle reaches the screen. In that case we would no longer see an interference pattern. 
Of course we could apply the concept of einselection to a pair of entangled particles, but the article does mention that. 
Alexepascual (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Baldred of Strathclyde

message: As I created this without a knowledge of the original article I am more than happy for a merge. My only comment is that I fully sourced what I wrote whereas the 'other' St.Baldred cites no academic sources at all. I would question some of the claims made in the first article as unfounded/disputed. David Lauder 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Current algebra

message: 'Certain commutation relations... define an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra called a current algebra... these are Lie algebras consisting of smooth maps from a manifold into a finite dimensional Lie algebra.'
First it says it's infinite dimensional then it says it's finite dimensional. Paranoidhuman (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lie algebra \mathfrak{g} is finite-dimensional, but the space of smooth maps (= the current algebra) is an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra \hat{\mathfrak{g}}. The formulation could maybe be improved. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in the intro

message: It's not clear to me what the intentions of the creator of this stub were, but I've added Treiman-Jackiw-Gross reference, just in case. Arcfrk 04:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added ref
Talk:Trendiness

message: The reason I only made a generic stub message at the bottom of the article is that I could not quite place the subject - but it is certainly not a fashion-related article.  I am changing this back.
If anything, the concept is more in line with sociology or psychology.  Any input on this would be great.
Also, am not opposed to a merge, but I believe the article presents somewhat different information than the Fads and trends article.  That article contains a list of things from the whole of the 20th century, whereas this one follows a more consisten, evolving pattern in society where people choose a select few things.  At any given time, there is a fitness fad (pilates), an electronics fad (iPods), a music fad (indie), and many others which permeate all facets of society.
As long as a merge can cover all of this, I've got no problem.  I will be updating this article more and more over the next week with what I, personally, have come up for it.  If by the time I (and anyone else with something helpful to add) am finished, and the merge still goes ahead, I will not contest.
I simply think that the presence of this phenomenon merits its own article.
Mk623SC20K 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of the article
Talk:Marcus Adoro

message: More info on Marcus' projects and life. http://www.pulse.ph/CMS/ViewPage.php?PostingId=117 Magasin 12:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamon Kamon 
File talk:India roadway map.svg

message: what this image had that made to the first page? --Pejman47 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only images that satisfy these criteria are displayed on the front page of wikipedia. See WP:POTD. As you can see, these images arent always selected for their eye-catchiness.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page?
Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 22–23, 1981

message: Infoboxes!  And the table for individual tornadoes.  This could easily be a GA soon, good job Storm.-Runningonbrains 14:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe. I was just coming back to the page to give it the exact same class, though I might have made it min-level importance to the tornado project, as it fills in the timeline :). Yes, a fantastic job considering you're the only editor so far Storm. Crimsone 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to add

message: I've added the tornadoes that occured just east of the May 22 tornadoes as it was obviously from the same system. This gives a total of 43 tornadoes during the two-day outbreak.--JForget  20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: May 23

message: I moved the article named "May 1981 Tornado Outbreak" to "May 1981 tornado outbreak" to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Regge theory

message: There is so much to do here. I tried to give a historical sketch, but I am relying on Gribov's account almost exclusively. There are many nonrelativistic examples, there is BFKL and all the perturbative work, and then there's the recent AdS/QCD stuff. There are also the main historical question: why was this theory marginalized for so long? Hopefully someone who lived through the era can say something.Likebox (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it marginalized? Dunno. In grad school, in the early 1980's, I had several lectures on it. Something about it was unexciting... I attempted to understand the bare minimum to pass the class, but trying to figure out what a Lie group was, what SU(3) was, seemed to be much more exciting and important. By contrast, poles, analytic continuation, s,t,u just seemed boring, although "edge of the wedge" drove home the point that I should have not sleep-walked through the lectures. Ooops. Too late. Anyway, the experimentalists did not ask me out on dates. This is just an anecdote about human nature, but maybe everyone felt similarly? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much More is Needed 

message: The term redirects here but is not mentioned or defined. Equinox (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "Reggeon"?