Talk:Axion

message: axion
Apparantly found: http://www.physorg.com/news84633896.html
anescient 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/34/1/009 ~Kylu (u|t)  04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. An axion in Condensed Matter Theory is not the same as an axion in Particle Physics, which is the scope of this article. - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Umm... maybe you're kidding, but Slashdot is not a reliable source of information on scientific subjects.  --Reuben 07:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody else has proof about axions?--//Mac Lover TalkC 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, axions are still hypothetical particles.  Nobody has demonstrated that they exist so far.  There are a couple of promising leads (see the article), and other searches in progress, so maybe someday there will be proof of axions - but not now.  --Reuben 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow your logic. A conjectured concept is still a type of concept. Praemonitus (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The “idea” can be real, but there is no such thing as a hypothetical thing (maybe in math). It’s either real or it isn’t. Don’t know how it can be anything else. 69.181.192.29 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many RS use the phrase "hypothetical particle" to describe axions, gravitons, neutralinos, etc. Higgs bosons graduated from hypothetial-ity (??), axions not yet AFAICT. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

text:  No, what it's saying is this may or may not be a thing, then covering the affirmative case and describing the attempts to verify it. This is a valid part of the scientific process. This article is as appropriate as discussing a notable but hypothetical astronomical object, for example. Praemonitus (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How is this thingie different from the various kinds of neutrinoss? Both are chargeless, very light and minimally interactive with matter. 195.70.48.242 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain in the article! 

message: I have to disagree with removal of the paragraph about Jain's supposed discovery.
* The press release is no longer available on U Buffalo web site, but the original article used by PhysOrg is still there: 
* What exactly does Jain/Singh paper claim? Literal quote: "the persistent appearance of unusual narrow peaks around Q = 7 ± 1 MeV and 19 ± 1 MeV favours the existence of new short-lived exotic particles." In the very next paragraph: "The present experiment sheds some light on why the numerous previous efforts over more than two decades were not successful in detecting the low-mass, neutral, short-lived nonstandard axions." The word "axion" appears in the article 6 times, and no other possible short-lived exotic particles are mentioned. So they may not claim explicitly that they have discovered the axion ( their data is simply not good enough to make such claims ), but they sure do imply it. --Itinerant1 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jain 

message: What do you say, guys? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/37841 Mac Davis (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New evidence? 

message: I added some stuff about caustics, including a reference to pictures of the "Sikivie triangle" on his personal website. I realize that these pictures do not by any stretch constitute solid scientific evidence; you can see a lot of shapes if you squint at the stars. (And Sikivie is no crank, and so doesn't claim otherwise.) Still, I believe that I hedged enough in the article and didn't give it undue weight. 187.143.13.91 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added caustics 

message: The article says "ADMX is amidst a series of upgrades and is currently taking data in new mass and coupling ranges.".  However, as of a few weeks ago they were still ramping up the magnet after the latest upgrade (personal communication).  What verifiable source do we have that the experiment is currently taking data?  I can't find any such announcements online.
Howard Landman (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ADMX actually taking data now? 

message: There's extensive coverage of experimental searches.  Should there be a table of limit results, or just current best limits, or do the values not matter since axions haven't been detected? Timetraveler3.14 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, having a summary would be nice.  Probably not a table but a chart showing regions. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment Limit Reporting 

message: It appears the axion has been named after a brand of detergent.
Is this trivium too trivial to mention? Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its not too trivial, I think its a fun bit of history. (Actually, I remember hearing this too, back in the day.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particles and detergents. 

message: Substituted at 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: From what I've read, axions are interesting in ΛCDM models because they're "cold", have very low velocities.  (At least in intergalactic space.  Within galaxies they acquire kinetic energy.)
Such a low-mass particle, given even the tiniest bit of energy, would be zipping around like a neutrino, at a velocity indistinguishable from c.  How they are produced at a temperature so many orders of magnitude below that of the universe they came from is something I'd like to understand.
It's addressed very briefly on p. 10 of http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~golwala/ph135c/08MooreAxions.pdf, which says:
An elaboration on this would be a great addition to the article. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are axions cold? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Axion. 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  tag to http://www.phys.ufl.edu%2F~tanner%2FAxions2010%2FDuffy_Axions2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207214335/http://www.physorg.com:80/news84633896.html to http://physorg.com/news84633896.html
 (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article does not directly address ultralight axions (ULAs), but they are a valid possibility, and around m \sim 10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV} they make a particularly attractive dark matter candidate. Should we add a (sub)section about that (perhaps under Properties)?  Gneisss (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultralight axions 

message: Abbreviation PRL does not seem to be introduced:
: GammeV saw no events in a 2008 PRL. 
--Mortense (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Physics Review Letters 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "PRL"? 

message: Regarding:
: "...said axions would only partially compose dark matter."
Should it be the following?
: "...said axions would only partially be composed of dark matter."
--Mortense (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

text: To explain a bit more: if X composes Y, then Y is composed of X.  by saying "axions would only partially compose dark matter" the quote is saying that dark matter cannot be only axions, but must include at least one more thing. 
--Rpresser 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to "compose dark matter"? 

message: This says that an axion has been detected.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've already answered that. That is about Axion insulators. They are axions in the context of Condensed Matter Physics (bidemensional pseudo-particles that arise as excitations in solids), not in Particle Physics where they are postulated to solve the CP problem in QCD. Sure, this discovery can be mentioned in the article (Nature article for references), my preference would be either in the Experiments section or in a new one small one about axions in CMP, as it might help particle physicists in their search, but it is not a actual discovery of an axion as an elementary particle. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detected? 

message: Without a Lagrangian form for the axion, its hard to understand the geometry of the thing. This seems to be a major shortcoming of this article!? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the Lagrangian? 

message: The article states  but the matrix provided is not a rotation matrix (although it is “deceptively” written out to resemble one, but the determinant is not 1, but rather 1 + \tan^2 \xi).
A more fair representation would probably be the following:
LvdT88 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation? 

message: I reverted this edit because parts of it are problematic. For example, it adds a lot of prose explanation without citing those explanations to RS; presumably they come from a knowledgeable user but Wikipedia doesn't use that free-flowing essay style. There is also a problem in the weight it gives to one experiment called MADMAX, which does not seem more notable than many other experiments. I would like to see these suggestions for axions given in smaller segments with more RS cited. Also,  should disclose any COI wrt MADMAX or axion physics. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The change only adds a small section on the experiment, which is notable due to its high sensitivity to axions in the range in which they are predicted to most likely make up dark matter. Scienceperson42 (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive edit by new user 

message: It seems to me that this article is covering widely different points considering that the axion mass proposed varies by 17 orders of magnitude by section, without any summary putting it into perspective. -- MGChecker (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass 

message: I'm an active researcher who has published four papers on axions. For many years, this Wikipedia page has presented a set of equations due to Visinelli as "the" equations of axion electrodynamics. The problem is that these equations are completely different from the standard set that the whole field uses, and furthermore they are totally theoretically unmotivated. They do not come from an action, do not emerge from deeper theories like string theory, and cannot imply a solution of the strong CP problem. This is a common problem with Wikipedia articles on theoretical physics: they doesn't contain the standard textbook material, but they do contain all sorts of random claims from obscure papers. Many junior researchers have been misled this way. I'm not a Wikipedia insider, but I've fixed the issue and hope that my fix won't be reverted. 73.158.248.187 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equations of axion electrodynamics