Talk:Positron

message: The number is 1.022 Mev, a little over one Mev, not one thousand Mev. pstudier 20:50, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)
:Yes, that was a mistake. - Patrick 00:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If a particle has "spin" 1/2, this means that the spin quantum number s = 1/2. The spin magnetic quantum number ms can have values -s, -s+1, ..., s-1, s. Thus, if s = 1/2, ms can be ±1/2. David  17:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Number

message: Positron has opposite parity as the electron. I would add this but I know nothing about it other than its true (probably). Fresheneesz 07:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can recall, electrons are not parity eigenstates. You can only talk about parity of things like pions. -- Xerxes 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, well its beyond me to disagree with you, but my physics teacher mentioned it in passing (not that I trust him..), and this page suggests to me that theres *at least* confusion about this. Fresheneesz 02:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're interpreting this wrong. The electron field really describes four different particles: the left-handed electron, the right-handed electron, the left-handed positron and the right-handed positron. Parity-reversal exchanges left-handed particles with right-handed ones. Charge-conjugation exchanges electrons with positrons. Due to CPT symmetry, if you apply parity-reversal, charge-conjugation and then flip the arrow of time, all reactions look exactly the same. This implies that left-handed electrons are "like" right-handed positrons. But neither is the parity-flip of the other. -- Xerxes 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parity 

message: Skobeltsyn page says he observed the positron in 1923. This page says 1929. Which date is correct? Marcreif (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is something very interesting I didn't know before. There was a lot of speculation about "positive electrons" before Dirac came up with the right equation for them. In addition to the Eddington 1917 ref, I also found an article by Bragg in 1910 speculating about bound positive-negative electron pairs making up X-rays. So I suppose Dirac was just the first to come up with a correct derivation that the positron should exist. I think we should probably add a section discussing incorrect previous theories as well. -- Xerxes 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of old books and articles on the electron and electricity helped me to find that a positive electron was sometimes what we now call a proton because electron was, for a while, considered to be an element for a short while.
Bvcrist 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier "discovery"? 

message: Why is half of a scientific article devoted to "The positron in fiction"... Who really cares if the positron was in some dumb anime show. Positron Annihilation Spectroscopy isn't even mentioned in the article. I would rewrite it myself but I don't have any expertise on the subject.
This is why people on the internet shouldn't be allowed to write encylopedias... No matter what the article is about it is going to be packed full of references to shitty cartoons and ghostbusters by some stupid geek. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.10.161 (talk • contribs) .
:What, are you under the impression that an explanation of Positron Annihilation Spectroscopy was deleted in order to make room for cartoons? Wikipedia is under construction. Melchoir 23:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, more "scientific" stuff is about to be added. A page on positron annihilation spectroscopy will also emerge in a few weeks.Positroni (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what 

message: I'm currently studying physics at A2, and have come across what seems to be a logical contradcition. If  protons are positively charged and electrons negatively charged, why do the electrons leave the nucleus in Beta decay? Please someone help!
80Turnbull 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link.  Does that clear anything up?  --Tardis 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: The copyright notice of the image "Cloud chamber - visible trace of positron"  says that the copyright is expired because more than 70 years have passed since the author's death. Since Anderson died in 1991, this is obviously false. Also, the picture is upside-down. 147.142.160.134 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of image 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: </div>
 ⋅This article is almost completely unreferenced, does not have a summary introduction separate from the minimal main content, and is dominated by unreferenced trivia, apparently selected on the base that the word "positron" is there somewhere. Needs more on physics, less on entertainment. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: i feel that this is a very important topic, as the experimental discovery of the positron was a huge success for theoretical physics, and believe the positron is an important antiparticle, please revert or discuss if you diagree.
It is however a shame the quality of the article does not represent the importance, and hope someone has the time that i dont to improve it 193.60.83.241 (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about to be improved, please be patient.Positroni (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: importance rating

message: Is it time to reassess this article for "good article" status? It has been two years... 	-RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I have been looking at this article the last couple of days, and tonight I started digging through all my college physics books looking for some more beef to add here.  It seems like a thin coverage of such and important physics topic.  CosineKitty (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 	-RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit of work to the history section tonight.  I tried to be WP:BOLD, but hopefully not too much!  It would be nice for experts to review my changes for errors or misinterpretations, both in terms of history and physics.  I'm concerned my changes may be controversial, though I did my best to base it all on primary sources.  CosineKitty (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know  a particle physicist - should I ask her to look it over? She will not mind, I can assure that. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course... no need to get permission.  Any help improving this would be great! CosineKitty (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

text: That is good to hear!  I am still concerned that I may have gone too far by interpreting the original Dirac paper.  Everywhere else on Wikipedia writes that the Dirac paper "predicts" the existence of the positron.  However, the notion of prediction is a complete fabrication when I read the paper, so I used the wording here.  However, this may be construed as original research on my part, and my admitted use of "primary" sources is problematic under WP:PRIMARY.  Perhaps all the physicists who read that paper at the time saw something obvious that I am missing, leading them to say "wow, there must be some kind of anti-electron", even though I can't find it.  I hope someone will come along and give me some good-faith head-butting on this issue, along with reliable sources to back up the prevailing point of view, so that we can end up with an even better article.  CosineKitty (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From the background I do have in quantum physics - far from professional, but enough so that I would be watching this article ;) - Dirac appears to have hypothesized the positron not from a modern standpoint but from the hypothetical "sea" that bears his name. In an effort to solve the false vacuum paradox of negative energy, he implied the "sea" must be full an thus not permit everything to settle into the lowest energy state. When one of the particles occupying a "slot" was removed, that space was a positron. Therefore, he appears to have been thinking of the positron not as a unique particle, but merely an electron with negative energy. This is incorrect, and its mathematical impetus "E4=m2c4" and thus "E2=±mc2" appears to me to be more mathematical manipulation than actual proof. Yes, negative energy exists, but Dirac appears to have been in a bit of a blind alley. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 17:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting!  And the Dirac sea article seems to be consistent with this interpretation: the sea was based on an aether-like concept. CosineKitty (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good analogy. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could claim credit for it, though it was stolen from one of the references of the Dirac sea article.  :)  Apparently, in the post-Michelson-Morely world, that was a serious hindrance to the idea. CosineKitty (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Good Article|Reassessment?]] 

message: Is there a reference concerning the positron that explains the positron acceleration procedure? I don't see anything in the article that explains that. How does Fermilab do it?WFPM (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The positron is a charged particle, so it's really no different than accelerating any other charged particle. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Positron acceleration procedure

message: The article should probably mention Patrick Blackett and Giuseppe Occhialini who did secondary results that confirmed and popularised the discovery of the positron, although Anderson is correct credited as the initial discoverer. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackett and Occhialini 

message: In 1.2 Experimental clues and discovery, it says Dmitri Skobeltsyn used a bubble chamber while the article bubble chamber says it was invented in 1952... I suppose it was a cloud chamber, can you confirm ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AiméCésar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He used a cloud chamber.  Fixed and source added.  Solarswordsman (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery by a bubble chamber ??

message: The positron and electron both have a "fractional version" of their mass in the Infobox. The note mentions that this is just another way of writing the decimal value, so it doesn't add any information. I've never heard of it being used and I haven't seen it on any other Wikipedia page, so I don't understand why it is useful to have it. I have no formal education in this area, but I have been reading a lot on the subject, so I expect that most people will not know what this value means for the positron. Can somebody please explain what this information means for the positron and add it to the page, or remove it if there's no reason to have it?
    — SkyLined (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by fractional mass. Can you elaborate? Dauto (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the infobox, under mass, there are a couple of numbers. One of them has a note explaining "The fractional version's denominator is the inverse of the decimal value (along with its relative standard uncertainty of 4.2×10−10)." From this I assume that number is the fractional version. If you raise that number to the power -1, you get the "normal" value, so it's just a different way of saying the same thing in my opinion.     — SkyLined (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's just a different way of saying the same thing. I don't know why it's there. Doesn't hurt anything, I suppose. I wouldn't mind were it removed. Dauto (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: After double checking the calculation I realize that that number seems to have a typo. it is the inverse of 5.485799043 instead of 5.4857990943. Note the missing digit. It should be either fixed or removed. Dauto (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Its numerical value is, for obvious reasons, close to the proton-to-electron mass ratio, but I agree that the inverse electron mass in inverse atomic mass units is useless. I would replace it with “1/” rather than removing it altogether, maybe. (This applies to both Positron and Electron.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractional version of mass 

message: The mass in the box on this page needs to be updated to correspond to the same (more recent) source as that of the electron page, since a casual user may look up both positron and electron and think that the two have (very slightly) different masses (as I did before digging into the sources). David.S.Hollman (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass discrepancy 

message: I'm not entirely sure what the caption is referring to; it'd be helpful to have clarification on either the picture itself, or for the caption to be more clear. 86.163.71.158 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption? 

message: Dmitri Skobeltsyn and Chung-Yao Chao are both dated as "1929" for the first observations. Can someone please look into the exact dates, as in month and day, so we can know who really observed it first? DrZygote214 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who observed it first? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Positron. 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/20051028075601/http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html to http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121127065037/http://discover.positron.edu.au/ to http://discover.positron.edu.au/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012192435/http://www-search.slac.stanford.edu:8765/query.html?qt=positron to http://www-search.slac.stanford.edu:8765/query.html?qt=positron
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825002231/https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-03.html to https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-03.html
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) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Who observed what when has been discussed on this talk page regarding the discovery of the positron. But, in reading this article, it remains puzzling as to why Dmitri Skobeltsyn is not given credit for the discovery of the positron. Did he not do anything with his cloud-chamber observations of 1929? Perhaps not publish them? Anyway, right now, the article confusing on this matter. Attic Salt (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of positron