Talk:History of subatomic physics
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Missing subjects
[edit]Hello, nice article. Congratulation for the great job. However I think some subjects are missing in this article such as:
- the neutrinos. This word does not appear at all in the current article. Nevertheless, they played an important role in the history of the subatomix physics. Their existence were proposed in the 1930s and finally they have been discovered in 1956.
- the muons. Does not appear in the article. Maybe we could mention them speaking about the particle physics that was done using the cosmic rays.
- the same for the tauons
- the antimatter
- ...
Pamputt (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of subatomic physics. 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/20121002214053/http://novelresearchinstitute.org/library/PhysNuclphys196p.pdf to http://novelresearchinstitute.org/library/PhysNuclphys196p.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Higgs Boson section
[edit]It bothers me that this part of the article not only sourcing from one source, but simply paraphrasing a heavily narrativized NYT article (which is also paywalled). This leads to a huge inflation of quotes referring to a single discovery in 2012 (which is not cited), weirdly incorrect grammatical tense artifacts like "it is too soon to know" and "For now, some physicists are calling it a "Higgslike" particle" (that was correct in the article when it was published but 11 year later it was confirmed, which is later mentioned but without citation) and very flowery, unscientific language more concerned with the scientists emotional state, e.g. "The latter possibilities are particularly exciting to physicists", "it would constitute a rendezvous with destiny for a generation of physicists", "a grand view of a universe ruled by simple and elegant and symmetrical laws, but in which everything interesting in it being a result of flaws or breaks in that symmetry" or "To the eternal dismay of his colleagues, Leon Lederman, the former director of Fermilab, called it the "God particle"".
In short, this large section is a paraphrasing of a single non-scientific source focusing too much on the human element at specific point in time. Also, somebody else noted a lack of better sources. The fact that the section is structured at the discovery of the Higgs boson instead of the proposition of it is also questionable.LHVK (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)