Talk:Electron/Archive 4

4655:

problem, or why it is a problem. The only things related to leptogenesis is "11. SM does not clarify the origin of its gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) and why quarks and lepton occur as representations of this group;", although there is also "2. The problem of symmetry and antimatter observation. This could be one of the biggest puzzle in cosmology: If it’s true according to theoretical physics (Dirac equation etc.) that there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, then why our observation only display vast amounts of matter and very little antimatter?" So could we find a better source for this? I mean this one is 2007 publication which still considers the "missing solar neutrinos" to be a problem while it had been solved since the early 2000s. Or list as a problem "Muonium problem. Muonium is atom consisting of muon and electron, discovered by a team led by Vernon Hughes in 1960 . What is the dynamics behind muonium observation?" Surely there are books or reviews tackling the leptogenesis issue better than this one?

594:"(Cooper pairs are separated by roughly 100 nm, so they can overlap each other.)" That is not what is said in reference 114. The radius of the sphere of influence of the cooper pair on the surrounding lattice is roughly 100nm. The two electron probability distributions forming the cooper pair are not physically separated - they occupy the same space in the sphere - however, the volume of that space is quite large, so if you tried to determine the positions of the two electrons (the experiment would destroy that cooper pair) in the sphere, they would probably be quite separated. Typically, there are 10^6 cooper pairs in the volume of a sphere of 100nm radius, so there is significant overlap between the sphere of influence of one cooper pair and another. I don't know what is meant by the statement "Cooper pairs are separated by roughly 100 nm". 3346:

analytical evidence, that the atom is composed of electrons surrounded by protons, and it was Rutherford who actually discovered the electron. But in any case I would like to state the number of physics of the time who disagreeed that electrons even exist at all!!: Rutherford Thomson Einstein Heaviside Tesla ... Actually for the most part ALL scientist prior to about 1930-1940 were skeptical to the existence of the electron. It was only after the atomic bomb, and secrecy and physicist being hanged for treason, were people completely unable to question it, but rule by tyranny is not scientific agreement! The next generation was brought up under the fear of communism, but now communism is over so why can't we ask again if the electron exist?

1544:

helicity is the inner product of the spin and the direction of the momentum of the particle. This is the property that is first described in the last paragraph of the classification section. It depends on the frame of the observer. Chirality is a closely related property (for massless particles they coincide) that depends on the technical transformation properties of the spin-1/2 particle. It is frame independent, and it is the chiral left-handed component of the electron that appear in the the weak isospin doublet together with the left-handed neutrino. Currently the article implies that it is the left-handed helicity component that appears there. This subject is confusing enough as it is, without wikipedia adding further misinformation.(

4494:"Smith, J." style. It is also not because the information exists that we need to include it. For example, we exclude ISSN and journal publishers from journal citations. We truncate long lists of authors (the exact threshold depends on the editor/style guide followed). Including full names in citation is both a nightmare for maintenance (the second you cite an article where you can't find an author's first name, you make your article inconsistent and need to either switch styles, or find another citation just so you can maintain stylistic consistency). And lastly, per 274:"As the chemical properties of the elements were known to largely repeat themselves according to the periodic law, in 1919 the American chemist Irving Langmuir suggested that this could be explained if the electrons in an atom were connected or clustered. Groups of electrons were thought to occupy a set of electron shells about the nucleus, providing the necessary clustering." (This insight is due to Lewis (1916, in the same paper as his bonding model), although Langmuir's paper proved influential in popularizing it – and provoking a bitter priority dispute.) 3337:"The electron's charge was more carefully measured by the American physicist Robert Millikan in his oil-drop experiment of 1909, the results of which he published in 1911." I have old physics books, that state the electron charge is 1.1 *10^-19 C . So what changed in how the electron charged is measured now (it being 1.6*10^19C) and then during the Millikan experiement. I want to make another point that this article should talk about positive and negative electricity, because that plays a large role in the history of the electron. 1893:

electron is thought to be stable because it is the lightest electrically charged particle, and any decay process must conserve charge and reduce mass. (OK, this may be worded a bit smoother than this.) Remember that to many readers it may not be immediately clear that decay must always yield lighter particles. Incidentally, if you decide to keep this example note that this is now the first mention of the neutrino in the article. It should either be wikilinked or should be introduced earlier. (

1848:

permittivity, for example); the NIST uses it in a much broader sense, including the Sackur-Tetrode constant at 1 K and 101.325 kPa, the {220} lattice spacing of silicon, or the atomic mass constant. The electron-to-proton mass ratio is "fundamental" in both those senses, but it isn't in senses which would make more sense. (Too bad that no-one seems able to clearly explain which these senses which would make more sense are.) But "derived" isn't much better; I'd just say that it is constant. --

3577:

the commoen belive that elctron it self acutlly produces the photon; the electron cause the mediume (i.e. vacuum, vacuum energy) to expile a photon (quantity) since according to Enistein's e = m c^2 space have curverture near mass's and that space curvature apply, may be, that is a denser or it is of a higher energy location in space when it is near the nuclei of an atom than it is further away form it, and that all object have Schwarzschild radius.--e:Y,?:G 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

983:

feel free to find that reference. In Purcell's book (2nd ed, p 7), "In our study of electricity and magnetism we shall treat the charged particles simply as carriers of charge, with dimensions so small that their extension and structure is for most purposes quite insignificant." -- i.e. "point-like" in nature. "points" are purely mathematical abstractions and anyone who believes that pure mathematics has anything to do with the real world is in for a fun ride.

3644:

beginning for general readers. I tried to improve the prose to make it more readable. It was also really long - I removed one sentence about how an electron moves in a magnetic field, as that's just information about charged particles and not really specific to electrons. I also removed some sentences about the positron: this is the electron article, surely the place for a definition of the positron is the lead section of the positron article.--

4930: 31: 2685:", one of which is in the second sentence. This is supposed to convey that there is no substructure. Would anyone object to me changing "point particle" to "elementary particle"? "Point particle" is confusing because this term has two meanings: Having no spatial extent, or having no substructure. Only one of these definitions clearly applies to an electron, since an electron wavefunction obviously 3501:

physics, but the striking logic seamed so correct, i mean why aren't there electrons who are of slightly different mass like + - 0.00000001% it doesn't happen. So i tought maybe he had a point, now i'm years older not on school anymore and i wonder if he was unique in his idea, or that there is a group op physicians who have the same idea, and call it "xxxx" well i don't know how it is called.

295:"For the 51 GeV electron above, the wavelength is small enough to explore structures well below the size of an atomic nucleus." (The wavelength is smaller than the size of the atomic nucleus, and the energy of the electron is higher than many of the forces that hold the nucleus together, but you shouldn't imply that you could make an electron microscope out of 51 GeV electrons!) 2775:

transforms into during a weak interaction. Saying it is a point particle is simply another characteristic of the electron. So in the second sentence two characteristics which help describe the electron are elucidated. However, saying it is an elementary particle is the same as saying it has no substructure. Again I refer everyone to read the article

1709:), part of which is that it obeys the Pauli-exclusion principle. Particles obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics are called fermions. Being a fermion is not a classification (like being a lepton), but a property. (like being a point particle). The natural place of discussing that electrons are fermions would be in the quantum properties section. 3528:. It is based on the fact that anti-particles can be viewed as particles moving backwards in time. You could thus imagine all electrons and positrons being part of one worldline weaving back and forward through time. It would require there to be exactly as much antimatter as there is matter, which is not consistent with observations. 1340:, and have a more summary style section here. But I don't actually feel that this should be a deal breaker. The main reason that this is longer than the median FA length is that there are so few natural sciences FA. Since FA requires article to cater to the needs of the widest possible audience these FAs tend to become very long. 253:"Chemical bonds between atoms were explained in 1916 by Gilbert Newton Lewis, as the interactions between their constituent electrons." (Interactions between electrons are always repulsive, so could hardly explain chemical bonding: the Lewis model of covalent bonding is based on the sharing of electrons between atoms.) 1212:

especially since stellar mass and heavier black holes statistically produce close to zero electrons. I don't care to check the numbers, but don't be surprised of the expect number of electrons created by black holes in the observable universe is less than 1. So, stating this possibility in the lead seems a bit

4546:

correctly. It says, "Do not change the citation style used in an article merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the specific needs of the article, gain consensus for a change on the talk page before changing it." The standard

4315:

This plot is a bit misleading and needs to be corrected. The plot is obviously a probability distribution (as subtitled) not a wave-function plot as titled. Title and Subtitles should be reversed. Furthermore, the gradient bar ranging from minus (-) to positive (+) is very misleading and confusing.

3643:

I agree with you. I've reorganised it into a more logical order (roughly speaking 1 paragraph of its significance in classical physics, 1 paragraph of particle physics, 1 paragraph history, 1 paragraph cosmology and technological applications), trying to keep the most general 'context' stuff near the

3377:

If you read the original paper Thomson makes it absolutely clear that the entire point of the experiments he is reporting is to demonstrate that there exists a subatomic particle which carries the negative charge, and has a small but measurable mass. Thomson was at pains to exclude other conclusions.

3277:

The phrase I had problems with was "more easily demonstrated". I tried "most easily demonstrated" but that sounded clumsy, so I've changed it to "best demonstrated" which makes more sense grammatically. If the statement isn't actually true then it should be changed, but the lead should summarise what

1955:

This section largely deals with things that only tangentially have to do with electrons. Subjects like vacuum polarization and vacuum fluctuations involve basically all (charged) fundamental particles. So I dont think it is necessary to discuss them here. The only stuff that really is about electrons

1657:

Looking at the other sections I've noticed that there is stuff about spin all over the place. First in the 'classification' section and later again in the 'virtual particles' section, and I think I've seen it somewhere else as well. Anyway it would probably be better have a paragraph or two about the

815:

The head paragraph states that the electron "has no known substructure and is believed to be a point particle.", yet there is a section named "Subparticles" that states:"Electrons, when tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero, split into two subparticles, spinions and holons, in order

346:

I'm not a connoisseur of these matters, but I think you should sketch how an electron microscope or the surface imaging techniques work. Also, are LEED and RHEED primarily industry-used techniques? It looks like they belong to laboratory. But actually I think the applications section might benefit

319:

Applications: this looks a bit unstructured, for example, the electron microscopes appear both in Industry and Laboratory, but it's not clear why. I would do a separate section for electron microscopes. I feel that the applications in general are underrepresented, for example compared to the lenghty

176:

The answer is that quantum physics prevents anything from being an actual point. The universe has a smallest scale, leading to the "uncertainty principle" and conjugate variables. Basically, you cannot say an electron is at some exact spot; you can only ask what is the probability that it is within

4768:

It seems to be a notation issue then. I think the MeV/c notation is rather misleading because anyone trying to find the rest energy who makes the easily made errant assumption about how the notation works is going to assume you find the rest energy by multiplying that number MeV/c by c. I don't know

4363:

We should pick one and stick with it. The first and second options are not viable because the first and middle name of several of these authors will be extremely hard to track down, and will be extremely tedious to do so when possible. Which leaves us with the last four. So I'll switch everything to

3682:

I agree with MaterialScientist. The previous version was better. This is about the electron, not the atom, and the "rewritten" version takes the focus out of what the article is about. That being said, I agree that the lead, especially the first paragraph, should establish more firmly that electrons

3610:

I think the introduction is too long and inappropriate, it does not point out the relevance of the subject. The fact that the electron is a component of atoms, and that it is the main responsible of almost all properties of matter, chemical, electrical, optical, thermal, mechanical (except mass)...,

3576:

could it be, when the electron go to deeper orbital next the Nuclei the vacuum expile a photon (a quantity, a piece of,from vacuum energy) in the opposite direction of the electron movement to observe the electric and magnetic and spacetime curvature energy conservation. this way in contradictory to

3345:

Many physicist did not agree with the electron hypothysis, including albert einstien, and the so called discoverers. That being JJ Thomson himself. JJ Thomson even wrote a book about electrodynamics and electrons are not mentioned. Also Rutherfords experiment is very similar to Thomson. There is no

3147:

Congratulations for making this a featured article (without my help). However it seems to me to be directed too much toward specialists, or perhaps overestimates the average person's knowledge. I think the fact that electrons account for most of the properties of matter that we observe (and are) in

2689:

have finite spatial extent. On the other hand, "elementary particle" means having no substructure, and is perfectly unambiguous. Moreover, both of the sentences already make it quite explicit that we're saying there's no substructure, so there's no need to worry about people who haven't heard of the

1769:

I don't think anyone would be likely to think that a classification scheme for elementary particles in the Standard Model could also be applied to quasiparticles in graphene sheets and whatnot, but better safe than sorry; the current version as of 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) looks reasonably fine to

1753:

for example. The other part is the article sometimes gave the illusion that being a fermion or boson is defined by the spin. (while in some exotic systems you can have particles with spin-1/2 that are not fermions. Again anyons are an example.) But this has been mostly solved in this article by some

1362:

That is maybe where this is going wrong, the current section tends to get side tracked in things in the history of physics in which the electron was only marginally involved. Those this article really need to discuss the history of the atomic model and quantum mechanics. I think that by staying more

1190:

The last paragraph needs some work. The first part seems to discuss the creation and 'destruction' of electrons. As it written now it seems to be self-contradictory first stating that electrons are created in the Big Bang and lost in nucleosynthesis, but later adding other possibilities. I'd suggest

3243:

I would also agree with the point above about the lead being a bit difficult for the non-expert. The lead should be there to draw in the non-specialist and I think introducing concepts like "The intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of the electron is a half integer value of ħ" so early is off-putting.

1830:

The first paragraph of this section implies that the electron-to-proton mass ratio is a fundamental constant of the standard model. It is actually quite hard to calculate this ratio exactly from first principles as it involves the poorly understood strong coupling regime of QCD. So, at best it is a

504:

is an example of the phenomena produced by triboelectricity." This makes me question the "correction" that I made to paragraph 1, where I changed "phenomena" to "phenomenon" , understanding "triboelectricity" to be the one phenomenon referred to. If what is meant is "the various phenomena caused

3862:

proposed lead (below) may have, I feel it is more than a step in the right direction. I would support replacing the lead with it now and making incremental changes in place. The structure of the current intro may have been ok for the muon or the tao-neutrino, but the electron plays a major role in

3802:

as suggested by Headbomb: it seems a good example of what to aim for, covering the most important properties of quarks in very accessible prose. Here is a new version, hopefully taking on board GianniG46's suggestion about the first few sentences. Do you think it solves any problems of the current

3171:

I read that beginning physics students view physics as a set of unrelated formulas to be memorized! So we should start by telling how electrons fit into the rest of science and life. I did once clearly experience the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton, when I had to increase

3126:

The paragraph on Virtual Particles start with "Physicists believe that...". This phrase suggests that what coming up is somehow more far fetched than the rest of the article, whereas virtual particles are a general feature of QFT's. Virtual particles are by definition to be measured indirectly, so

2652:

Well, I'm not sure what phycists you have been talking to, but any with a decent amount of knowledge should have at least heard of virtual particles, since they are the bread and butter of modern particle physics. Now, one can discuss at length whether virtual particles actually exist or that they

2596:

Electric eels emerged only about 110 million years ago in fresh water rivers in which low conductivity and conversely high resistance made triboelectric phenomena sensible and usable. The time period predates, though not terribly, the first proto-humans and suggests that electricity was among the

1776:

claim that by swapping two identical particles the wavefunction must multiply by either +1 or −1 because if you swap them twice you "get back to the original state"; an identical reasoning could imply that any particle has integer spin because if you rotate it by 360° you "get back to the original

4493:

and all other style guides are that articles, including citations, are consistent within themselves. You will not find one manual of style (either general, or specialist, or a high-quality journal's house style) which allows for some citations to be in the "Smith, John" style, while others in the

1728:

Since each particle is either always a fermion or always a boson, I can't see any real problem with classifying particles as such. In particular, "elementary fermions" is a handy way to refer collectively to quarks and leptons (particles of "matter" according to one definition; not the one I like

982:

cm in which case, we may arguably consider electrons as "point-like" particles. I believe a reference for this point is made in Edward M Purcell's book, "Electricity and Magnetism". Classically, the radius of an electron is 3 femtometers (while, surprisingly, that of a proton is 1 femtometer!) --

4654:

from all Knowledge articles, I think it should be fairly easy to find a better source for this. Especially if you read the article, it doesn't seem to discuss this at great length, it's simply a list of "unsolved" issues in particle physics, with very little information about what exactly is the

3500:

I once had a physic teacher who said that all electrons are just 1 particle, as it had the same mass he concluded it is only everywhere. Its a kind bizarre but.. well quantum-physics do allow of objects to be at multiple places at once. Now i can understand that his view is not a regular view in

2918:

Also, the formula that shows as a tiny single-char √ symbol followed by a 3 with an overline, which is naturally above the character cell and does not line up with the radical char, is just plain wrong. As much as Math tags have their own issues with text size zooming, this approximation is not

1892:

seems to be an attempt to explain why the electron cannot decay. To me this choice of particles seems totally random. It also leaves a less informed reader wondering why this should explain that electrons cannot decay. It may actually be easier to just explain this along the lines: 'However, the

664:

I would like to suggest that the electron is an element. In any atom, the electrons are what you see because only they interact with light and not the nucleus. Also, every physical reaction one has with the world involves exclusively contact and forces between electrons, or between electrons and

3782:

I think Hermajesty21's edit could be a start point. Perhaps simplifying the first sentences and modifying syntax to make the electron (instead of the atom) to be the subject could already help. But, anyway, the importance of electrons in all properties of matter cannot be left out. The history,

3762:

I also feel that the current lead doesn't really flow, much of it reads like a collection of facts stuck together. I tried to improve the prose so that it's more readable. I recognize that my version should be improved by putting less focus on the electron's role in the atom, but could you read

3572:

It will ever astonish me that photon electron and nuclei all have in common: electric and magnetic fields, and gamma rays (charged photons) produces electrons and positrons in a process called pair production, and that photon and electron "cause" to produce each other Is it in there "genes"?

2793:

Jheald, The most likely explanation for its lack of dimension is that it is as you say a wave packet. I suppose wave packet could be seen as merely a packet of electromagnetic radiation, which wouldn't have any spatial dimension. I forgot about this, on the Point particle talk page. It has been

1440:

I'd like to see a source for referring to fermions as a 'family'. The only place I've seen it called that is here on wikipedia. Most of the time the term 'family' in particle physics is used as a synonym for generation. Further more, being a fermion is a property, namely that the particle obeys

1211:

As in the example above, I would leave the mention of Hawking radiation out of the lead. This a hypthesis that although with massive theoretical support has never been observationally confirmed in any way. This makes it a lot less important than a lot of other things you can say about electrons

3552:

paper by J. J. Thomson. I had no trouble finding a copy posted online, and with it the correct original citation. I placed it into the article at what I consider the appropriate places. This citation has a url to a facsimile of the original paper. The original paper was published in 1897 so is

1574:

I've been thinking about this some more and started to wonder why the article is introducing left-handedness and right-handedness at all. The only other place that these terms are mentioned in the article is when discussing the weak interaction in which case it is meant to refer to left-handed

2845:

need to be said in the second sentence is that the electron isn't made of even smaller particles, there's nothing inside it, it's the bottom level, unlike everything in the everyday world. This is a very important point that every reader should know immediately. Whether an electron is a point

1543:

Then say so in the first place, and ask for clarification instead stating that you fixed everything. The problem is that there exist two closely related properties of particles the helicity and the chirality. For spin-1/2 particles these both have a left-handed and right-handed component. The

1186:

If you are going to stress that electrons make up only 0.06% of an atoms mass, you should also mention that they account for about 99% for the physical and chemical behavior of atoms. Actually, this might be a good sentence to just drop from the lead. It will make the overall structure of the

2840:

I made a change to the second sentence. Just to be clear, I believe Jheald that there's probably some sense in which an electron can be thought of as a point particle. But even if that's true, it doesn't need to be said in the second sentence. The very important thing about the electron that

2798:

by Michael Springford. I entered "point particle" in the local search function, for the book and the first result so far talks about the direct connection between the electron wave function and its electromagnetic properties. It was Herman Weyl who first understood this? I suppose once I get

2774:

Sorry, to add another comment here but, I just noticed the context of "substructure" and "point particle" in the second sentence. Substructure in this context is not related to "point particle". The electron having no substructure means there is no particle or sub-group of particles that it

1847:

The fact is that no-one seems to agree about what "fundamental constant" means. Guys such as John Baez and John Barrow use it to mean "dimensionless constant" (because the numerical value of the fine-structure constant doesn't depend on the choice of units of measurement, unlike the vacuum

638:

An anonymous editor decided to completely reorder the lead section. I took exception because I believe the current ordering is a logical arrangement that begins with the electron properties and then later introduces their interaction. I.e. it moves from the core topic outward. The original

466:

says "the Lewis' static model of atom". Should that be "Lewis' static model of an atom", "Lewis' static model of the atom", "Lewis' static model of atoms", "the Lewis static model of an atom", "the Lewis static model of the atom", "the Lewis static model of atoms", or something else? --

3176:

slightly when I switched between accelerating positive and negative ions, in opposite directions. But most of my experience with electrons has to do with my own body and the matter around me where the effect of the electron mass is only useful to those who know how to calculate the

4806:

We don't want the article to be confusing or misleading. However, I'm not understanding 152.19.144.186's point. The convention in Physics is to treat units like algebraic terms. Your suggestion with the parentheses is like saying "(a*b)/c is more clear than a*b/c" -- they look the

1198:'Most of the electrons in the universe were created in the big bang, but may also be created through beta decay of radioactive elements and in high-energy collisions. Electrons may be destroyed through annihilation with positrons, or may be absorbed during nucleosynhtesis in stars.' 2629:

It says many physicist believe there are virtual electrons. This seems very obscure. If there are virtual electrons, what is determining if the electron is virtual or non-virtual. Also, who accepts this, because I talk to many physicist who have never heard of virtual electrons.

3748:

Article leads should be as accessible as possible to the general reader. If someone asks you what electrons are, one of the first things you'd explain is that they are one of the particles that make up atoms. It just doesn't make sense to leave this till the end of the third

4335:

Back when it ran for FA, I tried uniformizing references, but this somehow was met with resistance from whomever nominated the article . So now I've gotten to clean everything up except the names in the citations, which was the contention point. The guiding principle of the

3611:

is given as a detail, after having spoken of what happens if it collides with a positron (which is said twice, in the lead section). Also, the discussion wave-particle, or the details on who and when made theories on it can be posponed into the body of the article.

3015:

That information is incorrect. Because it has no physical size, it is considered a point particle. It is a "structureless, point-like particle". It is called a point particle because it has no dimensions, it has no spatial extent. See page 70 in this book for one

2865:

The text mentions virtual photons making the electron dance around. the link says its due to positive and negative energy states of the Dirac equation. And, particles can have spin without charge, so how can this be said to cause the spin and magnetic moments?

2132:

Normally Compton scattering is considered to inelastic rather than elastic, since the photon changes wave length. I know this somewhat of a definition question, but normally Thomson scattering is is considered to elastic, while Compton scattering is not.

2592:

It might extend the temporal order of the history of electron research to mention its use by electric eels. Though eels did not quantify or describe electrons in language, they identified electrons reliably and separated them according to potential.

2561:

Let the characteristics of the photon which "parents" an electron be preserved in the electron. That is: 1) circumference = wavelength, 2) frequency = frequency, 3) circular velocity = speed of light (i.e., electric fields), and 4) energy = energy.

4547:

is about the general styles of the citation; whether harvard style vs. something else. It does not mention the particulars of the author naming. You also did not discuss this on the talk page before you began making personal preference style changes.

4726:

and other places online actually say. Basically, there is a stray 1/c^2 that if you multiplied by, you would get a rest energy of a factor of 9*10 too high. This problem also occurs in the proton article as well and may be in other articles.

1494:. These to are obviously related, but different. With the big difference being that the chirality does not depend on the frame. (which is good as I wouldn't know how a isospin doublet can transform into a singlet through a Lorentz transform.) 3821:

It needs a good spitshine, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. I didn't look at it in details, but the "what & where & importance / properties / history / origins & applications " seems like a winning structure.

3300:

The note 9 says that the spins of the electrons in a storage ring will be aligned. OK. But it suggests that they will be aligned with the momentum. That is clearly wrong. They get aligned with the magnetic field. Just read the article

2361:

Surprisingly this section does not explain that because of the Pauli exclusion principle only two electrons can occupy each orbital, causing the shell structure of the atom, and with it most of chemical and (macro) physical properties.

2914:

So does that reversion constitute an act of edit war? I'll open it for discussion here rather than re-applying my original change. Just saying "is ugly" for someone else's intentional improvements is rather rude, at the very least.

3127:

it's not a question of believe. It says "all physicists", as if some non-physicists where the ones who came up with critics on that viewpoint. I mean the whole article is on what physicists "believe" so what does that mean anyway? (

4316:

A probability cannot be negative. It appears the intended range is zero (0) to one (1) . It's a very nice depiction that is just in need of a little polishing. As it stands it's misleading students who stumble onto this page.

1700:

This article also suffers from a common misconception on wikipedia on the relation of fermions, spin and the Pauli exclusion principle. The correct relation between these concepts is that: Any particle with 1/2-integer spin, obeys

2046:

What is the difference between Thompson and Compton scattering? For free particles they are one and the same. Only in Thompson case it is the visible light that is usually scattered and, therefore the change in energy is small.

299:

As there is no longer anything in this paragraph, or the section either, that suggests an electron microscope, I'm going to mark this as done. Particle accelerators have already been mentioned as striking a static target with

3398:

Re. the recent edit and revert, IIRC I've heard that in Compton scattering the change in wavelength of the photon is "conventionally" considered a change in internal state, so the collision is considered to be inelastic. The

871:

Experiments to measure size have been unsuccessful, therefore no size, thus point like. Although this can be wrong from a number of perspectives. One is if it is a standing EM wave, then calling it point like is incorrect.

3723:

I see your point, but I still think that the current version has its problems too- apart from the overemphasis on atoms, what do you think of the other changes in my edit? I have got to go now, but will try to discuss more

2163:

As I said this somewhat of a definition issue, but in the discussion of a photon scattering of an electron the change of wavelength of the photon is often considered a change in internal state. (The photon changes color).

4828:

multiply the mass by c to get the rest energy. Rest energy = mass * c = (0.511 MeV/c) * c = 0.511 MeV. Right? Can you come up with an example where one would get the wrong numerical result because of this notation?

2846:

particle in a certain sense, even though it never exists at just one point, is worth figuring out but doesn't need to be said in the opening section, and certainly not in the second sentence, in my opinion. :-) --

225:

Personally I think the topic is worthy of a separate article. It also covers the speed in a conductor, which is in a different section of this article. You're always free to dup. cites from this article, if need

128:

How can a particle with mass exist with no spatial extent? With no spatial extent the electron must have infinite density. The only object with infite density I know is a black hole. Are electrons black holes?

4498:, articles should be streamline according to established usage. In this article, it was "Smith, J.S." or possibly (I didn't bother checking for spaces) "Smith, J. S."m so that's what got picked up in the end. 2712:. This is counterintuitive to me, but there are differences. The electron has mass, charge, and it has spin. It has no radius. So, this is just something to think about, whatever changes you decide to make. 951:

as a point-like particle within certain contexts. If we are talking about electrodynamics/statics, then we should reference (to be found and verified) that Coulomb's law is valid for distances as short as

1575:

chirality. At best explaining these terms adds very little to the article, at worst it confuses the reader. The best may be just to leave the whole paragraph on left/right-handedness out of the article. (

4480:

I have never seen a style guide on Knowledge (or elsewhere for that matter) which said that citations should be presented inconstantly, and I've seen just about every on style there is to see (and BTW,

3614:

Perhaps the subject should be divided quite sharply in two: the "low energy" part (electrons in matter); and the "high energy" part (the elementary particle and its interactions with other particles).

4904:

I apology, the paper explains the lack of gravitational acceleration: caused by gravitation gradient of surface electron density, create electric field precisely canceling gravitational acceleration (

4855:

I have just found extremely surprising PRL paper from 1967: F. C. Witteborn and W. M. Fairbank, "Experimental Comparison of the Gravitational Force on Freely Falling Electrons and Metallic Electrons":

1327:

In the 'Discovery' section, note that it is only possible to publish result of an experiment note an experiment itself. (As the first sentence of the paragraph about the oil-drop experiment now reads.)

1429:

The electron is an analog of the charged leptons in the second and third generations, the muon and the tauon, respectively, which are identical in charge, spin, and interaction, but are more massive.

2897:

reverted some of my edits with the comment "Unicode fractions are ugly." Well, oversized split-level fractions that don't sit properly on the baseline "are ugly". It's particularly bad with "spin-

665:

photons, except when you come into contact with radioactive substances. Also, Theodore W. Gray has made a periodic table tile of the electron, with symbol e and atomic number of −1. My reference is

4859:

in which they have measured gravitational mass of electron while free falling and it occurred it is nearly zero. Since there is even planned CERN measurement of gravitational mass of antimatter (

151:

The same can be said of the electron's charge: if it has no spacial extent, then the charge density is also infinite. I don't think physics has a good answer for this one yet. One possibility is

3378:

Can you cite a publication by any of the scientists in the time period you claim where their words demonstrate that they were "skeptical to the existence of the electron"? I think you cannot.

3201:, so that the outsides of atoms consist of electrons and they dominate the way atoms stick together to form matter." That is a long sentence, but what use is it to know the mass without it? 789:

It's an intrinsic and fundamental property of the particle. Other than that, I think physicists are still working out the underlying mechanisms that give particles their various charges. See

4863:), I believed these electron results were widely confirmed while these 44 years, but surprisingly I couldn't find anything (?) Anyway, I believe it really should be mentioned in the article. 1956:

is the remark that the magnetic dipole moment gets a correction at 1-loop order in QED, and similarly the Lamb shift, but those can be dealt simply with a remark at the appropriate values. (

2283:

The article claims that the shift in wavelength is due to a transfer of momentum, this should be energy. Thomson scattering also transfers momentum, but does not cause a wavelength shift. (

1107:. Formulas are part of the sentence structure and thus need suitable interpunction. When a formula is the end of a sentence it needs a period. (Which needs to be inside the math tags per 1183:

Some paragraphs illogically combine subjects. For example the second paragraph starts out discussing the history of the electron, and somehow ends up discussing its statistical behavior.

3259:

Maybe it should say "tiny but non-zero mass". Light, with zero rest mass, shows wave properties more easily, but its particle properties weren't noticed until almost the 20th century.

4769:

how common or "set in" writing mass as MeV/c is, but it would be a lot clearer if you wrote it (0.511 MeV)/c. The parentheses make it clear that the units of 0.511 are MeV, not MeV/c

2565:

Electron's radius is the photon wavelength over 2pi. About this radius, the electric fields of the "parent" photon are spiral wrapped. A positron has the opposite sense wrap.

2259:(and in fact without any further note that this is indeed the mass, wait it is in the note but still) in other places in this article (and other places on wikipedia) it is denoted 4461:

Going through an article and changing reference names into initials is removing information and I do not see a benefit. There is also not a consensus in the style guide to do so.—

2221:'Compton wavelength' is used in the paragraph before the one that explains what is and wikilinks it. I think the two paragraphs can be switched without causing major problems. ( 3220:"The ancient Greeks noticed that amber attracted small objects when rubbed with fur; apart from lightning, this phenomenon was man's earliest known experience of electricity." 1467:

suggests that only elementary particles can be fermions. Of course, any particle with half-integer total (internal) angular momentum is a fermion (at least those for which the

3021: 2653:

are merely an artifact of our perturbation expansion (I'm tempted to say the later), but fact is that you can't do most of the calculations in particle physics without them.

1498:

Fixed everything except Family. Family is used here as a synonym of "group". It can be used to describe any type of particles. The word does not carry any special meaning.

1433:

The second and third generation contain charged leptons, the muon and the tauon, which are identical to the electon in charge spin and interactions, but are more massive.

1336:

This section IS rather long. It could be condensed by leaving out some of the details (which do wander offtopic at times). It may however be better to create an article

980: 2817:" does not appear to be helpful with defining or describing point particle. Also, I am continuing the discussion on "Point particle" over at that article's talk page. 2726:

Also, I want to point out that point particle and elementary particle are two different concepts - (I am repeating myself from WP physics talk - hope you don't mind).

4722:

Currently the mass of the electron is given as 0.510998928(11) MeV/c2, however, this is wrong. It should be the rest energy is 0.510998928(11) MeV, which is what

4298: 4265: 4213: 4191: 4169: 4147: 3148:

everyday life should come before how they fit into the particle physics classification system. How about starting more like: "The motion of electrons and their

551:

The curving motion creates a centripetal force on the particle, and this acceleration causes the electron to radiate energy in the form of synchrotron radiation.

4454:, without further abbreviation. The APA guidelines recommend abbreviating first names to initial letters instead, but since Knowledge has no shortage of space, 3803:

lead? Feel free to change it around and post any improvements. (Note: It looks a lot shorter posted here than in the article, because of the lack of info box)--

2396:

Pairs of electrons in an atom align their spins in opposite directions, giving them different spin quantum numbers that satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle.

2092:

That is of course true. It is often a good approximation however and there is a lot of literature talking about it, which makes a good reason to mention it. (

1066: 1203:

Don't take this as the literal texts as it needs expansion here and there, it is meant as an example of a more balanced logical structure for the sentences.

4646:

are great, as a whole the journal is seen with a suspicious eye by many people as it seems it publishes a bit more "weird" results than would be expected.

2571:

The circularity of the photon (h/2pi)is increased to the circularity of the electron by the additional 2Pi that results from closing the photon on itself.

180:

In calculations, they basically say "don't worry about it". Draw a very very small radius around the point and consider the effect outside that radius.

2795: 2656:

To answer the question of what makes an electron virtual, that is relatively simple. A particle is virtual if E^2-p^2 is not equal to its (rest) mass. (

3403:

article also calls it inelastic, but I have no source at hand at the moment, so I'm not going to re-instate the "inelastic" in this article for now. ―

1749:

But that is exactly part of the problem. Not all particles are either fermion or boson. In exotic systems you can also have (quasi)particles which are

3783:

instead, can be simplified: it is sufficient to speak only of Thomson in the lead, the other facts are already reported in the body of the article. --

111:

They are pretty much ubiquitous because they form parts of atoms. You experience them when you get an electrostatic shock or watch a lightning bolt.—

248:

Many of the issues raised during the FAC have been addressed. Here are the remaining issues that need resolving before another FAC attempt is made.

2907:" where the fraction is half again the size of the regular letters in the word. In this context, the ½ is a single simple concept and shouldn't st 2779:. Also, there is a discussion that is happening right now, about the article, on that talk page, which may help clarify what a point particle is. 2944:

vs. ½, the former is much more readable. I'm neutral on the sqrt thing, although I favour any html-based solution (such as &sqrt;3/2&bsp;

1111:.) When the sentence continues with 'where' it usually needs a comma. The article is currently missing interpunction on pretty much all formulas. 481:

Various sources use "static model of the atom" or "static atomic model". I'll just insert a 'the', as I think that was the intent of the author.—

4482: 4447: 3078: 2568:

A dough nut is shape equivalent to a sphere. The resultant electric fields around a dough nut are spherical in form and equal in magnitude.

1480:

If the spin of the electron is oriented in the same direction as its momentum, it is called a right-handed spin; otherwise it is left-handed.

817: 601: 555:

Isn't it the magnetic field that creates the centripetal force on the charged particle? The curving motion would create a centrifugal force.—

4770: 4728: 3513: 3502: 3128: 2574: 1033:

I removed the following paragraph because I was unable to find a suitable source, and I'm not clear that it was helpful to the lay reader:

1014: 900: 2752:

have finite spatial extent; plus how one measures the "pointlikeness" of a point particle (i.e. operationally what does the term mean).

2748:

needs to be strengthened to convey exactly what point particle means for a quantum mechanical particle, when the wavefunction as you say

428:

says "a clouds of charged water droplets". Should that be "a cloud of charged water droplets" or "clouds of charged water droplets"? --

4647: 3662:

Hermajesty21 mostly because of undue focus on topics which are only indirectly related to electron - the 2nd/3rd sentences for example.

3347: 2637: 927: 857: 720: 669: 96: 639:

arrangement also more closely aligned with the order of presentation in the article, and it is limited to only four paragraphs per the

4909: 4864: 4368:, another FA, which uses "J.S. Smith". If people would rather have "Smith, JS" or others, it would be trivial to switch to them (with 2527: 719:

If you say so. Then revert it. I'm pretty new to Knowledge so I may not know all those policies. How do you even create an account? --

2613: 2526:, which ALSO says "Negatron redirects here" at the top of its page. Can someone fix this? Maybe a disambiguation page for negatron? 2077:

In Thompson scattering energy is transfered but this transfer is small. So basically there is no such thing as Thompson scattering.

774: 2986:

says not to use unicode fractions because they cause trouble for those using screen readers, and they are generally less readable.

4688:

I have some issues with the fractional version of mass in the Infobox for electron and positron. Please read more about it on the

1130:

If you're not going to put the interpunction inside the math tags, then you need to put both the math and the interpunction in a

136: 835:

is solids, which are quanta of excitation in the collective of many electrons. The real electrons in the vacuum are point-like.

4489:

be done. This works in certain articles, usually those primarily citing books. This does not work here). The core principle of

3631: 3476:

It is an elastic "collision" (total energy is conserved), but it is inelastic scattering of photons (they are losing energy). /

3321: 706: 1310:

You mean at the end of the first History subsection? I brought that up in the FAC, and RJHall assured me it will be reworded.

347:

from a restructuring: ordering the applications by the specific feature of electrons they use could make it all more coherent.

4665: 4508: 4428: 4382: 4242: 3832: 3697: 3593: 3032: 2954: 1315: 999: 444:

It should probably be "clouds of charged water droplets" to match the plurality of "experiments". Thanks for catching that.—

2433:

Not all electrons in an atom will be paired. Just think about hydrogen (or any other element with odd number of protons). (

4565: 3973: 3920: 2321:. If the earlier paragraph about handedness is kept it should be made clear that this is a different kind of handedness. ( 1013:

If the electron is an elementary particle then where do the photons come from when they collide with there antiparticle.

1435:

The original read like you were defining the properties of the electron in terms of the (more obscure) muon and the tau.

4895: 3667: 2872:

I'll leave it to a working expert in the field to edit. But I hope it gets some attention before the Front Page day.

2546: 1344: 351:

I've added some additional details about the LEED/RHEED and inserted a brief description of the electron microscope.—

4937: 4235: 3900: 2148:

I have always thought that a collision is elastic if internal states of the participating particles do not change.

1254: 38: 4723: 4028: 3253: 3459: 3264: 3234:

I also have a problem with the following sentence in the lead which, in fact, isn't really a complete sentence:

3231:

talks about them being used in Ethiopia to drive out devils, although it wasn't reported until the 16th century.

3206: 1311: 1094:

First impression: looking good. I have some comments most of them minor, but most need to be resolved before FA.

877: 3517: 3506: 3132: 1018: 904: 821: 605: 4774: 4732: 2578: 3351: 1337: 931: 861: 100: 4968: 4963: 4958: 4913: 4868: 4067: 4016: 3959: 3481: 3112: 2641: 2531: 1706: 1468: 724: 673: 69: 64: 59: 3237:"However, this duality is more easily demonstrated in experiments with electrons, due to their tiny mass." 778: 4891: 4601: 3863:

everyday phenomena. The general reader doesn't need to learn about it's spin and anti-particle so early.

3808: 3768: 3729: 3663: 3649: 3096: 2869:

If this is supposed to be just a classical way to view it (from the 1950s) that should be made clearer.

2542: 2185:

The outcome of an elastic collision between a photon and a solitary electron is called Compton scattering.

1702: 1220: 140: 3228: 2398:

that needs to explain this while discussing the relation of angular momentum, spin and magnetic moment. (

1343:

Fixed everything except the last one. The History section is itself a summary of the much longer article—

4079: 3985: 3916: 3533: 3525: 3302: 3092: 2822: 2804: 2784: 2731: 2717: 2661: 2609: 2504: 2470: 2438: 2403: 2367: 2326: 2288: 2271: 2226: 2192: 2169: 2138: 2097: 2067: 2036: 1961: 1934: 1898: 1873: 1836: 1804: 1759: 1663: 1642: 1610: 1580: 1549: 1518: 1450: 1368: 1243: 1145: 1053:

consists of two additives, which are squares of absolute value of each complex-valued component, called

666: 4099: 4036: 3940: 3619: 3581: 3455: 3309: 3260: 3202: 2927: 2880: 2851: 2698: 2633: 2601: 987: 923: 896: 873: 790: 770: 597: 520: 510: 472: 433: 391: 203: 188: 132: 92: 4027:, developed in the early 20th century, predicts that electrons, like all matter, have properties of 4908:). If this explanation is complete, we still don't really know the gravitational mass of electron. 4642: 4624: 4458:." I see no consensus regarding whether the article should use the same name style for all authors. 4321: 4095: 4087: 3947: 3788: 3627: 3317: 3283: 3249: 2318: 1206:

After this the paragraph make a somewhat illogical jump to detection and applications of electrons.

1038: 156: 3585: 4834: 4757: 4705: 4661: 4504: 4424: 4406: 4378: 4070:. Laboratory instruments are capable of containing and observing individual electrons as well as 3993: 3892: 3868: 3828: 3693: 3589: 3558: 3477: 3451: 3400: 3383: 3108: 3042: 2991: 2028: 1890:

an electron decaying into a neutrino and photon would mean that electric charge is not conserved.

995: 215: 2597:

factors necessary for a comprehensive concept as Earth's species groped their way to the Moon.

4031:. Experiments to demonstrate this work best with electrons, due to their tiny mass. Apart from 1986:

I slightly shortened this section, but I will probably removed the third paragraph completely.

4543: 4495: 4239: 4091: 4024: 4000: 3859: 3804: 3764: 3725: 3645: 3436: 3029: 2973: 2485: 2453: 2418: 2382: 2342: 2304: 2242: 2208: 2153: 2112: 2082: 2052: 2006: 1991: 1976: 1718: 1678: 1637:

Isn't it more logical to discuss the stuff about spin in the fundamental properties section? (

1595: 1564: 1533: 1503: 1398: 1383: 1352: 1282: 1228: 1160: 1120: 1108: 840: 643:

policy. Finally, some of the modified wording may not be in compliance with wikipedia policy.—

283: 262: 1445:

Fixed that myself. If there is no need to create new terminology, then it is better not to. (

955: 4879: 4673: 4650:

says "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". While I'd never "purge"

4573: 4516: 4466: 4436: 4390: 4083: 4071: 3989: 3951: 3928: 3840: 3705: 3529: 3088: 2983: 2818: 2800: 2780: 2757: 2727: 2713: 2657: 2605: 2523: 2500: 2466: 2434: 2399: 2363: 2322: 2284: 2267: 2222: 2188: 2165: 2134: 2093: 2063: 2032: 1957: 1930: 1894: 1869: 1832: 1800: 1755: 1659: 1638: 1606: 1576: 1545: 1514: 1446: 1364: 1239: 1141: 1078: 1050: 1037:

Because the electron is a fermion, such wave function must take into account the electron's

798: 746: 648: 621: 577: 560: 528: 486: 449: 404: 375: 356: 332: 305: 231: 164: 116: 4640:

However, further inspection of the source raises a few question. While several articles in

4616: 3224: 4788: 3927:, the exchange or sharing of the electrons between two or more atoms is the main cause of 3896: 3366: 3071: 3055: 2847: 2694: 1213: 1134: 506: 468: 429: 399:

Thanks. I've been trying to get to these, but other priorities have been keeping me busy.—

388: 2923: 2876: 184: 4340:

is articles I need to be self-consistent. Currently, we have these styles use for names

4229: 3946:

The electron has no known components or substructure, so is generally believed to be an

3923:

that of a proton, hence electrons contribute less than 0.06% of the mass of an atom. In

3429: 2187:

I would call normally use the term Compton scattering for the process not the outcome. (

387:

The first one is mine, so I ought to take responsibility for it. Any help is welcome ;)

155:. Another I've seen mentioned is that space and time are themselves quantized. See also 4887: 4669: 4512: 4432: 4386: 4317: 4078:

can detect electron plasma in outer space. Electrons have many applications, including

4008: 3969: 3955: 3836: 3784: 3701: 3623: 3313: 3279: 3245: 3198: 2959: 2776: 2745: 2709: 2682: 2674: 1042: 701: 640: 3164:." Maybe after the first sentence. Or how about somewhere early on: "Nearly all of 4946: 4830: 4751: 4743: 4698: 4689: 4657: 4500: 4490: 4420: 4402: 4374: 4369: 4337: 4020: 3999:

The concept of an indivisible amount of electric charge was theorized to explain the

3864: 3824: 3689: 3554: 3405: 3379: 2987: 2949: 2894: 1911: 1850: 1781: 1731: 1259: 1070: 991: 832: 684: 211: 152: 47: 17: 3278:

it says in the article, so you may need to also add something about that elsewhere.

3240:

More easily demonstrated than in experiments with what - light or other particles?

1378:

I noted nothing myself. So I do not how to fix this. I think all text is necessary.

816:

to participate in quantum tunneling.". I wonder if there is a contradiction here. --

202:

Could someone with a caring hand please take a look at the unattractive and unloved

4905: 4063: 4051: 3432: 2969: 2481: 2449: 2414: 2378: 2338: 2300: 2238: 2204: 2149: 2108: 2078: 2048: 2002: 1987: 1972: 1714: 1674: 1591: 1560: 1529: 1499: 1394: 1379: 1348: 1278: 1224: 1156: 1116: 836: 695:

including peer-reviewed journals with good reputations in the scientific community

692: 279: 258: 4856: 4118: 3426: 177:

some specified region. The smallest region you can specify is the planck length.

3152:

fields cause the majority of the events of everyday life. Since the outsides of

1868:

I've tweaked the paragraph to avoid talking about fundamental constants at all. (

4945:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4569: 4462: 4450:: "A good guideline is to list author names as they are written in the original 4035:, electrons were the first particle whose wave-like nature was demonstrated, by 3981: 3932: 3190: 3178: 2753: 1074: 794: 742: 688: 644: 617: 573: 556: 524: 482: 445: 400: 371: 352: 328: 301: 227: 160: 112: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2690:

term "elementary particle", it's defined clearly by the rest of the sentences.

2431:

Thus the magnetic moments of an atom's paired electrons cancel each other out.

4784: 4055: 4047: 3362: 3194: 1773: 1488:

The left-handed spin component of the electron forms a weak isospin doublet...

1140:

template to prevent the interpunction wrapping separately from the equations.{

3168:, for example, is the result of the way electrons are shared between atoms." 2744:

I think "point particle" is the right term, and more direct; but the article

893:

then how big is the point ? and what happens at the surface of this point ?

505:

by triboelectricity", I recommend that the text be clarified accordingly. --

4917: 4899: 4872: 4838: 4778: 4763: 4736: 4711: 4678: 4579: 4521: 4441: 4410: 4395: 4325: 4075: 4059: 3936: 3924: 3872: 3845: 3812: 3792: 3772: 3733: 3710: 3671: 3653: 3635: 3600: 3568:

electro, magnetic fields for photon electron and nuclei is it in there genes

3562: 3537: 3510: 3485: 3463: 3441: 3419: 3387: 3370: 3355: 3325: 3287: 3268: 3210: 3173: 3165: 3136: 3116: 2995: 2978: 2963: 2884: 2855: 2826: 2808: 2788: 2761: 2735: 2721: 2702: 2665: 2645: 2617: 2582: 2550: 2535: 2508: 2490: 2474: 2458: 2442: 2423: 2407: 2387: 2371: 2347: 2330: 2309: 2292: 2275: 2247: 2230: 2213: 2196: 2173: 2158: 2142: 2117: 2101: 2087: 2071: 2057: 2040: 2011: 1996: 1981: 1965: 1938: 1924: 1902: 1877: 1863: 1840: 1808: 1794: 1763: 1744: 1723: 1683: 1667: 1646: 1614: 1600: 1584: 1569: 1553: 1538: 1522: 1508: 1491: 1454: 1403: 1388: 1372: 1357: 1319: 1287: 1272: 1247: 1233: 1165: 1149: 1125: 1084: 1022: 1003: 935: 908: 881: 865: 845: 825: 804: 782: 752: 728: 710: 677: 654: 627: 609: 583: 566: 534: 514: 501: 476: 455: 437: 410: 394: 381: 362: 338: 311: 287: 266: 237: 219: 192: 170: 144: 122: 104: 4860: 4058:

enter the atmosphere. Electrons may be destroyed through annihilation with

2919:

semantically correct for page scanners and accessibility, and looks goofy.

4485:

is not part of the manual of style, it's an example guide that shows what

4415:

Done. I also trimmed any citations with 4 or more authors to Smith, J.S.;

4231:

Particle Or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics

2794:

awhile since I have thought about it. I just found a book on google books

2522:

Searching for Negatron redirects here, but doing a Google search, I found

4043: 3908: 3157: 3156:

consist of electrons, they dominate the way atoms stick together to form

3149: 1483: 1465:

This family includes all elementary particles with half-odd integer spin;

497: 463: 425: 207: 4824:

And the "errant assumption" you talk about doesn't seem so errant. One

4042:

According to theory, most electrons in the universe were created in the

2255:

In the formula for the Compton shift the electron mass is given as just

1049:-valued wave function should be used, and, in Schrödinger's theory, the 4401:

That's the style I'd prefer too, closely followed by “Smith, John S.”.

4032: 3965: 3904: 3687:

for an example of this "establishement" of where things can be found)).

3024:

The physics of atoms and quanta: introduction to experiments and theory

741:

A good starting point is the Help link in the interaction box at left.—

856:

From where follows this property of the electron to be point-like?--

4883: 3977: 3186: 3161: 1046: 668:. I will now revert it back to my old version, on account of this. -- 2299:

I clarified that it involves transfer of both momentum and energy.

1238:

That is better but still suffers from many of the above comments. (

4365: 3912: 3799: 3684: 1799:

Yeah looks OK now. Wording now sidesteps the issue quite nicely. (

1750: 691:

policies. Such a claim would have to be substantiated by several

4617:"Thirty Unsolved Problems in the Physics of Elementary Particles" 3763:

through my edit and discuss what you think of my other changes?--

4004: 3182: 3153: 1590:

I shortened the paragraph about helicity to just one sentence.

325:

I did a re-organization, but the section still needs more work.

4924: 4783:

Those parenthesis are not necessary. MeV/c is a correct unit.

4604:

there was an excess in the number of electrons over positrons.

2968:

Are this Unicode symbols correctly displayed by all browsers?

1347:. To create another historical article would be unreasonable. 25: 3216:

Amber and lightning man's earliest experience of electricity?

3524:

This a well known idea proposed by Feynman and Wheeler, see

2911:

nd out of the page more any any other part of the sentence.

1658:

spin of the electron in the fundamentel properties section.(

3181:. Or show how to use the mass: "Because an electron has a 572:

I attempted to remedy this in a slightly different manner.—

4015:

was introduced for this charge in 1894 by Irish physicist

4600:

For reasons that remain uncertain, during the process of

3004:

Sorry, I got confused....it's definitely a point particle

2934:

Single reversions never consist of edit wars. Concerning

2681:

The article has two references to the electron being a "

2107:

I added a couple of sentences about Thomson scattering.

2062:

In Thomson scattering their is not transfer of energy. (

4019:. The electron was identified as a particle in 1897 by 3659: 3227:

they were even used for early treatments for headaches

616:

I changed the wording to remove the ambiguity. Thanks.—

4878:

They also published a Nature article on that in 1968

1257:, so that other editors will feel free to edit it. -- 958: 2465:

Should this section also say something about ions? (

1673:

I moved spin to the fundamental properties section.

1431:

is a bit awkward. Suggest something along the line:

1363:

on focus the history section could be 30% shorter. (

1306:

Leading subsection ends in a one sentence paragraph.

4007:, beginning in 1838 by British natural philosopher 3972:of particle physics, electrons belong to the first 3425:In some publications it is clearly called elastic 3223:What about shocks from electric eels? According to 3215: 3008:Original post removed due to author embarrassment. 2799:clarification I can write this into the article. 1041:, particularly where the spin may be altered by a 974: 4054:and in high-energy collisions, for instance when 4906:http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v151/i4/p1067_1 3548:I was puzzled at the lack of a citation for the 1772:(BTW, this "confusion" predates Knowledge. Even 1528:In this case I do not understand what you want. 4857:http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v19/i18/p1049_1 4364:"Smith, J.S." as it is the closest in style to 4311:Depiction from File:Hydrogen Density Plots.png 3087:I could probably come up with other sources. 2317:I suggest at least wikilinking left-handed to 1513:The helicity/chirality issue is still there. ( 1069:. Perhaps it would be better presented on the 4542:Personally, I think you are int interpreting 2394:As a result you get a very strained sentence 8: 4890:so far (the PRL article has 130 citations). 1067:Knowledge:Make technical articles accessible 767:Do anyone know how electrons get a charge? 547:I had a minor quibble about this statement: 3931:. Electrons also play an essential role in 3003: 3919:. The mass of an electon is approximately 1393:I slightly shortened the History section. 4568:. I would like to see this standardized.— 4112: 4110: 3980:particle family, and they participate in 3958:) of the electron is a half (in units of 3394:Compton scattering: elastic or inelastic? 3185:that is approximately 1/1836 that of the 1831:derived constant of the standard model. ( 1155:I moved all punctuation inside formulas. 963: 957: 4861:http://aegis.web.cern.ch/aegis/home.html 3028:. Springer-Verlag New York, LLC. p. 70. 1729:most but nevertheless in common use). -- 920:A point has no size and no surface. ;) 4851:Electron is missing gravitational mass? 4607: 4297:was invoked but never defined (see the 4264:was invoked but never defined (see the 4212:was invoked but never defined (see the 4190:was invoked but never defined (see the 4168:was invoked but never defined (see the 4146:was invoked but never defined (see the 4106: 4046:, but they may also be created through 4943:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4483:Knowledge:Citing sources/example style 4448:Knowledge:Citing sources/example style 3067: 3063: 3051: 3040: 683:The problem is that this violates our 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3606:Introduction too long and unorganized 7: 4886:which received only 30 citations on 4023:and his team of British physicists. 1888:In the last paragraph the sentence: 1332:'Standard Model' needs to be linked. 206:? Perhaps it could be redirected to 4289: 4256: 4204: 4182: 4160: 4138: 198:Potential (zap!) merge-in candidate 2708:Steve, I refer you to the article 1971:I am thinking about this section. 24: 3553:definitely in the public domain. 4928: 4279: 3107:"half integer value of ½"; ugh! 2588:Evolutionary context of electron 519:I changed the paragraph to use " 29: 3296:About the Sokolov-Ternov effect 2266:. The later seems preferable. ( 1486:, while the following sentence 4839:00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) 4779:19:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) 4764:18:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC) 4737:18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC) 3496:Was my teacher right on this ? 3454:page it is called inelastic. 3077:CS1 maint: extra punctuation ( 2583:20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2551:23:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 2536:23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 2012:11:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 496:The caption for the image for 123:18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC) 105:01:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) 1: 4564:I began a general discussion 4456:you need not abbreviate names 4442:15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 4411:15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 4396:15:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 4228:Anastopoulos, Charis (2008). 4117:Thomson, Joseph John (1897). 4066:, and may be absorbed during 3873:16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 3846:11:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 3813:15:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 3793:23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 3773:22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 3734:00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 3711:00:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 3683:are components of atoms (see 3672:00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 3654:00:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 3254:14:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 3211:22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 3137:12:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 3117:11:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 3097:06:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 3089:Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) 2996:00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 2979:06:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) 2964:20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 2885:00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 2856:06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 2827:04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2819:Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) 2809:02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2801:Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) 2789:01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2781:Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) 2762:01:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2736:01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2728:Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) 2722:01:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2714:Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) 2703:00:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 2118:19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 1997:11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1288:11:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1090:FAC Comments from TimothyRias 238:19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 220:02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 193:21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 4918:14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 4900:07:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 4873:07:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 4679:22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 4326:16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC) 3636:14:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 3601:17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 3361:You are sorely misinformed. 3288:00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 3269:17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 2815:Electron: a Centenary Volume 2796:Electron: a Centenary Volume 2666:08:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 2646:00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 2618:19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2448:I clarified this statement. 1277:I made changes to the lead. 699:Knowledge could publish it. 89:where are electrons found? 4596:A passages currently reads 2509:09:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2491:18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2475:15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2459:18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2443:15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2424:18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2408:15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2388:18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2372:15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2348:15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2331:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2310:15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2293:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2276:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2248:15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2231:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2214:15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2197:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2174:15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2159:15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2143:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2102:09:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 2088:15:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2072:15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2058:15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 2041:14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2027:Why is there no mention of 1982:09:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1966:12:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1939:09:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1925:17:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1903:14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1878:09:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1864:18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1841:13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1809:21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1795:18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1764:12:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1745:10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1724:08:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1684:07:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1668:12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1647:14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 1615:09:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1601:08:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1585:08:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 1570:13:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) 1554:09:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1539:18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 1523:16:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 1509:12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 1455:10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1404:08:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1389:13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC) 1373:10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1358:12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 1345:History of electromagnetism 1320:10:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 1273:10:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1248:10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1234:12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 1219:If you want you can review 1166:13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 1150:10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1126:12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 1105:Formulas need interpunction 419:Uncertainty in proofreading 4994: 4712:07:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 4684:Fractional version of mass 4580:17:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4522:17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4236:Princeton University Press 3992:interactions, but not the 3858:Whatever shortcomings the 3486:21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 3464:21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 3442:19:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 3420:18:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 3356:14:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2413:I rewrote this paragraph. 1713:What is the problem here? 1085:21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 1023:01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC) 846:19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 826:19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 535:19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 515:15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 477:22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 456:22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 438:21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 411:22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 395:19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 382:19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 363:17:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 339:02:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 312:02:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 288:11:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 267:11:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 208:Electron#Motion and energy 3798:I looked at the lead for 3326:11:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 2948:) over inline math tags. 2001:Significantly shortened. 1004:22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 936:21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 171:21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 145:08:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 4615:Christianto, V. (2007). 4068:nucleosynthesis in stars 4029:both particles and waves 3915:, bound together by the 3563:17:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 3538:09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 3511:22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 3388:17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 3172:the magnetic field of a 1754:of the recent changes. ( 1191:something along the line 975:{\displaystyle 10^{-11}} 909:22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 805:17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC) 783:06:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC) 753:18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 729:07:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 711:05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 678:05:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 655:17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 628:19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 610:06:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 584:17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 567:19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 4017:George Johnstone Stoney 3371:06:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 3143:What should come first? 3122:Physicists believe that 1707:spin-statistics theorem 1469:spin-statistics theorem 1441:fermi-dirac statistics. 1338:History of the electron 882:16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 866:09:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 811:no known substructure ? 4755: 4638: 4123:Philosophical Magazine 4039:experiments in 1927. 3333:Charge of the electron 3050:Check date values in: 3020:Haken,, H. (2000-10). 1824:Fundamental properties 1703:Fermi-Dirac statistics 1490:refers to left-handed 976: 464:Electron#Atomic theory 4941:of past discussions. 4598: 4100:particle accelerators 3917:electromagnetic force 3526:one-electron universe 3303:Sokolov-Ternov effect 3179:de Broglie wavelength 2237:Paragraphs switched. 977: 498:Electron#Conductivity 244:FAC issues check list 42:of past discussions. 4293:The named reference 4280:Dahl (1997:122–185). 4260:The named reference 4208:The named reference 4186:The named reference 4164:The named reference 4142:The named reference 4088:electron microscopes 4074:, whereas dedicated 4052:radioactive isotopes 4037:electron diffraction 3941:thermal conductivity 3895:carrying a negative 3418:(formerly Army1987) 2480:I added a sentence. 2377:I added a sentence. 1559:I tried to clarify. 1312:MasterOfHisOwnDomain 956: 791:Theory of everything 763:Charge on ELECTRONS. 685:no original research 521:triboelectric effect 204:Speed of electricity 4652:Progress in Physics 4643:Progress in Physics 4625:Progress in Physics 4331:Names and citations 4001:chemical properties 3948:elementary particle 3883:A possible new lead 2356:Atoms and Molecules 2319:Chirality (physics) 1774:Landau and Lifshitz 1029:Unsourced paragraph 947:An electron may be 157:black hole electron 4744:electron volt#Mass 4690:positron talk page 4344:Smith, John Samuel 3994:strong interaction 3899:. Electrons orbit 3893:subatomic particle 3452:Compton scattering 3401:Compton scattering 3305:to be convinced. 3062:Unknown parameter 2029:Thomson scattering 1065:See, for example, 972: 426:Electron#Discovery 4981: 4980: 4953: 4952: 4947:current talk page 4892:Materialscientist 4709: 4092:radiation therapy 4084:cathode ray tubes 4025:Quantum mechanics 3664:Materialscientist 3639: 3622:comment added by 3598: 3584:comment added by 3329: 3312:comment added by 3193:have much longer 2636:comment added by 2625:virtual electrons 2621: 2604:comment added by 2543:Materialscientist 1950:Virtual particles 1778: 1253:I've moved it to 1187:paragraph better. 1007: 990:comment added by 926:comment added by 899:comment added by 773:comment added by 600:comment added by 135:comment added by 95:comment added by 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4985: 4977: 4955: 4954: 4932: 4931: 4925: 4884:10.1038/220436a0 4762: 4754: 4710: 4703: 4677: 4648:FA criteria 1(c) 4634: 4633: 4621: 4612: 4520: 4440: 4394: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4296: 4288: 4282: 4277: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4263: 4255: 4249: 4248: 4225: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4211: 4203: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4189: 4181: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4167: 4159: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4145: 4137: 4131: 4130: 4114: 3952:angular momentum 3950:. The intrinsic 3929:chemical bonding 3844: 3709: 3638: 3616: 3597: 3578: 3439: 3417: 3414: 3411: 3408: 3328: 3306: 3082: 3075: 3069: 3065: 3059: 3053: 3048: 3046: 3038: 2976: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2861:Zitterbewegung ? 2648: 2620: 2598: 2524:Negatron (album) 2488: 2456: 2421: 2385: 2345: 2307: 2245: 2211: 2156: 2115: 2085: 2055: 2009: 1994: 1979: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1853: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1771: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1721: 1681: 1598: 1567: 1536: 1506: 1401: 1386: 1355: 1285: 1271: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1231: 1163: 1139: 1133: 1123: 1051:electron density 1006: 984: 981: 979: 978: 973: 971: 970: 938: 911: 843: 785: 704: 693:reliable sources 612: 320:history section. 147: 107: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4993: 4992: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4973: 4929: 4853: 4760: 4750: 4748: 4720: 4718:MeV mass wrong. 4696: 4686: 4656: 4637: 4619: 4614: 4613: 4609: 4594: 4499: 4419: 4373: 4333: 4313: 4308: 4307: 4294: 4292: 4290: 4285: 4278: 4274: 4261: 4259: 4257: 4252: 4245: 4238:. pp. 236–237. 4227: 4226: 4222: 4209: 4207: 4205: 4200: 4187: 4185: 4183: 4178: 4165: 4163: 4161: 4156: 4143: 4141: 4139: 4134: 4116: 4115: 4108: 4072:electron plasma 3986:electromagnetic 3964:), making it a 3897:electric charge 3885: 3823: 3688: 3617: 3608: 3579: 3570: 3546: 3498: 3456:Daniel.Cardenas 3437: 3412: 3409: 3406: 3404: 3396: 3343: 3335: 3307: 3298: 3261:David R. Ingham 3218: 3203:David R. Ingham 3145: 3124: 3105: 3076: 3061: 3049: 3039: 3035: 3019: 3006: 2974: 2957: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2910: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2892: 2890:Ugly formatting 2863: 2679: 2673:References to " 2631: 2627: 2599: 2590: 2559: 2520: 2499:More to come. ( 2486: 2454: 2419: 2383: 2358: 2343: 2305: 2265: 2243: 2209: 2154: 2113: 2083: 2053: 2024: 2007: 1992: 1977: 1952: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1910: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1849: 1826: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1730: 1719: 1679: 1596: 1565: 1534: 1504: 1423: 1418: 1416:Characteristics 1399: 1384: 1353: 1302: 1283: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1258: 1229: 1180: 1161: 1137: 1131: 1121: 1100: 1092: 1031: 985: 959: 954: 953: 921: 894: 874:Daniel.Cardenas 854: 841: 818:190.245.211.195 813: 793:, for example.— 768: 765: 709: 700: 662: 636: 602:205.250.252.133 595: 592: 545: 462:Paragraph 2 of 424:Paragraph 5 of 421: 246: 200: 130: 90: 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4991: 4989: 4979: 4978: 4971: 4966: 4961: 4951: 4950: 4933: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4888:Web of Science 4852: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4771:152.19.144.186 4756: 4747: 4729:152.19.144.186 4719: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4701: 4685: 4682: 4636: 4635: 4606: 4593: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4473: 4472: 4459: 4361: 4360: 4357: 4354: 4351: 4348: 4347:Smith, John S. 4345: 4332: 4329: 4312: 4309: 4306: 4305: 4283: 4272: 4250: 4243: 4220: 4198: 4176: 4154: 4144:nist_codata_mu 4132: 4119:"Cathode Rays" 4105: 4104: 4009:Richard Laming 3970:Standard Model 3884: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3860:Hermajesty21's 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3816: 3815: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3607: 3604: 3569: 3566: 3545: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3514:82.217.115.160 3503:82.217.115.160 3497: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3445: 3444: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3374: 3373: 3342: 3339: 3334: 3331: 3297: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3272: 3271: 3217: 3214: 3197:than those of 3144: 3141: 3129:212.186.99.222 3123: 3120: 3104: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3084: 3083: 3033: 3017: 3011: 3005: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2966: 2953: 2908: 2891: 2888: 2862: 2859: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2777:Point particle 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2746:point particle 2739: 2738: 2724: 2710:Point particle 2683:point particle 2678: 2675:point particle 2671: 2670: 2669: 2654: 2626: 2623: 2589: 2586: 2575:75.120.152.138 2558: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2541:Done. Thanks. 2519: 2516: 2514: 2498: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2357: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2280: 2263: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 1999: 1951: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1929:Works for me.( 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1825: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1726: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1652: 1651: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1474: 1473: 1463:The sentence: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1437: 1427:The phrasing: 1422: 1421:Classification 1419: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1391: 1334: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1251: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1099: 1096: 1091: 1088: 1063: 1062: 1043:magnetic field 1030: 1027: 1015:121.210.36.245 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 969: 966: 962: 950: 942: 941: 940: 939: 915: 914: 913: 912: 901:82.217.115.160 887: 885: 884: 853: 850: 849: 848: 833:quasiparticles 831:This is about 812: 809: 808: 807: 764: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 734: 733: 732: 731: 714: 713: 705: 661: 658: 635: 632: 631: 630: 591: 588: 587: 586: 553: 552: 544: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 494: 493: 492: 459: 458: 441: 440: 420: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 368: 367: 366: 365: 343: 342: 341: 316: 315: 314: 292: 291: 290: 271: 270: 269: 245: 242: 241: 240: 199: 196: 174: 173: 126: 125: 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4990: 4976: 4972: 4970: 4967: 4965: 4962: 4960: 4957: 4956: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4939: 4934: 4927: 4926: 4919: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4897: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4850: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4790: 4786: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4761: 4759: 4753: 4745: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4725: 4717: 4713: 4707: 4702: 4699: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4691: 4683: 4681: 4680: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4659: 4653: 4649: 4645: 4644: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4618: 4611: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4597: 4591: 4581: 4577: 4576: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4545: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4523: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4497: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4470: 4469: 4464: 4460: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4371: 4367: 4358: 4355: 4352: 4349: 4346: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4339: 4330: 4328: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4310: 4300: 4287: 4284: 4281: 4276: 4273: 4267: 4254: 4251: 4246: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4224: 4221: 4215: 4202: 4199: 4193: 4180: 4177: 4171: 4158: 4155: 4149: 4136: 4133: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4113: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4040: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4021:J. J. Thomson 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3997: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3982:gravitational 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3882: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3847: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3801: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3712: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3686: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3612: 3605: 3603: 3602: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3574: 3567: 3565: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3551: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3519: 3515: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3495: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3478:Pieter Kuiper 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3434: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3415: 3402: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3375: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348:71.57.136.104 3340: 3338: 3332: 3330: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3304: 3295: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3232: 3230: 3226: 3221: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3175: 3169: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3142: 3140: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3121: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3109:Peter jackson 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3080: 3073: 3057: 3044: 3036: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3009: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2971: 2967: 2965: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2947: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2929: 2925: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2896: 2889: 2887: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2860: 2858: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2676: 2672: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2638:98.64.245.140 2635: 2624: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2594: 2587: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2569: 2566: 2563: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2492: 2489: 2483: 2479: 2478: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2386: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2360: 2359: 2355: 2349: 2346: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2302: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2279: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2249: 2246: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2157: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2119: 2116: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2086: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2050: 2045: 2044: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2013: 2010: 2004: 2000: 1998: 1995: 1989: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1980: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1921: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1891: 1886: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1828: 1827: 1823: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1791: 1777:state", too.) 1775: 1768: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1741: 1727: 1725: 1722: 1716: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1708: 1705:(this is the 1704: 1698: 1697: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1605:Looks fine. ( 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1537: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1478:The sentence: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1405: 1402: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1330: 1328: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1289: 1286: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1269: 1256: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1232: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1167: 1164: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1136: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1089: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1081: 1076: 1072: 1071:wave function 1068: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1028: 1026: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 967: 964: 960: 948: 946: 945: 944: 943: 937: 933: 929: 928:79.231.88.135 925: 919: 918: 917: 916: 910: 906: 902: 898: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 883: 879: 875: 870: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 858:84.232.141.38 851: 847: 844: 838: 834: 830: 829: 828: 827: 823: 819: 810: 806: 802: 801: 796: 792: 788: 787: 786: 784: 780: 776: 772: 762: 754: 750: 749: 744: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 730: 726: 722: 721:116.14.27.127 718: 717: 716: 715: 712: 708: 703: 698: 694: 690: 689:verifiability 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 675: 671: 670:116.14.27.127 667: 660:Recent revert 659: 657: 656: 652: 651: 646: 642: 633: 629: 625: 624: 619: 615: 614: 613: 611: 607: 603: 599: 589: 585: 581: 580: 575: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 563: 558: 550: 549: 548: 542: 536: 532: 531: 526: 522: 518: 517: 516: 512: 508: 503: 499: 495: 490: 489: 484: 480: 479: 478: 474: 470: 465: 461: 460: 457: 453: 452: 447: 443: 442: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 422: 418: 412: 408: 407: 402: 398: 397: 396: 393: 390: 386: 385: 384: 383: 379: 378: 373: 364: 360: 359: 354: 350: 349: 348: 344: 340: 336: 335: 330: 326: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 308: 303: 298: 297: 296: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 276: 275: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 251: 250: 249: 243: 239: 235: 234: 229: 224: 223: 222: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 197: 195: 194: 190: 186: 181: 178: 172: 168: 167: 162: 158: 154: 153:string theory 150: 149: 148: 146: 142: 138: 134: 124: 120: 119: 114: 110: 109: 108: 106: 102: 98: 97:74.128.126.20 94: 84: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:Electron 4974: 4942: 4936: 4910:89.78.183.53 4865:89.78.183.53 4854: 4825: 4721: 4687: 4651: 4641: 4639: 4629: 4623: 4610: 4602:leptogenesis 4599: 4595: 4592:Leptogenesis 4574: 4486: 4467: 4455: 4452:article/book 4451: 4416: 4362: 4350:Smith, J. S. 4334: 4314: 4291:Cite error: 4286: 4275: 4258:Cite error: 4253: 4230: 4223: 4206:Cite error: 4201: 4184:Cite error: 4179: 4162:Cite error: 4157: 4140:Cite error: 4135: 4126: 4122: 4064:antiparticle 4041: 4012: 3998: 3960: 3945: 3888: 3886: 3805:Hermajesty21 3781: 3765:Hermajesty21 3726:Hermajesty21 3646:Hermajesty21 3613: 3609: 3575: 3571: 3549: 3547: 3544:Cathode Rays 3499: 3397: 3344: 3336: 3299: 3242: 3239: 3236: 3233: 3222: 3219: 3191:matter waves 3170: 3146: 3125: 3106: 3070:suggested) ( 3025: 3022: 3010: 3007: 2945: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2893: 2874: 2871: 2868: 2864: 2842: 2839: 2814: 2749: 2693:Sound OK? -- 2692: 2686: 2680: 2628: 2595: 2591: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2528:173.61.86.36 2521: 2513: 2497: 2430: 2395: 2316: 2282: 2260: 2256: 2254: 2220: 2184: 2183: 1889: 1887: 1829: 1699: 1636: 1487: 1479: 1477: 1464: 1462: 1439: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1331: 1326: 1305: 1104: 1103: 1093: 1079: 1064: 1058: 1054: 1032: 1012: 886: 855: 814: 799: 766: 747: 696: 663: 649: 637: 622: 593: 590:Cooper Pairs 578: 561: 554: 546: 529: 487: 450: 405: 376: 369: 357: 345: 333: 324: 318: 306: 294: 273: 252: 247: 232: 201: 182: 179: 175: 165: 127: 117: 88: 75: 43: 37: 4935:This is an 4353:Smith, J.S. 4056:cosmic rays 4011:; the name 3933:electricity 3911:to make up 3724:tomorrow.-- 3618:—Preceding 3580:—Preceding 3555:Nick Beeson 3530:TimothyRias 3380:Nick Beeson 3308:—Preceding 3195:wavelengths 3189:, electron 3064:|coauthors= 2813:This book " 2658:TimothyRias 2632:—Preceding 2606:SyntheticET 2600:—Preceding 2501:TimothyRias 2467:TimothyRias 2435:TimothyRias 2400:TimothyRias 2364:TimothyRias 2323:TimothyRias 2285:TimothyRias 2268:TimothyRias 2223:TimothyRias 2189:TimothyRias 2166:TimothyRias 2135:TimothyRias 2094:TimothyRias 2064:TimothyRias 2033:TimothyRias 2022:Interaction 1958:TimothyRias 1931:TimothyRias 1895:TimothyRias 1870:TimothyRias 1833:TimothyRias 1801:TimothyRias 1756:TimothyRias 1660:TimothyRias 1639:TimothyRias 1607:TimothyRias 1577:TimothyRias 1546:TimothyRias 1515:TimothyRias 1447:TimothyRias 1365:TimothyRias 1240:TimothyRias 1142:TimothyRias 986:—Preceding 922:—Preceding 895:—Preceding 852:Point-like? 775:59.95.23.59 769:—Preceding 596:—Preceding 300:electrons.— 278:Clarified. 131:—Preceding 91:—Preceding 36:This is an 4742:Nope. See 4724:the source 4632:: 112–114. 4544:WP:CITEVAR 4496:WP:CITEVAR 4356:Smith, J S 4244:0691135126 4076:telescopes 4048:beta decay 3974:generation 3749:paragraph. 3599:--e:Y,?:G 3034:3540672745 2960:WP Physics 1221:this draft 1109:WP:MOSMATH 1039:spin state 507:Wavelength 469:Wavelength 430:Wavelength 389:Physchim62 137:91.7.180.6 4975:Archive 4 4969:Archive 3 4964:Archive 2 4959:Archive 1 4359:Smith, JS 4318:Pnictogen 4299:help page 4266:help page 4262:arabatzis 4214:help page 4192:help page 4170:help page 4148:help page 4060:positrons 3968:. In the 3937:magnetism 3925:chemistry 3785:GianniG46 3624:GianniG46 3341:Criticism 3314:Trassiorf 3280:Richerman 3246:Richerman 3174:cyclotron 3166:chemistry 3158:molecules 3066:ignored ( 3043:cite book 2984:WP:MOSNUM 1909:Fixed. -- 1492:chirality 1059:spin-down 702:Enviroboy 502:Lightning 85:confused! 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4831:Spiel496 4752:A. di M. 4700:SkyLined 4666:contribs 4658:Headbomb 4509:contribs 4501:Headbomb 4429:contribs 4421:Headbomb 4403:A. di M. 4383:contribs 4375:Headbomb 4210:curtis74 4062:, their 4044:big bang 4013:electron 3909:neutrons 3889:electron 3865:Spiel496 3833:contribs 3825:Headbomb 3698:contribs 3690:Headbomb 3660:reverted 3632:contribs 3620:unsigned 3594:contribs 3582:unsigned 3550:original 3416:A._di_M. 3322:contribs 3310:unsigned 3229:and this 3150:electric 3068:|author= 2988:Dabomb87 2955:κοντριβς 2950:Headbomb 2895:Headbomb 2634:unsigned 2614:contribs 2602:unsigned 2557:electron 2518:Negatron 2337:Linked. 1922:A. di M. 1861:A. di M. 1792:A. di M. 1742:A. di M. 1484:helicity 1482:defines 1270:A. di M. 1025:23-3-12 1000:contribs 992:Tjlafave 988:unsigned 924:unsigned 897:unsigned 771:unsigned 598:unsigned 212:Fullstop 133:unsigned 93:unsigned 4938:archive 4670:physics 4513:physics 4433:physics 4387:physics 4166:Pauling 4080:welding 4033:photons 3976:of the 3966:fermion 3905:protons 3837:physics 3702:physics 3658:I have 3586:E:Y,?:G 3450:On the 3016:source: 2924:Długosz 2877:Długosz 2203:Fixed. 1300:History 1115:Fixed. 1098:General 1055:spin-up 949:treated 641:WP:LEAD 543:Quibble 257:Fixed. 185:Długosz 39:archive 4826:should 4491:WP:MOS 4417:et al. 4338:WP:MoS 4295:wilson 4129:: 293. 4096:lasers 3978:lepton 3939:, and 3921:1/1836 3901:nuclei 3433:Ruslik 3199:nuclei 3187:proton 3162:matter 3103:Style? 3052:|date= 2970:Ruslik 2754:Jheald 2482:Ruslik 2450:Ruslik 2415:Ruslik 2379:Ruslik 2339:Ruslik 2301:Ruslik 2239:Ruslik 2205:Ruslik 2150:Ruslik 2109:Ruslik 2079:Ruslik 2049:Ruslik 2003:Ruslik 1988:Ruslik 1973:Ruslik 1751:anyons 1715:Ruslik 1675:Ruslik 1592:Ruslik 1561:Ruslik 1530:Ruslik 1500:Ruslik 1471:holds. 1395:Ruslik 1380:Ruslik 1349:Ruslik 1279:Ruslik 1255:/draft 1225:Ruslik 1157:Ruslik 1135:nowrap 1117:Ruslik 1073:page?— 1047:spinor 837:Ruslik 697:before 392:(talk) 280:Ruslik 259:Ruslik 4807:same. 4785:Dauto 4674:books 4620:(PDF) 4517:books 4437:books 4391:books 4366:quark 4188:prl50 4005:atoms 3913:atoms 3891:is a 3841:books 3800:quark 3706:books 3685:quark 3363:Dauto 3154:atoms 2848:Steve 2695:Steve 1688:Good. 1214:undue 210:? -- 16:< 4914:talk 4896:talk 4869:talk 4835:talk 4789:talk 4775:talk 4733:talk 4706:talk 4662:talk 4575:talk 4566:here 4505:talk 4468:talk 4446:Per 4425:talk 4407:talk 4379:talk 4322:talk 4240:ISBN 4098:and 3990:weak 3988:and 3956:spin 3907:and 3887:The 3869:talk 3829:talk 3809:talk 3789:talk 3769:talk 3730:talk 3694:talk 3668:talk 3650:talk 3628:talk 3590:talk 3559:talk 3534:talk 3518:talk 3507:talk 3482:talk 3460:talk 3438:Zero 3428:and 3384:talk 3367:talk 3352:talk 3318:talk 3284:talk 3265:talk 3250:talk 3225:this 3207:talk 3183:mass 3160:and 3133:talk 3113:talk 3093:talk 3079:link 3072:help 3056:help 3030:ISBN 2992:talk 2975:Zero 2928:talk 2881:talk 2852:talk 2843:does 2823:talk 2805:talk 2785:talk 2758:talk 2750:does 2732:talk 2718:talk 2699:talk 2687:does 2662:talk 2642:talk 2610:talk 2579:talk 2547:talk 2532:talk 2505:talk 2487:Zero 2471:talk 2455:Zero 2439:talk 2420:Zero 2404:talk 2384:Zero 2368:talk 2344:Zero 2327:talk 2306:Zero 2289:talk 2272:talk 2244:Zero 2227:talk 2210:Zero 2193:talk 2170:talk 2155:Zero 2139:talk 2114:Zero 2098:talk 2084:Zero 2068:talk 2054:Zero 2037:talk 2008:Zero 1993:Zero 1978:Zero 1962:talk 1935:talk 1899:talk 1874:talk 1837:talk 1805:talk 1770:me. 1760:talk 1720:Zero 1680:Zero 1664:talk 1643:talk 1611:talk 1597:Zero 1581:talk 1566:Zero 1550:talk 1535:Zero 1519:talk 1505:Zero 1451:talk 1400:Zero 1385:Zero 1369:talk 1354:Zero 1316:talk 1284:Zero 1244:talk 1230:Zero 1178:Lead 1162:Zero 1146:talk 1122:Zero 1080:talk 1057:and 1045:. A 1019:talk 996:talk 932:talk 905:talk 878:talk 862:talk 842:Zero 822:talk 800:talk 779:talk 748:talk 725:talk 687:and 674:talk 650:talk 634:Lead 623:talk 606:talk 579:talk 562:talk 530:talk 511:talk 500:is " 488:talk 473:talk 451:talk 434:talk 406:talk 377:talk 358:talk 334:talk 307:talk 284:talk 263:talk 233:talk 226:be.— 216:talk 189:talk 166:talk 141:talk 118:talk 101:talk 4880:doi 4758:plé 4570:RJH 4487:can 4463:RJH 4372:). 4370:AWB 4050:of 4003:of 3903:of 3139:). 1075:RJH 795:RJH 743:RJH 645:RJH 618:RJH 574:RJH 557:RJH 525:RJH 523:".— 483:RJH 446:RJH 401:RJH 372:RJH 353:RJH 329:RJH 302:RJH 228:RJH 161:RJH 113:RJH 4916:) 4898:) 4871:) 4837:) 4777:) 4749:― 4746:. 4735:) 4697:— 4692:. 4672:/ 4668:/ 4664:/ 4628:. 4622:. 4578:) 4515:/ 4511:/ 4507:/ 4435:/ 4431:/ 4427:/ 4409:) 4389:/ 4385:/ 4381:/ 4324:) 4301:). 4268:). 4234:. 4216:). 4194:). 4172:). 4150:). 4127:44 4125:. 4121:. 4109:^ 4102:. 4094:, 4090:, 4086:, 4082:, 3996:. 3984:, 3943:. 3935:, 3871:) 3839:/ 3835:/ 3831:/ 3811:) 3791:) 3771:) 3732:) 3704:/ 3700:/ 3696:/ 3670:) 3652:) 3634:) 3630:• 3596:) 3592:• 3561:) 3536:) 3520:) 3509:) 3484:) 3462:) 3431:. 3386:) 3369:) 3354:) 3324:) 3320:• 3286:) 3267:) 3252:) 3209:) 3135:) 3115:) 3095:) 3060:; 3047:: 3045:}} 3041:{{ 2994:) 2962:} 2958:– 2930:) 2883:) 2854:) 2825:) 2807:) 2787:) 2760:) 2734:) 2720:) 2701:) 2664:) 2644:) 2616:) 2612:• 2581:) 2549:) 2534:) 2511:) 2507:) 2477:) 2473:) 2445:) 2441:) 2410:) 2406:) 2374:) 2370:) 2329:) 2291:) 2274:) 2229:) 2195:) 2172:) 2145:) 2141:) 2104:) 2100:) 2074:) 2070:) 2043:) 2039:) 2031:?( 1968:) 1964:) 1937:) 1901:) 1876:) 1839:) 1807:) 1779:-- 1766:) 1762:) 1670:) 1666:) 1645:) 1613:) 1587:) 1583:) 1556:) 1552:) 1525:) 1521:) 1453:) 1375:) 1371:) 1318:) 1246:) 1223:. 1216:. 1152:} 1148:) 1138:}} 1132:{{ 1083:) 1021:) 1002:) 998:• 968:11 965:− 961:10 934:) 907:) 880:) 864:) 824:) 803:) 781:) 751:) 727:) 707:Cs 676:) 653:) 626:) 608:) 582:) 565:) 533:) 513:) 475:) 454:) 436:) 409:) 380:) 361:) 337:) 310:) 286:) 265:) 236:) 218:) 191:) 169:) 159:.— 143:) 121:) 103:) 4949:. 4912:( 4894:( 4882:: 4867:( 4833:( 4791:) 4787:( 4773:( 4731:( 4708:) 4704:( 4676:} 4660:{ 4630:4 4572:( 4519:} 4503:{ 4471:) 4465:( 4439:} 4423:{ 4405:( 4393:} 4377:{ 4320:( 4247:. 3961:ħ 3954:( 3867:( 3843:} 3827:{ 3807:( 3787:( 3767:( 3728:( 3708:} 3692:{ 3666:( 3648:( 3626:( 3588:( 3557:( 3532:( 3516:( 3505:( 3480:( 3458:( 3435:_ 3413:_ 3410:_ 3407:_ 3382:( 3365:( 3350:( 3316:( 3282:( 3263:( 3248:( 3205:( 3131:( 3111:( 3091:( 3081:) 3074:) 3058:) 3054:( 3037:. 2990:( 2972:_ 2952:{ 2946:ħ 2941:2 2939:⁄ 2937:1 2926:( 2922:— 2909:a 2904:2 2902:⁄ 2900:1 2879:( 2875:— 2850:( 2821:( 2803:( 2783:( 2756:( 2730:( 2716:( 2697:( 2677:" 2668:) 2660:( 2640:( 2608:( 2577:( 2545:( 2530:( 2503:( 2484:_ 2469:( 2452:_ 2437:( 2417:_ 2402:( 2381:_ 2366:( 2362:( 2341:_ 2333:) 2325:( 2303:_ 2295:) 2287:( 2278:) 2270:( 2264:e 2261:m 2257:m 2241:_ 2233:) 2225:( 2207:_ 2199:) 2191:( 2176:) 2168:( 2164:( 2152:_ 2137:( 2133:( 2111:_ 2096:( 2081:_ 2066:( 2051:_ 2035:( 2005:_ 1990:_ 1975:_ 1960:( 1941:) 1933:( 1919:_ 1916:_ 1913:_ 1905:) 1897:( 1880:) 1872:( 1858:_ 1855:_ 1852:_ 1843:) 1835:( 1811:) 1803:( 1789:_ 1786:_ 1783:_ 1758:( 1739:_ 1736:_ 1733:_ 1717:_ 1677:_ 1662:( 1649:) 1641:( 1617:) 1609:( 1594:_ 1579:( 1563:_ 1548:( 1532:_ 1517:( 1502:_ 1457:) 1449:( 1397:_ 1382:_ 1367:( 1351:_ 1314:( 1281:_ 1267:_ 1264:_ 1261:_ 1250:) 1242:( 1227:_ 1159:_ 1144:( 1119:_ 1077:( 1061:. 1017:( 994:( 930:( 903:( 876:( 860:( 839:_ 820:( 797:( 777:( 745:( 723:( 672:( 647:( 620:( 604:( 576:( 559:( 527:( 509:( 491:) 485:( 471:( 448:( 432:( 403:( 374:( 370:— 355:( 331:( 327:— 304:( 282:( 261:( 230:( 214:( 187:( 183:— 163:( 139:( 115:( 99:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index