574:
physics has at least as much claim to use the term as in particle physics. The term "proton decay" is not uncommonly used, and so I think any use of the term at all on the article is justified for consistency with literature and texts; of course proton emission is also found, and honestly, I think interchanging the two makes for a better read anyway. Alpha-decay was how the nucleus was discovered, and this goes with the same nomenclature of that term, so any dispute on linguistic terms seems moot to me. So alpha decay might be confused with potential radioactivity of He? This is only because there isn't a theory contradicted by experiment indicating that that decay happens (it's only contradicted by experiment). The upper lifetime of the proton half-life is so much larger than the age of the universe. I think it's not fair that an article in nuclear physics is restricted from using a term that's also found in particle physics, and I think using that term here allows someone finding "proton decay" in the literature that is the same as "proton emission" could only be more confused if
Knowledge refuses to recognize this usage. Offhand I don't have references, since this is a pretty common thing; certainly in real life the term is used plenty, so I can only assume it's also found in the literature. This would obviously be the main point for decision. I hope that if instances of this usage in scientific literature can be found, then it is agreed the term should be used on this page.
768:
The note on nomenclature, I reiterate, was made *because I know
Knowledge has a one-sided view on this matter*. The general population is a concern, but more so is actually being correct. I made disambiguation and clarification because right now Knowledge only suggests that "proton decay" means one thing, and that one thing is not only theoretical but historically later than nuclear physics ideas of the same name. I guess what bothers me is that if I just wrote the article as it should read (to me), I'd never make that reference and disambiguation. If that was the case, please tell me that you would have noticed and corrected it. I have a lot of pending edits on discussion pages that concern both nuclear and particle physics about how much bias there is towards particle physics, which, according to this comment, extends even to domains of nuclear physics which are not on unrelated to particle physics, but involve terms that were invented first in nuclear physics and have been usurped on Knowledge by particle physicists.
546:
as I understood, at a specific section and not the article as a whole. I'll agree with the idea that section needed references, but, perhaps as a fault to the tags available, that also questions general verifiability, which I do not believe was ever a matter at stake. To be honest, I couldn't care less if articles I've virtually created are edited to kingdom come. But based on the comments posted, particularly in seeming disregard to recent comments that already existed, it seemed more hostile than helpful to me. On the flip side, I do very significantly edit articles, and I encourage others to do so too, including any I've worked on. But tagging articles, to me, really indicates you ought to have a reasonable knowledge of the article's topic, which was certainly not so clear to me.
506:
any of the worldwide nuclear data groups that the proton drip line is well established; any reasonable person who was interested could easily verify this fact. For that point, I request all contributors to
Knowledge to make a reasonable effort in an attempt to verify information before indicating articles contain information that is it is likely not possible to verify. In regard to the citations tag, at the time the article was tagged, the article already contained 7 references to peer-reviewed scientific journals, making the general tag generally inappropriate for the article as a whole, which is not very lengthy at present. Finally, there was already a thread discussing the proton drip line nuclei, so beginning a new comment can lead to confusion and a less stream-lined discussion.
84:
471:; of course I have plans to do this to improve the article with regard to citations and adding more information, but it can be easily verified, in any case. How well the models do in this region I'm not sure off-hand, but it's kind of irrelevant to the experimental facts. What other things are inaccurate, misleading, and need citation. This is one example. For the case given, the most it needs is citation and a listing of the known proton drip line nuclei (see section on that above). In the case that More than 50% of the drip-line is not known, the wording of the article could be revised, but given that we for sure know it up to Z~26 then basically that's half right there.
752:
generally: for example, a particle physicist would regard the statement that "alpha decay is the only of the natural radioactive decays that is a particle decay" as pure nonsense: beta decay is certainly a particle decay as well, a purist might include photon emission in this category. The sentence means to say that it is the only one involving nucleon emission, and should say it in a way that avoids ambiguity. In general, much of this article reads like a rough draft, and could be made much more comprehensible to someone not already familiar with the subject. It would be nice if some effort were made to edit it in that direction.
179:
158:
74:
53:
189:
280:
nearly identical information. I will immediately be editing the page to make it more unified, since my first safety step was to copy and paste the articles together before implementing redirection so no information will be lost. I considered also the title 'particle drip line' so if you have a better name for this article, please create the page and make this a redirect.
22:
410:
for removal or only a single note rather than its present discussion. I also considered that spontaneous fission may link the proton and neutron drip lines, or that alpha decay may be competing with fission here and there. Since it may be difficult to find an authoritative reference on the matter, then that is also a reason to limit discussion.
800:, specifically) is copied from some text? The sentence "The idea may become more common place with the advent of radioactive ion beam accelerators in the late 1980s, which are allowing nuclear physicists to really probe the limits of nuclear stability" is completely out-of-place in an online encyclopedia article written just a month ago. —
332:
source, but we need to cite primary sources in peer reviewed journals for scientific wikis. This needs to be a cleanup tag for wiki if it doesn't already exist, because adding a few citations of popular science magazines to me does not qualify to remove a "this article does not cite sources" tag in science.
452:
limits of particle stability have been predicted by some model into this mass region or that the proton separation energy of these nuclei have been probed by experiment? It seems that I've read papers by
Michael Thoennessen that might be a good place for someone working on this to start. Happy editing. -
849:
In the section "Nuclei near the drip lines are not common on Earth" there is the following statement: "Although there are no naturally occurring nuclei on Earth which undergo proton emission or neutron emission, such nuclei can be created, for example, in the laboratory with accelerators or naturally
767:
I think my attempt to conform with present
Knowledge articles, as they exist, is somewhat at fault. If we want to debate jargon, then the point I think I've clearly made is that Knowledge is badly in error. To me, it's more convenient to talk about "proton decay" instead of "emission of a proton."
530:
tag. It is not intended to insult the author or to devalue the entire article. I put it there because there are many statements made in the article that are unreferenced. This does not mean that they are untrue or that they cannot be verified. Also, it should be reasonable to expect the author of
409:
This subject needs some better review, and the description given here could be wrong. This is not a commonly used idea, as, for example, it is not in any text books I have read. I have heard the idea, and the analogy is perfectly reasonable, but its use is very uncommon. This may make it a subject
279:
pages. I created the proton drip line page awhile back, but this is what I should have done. Although the two are different because of the
Coulomb interaction, it's a unified concept which is basically setting the boundaries for nuclear stability, and there is no reason to have two pages explaining
545:
I don't think we disagree on the idea of tagging for more references. However, I was annoyed that, after taking two stub articles, combining them, and adding a respectable amount of references, that the whole article would be tagged. This is consistent with the comments which were targeted, as far
331:
Some progress. I also would like to insist that we cite peer reviewed original scientific publication and not some popular science digest. I am happy for the inclusion of any citations before I began working on this wiki, but honestly, sciencedaily is not a proper citation. Sure, it's a reputable
505:
this article never should have been tagged. It states, "The threshold for inclusion in
Knowledge is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." It is easy to check with
367:
While we need some figures, we also need a good way to list, say, the known nuclei at the proton drip line. A list in a sentence is preposterous, but I've never used tables on wiki, and I assume it is very different than in html. If I have time, I will figure out hot to make tables. In the mean
347:
I find the first sentence misleading. Isn't the dripline the limit of stability against single nucleon decay? As it stands, it seems to imply that beta- emitters are outside the drip line. I guess this is probably a change that should have been done when the neutron- and proton dripline pages were
573:
has changed all instances of 'proton decay' into 'proton emission' to avoid confusion with a term in particle physics. The idea that these two names are used for different phenomena was even removed. Although someone in particle physics may feel different than myself in nuclear physics, nuclear
890:
There's been a tag here since 2013 rightly suggesting that the lede was inappropriate. I've rewritten to make it more concise. In particular, I've removed much of the parenthetical or textbook-style explanations. In the lede, I assume an understanding of some terms. A reader may have to look
315:
We need more citations, astrophysical relevance of the proton drip line to the rp-process, general discussion of photodisintegration in astrophysics to distinguish it from the drip lines, some figures, and a section generally outlining the importance of the
Coulomb barrier in differentiating the
451:
This is a reasonable start, but there seems to be much that is inaccurate, misleading, or at the very least, needing citation. For example, to suggest that there are "well established" "known values" of the proton drip line up to A~100 is vague and possibly misleading. Does this mean that the
1055:
The hardest case is actually Be. It is extremely stable to both proton emission and neutron emission, yet it is commonly counted as unbound since it decays to 2 He in less than 10 seconds. I found references about alpha-unbound states, but all of them are about light nuclides rather than heavy
599:
The first reference I can find to this term are indeed in nuclear physics and not particle physics, meaning proton emission. So even historically if anyone should use a different term, it ought to be those in the particle physics community. Indeed, it is well linked with astrophysics which I
581:
page, there is no mention that a different value is often used in nuclear physics, and only the particle physics definition is given; the best part is I assumed that would be true without ever having read the page, found the page, and that's exactly how it appears. Particle physics mentality
751:
I agree. Since
Knowledge articles are meant to be read by the general public, not just experts in one small subfield, specialized jargon that conflicts with other subfields, especially one so closely related as particle physics, are best avoided. Some sensitivity might be given to this more
736:
I saw that edit by
Roentgenium111 and thought it was a good idea to just use the less ambiguous term. I don't view this as a refusal to acknowledge the alternative expression for the phenomena, but rather as a way to make a clear statement without the tangential discussion of semantics.
625:
to query abstracts; searching text of very old papers is much more difficult. In any case, it's very clear this term is used in nuclear physics, and it should be added back in to the article. I will wait to see if there is any discussion before proceeding with the change.
867:
Quite a belated reply, so sorry.. Spontaneous fission, like uranium isotopes (235, 238) will emit neutrons as a part of fission. However, that is not because they are near the drip line. I like your idea about reactors as an additional example and relevance, though.
388:
marked the article as needing verification. Thus, I have posted a crap table with the relevant data so maybe someone will see the ugly table and fix it rather than ignoring my discussion in the future. Thanks to anyone who can help!
531:
statements to provide the sources, and not to expect readers to do so. Thanks for your efforts to improve the quality of the article, but I will still feel free to request a citation where having one given will improve it. -
616:). Of course I could continue this search up to the present time, and from 2010 I can find the usage of the term in both disciplines meaning different things. I was pretty sure I had initiated discussion of this on the
620:
page requesting a disambiguation, but apparently I did not do that yet. (Sorry I got lazy properly formatting references for the talk page for later examples.) For those interested, my method is obviously using the
383:
Although I had this information, I previously refrained from posting it while awaiting some discussion on how to format it. Rather than discuss that point with me in an effort to assist the content of the article,
894:
Now, one improvement that someone could make would be to insert a picture of a chart of nuclides, with the drip line indicated. If that's right by the lede, then it's pretty clear what the term means right away.
1023:
are counted as unbound. So even nuclides like Tm (half-life 0.58Â s, branching ratio 15%, thus its proton emission partial half-life will be 3.9 seconds!) are still counted as unbound despite long half-lives.
249:
600:
emphasized when overhauling this page. The first instance I can find of a similar concept in particle physics is 8 years later, and uses 'protonic decay' ; this is consistent with the
1038:
Thanks! But O and Mg cannot undergo proton emission or neutron emission; they undergo double proton emission or double neutron emission instead. So I'm not sure about their bindness.
582:
overwhelms nuclear physics mentality on most subjects which I've viewed on Knowledge, and I'd rather not continue the trend on a page that's not even related to particle physics.
860:
They're also created inside of reactors; they form that critical .65% of fission products which are delayed in emitting neutrons, and thereby make control of reactors possible.
1189:
1199:
891:
these up elsewhere, or to see more detail in the body of the article; however, that allows this new lede to communicate quickly to the reader what exactly a drip line is.
239:
724:
679:
140:
850:
in stars." I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is that are natural neutron sources. Am I missing something here, or is this statement simply incorrect?
1194:
1184:
130:
316:
properties and locations of the different drip lines. And since the proton drip line is fairly well known, we should add that information too.
1204:
83:
1059:
Maybe "bound" is just related to the nuclide's half-life, not their decay mode? I can't find the value that defines the border however.
1074:
1039:
1001:
829:
Nah, that's my original text. Feel free to change it or move it around, but it wasn't copied from anywhere. I wrote this free-hand.
815:
106:
1073:
I think the most commonly used border is 10 seconds, but a few picoseconds for aforementioned O and Mg look still extremely short...
1179:
811:
1064:
1029:
215:
202:
163:
97:
58:
996:
I can't find the exact definition of bindness, so I list O (half-life 4.5 ps) and Mg (5 ps) as unbound. Actually, those
33:
900:
1060:
1025:
437:
485:
Sorry, the "we for sure know" for up to A=26 is just because I work with light, proton-rich nuclei in the lab.
368:
time, if someone else can do even a small table as a template, then I can do the nuclear physics data input.
1078:
1043:
1005:
819:
502:
604:
I can find on the same subject. The first instance I can find in particle physics of this term is in 1960
896:
805:
718:
673:
39:
353:
433:
21:
570:
524:
753:
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
349:
428:
in any source. Even though the description is reasonable, does this necessitate its removal as
757:
742:
536:
457:
276:
1156:
1148:
1140:
1123:
1020:
801:
706:
272:
207:
194:
178:
157:
1016:
1108:
873:
834:
781:
773:
631:
587:
551:
511:
490:
476:
415:
394:
373:
337:
321:
300:
285:
89:
1173:
978:
613:
609:
605:
601:
738:
617:
577:
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated problem. It would be similar to how on the
532:
453:
429:
385:
694:
1160:
851:
467:
Actually that's experimentally determined. For example, one might check on the
73:
52:
1152:
1144:
1127:
1056:
nuclides (e.g. U and Os) that are observed or predicted to undergo alpha decay.
184:
79:
869:
830:
777:
769:
710:
627:
583:
547:
507:
486:
472:
411:
390:
369:
333:
317:
296:
281:
1082:
1068:
1047:
1033:
1009:
904:
877:
854:
838:
823:
785:
761:
746:
635:
591:
555:
540:
515:
494:
480:
461:
441:
419:
398:
377:
357:
341:
325:
304:
289:
608:. However, even after that time it's usage continues in nuclear physics (
1052:
I think those decay by 2p emission or 2n emission are also unbound too.
578:
214:
on Knowledge. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the
211:
102:
657:
1107:
Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; Huang, W. J.; Naimi, S.; Audi, G. (2021).
622:
1000:= 128,129 nuclides like Po seem very much like unbound to me.
15:
501:
Tag is now removed. According to the Knowledge standards on
1015:
If I remember correctly, nuclides that can possibly undergo
693:
Fry, W. F.; Schneps, J.; Snow, G. A.; Swami, M. S. (1956).
468:
424:
It's over eight years later and I haven't found the term
797:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
796:Is it possible that part of this article (added in
295:
Merge complete. Cleaning and improvements welcome.
1109:"The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear properties"
845:No naturally occurring nuclei that emit neutrons?
8:
723:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
678:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
447:Need for additional citations, verification
1190:C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
267:New page! Merged proton/neutron drip line
152:
47:
1200:Low-importance chemical elements articles
658:"On the Proton-Decay in Cosmic-ray Stars"
520:Perhaps you have a different view of the
910:List of bound isotopes of light elements
206:, which gives a central approach to the
1099:
648:
154:
49:
19:
716:
671:
469:National Nuclear Data Center database
7:
656:Fujimoto, Y.; Yamaguchi, Y. (1948).
566:Proton/Neutron Decay Versus Emission
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1195:C-Class chemical elements articles
14:
977:= 10: Ne, Ne (Ne is unbound, see
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
1185:Low-importance physics articles
662:Progress of Theoretical Physics
244:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
224:Knowledge:WikiProject Elements
1:
1205:WikiProject Elements articles
905:23:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
855:06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
442:21:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
363:How to display the drip lines
227:Template:WikiProject Elements
200:This article is supported by
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
109:and see a list of open tasks.
776:) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Physics
1161:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.055802
1083:00:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1069:06:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
1048:00:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
1034:15:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
1010:01:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
839:05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
358:11:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
1221:
1153:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054613
1145:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.055805
762:16:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
747:04:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
636:02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
592:01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
541:03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
516:06:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
495:02:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
481:01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
399:06:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
230:chemical elements articles
141:project's importance scale
462:15:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
420:12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
378:07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
342:03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
326:15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
305:15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
290:12:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
243:
172:
134:
67:
46:
1180:C-Class physics articles
1128:10.1088/1674-1137/abddae
878:07:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
786:17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
695:"Mass of the ÎŁ+ Hyperon"
556:17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
824:02:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
711:10.1103/PhysRev.103.226
311:Improvements Requested
28:This article is rated
1061:Nucleus hydro elemon
1026:Nucleus hydro elemon
203:WikiProject Elements
98:WikiProject Physics
34:content assessment
1116:Chinese Physics C
277:neutron drip line
264:
263:
260:
259:
256:
255:
218:for more details.
208:chemical elements
151:
150:
147:
146:
1212:
1163:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1113:
1104:
1021:neutron emission
947:= 5: B, B, B, B
941:= 4: Be, Be, Be
929:= 2: He, He, He
897:Moishe Rosenbaum
729:
728:
722:
714:
690:
684:
683:
677:
669:
653:
529:
523:
273:proton drip line
271:Just merged the
250:importance scale
232:
231:
228:
225:
222:
197:
195:Chemistry portal
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
121:physics articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1139:
1135:
1111:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1017:proton emission
912:
888:
847:
794:
734:
733:
732:
715:
699:Physical Review
692:
691:
687:
670:
655:
654:
650:
568:
527:
521:
449:
434:ComplexRational
426:alpha drip line
407:
405:Alpha drip line
365:
313:
269:
229:
226:
223:
220:
219:
193:
188:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1218:
1216:
1208:
1207:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1172:
1171:
1165:
1164:
1133:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1057:
1053:
911:
908:
887:
886:Rewritten Lede
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
862:
861:
846:
843:
842:
841:
793:
790:
789:
788:
731:
730:
685:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
571:Roentgenium111
567:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
499:
498:
497:
448:
445:
406:
403:
402:
401:
364:
361:
345:
344:
312:
309:
308:
307:
268:
265:
262:
261:
258:
257:
254:
253:
246:Low-importance
242:
236:
235:
233:
199:
198:
182:
170:
169:
167:Low‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Physics portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1217:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1122:(3): 030001.
1121:
1117:
1110:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
992:
988:
987:= 11: Na, Na
986:
982:
980:
976:
972:
970:
966:
964:
960:
958:
954:
952:
948:
946:
942:
940:
936:
934:
930:
928:
924:
922:
918:
916:
909:
907:
906:
902:
898:
892:
885:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
863:
859:
858:
857:
856:
853:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
807:
803:
799:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
766:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
749:
748:
744:
740:
726:
720:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
689:
686:
681:
675:
667:
663:
659:
652:
649:
645:
637:
633:
629:
624:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:in this paper
603:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
575:
572:
565:
557:
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
526:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:verifiability
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
446:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:
417:
413:
404:
400:
396:
392:
387:
382:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
362:
360:
359:
355:
351:
343:
339:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
278:
274:
266:
251:
247:
241:
238:
237:
234:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1136:
1119:
1115:
1102:
1094:
1075:14.52.231.91
1040:14.52.231.91
1002:14.52.231.91
997:
995:
990:
989:
984:
983:
974:
973:
968:
967:
962:
961:
956:
955:
950:
949:
944:
943:
938:
937:
935:= 3: Li, Li
932:
931:
926:
925:
920:
919:
914:
913:
893:
889:
848:
816:66.116.30.96
808:
795:
750:
735:
719:cite journal
702:
698:
688:
674:cite journal
665:
661:
651:
643:
623:ADS Database
618:proton decay
576:
569:
450:
425:
423:
408:
366:
346:
314:
270:
245:
216:project page
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
802:Dinoguy1000
1174:Categories
1095:References
644:References
602:next paper
525:refimprove
210:and their
993:= 12: Mg
798:this edit
812:contribs
792:Copyvio?
348:merged.
221:Elements
212:isotopes
164:Elements
971:= 9: F
965:= 8: O
959:= 7: N
953:= 6: C
923:= 1: H
917:= 0: n
754:Dusty14
739:MrFizyx
705:: 226.
614:paper 2
610:paper 1
579:isospin
533:MrFizyx
454:MrFizyx
386:MrFizyx
248:on the
139:on the
112:Physics
103:Physics
59:Physics
30:C-class
852:modify
668:: 462.
350:Lsutvs
36:scale.
1112:(PDF)
814:) as
430:WP:OR
1079:talk
1065:talk
1044:talk
1030:talk
1006:talk
979:here
901:talk
874:talk
870:DAID
835:talk
831:DAID
820:talk
806:talk
782:talk
778:DAID
774:talk
770:DAID
758:talk
743:talk
725:link
680:link
632:talk
628:DAID
588:talk
584:DAID
552:talk
548:DAID
537:talk
512:talk
508:DAID
491:talk
487:DAID
477:talk
473:DAID
458:talk
438:talk
416:talk
412:DAID
395:talk
391:DAID
374:talk
370:DAID
354:talk
338:talk
334:DAID
322:talk
318:DAID
301:talk
297:DAID
286:talk
282:DAID
275:and
1157:doi
1149:doi
1141:doi
1124:doi
1019:or
822:)
707:doi
703:103
240:Low
131:Low
1176::
1155:,
1147:,
1120:45
1118:.
1114:.
1081:)
1067:)
1046:)
1032:)
1008:)
981:)
903:)
876:)
837:)
784:)
760:)
745:)
721:}}
717:{{
701:.
697:.
676:}}
672:{{
664:.
660:.
634:)
612:,
590:)
554:)
539:)
528:}}
522:{{
514:)
493:)
479:)
460:)
440:)
432:?
418:)
397:)
376:)
356:)
340:)
324:)
303:)
288:)
1159::
1151::
1143::
1130:.
1126::
1077:(
1063:(
1042:(
1028:(
1004:(
998:N
991:Z
985:Z
975:Z
969:Z
963:Z
957:Z
951:Z
945:Z
939:Z
933:Z
927:Z
921:Z
915:Z
899:(
872:(
833:(
818:(
809:·
804:(
780:(
772:(
756:(
741:(
737:-
727:)
713:.
709::
682:)
666:3
630:(
586:(
550:(
535:(
510:(
489:(
475:(
456:(
436:(
414:(
393:(
372:(
352:(
336:(
320:(
299:(
284:(
252:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
