6 ms·

> ... but the title is very confusing to the layman Given the density of knowledge in your comment, I'm not sure the title could be much different to aid in th

> ... but the title is very confusing to the layman Given the density of knowledge in your comment, I'm not sure the title could be much different to aid in the understanding of the layman.

scott_s 12y ago
"New Emergent Particle Acts as its Own Anti-Particle". A layman will not know what "emergent particle" means. (I did not.) But they will at least know that the presence of an adjective implies it's not quite "a particle", and the adjective itself gives a hint to the meaning. If the layman is then piqued, they will get clarification in the article itself.
- ethbro 12y ago
  You wrote the style guide for Wikipedia's mathematics articles, didn't you? ;) (By which I mean, a balance between immediate understanding vs. links for detail >> primarily links for detail without immediate understanding)
- MaysonL 12y ago
  Would "Virtual Particle" possibly be a more correct and explanatory term?
  - scott_s 12y ago
    Sadly, no, as "virtual particle" has a different meaning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle. The technical term for these, I believe is "quasiparticle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
    - kazinator 12y ago
      So, for example, a "hole" in a semiconductor lattice is emergent, but a phonon is quasi? I suppose we would call an L4 Lagrangian point an emergent phenomenon and not a virtual mass (just because it can be orbited). For one thing, if we did a surface integral around the L4 point, of the gravitational field, we would find that there is no mass there; the net flux is zero.
      - scott_s 12y ago
        I do not know, as I am not a particle physicist. I got "emergent" from the popular press article. The terms "virtual" and "quasi" already have meanings in the field, so my point was it would be further confusing to use their non-technical meanings when trying to explain it to a layman.

> ... but the title is very confusing to the layman Given the density of knowledge in your comment, I'm not sure the title could be much different to aid in the understanding of the layman.

scott_s 12y ago

"New Emergent Particle Acts as its Own Anti-Particle". A layman will not know what "emergent particle" means. (I did not.) But they will at least know that the presence of an adjective implies it's not quite "a particle", and the adjective itself gives a hint to the meaning. If the layman is then piqued, they will get clarification in the article itself.

ethbro 12y ago
You wrote the style guide for Wikipedia's mathematics articles, didn't you? ;) (By which I mean, a balance between immediate understanding vs. links for detail >> primarily links for detail without immediate understanding)
MaysonL 12y ago
Would "Virtual Particle" possibly be a more correct and explanatory term?
- scott_s 12y ago
  Sadly, no, as "virtual particle" has a different meaning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle. The technical term for these, I believe is "quasiparticle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
  - kazinator 12y ago
    So, for example, a "hole" in a semiconductor lattice is emergent, but a phonon is quasi? I suppose we would call an L4 Lagrangian point an emergent phenomenon and not a virtual mass (just because it can be orbited). For one thing, if we did a surface integral around the L4 point, of the gravitational field, we would find that there is no mass there; the net flux is zero.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      I do not know, as I am not a particle physicist. I got "emergent" from the popular press article. The terms "virtual" and "quasi" already have meanings in the field, so my point was it would be further confusing to use their non-technical meanings when trying to explain it to a layman.