K P schreef:
On 6/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
...it cites us as explanatory references:
Our physics articles are obviously of citable quality now.
Wow, that's a new high for Wikipedia, sorta, and a new low for particle physics, my apologies to all particle physicists on list for not alluding to infinite boundaries and all the rest.
1) That is not particle physics. It is theoretical quantum field theory. Completely different subject, and hard to see why you would confuse those two.
2) Wikipedia is quite good if you want to get a general overview of a subject in physics; perhaps the best online resource covering the whole of physics. Cites of Wikipedia in an introductory part of an online article (where the ability of linking is a bonus) are not that surprising.
3) Registering a domain name for your new physics theory is generally a sign that you cannot get your theory published in a regular channel. Also, Wikipedia is cited all over the place, which seems to indicate that the author is not familiar with how much his collegue theoretical quantum field theorists know. Conclusion: the page looks like the work of a well-willing amateur, not a professional physicist. (But I cannot judge the scientific validity of the page.
On behalf of all particle physicists on the list, Eugene