Talk:Weyl equation
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Start
editApologies for not writing a description of what these are used for, but I thought that the mathematical form of the equation would at least be a start for this page. Hope the source I used is acceptable - any comments on my talk page would be appreciated. Ta NJHartley (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I do NOT understand this equation (yet – will someday) =(, but I used what resources I have to expand it as far as I can, and add references, so it is not deleted. Any inaccuaries/incorrect statements please just fix them - the article is very small...-- F = q(E + v × B) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"SI Units"
editIs there any sense in which the (currently second) equation is "in SI units"? It contains only physical constants. Changing unit systems would leave the equation looking exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanberkowitz (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think they mean "as apposed to c=hbar=1" because it has explcity factors of c in it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ungrammatical sentence
editThe article includes the sentence, "Followed by the experimental discovery of the neutrino fixed helicity in 1958." This sentence is not grammatical, and while I'm pretty good with English grammar, I can't fix it because I don't know what it means or is trying to express. Helicity has not been mentioned prior to the appearance of this sentence. I assume it means that something either does or does not move in a helical path. What helicity might have to do with neutrinos or with the Weyl equation is not clear. Can someone more knowledgeable than I please fix this sentence, or even better replace it with a paragraph of detailed explanation? David Spector (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've done some copyedit to the section, as there were also grammatical mistakes elsewhere. Does it look good to you now, at least gramatically? I've also been unable to determine why the helicity is relevant, beyond it adding extra detail on the experimental history of the neutrino. Zephyr the west wind (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, it is better now, although I share your puzzlement about the nature of helicity. David Spector (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)