![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tachyon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tachyon at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Tachyon was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 6, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
See Neutrino. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yitzilitt (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This review is dedicated as thanks to the Wikipedia community for helping me get the article Joel S. Levine to the point where I felt comfortable giving it a GAN (which it just passed!), so I'm going to try and give back by working on other GANs for while, starting with this one :) Yitz (talk)
As I work I will try to fill in this section with specific feedback.
Yitz (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A good article is—
Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
criteria 1a is pretty much met in terms of minimum standards, in my opinion, although it certainly can be improved to be a bit more readable for the average reader. For criteria 1b, I edited the lead section significantly, so as to better follow MOS:LEAD, and I believe it now qualifies in that regard. Layout seems fine. Words to watch has a few words mentioned that are used in the article, but are used in the proper context, so shouldn't be a problem. The section on fiction doesn't really apply at all here, and finally, the section on lists doesn't present any problems here.
Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[1] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
Criteria 2a and 2c is mostly followed, with the exception of the section Tachyon#In_fiction, which seems to present original research without citation. I find myself unable to verify 2b is followed, and may need to call in a second reviewer who is more knowledgeable on the topic to go through this.
Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[2] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Criteria 3a and 3b seem to be mostly followed, although I would add significantly more to the section Tachyon#In_fiction, as there really isn't much to the section right now, and is likely to be of high interest. I am also unsure if all of the technical sections are necessary, or even if they're mainstream in the scientific community.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
4 is fully covered here, in my opinion, though it's possible there's some scientific bias I'm not aware of.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[3]
As far as I am aware, this article is indeed stable
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[4]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
6 is fully covered here.
I feel the need to bring on a second opinion at this point, due to my lack of technical knowledge which has prevented me from fully verifying this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzilitt (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to thank the IP editor and the original reviewer for tackling such an important article. Unfortunately, I do not believe it meets the GA criteria as it stands. Criterion two is not met at the time. Like the original reviewer indicated, the text in the fiction section is not reflected by the source. This is however not the only instance of a failure to meet the verification criterion. Further examples are:
Agreed that the fiction section can be expanded, but would lean towards saying that the article does mean the broadness criteria, the expansion is only necessary for the more demanding FA criteria.
Like the original reviewer, I do not have the expertise to save the article is or isn’t neutral (a BSc in physics isn’t quite enough). However, given the article is not meeting criterion 2b, I do feel confident saying it does not meet the GA criteria. This second opinion request has been open sufficiently long that it's unlikely an expert will show up still. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Yitzilitt, as you are the original reviewer, it is up to you to complete the review. Under the circumstances, and with FemkeMilene's second opinion noting that the article indeed does not meet the GA criteria as you noted originally (2b in the verifiability criteria), the article should almost certainly be failed (especially as the original nominator has not addressed the issue since you first raised it in mid-February). Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Regarding the one that makes it to Reddit and Stack Exchange and such, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Spacetime that has the tachyon vector situated on the axes of a single dimension (as it is a line) and multiple time dimensions.
Since imaginary time gets a mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, why doesn't it get a mention here? I'm in favour of including some of the various theories and citing them.
Since I'm not Steven Hawking, and the best I can do is copy-paste, I'll leave this here,
"It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?"
- Stephen Hawking 49.183.10.84 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
"In September 2011, it was reported that a tau neutrino had traveled faster than the speed of light in a major release by CERN." Well, not quite. It was reported that a tau neutrino was measured to have travelled faster than light. The most obvious explanation for this anomaly was always inaccurate equipment. Probably no-one at CERN reported that the particle had actually broken the law of special relativity. Shouldn't we change the text accordingly? Steinbach (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The current article leads with an colorful image
With the caption = Because the tachyon travels faster than light, the observer sees nothing until it has already passed. Then, two images appear: one of the sphere arriving (on the right) and one of it departing (on the left).
The image is fun, but meaningless. What are the axes here? the bold lines? The colors? The meaning of the shapes? What of there velocities? How can we see a "tachyon" if tachyon's do not exist?
Without answers to these kinds of questions I think a a picture of a donut or yummy cake with sprinkles would be better. It would look just as good but not raise as many questions. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
New experience witp particel,s from magnesium and light 199.47.67.33 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Tachyons needs to be challenged. Causality is not a fundamental law of physics. It is a consequence of Special Relativity applicable only to particles that travel slower than the speed of light. The whole idea of "grandfather paradox" is based upon careless use of language (by many respected physicists).A detailed debunking of several anti-tachyon myths is published in: Charles Schwartz, "A Consistent Theory of Tachyons with Interesting Physics for Neutrinos" Symmetry 14, 1172 (2202) Charlieschwartz (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)