Talk:Massless particle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Merge

I think this article should be merged with Mass in special relativity for the following reasons:

  • The concept Luxon is hardly used anywhere. Actually I have never seen it before.
  • The meaning is completely identical to that of a massless particle.
  • Much of the content of the article actually doesn't belong here. Gauge boson information should be (and most is) at Gauge boson, gravitino information at Gravitino, etc. Here it's just eclectic pieces of information which don't make up a coherent article.

Dan Gluck 12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


NO.
Point 1. The fact that you haven’t come across terms like Luxon many times means very little. It is a mistake to try to make physics to coherent - it isn’t a coherent body. 'Luxon' is one of a series of very generic terms relating to classification of velocity realm. (ie Tachyon, Luxon and Tardon).
Point 2. A Luxon is any particle that moves at the speed of light. Some Luxons may have mass some don't, it specifically doesn't specify mass - only velocity.

Much of the work on Relativity in recent years (decades) has gained a kind of totalitarian flavour that tries to suppress anything that contradicts it even slightly and in the process often hides its own weaknesses. You may deny the existence of tachyons, but it is important to keep the concepts in use. (Personally as an adherent of hyperspace theory I find tachyon and Luxon rather important definitions.)
Lucien86 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your (or my) personal likings are irrelevant. What does matter is the physics community, which regards what you write here as nonsense. Relativity is a complete consensus among physicists. Dan Gluck 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I have a PhD in particle physics and regularly publish in the field - I've never heard this term (perhaps not important) nor can I find it in any of the standard high energy texts or via google search. I suppose anyone could define a "fill-in-the-blank-with-randon-word" and call it a label for particles that move only at the speed of light ... but why put it in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.70.90 (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You will find some pages, if you use keywords "luxon particle". I am also a physicist. Why not to put it in Wikipedia? Why put anything in Wikipedia? Urvabara (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


'Luxons'? 'bradyons'? wtf? These are hardly well-established, standard notions of the kind belonging in an encyclopedia. Any student using terms like 'bradyon' in a homework is going to get marked down. 81.101.44.107 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have changed my mind and in favor of deleting it.Dan Gluck (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some of this article is salvageable as an article named "Massless particle", which currently does not exist, the closest approximation being Relativistic particle. I will boldly carry out this change without further discussion. Melchoir (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)