Talk:WIMP
|
|
This presents an interesting puzzling for naming conventions: if something like "WIMP" is almost always referred to as such, should it be listed under its acronym or under its full title? I have no very strong views about this case particular case, but I lean toward moving it to the full title. This particular page would be a perfect instance for that, because the acronym has two different uses; therefore, WIMP could redirect to those other two pages. --LMS
Weakly interacting massive particle is long enough that it won't be fun to link to. What do you think of perhaps putting the article at WIMP (astronomy)?
I'd say yes, I suppose. I don't know, an astronomer familiar with naming conventions should decide, I guess. --LMS
Another option would be Dark matter/WIMP, but I really intended the article to talk about WIMP (astronomy) here and link to graphical user interface as a footnote. --Damian Yerrick
Are neutralinos massive enough to be WIMPs? I'm trying to decide whether to add a hook on WIMP or on dark matter.
- Neutralinos (not to be confused with neutrinos) are in fact a favored WIMP candidate. --Reuben 01:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I think this article needs more structure and some clean up regarding terms that are normally not used or used differently in a Physics context. For instance no real world object can be cooled down to 0 Kelvin. I will start working on this in a few days. Otherwise my vote is for using WIMP (astronomy)! Awolf002 22:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I re-arranged the article. Start blaming me... ;-) Awolf002 12:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The article says it's called "weakly interacting" because its interactions with other particles are weak, in the sense of not strong. I thought it meant it interacted only through gravity and the weak nuclear force. 207.69.0.97 19:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- No, I do not think so. Interaction via the weak force would actually be a pretty "strong" one. These particles would therefore be easily detectable. The name "weak force" was chosen in regard to the other, strong nuclear force, not because it is really weak. Awolf002 20:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Then by what force (besides gravity) DO they interact? 207.69.3.246 20:17, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- The W in WIMP hedges its bets by meaning both things at once. Typically a WIMP should have interactions at about the strength of the weak nuclear force, but those interactions don't have to be dominated by the weak nuclear force. For example, supersymmetric WIMPs might well scatter off of nuclei mainly through the Higgs. As long as the cross-sections are somewhere on the order of the weak nuclear force, you can still call it a WIMP. --Reuben 01:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
I certainly DO think...
...that this page goes on WIMP (astronomy), because of the possibility of the existence of a radio station or television station with call letters WIMP. Does one exist?? Please check to see whether one exists, and whether it is WIMP-FM, WIMP-AM, or WIMP-TV, then move this page to WIMP (astronomy), and then make WIMP a dis-ambiguation page. 66.32.129.87 20:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Created a page on DAMA/NaI experiment and linked to that page
Unfortunately someone has voted to remove the DAMA/NaI page. He thinks it's original research. I doubt if he knows what original research is. It is true that the article is technical. However, it is easier to write the article this way and to improve it later. I give some references that can be used to expand the article and make it less technical.
In explaining WIMPs...
I think it'd make the article clearer if the necessity of WIMPs' existence (or the evidence thereof) was explained. Right now there's allusion to certain theoretical problems but not what those problems are.
Best, --Kharhaz 21:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Confusing line
"Because WIMPs may only interact via the gravitational and weak forces, they are virtually undetectable. Currently, there are many experiments underway to detect WIMPs both directly and indirectly."
Many experiments underway to detect something virtually undetectable? --TC 02:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that line might use some rewording to make it less confusing. However there is nothing technically wrong or incorrect about it. WIMPs are (thought to be) extremely difficult to detect but not impossible and that is why so many sites around the world are looking for them. Virtually all of the methods used to detect WIMPs are strange and exotic, such as looking for flashes of light in bottles of cryogenic liquid xenon. There are many sites that explain the experiments in much higher detail than found here. Do a search for dark matter search or some simillar. Here [1] (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/1/9) is a good article from physicsweb. --Deglr6328 03:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- You could say that if the dark matter is made of WIMPs, then the difficulty of detecting them can be anywhere from virtually impossible to just very, very difficult. I think the original author of that line must have meant something like "undetectable so far (modulo Dama)." I agree that these sentences could use a rewrite. --Reuben 18:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Query
In Theoretical Arguments, the size of WIMPs is referred to as having "Large mass compared with standard particles". Could some indication of how large be added? Duncan.france 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- There are quite a lot of possibilities. A reasonable range of interest is a few GeV up to several TeV, but you could imaging something a lot heavier and still call it a WIMP. The mass of a medium-sized atom is a good comparison for scale. --Reuben 01:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- As a non-nuclear physicist, how big are 'a few GeV, and several TeV'?
- Also, how would one compare with a medium-sized atom? i.e. with what atoms (or ions) of which elements (?), and which mass/ionic radii??
Duncan.france 05:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment
As WIMPs are thoroughly hypothetical, I would prefer more conditional tenses used in this article e.g. 'could be', or 'would be' rather than 'are'. Duncan.france 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)