Talk:Timeline of atomic and subatomic physics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPhysics: History List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Copyright permission for Niel Brandt material[edit]

Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

Shorter articles[edit]

Can this title be shortened? It's pretty damn long dontcha think? --dave

Have you a proposition? -- looxix 23:57 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
how 'bout "Timeline of physics" or "Chronology of physics" or "History of Physics". Maybe it can't be generalized to all of physics, but is there another chronology of physics disciplines somewhere else on wikipedia? Like for solid state/condensed matter for example? BTW, looxix, how do you make the time show up after your sig? --dave

(1) Maybe it can't be generalized to all of physics?

Can be (I'm not really for not really against), but ...

(2) is there another chronology of physics disciplines.

Sure, in physics:
and in astronomy/astrophysics:
and of course: List of timelines

(3) how do you make the time show up after your sig?

~~~ give your name, ~~~~ give your name + date

Thanks. Well, I guess the only solution then would be to separate this one into multiple articles, like

  • Timeline of quantum mechanics, molecular physics, atomic physics
  • Timeline of nuclear physics, and particle physics

something like that. I'm not sure if that division is good. And I think the time it would take to split it into two articles would not be worth it, just to make the title shorter. Unless the title is just changed to "Timeline of Atomic scale physics" or something like encompass those disciples. dave 15:42 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Exclusion Principle Date?[edit]

The article states that the Pauli exclusion principle was formulated in 1924. The the actual article on Pauli exclusion principle seems to suggest it was formulated in 1925, but first thought up in 1924. Shouldn't the (main) article say 1925?

Linkage policy[edit]

I'm wondering if we should link the name of person x every time it appears, rather than only for the first item on the timeline. It would make casual link-hopping a lot easier... Dstudent 05:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crediting needs work[edit]

Some of the people credited with particle physics discoveries are incorrect. For example the upsilon meson was found by a group led by Leon Lederman, and S.W. Herb is simply the first name listed alphabetically on the discovery paper. Probably particle physics experiments since WWII should be credited to experimental groups rather than to individuals. I will work on this. Also the detail drops way off as the timeline approaches the present day, so the timeline is a bit inconsistent; I may work on this also. -- SCZenz 23:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of microphysics[edit]

I don't know, whether the expression microphysics exists in English, but in Hungarian Wikipedia we changed to Timeline of microphysics. A physicist said me, that it exists in Hungary in the meaning of the five field of physics. -- Harp 13:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although a google search on microphysics suggests that the term means something different in meteorology, I did find the above definition in an on-line dictionary. Since the name of this timeline is so atrocious I'm going to be bold and change the name. If someone who actually knows something about this field of science disagrees, they can change it back. --JeffW 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fastfission (talk · contribs) added a mergeto template to the newly-created article Timeline of Fundamental Physics Discoveries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please discuss this proposed merge. --Christopher Thomas 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There was a stale merge request for this merger. I have no opinion on whether it should be done or not. If there is no consensus to do the merge please feel free to delete the tags on both pages. --Selket Talk 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chances at the LHC?[edit]

I suggest we remove things like the currently last entry about the LHC having "a big chance" to discover the Higgs boson. I don't think a timeline should include chances and speculations, but only achievements. -- Northgrove 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Timeline of quantum mechanics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Timeline of atomic and subatomic physics. Consensus to move, just no consensus to which of two acceptable options so I decided between the two. Better then leaving it at a bad name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of microphysicsTimeline of quantum mechanics — I am proposing a name change for this article to Timeline of quantum mechanics. — Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL)

Timeline of microphysicsTimeline of quantum mechanics

I am proposing a name change for this article to Timeline of quantum mechanics. The title does not represent a description of mainstream scientific consensus, for physics topics. In fact the title, when related to the content of this article appears to be simply a minority opinion, at the least.

Using the "find sources" links above demonstrate that microphysics appears to mean other things not related to Physics, Elementary particles, or Quantum mechanics. This article is a timeline -history of QM, and physics, and the other physics topics. This is a hereditary line from Chemistry, into Quantum mechanics, etc., etc. This list are names that have advanced the field of physics.

As a side note there is no distinction in this timeline relevant to the several topics: quantum mechanics, molecular physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, and particle physics, which shows a distinct branch into these fields. This appears to be a simple timeline of contributors in physics, and the title should reflect that. Also, shouldn't part of this timeline include contributors to classical physics?

It is true that Merriam-Webster has a definition "the physics of molecules, atoms, and elementary particles", but the other entries in a web search are not related to particle physics, at least on the first page. With google scholar "microphysics" is mostly related to meterology. There is a book that uses "microphysics" related to statistical physics and thermodynamics, but this was published in 1992, and does not mean that "microphysics" is main stream.

So, I propose a name change to "Timeline of quantum mechanics". Discussion wil be closed in approximately seven days. Please weigh in below, in the section titled consensus discussion.Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus discussion[edit]

Comment - these are good titles, too. I think either of these titles would do just as well. Also these are main stream, which is mostly what I wanted to achieve. Thanks for your suggestion. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Should I add this? What are your thoughts?

400-1000 CE An Abhidhamma commentary talks about material units very much smaller than atoms known as Kalapas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging Timeline of particle physics (TPP) into Timeline of atomic and subatomic physics (TASP) [not to be confused with Timeline of particle discoveries ]. I think the content in TPP can easily be explained in the context of TASP, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in TASP. Also TASP is used in navigation templates and is more complete than TPP. ReyHahn (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]