Talk:Wu experiment

Wu experiment has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 10, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 2 July 2012 by reviewer Oakley77 (talk · contribs).

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

weak boson coupling[edit]

in the text: "due to the W and Z gauge bosons of the weak interaction coupling only to left-handed matter particles and the right-handed antimatter particles". Z bosons do couple to left and right handed particles (with different strength), the charged W couples only to left-handed particles.

217.224.249.27 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Hallo[reply]

But why?[edit]

Nice article, but I don't entirely get it. There must be some kind of fairly simple analysis that can be given: e.g. 'if the P operator is applied to the nucleus, then one would get ..blah', etc. I don't really understand why one can look at the asymetry and deduce parity violation. There are some kind of missing steps here. User:Linas (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One explanation is to put the Co60 in an electromagnet. If you change from left handed to right handed, you change the winging of the electromagnet, which changes the direction of the magnetic field. That exchanged up and down, such that beta goes the other way. Gah4 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The First problem[edit]

The first paragraph is unclear or contains a simple error: "it would be possible to distinguish between a mirrored version of the world and the mirror image of the current world." There are no circumstances under which one can distinguish between one thing described in two different ways, unless we are talking about distinguishing between descriptions of worlds rather than distinguishing between worlds. The options are: EITHER (1) Replace either "a mirrored version of the world" or "the mirror image of the current world" with the words "the actual world." OR (2) Explain each of the concepts clearly enough that it is possible for the reader to understand the difference between (1) and (2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Penguin (talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment Section -other way round?[edit]

In the last paragraph of the Experiment section, it is stated that:

If the electrons were always found to be emitted in the same direction and in the same proportion as the gamma rays, P-conservation would be true. If there were a bias in the direction of decays, that is, if the distribution of electrons did not follow the distribution of the gamma rays, then P-violation would be established.

I am maybe a bit puzzled, but isn't it exactly the other way round? In the results section, it is stated that If P-conservation were true in beta decay, electrons would have no preferred direction of decay relative to the nuclear spin, which seems correct to me but contradicts the other sentence. Nilpferd1991 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wu experiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reyk (talk · contribs) 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this; hope to have it finished in a week or so. It looks pretty good at first glance. Reyk _YO! 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 1. Well written[reply]

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Y
1b) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Y

2. Verifiable with no original research

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
it contains no original research Y
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism Y

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio Y

6a media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Miscellaneous points[edit]

~~Wu being the first Wolf Prize winner should be cited; here is a suitable source~~ Done
It's not clear from the article what is the distinction between "a mirrored version of the world and the mirror image of the current world."

"a mirrored version of the world and the mirror image of the current world" see the clocks. Look in the mirror, and recreate what you see in the real world. For example, building a physical version of the mirror image of the clock in the real world. The expectations for most people is that of p symmetry, the hands of both physical clocks (normal and reversed) would go from 12 to 3 to 6 back to 12. Because you built a fully reversed clock (as you see in the mirror), that reverse clock goes in the reverse direction, which here is also from 12 to 3 to 6 back to 12 because these positions have reversed labels. For clocks that would would violate p symmetry, the reverse clock, built like what you see in the mirror, goes in the forward direction, or 12-9-6-3 on those reverse labels. Which is mind boggling, because nothing in our every day life behaves like that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the Wu experiment being a way to define left and right operationally is important and should be mentioned in the lead. It's clearer to the average reader than subtle technical points about parity conservation. Y
- ~~Also, the bit about the emission direction of the gamma rays needs to be clarified a little. How do they work as a "control"?~~ Y
The article is coming along well. I think the Experiment section needs more sources.

Where would those be needed? It seems covered to me by what's already there, but ^{[citation needed]} tags would help understanding your feedback here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Wu was anxious about other scientists beating her to the punch, and therefore cancelled a holiday to do the experiment: [1] – Y with proper sources and context
~~The images seem mostly fine. I'm not 100% sure what the point of the Feynman Diagram is, and Krea makes a good point about a possible missing image.~~ Done

It seems unicode isn't quite good enough, but according to some web site the closest is: Ɛ-მ-୧-ςƖ, if you still read the left to right. I suspect it is time for unicode to include a complete set of mirrored roman alphabet and digits. Gah4 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Coincidentally, I was looking at the page because I wanted to know the details of Wu's experiment, and I found this review. I think the article is good, but not great. Its major weakness is that it skips over the real principle behind the experiment very quickly: there's a lot of exposition about the setup and the decay, but then what you expect to see, and crucially why, is left to a sentence or two. The diagram in "The Experiment" section that endeavours to explain the theoretical setup could also be better, or at least far better explained. I can try to add a few sentences to effect these emendations and you can judge for yourself if that's any better. Krea (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Krea:, you are more than welcome to work on the article. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: You're welcome. I've made a few edits. I tried to incorporate the theory into the existing "The experiment" section, but I found it too unwieldy. In consequence, I've added a theory section to explain the basic idea of the experiment. I'm not sure if it's clear enough to explain to the casual reader the essential points, but that's my best attempt for what it's worth. I've gone over Wu's paper, which is surprisingly short, and I've tried to add some of the points that it makes without going into the details too much. As such, I've also made a few minor corrections and added a few points. I've also removed the diagram that I was complaining about before: I think it really doesn't help because it kind of conflates Wu's setup and the general argument for why emission anisotropy implies parity invariance. My reading of Wu's paper is that the experiment doesn't depend on reversing the polarizing field, but it does do that for experimental reasons. So, a diagram that talks about flipping the polarizing field gives an incorrect impression of the experiment. What would really be nice is a diagram like the one here: [2] (p. 7) that explains the anisotropy/P-violation idea. I'll see if I can find one that is in the public domain.

Let me know if you have any comments or criticisms on my additions or changes. Krea (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my recent absence, but a serious case of real-life-itis has cut down my time to do some serious editing. Will get this done tomorrow however. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to pass this once the four reminaing bullet points are addressed. Cheers! Reyk _YO! 09:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Headbomb:- just checking in to make sure you're still aware of this. Reyk _YO! 18:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am, but I've had stuff come up in my personal life right before the new year. Nothing major, but I'm mentally occupied till the end of the week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem at all. I know how busy this time of year is. There's no rush. All the best, Reyk _YO! 18:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Headbomb: just checking in again. Reyk _YO! 19:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I haven't forgotten about this but I've fell sick for the past few days. Should be back up on my feet within a day or two, so you can expect movement on this this week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out this is taking longuer than expected to recover, still haven't forgot about this though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I for one am not putting up a deadline. Just ping me or drop me a talk page note when it's ready. Reyk _YO! 02:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about the timeline: reference 4, currently used to support the statement that the experiment was carried out in December 1956, doesn't actually state the month. It refers to a six-month work-up period and the extraordinary jam-packed sessions at the APS meeting in January 1957. Lee and Yang recall, The Columbia–Bureau of Standards experiment under C. S. Wu was progressing satisfactorily during the fall of 1956. She shuttled back and forth between New York City and Washington and kept us informed of the progress of the experiment. Around Christmas she finally said they were getting an asymmetry indicating that parity was not conserved in β decay, but she warned that it was very preliminary and therefore we should not spread any rumors. We didn't, but rumors somehow were generated anyway and we answered an alarming number of phone calls asking for and/or offering information. The Gizmodo piece linked above omits the long build-up period prior to the December observations, and it actually links back to the Wikipedia article, which makes me leery of using it here. In this reminiscence, Wu says that she canceled her trip in the spring of 1956 (not just before the Christmas holidays). XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query[edit]

Reyk, Headbomb, where does this review stand? It's been open for nearly four months, yet as best I can tell Headbomb hasn't edited the article since December 8, two days after the review opened, but has made over 12,000 mainspace edits in 2020 alone. If Headbomb can't make time in the seven days to address the issues in this review, it's probably time to close this. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly fair. I'll try to make room for this by the end of the weekend. It's not really a matter of having the time (I do), but the mindset to tackle this topic again. If I don't reply by Monday, feel free to consider this withdrawn. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm I'll have time to tackle a lot of this today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agh! Sorry to be so late replying. For some reason the ping didn't go through. I will take one last look at this tonight after work, and I suspect I will probably pass it. Reyk _YO! 09:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk and Headbomb: Sorry to be that guy, but thought I would just drop a few pings to remind everyone that this is still open. AIRcorn (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm waiting on the latest feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my absence. I was dealing with some corona crap in the family. Anyway, I read the article over a few more times, and the only outstanding issue was that I asked for a few more sources in that one section. But now having read it over again I can't remember or figure out what I was so worked up about. I am therefore passing the article. Congrats on a fine article. Reyk _YO! 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

equal probability in all directions[edit]

The article says: equal probability in all directions. They don't have to be equal in all directions, only, as it says just a little farther down, the same for θ and pi-θ. Gah4 (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

gamma ray anisotropy?[edit]

Why does the results section say: gamma ray anisotropy instead of beta anisotropy? Gah4 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams[edit]

@Krea: Sorry I'm late to the party. I only noticed today that you removed File:Wu experiment.jpg and suggested using a diagram like the one here (page 7) to explain the anisotropy/P-violation idea. I'd be happy to make a new image for you if you like. Just leave a note on my talk page. Cheers. nagualdesign 13:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the image (right). Let me know if you'd like any alterations. nagualdesign 22:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: Sorry, I've been away for quite a while so I've only just seen these messages. The new graphic looks great; well done for ignoring my silence and getting it done anyway. I can't see anything that I would want altered -- it looks fine to me. Good job. Krea (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the belated reply. And welcome back! nagualdesign 01:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental measurements, two for gamma anisotropy, one for beta[edit]

The article says that "experiment then essentially counted the rate of emission for gamma rays and electrons in two distinct directions", when actually the gamma was measured in two directions ("polar" and "equatorial") whilst the beta only in one. The gamma measurements were used to measure the polarisation of the nuclei as its temperature changed as it warmed up from a very low temperature and the cold beta emissions compared with the warm ones. The latter differed much more than the former because of the parity violation. PeterGrecian (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]