Talk:Deep inelastic scattering

untitled

DIS experiments are also carried out with muons and neutrinos as well as electrons and I've added this to the article. Peter Harriman 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks. I created this page months ago, and had almost forgotten about it until it popped up agin on my watchlist! Batmanand | Talk 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for creating the page in the first place. It's a good article. And I notice that you yourself pointed out one of the major omissions when you wrote it: that it doesn't mention the early DIS experiments. I would, in an ideal world, also add the Feynman diagram description of what is happening, i.e. the exchange of virtual photons, W⁺s, W^-s and Z⁰s. After all, my PhD thesis was largely on DIS. Maybe I'll get round to it. Incidentally, I know a lot about the theory but not really that much about the original experiments (apart from the names of the collaborations, what the projectile was and what the target was): that would best be left for an experimental particle physicist to write. Peter Harriman 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gluons are massless. Tgosau 09:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Tgosau. Would you like that inputted into the article in some way? Was it, for example, a conclusion drawn from the DIS experiments? Batmanand | Talk 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I missed that! Peter Harriman 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article, evidence for the existence of gluons was found at DESY (more specifically by observing three-jet events in electron-positron annihilations at the PETRA collider). The mass of the gluons is required to be zero by the theory (QCD). So far that has nothing to do with DIS, but as there is a statement in the article that claims that gluons are massive, it has to be changed. Tgosau 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have now changed the article (although you could have if you had wanted to). Batmanand | Talk 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

refer to Oxford page...

I think it is stange to have only *inelastic* (somewhat) explained but be referred to a non-Wiki page to learn why this scattering is *deep*. I am not physicist, so I cannot fix that. But there should certainly be someone out there... all the best, jan --JanBarkmann (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense?

Excellent start, but I'm not sure whether referring to the "Standard Model" in the past tense is appropriate. The particles called bosons, leptons and quarks still are bosons, leptons and quarks. The Standard Model is still the Standard Model, and in certain contexts is still a useful model. --Matt Westwood 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fails to ...

(1) Explain what the important differences are from the other type of scattering and (2) how it is evidence for the existence of quarks. A general overhaul is called for but I just moved the existing tag up and fixed the easier of the two in the lede. Lycurgus (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a bad article

Wikipedia is generally good with physics but this article is basically non-existent as an encyclopedia article. It's a dictionary definition. Tell us please what this thing is, and how it operates. Don't just define the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.175.89.4 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. But it takes some amount of physics to understand what was done. The easy description, the you hit protons with electrons, and watch them come out, is easy. Past that, you actually need to understand some physics. Gah4 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the name deep inelastic scattering

Using the given (inadequate) reference I've tried to explain what the name means and how the process is interpreted. I am not an expert and what I've written may well be reverted or modified. I think better references are in the quark article. If any part of what I added survives I'll add those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzl bustr (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expert needed

The article needs considerable expansion to cover the historical experiments leading to the discovery that quarks are genuine point-particles (with wikilinks and a subsection referring to quark, possibly, to avoid unnecessary repetition of material) and to describe how modern deep inelastic scattering experiments are used to probe QCD, with adequate references. This is a very technical subject and requires expert attention, so I've added the tag. Puzl bustr (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The QCD#Experimental tests article mentions scaling violation in deep inelastic scattering (as for example in [1]) so the present article would be a good place to flesh out that red-link. Puzl bustr (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Puzl bustr (talk)== Wikified and reorganized ==

I collected the previous material into a single subsection History with the appropriate subsection of quark cited as the main article. I added the quark citations to the SLAC experiments. I'd like to point out some weaknesses in the material. The immediately preceding inelastic scattering experiments were not, of course, those of Rutherford, but those of Robert Hofstadter, and a more focussed historical account should mention these and use the references there and not mention Rutherford. Also, the SLAC experiments established that quarks appeared to be point particles, but were unable to determine their predicted fractional electrical charges. The experiments that established that should next be mentioned, if they also were deep inelastic scattering, as I believe they were. Puzl bustr (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the review article [2] which refers to deep inelastic scattering by leptons including electrons, muons and neutrinos and the conclusion that the hadron partons have fractional electric charges as in the quark model, dated 1977. Still awaiting an expert with access to this or a similar article, which requires subscription. More recent articles in the subject are often more accessible as arXiv preprints. Puzl bustr (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep inelastic scattering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225093044/http://www.hueuni.edu.vn/hueuni/en/news_detail.php?NewsID=1606&PHPSESSID=909807ffc5b9c0288cc8d137ff063c72 to http://www.hueuni.edu.vn/hueuni/en/news_detail.php?NewsID=1606&PHPSESSID=909807ffc5b9c0288cc8d137ff063c72

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How deep inelastic experiments proved what they proved.8.24.240.10 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The end of the history section contains the text "Analysis of the results led to the following conclusions..." and proceeds to summarize the results in a way that highlights the experiments' importance well. However, no mentioned is made of how these experiments demonstrated this. Given that the history section of the quark article refers to this article as to how the distinct existence of quarks were proven, this seems like the appropriate place for that information.

neutrons in 1968?

The article mentions SLAC scattering off protons and neutrons in 1968. I know they were doing protons, as that was the whole original idea. But did they get to neutrons in 1968, or only later? Having not thought about this for many years, deuterium was next. But when? Gah4 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]