- antineutronium (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The existence of antineutronium (also known as antineutrium) has been experimentally verified since 1956 ("antineutronium" in the plural-noun or elemental sense of one or more antineutrons). The plural nouns of "antielement 0", "antielement zero", "antineutronium", "antineutrium", and "antineutrons" should redirect to "antineutron". Other experimentally verified forms of antimatter have redirect pages, including antihelium. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: @LaundryPizza03:
- Looks like this was deleted following an RFD nomination with no discussion, so I don't have any issue with restoring. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that antineutronium has been experimentally proven to exist. How much is there to say about it though? Might it be better covered as a section of antimatter?—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much everything you need to know about antineutronium for everyday experimental use by physicists is covered by the article for "antineutron", though the article could use some expansion. "Antimatter" would be too broad if there is already an article specifically for antineutrons. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, antineutronium has not been "proven", or "verified" or "observed". Confirmation of the particle does not imply existence of the material. I believe that even the tetraneutron (particle, not a material) remains "hypothetical". SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No issue with the redirect being restored, but it is difficult for me to decide whether it should link to Antimatter or Neutronium. Reyk YO! 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The requested redirect to antineutron seems reasonable. My physics knowledge in this area isn't great. Is there a reason why folks think that's the wrong target? @Reyk:, @S Marshall:. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. These redirects for pseudo-technical crossing science-fiction terms are a disservice because they prevent the internal search engine from doing a better job. DRV and RfD should stay out of these content discussions, leave it to mainspace articles are sourcing by content editors, and allow the internal search engine to function. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not sci-fi, it's real physics.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you followed my search link, or google searched? The term is associated with science fiction. A bulk material made of anti-neutrons? It is fiction, not real physics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Science fiction by definition is a fictionalization of real science. "Antineutronium" can refer to either antimononeutronium (single antineutrons), which is produced nearly every day in accelerators during hadronic collisions, or to antipolyneutronium, which is hypothetical (as opposed to fictional) and has never been detected. The laws of physics require every form of matter to have an antimatter counterpart, regardless of whether sufficient quantities of antineutrons actually exist under the correct conditions to form antipolyneutronium (the material that an antineutron star would be made of). Multiverse theory also postulates that some universes are matter-dominant and other universes are antimatter-dominant (what we call "matter" versus "antimatter" is anthropocentric to our particular universe), and as such antineutron stars should still (hypothetically) exist in other universes, assuming that the sign of charge conjugation is distributed randomly across different universes. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The terms antimononeutronium and antipolyneutronium appear unknown to google, and I guess that they are your neologisms? WP:Neologism are best avoided.
- I note that Neutronium is defined as a substance, not a particle, and in common use it means a material, not simply the particle it is made from. I think this distinction carries into derivatives of the word "neutronium".
- I do not find any reported evidence that neutronium, or antineutronium, has been observed to exist (bigger than a single neutron, or smaller than a neutron star). Evidence of a transient particle is not good evidence for the bulk substance. Every use of "antineutronium" I find comes from science fiction. Two such uses are in articles. The existence of a redirect that prevents a reader from finding the term used in these articles is a disservice to the reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be pointed out that there is no way to tell for sure whether a neutron star (or any other electrically neutral astronomical object) is made of matter or antimatter, other than by the annihilation of infalling material. We just assume that all the neutron stars in this particular universe are made of neutrons instead of antineutrons, which is the simplest explanation based on our current understanding and observations. One of the motivations for impacting space probes early in the space program was the serious concern that the Moon or Mars might be made of antimatter. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect pages are not relevant to Wikipedia Search, since any user can manually search for keywords, even if a redirect page exists for that keyword. The purpose of redirect pages is specifically to avoid using the Wikipedia Search altogether, so that you are automatically taken to the most relevant page for the term you searched for, without needing to manually search through multiple pages. As such, my opinion is that "antineutron" is the most relevant page relating to searches for "antineutronium." Regarding a hypothetical bulk material composed of antineutrons, one would need to link from "antineutron" to "neutron" to "neutronium" but that is acceptable since the fundamental component of antineutronium (in any form) is the antineutron. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mono-" and "poly-" are standardized by the IUPAC and have been adopted into physics (e.g. "triquark" or "polynucleon"). It is acceptable to use neologisms when they are standardized by an official body and the meaning is clear. In general use (a descriptivist definition as opposed to a prescriptivist definition), "neutronium" typically refers to the bulk material (polyneutrons or polyneutronium) as opposed to referring to single neutrons (mononeutrons or mononeutronium) as are typically encountered by experimental physicists. With a prescriptivist definition, it is grammatically correct to refer to an "antineutron beam" as "antineutronium" in the same way that it is correct to refer to an "antiproton beam" as "antihydrogen" but there could still be confusion between the polynucleonic material (the most commonly used definition of "neutronium") and the mononucleonic material. However, that kind of analysis I think is too much for a simple redirect. The question for a redirect page is just: "What is the most relevant page for someone searching for 'antineutronium'?". How the word is actually used or from what context is mostly irrelevant here. In every sense of the word, and in every context, "antineutronium" always refers to something made of antineutrons. As such, "antineutron" should be the most relevant page for a redirect. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a bad case of WP:OR. This doesn't mean that you are not right, but that your arguments are not suitable here.
- "antineutronium" is used, past tense, verifiably, in relation to The Forge of God. If the title were to redirect anywhere, it would be there. However, the benefit of deletion is that any attempt to jump straight to that title will invoke the search engine and give up-to-date information, on its usage in Wikipedia.
- If you think it should get coverage in other articles, eg antineutron, then you need to first add actual coverage there.
- I have tagged the redirect that you re-created with {{db-g4}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: That seems premature since the consensus here seems to be to keep the redirect, including from the person who originally deleted the page. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Good lord. OK, if we're doing this: allow creation of redirect.—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is any suitable target for this redirect, I would think that Antineutron is a better target than Neutronium because only the former is about antimatter. I note that this discussion is getting bogged down with OR, as is all too common in particle physics. In fact, I had already removed all the fictional content from Neutronium because it was probable OR not backed by RS, and isn't discussed in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse This wasn't a well attended discussion by any means but the discussion it's based on, which deleted anti- redirects, is sound, and a quick search shows it doesn't appear to be a viable search term. Would keep deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - As noted above, the material is hypothetical, and if the term is used as a search term, we might as well default to using the internal search engine. The particle is only the transient particle in this observable universe. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
