2
$\begingroup$

There is a proposed edit to provide users with the following guideline when choosing the tag. This is the message that would pop up when someone started typing "high-ener..."

Questions touching the field of elementary particle physics, which require high energies to be studied. Use this tag if you are asking about quarks, gluons, mesons, hadrons, leptons, etc.

Does this do a good job of advising users when to use their tag? Could a better one be formulated?

I chose to reject the edit because I felt there should be more emphasis on high as opposed to low energy, and less emphasis on naming particles. Questions about electrons are not necessarily about high energy astrophysics just because electrons are leptons.

How do others feel?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ When writing the above mentioned words for high-energy-astrophysics, I vividly remembered my courses on nuclear astrophysics where our professor kept stretching that the high depends on whom you ask. Atomic physicists have a different definition than nuclear physicists than string theoretician, obviously. I tried to be as general as possible. $\endgroup$
    – B--rian
    Feb 17 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ The reason for naming the particles was to avoid tags for all different particles. neutrinos is an example for a particle-based tag, but should we eventually have tags for all particles? $\endgroup$
    – B--rian
    Feb 17 at 22:05
  • $\begingroup$ @B--rian I can understand the "how high?" debate, but shouldn't "energy" at least appear somewhere in the excerpt as well? It's not that leptons are involved per se, it's that a high energy process produced particles of types and/or energies that aren't observed otherwise, no? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Feb 18 at 0:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .