Talk:Theta vacuum

Mixing angle?

Would this vacuum angle be considered to be a mixing angle? 70.247.165.249 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition missing

This article does not say what the 'vacuum angle' is. The word 'vacuum' is not even used in this article. I would guess that the thing called theta angle in this article is identical to the vacuum angle, but I don't know if that is true. The article should start with something like:

"The vacuum angle is a parameter in quantum guage theories, that describes how functionals change under a big guage transformation. It is one of the parameters in the standard model, and as of 2013, experimental results indicate that the vacuum angle is close to zero."

The reason that I don't add this to the article, is that I don't know if this description is true, it is only what I understood from this article and other wikipedia articles. If somebody who is more expert on this than me could improve this description and add it to the article, the article would improve in my opinion. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Theta vacuum" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theta vacuum and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Theta vacuum until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. OpenScience709 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Theta angle" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theta angle and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Theta angle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Theta vacuum. Despite low participaiton, reasonable arguments have been given in favor of the move. No such user (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Vacuum angle → Theta vacuum – "Theta vacuum" is the main relevant topic of the page while "Vacuum angle" is a much less common name for what is being described as it is merely the parameter that indexes the various theta vacua. Most common textbooks and papers usually refer to the theta vacuum rather than vacuum angle as well. I cannot make the move myself as Theta vacuum is already a redirect on the page. OpenScience709 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mdewman6 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• • But see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Theta vacuum. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I've closed that as wrong venue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Contesting - a simple ngram suggests that "vacuum angle" is more commonly used than "theta angle". I don't really know much about this topic, but I think this needs a discussion and maybe some attention from those who know about the matter and to determine the proper WP:COMMONNAME at least.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - That's a fair point, however I suspect that there might be a number of reasons for that while theta vacuum is the main topic, one may often want to refer to the vacuum angle more often when discussing it (usually in reference to the theta-term). The page itself focuses on the theta vacuum since that is the main topic, while the vacuum angle is just the parameter that describes it. I would also point out that theta vacuum/θ-vacuum comes up more often on arXiv titles (30/22 times for a total of 52 times) while vacuum angle only 12 (two of which are theta-vacuum angle). So at least in 1992+ academic papers the former is referred much more often in titles. Up to date textbooks also usually list theta-vacuum over vacuum angle in the index (such as Weinberg, Schwartz, the other textbooks listed in the Vacuum angle page as references). Not all of them however, for example Shifman's Advanced topics in QFT lists both. But you still have a fair point with ngram. Hence, I would rather make a different argument for the name change besides commonality: theta vacuum is what the article is primarily about, in the process defining the vacuum angle (the two are linked of course). It is hard to have an article on the vacuum angle itself without primarily talking about the theta vacuum instead. The previous version of the article before the rewrite had the same problem: it didn't even really define the vacuum angle. In the future one could try to create an article explicitly based on the vacuum angle (probably would try to focus on aspects of the theta term instead, and it is questionable as to why not just include this as a subsection in the current article), but as things stand, the main topic is the theta vacuum in the current article. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Physics has been notified of this discussion. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• The ngram indication is unusable. A google search suggests that "vacuum angle" as a piece of plumbing swamps the result. Even if there exists a very common term with one of the titles in question, this is not an argument that it is the common term for the topic of the article. That sort of logic would have us renaming or merging the article Arthropod to Spider. I am no expert, so I can't really say what should happen, but it really seems that the sentence "The vacuum angle is a parameter of the theta vacuum" makes sense: the first is just a quantity, the latter a (presumed) vacuum state. Or at least that is what normal English usage would suggest. This article is about a vacuum state, not an angle. 172.82.46.53 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.