Wikidata:Property proposal/Maximum beam energy
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | kinetic energy of elementary or composite particles moving together (for example in a particle accelerator) |
|---|---|
| Represents | particle accelerator (Q130825) |
| Data type | Quantity |
| Template parameter | energy in en:template:infobox particle accelerator |
| Example 1 | Large Hadron Collider (Q40605)→6800 GeV sourcing circumstances (P1480) maximum (Q10578722) |
| Example 2 | Large Electron–Positron Collider (Q659029)→209 GeV sourcing circumstances (P1480) maximum (Q10578722) |
| Example 3 | Tevatron (Q944533)→1000 GeV sourcing circumstances (P1480) maximum (Q10578722) |
| Allowed units | megaelectronvolt (Q72081071) teraelectronvolt (Q3984193) |
| Planned use | Many particle accelerators are present in Wikidata, but important properties such as beam energy cannot be added. |
Motivation
editparticle accelerator (Q130825) have many properties. One of the most important is the maximum beam energy. Values are tabulated in many reviews. This property is one of the many properties that should be introduced. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiso (talk • contribs) at 09:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC).
Discussion
editI hope to receive some feedback on the correctness of my first property proposal. In particular, I am wondering if it is correct to associate this property to a particle accelerator (Q130825) instance. A potential issue is, for example for Large Hadron Collider (Q40605) the value 6800 GeV refers to the maximum beam energy when accelerating protons, which is its main usage. LHC can also accelerate heavy ions, and in this case, the value depends on the kind of ion and, in addition, the energy is expressed as "energy (typically GeV) per nucleon". I am wondering if this is an important ambiguity and if it needs more thinking. On the contrary, in many reviews this kind of property is used referring only to the main usage (protons for LHC), for example in the particle data group reviews (https://pdg.lbl.gov/2024/download/db2024.pdf page 240) and also on Wikipedia infobox en:template:infobox particle accelerator.
On the contrary, it is possible to associate the property to a "Run". For example in Run1 LHC accelerated protons at 3500 or 4000 GeV per beam (depending on the year). I think that the adjective "maximum" resolves this ambiguity.
An alternative, but probably more complicated, proposal would be to use a more general concept of energy property (which I think doesn't exist) and to associate with the "beam part". – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiso (talk • contribs) at 09:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC).
Notified participants of WikiProject Physics. Samoasambia ✎ 15:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Support @Wiso: You can create an energy unit of GeV/nucleon and use that; the applies to part (P518) and other qualifiers like start and end time etc. may be useful for this. In general this seems like a very useful piece of characterization for these facilities. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- This seems a very specialist property, that will apply to so few WD items. Is there really no other WD property that could not be used with suitable qualifiers, for other sorts of beamed energy, like lasers, stellar jets etc. There is luminosity (P2060) whose description as only being for astrophysical objects is also too narrow. Vicarage (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- No response from proposers, so
Oppose Vicarage (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Vicarage: The word luminosity (P2060) has a special meaning for particle accelerators which I believe refers to the number or density of particles in the beam, not to their energy. For lasers and jets the relevant quantity would not be a per-particle energy like this, but an overall energy intensity. Which I believe we also do not have a good property for, unless luminosity (P2060) qualifies. In any case, this is quite a distinct meaning, it is a key characteristic of these facilities, and according to en:Particle accelerator "There are more than 30,000 accelerators in operation around the world" so it's not a small number we are talking about here. If there were a per-particle energy level associated with astronomical objects that beam things then this could also be applied there I guess? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- There may be 30000 accelerators, but its the number of designs we will be documenting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_(scattering_theory) explains it, and quotes a dozen sites, but and it still feels narrow. The article talks about barn, the proposal about GeV, but my particle physics is too rusty to know whether a qualified luminosity property could cover both cases. Vicarage (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Vicarage: Yes, ok, that's the (a?) particle physics definition of luminosity. Using it for beam energy would be totally wrong, that luminosity has nothing to do with energy per particle. As to the count - I agree not every one of the 30,000 would qualify as sufficiently notable for Wikidata, but we do already have 97 instances (see https://w.wiki/DQuW) (and 28 subclasses) and as the proposer points out this is a key property of these devices and we don't have a way to add it as structured data right now here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note that each major accelerator would also have several different values for this property as upgrades etc. generally increase the value over time. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Another thought - the closest general physical quantities to an "energy per particle" value would be speed (P2052) or temperature (P2076). Neither of these works for a particle accelerator - the first because the particles travel at a very close to the speed of light, due to relativity, so the "speed" value would always be essentially the same. And temperature doesn't apply because it refers to energy of particles in random motion, but for an accelerator they are all moving in the same direction with the same relativistic Lorentz factor (Q599404). There actually is a measure of temperature in the degree to which the particles deviate from all doing the same thing, but that's another story and unrelated to per-particle beam energy. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- The original proposer @Wiso has not contributed to WD in the 3 months since they raised the proposal, so it will need someone else to take it on. Do you want to do that and clarify just what feature of an accelerator is being measured, and what units will be used? Vicarage (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Vicarage: Yes, ok, that's the (a?) particle physics definition of luminosity. Using it for beam energy would be totally wrong, that luminosity has nothing to do with energy per particle. As to the count - I agree not every one of the 30,000 would qualify as sufficiently notable for Wikidata, but we do already have 97 instances (see https://w.wiki/DQuW) (and 28 subclasses) and as the proposer points out this is a key property of these devices and we don't have a way to add it as structured data right now here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- There may be 30000 accelerators, but its the number of designs we will be documenting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_(scattering_theory) explains it, and quotes a dozen sites, but and it still feels narrow. The article talks about barn, the proposal about GeV, but my particle physics is too rusty to know whether a qualified luminosity property could cover both cases. Vicarage (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Vicarage: The word luminosity (P2060) has a special meaning for particle accelerators which I believe refers to the number or density of particles in the beam, not to their energy. For lasers and jets the relevant quantity would not be a per-particle energy like this, but an overall energy intensity. Which I believe we also do not have a good property for, unless luminosity (P2060) qualifies. In any case, this is quite a distinct meaning, it is a key characteristic of these facilities, and according to en:Particle accelerator "There are more than 30,000 accelerators in operation around the world" so it's not a small number we are talking about here. If there were a per-particle energy level associated with astronomical objects that beam things then this could also be applied there I guess? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- No response from proposers, so
- Support AFAIK the kinetic energy; it might be practical to measure it per nucleon, Arthur would know. Compare it to a truck on the road, it takes longer to accelerate than a car, but if it smashes into another vehicle it does so with more energy. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmithI think I have already mentioned this problem. For example LHC run proton-proton collision at 7 / 8 / 13 / 13.6 TeV (and probably some other low-energy reference run). And then there is the issue that LHC can also accelerate heavy ions, where the beam energy is different and quantiefied as GeV / nucleon. Actually the beam energy is half of these numbers. Maybe we can call the property "maximum beam energy". There is another issue that some machine runs with asymmetric beams (with two different energy, one per beam). Wiso (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply @Vicarage, I don't receive notification... Luminosity has nothing do to with the energy. Luminosity in astrophysics has nothing to with the luminosity in particle accelerator. Wiso (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Support --Trade (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@Wiso, Samoasambia, Vicarage, Infrastruktur: Alright I'll take this on (unless Wiso shows up again) - I've adjusted the label and description to be slightly more general, and moved "maximum" to a qualifier in the examples. Not sure if sourcing circumstances (P1480) is the right qualifier for this, but something like that. Does this seem ok now to everyone? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support if Arthur doing it. Vicarage (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's more flexible. Maybe "nature of statement" is a slightly better qualifier? Infrastruktur (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @ArthurPSmith. Yes, I agree to add "maximum". Wiso (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Wiso, Samoasambia, ArthurPSmith, Vicarage, Infrastruktur, Trade
Done: beam energy (P13413). Feel free to tweak the property constraints if necessary. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
