Skip to content

Conversation

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request has a new file for standardizing the names of particle species. See #176 .

Affected Components: None.
Writer/Reader/Data converter Changes: At this point none since the present standard does not reference particle species names.

@ax3l ax3l added the EXT: SpeciesType physical particle species extension label Jan 30, 2018
@ax3l ax3l self-assigned this Jan 30, 2018
@ax3l ax3l requested review from RemiLehe and ax3l January 30, 2018 22:22
Names for Atoms and Molecules
-------------------

- Atoms and molecules: Use standard chemical notation. Eg: "H20". Isotopes are denoted by a pound symbol "#" followed by the isotopic number followed by the chemical symbol. Eg: "#3He" for Helium-3.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe that's a stupid question, but is there some kind of ISO naming already for this on which we can rely on?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I looked but I could not find anything unfortunately.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see, thanks for checking.
And something from PDG (the particle data group), maybe? Just that we don't miss something that already defines spellings.

Copy link
Member

@ax3l ax3l Jan 31, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(besides that insecurity of mine about accidentally re-inventing something, I like the proposed spellings)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had looked at the PDG as well without luck.

Copy link
Member

@ax3l ax3l left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We will need to add:

  • an extension ID 4 for 1.1.0 (because it will first be removed in 2.0.0)
  • mention it in the base standard in the extensions section
  • add the name for the new record attribute
  • define if this attribute is optional/recommended/required if the extension is declared for a file
  • define if it is allowed to have more than one particle name per record, e.g. one could store a mesh with "summed charge density" of all ions and electrons -> list?

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I realize I forgot to specify how to write atom and molecular charge states. So how about something like:

The charge state is denoted by a suffix with either:

  1. Some number of plus or minus signs. Example: "H2O++"
  2. A plus or minus sign with a following integer. Example: "CO+3"

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Jan 31, 2018

I wonder if we want to record charge states really in the species type name.

We usually have them as a record in the species anyway and for constant charge state as a constant record. Maybe other domains would do the same?

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ax3l: Having the charge state separately specified would be fine.

DavidSagan and others added 2 commits February 1, 2018 16:07
- file renamed to `EXT_SpeciesType.md`
- extension name: `SpeciesType` with extension-ID `4` (`1` is used and we reserved `2`$
- formatting unified
- defined `SpeciesType` as attribute: *recommended* if extension is declared
- allowed `lists`, e.g. for a local *summed charge density* in a non-equilibrium plasma
- atoms & isotopes: reference to IUPAC namings
Reference to the new extension `SpeciesType` in the base standard
@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 1, 2018

Changes I applied:

  • file renamed to EXT_SpeciesType.md
  • extension name: SpeciesType with extension-ID 4 (1 is used and we reserved 2 in the past)
  • formatting unified
  • defined SpeciesType as attribute: recommended if extension is declared
  • allowed lists, e.g. for a local summed charge density in a non-equilibrium plasma
  • atoms & isotopes: reference to IUPAC namings
  • reference in base standard


- `SpeciesType`
- type: *(string)*
- scope: *recommended*
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

offline discussion: maybe better optional here, it's weird for e.g. "E fields" or arbitrary other records

Later on, in the ED-PIC extension or the BeamPhysics extension one can still specify, that it is recommended for e.g. particle species.

- `SpeciesType`
- type: *(string)*
- scope: *recommended*
- description: particle species in this record, semicolon-separated list
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Replace "semicolon-separated list" with "If there are multiple species to be specified, they can be specified using a semicolon separated list."


This attribute can be used with any `record` (including `mesh records`).

### SubAtomic Particle Names
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unify headline: SubAtomic Particles


### Atoms & Isotopes

Isotopes are denoted by a pound symbol `#` followed by the isotopic number followed by the chemical symbol, e.g.: `#3He` for Helium-3.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Switch order sentences. That is, start this section with "Element namings...".


Isotopes are denoted by a pound symbol `#` followed by the isotopic number followed by the chemical symbol, e.g.: `#3He` for Helium-3.
Element namings follow the abbreviated namings of the periodic table, defined by *The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry* (IUPAC).

Copy link
Member

@ax3l ax3l Feb 1, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we mention that the most abundant isotope can just be short-handed as He (for #4He)? It's somehow missing, but would allow ambiguity.

Is D ok for #2H or shall it be forced to the latter?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would say that the standard should assume that "He" is equivalent to "#4He".

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Deuterium would be "#2H"

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

excellent, so we keep the abbreviations to a minimum: regular elements in the IUPAC periodic table


### Molecules

Use standard chemical notation, e.g.: `H20`.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The isotope prefix can be used with molecules. Example "#2H2O" for two deuterium and "#2HHO" for one deuterium.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

idea: we prefix the allowed values with the sections, e.g. subatomic:, atom:/isotope:, molecule:, ...

- optional by default
- clarify annotations

openPMD extension name: `SpeciesType`

openPMD extension ID: `4`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

note: this will be removed in 2.0.0 but we have to assign it since we are still in 1.X


### SubAtomic Particles

- `subatomic:antimuon`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

offline discussion: we won't collide (yet) and if we should later one we can still add prefixes and convert known ones.

@ax3l ax3l force-pushed the New-ParticleID-Standard branch from dd7005c to 57fece3 Compare February 1, 2018 16:06
@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 1, 2018

@RemiLehe we finished our proposal and you can now add your comments & review! :)

We tried to document all ideas and steps during our review today inline in comments, so if you like you can just un-collapse them for curiosity.

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 5, 2018

@RemiLehe ping :)

- `strange-quark`
- `tao-antiquark`
- `tao-quark`
- `tao-neutrino`
Copy link
Member

@RemiLehe RemiLehe Feb 5, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't this be tau-neutrino (and adding tau-antineutrino) instead of tao-neutrino ? In addition, we should probably add tau as a particle (for the counterpart of muon and electron).

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. The change should be made.

- `muon-neutrino`
- `neutron`
- `photon`
- `pion`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason to standardize the name of the pion, but not of all the other mesons?
(If the reason is that the pion is the most common, I am fine with this ; I am definitely not a specialist... I was just wondering.)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The list I came up with was meant to get the discussion going rather then being complete (I am definitely not a specialist either). Do you have a list of names for the other mesons? By all means let us put them in.


### SubAtomic Particles

- `antimuon`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we add antitau? (See remark below on the tau lepton.)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes we should add antitau. And tao is a typo. Should be tau everywhere.

### SubAtomic Particles

- `antimuon`
- `antiproton`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we add antineutron?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes.


- `antimuon`
- `antiproton`
- `bottom`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't this be bottom-quark and bottom-antiquark for consistency?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes.

- `bottom`
- `charm-antiquark`
- `charm-quark`
- `deuteron`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems that deuteron could be expressed as #2H. Using the convention below. Therefore, I suggest that we remove it from this list.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct that deuteron is the same as #2H with a charge state of 1. In terms of having the name in the standard I don't care either way. @ax3l: Do you have an opinion?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sure, Deuterium should not be here

- `strange-antiquark`
- `strange-quark`
- `tao-antiquark`
- `tao-quark`
Copy link
Member

@RemiLehe RemiLehe Feb 5, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, I am not sure whether a tao-quark and tao-antiquark exist in the standard model... (If I remember well, the quarks of the standard model are up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top.)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct. That is a typo and should be removed.

by the isotopic number followed by the chemical symbol, e.g.: `#3He`
for Helium-3.

The charge state is not encoded by the `SpeciesType` attribute.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By charge state, do we mean ionization state? Could charge state be considered ambiguous for some users?

Copy link
Member

@ax3l ax3l Feb 5, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Imho, charge state is the more general concept while ionization state only applies to atoms & molecules. This section just says we do not express it in this extension.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, sounds good.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I concur with Alex.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

*Axel ;-)

@RemiLehe
Copy link
Member

RemiLehe commented Feb 5, 2018

Sorry for my late review! I added a couple of comments/questions.

- `down-antiquark`
- `down-quark`
- `electron`
- `electron-neutrino`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we add electron-antineutrino?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure.

- `graviton`
- `higgs-boson`
- `muon`
- `muon-neutrino`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we add muon_antineutrino?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And I thought you wanted to point to Majorana neutrinos here ;)

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 6, 2018

Sorry, I totally forgot to swipe through the subatomic particle list again in review.

I would suggest to make one list with elementary particles of the standard model (and their anti-partners), Gauge bosons and the higgs boson.

There is a plethora of namings for composite particles that are only used in elementary particle physics, especially Hadrons such as Mesons and Baryons, and should imho not be tried to be defined here (besides the obvious ones we need such below for atoms), but instead reference e.g. the particle data group. Also, actual particle detector people think of jets and channels with particles which are again composites of the above. As far as we have no detector people here that suggest a naming I would also keep this free. Likely they would also use group identifiers #163

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ax3l

I would suggest to make one list with elementary particles of the standard model (and their anti-partners), Gauge bosons and the higgs boson.

Sounds good to me.

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 6, 2018

I updated the PR accordingly.

I would suggest to move this PR to 2.0.0 and close the 1.1.0 merge window so we do not merge it in last-minute and can take more time for it. Is that ok? I would then prepare the last clean-ups for 1.1.0 now.

@ax3l ax3l force-pushed the New-ParticleID-Standard branch from 273db25 to 6563438 Compare February 6, 2018 13:44

Leptons:
- `electron` (`positron`)
- `electron-neutrino` (`anti-electron-neutrino`)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

anti-neutrinos: who knows, maybe they turn out to be the same particles. but until now it seems that calling them anti-neutrinos is common

@ax3l ax3l added the do not merge pull requests that are not yet finished or will collide label Feb 6, 2018
@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ax3l:

I would suggest to move this PR to 2.0.0 and close the 1.1.0 merge window so we do not merge it in last-minute and can take more time for it. Is that ok?

Fine with me.

@RemiLehe
Copy link
Member

RemiLehe commented Feb 6, 2018

I really like the reorganized version of the file.
Thanks for editing the PR!

@RemiLehe RemiLehe closed this Feb 6, 2018
@RemiLehe RemiLehe reopened this Feb 6, 2018
@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes I like the reorg too.
Minor stylistic suggestion: Use a comma instead of parenthesis. For example, Instead of:
electron ( positron )
write:
electron, positron

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I know we don't want to in general get into trying to define names of mesons but thinking about it I would make an exception for proton and anti-proton since these are commonly used in experiments.

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 6, 2018

I am ok with both suggestions, just need to find a place to put anti-proton and maybe to say that H and proton are the same thing? Actually they might not be the same, a user might want to refer to the element (atom) H...

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I am ok with both suggestions, just need to find a place to put anti-proton and maybe to say that H and proton are the same thing? Actually they might not be the same, a user might want to refer to the element (atom) H...

It could be added that #1H is the same as proton if the charge is specified as +1.

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 6, 2018

I might just have been thinking loudly. proton is just more specific than H and that is fine, imho. No reason to explain more I think.

@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 6, 2018

we will re-open this PR for further review into upcoming-2.0.0

@ax3l ax3l closed this Feb 6, 2018
@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Feb 6, 2018

Re-opened for 2.0.0 inclusion in #180

@ax3l ax3l mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2018
6 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

do not merge pull requests that are not yet finished or will collide EXT: SpeciesType physical particle species extension

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants