Clearly the 3 colored blobs of Julia have something to do with QCD and confinement 
4 Likes
Heh, Julia is beautyful, charming and sometimes a bit strange, eh? (no need to limit ourselves to QCD)
3 Likes
While I agree that the Rutherford model logo is instantly recognizable, I’d say we should choose something different, if only because it is so overused.
1 Like
+1 from me on the Feynman diagram approach FWIW.
2 Likes
I like both a Feynman diagram and the LIGO logos.
1 Like
I just wanted to mirror JuliaMath. I think that both Mathematics and Physics are quite broad fields, so if you have concerns about JuliaPhysics you should have the same about JuliaMath
JuliaMath isn’t all of julia’s math.
There is:
- JuliaDiff – Differentiation tools
- JuliaDiffEq – Differential equation solving and analysis
- JuliaGeometry - Computational Geometry
- JuliaGraphs – Graph Theory and Implementation
- JuliaMath – Mathematics made easy in Julia
- JuliaOpt – Optimization
- JuliaPolyhedra – Polyhedral computation
- JuliaSparse – Sparse matrix solvers
Similarly, I imaging JuliaQuantum, and JuliaAstro would remain after JuliaPhysics.
Logically an highlevel org can contain packages until a more logical grouping occurs, for a subcollection of it’s packages.
I’ve jokingly called JuliaMath things like “Pure Applied Pure Math”
(Which is a great way to start fights).
1 Like
Here’s a Feynman diagram one:
3 Likes
It might be helpful, when deciding on a logo, to know what sorts of packages will appear in this collaboration. Indeed, the Feynman diagrams only seem appropriate if these are significantly HEP (or at least low-energy QFT, depending on the diagrams) related.
By the way, one further suggestion is a Penrose diagram these are actually my favorite graphical technique in physics: I have computed amplitudes without the use of Feynman diagrams before, but I don’t think I ever would have understood e.g. a Kerr metric were it not for Penrose diagrams. Again, probably only appropriate if there are at least a few GR related packages.
1 Like
I agree that would be better, but I’m not sure there are packages for fractals in JuliaMath
1 Like
Yes, I didn’t plan to affect other organizations. JuliaPhysics can be home to packages that don’t fit (yet) in other organizations on their own.
1 Like
Should the logo be something that only physicists will recognize as having something to do with physics, or something that most people who’ve at least had a high school physics class would recognize as having something to do with the field of physics (like the Rutherford or Newton logos)?
1 Like
My main point is that the Rutherford model is one of the worst universal symbols for physics that I can think of, and it’s everywhere, so we really should try to do our parts to kill it. For one, the Rutherford model furthers some pretty severe popular misconceptions about quantum mechanics. It would be perfectly fine if it had moved past being recognized as a model and was only recognized as an abstract symbol, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Also, the idea that people would recognize this is an atom as a result of their high school physics class terrifies me a little.
I have no objections to Newton’s prism (except that the colors should be ordered by frequency).
In the interest of full disclosure, I do just flat-out like the Feynman ones and I’m clearly biased.
7 Likes
Yep, I like the idea of Julia fostering some “more correct” theory. By the way, @cormullion I’m not sure that the diagram you showed is correct, from a physical point of view 
1 Like
I plead ignorance, or artistic licence, or something similar… 
1 Like
You’re forgiven Look for example at the diagrams in this category: Category:Feynman diagrams - Wikimedia Commons (hopefully they’re all correct) Keep in mind that the shape of the lines and the direction of the arrows are import, they bear physical meaning (the shape indicates the type of the particle)
Or you can also fix the previous diagram in this way:
1 Like
Not to be pedantic, but that diagram is also unphysical due to lepton number non-conservation in the lower left corner.
4 Likes
You should be!
The diagram above should not have the outgoing lepton in the lower left corner, right?
1 Like
Yes, you can’t have a 3-fermion vertex, this would break the Lorentz invariance. It’s actually easy to see why: try writing a scalar using only 3 spinors and any number of vectors: you can’t. The vertices in Feynman diagrams must be scalars because they are simply terms appearing in the Lagrangian! In pure QED, the only allowed vertices are the 2-fermion, 1-photon vertices you have drawn everywhere else.
4 Likes
I want a heart button for this whole thread 
13 Likes