Talk:Generation (particle physics)

Fundamentality of second- and third-generation leptons

I removed this entire section because it isn't really relevant to the topic of Generations. It was mostly a musing from Feynman about whether quarks and leptons were fundamental, and not related to Generations. I took a couple of sentences from this section and added them onto a different section, but for the most part I removed the "Fundamentality" section. FFLaguna (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Between generations, particles differ only by their mass???

The charges of the up-type quarks are +2e/3 and of the down-type ones is -e/3. And also, it exists the quantum numbers: charm, strangeness, topness and bottomness. Paranoidhuman (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

These quantum numbers only express the fact that there is no interaction which transforms p.e. a charm into a bottom, so these are conserved. The difference in charge is between the two quarks in the same generation, not between the generations. If the quarks had same masses, all the up-type quarks could be seen as different states of the same particle and the same for the down-type ones. 129.70.165.248 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Generation

I'm updating the fourth generation wording. The statement that the fourth generation is "ruled out by theoretical considerations" is lacking a reference, and is out of date. See for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.229.136 (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

formating problem

The value is supposed to be 1777MeV/c2, but the template makes it look like it's three orders of magnitude smaller. I don't know how to correct this.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

everyday matter is a bit vague

Is there a better way to phrase this? The link to matter even says it is not well defined. My suggestion of "stable atoms" was reverted and I can see that this also has problems. Bhny (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)