Talk:List of particles/Archive 1

Archive 1

electron, muon and tau neutrinos

The page gives mass limits on these particles, but they are not mass eigenstates. The mass eigenstates are the \nu_1, \nu_2, and \nu_3 and are mixtures of the \nu_e, \nu_\mu, and \nu_\tau.

Amazing Hrithik Nitish 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrithik8709813 (talk • contribs)

feature graphic on page

umm, if the positron is "going from top to bottom" it hardly looks as if it is curving to the right? The only thing I can think of is that it's viewed from below.

Pomeron

What about Pomeron?

the "big bang" days of this article

I have marked the article as a stub because IMHO it's far from complete. Here are some of the things that are missing.

• The title, list of particles, suggests a linear structure, but in fact the article is structured more like a tree. Should we change the title?
• A tree structure is best presented graphically. What is the best way to do this? Wikipedia contains no examples, as far as I can tell.
• Should the article strive for completeness, and include every term that can possibly refer to a particle? Or should it try for maximum clarity of the taxonomy, and include only terms that fit in well?
• What to do with problematic particles such as:
  • hypothetical particles like axion, leptoquark, monopole, tachyon, supersymmetric partners;
  • pseudoparticles like exciton, phonon, and pomeron;
  • ill-defined particles like preon and WIMP;
  • composites like quark-gluon plasma and strangelets.

Comments are welcome. —Herbee 2004-02-20

I would say that quark-gluon plasma and strangelets are states of matter, not particles. Ditto neutronium. Jeremy Henty 19:15, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

List? where's the List?

• The title, list of particles, suggests a linear structure, but in fact the article is structured more like a tree. Should we change the title?

No. This is counter-intuitive. No one would ever type "tree of particles" into the search box. Anyone who did stumble across this article would wonder what the title meant.

I agree that "tree of particles" sounds silly. That's why I didn't suggest it. I'm looking for an even better title. On the other hand, we might get used to "tree of..." articles. Wikipedia is already growing a tree of life.—Herbee

I don't think the problem is the title, its the structure of the article. There should actually be a LIST of known subatomic particles, including all the bosons and mesons, tabulated with their various properties. Maybe this list should be a new article called "List of Particles" and the current article could be called something else, like "Classes of particles". Pulu (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the structure could definitively better, but these lists can actually be quite long so I don't think most of them should be included here. You've have to explain all the properties, which is no easy thing, and which vary from list to list. See List of baryons, List of mesons, and List of chemical elements for how example of lengthy lists.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

completeness? ask Gödel about such things...

• I think this page should list the major particles/groupings. If it has name recognition, it definetely belongs here. I wouldn't even mind completeness, depending on how long it made the page. →Raul654 00:12, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I see a need for an article whose mission is akin to that of Scientific classification, but for particle physics instead of Biology. So "Scientific classification (particle physics)" would make sense to me as an alternative title for this article, or perhaps another article that just extracts out the classification without respect to particular particles. Bevo 19:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

gravitino

Is the gravitino really a hypothetical fermion? If so, strong or not-strong? - Bevo 23:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The gravitino has spin 3/2 so it is most definitely a fermion. There is as yet no direct evidence for supersymmetry, let alone supergravity, so I think it is quite fair to call it hypothetical. I don't understand what is meant by "strong or not-strong". Jeremy Henty 21:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article says that fermions are classified according to whether they feel the strong nuclear force or not. Is this true, and if so, which classification would apply to the gravitino? - Bevo 23:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The gravitino woudn't couple with the gluons (if that's what you mean), only with supersymmetrical bosons. Which bosons would it couple to depends on the supersymmetrical model.

article name

I suggest we rename this article to 'List of physical particles', to make it clear that we're talking about physics and not grammar. -- Heron 11:21, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no - I think this list is fairly obvious as it is. →Raul654 13:19, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

List of particles (Particle physics) would be the alternative if we need a name for disambiguation reasons (which I'm not sure we need yet). - Bevo 02:23, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Order of topics

Does anyone have an objection to putting the elementary particles before the composite? It makes it easier to discuss the composition of composite particles if the component (elementary) particles have been described earlier in the article. Ian Cairns 17:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I, too, think that would be a better order. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Axion

What about the axion (and the CAST experiment looking for it)? linas 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I added this an some others. linas 01:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. edit conflicts ... axion is not a supersymmetric particle, nor is it predicted by "new theories", so it does not belong in that list. Its one of the "olde-fashion" particles. I'm not sure where to put it. linas 01:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That section should be for any hypothetical elementary particle. I will modify so axion fits. -- SCZenz 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Skyrmion

And the Skyrmion is a totally different kind of beast, but it is a "particle" in the traditional sense of the word.

Also, a section on particles in condensed matter physics would be handy: phonon, exciton, hole, polaron, magnon etc. etc

Never mind, I added this an some others. linas 01:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, how about excitations of the Ising model, the XY model, Potts model? Maybe these don't count. linas 01:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request

It would be nice to have a timeline of discovery of these particles. -- Beland 06:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I will look into doing this in the near future, as a separate page, Timeline of particle discoveries -- SCZenz 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done so. -- SCZenz 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Tau leptons

Perhaps there ought to be some discussion about "tauons". Everybody I know calls them "taus" or "tau leptons", and there are only a handful of papers in the arxiv that use the term "tauons". One might argue the term should agree with "muon", "pion", "kaon"; but why not agree with "D meson", "B meson" or "J/psi"? Is there an argument for not just calling them "taus"? -- Xerxes 14:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They are called taus! The problem is that tau is the article on the Greek letter. I favor either [[Tau lepton]] or [[Tauon|Tau]] as the proper way to refer to them. -- SCZenz 14:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nutrions?

Ummm... isnt this page missing Nutrinos?

Adjam 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, we've got neutrons, and neutrinos too. The former is under baryons, and the latter is under standard model fermions. -- SCZenz 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

separate theoretical particles

It would be easier on the eyes if the theoretical particles were listed underneath a diffrent part of the article. And also, the particles could have been categorized by which theory they are predicted to be in.69.22.224.249 00:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hadrons

Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles. Hadrons are either:

   * Fermions, in which case they are called baryons.
   * Bosons, in which case they are called mesons.

I think this explanation is a little misleading, as most definitions are of the form "(hyponym): a type of (hyponym)". I'd suggest something more along the lines of:

Hadrons

Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles and can be either a fermion or meson. Depending on their consituent particles, hadrons can be classified as either:

   * Baryons, if they have spin = 1/2 (ie. a fermion); or
   * Mesons, if they have spin = 1, (ie. a meson).

Just a quick thought.

Anyons

I couldn't find Anyons. Could somebody with consolidated knowledge write a bit? Felixbecker2 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Geantino

How about Geantino? It's a purely fictional particle used in HEP software, but... --Yuriy Lapitskiy 18:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to think it needs an entry here; this is about particles in physics, not abstractions used in physics software. In fact, I wonder if the Geantino article itself shouldn't be merged with Geant4...? -- SCZenz 18:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tables of leptons and quarks

The tables of leptons and quarks were moved to the lepton and quark pages. I would like to have them on this page also. Any objections? --Donar Reiskoffer 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved them because duplicated information is notoriously difficult to keep up-to-date. I noticed in this case that the Lepton information in two articles was different and had to find out which was more up-to-date. Of course, you are free to edit pages as you wish but I cannot see why detailed information needs to be included in a general page. Bazza 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The lepton and quark tables allow you to sort by mass, but they both get the order wrong if you do 128.40.4.205 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of lepton flavors

Are there really six flavors of leptons? I believe that in the typical usage of the term there electron-flavored particles (e.g. electron, positron, electron neutrino, electron anti-neutrino), muon-flavored particles, and tau-flavored particles...thus only three flavors. For example, the decay of a tau to an muon and a system of hadrons is considered lepton-flavor violating, while the decay of a tau to a tau neutrino and a system of hadrons is not lepton-flavor violating. Jeffakolb 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. This page is wrong. The Lepton page gets it right: "There are three known flavors of lepton". Josh Thompson

I fixed the errors. I also don't like the terms "antitauon" and "antimuon". They would be referred to in conversation as a "tau plus" or a "mu plus". Agreed? Josh Thompson 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Graviton

I don't think the graviton should be in the table with the established SM bosons. (The Higgs is a more debatable case.) It, and the string theory behind it, are strictly hypothetical. Josh Thompson 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The table introduced the graviton as predicted by the SM. That's not right. Added a comment to clearify this. However - and as you suggested - it should be considered furtheron if the graviton should completely removed from this table. It is mentioned in another table below (as hypothetical particle)! --Ernsts (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Name

Is there a reason why we are not calling this article List of subatomic particles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Clayworth (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes I see the bits of article I missed before. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The spurion

Could someone make an article about the spurion particle? Thanks! Urvabara (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential FL review

I'm considering putting this page up for FL review due to a lack of citations and a very small lead. I'll give the contributors some time to fix these things though. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To me the list looks ok. Citations are not appropriate in the list as the list refers to other articles. You certainly do not want to give a citation to original peer reviewed articles every time a new particle is mentioned. So, the citation to the text book at the end as is done now that covers the whole list is appropriate.

The small lead is also ok, as there isn't much of importance to say in the lead of this list.

Is the list not well organized? One could argue that it could be a little better, but overall it is excellent.

So, in conclusion, this nomination seems to be based on only a citation count and a word count of the lead without evaluating the necessity/desirability of citations and a big lead. I therefore recommend keeping the featured list status of this article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Bosons-Integer Spin - There is an in text question about theories not requiring the Higgs Boson

The Article on the Higgs Boson itself states that there are Higgsless models

Main article: Higgsless model In the years since the Higgs boson was proposed, there have been several alternative mechanisms to the Higgs mechanism. All of the alternative mechanisms use strongly interacting dynamics to produce a vacuum expectation value that breaks electroweak symmetry. A partial list of these alternative mechanisms are

Technicolor[10] is a class of models that attempts to mimic the dynamics of the strong force as a way of breaking electroweak symmetry. Abbott-Farhi models of composite W and Z vector bosons.[11] Top quark condensate.

This could be linked from here?

124.171.1.5 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Segregate hypothetical particles!

Ishvara7 (talk · contribs) has been adding many hypothetical bosons to the main list of bosons, List of particles#Bosons. This is inappropriate. The next section of the article is for hypothetical particles, List of particles#Hypothetical particles. The main section on bosons should be reserved for particles which have been confirmed to exist, except for two -- the Higgs boson and the graviton -- which have been so strongly supported by theory that their non-existence would overthrow the mainstream physical theories. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Majoron and majorana fermion

Since majorons are bosons, they are different from majorana fermions. --Ernsts (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

sedimentation

the process of sedimentation is sedimentary rocks. you can find most rock on a patio made from flagstone you have to look very closely to edge of the flagstone you will see rocks made into layers. you can even chip away at the layer.most sedimentary rocks come from bodies of water.this is because the rapid movement of the water causes the soil and rocks along the bank of the river to erode,or break away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.60.35 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

quark masses

There's a big discrepancy between what the Top quark page says and what this page says about its mass... specifically, a three-orders-of-magnitude difference. I think that all the entries in the table here are in MeV/c². I'm going to make the modification, and if I'm wrong, then please change it back (and fix the Top quark page as well). 68.107.60.161 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears there is an inconsistency in these numbers or what protons and neutrons are made of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_particle

   * Protons, composed of two up and one down quark (uud)
   * Neutrons, composed of two down and one up quark (ddu)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson In the picture "Three Generations of Matter (Fermions)", up quark has 2.4 MeV mass, and down quark has 4.8 MeV mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton Mass: 938.272013(23) MeV/c2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron Mass: 939.565560(81) MeV/c2

Since down quark is 2 times as massive as up quark, uud can not be that close to ddu even if there is a ratio involved (like in the dividing by c squared).

Is there some physics interaction I'm missing that prevents the numbers from being summed the normal way? BenRayfield (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're missing the binding energy, which completely dominates over quark masses. See quantum chromodynamics binding energy and Quark#Mass. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from particle zoo

Didn't check if there was anything that could be merged, but I'm moving it here for User:SailWalker (who made this). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

--Composite Particles--

Hadron	Baryon	Meson

Baryon	Proton	Neutron

Proton	Composed of 3 quarks	Up	Up	Down
Neutron	Composed of 3 quarks	Up	Down	Down
Meson	Composed of 2 quarks	Quark	Antiquark

--Fundamental Particles--

Standard Model

Supersymmetry

Fermions	Leptons	Quarks	Gluino	Photino	Wino particles	Zino particles	Higgsino
Bosons	Sleptons	Squarks	Gluon	Photon	W particles	Z particles	Higgs
Force			Strong Nuclear	Electromagnetic	Weak Nuclear	Weak Nuclear

Leptons	Electron	Muon	Tau particle	Electron Nutrino	Muon Nutrino	Tau Nutrino
Quarks	Up	Down	Charm	Strange	Bottom	Top

Excited neutral Xi-b baryon

Are we okay with adding the newly discovered particle - Xi-b baryon - that a team at CERN has found? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47217745/ns/technology_and_science-science/69.146.144.86 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is made by quacks, the title of this article is incorrect and misleading

Renaming this article: list of particles(particle physics) if you change that back you are trolling or you are quack who hates molecular chemistry for all time, you know, ions and protons and what, photons are you a photek? Atoms are not particles by the way, you are people nearly insane, a list particles relating to molecular chemistry is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.129.13 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

lol --137.205.164.92 (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Hadrons

Under Composite Particles is the following (as of Dec 8, 2013)

• =*

Hadrons Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles. Hadrons are either:

   Composite fermions, in which case they are called baryons.
   Composite bosons, in which case they are called mesons.

...

• =*

I believe this is WRONG. Specifically, I believe that a nucleus of an atom is either a compostite fermion or a composite boson (depending on spin) but is NEVER a "meson". The above states categorically that all composite bosons are mesons. I am not sure enough of my ground to change this, would someone correct this if appropriate?

Also, the next section is

• =*

Baryons

   Ordinary baryons (composite fermions) contain three valence quarks or three valence antiquarks each.

...

• =*

I am much less sure here, but I don't think, for example, a H-3 nucleus is a baryon, but it IS a composite fermion. Clearly, H-3 is not correctly described as containing 3 valence quarks each. (the Main article on baryons also states categorically that a baryon is made of 3 quarks). Seems to me that nuclei have not been considered in this article. (Almost directly below these two sections is a section about Atomic nuclei, but it is a very inadequate stub containing only grade school level general information. Can someone fix this mess?Abitslow (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Elementary Particles

After pondering for several years philosophically , it all of a sudden became clear.

In order for elementary particles to have differing charge and magnetism: There must be multiple types of energy. OR Charge and magnetism are the result of mechanics, The particles are compound and work in some manner that we percieve as property.

If there is only one type of energy then there can only be one type of particle. OR There can be different sizes of particle, which might have charge based on diameter , smaller less , larger more?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.164.178 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Parton

Thank you for not mentioning the parton, which is Feynman's name for the parts of baryons and mesons. They should always be known as quarks, not partons.

And not "aces" either. Both George Zweig "aces" and Richard Feynman "partons" lost out to Murray on this one. But quarks are real; QCD a masterwork, no doubt.

Feynmann diagrams were originally invented to promote graphical understanding of quantum electrodynamic exchanges and processes, and then Murray comes along and decides that mathematical notations need to be compactified in order to obscure their meaning ref: "Quark and the Jaguar". Quite the joker, Murray.Danshawen (talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

congrats

outstanding, the only time i have ever understood diff between fermions etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3880:CC8:74AD:FC04:7B31:EAAD (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)