Talk:Elementary particle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JoeschUW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Outdated information about electrons and quasiparticles


This is outdated and incorrect. A split state of collective excitations has been demonstrated in free electrons. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html --142.105.162.127 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the electrons in that paper where bound up in a conductor of some sort, and a charge pulse was being measured - i.e. a collective excitation as you mention.
 * Different from beta particles or electrons in a cathode ray tube, say.
 * So I think the statement still stands 86.174.108.154 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible new topic for the "Beyond the Standard Model" section
This is to suggest you consider including a new topic in the "Beyond the Standard Model" section. The topic could feature the existence of a possible list of beyond-the-Standard-Model elementary particles. The Springer-published book "Models for Physics of the Very Small and Very Large" provides a possible analog (for elementary particles) to the periodic table (for elements). The analog points, with some specificity regarding particle properties, to possible beyond-the-Standard-Model elementary particles. [Link to a Springer webpage for the book - http://www.springer.com/book/9789462391659 .] The underlying basis is a model for 'elementary particles of which people know or that might be yet-to-be-discovered.' (People might say that the work does not provide a model of 'how nature (in effect) chooses to produce particles.' Perhaps this parallels the situation [for elements and the periodic table] before people understood atoms.) A basis for the model is solutions to equations featuring isotropic pairs of isotropic quantum harmonic oscillators. A subset of the solutions correlates with the known (or, Standard Model) elementary particles. Other solutions correlate with possible yet-to-be-discovered (or, -inferred) elementary particles. Aspects include spins (for each particle), masses (for zero-mass particles), approximate masses (for non-zero-mass elementary bosons [This work provides a math-model basis for an approximation to the weak mixing angle {or, Weinberg angle}.]), and some allowed (or not allowed) interactions. Each of the following lists families of possible particles - (a) Table 7.3.2 in the book and (b) slides 7 through 10 in a video. [Link to the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-QwnG-M6H0 .] Applications of (or, extensions to) above-discussed 'core' aspects of the work provide possible bases for dark matter, the 'dark energy' that correlates with more than two-thirds of the density of the universe, the 'dark energy' that correlates with changes in the 'rate of expansion of the universe,' and the ratio of density of dark matter to density of ordinary matter. [Sections 4.1 through 4.4 in the book; or, subsequent slides in the video.] --Thomasjbuckholtz (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead image (difficult to eat when clicked on)
Recently, introduced a new lead image to this article, ,. When I click on this image to read it, the text is very small and difficult to read. This is in contrast to the previous the lead image, which was very easy to read when clicked on. I've gone back and forth with Cush on this. Can someone please fix this? Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am moving the discussion to the image file page at Wikimedia Commons &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 14:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this article in particular should have a different version of the figure to standard model (or the numerous other pages on en.wiki and various other wikipedias). It makes zero sense to me, and I think comes under WP:CSD. Two images means twice the work in maintaining them both. Replacing the old image with the one with the black background is also quite a lot of work (for no real gain) and results in loss of history. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 12:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see explaining what was wrong the previous/regular file - File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg, why a file with a dark background is required or preferred over the more widely used file, or if there is an issue with the more widely used file, why it hasn't been replaced elsewhere with this new version. It's also not clear why this discussion has been moved to Commons, this is an English Wikipedia content issue. Cush - there seems to be clear issues with the use of the new file, I would suggest reverting to the previous version until you can gain consensus to use your new version, and can work out the claimed technical issues. Nick (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored the original longstanding version., gain consensus for your change because we shouldn't be using two versions of the same thing across different articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Graviton
It says that the graviton has its own antiparticle rather than it is its own antipartitcle, and then proceeds to explain that it would anhillate if existed and would be difficult to detect. By the same reasoning a photon would be hypothetical since it is its own antiparticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mupufata (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the main graviton article mentions nothing about annihilation at all. I had a go at fixing the section. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elementary particle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714152801/http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~tt/PHYS133/hws5.pdf to http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~tt/PHYS133/hws5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Something missing?
I got to the following in the introduction:

Via quantum theory, protons and neutrons were found to contain quarks—up quarks and down quarks—now considered elementary particles. That's a big step with no explanation and everything from here on depends upon it.

Whats the point of the rest if most people who know very little about do not get this explained?

john f 2.30.131.253 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No substructure?
Can this part be rewritten to state something like in Standard Model physics elementary particles have no known substructure, but in the string theory model, particles have a string substructure, in which particles are described as being composed of fluctuations in the spacetime environment and therefore fit sensibly in a spacetime framework. -Inowen (nlfte) 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Scarce on conceptual properties
Typically for en.Wikipedia, we see users busy pushing some, blatant off-topic about “holons, spinons, and orbitons” (and the resulting complaint lies for four years without motion), whereas a reader can learn little about conceptual properties. True, but too vague, and where does it explain that spin doesn’t require substructure? Particle statistics? True, but no different from subatomic particles in general. Masses? We know that the principal distinction is massive/massless (due to difference between little groups), whereas specific [positive] mass values for elementary particles, except for electron, are not very important for “users” in atomic physics and above. The first specific thing of crucial importance that can remind are Feynman diagrams, but holy crap… the article does not show any—not even in a navbox!—and doesn’t mention such term altogether. Misery. Look at particle, subatomic particle, and boson for comparison. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify what do understand as explanation of conceptual properties. Consider a statement: “photon is an elementary particle”. What would a user fed on Wikipedian trivia say: yes, it is a quantum of electromagnetic (or electroweak) force, one of fundamental interactions. What would a person able of critical thinking say: in which conditions? It is elementary in vacuum yes, whereas in continuous media, such as air, a photon is not elementary and essentially no different from any quasiparticle. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at Elementary particle : The Standard Model of particle physics contains 12 flavors of elementary fermions, plus their corresponding antiparticles, as well as… What is flavor? There is even no appropriate wiki link on the word. Of course, there should not be a thorough discussion on it per WP:stay on topic, but at least the article should explain that flavor completely determines the rest mass and electric charge. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For neutrinos … and isn’t needed for electric charge. Ironic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In the sidebar diagram, photon links to proton.
In the sidebar diagram, "photon" links to the "proton" page. I don't know how to edit those sidebar templates. So if someone could do that, thanks. Renyu777 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Inorganic chemistry
Deals with the study of all elements which is discovered expect hydrocarbons and their relatives or derivatives 39.33.32.151 (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Aren't electrons leptons?
From the first paragraph: "Particles currently thought to be elementary include electrons, the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons, which generally are matter particles and antimatter particles), as well as the fundamental bosons...". That seems like a strange way to put it (mentioning electrons *and* leptons). Bruce Mardle (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)