Talk:List of particles

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)

Higgs is not yet Confirmed
The listing of the Higgs Boson in the list of Boson present as being confirmed is misleading. A new particle has been found at the LHC which acts similar to some aspects of the predicted Higgs but is not within other predicted ranges of the Standard Model. Most particle physicists believe this new particle to be the Higgs, but it is not yet "confirmed" to be the Higgs as is suggested by this article, since many of the predictions of this new particle have not yet been observed, such as imparting mass. Until this has been confirmed to be the Higgs, it should not be listed as "confirmed" but rather "tentative" or some other indicator that more accurately reflects the current state of the particle discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.237.162 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2016 July 12 (UTC)


 * Complaining that, although already observed, the Higgs is not yet confirmed while ignoring a mention of "tachyons" which have never been observed, speaks volumes.
 * A particle six times as massive as the Higgs that is the requisite spin +2 for a graviton has also been observed, but has no place in the standard model, because gravitons were supposed to be numerous, but not "massive". This is the definition of something that doesn't "fit" any model yet.  It is real, nonetheless.Danshawen (talk)danshawen  —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A particle six times as massive as the Higgs that is the requisite spin +2 for a graviton has also been observed, but has no place in the standard model, because gravitons were supposed to be numerous, but not "massive". This is the definition of something that doesn't "fit" any model yet.  It is real, nonetheless.Danshawen (talk)danshawen  —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

New Boson?
Just reading on the Madala Boson predicted by the LHC to 3 sigma. Any movement on this? It seems worthwhile to add it to the theoretical particles list as there seems to be enough legitimate reference material out there as of today (IMO). Here's one: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/new-boson-that-interacts-dark-matter-has-been-predicted-by-scientists-1580132?yptr=yahoo Davidl9999 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Are graviton spin and charge reversed in error? Feb 24, 2020.
I noticed that graviton spin is listed as 0 and charge is 2. This is the exact opposite of the [Graviton] page. Why is this? Error?

J Mark Morris (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Lifetime of particles?
Not one mention of the lifetime of the particles? Why? 2600:8802:6400:13:4C7F:739A:CC4F:3739 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)