Talk:SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)

this model no predicts monopoles...

Just curious: should that be now or not? Great article, by the way. &mdash;Herbee 13:40, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

This is a terrible name for an article. I'd move it to a different name, but the article text is completely impenetrable to me... Surely there is a better name for this. -- Wapcaplet 01:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd have renamed it SU(3) &times; SU(2) &times; U(1) by now, but software changes in June make it impossible for such symbols to appear in article titles. (Of course, I realize that's not what Wapcaplet had in mind.) Michael Hardy 19:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, what I'm saying is that it seems wrong for the article to be named after a formula (or whatever it is). I don't know whether this is an apt comparison, but for instance we have Quadratic equation, not ax² plus bx plus c (though, by contrast, we do have E=mc², but I suspect that is because it's the most widely recognized "name" for the equation). Is there a name, in normal English, for what this article is talking about? Among those in this field of study, how is this subject referred to? Do they say "Yeah, the other day I was reading about ess you three times ess you two times you, when I realized something..." If it is a formulation of the Standard Model, then perhaps a name like "XXX model" or "XXX formulation" would be better. -- Wapcaplet 23:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Physicists, or at least those I know call it 3-2-1 but that's an even worse name for the article, isn't it? Phys 06:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)