Talk:Standard Model

Diagram of Standard Model particles and interactions
A recent edit removed the following image (below). Is this image worth restoring? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)




 * It is an extremely busy diagram, and definitely should not be in the lead, where it was. The simpler diagram that is still there (File:Standard Model of Elementary_Particles.svg) is more interpretable.  Without formal training I cannot even comment on the value of the removed diagram.  Another diagram (File:Standard Model.svg) I find similarly inscrutable, and its value here could also be debated.  —Quondum 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The one here looks clear and correct to me (not 100% about the "left-handed" parts for the spin-1/2 particles). M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who removed it. It is too busy, like User:Quondum said. Also, the image is low quality Buckbill10 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Buckbill and Quondum. The diagram is too busy. I also find File:Standard Model.svg inscrutable. It's extremely hard to see what it's even about and I'm not even sure it's technically right. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the image is too busy, or technical for a lead, I think an alternative should have been found by now. It's been over a year, apparently.
 * I recall maybe 15 years ago, before LHC was even online, there was a really nice, clean graphic that displayed the particles almost as a periodic table. With rows for leptons, bosons, and quarks, organized by mass and spin.
 * Of course, with the addition of the higgs, it is no longer accurate. But, it was really a fantastic resource because you could intuitively understand it at a glance.
 * I think if there is an updated version of this table, it would be a terrific replacement for the original lead image.
 * The image may even still exist on Wikimedia. In which case, one could conceivably add the extra box for the higgs in the appropriate spot. If one were so inclined. Unfortunately my photo editing skills don't go beyond MS Paint. Or I would do it myself.
 * I h VoidHalo (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * For some reason, the JPG file failed to render, and I kinda figured that it was the servers that failed to create the thumbnails. So I downloaded the image, coverted it into a PNG file, uploaded it, and marked the .jpg image as superseded. Because PNG is a lossless format, thumbnails of PNG files won't appear distorted. - Mardus /talk 05:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * According to my friend with a PhD in physics, this diagram is correct. My opinion is that it ought to be in the article, since it's perfectly relevant to the subject matter; I am re-adding it. jp×g 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is completely unintelligible without already knowing everything on it (and even then it is extremely difficult to follow and low quality), and it does not provide anything at all that isn't explained much better in the article/other images already. I am removing it as was already agreed.2001:56A:F343:2700:4917:1B72:E9E7:80C0 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I also have a minor problem with the current diagram. It shows the charged leptons above the neutrinos. I think it should be vice versa to reflect their order in the corresponding weak isospin doublets. I'm not sure if the current image can easily be modified to fit this because of the grouping that's shown in the background of the image. I could offer a diagram I made myself a couple of years ago (below the other one on the right). I can also upload it as svg if that's preferred Acrux13 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that in reality, lepton and quark sectors are completely analogous versus weak interactions:
 * down-type quarks transform into up-type ones, each with definite mass, with probabilities encoded in CKM matrix
 * "down type leptons" (charged leptons) transform into "up-type leptons" (neutrinos), each with definite mass, with probabilities encoded in PNMS matrix.
 * But the diagrams usually show "electron neutrinos" which are supposedly the result of electron's transformation. It is not. Electron transforms into one of three mass eigenstate neutrinos. When this neutrino is detected through some interaction, it transforms back to either electron, muon, or tau. But when it is in flight, it's NOT "electron" or "muon" or "tau". If the distance from the source is very large (e.g. billion of light years) and if we'd be able to know when exactly neutrinos are emitted, time of arrival would be usable to determine which mass eugenstate was in flight.
 * (The "oscillations" are observed for neutrinos but not quarks because neutrinos are very light, travel very close to the speed of light, so the wave packets of three mass eigenstate neutrinos drift apart very slowly, interfering with each other and resulting in easily detectable distance-dependent probability patterns in neutrino beam from e.g. muon neutrino factory. Whereas quark masses are noticeably different, so interference pattern is lost quickly, and quarks also hadronize (they are not in free flight on a straight path).) 193.165.237.43 (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I always thought it was arranged by mass, so the higher mass are higher on the chart. There should be enough WP:RS showing a similar chart to find out what is usually done. Gah4 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I never noticed that this representation actually aligns with the order of masses. However, the masses are already explicitly stated in the corresponding fields, so ordering them like that seems a bit redundant. So, we might as well use this degree of freedom to implicitly express the isospin structure. A quick google search tells me, that the usual diagrams are split on this issue. Although, the diagrams I've seen in theses usually follow the pattern I suggested. Acrux13 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Though current diagram may be not ideal, it's still more readable and looks better. Maybe it can be just updated with whatever the consesus would be, rather that substituted? I can follow it, but the previous (current) one are easier for understanding. (I'm not a practicing physicist, though I've studied physics for 5+ years at uni.) Artem.G (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Updating the current one would be ideal, but it's something I can't do myself. However, I just discovered that there is a talk page for that picture as well, so I just offered an updated version of the image there. I apologise if I should have gone there directly, I'm still new to this... Acrux13 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Updating the current one would be ideal, but it's something I can't do myself. However, I just discovered that there is a talk page for that picture as well, so I just offered an updated version of the image there. I apologise if I should have gone there directly, I'm still new to this... Acrux13 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who coined the term "Standard Model"
I added a sentence saying Steven Weinberg claims he came up with the term for what we call today the Standard Model and added this: Although according to Steven Weinberg he came up with the term ref1: This World and the Universe, Steven Weinberg, Talks at Google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s ref2: World Science Festival 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE but for some reason somebody reverted it. Why? Steven Weinberg is definitely an authority on the subject and I didn't say "SW came up with the term" but rather "SW claims he came up with the term" which is apparently correct, given his claims in the two videos. Shouldn't we have these in the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2042:6B00:2B3A:6ADB:93AA:BFAD (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Claims are not facts, and lengthy interviews are not very reliable sources. If you know any paper from the 70s (probably) where Weinberg used the term 'SM', it can be mentioned. But right now it's just useless, as anyone, even great physicists, can claim any thing they want. And besides, Weinberg is mentioned above in the article, in the same History section. Artem.G (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Claims are indeed not facts that is why the extra sentence never said SW came up with the term. But he does appear to claim he did, which is absolutely relevant as far as history of science goes. Again, I'm not advocating to include "SW came up with the term" but rather "SW claims he came up with the term". SW is not an arbitrary person in a random youtube video, but one of the key figures in the development of the SM. The sources, with specific time marks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE&t=435s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s I'd say these are sufficient to include the extra sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.170.114 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The YouTube videos do show that Weinberg asserted that he invented the term. They are not unreliable sources and the flag for that should be removed. The question of whether Weinberg's claim belongs in the historical account is another issue. Weinberg was a prominent spokesman who presented topics in physics to the general public and his belief is worth reporting. What is really needed is well researched article in some journal that looks at where it first appeared in print or in a recording of a presentation. But Wikipedia is not the place to do such original research. Rmrwiki (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the cited YouTube video, Weinberg makes a number of interesting points relevant possibly to the Introduction of this Wikipedia article. Here is the transcript as a basis for further editorial work: 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:610A:7E9C:A09C:4125 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Weinberg: We have a very good theory of all the particles and forces that we can study in the laboratory which I gave the name "The Standard Model", erm, which seemed to me not excessively immodest, I mean. Biologists have something called the Central Dogma and I was trying to avoid that [Host interrupts: The Weinberg Protocol?] Ha ha ha. Well I wouldn't say that either. But it works, and in an almost boringly repetitive way we keep testing it. The discovery of the Higgs boson a few years ago turned out to just fit what was expected. The Standard Model predicts all of its properties except its mass, and it was found, with all those properties, and now we know the mass experimentally. Erm. It would be tragic if the only thing we did, at the large Hadron Collider or anywhere else, was to go on elaborating the verification of the Standard Model. And... The Standard Model is certainly not the end of the story, no-one thinks it is. It has a lot of unexplained features like numerical quantities, ratios of masses, we don't know where they come from. It doesn't include gravitation, which is a big thing not to include. Erm. And we are not, we are happy with it as far as it goes. We desperately want to go beyond it. And erm we may not be able to, in our lifetimes.
 * And here is the interiew with Weinberg published in the cited physics journal:

Host: When did people start calling the whole thing the standard model? Weinberg: I don’t know exactly, but I remember using the name in 1973 during a talk in Aix-en-Provence in France. I wanted to point out to my audience that we physicists had a pretty good picture of elementary particles by then, and we could use this “standard model” as a device for interpreting experiments. Host: Did having “standard” in the name imply certainty for you? Weinberg: I was confident that the theory was right, but my confidence was partly shaken by data from a number of experiments in 1976 and 1977 that were hard to make sense of within the standard model. In the spring of 1977, I ended up canceling a trip I had planned with my wife and daughter to go to Yosemite. Instead, I spent that time working with my friend Ben Lee trying to find an alternative theory that could account for the experiments. I’m proud to say we failed, as it later turned out that the experiments were wrong. In the end, the issue was settled by a 1978 experiment at SLAC that confirmed the prediction of parity violation in the interaction of electrons with nuclei. After that, I think everyone was convinced that the standard model was correct.

i note that Weinberg's terminology evolves with physicists' increasing confidence: First he says "physicists had a pretty good picture of elementary particles", this picture he calls a standard model which he explains is 'a device for interpreting exeriments and in the next sentence he calls it a theory. Picture > model/device > theory. Worth a comment in a future terminology section. 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:4A2:E31C:DC2F:45F8 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Unintelligible Image With No Explanatory Caption
What is File:Standard Model Forces.png meant to even show? It is completely unintelligible. I will be removing it again if no one explains (both here and in the text of the article) why it is useful here. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can see what it's trying to depict but it's doing so in a poor way. --mfb (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. The image is confusing, and I removed it. Artem.G (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the image was here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Standard_Model_Forces.png --Efa (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Four kinds: 1, 2, and 3 -- should be "Three kinds"
There's a mistake in the "Elementary particles" chart. Under Gauge Bosons, it has the header "Four kinds", but under that header it gives three items numbered 1, 2, and 3. Compare the nearly identical chart, in which there is an item 4, graviton, in the article Elementary_particle Evidently graviton was removed in this article since gravitons are not part of the Standard Model, but then there are only three kinds and the chart should be revised accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.57 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The template shows the Graviton only outside the SM context. I changed the template to adjust the caption. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 10:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of bosons
The article currently contains the sentence "The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin 1⁄2, known as fermions." I'd like to see a similar statement somewhere in the article about how many bosonic elementary particles there are, if counted in the same physics-meaningful way. Thank you — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Move page to "Standard model of particle physics"
This page should be moved to Standard model of particle physics. This is the full name of the topic of this article so this should be the title.

This page should instead redirect to Standard model (disambiguation). EDIT: To preserve existing links it's better to make Standard model redirect to the new page name.

The term "Standard Model" is very general. It can be use and is used to refer to a lot of different things in different contexts. Having this term as the title of this page is confusing to readers. Liiiii (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * oppose, that's unnecessary, and it's clearly the main thing called the "standard model".
 * Artem.G (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It is clearly the the main thing in the field of fundamental physics. I understand that people who are familiar with that topic think that this is how all readers see it. But Wikipedia in not an encyclopedia for only physics.


 * But readers who are not familiar with this topic and see this title in a different context will get no indication what this article is about.


 * Titles should give and indication about the topic of an article also in context outside the topic of the article.


 * Think about it: There is no clue in the phrase "standard model" that indicate that the topic is about physics.


 * The term "Standard model" is an abbreviation that is understandable only in the context of a certain topic. "Standard model of particle physics" is the full term. Therefore this should be the title of an article in a general encyclopedia.
 * Liiiii (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well, but that logic we should rename all wikipedia articles. Lambda-CDM model (another entry from standard model disambig page), for example, is not understandable to people who've no idea what's Lambda and what's CDM, but that's not a good reason to invent new name. Artem.G (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a conflict ... what other article of similar or greater importance might we be tempted to name "Standard Model"? — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 21:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The following is an answer to all the various comments. Thank you everyone for your opinions! Please look at the top of the article. It has a template with the title "Standard model of particle physics".

That's the full formal name of the theory. "Standard model" a shortened term that is used colloquially mainly within the field of particle physics. The title of an encyclopedic article should be the full name. Using the colloquial term as the title is wrong and confusing.

"Standard model" is a general term that has a general meaning and is used in a lot of different fields. The following is a list of a just a few examples:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic)#Intended_interpretations
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model_(cryptography)
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model_(set_theory)
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Model_of_Cosmology&redirect=no
 * 5) https://www.unescap.org/resources/standard-model-logistics-information-system
 * 6) https://www.cdsmodel.com/
 * 7) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31556341/
 * 8) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752479/

The "Standard model" part of the name "Standard model of particle physics" refers to this general concept of a standard model. This general concept is the main meaning of the term. It is wrong and confusing to have an article about a particle physics theory to have this name.

I hope that this convinces you about what the most appropriate name for this article is. I will go ahead and perform the rename shortly if I don't receive any other objections.

Liiiii (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it is wholly inappropriate in every instance on Wikipedia to receive editorial objections from other editors, and respond with "I'll be doing it anyway unless someone else stops me". Plus, what does "full formal name" mean? We don't care about formal names, we care about common names. When "Standard Model" is used by itself in the English language, this is usually what is being referred to. That's how we decide what articles are titled. Please consult our relevant policy, which you have not yet demonstrated any familiarity with, before unilaterally making any decisions like this. Remsense  诉  12:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Standard Model is the WP:COMMONNAME. There are certainly other ones out there, but when talking about the 'Standard Model', this is the one that's typically being referred to. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose – as per above, Standard Model is the WP:COMMONNAME IlkkaP (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Shortcomings: neutrino oscillations
In the introductory section, where the Standard Model's shortcomings are listed, I noticed the following statement: It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses. I think this sentence might be partially incorrect. As I understand it, the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix, which describes neutrino oscillations, is in fact just part of the Standard Model. Should this be changed or am I wrong about something? KeelyMcBonk (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)