Template talk:Elementary particles

Fermion Definition
Rather than define Fermions as simply obeying the Pauli Exclusion Principle, would it perhaps make sense to define them as obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics instead? This is a more general definition, and the fact that they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle is a natural consequence of following Fermi-Dirac statistics. It would also provide convenient symmetry since Bosons are defined in the opposite panel as following Bose-Einstein Statistics. Agozer (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I made this scheme in order to better stress the defining characteristics of the different kinds of elementary particles. It has been around for quite a long time so I accept it is useful not only for me. However, I am an enigineer, not a physicist. So feel free to modify the template if you feel your edits will make it more useful. Gazibara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think my suggestion would be helpful simply because it is a more general definition (and in fact where the name Fermion comes from), so I'll make the change. Agozer (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there an editor for this kind of chart? &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 02:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Gauge Bosons
This chart lists (when is empty) Graviton as the fourth kind of Gauge Boson, although hypothetical. A footnote states that whether Graviton is a Gauge Boson is unknown and that it has spin = 2, which makes it a tensor boson, while the other Gauge Bosons have spin=1, making them vector bosons. The chart defines Elementary Bosons as Gauge, with spin=1, or Scalar, with spin=0. These parts are contradictory: definitely in grouping Graviton under definition spin=1 but note states it has spin=2; and possibly in grouping Graviton as a Gauge Boson. Furthermore, the 4 kinds of Gauge Boson in the Standard Model are usually photons, W bosons, Z bosons, and gluons. W and Z bosons are often grouped since they are the force carriers of weak interaction (1 of 4 forces). I'm not sure the best way to address these contradictions in the chart, as there are multiple ways. To keep the hypothetical Graviton in the body of the chart, maybe have three branches of Elementary Bosons: Scalar (spin=0), Vector (spin=1) and Tensor (spin=2) [or (spin=±2)?]—Vector could be described as Gauge Boson (Force Carrier), and Tensor described as possibly Gauge. The Tensor branch could have dashed rather than solid lines as it is hypothetical. However, Gauge Boson is probably much more widely seen than (Elementary) Vector Boson... Also, either break the W and Z bosons only separate numbered lines, or don't number the bosons at all (and remove reference to "four" kinds). --DanTrent (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The graviton
I didn't notice the change for quite a long time. I am not going to object to your notes, as I have stated previously I am an engineer, not a physicist. However, when is not empty, the chart becomes inconclusive: the title under Gauge bosons read "Four kinds" and immediately only three kinds of bosons follow. And with an empty it is clearly marked that the graviton is a hypothetical, not actual particle, and the added note about it makes this even clearer.

Recent changes
Hey could you please explain why my changes are not an improvement?

I removed "four fundamental interactions" as this is technically wrong; not all gauge bosons can carry all four interactions. It is also redundant, as the list below already explains which gauge boson carriers what force. (Also WP:MOS discourages the use of small fonts.) I also split the gauge boson abbreviations and the forces into separate parentheses, as this would otherwise grammatically imply that the gauge boson abbreviations are forces (or the forces gauge boson abbreviations). The abbreviations of all other particles are right of the particle's name – which is the grammatical standard – so I did the same with the gauge boson abbreviations. Furthermore, I linked  to force carrier and   (below gravitation and next to graviton) to quantum gravity, as the gravitons are based on this theory. At last, as all gauge bosons are vector bosons and to provide a direct counterpart to the, I changed   with   and   with. But I would be open to change  with   or something like that; and if this change is not acceptable at all, I would be ok with reverting it and mentioning   below the current position of.

Regards, Colonestarrice (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's rather irrelevant that "not all gauge bosons can carry all four interactions", no one expects them too. What's important is the force carriers are gauge bosons. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * But my changes contravene with none of what you just said. So I would still like to know why they were reverted. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been three days now and I’m still waiting for a reply. Again, if you have any objections, I would gladly review them and make corrections where applicable, because I’m still having some major difficulties right now, in finding out what exactly the disimprovements were. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what else needs to be said. The important thing is that those are gauge bosons, that they are vector bosons is nearly irrelevant. And you're inverting the hierarchy, putting 'gauge bosons' in line with 'three generations' and 'unique' instead of 'four kinds'. I've asked others at WT:PHYS to opine, because I don't know what else you want me to say. You've yet to make a case for why your changes are improvements. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made my case above. My changed were intended to serve as minor stylizing corrections, rendered to provide a cleaner layout for readers.


 * It's rather irrelevant that "not all gauge bosons can carry all four interactions", no one expects them too. What's important is the force carriers are gauge bosons. I concurred with that statement, but I asked you how it conflicted with my changes; you did not reply, I pinged you and reminded you of this ongoing discussion, you did not reply (despite the fact that you have been active during that time). So I reinstated my changes after four days of not having received an answer, and only then did you reply. And suddenly, you mention vector bosons, which you have not mentioned before and which were the exact part of my edit I was absolutely open in changing or omitting entirely.


 * So again, if I revert that part and just mention 'vector bosons' beneath, would that be acceptable? Colonestarrice (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And I also request you to not considerably alter you statement post-publication, instead raise complementary points by appending a separate comment, as that is otherwise very confusing. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it would not be. Because those are not all vector bosons, with the graviton being a tensor boson. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and I was about to note that it disrupted the harmony between the four categories — I got an edit conflict twice in a row. Aside from the category tiers, we don't need two sets of parentheses to label the gauge bosons. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've said in my initial statement: a single set of parentheses would grammatically imply that the forces are also gauge boson abbreviations. Alternatively, semicolons could be used as dividers to retain the single set of parentheses and avoid grammatical ambiguity, if that option is more appealing. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So if the vector bosons part would be left out entirely, would it be ok then? Colonestarrice (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the other changes are, but inverting the hierachy is a no go. Feel free to put your proposed changes in the sandbox and then everyone can opine.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Colonestarrice/elementary particles. This version omits vector bosons entirely and employs a single set of parentheses. I also moved  next to graviton, otherwise the semicolon alternative couldn't be used (I know it's in small font now but I don't really see any other options, so this will have to do). Colonestarrice (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems generally fine to me. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Since no objections have been raised after a period of 24 hours, I went ahead and instated this version. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would put graviton in its own box. It is very different from the vector bosons. Ruslik_ Zero 20:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Gauge, not vector boson. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They are gauge vector bosons, graviton is a gauge tensor boson. Ruslik_ Zero 20:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)