User talk:TriTertButoxy

Standard Model
I do like your rewriting... I just wish you had sources and inline citations, too. But it is good work. -- Rmrfstar 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The way you're going, you could get this up to FA status soon... all you need are inline citations! -- Rmrfstar 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Your image is missing the Higgs self coupling. --84.163.83.126 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some points: Try using Inuse in the future when doing major rewrites in your own userspace. Could you at least indicate on the talk page if you are done editing a copy of it in your userspace? I think that what you just put in as your rewrite is going to be reverted because your work is, at best, incomplete: there are many empty sections that take the article in the sub-B-class direction. Could you please provide on the SM talk page what your goals are in making these changes? The diagrams and tables that your version no longer includes were very helpful.--Truthnlove (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I like you image very much, but it is missing the W self coupling (W couples to itself in a four vertex). It would be so great if you could add this (please).. 129.240.85.153 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Parameters of the Standard Model
It's nice to finally have them listed. I've always wondered what they were.

Quick question: Aren't there 21 parameters? I only see 19 on the list. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are only 19 parameters in the standard model; a straightforward modification to include neutrino masses would up the count by (3 masses)+(3 MNSP angles)+(1 phase)+(2 possible Majorana phases). However, this is understood to be physics outside the standard model. --TriTertButoxy (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

From Standard model: "Another avenue of research is related to the fact that the standard model seems very ad-hoc and inelegant. For example, the theory contains many seemingly so unrelated parameters of the theory — 21 in all (18 parameters in the core theory, plus G, c and h; there are believed to be an additional 7 or 8 parameters required for the neutrino masses although neutrino masses are outside the standard model and the details are unclear)."

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah, it looks like I missed this -- probably because the last few sections of the article are irrelevant to the Standard Model. Anyway, in the counting above, the 18 is a mistake.  Most likely, the author forgot about the little discussed theta-QCD.  Newton's gravitational constant G is NOT in the standard model since it does not include gravity.  The speed of light, c, is not a parameter since it is merely a conversion factor between unit of time and unit of space.  Similarly, planck's constant, h, is a conversion factor between unit of time and unit of energy.  I'm going to soon remove the last few section of the article since they are more philosophical in nature and are not directly relevant to the article as a whole. --TriTertButoxy (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Tauon move again
The move got reverted in less than 24 hours, I have restarted the discussion proposing Tauon → Tau (particle) and Tauon neutrino → Tau neutrino at Talk:Tauon. Icalanise (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Summary of interactions diagram: neutrinos and photons?
I agree. I had made that diagram years ago thinking it would be helpful to clarify the interactions between the various particles of the standard model. Now I feel that its is very misleading since, after all, all particles with every other particle after one takes loop effects into account. I would like to try to put this diagram up for deletion. Do you agree? TriTertButoxy (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that deletion is the best way to go here (it certainly wasn't what I was aiming at when I raised the point at Talk:Standard model): I think it would probably be better to come up with some way to revise the diagram to clarify what's going on. Must say I'm not particularly sure about the best way to do this: while I have a fair amount of education in particle physics I must admit it isn't one of my specialities. Icalanise (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)