Template talk:Infobox particle

particle box

I started on a particle infobox as well here: User:Ravedave/ElmParticletest and you can see a sample here: User:Ravedave/ElmParticleInfoBox before I found this page. I think some of the features should be mixed. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Parameters

I'd like to see these added (more like the box at Electron):

• Type - Elementary / Composite (opt)
• Image (opt)
• Image caption (opt)
• Interaction as a seperate list not in the classification (opt)
• Generation as seperate parameter
• Decay time (opt)
• Discovered? Described? Thoerized? date (opt)
• Discoverer( opt)

I'd also like to see the infobox be a little more layman freindly. Is there a link for generation? Can the fact that the particle is from the decay of the listed particles be addressed? What do you think? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These are now in place. In the order they appear in your bullet list, the parameters are composition, image, caption, interaction, generation, decay_time, discovered and theorized (the latter two are intended for both the person and the date). I've wikilinked generation, as well as any others that I could find. I'm not sure what you mean by your second question - could you elaborate? If there's any other parameters that you (or anyone reading this) think should be added, please shout out. Mike Peel 08:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice!! I updated the photon page. Much better. The links on the titles help immensly. Never mind my second question. I shotened Fundamental interaction to just interaction so it fits the box better. I am going to update the existing boxes a bit and maybe try my hand at electron I can't think of any additional fields quite yet. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the parity? The best way would be to do it like in the PDG booklet: I(J^{PC}) --Paul Wenk 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is parity the same as chirality?--Michael C. Price ^talk 04:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Added some new fields for more obscure quantities trying to stay as true to the original scheme. Most will be used rarely... also added a field to put in the above PDG form... still working on a good name, but for now it is Condensed Symmetries naturalnumber (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Composite particles

I added the Infobox to Meson, I am not sure about the family and group though. I would like to try and get the infobox up to snuff for composite particles on meson then add it to other pages. Also there needs to be a wikilink for "Composite" but currently Composite particle redirects to Bound state which doesn't really describe it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Compton wavelength

Should this infobox also include the Compton wavelength? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Family?

This template currently uses the term "family" for fermion/boson/etc.. This is possibly confusing since in particle physics family is a synonym for generation (particle physics). Does anybody have a source for the term "family" being used for this property. If not, any suggestions for an alternative name. Statistics maybe? (TimothyRias (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Almost a year has gone by and you're just now getting a response? <g> "Better late than never." So, it looks like we have a small (quantum?) quandary on our hands. I came to this template to correct an entirely different problem as seen in my recent edit here. The MagP was redlinked because the article had been deleted, so I improved the Polarizability article to include a MagP section. That article was previously only about ElectricP. I also gave the ElecP its own section, then I linked the two Polarizability links in this template to those sections. Then I checked the history, and I was about to change your Statistics behavior link back to Family when I saw that "Generation" and "Family" are pretty much synonymous in QM. So "Family", as used to describe whether to put "Fermion" or "Boson", is definitely incorrect. In its present state, however, the parameter is still misleading and confusing, since it still requires typing "family=" when programming the ibox. That's one problem.

The other is what to actually call the parameter, and I'm not so sure "Statistical behavior" is the right term either. The "statistical" nails it, but the "behavior"? Is there a third-party source for that? I can't find one. In the Particle statistics article, the two distinctions are called "classes", but I haven't been able to find a source for that either. What to do? I'll keep looking without making any changes yet. It won't become critical until some new particle(s) is discovered.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  07:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay, I'm tired as it's been a long day. It's probably not a big deal...

• Statistical:
  • behavior
  • class
  • category
  • state
  • system
• Spin class?

I like that last one because it's short and sweet (and descriptive). It brings out that the spin is a distinctive difference between fermions and bosons, while as a parameter, it will not conflict with the "plain" spin entry. And there doesn't seem to be any standard "type" name that puts fermions and bosons together. Just the ones I've listed, and I've seen them all used in different sources. What do you think, editor Timothy Rias?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Using anything with the word "spin" in it, is just plain wrong. Particle statistics and spin are two logically separate properties. The two are linked by the spin-statistics theorem, but theories that break with its assumptions typically contain particles that violate it. In 2D systems there are also quasiparticles that satisfy anyonic statistics, as another example.

What to use? I agree that "statistical behaviour" is not ideal. (Which is one reason why I held off on changing the actual name of the parameter.) The best solution may be to call this parameter simply "(Particle) statistics". Proper grammar then dictates that the answer should be in the form, Fermionic, Bosonic, Anyonic, etc. This would be somewhat tedious to fix, but the number of transclusions also does not justify the use of a bot. TimothyRias (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i didn't realize that about the spins. I guess that's part of what makes me a "non-expert". So let's call the parameter Particle statistics (without the parens) and make sure that future editors know the choices on the doc page. At this point we've established the choices fermionic, bosonic and anyonic. Should we also include the classical, the parastatistical and the braidic? I note that fermionic and bosonic are already redirected to fermion and boson, respectively. The redlinks can be turned into Redirects, also, to make editing the transclusions easier. I can help with this as long as the already existing entries are correct, but if one is entered as, say, "fermion", and it should be "anyonic", then I might not catch the error and change it to "fermionic". How would you like to proceed?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of options could be:

• Fermionic
• Bosonic
• Anyonic
• Parafermionic
• Parabosonic
• Braid
• classical

This might not be complete, but it should give any user a clear idea of what is meant. (Somebody adding something even more exotic should be able to figure out what to do.) TimothyRias (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job ! It worked well in the Electron article. I'll start making the article changes in a few. If I see you've already been there, I'll just go on to the next. If I think I might be incorrect, I'll leave it alone. Thank you, TR !

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done – All articles to which this template is transcluded have been updated, i.e., all "family" parameter titles have been changed to "statistics", and all entries have been altered to adjectives (fermionic and bosonic for the most part). There are only two articles where I'm sure that I may have made questionable edits. They are...

• Upsilon meson
• Bottom eta meson

In both of these, the "family" was entered as "Hadron" and the "group" was entered as "Meson". So I converted "family" to "statistics" and changed "Hadron" to "Bosonic". Then I changed the "group = Meson" to "group = Hadrons". If this is incorrect, let me know and I'll rv them.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at other meson articles like pion and kaon, these use "group = Mesons". The problem you have here is that the term "group" as a property of particles is not used in the literature. (if anything a professional would associate this with group (mathematics), rather than anything else.) Of course, the usage here is not wrong per se, but it is non-standard. I think that originally the parameter was intended as to distinguish elementary particles in the standard model between, quarks, leptons and gauge bosons. Not sure what to do with this. Note that there is also the parameter "classification" which does not seem to be used anywhere. TimothyRias (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let it alone for now. Thank you for your help and clarifications!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Particles template

I just noted that the {{Particles}} template appears to need work. Fermions are confined to the "Elementary particles" section, and there are also supposed to be "Composite" fermions, correct? I shall open a discussion on the template's Talk page.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Superpartner variable

What about adding a superpartner variable? Then, "photon" article would link to "photino", for example.

Group?

The photon article gets a warning when editing about group not existing in its {{infobox}}, but here it seems that it is supposed to be fine. Is group right, or not? And how to turn off the warning? Gah4 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed – 172.82.47.242 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)