Template talk:Particles

Positronium

What about to add Positronium and in what category ? Any Ideas ??

Sheliak

It looks strange to have the positron listed, since it is just the anti-electron, yet we don't list all the other anti-particles. Any objection to removing it?--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that it looks strange, but due to the importance of the positron, e.g. the beta+ decay, PET and the fact that there is an own article for the positron, it should be mentioned in the template.

Sheliak

electron, mu, and tau signs

I propose to remove the signs for the mu and tau electron, as the articles cover both, matter and antimatter, (yes I know, the electron article too ... ;)

Sheliak

I prefer consistency to avoid confusion. How about we state on the template that the anti-particles are implicitly, but not explicitly, listed? The positron is accessible from the electron page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the mu+ and tau+ pointing towards the mu and tau articles, similar to how it was already done for the neutrinos. Is that OK with both of you? Mike Peel 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Even worse :-( Should we list the anti-quarks, anti-neutrinos? Perhaps even each of the quark / anti-quark color states? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the antiquarks and antineutrinos should be added. Then we have a complete set of the known fundamental particles, all of which are certainly notable. Obviously, only the notable quark/anti-quark colour states should be listed. Mike Peel 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the anti-muons and anti-taus were linking the same page as the muons and taus I compacted the notation with the ± symbol.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So where does that leave the Positron article, which now isn't linked to from the template? Mike Peel 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

High and dry, I admit -- although it is linked to from the electron article. I don't see any solution that is perfect. The problem is that there is no common collective noun for the electron and the positron -- except "electron", if we adopt the term "negatron", but that has never really caught on. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remove the ± symbols, because it is inconsistent, we will have to add antiparticles too, which is not so easy in notation any more in case of the neutrinos as it was with electrons and more important it would blow up the template (Remember it is/will be also included in Solid state physics articles (because of Phonons, Magnons etc.)). The other choice is to split the templates and just mentioned particles just important in elementary particle physics, but this will lead to a template, where I click on the let's say anti-muon-neutrino and get directed to the general neutrino page. So I prefer the first choice. Let's drop the positron, but highlight the importance of it somewhere in the electron article. Sheliak 14:20, 4 July 2007

Agreed, drop the ± (except in the case of the W±?). One change that would be nice would be to group the quarks and leptons together, to emphasize the three quark favors and associated three lepton families. Long term splitting the template into elementary particles and solid-state quasi-particles is probably also a good idea.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Particle Physics

The new link to Particles Physics does only cover HEP particles and not Quasiparticles, so we should either extend the Particle physics article or link back to the list of particles, I prefer the latter. (Sheliak (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Regarding templates

It would be better w/o templates since using templates results with links to the redirects.

There is no need to link to antimuon and antitauon, since they redirect to muon and tau lepton respectively, to each flavor of neutrino (electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino) since they all redirect to neutrino, and to W boson and Z boson separately since they redirect to W and Z bosons. In second (neutrino) and third (W&Z) case there is another drawback that there would be no bold unlinked name of the current article shown in the template when used on neutrino and W and Z bosons articles, so reader can't instatnly see to which group of particles do neutrinos and W and Z bosons belong by looking the template, while this is possible with other particles and it is always posible on the old way (w/o templates).

On the other hand, there is no clear advantage of using the templates. --antiXt (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the template because it is simpler to update the particle templates and have the change spread across wikipedia than to individually change each link in each page where a particle appears. For instance, if one day there is a page specially dedicated to muon neutrinos, then all you have to to is go in the template for muon neutrino and change the link there and all of wikipedia would be updated. Same if people decides that W bosons should have a separate entry than Z bosons.

If there are redirects in the template, then let's just edit the templates to link to the correct page (for example the positron redirect to antielectron).

Also, if it's better to bulk-link neutrinos together, then let's just do something like
ν
_e.
ν
_μ.
ν
_τ (or with nowiki [[Neutrino|{{SubatomicParticle|Electron neutrino}}.{{SubatomicParticle|Muon neutrino}}.{{SubatomicParticle|Tau neutrino}}]] , but if we do things my way, then when people highlight the particle, they get the name of that specific particle, which IMO is better than knowing with what "group" of particle it is associated. If people are curious about an electron neutrino and wonder what the relation with muon and tau neutrino is, then they will click on the link and they will be directed to the neutrino page that will explain things (or maybe a specific electron neutrino page in the future).

I'll go back with templates and I'll check what redirect could be avoided. Headbomb (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Higgs and Graviton

Should they be included, especially since the Higgsino and Gravitino are included?Headbomb (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are included. --antiXt (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm blind as a bat.Headbomb (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just found an instance of the "Particles" template that still has the Higgs as "Not yet observed". It was in the article Photino (double-checked & confirmed; I really saw it). I don't know how to modify templates, yet... help? Hrttu523 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Charges

Should the proton/neutron lose their charge sign? What about the W and Z? Should they both or neither have charge signs?Headbomb (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops nevermind what I just said, I read it incorrectly. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts

It appears dubious to list (Fadeev-Popov-)Ghosts as particles. In fact, they are just a "formal" device in the quantization of gauge theories. I would propose to remove it from the list of elementary particles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.107.3.163 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree --TriTertButoxy (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

B & D Mesons

Should links to the B Meson and D meson be added? There are these pages and its on the list of mesonsUniversehjc (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the B, D, phi, eta, and eta prime mesons.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Version with more visible left-to-right hierarchy

Hello. I spent some time using the Navbox and Navbox_subgroups templates to create the following, which I find easier to read left to right:

I just noticed there's also "Navbox with collapsible groups" template which might improve the above by arranging the collapsible groups to be "Elementary particles" and "Composite particles" or "Known particles" and "Hypothetical particles". 212.84.108.16 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. I'll make it the main template. BTW anonymous user, how about you register and join the Physics Project? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ds and Bs mesons

Should the Bs and Ds mesons be included into the template separately? In the B meson article, Bs are mentioned as sub-type of B meson, however a separate article "strange B meson" exists. My attempt to add Bs into the template was reverted. Goudzovski (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll start a more general thread at Talk:Hadron for this. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic monopole

Shouldn't it be included? The table lists far more dubious hypotheticals, such as X and Y, Tachyons, etc. The magnetic monopole, as a hypothesis, has a long-established mainstream history, and is still under consideration. AFAIU, the magnetic monopole, if it exists, has a lowercase m symbol and is a lepton--not that it matters, as it would be included in the table under the Hypothetical heading, rather than under Leptons. Freederick (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OBJECTION: The ¨NON-existence of "magnetic monopole" as a particle is indisputable. Therefore it should not be quoted even as "hypothetical" (which is confusing). PROOF: Any magnetic phenomenon is bound to the MOTION OF ELECTRIC CHARGES (spin, electrons orbiting atoms, conduction electrons, free electrons in vacuum, Lorenz force between moving electric charges). CONCLUSION: "magnetic monopoles" should be excluded from the list of particles, even as hypothetical. 84.42.225.153 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Zobac

You wrote the word "proof" in capital letters. It made me tingle with anticipation. So where is the promised proof? I'm still waiting. Freederick (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of reasonable discussion (I do not regard the shouts of "indisputable" and "PROOF" as discussion), I am putting the monopole on the list as hypothetical elementary particle. Freederick (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fermions

Not sure how to fix this because I'm no expert, but aren't there also Composite fermions? So why would fermions be confined to the Elementary section?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fermions are not confined to the elementary section. The composite particles include both bosons and fermions; they are simply not classified in this way in the template. Spacepotato (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Everything to the right of the Elementary group heading should be "elementary", so technically, fermions and bosons should also be listed in the Composite group. But that would be untenable. The classification in the template should follow classifications in reality, yes? If they don't, isn't that misleading the readers?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The composite particles don't fit neatly into fermions and bosons. For example, a carbon-12 nucleus, ¹²C, is a boson, but a carbon-13 nucleus, ¹³C, is a fermion. Spacepotato (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the answer to your confusion may be that, traditionally elementary particles are split in 'elementary fermions' and 'elementary bosons'. To be completely clear the template could repeat the word elementary for those two entries, but I think for brevity's sake the current option is clearer. TimothyRias (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I truly appreciate both your attempts to clarify this for me. But I'm just your average reader, little if any training in particle physics. This is what I see...

Can you see why it's confusing? It's as if the fermions and bosons should be on a higher level, each with their own "Elementary" and "Composite" subgroups, or something like that. Am I just falling prey to the circular complexities of quantum mechanics? Maybe the Navbar just needs an explanatory footnote?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JamesWilliamRowell, 27 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} For completeness, please include the antiquarks along side the quarks in the Fermion row.

JamesWilliamRowell (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Axions

Should axions be added as hypothetical bosons? - PianoDan (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, whoops - there it is. Never mind! - 98.243.198.170 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quasiparticles

I was wondering if holes should be added since they are so often used in Solid State. Zak.estrada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Added. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the vibron is neither mentioned in this box or on wikipedia itself. It is rather a rare gourmet, but real, quasiparticle, but no one who knows anything about it seems to bother editing wikipedia. See for yourself: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/ti:+vibron/0/1/0/all/0/1

Skyrmions

I added them. Im almost positive they should be included but Im not quite certain yet exactly where, since these are both hypothetical exotic baryons (where I put it for now now) and experimentally observed topological quasiparticles as well. Id love to learn more so perhaps this mention will give that wiki article some love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions to hypothetical particles

Should the following be added?

• Hypothetical elementary particles:
  • Mirror particles
  • Unparticles
  • A few other things featured in Category:Hypothetical elementary particles

I ask because everything in Category:Hypothetical composite particles is already featured. — MK (^t/_c) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

E(38) boson

I think E₃₈ boson should be added to the list. 193.153.226.165 (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Inflaton and/or Instanton

Possible additions to the template? 67.171.222.203 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pentaquark

Now the pentaquark has been discovered, it needs moving out of the hypothetical section. Widefox; talk 11:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Those claims of discovery need to be peer-reviewed first before we move this one to "discovered". It's quite likely that it will pass peer-reviewed, given the quality of the work that comes out of the LHCb people, but this it not a guarantee. Right now we're possibly in a similar situation to the BICEP2 results when they claimed detection of B-mode in gravitational waves in the cosmological background. The announcement proclaimed loud and clear that they were detected. The peer reviewed version acknowledged that this was not necessarily the case, and that these results could possibly due to cosmic dust. This is why we have have WP:CRYSTALBALL.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree as per Headbomb

77.42.182.128 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree per Headbomb. Out of curiosity, where would the pentaquark fit on the table? --hmich176 05:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Either under 'composite > others' or 'composite > hadron >' then create a new tree with 'exotic baryon > pentaquark'. Could be other possibilities too I suppose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The pentaquarks and many tetraquarks/exotic mesons (which even have independent confirmations) have long-since passed peer review now. I think it's time to move "exotic hardons" out of "hypothetical", although there are still plenty of hypothetical exotic hadrons that haven't been observed (notably the glueball). Then again, there are still hypothetical conventional hadrons that haven't been observed. Dukwon (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Full names for many of the particles?

A suggestion that the full common names of many of the particles should be used and linked on the template, for better lay-reader identification and accessibility. All the quarks, for example, could be names, as could the electron and other commonly known particles. I've started with the Higgs, and bring this to the talk page for discussion on the format. Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

With no answers I went ahead and did the bold move thing, and I think it both looks a lot better and makes the contents of the template much more accessible to the lay reader. Some tweaks still needed (direct links to the page sections on antiquarks, etc.). Seem okay? Randy Kryn 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Full names now on template. The Omega meson doesn't have its own page but links to the list of mesons. Randy Kryn 17:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tetraquark

Seems to be quite established now with the LHCb results. To "Mesons / Quarkonia"? Or do we make a new category "exotic" under discovered hadrons and put Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks there? --mfb (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Exotic vs. hypothetical hadrons

I agree with this edit in terms of Tetra- and Pentaquarks, but I'm not so sure about the other things that went from "hypothetical" to "exotic" now. We don't have a convincing glueball discovery, skyrmions have been seen in solid-state physics but not in particle physics, mesonic molecules are just one possible explanation of the tetraquark states, and the dibaryons we know (in particular, deuterium and hypernuclei) are not exotic. Can we put tetraquarks to "Mesons / Quarkonia", rename "dibaryon" to "hexaquark" (it is a redirect anyway) and leave the rest under "hypothetical"? Ping @Dukwon. --mfb (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions. Your suggestion works. Perhaps make "hypothetical" a sub-category of "exotic hadrons", replacing "others"? Dukwon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I grouped it in the same way as the elementary particles now. Hypothetical is one group, everything else follows from that structure. Technically tauonium has not been seen yet, but no one doubts its existence - it is just experimentally hard to produce. --mfb (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Graviton

This chart has an error, and has had one for a while. Please remove gravitons from the Hypothetical section and re-insert them where relevant, most likely in the Other section. Thank you.CAM o man (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Connor McDermid CAM o man (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Gravitons are hypothetical, so edit not done.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence of gravitons. They are expected, but no gravitons have been observed so far. Every observation so far is consistent with a classical (non-quantized) action of gravity. --mfb (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dual Graviton

Dual graviton, which is a dual of the graviton under electric-magnetic duality, should be included as hypothetical particle in the Elementary list, while Graviton and Gravitino are included. Grav25744535 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added it, but not being a scientist don't know how accurate it is, either itself or its placement in this section, but the page seems to have adequate substance. Thanks for caring enough to point it out. Randy Kryn 00:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you search hard enough, you can probably find hundreds of proposed particles, I'm not sure if we have to add all of them (most don't even have an article). --mfb (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

While we have superpartners particles under SUSY, e.g. Gluino, Gravitino, Photino, Higgsino, Squarks, and Sleptons, we have dual particles under electric-magnetic duality, e.g. dual graviton, dual photon, dual Higgs, dual quarks, and dual leptons. The difference is that superpartners particles under SUSY have 1/2-reduced spin, e.g. spin-2 Graviton becomes spin-3/2 Gravitino, while there are no spin change from Graviton to Dual Graviton under electric-magnetic duality. Dual Matter is predicted under S-duality or electric-magnetic duality. Dual photons cannot propagate through the ordinary matter and ordinary 4-D spacetime. The only way which the dual matter and the ordinary matter can interact with each other is through the gravitional interaction. In the absence of any ordinary matter, a dual graviton can be introduced (see Gen.Rel.Grav.41:39-48,2009 doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0650-4). Dual matter exists only for D>4. Magnetic monopole is a kind of dual matter, i.e. dual of the electron under electric-magnetic duality, so it could be also called Dual Electron. --Grav25744535 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Supersymmetry is much popular than electromagnetic duality. --mfb (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot works in Supersymmetry, but works on electromagnetic duality started in 2000s. While Supersymmetry is much popular, Maxwell equations favors electric-magnetic duality in the nature. We have not detected any example of SUSY symmetry in the nature. While there are some examples of S-duality in the universe: magnetic and electric, gravitomagnetic (magnetic part of Weyl tensor, non-Newtonain gravity produced by fast spinning black holes) and gravitoelectric (Newtonian gravity). Grav25744535 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

For the template it does not matter how much you like the concept or how elegant you think it is. The amount of work and attention matters, and there SUSY clearly gets much more attention. This is not limited to the past, it is true currently as well. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Dual Photon

Dual photon that is a dual of the photon under electric-magnetic duality and a candidate for spin-1 dark photon should be included as hypothetical particle in the Elementary list, while spin-1/2 Photino is included. Grav25744535 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

See above. I don't think we should add every elementary particle proposed somewhere. --mfb (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The work on dual electromagnetism received high citations in a short time, see Google Scholar: "Dual electromagnetism: helicity, spin, momentum and angular momentum" The concept of magnetic monopole without dual photon is meaningless. See this paper published in Science (journal), arXiv:1502.03319 and this work in Nature (journal) arXiv:1305.0570 Grav25744535 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

109 citations since 2013 is highly cited? For a key paper that is not much. Some random 750 GeV diphoton excess paper got 170 since 2016 - and that is just one of many models. And this is nothing compared to the amount of work that went into the other particles listed in the template. Just 7400 results for electro-magnetic duality. 33,000 for axion, 40,000 for graviton, 140,000 for magnetic monopoles. --mfb (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This paper Diphoton signatures from heavy axion decays at the CERN Large Hadron Collider is not a random statistics. There are different between 1-σ, 2-σ, and 3-σ see 68–95–99.7 rule. local significance of about 3-σ means that 99.73% of the data within 3 standard deviation of the mean, which a high statistics. The paper, however, only presents a theoretical model for the recent ATLAS and CMS observation with 3-σ statistics (see 750 GeV diphoton excess), which reported a new boson with spin-0 and energy of 750 GeV, and may be responsible for strong CP problem in gluon interaction between quarks.Grav25744535 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are missing my point. You mentioned "high citations in a short time" as evidence for notability. I pointed to a random paper that is not particularly interesting, discussing a small excess that vanished with more data - and it still has more citations than the paper you linked to. Clealy 109 citations does not imply notability, especially if it is an important paper within that field. By the way: I contributed to the article you linked to, I am well aware of its existence. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

Can you edit W and Z bosons to be a category and have W and Z bosons redirect to respective pages (not created) and have the pages redirect to W and Z bosons pages? Icelk (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would improve it The category is clearly "gauge boson". Ultimately W boson and Z boson (the redirects exist, as you can see) should be separate pages. We could put them as separate entries here but then they go to the same page anyway. --mfb (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing preon and X17 particle

I'm inclined to remove preon and X17 particle from the list of hypothetical particles. The former is historically important, but it's not seriously entertained as a hypothesis anymore, and the latter is borderline fraud. I'm not really sure what is the purpose of the template, though, is it about hypotheses that are currently seriously considered, or is it intended to be more general? Tercer (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templates like these tend to become "junk drawers", I think. There's no way to make inclusion criteria clear in practice, so new items keep getting dumped in. I'd like to remove X17 particle at least, to reduce the clutter slightly. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If consensus were to be reached about the inclusion criteria, that could be added at the top of the talk page. Hypothetically speaking. I'll just remove X17 particle then. Tercer (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)