Talk:List of particles

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of particles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

List of particles is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 9, 2005	Featured list candidate	Promoted
February 11, 2008	Featured list removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Former featured list

Physics Top‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are graviton spin and charge reversed in error? Feb 24, 2020.

I noticed that graviton spin is listed as 0 and charge is 2. This is the exact opposite of the [Graviton] page. Why is this? Error?

J Mark Morris (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table under "Hypothetical particles" now says Spin 2, Charge 0. Someone must have fixed it (not me). They could have mentioned that here. 180.150.36.211 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime of particles?

Not one mention of the lifetime of the particles? Why? 2600:8802:6400:13:4C7F:739A:CC4F:3739 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antiparticles to interaction bosons

are nonsense (historical relict from the beginnings of the particle theories). The Standard model considers antiparticles only for particles of matter.^[1]

Neither W⁺ and W⁻ are antiparticles even if the description in the quanum field theory is sometimes similar to the description of the antiparticles. In fact they are originated from the electroweak isospin triplet W¹, W², W³ after the symmetry breaking.

As "self" it ispossible to call particles/antiparticles of some neutral mesons (e.g. π⁰) and tetraquarks (e.g. X(3960)), which are both composite particles.

The column "Antiparticle" for the elementary bosons should be deleted. Petr Karel (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wikiarticle Antiparticle has the same problem (both in the introductory text and in table Antiboson). --Petr Karel (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The standard model of particle physics". Nature. 448 (7151): 270–270. July 2007. doi:10.1038/nature06073.

Proposal

Maybe it is not completely necessary but would a secondary article for List of hypothetical particles be interesting? It could be a split or a more extended article, that way this article can focus in known physics. ReyHahn (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDUNDANTFORK TrueMoriarty (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, would still be good to make a split? Also this article has already many forks. --ReyHahn (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made it!

12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) TrueMoriarty (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another article

Why not make another article about list of particles by alphabetical order. This article's content can be in a single table. I think this proposed article should be easier to understand by people who are new to physics. TrueMoriarty (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a navigation template for that.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about all particles in a single table, without any subsections, in another article. TrueMoriarty (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a template for overview that puts everything in the same table. Is this about the alphabetic order, Do we have any similar list? --ReyHahn (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The standard model of particle physics". Nature. 448 (7151): 270–270. July 2007. doi:10.1038/nature06073.

[1]