This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Someone nicknamed 'Cush' has taken it upon themselves to significantly modify the main particle graphic so it looks extra pretty. The problem is, it's made it much more difficult for viewers with less-than-perfect vision. I'm not making this stuff up, I've been working in a library, and this page is one of many that are mentioned by older users.
So, while I understand and appreciate the attempt to modernise the look, it's gone a bit too far in the pretty direction.
Would someone with the right tools be able to revert to something easier on he eyes, while including all the new information?
Thanks. Cephas Atheos ( talk) 22:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the particle counting for the Standard Model bosons is faulty. Why do you count the 8 color combinations for gluons, when you don't count the three possibilities for each quark? I like the way the Fermilab poster counts the particles: 6 quarks (u,d,c,s,t,b), 6 leptons (e,mu,tau,e_nu,mu_nu,tau_nu), the photon, the W, the Z, and the gluon. That's every standard model particle that's been observed, and uniformly leaves out antiparticles and color. I will change the article to this in a few days, unless there are objections. -- SCZenz 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
By all means, let's say there are six quark flavors, but there's no reason to say there are eight gluon colors unless we list the quark colors also. It's probably better to get rid of the particle-counting, and do away with the current non-sensical 12 fermion-12 boson parallel. I'll rewrite a bit, when I get the chance, and we can argue some more then. -- SCZenz 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
How much crack are you guys on? -- Anon
I find the idea of fundamental particles extremely counterintuitive. Can you folks explain why there's reason to believe it stops gettin' smaller? -- Different Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.52 ( talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you are still going to make changes. As someone with little knowledge of this topic, I can tell you what would be confusing to someone like myself, and thus help you to make this a better, more easily understood article.
There seems to be a growing list of these so called elementary or fundamental particles. Is the universe really so complicated at this level---- or is there a simpler answer?- I mean can't all these particles be made from something simpler so i can understand it all!?- Light current 05:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The simpler the theory, the more I like it (as Albert Einsten MAY have said to himself one day)-- Light current 05:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Unless of course, everyones missed the really simple theory all these years!-- Light current 14:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
If you buy the Big Bang theory then you're stuck with the initial concept of an initial amount of very small particle/energy packages moving around within an increasing volume of 3 dimensional space. And since then nothing much can be said to have happened except that some of the particle/energy packages have slowed down and coalesced into larger entity particles, as well as into sentient beings who have taken on the task of trying to categorize the particles with relation to their perceived physical, chemical and mathematical (size and motion) properties. WFPM ( talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would only be fair to have a link to Heim theory. After all it purports to predict all the masses of all of the particles. Ggb667 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Under speculative theories BSM we should include something about extra dimensions, little Higgs models, and technicolor. I'm not really expert enough to do so - would someone else like to give it a try? SchmittM 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not presently in good enough shape for the article, but maybe somebody can make something of it. -- Xerxes 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph needs to provide an informative overview of what elementary particles are per the definition of the term. Presently, the opening paragraph tells almost nothing (plus fundamental particles is a return-redirect):
Basically, what this says is that a fundamental particle is anything smaller than an atom. The reader would have already known at least this much before arriving here. I am going to clean this intro using the following five sources as a basis as to the general consensus of the term:
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Thanks:-- Sadi Carnot 10:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not true that elementary particles cannot act on themselves. This is true of fermions, but not of bosons; see the diagram in section 3.2 of
Standard Model. Certain bosons exchange bosons, to wit, the gluons and the W particles. Thus gluons are subject to the strong force, and the W particles are subject to the weak force. Either the diagram is wrong, or the Intro to this entry is wrong.
123.255.26.112 (
talk)
20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Xerxes, your change to the intro:
makes it seem as though fundamental particles were smaller than elementary particles. According to at least three sources that I've read today the term "elementary particles" came of use in 1934 and the "fundamental particles" came of use in 1947 (source Merriam-Webster); yet in present use all entries on fundamental particles list see: elementary particles. Hence, they are synonyms with elementary particles being the favored term. I will amend this to clarify.-- Sadi Carnot 01:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
anyway the fundamental particles can decay into smaller fundamental particles-down quark to up electron + electron + electron anti nuetrino. so the only thing that really seems fundamental here is energy.
Interesting that the aspect & extension of particles is to define what a particle & the system to which it is a member or element {in the mathematical sense} or form vs function in the physical sense. The aspect of where does a particle exist relates to the how does it manifest it's existance? The Math aspect of sets need to be applied to the concept of particles as well the the Physics aspect of form & function. Which for the present version, science isn't even sure of their existence, let alone established any real sense of function. Clay 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first attempt to enter a Wiki discussion. I work in the area of language, I wonder if I can help.
Perhaps a problem here is that particle physics becomes so counter-intuitive in some respects, that normal assumptions regarding classification break down.
Wave-particle duality upset assumptions of excluded middle, is there something similar here? Hopefully it is not that tricky though.
A table does not become a chair because it is turned upside down, nor because it is painted a different colour, nor because it is travelling at different speeds -- on the back of a truck, in an aeroplane, or even in a rocket at a speed close to light.
A table is one thing, it has invarient properties, that distinguish it from chairs, and other properties it that may or may not change, that it has in common with chairs.
DoF sound like different modes of existence of a specific entity. An entity may jump backwards and forwards between those modes. The modes teach us about the behaviour of the entity and may have analogies to the behaviour of other entities.
Is there a canonical representation of mass, for example, for each of the named particles, which is unique to each particle, or to a class of particles?
Can a blue quark change colour? If yes, colour is a DoF, a mode of existence of a particular kind of quark. The red or green version is not truly a different species, just the same thing at a different time. If no, we have twin entities, sharing many properties in common, but being fundamentally different individuals.
As you correct my wrong thinking, I hope it helps you work out what you want to tell all the readers who share my naive assumptions. Alastair Haines 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Explaining that a particle is either fundamental or elementary is useful for descriptions of those particular particles.
We need some description of what constitutes a particle. Such as:
Is this possible or are we still in the dark at this level? Bvcrist 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Just checked the term "substructure" and read a math definition. Can someone add one oriented to particle physics? Bvcrist 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no list of physical features of a generic elementary particle. The Wiki article on Point Particle lists the following physical features:
"A point particle is an idealized particle heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.
Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole moments without occupying any volume."
Can Elementary Particle share this list of physical features?
Bvcrist
18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed that neither Atomism nor infinite divisibility are mentioned in this article. Surely someone with more expertise in these areas can write a little something. Infinite divisibility is a fundamental question closely related to the existence of an elementary particle, and Atomism was one crucial approach.
treyjp 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I'm glad you have made this aspect of defining particles! Because beyond the historical aspect of "searching for the fundamental particle[s]" is the relation formed as part of a larger form of structure. Clay 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
One can barely extract any information from this article alone without having to read the main articles. Some sections need a more serious explication. LaughingSkull 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously guys i came to this web sight hoping to gain some idea about something on this page. I leave more confused than before. None of it makes any sense WhatSoEver to anyone who doesn't already know it.
This page is not at all useful, and should be designed for people who don't already know all about elementary particles and are trying to learn something.
Please make it useful.
Felix 5:52, 3 August 2007.
Please comment of the new table of elementary particles at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#String Theory. Thanks. Dhatfield ( talk) 11:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the article not mentioning anything about the X and Y boson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 09:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because their existence hasn't been confirmed yet. Just a theory which states that there is a possibility of a fifth fundamental force governed by two bosons like the weak interaction. Asiant X13 ( talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
But the existence of gravitons are not confirmed yet either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.20.30 ( talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
When the Hadron Collider is able to detect the divine Higgs bossons, can the existence of the divinity and the evolution be traced out exactly?
I'd like to suggest that this article spend a little more wording on the meaning of the word 'particle', as opposed to a 'wave'. The wiktionary just says it's something with a very small size, or a fragment. But I think there's more to it than that. To distinguish it from a 'wave', I think a particle must have some concept of locality and perhaps a collisional behavior, at least from the perspective of a distant observer. Yes I know about wave-particle duality, so perhaps this article could explain under what circumstances a particle displays particle-like behavior?— RJH ( talk) 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking a particle is something that can be acted on by a force, or that carries a force, whereas waves are descriptions of entities with regard to a relationship of some property of an entity to a defined property of the wave. Therefor the conceptional properties 0f particles is intuitively easier to understand, mainly because the particle concept assumes that the particle is the physical entity involved in the concept, whereas the wave concept has to deal with the medium of propagation of the wave. And now that we have used the "uncertaincy principle" to allow the spreading out of the property of a particle over over an uncertain spacial distance, or area, or volume, about the only advantage the particle concept has is that it still is the conceptual real physical entity involved in the process. WFPM ( talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article seem to say anywhere that there are 8? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
According to this page,
an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure.
And as far as I'm aware, a black hole does not have a substructure and according to the Black Hole article
a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge, and angular momentum.
Anyone?!?!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Btxtsf (
talk •
contribs)
15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A black hole is a concentration of matter of such a degree that you can't use customary physical concepts to assess the situation. Like Angular Momentum = M x V x R, and it doesn't have an R? Or that the centrifugal force of separation of the hole's constituents is V squared/R and R = zero.? And I didn't know that it had a charge. But the charge concentration due to the radius factor must be terrible. WFPM ( talk) 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
And in the above particle count discussion, the fact is being missed is that a lot of people who think about these things ( including me), think about them with relation to some geometric pattern that they can organize in their mind, and then modernize as to subset differentiation details, like the Periodic table. And I would think that could be accomplished with the existing approach shown towards that type of presentation, if you could just agree on a system of format presentation that would consolidate and emphasize the similarities of these conceptual entities and at the same time also allow for a lesser presentation of the subordinate details. and I think that's what you're trying to do, but it still needs a little better organization as to the ability of the chart boxes to identify and include all the proposed 18 particles and to place them in a coordinated location for comparative analysis. And like they say, a picture (or a chart) is worth a thousand words. WFPM ( talk) 03:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC) And consider the effort that has been carried out to keep the format of the periodic table sufficiently organized that it can be printed on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper. WFPM ( talk) 05:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Should we update this now?
I provided this to help! http://i.imgur.com/Z6LIY.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisalaah ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not a physicist and I am a little confused here. If "... an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure..." then how can the Higgs be listed as an elementary particle if the only way we can detect it is by its decay? Doesn't the act of decaying mean that it is made up of other things? If this isn't true (which I suspect) please elaborate on this because it is confusing to someone not in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.25.213 ( talk) 12:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
it says it does not have subparticles but, nonetheless, what are they made of?-- 144.122.104.211 ( talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Each time I read about particles, I imagine myself dropping on the floor a jar full of electrons. You'd have electrons all over the place! So, I'd rather think of the electron as the 90 degree intersection of the dielectric (electrostatic) lines of force with the magnetic lines of force. Heaviside said so, and it keeps me sane. 67.206.161.189 ( talk) 20:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Someone nicknamed 'Cush' has taken it upon themselves to significantly modify the main particle graphic so it looks extra pretty. The problem is, it's made it much more difficult for viewers with less-than-perfect vision. I'm not making this stuff up, I've been working in a library, and this page is one of many that are mentioned by older users.
So, while I understand and appreciate the attempt to modernise the look, it's gone a bit too far in the pretty direction.
Would someone with the right tools be able to revert to something easier on he eyes, while including all the new information?
Thanks. Cephas Atheos ( talk) 22:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the particle counting for the Standard Model bosons is faulty. Why do you count the 8 color combinations for gluons, when you don't count the three possibilities for each quark? I like the way the Fermilab poster counts the particles: 6 quarks (u,d,c,s,t,b), 6 leptons (e,mu,tau,e_nu,mu_nu,tau_nu), the photon, the W, the Z, and the gluon. That's every standard model particle that's been observed, and uniformly leaves out antiparticles and color. I will change the article to this in a few days, unless there are objections. -- SCZenz 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
By all means, let's say there are six quark flavors, but there's no reason to say there are eight gluon colors unless we list the quark colors also. It's probably better to get rid of the particle-counting, and do away with the current non-sensical 12 fermion-12 boson parallel. I'll rewrite a bit, when I get the chance, and we can argue some more then. -- SCZenz 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
How much crack are you guys on? -- Anon
I find the idea of fundamental particles extremely counterintuitive. Can you folks explain why there's reason to believe it stops gettin' smaller? -- Different Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.52 ( talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you are still going to make changes. As someone with little knowledge of this topic, I can tell you what would be confusing to someone like myself, and thus help you to make this a better, more easily understood article.
There seems to be a growing list of these so called elementary or fundamental particles. Is the universe really so complicated at this level---- or is there a simpler answer?- I mean can't all these particles be made from something simpler so i can understand it all!?- Light current 05:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The simpler the theory, the more I like it (as Albert Einsten MAY have said to himself one day)-- Light current 05:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Unless of course, everyones missed the really simple theory all these years!-- Light current 14:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
If you buy the Big Bang theory then you're stuck with the initial concept of an initial amount of very small particle/energy packages moving around within an increasing volume of 3 dimensional space. And since then nothing much can be said to have happened except that some of the particle/energy packages have slowed down and coalesced into larger entity particles, as well as into sentient beings who have taken on the task of trying to categorize the particles with relation to their perceived physical, chemical and mathematical (size and motion) properties. WFPM ( talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would only be fair to have a link to Heim theory. After all it purports to predict all the masses of all of the particles. Ggb667 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Under speculative theories BSM we should include something about extra dimensions, little Higgs models, and technicolor. I'm not really expert enough to do so - would someone else like to give it a try? SchmittM 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not presently in good enough shape for the article, but maybe somebody can make something of it. -- Xerxes 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph needs to provide an informative overview of what elementary particles are per the definition of the term. Presently, the opening paragraph tells almost nothing (plus fundamental particles is a return-redirect):
Basically, what this says is that a fundamental particle is anything smaller than an atom. The reader would have already known at least this much before arriving here. I am going to clean this intro using the following five sources as a basis as to the general consensus of the term:
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Thanks:-- Sadi Carnot 10:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not true that elementary particles cannot act on themselves. This is true of fermions, but not of bosons; see the diagram in section 3.2 of
Standard Model. Certain bosons exchange bosons, to wit, the gluons and the W particles. Thus gluons are subject to the strong force, and the W particles are subject to the weak force. Either the diagram is wrong, or the Intro to this entry is wrong.
123.255.26.112 (
talk)
20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Xerxes, your change to the intro:
makes it seem as though fundamental particles were smaller than elementary particles. According to at least three sources that I've read today the term "elementary particles" came of use in 1934 and the "fundamental particles" came of use in 1947 (source Merriam-Webster); yet in present use all entries on fundamental particles list see: elementary particles. Hence, they are synonyms with elementary particles being the favored term. I will amend this to clarify.-- Sadi Carnot 01:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
anyway the fundamental particles can decay into smaller fundamental particles-down quark to up electron + electron + electron anti nuetrino. so the only thing that really seems fundamental here is energy.
Interesting that the aspect & extension of particles is to define what a particle & the system to which it is a member or element {in the mathematical sense} or form vs function in the physical sense. The aspect of where does a particle exist relates to the how does it manifest it's existance? The Math aspect of sets need to be applied to the concept of particles as well the the Physics aspect of form & function. Which for the present version, science isn't even sure of their existence, let alone established any real sense of function. Clay 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first attempt to enter a Wiki discussion. I work in the area of language, I wonder if I can help.
Perhaps a problem here is that particle physics becomes so counter-intuitive in some respects, that normal assumptions regarding classification break down.
Wave-particle duality upset assumptions of excluded middle, is there something similar here? Hopefully it is not that tricky though.
A table does not become a chair because it is turned upside down, nor because it is painted a different colour, nor because it is travelling at different speeds -- on the back of a truck, in an aeroplane, or even in a rocket at a speed close to light.
A table is one thing, it has invarient properties, that distinguish it from chairs, and other properties it that may or may not change, that it has in common with chairs.
DoF sound like different modes of existence of a specific entity. An entity may jump backwards and forwards between those modes. The modes teach us about the behaviour of the entity and may have analogies to the behaviour of other entities.
Is there a canonical representation of mass, for example, for each of the named particles, which is unique to each particle, or to a class of particles?
Can a blue quark change colour? If yes, colour is a DoF, a mode of existence of a particular kind of quark. The red or green version is not truly a different species, just the same thing at a different time. If no, we have twin entities, sharing many properties in common, but being fundamentally different individuals.
As you correct my wrong thinking, I hope it helps you work out what you want to tell all the readers who share my naive assumptions. Alastair Haines 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Explaining that a particle is either fundamental or elementary is useful for descriptions of those particular particles.
We need some description of what constitutes a particle. Such as:
Is this possible or are we still in the dark at this level? Bvcrist 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Just checked the term "substructure" and read a math definition. Can someone add one oriented to particle physics? Bvcrist 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no list of physical features of a generic elementary particle. The Wiki article on Point Particle lists the following physical features:
"A point particle is an idealized particle heavily used in physics. Its distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional. A point particle is often a good approximation of real particles and also more extended bodies. In Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity and electromagnetism, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.
Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole moments without occupying any volume."
Can Elementary Particle share this list of physical features?
Bvcrist
18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed that neither Atomism nor infinite divisibility are mentioned in this article. Surely someone with more expertise in these areas can write a little something. Infinite divisibility is a fundamental question closely related to the existence of an elementary particle, and Atomism was one crucial approach.
treyjp 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I'm glad you have made this aspect of defining particles! Because beyond the historical aspect of "searching for the fundamental particle[s]" is the relation formed as part of a larger form of structure. Clay 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
One can barely extract any information from this article alone without having to read the main articles. Some sections need a more serious explication. LaughingSkull 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously guys i came to this web sight hoping to gain some idea about something on this page. I leave more confused than before. None of it makes any sense WhatSoEver to anyone who doesn't already know it.
This page is not at all useful, and should be designed for people who don't already know all about elementary particles and are trying to learn something.
Please make it useful.
Felix 5:52, 3 August 2007.
Please comment of the new table of elementary particles at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#String Theory. Thanks. Dhatfield ( talk) 11:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the article not mentioning anything about the X and Y boson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 09:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because their existence hasn't been confirmed yet. Just a theory which states that there is a possibility of a fifth fundamental force governed by two bosons like the weak interaction. Asiant X13 ( talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
But the existence of gravitons are not confirmed yet either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.20.30 ( talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
When the Hadron Collider is able to detect the divine Higgs bossons, can the existence of the divinity and the evolution be traced out exactly?
I'd like to suggest that this article spend a little more wording on the meaning of the word 'particle', as opposed to a 'wave'. The wiktionary just says it's something with a very small size, or a fragment. But I think there's more to it than that. To distinguish it from a 'wave', I think a particle must have some concept of locality and perhaps a collisional behavior, at least from the perspective of a distant observer. Yes I know about wave-particle duality, so perhaps this article could explain under what circumstances a particle displays particle-like behavior?— RJH ( talk) 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking a particle is something that can be acted on by a force, or that carries a force, whereas waves are descriptions of entities with regard to a relationship of some property of an entity to a defined property of the wave. Therefor the conceptional properties 0f particles is intuitively easier to understand, mainly because the particle concept assumes that the particle is the physical entity involved in the concept, whereas the wave concept has to deal with the medium of propagation of the wave. And now that we have used the "uncertaincy principle" to allow the spreading out of the property of a particle over over an uncertain spacial distance, or area, or volume, about the only advantage the particle concept has is that it still is the conceptual real physical entity involved in the process. WFPM ( talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article seem to say anywhere that there are 8? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
According to this page,
an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure.
And as far as I'm aware, a black hole does not have a substructure and according to the Black Hole article
a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge, and angular momentum.
Anyone?!?!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Btxtsf (
talk •
contribs)
15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A black hole is a concentration of matter of such a degree that you can't use customary physical concepts to assess the situation. Like Angular Momentum = M x V x R, and it doesn't have an R? Or that the centrifugal force of separation of the hole's constituents is V squared/R and R = zero.? And I didn't know that it had a charge. But the charge concentration due to the radius factor must be terrible. WFPM ( talk) 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
And in the above particle count discussion, the fact is being missed is that a lot of people who think about these things ( including me), think about them with relation to some geometric pattern that they can organize in their mind, and then modernize as to subset differentiation details, like the Periodic table. And I would think that could be accomplished with the existing approach shown towards that type of presentation, if you could just agree on a system of format presentation that would consolidate and emphasize the similarities of these conceptual entities and at the same time also allow for a lesser presentation of the subordinate details. and I think that's what you're trying to do, but it still needs a little better organization as to the ability of the chart boxes to identify and include all the proposed 18 particles and to place them in a coordinated location for comparative analysis. And like they say, a picture (or a chart) is worth a thousand words. WFPM ( talk) 03:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC) And consider the effort that has been carried out to keep the format of the periodic table sufficiently organized that it can be printed on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper. WFPM ( talk) 05:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Should we update this now?
I provided this to help! http://i.imgur.com/Z6LIY.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisalaah ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not a physicist and I am a little confused here. If "... an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure..." then how can the Higgs be listed as an elementary particle if the only way we can detect it is by its decay? Doesn't the act of decaying mean that it is made up of other things? If this isn't true (which I suspect) please elaborate on this because it is confusing to someone not in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.25.213 ( talk) 12:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
it says it does not have subparticles but, nonetheless, what are they made of?-- 144.122.104.211 ( talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Each time I read about particles, I imagine myself dropping on the floor a jar full of electrons. You'd have electrons all over the place! So, I'd rather think of the electron as the 90 degree intersection of the dielectric (electrostatic) lines of force with the magnetic lines of force. Heaviside said so, and it keeps me sane. 67.206.161.189 ( talk) 20:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)