This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
A fact from Particle decay appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
What happens after an elementary particle decays? Is it just gone?
Energy or creation of another particle. You guys still don't know why some particles are more stable than others, and what's behind the decay. "It just does" isn't sufficient. 98.165.15.98 ( talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
My comment will be specifically concerning the sentence:
This process continues until stable particles (electrons, or up and down quarks) are produced.
which might mislead some readers into thinking that up and down quarks are the final stable state for quarks. However this is not necessarily the case theoretically. See: [ [1]]. I suggest this can be rectified by inserting the word usually before "electrons, or up ..." to account for such exceptions.
Billyziege 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Billyziege
independent of the stability of strange matter the list is inappropriate in the sense that a) pions, neutrons,... consist of up and down quarks and are unstable, b) photons and neutrinos are missing.
In the formula for the decay rate (I think equivalent to what is called 'decay width' in particle phyisics) there should be a symmetry factor of 1/k! for every k identical particles in the final state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.17.101 ( talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys sure that a neutron decays (on average) in less than 900 seconds ? That would mean that atoms as we know them are all at least that unstable....
...Unless someone can theorize that they constantly recombine again inside the nucleus (which again would be strange, since expelled electrons might eventually escape). Or is a neutron viewed as "just a proton with a closely orbiting electron" thought to decay at the apogee (but that would make 900 seconds way too much)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.202.152 ( talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is using particle physics nomenclature which has a different meaning that particle decay in nuclear physics. Both concepts are perfectly valid, of course, but the meaning is not the same. I am presently editing the nuclear drip line page, so I may consider creating a nuclear particle decay page. However, in that case, I'd like at least a note at the top that say "did you mean nuclear particle decay" or so. More later, or I may do it myself. Thanks. DAID ( talk) 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
concerning their spin, mesons are bosons. hence the separation of particles into lepton / meson / baryon / boson is inappropriate. the four terms are just not in the same category. suggest to change it to lepton / meson / baryon / _gauge_ boson.
Currently, there are four things wrong with the first paragraph:
I'm aware of WP:DIY. I just want something to point to in the edit summary.
Dukwon ( talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Should strong decay link here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 ( talk) 09:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought proton and electron decay were hypothetical, yet the table lists a mean lifetime for them. It makes it seem like they do actually decay and it just would take a really long time. Maybe an asterisk would make this clearer. I would edit it but I don't actually know for myself whether these are hypothetical or not. Dimmerster ( talk) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The neutron lifetime on the table is contradictory with the Wikipedia article on neutron decay ( /info/en/?search=Free_neutron_decay), which describes the mean lifetime as unknown. WackyAurelionSol ( talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
A fact from Particle decay appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
What happens after an elementary particle decays? Is it just gone?
Energy or creation of another particle. You guys still don't know why some particles are more stable than others, and what's behind the decay. "It just does" isn't sufficient. 98.165.15.98 ( talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
My comment will be specifically concerning the sentence:
This process continues until stable particles (electrons, or up and down quarks) are produced.
which might mislead some readers into thinking that up and down quarks are the final stable state for quarks. However this is not necessarily the case theoretically. See: [ [1]]. I suggest this can be rectified by inserting the word usually before "electrons, or up ..." to account for such exceptions.
Billyziege 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Billyziege
independent of the stability of strange matter the list is inappropriate in the sense that a) pions, neutrons,... consist of up and down quarks and are unstable, b) photons and neutrinos are missing.
In the formula for the decay rate (I think equivalent to what is called 'decay width' in particle phyisics) there should be a symmetry factor of 1/k! for every k identical particles in the final state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.17.101 ( talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys sure that a neutron decays (on average) in less than 900 seconds ? That would mean that atoms as we know them are all at least that unstable....
...Unless someone can theorize that they constantly recombine again inside the nucleus (which again would be strange, since expelled electrons might eventually escape). Or is a neutron viewed as "just a proton with a closely orbiting electron" thought to decay at the apogee (but that would make 900 seconds way too much)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.202.152 ( talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is using particle physics nomenclature which has a different meaning that particle decay in nuclear physics. Both concepts are perfectly valid, of course, but the meaning is not the same. I am presently editing the nuclear drip line page, so I may consider creating a nuclear particle decay page. However, in that case, I'd like at least a note at the top that say "did you mean nuclear particle decay" or so. More later, or I may do it myself. Thanks. DAID ( talk) 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
concerning their spin, mesons are bosons. hence the separation of particles into lepton / meson / baryon / boson is inappropriate. the four terms are just not in the same category. suggest to change it to lepton / meson / baryon / _gauge_ boson.
Currently, there are four things wrong with the first paragraph:
I'm aware of WP:DIY. I just want something to point to in the edit summary.
Dukwon ( talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Should strong decay link here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 ( talk) 09:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought proton and electron decay were hypothetical, yet the table lists a mean lifetime for them. It makes it seem like they do actually decay and it just would take a really long time. Maybe an asterisk would make this clearer. I would edit it but I don't actually know for myself whether these are hypothetical or not. Dimmerster ( talk) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The neutron lifetime on the table is contradictory with the Wikipedia article on neutron decay ( /info/en/?search=Free_neutron_decay), which describes the mean lifetime as unknown. WackyAurelionSol ( talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)