This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Particles template. |
|
Physics Template‑class | |||||||
|
What about to add Positronium and in what category ? Any Ideas ??
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 ... ;)
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))
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)
Should they be included, especially since the Higgsino and Gravitino are included? Headbomb ( talk) 16:18, 12 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)
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)
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)
Should links to the B Meson and D meson be added? There are these pages and its on the list of mesons Universehjc ( talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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).
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
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)
Should the following be added?
I ask because everything in Category:Hypothetical composite particles is already featured. — MK ( t/ c) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think E38 boson should be added to the list. 193.153.226.165 ( talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible additions to the template? 67.171.222.203 ( talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Now the pentaquark has been discovered, it needs moving out of the hypothetical section. Widefox; talk 11:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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'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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Particles template. |
|
Physics Template‑class | |||||||
|
What about to add Positronium and in what category ? Any Ideas ??
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 ... ;)
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))
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)
Should they be included, especially since the Higgsino and Gravitino are included? Headbomb ( talk) 16:18, 12 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)
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)
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)
Should links to the B Meson and D meson be added? There are these pages and its on the list of mesons Universehjc ( talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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).
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
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)
Should the following be added?
I ask because everything in Category:Hypothetical composite particles is already featured. — MK ( t/ c) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think E38 boson should be added to the list. 193.153.226.165 ( talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible additions to the template? 67.171.222.203 ( talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Now the pentaquark has been discovered, it needs moving out of the hypothetical section. Widefox; talk 11:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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'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)