File talk:Particle overview.svg
Would it be a good idea or not to move 'Matter' to be a header for the left section, replacing it in the graph with 'Fermions', and do the same with 'Force carriers' and 'Bosons'? --80.192.11.119 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whoopsy, that was me. --MilkMiruku (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Graviton?
[edit]
Um, shouldn't that not be there. Or did I misread the graph? Was it supposed to be based on source material? Because there are no source gravitons because they don't exist. Gravity is the relative approximate inversion of what is really going on. Mass only 'appears' to affect 'gravity' because each and every particle brings with it an entire universe of suction. However, the suction is not the root cause. The root cause is falling into the particle from all directions. It is the strong interaction & it is not gravity, gravity is just a current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. Why are gravitons here?Destatiforze (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's where they fit in the scheme of things? The I.P.'s comments of are either untrue ("Mass only 'appears'..."), or make no sense ("Gravity is the relative approximate inversion...", "It is the strong interaction..."). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't read most of his post to be honest. I just think gravitons, as a hypothetical particle, shouldn't be grouped with the other experimentally-verified bosons. If we include gravitons, why not include the list of other hypothesized particles, such as tachyons and the higgs boson? Why only stop at the graviton? Destatiforze (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- These are just irrelevant to this figure. Tachyons are (hypothetical) particles whose defining properties are that they move faster than light. An electron traveling faster than light would be a tachyon just as an up quark or a W boson would be tachyons if they were traveling faster than light.
- I didn't read most of his post to be honest. I just think gravitons, as a hypothetical particle, shouldn't be grouped with the other experimentally-verified bosons. If we include gravitons, why not include the list of other hypothesized particles, such as tachyons and the higgs boson? Why only stop at the graviton? Destatiforze (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's where they fit in the scheme of things? The I.P.'s comments of are either untrue ("Mass only 'appears'..."), or make no sense ("Gravity is the relative approximate inversion...", "It is the strong interaction..."). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Higgs could be added I suppose, but the problem is that it doesn't really fit anywhere. It does not mediate a force, nor it is a fermion. The graviton is there because it's the force carrier of gravity, even if the maths of the graviton is not problem-free. Note that it's not the only hypothetical element included in the figure. Quantum Gravity, Grand Unified Theory and the Theory of Everything are also big hypothetical. And you can't leave out gravitons and quantum gravity out of the GUT and TOE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose not. I will defer to your knowledge of the subject matter, however, since you're probably more educated than I am. Destatiforze (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Higgs could be added I suppose, but the problem is that it doesn't really fit anywhere. It does not mediate a force, nor it is a fermion. The graviton is there because it's the force carrier of gravity, even if the maths of the graviton is not problem-free. Note that it's not the only hypothetical element included in the figure. Quantum Gravity, Grand Unified Theory and the Theory of Everything are also big hypothetical. And you can't leave out gravitons and quantum gravity out of the GUT and TOE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
