Talk:Subatomic particle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Energy isn't analogous to mass

"In Einstein's hypotheses, energy and mass are analogous: the energy of a particle equals its mass times the speed of light squared(E = mc^2 \,\!). That is, mass can be expressed in terms of energy and vice versa." ^That's simply wrong. E=mc^2 only applies in certain scenarios. E^2=M^2C^4+P^2C^2 covers all scenarios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus Rex (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Charts Charts and More Charts! They are worth 10,000 words

That chart is great! However, I need more!!! I am not a physicist, but I have a high interest in the subject. I have been reading about this stuff wince I was a child, but still don't have a full understanding of the relationships between all these particules.

What I would like to see, is either one chart or multiple charts that outline the naming convention of all these various particuls. Perhaps an interactive page with sub pages. Also, every term known such as quark should be somewhere on these diagrarms. I should be able to look at it and know what all these names in my head really are and how they all fit together. For example, By looking at the chart I do not know where the term fermion comes from, I do not know where the Higgs boson fits in, whats the difference between a boson and a W&Z boson. Also, where do mini blackholes fit into this chart? The electron isn't on this chart, where does that fit?

I would be happy to help create the interactive all inclusive chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslingor (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quark model

In the quark model, based on the discover of quarks by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964, there are other particles which more accurately describe the structure and function of atoms and molecules. Although this model is closer to quantum physics than chemistry, the particles listed below are based on the quark model of the atom. Fermions (composed of quarks & leptons)

• Leptons (not composed of quarks)
  • electrons
  • muons
  • tau
  • neutrinos (3 types)
• Hadrons (composed of quarks)
  • Baryons >
    • protons
    • neutrons
• Mesons >
  • pion
  • kaon

Bosons ("force carriers")

• Photon
• Gluon
• W+, W-, and Z0
• Graviton
• Antiparticles (Quarks and leptons have antiparticles; bosons do not.)

Reverted from page-blanking vandalism by 213.249.155.237. --128.138.96.118 02:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that using the quark model would be a good way to build this article. It should at a minimum strive to at least list all of the subatomic particles. At a minimum, all observed particles need to be listed, plus those stongly implied by the std model. The more speculative particles (ie Higgs Boson) should be so noted.

The anti-particles should not be listed among the Bosons. The positron is a lepton, and the anti-proton is a hadron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.146.244 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone of article

I notice throughout the article, it seems the tone is lecture-like. Does anybody agree with me? (Especially the information on subatomic particles as energy) 152.16.201.104 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) ~~ I concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.176.178 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lecture-like? If you mean like this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o then I agree. The article is garbage and most unangelic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.68.227 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Photons: Particles or Waves -- Correction

Light is no longer view as wave. It is just how the particals land in their places that create a look of a wave.

50. Particles and Waves Evidence that light can sometimes act like a particle leads to quantum mechanics, the new physics.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.253.97 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Visualisation

This recent edition by V1adis1av makes the article lack some educational information. This is how the Symmetry Magazine describes it:

Few facets of nature are more mysterious than the quantum world. Particles that appear and disappear from nothing, interactions governed by probability, and intrinsic uncertainties are enough to baffle even the most experienced scientist. Making these ideas even more difficult to grasp is the fact that no one can ever hope to see a particle—in fact, particles may not even have "looks" at all. Undeterred by these challenges, industrial designer Jan-Henrik Andersen set out to create a visual guide that anyone, from particle physicists to high school students, could use to navigate the quantum universe.

"The distance between Fermilab and the dinner table is getting larger," he says. "I want to aid communication between a larger audience and physicists, and make this fantastic and beautiful part of our world conceptually available to a broader audience."

Source: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000198. Does information like this really have not to be in the article? --ssr (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

== sub-atomic particles - a brief summary == draft for the main article

This is a simple and possibly over-simplified summary; those who wish to delve further should read more detailed articles.

The molecule is the smallest unit which possesses specific physical properties; it is made from atoms.

The atom is the smallest unit which can be obtained by chemical reaction; it is made of nucleons (both neutrons and protons) forming a nucleus with shells of orbiting electrons. Each of the 116+ elements and each of their isotopes has a particular and specific combination of neutrons, protons and electrons.

There is no complete theory of physics which defines and fits all the 100+ known and expected sub-atomic particles and the 4 forces into a single unified theory as at September 2008.

The well-known particles, Neutron, Proton and Electron, are currently calculated to make some 4% of the mass of the known universe (see Dark matter) . Therefore there are a lot of the other particles. The existence and behaviour of every identified particle and their relevant forces must be explained in order for a theory to be viable.

- - - - - - -

The 'lowest level' of sub-atomic particles has two groups: the Fermion (which has spin of 1/2) and the Boson (which has spin of 1).

The group of Fermions is made of 6 quarks (which have the Strong interaction), 6 anti-quarks and 6 leptons (which do not have the Strong interaction) and 6 anti-leptons.

The 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 4 identified Bosons are shown in this diagram.

Standard model of elementary particles. The electron is at lower left.

The 6 quarks, (Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom) combine to form the two Nucleons; these are part of the Baryon group which with the Mesons makes the family of Hadrons. Baryons are typically formed by a triplet of quarks. Many mesons are formed by the combination of a quark and an anti-quark.

The Lepton best known to the general public is the Electron.

The Boson which has come to public attention with the Cern experiments is the Higgs Boson. There is still uncertainty as to when or if the new experiments will detect this particle. If new and different particles are detected then new theories will be required.

Salisbury-99 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Word Choice and Edits

Although a poster above has commented on the lecture-like tone of the article, the tone now seems to have veered off in a stranger direction:

"The most angelic of these are the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, which facilitate us to elucidate calculations between particle interactions on scales of magnitude which diverge between planets and quarks[4]. "

First off, the word "angelic" gives the impression that someone is using a thesaurus and replacing lecture-like' words with the 'coolest' alternatives. However, this has the effect of causing the article to make no sense. I wouldn't worry if there was only one instance of this, but it seems to happen all over the article. Further, even after editing for word choice, this sentence is far too long and complicated. We need to keep things consise and simple, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchetypeRyan (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all this is real. Some people just type on here if they want to!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.169.17 (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with particles

As the article mentions, the common sense intuition of the notion of particle: "small round and silvery" is just wrong in particle physics. Thus it would be rather useful to explain what physicists actually mean when they use the word particle, and in what limits the intuitive notions are quite good and where they are quite bad. This should take out a lot of the mysticism in subjects, like wave particle duality and makes it easier to explain what it means for particles to be the composite of more elementary particles.

RogierBrussee (talk)

hierarchy chart

The hierarchy chart in the upper-right corner is helpful, especially after coming from List of particles, which confusingly differs from this page. The chart, however, is confusing in that it uses the same branching-line notation for four different kinds of relationships. Is a hadron made of baryons the way matter is made of quarks, or is a baryon made of hadrons the way a nucleus is made of baryons? The four different relationships conveyed are:

• bottom-to-top comprises - A hadron comprises quarks.
• top-to-bottom comprises - Matter comprises quarks and leptons.
• is-a - A baryon is a hadron.
• is about - QED is about electromagnetism.

The use of colored backgrounds works well for one is-a relationship. Maybe some more colored areas would help.

Incidentally, I am a non-physicist just wanting to get a sense of what common subatomic particles the world around me is made of. It is all atoms and photons, and atoms comprise protons, neutrons, and electrons, but what are protons, neutrons, electrons, and photons made of? From Wikipedia I just learned that photons and electrons are elementary, while protons and neutrons are composites of quarks, which are elementary. Would one of you physicists write such a summary into the article for the casual reader? Or maybe you can highlight the everyday particles on the chart somehow. Those four particles mean much more to us non-physicists than all the laboratory particles. IOLJeff (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How many sub-atomic particles exits?

The page says there are hundreds of them, to which I've added a fact template. On the Mathematica page, it claims Mathematica has a database of 1000 sub-atomic particles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) this is device useful in device application gniuis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.11.211 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not easy counting particles. There few fundamental subatomic particles (around 20), but a great deal of composite subatomic particles (see List of baryons and List of mesons). If you count these you end up with roughly a 100 of them (counting them this way is not very meaningfull however). But if you count all their excited states, then you can increase that amount 10-fold easily.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An infinite number of subatomic particles

Theoreticaly the riping of saubatomic particles can be done an infinite number of times. Ancient greek filosofers divised an atom to make things around them seem simple .They have been prooven wrong .Nowadays we know of more than a hundred .But surely we can go deeper than that . The deeper we can go in this knoledge the more powerful it gets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Permenent (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New Subatomic Particle discovered.

Ds3*(2860)- is the name. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/new-subatomic-particle-offers-strong-insights0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Subatomic particle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902025809/http://particleadventure.org/frameless/standard_model.html to http://particleadventure.org/frameless/standard_model.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030902215642/http://jgalvez.home.cern.ch/jgalvez/School/pdf/LM-WeakIteractions.pdf to http://jgalvez.home.cern.ch/jgalvez/School/pdf/LM-WeakIteractions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

New section/topic

These are comments/suggestions. I propose no change as yet. Given the options available to me, I'd like this to come to the attention of someone who can 'take it from here.' If I pick the wrong option, I hope no changes get made that can't be confirmed.

For some years now (since reading Pagels, The Fundamental Forces of Physics (or some such title, 1980?), I have been compiling a file that I call "No-Shows". (*) To date, my notes have focused on the discipline of elementary particle/astro-physics. (Not that it couldn't be expanded to, say, cryptozoology [critters that have been proclaimed, but (unlike the coelacanth) lack adequate 'scientific' confirmation]; (but, then that'd be a way different article from this one.) [Somewhat interesting to note that, upon a re-read of Edwards, Frank, Stranger Than Science, 1959 [1 of 4 books from this author on related 'weird' subjects; an outgrowth of his earlier, 15-minute radio broadcasts], I learn that [if true] the first claimed photo of the Loch Ness Monster was in 1932, with videos following later. Not that the local old-timer Scots claim visual sightings dating [way?-]back.] Well, one can enjoy (as I do) the scientific rigor applied to subatomic physics, while who knows what one might think they see under less-than-ideal (crepuscular, etc.) conditions, after long wilderness hikes; and who knows how much havoc environmental encroachment/destruction hath wrought on 'just barely hanging-on' biotic species.

And, gratifyingly, during my brief [68 years and counting] lifetime, many no-shows have either - been proven to not exist; - been confirmed (perhaps most notably, gravitations waves). Einstein: Yeah, theory admits these. But they are so pathetically weak that we'll never detect them. Well, recently, we have done just that! Nearly 100 years later, once the pioneering detectors were built, calibrated, and let loose to detect.

Can I attach this file? It includes - axions; - higher [than three 'cousin' classes of neutrinos; - string-based -ino dual particles to those observed to date; - heavier 'cousins' of the Higgs boson; - etc.

I think it would be cool for someone with the requisite knowledge to categorize the items on my 12-page list as - already disproven; - unlikely [though possible]; - likely [we simply lack the technology now]; - etc.

References are cited in the Word file that I can share. Admittedly rough, and needing work/review/editing for better readability.

Archive 1