Template talk:Standard model of particle physics

Reason for box

There are many scientists who contributed to the development of the standard model, and they deserve some recognition. Not all of them were interested in quantum field theory. Also, QFT is too general to get bogged down in standard model stuff. Renormalization group and statistical stuff is just as important.Likebox (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Feynman Diagram

I'm not an expert on it, but in the Feynman Diagram shouldn't the vertical axis be the time axis here? It seems to me that the horizontal axis is an x axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.119.59 (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JSquish recent change

JSquish massively expanded the template:

I personally prefer the old version. I think the new version so many links that it readers will not know what is important, and it will take up a disproportionate amount of space in an article, filling it with links to marginally-relevant topics. For example, there is no reason that someone reading about magnetic photon should need a direct link to the completely-unrelated article valence electron. (We already have Category:Particle physics for people who want to see a list of every single article.) What do other people think? --Steve (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also prefered the old picture, mainly becouse it is more "lively" and also becouse it pretty well reflects what the theory describes - scattering of elementary particles and conversion into others, etc. --Falktan (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture will not be changed back, there should certainly be done something with the Particle physics article. At the moment there is the same picture in it twice. --Falktan (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I reverted everything... --Steve (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but should the templates for the "Standard model of particle physics" and "Quantum field theory" really both have Feynman diagrams for their images? We might be able to find a new image for one of them, at least. --JSquish (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the image you switched to, as long as you spend a few moments switching other articles like Particle physics so that (when possible) articles don't have the same image twice. Unfortunately though, that image is misleading ... it purports to be the standard model particles but one is conspicuously missing!!

There is an ongoing conversation about getting the Higgs in there, one hopes it will be updated in the next few days. --Steve (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for not including all the anti particles? They are part of the Standard model even if you don't see any in the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.25.68 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make a change to the picture? Right now we have the charged leptons above the neutrinos, thus breaking the implicit isospin doublet structure. Depending on how much work that would be, I can also provide a (different) image showing the particle zoo, which keeps this structure. Acrux13 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here the thumbnail of the picture that I could offer:

Acrux13 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]