Talk:Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model

message: /Archive 1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.80.137 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

message: Section "Lagrangian formalism" first has a subsection "Kinetic terms" with e.g.
:i\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi.
Then, the next subsection is "Coupling terms" which contains e.g. 
: \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{EW} = \sum_\psi\bar\psi\gamma^\mu \left(i\partial_\mu-g^\prime{1\over2}Y_\mathrm{W}B_\mu-g{1\over2}\boldsymbol{\tau}\mathbf{W}_\mu\right)\psi
Well... the second formula contains the first as the first term, when you expand the brackets. This is not what the article implies: that fermion's terms are kinetic_terms + coupling_terms.
I propose removing kinetic term from coupling terms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.69.233 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove kinetic terms from coupling terms?

message: Thanks mostly to the contributions from this user, I've completely rewritten this article. Hopefully it is now somewhat cohesive and comprehensive, and will be helpful to some people. There are probably a few mistakes, especially with formatting, as I haven't edited much before.
I'd say the thing it lacks most is a good discussion of interaction terms, and probably also a few citations.
Cheers,
Euan 81.131.80.137 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewritten article

message: Neutrinos do not interact with photons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.175.12 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interaction Graph 

message: The blue arc between electrons and neutrinos indicates an interaction that does not exist. The relationship is one of grouping, not interaction. Someone should fix this. I recommend placing an oval around all the leptons, linking W and Z to the oval (indicating all leptons), and an arc from photons, crossing that oval, to the charged leptons. 129.67.118.100 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The diagram is now wrong for a different reason

message: The description of the Lagrangian is not in line with the linked description from einstein-schrodinger.com. Why not ? Forcefield2 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lagrangian 

message: Within the last several days, a group headed by Princeton has reported observation of Weyl fermions.  Is this a topic that should be mentioned in this article?  Articles I've read in media suggest it is a massless fermion that carries electrical charge. --74.38.77.101 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting find, but to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, that find would probably be more suited to an article about Weyl fermions themselves, or maybe something like quasiparticles or solid-state physics, as I believe the observation was not that of a "fundamental" Weyl fermion, but rather or a quasiparticle within condensed matter, which is qualitatively somewhat different.  I could be wrong, but I don't believe it's a game changer for the Standard Model itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.166.192 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weyl fermions 

message: I was reading some things about weak charge.  That article was just a redirect to this one, which didn't have any explanation, so I stubbed something for it based on a few papers.  I know what the magnitude of the weak charge is, more or less, and that you can tot it up in a nucleus, but it would sure be nice to get expert explanation of what it is, and its relationship if any to weak isospin and weak hypercharge and Weinberg angle and so on. Wnt (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly resist association of the weak charge stub to this article. This is an eccentric/parochial  usage used only in nuclear and atomic physics, and not in particle physics, defined in, e.g. .  It is but the vector coupling of the Z-boson to the nucleon, gV, whose currents are exemplified in the last formula of this article, and in W and Z bosons#Z bosons .  While the linked definition and reference could usefully be adduced in that stub, any mention of such here would only serve to muddy waters and confuse the reader. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak charge