Talk:Standard Model

message: I added a sentence saying Steven Weinberg claims he came up with the term for what we call today the Standard Model and added this: Although according to Steven Weinberg he came up with the term ref1: This World and the Universe, Steven Weinberg, Talks at Google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s ref2: World Science Festival 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE but for some reason somebody reverted it. Why? Steven Weinberg is definitely an authority on the subject and I didn't say "SW came up with the term" but rather "SW claims he came up with the term" which is apparently correct, given his claims in the two videos. Shouldn't we have these in the history section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2042:6B00:2B3A:6ADB:93AA:BFAD (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims are not facts, and lengthy interviews are not very reliable sources. If you know any paper from the 70s (probably) where Weinberg used the term 'SM', it can be mentioned. But right now it's just useless, as anyone, even great physicists, can claim any thing they want. And besides, Weinberg is mentioned above in the article, in the same History section. Artem.G (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Claims are indeed not facts that is why the extra sentence never said SW came up with the term. But he does appear to claim he did, which is absolutely relevant as far as history of science goes. Again, I'm not advocating to include "SW came up with the term" but rather "SW claims he came up with the term". SW is not an arbitrary person in a random youtube video, but one of the key figures in the development of the SM. The sources, with specific time marks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE&t=435s  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s I'd say these are sufficient to include the extra sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.170.114 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The YouTube videos do show that Weinberg asserted that he invented the term. They are not unreliable sources and the flag for that should be removed. The question of whether Weinberg's claim belongs in the historical account is another issue. Weinberg was a prominent spokesman who presented topics in physics to the general public and his belief is worth reporting. What is really needed is well researched article in some journal that looks at where it first appeared in print or in a recording of a presentation. But Wikipedia is not the place to do such original research. Rmrwiki (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

text: In the cited YouTube video, Weinberg makes a number of interesting points relevant possibly to the Introduction of this Wikipedia article. Here is the transcript as a basis for further editorial work: 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:610A:7E9C:A09C:4125 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

text: And here is the interiew with Weinberg published in the cited physics journal:
 Host: When did people start calling the whole thing the standard model? Weinberg: I don’t know exactly, but I remember using the name in 1973 during a talk in Aix-en-Provence in France. I wanted to point out to my audience that we physicists had a pretty good picture of elementary particles by then, and we could use this “standard model” as a device for interpreting experiments. Host: Did having “standard” in the name imply certainty for you? Weinberg: I was confident that the theory was right, but my confidence was partly shaken by data from a number of experiments in 1976 and 1977 that were hard to make sense of within the standard model. In the spring of 1977, I ended up canceling a trip I had planned with my wife and daughter to go to Yosemite. Instead, I spent that time working with my friend Ben Lee trying to find an alternative theory that could account for the experiments. I’m proud to say we failed, as it later turned out that the experiments were wrong. In the end, the issue was settled by a 1978 experiment at SLAC that confirmed the prediction of parity violation in the interaction of electrons with nuclei. After that, I think everyone was convinced that the standard model was correct.
i note that Weinberg's terminology evolves with physicists' increasing confidence: First he says "physicists had a pretty good picture of elementary particles", this picture he calls a standard model which he explains is 'a device for interpreting exeriments and in the next sentence he calls it a theory. Picture > model/device > theory. Worth a comment in a future terminology section. 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:4A2:E31C:DC2F:45F8 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who coined the term "Standard Model" 

message: What is File:Standard Model Forces.png meant to even show? It is completely unintelligible. I will be removing it again if no one explains (both here and in the text of the article) why it is useful here. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I can see what it's trying to depict but it's doing so in a poor way. --mfb (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Agree. The image is confusing, and I removed it. Artem.G (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion on the image was here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Standard_Model_Forces.png --Efa (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintelligible Image With No Explanatory Caption 

message: There's a mistake in the "Elementary particles" chart. Under Gauge Bosons, it has the header "Four kinds", but under that header it gives three items numbered 1, 2, and 3.
Compare the nearly identical chart, in which there is an item 4, graviton, in the article Elementary_particle
Evidently graviton was removed in this article since gravitons are not part of the Standard Model, but then there are only three kinds and the chart should be revised accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.57 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The template shows the Graviton only outside the SM context. I changed the template to adjust the caption. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four kinds: 1, 2, and 3 -- should be "Three kinds" 

message: The article currently contains the sentence "The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin 1⁄2, known as fermions."  I'd like to see a similar statement somewhere in the article about how many bosonic elementary particles there are, if counted in the same physics-meaningful way.  Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of bosons