Template talk:Particles

message: The new link to Particles Physics does only cover HEP particles and not Quasiparticles, so we should either extend the Particle physics article or link back to the list of particles, I prefer the latter. (Sheliak (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Particle Physics

message: Should they be included, especially since the Higgsino and Gravitino are included?Headbomb (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are included. --antiXt (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm blind as a bat.Headbomb (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Higgs and Graviton

message: Should the proton/neutron lose their charge sign? What about the W and Z? Should they both or neither have charge signs?Headbomb (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges

message: It appears dubious to list (Fadeev-Popov-)Ghosts as particles. In fact, they are just a "formal" device in the quantization of gauge theories. I would propose to remove it from the list of elementary particles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.107.3.163 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --TriTertButoxy (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree. --Michael C. Price talk 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghosts

message: Should links to the B Meson and D meson be added? There are these pages and its on the list of mesonsUniversehjc (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the B, D, phi, eta, and eta prime mesons.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B & D Mesons 

message: Hello. I spent some time using the Navbox and Navbox_subgroups templates to create the following, which I find easier to read left to right:
I just noticed there's also "Navbox with collapsible groups" template which might improve the above by arranging the collapsible groups to be "Elementary particles" and "Composite particles" or "Known particles" and "Hypothetical particles". 212.84.108.16 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. --Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too. I'll make it the main template. BTW anonymous user, how about you register and join the Physics Project? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version with more visible left-to-right hierarchy 

message: Should the Bs and Ds mesons be included into the template separately? In the B meson article, Bs are mentioned as sub-type of B meson, however a separate article "strange B meson" exists. My attempt to add Bs into the template was reverted. Goudzovski (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start a more general thread at Talk:Hadron for this. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ds and Bs mesons 

message: Shouldn't it be included? The table lists far more dubious hypotheticals, such as X and Y, Tachyons, etc.  The magnetic monopole, as a hypothesis, has a long-established mainstream history, and is still under consideration.  AFAIU, the magnetic monopole, if it exists, has a lowercase m symbol and is a lepton--not that it matters, as it would be included in the table under the Hypothetical heading, rather than under Leptons. Freederick (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote the word "proof" in capital letters.  It made me tingle with anticipation.  So where is the promised proof?  I'm still waiting. Freederick (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Magnetic monopole]]

message: For completeness, please include the antiquarks along side the quarks in the Fermion row.
JamesWilliamRowell (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from JamesWilliamRowell, 27 January 2011 

message: Should axions be added as hypothetical bosons? - PianoDan (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axions 

message: I was wondering if holes should be added since they are so often used in Solid State. Zak.estrada (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasiparticles 

message: I added them. Im almost positive they should be included but Im not quite certain yet exactly where, since these are both hypothetical exotic baryons (where I put it for now now) and experimentally observed topological quasiparticles as well. Id love to learn more so perhaps this mention will give that wiki article some love.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Skyrmions

message: Should the following be added?
* Hypothetical elementary particles:
** Mirror particles
** Unparticles
** A few other things featured in :Category:Hypothetical elementary particles
I ask because everything in :Category:Hypothetical composite particles is already featured. — MK (t/c) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to hypothetical particles 

message: I think E38 boson should be added to the list. 193.153.226.165 (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  E(38) boson 

message: Possible additions to the template? 67.171.222.203 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Inflaton]] and/or [[Instanton]] 

message: A suggestion that the full common names of many of the particles should be used and linked on the template, for better lay-reader identification and accessibility. All the quarks, for example, could be names, as could the electron and other commonly known particles. I've started with the Higgs, and bring this to the talk page for discussion on the format. Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: With no answers I went ahead and did the bold move thing, and I think it both looks a lot better and makes the contents of the template much more accessible to the lay reader. Some tweaks still needed (direct links to the page sections on antiquarks, etc.). Seem okay? Randy Kryn 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Full names now on template. The Omega meson doesn't have its own page but links to the list of mesons. Randy Kryn 17:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Full names for many of the particles?

message: Seems to be quite established now with the LHCb results. To "Mesons / Quarkonia"? Or do we make a new category "exotic" under discovered hadrons and put Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks there? --mfb (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetraquark 

message: I agree with this edit in terms of Tetra- and Pentaquarks, but I'm not so sure about the other things that went from "hypothetical" to "exotic" now. We don't have a convincing glueball discovery, skyrmions have been seen in solid-state physics but not in particle physics, mesonic molecules are just one possible explanation of the tetraquark states, and the dibaryons we know (in particular, deuterium and hypernuclei) are not exotic. Can we put tetraquarks to "Mesons / Quarkonia", rename "dibaryon" to "hexaquark" (it is a redirect anyway) and leave the rest under "hypothetical"? Ping @Dukwon. --mfb (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any strong opinions. Your suggestion works. Perhaps make "hypothetical" a sub-category of "exotic hadrons", replacing "others"? Dukwon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I grouped it in the same way as the elementary particles now. Hypothetical is one group, everything else follows from that structure. Technically tauonium has not been seen yet, but no one doubts its existence - it is just experimentally hard to produce. --mfb (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exotic vs. hypothetical hadrons 

message: This chart has an error, and has had one for a while. Please remove gravitons from the Hypothetical section and re-insert them where relevant, most likely in the Other section. Thank you.CAM o man (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravitons are hypothetical, so edit not done.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

text: There is no evidence of gravitons. They are expected, but no gravitons have been observed so far. Every observation so far is consistent with a classical (non-quantized) action of gravity. --mfb (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graviton 

message: Dual graviton, which is a dual of the graviton under electric-magnetic duality, should be included as hypothetical particle in the Elementary list, while Graviton and Gravitino are included. Grav25744535 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it, but not being a scientist don't know how accurate it is, either itself or its placement in this section, but the page seems to have adequate substance. Thanks for caring enough to point it out. Randy Kryn  00:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search hard enough, you can probably find hundreds of proposed particles, I'm not sure if we have to add all of them (most don't even have an article). --mfb (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While we have superpartners particles under SUSY, e.g. Gluino, Gravitino, Photino, Higgsino, Squarks, and Sleptons, we have dual particles under electric-magnetic duality, e.g. dual graviton, dual photon, dual Higgs, dual quarks, and dual leptons. The difference is that superpartners particles under SUSY have 1/2-reduced spin, e.g. spin-2 Graviton becomes spin-3/2 Gravitino, while there are no spin change from Graviton to Dual Graviton under electric-magnetic duality. Dual Matter is predicted under S-duality or electric-magnetic duality. Dual photons cannot propagate through the ordinary matter and ordinary 4-D spacetime. The only way which the dual matter and the ordinary matter can interact with each other is through the gravitional interaction. In the absence of any ordinary matter, a dual graviton can be introduced (see Gen.Rel.Grav.41:39-48,2009 doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0650-4). Dual matter exists only for D>4. Magnetic monopole is a kind of dual matter, i.e. dual of the electron under electric-magnetic duality, so it could be also called Dual Electron. --Grav25744535 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Supersymmetry is much popular than electromagnetic duality. --mfb (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot works in Supersymmetry, but works on electromagnetic duality started in 2000s. While Supersymmetry is much popular, Maxwell equations favors electric-magnetic duality in the nature. We have not detected any example of SUSY symmetry in the nature. While there are some examples of S-duality in the universe: magnetic and electric, gravitomagnetic (magnetic part of Weyl tensor, non-Newtonain gravity produced by fast spinning black holes) and gravitoelectric (Newtonian gravity). Grav25744535 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For the template it does not matter how much you like the concept or how elegant you think it is. The amount of work and attention matters, and there SUSY clearly gets much more attention. This is not limited to the past, it is true currently as well. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Graviton 

message: Dual photon that is a dual of the photon under electric-magnetic duality and a candidate for spin-1 dark photon should be included as hypothetical particle in the Elementary list, while spin-1/2 Photino is included. Grav25744535 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. I don't think we should add every elementary particle proposed somewhere. --mfb (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The work on dual electromagnetism received high citations in a short time, see Google Scholar: "Dual electromagnetism: helicity, spin, momentum and angular momentum" The concept of magnetic monopole without dual photon is meaningless. See this paper published in Science (journal), arXiv:1502.03319 and this work in Nature (journal) arXiv:1305.0570 Grav25744535 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 109 citations since 2013 is highly cited? For a key paper that is not much. Some random 750 GeV diphoton excess paper got 170 since 2016 - and that is just one of many models. And this is nothing compared to the amount of work that went into the other particles listed in the template. Just 7400 results for electro-magnetic duality. 33,000 for axion, 40,000 for graviton, 140,000 for magnetic monopoles. --mfb (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This paper Diphoton signatures from heavy axion decays at the CERN Large Hadron Collider is not a random statistics. There are different between 1-σ, 2-σ, and 3-σ see 68–95–99.7 rule.  local significance of about 3-σ means that 99.73% of the data within 3 standard deviation of the mean, which a high statistics. The paper, however, only presents a theoretical model for the recent ATLAS and CMS observation with 3-σ statistics (see 750 GeV diphoton excess), which reported a new boson with spin-0 and energy of 750 GeV, and may be responsible for strong CP problem in gluon interaction between quarks.Grav25744535 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing my point. You mentioned "high citations in a short time" as evidence for notability. I pointed to a random paper that is not particularly interesting, discussing a small excess that vanished with more data - and it still has more citations than the paper you linked to. Clealy 109 citations does not imply notability, especially if it is an important paper within that field. By the way: I contributed to the article you linked to, I am well aware of its existence. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Photon 

message: Can you edit W and Z bosons to be a category and have W and Z bosons redirect to respective pages (not created) and have the pages redirect to W and Z bosons pages? Icelk (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would improve it The category is clearly "gauge boson". Ultimately W boson and Z boson (the redirects exist, as you can see) should be separate pages. We could put them as separate entries here but then they go to the same page anyway. --mfb (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019 

message: I'm inclined to remove preon and X17 particle from the list of hypothetical particles. The former is historically important, but it's not seriously entertained as a hypothesis anymore, and the latter is borderline fraud. I'm not really sure what is the purpose of the template, though, is it about hypotheses that are currently seriously considered, or is it intended to be more general? Tercer (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Navigation templates like these tend to become "junk drawers", I think. There's no way to make inclusion criteria clear in practice, so new items keep getting dumped in. I'd like to remove X17 particle at least, to reduce the clutter slightly. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If consensus were to be reached about the inclusion criteria, that could be added at the top of the talk page. Hypothetically speaking. I'll just remove X17 particle then. Tercer (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing [[preon]] and [[X17 particle]]