Talk:Antiparticle

message: The spin of an antiparticle is equal to the spin of the corresponding particle, not its negative. In fact, the spin is never negative, only its projection can be nagative. I corrected the first paragraph accordingly.
Elad Tsur
May 25 08:08:56 UTC 2005
----
"below addition by xxxx" not necessary Mark - keeping it unattributed is part of the deal.  The record does show which user writes what though, and youd be wise to log in under a name (whatever it may be) to establish some sort of identity. This helps in a number of ways - including in our ability to talk to you through your talk page.  
Best, 豎眩sv</Strong>
----
Somebody just added a page for Chung-Yao Chao, and claims he's the discoverer of the first antiparticle, while this page says it's Carl Andersen.  Is the Chao page a hoax? -- Walt Pohl 07:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are spare, but it may be the case he was a student working at Andersen group. --Pjacobi 09:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is said in the supersymmetry article that "if the superparticles are found, it is analogous to discovering antimatter." Does this make any sense or is it mistaken for antiparticles?Mastertek (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Superparticles and antimatter

message: I changed "bosons (if they exist)" to "bosons".  The existence of bosons is not disputed.  Numerous bosons have been detected, including fundamental particles (such as the photon, W, Z) and composite particles (mesons, many atoms, etc.) -- Tim314 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosons 

message: Is there any problem with photons striking antimatter conglomerates (assuming that such an object existed) and being reflected and absorbed so as to illuminate the object? Would it look like matter, since it has all of the same basic characteristics? --HantaVirus 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as long as it didn't come into contact with matter.  I know people who are working to verify this with the Hydrogen spectrum. -- SCZenz 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we see antimatter? 

message: Well, if anitparticles would appear normally, meaning they would interact normally with light energy, how would they interact with warmth, or x or gamma rays? And would antiparticle clusters exist in the same forms as normal matter, solid, liquid, gas etc.?
: I Assume that by "warmth" you mean Infrared Radiation. IR radiation, X-rays and gamma-rays are all light but at different wavelengths.Dauto 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering... 

message: I would have enjoyed seeing somewhere in Wikipedia an in-depth discussion of the implications of considering antiparticles as moving backward in time, and of considering that there are no time differences between events in the time frame of a photon. The notion that there may exist only one photon (or perhaps one at each energy level) in the entire universe is particularly compelling. Could it be true, for example, that all interactions of elementary particles (and, therefore, all physical systems) are causally connected? David (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backward in Time 

message: Waht is the difference between a Neutron and an Anti-Neutron if they bothpossess no chagrge becasue they are neutrons? please explain in simple terms!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.175 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: This article seems to imply that the only difference between particles and anti-particles is their electromagnetic charge. Is it not the case that they in fact have opposite quantum numbers?
User: L Ollyver 15:30, March 25 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, you are right. Dauto (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite quantum numbers 

message: From the article:
I've come across different definitions of a 'Majorana particle'. Some sources list it as any particle that is its own antiparticle and some limit it to fermions. However, Majorana particles redirects to the Majorana equation, which is for spin-1/2 particles. This doesn't describe photons (spin-1) or gravitons (spin-2). Thoughts?
:I never heard the term"Majorana particle applied to a boson. Dauto (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Majorana particles

message: We have a pretty detailed understanding of the Standard Model.  I expect that an article on antiparticles would at least enumerate the elementary ones and go on to explain how compound particles also have/are antiparticles.  In the standard model, are photons the ONLY (elementary) particle to be their own antiparticle?  I strongly urge someone to rewrite the introduction to include reference to the list of particles with antiparticles, and particles without.  If I recall, this article doesn't even specify that atoms and larger "particles" do not have antiparticles?  (or do they?).  We should get the basics right.  The basics include the realm of discourse.72.172.1.86 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague to the point of uselessness 

message: The link to Antiquarks appears to be broken and I can't find one with a quick search. I recommend someone verify this and start an article on Antiquarks if it doesn't exist. GABRIEL FILMSTUDIOS (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently antiquark itself is a redirect to the main quark article. DavRosen (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Antiquarks article 

message: This parenthetical remark in the second paragraph of the introduction defies standard English syntax, and cannot be parsed: "(a kind of all particles usually interacted with is made of)".  I recommend deleting it.  (If you think it necessary or useful, a separate parenthetical sentence can be added to the end of the paragraph explaining that the vast bulk of visible, palpable matter is composed of particles rather than antiparticles; substituting a percentage for the word "vast" would be nice, if that is known or conjectured.)  --  Solo Owl   17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible remark 

message: Can it not be possible that there is a third thing besides particles and antiparticles that is made by the anhiliation of them.
A third thing can also be possible which can be force particle as bosons. 171.50.171.101 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not  a forum. Bosons may have antiparticles, just like fermions. The antiparticle of a W+ is a W-. The article describes self-conjugate particles which are their own antiparticle. Pls delete the comment. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  elementary particles 

message: It seems that his name is spelled "Stückelberg", but that many of his publications were made under the name "Stueckelberg". I have edited some parts of the article to reflect that, but maybe someone else should check that as well? Also, I believe that "it is inconvenient for me to spell his name correctly" should not be considered a valid argument to choose one spelling over another.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:25BD:9201:D986:96F3:3E88:13FD (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stückelberg vs Stueckelberg