Talk:Subatomic particle

Quark model

In the quark model, based on the discover of quarks by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964, there are other particles which more accurately describe the structure and function of atoms and molecules. Although this model is closer to quantum physics than chemistry, the particles listed below are based on the quark model of the atom. Fermions (composed of quarks & leptons)

• Leptons (not composed of quarks)
  • electrons
  • muons
  • tau
  • neutrinos (3 types)
• Hadrons (composed of quarks)
  • Baryons >
    • protons
    • neutrons
• Mesons >
  • pion
  • kaon

Bosons ("force carriers")

• Photon
• Gluon
• W+, W-, and Z0
• Graviton
• Antiparticles (Quarks and leptons have antiparticles; bosons do not.)

Reverted from page-blanking vandalism by 213.249.155.237. --128.138.96.118 02:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that using the quark model would be a good way to build this article. It should at a minimum strive to at least list all of the subatomic particles. At a minimum, all observed particles need to be listed, plus those stongly implied by the std model. The more speculative particles (ie Higgs Boson) should be so noted.

The anti-particles should not be listed among the Bosons. The positron is a lepton, and the anti-proton is a hadron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.146.244 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone of article

I notice throughout the article, it seems the tone is lecture-like. Does anybody agree with me? (Especially the information on subatomic particles as energy) 152.16.201.104 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) ~~ I concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.176.178 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lecture-like? If you mean like this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o then I agree. The article is garbage and most unangelic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.68.227 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Photons: Particles or Waves -- Correction

Light is no longer view as wave. It is just how the particals land in their places that create a look of a wave.

50. Particles and Waves Evidence that light can sometimes act like a particle leads to quantum mechanics, the new physics.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.253.97 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Visualisation

This recent edition by V1adis1av makes the article lack some educational information. This is how the Symmetry Magazine describes it:

Few facets of nature are more mysterious than the quantum world. Particles that appear and disappear from nothing, interactions governed by probability, and intrinsic uncertainties are enough to baffle even the most experienced scientist. Making these ideas even more difficult to grasp is the fact that no one can ever hope to see a particle—in fact, particles may not even have "looks" at all. Undeterred by these challenges, industrial designer Jan-Henrik Andersen set out to create a visual guide that anyone, from particle physicists to high school students, could use to navigate the quantum universe.

"The distance between Fermilab and the dinner table is getting larger," he says. "I want to aid communication between a larger audience and physicists, and make this fantastic and beautiful part of our world conceptually available to a broader audience."

Source: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000198. Does information like this really have not to be in the article? --ssr (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

== sub-atomic particles - a brief summary == draft for the main article

This is a simple and possibly over-simplified summary; those who wish to delve further should read more detailed articles.

The molecule is the smallest unit which possesses specific physical properties; it is made from atoms.

The atom is the smallest unit which can be obtained by chemical reaction; it is made of nucleons (both neutrons and protons) forming a nucleus with shells of orbiting electrons. Each of the 116+ elements and each of their isotopes has a particular and specific combination of neutrons, protons and electrons.

There is no complete theory of physics which defines and fits all the 100+ known and expected sub-atomic particles and the 4 forces into a single unified theory as at September 2008.

The well-known particles, Neutron, Proton and Electron, are currently calculated to make some 4% of the mass of the known universe (see Dark matter) . Therefore there are a lot of the other particles. The existence and behaviour of every identified particle and their relevant forces must be explained in order for a theory to be viable.

- - - - - - -

The 'lowest level' of sub-atomic particles has two groups: the Fermion (which has spin of 1/2) and the Boson (which has spin of 1).

The group of Fermions is made of 6 quarks (which have the Strong interaction), 6 anti-quarks and 6 leptons (which do not have the Strong interaction) and 6 anti-leptons.

The 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 4 identified Bosons are shown in this diagram.

Standard model of elementary particles. The electron is at lower left.

The 6 quarks, (Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom) combine to form the two Nucleons; these are part of the Baryon group which with the Mesons makes the family of Hadrons. Baryons are typically formed by a triplet of quarks. Many mesons are formed by the combination of a quark and an anti-quark.

The Lepton best known to the general public is the Electron.

The Boson which has come to public attention with the Cern experiments is the Higgs Boson. There is still uncertainty as to when or if the new experiments will detect this particle. If new and different particles are detected then new theories will be required.

Salisbury-99 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Word Choice and Edits

Although a poster above has commented on the lecture-like tone of the article, the tone now seems to have veered off in a stranger direction:

"The most angelic of these are the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, which facilitate us to elucidate calculations between particle interactions on scales of magnitude which diverge between planets and quarks[4]. "

First off, the word "angelic" gives the impression that someone is using a thesaurus and replacing 'lecture-like' words with the 'coolest' alternatives. However, this has the effect of causing the article to make no sense. Further, even after editing for word choice, this sentence is far too long and complicated. We need to keep things consise and simple, imho.