Talk:Truly neutral particle

Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments by Kharhaz

This article states, "In physics, a real neutral particle is a particle that is its own antiparticle. The spin, electromagnetic charge, weak charge, and strong charge of such a particle must be zero. An example is the photon."

However, photons have spin 1 and it's not obvious from the internal logic of the phrasing how to correct the error (just that there is one).

Could a physics expert please reword this to be correct? A bonus, of course, for expanding it as well.

Thanks!

--Kharhaz 10:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "spin" statement is just wrong. I will try to fix it. HEL 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone fixed that already. But there's another problem: the weak charges of the neutral pion and the neutralino are not zero. The Z boson is also its own antiparticle. The neutral kaon is not its own antiparticle. HEL 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: The statement "The electromagnetic charge, weak charge, and strong charge of such a particle must be the same as that of its antiparticle". Surely this isn't what was meant, given that by definition, a real neutral particle IS its own antiparticle. -User: Nightvid (unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.245.55 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference?

A quick google search doesn't find any use of this term. Can anyone provide a reference where this term is used? Mjamja (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is its own antiparticle, and is truly neutral"

Does this mean that these particles annihilate with another of their kind or does being "truly neutral" imply that they don't? Adding the answer to the article would be useful. 85.211.230.100 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of proposed deletion

I am unsure why the fact this is a concept and not research is relevant. This isn't a term that is used. A request for actual uses of this term has been added to the talk page 13 years ago with no responses. Trying to look up this term almost every result is just quotes of this wikipedia article. Almost no particle physicist would know what you meant by 'truly neutral particle' as it is not a term used in particle physics, and hence shouldn't be an article. I don't understand why the fact this isn't a term that is used in research means it shouldn't be deleted. Of course it isn't a term that is used in research, it isn't a term that is used. Pretty much the only case I can find of this term actually being used that isn't clearly just quoting this article is https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4976.pdf , and in this case it's more just a quirk of the author overusing the adjective truly rather than meant to be an actual term (e.g. in the same article 'truly exotic', 'truly being observed', 'truly one-dimensional', 'truly conclusive', 'truly unambiguous'). Perhaps a few people have made-up and used this term in passing, but it is not a term that is in any actual use within particle physics. There *is* however a term that is actually used for the concept that is actually being discussed here, majorana particles, and there is already a wikipedia article on it that contains all the information here and more, so there is no point in this article. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's two references using the term directly. Majorana particles would be truly neutral, if they existed, but that's a separate thing than true neutrality. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is just not a real term and the article is pointless (and not only pointless but entirely misinformative), but I'll leave it there as there's not much point spending time on it if there is going to be resistance to getting rid of an article that does nothing but misinform, since no one is really going to read this article anyway 81.107.39.90 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]