Template talk:Particles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| Template | This article has been rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article is on a subject of high importance within physics. |
What about to add Positronium and in what category ? Any Ideas ??
- Sheliak
- It looks strange to have the positron listed, since it is just the anti-electron, yet we don't list all the other anti-particles. Any objection to removing it?--Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose to remove the signs for the mu and tau electron, as the articles cover both, matter and antimatter, (yes I know, the electron article too ... ;)
- Sheliak
- I prefer consistency to avoid confusion. How about we state on the template that the anti-particles are implicitly, but not explicitly, listed? The positron is accessible from the electron page. --Michael C. Price talk 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've added the mu+ and tau+ pointing towards the mu and tau articles, similar to how it was already done for the neutrinos. Is that OK with both of you? Mike Peel 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Even worse :-( Should we list the anti-quarks, anti-neutrinos? Perhaps even each of the quark / anti-quark color states? --Michael C. Price talk 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the mu+ and tau+ pointing towards the mu and tau articles, similar to how it was already done for the neutrinos. Is that OK with both of you? Mike Peel 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I would say that the antiquarks and antineutrinos should be added. Then we have a complete set of the known fundamental particles, all of which are certainly notable. Obviously, only the notable quark/anti-quark colour states should be listed. Mike Peel 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the anti-muons and anti-taus were linking the same page as the muons and taus I compacted the notation with the ± symbol.--Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- So where does that leave the Positron article, which now isn't linked to from the template? Mike Peel 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- High and dry, I admit -- although it is linked to from the electron article. I don't see any solution that is perfect. The problem is that there is no common collective noun for the electron and the positron -- except "electron", if we adopt the term "negatron", but that has never really caught on. --Michael C. Price talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to remove the ± symbols, because it is inconsistent, we will have to add antiparticles too, which is not so easy in notation any more in case of the neutrinos as it was with electrons and more important it would blow up the template (Remember it is/will be also included in Solid state physics articles (because of Phonons, Magnons etc.)). The other choice is to split the templates and just mentioned particles just important in elementary particle physics, but this will lead to a template, where I click on the let's say anti-muon-neutrino and get directed to the general neutrino page. So I prefer the first choice. Let's drop the positron, but highlight the importance of it somewhere in the electron article. Sheliak 14:20, 4 July 2007
- Agreed, drop the ± (except in the case of the W±?). One change that would be nice would be to group the quarks and leptons together, to emphasize the three quark favors and associated three lepton families. Long term splitting the template into elementary particles and solid-state quasi-particles is probably also a good idea.--Michael C. Price talk 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to remove the ± symbols, because it is inconsistent, we will have to add antiparticles too, which is not so easy in notation any more in case of the neutrinos as it was with electrons and more important it would blow up the template (Remember it is/will be also included in Solid state physics articles (because of Phonons, Magnons etc.)). The other choice is to split the templates and just mentioned particles just important in elementary particle physics, but this will lead to a template, where I click on the let's say anti-muon-neutrino and get directed to the general neutrino page. So I prefer the first choice. Let's drop the positron, but highlight the importance of it somewhere in the electron article. Sheliak 14:20, 4 July 2007
- High and dry, I admit -- although it is linked to from the electron article. I don't see any solution that is perfect. The problem is that there is no common collective noun for the electron and the positron -- except "electron", if we adopt the term "negatron", but that has never really caught on. --Michael C. Price talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- So where does that leave the Positron article, which now isn't linked to from the template? Mike Peel 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the anti-muons and anti-taus were linking the same page as the muons and taus I compacted the notation with the ± symbol.--Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that the antiquarks and antineutrinos should be added. Then we have a complete set of the known fundamental particles, all of which are certainly notable. Obviously, only the notable quark/anti-quark colour states should be listed. Mike Peel 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Contents |
[edit] Particle Physics
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))
[edit] Regarding templates
It would be better w/o templates since using templates results with links to the redirects.
There is no need to link to antimuon and antitauon, since they redirect to muon and tau lepton respectively, to each flavor of neutrino (electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino) since they all redirect to neutrino, and to W boson and Z boson separately since they redirect to W and Z bosons. In second (neutrino) and third (W&Z) case there is another drawback that there would be no bold unlinked name of the current article shown in the template when used on neutrino and W and Z bosons articles, so reader can't instatnly see to which group of particles do neutrinos and W and Z bosons belong by looking the template, while this is possible with other particles and it is always posible on the old way (w/o templates).
On the other hand, there is no clear advantage of using the templates. --antiXt (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I used the template because it is simpler to update the particle templates and have the change spread across wikipedia than to individually change each link in each page where a particle appears. For instance, if one day there is a page specially dedicated to muon neutrinos, then all you have to to is go in the template for muon neutrino and change the link there and all of wikipedia would be updated. Same if people decides that W bosons should have a separate entry than Z bosons.
- If there are redirects in the template, then let's just edit the templates to link to the correct page (for example the positron redirect to antielectron).
- Also, if it's better to bulk-link neutrinos together, then let's just do something like νe.νμ.ντ (or with nowiki [[Neutrino|{{SubatomicParticle|Electron neutrino}}.{{SubatomicParticle|Muon neutrino}}.{{SubatomicParticle|Tau neutrino}}]] , but if we do things my way, then when people highlight the particle, they get the name of that specific particle, which IMO is better than knowing with what "group" of particle it is associated. If people are curious about an electron neutrino and wonder what the relation with muon and tau neutrino is, then they will click on the link and they will be directed to the neutrino page that will explain things (or maybe a specific electron neutrino page in the future).
- I'll go back with templates and I'll check what redirect could be avoided. Headbomb (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Higgs and Graviton
Should they be included, especially since the Higgsino and Gravitino are included?Headbomb (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charges
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)
[edit] Ghosts
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)
