Talk:Standard Model

Diagram of Standard Model particles and interactions

A recent edit [1] removed the following image (below). Is this image worth restoring? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard Model of Particle Physics. The diagram shows the elementary particles of the Standard Model (the Higgs boson, the three generations of quarks and leptons, and the gauge bosons), including their names, masses, spins, charges, chiralities, and interactions with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. It also depicts the crucial role of the Higgs boson in electroweak symmetry breaking, and shows how the properties of the various particles differ in the (high-energy) symmetric phase (top) and the (low-energy) broken-symmetry phase (bottom).

It is an extremely busy diagram, and definitely should not be in the lead, where it was. The simpler diagram that is still there (File:Standard Model of Elementary_Particles.svg) is more interpretable. Without formal training I cannot even comment on the value of the removed diagram. Another diagram (File:Standard Model.svg) I find similarly inscrutable, and its value here could also be debated. —Quondum 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The one here looks clear and correct to me (not 100% about the "left-handed" parts for the spin-1/2 particles). M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 10:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it. It is too busy, like User:Quondum said. Also, the image is low quality Buckbill10 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Buckbill and Quondum. The diagram is too busy. I also find File:Standard Model.svg inscrutable. It's extremely hard to see what it's even about and I'm not even sure it's technically right. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• For some reason, the JPG file failed to render, and I kinda figured that it was the servers that failed to create the thumbnails. So I downloaded the image, coverted it into a PNG file, uploaded it, and marked the .jpg image as superseded. Because PNG is a lossless format, thumbnails of PNG files won't appear distorted. -Mardus /talk 05:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Nature on standard model

"Yet its failure to account for phenomena such as gravity and dark matter leads many physicists to think that it is merely an approximation of another description beneath." http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-signal-hints-at-cracks-in-physics-standard-model-1.18307

should this be put into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilagarcia (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Total particle count

Elementary Particles

	Types	Generations	Antiparticle	Colors	Total
Quarks	2	3	Pair	3	36
Leptons			Pair	None	12
Gluons	1	1	Own	8	8
Photon			Own	None	1
Z Boson			Own		1
W Boson			Pair		2
Higgs			Own		1
Total number of (known) elementary particles:					61

I removed the "total particle count" section. The table that was in it is preserved on the right in case someone wants to try to derive something useful from it, but right now I think it makes little sense. It certainly isn't true that 61 has any special status as the "correct" number of Standard Model particles. To get this number, you have to treat particles related by some exact symmetries (gauge symmetries and CPT) as distinct, and treat particles related by other exact symmetries (continuous Poincaré) as equivalent.

Here are some ways of counting particles (in the SM with neutrino mass) that seem more principled:

• If you count degrees of freedom of the field at a point, I think the best answer is 2 · 28 + 96 = 152 (see Luboš Motl's answer here, though he points out that you can argue for other numbers).
• [Original research; I can't find a source for this:] If you count fundamental (pre-EWSB) fields that are not equivalent under any fundamental symmetry, you get H + G + W + B + 3 · (L + ν + e + Q + u + d) = 22.
• [Original research; I can't find a source for this:] If you count post-EWSB particles that are not equivalent under any post-EWSB symmetry (essentially counting masses, except that gluons and photons are distinct), you get H + G + W + Z + γ + 3 · (ν + ν' + e + u + d) = 20 (assuming the Majorana coupling is nonzero; 17 if it's zero).

I don't really feel that it's useful to have any of these numbers in the article. They are the sort of thing that you memorize and regurgitate when playing Trivial Pursuit, not the sort of thing that is likely to provide any insight into particle physics. -- BenRG (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Did SM really predict the W and Z boson masses ?

History section says "The W^± and Z⁰ bosons were discovered experimentally in 1981; and their masses were found to be as the Standard Model predicted.[citation needed]" but W_and_Z_bosons doesnt seem to confirm the prediction of boson masses. - ... (Standard_Model#Tests_and_predictions mentions the prediction but with no source.) - Rod57 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

June 2013 comment above also queries this (says only the mass ratio was predicted) so the unsourced material was moved to that comment. - Rod57 (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

When was the Standard Model first defined and named as such

When was the Standard Model first defined and named as such ? [2] says "1974: In a summary talk for a conference, John Iliopoulos presents, for the first time in a single report, the view of physics now called the Standard Model. ... " Should we mention this in history ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

SM does not predict the number of leptons or quarks.

According to [3] "1976 : The tau lepton is discovered by Martin Perl and collaborators at SLAC. Since this lepton is the first recorded particle of the third generation, it is completely unexpected." - worth noting if verifiable with RS ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The third generation was expected after CP violation was observed. "The Standard Model" means the model with three generations. Just 2 or more than 3 wouldn't be the SM. It is a bit tricky to talk about prediction if it is a matter of naming conventions. It is easy to extend the SM to more generations but then it is not the SM any more. --mfb (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tests and predictions

You would expect this section to summarise the current status of notable deviations from the Standard Model. Currently there are 2 poor attempts at summarising press releases about minor results without even mentioning their wider context. For example, the R(D*) anomaly is one of several anomalies in B decays, and BaBar isn't the only experiment to measure it. --Dukwon (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearer image from CERN

I find that the current image at the top of the article could more clearly illustrate the connections between the fermions and bosons.

CERN standard model It has a more nuanced use of colour and negative space. Furthermore it more clearly associates the photon with the electron, the quarks with the gluons, and the mechanism producing neutrons with the neutrons.

In the current image these interactions are shown but they are a strain to discern for two reasons: the fact that they are forced into a single row and because of the lines being forced into the narrow space between the boxes.

The CERN charter states:

ARTICLE II : Purposes 1. The Organization shall provide for collaboration among European States in nuclear research of a pure scientific and fundamental character, and in research essentially related thereto. The Organization shall have no concern with work for military requirements and the results of its experimental and theoretical work shall be published or otherwise made generally available.

This seems to suggest that this material may be public domain. If so, we could use it directly. If not I would be happy to reproduce a similar image.

Craig Pemberton (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable improvement in clarity, particularly in clearly presenting the underlying interactions (strong, weak, electromagnetic) that work with each elementary particle. Does it make sense to show the graviton though? The old Standard Model image used on the page did not show it, due to its hypothetical, yet-to-be-proven nature. DarthCaboose (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That diagram seems to imply the photon and the gluon couple to the weak force. It shows that the quarks carry colour, but doesn't mention that gluons also carry colour. It also has the same problem with neutrino masses as the current diagram (quoting mass limits on the flavour eigenstates doesn't make sense). The spin and electric charge notation is inconsistent: there are zeroes on the neutrinos, but other zeroes (on the Higgs and gauge bosons) are omitted. There is no graviton in the Standard Model, so it shouldn't appear on a diagram representing the field content of the SM. Dukwon (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of CERN material that is not public domain, and the CERN charter is not sufficient to determine the status of that image. We can ask CERN. If we can use and modify it, I suggest the following changes to include Dukwon's points:

• Remove the Graviton
• Put the Higgs to the right of the Z. Change its mass to 125 GeV. Add its spin of 0. Extend the strong interaction box to the right, outside the weak interaction, and put the gluon in the new area that covers only the strong interaction.
• The color of the gluon is indicated by the background color of the overall gluon box (in the same way the photon background matches the charge corner color), but maybe there is a better way to show this.
• Keep the photon where it is. It couples to the W boson, that is electroweak enough to stay in the box I think. You could also call it electromagnetic, then the W has to move into the electromagnetic box. I think the current arrangement is better.
• Make the 0 charge labels consistent, no opinion on the direction.
• Make a conservative "<1 eV" for all three neutrinos. Yes, the flavor eigenstates are not mass eigenstates, but we know all three mass eigenstates are below 1 eV.

--mfb (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(gravity is not an unsolved question, changed word order)

There is a recent edit with the edit summary: (gravity is not an unsolved question, changed word order). As far as I know, a theory of gravity consistent with both quantum mechanics and special relativity has not been solved. I won't revert, but someone might want to look into this. Gah4 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Gravity?" is not an unsolved question - it is not even a meaningful question. "How to include gravity into QFT?" is one, but that is not the phrasing I changed. Gravity is a phenomenon not described by the SM, so I put the example of gravity next to the things not described by the SM. --mfb (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical background

The historical background section is short. It does not give any context to the theory, and now the article reads as if the theory emerged for no reason in 1961. I tried to add some information on the prior development of thermodynamics and the discovery of the Big Bang theory, and how the standard model because of this has a different scope than classical mechanics. I directly quoted Lemaître's prediction of early universe high-energy particles and the context of this prediction. I also asked for a better explanation of the "theoretically self-consistent" claim. The idea of mathematical self-consistency was so harshly criticised by Kurt Gödel that I think a citation or a comment is mandated by who reverted my addition of a tag. Alternatively, we do not move into this metaphysical difficulty, but in that case the "Historical background" part will need to be renamed to "Background". Narssarssuaq (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Standard Model is the Standard Model of particle physics. Particle physics didn't exist at the time you want to add, and it was not the result of the events you want to add either. It was the result of lab and accelerator experiments and the study of cosmic rays. This has nothing to do with the big bang, thermodynamics, classical mechanics, or general relativity. Add these things to the cosmological standard model if you want (but leave out the classical mechanics stuff and thermodynamics please, they don't belong there either). --mfb (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. "It was the result of lab and accelerator experiments and the study of cosmic rays" is an interesting way to put it. So they randomly figured out that they should do some random experiments based on random hypotheses and random observations and randomly came across a theory of almost everything? Not really, there was a historical and theoretical context to these observations and experiments, which in the dictionary genre may be of some relevance. I'll look more into the physics and see if I can contribute with something better than what I came up with, but it won't be now. Again, thanks for your valuable feedback. Narssarssuaq (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No one said anything about randomness, although many discoveries were unexpected. What was driving particle physics was based on lab experiments, not based on cosmology. --mfb (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so it rests on no fundamental assumptions. That sounds like a perfect environment for circular reasoning, but I will not investigate this further now. Narssarssuaq (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental assumption is that we can describe the world with physical laws. The rest is driven by experimental results. --mfb (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

hatnote

  I just made a mess of the initial hatnote, in correcting the way it had been confounding between IIRC the topic and the article. I can't recall the proper format for my repl't hatnote, nor look it up on this iPad 2, nor at the moment wake up the quasi-real computer, so a colleague's correction of my blunder is a consumation devoutly to be wished.
--Jerzy•t 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Status of gravity

When I talk to non-particle-physicists and non-physicists about what is and isn't understood in fundamental physics, I want to say something to the effect of

The standard model plus gravitons is a predictive and (as far as anyone knows) correct theory of fundamental physics that applies almost everywhere in the universe except for weird situations like exploding microscopic black holes or the Big Bang, situations that don't come up in the solar system, let alone in everyday life.

I'm not sure if that statement is exactly right or not, and this article doesn't really address it. So I guess my questions are: Is something like this statement true? If so, what are the exact situations in which "standard model plus gravitons" ceases to be a predictive & correct theory, ideally with those "situations" described in a non-technical way?

If it's true that "standard model + gravitons" is a predictive theory of all four forces, at any realistic measurement accuracy, everywhere on Earth and everywhere in the solar system ... but the article just says "The model does not explain gravitation", well I feel like the article is severely underselling the standard model in a very misleading way. --Steve (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Standard model plus general relativity. If you plug in gravitons in calculations you run into all sorts of problems unless you add your knowledge from general relativity to predict what should come out. The SM does not include gravity, that is a correct statement. It is equivalent to "electromagnetism does not include the strong interaction". Different things. --mfb (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I wrote "standard model plus gravitons". I remember from QFT class that there is such a thing as "standard model plus gravitons". I remember doing homework problems with Feynman diagrams of spin-2 gravitons scattering off of electrons etc. I am asking about the class of situations in which these types of calculations can be done and give predictions in agreement with experiments. I'm quite sure the answer is not "never". I vaguely remember that it only works when graviton interactions are at the tree-level or something like that, and I'm asking for confirmation, and for what situations that corresponds to in the real world. --Steve (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There already are articles dealing with the subject at Quantum gravity, Unified field theory, and Physics beyond the Standard Model. There is also a chart for that here. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The graviton is listed under 'spin 1' bosons, please change it by adding a spin 2 box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.33.50 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed it completely as it doesn't belong here. --mfb (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Anti-leptons not accounted for?

The article currently reads:

The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin ​1⁄2, known as fermions. According to the spin–statistics theorem, fermions respect the Pauli exclusion principle. Each fermion has a corresponding antiparticle.

Those 12 are the 6 quarks, the 3 leptons and their 3 non-charged versions. Now, where are the positively-charged leptons (ie, positron, antimuon and antitau)? Are they not included in the standard model? --uKER (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As it says, each has a corresponding antiparticle. They don't count separately, though. Gah4 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Despite that, the diagram explicitly refers to e−, μ− and τ−. Shouldn't the signs be removed and the mention changed that all three of them come in positive and negatively charged variants? Seems a bit arbitrary to explicitly mention the negative and neutral ones and leave the positive ones out. --uKER (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We call some of them matter and the others anti-matter. As well as I know, the theory behind that isn't well understood, other than the lack of CP symmetry in the universe. I wouldn't complain about ± symbols, but others might. Gah4 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what those particles are. I'm just trying to have the article make up its mind about whether the positively charged particles are considered and therefore needing to be mentioned or not. I always thought they were part of the model, but here the positive ones seem excluded. I'll go ahead and add those +/- signs. If anyone is against it we can always discuss it. --uKER (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Publications usually write "unless noted otherwise the charge conjugated mode is always implied" or something similar the first time a particle is discussed. ± everywhere can be annoying, especially if you have more complex things where the charge of one particle depends on the charge of another or similar (∓). --mfb (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but if ± is to be avoided, then we should avoid the sign altogether. Listing e- explicitly and not e+ doesn't make any sense. --uKER (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It is used for processes like $W^{-}\to e^{-}{\bar {\nu }}_{e}$ where you want to keep track of what is what. --mfb (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

All chemistry and physics books about atoms indicate that they are made up from protons, neutrons, making up a positive charged nucleus and orbitals of negative electrons. The physics would be just fine if books indicated that the nucleus was negatively charged, made from antiprotons and antineutrons, with orbitals of positrons. Yes the physics would be fine, but we live in a matter world, not an antimatter world. The tradition is to name the matter particles, while indicating that antiparticles for them exist. Gah4 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's some progress. If the particles' antimatter counterparts aren't a part of the standard model, maybe a note is due saying so. As it is, it's kinda confusing to have the anti-particles mentioned as existing but then absent from the model's listing. --uKER (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

They are part of the Standard Model. --mfb (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

They are just implied. The only complication would be particles that are their own antiparticle. In the table, the photon, Z, and Higgs are their own antiparticle. I suppose it might be nice to indicate that. Gah4 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead diagram somewhat unclear

Following on from the above, the lead diagram implies there are two gauge boson particles, Z and W, whereas there are in fact three: Z, W+ and W-. It also suggests a single gluon particle whereas there are eight. Not an issue for knowledgeable readers, but confusing for anyone new to it, since the text appears to contradict the figure. Suggest modifying the figure to show W+ and W- separately, with overlapping tiles for the gluons. Pinging Cush. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It generally doesn't show particles and antiparticles (like W+ and W-) as separate objects - the quarks are only there once as well. It also doesn't show the quarks three times to account for different colors, that would be the equivalent of showing 8 gluons. The diagram shows the types of particles only. --mfb (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs, the diagram is not meant as a substitution for the article. Additional shapes indicating color in quarks and gluons have been removed a few years ago. There is a chart showing particles distinguished by electrical charge here, but it is too big as the lead diagram for so many articles. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Diagram, again

Would it be sensible to include weak isospin and Goldstone bosons, or would this be to much for this rather simple diagram? Or maybe it would be good to include information from the diagram discussed above at Standard_Model#Diagram_of_Standard_Model_particles_and_interactions ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Interaction Diagram

I noticed that the interaction diagram is incorrect because it does not show that a Higgs Boson interacts with Neutrinos. The diagram needs to be removed and replaced with a correct one. Grayghost01 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It is unclear where neutrinos get their mass from. So far it looks like they have their own mass generation mechanism, independent of the Higgs. --mfb (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Number of particles- 17, 25 or more?

I often see the number 25 quoted for the number of fundamental particles even though our diagram implies 17.[[4]] 25 breaks down to 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 8 gluons, the Z boson, the W+ and W- bosons, the photon and the Higgs. I understand there's a few ways of counting this depending on how you include antiparticles, but at least we should acknowledge this "25" number as the commonly given number, and maybe explain other numbers. I did add this 25 number to the article but it was reverted. Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There are 17 little boxes in the infobox. Antiparticles are not double counted, so W+ and W- don't count separately. Also, particles with different color charge don't count separately. There are 6 quarks, not 18 or 36. (The latter including anticolors.). So also, gluons of different colors don't count separately, so they only count as one. Not completely obvious, but that seems to be the way it is. Gah4 (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

So why is 25 the number most often given? [[5]] Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also it's not up to us to decide how to count them, we should just state the number or numbers most often given and reference them. Volunteer1234 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

120 results for 25, 788 results for "17+fundamental+particles". I don't see how you come to the conclusion that 25 would be the most common number. Anyway, every counting method comes with problems, unless we have to we should avoid counting, and if we have to we should explain the method used. --mfb (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

mixing

It seems that there is no discussion related to Neutrino_oscillation, or quantum mechanical mixing in general. This also complicates counting. Since the matter and antimatter particles (states) are not always the eigenstates, it does seem to make sense not to count them separately. Gah4 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you count mass or flavor eigenstates, the number is the same in both cases. For elementary particles antiparticles and particles don't mix with each other, this only happens for composite particles like mesons. --mfb (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think I don't understand neutrinos enough to know, but otherwise yes. Well, since quarks only exist in composite particles, you can't ask what they do alone. As far as I can tell, though, there is no article that really describes mixing and mixing angles. Gah4 (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You can ask what valence quarks do and there is a clear answer. Quark-antiquark transitions would violate baryon number conservation (and also violate color charge conservation). --mfb (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated Standard Model Interactions

The picture showing the Standard Model vertices does not include Higgs vertices (I assume this is because of it's upload date in 2011 being before the Higgs was discovered so it was chosen not to include it). It does not make much sense now to have a picture of Standard Model vertices and exclude the Higgs. In addition the picture is a fairly low quality .png . I have attempted to upload a .pdf image which includes all the Standard Model vertices including the Higgs, Page 13, Figure 2.6 from here http://cds.cern.ch/record/2746537/files/CERN-THESIS-2020-219.pdf , with the description

"The above interactions form the basis of the standard model. All Feynman diagrams in the standard model are built from combinations of these vertices. The first row are the quantum chromodynamics vertices, the second row is the electromagnetic vertex, the third row are the weak vertices, the fourth row are the Higgs vertices and the final row is the electroweak vertices.
$q$ is any quark, $X^{+/-}$ is any charged particle, $\gamma$ is a photon, $f$ is any fermion, $m$ is any particle with mass (with the possible exception of the neutrinos), $m_{B}$ is any boson with mass. For diagrams with multiple particle labels on one line, one particle label is chosen. For diagrams with coloured particle labels the particles must be chosen so there is two of one colour in the diagram. i.e. for the four electroweak boson case the valid diagrams are $WWWW$,$WWZZ$,$WW\gamma\gamma$,$WWZ\gamma$. 
The conjugate of each listed vertex (i.e. reversing the direction of arrows) is also allowed."

but I am not able to upload pictures. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Illustration of Interactions of the Standard Model

The image used in this article here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elementary_Particle_Interactions.png has multiple mistakes with the electroweak bosons. The four electroweak boson vertices have been ignored, i.e. the photon and Z have directly self interactions through the yyWW and ZZWW vertex so there should be an arrow from the photon to the photon, and from the Z to the Z. In addition the photon and Z have a direct interaction with each other through the ZyWW vertex, so there should be an arrow between the photon and Z.

Ontop of this, the W is labelled as self interacting in this, presumably because of the WWy and WWZ vertex (since the four electroweak boson vertex self interaction for the others have not been considered), however in the same way that there is WWy and WWz, there is eey, eeZ (and other fermions) hence the fermions should all have a self interacting arrow as well.

Ontop of this there are numerous misleading but not strictly wrong things, for instance the choice to label the charge of the W but not the charged leptons, or label the neutral charge of the Z and H but not the other neutral bosons.

Ontop of this to someone not familiar with the topic, it implies that the graviton is part of the Standard Model ( Interactions of the Standard Model including the theoretical graviton makes it seem like the theoretical graviton is included in the Standard Model), and even if it was made more clear that the graviton is not included in the Standard Model, it is not an appropriate place for it to be considering it is very speculative and there are other connections that many would consider less speculative that aren't included (e.g. a direct coupling between the Higgs and the neutrinos). Note, I do not think a direct coupling between the Higgs and neutrinos should be included either (since this is not part of the Standard Model), but if we are including Beyond Standard Model effects there is no reason to include the graviton but not this (hence the graviton should be removed).

Also ontop of this, I am not sure what the rules are for "Descriptions" for images, but I do not think the description is appropriate, particularly this line "Note that the illustration has very obvious fivefold symmetry (pentagon and pentagram); perhaps this implies that the underlying physical theory of a Standard Model containing the Graviton gives rise to this pattern and may exhibit fivefold symmetry itself." which very clearly violates WP:NOR and is close to pseudoscience.

Overall with all the problems with this, this should be removed or remade. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just noticed there is essentially an identical other image also on the page, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elementary_particle_interactions_in_the_Standard_Model.png , that contains the exact same information with the same mistakes but it just presented slightly differently. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed these diagrams since they have so many issues and even if they were updated to not have these issues, they do not include any information that an updated File:Standard_Model_Feynman_Diagram_Vertices.png (which I have provided in the talk section above) does not include more clearly anyway. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Quark charges

Why quark charges are not parameters of the S. Model?