Talk:Standard Model

Template:Vital article

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 So I downloaded the image, coverted it into a PNG file, uploaded it, and marked the .jpg image as superseded.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)

According to my friend with a PhD in physics, this diagram is correct. My opinion is that it ought to be in the article, since it's perfectly relevant to the subject matter; I am re-adding it. jp×g 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is completely unintelligible without already knowing everything on it (and even then it is extremely difficult to follow and low quality), and it does not provide anything at all that isn't explained much better in the article/other images already. I am removing it as was already agreed.2001:56A:F343:2700:4917:1B72:E9E7:80C0 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I also have a minor problem with the current diagram. It shows the charged leptons above the neutrinos. I think it should be vice versa to reflect their order in the corresponding weak isospin doublets. I'm not sure if the current image can easily be modified to fit this because of the grouping that's shown in the background of the image. I could offer a diagram I made myself a couple of years ago (below the other one on the right). I can also upload it as svg if that's preferred Acrux13 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

StandardModel particleZoo

I always thought it was arranged by mass, so the higher mass are higher on the chart. There should be enough WP:RS showing a similar chart to find out what is usually done. Gah4 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I never noticed that this representation actually aligns with the order of masses. However, the masses are already explicitly stated in the corresponding fields, so ordering them like that seems a bit redundant. So, we might as well use this degree of freedom to implicitly express the isospin structure. A quick google search tells me, that the usual diagrams are split on this issue. Although, the diagrams I've seen in theses usually follow the pattern I suggested. Acrux13 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Though current diagram may be not ideal, it's still more readable and looks better. Maybe it can be just updated with whatever the consesus would be, rather that substituted? I can follow it, but the previous (current) one are easier for understanding. (I'm not a practicing physicist, though I've studied physics for 5+ years at uni.) Artem.G (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Updating the current one would be ideal, but it's something I can't do myself. However, I just discovered that there is a talk page for that picture as well, so I just offered an updated version of the image there. I apologise if I should have gone there directly, I'm still new to this... Acrux13 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2021 (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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.183.139.188 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The parameters listed are real values that can be continuously adjusted, so they don't include things like the quark charges which are rational numbers and are fixed at exact values. (e.g. if you try to change the down-quark charge from 1/3 to 0.333 then the theory breaks.) Patallurgist (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak interactions act on flavour?

In the table listing fundamental interactions it says that the weak interaction "acts on" flavour. I feel like this isn't entirely accurate. The W bosons act on weak isospin and the Z bosons act on a combination of weak isospin and electric charge. While weak interactions can change flavour quantum numbers, saying that the weak interaction acts on flavour, would imply that the interaction only depends on the flavour numbers (or species), as electromagnetism depends on charge. This neglects the fact that weak interactions also depend on chirality. --Lukflug (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that acts on would apply if there was dependence, but not the only dependence. Yes electromagnetism only couples to charge, but that doesn't mean that others can only couple to one thing. Gah4 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my terminology might not have been very precise. What I meant by "depends on" a certain quantity, is that the coupling is proportional to that quantity. I was just trying to argue that flavour is not analogous to electric charge in that case and it might make more sense to put weak isospin (at least for charged current interactions), since the coupling is directly proportional to this quantity. "Flavour" also isn't a clearly defined quantity. Not every flavour quantum number plays a role in the coupling strength, only weak isospin and weak hypercharge do. None of the "strong" flavour numbers, like Strangeness and Charm, play a role in the overall coupling strength to a particular particle (since the CKM matrix is unitary).

So, in conclusion, W bosons only couple to particles with weak isospin (the linear combination of photon and Z boson which couple to W bosons is part of the isospin triplet) and Z bosons only couple to particles with $T_{3}-Q\sin ^{2}\theta _{W}$. Saying that the weak interaction couples to flavour isn't wrong, but it might make sense to specify which flavour number. --Lukflug (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Who coined the term "Standard Model"

I added a sentence saying Steven Weinberg claims he came up with the term for what we call today the Standard Model and added this: Although according to Steven Weinberg he came up with the term ref1: This World and the Universe, Steven Weinberg, Talks at Google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s ref2: World Science Festival 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE but for some reason somebody reverted it. Why? Steven Weinberg is definitely an authority on the subject and I didn't say "SW came up with the term" but rather "SW claims he came up with the term" which is apparently correct, given his claims in the two videos. Shouldn't we have these in the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2042:6B00:2B3A:6ADB:93AA:BFAD (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Claims are not facts, and lengthy interviews are not very reliable sources. If you know any paper from the 70s (probably) where Weinberg used the term 'SM', it can be mentioned. But right now it's just useless, as anyone, even great physicists, can claim any thing they want. And besides, Weinberg is mentioned above in the article, in the same History section. Artem.G (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Claims are indeed not facts that is why the extra sentence never said SW came up with the term. But he does appear to claim he did, which is absolutely relevant as far as history of science goes. Again, I'm not advocating to include "SW came up with the term" but rather "SW claims he came up with the term". SW is not an arbitrary person in a random youtube video, but one of the key figures in the development of the SM. The sources, with specific time marks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE&t=435s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s I'd say these are sufficient to include the extra sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.170.114 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The YouTube videos do show that Weinberg asserted that he invented the term. They are not unreliable sources and the flag for that should be removed. The question of whether Weinberg's claim belongs in the historical account is another issue. Weinberg was a prominent spokesman who presented topics in physics to the general public and his belief is worth reporting. What is really needed is well researched article in some journal that looks at where it first appeared in print or in a recording of a presentation. But Wikipedia is not the place to do such original research. Rmrwiki (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Unintelligible Image With No Explanatory Caption

What is File:Standard Model Forces.png meant to even show? It is completely unintelligible. I will be removing it again if no one explains (both here and in the text of the article) why it is useful here. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I can see what it's trying to depict but it's doing so in a poor way. --mfb (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The image is confusing, and I removed it. Artem.G (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion on the image was here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Standard_Model_Forces.png --Efa (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Four kinds: 1, 2, and 3 -- should be "Three kinds"

There's a mistake in the "Elementary particles" chart. Under Gauge Bosons, it has the header "Four kinds", but under that header it gives three items numbered 1, 2, and 3.

Compare the nearly identical chart, in which there is an item 4, graviton, in the article Elementary_particle

Evidently graviton was removed in this article since gravitons are not part of the Standard Model, but then there are only three kinds and the chart should be revised accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.57 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)