Talk:Standard Model

Number of bosons

The article currently contains the sentence "The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin 1⁄2, known as fermions." I'd like to see a similar statement somewhere in the article about how many bosonic elementary particles there are, if counted in the same physics-meaningful way. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Move page to "Standard model of particle physics"

This page should be moved to Standard model of particle physics. This is the full name of the topic of this article so this should be the title.

This page should instead redirect to Standard model (disambiguation). EDIT: To preserve existing links it's better to make Standard model redirect to the new page name.

The term "Standard Model" is very general. It can be use and is used to refer to a lot of different things in different contexts. Having this term as the title of this page is confusing to readers. Liiiii (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• oppose, that's unnecessary, and it's clearly the main thing called the "standard model".

Artem.G (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly the the main thing in the field of fundamental physics. I understand that people who are familiar with that topic think that this is how all readers see it. But Wikipedia in not an encyclopedia for only physics.

But readers who are not familiar with this topic and see this title in a different context will get no indication what this article is about.

Titles should give and indication about the topic of an article also in context outside the topic of the article.

Think about it: There is no clue in the phrase "standard model" that indicate that the topic is about physics.

The term "Standard model" is an abbreviation that is understandable only in the context of a certain topic. "Standard model of particle physics" is the full term. Therefore this should be the title of an article in a general encyclopedia.

Liiiii (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

well, but that logic we should rename all wikipedia articles. Lambda-CDM model (another entry from standard model disambig page), for example, is not understandable to people who've no idea what's Lambda and what's CDM, but that's not a good reason to invent new name. Artem.G (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a conflict ... what other article of similar or greater importance might we be tempted to name "Standard Model"? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The following is an answer to all the various comments. Thank you everyone for your opinions!

Please look at the top of the article. It has a template with the title "Standard model of particle physics".

That's the full formal name of the theory. "Standard model" a shortened term that is used colloquially mainly within the field of particle physics. The title of an encyclopedic article should be the full name. Using the colloquial term as the title is wrong and confusing.

"Standard model" is a general term that has a general meaning and is used in a lot of different fields. The following is a list of a just a few examples:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic)#Intended_interpretations
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model_(cryptography)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model_(set_theory)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Model_of_Cosmology&redirect=no
5. https://www.unescap.org/resources/standard-model-logistics-information-system
6. https://www.cdsmodel.com/
7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31556341/
8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752479/

The "Standard model" part of the name "Standard model of particle physics" refers to this general concept of a standard model. This general concept is the main meaning of the term. It is wrong and confusing to have an article about a particle physics theory to have this name.

I hope that this convinces you about what the most appropriate name for this article is. I will go ahead and perform the rename shortly if I don't receive any other objections.

Liiiii (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it is wholly inappropriate in every instance on Wikipedia to receive editorial objections from other editors, and respond with "I'll be doing it anyway unless someone else stops me". Plus, what does "full formal name" mean? We don't care about formal names, we care about common names. When "Standard Model" is used by itself in the English language, this is usually what is being referred to. That's how we decide what articles are titled. Please consult our relevant policy, which you have not yet demonstrated any familiarity with, before unilaterally making any decisions like this. Remsense诉 12:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Standard Model is the WP:COMMONNAME. There are certainly other ones out there, but when talking about the 'Standard Model', this is the one that's typically being referred to. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – as per above, Standard Model is the WP:COMMONNAME IlkkaP (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Shortcomings: neutrino oscillations

In the introductory section, where the Standard Model's shortcomings are listed, I noticed the following statement: It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses. I think this sentence might be partially incorrect. As I understand it, the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix, which describes neutrino oscillations, is in fact just part of the Standard Model. Should this be changed or am I wrong about something? KeelyMcBonk (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no consistent agreement in the field as to whether the "Standard Model" refers to a theory with massless neutrinos (and is therefore already obsolete) or a theory with arbitrary, empirically nonzero, neutrino masses. 00:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC) Patallurgist (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Particle Interactions

A logarithm plot of particles by wavelength and mass, as well as how they combine and decay into each other.

A recent edit removed the image listed on the left due to being "confusing". It's a plot of particles by mass and wavelength. They are in a straight line since they follow the Compton's wavelength. Colors represent the type of particle and the lines how they decay in each other: top quarks decay into lower quarks, w boson decay into hadrons, up and down quark combine into the proton and neutron. The extended chart of mass and size can encompass everything from molecules to planets. I believe it's of encyclopedic value and would like to reinstate it. Honestly it certainly helped me understand more how these particles form and connect to each other. Alex Van de Sande (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it because it is confusing, don't know what to add. I studied physics at university, and wrote a thesis on particle physics, and I never saw such diagrams in any textbooks. Let's see what other editors think. Artem.G (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

and the color-coding is wrong: mesons are not leptons. Muon, electron, tau, and neutrino are not hadrons, but leptons. Protons and neutrons are not leptons. And I didn't check the values or arrows. Artem.G (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Other issues: WIMPs are not confirmed; photons have zero mass. The x-axis represents wavelength, and the y-axis represents mass in eV, but mass and wavelength have an inverse relationship (de Broglie wavelength formula). The layout suggests a direct correlation. The decay paths are oversimplified - some hadrons decay through complex interactions and not in direct single-step transitions. I think if I'll spend more time I can find more errors, but I just don't want to do it. Artem.G (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible issue with diagram in "Gauge bosons" section

I think the figure "Interactions in the Standard Model" may contain an error: In particular, the "electromagnetic vertex" diagram has a fermion X whose electric charge changes sign across the vertex. This makes sense if time is seen as running from left to right, but not if time is seen as running from bottom to top (then charge conservation is violated). Nothing else in the figure depends on the orientation of spacetime axes, so I think the cleanest fix is to remove the +/– superscripts and leave the sign of the charges implicit. An alternative would be to state explicitly that time runs from left to right. But in that case, the +/– notation is somewhat inconsistent with the rest of the diagram; if we are indicating that the two particles have different charge directly on the particle's symbol, why not also indicate that certain lines are anti-particles using the standard "bar" notation (which should then apply to all fermion lines with arrows pointing up and to the left)? To avoid this inconsistency and keep things simple, I propose removing the +/– superscripts on the X's. WillGWiki (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The source cited, a CERN PhD thesis, includes the diagram as shown. The thesis is by an experimentalist who probably does not work with these diagrams routinely. Do we have an alternative source? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)