This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of particles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	List of particles is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted February 11, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Former featured list

This  level-5 vital article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

‹See TfM› Physics Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The listing of the Higgs Boson in the list of Boson present as being confirmed is misleading. A new particle has been found at the LHC which acts similar to some aspects of the predicted Higgs but is not within other predicted ranges of the Standard Model. Most particle physicists believe this new particle to be the Higgs, but it is not yet "confirmed" to be the Higgs as is suggested by this article, since many of the predictions of this new particle have not yet been observed, such as imparting mass. Until this has been confirmed to be the Higgs, it should not be listed as "confirmed" but rather "tentative" or some other indicator that more accurately reflects the current state of the particle discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.237.162 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2016 July 12 (UTC)

Complaining that, although already observed, the Higgs is not yet confirmed while ignoring a mention of "tachyons" which have never been observed, speaks volumes.

A particle six times as massive as the Higgs that is the requisite spin +2 for a graviton has also been observed, but has no place in the standard model, because gravitons were supposed to be numerous, but not "massive". This is the definition of something that doesn't "fit" any model yet. It is real, nonetheless.Danshawen (talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading on the Madala Boson predicted by the LHC to 3 sigma. Any movement on this? It seems worthwhile to add it to the theoretical particles list as there seems to be enough legitimate reference material out there as of today (IMO). Here's one: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/new-boson-that-interacts-dark-matter-has-been-predicted-by-scientists-1580132?yptr=yahoo Davidl9999 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that graviton spin is listed as 0 and charge is 2. This is the exact opposite of the [Graviton] page. Why is this? Error?

J Mark Morris (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table under "Hypothetical particles" now says Spin 2, Charge 0. Someone must have fixed it (not me). They could have mentioned that here. 180.150.36.211 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one mention of the lifetime of the particles? Why? 2600:8802:6400:13:4C7F:739A:CC4F:3739 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are nonsense (historical relict from the beginnings of the particle theories). The Standard model considers antiparticles only for particles of matter.^[1]

Neither W⁺ and W⁻ are antiparticles even if the description in the quanum field theory is sometimes similar to the description of the antiparticles. In fact they are originated from the electroweak isospin triplet W¹, W², W³ after the symmetry breaking.

As "self" it ispossible to call particles/antiparticles of some neutral mesons (e.g. π⁰) and tetraquarks (e.g. X(3960)), which are both composite particles.

The column "Antiparticle" for the elementary bosons should be deleted. Petr Karel (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wikiarticle Antiparticle has the same problem (both in the introductory text and in table Antiboson). --Petr Karel (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]