File talk:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg

Shouldn't uncertainties (confidence intervals) in the mass be noted? These are the ones that typically go down as new experiments provide more data. Not noting them is a misrepresentation of the mass. --IO Device (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In the electron neutrino, it should be written <2 eV. "Electron-Volt" not "Mega-Electron-Volt". --146.164.36.96 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ummm.... anyone know how to do this? I don't have an svg editor. Also, the data itself for the neutrinos is old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinian (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. /Lokal_Profil 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone introduce an extra blank column between the bosons and the quark/leptons? Otherwise people might think that the photon is associated with the "upper" quarks more than gluons etc. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A table of particles of the standard model should include the Higgs. where's the Higgs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know the same thing - where does the Higgs fit into this table??? According to CERN, the Higgs is "an essential ingredient" of the standard model . Well...? BigSteve (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to Higgs: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikifreehand.com/en/Higgs_boson#Theoretical_properties I recommend it is added as a temporary reference, until the graphic file is updated to display Higgs Boson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vichka (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So, 6 months have gone by. Have we figured out where the Higgs goes within the Standard Model diagram...??? Answers here, please! BigSteve (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version with Higgs. Dsperlich (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Weak force" is twice mis-stated as the name of the two force carrier particles whose names are the W and Z bosons. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

i am interested in making a better graphic in SVG format regarding the standard model of particles. I am however just an artist and a quantum physics enthusiast. So I have no really the right training regarding the information about the standard model. I would like to make the graphic giving a better idea to the laymen about what the standard model is. Any suggestions are welcomed.Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a point, but the decimal symbol has been changed as of the change to "3D". Given this is the English version of the file, the decimal symbol is the full stop, and the now used symbol is actually the number grouping symbol. Ergo, this is now factually incorrect. I shall now attempt to correct the latest version. 78.149.5.211 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I really should have signed in before posting that SEoF (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to propose an interactive version of this image, since it appears in the upper right corner of many fundamental particle pages, clicking on the particles will lead to the respective pages on wikipedia. 69.168.144.139 (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded DaveMudstain (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent idea. 23.16.127.171 (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Muon mass should be 105.7 MeV not 105.7 GeV. Dmytro (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, fixed. --Dsperlich (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What engine renders the SVG to PNG? It seems the fonts get lost in the PNG and the Greek letters look, um, weird. Can this be influenced somehow? ♆ CUSH ♆

It was pointed out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics that the Higgs spin changed in the design overhaul. Laura Scudder | talk 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The image is greatly misleading. As elementary particles, quarks shouldn't be rendered as triples blobs, likewise for gluons and W bosons. 47.54.237.28 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I gather that the reason that three blobs are shown for the quarks and 8 for the gluon is to emphasize that each of these particles comes in that many color variants. But why are we also showing the W as two blobs? Just for the W+ and its antiparticle, the W-? All the fermions also have antiparticles, so why not double them too?

The double blobs should not be there for the W. As you note correctly, for the gluons and the quarks they denote the colours, whereas for the W it is simply a particle-antiparticle pair. The electric charge should be enough for that. That said, I'm not convinced showing the colour charges with multiple blobs works fine; it makes the figure rather cluttered. But unfortunately at the moment I cannot think of an alternative. - Fatka (talk · contribs) 00:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What? The multiple blobs have been removed almost 2 weeks ago. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange, I could swear I saw them! Maybe a browser cache issue. - Fatka (talk · contribs) 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone (with more privileges than me) want to update the top mass, and perhaps the other parameters to latest PDG values?

Yup. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the current file is a bit weird compared to older versions (compare to this for example). I wanted to update the Higgs mass to the latest PDG value, so I simply changed the "126" inside the <text>...</text> tag, but that does not work! This used to work with the older version. I then tried to open it in Inkscape and found that the labels are not simple text objects. Apparently the "1", "2", and "6" were all separate (path?) objects. A comment in the file tells me the latest version is created with Adobe Illustrator. I find this non-standard svg format incredibly unfriendly for collaboration. Can you (Cush) re-adapt the file to something more standard? I think using open tools available to everyone should be the priority. Thanks. - Fatka (talk · contribs) 14:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The file contains the text as one hidden <p> of text and one visible <p> of outlines. This is the only way to make the SVG look like the PNG derived from it, because of the font issues with the renderer used by WP. I will see that I provide a Inkscape-version by the weekend at the latest. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I converted the file to Inkscape. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cush: That format makes it hard to change anything without inkscape. Can you update the Higgs mass to "~125 GeV" or "~125.1 GeV"? The top mass can get an update as well, we have a new measurement and two decimal digits don't seem warranted with an uncertainty of 0.76 GeV: "~173.3 GeV". --mfb (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Very good useful overall diagram. One thing missing that would make the diagram more complete would be the decay lifetimes of the different particles. It might also be useful to have boxes for the proton and neutron somewhere underneath, for comparison if nothing else. Hope that helps. Lucien86 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The quarks (apart from the top) and gluons don't have lifetimes in the conventional sense as they don't appear isolated. Neutrinos don't have lifetimes but oscillate. Electron and photon do not decay. That gives just 6 particles with a meaningful lifetime (muon, tau, top, W, Z, H). --mfb (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the top quark mass is now known to be 173.34 +- 0.76 GeV. Perhaps an update to the picture is in order. --IO Device (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a great idea to include this in the image. But I think photons and W bosons interact with each other as well, since the W bosons are charged (I can point to a reference if needed). So you could swap the positions of W and Z bosons (unless their vertical ordering is important for other reasons) and extend the photons' envelope to also include W bosons. Let me know what you think. Tushar Shrotriya (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is important! Please implement it for correctness, or remove the light yellow background bubbles! Thrawn562 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The upper bounds on muon and tau neutrino masses should be tightened. For example, given that electron neutrino mass is significantly below 2.2eV, muon and tau neutrino masses are also <2.2eV as the difference in the squares of the masses was measured to be very small. Dmytro (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Masses shouldn't really be quoted at all for the flavour eigenstates. Dukwon (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please make a suggestion, how the neutrino masses should be shown?

Also, cf the Commons talk page ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend just showing for each neutrino <0.120eV as listed on the wikipedia page for the neutrino. Perhaps with an added footnote that this is displaying the limit on the sum of the three mass eigenstates. It's really asking a lot for the graphic itself to fully display the difference between mass and flavor eigenstates, though, so the footnote may not be needed. At least the current version is still technically correct... limits are nice that way...2601:243:680:46E:E1D1:1BEF:9DAE:2CED (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to show the neutrinos above the charged leptons, to keep the implicit isospin doublet structure of the diagram intact. Right now the vertical axis has no meaning or maybe the order of masses, which are already explicitly given in the diagram, though. Thus, I think it would be good to use this degree of freedom to implicitly express the isospin structure. Due to the grouping of the particles indicated by the light round boxes in the background, one would need to shuffle most of the particles in the picture, to keep the optics clean. Specifically, leptons above the quarks, and weak bosons over photon over gluon. I already made the changes, so I could also give you the updated picture and you can check if you agree with it. Acrux13 (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded the edited picture separately to make the changes I'm talking about more clear. Acrux13 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems unfamiliar now. The isospin is not expressed in this chart (cf this one), and I see no advantage of this re-ordering. Also, please mind that this file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons and is to keep the recently added translations while maintaining the particle labels. I believe, discussions should be conducted there.
It seems the file was edited with a rather old version of inkscape, so the xml formatting and layering is re-ordered as well. The neutrino labels are no longer tight. I am not sure whether this came with the previous edit by Loupeter, as I have not yet had time to look into all the changes. I want to try if the translations can be made without repeating entire shapes and text blocks.
Does anybody else have comments? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I've posted this comment here, because that's where I got from the article. I'll put more thought into this next time and I also don't mind moving the discussion there. In fact, there was already a short discussion on that talk page and I think the the suggested reordering wouldn't be affected by the expressed concern whether they could still be easily grouped into the forces they are participating in. I also wouldn't support their argument that neutrinos have "less relevance" as they play a central role in the weak interaction (sun, radioactivity) and by extension the electroweak interaction. They are also the most promising parts of the SM when it comes to finding it's limits (neutrino oscillation and origin of neutrino masses, sterile neutrinos, dark matter, especially the 2018 miniBooNE findings).

With these arguments out of the way, why should it be changed? Isospin and the generations are kind of two sides of the same coin. They only make sense together as they describe the structure of the weak doublets and the weak interaction. So keeping one of them without the other seems irritating. It's not even necessary to write the numerical values down explicitly, if one wants to avoid a potential clutter. So, in the end it will come down to giving people a theoretically consistent picture or not. Since, the correct ordering doesn't add any complexity to the layout, I would argue that one needs a reason to have the incorrect picture up over the correct one.

As for the technical issues with the version I've uploaded: I apologise. I'm not very experienced with creating any kind of graphics beyond the scope of some simple sketches for presentations. However, I can try to improve the quality of the picture (I also noticed it looks a bit weird after uplaoding...). We would probably need to iterate it a couple of times, though. But I can do it, in case the personpower is the bottleneck here. Acrux13 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

See identical talk page entry at Commons.

I will shortly update the chart with the new measurement of the W-boson mass according to a recent Fermilab publication. In the same step I will remove the translations that were introduced with the SVG Translate tool. Although Wikimedia supports switch tags and systemLanguage attributes, most browsers do not. I have produced svg with a proper translation, but I failed to get any results in Chrome, Firefox, Edge. All browsers take the first language in the switch, regardless of any settings in the OS or browser. Also, the SVG Translate tool removes the proper HTML encoding for special characters and replaces those in part with the wrong unicode characters. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"photon" links to the "proton" page. I don't know how to edit this svg. So if someone could do that, thanks Renyu777 (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

IP User 71.191.244.125 made the erroneous change to the Template a week ago. I reverted it now. Thank you for the notice. ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So, why does the gallery in Other versions not work? All I see is a bullet list with the entries instead of a table-like display. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)