140:
414:
916:
all those properties, and now we know the mass experimentally. Erm. It would be tragic if the only thing we did, at the large Hadron
Collider or anywhere else, was to go on elaborating the verification of the Standard Model. And... The Standard Model is certainly not the end of the story, no-one thinks it is. It has a lot of unexplained features like numerical quantities, ratios of masses, we don't know where they come from. It doesn't include gravitation, which is a big thing not to include. Erm. And we are not, we are happy with it as far as it goes. We desperately want to go beyond it. And erm we may not be able to, in our lifetimes.
693:(The "oscillations" are observed for neutrinos but not quarks because neutrinos are very light, travel very close to the speed of light, so the wave packets of three mass eigenstate neutrinos drift apart very slowly, interfering with each other and resulting in easily detectable distance-dependent probability patterns in neutrino beam from e.g. muon neutrino factory. Whereas quark masses are noticeably different, so interference pattern is lost quickly, and quarks also hadronize (they are not in free flight on a straight path).)
245:
235:
214:
76:
709:
941:
Instead, I spent that time working with my friend Ben Lee trying to find an alternative theory that could account for the experiments. Iâm proud to say we failed, as it later turned out that the experiments were wrong. In the end, the issue was settled by a 1978 experiment at SLAC that confirmed the prediction of parity violation in the interaction of electrons with nuclei. After that, I think everyone was convinced that the standard model was correct.
324:
130:
109:
21:
67:
940:
I was confident that the theory was right, but my confidence was partly shaken by data from a number of experiments in 1976 and 1977 that were hard to make sense of within the standard model. In the spring of 1977, I ended up canceling a trip I had planned with my wife and daughter to go to
Yosemite.
879:
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
848:
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
1099:
The article currently contains the sentence "The
Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin 1â2, 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
829:
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
806:
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
931:
I donât know exactly, but I remember using the name in 1973 during a talk in Aix-en-Provence in France. I wanted to point out to my audience that we physicists had a pretty good picture of elementary particles by then, and we could use this âstandard modelâ as a device for interpreting experiments.
915:
Ha ha ha. Well I wouldn't say that either. But it works, and in an almost boringly repetitive way we keep testing it. The discovery of the Higgs boson a few years ago turned out to just fit what was expected. The
Standard Model predicts all of its properties except its mass, and it was found, with
767:
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...
689:
But the diagrams usually show "electron neutrinos" which are supposedly the result of electron's transformation. It is not. Electron transforms into one of three mass eigenstate neutrinos. When this neutrino is detected through some interaction, it transforms back to either electron, muon, or tau.
752:
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
737:
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
664:
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
1374:
No, it is wholly inappropriate in every instance on
Knowledge 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
690:
But when it is in flight, it's NOT "electron" or "muon" or "tau". If the distance from the source is very large (e.g. billion of light years) and if we'd be able to know when exactly neutrinos are emitted, time of arrival would be usable to determine which mass eugenstate was in flight.
646:
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
912:: We have a very good theory of all the particles and forces that we can study in the laboratory which I gave the name "The Standard Model", erm, which seemed to me not excessively immodest, I mean. Biologists have something called the Central Dogma and I was trying to avoid that
1353:
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.
880:
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
Knowledge is not the place to do such original research.
1304:
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.
1055:
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
580:
The image may even still exist on
Wikimedia. In which case, one could conceivably add the extra box for the higgs in the appropriate spot. If one were so inclined. Unfortunately my photo editing skills don't go beyond MS Paint. Or I would do it
453:
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
1231:
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
570:
I recall maybe 15 years ago, before LHC was even online, there was a really nice, clean graphic that displayed the particles almost as a periodic table. With rows for leptons, bosons, and quarks, organized by mass and
1194:
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 Knowledge in not an encyclopedia for only
607:
985:
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.
894:
In the cited YouTube video, Weinberg makes a number of interesting points relevant possibly to the Introduction of this Knowledge article. Here is the transcript as a basis for further editorial work:
1504:
1152:
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.
895:
814:
967:
648:
336:
629:
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.
1252:(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.
301:
665:
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
738:
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.
1494:
1060:
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.
1357:
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.
1509:
606:
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
1453:
1524:
1375:"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
574:
Of course, with the addition of the higgs, it is no longer accurate. But, it was really a fantastic resource because you could intuitively understand it at a glance.
460:
849:
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:
196:
1298:
567:
While I agree that the image is too busy, or technical for a lead, I think an alternative should have been found by now. It's been over a year, apparently.
1308:"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:
794:
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
1534:
291:
686:"down type leptons" (charged leptons) transform into "up-type leptons" (neutrinos), each with definite mass, with probabilities encoded in PNMS matrix.
1489:
1519:
186:
32:
1499:
267:
139:
1529:
1479:
1404:. There are certainly other ones out there, but when talking about the 'Standard Model', this is the one that's typically being referred to.
1204:
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.
863:
694:
1456:
which describes neutrino oscillations, is in fact just part of the Standard Model. Should this be changed or am I wrong about something?
899:
818:
1129:
1067:
987:
971:
652:
413:
162:
52:
1514:
258:
219:
459:
It is an extremely busy diagram, and definitely should not be in the lead, where it was. The simpler diagram that is still there (
80:
1484:
1284:
1140:
1114:
463:) is more interpretable. Without formal training I cannot even comment on the value of the removed diagram. Another diagram (
38:
610:, and marked the .jpg image as superseded. Because PNG is a lossless format, thumbnails of PNG files won't appear distorted. -
549:
1270:
Is there a conflict ... what other article of similar or greater importance might we be tempted to name "Standard Model"? â
489:
426:
348:
343:
153:
114:
89:
577:
I think if there is an updated version of this table, it would be a terrific replacement for the original lead image.
1444:
In the introductory section, where the Standard Model's shortcomings are listed, I noticed the following statement:
944:
i note that Weinberg's terminology evolves with physicists' increasing confidence: First he says "physicists had a
404:
1213:
Titles should give and indication about the topic of an article also in context outside the topic of the article.
1379:, which you have not yet demonstrated any familiarity with, before unilaterally making any decisions like this.
1332:
480:
The one here looks clear and correct to me (not 100% about the "left-handed" parts for the spin-1/2 particles).
360:
867:
683:
down-type quarks transform into up-type ones, each with definite mass, with probabilities encoded in CKM matrix
680:
Another problem is that in reality, lepton and quark sectors are completely analogous versus weak interactions:
1222:
Think about it: There is no clue in the phrase "standard model" that indicate that the topic is about physics.
698:
719:
I always thought it was arranged by mass, so the higher mass are higher on the chart. There should be enough
1071:
991:
536:
464:
43:
1461:
1082:
The template shows the Graviton only outside the SM context. I changed the template to adjust the caption.
539:
inscrutable. It's extremely hard to see what it's even about and I'm not even sure it's technically right.
400:
95:
773:
743:
670:
244:
1457:
1422:
1401:
1063:
859:
810:
526:
66:
1280:
1110:
1057:
585:
418:
266:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
161:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1425:
1409:
1387:
589:
545:
442:
366:
250:
234:
213:
1294:
The following is an answer to all the various comments. Thank you everyone for your opinions!
1257:
1181:
1020:
885:
835:
758:
498:
468:
48:
798:
he came up with the term ref1: This World and the Universe, Steven Weinberg, Talks at Google
1429:
1364:
1249:
1239:
1157:
617:
557:
450:
446:
381:
362:
323:
708:
853:
799:
795:
522:
850:
441:), including their names, masses, spins, charges, chiralities, and interactions with the
1271:
1146:
1101:
728:
637:
553:
145:
1473:
1405:
1380:
1038:
1030:
1006:
541:
1317:
1376:
1253:
1177:
1135:. This is the full name of the topic of this article so this should be the title.
1016:
881:
831:
769:
754:
739:
720:
666:
518:
481:
438:
1328:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Standard_Model_of_Cosmology&redirect=no
1322:
1172:, that's unnecessary, and it's clearly the main thing called the "standard model".
1084:
1001:
I agree. I can see what it's trying to depict but it's doing so in a poor way. --
1360:
1235:
1153:
612:
422:
263:
129:
108:
920:
And here is the interiew with Weinberg published in the cited physics journal:
803:
240:
135:
1333:
https://www.unescap.org/resources/standard-model-logistics-information-system
1452:
I think this sentence might be partially incorrect. As I understand it, the
1347:
1342:
1083:
724:
631:
467:) I find similarly inscrutable, and its value here could also be debated. â
1312:
364:
1034:
1002:
1313:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Interpretation_(logic)#Intended_interpretations
1297:
Please look at the top of the article. It has a template with the title
535:
I agree with Buckbill and Quondum. The diagram is too busy. I also find
1465:
1433:
1413:
1392:
1368:
1288:
1261:
1243:
1185:
1161:
1118:
1088:
1075:
1042:
1024:
1010:
995:
975:
903:
889:
871:
839:
822:
777:
762:
747:
732:
702:
674:
656:
641:
622:
593:
562:
530:
506:
471:
408:
158:
434:
399:
removed the following image (below). Is this image worth restoring?
927:
When did people start calling the whole thing the standard model?
707:
430:
412:
1031:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/File_talk:Standard_Model_Forces.png
1248:
well, but that logic we should rename all wikipedia articles.
367:
317:
60:
15:
856:
I'd say these are sufficient to include the extra sentence.
830:
mentioned above in the article, in the same History section.
1337:
936:
Did having âstandardâ in the name imply certainty for you?
417:
Standard Model of Particle Physics. The diagram shows the
723:
showing a similar chart to find out what is usually done.
1327:
854:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s
800:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnk0rnBQrR0&t=1080s
397:
1318:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Standard_model_(cryptography)
851:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE&t=435s
1505:
Knowledge level-3 vital articles in Physical sciences
1145:
EDIT: To preserve existing links it's better to make
41:
at the time (July 5, 2021). There are suggestions on
1323:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Standard_model_(set_theory)
392:
Diagram of Standard Model particles and interactions
262:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
157:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
966:. Worth a comment in a future terminology section.
1051:Four kinds: 1, 2, and 3 -- should be "Three kinds"
47:for improving the article. If you can improve it,
1124:Move page to "Standard model of particle physics"
1015:Agree. The image is confusing, and I removed it.
517:I'm the one who removed it. It is too busy, like
981:Unintelligible Image With No Explanatory Caption
461:File:Standard Model of Elementary_Particles.svg
1495:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
375:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1510:B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
946:pretty good picture of elementary particles
804:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y3DPJRVhE
1525:B-Class physics articles of Top-importance
1448:does not incorporate neutrino oscillations
1061:
857:
808:
208:
103:
1348:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752479/
1343:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31556341/
1454:PontecorvoâMakiâNakagawaâSakata matrix,
956:and in the next sentence he calls it a
896:2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:610A:7E9C:A09C:4125
815:2001:4C4E:2042:6B00:2B3A:6ADB:93AA:BFAD
210:
105:
64:
1421:â as per above, Standard Model is the
1029:The discussion on the image was here:
968:2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:4A2:E31C:DC2F:45F8
753:studied physics for 5+ years at uni.)
649:2001:56A:F343:2700:4917:1B72:E9E7:80C0
385:when more than 5 sections are present.
1139:This page should instead redirect to
521:said. Also, the image is low quality
20:
7:
1299:"Standard model of particle physics"
790:Who coined the term "Standard Model"
256:This article is within the scope of
151:This article is within the scope of
1440:Shortcomings: neutrino oscillations
94:It is of interest to the following
954:device for interpreting exeriments
802:ref2: World Science Festival 2015
14:
1535:Mid-priority mathematics articles
379:may be automatically archived by
276:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1490:Knowledge level-3 vital articles
322:
279:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
243:
233:
212:
138:
128:
107:
74:
65:
19:
1520:Top-importance physics articles
1149:redirect to the new page name.
1141:Standard model (disambiguation)
296:This article has been rated as
191:This article has been rated as
1500:B-Class level-3 vital articles
1:
1128:This page should be moved to
1025:09:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
1011:00:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
996:22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
872:10:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
840:07:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
823:20:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
778:13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
763:10:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
748:08:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
733:23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
675:17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
623:05:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
270:and see a list of open tasks.
171:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
165:and see a list of open tasks.
33:Natural sciences good article
1530:B-Class mathematics articles
1480:Former good article nominees
1289:21:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1262:14:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1244:11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1186:10:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1162:10:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1089:10:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
1043:14:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
976:17:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
904:13:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
890:06:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
594:17:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
174:Template:WikiProject Physics
1119:18:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
948:", this picture he calls a
421:of the Standard Model (the
1551:
1450:and their non-zero masses.
1076:20:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
197:project's importance scale
37:, but it did not meet the
1466:12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1388:
1338:https://www.cdsmodel.com/
712:StandardModel particleZoo
703:21:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
563:14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
531:13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
507:10:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
472:03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
409:19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
295:
228:
190:
123:
102:
1515:B-Class physics articles
1434:13:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
1414:13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
1400:â Standard Model is the
1393:12:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
1369:11:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
952:which he explains is 'a
657:13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
642:19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
302:project's priority scale
537:File:Standard Model.svg
465:File:Standard Model.svg
259:WikiProject Mathematics
1485:B-Class vital articles
713:
455:
711:
608:PNG file, uploaded it
416:
81:level-3 vital article
39:good article criteria
419:elementary particles
282:mathematics articles
1377:our relevant policy
1132:of particle physics
1058:Elementary_particle
154:WikiProject Physics
29:was nominated as a
963:model/device : -->
714:
456:
251:Mathematics portal
90:content assessment
1078:
1066:comment added by
874:
862:comment added by
825:
813:comment added by
620:
389:
388:
354:
353:
316:
315:
312:
311:
308:
307:
207:
206:
203:
202:
59:
58:
51:; it may then be
1542:
1390:
1385:
1276:
1250:Lambda-CDM model
1106:
1095:Number of bosons
1086:
621:
615:
561:
401:Isambard Kingdom
384:
368:
340:
339:
326:
318:
284:
283:
280:
277:
274:
253:
248:
247:
237:
230:
229:
224:
216:
209:
179:
178:
177:physics articles
175:
172:
169:
148:
143:
142:
132:
125:
124:
119:
111:
104:
87:
78:
77:
70:
69:
61:
23:
22:
16:
1550:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1470:
1469:
1442:
1381:
1272:
1130:Standard model
1126:
1102:
1097:
1053:
983:
942:
917:
864:157.181.170.114
796:Steven Weinberg
792:
611:
540:
503:
451:electromagnetic
394:
380:
369:
363:
331:
281:
278:
275:
272:
271:
249:
242:
222:
176:
173:
170:
167:
166:
144:
137:
117:
88:on Knowledge's
85:
75:
44:the review page
12:
11:
5:
1548:
1546:
1538:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1482:
1472:
1471:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1416:
1395:
1351:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1315:
1292:
1291:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1233:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1189:
1188:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1147:Standard model
1125:
1122:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1013:
982:
979:
950:standard model
923:
922:
921:
908:
907:
906:
892:
877:
876:
875:
843:
842:
791:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
717:
706:
705:
695:193.165.237.43
691:
687:
684:
681:
662:
661:
660:
659:
626:
625:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
582:
578:
575:
572:
568:
512:
511:
510:
509:
501:
475:
474:
396:A recent edit
393:
390:
387:
386:
374:
371:
370:
365:
361:
359:
356:
355:
352:
351:
346:
333:
332:
327:
321:
314:
313:
310:
309:
306:
305:
294:
288:
287:
285:
268:the discussion
255:
254:
238:
226:
225:
217:
205:
204:
201:
200:
193:Top-importance
189:
183:
182:
180:
163:the discussion
150:
149:
146:Physics portal
133:
121:
120:
118:Topâimportance
112:
100:
99:
93:
71:
57:
56:
27:Standard Model
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1547:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1475:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1449:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1423:WP:COMMONNAME
1420:
1419:Strong Oppose
1417:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:WP:COMMONNAME
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1386:
1384:
1378:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1269:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1232:encyclopedia.
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1142:
1136:
1134:
1133:
1123:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1059:
1050:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
993:
989:
980:
978:
977:
973:
969:
965:
962:Picture : -->
959:
955:
951:
947:
939:
935:
930:
926:
919:
918:
914:
911:
905:
901:
897:
893:
891:
887:
883:
878:
873:
869:
865:
861:
855:
852:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
837:
833:
828:
827:
826:
824:
820:
816:
812:
805:
801:
797:
789:
779:
775:
771:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
716:
715:
710:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
682:
679:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
658:
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
640:
639:
634:
633:
628:
627:
624:
619:
614:
609:
605:
604:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
573:
569:
566:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
538:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
508:
505:
504:
497:
495:
492:
488:
487:
486:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
391:
383:
378:
373:
372:
358:
357:
350:
347:
345:
342:
341:
338:
335:
334:
330:
325:
320:
319:
303:
299:
293:
290:
289:
286:
269:
265:
261:
260:
252:
246:
241:
239:
236:
232:
231:
227:
221:
218:
215:
211:
198:
194:
188:
185:
184:
181:
164:
160:
156:
155:
147:
141:
136:
134:
131:
127:
126:
122:
116:
113:
110:
106:
101:
97:
91:
83:
82:
72:
68:
63:
62:
54:
50:
46:
45:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
25:
18:
17:
1447:
1445:
1443:
1418:
1397:
1382:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1307:
1303:
1296:
1293:
1273:
1169:
1151:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1127:
1103:
1098:
1068:76.10.180.57
1062:â Preceding
1054:
988:81.107.39.90
984:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
943:
937:
933:
928:
924:
913:
909:
858:â Preceding
809:â Preceding
793:
663:
636:
630:
519:User:Quondum
499:
493:
490:
484:
482:
439:gauge bosons
425:, the three
395:
376:
328:
298:Mid-priority
297:
257:
223:Midâpriority
192:
152:
96:WikiProjects
79:
42:
31:
30:
26:
1458:KeelyMcBonk
427:generations
423:Higgs boson
382:ClueBot III
273:Mathematics
264:mathematics
220:Mathematics
53:renominated
1474:Categories
807:section?
523:Buckbill10
437:, and the
377:833.5 days
938:Weinberg:
929:Weinberg:
454:(bottom).
349:Archive 2
344:Archive 1
84:is rated
49:please do
1446:It also
1406:Sgubaldo
1383:Remsense
1285:contribs
1277:uantling
1195:physics.
1115:contribs
1107:uantling
1085:â CUSH â
1064:unsigned
910:Weinberg
860:unsigned
811:unsigned
586:VoidHalo
550:contribs
542:Headbomb
329:Archives
1254:Artem.G
1178:Artem.G
1017:Artem.G
882:Rmrwiki
832:Artem.G
770:Acrux13
755:Artem.G
740:Acrux13
667:Acrux13
647:agreed.
581:myself.
554:physics
469:Quondum
435:leptons
300:on the
195:on the
168:Physics
159:Physics
115:Physics
86:B-class
1426:IlkkaP
1398:Oppose
1361:Liiiii
1236:Liiiii
1170:oppose
1154:Liiiii
964:theory
958:theory
613:Mardus
443:strong
431:quarks
92:scale.
1100:you â
934:Host:
925:Host:
721:WP:RS
571:spin.
558:books
337:Index
73:This
1462:talk
1430:talk
1410:talk
1365:talk
1281:talk
1258:talk
1240:talk
1182:talk
1158:talk
1111:talk
1072:talk
1039:talk
1021:talk
1007:talk
992:talk
972:talk
900:talk
886:talk
868:talk
836:talk
819:talk
774:talk
759:talk
744:talk
729:talk
725:Gah4
699:talk
671:talk
653:talk
618:talk
590:talk
584:I h
546:talk
527:talk
449:and
447:weak
433:and
405:talk
1301:.
1035:Efa
1003:mfb
502:Ïlk
429:of
292:Mid
187:Top
1476::
1464:)
1432:)
1412:)
1367:)
1287:)
1283:|
1260:)
1242:)
1184:)
1160:)
1117:)
1113:|
1074:)
1041:)
1033:--
1023:)
1009:)
994:)
974:)
960:.
902:)
888:)
870:)
838:)
821:)
776:)
761:)
746:)
731:)
701:)
673:)
655:)
632:jp
592:)
556:/
552:/
548:/
529:)
483:Mâ§
445:,
407:)
1460:(
1428:(
1408:(
1389:èŻ
1363:(
1279:(
1274:Q
1256:(
1238:(
1180:(
1156:(
1143:.
1109:(
1104:Q
1070:(
1037:(
1019:(
1005:(
990:(
970:(
898:(
884:(
866:(
834:(
817:(
772:(
757:(
742:(
727:(
697:(
669:(
651:(
638:g
635:Ă
616:/
588:(
560:}
544:{
525:(
500:Đ
496:Δ
494:ħ
491:c
485:Ć
403:(
304:.
199:.
98::
55:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
