Talk:Timeline of particle discoveries

	Physics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Higgs boson on the list?[edit]

Regarding the question of whether the Higgs should be on this list, well... No, it shouldn't. But it would then be the only Standard Model particle that wasn't, so I thought it made sense to have it mentioned in some way, and I put it on the timeline where it would fit. So I think it's ok as is, but if there are other opinions..?

Just found this page... in my opinon, a list of discoveries should not include speculation about the future and should just stick to history. So I think the Higgs should be removed from the list. Bodhitha 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "discovery"[edit]

Perhaps the article should start with a definition of discovery ... just a thought :)Abtract 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be defined? -- SCZenz 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what I meant was ... when can a particle be said to have been "discovered"? Examples: "1858 - Cathode rays produced by Julius Plücker (later identified as electrons)" ... but ... "1911 - Atomic nucleus identified by Ernest Rutherford, based on scattering observed by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden". So one is dated on cathode rays being produced whereas the other is dated on atomic nuclei being identified two quite different parts of the discovery process. Abtract 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physicists speak of the difference between direct and indirect evidence of the existence of a particle. For example an s-channel resonance at the Z mass in the cross section for a process, or a bump at an invariant mass for particles pair produced from a Z at the Z mass --- both are direct evidence; I believe one would classify the gluon discovery as indirect. This article should contain some discussion, as requested above, of what constitutes discovery, and of the different types of discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.27.23 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about events like the 'oh-my-God'-particle, without definitive evidence? Should they be mentioned in this list, a new list on this page, a new page or a list on another page? 2A02:A453:C8B7:1:3DC5:3F86:78FA:5FB (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hyperons[edit]

Why doesn't that page include a more complete list of the discoveries of mesons and baryons? The fact that they are not elementary particles should not preclude their listing, in my opinion. Dauto (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antihelium a nucleus or atom?[edit]

Antihydrogen is distinguished from an antiproton by the fact it has a bound positron. I think the STAR result just found an anti-alpha-particle or anti-He4 nucleus. Can someone check and fix the entry (to He4 anti-nucleus) if necessary? 130.246.132.178 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-b and Xi-b[edit]

These particles should not be included just because they have been discovered recently. Their discoveries have not been significant or unprecedented in any way, except to demonstrate the performance of the detectors used to discover them. These particles do not fulfill any of the three criteria listed at the top of the page. Aidansean (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I understand these are very significant discoveries for the teams who run these experiments, and they are undoubtedly the result of years of hard work. But they have no specific historical significance, and do not revolutionize our understanding of the natural world in any way. I'm going to remove them from the list in a few weeks unless someone offers a reason for them to stay. JanJaeken (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entries from the list. I'm still on the fence about anti-He4. Being the first particle to be detected at STAR is insufficient reason for inclusion, yet it is the first signal of an anti-alpha particle. The importance of the alpha could make this discovery worthwhile to mention, but I'm not certain. If anything, if it is to stay, it needs a proper citation. JanJaeken (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update for new Xi particles?[edit]

Does this page need to be updated for the new Xi baryons? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic hadrons[edit]

The timeline of the discovery of unambiguously exotic hadrons (particularly with heavy quarks) is a bit muddy, with later measurements often confirming the exotic composition of previously discovered particles. That being said, I think the X(3872), Z(4430), Pc(4380) and Pc(4450) probably deserve to be included as the first exotic mesons and exotic baryons. --Dukwon (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References for W and Z discovery[edit]

This reference [1] is provided for W and Z discovery. Is it really related and I just don't see how? Or is it a mistake? Bohdan Dudar (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]