1
$\begingroup$

I don't like the way the standard model is currently displayed (see second picture for reference). It does a poor job of abstracting the information into something understandable. As far as I understand, the three major quanta of elementary particles are mass, spin, and charge, with the latter two lending themselves to table-ifying (like so)

My idea for a table of Elementary Particles

To me, this makes more sense than most images I've seen (on Wikipedia, for example), but I'm wondering if there are major pieces of information missing from a table like this?

Current representation of standard model (a la Wikipedia)

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Aaron Stevens, StephenG, Emilio Pisanty, Qmechanic Jul 17 at 7:56

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There is no standard way to display the Standard Model. Why do you think charge is so important, when two of the three interactions in the Standard Model have nothing to do with charge? $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Jul 17 at 3:56
  • $\begingroup$ Your alternative table of the Elementary Particles of the Standard Model emphasizes the charge and spin relationships and includes masses, which are important ways to categorize some of the particle and force properties. Your table on the right relates all 3 forces and their action on each of the particles. I didn't see any omissions. Is there any force or particle you were unable to include in the two charts? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Lee Abshier ND Jul 17 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ You have stated, "the three major quanta of elementary particles are mass, spin, and charge." Certainly, mass is a quanta in the sense that each particle has a specific mass. But, as you note, mass does not table-ify well, which implies a more fundamental property that gives each particle its unique mass. Listing the masses of each particle is good for reference, but there is still something missing. Why do the Standard Model Particles have their mass? Is there a theory that predicts the mass of each of the Standard Model Particles? Current theory could not predict the Higgs mass. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Lee Abshier ND Jul 17 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ Your table suggests that the up-quark is an antiparticle. Makes sense +2/3 :) $\endgroup$ – safesphere Jul 17 at 5:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's more than one kind of charge. There's electric charge, weak hypercharge, and color charge. Why is electric charge singled out? $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Jul 17 at 12:59