Editing Talk:Particle (section)

== What is an elementary particle ==

In this article 
* {{Cite magazine |last=Weinberg |first=Steven |author-link=Steven Weinberg |year=1997 |url=https://purl.stanford.edu/pp223jq9682 |title=What is an elementary particle? |journal=Beam Line. |publisher=Stanford Linear Accelerator |language=en |volume=27 |issue=1}} 
Steven Weinberg makes the point that "elementary particle" is not an empirical finding but a construct or convention of theory. He starts out with {{tq|“What is an elementary particle?” I would have to admit that no one really knows.}} and he should know.

To me this is a much better source than what we have now:
* {{cite book |author1=D'Souza |first=I. A. |title=Preons: Models of Leptons, Quarks and Gauge Bosons as Composite Objects |author2=Kalman |first2=C. S. |publisher=[[World Scientific]] |year=1992 |isbn=978-981-02-1019-9}}

However @[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] however seems to disagree.  

I agree that the content I used should have appeared before the SM sentence. And we could change it to eg "The concept of an elementary particle is not based on measurements but instead depends on a theoretical framework." then go on with the SM bit. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:Just to clarify: my problems with "However it is possible that some of these [[preon|might be composite particles after all]], and merely appear to be elementary to scientists now." are: "preon" is hidden, the concept is dated, and the slippery nature of 'elementary particle' is omitted. The core issue is not "composite particle after all" but rather that elementary/composite is not empirically testable. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 01:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)


::I'm not locked on keeping D'Souza, but it fairly comprehensively reviews theories where quarks turn out to be composite (which are generally known as preons, [[Preon#Attempts|regardless of the specific type of model involved]]), so I don't see what is gained by removed that source. Were I disagree is the emphasis on the general faffing about related to the pre-quark model understanding of the particle zoo of the 1950s-1970s. While yes, which particle are considered elementary are to some extent model dependant, the current best model we have is the Standard Model and which particle are considered elementary in the SM is not ambiguous in the least.
	
::It comes down to the intended readership of this article. IMO, it should be generally aimed so that someone in, let's say 9th grade chemistry, can follow the vast majority of it. The specific details of which and how things are determined to be elementary or not can be left to [[elementary particle]]. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 01:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Or to summarize we should stick fairly close to KISS here. "Some particles are composite, some are elementary, this is the current state of things, but it's always possible what particles with think are elementary ultimately turn out to be composite." &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 01:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I agree with your final point. I think we should change this "particle physics" section altogether to be more concisely a SM summary. As it is the content is left from former versions. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 01:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)