Talk:Truly neutral particle

Comments by Kharhaz

This article states, "In physics, a real neutral particle is a particle that is its own antiparticle. The spin, electromagnetic charge, weak charge, and strong charge of such a particle must be zero. An example is the photon."

However, photons have spin 1 and it's not obvious from the internal logic of the phrasing how to correct the error (just that there is one).

Could a physics expert please reword this to be correct? A bonus, of course, for expanding it as well.

Thanks!

--Kharhaz 10:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The "spin" statement is just wrong. I will try to fix it. HEL 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, someone fixed that already. But there's another problem: the weak charges of the neutral pion and the neutralino are not zero. The Z boson is also its own antiparticle. The neutral kaon is not its own antiparticle. HEL 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Another problem: The statement "The electromagnetic charge, weak charge, and strong charge of such a particle must be the same as that of its antiparticle". Surely this isn't what was meant, given that by definition, a real neutral particle IS its own antiparticle. -User: Nightvid (unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.245.55 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference?

A quick google search doesn't find any use of this term. Can anyone provide a reference where this term is used? Mjamja (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"It is its own antiparticle, and is truly neutral"

Does this mean that these particles annihilate with another of their kind or does being "truly neutral" imply that they don't? Adding the answer to the article would be useful. 85.211.230.100 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of proposed deletion

I am unsure why the fact this is a concept and not research is relevant. This isn't a term that is used. A request for actual uses of this term has been added to the talk page 13 years ago with no responses. Trying to look up this term almost every result is just quotes of this wikipedia article. Almost no particle physicist would know what you meant by 'truly neutral particle' as it is not a term used in particle physics, and hence shouldn't be an article. I don't understand why the fact this isn't a term that is used in research means it shouldn't be deleted. Of course it isn't a term that is used in research, it isn't a term that is used. Pretty much the only case I can find of this term actually being used that isn't clearly just quoting this article is https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4976.pdf , and in this case it's more just a quirk of the author overusing the adjective truly rather than meant to be an actual term (e.g. in the same article 'truly exotic', 'truly being observed', 'truly one-dimensional', 'truly conclusive', 'truly unambiguous'). Perhaps a few people have made-up and used this term in passing, but it is not a term that is in any actual use within particle physics. There *is* however a term that is actually used for the concept that is actually being discussed here, majorana particles, and there is already a wikipedia article on it that contains all the information here and more, so there is no point in this article. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There's two references using the term directly. Majorana particles would be truly neutral, if they existed, but that's a separate thing than true neutrality. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is just not a real term and the article is pointless (and not only pointless but entirely misinformative), but I'll leave it there as there's not much point spending time on it if there is going to be resistance to getting rid of an article that does nothing but misinform, since no one is really going to read this article anyway 81.107.39.90 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no misinformation anywhere in this article. You don't like it, but that's not an argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, this article is entirely misinformation. Again, this is just not a term that is used in particle physics. Pretending it is, is misinformation. But this will be the last I post on this as luckily no-one will really read this misinformation (as no-one is really ever going to look this term up, since it's not ever used). Also, there is nothing in WP:IDONTLIKEIT that even comes slightly close to the reasons I have given clearly as to why this article should be removed, do not violate WP:AGF. 81.107.39.90 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Given there's two citations from solid particle physics textbooks that use the term "truly neutral" when discussing these particles, you really are arguing against reality here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Reason for Neutrino not being its own Antiparticle not entirely accurate

"neutrinos are not truly neutral since they have a weak isospin of ±½"

This claim is not entirely accurate, since a particle with weak isospin can very well be its own antiparticle (e.g. the Higgs boson). The reason that the neutrino cannot be its own antiparticle (i.e. a Majorana fermion) has not only to do with its isospin, but also to do with the difference of isospin (or equivalently hypercharge) between the left-handed neutrino and the right-handed antineutrino (which is 1 instead of ½). The Standard Model Higgs boson however only has ½ isospin. A neutrino with Majorana mass is possible, but would require a isospin 1 Higgs triplet. In conclusion, having weak isospin or hypercharge does not disqualify a particle from being "truly neutral", because isospin and hypercharge are not conserved. --Lukflug (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)