Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt :

What would be the list of the 61 elementary particles you mentioned ?

Regards !

Dear Franklin Uriel Parás Hernández!

I refer to to some papers of Herrman J. Scheuber on RG par example: Data Standardmodell h&v

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Gravitons-with-61-Elementary-particles-in-srereo-picture?_sg=0efTCOueOKcBWyP6xhoS749r9N9eKQ2pXZOeX4yVbZoHkXET-16AAJ3MeNzAKUCgPsCLHwm3SWTM2EVtcOM7MwCVixg3FmuvIk_x

I have not counted the elementary particles which are necessary in theory by myself but if you count the photon, 6 leptons, 6 neutrinos, 12 quarks, diverse bosons, gravions etc. maybe a number of 61 particles can be reached.

The source of the problem is that the standard model is very simple, no scheme is apparent and some of the particles within the SM are obviousöy not existing (quarks).

In other words: Theoretical particle physics has no basis!

My regards! Hans

The only way to understand atom, we have to consider atom intelligent. If we do so, the space of atom become intelligent as well. The reason that LHC did not go anywhere with it experiment in last decade, because they think an atom is a mechanical, and dumb element of our universe. they are absolutely wrong, and I wrote many letters to them in this regard. If our DNA is smart, an atom is smart. best

Javad Fardaei: Your answer is unhelpfully.

The concept of elementary particles is fast changing. Proton, neutron, pion, kaon ..... were once considered as elementary particles but now they are considered as composite particles, made of quarks and antiquarks. All matter is composed of leptons, ant-leptons, quarks and anti-quarks and the interaction between them takes place by exchange of gauge bosons. There are six leptons (electron, muon, tau, electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino) and the corresponding six anti-leptons. In addfition, there are six quarks (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top) and corresponding six anti-quarks. The interaction between them takes place by exchange of gauge bosons (photon, intermediate vector bosons (W+, W-, Z^0 ) and eight gluons), as per the standard model of elementary particles. These alone are considered as elementary particles.

Thanks for all answers. But I see many inconsistencies in particle physics. '61 elementary particles' mean the incredible amount of theoretically necessary particles. This is a fundamental contradiction to unification.

"Elementary particles" mean smallest, indivisible units with properties which allow to build larger and divisible units.

There are actual only two indivisible and undoubtful existing particles: Electron and positron.

"Quarks" are are unproven, "neutrinos" are a theoretical inexplicable amount of energy that caused transformations of nuclei (see also the link below). You can predict all kinds of particles with integer charge (W+, W-, Z0, Higgs, ...) and you'll find sooner or later particles close to the prediction if the interacting particle beams have enough energy. Such proofs are wishful thinking and unworthy in science. It shows the cluelessness in physics.

Electrons and positrons are able to interact, to build larger units and they become visible during the most decays of instable particles and defragmentations of nuclei.

I would claim that the 'Big Bang' of recognition lies in front of physics.

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

There are 17 elementary particles:

1)Matter particles:

1.1)quarks: up quark, down quark, charm quark, strange quark, top quark and bottom (or beauty) quark.

1.2) leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino.

2) Forces and carrier particles: gluon, photon, W and Z bosons.

Although not yet found, the “graviton” should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity.

3) Mass generation: Higgs boson.

Source: https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt my arguments are along the lines of Oswaldo's :

First of all, to elucidate the list of the 61 elementary particles you may be counting:

you are probably considering a fourth charged lepton, which no experimental evidence exist for its observation.

You may be considering a fourth neutrino too, the near relative of this unexistent fourth lepton. So, this fourth neutrino is a total speculation too.

Next, you may be accounting for the 4 antiparticles of the above mentioned four leptons, so in nature there exist just 3 of this 4 antiparticles.

we have eliminated 3 of the list of the 61 particles so far.

So, all the Leptons make a sum of = 9 particles

Next, the Gauge Boson:

1 Higgs Boson (the one discovered in 2012 in the LHC), the Photon, the Z, 8 Gluons and the W+ and W- sum of : 13 Gauge Bosons

Next, the list of Quarks, there are some models out there for other proposed symmetries which is possible to propose models with more than 6 Quarks in nature. But this hasn't been observed in experiments. Just 6 Quarks have been experimentally observed:

The Up, the Down, Charm, Strange, Bottom and the Top quark, plus its corresponding antiparticles. this is equal to 12 particles (the 6 mentioned Quarks and its corresponding anti-quarks).

The sum of all this is:

12 Quarks + 6 Charged Leptons + 3 Neutrinos + 13 Gauge Bosons = 37 elementary particles.

Beside this, one can extend the list of elementary particles considering particle's chirality:

This is: every particle with non-zero mass, and non-zero spin has another quantum property called Chirality, this property defines the Helicity of an elementary particle and is the reason the charged leptons can interact with another fields (the Z field in particular). Anyways, you can separate the charged Leptons and the Quarks into:

a Right-handed electron, right-handed muon and right-handed Tau and its corresponding Left-handed particles, same with the six Quarks.

This will add another 3 + 6 elementary particles to the list.

37 original Particles + the 9 extra considering quantum Chirality = 46 Elementary particles.

Something worth to say:

There are theoretical arguments which stablish that the 3 neutrinos have to have its corresponding pairs of Left-handed and Right-handed, but for each neutrino both of these particles have never been observed in experiments, and there are a few looking for this elucidate neutrino (this could help us to explain the likely huge asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the Universe, if we find it).

Another interesting point to remark is:

46 Elementary particles in this list, considering the properties I have explained so far, but, if we get to consider Quantum Fields instead of particles, this list would be reduced to the 17 particles listed by the Standar Model:

- Since Particles and Antiparticles come both from the same Quantum Field.

- and Right Handed particles and Left Handed particles of a same particle emerge also from the same Quantum Field.

So, with the point of view of Quantum Fields (instead of the Particle description of nature) we get the 17 "elementary" Quantum Fields the Standar Model is composed of, which is the list our colleague Oswaldo Artiles had announced.

Kind Regards to all !

Franklin Uriel Parás Hernández: A number of 61 theoretical necessary particles would be possible including the gluons .

But I have not exactly counted all the particles by myself. I refer to to some papers of Herrman J. Scheuber on RG.

My question refers to the problem that such a large amount of different particles (partially without any evidence!) is the base of understanding matter. What would be the base of 'Dark Matter' or 'Matter of Black Holes' if they really would exist?

My Regards! Hans

Dear Hans-G:

You get the list of the 61 particles if you count 8 Gluons. This is not a problem, as long as you make the pertinent clarification that you are considering each of the 8 Gluons as separated particles. Personally, I don't think you can gain any valuable insight in doing this.

What makes this model to be problematic is the need to explain where the 4th charged Lepton, the 4th Neutrino and the additional 24 Quarks come from

"My question refers to the problem that such a large amount of different particles is the base of understanding matter"

I'm sure more colleagues would agree with me when I say that the best and most simpler answer to your question is:

We don't know, and no one knows. And, maybe we will never know, we don't know.

Maybe the ultimate answer to this question is: "Because nature decided to be like that, without any particular reason"

Is like the question: Why there are three generations of particles in the group of Leptons, and not two ? or Why the Universe has 3 Dimension of space and not another number of dimensions ?

Maybe the answers to these kind of questions is a simple: There is no reason.

I really believe we have to consider these kind of answers when we question ourselves with the fundamental questions of nature and the Universe.

Best Regards !

Dear Franklin!

To say: " We don't know, and no one knows. And, maybe we will never know, we don't know." is no answer. This is a capitulation. Without me!

Leave the doctrine and forget all the theories.

We have not to theorize about the reality and not to invent dozens of additional particles in theoretical need. We have to analyse all the manifold observations.

- All particle decays ending at least in electrons, positrons and energy. (Analysis)

- High energetical electrons and positrons combine to particles. (Synthesis)

What is the problem? Only the old theories are getting in the way of recognition.

My question above was rather ironically. Contemporary physics has replaced recognition by theories and it is unable to perceive this failure.

My Regards! Hans

This is in continuation of my earlier answer: List of 61 elementary particles:

1. 6 leptons + 6 anti-leptons = 12

2. (6 quarks + 6 anti-quarks )x 3 = 36, since each quark has 3 colors

3. Gauge bosons: Photon + W+,W-, Z^0 = 4

4. Gauge bosons: 8 gluons = 8

5 Graviton = 1

...........................................

Total = 61

...................................

Dear V. Devanathan :

Are we talking about the list of:

a) All the theoretical hypothesized elementary Particles (experimentally observed and not experimentally observed)

b) Listed particles including its corresponding antiparticles (either just hypothesized and experimentally confirmed)

c) taking into account the distinction between the same particle but with different quantum numbers

d) List of just the elementary particles observed in experiments

e) List of the Particles of the SM

Or, what list ?

Can you tell us what are the criteria you are using to list this 61 particles? What are the constraints your list include ? How are you defining this grouping ?

How this list of 61 elementary particles has got to be known and who were the proponets of this classification? (V. Devanathan)

One more question. Is this 61's Elementary Particle list the same as the one is being considered by Hans-G Hildebrandt ?

Best Regards, !

We have probably to ask also the scientist Herrman J. Scheuber how he has count 61 elementary particles.

But as we can see there is a large number of particles necessary in contemporary physics to describe the microcosm. We can be sure that nature requires much less particles.

The analysis of the decays of particles leads to a different result as the the great theoreticians have devised. Some examples:

Charged pions have the elementary structures:

π+ (2e+ 1e−) ; π− (1e+ 2e−)

Muons are nothing than exited electrons resp. positrons:

μ+ (e+*) ; μ− (e−*)

The interaction between proton and anti-proton demonstrate their structures as follows (first elementary than substructural):

p+ (π+ π− μ+) = (4e+ 3e−) ; p− (π− π+ μ−) = (3e+ 4e−)

As you can see the protons consist actual of three real particles but not of 'quarks'. Anti-matter is inverse structured matter. It is not caused by an assumed 'anti-property' of particles. See more at:

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Since the entire discussion originated from the question "Are there only 61 elementary particles?", I just tried to enumerate them as a possible answer.

Quarks do not exist in free state but there is a strong evidence that they exist in bound state. That is why a color degree of freedom is attributed to the quarks and this led to the development of Quantum Chromodynamics as a theory of strong interaction. Coloured objects do not exist in free state but only colourless objects made out of coloured quarks are detected in free state. Proton, neutron and hyperons are composite objects of quarks, Pion, Kaon are composite objects of quark and anti-quark,

With the advent of particle accelerators, hundreds of new particles of very short lifetime were discovered and this changed the concept of elementary particles and led to the study of fundamental particles, of which all other particles can be considered as composite objects.

Here I have seen lots of answer. According to me only V. Devanathan have been able to give proper answer with proper explanation of physics with just a minute little correction in elementary particle counting (the last one would be Higg's boson instead of Graviton ) that graviton hasn't been detected yet !

Hans-G. Hildebrandt ........Instead of believing anyone I will suggest you two books that you should read once

1. Elementary Particle Physics By D.J Griffith

2. High Energy Physics, D.H Perkins

You will get your answer.

I find that Hildebrandt's question is based on the paper "Standard Model Picture with 61 Elementary Particles" by Hermann Josef Scheuber. His approach and the method of arriving at the number 61 are very different and I do not wish to comment on that.

I was only trying whether one can arrive at the number 61 by counting using the currently accepted ideas. Quarks are fractionally charged particles and the deep-inelastic scattering experiments do reveal that they are within nucleons. Scientists tried to detect them in free state. Since every attempt ended in a failure, quarks have been given a color degree of freedom and the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics has been developed to explain their permanent confinement. So, it comes out that an elementary particle need not necessarily be experimentally detected but the theory developed with its postulate should be consistent with other experimental observations. This answers the point raised by Franklin U P Hernandz.

Aviijit Hazra agrees with me in my enumeration of 61 elementary particles. But he wishes to substitute Higgs boson for graviton, since graviton is only a postulate and not experimentally detected, whereas Higgs boson is experimentally observed in CERN experiments. I consider Higgs boson as a quantum excitation of Higgs field which is a scalar energy field which is postulated to pervade the entire universe. Higgs boson is experimentally observed by detecting its decay modes. Higgs boson serves as an experimental verification for the postulate of Higgs field and so, I do wish to consider it as an elementary particle. This is my personal view and it can be contested.

Kindly make the correction in my earlier note:

Higgs boson serves as an experimental verification for the postulate of Higgs field and so, I do not wish to consider it as an elementary particle. This is my personal view and it can be contested.

Okay dear V. Devanathan,

But, just as the Higgs Boson is the smallest vibration in the Higgs Field, all the other particles are too, in its corresponding Quantum Fields.

So, all elementary particles are QFs, not just the Higgs Boson, also the Graviton.

What I wanted to correct from your early post was the idea of considering each of the three coloured Quarks as different particles. I don't think you gain useful insight in doing this, and no High Energy Physicist do this.

Either way, I understand what you said.

And as you said, there are more than one different way of listing the set of the known Elementary Particles in the Universe.

So lets way for science to see what it can teach us about the hidden elements of nature.

Best Regards !

Franklin Uriel Parás Hernández: You are for sure aware thar your last answer is merely the repetition of the theories of physics. But this theories are in question or better to say: They are obviously wrong!

After the LHC-experiment we have to note that 'quarks' are not existing in the universe and subsequently are some other assumptions are wrong.

Avijit Hazra: I have studied textbooks enough. They say at least all the same theoretical nonsense. We have to analyse the experiments and observations and not try to declare it by theories and mental games. Analysis leads to fundamentally different results than the theoretical considerations of the last century.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Dear : Hans-G. Hildebrandt if you don't believe in the Standar Model of Particle Physics I have nothing else to add here.

But, if you don't believe in the SM then you need another entire theoretical framework to describe the Laws followed by the most fundamental bricks of nature. And no other theoretical framework has given predictable results and observations so far. And many models have tried.

I'm not supporting my beliefs on the number of nobel prices the theory has yielded, or in the large amount of books written under the theory of the SM (at all levels). I'm trying to support the theory in predictable evidence:

Quarks have been found by experimental physicists in the second half of the XXth century, all six of them were found either at SLAC (Up, Down, Charm & Stange) or at FermiLab (Top & Bottom). Of course individual Quarks cannot be observed or experimentally detected in particle accelerators (nor in nature for that matter). But, the SM and its QFTs predict the different ways a collision between two accelerated protons (or heavy nuclei by this matter) will evolve (in terms of yielded particles, its decay periods, scattering angles and energies).

So, if you don't believe in baryonic matter made of Quarks, then you don't believe in the whole framework of QCD, which is the cornerstone of the whole field of nuclear & atomic physics; (The Residual Strong Force, Yukawa's Interactions, Virtual Pions, etc.). This theory can be used to explain the source of the Potential Binding Energy of an atomic nucleus.

Regards,

Uriel

Dear Franklin Uriel Parás Hernández : 'Quarks' are never found resp. observed quite In contradiction to your and many other scientists conviction! Deep inelastic electron scattering has demonstrate three sub-particles within protons. Some other observations lead to the theoretical idea that different types of quarks have to exist like you mentioned.

Not mental games and theoretical considerations are leading to recognition but fact-based analysis. It shows that the proton consist of three real subparticles as described above: p+ (π+ π− μ+) . This particles are well known as light mesons and they are observable at nearly every defragmentation etc. Nobody has solved the puzzle of particles until today. Instead of this is there a great overconfidence in the own mental games and subtle theories.

Physics is at the end of a wrong theoretical development but at the beginning of the understanding of the world of particles. I refer to the paper: Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

That is why the particle physics is one of the most corrupt branch of physics. mostly people read books & articles and start believing that all the work is correct as over 80% of population lacks in such experimentation facility and become mouth pieces of particle physics.....even Higgs boson did not prove any thing and the results are always debatable even today....and even without properly analyzing the results declared noble on it..... what a country and what a people !

it is better to come up with realistic theory of resonance states..instead of counting..

Everybody has heard about or studied the theories of particle physics but no one is obliged to belief this wishful thinking. Physics has created its own parallel universe far away from the reality.

We have to evaluate the observations and experimental results unbiased.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Regarding Lonnie J Mott 's list.

I don't think is correct to count each Quark with each of the three Color Charges as different particles. e.i. to count the Up Quark with Green Color Strong Charge, and the Up Quark with Blue Color Strong Charge as two different particles.

Because the Strong Charge (or Color Charge) is a Quantum Number (or a Quantum property) of an elementary particle, which cannot be defined for a specific instant. If you are a follower of the Copenhagen Interpretation you will say that what I'm trying to say is that the value of this Charge is always in a Superposition State of the three Charges.

A Quark is always a % of Blue + a % of Green + a % of Red. Its Color Charge is always in a Superposition State, never defined. This is the Copenhagen view, which I don't like and follow at all.

But anyways, the importance of the argument is that you never imagine the three Quarks inside a Proton to always have the three different defined Color Charges, one each of them.

This is a Quantum property, and cannot be defined. Again, following the Copenhagen school of though: The Color is always in a State of Superposition, even it doesn't make sense to try to define it.

Is like the Quantum Polarization of a Photon, we don't say there is a Linear Polarized Photon and a Circular Polarized Photon as two different elementary particles, the Quantum Polarization is a Quantum property of the Photon, which is always in a Superposition State, it does n't define two different particles, much like the Color Charge for Quarks. The same with the Quantum number Spin for an Electron, for example.

So. I would n't count those 24 supposed different Quarks.

The same for Gluons. There is just one Gluon (or Gluon field) which according to the Cophenhagen Interpretation can be in a superposition of 8 different Quantum States; eight types or eight "colors", this is the "Color Octect", but all mixed together giving the model of one single Gluon particle (or field)

The number of particles in the SM is:

17 Particles and 13 Antiparticles (the Photon, the Z, the Gluon and the Higgs doesn't have Antiparticles themselves).

And we don't know whether Neutrinos are Dirac Particles or Majorana particles, but this is another topic of discussion and we'll have to wait for more experiments.

Kind Regards !

Properties of quarks and gluons in the proton may change as a result of the transfer of energy that can create a magnetic moment of the proton.

https://youtu.be/7_80j-38Mdw

https://www.ringtheory.eu/