Talk:Tau (particle)

name

yeah, so it's not actually called a tauon. It might be easier for you guys to separate it from the wiki entries for greek letters etc but you've basically made a word up here. There's no greek letter 'electr' before you start going on about leptons and mesons ending in 'on'. I'm a particle physicist, i should know.

Speedy delete???

According to the history this page was moved to Tau (particle) and now we're moving it back again?

Edd 23:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, most of the articles linking to this particle do so via the Tauon redirect page. I've adjusted the remaining few articles so that all articles now point to Tauon. Check the template on Tau (particle) article - it refers to Tauon (which is a redirect to Tau (particle) and not Tau (particle) - so it remains linked when it should be bold. If we can move Tau (particle) to Tauon then all the redirects go away; and the template will finally work correctly. I'd suggest that the original move was a mistake - possibly by a person whose national article for this particle is Tau rather than Tauon. As such, the English page has probably laboured under a less common name. Ian Cairns 23:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yup, seems logical enough. Edd 20:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Move completed. Thanks for your assistance. Ian Cairns 21:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Seems logical enough", "probably laboured under a less common name", and speculation on the national origin of an editor are not sufficient criteria. "Correct, and agrees with verifiable sources" would have been. Unfortunately, the verifiable sources, such as particle physics textbooks and journal papers would support naming the page "Tau (particle)". This is why I have listed the page for a requested move back. The template and any linking pages can and should be changed as well. The Wilschon (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the tauon actually called like that?

It's not called the "tauon". It is called either the "tau" or the "tau lepton". As a reference I offer you Martin Perl's nobel prize citation, for example. On the Wikipedia page about Perl, someone had added a note "tauon" after the correct name "tau lepton". I had been wondering why this page was so strangely named since I first came to Wikipedia, and never bothered reading this talk page until now and discovering what had happened. Anyway I've removed every "tauon" I can find from Wikipedia. If necessary a note on the "tauon" name can be added here. --DannyWilde 15:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that the tau's primary page is under "tau lepton", since that's by far the most common usage. But perhaps it's a bit overzealous to remove all references to "tauon". It's certainly not absent from the literature, and it does follow the standard "(foo) (lept/mes)on" --> "(foo)on" rule. I'm going to add a note on the subject at the top. -- Xerxes 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note on this page is enough, other references should be removed. Funnily enough I used to think the name was "tauon", I can't remember where I got the impression from. --DannyWilde 02:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good look on the Google but I couldn't find any clues about where "tauon" comes from. Interestingly I found lots of pages by astronomers using the word "tauon". I couldn't find any particle physicists using the word "tauon", although I found it being used on a couple of particle physics-related sites, for example in a speech by a non-physicist held on the SLAC site. Also, it appears in lots of these amateur guides to physics. Anyway, I have no idea where the "tauon" name comes from, but so far I see no evidence at all of its being used in particle physics. --DannyWilde 07:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feynman diagram

This might sound kind of ignorant, but what does the d in the Feynman diagram represent? I assume the anti-U is its antiparticle, but I don't know what U represents either. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.10.18 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Feynman diagram of the tau decay may be wrong. I believe at the initial decay, there should be the W- shown, and a tau-neutrino, rather than the anti-tau neutrino shown (as per conservation of lepton 'family' number, which should apply in this case). Can anyone confirm this?

You are right. the arrow in the other neutrino is also pointing in the wrong direction. Does anybody know how to fix this kind of image file? Dauto 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There's something wrong with the Decay section; the decay branching probabilities don't add up to 100% and there's a reference to a commented-out image being incorrect in the article text. I've added the disputed-section template to the section until someone who understands what's going on can come and fix it. 75.15.155.179 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, there are two diagrams at Image:Feynman diagram of decay of tau lepton.svg and Image:Tau-decays.png.png. Time3000 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added File:Tau-decay.png to the decay section. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The u-bar and the d are swapped: the quark should be the one with the arrow pointing forwards and the antiquark the one with the arrow pointing backwards. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is nit-picking. All arrows in this figure are pointing forward. Although this is not technically as in a real Feynman diagram, it is also how a RAL masterclass presents the decay. When particles are labeled as antiparticles, one can let the arrows point forward. This way, both experts and novices will not misunderstand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that one of the three diagrams linked above had the arrow pointing in the usual direction and had the anti-up grouped with the other antiparticles. It's also an SVG, which is preferred over raster formats. I've swapped it in. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name

When did that page change its name from Tau lepton to tauon? The other name is a better choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it in the last week for consistency (electron/muon/tauon). The other alternative would be mu lepton and tau lepton, but muon is the overwhelmingly predominant usage, while "tauon" is more prevalent than "tau lepton" in a google hit fights (roughly 784K hits vs. 69.5K hits). "Tauon electron" and "tau lepton electron" is 10.6K hits vs. 39 K hits. These two things (consistency and google hits) warrants the name tauon, IMO. Having the tauon be named the tau lepton would make it special in that it would be the only lepton with a name with the etymology [symbol + lepton] on wikipedia.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but I think tau lepton is the more modern usage. I won't fight you over that though. There are plenty of factually wrong or missleading statments in the WP High Energy pages. No need to argue about naming conventions. Dauto (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is all very nice, but on a similar idea to your google search a search of the Web of Knowledge (scientific papers) gave 24 results for tauon and 1862 for tau lepton. Clearly the second is the most used by scientists. 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

IAA Particle Physicist. Nobody ever says "tauon" in this field. You rarely even hear "tau lepton". By far the most common thing is simply "tau" (or even "τ"), as in "We're looking for Higgs going to a tau pair", or "we detect the τ in the three-prong decay channel". Furthermore, a quick search on the arxiv (nearly all new papers are posted on the arxiv at some point) shows a grand total of 15 papers using the word "tauon", which I think is rather telling... This page should be named tau (particle) . If you like, I can provide references to any number of textbooks, reference works, and articles using "tau" or "τ", for instance Cheng and Li ("τ"). The Wilschon (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon-Catalyzed Fusion

Theoretically shouldn't Tauon-Catalyzed fusion be possible just like Muon-catalyzed_fusion? I would think it would cause fusion more readily because the Tauon should be 3477 times closer the the nucleus than an election, as opposed to the Muon's 207 times closer. Maybe this should get a mention? Ittiz (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on fusion, but I would expect the reason it isn't pursued is twofold: the high decay rate of the tau and the difficulty in reliably producing taus (esp. as compared with producing muons) The Wilschon (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. What do you think would be appropriate for Wikipedia, a redirect to muon-catalyzed fusion and create a section discussion tauon-catalyzed fusion (with refs, of course)?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess. Provided, of course, that there are any refs. I would be surprised to find any because, to the best of my knowledge (admittedly fusion physics is not my subfield), it is not an active area of research at all. The Wilschon (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon → Tau (particle) — The name "tauon" is rarely used in the field of physics for the third generation lepton. The name "tau lepton" is occasionally used. The name "tau" or "τ" is nearly always used. I realize that this is inconsistent with the naming of the muon and the electron (second and first generation lepton, respectively), but wikipedia should describe, not prescribe, usage. The Wilschon (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The reason is that it breaks the electron/muon/tauon naming symmetry and thus confuses the reader for no reason, especially considering the wikipedia usage is also predominantly tauon. Google hits also show that tauon is more widespread (768,000 hits for "tauon", 74,500 hits for "tau lepton", 10,800 for "tau particle"). I agree that google hits is not the best metric to gauge use amongst scientific literature (tau lepton would probably win here), but tauon is accepted enough to be used for making things more accessible. The article also mentions all the alternative names of the tauon, and tau lepton redirects here. Switching would introduce a lot of confusion, with minimal gain. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there is or even should be any lepton naming symmetry. It might be nice, but if wishes were horses... We might as well rename the neutrinos to help out the SUSY folks then (neutrino/neutralino, blech)! As a counter to your google searches, I find that tau physics gets 5,850,000 hits, tauon physics gets 30,500 hits, and "tau lepton" physics gets 64,700 hits. Alternatively, tau particle gets 767,000 hits, tauon particle gets 28,500 hits, and "tau lepton" particle gets 123,000 hits. Since I do not know of any usage of "tauon" in the literature, either in the field or in popular science, I expect that most people, physicists or merely the curious, will be less confused by a more standard usage. Again, we are an encyclopedia and must describe, not prescribe. I am presuming that if the title of this article changed, the rest of the wikipedia usage would also be changed to accord. The Wilschon (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"tau physics" hits are meaningless, there's just too many false positives on it (tau is used for lifetime, torque, ... ). For usage in literature, see for example arXiv:0812.1875, arXiv:hep-ph/0703049, arXiv:hep-ph/0509043, doi:10.1016/0168-583X(89)90996-8, doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(00)00924-5 and so on. "Tau" is no more used than "mu"s for muons, and "nu-e"s for electron neutrinos. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we leave out the searches with the word physics as a descriminator. How about the ones with particle? I hardly think your original tauon to tau lepton to tau particle is an apples to apples comparison, since I am not claiming that anyone calls the particle "tau particle", but rather simply "tau" (or "tau lepton"). Furthermore, citing arXiv papers for usage of "tauon" is particularly disingenous, considering that there are a grand total of 15 of them. The "tauon mass" papers are furthermore little more than numerology. As a counter, let me list some arXiv papers using "tau" or "tau lepton":

I found 17 papers using "tau" as the particle name in the first 50 hits on the arXiv under hep-ex (a total of 299 hits using "tau" in the title under hep-ex). This is more than the total number of papers using "tauon" at all in any category on the arXiv. Note that these are not using tau, \tau, or $\tau$ as LaTeX-pidgin for τ, which is also common.

I also found 17 papers using "tau lepton" as the particle name in the first 50 hits on the arXiv (some hits are cross-listed under hep-ph) out of a total of 74 hits for papers under hep-ex using tau and lepton in the title. This is again more than the total number of papers using "tauon" at all in any category on the arXiv. Again I have attempted to exclude papers that were using LaTeX-pidgin for τ.

When one considers that there are two other major arXiv sections (hep-ph and hep-th) to examine, it becomes clear that "tau" or "tau lepton" are used in the literature as the name for the third generation lepton overwhelming more than "tauon". The Wilschon (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the descriptor is dropped only when placed in context, otherwise it should be named tauon or tau lepton. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The particle is almost universally referred to verbally as "tau" in speech among particle physicists, and as "tau" or "τ" in writing, as any survey of the particle physics literature will show. The naming symmetry is indeed broken in practice; for instance, this excerpt from David Griffiths' well-known introductory particle physics textbook: "There are six leptons, classified according to their charge (Q), electron number (L_e), muon number (L_μ), and tau number (L_τ)" (emphasis added). If further evidence is needed, note that the hypothesized supersymmetric partner of the tau is called the "stau", not the "stauon". An arXiv search of the former yields 227 hits, while the latter yields ZERO. Yill577 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Tau" is the common name. Naming conventions do not mention symmetry as a reason for not following normal practice. Aubergine (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There appears to be enough support for a move, but the choice of name varies. Based on the support !votes, the most popular seems to be Tau (particle) - which is when I have moved it to. The second move was much easier. As an "outsider", I can see the points made that only physicists are likely to be searching for the article, so it's better to go with whatever is the real (i.e. commonname) usage. Not only will redirects will take care of any reader typing "Talon", but they will probably also notice the page name as it comes up by the time they have typed "tau" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon → Tau lepton — The term 'tauon' is hardly used in physics literature to refer to the heaviest lepton (see, for example tauon^[1] vs tau lepton^[2]), ~~and is on the verge of being an invented name on Wikipedia~~. Physics texts^[3]^[4], popular science books^[5], and the media^[6] all predominantly use 'tau' or 'tau lepton'. Uniformity of the charged lepton names on Wikipedia hardly justifies naming an article based on a rarely used term. TriTertButoxy (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon neutrino → Tau neutrino

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ Halzen and Martin. Quarks and Leptons. Canada: John Wiley and Sons inc, 1984.
^ Griffiths, D. Introduction to Elementary Particles. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co, 2008
^ Greene, B. The Elegant Universe. New York: Vintage Books, 2000
^ [3]

Comment I would say that "on the verge of being an invented name on Wikipedia" is highly disingenuous. Look at all these books, that use the term "tauon" - many that are older than Wikipedia, several of them dating from before 1990. Similarly for tauon neutrino [4]. Steven Weinberg called it a "tauon" [5] . 70.29.212.131 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, that was pretty dangerous. I withdraw that comment. TriTertButoxy (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never came across the term "tauon neutrino" in any of the particle physics courses I took, the term was "tau neutrino", so would support that move. Similarly the charged lepton was usually termed just "tau", rather than tauon. BTW lepton is not a proper noun, so it should be "Tau lepton" not "Tau Lepton" if we choose that route. The previous no consensus move proposal to "tau (particle)" would be my preference here. ~~I guess either "tau particle" or "tau lepton" would be good here.~~ Icalanise (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, Tau lepton, it is. TriTertButoxy (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to tau (particle) and tau neutrino. The usual name for the tauon is just tau. Spacepotato (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tau (particle) or Tau (lepton) and Tau neutrino because these are the terms now more widely used. As said before, tauon is sort of an outdated term. However, "particle" and "lepton" MUST have parentheses because it is simply called Tau in a particle physics context, but it obviously needs one of them in the name to distinguish it from the Greek letter. --WikiDonn (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objection : "Tauon" is easier for the non specialist to understand, because of the name analogy with other particles, and in particular with other charged leptons. Moreover, specialists are aware of the existence of both terms, and know that while "tauon" is likely to redirect to the actual article, while "tau" is likely to be a disambiguation page. So if they think twice about it, they will know that the shortest way to the article will be "tauon". This argument is mean because of redirections, but anyway, the same applies to the proposal : there is no need to change from "tauon" to "tau" as both termes are used, although the latter may is more frequently used between physicists. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm going to have to object to this objection. The tau is not something that is commonly encountered outside the realms of particle physics, so if someone's going searching for it they will likely use the name that physicists call it. That usage is predominantly "tau" rather than "tauon", unlike the case of second generation charged leptons which are routinely referred to as "muons" rather than "mu particles" (and the older usage "mu mesons" has fallen out of favour because muons are not mesons). Language is full of irregularities like that, naming symmetry is not an overriding concern. For example we don't go naming element 2 "helion" in analogy to the other noble gases that all end with "-on", nor do we call the gauge bosons that mediate the weak force "Wons" and "Zons" because other particles end with "-on". Better to go with real usage. Icalanise (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have to agree that neither Tau nor Tauon are likely to come up outside of a physics context. I would think that if a regular person were to here about it, they would here about it as Tau anyway since physicists use it more. I also do think Tau is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. You can't really compare Tau with Tauon in a google search because Tau has different meanings, but "Tau neutrino" gets 63,500 hits, and "Tauon neutrino" gets 7,360. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment you can't compare tau neutrino to tauon neutrino as an analog for tau to tauon, since many places that use "tauon" for the lepton still call the neutrino a "tau neutrino", and others don't deal with the neutrino at all. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I too object to the move. (I was away last week, so I could not participate in the discussion). Since there is no consensus for this, I'm reverting. Also, I would note that that muons are referred to as "mus" just as tauons are referred to as "taus". The reason is simply that in physics, it's common to simply pronounce the symbol for the names. ν_e is a "nu e" rather than a "electron neutrino" or "e + μ" is "e + mu" rather than "electron + muon". The rest is per Skippy (articles are more accessible to non-particle physicist if we write in plainspeak rather than in professional jargon). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 2010, take 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: both done. With regard to Google Books results, "tauon" means "break" in Finnish, and some character recognition typos in old books were also being picked up. Fences&Windows 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon → Tau (particle) — As discussed in the previous move request, which was closed as move in both cases before being unilaterally reverted by User:Headbomb less than a day later, the terms "tau" and "tau neutrino" are far more common than either "tauon" or "tauon neutrino". As has been noted several times on this talk page, the actual usage among physicists is far more commonly "tau". The current use of the term "tauon" appears to be based on a desire to promote naming symmetry, however language is frequently irregular, and in this case there is a symmetry violation. As the tau is pretty unfamiliar outside of particle physics, it is most likely that this particle will be familiar under the name "tau" not "tauon", thus per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be moved. The same goes for "tauon neutrino", which is perhaps even less frequently encountered relative to "tau neutrino" than "tauon" is for "tau". Icalanise (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon neutrino → Tau neutrino

Comment It may be of interest to see what the other language Wikipedias use. Unfortunately I cannot read the Arabic, Farsi, Korean, Hebrew, Japanese or Chinese scripts, but of the remainder, 10 appear to be using the term "tauon", and 17 use the term "tau". Icalanise (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. What it matters in the English Wikipedia is how the particle is called in English. Other languages are irrelevant. (Otherwise Sun should be moved to Sol because that's what the plurality of Wikipedias use.) ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well sorry for making the assumption that some people might actually find stuff interesting, clearly I was mistaken. Have a nice day. Icalanise (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tau" is more common yes, and so is "nu e" instead of "electron neutrino" and "mus" instead of "muons". Tauon is not uncommon by any means, and it is more accessible to the lay reader. And if the choice is between writing making an article accessible to the lay reader, at no detriment to the expert, and blindly following a convention that inserts an additional barrier between lay readers and understanding, then I'll always side with the former. Also I did not "unilaterally" revert the thing, the previous discussion is split roughly 50-50 on the question (if you include my position on it), which is certainly not a consensus to move to anything. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to quote !votes then it's 66:33, which is partly why I moved it. You didn't !vote, so it don't count. Your problem that you were away. Lots of readers are away when there is a move request, it's just the luck of the draw (you should see what happens over a Xmas break...) I shall wait until the prescribed new move request reaches it's end date - I might close it, that will depend on who is around at the time. I have no feelings about either name - I'm not a physicist, neither name has any significance to me (I stopped physics at UK A level, and concentrated on Chemistry). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True it is common to just read the symbol, the question is which is more commonly used as the full particle name. Certainly in the popular physics books I have read, I have found "tau", in the form of "tau particle" or "tau lepton" to be more common than "tauon". I therefore disagree that "tauon" is more accessible term to the lay reader: it is a variant usage which is unfamiliar. Do you have actual evidence that "tauon" is a more accessible term? As for the name of the neutrino, "tauon neutrino" is a usage I have never come across outside Wikipedia. As to the question of unilateral moving, you moved the page which was obviously a contested move without opening a discussion: that seems a pretty good example of a unilateral action to me. Icalanise (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do, but nothing published. I conducted an informal poll amongst physics undergrads with various versions of the lead of the article about a year ago. Out of 10 students, 5 found tauon more accessible, 3 had no opinion, and 2 thought "tau lepton" made things clearer. I also asked some non-physics undergrads, and again a majority found "tauon" clearer (although I don't remember the number in this case). In all cases the unqualified "tau" was the least understood version. I also polled my two supervisors, one specializing quantum physics (found tauon clearer), and one in particle physics (agreed that tauon clearer might be clearer for newcomers, but prefered "tau" out of tradition). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable more thoroughly, and it is clear that this really doesn't apply. Neither tauon, tau (particle) nor tau lepton is any less 'understandable.' Polling physics undergrads about various versions of the name to see what was more accessible doesn't count. I remember talking to chemistry professors about naming elements, and they agreed that 'one-ium', 'two-ium', 'three-ium', etc would have been more accessible than 'hydrogen', 'helium', 'lithium', etc. That doesn't change the fact the later are more commonly used. We have (going up the periodic table) Caesium oxide, Rubidium oxide, Potassium oxide, Sodium oxide and Lithium oxide, wouldn't it be nice to call the next one, based on naming consistency Hydrogen oxide? TriTertButoxy (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - WP:COMMONNAME says Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. Article names are not based on "consistency", "informal polls", "accessibility" (whatever that is). So I looked it up in the few sources I have handy: Steven Weinberg, "Subatomic particles", Scientific American Books Inc, 1983; Martinus J. G. Veltman, "Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics", World Scientific Publishing Co, 2003. Both use "tau", not "tauon" (Veltman has it on the cover, even); both are intended for laymen (is that "accessible"?), both written by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Based on this, the name was changed to nl:Tau (lepton) on the Dutch-language wikipedia. Greetings, Wammes Waggel (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to Tau lepton. The Particle Data Group (PDG) collects experimental measurements around the world and compiles them into a review that is published biennially. The PDG is the standard reference for particle physics. As of 2009, the particles are listed as tau and tau lepton, but not tauon (see [6], Particle Properties --> Charged Leptons). In their 2005 review, they used tau neutrino but not tauon neutrino (see [7], under Particle properties, neutrinos). TriTertButoxy (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to Tau lepton. It's way more common. (Maybe "mu" is more common than "muon", too, but only in fairly casual speech, whereas "tauon" is rare even in formal registers.) ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tau (particle) or Tau (lepton) and Tau neutrino because these are the terms now more widely used, Tau and Tauon are just as easily accessable, previous discussion, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDonn (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Tau (particle) and Tau neutrino, with the caveat that the alternate terms "tauon" and "tauon neutrino" are still sometimes used and are historically important. I hear "tau particle" and "tau neutrino" a lot more than "tauon", though that may just be an artifact of my environment (interestingly, I never hear "mu particle", always "muon"; go figure). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal (move to Tau (particle) and Tau neutrino.) Tau is the most commonly used word in English to denote the τ particle and so should prevail as per WP:COMMONNAME. For example, out of the first 15 hits for "Leptons" in a search I just made on SpringerLink [8] which were accessible to me, written in English, not books, and mentioned the particle:
1 called the particle "L";
6 used the symbol τ only;
2 used only tau;
2 used tau, and secondarily tau lepton;
1 used tau, and secondarily tau lepton, along with the adjectival form tauonic;
1 used tau lepton;
1 used tau lepton, and secondarily tau;
and 1 only used the adjectival form, tauonic.

Tauon was never used. Spacepotato (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use tau lepton since it doesn't require parenthetical disambiguation, is a term that is used somewhat, uses the more common form of "tau", and since it is not parenthetically disambiguated, will actually be typed in by some people looking for the page, instead of having no one typing it in. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to expound on this, "tau" as a particle is used in other contexts to refer to other particles, so "tau particle" or "tau (particle)" is not unique to subatomic physics. It is used in medical science[9], in especially in the study of Alzheimer's. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was not aware that the term 'tau' as a particle was used outside of physics. In that case, I agree that we should change to 'Tau lepton'. 206.12.36.204 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tau particle, Tau lepton, or Tau (particle) would all be fine. Very strong support for the move of Tauon neutrino to Tau neutrino. Calling this article "tauon" is like calling bottom quark "beauty". (Or actually, it is more like calling strange quark, sideways quark for reasons of symmetry.) TimothyRias (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object for the following reasons :
- Assuming that people won't read the previous discussion I will first shamelessly quote myself : ""Tauon" is easier for the non specialist to understand, because of the name analogy with other particles, and in particular with other charged leptons. Moreover, specialists are aware of the existence of both terms, and know that while "tauon" is likely to redirect to the actual article, while "tau" is likely to be a disambiguation page. So if they think twice about it, they will know that the shortest way to the article will be "tauon". This argument is mean because of redirections, but anyway, the same applies to the proposal : there is no need to change from "tauon" to "tau" as both termes are used, although the latter may is more frequently used between physicists."
- Then, I also fully agree with Headbomb on the other particles being also commonly referred to without the "-on".
- Arguments such as "the PDG is the standard reference for particle physics" irrelevant here, since it is rather the standard reference for particle physicists, not for common WP readers. Usage by particle physicists is jargon, and should not be considered as "most common", so the usage of the name within particle physics articles is irrelevant.
- Finally, WP:COMMONNAME indeed says "articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name", but the word I notice there is normally, which implies exceptions.
- And last but not least, I find 10100 entries on Google Books for "tauon", which is enough for me to validate the use of "tauon" — moreover many of these (including recent) books seem not to be aimed to particle physicists, which may confirm that "tauon" is more common for "standard" people. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lay reader in modern times is unlikely to come across the term tauon, and thus will not be looking for "tauon", but for "tau" of tau particle. For such a user it would confusing to be served a page called "tauon". (Not to mention that it would give the wrong impression that that is the right term to use.)

Also, by your logic here, were should rename strange quark and charm quark to sideways and center as these are more inline with the names up down top and bottom.TimothyRias (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rias. (And the other particles are commonly referred without the -on only in colloquial speech. Essentially, "electron", "muon" and "tau lepton" are the full names and "e", "mu" and "tau" are the nicknames derived from the symbol, used when the context makes it obvious what one's talking about.) In any event, "common WP readers" are unlikely to have ever heard any of the names of this particle, so no name is going to be more accessible than another to them. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Skippy's last point above, popular books also tend to use tau and not tauon. For example, using Google Books to examine nine popular books chosen at random:
A. Zee's Fearful Symmetry: uses tau
Martinus Veltman's Facts and mysteries in elementary particle physics: uses tau
Cindy Schwarz's A tour of the subatomic zoo: a guide to particle physics: uses tau
Bruce A. Schumm's Deep down things: the breathtaking beauty of particle physics: uses tau (and secondarily tau lepton)
Peter Woit's Not even wrong: uses tau particle
Lederman and Teresi's The God Particle: uses tau (also tau lepton)
Robert Oerter's The theory of almost everything: uses tau
F. E. Close's Particle physics: a very short introduction: uses tau.
Brian Greene's The elegant universe: uses tau.
Spacepotato (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object A quick standard Google search turns up 348,000 hits for tauon, 59,900 hits for "tau lepton" and 15,000 hits for "tau particle." I'm not a particle physicist by any means, but unless my arithmetic is that rusty, tauon is by far the more generally used. (6 times more than "tau lepton" and 23 times more than "tau particle") Bkellihan (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you remember to filter out pages with content derived from Wikipedia's? Quite a lot of those came up when I tried duplicating your search. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hit counts are demonstrably bogus when above a few thousands.[10][11][12][13] Try a text corpus instead: the Corpus of Contemporary American English has 0 occurrences of tauon, 5 of tau lepton, 3 of tau particle, and 4 of tau neutrino. Not much statistics, but at least no systematic error. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The particle is most often called just tau, without lepton or particle. Of course, it is not possible to check with Google how many occurrences of tau refer to the particle, rather than the Greek letter, etc. Spacepotato (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support A google search for "tauon decay" gives few results, much less than what I would have expected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

tau lepton

Is the tau neutrino a tau lepton? Or is it instead a tau-related lepton that is not a tau lepton? Hcobb (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a tau lepton. There is only one tau lepton. Dauto (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The tau neutrino is the associated neutrino of the tau (also called tau lepton, tau particle, etc...), so those are two distinct particles. Some people call them tauons and tauons neutrino to clear up the confusion and further emphasis that these are particles (which also give a consistent naming with electrons/electron neutrinos, muons/muon neutrinos. Both are leptons, but "tau lepton" specifically refers to the tauon, and not the tauon neutrino.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually two tau leptons: the neutral tau lepton, or tau neutrino, and the charged tau lepton, or tauon. Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit reverts

(Original text copied from "user talk:Headbomb#tau edit reverts".) Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Please unrevert your edits! Neutrinos are leptons. Any usage of "tau lepton" is confusing and needs to be disambiguated. See "tau lepton" and "Talk:Tau (particle)#tau lepton." "Tau," "tau particle," "tauon," and "charged tau lepton" are all acceptable usages, but "tau lepton" refers to two very different particles (with distinct charges and masses). Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not revert myself, there is only one tau lepton, much like there is only one mu lepton. No one ever refers to the tau neutrino as the 'tau lepton'. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not want to start an edit war, but regardless of any erroneous usage, this is clearly wrong. Please see my explanation of nomenclature below that is the source of this confusion. The only way to resolve this is to provide specific citations for the usage of "tau lepton." In my opinion though, simply using the more-common term "tau" in the article instead of "tau lepton" (which is what I have already done) is an uncontroversial and needed edit. If you insist on using "tau lepton" in the article, then there needs to be a footnote with an explanation that the tau neutrino is also a tau lepton, but that within the context of the article on the tau, it is not referring to the tau neutrino. Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conventional usage of "mu neutrino," and likewise there is no "mu lepton." The correct name for that would be a muonic lepton, which can refer to either a muon, or a muon neutrino (i.e. any lepton with a nonzero muonic lepton number). Unlike the muon though, the tau is missing the "-on" suffix in conventional usage, which is the basis for what would otherwise be called a tauonic lepton, or conventionally, a tau lepton (any lepton with a nonzero tau lepton number, which includes both taus and tau neutrinos). Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the article's talk page, but you are wrong on almost every aspect of this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can try to explain it more elaborately if that will help. A lepton is any elementary fermion which participates in the weak nuclear interaction but does not participate in the strong nuclear interaction. There are 12 leptons: electron, positron, electron neutrino, electron antineutrino, muon, antimuon, muon neutrino, muon antineutrino, tau, antitau, tau neutrino, and tau antineutrino. The leptons are then grouped together into three generations based on their lepton numbers. (Excluding antiparticles), the electron and electron neutrino have a nonzero electronic (first-generation) lepton number, and are best described as "first-generation leptons." The muon and muon neutrino have a nonzero muonic (second-generation) lepton number, and can be described as either muonic leptons or as second-generation leptons. The tau and tau neutrino have a nonzero tau (third-generation) lepton number, and can be described as tau leptons or as third-generation leptons. The tau (particle) and the tau neutrino are the only two elementary fermions that have a nonzero tau lepton number, which is why they can be called the tau leptons. Tau lepton number is conserved in weak interactions, so it is an important concept. Even if this type of description is not common, using "tau lepton" in the article will be confusing for lay readers, since they may infer that tau neutrinos are not leptons. We should try to write this article using the least ambiguous terminology possible, which is "tau," "tau particle," or "tauon," and not "tau lepton." Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOR. In as many particle physics papers as I can be bothered to look through for usage of this phrase ([14], [15], [16], [17]), tau lepton is the charged lepton denoted by the Greek letter τ, rather than a lepton with a non-zero tau lepton flavour number. Please feel free to point out a counter-example. Here's a good place to start [18] — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

usage

@Headbomb: @Hcobb: @Dauto: Reviewing Arxiv.org, the usage of "tau lepton" to refer to the "tau particle" is overwhelming, so I am creating a wikipoll here to see what Wikipedia thinks. Use {{agree}} if you think that the usage of "tau lepton" should be avoided on Wikipedia since it may cause confusion for lay readers between the tau particle and the tau neutrino (which are both leptons), or {{disagree}} if you disagree. Feel free to add any additional comments or citations. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Wikipedia should use standard terminology and not invent its own. I think a clarifying statement to the effect of "although neutrinos are leptons, the phrase tau lepton refers exclusively to the charged particle" would be best. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree as per above.T R 21:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[arxivTauon-1] [1]

[arxivTauLepton-2] [2]

[3] Halzen and Martin. Quarks and Leptons. Canada: John Wiley and Sons inc, 1984.

[4] Griffiths, D. Introduction to Elementary Particles. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co, 2008

[5] Greene, B. The Elegant Universe. New York: Vintage Books, 2000

[sciAm-6] [3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]