File talk:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg

Incorrect Lepton Masses

Hi anybody who is checking the talk page here. This image seems to be achieving widespread use on Wikipedia. However, the masses in the lepton sector are not correct. Please fix this as soon as possible, or I think we need to remove this image from the articles which link to it. -- 129.57.115.159 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this has been resolved. Dhatfield (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. The electron neutrino mass is incorrect by 6 orders. It should be written "<2 eV". Electron-Volt. Not Mega-Electron-Volt. Nice job anyway! --146.164.36.96 23:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Unfortunately I'm working from other's PCs for a while but I will address this ASAP. In the meantime, at least it is technically true, even if wildly innaccurate :) Dhatfield (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Higgs and note about anti-particles and color charge but...

I used Inkscape to add the Higgs and a note about anti-particles and color charge. It looked fine on my computer locally but when I upload it there's a black artifact on the thumbnail. The svg looks OK apart from the fonts aren't what I used locally. Please help. Also I don't know how to revert. Woz2 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof that the recently discovered particle by CERN is the Higgs Boson.--Duschi (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Duschi. I think there's a misunderstanding. The Standard Model, which is a theory diagramed here, absolutely includes the Higgs. Read the section here [1]. That's why there's a search on to verify or falsify the SM prediction. If it turns out there is no Higgs, the Standard Model is pretty much disproved, and you have to go to something other than the Standard Model like Higgsless model. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm aware, the Higgs is part of the standard model, but I have troubles to add hypothetical particles to the diagram. Especially adding a Higgs boson with a mass of 126GeV which may result in someone assume, that the new particle at 126GeV is definitively the Higgs.

Additionally there could also be more generations of the fermions which is also not shown.--Duschi (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it a diagram of the Standard Model? Or a diagram of known particles? The title says Standard Model, so the Higgs should be in. There are only three generations in the Standard Model, so those are all represented. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be more statements then only from two persons. But it is definitely wrong to say that the Higgs mass is 126GeV since you can't know the mass. --Duschi (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Omit the mass then. But the Higgs is part of the SM real or not. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Woz2: Yes the Higgs should be there, and the mass should either be unlisted or have a question mark. Why did Duschi take down the version with the Higgs? SVG rendering problem or something else? (If the former, check out Commons:SVG_Check.) :-) --Sbyrnes321 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi i added the Higgs again, because it is part of the standard model. For the mass i've put in a window, as it is not quite clear jet, why both experiments reconstruct different masses for the observed new boson. --Dsperlich (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Duschi, why did you remove the Higgs mass range without prior discussion? As long as masses are given in the Higgs boson article (in the infobox) they should be included in the picture. You anyway broke the exponents on the GeV/c^2. Even if this discovered particle is not the Higgs, there are not much masses possible any more for a standardmodel complient higgs. --Dsperlich (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK i broke the exponents ..., i will fix it. --Dsperlich (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i'm still im favor of some kind of mass given to the higgs. Especially considering the new results shown at moriond about the spin and parity measurement. But even if someone has a problem of identifying the new boson as the standardmodel higgs, we could anyway give a quite small mass range, as most masses are already excluded. So in this case it would not be the claim: "the higgs has a mass of 125GeV", but rather: "the higgs has to have a mass between 125GeV und 127GeV" (i didn't check the actual exclusion limits, but they should be somewhere accessible).--Dsperlich (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the Standard Model more of a current consensus (hence *standard*) over the fundamental constituents of matter and its interactions, described through multiple theories, rather than a single closed theory? The Standard Model was developed through time, some hypothesis were proven other disproven, but it didn't stop being the Standard Model because of its addings or losses. --ANDROBETA 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent treatment of anti-particles

On the diagram, the anti-particles of the fermions are not shown, but the anti-particle of the W+ (the W-) is shown. I suggest we make the W+/- into just W and put the charge as 1. Thoughts? I'd make the change myself except I'm having trouble with black rectangles on png's from Inkscape's svg. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But then you would induce that the W+ is a particle and the W- is his anti-particle. I don't think that this is appropriate for W-bosons. --Duschi (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Particle-anti-particle naming is somewhat arbitrary. If one of the pair is more common in our universe today we call it "particle" and the less common one "anti-particle" If they are equally common (or equally rare) you could label either one "particle" without loss of generality. Woz2 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs Boson

shouldn't the Higgs boson be there? Below the W boson?--Arnaugir (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really below, as it is not a gauge boson. But i included it now. --Dsperlich (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does is show the Higgs as having spin 1? Seems to have been introduced in the design overhaul. Before that it showed spin 0. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rendering as PNG

What engine renders the SVG to PNG? It seems the fonts get lost in the PNG and the Greek letters look, um, weird. Can this be influenced somehow? Cush (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's called "Rsvg", and there are longstanding difficulties with fonts, as discussed at such places as Commons:Graphics village pump, meta:Talk:SVG fonts. One problem with the current file is that text is specified as being in the Arial font, but Arial is not available to the rendering software, so you take your luck with whatever the rendering software chooses to substitute for Arial. Theoretically, one way around this problem would be to install on your local computer some of the fonts that are used by the rendering software, such as "DejaVu Sans" and "Bitstream Vera Sans", so that hopefully you could see the same thing in your SVG editor and in Commons PNGs. However, this unfortunately gives inconsistent results... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

But using fonts "DejaVu Sans" and "Bitstream Vera Sans" poses the problem that the SVG is possibly rendered faulty when viewed full-screen, because only few people will have them on their machines. The file I uploaded is rendered correctly in IE, Firefox, Chrome and Adobe Illustrator. Why can't Wikipedia just buy the right to use universally used fonts Arial, Times New Roman and Courier New ? Cush (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Because those fonts are not available under a free license. "Viewing full-screen" means that a file can be potentially loaded into a variety of software programs on different computers with a wide array of system configurations, so it's hard to say that an SVG file's display is "always" correct in all programs other than Rsvg. To start with, most Linux systems are also unlikely to have those fonts installed... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But Linux is not an operating system that is used by any significant number of people. When publishing material on WP, one should surely focus on Windows, Mac OS, iOS, and maybe Android. Maybe no specifically named fonts should not be used at all and generics like "serif", "sans-serif", "cursive", and "monospace" should be used.

Is there a way to test Rsvg and to see how a file would be rendered before it is uploaded to WP ? Cush (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found this. I will test it later today. Cush (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not always possible to optimize an SVG file for best display on Wikimedia Commons and also in some other application simultaneously... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

But we are not talking about "some other application". We are talking about the browsers that people use to access WP. Clicking on the PNG on File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg will open the SVG in the browser itself, and it is really annoying when it looks different. In my file I even entered a fallback for each font, but RSVG seems to ignore that too. The problem is RSVG, not the world. RSVG should be able to perform the rendering all browsers can perform.

Maybe SVG should not be rendered as PNG at all. Cush (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how changing the focus from the idiosyncrasies of one program (rsvg) to the idiosyncrasies of a dozen different programs on five operating systems will promote optimized display... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's about adhering to standards or quasi-standards. As the rest of the internet community does. I am a software developer and when I write software I try to make it usable for the greatest possible number of users. On a platform like Wikipedia it is incomprehensible why any developer would write a piece of software that only properly works under a limited number of specialized circumstances. Cush (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that you're annoyed that the Windows fonts are not available everywhere, but they're really not the "standard"[sic]. Microsoft chose them in the first place so that it wouldn't have to pay royalties on fonts such as Helvetica (which is a far more enduring "quasi-standard" than Arial). AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What some do is convert the text to filled paths (which makes it nearly identical in almost all applications), while leaving the text as a hidden object in the SVG for editing and internationalization. This isn't usually reccomended unless you are unable to make the text work otherwise (especially for smaller labels). Splarka (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about that, but that would create an enormous effort for anyone who wants to edit the file later. Cush (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have taken that approach now. I use outlines but keep the editable text in a hidden <p> tag. Cush (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but the simple and inescapable reality is that it's not always possible to optimize for best display on Commons/Wikipedia and simultaneously optimize things for some other program or purpose. Sometimes you have to choose one or the other... AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your condescending attitude really isn't helpful. "inescapable reality" seriously? WP is accessed via web browsers, so that's where SVG as well as the rendered PNG has to look good. If you don't understand that you shouldn't provide material for the internet. This is not for WP, this is for its readers. Cush (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- in the current configuration, the generated PNGs are viewed much more often than the raw SVG. That may change in future, but that's the fact of the way things are now. You appear to have a number of semi-strange idées fixes which makes it difficult to discuss things productively with you... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe as a software developer, my expectations about a tool used on WP are higher than yours. Cush (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't open

Hi, I would like to translate this image into German and Italian, but I can't open with Adobe Illustrator, and Inkscape doesn't recognize the fonts used. Do you have some ideas why? Thanks for any help! --Pharamp (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It won't open in AI because AI and Inkscape have somewhat divergent ideas of what "correct" SVG is (sometimes both seem to be wrong). The new version I uploaded may help with this. Inkscape doesn't like the fonts because you don't have "DejaVuSans" installed on your system; you can download and install that font... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed that the editable text is on a hidden layer, while text-converted-to-vector-paths is displayed. If you display the editable text layer in the version I just now uploaded (without Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense), then you should be able to edit it to produce a good translated SVG (will probably still help to have DejaVu Sans font installed on your system)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing text fields

Hi, I would like to update a few of the text fields, but I can't seem to find any simple way to do that (in Inkscape). All the characters look like paths, which are then been grouped to make a text field. How can I edit this simply? In the past (old design) I edited the xml directly with a text editor. That does not seem to be possible any more. PS: I'm not well versed with design tools, but I'm a particle physicist. So if someone else can update the fields, I guess that would work too. --Fatka (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

These are the changes I wanted to make:

* Higgs boson mass: it is a precisely measured quantity: "~126" should be "125.7" (if the error can be included, it is ±0.4)

* Top quark mass: unlike the other quarks, a top quark can be measured directly: "~173.07" should be "173.21" (error is ±1.22, after adding all errors)

The references are: Particle Data Group page on the Higgs boson, and Particle Data Group page for top quark. --Fatka (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there have been persistent problems with font rendering with the RSVG software (which is used here to convert SVG into rendered PNG). The editable text is on a hidden layer, and editing it while leaving everything else unaffected will not change the image display... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Add / Link modified version of this file

Dear all,

I am rather new to Wikimedia Commons. I have created a modified version of this file and published it under File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_modified_version.svg

I am not sure, how I can put a link from this site to my modified version, in case anybody wants to use my version. Furthermore I am not sure, if I have taken all rules in regard to modified versions of existing files correctly into account. Thus it would be nice, if anybody could have a look on my site and can tell me if I have to add some additional information.

Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- 13:04, 23 October 2014‎ User:Marcokarlo

Did it... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-consistent order of leptons

Hi everyone,

since the design change in 2013 the order of the lepton family is changed in this file (upper row for charged leptons, lower row for neutrinos). What do you think about changing it back the other way around? I would opt for that since the doublets are generally ordered by the values of the weak isospin, i.e. u/d, c/s, t/b, and neutrinos/leptons. It is very confusing to see it the other way around in this overview (I know that the chart does not imply that the particle are ordered in terms of their weak isospin, but it would be more consistent to use the same order). On the other hand, this interferes with the areas indicating the forces.

What do you think about it? I would be happy to hear some of your opinions on this matter. -- 11:28, 2 February 2015‎ 31.150.229.45

Hey,

I would also appreciate it, if the leptons were ordered by their isospin. A possible solution is: interconvert the quarks and leptons, i.e. leptons on top, quarks on the bottom. Then the figure would read: 1st row neutrinos, 2nd row charged leptons, 3rd row up type quarks, 4th row down type quarks. This way one could keep the force highlighting and reorder the leptons. What do you think?

Konstantin -- 14:00, 24 August 2015

Not sure whether spin is more important than number of forces susceptible. And putting neutrinos on top would give pride of place to particles which play no role in ordinary perceptible phenomena (i.e. chemical matter, light, gravity etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to change anything concerning the forces. I am just thinking about a way to combine the force highlighting and the correct isospin ordering (which is of fundamental importance for the electroweak theory). I would personally subordinate the pride of the first row to the correctness of the figure. And btw, neutrinos are an essential part of the weak processes that make the sun shine...an everyday phenomenon. Konstantin -- 12:21, 26 August 2015

They don't play any role in the propagation of light. What people see, hear, touch around themselves is chemical matter, light, and weight (gravity), not something going on in the interior of the sun millions of miles away. AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrino masses

The neutrino flavour eigenstates are listed with limits on their masses, which implies falsely that neutrino flavour eigenstates can have singular well-defined masses. In reality the flavour and mass eigenstates are not aligned. There are limits on "1, 2 and 3" not "e, mu and tau". I suggest removing these numbers entirely and adding a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.253.56.170 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you make a suggestion for the footnote? Cush (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with comment above, as masses are measured directly from e.g. π→μν decays, see: “Upper limit of the muon-neutrino mass and charged pion mass from momentum analysis of a surface muon beam”, K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 6065-6077. @Cush Could you please correct the muon neutrino mass upper limit to 0.17 MeV? See reference of same article. Regards --Petermahlzahn (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also the upper mass limit on tau neutrino should be updated to 18.2 MeV according to reference “An upper limit on the tau neutrino mass from three- and five-prong tau decays”, R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), Eur. Phys. J. C2 (1998) 395-406.--Petermahlzahn (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I will look into it in the next few days. Cush (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Small reminder @Cush. Thanks for taking care of that! (Also top mass can be updated to 173.0 GeV according to latest PDG 2018 combination.) --Petermahlzahn (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Now, how are we to proceed about Neutrino masses? Cush (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Petermahlzahn I have read the source documents for which you provided links. The problem I see is that the reported measurements are from the mid 1990s. I am in the process searching for more recent measurement papers. There were measurements conducted for the muon neutrino in Budapest up until March of 2018, but no results have been published that I could find. For the tau neutrino I used new measurements from ATLAS and Cornell University.Cush (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Typesetting

Please remove excessive capitalization from the title and use proper minus signs (−) instead of hyphens (-) for charges. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It follows the same capitalization conventions as a book title (not necessarily out of line for a stand-alone chart)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why should it be treated as a book title if it is not? In principle, this title is better to be removed completely, since adding a (properly styled) title/caption at the point of use is much easier than dealing with a fixed embedded title (I remember seeing some guidelines about this issue, but cannot immediately find anything besides Commons:Preparing images for upload#Replace captions in the image with text). For an example, see how silly w:Template:Standard model of particle physics looks now.

In any case, the minuses must be done properly. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Split request

So, what has happened to the "urgent" split request? Will someone perform it or not? Cush (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

W-Boson mass and SVG:systemLanguage

I will shortly update the chart with the new measurement of the W-boson mass according to a recent Fermilab publication. In the same step I will remove the translations that were introduced with the SVG Translate tool. Although Wikimedia supports switch tags and systemLanguage attributes, most browsers do not. I have produced svg with a proper translation, but I failed to get any results in Chrome, Firefox, Edge. All browsers take the first language in the switch, regardless of any settings in the OS or browser. Also, the SVG Translate tool removes the proper HTML encoding for special characters and replaces those in part with the wrong unicode characters. Cush (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cush: Please do not remove the translations.

Almost all browsers support switch and systemLanguage. See https://caniuse.com/?search=switch . I have tested Firefox, Chrome, and Edge (which is now also based on Chromium), and they work. The file File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg has hundreds of switch elements, and the first language in a switch element is usually Chinese (e.g., zh-hant). If you view the SVG in your browser, it should show in your browser's preferred language (which is probably not Chinese):

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg

Your browser should have a preference list for Accept-Language. If you put all the languages at the same numerical preference, then you may get the first matching clause.

What characters are being converted to the wrong Unicode character? The file uses the fonts Arial, Times New Roman, sans-serif, and serif. The SVG file specifies a Unicode encoding. If your code/text editor does not use Unicode but rather some other encoding, then some non-ASCII characters may display differently. The same problem may arise if your browser substitutes a non-Unicode font.

Translations should not be a problem.

Glrx (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now kept the translations but added English as the explicit first option as well as the last option for default.

However, I have removed translations from those elements that are not subject to translation, such as numeric values and particle symbols. I have also restored proper HTML entities for minuses, fractions, exponents and approximation.

A while ago I had placed a {{NoInkscape}} marker on the file page to ask people to not use translation tools. Cush (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cush: You have made a wonderful image. This version of the image is also used on many different language wikis. It would be nice if those wikis could see the image in their language. Given its wide usage, I'm surprised that the file does not support more languages.

Right now, the best technology that WMF has is SVG Translate. It should be easy for users to add translations. However, SVG Translate has many issues. One of those issues is it wants to translate EVERYTHING. It should pay attention to its:translate="no" or translate="no", but that feature never made it. It would be wonderful to update a value in one place and to have it appear in all the language versions. Another issue is that SVG Translate does not insert systemLanguage="en" clauses when it should. That will confuse browsers.

That said, I wish WMF used a different, more common, translation technology. Using switch often locks out subsequent edits by graphics editing applications. But that will not happen anytime soon.

Glrx (talk)

Fixing misplaced neutrino symbols

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T97233

Hello. I saw that the neutrino symbols were offset to the right (not centered). I tried to split those into two separate <text> elements and reposition those manually; it seems to work. I also checked it using the PDF2SVG tool and the result is also good. I suspect that the renderer calculated the position incorrectly when either (1) using <tspan> on the same line or (2) using baseline-shift attribute/property. S Rifqi (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@S Rifqi: Please do not do such manual typesetting. If you click through the previous image to view the SVG in your browser, it positions the text correctly. That shows the problem is with WMF's SVG to PNG conversion. WMF is updating that converter now, but it is still 4 years behind. Th WMF converter currently produces many strange results. The appropriate place to fix the problem is in the broken converter. Fixing something so a broken converter works may cause problems in sensible converters. Glrx (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I also tested it in regular browsers and other SVG tools to make sure that the result is the same in all of them. The previous code is also "manual" typesetting (baseline-shift:-8px; instead of baseline-shift:sub;). The fix is just "baking" the computed value directly. S Rifqi (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What was done to the css style ?? Cush (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the baseline-shift property from class .sub and splitted the symbols into two <text> elements.

.sub { font-size: 48px; }

<text class="psymg" x="111" y="110">ν</text><text class="psymg sub" x="136" y="118">τ</text>

S Rifqi (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant that some of the css styles have been removed. Cush (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No (practical) style changes happened. Some CSS classes were just used by a single element each, so I moved them to each element itself (inline). Some CSS classes were used by nothing (already inline). S Rifqi (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it an abstraction

@Cush: You removed my category addition "Abstraction", saying It is a diagram, not an abstraction. I think you misunderstood the addition: of course it is a diagram but that which it describes (elementary particles of standard model of particle physics) is thought to be an abstraction of a special kind.

It includes or shows extraordinary abstraction of how things are – tiny objects don't actually spin in some direction, that's just how we describe or imagine it. And that is/may even be the case if it's entirely true and reasonably complete (however some readers may mistake the category to mean "mere abstraction" as mentioned here). Also it's a special achievement of human abstract thinking / abstraction that only evolved to this extent relatively recently and seems quite unique to humans.

I'm okay with having the category removed, but please let me know (you or somebody else) if you have another idea to which the category "Abstraction" could be added or if my explanation is sufficient to you for me to readd it.

I added it because I cleaned up Category:Abstraction (to move abstract art into a subcat) and now there's barely anything left so I wanted to add least something that helps to illustrate what the cognitive process and result of abstraction looks like. I hope these explanations make it clearer. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Of what would it be an abstraction? This is a diagram, or rather a table listing particle properties, not an abstracted depiction of the particles described. Also, I fail to understand of what relevance your reference to "abstract thinking" in humans would be here. "The cognitive process and result of abstraction" may have to do with how this diagram was made on a very basic level of human brain function, but not with what it depicts, which should be the sole basis of adding Categories. Meta-categories are not helpful.

"tiny objects don't actually spin in some direction" Particle spin is not subject of this diagram, it is just one of the listed properties. If people do not know or mistake the concept, they can look it up on Wikipedia. Cush (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

New overwrite policy 🙄

Unfortunately, nobody can currently edit the file, as uploads are blocked for anybody except the original uploader, which is User:MissMJ in this case, who seems to be no longer active on Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Cush (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)