Side N
Nineteen Numbers, Three Forces of Four
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What Happened | English Wikipedia’s pinned revision of Standard Model, for the theory’s scope and its nineteen constants; the Particle Data Group’s Higgs boson listing, for the Higgs mass; the Muon g−2 Collaboration’s measurement and the Muon g−2 Theory Initiative’s prediction, for the 0.60σ figure |
| Timeline | English Wikipedia’s pinned revision of Standard Model, for every dated development from 1928 to 2012 and for the naming dispute that carries two dates and no way to choose between them |
| The Argument | the Muon g−2 Collaboration’s measurement, arXiv:2506.03069; the Muon g−2 Theory Initiative’s prediction, arXiv:2505.21476 — the tension between the two is derived here, because the two papers quote different powers of ten |
| What Others Add | the Particle Data Group’s quarks, leptons and gauge-and-Higgs-bosons summary tables; the Planck Collaboration, for the dark-sector fractions and the neutrino-mass bound; the nEDM Collaboration, for the neutron’s electric dipole moment; the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, for the proton-decay limits; English Wikipedia, for the theory’s own list of acknowledged inadequacies |
| Conclusion | the Muon g−2 Collaboration’s measurement and the Muon g−2 Theory Initiative’s prediction, for the tension that closed and why it is not settled; English Wikipedia, for the nineteen constants and the six undated omissions; the Particle Data Group’s Higgs boson listing, for its own scale factor; the Planck Collaboration, for the neutrino-mass caveat |
What the evidence base looks like
- 10Sources behind this article
- 5Sections, every one of them sourced
- 5Read in full
- 5Read at the abstract only
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| Primary measurement and prediction papers | 5 | All five at the abstract only; one (the Planck paper) is confirmed published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the research record lists the other four as arXiv preprints with no journal reference established here |
| Particle Data Group compiled reference tables | 4 | All four in full, fetched as PDFs and converted to text directly; each carries its own methodological caveat in its own header or annotation rather than leaving it to be inferred |
| The encyclopaedia entry | 1 | In full, exported as a PDF of the pinned revision; its timestamp was independently cross-checked against the encyclopaedia’s own API |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing