Talk:Flavour (particle physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Two articles

I've discovered two articles on flavour - a stub and a medium sized article. I've merged the articles. SpNeo 08:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QCD

[edit] Comment 1

I'm slightly un-nerved by the rather prominent billing that QCD gets in this article. Flavour and QCD have little to do with each other; one can have a theory with QCD in it, and only one flavour grand total, and a theory with 6 flavours, and no QCD in it at all. These are pretty much independent concepts; they meet only because both occur in nature. I'd like to see the article edited a bit to disambiguate these two distinct concepts. linas 14:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the guy who redid the article is a bit zealous about QCD, but it is half the standard model. Perhaps it could be re-redone as a general discussion of flavor symmetry? -- Xerxes 16:30, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
This may sound incredibly dumb in light of many of the other articles in WP, but ... and maybe I'm showing my age ... since when did QCD become a part of the Standard Model? When I was in school, "Standard Model" was pretty much a synonym for "electroweak unification plus quark flavours (the Cabibbo matrix)" and QCD was a theory entirely independenent of that. There is absolutely no interaction between gluons and higgs or any other electroweak particle (outside of GUTs and SUSY, last I looked). So I'm completely stumped as to how QCD got lumped into the standard model. Am I missing something? When did this happen? Why do I feel foolish even asking this question? linas 20:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really sure when the terminology first got used that way. Certainly it's the modern meaning of Standard Model. The earliest reference I can find in a brief search is a 1979 paper "K0 anti-K0 Transition in the Standard SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) Model". So around 25 years ago, I guess. -- Xerxes 20:40, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

[edit] Response 1

I guess I created a controversy without really meaning to. So let me clarify with a couple of points:

  • The biggest thing going on now in flavour physics are the BaBar and Belle experiments on CP violation, involving tests of the CKM picture. So if someone follows links back from any of these to flavour, then (s)he deserves to find out a lot about quark flavours. (I also think those two articles need to be re/written, but that is a different matter)
  • The other big thing going on in the Std Model is quark matter, where a lot of work involves understanding the chiral flavour group and the various ways of breaking it. People who track back from there deserve to find something in the article.

But I do appreciate your concern about balanced coverage, since it was already on my mind yesterday when I did the major rewrite. I split the article into two main sections: EW and QCD. Right now section QCD has more material, but section EW could expand. Would either of you like to do this? I wanted to, but I'm off on a vacation today.

Bambaiah 06:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

PS: For interaction between gluon and Higgs see a spires topcite 50+ article. Bambaiah 07:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

PPS: Also, note large amount of lattice QCD work on weak matrix elements (do spires search on keywords), of direct relevance to CKM matrix. Bambaiah 10:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Up/down

Could someone please explain why there are no Up quark or Down quark flavor quantum numbers, while there are ones like strangeness and bottomness? scienceman 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

They'd be redundant. Once you know the charge of a baryon or meson, and how many charm/strange/bottom quarks it contains, the choice of up and down quarks is unambigous. -- SCZenz 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There is; it's called isospin. -- Xerxes 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was Not moved: Substantially good reason would be needed to change between American and British spelling. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's been stable for a year at this title, and I have no idea where "consistency" comes into it - we're not moving all articles to specific types of spelling, we're running it case-by-case and always have done. Shimgray | talk | 21:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Per lack of any reason to change the article, I've reverted the spelling changes. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style; changing spellings from one national variety to another in an article with no particular reason for the change is generally frowned upon. Shimgray | talk |
The reason to change the article has been stated. And see OBGYN for what I mean about moving it back. Like I said, the original article existed 2 years earlier, so that's reason enough. Rompe 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand where on earth gynaecology comes into it, and I honestly don't see the point in renaming an article that's been stable for a year for the sake of some incomprehensible point. Shimgray | talk | 15:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify - if there's consensus to move the page, changing the spelling is appropriate. Trying to force the issue by changing the spelling first isn't necessary... Shimgray | talk | 15:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in to give my 50 cents worth. Articles have to be internally consistent, firstly, with their title. That largely goes without saying. It is not at all clear, however, whether articles have to be consistent in spelling with other articles. There is an argument for overarching consistency, but it ignores the consensus-based approach Wikipedia takes to editing. If, on the talk page of one article, consensus is reached to use one spelling for that article, it does not and should not automatically follow through to other articles using that word. The only way it could would be for notices about the issue to be placed on the talk pages of all of those other articles. Otherwise, those interested in specific pages like these would be unaware of the debate at the more generic article.
More generally, Rompe, please do not revert changes by other users with an edit summary of simply 'rv': this explains nothing about why the revert is being performed, and is totally unacceptable. Furthermore, you marked your revert as minor, which is even worse. The only reversions which are to be marked as minor are reversions of vandalism, which have traditionally been marked as minor to keep them out of recent changes. - Mark 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The governing policy is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I'll leave it to the contributors to decide how it should be applied. Dragons flight 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Just a quick comment: The first major contributor to this article is Bambaiah and she/he consistently used "flavour". Therefore, the article should not be moved (in line with Manual of Style). 89.56.191.227 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "flavour"

flavour?! Who said that ye could corrupt Latin? That "word" has nothing to do with English. It is not English, American or British, and has never been; it is a Latin-muttish abomination. Did Gell-Mann use flavour? Do mest of "particle physicists" (also muttish—should be particular fusicists) use flavour? Is sciense drivene by Francish awk? The English word is whiffred, or whiffer, or whiffur. Yeir grammar is a sham. -lysdexia 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "weak hypercharge"

The weak hypercharge assignments for charged leptons and neutrinos are incorrect. The weak hypercharge for left handed leptons is Y = 2(q - T_3) = -1, this doublet including both 1 charged lepton (with charge q = -1 and weak isospin T_3 = -1/2) and 1 neutrino (with charge q = 0 and weak isospin T_3 = 1/2). - bapowellphysics 13:26 June 2007

[edit] Strangeness (and Bottomness)

Isn't the strangeness of the strange quark -1? And similarly for the bottom quark? Andrewgdotcom 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

yes the article is talking about the antiquarks which have strangeness/bottomness of +1 Murdochious (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baryon number

The article states that the baryon number for quarks is 1/2, surely its 1/3? seems as 3 quarks make a baryon. Murdochious (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)