Talk:Flavour (particle physics)

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)

QCD

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Flavour (particle physics) → Flavor (particle physics) … Rationale: The other one was created 2 years earlier (ed.: see #Two articles —Centrx→talk •), and there needs to be consistency per moves with articles related to gynaecology and tumor. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Flavour (particle physics). — Rompe 08:18, 26 August 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)

"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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.152.226 (talk)

I do not see how your comment helps fix this article in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I'm not sure you even meant us to understand it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

They were clearly saying that the article shouldn't be spelled "flavour", and that it should be renamed, and I agree. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

This is correct, as can be easily seen from the formula for weak hypercharge. For some reason bapowellphysics hasn't made the appropriate correction in the article, so i did and also added a reference. shame this had to wait for two years to be corrected. --B2NVB2 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Should we use the American spelling?

The use of flavor with this meaning seems to have been inspired by MIT hacker slang. [1] So I think this article should be moved to the American spelling. I apologize for opening this can of worms again, but I think this is a relevant point which wasn't addressed before. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hacker slang has no bearing on anything. Flavour was used first, and stayed as flavour since the creation of the article. I see no reason to kick the bee's nest.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet British "slang" is perfectly fine? The article should be renamed, it wouldn't "kick the bee's nest" if people wouldn't oppose the change, it's really not a big deal. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A gauged symmetry???

the lead says that flavour is a gauged symmetry of the electroweak theory. This is complete nonsense, as should be clear to anyone with the slightest understanding of the topic. I'll delete it but I suspect that the whole article needs a radical revision... Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottomness

I can't say I've ever seen it put like this. I've only ever seen bottomness denoted as a B with a tilde (~) over it to distinguish it from the baryon number. Is there any particular reason for it being written like this here or should it be changed?

Tresiden (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Despite containing a definition section the article does not appear to give a clear definition of what flavour is. If it does, it needs to be dumbed down a bit. The statement "This is an example of a flavour symmetry" is not helpful unless you know already what a flavour symmetry is. The article needs pedagogical improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Three words: WTF

I have a major issue with these "advanced physics" articles on Wikipedia. There is not even any attempt whatsoever to "dumb it down" for the 99% of the world's population who have never studied quantum mechanics. It's not that I take issue with the field or physicists themselves, but the sheer arrogance! Inquiring dumbasses like me would like to have this stuff explained in terms they can readily understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on "dumbing down" wiki articles to make scientific / technical subjects understandable to everyone. In particular an article on particle physics. You can go to the library in the 6 and under section and find something like that. I imagine you are also in favor (not favour) of the U.S. Common Core program in education which basically says to do this sort of thing. That holds back top students from achieving even much more lofty ambitions or goals.Danleywolfe (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not arrogance, it's a lack of time and ressources. There is currently about 13,000 articles related to physics, and about 80 people, all with lives outside of wikipedia. So people (usually experts) write the basics of it, which usually can be understood by physics undergrad students in their 3rd or 4th year and above. This article will be improved eventually (see that it got a "start-class" assesment in the banner at the top of the page, meaning that it's identified as:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. - [description]

See WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP for more details. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP. Although we're not perfect, I've finally been able to put my finger on what bothers me about these articles. They give circular definitions. Weak interaction talks defines itself in terms of flavor changes, which defines itself in terms of quarks which... defines itself in terms of flavor changes. This isn't a small problem; it's pandemic to physics articles on Wikipedia. Frankly, they suck; there's no way to learn anything from them without a college degree in physics. I may bring this up at Wikiproject Physics soon.Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To understand physics properly you first have to complete an undergraduate degree in the subject, and that's only the start, there's a long way to go after that. As Euclid said to King Ptolemy I Soter there is no royal road to understanding, not even Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

IMHO, that does not excuse an article written in such a way that it's incomprehensible to someone like me, who's very well versed in Newtonian physics, but has no background in quantum physics. If one can learn the information from textbooks and teachers in college, then surely there is a route to allow that same learning on Wikipedia. As yet, that route doesn't exist for our quantum physics, though it does for a host of other subjects. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

They do exist, see [2]. But beware, although the web can provide you with information it cannot provide you with the ability to understand that information. You have to do the hard work to develop that faculty yourself. Having said that, I agree with my comments above that this page is in need of improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

I've seen flavour used in some places just to refer to one of the six types of quark, which doesn't come across in the article in its present state. The flavour quantum numbers (strangeness etc.) are easily defined based on numbers of quarks of each "flavour", or type. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Such was the impetus for templates like this one 50.156.18.22 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

User:Michael C Price keeps reverting the overlinking fixes WP:REPEATLINK. This is a pretty clear style issue. Is there some reason this particular article needs overlinking? Bhny (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Measurement of strangeness etc.

This article and others explains that strangeness was suggested as a concept to explain the rate of decay of particles, but I couldn't see any details on how it was measured and/or guessed for observed particles. There must be a definition which is not in terms of the numbers of strange and antistrange quarks, as the concept was introduced before these quarks were postulated. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Misnomer (incorrect name) - etymology?

Just think that people might be misled to think that Flavour is talking about the taste of the particle. Something should be included about etymology of the word 129.180.175.166 (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that the sort of people who would read a particle physics article would also be the sort of people who'd think that anything so small could have any flavor. An etymology section would be helpful regardless, though. AutisticCatnip (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Flavor symmetry

Flavor symmetry links to this article, but I can't find a good explanation here of Flavor SU(2) symmetry, Flavor SU(3) symmetry, Flavor SU(4) symmetry, or Flavor SU(6) symmetry. IMO, this needs to be spelled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.173.205 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Five Flavour Quantum Numbers

Early in this article, the phrase "five flavour quantum numbers" occurs, and it is followed by a note "which?". The five flavour quantum numbers are listed about a page later under "quarks". I'm not sure how to go from there. Should "which?" be removed, or is there some way to point where to look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4E01:8F9E:DCF2:3886:D1C5:2F3B (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Flavor transmutation

Flavor transmutation should probably redirect here. 75.139.254.117 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flavour (particle physics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831014543/http://theta13.lbl.gov/neutrino_book_pdfs/04_03_Neutrino_Masses.pdf to http://theta13.lbl.gov/neutrino_book_pdfs/04_03_Neutrino_Masses.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)