This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charm quark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Charm quark has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 24, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Charm quark appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Could somebody make an attempt to introduce this material to non-scientists?
Was the charm originally called charity? Regardless, where did the name come from? And why is there some discussion of the naming of some other particle instead, that's just confusing (ie. belongs elsewhere), plus there's that equation with no explanation (any idea what it means?)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.48.127 ( talk) 05:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Quark article it states that: *
Sheldon Lee Glashow and James Bjorken, predicted the existence of a fourth flavor of quark, which they referred to as charm (c). This would have been around 1965.
The article also states that:
In a 1970 paper,[16] Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani gave more compelling theoretical arguments for the as-yet undiscovered charm quark.
This Charm article states that
The charm quark [...] was predicted in 1970 by Sheldon Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani, and first observed in November 1974
and
The quark itself derived its name from the "charmed" life the J/ψ leads, having a half-life a thousand times longer than had been predicted theoretically.
The contradictions, predicted in 1965 vs. in 1970 and named in 1965 when proposed vs. named in 1974 after an experimental discovery, need to be fixed. 78.147.26.143 ( talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This says they were theorized by Glashow Illious and Maini in 1970. Quark says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the numbers on the current image for the particles of the standard model, charm quarks are the third most massive quarks, behind bottom and top (top being the most massive). Up and down and clearly stated to be the smallest, and strange is listed at 104 MeV, which is smaller than charm's 1.27 GeV. I'm guessing this discrepancy has to do with the "/c^2" in the statistic making charm fourth, but I don't see how the speed of light would have that small an effect on the resulting number (1.27e9 -> 1.5e9). ~XarBioGeek ( talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
if some one can get a hold of C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, K. Y. Wong, E. Follana, R. Horgan, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier. Precise Charm to Strange Mass Ratio and Light Quark Masses from Full Lattice QCD. Physical Review Letters, 2010; 104 (13): 132003 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132003 it is purported to have refined values for qs and qc Abyssoft ( talk) 04:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2010 PDG values have been posted,
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/2010/tables/rpp2010-sum-quarks.pdf
I will wait a few more days before making the changes to mass. If there are no objections I'll apply the changes on Friday August 06, 2010 sometime between 0700 and 2200 UTC.
Abyssoft (
talk)
20:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Given that from the data mc is 1.27+0.07
−0.11
GeV/c2 and mb is 4.20+0.17
−0.07
GeV/c2 by (
MS scheme) and 4.68+0.17
−0.07
GeV/c2 (
1S scheme)
then mb-mc as currently stated by PDG source of 3.43+0.05
−0.05
GeV/c2 is above the mathematically evaluated mb-mc where (
MS scheme) is used for mb (3.00+0.21
−0.21
GeV/c2), and is completely interior to mb-mc where (
1S scheme) is used for mb (3.48+0.21
−0.21
GeV/c2); therefore can it not be adequately assumed that the values derived by use of the (
MS scheme) are outside acceptable range and should thus be removed or noted as such.
Abyssoft ( talk) 17:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You cannot just add or subtract masses given for different particles, as given in the PDG. The listed masses are the values of the running masses evaluated at a reference energy equal to the relevant quark mass. To calculate the difference of bottom and charm masses, just specify at what reference energy you want to compare the masses and adjust the masses to that level. TimothyRias ( talk) 12:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though it would be technically "OR", could you provide the maths needed to do this it sounds interesting Timothy? 64.27.60.18 ( talk) 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a somewhat recent edit that changed the decay particle "up quark" to "down quark". I did a quick search and couldn't find something that clearly said one or the other in terms that I, having no background in particle physics whatsoever, could understand (just one about charm decaying into strange). TimothyRias added a source for charms decaying into downs (thank you), but I looked at it and couldn't find a clear statement indicative of that.
Thanks. ~rezecib ( talk) 20:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the main picture. It's so CHARMing! Фин Рептилоид ( talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It is stated in This article. A secondary source is available here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.108.26 ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Sheldon Glashow bet to eat hats: see Glashow, Sheldon L. (July 18, 1976). "The hunting of the". The New York Times.
... or p.14 of Rosner, Jonathan L. (1998). The Arrival of Charm. Heavy Quarks at Fixed Targets. AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 459, no. 1 (published 1999). p. 9-27. doi: 10.1063/1.57782. Retrieved 2023-06-02.5x expanded by TheLonelyPather ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charm quark; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The lede ends vaguely: "Charm quarks are found in various hadrons, and several bosons can decay into charm quarks." Is it possible to give some examples? Or to characterize why the examples are obscure?
As I poked around I immediately ran into "charming" questions:
I'm sure that these question are trivial for those who know. We don't ;-) Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Artem.G ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Will review this one. I didn't do any particle physics in ten years, would be fun to review it. I already started some minor ce, feel free to revert. Please expect my comments in the next days. Artem.G ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
with a mass of 1.27±0.02 GeV/c2 (as of 2022)- this reads strange, maybe something like (as measured in 2022) can work? the mass of any elementary particle is constant, but the precision of our measurements can be improved.
It carries charm, a quantum number.- though the sentence is fine, it's also confusing because the article for Charm (quantum number) says that
Charm (symbol C) is a flavour quantum number representing the difference between the number of charm quarks (c) and charm antiquarks (c) that are present in a particle. I don't know right now how to rework it, will look into books later.
A new quark carrying a new quantum number called charm has been discovered. Artem.G ( talk) 13:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
In the next few years, several charmed particles were found.- what particles? examples would be nice to have
See the following section for Iliopoulos' wager on wine- I don't think that's useful, that section is right after this paragraph
By the time of the Lepton-Photon Symposium in August 1975, eight new heavy particles had been discovered.[39]- is there a list of these particles in source?
On 5 May, the two published a joint memorandum. Thus "naked charm" had been discovered.[42]- maybe combine to one sentence? smth like
On 5 May, they published a joint memorandum about their discovery of the "naked charm".
A "cross section" is a measure related to probability in physics.[65]- I don't think that such definition is useful.
That's all for now, I'll reread it later and will do a spot-check. Artem.G ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It carries a quantum number also known as charm.[60]- I think the phrasing from the lead is better. Charm is just one quantum number, but this sentence says that another name for "quantum number" is "charm".
Besides weak decays, the charm quark can annihilate with a charm antiquark through the ground state of charmonium mesons.[54]- I didn't get anything after "annihilate", what happens "through the ground state of charmonium mesons"? Source says
An exception to this are decays of ground state charmonium mesons, which decay via annihilation of the charm and anticharm quarks, and I think that it'll be better just to use this quote.
Images are fine, all CC-BY-3.0 or CC0.
I still think that small backround section is needed, will look into the main quark article to see how it's described there. Artem.G ( talk) 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
17:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by TheLonelyPather ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
TheLonelyPather ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
ADORABLE
great lines from this article
MASS - EXTREMELY NOT IMPORTANT COMMENT BUT
The charm quark is more massive than the strange quark
>
The charm quark has more mass than the strange quark The charm quark has a larger mass than the strange quark ??
I assume "massive" used here is the same mass from e=mc2 ? Most normies won't be reading the charm quark article *BUT* I would caution that the colloquial meaning of "massive" (as used to describe "very big rock" or "huge spaceship" or "extremely significant shift in circumstances") might hang up people whose techie brain hemispheres stopped absorbing new info around algebra. It's just a little phrasing nuance that caught me up.
SINGULAR v PLURAL
Charm quarks can exist in either "open charm particles", which contains one or several charm quarks,
Satellites can exist in either "solar systems," which contain one or several planets
I don't know whether open charm particles are a single concept or a mystical physics something with multiple states but if it's kind of *one idea* I think this should be "which contain" instead of "which contains"
Kudos to all. I don't speak physics but clearly a very fine article. jengod ( talk) 21:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Cheers back to you! I think the wagers move was already reverted but my argument for that is basic storytelling law: "Begin at the beginning, work through the middle, and when you get to the end, stop." Have the wager outcome told before the proven discoveries second feels like stepping on a punchline or telling the end in the middle. spoiler alert, etc etc. It's all good. Have a quarky day everyone. jengod ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charm quark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Charm quark has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 24, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Charm quark appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Could somebody make an attempt to introduce this material to non-scientists?
Was the charm originally called charity? Regardless, where did the name come from? And why is there some discussion of the naming of some other particle instead, that's just confusing (ie. belongs elsewhere), plus there's that equation with no explanation (any idea what it means?)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.48.127 ( talk) 05:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Quark article it states that: *
Sheldon Lee Glashow and James Bjorken, predicted the existence of a fourth flavor of quark, which they referred to as charm (c). This would have been around 1965.
The article also states that:
In a 1970 paper,[16] Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani gave more compelling theoretical arguments for the as-yet undiscovered charm quark.
This Charm article states that
The charm quark [...] was predicted in 1970 by Sheldon Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani, and first observed in November 1974
and
The quark itself derived its name from the "charmed" life the J/ψ leads, having a half-life a thousand times longer than had been predicted theoretically.
The contradictions, predicted in 1965 vs. in 1970 and named in 1965 when proposed vs. named in 1974 after an experimental discovery, need to be fixed. 78.147.26.143 ( talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This says they were theorized by Glashow Illious and Maini in 1970. Quark says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the numbers on the current image for the particles of the standard model, charm quarks are the third most massive quarks, behind bottom and top (top being the most massive). Up and down and clearly stated to be the smallest, and strange is listed at 104 MeV, which is smaller than charm's 1.27 GeV. I'm guessing this discrepancy has to do with the "/c^2" in the statistic making charm fourth, but I don't see how the speed of light would have that small an effect on the resulting number (1.27e9 -> 1.5e9). ~XarBioGeek ( talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
if some one can get a hold of C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, K. Y. Wong, E. Follana, R. Horgan, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier. Precise Charm to Strange Mass Ratio and Light Quark Masses from Full Lattice QCD. Physical Review Letters, 2010; 104 (13): 132003 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132003 it is purported to have refined values for qs and qc Abyssoft ( talk) 04:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2010 PDG values have been posted,
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/2010/tables/rpp2010-sum-quarks.pdf
I will wait a few more days before making the changes to mass. If there are no objections I'll apply the changes on Friday August 06, 2010 sometime between 0700 and 2200 UTC.
Abyssoft (
talk)
20:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Given that from the data mc is 1.27+0.07
−0.11
GeV/c2 and mb is 4.20+0.17
−0.07
GeV/c2 by (
MS scheme) and 4.68+0.17
−0.07
GeV/c2 (
1S scheme)
then mb-mc as currently stated by PDG source of 3.43+0.05
−0.05
GeV/c2 is above the mathematically evaluated mb-mc where (
MS scheme) is used for mb (3.00+0.21
−0.21
GeV/c2), and is completely interior to mb-mc where (
1S scheme) is used for mb (3.48+0.21
−0.21
GeV/c2); therefore can it not be adequately assumed that the values derived by use of the (
MS scheme) are outside acceptable range and should thus be removed or noted as such.
Abyssoft ( talk) 17:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You cannot just add or subtract masses given for different particles, as given in the PDG. The listed masses are the values of the running masses evaluated at a reference energy equal to the relevant quark mass. To calculate the difference of bottom and charm masses, just specify at what reference energy you want to compare the masses and adjust the masses to that level. TimothyRias ( talk) 12:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though it would be technically "OR", could you provide the maths needed to do this it sounds interesting Timothy? 64.27.60.18 ( talk) 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a somewhat recent edit that changed the decay particle "up quark" to "down quark". I did a quick search and couldn't find something that clearly said one or the other in terms that I, having no background in particle physics whatsoever, could understand (just one about charm decaying into strange). TimothyRias added a source for charms decaying into downs (thank you), but I looked at it and couldn't find a clear statement indicative of that.
Thanks. ~rezecib ( talk) 20:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the main picture. It's so CHARMing! Фин Рептилоид ( talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It is stated in This article. A secondary source is available here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.108.26 ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Sheldon Glashow bet to eat hats: see Glashow, Sheldon L. (July 18, 1976). "The hunting of the". The New York Times.
... or p.14 of Rosner, Jonathan L. (1998). The Arrival of Charm. Heavy Quarks at Fixed Targets. AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 459, no. 1 (published 1999). p. 9-27. doi: 10.1063/1.57782. Retrieved 2023-06-02.5x expanded by TheLonelyPather ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charm quark; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The lede ends vaguely: "Charm quarks are found in various hadrons, and several bosons can decay into charm quarks." Is it possible to give some examples? Or to characterize why the examples are obscure?
As I poked around I immediately ran into "charming" questions:
I'm sure that these question are trivial for those who know. We don't ;-) Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Artem.G ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Will review this one. I didn't do any particle physics in ten years, would be fun to review it. I already started some minor ce, feel free to revert. Please expect my comments in the next days. Artem.G ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
with a mass of 1.27±0.02 GeV/c2 (as of 2022)- this reads strange, maybe something like (as measured in 2022) can work? the mass of any elementary particle is constant, but the precision of our measurements can be improved.
It carries charm, a quantum number.- though the sentence is fine, it's also confusing because the article for Charm (quantum number) says that
Charm (symbol C) is a flavour quantum number representing the difference between the number of charm quarks (c) and charm antiquarks (c) that are present in a particle. I don't know right now how to rework it, will look into books later.
A new quark carrying a new quantum number called charm has been discovered. Artem.G ( talk) 13:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
In the next few years, several charmed particles were found.- what particles? examples would be nice to have
See the following section for Iliopoulos' wager on wine- I don't think that's useful, that section is right after this paragraph
By the time of the Lepton-Photon Symposium in August 1975, eight new heavy particles had been discovered.[39]- is there a list of these particles in source?
On 5 May, the two published a joint memorandum. Thus "naked charm" had been discovered.[42]- maybe combine to one sentence? smth like
On 5 May, they published a joint memorandum about their discovery of the "naked charm".
A "cross section" is a measure related to probability in physics.[65]- I don't think that such definition is useful.
That's all for now, I'll reread it later and will do a spot-check. Artem.G ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It carries a quantum number also known as charm.[60]- I think the phrasing from the lead is better. Charm is just one quantum number, but this sentence says that another name for "quantum number" is "charm".
Besides weak decays, the charm quark can annihilate with a charm antiquark through the ground state of charmonium mesons.[54]- I didn't get anything after "annihilate", what happens "through the ground state of charmonium mesons"? Source says
An exception to this are decays of ground state charmonium mesons, which decay via annihilation of the charm and anticharm quarks, and I think that it'll be better just to use this quote.
Images are fine, all CC-BY-3.0 or CC0.
I still think that small backround section is needed, will look into the main quark article to see how it's described there. Artem.G ( talk) 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
17:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by TheLonelyPather ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
TheLonelyPather ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
ADORABLE
great lines from this article
MASS - EXTREMELY NOT IMPORTANT COMMENT BUT
The charm quark is more massive than the strange quark
>
The charm quark has more mass than the strange quark The charm quark has a larger mass than the strange quark ??
I assume "massive" used here is the same mass from e=mc2 ? Most normies won't be reading the charm quark article *BUT* I would caution that the colloquial meaning of "massive" (as used to describe "very big rock" or "huge spaceship" or "extremely significant shift in circumstances") might hang up people whose techie brain hemispheres stopped absorbing new info around algebra. It's just a little phrasing nuance that caught me up.
SINGULAR v PLURAL
Charm quarks can exist in either "open charm particles", which contains one or several charm quarks,
Satellites can exist in either "solar systems," which contain one or several planets
I don't know whether open charm particles are a single concept or a mystical physics something with multiple states but if it's kind of *one idea* I think this should be "which contain" instead of "which contains"
Kudos to all. I don't speak physics but clearly a very fine article. jengod ( talk) 21:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Cheers back to you! I think the wagers move was already reverted but my argument for that is basic storytelling law: "Begin at the beginning, work through the middle, and when you get to the end, stop." Have the wager outcome told before the proven discoveries second feels like stepping on a punchline or telling the end in the middle. spoiler alert, etc etc. It's all good. Have a quarky day everyone. jengod ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)