![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I notice that this is about a hexaquark particle of the same kind of configuration as a baryon doubled... and not about a two-baryon composite particle. dimeson would seem to be the equivalent term form for the tetraquark particle of the same kind of configuration as a meson doubled... but "dimeson" seems to be about composite particles composed of two mesons? Seems like inconsistent terminology? -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
How is this a hexaquark, if the examples of dibaryons are two-baryon composite particles (2 particles of 3-quarks each) instead of a single particle composing of 6-quarks? -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility for a meson hexaquark? Hexaquark redirects here, so perhaps it should be an article instead, if an exotic meson 6-quark configuration has been theorized, and not just an exotic baryon ? -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please create pages.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hexaquark →
Dibaryon – Up until recently this article was located at
dibaryon. In the wake of the recent claims of LHCb
pentaquark discovery, this was moved to
hexaquark. I am not convinced that it is wise to move
dibaryon to
hexaquark, for several reasons.
I'm not sure how exactly I feel when it comes to moving this back to dibaryon and having a seperate article on hexaquark, or if dibaryons should be subsection of a greatly expanded hexaquark entry. I'm leaning towards the former option myself, but I'd rather have a discussion about it than rely on a gut feeling. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The d*(2380) is being proposed as a dark matter candidate, but it has an electrical charge of +1e, giving it a charge-mass ratio larger than that of a tritium nucleus, and would need associated electrons or muons to be electrically neutral in bulk. Why wouldn't it emit electromagnetic radiation?-- 96.44.197.17 ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
These 2 hexaquarks are treated as the same thing, while they're not due to having a different mass. Could you either:
Please give a clear, concise and complete answer. Braggy ( talk) 16:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I notice that this is about a hexaquark particle of the same kind of configuration as a baryon doubled... and not about a two-baryon composite particle. dimeson would seem to be the equivalent term form for the tetraquark particle of the same kind of configuration as a meson doubled... but "dimeson" seems to be about composite particles composed of two mesons? Seems like inconsistent terminology? -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
How is this a hexaquark, if the examples of dibaryons are two-baryon composite particles (2 particles of 3-quarks each) instead of a single particle composing of 6-quarks? -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility for a meson hexaquark? Hexaquark redirects here, so perhaps it should be an article instead, if an exotic meson 6-quark configuration has been theorized, and not just an exotic baryon ? -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please create pages.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hexaquark →
Dibaryon – Up until recently this article was located at
dibaryon. In the wake of the recent claims of LHCb
pentaquark discovery, this was moved to
hexaquark. I am not convinced that it is wise to move
dibaryon to
hexaquark, for several reasons.
I'm not sure how exactly I feel when it comes to moving this back to dibaryon and having a seperate article on hexaquark, or if dibaryons should be subsection of a greatly expanded hexaquark entry. I'm leaning towards the former option myself, but I'd rather have a discussion about it than rely on a gut feeling. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The d*(2380) is being proposed as a dark matter candidate, but it has an electrical charge of +1e, giving it a charge-mass ratio larger than that of a tritium nucleus, and would need associated electrons or muons to be electrically neutral in bulk. Why wouldn't it emit electromagnetic radiation?-- 96.44.197.17 ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
These 2 hexaquarks are treated as the same thing, while they're not due to having a different mass. Could you either:
Please give a clear, concise and complete answer. Braggy ( talk) 16:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)