![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Looking for inspiration to help develop this article? Check out Electron, a featured article on a similar topic. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Adopt the change
![]() incorrect |
![]() corrected |
See Talk:Proton/Archive_1#diagram of quarks in proton. The diagram does not represent gluon flux tubes, but rather interactions between quarks and gluons in general. This is intentional, and adopted across the board on Wikipedia, see Neutron, Antiproton, Antineutron, Nucleon, etc. If you want to change this, get consensus at WT:PHYS first. 23:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a controversy as to which diagram (Δ or Y) is actually correct. As a chemist I will admit that I don't understand the arguments very well, but I do note that no one seems to have given a reliable source for either type of diagram. Which diagram is used in particle physics textbooks and review articles please? (My university library is closed for the pandemic.) If both are found widely in the literature, then WP:NPOV would require showing both types and summarizing the arguments for each. Reliable sources should be given for both points of view. Dirac66 ( talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, there is one that I am now not sure about. When I was discussing this yesterday, the explanations had arrows on them. I think the picture here is the possible interactions, not a specific interaction. In the case of the delta diagram, I read it as three different interactions, in one diagram. (Much nicer than three separate drawings.) I think the ones in the Rossi paper, and also in the Bissey paper, are individual interactions. More specifically, all we need to indicate here is that there are gluons interacting with quarks. We don't need to indicate all the possible ways that they can interact, and avoid ones that they can't. Gah4 ( talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
References
As the article notes, Rutherford was first to discover nuclear reactions. Was he also the first to use the reaction notation similar to that used in chemistry? That is (reactants) arrow (products)? Gah4 ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits related to the fundamentalness of protons. As well as I know, they should be considered fundamental. Fundamental doesn't mean that they don't have internal structure or size, though. Since we don't have lone quarks, and quark-antiquark mesons aren't stable, it seems to be that protons are the most fundamental state of quark-based matter. Gah4 ( talk) 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There is discussion about lone protons. I suspect that the reason this is a question at all is that chemists like to write H+ when they actually mean H3O+. If there are electrons around, and the temperature is not too high, it will grab one. High means plasma or, as noted, accelerators. Gah4 ( talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In Proton § Quarks and the mass of a proton, it says "As noted, most of a proton's mass comes from the gluons that bind the current quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves." As I understand it, the confinement of the quarks forces them to relativistic velocities, with the resultant kinetic energy contributing significantly to the hadron's mass. Should the quoted sentence not be amended accordingly? — Quondum 02:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The NMR section strongly (too strongly) indicates that it couples to spin. It actually couples to the magnetic moment, which of course is related to spin, but not exactly spin. For example, neutrons are also spin 1/2, but have a different magnetic moment. Gah4 ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Recently I have learned of some new research indicating potential for an additional quark in protons and so am bringing this up to see how it should be addressed.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04998-2
Perhaps this should be mentioned under "Quarks and the mass of a proton" as unconfirmed, but relevant research? Should we wait instead or do something else? StellarRemant ( talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article currently states that Rutherford proposed the reaction "14N + α → 14C + α + H+" ("History" section, 5th paragraph). But this equation has different mass numbers on each side: 18 on the left and 19 on the right. Is this a typo? Or maybe an incorrect transcription of Rutherford's proposal into modern notation? Should it be 14N + α → 13C + α + H+? Indefatigable ( talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The section on charge radius is confusing. The story to be told here is 1) the value and meaning and 2) recent history of the value due to changes in types of experiments. These bits are mixed up and the section tails off with some math. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Looking for inspiration to help develop this article? Check out Electron, a featured article on a similar topic. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Adopt the change
![]() incorrect |
![]() corrected |
See Talk:Proton/Archive_1#diagram of quarks in proton. The diagram does not represent gluon flux tubes, but rather interactions between quarks and gluons in general. This is intentional, and adopted across the board on Wikipedia, see Neutron, Antiproton, Antineutron, Nucleon, etc. If you want to change this, get consensus at WT:PHYS first. 23:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a controversy as to which diagram (Δ or Y) is actually correct. As a chemist I will admit that I don't understand the arguments very well, but I do note that no one seems to have given a reliable source for either type of diagram. Which diagram is used in particle physics textbooks and review articles please? (My university library is closed for the pandemic.) If both are found widely in the literature, then WP:NPOV would require showing both types and summarizing the arguments for each. Reliable sources should be given for both points of view. Dirac66 ( talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, there is one that I am now not sure about. When I was discussing this yesterday, the explanations had arrows on them. I think the picture here is the possible interactions, not a specific interaction. In the case of the delta diagram, I read it as three different interactions, in one diagram. (Much nicer than three separate drawings.) I think the ones in the Rossi paper, and also in the Bissey paper, are individual interactions. More specifically, all we need to indicate here is that there are gluons interacting with quarks. We don't need to indicate all the possible ways that they can interact, and avoid ones that they can't. Gah4 ( talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
References
As the article notes, Rutherford was first to discover nuclear reactions. Was he also the first to use the reaction notation similar to that used in chemistry? That is (reactants) arrow (products)? Gah4 ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits related to the fundamentalness of protons. As well as I know, they should be considered fundamental. Fundamental doesn't mean that they don't have internal structure or size, though. Since we don't have lone quarks, and quark-antiquark mesons aren't stable, it seems to be that protons are the most fundamental state of quark-based matter. Gah4 ( talk) 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There is discussion about lone protons. I suspect that the reason this is a question at all is that chemists like to write H+ when they actually mean H3O+. If there are electrons around, and the temperature is not too high, it will grab one. High means plasma or, as noted, accelerators. Gah4 ( talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In Proton § Quarks and the mass of a proton, it says "As noted, most of a proton's mass comes from the gluons that bind the current quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves." As I understand it, the confinement of the quarks forces them to relativistic velocities, with the resultant kinetic energy contributing significantly to the hadron's mass. Should the quoted sentence not be amended accordingly? — Quondum 02:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The NMR section strongly (too strongly) indicates that it couples to spin. It actually couples to the magnetic moment, which of course is related to spin, but not exactly spin. For example, neutrons are also spin 1/2, but have a different magnetic moment. Gah4 ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Recently I have learned of some new research indicating potential for an additional quark in protons and so am bringing this up to see how it should be addressed.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04998-2
Perhaps this should be mentioned under "Quarks and the mass of a proton" as unconfirmed, but relevant research? Should we wait instead or do something else? StellarRemant ( talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article currently states that Rutherford proposed the reaction "14N + α → 14C + α + H+" ("History" section, 5th paragraph). But this equation has different mass numbers on each side: 18 on the left and 19 on the right. Is this a typo? Or maybe an incorrect transcription of Rutherford's proposal into modern notation? Should it be 14N + α → 13C + α + H+? Indefatigable ( talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The section on charge radius is confusing. The story to be told here is 1) the value and meaning and 2) recent history of the value due to changes in types of experiments. These bits are mixed up and the section tails off with some math. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)