![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
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)
I guess I created a controversy without really meaning to. So let me clarify with a couple of points:
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)
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)
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)
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?! 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)
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
Isn't the strangeness of the strange quark -1? And similarly for the bottom quark? Andrewgdotcom 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 should probably redirect here. 75.139.254.117 ( talk) 04:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)