Jump to content

Talk:Hexaquark: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Requested move 15 July 2015: closing discussion, result was not moved
Googolquarks ( = quark soup ) and monoquarks ( = pseudo-singularity )
Line 9: Line 9:
==mesonic hexaquark?==
==mesonic hexaquark?==
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]] ? -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.77.36|65.94.77.36]] ([[User talk:65.94.77.36|talk]]) 19:22, 15 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]] ? -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.77.36|65.94.77.36]] ([[User talk:65.94.77.36|talk]]) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

== Googolquarks ( = quark soup ) and monoquarks ( = pseudo-singularity ) ==
Please create pages.


== Requested move 15 July 2015 ==
== Requested move 15 July 2015 ==

Revision as of 04:47, 1 August 2017

WikiProject iconPhysics Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"dimeson"?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

mesonic hexaquark?

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)[reply]

Googolquarks ( = quark soup ) and monoquarks ( = pseudo-singularity )

Please create pages.

Requested move 15 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]



HexaquarkDibaryon – 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.

  • Barely anyone calls dibaryons 'hexaquarks' even thought their content is qqqqqq (Baryon number = 2).
  • Hexaquarks (personally) seems a lot more apropros to describe the next set of exotic mesons (Baryon number = 0) beyond tetraquarks, which could be seen as a bound state of three mesons, or a bound state of one baryon and an antibaryon, or a single clump of qqq{overline --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

A dibaryon is a type of hexaquark, just as strangelets and charmlets are types of baryons. At the moment, the article reads like an article on hexaquarks, with (what should be) a subsection on dibaryons. I'd say keep it here, restructure the article, and if/when more information about dibaryons arises it can be forked. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.