From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


CERN (Centre Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) is another huge laboratory that uses the most powerful particle accelerators for the study of matter.

Yes I saw that omission, but didn't fix it. I do remember reading at one time that CERN's budget was several times Fermilab's, and since the SSC was cancelled, I suppose it must be the main world laboratory, but I have not really been following it recently. I will try to help the wording. David R. Ingham 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(Actually the circular accelerators cross the border between France and Switzerland, but the protons are not required to stop for customs, because that would make too much bremsstrahlung LOL.)

The question of whose accelerator is biggest is totally irrelevant to the question of who is studying hyperons. You don't need a big accelerator to produce them. Does anybody actually know which lab is more focused on hyperon research? -- Xerxes 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither CERN nor Fermilab is primarily focused on hyperon research, although both are involved in it. I'd say Fermilab has done more work in the area recently -- it hosted the E687 and E831 (FOCUS), E781 (SELEX) and E871 (HyperCP) experiments, although none of those is taking data any more. Experiments at other labs have also done work on hyperons -- even the e+e- B-factories have shown results in this area. So I think it's a bit dangerous to say that lab X is *the* place for hyperons, and a bit impractical to try and list every experiment that's worked on them. It would be better just to say that many experiments are studying or have studied them and give a couple of examples. Physicsdog 07:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Charmed Hyperons[edit]

While I edited the article mentioning that hyperons don't have heavy quark content, I know of a bunch of places where people refer to charmed hyperons. I think it would be nice to have some opinions on this matter, given that the term probably originated in the days before the heavy quarks were identified and there does not appear to be a complete consensus what this term exactly refers to. (Therefore my edit might not be very correct.) Erkcan 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked one of our baryon old-timers about this. He explained that the term "hyperon" had been coined well before the quark model (and presumably before strangeness was understood as a quantum number). It originally referred to any (narrow?) baryon state which was heavier than a proton but lighter than a deuteron, i.e. light Lambda, Xi and Omega baryons but not things like Deltas or the phi. That exact definition doesn't work so well now -- charm wasn't discovered back then, and neither were heavier resonances like the Omega(2250) -- but I think the intention was to refer to Lambda, Xi, and Omega states with no heavy flavour. I'd say that's how it's most commonly used in the literature today. Physicsdog 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So if the definition is out of date than why don't you put a current one in there. Saying a hyperon has zero charm would be misleading because the charmed omega has one charm quark and two strange. Maybe you could list the significance of the older definition somewhere else in the article and use the current definition in the opening. The definition I have, from The Facts on File Dictionary of Atomic and Nuclear Physics by Richard Rennie, basically just mentions the strangeness of hyperons and not the charm or bottomness. I would understand leaving the definition you have in there now for historic reasons, but I would recommend the main definition being up to date. (NucPhy7 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

specify no top quarks?[edit]

The article defines: "any baryon containing one or more strange quarks, but no charm quarks or bottom quarks". Should we add that it also contains no top quarks? RJFJR (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperon. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)