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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.
The first image on the page INCORRECTLY denotes the quark structure of a proton. The gluon fields binding the the three quarks together should not shown as connecting one quark to another and forming a triangular shape; rather, the gluon fields should be originating from the direct center of the image and extending outward to the quarks to form a Y-like shape. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Incnis: citing another Wiki article is no justification whatsoever. I have just watched a YouTube video which also explicitly makes the claim that the diagram is wrong, and the person making this claim is, according to the video, Professor Derek Leinweber of Univ. of Adelaide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls&feature=player_embedded This directly and explicitly discusses that diagram and says (3 min 30 second into video) that we now know that it is wrong. The diagram needs to be fixed or removed.220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Are sand–PVC models, some speaking faces, and their strangely distorted speech (something like “We know that all picture is totally wrong now. Even if… blah-blah… would see quark tubes around… blah-blah-blah-blah… more than three quarks…”) all that you can present? Give a citation, please, exactly on the question of Y-shape vs triangle. Possibly from the same Derek Leinweber, but as a legible text. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean, if you really wanted to be accurrate, instead of wavy lines infinitely many quarks and gluons should be drawn. But when you get down to that level of scale any diagram will be inaccurate in some way or another (how would you represent uncertainty, for instance). The one that is currently there works just fine in getting the general point across. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Magnetic shielding correction not in Infobox template
To Krebs49, who attempted today to add the magnetic shielding correction value to the infobox and noted in his edit summary that the added value does not appear: I believe the problem is that the infobox is generated using Template:Infobox particle and can only show the parameters listed there. So you could either (1) edit the template to include Magnetic shielding correction (and carefully check that this action does not otherwise affect either this Proton article or the articles for other particles), or (2) leave the infobox alone and put the magnetic shielding correction into the text somewhere. Dirac66 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if Matt Strassler approves his image for use on Wikipedia or not. Dc3 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any point in making the figure more complicated by trying to depict the sea quarks. I think it is still completely valid to say that the proton is made of three (valence) quarks. The "sea quarks" arise from the strong interaction itself, which is depicted with the wavy lines. In a sense, these waves include the sea quarks. If one goes down the path of depicting the sea quarks, why not also the virtual photons, electrons, W bosons, etc. The figure becomes very confusing. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been poking at the article for neutron of late, with occasional visits to this page. The two articles (and likely others) should have a degree of similarity about them, seems to me. The History section on this article is rather far down in the article, whereas it is at top in the neutron article. I tend to think the history section should be toward the top since this section also serves as an introduction to the topic. In any case, a certain uniformity in article design would likely be helpful. Bdushaw (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I consider that a synchronization of this article with electron, beside that with neutron, is useful and recommended.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The radius given in the body of the text is given as 0.84–0.87 fm, whereas in the top-right table it is given as 0.8775(51) fm. I understand that the former one is due to a recent discovery of a different radius and the top-right table is based on a table published prior to that study, but it will be confusing to readers. A more recent data table for the proton (2014), from the particle data group rather than CODATA, gives both values: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/listings/rpp2014-list-p.pdf I suggest doing the same in the top-right box, using this as a reference, and maybe add some details on the controversy to the body of the text. MostlyForgettable (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)