|WikiProject Physics||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Hey there. Working over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Would you say that Gell-Mann/Nishima Law could or should be redirected to this article? jengod 16:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it is not currently treated by this article. You might try redirecting it to hypercharge. -- Xerxes 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverted vandalism unnoticed for more than a year
Introduction too technical
Hi all. I find the intro. paragraph in this article way to technical for the casual wikipedia reader who is not a particle physicist. I myself have a PhD in astrophysics and took one grad level class in particles, and have a little trouble with it esp. the Poincare group reference and number of symbols and terms introduced all at once. It seem best if the entire first paragraph could be understood by an ordinary reader who has visited some of the pages linked to (eg "quarks"). So one thought would be to move the Poincare, etc. discussion to a later paragraph. In any case I'd like to include a clarifying sentence, perhaps after the first sentence:
"In physics, the quark model is a classification scheme for hadrons in terms of their valence quarks, i.e., the quarks (and antiquarks) which give rise to the quantum numbers of the hadrons. "
"Simply put, the quark model shows how quarks make up larger particles. For example the proton and neutron (and other baryons ) are made up of three quarks, while mesons are made up of two"
I didn't understand a single thing from this page. This is not supposed to be a physics textbook; Wikipedia articles are supposed to give the general public an idea of what a particular term or concept is about. If I wrote a page about the law and used nothing but Latin terms and case citations, it would be darn confusing for many of you; is it impossible for you to talk about your field of expertise in lay terms?
What is a quark?
- This user is a sock puppet of permanently blocked account IrishChemistPride.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
About the model
Relation to QCD
My feeling is that this article does not do a good job of expressing where the line is between the quark model and QCD. For me, this is important in understanding the historical significance of the model. Can someone knowledgeable please include a little more information in the article to clarify this? Similarly, I'm not sure it is very clear either how this model departs from the Eightfold Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)