Talk:Quark model

Naming...

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

I've just reverted a sneaky piece of vandalism unnoticed for more than a year (introduced [1], reverted [2]). So much for Wikipedia reliability. 131.111.8.104 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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. "

like:

"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"

Any objections? Substar (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)substar

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? - Chaim1221 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Defer or explain valence in valence quarks

Valence quark (eg in Baryon) redirects to this quark model but neither clearly explain what they are. Are the non-valence quarks just the virtual quarks in the gluon binding ? Are all three uud quarks in a proton considered 'valence'? Do we need 'valence' in the first sentence ? Are tetraquarks (with an even number of quarks) baryons or not ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

What is a quark?

Can you tell me what a quark is, in terms of how this is actually used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicKiwi (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is a sock puppet of permanently blocked account IrishChemistPride.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

About the model

http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/news13.htm79.119.215.221 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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 70.247.173.205 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Still exceedingly technical

I followed the redirect from Valence Quark, just wondering what that was, and I find this page completely baffling. --Doradus (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)