Talk:Charm quark

message: Was the charm originally called charity? Regardless, where did the name come from? And why is there some discussion of the naming of some other particle instead, that's just confusing (ie. belongs elsewhere), plus there's that equation with no explanation (any idea what it means?)...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.48.127 (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charity

message: In the Quark article it states that: *
 Sheldon Lee Glashow and James Bjorken, predicted the existence of a fourth flavor of quark, which they referred to as charm (c). This would have been around 1965. 
The article also states that:
 In a 1970 paper,[16] Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani gave more compelling theoretical arguments for the as-yet undiscovered charm quark.
This Charm article states that 
 The charm quark [...] was predicted in 1970 by Sheldon Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani, and first observed in November 1974
and
 The quark itself derived its name from the "charmed" life the J/ψ leads, having a half-life a thousand times longer than had been predicted theoretically.
The contradictions, predicted in 1965 vs. in 1970 and named in 1965 when proposed vs. named in 1974 after an experimental discovery, need to be fixed. 78.147.26.143 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin and naming

message: This says they were theorized by Glashow Illious and Maini in 1970. Quark says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with [[charm quark]] 

message: According to the numbers on the current image for the particles of the standard model, charm quarks are the third most massive quarks, behind bottom and top (top being the most massive). Up and down and clearly stated to be the smallest, and strange is listed at 104 MeV, which is smaller than charm's 1.27 GeV. I'm guessing this discrepancy has to do with the "/c^2" in the statistic making charm fourth, but I don't see how the speed of light would have that small an effect on the resulting number (1.27e9 -> 1.5e9). ~XarBioGeek (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was due to me wanting to say it came 4th if you listed quarks from lightest to heaviest. Somehow that came out as '4th most massive'. MeV are MeV/c^2 equivalent (the former uses the convention that c = 1). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And now (well, last month) it's been changed back to "fourth most massive". I assume this is a simple mistake similar to the above, but don't want to revert it myself on the off chance that the topic is more complicated than I think it is. Emurphy42 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth or third? 

message: if some one can get a hold of C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, K. Y. Wong, E. Follana, R. Horgan, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier. Precise Charm to Strange Mass Ratio and Light Quark Masses from Full Lattice QCD. Physical Review Letters, 2010; 104 (13): 132003 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132003 it is purported to have refined values for qs and qc 
Abyssoft (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference 

message: Given that from the data mc is  and mb is  by ( scheme) and  (1S scheme)
then mb-mc as currently stated by PDG source of  is above the mathematically evaluated mb-mc where ( scheme) is used for mb (), and is completely interior to mb-mc where (1S scheme) is used for mb (); therefore can it not be adequately assumed that the values derived by use of the ( scheme) are outside acceptable range and should thus be removed or noted as such.
Abyssoft (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of Contention within the data 

message: There was a somewhat recent edit that changed the decay particle "up quark" to "down quark". I did a quick search and couldn't find something that clearly said one or the other in terms that I, having no background in particle physics whatsoever, could understand (just one about charm decaying into strange). TimothyRias added a source for charms decaying into downs (thank you), but I looked at it and couldn't find a clear statement indicative of that.
# Can charms decay into either up or down quarks? Can they decay into up or down antiquarks, as the source for decaying into strange seems to indicate?
# Can someone (who understands such sources) find sources for those, and ideally add quotations from those sources that make it clear (simplifying the verification)?
Thanks. ~rezecib (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I completely missed the sentence "The c quark has about 5% probability of decaying into a d quark instead of an s quark." in the hyperphysics source, which covers both nicely. I set that to the quote for the source. The other questions still remain, as the article did list "up quark" as a decay particle from 24 March 2010 to 5 December 2010, which makes it seem like it might've had at least some validity. ~rezecib (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decay particles 

message: I like the main picture. It's so CHARMing! Фин Рептилоид (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool main picture 

message: It is stated  in This article. A secondary source is available here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.108.26 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof that protons include charm quarks

message: TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know nomination 2