Talk:Baryon

message: My references say that baryons are elementary particles, they consist of quarks and cannot be broken down. Mesons also fit this description.
Two web sources for you to examine -  and 
Also my dictionary says: 
Hadron Pronunciation: (had'ron), [key]  —n. Physics. 
any elementary particle that is subject to the strong interaction. Hadrons are subdivided into baryons and mesons. Cf. quark.
All the sources I've seen don't call baryons as elementary particles, because they are composites, even if they can't be physically ripped apart.  I would guess the usage varies, and so suggest that they not be called elementary.
Give some citations - I'm sure we can sort it out. I've given three, but I acknowledge that they are all quoting generalist literature. By the way, the link to boson simply redirects to particle physics... surely they deserve their own article. - MMGB
:Elementary refers to any particle which is not composed of smaller particles. "Broken down" is not meant in a physical sense. There are exactly 16 elementary particles known to date: 6 quarks, 6 leptons, and 4 gauge bosons (not including antiparticles or gluon flavors). The jury is still out on the Higgs boson and the graviton. See http://www.neutron.anl.gov/hyper-physics/Particles.html for a good diagram -- Xaonon
Well I guess this is a case where infoplease got it wrong - some other sources I have checked confirm this position. If/When we have an article on elementary particles this confusion should be addressed directly.
----
Someone mentioned that mesons may be a superposition of quark-antiquark pairs, but I think it would be less confusing and more accurate to describe them as a pair where each of the quark and antiquarks may be in a superposition of states (colors and generations).  Does this sound fair?
----
Does anyone know the mass of a baryon?  Is it just the mass of a proton? or neutron? --PY
:It varies between different types of baryon. If a specific baryon is a proton, then it has the mass of a proton; if a neutron, then it has the mass of a neutron; and so on. -- Paul A
PY, I believe that you are assuming that the baryon is a particle when it is actually a classification of particles.  There are dozens of different baryons, each with its own mass.
----
Keep in mind that there was not a general consensus that hadrons were made of quarks until the mid-1970s.  Older references could well describe them as elementary particles simply because their constituents were undiscovered or not generally accepted; even today they are sometimes called elementary particles because of a kind of language inertia.  But we probably shouldn't call them that. --Matt McIrvin 00:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elementary 

message: Baryons are made from 3 quarks, any quarks. Since there are 6 different quarks, then we have 6^3 combinations of 3 quarks. However, from the Delta+ and the proton, each with quark composition u/u/d, it looks like the spin orientation have to be taken into account. Since each quark can be in +1/2 or -1/2 isospin state, then we have 12 different quarks/quarkstates possible for each of the three quarks, which gives us 12^3 different combinations of three quarks. If we remove the degeneracies (such as ssd (3/2),sds(3/2),dss(3/2)), then we have 364 (12+11+10...+11+10+9...+10+9+8+...3+2+1+2+1+1) distinct combination of quarks/quarkstates.
Now I'm not sure of this, but I think that it is the modulus of the spin that is important, so particles with spin -3/2 and -1/2 really are the same than the particles with spin 3/2 and spin 1/2. Removing these degeneracies leaves us with half the particles, and thus there are 182 distinct baryons that can be made from three quarks.
Did I understand it correctly? It would also be interesting if someone updated the list of baryons to take into account all the possibilities, with placeholders for the undiscovered particles Headbomb 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of baryons 

message: The article makes no mention of baryons with heavy quark content. See for example the summary page from the Review of Particle Physics ( W.-M. Yao et al., Journal of Physics G 33, 1 (2006) ) . Erkcan 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it does mention at the very bottom, but the description mentions nucleons and hyperons only. Erkcan 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think that charmed and bottom baryons should be a section here. As for what should go in that section, I haven't got a good suggestion yet. As for the ordering within the page, I have no objection to your logic, but the current description (at the very top) seems to be misleading: It reads as if baryons = nucleons + hyperons. Just few sentences below it again says baryons = nucleons + lambda, omega, xi, delta. I understand that we might not want to go into c and b baryons right away, but IMHO the article looks somewhat inconsistent at the moment. Erkcan 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bottom baryons, charmed baryons, where are they? 

message: I moved the following text from the article to here:
:-- Here it says Baryons and Mesons are known as Hadrons, but then it says mesons are a type of bosons. Are bosons Hadrons or are hadrons bosons, etc....
Kingdon 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  baryons, mesons, and hadrons 

message: In cosmology, it seems that baryonic matter can refer to both protons and electrons:
:[Electrons and protons] are often grouped together and called baryons, nomenclature which is obviously ridiculous (electrons are leptons, not baryons) but nonetheless common.
::-Dodelson, Modern Cosmology
Is this a common enough practice to mention in the article?  --Starwed (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very common practice in cosmology, and astrophysics in general. "Baryonic matter" basically refers to anything which is not dark matter or dark energy. I am surprised it is not mentioned in the article. Slauhale (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In cosmology 

message: Please note that the diagrams (black-and-white, with pink circles for the states) in the "isospin" and the "baryons" page show the value of the strangeness opposite of the standard convention (which in turn is followed in the "mesons" page and the table above, under the "Include Table?" heading. For example, the Omega- baryon has strangeness -3, but is in the diagram on the "baryons" and the "isospin" pages is shown to have strangeness "3", with the strangeness axis oriented downward. I do not know enough about this wiki editing system to edit the figures and fix this. Tristan (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strangeness Convention 

message: Please give input at Talk:Hadron#Hadron overhaul. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadron overhaul 

message: The article states that the intrinsic parity of a baryon is (-1)^L and therefore the parity of all ground state baryons is positive. It would be useful if some expert on the subject added some scattering process where the relative parity between a Nucleon and a Delta becomes determined. Otherwise the statement seems a little bit unsubstantiated. Kotika98 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta parity 

message: The Delta ( (uuu)) has the spin of all three quarks aligned.  What is the particle formed when one of the quarks is anti-parallel to the others?  It should have spin 1/2, yet doesn't appear in the octet.  Why is that? --Michael C. Price talk 10:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Delta spin

message: "A baryon be a composite particle made of three quarks."  What are we, pirates?  Hahaha.  Fixing it now, but it was too funny not to point out.  Bugbrain 04 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sentence

message: I'm glad that this article makes no mention of the fanciful claim that Baryons might possibly contain gluons that would then contribute to their total masses, like say the proton article does. Hcobb (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If emission and absorption of (virtual) gluons by quarks would not take place in baryons, they wouldn't be stable. And the analysis of the structure functions obtained from deep inelastic scattering of electrons and neutrinos by nucleons shows that 1/2 of the nucleon momentum is carried by particles that interact neither electromagnetically nor weakly (like quarks do). So why do you consider identifying these particles with the gluons fanciful? Impulseigenzustand (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baryons have no gluons 

message: I know what the author of this wants to say, but it is not correct. The quantum number S is 1/2, the length of the vector is ħ*sqrt(S(S+1)) != S. Impulseigenzustand (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  a single quark has a spin vector of length 1⁄2 

message: Does any science-minded person who knows Star Trek well know whether it uses the word baryons/baryon in a similar or same way as current science? (It has been said that Star Trek (by some point) often tried to accurately use real science (as known then) mixed with Star-Trek-universe science.) The more info (and in layman's terms) about its use of this, the better. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek use of the word baryons/baryon 

message: Substituted at 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Ok, so t quarks are expected to be unstable, and thus no baryons including them are expected to be stable.  My question is this: do these hypothetical baryon configurations have supporting research and names?  The article doesn't really speak to this, and my feeling is that it should, since my understanding is that a baryon by definition includes these cases, even if they are not realized in nature.
In other words, the current article is somewhat dismissive, without being thorough.  I don't really doubt that these particles aren't realized, but I feel a responsible article on baryon should stick to the definition, and not be dismissive of classes that fit the definition.  I also don't feel like it should breathlessly wait for experiments to determine whether they exist or not.  That doesn't seem necessary or useful, although experimental results about existence are definitely noteworthy.  75.139.254.117 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They have names yes (the usual heavy baryon name rules, originally outlined in the 1986 Review of Particle Physics, e.g. Λt is a Lambda with one s quark replaced by a t quark), but as far as research goes, it's a bit like Element 10000 (highest so far is Element 118 and most doubt it's possible to create them beyond Element 173 or so). No one's found them, no one's expecting to be found, and if they could somehow form, they would be so excruciatingly difficult to produce and detect that we couldn't neither make them nor detect them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  t Baryons? 

message: Editors on this page may want to contribute at: Talk:Exotic baryon#Proposed rename to "Exotic hadron".
Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing attention to a related discussion on Baryon terminology 

message: Why an odd number (to get spin 1/2?) and why 'valence' ?
Valence quark redirects to 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) 11:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why an odd number of valence quarks ?