Talk:Hadron

message: The article says this "All hadrons except the proton are unstable." but neutrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons are stable too. Just neutrons and protons destroy their anti counter part making them non-existent in the natural world. Not that they are not stable, just destroyed by other factors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.72 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Free neutrons are unstable, with a half-life of less than 15 minutes. Eutactic (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable Hadrons

message: the intro is just terrible. Physics aside, it seems just basic sentence construction is a lost skill. Go back to a physics book BEFORE ALL THE MODEL features (quarks for example) and you'll find the best definitions. You really think the first sentence should consist of quark MODEL stuff which fails to provide the basic definition ? The protons and neutrons were known to participate in strong interactions BEFORE quark models were around - no ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: :similarly to how atoms are held together by the electromagnetic force.
Aren't they held together by the residual strong force?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.187.236 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sense of an atom being a bound state of a nucleus and electrons and molecules being bound states of atoms, they are indeed held together by the electromagnetic force. The nucleus is held together (against mutual electrostatic repulsions between protons) by the residual strong force. Eutactic (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Atoms

message: The article, Hadron, contain this assertion:
:The class of hadrons is further subdivided into three subclasses
Does Physics have a formal classification system like Biology does?  Bevo 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In a sense, the representations of Lie groups provide the formal classification system. --Matt McIrvin 00:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Class" of hadrons? 

message: I guess that this is due to the intrinsic nature of Hadrons. But a reader can be confused. The first paragraph asserts that hadrons are not fundamental particle, I would change fundamental with elementary. But the last asserts that hadrons due to confinement are single particle exitation. Maybe a page which explains the difference between single particle excitation and elementary particle would be interesting. I guess that hadrons phylosophically just introduce a new concept. They are neither elementary nor composed (they cannot be splitted). The fact that they can disappear in other phases of the theory it isn't relvant.
It is like saying that ice disappears and melts in water. If you read something like this do you understand anything more about what really is ice? Maybe after you undertsand what ice is it is intersting to notice that it is built up from the same molecules then water.
Guess it is very difficult to explain something that we still don't understand deeply.
I hope that this observation could help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.81.194 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 September 2005
: I agree with this observation. The first paragraph is unclear, and contains a hidden contradiction."A hadron, in particle physics, is a subatomic particle which experiences the nuclear force. These are not fundamental particles but are composed of fermions, called quarks and antiquarks, and of bosons, called gluons. The gluons mediate the color force that binds the quarks together."If hadrons are "... composed of fermions ...", then since (para 3)"baryons are fermions", this contradicts "these are not fundamental particles", since some baryons include protons and neutrons.Furthermore, the word "these" in the leading sentence is vague, as several nouns are referred to in the preceding sentence.In fact, Merriam-Webster online defines hadron as: "Any of the subatomic particles (as protons and neutrons) that are made up of quarks and are subject to the strong force."Consequently I'm improving the second sentence today ... but it's still too involved.I recommend that someone more familiar with particle physics bring the definition more in line with Britannica concise (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9366403/hadron). Twang 01:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the spirit of this contribution.  The term is a collective noun.  The article should open by saying or showing what a hadron is.  It could use a table listing the particles and it could group them into the types.  It could show the allowed values of the various characterising attributes, spin, a rest mass, colour etc.  This would be really helpful.  Right now one enters a real labyrinth and one has to click to many many pages to build up knowledge to even hint at that.  The explanations given alreday are useful - they show the way a physicist thinks - but they make entry very near impenetrable.  This page will be getting a lot of hammer from now on, and it absolutely has to be clear!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bicyclic (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any explanation of something that relies too much on specialist terms, becomes non-understandable. For example, if I say a wongskon is a dinbowkdy with a subset montery-wingnut of 1/3 capacity-spin-charge, with an occasional subset of wongskons employing a raterol lateral emtranter, you'd have no clue what I'm talking about. (I have no clue what I'm talking about.) Sure, you'd have all these unknown terms linked to other Wikipedia articles, but those articles would all have similar explanations with links back to the wongskon article, and don't give a reader a starting point, a basis, for understanding the complex spider-web of particle physics. So you need to define a hadron and a boson and a 'strangeness' not only by defining their esoteric properties, but by describing WHAT THESE THINGS ARE in terms that can be understood. A good encyclopedia can take a complete novice to a decent level of understanding in a single article. But this article on hadrons, and the many other particle physics articles on Wikipedia, instead choose to take a "let's spew out all the technical vomit that nobody but insiders will understand." And hence this article leaves much to be desired. The art of explanation requires the appeal to what the reader knows, not what he doesn't know. Someone please take the time to EXPLAIN hadrons and bosons and strange force, rather than just defining them all in terms of each other. 147.240.236.8 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Clear what a Hadron is

message: Back in 1980 or 1981, a friend had an amazing video game called Hadron running on his Apple computer. I'm astonished that there seems to be no record of it. The game was obviously named for the atomic particle, even though the atomic particle had nothing to do with the space adventure in 3D.
If anyone has ever heard of the game, remembers playing it, or knows how to locate a version that would run on today's PCs, I'd love to see it posted here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.20.214 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 July 2006
=== Hadron 2.1, maybe? ===
...well, try this one: http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Games/Hadron.shtml. :o)
Sorry, guys, I am a fresh meat here...
M* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bycyq (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There used to be a computer game called Hadron... 

message: ...well, try this one: http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Games/Hadron.shtml. :o)
Sorry, guys, I am a fresh meat here...
M* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bycyq (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadron 2.1, maybe? 

message: I think a coloured diagram might well explain where Hadrons stand among other particles, the article in its current form is rather confusing. I will on the diagram though.  Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I've reorganized this article, hopefully making it more accessible to non-specialists. Comments are very welcome. I preserved nearly all of the information that was already there. Jtuggle (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Who coined this particularly typo-prone term? - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the word "hadron"? 

message: Cant we have a chart showing how hadrons relate to all the other particles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.128.237 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: Opening paragraph suggests that all particles are either hadrons or leptons. My understanding is that the photon, the W, and other exchange particles are neither hadrons nor leptons, which would mean that statement is not true. The second sentence states that all fundamental particles interacting via the strong force are hadrons; again I believe that gluons interact by the strong force, but are not hadrons. I wouldn't refer to a quark (singly) as a hadron either, but they clearly interact by the strong force. So the first two sentences in this article would seem to completely incorrect. Please let me know if you think I'm wrong.Bobathon (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I rewrote the paragraph. -- BenRG (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: "Other combinations, such as tetraquarks (an "exotic" meson) and pentaquarks (an "exotic" baryon), may be possible but no evidence conclusively suggests their existence as of 2009."
This is an unstable statement. The reason for such "as of [date]" statements is to eliminate claims about the present state, which is subject to unforeseen change. However, if something happens later in the year, this statement yields falsehood. Sure, you have error bars, so it's not as bad as just saying, "no evidence conclusively suggests their existence," but it still defeats the purpose of the safety mechanism to a degree. For this reason, I suggest that this sentence not be updated until 2010 is over. LokiClock (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of 2009 

message: If somebody here knows how to read Greek, please could you transliterate the two Greek words (ἁδρός and λεπτός) in the first section of the article ("Etymology") - I imagine one of them probably sounds similar to "Hadron", so I think it would be helpful for non-Greek speakers to see the two words transliterated. Thanks!
* It's "(h)adros" and "leptos"   - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliterating the Greek in the Etymology section? 

message: Shouldn’t this Article be updated, to include the 2015 LHCb Pentaquarks findings? Also, in the intro it says, that a tetraquarks has been found, but in the Meson-section, it says, that that is still under debate. Which is it?--91.7.132.166 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentaquarks found 

message: The subsections on baryons and mesons mention tetra- and pentaquarks, yet they specify that a baryon consists of three quarks and a meson of a quark and antiquark. So they don't really belong there, do they?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.124.121 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: Substituted at 16:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

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 Hadron terminology 

message: The term “antihadron” or “anti-hadron” is used twice in this article, without definition. The sentences the term is used in seem to treat it as a complement, as in “Almost all "free" hadrons and antihadrons ...”. That to me seems misleading, as it suggests mentioning both is necessary to form a complete whole, for which we have no better term than just listing both parts.
As I understand it, “antihadron” is a term of relationship, like “son” or “daughter”. When one refers to women in general, saying “women and daughters” would be silly, because every woman is also a daughter. With hadrons and antihadrons, the relationship is even more symmetric: Every hadron is an antihadron, just as every antihadron is a hadron.
So, does anyone see this differently, or can we remove these two mentions? ◅ Sebastian 07:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is a hadron not an antihadron?