Talk:Hypercharge

message: science world, and Strange Particles (by Fowler and some other guy) both define it as strangeness plus Baryon number.
JeffBobFrank 20:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article seems to jump in straight at the deep end, and the context and laymans explanation of the historical significance of the concept come in the last few paragraphs or so. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 12:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Indeed the historical section would be good stub for "hypercharge", with the rest of the current article appearing in a "strong hypercharge" article.  Any views? --Michael C. Price talk 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this article written the wrong way round? 

message: I just proposed a merger of this article into weak hypercharge.  The term "hypercharge" in particle physics usage today is synonymous with weak hypercharge. I would strongly suggest that the term redirect to weak hypercharge, and maybe add a historical note within that article that the term was once used for something different. HEL 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a bad idea. Hypercharge is not the same as weak hypercharge, it will be used until the end of time because it is a symmetry current of the strong interactions. It has an associated phenomenological gauge symmetry and the omega gauge meson, and it deserves a good treatment.Likebox 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But strong hypercharge is a feature of SU(3)flavour, which is not an exact symmetry.  Ergo the conserved current is not exactly conserved.  Unlike weak hypercharge, which is an exact symmetry.--Michael C. Price talk 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge this page with [[weak hypercharge]] 

message: Equation 4 currently claims y = 1/2(n_u - n_d) . That's clearly wrong; i think the formual i put up is the correct one.
17 December 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.242.6.12 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equation 4 is wrong! 

message: The template shows the equation as Y=2(Q-Iz). This is correct. And so is : \qquad Y = S + B = 2(Q - I_3) . All these variables are related in finding hypercharge. Maybe this can go in the template too? Venny85 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit equation in template to a more concise version

message: I think this article wasn't really contradicting itself. It just wasn't explained in a way that defines itself from weak hypercharge thats all. I think it does that now and the tag can be removed already. Venny85 (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting for removal of contradict tag

message: see also Claude Amsler - The Quark Structure of Hadrons http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/74131/1/348.pdf. Ra-raisch (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  new formula 

message: In the 'definition' section, we are given
Y = B + S - \frac{C - B' + T'}{3},
however in the infobox to the right, we are told that
Y = B + S + C + B' + T'
I am currently under the impression that the latter is correct - why are we given a direct contradiction on this? Loser1k (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction