Talk:B meson

Writing deserving of a Pulitzer

"The combination of a bottom antiquark and a bottom quark is not a B meson, but rather bottomonium which is something else entirely. Gee, thanks for pointing that out. 2603:6080:EF04:DF70:49E2:1815:9BB5:BC1C (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hadron overhaul

Please give input at Talk:Hadron#Hadron overhaul. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Table

In each entry of the column "Quark content", the second given combination seems to be that of the corresponding antiparticle, not of the B meson itself. Thus it should be deleted IMO, to avoid confusion (since the other columns' values (isospin, charm, etc.) are (apparently) only given for the B meson itself, not for its antiparticle). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The values for BOTH should be provided. It gives COMPLETE information, rather than partial.76.98.121.53 (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, all, I forgot to log in again before my previous comment. That said, I remember seeing some speculative work being done on vacuum metastability, regarding the difference of B meson vs anti-B meson decay rate. From what I recall, it was a long work in progress.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead

>>B mesons are mesons composed of a bottom quark or bottom antiquark and either an up (B+), down (B0), strange (B0s) or charm quark (B+c).

I'm far from a physicist, but based on my brief understanding that mesons are composed of one quark and one anti-quark, and based on the subsequent line:

>>Each B meson has an antiparticle that is composed of a bottom quark and an up (B−), down (B0), strange (B0s) or charm antiquark (B−c) respectively.

It would appear to me that the first sentence of the lead should not read "...composed of a bottom quark or bottom antiquark and either..." but should just read "composed of a bottom antiquark and either..." TheHYPO (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more parallel non-technical language for the lay reader

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for the general public. That is why Wikipedia policy requires that, wherever possible, non-technical language be used in parallel with technical language in its articles (translating and clarifying as much as possible for the lay reader).

This is also good practice for scientists who need, for many reasons, to know how to communicate about their field to non-scientists.

It is also good manners not to communicate in a cryptic, self-absorbed way to people who are not scientists.

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not necessary for the general public. The lead should be non-technical (but correct). It would have been nice if you have quoted from the article. I remove the technical tag because the lead is easy to understand. Christian75 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)