Talk:Hexaquark

"dimeson"?[edit]

I notice that this is about a hexaquark particle of the same kind of configuration as a baryon doubled... and not about a two-baryon composite particle. dimeson would seem to be the equivalent term form for the tetraquark particle of the same kind of configuration as a meson doubled... but "dimeson" seems to be about composite particles composed of two mesons? Seems like inconsistent terminology? -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?hexaquark?[edit]

How is this a hexaquark, if the examples of dibaryons are two-baryon composite particles (2 particles of 3-quarks each) instead of a single particle composing of 6-quarks? -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mesonic hexaquark?[edit]

Is there a possibility for a meson hexaquark? Hexaquark redirects here, so perhaps it should be an article instead, if an exotic meson 6-quark configuration has been theorized, and not just an exotic baryon ? -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googolquark ( = quark soup ) and monoquark ( = pseudo-singularity )[edit]

Please create pages.

We can have a monoquark = pseudo-singularity in a very confined degenerate space, but statistically via a cascade of interactions, thus never in an absolute manner. The quark soup isn't something special, but it's a quark gluon plasma, thus never constituted only by one possible virtuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:6700:853F:7FD2:3714:6957 (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaquark → Dibaryon – Up until recently this article was located at dibaryon. In the wake of the recent claims of LHCb pentaquark discovery, this was moved to hexaquark. I am not convinced that it is wise to move dibaryon to hexaquark, for several reasons.

Barely anyone calls dibaryons 'hexaquarks' even thought their content is qqqqqq (Baryon number = 2).
Hexaquarks (personally) seems a lot more apropros to describe the next set of exotic mesons (Baryon number = 0) beyond tetraquarks, which could be seen as a bound state of three mesons, or a bound state of one baryon and an antibaryon, or a single clump of qqq{overline --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly I feel when it comes to moving this back to dibaryon and having a seperate article on hexaquark, or if dibaryons should be subsection of a greatly expanded hexaquark entry. I'm leaning towards the former option myself, but I'd rather have a discussion about it than rely on a gut feeling. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dibaryon is a type of hexaquark, just as strangelets and charmlets are types of baryons. At the moment, the article reads like an article on hexaquarks, with (what should be) a subsection on dibaryons. I'd say keep it here, restructure the article, and if/when more information about dibaryons arises it can be forked. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

D*(2380) hexaquark dark matter[edit]

The d*(2380) is being proposed as a dark matter candidate, but it has an electrical charge of +1e, giving it a charge-mass ratio larger than that of a tritium nucleus, and would need associated electrons or muons to be electrically neutral in bulk. Why wouldn't it emit electromagnetic radiation?--96.44.197.17 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most immediate reports didn't explain it. But there is a recent Livescience report that explains that the BoseEinsteinCondensate of d*hexaquark could have captured electrons & thus become neutral but still retain properties of dark matter https://www.livescience.com/hexaquarks-could-explain-dark-matter.html J mareeswaran (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

H dibaryon.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are d(2380) and d(2830) the same[edit]

These 2 hexaquarks are treated as the same thing, while they're not due to having a different mass. Could you either:

Give them the same name, or
make clear what the differences are between d*(2380) and d*(2830)

Please give a clear, concise and complete answer. Braggy (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]