Talk:Peccei–Quinn theory

If somebody has the time, please completely rewrite this article. The third paragraph is especially wrong (it's a global symmetry then it's a gauge symmetry?). A PQ symmetry is an approximate U(1) global symmetry that is spontaneously broken. The PNGB is NOT eaten, it's the axion! The final paragraph is also mostly incorrect. The a*trace(F wedge F) term is always mass suppressed, no if and is also not the relevant term (the theta term is F*Fdual). Is there any way to at least flag the article so that nobody takes it seriously until it is rewritten. You can say "disputed" or whatever, even though it's just verifiably inaccurate.75.54.230.92 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Should merge this article into axion

Should merge this article into axion, not sure why this article is standalone. Rolf H Nelson (talk)

Complete Rewrite

So I went ahead and completely rewrote the article, this time actually describing the details of the PQ model. I also moved it to a Start category although maybe it should go to a C-class category? Idk, I'm new here to Wikipedia editing. The thing is, the PQ model is itself rather quite simple, in the sense that it is founded on things that have their own articles (strong CP problem, instantons, anomalies, etc) so its not like this article needs to be long. It does not even need to be very mathematical, although one could expand on the axion-fermion sector, among other things. But that is somewhat tangential to the CP problem, and one can simply go into the literature for it. It's a question of balance for Wikipedia: should it be tediously comprehensive or easy to read.

As for the invisible axion models: these are a simple modification to the PQ model (hence why I think that they belong in this article rather than in their own article), since they only change the scalar sector. But their mechanism for solving the strong CP problem is essentially exactly the same. (Lonewolf709 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC))