Talk:Up quark

Down quark composition[edit]

Does anyone know if there are any theories to the possibility that the Down Quark is composed of an Up Quark and an electron? I once heard that when a Proton and Electron mix it produces a neutron. So if this is true then if you mix an Up Quark and an electron it must form a down quark...I am not sure though. - BlackWidower

Please see my answer to this question on Talk:Electron. -- SCZenz 22:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my question.I have a question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijay kumar victor (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:HELPDESK for questions. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invented?[edit]

I don't think that the word "invented" should be used in the context of subatomic particles. Maybe it should be substituted with "theorized" or something similar. -- DotP 8 Jan 2006

New Reference[edit]

if some one can get a hold of C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, K. Y. Wong, E. Follana, R. Horgan, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier. Precise Charm to Strange Mass Ratio and Light Quark Masses from Full Lattice QCD. Physical Review Letters, 2010; 104 (13): 132003 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132003 it is purported to have refined values for both q_u and q_d Abyssoft (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of the Common Quark Finally Nailed Down by Adrian Cho on April 2, 2010 5:56 PM http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/mass-of-the-common-quark-finally.html which uses the above as it's source lists 4.79 +/- 0.16 MeV for d and 2.01 +/- 0.14 MeV for u Abyssoft (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 PDG values have been posted, http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/2010/tables/rpp2010-sum-quarks.pdf
I will wait a few more days before making the changes to mass. If there are no objections I'll apply the changes on Friday August 06, 2010 sometime between 0700 and 2200 UTC. Abyssoft (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011/2012 values posted 2.5+0.6
−0.8 MeV/c² if no objections I'll apply the changes next friday. 74.202.23.198 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC) [Abyssoft not logged in][reply]

spin-hyphen[edit]

the up quark is an elementary fermion with spin-12

I removed the hyphen, with comment why a hyphen for this and not other values? looks like minus!

This was undone with remarkable speed, because it's compound adjective spin-1/2, spin-1, spin-0 etc

No it isn't. An adjectival use would be "a spin-1/2 particle". The word with precedes a noun phrase, not a bare adjective. The article Spin-½ properly uses both forms: Particles having net spin 1/2 include .... The dynamics of spin-1/2 objects ... —Tamfang (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity with Down quark[edit]

To keep the discussion in one place, please respond at Talk:Down quark#Similarity with Up quark. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 03:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color charge?[edit]

Is the "Color charge" field in the quick info box necessary? All quarks have color charge but none have a set color charge like electric charge, so it's a field that is universally just "Yes" which seems kind of unnecessary. This also applies to Down quark, Top quark, Bottom quark, Strange quark, and Charmed quark. —LambdaKnight (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]