Talk:Sigma baryon

There is some pretty funky stuff going on in this page. I'm not sure if it's just my computer, or not, but someone who know how to do that sort of stuff should check it out. The words all run together, and you can't understand what it is saying76.179.218.203 (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things look fine to me. Headbomb (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the notation used in wikipedia B is the Baryon number and B' represents bottomness. Depending on your notation A also represents the Baryon number, whereas B represents bottomness. For the sigma baryon it has a baryon number of 1. This is supported by the book Subatomic Physics by Ernest M Henly and Alejandro Garcia, check page 215. Headbomb, I think that we were getting our wires crossed on notation. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quick Fists (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be B′ in the table. It's B because the table is based on an old version of another table. I just haven't got around to change that in the tables (check all the see also links and change it if you want).Headbomb (talk · contribs) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The upper right table and the data table are running together. needs to be fixed, can't read! (checked with safari and firefox)Drshriveer (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I madde change and it got changed back. Better take it here. I removed the top states from the tables as the top does not form hadrons due to its short life time. It is consequently incorrect to state that the particles are "predicted by the standard model". They are not. Listing them "for completion's sake" is plain wrong. One might argue that they are predicted in the quark model but that is hardly a fitting reference in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus.mackeprang (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadron overhaul

Please give input at Talk:Hadron#Hadron overhaul. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uds and Isospin

Isospin is the sum of up quarks minus the sum of down quarks (anti particles being subtracted from the respective sums). So why does the table claim that a sigma zero is made from UDS , but has isospin 1 ?

UDS = a lambda (and has isospin 0).

sigma zero is UD*S (where D* is an anti-D), which gives isospin 1. Its the isospin of 1 that distinguishes sigmas.

By excluding mention of anti-quarks from the table, it becomes inaccurate nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.1.159 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse total isospin with the third component of isospin. Lambdas and neutral sigmas have the exact same quark content (uds). Two quarks plus an antiquark won't form a bound state. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]