Talk:Hypercharge

Untitled
science world, and Strange Particles (by Fowler and some other guy) both define it as strangeness plus Baryon number.

JeffBobFrank 20:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's only true for baryons composed out of up, down and strange quarks/antiquarks. It's not true for leptons or baryons containing other quarks or gauge particles. Phys 00:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this article written the wrong way round?
This article seems to jump in straight at the deep end, and the context and laymans explanation of the historical significance of the concept come in the last few paragraphs or so. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 12:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Indeed the historical section would be good stub for "hypercharge", with the rest of the current article appearing in a "strong hypercharge" article.  Any views? --Michael C. Price talk 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious inconsistency in this article
Equation (1) in this article directly contradicts equations (2) through (5). It looks like weak hypercharge (which is what everyone uses today) and strong hypercharge (which I know little about) are being mixed up here.

The term "hypercharge" in particle physics usage today is synonymous with weak hypercharge. I would strongly suggest that the term redirect to weak hypercharge, and maybe add a historical note within that article that the term was once used for something different. HEL 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, equation (1) does not make any sense, because it implies that $$ \qquad Y = {1 \over 3}n_q - n_s + n_c - n_b + n_t$$ which implies $$ \qquad Y = {1 \over 3}(n_u + n_d - 2n_s + 4n_c - 2n_b + 4n_t)$$. Hypercharge defined in that way obviously depends on type of quarks, more precisely it depends on generation of quarks and on single type of quarks but only in case of quarks of higher generation. This definition would be useless.
 * Equation (1) is also unreferenced so it should be removed unless there is reason for keeping it.--83.131.69.163 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this page with weak hypercharge
I just proposed a merger of this article into weak hypercharge. The term "hypercharge" in particle physics usage today is synonymous with weak hypercharge. I would strongly suggest that the term redirect to weak hypercharge, and maybe add a historical note within that article that the term was once used for something different. HEL 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a bad idea. Hypercharge is not the same as weak hypercharge, it will be used until the end of time because it is a symmetry current of the strong interactions. It has an associated phenomenological gauge symmetry and the omega gauge meson, and it deserves a good treatment.Likebox 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But strong hypercharge is a feature of SU(3)flavour, which is not an exact symmetry. Ergo the conserved current is not exactly conserved.  Unlike weak hypercharge, which is an exact symmetry.--Michael C. Price talk 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Equation 4 is wrong!
Equation 4 currently claims y = 1/2(n_u - n_d). That's clearly wrong; i think the formual i put up is the correct one. 17 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.242.6.12 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit equation in template to a more concise version
The template shows the equation as Y=2(Q-Iz). This is correct. And so is :$$ \qquad Y = S + B = 2(Q - I_3) $$. All these variables are related in finding hypercharge. Maybe this can go in the template too? Venny85 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting for removal of contradict tag
I think this article wasn't really contradicting itself. It just wasn't explained in a way that defines itself from weak hypercharge thats all. I think it does that now and the tag can be removed already. Venny85 (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

new formula
see also Claude Amsler - The Quark Structure of Hadrons http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/74131/1/348.pdf. Ra-raisch (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the 'definition' section, we are given

Y = B + S - \frac{C - B' + T'}{3},

however in the infobox to the right, we are told that

Y = B + S + C + B' + T'

I am currently under the impression that the latter is correct - why are we given a direct contradiction on this? Loser1k (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)