Talk:QCD matter

(Intra-nuclear density)
Dan Gluck added "Except for the nuclear matter phase inside atomic nuclei". What is this about? The nuclear matter phase is a high-density phase. Ordinary matter, consisting of atoms, is a mixed phase of vacuum (low density) and nuclear matter (high density). Please explain, or I will revert. Dark Formal 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I would tend to agree with that (old ! :) comment. Nuclei, except for extreme conditions where nuclear reactions occur, are found in their ground state, i.e. T=0. As for the density, it obviously depends on the scale you consider. The density inside nuclei is very high, but they can be found at everyday macroscopic densities. All in all, nuclei/nuclear matter definitely belong(s) to the phases of QCD (mu=310 MeV, T=0 on your phase diagram -- It would be enlightening to add it actually). Tlesinski (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Plaigerized?
This article's internal formatting implies that it was copied and pasted from somewhere else. --Kaz 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that? I looked up the original version of the article, which had the same "internal formatting," and looked for similar text on the web.  My only hit was a Wikipedia clone.  -- SCZenz 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am responsible for the current internal formatting and most of the text. What makes you think I plagiarized it? Dark Formal 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

8 Colour Charges?
"...the fact that the only conserved charges ...are... the eight color charges..." Eight Colour Charges? Isn't it only three? 141.2.215.3 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there are 8, one for each generator of SU(3). See this paper for example. Dark Formal (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No Degree Just me
Hi, i would like to know if there is a more General description on Matter? I'm doing a self study on Electricity, and defenately did not know what i was geting myself into.... As the word electricity is a vague term, but my aim is to atleast know something about everything contributing to electricity and to basicly understand it. Please note that i do not have a Degree inany field - i only share your eagernes to learn. Thanks Neels 196.34.16.68 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadronic matter
Regarding removing the red link for hadronic matter: is hadronic matter just matter where the quarks (and gluons?) are confined within hadrons? How about defining it as matter consisting of hadrons? Puzl bustr (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now redirects. Seems to cover both baryonic matter and degenerate matter. - Rod57 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Should udQM be mentioned here
New form of matter may lie just beyond the periodic table mentions the history of udQM (up-down quark matter). Can we mention/explain udQM in this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"quagma" redirect
The word "quagma" redirects to this page, but the word isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

As I understand it, the word refers to [quark-gluon plasma], which has its own article, so it should probably redirect there instead of to this general article on all QCD matter.

Either way, whichever article it redirects to, shouldn't it be mentioned as an alternate name in the article? Sure, it was a neologism that was briefly popular in pop-physics articles 30-odd years ago and has since faded away, but if it's not notable enough for a mention, why is it notable enough for a redirect?

(I think most uses of the term since then have been in sci-fi franchise, ranging from the hard-SF Xeelee sequence to the Transformers toy line. So I suppose it's possible that the term has become more notable as meaning a generic "some unspecified kind of quark matter" or even "some sciency-sounding plot-device stuff". But even in that case, whatever that notable meaning is, it should have its own article; surely just redirecting to an article on QCD matter that doesn't mention the sci-fi thing isn't helpful.) --157.131.201.206 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No longer "unsolved question"
Hi. QCD is no longer a theoretical state of matter only. It has been created in labs, as documented in the experimental section. For many years now. The problem now is to stabilize it and chart the QCD phase. Also, many QCD phases remains so extreme, however, that they are still only theoretical. RhinoMind (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

quarks are phases?
I was digging into https://phys.org/news/2020-06-neutron-stars.html when I tried to hunt down the term "quark matter" and got lost herein. The opening sentence says quark matter refers to any of a number of phases of matter whose degrees of freedom include quarks. It is my feeble understanding that a quark is an elementary particle, not a degree of freedom of a phase of matter. The article on the "new type of matter inside neutron stars" describes quark matter as an exotic state of nuclear matter in which the nuclei themselves no longer exist so that the entire neutron star is considered a giant nucleus. The paper was published in Nature Physics. I suggest this article be updated to include the conclusions of this article.

(Hpfeil (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)).

Degenerate QCD matter; orders of degeneracy until causal rip of this spacetime, and generation of new
1. 2.
 * degenerately pressed protons and electrons produce neutrons (+ other particles to keep field numbers)
 * degenerately pressed neutrons produce quagma (+ other particles to keep field numbers)
 * quagma is comprised of free quarks/monoquarks

(Monoquarks are impossible, but nobody can measure what happens. Monoquarks mean extreme energy levels, and eternal creation of quark pairs. It's a mathematically equivalent term. Nobody is going to take a measurement in quagma to collapse the wave function into something that isn't allowed like monoquarks. Monoquark means ever changing chromodynamic formations. It doesn't mean physical monoquark (it doesn't mean uncaused collapse of the wave function. It's a mere mathematical equivalent.)

3. Thus the many free quarks/monoquarks, merge as one. This doesn't physically happen/doesn't have the physical conditions to allow the collapse of a wave function. It is a mere mathematical equivalent of maximum field excitation.
 * degenerately pressed quagma (inside black holes and before the Big Bang) produce a single monoquark (+ other particles to keep field numbers)

(actually the black hole field mechanism, creates MORE space time, but it's extremely bent, except if the black hole is huge and the observer is afar)

4.
 * a degenerately pressed monoquark (breaks causal relationship inside this spacetime) produces new spacetime in order to maintain causality (in the Lorentz transformation; to create a Hamiltonian that still is correct)

multiple pages
there there are two pages about this. the other page is titled strange matter, but it is the same thing. i'm not really sure what to do about it, just putting it out there that there are two of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24toonenata (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)