Talk:Strong interaction/Archive 1

Request for more complete history
I came here to find a more complete history of the strong force, and was disappointed to find the current section on the topic. I know Lise Meitner and Hans Frisch made very good theoretical use of Neils Bohr's characterization of the strong force in their characterization of nuclear fission, as exemplified by Hahn and Strassman's discovery that uranium decays to barium. So a pretty useful conceptual understanding was already available in 1938. Can any experts fill in the pre-history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.115.6 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick question...
"In simple terms, the very energy applied to pull two quarks apart will turn into a new quark that pairs up again with the original one. The failure of all experiments that have searched for free quarks is considered to be evidence for this phenomenon."

So, if I understand correctly, if you try to pull 2 quarks apart, the energy you put in in will turn into a new quark. One new quark. What happens with the other one ? Shouldn't he be a free quark ? Damir-aga (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Gluon / Strong force
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gluon the quanta of the strong force? Thus the strong force wouldn't bind gluons, but it binds the other particles via gluons.


 * See the last paragraph: the strong force is special in that the mediating particles have color themselves, and so bind to one another. This effect is what makes the strong force strong - it actually increases with distance.  Actually, the W bosons have weak charge, but the self-binding is minimal because they are very massive and thus short-ranged.

Whoaaa hang on there - you would need to be Steven Hawkins to understand this article
Before I go any further may I first of all congratulate everyone involved with this article. I have huge admiration for those of you amongst us with brilliant minds whom push the boundaries of science and the understanding of the very fabric which make up our universe.

But I have to say for the laypersons amongst there is absolutely no chance of trying to fathom what this article is about. Could it be simplified at all? The whole purpose of wikipedia is to educate people, and just like the atom itself we need to break this article down into comprehensable bite size chunks to allow the lay person to understand the concepts put forward here.

Im know the the author(s) have not deliberately tried to make this hard to follow, and its clear that a lot of hard work went into producing this information in a bid to enlighten us to the magical world of the atom. I would feel even more enlightened and benefited by a more simplified explation of this subject.

This article ought to treat the strong force and the rest of its surrounding theory as theory rather than fact. Ezra Wax 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also the analogy of a rubber band breaking to illustrate the formation of new quarks is a poor one. Anyone who has pulled a rubber band apart knows it almost *always* breaks at one point and so the result of breaking a rubber band is almost always one linear piece of rubber and in fact NO rubber bands result from breaking one rubber band. Even in the rare instances where the rubber band breaks at two points the result is two linear pieces of rubber and still no rubber bands have been created, only destroyed. The analogy is not just poor it seems, but rather is a failed analogy. Scientists getting sloppy with words as it were. It does not help to illustrate the topic but only generates misleading connections.


 * The rubber band analogy is a good visual and in fact when a band breaks you do get two 'bands' don't think of them as a loop of rubber but as a single strip of rubber, when it breaks you now have two rubber strips, or bands. Scientists are not being sloppy with words the English language is being sloppy with word meanings. Taken straight from Wiktionary a band is: "A strip of material wrapped around things to hold them together." Nowhere does it say a loop of material. --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should nor mix the strong interaction and the nuclear interaction, referred in this article as residual strong force which is not a term used by the people in the field. Actually, nuclear interactions (theoretically mediated by mesons) deserves an own article which I would like to write if I have time. --Philipum 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If the terms "residual" and "fundamental" are not be used in the field, according to Philipum, (I thought they were, but he might know better...), then we will remove them. However, I feel that his word choice is at times vague. Excessive use of the word "nuclear", and over-long sentences... Maybe we should substitute the correct terms for "residual" and "fundamental" but leave the structure of the paragraph basically the same. Rmrfstar 18:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe residual force is used by particle physicists (high-energy physics at the GeV level) who may not make any difference between strong and nuclear force. But nuclear physicists (physics of nuclei at the MeV level where QCD can not be applied but effective meson theories are applied instead) use the term nuclear interaction. I will try to make it clear. Feel free to change my changes and we will see what it becomes. --Philipum 08:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can tell you for certain that the residual strong force is a term used in the field of even low energy nuclear physics. Additionally while the nuclear interaction is MODELED using meson exchange (and with correct interaction parameters this approach can be extraordinarily accurate) the underlying thing is the color force. The color force binds the color-neutral nucleons together in a manner conceptually similar to how the electromagetic force binds neutral atoms together to form a molecule. It is the humble gluon that holds a nucleus together the meson exchange model is simply how the gluons move from point a to point b. --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

quark-gluon plasma
I think that nobody has got evident observation of quark-gluon plasmas yet. Thus, it is still an hypothetical state of matter and I propose to be more careful when saying that they are studied or the the interaction is modifyed etc. --Philipum 09:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Quark Gluon plasma's have been observed and they have been studied. --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

gluon to gluon
i got a question: since gluons have color charge, does that mean gluons emit gluons from themselves to other gluons? otherwise there'll be no force between them. but if its like that then the strong fore is too hard for the human mind!? even for mesons!!! i cant even start to picture the exchange for baryons


 * Yes, they do. It makes things a bit harder, particularly in the strong-coupling limit, but computerized techniques can handle the situation pretty well. -- Xerxes 19:01, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Waffle
Wouldn't it be more helpful to primarily describe the process that occurs in nuclear interactions, rather than go on about its history and other relatively useless information for the bulk of the article? This article does not remotely explain what it is or what it does. All this article does is bandy about lofty terms relating to quarks and particle physics, but nowhere does it provide an adaquate explanation of the topic. An article about strong force/strong interaction should start with "The force that binds the elements of the nucleus. The interaction involves whatever changing into whatever, and exhanging whatever, where the initial particles are whatever and the products are whatever", and the information that would easily describe the force would be supplied.


 * I don't like to respond to anonymous comments, but this is constructive.


 * Since there are detailed pages on quantum chromodynamics on one hand and the nuclear force on the other, the purpose of this article is not mainly physics, but to explain why both subjects are called strong interactions. Why is it an article and not a redirect? Because other articles refer to strong interaction in either senses of the phrase (radioactive decay and grand unified theory both link here), and one needs a bit of an explanation about the two contexts. The first para sets out the context, the remainder gives a structure to related articles. Bambaiah 06:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page really should describe what the force actually does instead of the long explaination of how it works. (It's fine to have that below in sections, in my opinion.) So, simply, I agree with the anonymous poster.--24.25.234.38 3 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)


 * I agree with these guys; after taking a year and a half of college chemistry and physics, I can barely even understand the introduction; going into technical terms later on in the article is fine, but it should be in as plain english as possible in the introductory paragraph. K.I.S.S. --132.177.122.147 13:46, 26 June 2006

Agree with Confusing
I see little or no explanation. Referencing concepts that the average user has no knowledge in is useless...

Where is the explanation of what the consequences of the strong force vs. electromagnetic force? It is the basis of fission and fusion, yet mechanics is only explained. Please will someone write a knowledgeable piece of lecture on the reasoning of nuclear fundamentals, i.e. nuclear bombs, E=mc2, how the sun is able to overcome the EM force to bind protons within the short distance the strong force works on. Encyclopedias should not be for the 'knowledgeable' but to teach in layman's terms, with deeper theory as further details.-Michael (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing
Someone needs to put in what this means in the most basic terms possible. You can't understand this if you aren't in college physics!

aggreed - I would do it myself if I could understand it. Mabey add a "Layman's terms" section? --Wavemaster447 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a simple english page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.177.191 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really know what the strong force is?
Maybe there should be a bit on how we don't actually know why the neutron sticks to the proton? Or what gravity is really...

--Wavemaster447 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But we DO know why the nucleons stick to each-other. And what does gravity have to do with any of this. The simplest way to model the residual strong interaction is via something called meson exchange and working out the math for that with the right parameters works very well for modeling purposes. But the ab initio description of why nucleons stick to each-other is similar to why atoms stick to each-other to form molecules. Obviously the monopole term of the force is zero since protons and neutrons are color neutral; but, 'dipole' and higher order terms cause a net attractive force between the nucleons. Basically nucleons stick to each-other because the quarks intermingle a little bit and so one quark can spend part of its time in a nucleon that it does not necessarily belong to. Since it has a net color charge, as do the quarks in the other nucleon there is a small attractive force. The explanation is more complex than the very simple outline (quite a bit more complex, really); but, the fact of the matter is that the reason for nucleons binding together is fairly well understood. --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Energy of the Strong Nuclear Force in protons...
Does anyone know the energy, in Joules, that would be required to overcome the strong nuclear force that holds together the quarks in a single proton?

--RandomPerson 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no energy-- or rather it is infinite-- because the force between quarks is 100 newtons or so, and doesn't decrease with distance! So the farther you separate them, the more energy you burn, until you burn so much that new quarks are created out of the work you're doing on the system. S  B Harris 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Scaling
How does the strong force decay as the distance between nucleons increases? Is it 1/r^2 or more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.65.94.39 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * More. The potential with distance r is something like (exp-Ar)/Br. S  B Harris 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard to understand?
I noticed there is a template on this article that says it is unclear. I went to the same page on the Simple English Wikipedia, and found that the page there also had a template saying it was hard to understand. Someone the Person (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to clear it up some. How did I do? Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking
Okay, I don't have a degree in physics, but could it be possible that gravity and magnetism hold the nucleus together, especially seeing as to the fact that neutrons are composed of eletrons? It could also help with why it is impossible to pinpoint an electron Marine8 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. Ruling out gravity is pretty simple, just calculate the gravitational attraction between a proton and a neutron, and you get a ridiculously small number, much less than what you would get if you calculate the electrical repulsion of protons and protons. So gravity cannot overcome electricity in this case. As for magnetism, well it's just another aspect of electricity (it basically is due to "moving charges"), and it's a real pain to calculate. But we know the nucleus is very small, so the charges can't move all THAT fast, and some of them are even neutral (neutrons)! This means that whatever magnetic forces are relatively weak compared to the electric force. It's also a bit physically contradicting, since movement charges is what you need to have a magnetic forces, but movement means that protons and neutrons are moving apart.


 * Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To Headbomb, I would like to say that having a magnetic field does not necessarily require moving charges, both protons, electrons and (we think) neutrons have permanent dipole moments albeit small ones. The true reason that you could not bind a nucleus together with the magnetic force is because even if the neutrons and protons has magnetic dipole moments of order similar to the order of the elementary electric charge (which they are not even close to) magnetic interactions are always a factor of 1/c weaker than the equivalent electric interaction. Even if that could be overcome a magnetic interaction could not make nuclei with more than 2 nucleons. If the magnetic force was strong enough to hold nuclei together then particles would always bind pairwise in antiparallel configurations (which happens usually due to the nuclear strong force's pairing interactions but sometimes there are isospin interactions that break this rule). Anyways, once they are in antiparallel pairs they would have a spin of 0, thus a magnetic dipole moment of 0, these pairs could not come together to form anything larger. --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To Marine8, neutrons are NOT composed of electrons. A proton is two ups and a down quark a neutron is two down quarks and an up quark. It is possible for a free neutron to decay into a proton and an electron but what is usually unmentioned is the fact that there is an anti-electron-neutrino released in the decay as well. In the simplest case this comes from the down quark coupling to a W- boson, the boson then decays into the electron and anti-electron-neutrino (there are other possible pathways for this decay but they are higher order and involve intermediate steps, they also would all involve weak force bosons and that would select against them even more than non-tree-level diagrams for the other forces). --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm really happy with the quality of explanation on this site. Very helpful. But not having a strong physics background beyond Maxwell's equations (I'm an MSEE), I do have some questions: 1) I always see that a "free" neutron can decay to a proton and electron and neutrino.  What about a bound neutron?  Can they decay?  Why or why not? 2) When neutrons do decay, is the electron given enough energy to escape the proton, or is it captured to an orbit to become a hydrogen atom? 3) Can the reverse process happen?  Can an electron and a neutrino combine to a W boson and have a proton transition into a neutron?  4) So there are two down quarks and one up in a neutron, and one of the down's can decay to an up.  Why only one?  Can the second down quark decay to an up so that you have three ups (and a charge of +2e)? What would that be called? 5) Are quarks allowed to "leave" their hadron in an atomic nucleus, or are they inextricably bound to their hadron?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.163.32 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

10 Newtons?!
Under the section "The behavior of the strong force", it is claimed that after a certain distance, the strong force remains at a constant strength of 10 Newtons. This sounds very suspicious; where does this figure come from? It smells like subtle vandalism.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That number is correct. At typical inter-quark distance the nuclear strong force is measured in 10s of newtons. Staggering to believe, yes, but also true. --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bi-209
At the very end the article states that the strong force cannot hold together nuclei with more than 82 protons. I believe that should be amended to 83 protons. While Bismuth-209 is technically unstable its halflife is 9 orders of magnitude longer than the current estimate for the age of the universe. For most applications in nuclear physics this is considered stable. (Similar to Calcium-48 which has an even longer half life). --Fatal shadow (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong vs Weak force
This article says that the strong force's typical field strength is 'some 105 times as great as that of the weak force'. However, the weak force article says that the number is 10−13. I don't know what it should be (and the first other source I found said 107), but it doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.190.217.32 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fundamental interaction and weak force both support the 10−13 number. This article was changed to read "strong force's typical field strength is 'some 105 times as great as that of the weak force'" on September 2009. None of the articles gives page numbers or explains what sources are being used for what statements. As discussed here, the Fundamental interaction article also notes that the strengths "depend on the particles and energies involved." Here it is pointed out that the equations don't work the way we think they work. Regardless, we need an expert to reconcile and correct these numbers so they make sense and are uniform. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Frank Wilczek? You can't get any more "Expert" than Frank Wilczek. His book, _Longing for the Harmonies_, is as fine an explanation of the development of the understanding of the Strong Force as one could find.

He WILL answer E-Mails (as time allows) and I would think he would be more than happy to write an explanation for Wiki-P.

Charles Wilson

Charles.O.Wilson (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Apples and Oranges...Need Expert Please!
The passage said:

The word strong is used since the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 105 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1039 times that of gravitation.

I deleted it because we have Apples and Oranges here. It seems to me that comparative "strength" must be normalized. But, the different forces are proportional to different things. They also have different behaviors with distance as I (weakly) understand it.

Gravity is proportional to mass and so is normalized by dividing by mass. This way we can see that Gravity is "stronger" as things get closer (by 1/r^2 of course)

Electrostatic forces are proportional to charge, not mass. We can't say that Electrostatic forces are "stronger" than Gravity just because, at short range, a balloon sticks to the ceiling. And, we can't compare the two forces on an equal basis because we can't normalize them to the same thing.

I THINK, the passage means to say that the force is stronger than the others in the particular absolute, non-normalized, ranges and situations in which it is dealt with by scientists. I think. If so, the conditions of the deleted statement should be specified.

OR MAYBE, it was one of those random fun names (color, charm, etc.) that they were coming up with for a while (like all those weirdo dot-com names we had to deal with) that is unrelated to a physical quality.

Who Knows? I mean, really. WHO knows? We need an expert to explain and fix this. It's not me. I just know it's wrong, I don't know how to make it right.

108.7.15.209 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but I agree with you that you cannot use ratios with hard numbers, since we have no standard particles to go by. You can come up with a ratio for EM vs. gravity for an electron and positron, but it will be a different number than for a proton vs. antiproton. For the other forces, you have the additional problem that the force laws are not of the same form and range drop-off. So the residual strong force is stronger than EM at short distances, but not as strong at longer ones. Which is how you get energy from BOTH fusion and fission. And the strong force is even weirder, going from zero up to a constant 10,000 N between quarks, and then not changing with distance. All one can do, one supposes, is vaguely compare forces at the distances over which they normally interact. So the weak force must be stronger than EM at SOME distance, or else neutrons would never decay against the EM force trying to keep electron and proton "together" (or up quark and W- boson together, or whatever). That's about all the article can really say. At some point each of these things is stronger than the next, since there are circumstances under which it holds out against it, in a normal situation.  S  B Harris 04:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Never observed?
"By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fall to pieces. However, this was never observed." But does alpha decay occur (occasionally) due to this? I'm not sure...  K PUFFERFİSH Ṫ • Ċ 09:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I still say the strong nuclear force is GRAVITY it is just that the range it dropps of by magitudes very steply and will almost no time consatnt and the weak force is  a psudeo force in its  self  once  one figures that out you have  the answer to unifide field   in other words think out side the box

Quick question...
" At atomic scale, it is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, which in turn is orders of magnitude stronger than the weak force interaction and gravitation."

How many orders of magnitude stronger IS it?

And what measure of strength is the article referring to when saying strong interaction is 100 times stronger than electromagnetism? Thank you! Aphyrix (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Color Force vs Strong Interaction
What is the difference? The Gluon page links "Color Force" to this page, then later says that the color force is the source of the strong interaction. One of these articles is wrong, or I'm missing something. Mishathegreat (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Color comparison to charge
"Color charge is analogous to electromagnetic charge, but it comes in three types not two". Should this be changed to three types not one. Charge is of one type with two aspects (Positive and negative), just as each color also has its negative (antired, antiblue, etc).--Mongreilf (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

-

PROBABLE ERROR: "force does not decrease with distance between quarks"
The comment below by the person who says he is "not a physicist" and presumably declines to fix the article is correct in his or her suspicion. The article is in error. If the reference to Fritsch (now apparently [5]) states that, it is likely a typographical error. I have written enough books to realize it is possible to make a statement in the reverse sense of what one means and not catch it in editing. I assume Fritsch knows the score. But I do not want to fix the article either because the serious references to original technical papers (not textbooks) are not familiar to me. If you go to the Hyperphysics discussion of strong force you see that "...it is not an inverse square force like the electromagnetic force and it has a very short range."Rlshuler (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

---previous unsigned comment:

"The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance. After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10,000 newtons, no matter how much further the distance between the quarks.[2]"

I am not a physicist, but this seems to imply that all quarks in the universe would attract one another with a force of 10 000 N - regardless of distance apart. This is surely not possible, what is the limiting factor on this force? I do not think this is made clear here - I certainly did not understand it.

We know the strong force binds together quarks to form protons, but quarks in one atom's protons/neutrons do not attract those of another, fusing the atoms together to form larger atoms, presumably because the force is limited in some way (either by distance or something else). Please clear up, or at least explain here for my own understanding if you feel the article is clear.


 * Basically the quarks in one proton (almost) do not attact the quarks in another because their color-charges cancel each other out, rather like the EM charges in one helium atom (to first approximation) cancel out so they don't attract the charges in another helium atom nearby. As noted, some residual charge effects attract one neutral He atom to another and we call these van der Waals forces. The same kind of van der Waals type thing happens with the strong force, also, and it results in the exponentially-decreaseing internucleon force called the nuclear force (residual strong force). That is the force that holds nucleons together in nuclei, and it has a very limited range and quite different nature from the force between single quarks, even though (as in the case of the van der Waals force between neutral atoms) it has the same basic source as the forces that holds quarks bound into nucleons. I'll add a bit to address your concern. S  B Harris 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff - Thanks. I see how it works now. And I think you are right to add a clarification (as you have done) for the physics "hobbyists" among us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.131.46 (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong nuclear force
Why does strong nuclear force redirect here? Shouldn't it go to nuclear force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.74 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why yes, it should! I'll fix it. On the other hand, Strong force properly now goes to Strong interaction, since the nucleus isn't mentioned.  S  B Harris 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it should not..at leadt not in the present state: it very may well should have back in 2012 :P. Going on the current content of the articles: the 'strong nuclear force' and 'nuclear force' are two different cases of the strong interaction, but they are in no wise the same. Strong nuclear force hath not its own article, and content regarding it is within this article. so I've moved that redirect back here again :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Srong force NOT a fundamantal force
For one thing the Strong Force is NOT a fundamental interaction. If you read the history of the strong force it was thought that protons and neutron were fundamental particles and a force was needed to explain why the protons didn't repel each other. After the theory was formulated it was discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were comprised of quarks. Quarks are held together by Color Charge, the electrical interactions between dipoles. The strong force is now recognized as a sub-field of the Color Charge field. The requirement of a fundamental force is that it initiates other actions, not be initiated by other actions, yet the strong force is still to this day considered a fundamental force even though it has been shown to be a sub-field created by the fundamental force of Color Charge. So in reality we are now down to 3 fundamental forces: electromagnetism, gravity and the weak force. In reality there exist only 2, gravity and electromagnetism. If one studies the weak force one will find it is formulated at its basic level on the charge of particles, i.e. the electromagnetic force. When are the definitions going to be updated? The strong force is a sub-field of color charge, so why is the strong force still classified as a fundamental force? Its basic premise that protons and neutron were fundamental particles was incorrect from the beginning, and the true force binding these together is now known to be Color Charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.83.53 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Strong Force is science fiction
After one century, the fundamental laws of the "strong force" are unknown. There is no formula like that of Bohr for the hydrogen atom. Same thing for the "weak force". Nobody is able to calculate the binding energy of even the simplest nucleus beyond the proton, the deuteron $$^2H$$. I have found the nature of the nuclear interaction : it is electromagnetic. Indeed, the proton proton and the neutron contain electric charges and magnetic moments. The electric charge of the proton attracts the negative charge of the neutron and repulses its positive charge, resulting in a net attraction. Simply by using Coulomb's laws, electric and magnetic, one obtains the binding energy of the deuteron. A first calculation gave a value 30% lower than the experimental value. A precision of 1% has been obtained since (unpublished yet).

The idea of the strong force arises from the big success of the Bohr atom. Unfortunately this approach cannot be applied to the nucleus. Indeed, the nucleus has no nucleus, that is, no massive central body which can act as a force center. This is the reason why the electromagnetic interaction is able to predict the nuclear interaction.

Bernard Schaeffer (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, I have published a few papers on the subject, for example: http://www.aemjournal.org/index.php/AEM/article/view/218/

It is the first calculation of an atomic nucleus e.g. the simplest one, with a precision of a few percent, without the usual ad hoc fitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschaeffer (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Where'd the old title picture go?
I like the picture of CERN's collider on the page, but I think the old picture of the standard model particles is much better for the main page box. It seemed that all particle physics articles contain that picture in the main index box, which I think lay people use to help discern what grouping the current particle/force/page falls under (bosons vs. fermions, quarks vs. leptons, etc). Could we put the collider pic below and get the standard model tabel back? 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdegan (talk • contribs)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fundamental interaction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lagrangian?
How is it that this article does not include a QCD Lagrangian? 70.247.175.236 (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Currents
It would be really useful if the currents at the vertices were included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.193.201.60 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

160,000 or 10,000 Newtons?
Color confinement “Because of this behavior of the gluon field, a strong force between the quark pair acts constantly—regardless of their distance—with a strength of around 160,000 newtons, roughly the weight of three elephants.”

Strong interaction: "After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10,000 newtons, no matter how much farther the distance between the quarks."Antonquery (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please slow down the gif?
The gif goes too fast to be able to understand the interactions. Can someone please slow it down? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Details illustration missing ID
The illustration of "The fundamental couplings of the strong interaction" shows four items but only three identifications ("from left to right")for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Any math?
It would be nice if there were a math section with a couple of equations or something. The text here is greek without math 63.231.130.72 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Before the 1970s
Currently says;
 * Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain as to how the atomic nucleus was bound together...
 * A stronger attractive force was postulated...
 * It was later discovered ...were made up of quarks.

This section implies the strong force was postulated after 1970, and says quarks were discovered after 1970.

MBG02 (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)