610:
1260:
nature better. Above the
Hagedorn temperature, this limit is reached, and quarks act as free particles. I provide 3 sources that support this (there are many many more). Limit or math is just a construct. When you do the experiment, it shows that quarks act like free particle, so they are free by definition under the conditions of the experiment. And, it doesn't matter if they have to thermalize to be free (in the end, they are still free particles). Your argument is moot at this point. "They can be found only within hadrons" claim is simply WRONG. That's what we thought many decades ago, but now that idea has been discarded through repeated experiments around the world.
1149:, "If the conditions for forming a bound state aren't met, then confinement is impossible. The four ways we know how to get there are to create a top quark, to look to the early stages of the hot Big Bang, to collide heavy ions together at relativistic speeds, or to look inside the densest objects (like neutron stars or the hypothetical strange quark stars) to find the quark-gluon plasma inside." It clearly states there are four different ways to create free quarks, unbound from color confinement.
546:
243:
721:
600:
579:
537:
961:, it clearly states that quark "cannot be isolated, and therefore cannot be directly observed in normal conditions below the Hagedorn temperature". It means that ABOVE the Hagedorn temperature, quark can be isolated and observed directly. Stop reverting my edits. You guys are probably amatuer in physics at best. Do you even know what I do for a living? I came across this article and saw a glaring error, so I decided to fix it.
490:
297:
276:
211:
1219:"I mean free quarks" may be at the root of your misconception. An asymptotic state is completely isolated from any other quarks or excitations, here, colored ones. QGP is a medium replete with color degrees of freedom. While you might split hairs in the suitable section or article, messing with the lede in an important article to service tendentious misunderstandings is simply not OK.
1238:"An asymptotic state is completely isolated from any other quarks or excitations, here, colored ones." This statement is blatantly wrong. Asymptotic state is a state where quark and gluon are moving freely unbound by color confinement. Quark-gluon plasma IS an asymptotic state. Asymptotic free quarks are free particles for all intended purposes in science. Read up
1124:
short-lived." This statement is incorrect and misleading. Just because QGP is addressed at the end, it doesn't mean we should leave a scientific incorrect statement in the opening section. Also, this article became a featured article in 2009, which means it hasn't been edited a lot for 11 years. A lot of things have changed since then within the physics community.
883:
1748:
for decades, unsuccessfully. They don't exist for a reason. QGP is normally a blob of no more than a few fermis wide, produced by the collision of hadrons or nuclei, and so, could be thought of as an extreme bag of colored entities. The fact that quarks propagate "freely" in it is hardly different, conceptually, than partons in a hadron struck at extreme
1557:. You need to start providing reliable sources to back up your claim, of which I haven't seen a single reliable source provided by you, and stop making up stuffs (or espousing your own original research). I, on the other hands, have provided A LOT of reliable sources (there are a lot more on the internet; I just picked a few of them).
1554:
1550:
884:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301614262_The_Reason_of_a_realistic_View_to_Particles_and_Atomic_Nuclei?_sg=hdVJqrb66numVZAqlGaR7wxlIU3O419A59IZN6SIg5a8YFpSRRNRXNQq39vIoKaR-CixThpeoPn2dw.oloZG9HAv2x3YqOSTaOnLYKfe7IECdwDLd-hXeIiGSpUsT1bfduXO5Vh3IuNqhlArFxyIlWE7_-hblBXT_jsTg&_sgd%5Bnc%5D=0&_sgd%5Bncwor%5D=0
1794:
I still believe isolation in this case means isolated or free from color confinement (all my sources have different interpretation of free quarks than yours). However, if you really want to keep your argument of isolated as in the vacuum then for better clarification, I suggest adding "in the vacuum"
1195:
When I said isolated quarks, I mean free quarks. The quarks are free from their color confinement. A quote, "This state is thought to consist of asymptotically free strong-interacting quarks and gluons, which are ordinarily confined by color confinement inside atomic nuclei or other hadrons" from the
1011:
Your knowledge of physics is really bad, no offense. First of all, this is not just any plasma, which is one of the four basic states of matter. There are many more states of matter than the basic four. This state of matter is called "quark-gluon plasma", which is not the same as your ordinary plasma
1130:
and continue to revert my edit based on your poor, ignorant understanding of particle physics. So far, you have provided ZERO scientific fact to back up your claim. The idea that "quarks are always in color confinement" is outdated and needs to be updated as in with every single field in science. As
1119:
I cited my source. This is not a forum to espouse your poor understanding of physics. If you actually read
Hagedorn's paper in 1975, you should reread it now (I doubt you did). It's 2020 now, 45 years has since passed. Also, I highly doubt you've published anything in HEP literature due to your poor
1048:
You keep misinterpreting my words based on your poor understanding of physics. They are weakly interacting, yes. But, they are also "free to move on their own". This MEANS that they are no longer in color confinement scheme. This contradicts directly the statement you're trying to keep, "they can be
1813:
You are chasing a red herring by looking for the "correct" technical meaning of "in isolation". This is the lede of a highly visible
Knowledge article. Therefore it is written in non-technical language, as far as possible. "In isolation" here is used in the "lay" English sense of "far removed other
1747:
A free quark in Gell-Mann's, Zweig's, and
Feynman's usage (no sources: I worked for them), and everybody else's (indeed), is an isolated quark coming from outer space, or hovering in space, or hitting a detector which thereby registers fractional charge, so, not hadronized; these were searched for
1693:
Theoretically, free quarks can be observed directly in the quark-gluon plasma. They haven't been successful on that, but they're working on it. I know they're working on it because I read it in a source somewhere. The current problem is that they cannot sustain the quark-gluon plasma state for very
1645:
Fine, keep your "only". However, "below the
Hagedorn temperature" needs to be added, and "directly observed or" needs to be deleted. I don't think adding 4 words and deleting 3 words to the article is "hitting them right away with qualifications, hair-splittings, and notional prestidigitations." It
1433:
I didn't misread anything. You're just stating the definition of color confinement without proving anything. You admit there is an exception yes? If there is an exception then saying quarks can never be observed directly is clearly a false statement. Not sure what you mean by, "The exception is not
1417:
You are (again) misreading the sentences "Quarks carry color charge and cannot be observed directly as they hadronize to colorless particles before decaying. One exception is the top quark, as it decays before hadronization due to its short lifetime. " The exception is not to the directness, but to
1299:
I am not sure I understand what is being discussed. I hope nobody here denies that whereas at the ambient conditions quarks are bound (by gluons) into baryons and mesons, at high energy baryons and mesons become quark-gluon plasma, and for example this is what was believed to during the Big Bang. I
990:
Quote from the source, "however, quarks and gluons were bound only weakly, free to move on their own in what’s called a quark-gluon plasma." This directly contradicts the statement you're trying to keep, "they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons." Free and isolated mean the same
1854:
There is, but yea, it can never be completely empty due to quantum fluctuation, dark matter, dark energy, and maybe more things that we just don't know yet. It depends on your definition of the vacuum, which would lead to another rabbit hole. In any case, most of my concerns have been addressed
1545:
is not conventional, and indirect." This sounds like your own original research (they didn't say it; you synthesized it out of thin air). No original research please, according to
Knowledge policy. And no, it's not the same thing. Top quark spin's effect is measurable. It's the same way when we
1331:
yes, please. Because claiming quarks "can be found only within hadrons" is simply just scientifically incorrect because they're obviously found outside of hadrons (such as in quark-gluon plasma). Also, claiming quarks can never exist outside of color confinement is also incorrect (equivalent of
1259:
The more you talk the more it exposes that you REALLY don't know what you're talking about and lack a deep understanding of physics. You said, "free in a limit: they have to thermalize." Yes, it's a limit. Physicists use math to describe nature. It is simply a construct that helps us to explain
1697:
Free quarks or isolated quarks mean the same thing in this case. It means they are free from color confinement. It doesn't matter if they're in the vacuum or in the quark-gluon plasma. The result is the same; they are free or isolated from color confinement. This interpretation of free quarks
1486:
I understand your point. However, I can argue the same opposite thing. Hadronization fails because the top quark decays quicker than the time it takes to hadronize. Exception is an exception. There is no way to get around it. Claiming all quarks can never be observed directly is simply false.
796:
This article reads far too much like a pile of data, and nothing at all like a source of knowledge. It should be reorganized to serve the purpose of informing the reader, instead of serving the purpose of giving the speaker a reason to pat themselves on the back for having said many things.
1381:
fine, I would no longer object to it if "below the
Hagedorn temperature" is added after the word isolation. And the word only is deleted from "they can be found only within hadrons." You can't use the word only when that is not the only place that you find quarks! Thank you all for the help.
872:
Second: As we know were this particles predicted by theory. They have therefore merely theoretical need. It is questionable to declare the reality (in this case the world of particles and nuclei) by theoretical considerations. We have to be close to the experimental facts and observations.
1617:
To the extent that it needs repeating, Gell-Mann was diffident about quarks for 10 years, because of the (ultimately 30-year long) failure of isolated fractionally-charged particles' searches to bear fruit. This is the first feature a physics student or a layman should see about quarks,
1123:
This statement is clearly scientific incorrect: "Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and
1641:
Who said
Knowledge is written for a layman (it's Simple English Knowledge job)? Also, it's imperative for a physics student to learn the correct thing right away. So later on, they don't have to go through the "wait, what!" moment. Fact is fact. They'll just have to deal with
1063:
There are also these jets occurring in the quark-gluon plasma. By measuring the "jets' orientation, directionality, composition, and how they transfer energy and momentum to the medium", you can observe the quarks directly. Do you even know how scientists observe an electron
1434:
to the directness, but to the hadronization." You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Exception is exception, period. It's just a fact that a top quark has been observed directly; this fact refutes your statement in the article. A top quark IS a quark.
830:
The main evidence is based on the resonance width of the Z0 boson, which constrains the 4th generation neutrino to have a mass greater than ~45 GeV/c². This would be highly contrasting with the other three generations' neutrinos, whose masses cannot exceed 2
1234:
I didn't misunderstand anything. I fixed a fact about free quarks, and you reverted them without a deep understanding of particle physics. You ignored all my valid points and argued non-sense. Keeping a scientifically incorrect statement in the lede is not
1694:
long to observe free quarks directly. Maybe, in a few years? The Large Hadron
Collider is constantly being upgraded. Anyway, this is beside the point being discussed. Top quark alone proves that claiming all quarks are never directly observed is not true.
835:
but as far as I can tell in the
Standard Model there's no obvious reason why there should be as many generation of quarks as of leptons (though GUTs do predict that). Am I missing something? If not, I propose to remove that footnote as misleading.
1245:"QGP is a medium replete with color degrees of freedom." This is just nonsense. Color in color refinement refers to particles that are color-charged namely quarks and gluons. QGP is when color-charged particles break free from their confinement.
850:
Anomaly cancelation (TTY) in the standard model pegs the numbers of EW lepton doublets to those of quark doublets (acounting for color triplication). This is the very cornerstone of the SM generation structure. Is this what you might be missing?
1731:
Where is your reliable source saying it has to be in the vacuum for it to be considered free (or isolated)? If you can't provide a reliable source, your argument would be invalid. No original research please and no original interpretation.
1826:
Then you need to say, "quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum" to make it a scientific correct statement. Knowledge serves not only the layman but also the experts in particle physics. A little clarification can't ever hurt.
1841:
That would be more problematic as there is no such thing as "the vacuum". An important aspect of writing an accessible lede is being sufficiently imprecise as to still be accurate (but not more so). (Also nice double negative.)
1437:
And the claim quarks can only be found within hadrons is incorrect that hasn't been fixed. The word "only" needs to be deleted. And, quarks have been found in isolation, which means it's no longer bound by color confinement.
876:
Third it is possible to describe the world of particles and nuclei using the most elementary particles electron and positron. The world of particles is probably substantial differnt from the accepted theoretical description.
1712:
The two sources that support this statement, "color-charged particles (such as quarks and gluons) cannot be isolated, and therefore cannot be directly observed in normal conditions below the Hagedorn temperature" from
1677:
article is muddy and misleading, in my view, but I have no experience with that page--it certainly didn't come out of Barger and Phillips cited! I believe it should be improved, but the novice hardly stumbles there.
1579:
of the opening paragraph seems satisfactory to me, hitting the appropriate level of detail and covering the basic facts, bringing in baryons, mesons and QGP at the appropriate point. The discussion is also ongoing at
1103:
Leave the lede alone. The final section addresses QGP without misleading flourishes. I first read Hagedorn’s paper in 1975; publishing in professional HEP literature since. You need to read up. This is not a forum.
2012:
153:
1300:
am not familiar with the details of this CERN experiment (and I would have preferred to have a look at the paper if it is out), but it is just a matter of writing this in a semantically correct way.--
2072:
2042:
2007:
957:
clearly states that they're doing experiment with free quark, which exists in a state called quark-gluon plasma. Free quark means that it's no longer in confinement. Free quark = isolated quark. In
1622:. Hitting them right away with qualifications, hair-splittings, and notional prestidigitations detracts from the central key point. There is plenty of room for finessing Hagedorn temps and their
1828:
1733:
1718:
1699:
1651:
1083:
1065:
1050:
1013:
992:
962:
894:
1400:. Therefore, claiming quarks can never be observed directly is simply false. Like I said the information in the lede is outdated. It needs to be updated as physicists dig deeper into nature.
1204:. Again, you repeatedly ignore my sources and my other points. You offer nothing to dispute my claim beside circular argument and some fancy words that you probably have 0 understanding.
1963:
It seems odd to attribute the discovery of quarks to SLAC without any mention of the Nobel Prize awarded for that work to Friedman, Kendall, and Taylor. Surely it merits a sentence.
2032:
282:
1855:
thanks mostly to your edits. I'm not completely satisfied with this last bit but, but I guess that's life (can't have everything my way). It's time we say farewell to each other.
2047:
1925:
If quarks build nucleons, which build nuclei of all atoms around us ... isn't the role of quarks in nuclei a basic question - which should addressed in their Knowledge article?
2062:
1471:, etc. It has spent its entire life in the hadronic fireball in which it was created, of size smaller than a fermi, and certainly it has not "beaten confinement" in this blob!
477:
458:
420:
363:
257:
1939:
It might be an interesting question, if and when a good answer were at hand. WP summarizes clear results, and does not blithely rush to the muddiest of conceptual corners.
1646:
won't hurt to add 4 words into the article. Deal? I'm ready to move on from Knowledge editing and go back to my daily routine. It's basically the same statement taken from
550:
1146:
991:
thing in this case. It means that the quarks are no longer in confinement. You also conpletely ignored above the Hagedorn temperature part, which also proves my point.
1773:
1779:. That's just why the "free" terminology is deprecated in favor of "isolated". I'd be flattered to consider any of this as original research or interpretations!
666:
147:
1626:(!) later in the article, and in the penumbral technical articles linked. The key point is to not puzzle and confuse the eager novice with "ifs" and "but"s.
1078:
You also keep ignoring one of my key arguments, "ABOVE the Hagedorn temperature, quark can be isolated and observed directly." You actually need to read the
1012:
state that you probably learned in high school. You should take a course or two in quantum mechanics to broaden your knowledge. Perhaps, take my course too.
2067:
79:
1176:"asymptotically free quarks", as you might well be misconstruing them. You must be confused about the meaning of asymptotic freedom. Please go to the
2027:
1034:
Quarks in plasma are not isolated. You are misreading the source you quote. They are weakly interacting. Please read something above a press release.
2057:
2037:
656:
1673:
their properties, not too differently than inferring the scattered quark properties from the features of a hadronic QCD jet. The statement of the
1665:
Above the Hagedorn temperature, quarks break out of hadronic bound states and propagate as quasi-free excitations in an extended colored medium,
609:
2017:
1340:
before it was reverted (I added 3 reliable sources). That was my proposal to clarify the nature of quarks to be more scientifically correct.
85:
1546:
observe a photon emitted from an electron. That's a direct observation of the electron. That's as direct as you can get in particle physics.
1314:
There is actually a section on quark-gluon plasma already in the article. May be indeed adding a sentence to the lede would be beneficial?--
2002:
1856:
1796:
1599:
1558:
1488:
1439:
1401:
1383:
1341:
1261:
1246:
1205:
1150:
1132:
804:
439:
401:
344:
2052:
1964:
1832:
1737:
1722:
1703:
1655:
1581:
632:
1717:
seem reliable to me. 1 is from a published book, second one is from published lecture notes. It's as legit as Feynman lecture notes.
1087:
1069:
1054:
1017:
996:
966:
898:
202:
1593:
1549:
Other physicists around the world agree with me, not you. They take the result and say that's direct observation of the top quark.
2022:
510:
500:
1896:
Couldn't this quadrupole be obtained by just shifting some quarks instead? (I got such suggestion from soliton particle models)
909:
99:
30:
1333:
incorrect). Quarks found in isolation means free quarks unbound by color confinement, which happens in the quark-gluon plasma.
705:
104:
20:
1131:
scientists delve deeper into nature, things that we thought were true are no longer correct based on new experimental data.
623:
584:
506:
74:
44:
1814:
things". Quark-gluon plasmas and particle decays in a collider, do not fall in this common understanding of "isolated".
559:
778:
252:
65:
869:
First I would remaind you on the failure of the LHC-experiment at CERN. It was made to prove "Quarks" definitively.
168:
210:
185:
135:
757:
221:
1860:
1603:
1562:
1492:
1443:
1405:
1387:
1345:
1265:
808:
536:
242:
1800:
1250:
1209:
1154:
1136:
1968:
109:
1177:
704:
For more information about external reviews of Knowledge articles and about this review in particular, see
1944:
1916:
1784:
1683:
1631:
1531:
1526:
is not conventional, and indirect. You are investing "directly" with an eccentric meaning never intended.
1476:
1423:
1364:
1224:
1185:
1109:
1039:
981:
917:
856:
275:
1846:
1818:
1589:
1397:
565:
262:
129:
954:
489:
296:
1930:
1901:
1467:
than the size of the hadron in which it would be included, and certainly that of its decay products,
1079:
800:
746:
741:
736:
198:
194:
190:
1418:
the hadronization, obviously. Most observations in HEP are indirect, but this one takes the prize.
1319:
1305:
161:
55:
1200:
article. Asymptotically free quarks = quarks that are no longer in color confinement. Please read
631:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
125:
1275:
1239:
1201:
1197:
763:
226:
70:
1893:
It is explained by adding l=2 angular momentum, but it suggests some dynamics - what exactly?
1940:
1912:
1780:
1714:
1679:
1674:
1647:
1627:
1572:
1527:
1472:
1419:
1374:
1360:
1283:
1220:
1181:
1105:
1035:
977:
958:
913:
852:
266:
51:
175:
1843:
1815:
1585:
842:
759:
720:
691:
223:
1607:
1926:
1897:
1751:
976:
Free has come to mean ‘’isolated’’ and quarks in plasma are not isolated. Please read up.
940:
1883:
What happens with quark structure e.g. of proton + neutron when they bind into deuteron?
1795:
after "found in isolation". Or you can say "quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum."
1378:
1328:
1315:
1301:
615:
1996:
1983:
837:
1279:
888:
141:
599:
578:
1698:(isolated quarks) is supported by CERN and Nature journal (and other sources).
936:
605:
928:
Video of Gell-Mann explaining the pronunciation and origin of the word quark
494:
932:
1979:
1879:
Quark structure of nuclei, e.g. deuteron having large quadrupole moment?
628:
1128:
You literally have been ignoring every scientific fact I provided here
1522:
s. The authors never intended anyone to understand the decay of the
1888:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Deuterium#Magnetic_and_electric_multipoles
1502:
No, your are, in fact, arguing for the same thing! You observe the
1541:"The authors never intended anyone to understand the decay of the
1461:
of hadronization! That is, it has disappeared at a distance scale
24:
1890:), what seems tough to get if thinking about it as just 'pn' (?)
761:
225:
764:
714:
682:
530:
227:
15:
1987:
1972:
1948:
1934:
1920:
1905:
1864:
1849:
1836:
1821:
1804:
1788:
1741:
1726:
1707:
1687:
1659:
1635:
1566:
1535:
1496:
1480:
1447:
1427:
1409:
1391:
1368:
1349:
1323:
1309:
1288:
1269:
1254:
1228:
1213:
1189:
1158:
1140:
1113:
1091:
1073:
1058:
1043:
1021:
1000:
985:
970:
944:
921:
902:
860:
844:
812:
2013:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
1887:
1598:
Appropriation is not the same as scientifically correct.
1669:
in the vacuum: they may not be said to be isolated. One
1082:
article on Knowledge instead of ignoring my valid point.
1576:
1337:
470:
451:
432:
413:
394:
375:
356:
337:
318:
160:
2073:
Externally peer reviewed articles by Nature (journal)
2043:
Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
2008:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
1754:
1555:
source 2 (another published book in particle physics)
493:
Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge's
1332:
saying quarks can never be found in isolation -: -->
1278:
otherwise your editing privileges may be withdrawn.
701:
No significant errors or major omissions were found.
627:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1886:We know it has large electric quadrupole moment (
1767:
1506:indirectly, in the same way you are observing the
1049:found only within hadrons, which include baryons."
281:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as
1582:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Quark_dispute
889:http://www.erkennbare-welt.de/Teilchen&Kerne
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1551:source 1 (a published book in particle physics)
2033:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
1359:The footnote nb1 adducing QGP is still there!
1180:page for clarification. This is not a forum.
772:This page has archives. Sections older than
174:
8:
2048:FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
1457:, so it cannot fail to be detected directly
265:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
261:as one of the best articles produced by the
255:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
2063:FA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
838:
798:
573:
290:
237:
1759:
1753:
1398:the top quark has been observed DIRECTLY
822:Footnote about generations and neutrinos
534:
933:https://youtube.com/watch?v=po-SQ33Kn6U
575:
1829:2402:800:4329:851A:B1B5:E074:25A3:4DC5
1734:2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743
1719:2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743
1700:2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743
1652:2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743
912:on the very second line of this page.
866:How reliable is the Quark hypothesis?
1084:2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91
1066:2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91
1051:2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91
1014:2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91
993:2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91
963:2402:800:436F:5C80:C9D4:EFF:4DC3:6B91
895:2003:CE:ABC5:3FDB:888A:C133:AA37:8E4D
7:
621:This article is within the scope of
1455:the top decays before it hadronizes
564:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1120:understanding of particle physics.
14:
2068:Externally peer reviewed articles
1620:happening nowhere else in physics
1453:Sigh... The exception is in that
776:may be automatically archived by
2028:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
719:
608:
598:
577:
544:
535:
488:
295:
274:
241:
209:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2058:Top-importance physics articles
2038:FA-Class level-4 vital articles
1166:Sigh... Isolated quarks means
908:And I should remind you of the
661:This article has been rated as
813:00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
688:This article was reviewed by
641:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
635:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2018:Old requests for peer review
861:19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
845:18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
644:Template:WikiProject Physics
2003:Knowledge featured articles
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2089:
1988:07:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
1973:03:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
1514:decaying to pions, or the
922:14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
903:09:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
826:Footnote 1 currently says
667:project's importance scale
478:Featured article candidate
459:Featured article candidate
421:Featured article candidate
364:Featured article candidate
2053:FA-Class physics articles
1949:15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1935:10:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1921:10:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1906:07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1865:17:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1850:14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1837:13:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1822:12:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1805:05:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1789:21:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1742:20:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1727:20:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1708:20:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1688:20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1660:19:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1636:19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1608:18:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1594:18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1567:18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1536:15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1497:14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1481:13:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1448:13:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1428:13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1410:11:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1392:11:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1369:11:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1350:10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1336:Please take a look at my
1324:10:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1310:10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1289:05:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1270:04:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
1255:13:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1229:13:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1214:12:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1190:12:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1159:12:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1141:12:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1114:10:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1092:03:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1074:03:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1059:03:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1044:03:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1022:03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1001:02:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
986:02:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
971:02:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
660:
593:
572:
517:
487:
383:Good article reassessment
293:
289:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1959:Attribution of discovery
945:00:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
742:January 2008 – July 2009
737:Antiquity – January 2008
283:Today's featured article
2023:FA-Class vital articles
1571:I generally agree with
1978:I added a sentence. --
1769:
1274:Please, do not attack
833:
779:Lowercase sigmabot III
696:on December 14, 2005.
285:on September 15, 2009.
75:avoid personal attacks
1770:
1768:{\displaystyle Q^{2}}
828:
551:level-4 vital article
203:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1752:
1080:Hagedorn temperature
326:Good article nominee
105:No original research
1624:more usable analogs
747:July 2009 – present
624:WikiProject Physics
263:Knowledge community
1765:
1240:Asymptotic freedom
1202:Asymptotic freedom
1198:quark-gluon plasma
1178:Quark–gluon plasma
792:This article sucks
560:content assessment
395:September 29, 2008
301:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
1715:color confinement
1675:color confinement
1648:color confinement
1169:asymptotic states
959:color confinement
815:
803:comment added by
786:
785:
713:
712:
709:
681:
680:
677:
676:
673:
672:
529:
528:
525:
524:
376:February 15, 2008
319:December 19, 2005
234:
233:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2080:
1774:
1772:
1771:
1766:
1764:
1763:
1286:
840:
781:
765:
723:
715:
703:
692:Nature (journal)
683:
649:
648:
647:physics articles
645:
642:
639:
618:
613:
612:
602:
595:
594:
589:
581:
574:
557:
548:
547:
540:
539:
531:
520:Featured article
518:Current status:
511:October 20, 2022
492:
473:
454:
435:
433:October 29, 2008
416:
397:
378:
359:
340:
321:
300:
299:
291:
278:
253:featured article
245:
238:
228:
214:
213:
204:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2079:
2078:
2077:
1993:
1992:
1961:
1881:
1755:
1750:
1749:
1577:current version
1284:
952:
930:
824:
794:
777:
766:
760:
751:
728:
646:
643:
640:
637:
636:
614:
607:
587:
558:on Knowledge's
555:
545:
469:
452:January 3, 2009
450:
431:
414:October 7, 2008
412:
393:
374:
355:
338:January 9, 2006
336:
317:
294:
230:
229:
224:
201:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2086:
2084:
2076:
2075:
2070:
2065:
2060:
2055:
2050:
2045:
2040:
2035:
2030:
2025:
2020:
2015:
2010:
2005:
1995:
1994:
1991:
1990:
1960:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1857:14.169.171.239
1808:
1807:
1797:14.169.100.161
1762:
1758:
1745:
1744:
1729:
1710:
1695:
1663:
1662:
1643:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1600:14.169.212.232
1559:14.169.212.232
1547:
1500:
1499:
1489:14.169.212.232
1451:
1450:
1440:14.169.212.232
1435:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1402:14.169.212.232
1384:14.169.212.232
1379:User:Ymblanter
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1342:14.169.212.232
1334:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1262:14.169.212.232
1247:14.169.172.125
1243:
1236:
1217:
1216:
1206:14.169.172.125
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1151:14.169.172.125
1147:another source
1133:14.169.172.125
1125:
1121:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1076:
1061:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
951:
948:
929:
926:
925:
924:
864:
863:
823:
820:
818:
805:71.121.192.199
793:
790:
788:
784:
783:
771:
768:
767:
762:
758:
756:
753:
752:
750:
749:
744:
739:
733:
730:
729:
724:
718:
711:
710:
702:
697:
686:
679:
678:
675:
674:
671:
670:
663:Top-importance
659:
653:
652:
650:
633:the discussion
620:
619:
616:Physics portal
603:
591:
590:
588:Top‑importance
582:
570:
569:
563:
541:
527:
526:
523:
522:
515:
514:
507:April 23, 2004
501:On this day...
485:
484:
481:
474:
466:
465:
462:
455:
447:
446:
443:
436:
428:
427:
424:
417:
409:
408:
405:
398:
390:
389:
386:
379:
371:
370:
367:
360:
357:March 24, 2006
352:
351:
348:
341:
333:
332:
329:
322:
314:
313:
310:
307:
303:
302:
287:
286:
279:
271:
270:
246:
232:
231:
222:
220:
219:
216:
215:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2085:
2074:
2071:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2061:
2059:
2056:
2054:
2051:
2049:
2046:
2044:
2041:
2039:
2036:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2026:
2024:
2021:
2019:
2016:
2014:
2011:
2009:
2006:
2004:
2001:
2000:
1998:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1958:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1911:Not a forum.
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1894:
1891:
1889:
1884:
1878:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1845:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1817:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1777:huge contrast
1760:
1756:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1711:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1456:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1298:
1297:
1290:
1287:
1281:
1277:
1276:other editors
1273:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
949:
947:
946:
942:
938:
934:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
891:
890:
886:
885:
881:
878:
874:
870:
867:
862:
858:
854:
849:
848:
847:
846:
843:
841:
832:
827:
821:
819:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
791:
789:
780:
775:
770:
769:
755:
754:
748:
745:
743:
740:
738:
735:
734:
732:
731:
727:
722:
717:
716:
707:
700:
695:
694:
693:
687:
685:
684:
668:
664:
658:
655:
654:
651:
634:
630:
626:
625:
617:
611:
606:
604:
601:
597:
596:
592:
586:
583:
580:
576:
571:
567:
561:
553:
552:
542:
538:
533:
532:
521:
516:
512:
508:
504:
502:
496:
491:
486:
482:
480:
479:
475:
472:
471:July 21, 2009
468:
467:
463:
461:
460:
456:
453:
449:
448:
444:
442:
441:
437:
434:
430:
429:
425:
423:
422:
418:
415:
411:
410:
406:
404:
403:
399:
396:
392:
391:
387:
385:
384:
380:
377:
373:
372:
368:
366:
365:
361:
358:
354:
353:
349:
347:
346:
342:
339:
335:
334:
330:
328:
327:
323:
320:
316:
315:
311:
308:
305:
304:
298:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
254:
250:
247:
244:
240:
239:
236:
218:
217:
212:
208:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1965:174.62.81.41
1962:
1941:Cuzkatzimhut
1913:Cuzkatzimhut
1895:
1892:
1885:
1882:
1781:Cuzkatzimhut
1776:
1746:
1680:Cuzkatzimhut
1670:
1666:
1664:
1628:Cuzkatzimhut
1623:
1619:
1616:
1573:Cuzkatzimhut
1542:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1501:
1473:Cuzkatzimhut
1468:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1452:
1420:Cuzkatzimhut
1416:
1375:Cuzkatzimhut
1361:Cuzkatzimhut
1358:
1221:Cuzkatzimhut
1218:
1182:Cuzkatzimhut
1173:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1145:Quoted from
1127:
1106:Cuzkatzimhut
1102:
1036:Cuzkatzimhut
978:Cuzkatzimhut
953:
931:
914:Cuzkatzimhut
892:
887:
882:
880:Some links:
879:
875:
871:
868:
865:
853:Cuzkatzimhut
834:
829:
825:
817:
799:— Preceding
795:
787:
773:
725:
698:
690:
689:
662:
622:
566:WikiProjects
549:
519:
498:
476:
464:Not promoted
457:
438:
426:Not promoted
419:
400:
382:
381:
369:Not promoted
362:
343:
325:
324:
267:please do so
256:
248:
235:
206:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1510:quark in a
955:This source
440:Peer review
402:Peer review
345:Peer review
148:free images
31:not a forum
1997:Categories
1927:Jarek Duda
1898:Jarek Duda
1586:XOR'easter
1575:here. The
950:Free quark
839:— A. di M.
505:column on
258:identified
1518:quark in
1329:Ymblanter
1316:Ymblanter
1302:Ymblanter
1064:directly?
706:this page
699:Comments:
554:is rated
495:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1775:s, so a
801:unsigned
726:Archives
556:FA-class
483:Promoted
445:Reviewed
407:Reviewed
388:Delisted
350:Reviewed
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1464:shorter
1459:because
831:MeV/c².
774:60 days
665:on the
638:Physics
629:Physics
585:Physics
497:in the
309:Process
207:60 days
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1671:infers
1396:Also,
1280:Ruslik
1172:, and
893:hg.hil
562:scale.
509:, and
331:Listed
312:Result
126:Google
937:Espoo
543:This
251:is a
249:Quark
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
25:Quark
1984:talk
1969:talk
1945:talk
1931:talk
1917:talk
1902:talk
1861:talk
1833:talk
1801:talk
1785:talk
1738:talk
1723:talk
1704:talk
1684:talk
1656:talk
1632:talk
1604:talk
1590:talk
1563:talk
1532:talk
1493:talk
1477:talk
1444:talk
1424:talk
1406:talk
1388:talk
1365:talk
1346:talk
1338:edit
1320:talk
1306:talk
1285:Zero
1266:talk
1251:talk
1225:talk
1210:talk
1186:talk
1155:talk
1137:talk
1110:talk
1088:talk
1070:talk
1055:talk
1040:talk
1018:talk
997:talk
982:talk
967:talk
941:talk
918:talk
910:rule
899:talk
857:talk
809:talk
306:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1980:mfb
1667:not
1642:it.
1235:OK.
1174:not
657:Top
176:TWL
1999::
1986:)
1971:)
1947:)
1933:)
1919:)
1904:)
1863:)
1835:)
1803:)
1787:)
1740:)
1725:)
1706:)
1686:)
1658:)
1650:.
1634:)
1606:)
1592:)
1584:.
1565:)
1553:,
1534:)
1495:)
1479:)
1446:)
1426:)
1408:)
1390:)
1377:,
1367:)
1348:)
1322:)
1308:)
1268:)
1253:)
1227:)
1212:)
1188:)
1157:)
1139:)
1112:)
1090:)
1072:)
1057:)
1042:)
1020:)
999:)
984:)
969:)
943:)
935:--
920:)
901:)
859:)
811:)
205::
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1982:(
1967:(
1943:(
1929:(
1915:(
1900:(
1859:(
1847:R
1844:T
1831:(
1819:R
1816:T
1799:(
1783:(
1761:2
1757:Q
1736:(
1721:(
1702:(
1682:(
1654:(
1630:(
1602:(
1588:(
1561:(
1543:t
1530:(
1528:c
1524:t
1520:D
1516:c
1512:K
1508:s
1504:t
1491:(
1475:(
1469:b
1442:(
1422:(
1404:(
1386:(
1363:(
1344:(
1318:(
1304:(
1282:_
1264:(
1249:(
1242:.
1223:(
1208:(
1184:(
1153:(
1135:(
1108:(
1086:(
1068:(
1053:(
1038:(
1016:(
995:(
980:(
965:(
939:(
916:(
897:(
855:(
807:(
782:.
708:.
669:.
568::
513:.
503:"
499:"
269:.
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
