Talk:B–Bbar oscillation

Cleanup

It was good to merge the Bs section into that, but now it flip-flops between B0 oscillations and Bs oscillations. That makes the article quite confusing.Pkoppenb (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus to merge, without prejudice. Editors are reminded that non-controversial merges do not require discussion, per WP:Merge. Given the relative lack of interest in this merger my suggestion is that someone with far more knowledge of the subjects than me should simply proceed with the merger one way or another.-- Debate 木 07:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal to merge B-sub-s meson into this article. Josh Thompson 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around - the oscillation is an aspect of the meson, so it makes more sense to make the B-sub-s meson the main article, which can cover B-Bbar oscillation and other things as well. wikipediatrix 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in principle, but in practice the B-sub-s meson article contains nothing except a blurb about B_s mixing (oscillation), so it fits nicely here. And the content here is more general than just for the B_s. The B-Factory experiments study B_d mesons, not B_s mesons. (As an aside, the particle physics wikipedia pages are in general very disorganized. Not much thought has been given to which topics deserve a whole article and which deserve only a mention in a longer article. At the moment there are a lot of very short articles, so in general article-merging is a good idea, I think.) Josh Thompson 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B–Bbar oscillation as an equivalent example for why we live in a matter-universe

The degenerate chromodynamic (strong force; monoquarklike) pre-Big-Bang particle, oscillated between its matter and antimatter form, and Everettianly (many words interpretation) both alternatives branched out as the "matter universe" and the "antimatter universe".

It's a fringe theory. Not the nowadays dogma.

Also it leaves open many interpretations of the initial: either monoquarklike, or gluonlike, or new fundamental force like protocosmic particle (the asymmetric force is a proposed alternative theory which includes a new (stronger than the strong force) biased force [supersymmetry is deemed wrong]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:ECDF:C038:7F48:5CF:108D (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]