Talk:Strong CP problem

Motivation

This article fails to motivate why this is a problem. Why should one expect θ to be non-zero? Sems perfectly natural to have a zero here, so the declaration that "there's a problem here" is unconvincing as currently worded. linas 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is blud saying 💀💀 181.192.37.72 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant ref?

How on earth is Bars's two time physics related to the strong CP problem? If some latter work made a connection, cite that work, but that paper is irrelevant. I'm removing the ref and putting in the Peccei-Quinn ref. Dewa (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How was the 2003 solution received

How was the cited [Banerjee, H; Chatterjee, D; Mitra, P (30 October 2003). "Is there still a strong CP problem?". Physics Letters B. 573: 109–114. arXiv:hep-ph/0012284] received by other physicists ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Inspire it has been cited 22 times (cf 3817 for the Peccei-Quinn paper, which even accounting for its age is vastly more) --- I can't see how this is any more relevant than any other proposed solution. I am going to remove reference to it. Asymptotickle (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant page?

This page has the same content (literally, looks like a copy - paste) of the "CP violation" article

Major rewrite

I rewrote the main body of the article to explain how the strong CP problem actually comes about and especially what part of the θ-angle is physical. I also then went into explaining why the different proposed solutions are indeed solutions to the problem. This is an important topic so it deserves to have a proper detailed article written about it. OpenScience709 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]