Talk:Strong CP problem

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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]