Talk:Sphaleron

unobservably rare?

A strange choice of words.

Doesn't this play into proton decay and don't the known limits on proton instability place a firm limit on this?

Hcobb (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Ungrammatical sentence, doesn't make sense.

A baryon net excess can be created during the electroweak symmetry breaking can be later preserved only if this phase transition was first-order.

This sentence (Second bullet in main content) is ungrammatical and confusing. I don't know enough about physics to correct it, but one of the can be phrases has to be wrong - or there are two thoughts jammed together. Perhaps just delete the first can be?

Trelligan (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Clumsy me - overwrote the first entry above. My apologies

let me se: "A baryon net excess that is created during the electroweak-symmetry-breaking can be later preserved only if this phase transition was first-order. Look good?Sinsearach (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sphaleron/CommentsTalk:Sphaleron/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Given the connection to baryogenesis, shouldn't this at least be rated as important as Instanton?

Last edited at 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

IMPOSSIBLE to represent by a feynman diagram? NO WAY

There can be no way this is impossible, for instance in a 3D or even 4th-D(video) feynman diagram.Sinsearach (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Way. :) The Feynman diagram approach is inherently perturbative, even if one adds additional dimensions to Feynman diagrams. Non-perturbative processes simply cannot be Feynman diagrammed. The closest decent approximations are things like Figure 15 on p. 34 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609145 , which is a sphaleron diagram which gives the sense of a Feynman diagram, even if it is not a true Feynman diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.185.53 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

"Composition" is incorrectly worded

The sphaleron "Composition" within the box near the upper right-hand corner of the page is incorrectly worded, per my understanding. Presently, it reads "Roughly, a high-energy composite of 3 leptons or of 3 baryons". I believe that it should instead read "Roughly, a high-energy composite of 3 leptons plus 3 baryons, or of 3 antileptons plus 3 antibaryons". (I'd correct it myself, but I'd prefer that [one of] the main author[s] of the page do so instead of an interloper like me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.185.53 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)