Talk:Magic number (physics)

Image incorrect

Table isotopes en.svg

The image needs to be corrected, there are a number of places where there is beta minus decay diagonally opposite beta plus decay. This is inaccurate as it implies the atoms here would just oscillate between these states emitting (anti)electrons - which isn't possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Huang (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible if you keep feeding it with energy. JIMp _talk·cont 07:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Magic

I removed 6 and 14, they're not magic numbers, even according to the link provided.

I doubt that 2 is a magic number, because I know for certain that Helium has a far lower nucleus energy state than Deuterium. (Source: My Physics school book)

Interesting. My source is http://www.research.att.com/projects/OEIS?Anum=A018226. I'll check my physics textbooks to confirm, too. Giftlite 23:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Yes, ⁴He, two protons & two neutrons, is in a very low energy state. This is because two is magic. JIMp _talk·cont 07:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Belief

I believe the magic numbers refer to number of protons OR number of neutrons, not the sum. So Helium 4 is especially stable because it has both 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

A reference - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html. Giftlite 01:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

"If the count of protons is one of those magic numbers, then a neutral atom has the same number of electrons , arranged into complete shells around the atomic nucleus."

Regardless of the magic in the nucleus , ANY neutral atom has the same number of electrons (as protons); and they are NOT necessary complete ELECTRONIC shells(ie noble gases). I have excized the previous DOUBLELY STUPID sentence. The electron, absent or not, have NOTHING to do with the stability of the nucleus (to any measurable extent).67.124.102.77 06:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the magic numbers for electrons are different than those of protons and nuetrons. That statement leads to the idea that a magically numbered atom is particularly stable electronically also, which is not the case.

What of three?

Friends, I have it on good authority that three is a magic number, yet it is missing from the list. Should the list be marked incomplete? 86.20.180.82 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, 3 is not a magic number. What good authority? I have citable one. Say lecture notes : Nuclear and Particle Physics, University of Edinburgh - Dr Daniel Watts; or book : Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics 2nd Edition, A. Das and T. Ferbel. -- KTC 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The authority referred to above is probably Jack Johnson. He has written about this here. --TraceyR (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Dear Wiki editors, over the past months some of you have made reference to the non empirical derivation by Xavier Borg, namely our paper 'Magic numbers derived from variable phase nuclear model' on-line at http://www.blazelabs.com/magicnumbers.pdf There seems to be some disagreement upon whether or not such work should be cited on Wikipedia, which pretty messed up this talk page as shown in its history, so I'm cleaning this up and clearing the point in question. The above referenced paper IS original research, and is strictly NOT peer-reviewed, even though some university students collaborated with us to generate peer- reviewed scientific papers based on the core of its content. Keep in mind, Wiki, is used mainly by mainstream education, and is used by many scholars, and does not permit original research to be published. So, please, even though the contents of this paper read like common sense to some of you, I hereby ask you to refrain from copying any of its contents on the magic numbers page, since this would go against Wiki's policies, and would also breach copyright laws. If anybody sees the necessity of referencing this work, I would suggest to add it as an external link, and clearly label it as 'non mainstream'. Thanks.

(Blaze Labs Research (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Not Magic

I removed 6 and 14, they're not magic numbers, even according to the link provided.

I doubt that 2 is a magic number, because I know for certain that Helium has a far lower nucleus energy state than Deuterium. (Source: My Physics school book)

Interesting. My source is http://www.research.att.com/projects/OEIS?Anum=A018226. I'll check my physics textbooks to confirm, too. Giftlite 23:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

2 is exactly the magic number. Energy wells for neutrons and protons are separate, so helium-4 is doubly-magic nucleus. You'd have 2 protons and 2 neutrons in it's shells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.43.45 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Belief

I believe the magic numbers refer to number of protons OR number of neutrons, not the sum. So Helium 4 is especially stable because it has both 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

A reference - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html. Giftlite 01:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

"If the count of protons is one of those magic numbers, then a neutral atom has the same number of electrons , arranged into complete shells around the atomic nucleus."

Regardless of the magic in the nucleus , ANY neutral atom has the same number of electrons (as protons); and they are NOT necessary complete ELECTRONIC shells(ie noble gases). I have excized the previous DOUBLELY STUPID sentence. The electron, absent or not, have NOTHING to do with the stability of the nucleus (to any measurable extent).67.124.102.77 06:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the magic numbers for electrons are different than those of protons and nuetrons. That statement leads to the idea that a magically numbered atom is particularly stable electronically also, which is not the case.

Hassium

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but, based on what is in this article, how can Hassium-270 be doubly magic when neither 108 nor 162 are magic numbers? A good answer could be used to improve this article, so the next person doesn't have to ask :) Skittle 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Xavier Borg references are unpublished, non-mainstream articles of no original work. Magic numbers derive directly and completely from shell model. Xavier model is, on contrary, a rough simplistic classical (since Greeks) interpretation. This references are a clear attempt of self-promotion of a crackpot working in "free-energy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.52.164.135 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the ref., which is anpunished (not depublished). Other magic numera may be ±12-off or ±6-off. How do you think 114 came up when it's not even in the series? -lysdexia 11:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon IP 85.52.164.135, please stop vandalizing this page, and your offensive comments. There are several mainstream papers which regard the nucleus as a face-center cube (FCC) structure, and Xavier's model takes this a step further into a 4D simplex pair. The references in his papers are all mainstream. Also, you seem to be irritated by 'free energy' technologies. You may be surprised to know that free energy is not a crackpot science, but a very important research topic. Perhaps you are mistaking it with over unity which has got nothing to do with our research. (Blaze Labs Research (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Proposed merger

Fisdof9 proposed to merge article Magic number (chemistry) into this one. Actually, I don't think this is appropriate because the cause for the existence of magic numbers for atomic nuclei and the chemical clusters is quite different. In the first case it is due to the strong and electromagnetic interaction, in the latter case due to chemical forces.

This difference will become more obvious if someone expands the "Magic number (chemistry)" article. The only common thing is that the same concept can be used to understand the existence of magic numbers.

--Cyfal (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the Magic number (physics) definition is the one which most older chemistry textbooks refer to, the present Magic number (chemistry) definition refers to a completely different (and probably less known) concept. Merging these 2 articles will result in confusion and is therefore not recommended.

--(Blaze Labs Research (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

Well, because there have been no further contributions to this discussion, I remove the merger proposal now. --Cyfal (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Lasts"? Which isotopes? Citations?

Today the text includes: "as of 2007, the longest-lived, known isotope among all of the elements between 110 and 120 lasts only 12 min., next 22 sec"

Surely "lasts" should be replaced by "have half lives of", actual isotopes should be given, and citations quoted.

NickSharp (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would remove that sentence, for example Uub-285 has half-life 40±30 min. —Quilbert (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ni-28 not most prtoton rich isotope

Ni-28 is not the most proton rich isotope, regardless of what the cited source says.

Ni-28 has a 7/5 Proton/Neutron ratio. He-3 has a 2/1 Proton/Neutron ratio. H-1 has a 1/0 Proton/Neutron ratio.

Ni-28 is the most proton rich isotope beyond helium-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.130.193 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of 'magic'?

Is there a generally-accepted definition of what 'magic' means, apart from the vague idea "more stable than the rest" or "with complete shells" (although the shell model is not universally accepted either)? In an article in the current issue (7) of Physik Journal (for members of the German Physics Society/Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft), Jan Jolie and Peter Reiter from Darmstadt state that the only criterion for a shell closure (presumably w.r.t magicity) is the energy gap between completed levels. This is backed up with data relating to 30Si and 24O (both with 16 neutrons), whereby 24O is deemed to be magic due to the larger energy gap and 30Si, with a smaller gap, is not. On this basis, 24O is doubly magic (Z=8 and N=16). It certainly seems odd that the term "magic" seems to have mean different things to different people: Everyone 'knows' what it means but there doesn't seems to be a universal definition. --TraceyR (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Magic are such numbers of protons/neutrons which fills the corresponding shell in the corresponding energy well. Now there are corrections to the numbers in heavy nuclei, because of collective and other correlations, some energy levels from the upper shell are moved down to the previous. This is where the confusion lies. So levels from the upper shell would be filled before closing the lower shell, which means, for stable nucleus to occur the numbers should be modified to reflect that. For reference one could go to atomic physics, where some electron orbitals of higher level are filled before the last level, which is consequence of energy levels/sublevels ordering. I think it's acceptable to use the shell gap as criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.43.45 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)