Talk:Nuclear isomer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Elements (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Explosives  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Nuclear isomer[edit]

This article is missing a discussion of what a nuclear isomer is (it hints at spin, but how do spins turn into nucleuses in such a way that there are two ways to do it?) What kind of excited state are we talking about (more potential energy in terms of the strong force? You can tell I don't know enough to write the article...)? Also, if there are two nuclear isomers of, say, Element-99, how does one decide which one is designated "99" and which one is designated "99m" (I assume the former is the ground state, but without some quantum mechanical context it isn't clear that we are talking about "ground state" and "excited state" instead of two states which are somehow equal)? --Kingdon 21 Feb 2006

I am not entirely sure of what the above author is diuscussing. There are a lot of points which are misguided. I agree that the article is missing a definition of nuclear isomerism. However, nuclear physicists are also lacking in a defininition. I define (simply personally) an isomer to be an excited state which has a half-life of greater than or equal to 1 ns. I am not sure what the above comment is talking about strong force potential energy. This is not clear. It is clear that the above does not know what they are talking about (which they admit). To answer the question regarding the m nomenclature, even in the case of an element with no stable isotope one still has ground states and excited states. Any excited state which fulfills the criterion for calssification as isomeric is then assigned the letter m. If there is more than one then a number 2,3,4,...,n follows. The classification as ground state does not simply apply to the most stable state but is strictly applied to the state of lowest energy. I hope that the above questions have been answered. I will try to modify this page such that it reads better. However, all of the correct info is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.185.55 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Metastable isomers of a particular atom are usually designated with an "m" (or, in the case of atoms with more than one isomer, 2m, 3m, and so on).

Is it possible that the article should say "in the case of atoms with more than one excited nucleon" instead? --Yath 00:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I think the latest consensus is that the stimulated emission of Ta-180m's potential energy is possible, but the mechanism is different from that hypothesized for Hf-178m's, and that for Hafnium it may not be possible.

--24.80.110.173 04:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

notation confusion[edit]

The article states that successive metastable states are indicated with a number prefix to the "m" (m, 2m, etc). In the "Nearly-stable isotopes" section, however, there are some that are as a suffix (Hf-178-m2). Which way is right? DMacks 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably m2 is better.
--Drac2000 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It certainly would be less ambiguous...does 178mHf mean the isotope with mass=178, or the 178th "m" isotope? If the former, there really isn't a way of inserting a prefixed "2" on the "m". Where is this notation officially documented? DMacks 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The "new" [[1]] templates document "m2", not "2m".

Please see if the link Examples helps. Taking a link to any of the isomers on the left of that page (ie one with an "m") gives some interesting insight.

--Drac2000 16:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit finally motivated me to follow up on this. Thanks for the reference. DMacks 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you for the nice examples in this new edit. --Drac2000 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It is evidenrtly the consesus of opinion that all equal numbered isotopes of the same element have the same nuclear structure. And accordingly can only differ in some physical property like spin. This is why an observed occurrence of atomic decay in an element (in the ground state) is assumed to be a common property of all members of the particular element. And the idea that 2 different isomers of the same element could have a different structure and a resultant difference in ground state stability has yet to be developed. Thus when a few atoms of OE93Bi209 were determined to decay to OE91Tl205 it is assumed that all atoms atoms of OE93Bi209 have the same instability characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WFPM (talkcontribs) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratings[edit]

In response to the request for ratings for this article, I have rated it A. But it might be even better and qualify as FA. See the Comments section for discussion.

GoodElfNo3 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


IUPAC[edit]

Shouldn't the notation really be Hafnium-178m, not Hf-178m?

IUPAC notation allows Element-n or nEl, but not El-n.

Is that true? Writing "C-14" or "U-235" is really non-IUPAC? How dumb of IUPAC, if so! Got a cite? SBHarris 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
One source is this IUPAC report (2004). Section 3.3.1 says that "For example, the atom of atomic number 8 and mass number 18 is named oxygen-18 and has the symbol 18O". However IUPAC does not actually forbid or discourage the use of abbreviations such as O-18, which are very common and perfectly clear. So I agree with Sbharris' implicit opinion that there is no reason to change such abbreviations in this article. Maybe in the section describing the notation, we could write only the first example in all three ways as "Cobalt-58m (or Co-58m or 58m
27
Co
)". Dirac66 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Housecleaning[edit]

Obsolete estimates of cost and availability of rare materials removed as is encouraged by Wiki guidelines discouraging introduction of quantities dependent upon market forces. Also, removed erroneous interpretation of Washington Post article, replacing interpretation with reference to the actual article. Drac2000 (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nearly Stable Isomers[edit]

In the paragraph discussing Thorium-229, is it really correct to talk about "ultraviolet gamma rays?" I thought whether or not a photon was a "gamma ray" was simply a question of its energy. Is it really accepted in the field to call any photon emitted by a nucleus a "gamma ray" regardless of its energy? I don't work in this field so I honestly don't know, but it seems wrong to me. Cs30109 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From the article on Gamma ray: "Hard X-rays can have higher energy than low energy gamma rays. In the past, distinction between the X- and gamma rays was arbitrarily based on wavelengths. Now the two types of radiation are usually defined by their origin: X-rays are emitted by electrons outside the nucleus, while gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus."

The point is that the type of transition (nuclear or electronic) is of more fundamental interest than the exact wavelength, so it makes sense to classify all nuclear transitions together. Of course the UV example is very unusual and may not even be genuine. Dirac66 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The introduction used to say that one nuclear isomer had a quintillion year half life. This appears to refer to the long-lived tantalum isomer with a half-life at least 10^15 years (a quadrillion, not a quintillion). I changed the introduction to say at least 10^15 instead of quintillion.CharlesHBennett (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ground state of F18[edit]

How is it known that the particular instability characteristic of a reported unstable isotope is associated with it's ground state? For example the isotope 9F18 is reported to be unstable and to decay to the stable isotope 8O18. However, if the protons in 9F18 were all paired with neutrons, it would take more energy to unpair the deuteron than there is in the mass difference between the 2 isotopes. So couldn't there possibly be a ground state of 9F18 that is stable?WFPM (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this question from the article to the talk page. Dirac66 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer: it is known from the experimental facts that (1) stable F-18 has never been observed. The only F-18 known is radioactive and beta-decays to O-18 with a half-life of 110 min. (2) O-18 is stable with a measured mass less than that of F-18.

As for comparing the pairing energy vs. proton-neutron mass difference, the nuclear shell model indicates that eight nucleons of the same type is a closed shell. A possible explanation then is that O-18 has a closed shell of protons which would stabilize it relative to F-18 which has no closed shells. Dirac66 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Among the 288 primal nuclides double odd ones (odd number of protons and odd number of neutrons) such as deuterium or are extremely rare. There are only nine and five of those are known or thought to be slightly radioactive. There are 168 doubly even primal nuclides such as He-4 or O-18. The pairing effect is for pairs of neutrons or protons not one of each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.67.46 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) See discussion under Isotope here in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.67.46 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I note that three of the external links are described as being to a department of the University of Dallas at Texas however only one of these links to that institution, the others link to the domain hafniumisomer.org. On checking I find this domain is not registered to that University but to a private citizen, Doina Collins. Accordingly I propose that those links be attributed to hafniumisomer.org rather than to an academic institution.Daffodillman (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for that. The second link that you discuss leads to a open letter from a Professor at The University of Texas at Dallas. The second reference to which you do not object is a JASON report described as something to do with the Washington Post mounted on a website belonging to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). Who cares in either case, and if so why? The third link to which you object points to the URL where material from the Center for Quantum Electronics was moved to repair broken links. Taking the links leads to material for which the origin is perfectly clear. One does not suspect the FAS of anything except kindness in hosting an interesting document that was not available from the originators at JASONS. Leave it all alone. --Drac2000 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

An isomeric transition is described as "similar to any gamma emission from any excited nuclear state, but differs in that it involves excited metastable states of nuclei with longer half lives," i.e. nuclear isomers. So it seems to me that isomeric transitions are not special enough to deserve their own page, and the isomeric transition stub should be merged and redirected into nuclear isomer. Some might want to consider isomeric shift in making up their minds, though I am not proposing anything about that article at this time.--Yannick (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The stub isomeric transition can be entirely discussed in this article, and redirected to it. SBHarris 19:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decay processes

As of the moment I write this item, the "Decay processes" includes the following text:

"An isomeric transition is a radioactive decay process that involves emission of a gamma ray from an atom where the nucleus is in an excited metastable state, referred to in its excited state, as a nuclear isomer."

What about the other way (i.e. energy going _into_ the nucleus)?

Would it improve the article (and maintain _accuracy_) to insert a new 3rd word into that sentence, yielding "An isomeric decay transition is a radioactive decay process . . ."?

There is very little in the article about how, how often, when higher energy isomers are formed so while I would expect that creation _and_ decay would both be validly labeled as "isomeric transitions", as is the article says that only one is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.75 (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nucleus

The "Nucleus" section currently says:

. . . "Excited atomic states decay by fluorescence which usually involves emission of light near the visible range." . . .

Would it be correct to use "ionic" rather than "atomic" as the 2nd word of that sentence?

Or much better still to slide in the word "electron" near the beginning of it so as to clarify that the excitation being discussed is not the excitation which the entire remainder of the article is about?

Note that if the answer to _either_ of those questions is "no" then it seems to me that the paragraph is even less clear than I am guessing it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.74 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)