Talk:Nuclear shell model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I noticed that the image used on this page is the same as is used on the hyperphysics page.

Is this image legit? I do not know how to check for myself. [Tycho?] 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the phrase, "Z=40", Z should be defined. I presume it is referring to the number of charged nucleons (protons) = 40 ... implying specifically that 40 is a semi-magic number for protons and not neutrons?


Is there a reason this article is at Shell model instead of Nuclear shell model? The latter seems more descriptive, and more analogous to Atomic shell model. Would anyone object to a move? --Doradus 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... Ironically, atomic shell model is actually at electron configuration. --Doradus 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. Nuclear physicists generally just call it 'the shell model', Krane ( [1]) refers to it as such. I think in an encyclopedia it might be best if it were under 'Nuclear Shell Model', but a move is nowhere near as urgent as the need for the contents of the article to receive a great deal of attention! At the minute it is not a great article, no matter what the title is.Mumby 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no n=0 !!![edit]

You count n wrong, there is no n=0 n starts from 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Actually there are different conventions about that, but the most popular one is to start with n=0. Dan Gluck 06:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No, n>=0 is not a commonly used convention. It is wrong. The value of n should match spectrographic notation. Look around the web. The Quantum Numbers article referenced from here uses n>=1. Hyperphysics [2] uses that notation. Wolfram's Scienceworld [3] uses that notation. My Krane text here uses that notation. This article should be changed. Ehinson56 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that there is no n=0 !!!!! and, l should be between 0 and n-1 !! This article is completely wrong!, I started correcting it yesterday, but i dont know who, or for what reason edited it back!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I confused you – that was me who changed your modifications back, you can see both the reason and my name in the history. I you want to modify the article again, you may start from your version in the history, but in this case please take care the all formulae and text are consistently starting will zero before you save your new version. Nevertheless, I don't think it is necessary to modify the numbering because a renumbering doesn't change the physical results, therefore it's not "wrong". --Cyfal (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The commonly used connotation of the Z number is that it is the number of protons contained in the nucleus, and that that is the most important factor as to to the nuclide's properties. But if you consisder the property of nucleon pairing within the nucleus, and then consider the Z number as the number of paired protons/neutrons, then you can get away with the idea that the Z number zero is apopropriate for the neutron, because it doesn't yet have a proton/neutron pair. And of course the next question is which came first, the proton or the neutron?. And maybe the neutron came first.WFPM (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)See Talk:Nuclear model.WFPM (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrons are indistinguishable ...[edit]

... (comment from recent edit) ... so this needs to be taken into account in the article in other places too. Not being a nuclear physicist, I leave this to the experts. --TraceyR (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Upper magic number for protons[edit]

Can someone explain why the article says that the upper magic number for protons is 114 when 114 is not a magic number? --Ben Best (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Error[edit]

The 2d shell splits to two 1d shells in the image. That doesn't seem right. Therealmaddox (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right -- it's a misprint. Bakken (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2d shell is now out of order. The 1g 7/2 shell should come before the 2d 5/2 shell, as well as the next two 3s and 2d shells should be switched also. I have corrected the image if I can upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What is n?[edit]

In the following text, n is clearly not the shell number, but neither is it the quantum number of the harmonic potential (which should be be n=1 for the =7/2 4th shell, as in the figure). So what is it? I would propose to keep that same n everywhere.

  • 1st Shell: 2 states (n = 0, j = 1/2).
  • 2nd Shell: 6 states (n = 1, j = 1/2 or 3/2).
  • 3rd shell: 12 states (n = 2, j = 1/2, 3/2 or 5/2).
  • 4th shell: 8 states (n = 3, j = 7/2).
  • 5th shell: 22 states (n = 3, j = 1/2, 3/2 or 5/2; n = 4, j = 9/2)...

Jor63 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Binding energy of the nuclei[edit]

I see nothing about the binding energy of the nuclei. Does it mean that the shell model is unable to calculate it? It seems that there exists no other model able to do it except mine, as shown in my Glasgow presentation( and in my paper Bernard Schaeffer (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Particle Model[edit]

Is anyone able to expand on the Alpha Particle Model section? I feel that it ought to either give more information than it does, or alternatively link to a relevant explanation on another page. I know too little to be sure of linking it to the right place, I'm afraid. EdwardRussell (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Magic numbers and the harmonic oscillator[edit]

For the simple harmonic oscillator model of energy levels, the magic numbers predicted are all doubled tetrahedral numbers, thus: 2,8,20,40,70,112,168,240... Presumably doubled since pairs of nucleons are bound by opposing spin.

It turns out that for biaxially deformed nuclei under the harmonic oscillator the magic numbers are all variations on this theme, through Pascal Triangle combinatorics. If deformation is defined by the oscillator ratio, with numerator related to the polar radius and the the denominator the equatorial, then the numerator defines how many copies of a doubled triangular number interval are added to the growing total to make magics. The denominator, on the other hand, defines how many magic numbers have to be passed to give a doubled triangular number interval between the target magics. Issues only occur where the total number of magics hasn't yet reached the minimum needed. Then doubled natural numbers can be used to fill in this region. Within this limited domain there are no exceptions and the results match theory exactly. (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)