Talk:Deuterium

How to understand observed electric quadrupole moment of deuteron?

Deuteron is p-n so naively should have zero electric quadrupole moment. However, experimentally it turns out quite large: 0.2859 e⋅fm^2 from this article.

It explains it by adding l=2 angular momentum states - should we imagine it as a hidden dynamics?

Maybe as oscillations between 'pn' and 'np' by some pi+ exchange? (but shouldn't it make it a linear antenna producing EM waves?)

To describe e.g. deuteron-proton scatterings they neglect quark structure, but require three-body force ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_force ) - would including quarks into considerations allow to focus only on two-body forces?

But what happens with quarks when biding proton and neutron into deuteron? I am working on soliton particle model suggesting that there is a shift of charge from proton to neutron for binding of deuteron, like uud-udd slightly shifting quark u toward right, d toward left - is such explanation of quadrupole moment allowed (e.g. by QCD)? Jarek Duda (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I as asking for clarification of information in this article: saying that it is due to angular momentum l=2 means some dynamics - so what dynamics is it? Jarek Duda (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions related to personal research are veering towards forum chats. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't class this as entirely a rhetorical question. The practical question is whether the section on electric and magnetic multipoles will mean anything to a Wikipedia reader, and whether it's written in encyclopaedic style. At the moment it's a piece of maths with no context or justification. It's reasonable for an encyclopaedia to list the features of something, like its magnetic dipole moment, but if it's necessary to show how this is derived, then the Wikipedia article should refer to an appropriate textbook or review. Actually putting the maths in the article without reference is confusing, making it unclear to the reader where it came from, or even whether it's original research. If the paragraph cannot be put in context, I would be inclined to remove it altogether - it's not that it has no value, it's just that this isn't its natural home! 79.64.118.122 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The rhetorical question referred to is the baiting call: "so what dynamics is it?" it responds too. (You of course appreciate the identical bountied question in the PSE forum.) The encyclopedic style permits mentioning a basic mainstream consensus without going into textbook details, or even steering readers to a specific source which might, or might not, satisfy them. The reason no chapter-and-verse citations are provided is precisely to forestall tendentious complains of the "but this does not convince me!" type. It is a routine complaint in WP by readers disinclined to do due diligence. Deletion and then reinsertion with someone's personally favorite non-standard attribution is a no-no stunt. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My apology, I just was not satisfied with the explanation I have found here, thought that somebody might share my concerns, maybe be able to improve the description. However, I am still searching in various sources, and it seems the problem is that we just don't really understand it, only use mathematical trick to swipe the problem under the rug. Jarek Duda (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Deuterium

Hello, Are there any other ways of producing/extracting deuterium besides electrolytis? The product should be of high concentration because it is meant for fusion energy. Thank you for your help Maurice Herp. (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hyperfine transition

The article could make mention of the 327-MHz deuterium hyperfine transition, particularly in an astronomy context (Cf. hydrogen line).[1][2] Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Standard Model Instability

It seems that in the standard model, the deuteron is not completely stable, but rather very long lived. t'Hooft writes at the bottom of page 3 "Thus, because of the Cabibbo rotation, a proton and a neutron (two baryons equal six quarks) may annihilate to form two antileptons, one of electron and one of muon type. The factors exp(- 16pi /g^2) = exp(- 4pi * 137 * sin theta_W)" This calculation is elaborated here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288913/10991 to conclude a lifetime of 10^180 to 10^187 seconds.