Talk:Deuterium

Physics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elements: Isotopes B‑class Mid‑importance

	Chemistry portal 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.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Isotope Taskforce.

Chemicals B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Mass in the infobox

There is a discussion near the top of this Talk page regarding the mass of the deuterium v. deuteron. The former is 2.01410 u, the latter is 2.013553 u, the difference being whether the electron is included or not (0.511 MeV, etc.). I write this here because the top info box is confusing - it says "Nuclide data", but then lists "Isotope Mass". I just was misled in a calculation for a time because of the difference - is there a way the infobox can be revised to better indicate the different masses of the isotope and the nuclide? Bdushaw (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Should the top part of the table list "Electrons 1"?) Bdushaw (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article and the infobox are both correct now on this point. Deuterium is an atom including the electron, so its mass is 2.01410 u. The deuteron is the deuterium nucleus without the electron, so the deuteron mass is 2.013553 u. The words isotope and nuclide both include the electron(s); to specify that electrons are excluded, one should use the word nucleus (or isotopic nucleus). Dirac66 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look correct to me. What is given is the deuteron mass not the deuterium mass even though the article title is "Deuterium". I would suggest giving both masses in the infobox. This would avoid much confusion. If no one objects I will make the change... Davidofithaca (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidofithaca: The correct mass, per {{AME2016 II}}, is 2.014101 u. It is simply given as isotopic mass, and is from the same source as values in other isotope infoboxes. Mentioning both in the article (but not the infobox) couldn't hurt, though. ComplexRational (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on deuterium so it should have the mass for the neutral deuterium atom. The problem now is that the infobox has been changed in the last year. When I wrote above on 23 December 2017 that the article and the infobox were correct "now" (then), the infobox at that time said "Isotope mass 2.01410178 u" (see edit of 22 December 2017). However this was changed on 31 January 2019 to 2.013 553 212 745, which cites the NIST value ... but for the deuteron, which belongs in the Nuclear Properties section! I will now change the Infobox value to the correct deuterium mass quoted here by ComplexRational. Perhaps one of you could insert {{AME2016 II}} as the source. Dirac66 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol D

There's no D on the periodic table. 2600:1700:1DC0:8CC0:C2CB:38FF:FE11:20F8 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. There are lots of things that have shorthand that are not standard element symbols (deuterium is certainly not a standard element!). See IUPAC Red Book (in the 2005 edition[1] it is in section IR-3.2.2 "Isotopes of hydrogen"). DMacks (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear spin and isospin section

The section on nuclear spin and isospin reads more like a lecture script or a textbook than an encyclopedia. In fact it is very hard to find (and understand) the conclusion, among that sea of derivations.
To make it "encyclopedic", the conclusion should be given first, and a short QM/QCM justification then should be given for those readers who may need (and can understand) that information. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is not very clear. Are you referring to the two sections Spin and energy and Isospin singlet state of the deuteron? Which sentence(s) do you consider to be the conclusion which is hard to find and understand? And what does QCM mean? Quantum classical mechanics??? Dirac66 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble even figuring out what a conclusion would be like. But, for example, does deuterium D₂ have ortho and para forms, like common hydrogen? Should't the "spin" section answer that?
The conclusion of the "isospin" session seems to be that the whole discussion is kinda silly because there is only one answer. Like asking why is 2+2 4, and then answering that, if 2+2 was 5, then 4 minus 2 would be 1, which is absurd. Or am I exaggerating?
QCM should have been QCD, sorry.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a mention of nuclear spin isomers (ortho and para forms) of D₂. However because this article is more about D than D₂, I have added (today) more details only as a section of the article on Nuclear spin isomers which explains H₂ in detail, with a link from this article. This article does now at least say that the ortho and para forms exist as you requested. Dirac66 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deuterated alcohol

What would happen if you drank an alcoholic drink that contained deuterated alcohol would it be toxic like heavy water — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzlemuss McToot (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither heavy water nor deuterated alcohol are particularly toxic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some biological effects and even toxicity if the amount of heavy water is high enough. See Heavy_water#Effect_on_biological_systems. Presumably heavy ethanol would be similar. Dirac66 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]