Talk:Nucleon

Antinucleon Section Cleanup

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

Looking for an expert to:

Check "equality" figures in Antinucleon section
Put them in a consistent form (e.g. x in 10ⁿ)
Correct or remove the magnetic moment equality figure (currently in comments)

Please feel free to replace the template on the main page if there is a better one. Twilsonb (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Strange Matter

Seeing as how virtually everything in the Universe is made of atoms and atoms have nuclei and nuclei have nucleons, virtually everything in the Universe is tangentially related to nucleons, including strange matter. However, the See Also section should be a short list of things very closely related to nucleons. I still vote to clip it. -- Xerxes 23:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog?

Should this article really link to hedgehog (the animal)? Looks odd to me. Maybe it should be Hedgehog space? John Darrow (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadron overhaul

Please give input at Talk:Hadron#Hadron overhaul. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowing the scope

This is sort of a weird article in that it's an article on "proton and neutron" when there are already very nice articles on proton and neutron. In my view it doesn't make sense to go on about particle-physics details of the proton or neutron, because anyone interested in that should be reading proton or neutron. For example, the relationship between proton decay and grand unified theories is neat, but shouldn't be in this article, it should be in proton. I deleted it except for a little parenthetical. I tried to make the article more restricted in scope: The proton and neutron together, as a pair, and as the building block of nuclei, plus their very basic properties that are relevant for nuclear physics. The QCD section seems OK, but I'm surprised that these models don't apply equally well to all baryons, not just the two nucleons. --Steve (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, an accurate illustration of the insides of a proton and neutron is complex, and the two are nearly identical.

Here you can see an image of proton and neutron compared

http://profmattstrassler.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nucleons31.png

Seems like a good illustration to add to this article. I am asking Prof Matt Strassler for permission to use his illustration. Dc3 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Significance

Is this not an article primarily of historical significance? Was the name "nucleon" not coined prior to the discovery of the composite nature of protons and neutrons? The article should be retained, but annotated as primarily of historical significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.163.5 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name "proton" was also coined prior to the discovery of the composite nature of protons. Should the article on proton not discuss the modern understanding of protons? Most things are named before they're understood well. I don't see why that matters, as long as the name is still used.

I agree with you that there should be discussion of history and significance in the article. If you can write this section, feel free. I don't know much about the topic, or I'd do it myself. But the history should be in addition to a thorough discussion of the nature of nucleons as correctly understood today, IMO. --Steve (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Nucleon is still widely used, so this article definitifely has a contemporary significance. In many quark models and QCD calculations one often does not distinguish between the up and down quarks, thus the nucleon really is a seen as a particle itself with its two different appearences as proton and neutron -> Isospin symmetry. But I also agree that a historical part in addition would be nice.User:RolteVolte 25 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fermions

The statement "The proton and neutron are both baryons and both fermions." does not seem right. Protons and neutrons are composed of fermions but they are not themselves fermions. ShelbyBell (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Fermion, protons and neutrons can be both (a) fermions and (b) be composed of fermions. The definition is given as: "A fermion (named after Enrico Fermi) is any particle which obeys the Fermi–Dirac statistics (and follows the Pauli exclusion principle). Fermions contrast with bosons which obey Bose–Einstein statistics."--TraceyR (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange values in table for rest mass

The rest mass in MeV/c² of the antineutron in the table seems suspicious, since the text suggests that it should be the same as the neutron's rest mass and the rest mass in u is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.236.144 (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

"...a nucleon is one of the particles that make up the atomic nucleus." This is oddly phrased, as it implies there are other partices that make up the atomic nucleus besides nucleons. --Ivi104 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Electrons do have mass, and could affect the mass of an atom if there are enough109.170.193.238 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And recall that sea quark interactions, which are part and parcel of QCD, contribute to the overall structure of a nucleus. A nucleus is not just a bunch of marbles in a bag. Qwerty123uiop (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figure and table headings

The caption for the first figure is mistaken. Nucleons do not "dissociate into quarks" inside nuclei. Who on earth wrote that?

Also, the table of properties lists "Rest Mass" of particles. There is no mass but rest mass in modern physics understanding. OK, there is also "invariant mass" if you consider systems of particles. In any case, calling something a "rest mass" implies that there is another type. There is not.

I plan to adjust these details soon. Qwerty123uiop (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nucleon magnetic moments

I have beefed up the paragraph on the nucleon magnetic moments, partly to reflect the new merged article nucleon magnetic moment. As a former particle physics student, I have marveled at how little attention these magnetic moments have received, historically (at least in my aged education). I surmise that particle physics wore blinders about that topic, because of the decades that went by where these odd magnetic moments defied explanation. Witness the kamikaze runs that those such as S. Drell took at the issue attempting explanations by meson physics in the 1960s (see the aforementioned article). Its a curious history, IMO. Anyways, I emphasize the nucleon magnetic moments. Bdushaw (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]