Talk:Nuclear reaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insert non-formatted text here

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

1 Energy
2 Two particles
3 Merger - Nuclear reaction & Nuclear energy
4 Inclusion of the nuclear Nuclear technology nav

[edit] Energy

The equation provided is not a good one, mostly because it ends up weighing more than the starting mass, while the remainder of the topic speaks of it as if mass was "lost" in the process of the reaction. Just reverse the equation to simplify things.

[edit] Two particles

Hello Patrick, I think that should be that one particle is impossible for an exothermic reaction, and has very low probability for an endothermic reaction.

Consider the reference frame in which, before the collision, all the incoming particles' momenta sum to zero (i.e., the "zero momentum frame"). By conservation of momentum, they still must do so after the collision. But if we have zero momentum and only one particle, that therefore means it must be stationary in this frame. But then what about conservation of energy? Since the system initially had kinetic energy but now has zero kinetic energy, we can only balance energy if the reaction is endothermic, with the kinetic energy of the incoming particles in this frame exactly equal to the energy absorbance - which in turn means that given the position and velocity of one particle, for such a "sticking" reaction to occur the position and velocity of the other particle must exactly equal a calculated value. If the energy absorbance of the reaction was precisely defined, this would have zero probability, but if it has some width there will be a small probability of such a reaction. (Of course, on the macroscopic scale our absorbance line can be extremely broad, so such a collision is much more likely to occur with macroscopic particles.) However as soon as we have at least two particles, we can balance momentum, kinetic energy and reaction energy, of any amounts, in any frame. Hence, an exothermic reaction must have at least two products, an endothermic reaction might in principle have only one but in practice rarely if ever does. Or something like that; it's late here. Securiger 16:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merger - Nuclear reaction & Nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is basically a stub article and doesn't appear to mention anything that the nuclear reaction article does not. Would you guys prefer to simply harvest the aforementioned article and create a redirect, or move nuclear reaction? The former seems the better option, in my opinion. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem here -- but it should be a dab page, not a redirect (as it already has several dab links). -- Securiger 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a dab page as well, because when people look for "nuclear energy" they're most often looking for "nuclear power". Simesa 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, dab is best. Do we want to carry this out? StevenBao^(talk) 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Do it. --Trjonescp 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do it. Fairymeimei 07:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to the harvest, and like the "Dab" page idea, too. --'•Tbon e 55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook)} 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the "Dab " idea Minidude09 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, make Nuclear energy a dab page. -MrFizyx 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)