Talk:Shell model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics 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.

Contents

[edit] Copyright?

I noticed that the image used on this page is the same as is used on the hyperphysics page. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html

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?

[edit] Title

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? --P3d0 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... Ironically, atomic shell model is actually at electron configuration. --P3d0 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)

[edit] There is no n=0 !!!

You count n wrong, there is no n=0 n starts from 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.248.249 (talk • contribs)

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)

[edit] Neutrons are indistinguishable ...

... (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)