Talk:Nuclear size

Dubious model
Though I've tried to improve what's written, the model described for charge and density deistribution still seems quite inadeqate. According to the writer's user page, it seems to me like OR. Moreover, the proton number Z is not proportional to the nucleus area (roughly A^(2/3)) even for large A. Rather, the well known Semi-empirical mass formula gives much better results. I suggest deleting these sections, mainly becuase it seems like OR, unless appropriate citing is given. And by this I DO NOT mean the My Flatley's coming paper. Dan Gluck 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is also a little confusing. It needs to be fleshed out and more explanation given. In addition, the introduction paragraph needs to be turned into a paragraph. And I agree that the article DEFINITELY needs citations. I will post a request on My Flatley's talk page requesting citations. Torris 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hej ladies.


 * The form A^1/3 is elementary (and simple, see below) in the deduction of nuclear physics.


 * It relies entirely upon conceiving the nucleus as a homogeneous compact substance "like water").


 * We (however already) know that this water drop model is not accurate;


 * The A^1/3-form is well known by verification from (early) experiments to give "good approximations" (see below).


 * My reference is the respected McGraw-Hill HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS from 1967 (HOP) (one of the leading professional references in physics during the rest of the 20th century): five experimentally independent methods are mentioned in detail — in analogy to the central A^1/3-form. So, the form itself should not be Original Research in Wikipedia as suggested by Dan Gluck (if that is/was what he was aiming at).


 * The deduction of ”the water drop nuclear radius model” is (as I said) elementary. I will show it here for reference, but add already here that it is not found (as I know) in any already published source and should therefore neither be introduced in Wikipedia:

Figure: The simple cube model explains the approximate nuclear radius connection

r = r0A1/3

A is the number of ”basic nuclide individuals”, corresponding to

the nuclear mass number, r0 is the radius of the A=1 nuclide, and

r is the general nuclide radius for any given A.



The figure shows the squares in the mass cubes which are formed if one adds them successively as ”single individual water drops” 1K, 2K, 3K,. . . AK. The A=1 individual marks ”the basic atomic nucleus”, where all AK nuclei hence receive one and the same compact ”water density” when added together. A hence corresponds to the mass number. The figure shows the cubic squares for A from 1 to 250 in steps of 50 beginning from the unit A=1 individual with cubic or square side r = r0. The connection and deduction then simply becomes AK/K = (Ar03)/r03 = A = (A1/3r0)3/r03 = (r/r0)3 That is, already from the resulting form in the second last part; r = r0A1/3'' ......................... the cube graph''

which is the approximated (spherical) form for the atomic nucleus; r0 is the neutron or proton radius, roughly 1.3 Fermi (ref. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN August 1987, Collisions between Spinning Protons). The A1/3-form has also been reported ”a good approximation” from experimental investigations (see already mentioned McGraw-Hill source above). The A1/3-form is also included in several theoretical nuclear physics mass-energy models as f.ex. the Weizäcker equation (also mentioned in the already mentioned McGraw-Hill source).


 * Problem is though (ladies), that there are MANY alike details (both in physics and mathematics) that (easily) can be CLARIFIED, like the example above (if that was what was asked for), BUT WHICH NOVEL LACKS REFERENCE IN ALREADY PUBLISHED SOURCES.


 * According to Wikipedia policy, such a script (as the one exemplified) should hence not even be mentioned, absolutely not included in any Wikipedia article paper.


 * (This is, too, the reason why I am about to consider leaving Wikipedia: All the details, hinted at here by the single example above, and which would enrich already known conclusions by simpler ways, will most surely NEVER be published in a paper or a journal for Wikipedia to fetch its material from — mainly due to the astronomically costs for any individual in even thinking of trying on such a road. So, no matter our consensus, the Wikipedia itself is, as it is said, no forum for new ideas).


 * As Wikipedians, we are just to do what Wikipedia expects from us: edit a collection of already published sources to reflect the present idea of the subject, without introducing new ideas or aspects.


 * Of course any already published source is important to the reader for reference. But a mere title will still not tell him much unless there is a simple and easy to understand description to why and how; a clue he can verify for himself with the most simple tools.


 * Take care and good luck. wkg/ BMJ 20:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've long ago deleted the OR part, and of course the article now is not OR, it is even trivial. Dan Gluck 06:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)