Beta Minus Decay: A Comparison of Product Nuclei Electron Numbers

  • Thread starter Thread starter gxc9800
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beta Decay
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the notation used to describe the product nucleus in beta decay, specifically regarding the number of electrons. One participant notes that the notation ##^A_{Z+1}Y## is ambiguous, as it appears to represent an ion but lacks clarity on whether it includes an electron. The conversation highlights that the first part of the notes suggests the product nucleus has Z electrons, while the second implies it has Z+1 due to the presence of an additional proton. Participants agree that the texts are attempting to convey the same concept but are poorly worded, leading to misunderstandings. Overall, clarity in scientific notation is essential for accurate interpretation in nuclear physics discussions.
gxc9800
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


in the first photo of my note , it says that the product nucleus has Z electrons (not Z+1) electrons ,
whereas for the 2nd part of my note , it says that the atomic masses of the product nucleus( which has A nucelon mumber and Z+1 proton number) , it has one extra orbitting electrons

why the 2nd part of the note is different from the first one? the product nucleus has Z+1 electrons or Z electrons?
2. Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141011_082202[1].jpg
    IMG_20141011_082202[1].jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 436
  • IMG_20141011_082113[1].jpg
    IMG_20141011_082113[1].jpg
    41 KB · Views: 454
Physics news on Phys.org
I think they're trying to say the same thing, but the second is very poorly worded. The notation contributes to the problem.
##^A_{Z+1}Y## in the equation they both quote represents an ion, i.e. It is missing an electron. How are you supposed to know this from the notation? Shouldn't it be something like ##^A_{Z+1}Y^+##?
The first text treats it as representing an ion throughout. The second text seems to recognise the ambiguity; the references after the equation interpret it as the un-ionised atom, so needs to subtract off the mass of the electron when calculating the mass loss. I.e., ##m_y## is the mass of the un-ionised atom.
 
haruspex said:
I think they're trying to say the same thing, but the second is very poorly worded. The notation contributes to the problem.
##^A_{Z+1}Y## in the equation they both quote represents an ion, i.e. It is missing an electron. How are you supposed to know this from the notation? Shouldn't it be something like ##^A_{Z+1}Y^+##?
The first text treats it as representing an ion throughout. The second text seems to recognise the ambiguity; the references after the equation interpret it as the un-ionised atom, so needs to subtract off the mass of the electron when calculating the mass loss. I.e., ##m_y## is the mass of the un-ionised atom.

##^A_{Z+1}Y## represent positive ion am i right? but not ##^A_{Z+1}Y^+## ... the product nuclei has Z+1 proton but the number of electrons remained the same... so for ##^A_{Z+1}Y## , it's a positive ion... am i right?

i knew this from the first photo.
 
gxc9800 said:
##^A_{Z+1}Y## represent positive ion am i right? but not ##^A_{Z+1}Y^+## ... the product nuclei has Z+1 proton but the number of electrons remained the same... so for ##^A_{Z+1}Y## , it's a positive ion... am i right?

i knew this from the first photo.
Forget about the beta decay for the moment. Y represents some element. The notation ##^A_{Z+1}Y## should represent an atom of element Y, having atomic mass A and Z+1 protons. In the absence of any indication as to whether it is ionised, one would assume it therefore has Z+1 electrons. The right hand side of the equation should therefore read ##^A_{Z+1}Y^++e^-##.
Anyway, do you now understand that the two texts are trying to say the same thing?
 
  • Like
Likes gxc9800
haruspex said:
Forget about the beta decay for the moment. Y represents some element. The notation ##^A_{Z+1}Y## should represent an atom of element Y, having atomic mass A and Z+1 protons. In the absence of any indication as to whether it is ionised, one would assume it therefore has Z+1 electrons. The right hand side of the equation should therefore read ##^A_{Z+1}Y^++e^-##.
Anyway, do you now understand that the two texts are trying to say the same thing?
alright, can you please look at the 2nd photo?
i can understand why the mass defect (for atomic mass) is mx -( my-me) -me , why not mx -( my+me) -me ?

before subtracting the mass of the 'extra orbitting electron' , why the mass defect is calculated by mx-my-me (just like nuclear mass at the top part ) ??
 
gxc9800 said:
alright, can you please look at the 2nd photo?
i can understand why the mass defect (for atomic mass) is mx -( my-me) -me , why not mx -( my+me) -me ?

before subtracting the mass of the 'extra orbitting electron' , why the mass defect is calculated by mx-my-me (just like nuclear mass at the top part ) ??

As I wrote, that text is taking my to be the mass of a 'complete' (un-ionised) atom of Y. Since it is ionised (+), its mass is my-me. The wording in the text is atrocious, and I'm not surprised you are confused. Is it a translation?
 
  • Like
Likes gxc9800
haruspex said:
As I wrote, that text is taking my to be the mass of a 'complete' (un-ionised) atom of Y. Since it is ionised (+), its mass is my-me. The wording in the text is atrocious, and I'm not surprised you are confused. Is it a translation?
i will try my best to understand . i am not sure whether it's the translation or not. but i english is not my first languange...
 
Back
Top