The discussion revolves around the differences in binding energies calculated during beta decay processes, specifically comparing results obtained using the semi-empirical mass formula (SEMF) and those derived from atomic mass differences, including electron masses. The scope includes theoretical considerations and implications for nuclear stability.
Participants express differing views on the role of electron masses in binding energy calculations, with some asserting their irrelevance while others highlight their potential importance in determining nuclear stability. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the original question of binding energy differences.
There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the role of electron masses and binding energies, as well as the applicability of the semi-empirical mass formula in predicting stability. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.
See the threadmathman said:The binding energy is the difference between the masses of the nuclei - the electron masses don't enter into the calculation.
In the case of 163Dy and 163Ho, neither the difference in atomic masses nor the difference in nuclear masses (using semi-empirical mass formula) predict that the 163Dy atom or the bare 163Dy nucleus is radioactive, after accounting for the decay beta mass. But 163Dy is radioactive anyway, only because the decay beta final state is the bound 1s atomic state of 163Ho (about 61 KeV). So electron mass and the atomic electron binding energies (including the atomic binding energy of the decay beta) sometimes play a key role in determining whether a nucleus is stable.mathman said:I learned something new. It still doesn't address the original binding energy question.