Nuclear equations and conservation of charge

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on nuclear equations and conservation of charge, participants clarify why beta decay equations are typically written without a positive charge on the nitrogen product. The consensus is that the equations focus on nuclear particles rather than atomic charge, making the notation of nitrogen as ^{14}_{7}N appropriate without a "+" sign. The charge is inherently accounted for in the atomic number of nitrogen, which is 7. This notation aligns with standard practices in nuclear physics, emphasizing the conservation of charge during the decay process. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of understanding the context of nuclear versus atomic representations in these equations.
tsutsuji
Gold Member
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
15
Do you know why in most textbooks, like on http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html or http://books.google.com/books?id=xD0AwBQECasC&pg=PA196 beta decay equations are written like

^{14}_{6}C\rightarrow^{14}_{7}N+e^{-}+\overline{\nu}_{e}

instead of

^{14}_{6}C\rightarrow^{14}_{7}N^{+}+e^{-}+\overline{\nu}_{e}

Wouldn't the latter be more correct as regards conservation of charge ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tsutsuji said:
Do you know why in most textbooks, like on http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html or http://books.google.com/books?id=xD0AwBQECasC&pg=PA196 beta decay equations are written like

^{14}_{6}C\rightarrow^{14}_{7}N+e^{-}+\overline{\nu}_{e}

instead of

^{14}_{6}C\rightarrow^{14}_{7}N^{+}+e^{-}+\overline{\nu}_{e}

Wouldn't the latter be more correct as regards conservation of charge ?

I usually see it written as

^{14}_{6}C\rightarrow^{14}_{7}N+^{ 0}_{-1}e+^{0}_{0}\overline{\nu}_{e}
 
The equation is discussing the nucleus, not the atom. So no need to put a + in front of the N.
 
completely agree with Vanadium... the + is included in the 7 of Nitrogen
 
Thanks for all the replies.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top