Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / April 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Be 8 nuclear instability

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
stamis@gmail.com - 12 Apr 2008 14:30 GMT
I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have studied relativistic and electron
correlation effects in atoms and during my studies I have been trying
to figure out some details regarding nuclear stability. Given the
cosmic significance of Be-8 instability in big bang nucleosynthesi is
there a compelling reason why the beryllium-8 nucleus is unstable?
Since liquid drop and magic number arguements are not applicable, is
there some reasoning in QCD or something involving fermions vs. bosons
that is consistent with the stability trends of other nuclei? Do you
know someone who may be able to help me find this answer?
thank you very much for your time
Stamatis
tnlockyer@aol.com - 14 Apr 2008 22:35 GMT
On Apr 12, 6:30=EF=BF=BDam, sta...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have studied relativistic and electron
> correlation effects in atoms and during my studies I have been trying
> to figure out some details regarding nuclear stability. Given the
> cosmic significance of Be-8 instability in big bang nucleosynthesi is
> there a compelling reason why the beryllium-8 nucleus is unstable?

The Be-8 , as you know,  decays neatly into two alpha (helium nuclei)
particles.

The kinematics have been worked out in;

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/unstableBe8.gif

> Since liquid drop and magic number arguements are not applicable, is
> there some reasoning in QCD or something involving fermions vs. bosons
> that is consistent with the stability trends of other nuclei?

QCD is worthless for working with nuclei structures, as you have
found.

The new QVPP can show why two protons and three neutrons and

three protons and two neutrons are unstable, for example.

QVPP also shows why any isotope is either stable or unstable.

QVPP shows why isomeric nuclei are unstable.

As you know, the binding energy is deternined by nuclei mass defects,
but just now it is possible to actually calculate binding energy.

> Do you
> know someone who may be able to help me find this answer?
> thank you very much for your time

See the book;   www.amazon.com  096315463X

Regards;  Tom.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.