This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neutron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Neutron was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Perhaps this has been discussed already, but I've stepped in it just now...the controversy regarding the neutron's lifetime. There are discrepancies between the mean lifetimes of ultracold neutrons and "in beam" neutrons. Out of ignorance, I've just modified the numbers to the ultracold neutrons. We should decide what to do...and mention the controversy perhaps? I seek a consensus... Bdushaw (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the neutron lifetime article: "On 13 October 2021 the lifetime from the bottle method was updated to τ n = 877.75 s [13][1] increasing the difference to 10 seconds below the beam method value of τ n = 887.7 s [14][15]"...so our values should be updated. 10 s is no small number! Bdushaw (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm deleting for the second time this claim:
I believe the claim is correct but unreferenced. It is correct in the same way as "thing don't fall up" or "it's not dark when the Sun's out". If there is a reference that makes this point we should explain why it is significant. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I removed the free neutron half-life value then @Bdushaw put it back. The references provide the mean lifetime. Calculating then adding the half-life makes the article error prone (see discussion above under topic The "free" neutron - half time'). More important it is confusing for readers. "Why are there two such numbers? Why are they different?" The half-life is extraneous information. If a reader needs half-life it can be up to them to convert. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've been working on citations and find myself somewhat stymied for a citation on positron capture. Firstly, although the text in the article associated with the term seems to me correct, "positron capture" is mostly ignored by standard text and references, certainly insofar as giving the basic discussion given in the article. I find, e.g., online course pages with discussion of the reaction. This form of "beta decay" is certainly correct, but unobservable/non-existent in ordinary existence. However, it seems to play a non-negligible role in the stellar formation of the elements. See W.A. Fowler, "The quest for the origin of the Elements", Science, 226, Nov 23, 1984. Perhaps the topic is too far astray for this Neutron article and the whole thing should be removed. Requesting comment! Bdushaw (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply