Talk:Deuterium

Mass in the infobox

There is a discussion near the top of this Talk page regarding the mass of the deuterium v. deuteron. The former is 2.01410 u, the latter is 2.013553 u, the difference being whether the electron is included or not (0.511 MeV, etc.). I write this here because the top info box is confusing - it says "Nuclide data", but then lists "Isotope Mass". I just was misled in a calculation for a time because of the difference - is there a way the infobox can be revised to better indicate the different masses of the isotope and the nuclide? Bdushaw (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(Should the top part of the table list "Electrons 1"?) Bdushaw (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the article and the infobox are both correct now on this point. Deuterium is an atom including the electron, so its mass is 2.01410 u. The deuteron is the deuterium nucleus without the electron, so the deuteron mass is 2.013553 u. The words isotope and nuclide both include the electron(s); to specify that electrons are excluded, one should use the word nucleus (or isotopic nucleus). Dirac66 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This does not look correct to me. What is given is the deuteron mass not the deuterium mass even though the article title is "Deuterium". I would suggest giving both masses in the infobox. This would avoid much confusion. If no one objects I will make the change... Davidofithaca (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davidofithaca: The correct mass, per {{AME2016 II}}, is 2.014101 u. It is simply given as isotopic mass, and is from the same source as values in other isotope infoboxes. Mentioning both in the article (but not the infobox) couldn't hurt, though. ComplexRational (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is on deuterium so it should have the mass for the neutral deuterium atom. The problem now is that the infobox has been changed in the last year. When I wrote above on 23 December 2017 that the article and the infobox were correct "now" (then), the infobox at that time said "Isotope mass 2.01410178 u" (see edit of 22 December 2017). However this was changed on 31 January 2019 to 2.013 553 212 745, which cites the NIST value ... but for the deuteron, which belongs in the Nuclear Properties section! I will now change the Infobox value to the correct deuterium mass quoted here by ComplexRational. Perhaps one of you could insert {{AME2016 II}} as the source. Dirac66 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

How to understand observed electric quadrupole moment of deuteron?

Deuteron is p-n so naively should have zero electric quadrupole moment. However, experimentally it turns out quite large: 0.2859 e⋅fm^2 from this article.

It explains it by adding l=2 angular momentum states - should we imagine it as a hidden dynamics?

Maybe as oscillations between 'pn' and 'np' by some pi+ exchange? (but shouldn't it make it a linear antenna producing EM waves?)

To describe e.g. deuteron-proton scatterings they neglect quark structure, but require three-body force ( https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Three-body_force ) - would including quarks into considerations allow to focus only on two-body forces?

But what happens with quarks when biding proton and neutron into deuteron? I am working on soliton particle model suggesting that there is a shift of charge from proton to neutron for binding of deuteron, like uud-udd slightly shifting quark u toward right, d toward left - is such explanation of quadrupole moment allowed (e.g. by QCD)? Jarek Duda (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I as asking for clarification of information in this article: saying that it is due to angular momentum l=2 means some dynamics - so what dynamics is it? Jarek Duda (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions related to personal research are veering towards forum chats. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't class this as entirely a rhetorical question. The practical question is whether the section on electric and magnetic multipoles will mean anything to a Wikipedia reader, and whether it's written in encyclopaedic style. At the moment it's a piece of maths with no context or justification. It's reasonable for an encyclopaedia to list the features of something, like its magnetic dipole moment, but if it's necessary to show how this is derived, then the Wikipedia article should refer to an appropriate textbook or review. Actually putting the maths in the article without reference is confusing, making it unclear to the reader where it came from, or even whether it's original research. If the paragraph cannot be put in context, I would be inclined to remove it altogether - it's not that it has no value, it's just that this isn't its natural home! 79.64.118.122 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The rhetorical question referred to is the baiting call: "so what dynamics is it?" it responds too. (You of course appreciate the identical bountied question in the PSE forum.) The encyclopedic style permits mentioning a basic mainstream consensus without going into textbook details, or even steering readers to a specific source which might, or might not, satisfy them. The reason no chapter-and-verse citations are provided is precisely to forestall tendentious complains of the "but this does not convince me!" type. It is a routine complaint in WP by readers disinclined to do due diligence. Deletion and then reinsertion with someone's personally favorite non-standard attribution is a no-no stunt. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My apology, I just was not satisfied with the explanation I have found here, thought that somebody might share my concerns, maybe be able to improve the description. However, I am still searching in various sources, and it seems the problem is that we just don't really understand it, only use mathematical trick to swipe the problem under the rug. Jarek Duda (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Deuterium

Hello, Are there any other ways of producing/extracting deuterium besides electrolytis? The product should be of high concentration because it is meant for fusion energy. Thank you for your help Maurice Herp. (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)