Charge radius rms

[Vmedvil]

Just now, Butch said:

Did you understand my concept of sister electrons? This post indicates some insight... But perhaps not complete?

refresh you posted before my last edit.

[Butch]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

refresh you posted before my last edit.

Ditto...

I must leave you now, this discussion has heartened me a bit... The nucleus charge radius can change with influence.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

The Radius of charge does not change unless a charge  is added or removed, which would still require a decay reaction, the Radius of charge is a function of Magnitude of charge. 

No, that's not true. Nuclei can oscillate withan excitation, which does not require charge being added or removed and the ground state radius will vary with neutron number. A decay need not be involved.

AFAIK, charge radius is unrelated to excitation. That's a ground state measurement.

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, that's not true. Nuclei can oscillate withan excitation, which does not require charge being added or removed.

AFAIK, charge radius is unrelated to this. That's a ground state measurement.

That is true, but I didn't want to go into that detail, which branches from QM into QFT, He was referring to a static one of course that is true when you take in account SR of a Nuclei.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Vmedvil

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

That is true, but I didn't want to go into that detail, which branches from QM into QFT, He was referring to a static one of course that is true when you take in account SR of a Nuclei.

No, not that.

Isotopes have different charge radii.

Neutron absorption, as in the liquid drop model, gives rise to oscillations.

so whichever bit if this you are talking about, the claim was incorect.

[Vmedvil]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, not that.

Isotopes have different charge radii.

Neutron absorption, as in the liquid drop model, gives rise to oscillations.

so whichever bit if this you are talking about, the claim was incorect.

Yes, which is because despite being neutral in the view of Nucleons the quarks have charges which is actually a change in charge to some extent because the three charges are not literally on top of each-other in neutrons, there is a distance between them.

 

 

Neutron absorbing  can be a cause of Gamma emission and Beta Decay, this does very much screw with the nuclei doing that making it unstable.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Vmedvil