Talk:Nuclear isomer

9 + 1 = 8

According to the section Nucleus, ^180m
₇₃Ta
and ¹⁸⁰
₇₃Ta
have spin of -9 and +1 respectively. According to the section High spin suppression of decay, the spin changes 8 units when one decays to the others. Can both be correct? Klausok (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Klausok:

A good question which no one has answered after almost 2 years. Yes, there is an error here. Actually, the magnitudes of all nuclear spins without exception are nonnegative (positive or zero). The spin of ^180m
₇₃Ta
is sometimes written as 9– (rather than –9) as in the table in the article on isotopes of tantalum, but the minus sign following the 9 refers to the parity of the quantum wave function; it does not imply that the spin is negative. I have not yet found this spin and parity notation properly described anywhere in Wikipedia. For now I will just remove the minus sign in this article for ^180m
₇₃Ta
, and also for ^99m
₄₃Tc
. Dirac66 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

An isomeric transition is described as "similar to any gamma emission from any excited nuclear state, but differs in that it involves excited metastable states of nuclei with longer half lives," i.e. nuclear isomers. So it seems to me that isomeric transitions are not special enough to deserve their own page, and the isomeric transition stub should be merged and redirected into nuclear isomer. Some might want to consider isomeric shift in making up their minds, though I am not proposing anything about that article at this time.--Yannick (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The stub isomeric transition can be entirely discussed in this article, and redirected to it. SBHarris 19:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The merger was performed in 2012. 67.198.37.17 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone undid this merger, but I agree and remerged the sections during ce of the article HRouillier (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Excitation energy

Could someone add Excitation energy? Looking for a definition. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Could become #REDIRECT Excited state just this minute if I noticed at least one main-space inbound link. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that some odd-odd nuclides above Z = 82, N = 126 must have very similar structures

	N = 127	N = 129	N = 131
Z = 83	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 5.012 d (β−, α) 271.31 keV: spin 9−, half-life 3.04×106 y (α)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 60.55 min (β−, α, β−α) 250 keV: spin 9−, half-life 25 min (α, β−α, β−)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 19.9 min (β−, α, β−α) 539 keV: spin 8−, half-life >93 s (?)
Z = 85	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 314 ms (α) 223 keV: spin 9−, half-life 119 ms (α)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 558 ns (α) 232 keV: spin 9−, half-life 760 ns (α)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 0.30 ms (α) 161 keV: spin 9−, half-life 0.10 ms (α)
Z = 87	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 5.0 ms (α) 123 keV: spin 8−, half-life 3.35 ms (α)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 700 ns (α) 219 keV: spin 9−, half-life 850 ns (α)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 1.0 ms (α) 86 keV: spin 8−, half-life 22.0 ms (α)
Z = 89	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 440 μs (α) 38 keV: spin 9−, half-life 441 μs (α)	g.s.: spin 1−, half-life 1.08 μs (α) (50±70) keV (predicted by NUBASE2020): spin 8−, half-life >100 ns (α?)

129.104.241.69 (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I think that for these nuclides the high-spin states (8⁻ or 9⁻) has always higher energy than the lower-spin states (1⁻) because the levels of the nucleons are clear as these nuclides are closed to being spherical. Things are less well-defined for nuclides far from closed shell. (For ¹⁷⁶Lu the 1⁻ state has higher energy than the 7⁻ state; for ¹⁸⁰Ta it is the other way round, the 9⁻ state has higher energy than the 1⁺ state; and we still don't know which state between 1⁻ and 6⁺ of ²⁴⁸Bk has lower energy). 129.104.241.69 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)