This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Currently, the formula for the beta decay spectrum according to Fermi's theory is given as:
Are you sure it shouldn't rather be:
See for example:
Both give an expression which is proportional to , just like the current source:
However, all three sources give N(p) instead of N(T)… If the formula as it is currently given in the article is indeed correct, shouldn't we at least try to find a "better" source, i.e. one that really gives the expression for N(T)?
-- 2A00:1398:9:FB00:404E:AF0C:6B5F:19CC ( talk) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should say something about alpha decay. it doenst fit right in with beta and such, but I think it would be helpful for students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.40.190 ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the comment about beta decay being the same as neutron decay should be removed. Muon decay to electrons is beta decay, and in some sense the conversion of a proton to a neutron in some nuclei (with the emission of a positron rather than an electron) is also beta decay. I think it would be a good idea to say instead that neutron decay is a type of beta decay.
Following the established standard theory, is not clear at all the reason why an anti-neutrino should be bounded together to an electron and a proton into the neutron particle, other than to preserve conservation law in beta decay.
At present there is another concurrent theory, that is able to predict exact values for the neutron particle and beta decay, that not contemplate the existence of neutrino at all. It is called Hadronic Physics, and it may be considered as a Quantum Mechanics' generalization that is applicable, instead of Classical Quantum Mechanics, on non-local, non-linear and non potential-derived interactions.
These are conditions that happen when there is significative spatial superposition between particles' wave packet functions.
Other informations can be found at www.neutronstructure.org
Shouldn't we also say something about double beta decay?-- Deglr6328 04:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Beta decay can be defined as that physical phenomena that occurs when the gravitational energy driven process of matter accumulation into an atom requires that one of the mass constituents (Neutron or Proton) be converted into the other for increased stability (lower free energy) purposes. In this instance of physical phenomena there are 3 Theorized possibilities. 1: The conversion of a Neutron into a Proton plus an electron plus a gamma ray (energy) emission. 2: The conversion of a Proton into a Neutron plus a positron plus a gamma ray. 3: The conversion of a Proton into a Neutron by the aquisition by the Proton of an "orbital electron". WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that both methods (B- or B+0 result in a reversal of the (PN) category of the nuclide. Thus the EE's would be changed to OO's or backwards and the EO's would be changed to OE's, or backward. Since the majority of the stable isotopes are either EE"s or OE's, changes in the other direction seldom happen. Exceptions, like the EO54Xe127 ec exchange to OE53I127 to form the only stable isotope of 53I Iodine are noteworthy. WFPM ( talk) 19:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) OOPs! That's not an exception, but still noteworthy. WFPM ( talk) 20:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Potassium-40 opens by remarking that it exhibits all three kinds of beta decay. The Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that there are three kinds. I think the opening paragraph should be rewritten accordingly. Lewis Goudy ( talk) 03:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
To clarify on negatrons, consider the OED:
negatron, n. 2. An ordinary electron (as distinct from a positron). Now disused.
1933 Lit. Digest Dr. Anderson suggested also that the familiar negative electron be re-christened ‘negatron’, but it seems unlikely that this will be accepted.
And it wasn't. -- Xerxes 16:13, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Interestingly, Ehmann and Vance in their book Radiochemistry and Nuclear Methods of Analysis actually do use the term "negatron".
-- 24.80.110.173 04:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Right. Neutron turns into proton and electron in Nucleus. That's fine. Beta minus particle ejected at high speed from aforementioned nucleus. Hang on. My A level education said that the nucleus is positive, and an electron is negative, and we've been told that opposite charges attract. So why does a negative electron get repelled by the positive nucleus, when they should be attracting? Cheers.
Ok. But what makes the electron move in the first place?
Sorry. Me again. But doesn't the neutron in the nucleus turn into a proton, remaining the same weight, and so no energy is created or destroyed? And the whole matter into energy, is that e=mc² territory?
Ahhh. Interesting. So, one final question. Why is the mass turned into kinetic energy? Why not heat or anything?
Ahh. Makes perfect sense now. Thank you Xerxes, may the wiki God shine upon you for ever.
There are only really two types of enerqy, kinetic, and potential, heat, movement, sound, evey light (i thinK?) is just an expression of this kinetic energy] - oxinabox1
What is the maximum possible energy an electron can acquire from natural beta decay? The typical energy? Such as the beta decay expected from fission daughter products. Surely max beta KE must be a property constrained by parameters of the weak interaction though this is waaay beyond my capablility to determine. I have tried looking for a table of beta decay energies for various isotopes but they don't seem to exist. I need to know this so that I can make edits to another article where cerenkov light production via beta decay is discussed. IANAP so if I could get the energy in KeV or MeV so that I neen't do conversions that would be very helpful. Thanks!-- Deglr6328 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
When the parent nucleus decays, does it form a daughter atom that is an ion?
BTW, I read about β− decay of ( AmO2)+ ion that gives ( CmO2)2+. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to alter the decay equation so that it was explicit that the nitrogen was ionized? Skarmenadius ( talk) 11:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe the feynman diagram shown is wrong. The convention I have been taught is to represent the W in the same way as the photon, with a wavy line, and there shouldn't be an arrow on the gauge boson. The arrows on the other two particles should have one towards the vertex, and one away, not both away. Does anyone disagree? LeBofSportif 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added a new diagram. Let me know if it needs any further modification. -- Xerxes 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
NOT an incoming antineutrino.
If necessary see Intro to EPP by Griffiths.
Feel free to contact me on james.hamp@hotmail.co.uk with comments.
James 22:36, September 2nd 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.188.149.25 ( talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the depiction og the W- exchange wrong? It is depicted as a Photon-exhange, with a wavy line. Weak force interactions are supposed to be written with dashes, right? Add my attempted improvement if you agree, or tell me if I'm wrong.. ;) Thγmφ ( talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The article says:
I don't think this is strictly true--or, at least, it's a bit misleading. The positron emission in proton-proton chain fusion requires the exact same energy, for the exact same reason (because it's the exact same reaction), and gets it in the exact same way (the binding energy of D), and yet it does not "only happen inside nuclei." (Well, it happens inside an H nucleus, but not in isolation. The point is that the two H nuclei don't fuse into a diproton before one of them emits a positron. And if "only inside nuclei" includes H nuclei it doesn't mean very much anyway.)
This may all sound nitpicky, but given the confusion on the talk pages of multiple articles about how PP can work given that a neutron is more massive than a proton, I think it makes a difference.
One possible change would be to say something like "... can only happen in nuclear reactions when...", but that sounds even worse. A better solution would be to just note the relationship between PP fusion and beta decay in some clear way (which isn't occuring to me at the moment). -- 69.107.75.113 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the absolute value bit re mother and daughter nucleus. Binding energy is measured in positive values ie mother>daughter and it is just how it acts ie keeping the atom together than leads it to be given a negative value by convention. the way it was before was misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.114.180 ( talk) 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The article dances around the fact that a minimum amount of energy is required for beta-plus (e.g., "In all the cases where β+ decay is allowed energetically"), but never gives the value of 1.022MeV. Since that value is in the electron capture article, and it's if anything more relevant here, it should be incorporated somewhere. -- 69.107.75.113 08:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? beta radiation redirects to this page? could anyone write a page on beta radiation, or possibly add a header here (altough i'm pretty sure it deserves its own page)
Sorry, I meant to point out that beta decay is a process, which releases electrons. A beam of these electrons would be described as beta radiation, and an article describing uses, dangers, penetrative strength and history (for example) would I think be seperate from the beta decay article. I was recently looking for the thickness of aluminium that would shield you from beta radiation, but that information is not available. Hope that makes sense! -- Doctorp9999 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't panic! It was just for a plan for an experiment measuring te shielding of aluminium,but i wasn't sure about the range of distances. I'd be happy as one of my first edits to consolidate the information. Within this article? Doctorp9999 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Beta particles move at a speed of 180,000 km/s, around 0.6c.
Surely this depends entirely on the energy of the emitted particle and should therefore vary depending on the structure of the parent nucleus? Zapateria ( talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that the
positron emission page is too small to be a seperate page, I suggest moving all information from there to this page and merge it with the beta plus decay section. Please discuss at
Talk:Positron emission#Merger proposal
-
SkyLined (
talk) 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there ways that beta decay is stimulated? I mean, aren't there ways that the natural threshold for it can be lowered? This, IMO, would be worth mentioning. 74.195.16.39 ( talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I stopped transforming the list of beta-stable nuclides because I first like to hear other people oppinion to this kind of presentation, I'm not quite lucky with my form. Else I type in this table and then I must layout it completely different, because others have better ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For reference look at the two references (2003,2007) of article "binding energy". I also had a flame-fight there for a different topic. But my new added references were not doubted! Hundereds? I think about 300. And? There are more then 100 elements known and listed in the table of elements. :) Should they not be listed? Anyway, if most users think you are right we should give at least the first and the last for exemplary reasons I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I meant the reference from 2005. I'm a bit worried about your first judge but I added the reference to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you removed everything I added, not only the words "absolutely beta-stabil"! I needed a wording for multiple (including single) simultanious beta-decay. Therefore my wording "Let call" and not e.g. "We call" or "It is called". But if you have better wording then change my wording, please. Alright, I simply can count: 355 nuclides as "absolute" beta-stable are experimentally known in 2005. Ok, ok .... I had no idea to create an own page for this table. Thanks.
Sorry, Hqb, I don't know what you want by "more typical example": "(moved unsourced note about Ru-96 into hidden comment. Not sure what the question is about: if there is a more typical example than A=96, feel free to use that instead.)" You make matter very detailed without need, IMHO, and throw up problems, by trying to analyse such tripletts. But this is your personal emphases / decision. A=124 is the next example and there are only a few more. Perhaps you can prove *LOL* that the middle nuclide is always total beta-decay stable and the other two will decay by double beta+ (double electron-capture?) and double beta- decay. :) BTW: Thanks for correcting wording and style. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I still don't know what you mean by "more typical example"? I get the impression, you also don't know. ;) To your decision "It also seems relevant to point out that Zr-96 is not actually completely stable", ... if you believe, but then you also should say a few words to the "stability" of Ru-96 for fairness, IMHO!. Regards Achim1999 ([[User talk:Achim1999|t]) 17:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because YOU want to go into detail for such a triplett! What do YOU mean by "more typical example"? I now ask for the 3rd time. :-/ BTW: A technical question for wiki-tables if you can help: How do I align the contens of a whole column of a table (to the right,left or center)? Regards Achim1999 ( talk) 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I added tritium illumination to the "see also" section. Are there any other industrial applications of beta decay? Just wondering. 166.137.132.5 ( talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not quite sure how to add comments properly but Spinosaurus (see Feynman Diagram section below) you are correct: a outgoing particle can be represented as an incoming antiparticle. Here we have not an incoming antineutrino but an outgoing antineutrino. It should therefore be represented as either:
NOT as an incoming antineutrino.
Therefore the Feynman diagram should be changed.
See, if necessary, Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics, Griffiths.
Please feel free to contact me at james.hamp@hotmail.co.uk with comments.
Thanks, James 22:40, September 2nd 2010
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.188.149.25 ( talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This article could use a new section on the "Bound-state beta decay" of nuclei such as Re-187, now briefly described at Radioactive decay#Changing decay rates. Dirac66 ( talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) 23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.248.237 ( talk) 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
can you have beta minus decay in the form of positron capture? the reverse interaction of electron capture. do we just not talk about it because positrons are so rare this never happens. or is it actually impossible. thanks 109.148.122.30 ( talk) 19:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
yes but this would cause an antiproton to decay into an anti neutron. im talking about a neutron decaying into a proton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.122.30 ( talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Poking around a bit I find that positron capture on neutrons may be important in nucleosynthesis when at very high temperatures spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs may provide the necessary positrons. See: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...141.1432R/0001432.000.html and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660081582_1966081582.pdf Pvoytas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This claim is recent enough that I doubt its been confirmed/debunked. Unless there's substantial attention currently being paid to it, I don't think a mention of it belongs on wikipedia. -- 70.194.133.19 ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone might find it useful, I collated a list of isotopes which can decay either through beta-minus or one of the types of beta-plus decay from the individual isotope pages on Wikipedia:
I didn't include the percentages because some of the isotopes can decay in other ways, the ones for Potassium-40 are inconsistent, and Wikipedia doesn't list those for Indium-116 and Terbium-156.
MacsBug ( talk) 23:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
From the information at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium (emphasis mine):
Naturally occurring radioactive 40K decays to stable 40Ar (11.2% of decays) by electron capture or positron emission (giving it the longest known positron-emitter nuclide half-life). Alternately, and most of the time (88.8%), it decays to stable 40Ca by beta decay.
From the table itself:
β- (89.28%) 40Ca
EC (10.72%) 40Ar
β+ (0.001%)
MacsBug ( talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Alpha decay has a toxicity section. Should beta decay have one too? RJFJR ( talk) 05:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it should. I don't know jack about either topic, but I was just reading about that section on Alpha decay and then immediately came here looking for a similar section on Beta decay :) CSJordan ( talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that in the diagram accompanying the paragraph 'Nuclear Transmutation' the labels for Beta+ and Beta- decay types should be swapped. Positron emission transmutes a proton to a neutron to increase a nucleus' stability and this makes sense only for the isotopes to the left of the stable nuclei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhard Neuwirth ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
From here:
Double sharp ( talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"For fully ionized atoms (bare nuclei), it is possible in likewise manner for electrons to fail to escape the atom, and to be emitted from the nucleus into low-lying atomic bound states (orbitals). This can not occur for neutral atoms whose low-lying bound states are already filled by electrons."
Then what about the beta decay of tritium, which is very low-energy, as there's free space in the 1s shell? Double sharp ( talk) 03:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on several particle physics articles (e.g., neutron, neutron magnetic moment, discovery of the neutron) and would like to suggest a reorganization of this article. I suggest the starting section be a "Description" where much of the lead would be moved. Then the 2nd section on "Discovery", followed by the remainder of the article. (To some extent I advocate this basic form for all the particle physics articles, when it makes sense.) The lead can then be developed to describe beta decay and the article contents more broadly and generally.
There is likely sufficient material to further develop the Discovery section, until it can break into its own article, much like the discovery of the neutron amoeba'ed.
No urgency here - I post this now for folks to weigh in. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to express disagreement with today's renaming of the entire History section as Discovery. In science, the discovery of a phenomenon usually refers to its initial observation and characterization. Later developments can be described as history but not as part of the initial discovery.
For beta decay, the actual discovery was Rutherford's 1899 observation that there are two kinds of radioactivity so that beta decay is a separate phenomenon from alpha decay. It is true that the 1896-1913 development fits together nicely as it led to the basic understanding that beta decay is A
ZX
→ A
Z+1X'
+
e−
, without the neutrino at that time. So the initial subsection (which was Discovery until today and is now Characterization) is best described as Discovery and Initial Characterization.
The later history (neutrinos, β+ decay and electron capture, parity) was not part of the initial discovery but rather further developments: neutrinos and parity were further characterization of β– decay, while β+ decay and electron capture are related phenomena.
So finally I would suggest that we return to History as a title for the whole section, but rename the first subsection as Discovery and Initial Characterization. Dirac66 ( talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Should this section be organized from most important/typical/normal to most exceptional? At the moment it starts with the very rare bound-state β decay. I would suggest starting with the fully allowed Fermi transitions, then the Gamow-Teller, then the forbidden with L > 0, then the bound-state and finally the double beta. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the article Gamow-Teller transition. It presently has been suggested of merging it with this article (dated a year ago), and indeed much of the material there is redundant with this article. I propose, however, changing the name of that article to "Beta decay transitions", and then redirecting Gamow-Teller transition and Fermi transition (new) to it (there is supposed to be a way to do that without involving an administrator; copy paste is the wrong way to do it...). Then perhaps merging some of the more general beta decay material from that article into this one, e.g., conservation properties. The G-T trans. article appears more a general discussion of transition types, than it is specific to G-T trans. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently the article begins "Ebola is contracted from the decaying of beta particles.". No citation so I just removed it. AnnaComnemna ( talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Correction, the above was written BEFORE I edited the article. On editing I cannot find the statement to remove it! WTF? AnnaComnemna ( talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The recent edits by 113.160.44.130 appear to be just grammar corrections, but I find many of the edits, though not all, to be just rather odd, if not flat out wrong. It is not obvious vandalism, so I post here for a consensus of what to do. My own tendency is to revert, but then apply those edits that make sense. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beta decay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
On the 3rd line of the article:
"or conversely a proton is converted into a neutron by the emission of a positron (positron emission)"
note: neutrons are more are more massive than protons, so how do protons increase mass by emitting a positron?
It is accepted that neutrons become protons by electron emission.
Youjaes ( talk) 02:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The diagram for beta plus decay shows an electron is emitted. By conservation of charge, this should instead be a positron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.77.211 ( talk) 02:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This graph has at least a few significant errors that my (untrained) eye has caught and which make it unsuitable for displaying until they've been corrected. For example, it lists 143Ce as having α-decay when it is theorized to have β-β- decay. It has 119Xe as having unknown properties when it has β+ decay. And that's just what stands out to me. A closer survey may reveal more errors. That's why I removed it and replaced it in some cases with File:NuclideMap stitched.png. -- Veggies ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph has this phrase: transforming the original nuclide to its isobar, as if a nuclide has only a single Isobar. Nuclides often have several isobars. I'm changing it to an isobar. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A banner at the moment suggests the article has style problems, particularly with radicals. However, I don't know what that means, and I don't think the article has any radicals at all. Anybody know what the style problem is? Bdushaw ( talk) 19:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Currently, the formula for the beta decay spectrum according to Fermi's theory is given as:
Are you sure it shouldn't rather be:
See for example:
Both give an expression which is proportional to , just like the current source:
However, all three sources give N(p) instead of N(T)… If the formula as it is currently given in the article is indeed correct, shouldn't we at least try to find a "better" source, i.e. one that really gives the expression for N(T)?
-- 2A00:1398:9:FB00:404E:AF0C:6B5F:19CC ( talk) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should say something about alpha decay. it doenst fit right in with beta and such, but I think it would be helpful for students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.40.190 ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the comment about beta decay being the same as neutron decay should be removed. Muon decay to electrons is beta decay, and in some sense the conversion of a proton to a neutron in some nuclei (with the emission of a positron rather than an electron) is also beta decay. I think it would be a good idea to say instead that neutron decay is a type of beta decay.
Following the established standard theory, is not clear at all the reason why an anti-neutrino should be bounded together to an electron and a proton into the neutron particle, other than to preserve conservation law in beta decay.
At present there is another concurrent theory, that is able to predict exact values for the neutron particle and beta decay, that not contemplate the existence of neutrino at all. It is called Hadronic Physics, and it may be considered as a Quantum Mechanics' generalization that is applicable, instead of Classical Quantum Mechanics, on non-local, non-linear and non potential-derived interactions.
These are conditions that happen when there is significative spatial superposition between particles' wave packet functions.
Other informations can be found at www.neutronstructure.org
Shouldn't we also say something about double beta decay?-- Deglr6328 04:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Beta decay can be defined as that physical phenomena that occurs when the gravitational energy driven process of matter accumulation into an atom requires that one of the mass constituents (Neutron or Proton) be converted into the other for increased stability (lower free energy) purposes. In this instance of physical phenomena there are 3 Theorized possibilities. 1: The conversion of a Neutron into a Proton plus an electron plus a gamma ray (energy) emission. 2: The conversion of a Proton into a Neutron plus a positron plus a gamma ray. 3: The conversion of a Proton into a Neutron by the aquisition by the Proton of an "orbital electron". WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that both methods (B- or B+0 result in a reversal of the (PN) category of the nuclide. Thus the EE's would be changed to OO's or backwards and the EO's would be changed to OE's, or backward. Since the majority of the stable isotopes are either EE"s or OE's, changes in the other direction seldom happen. Exceptions, like the EO54Xe127 ec exchange to OE53I127 to form the only stable isotope of 53I Iodine are noteworthy. WFPM ( talk) 19:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) OOPs! That's not an exception, but still noteworthy. WFPM ( talk) 20:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Potassium-40 opens by remarking that it exhibits all three kinds of beta decay. The Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that there are three kinds. I think the opening paragraph should be rewritten accordingly. Lewis Goudy ( talk) 03:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
To clarify on negatrons, consider the OED:
negatron, n. 2. An ordinary electron (as distinct from a positron). Now disused.
1933 Lit. Digest Dr. Anderson suggested also that the familiar negative electron be re-christened ‘negatron’, but it seems unlikely that this will be accepted.
And it wasn't. -- Xerxes 16:13, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Interestingly, Ehmann and Vance in their book Radiochemistry and Nuclear Methods of Analysis actually do use the term "negatron".
-- 24.80.110.173 04:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Right. Neutron turns into proton and electron in Nucleus. That's fine. Beta minus particle ejected at high speed from aforementioned nucleus. Hang on. My A level education said that the nucleus is positive, and an electron is negative, and we've been told that opposite charges attract. So why does a negative electron get repelled by the positive nucleus, when they should be attracting? Cheers.
Ok. But what makes the electron move in the first place?
Sorry. Me again. But doesn't the neutron in the nucleus turn into a proton, remaining the same weight, and so no energy is created or destroyed? And the whole matter into energy, is that e=mc² territory?
Ahhh. Interesting. So, one final question. Why is the mass turned into kinetic energy? Why not heat or anything?
Ahh. Makes perfect sense now. Thank you Xerxes, may the wiki God shine upon you for ever.
There are only really two types of enerqy, kinetic, and potential, heat, movement, sound, evey light (i thinK?) is just an expression of this kinetic energy] - oxinabox1
What is the maximum possible energy an electron can acquire from natural beta decay? The typical energy? Such as the beta decay expected from fission daughter products. Surely max beta KE must be a property constrained by parameters of the weak interaction though this is waaay beyond my capablility to determine. I have tried looking for a table of beta decay energies for various isotopes but they don't seem to exist. I need to know this so that I can make edits to another article where cerenkov light production via beta decay is discussed. IANAP so if I could get the energy in KeV or MeV so that I neen't do conversions that would be very helpful. Thanks!-- Deglr6328 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
When the parent nucleus decays, does it form a daughter atom that is an ion?
BTW, I read about β− decay of ( AmO2)+ ion that gives ( CmO2)2+. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to alter the decay equation so that it was explicit that the nitrogen was ionized? Skarmenadius ( talk) 11:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe the feynman diagram shown is wrong. The convention I have been taught is to represent the W in the same way as the photon, with a wavy line, and there shouldn't be an arrow on the gauge boson. The arrows on the other two particles should have one towards the vertex, and one away, not both away. Does anyone disagree? LeBofSportif 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added a new diagram. Let me know if it needs any further modification. -- Xerxes 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
NOT an incoming antineutrino.
If necessary see Intro to EPP by Griffiths.
Feel free to contact me on james.hamp@hotmail.co.uk with comments.
James 22:36, September 2nd 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.188.149.25 ( talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the depiction og the W- exchange wrong? It is depicted as a Photon-exhange, with a wavy line. Weak force interactions are supposed to be written with dashes, right? Add my attempted improvement if you agree, or tell me if I'm wrong.. ;) Thγmφ ( talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The article says:
I don't think this is strictly true--or, at least, it's a bit misleading. The positron emission in proton-proton chain fusion requires the exact same energy, for the exact same reason (because it's the exact same reaction), and gets it in the exact same way (the binding energy of D), and yet it does not "only happen inside nuclei." (Well, it happens inside an H nucleus, but not in isolation. The point is that the two H nuclei don't fuse into a diproton before one of them emits a positron. And if "only inside nuclei" includes H nuclei it doesn't mean very much anyway.)
This may all sound nitpicky, but given the confusion on the talk pages of multiple articles about how PP can work given that a neutron is more massive than a proton, I think it makes a difference.
One possible change would be to say something like "... can only happen in nuclear reactions when...", but that sounds even worse. A better solution would be to just note the relationship between PP fusion and beta decay in some clear way (which isn't occuring to me at the moment). -- 69.107.75.113 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the absolute value bit re mother and daughter nucleus. Binding energy is measured in positive values ie mother>daughter and it is just how it acts ie keeping the atom together than leads it to be given a negative value by convention. the way it was before was misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.114.180 ( talk) 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The article dances around the fact that a minimum amount of energy is required for beta-plus (e.g., "In all the cases where β+ decay is allowed energetically"), but never gives the value of 1.022MeV. Since that value is in the electron capture article, and it's if anything more relevant here, it should be incorporated somewhere. -- 69.107.75.113 08:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? beta radiation redirects to this page? could anyone write a page on beta radiation, or possibly add a header here (altough i'm pretty sure it deserves its own page)
Sorry, I meant to point out that beta decay is a process, which releases electrons. A beam of these electrons would be described as beta radiation, and an article describing uses, dangers, penetrative strength and history (for example) would I think be seperate from the beta decay article. I was recently looking for the thickness of aluminium that would shield you from beta radiation, but that information is not available. Hope that makes sense! -- Doctorp9999 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't panic! It was just for a plan for an experiment measuring te shielding of aluminium,but i wasn't sure about the range of distances. I'd be happy as one of my first edits to consolidate the information. Within this article? Doctorp9999 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Beta particles move at a speed of 180,000 km/s, around 0.6c.
Surely this depends entirely on the energy of the emitted particle and should therefore vary depending on the structure of the parent nucleus? Zapateria ( talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that the
positron emission page is too small to be a seperate page, I suggest moving all information from there to this page and merge it with the beta plus decay section. Please discuss at
Talk:Positron emission#Merger proposal
-
SkyLined (
talk) 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there ways that beta decay is stimulated? I mean, aren't there ways that the natural threshold for it can be lowered? This, IMO, would be worth mentioning. 74.195.16.39 ( talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I stopped transforming the list of beta-stable nuclides because I first like to hear other people oppinion to this kind of presentation, I'm not quite lucky with my form. Else I type in this table and then I must layout it completely different, because others have better ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For reference look at the two references (2003,2007) of article "binding energy". I also had a flame-fight there for a different topic. But my new added references were not doubted! Hundereds? I think about 300. And? There are more then 100 elements known and listed in the table of elements. :) Should they not be listed? Anyway, if most users think you are right we should give at least the first and the last for exemplary reasons I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I meant the reference from 2005. I'm a bit worried about your first judge but I added the reference to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you removed everything I added, not only the words "absolutely beta-stabil"! I needed a wording for multiple (including single) simultanious beta-decay. Therefore my wording "Let call" and not e.g. "We call" or "It is called". But if you have better wording then change my wording, please. Alright, I simply can count: 355 nuclides as "absolute" beta-stable are experimentally known in 2005. Ok, ok .... I had no idea to create an own page for this table. Thanks.
Sorry, Hqb, I don't know what you want by "more typical example": "(moved unsourced note about Ru-96 into hidden comment. Not sure what the question is about: if there is a more typical example than A=96, feel free to use that instead.)" You make matter very detailed without need, IMHO, and throw up problems, by trying to analyse such tripletts. But this is your personal emphases / decision. A=124 is the next example and there are only a few more. Perhaps you can prove *LOL* that the middle nuclide is always total beta-decay stable and the other two will decay by double beta+ (double electron-capture?) and double beta- decay. :) BTW: Thanks for correcting wording and style. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I still don't know what you mean by "more typical example"? I get the impression, you also don't know. ;) To your decision "It also seems relevant to point out that Zr-96 is not actually completely stable", ... if you believe, but then you also should say a few words to the "stability" of Ru-96 for fairness, IMHO!. Regards Achim1999 ([[User talk:Achim1999|t]) 17:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because YOU want to go into detail for such a triplett! What do YOU mean by "more typical example"? I now ask for the 3rd time. :-/ BTW: A technical question for wiki-tables if you can help: How do I align the contens of a whole column of a table (to the right,left or center)? Regards Achim1999 ( talk) 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I added tritium illumination to the "see also" section. Are there any other industrial applications of beta decay? Just wondering. 166.137.132.5 ( talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not quite sure how to add comments properly but Spinosaurus (see Feynman Diagram section below) you are correct: a outgoing particle can be represented as an incoming antiparticle. Here we have not an incoming antineutrino but an outgoing antineutrino. It should therefore be represented as either:
NOT as an incoming antineutrino.
Therefore the Feynman diagram should be changed.
See, if necessary, Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics, Griffiths.
Please feel free to contact me at james.hamp@hotmail.co.uk with comments.
Thanks, James 22:40, September 2nd 2010
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.188.149.25 ( talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This article could use a new section on the "Bound-state beta decay" of nuclei such as Re-187, now briefly described at Radioactive decay#Changing decay rates. Dirac66 ( talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) 23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.248.237 ( talk) 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
can you have beta minus decay in the form of positron capture? the reverse interaction of electron capture. do we just not talk about it because positrons are so rare this never happens. or is it actually impossible. thanks 109.148.122.30 ( talk) 19:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
yes but this would cause an antiproton to decay into an anti neutron. im talking about a neutron decaying into a proton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.122.30 ( talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Poking around a bit I find that positron capture on neutrons may be important in nucleosynthesis when at very high temperatures spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs may provide the necessary positrons. See: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...141.1432R/0001432.000.html and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660081582_1966081582.pdf Pvoytas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This claim is recent enough that I doubt its been confirmed/debunked. Unless there's substantial attention currently being paid to it, I don't think a mention of it belongs on wikipedia. -- 70.194.133.19 ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone might find it useful, I collated a list of isotopes which can decay either through beta-minus or one of the types of beta-plus decay from the individual isotope pages on Wikipedia:
I didn't include the percentages because some of the isotopes can decay in other ways, the ones for Potassium-40 are inconsistent, and Wikipedia doesn't list those for Indium-116 and Terbium-156.
MacsBug ( talk) 23:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
From the information at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium (emphasis mine):
Naturally occurring radioactive 40K decays to stable 40Ar (11.2% of decays) by electron capture or positron emission (giving it the longest known positron-emitter nuclide half-life). Alternately, and most of the time (88.8%), it decays to stable 40Ca by beta decay.
From the table itself:
β- (89.28%) 40Ca
EC (10.72%) 40Ar
β+ (0.001%)
MacsBug ( talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Alpha decay has a toxicity section. Should beta decay have one too? RJFJR ( talk) 05:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it should. I don't know jack about either topic, but I was just reading about that section on Alpha decay and then immediately came here looking for a similar section on Beta decay :) CSJordan ( talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that in the diagram accompanying the paragraph 'Nuclear Transmutation' the labels for Beta+ and Beta- decay types should be swapped. Positron emission transmutes a proton to a neutron to increase a nucleus' stability and this makes sense only for the isotopes to the left of the stable nuclei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhard Neuwirth ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
From here:
Double sharp ( talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"For fully ionized atoms (bare nuclei), it is possible in likewise manner for electrons to fail to escape the atom, and to be emitted from the nucleus into low-lying atomic bound states (orbitals). This can not occur for neutral atoms whose low-lying bound states are already filled by electrons."
Then what about the beta decay of tritium, which is very low-energy, as there's free space in the 1s shell? Double sharp ( talk) 03:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on several particle physics articles (e.g., neutron, neutron magnetic moment, discovery of the neutron) and would like to suggest a reorganization of this article. I suggest the starting section be a "Description" where much of the lead would be moved. Then the 2nd section on "Discovery", followed by the remainder of the article. (To some extent I advocate this basic form for all the particle physics articles, when it makes sense.) The lead can then be developed to describe beta decay and the article contents more broadly and generally.
There is likely sufficient material to further develop the Discovery section, until it can break into its own article, much like the discovery of the neutron amoeba'ed.
No urgency here - I post this now for folks to weigh in. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to express disagreement with today's renaming of the entire History section as Discovery. In science, the discovery of a phenomenon usually refers to its initial observation and characterization. Later developments can be described as history but not as part of the initial discovery.
For beta decay, the actual discovery was Rutherford's 1899 observation that there are two kinds of radioactivity so that beta decay is a separate phenomenon from alpha decay. It is true that the 1896-1913 development fits together nicely as it led to the basic understanding that beta decay is A
ZX
→ A
Z+1X'
+
e−
, without the neutrino at that time. So the initial subsection (which was Discovery until today and is now Characterization) is best described as Discovery and Initial Characterization.
The later history (neutrinos, β+ decay and electron capture, parity) was not part of the initial discovery but rather further developments: neutrinos and parity were further characterization of β– decay, while β+ decay and electron capture are related phenomena.
So finally I would suggest that we return to History as a title for the whole section, but rename the first subsection as Discovery and Initial Characterization. Dirac66 ( talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Should this section be organized from most important/typical/normal to most exceptional? At the moment it starts with the very rare bound-state β decay. I would suggest starting with the fully allowed Fermi transitions, then the Gamow-Teller, then the forbidden with L > 0, then the bound-state and finally the double beta. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the article Gamow-Teller transition. It presently has been suggested of merging it with this article (dated a year ago), and indeed much of the material there is redundant with this article. I propose, however, changing the name of that article to "Beta decay transitions", and then redirecting Gamow-Teller transition and Fermi transition (new) to it (there is supposed to be a way to do that without involving an administrator; copy paste is the wrong way to do it...). Then perhaps merging some of the more general beta decay material from that article into this one, e.g., conservation properties. The G-T trans. article appears more a general discussion of transition types, than it is specific to G-T trans. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently the article begins "Ebola is contracted from the decaying of beta particles.". No citation so I just removed it. AnnaComnemna ( talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Correction, the above was written BEFORE I edited the article. On editing I cannot find the statement to remove it! WTF? AnnaComnemna ( talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The recent edits by 113.160.44.130 appear to be just grammar corrections, but I find many of the edits, though not all, to be just rather odd, if not flat out wrong. It is not obvious vandalism, so I post here for a consensus of what to do. My own tendency is to revert, but then apply those edits that make sense. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beta decay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
On the 3rd line of the article:
"or conversely a proton is converted into a neutron by the emission of a positron (positron emission)"
note: neutrons are more are more massive than protons, so how do protons increase mass by emitting a positron?
It is accepted that neutrons become protons by electron emission.
Youjaes ( talk) 02:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The diagram for beta plus decay shows an electron is emitted. By conservation of charge, this should instead be a positron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.77.211 ( talk) 02:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This graph has at least a few significant errors that my (untrained) eye has caught and which make it unsuitable for displaying until they've been corrected. For example, it lists 143Ce as having α-decay when it is theorized to have β-β- decay. It has 119Xe as having unknown properties when it has β+ decay. And that's just what stands out to me. A closer survey may reveal more errors. That's why I removed it and replaced it in some cases with File:NuclideMap stitched.png. -- Veggies ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph has this phrase: transforming the original nuclide to its isobar, as if a nuclide has only a single Isobar. Nuclides often have several isobars. I'm changing it to an isobar. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A banner at the moment suggests the article has style problems, particularly with radicals. However, I don't know what that means, and I don't think the article has any radicals at all. Anybody know what the style problem is? Bdushaw ( talk) 19:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)