Talk:Helion (chemistry)

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article title is wrong

Why "(chemistry)"? Chemistry involves electrons interacting with an atomic nucleus. Just delete "(chemistry)".

And the second sentence says "In practice". So what is the first sentence? "In theory"? Layzeeboi (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the academic writings on the topic, it really seems to be physics. So would Helion (physics) be more suitable? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this meaning is WP:PRIMARYMEANING of the term "helion", which is why Helion should remaing the a disambiguation page. @Layzeeboi: are you really proposing that a specific form of a certain chemical element is not part of the field of chemistry? I think a few people in the field of Nuclear chemistry might dispute our premise. But I could easily see this article being renamed to Helion (nucleus) or Helion (helium ion). DMacks (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am really proposing that. Please consider the hydrogen atom. Most studies of its nucleus, the proton, are clearly physics and not chemistry. For example, colliding 800 GeV (1000 times its rest mass) protons with 30 GeV electrons at HERA is not chemistry. Same for measurement of its magnetic and electric dipole moments, and their interpretation. What studies of the proton with no bound electron(s) in the studied system fall in the field of chemistry? Do nuclear chemists ever do that?

For what it's worth, I searched J. Am. Chem. Soc.for all occurrences of "helion", and found a total of 15. I failed to find "helion" in any title or abstract among these. (One can't use google, because there are many author names including "Helion". I was disappointed to find that there is no eprint server for chemistry, such as arxiv.org for physics.) Then I searched the journal Physical Review, and found 65 occurrences. From my own experience, I am not surprised that "helion" is little used by scientists. I think this WP article should state that. I propose the title Helion (science) Layzeeboi (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ot it could be Helion (ion) or Helion (particle). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"ion" may deprecate most contexts in nuclear physics where atomic structure is irrelevant, while "particle" may deprecate chemistry. That's why I felt "science" was safer. It seems unlikely that this word is sued in a third branch of science, but I haven't tried to check — it seems difficult because of its use as an author name. Layzeeboi (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Helion" is a part of the name of several different dyes (I'm not sure what the underlying structural class or practical aspect is that is represented by this term), so this nuclear meaning is no the only use in science. If the term actually means "helium ion", then how about Helion (helium ion)? DMacks (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which charge

In the text, one reads "doubly positively charged", but the formula shows 1+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.112.150 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In nuclear reactions, it seems that total atomic charges are often not written. I've heard that convention explained as the electron cloud is fairly constant and slow to catch up or not relevant to the facts of the nuclear change. But obviously creating or destroying a particle is part of the reaction itself, regardless of all other constant facts. The definition of a proton being a +1 particle is not in dispute, so "two protons is a charge of +2" is a trivial WP:CALCULATION. See for example Proton–proton chain where deuterium is "D" is ²
₁D
and is taken for granted as being just the nucleus and having a charge of +1. I removed the +1 charge from the equation that you saw as contradicting the lede sentence (full disclosure: I had added it:) DMacks (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]