Talk:Photodisintegration

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hypernovae

I question the inclusion of hypernovae in this article, as I am inclined to believe they are theoretical and have not yet been observed. Can anyone confirm or refute this? In any case, it is clear that this article needs some citations. DAID 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photodisintegration of the deuteron

The Chadwick, J. and Goldhaber, M. paper makes absolutely no statement concerning Rutherford’s proposal that the neutron is a proton with an incorporated electron. The paper’s only reference to Rutherford concerns the disintegration of the deuteron by polonium alpha particles. Chadwick and Goldhaber address the mass of the neutron. They proposed the mass of the neutron based on the mass of the deuteron less the mass of the proton plus the energy of the absorbed photon. This conforms to Rutherford’s proposal that the neutron is a proton with an incorporated electron. See: Chadwick, J. and Goldhaber, M. 1934, A ‘Nuclear Photo-effect’: Disintegration of the Diplon by -rays. Nature 134, 237 My Flatley (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Indeed, I did not check the source article. I have changed the word "proved" (implying that the paper claimed this result) to "proves" (implying that the experiment can now be interpreted to prove the claim). The basis for my statement can be found in the referenced nuclear physics text by Livesey. --PloniAlmoni (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavier elements

Most of this page is about light elements. Several pages link here that refer to photodisintegration involving heavier elements e.g. Si - Ni. If someone has knowledge of photodisintegration of those elements, a new section would be good.Morngnstar (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JANIS gives some non-negligible cross sections for a few heavy isotopes. Have a look-see: https://www.oecd-nea.org/janisweb/book/gammas Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photonuclear interactions?

This page is a re-direct from "Photonuclear Reaction," but it only discusses the lowest energy photonuclear interactions: nuclear excitations. More energetic reactions, such as excitation of a proton to a delta resonance, photonuclear vector meson production, etc. are not discussed. Would it be better to start a separate page on photonuclear interactions, or to expand this one, hopefully, in the latter case, with a change in title?

Spencer Klein, Berkeley, spencerklein@berkeley.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerKlein (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feasibility

The biggest neutron sources are all spallation or fission based. This indicates that something "doesn't scale". Bremsstrahlung of the required energy should be easy enough to produce in a Cyclotron and beryllium or deuterium targets can't be that hard to get. So what makes this only a preferred solution at low neutron fluxes? Are too many gamma rays "lost" via attenuation? Or does the target itself "consume" too many neutrons or else deflect them to places where they aren't desirable? In short, what's the advantage of spallation over this process in producing large quantities of neutrons? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]