Talk:Magic number (physics)

Physics Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I doubt that 2 is a magic number, because I know for certain that Helium has a far lower nucleus energy state than Deuterium. (Source: My Physics school book)

Interesting. My source is http://www.research.att.com/projects/OEIS?Anum=A018226. I'll check my physics textbooks to confirm, too. Giftlite 23:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

I believe the magic numbers refer to number of protons OR number of neutrons, not the sum. So Helium 4 is especially stable because it has both 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

A reference - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html. Giftlite 01:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"If the count of protons is one of those magic numbers, then a neutral atom has the same number of electrons , arranged into complete shells around the atomic nucleus."

Regardless of the magic in the nucleus , ANY neutral atom has the same number of electrons (as protons); and they are NOT necessary complete ELECTRONIC shells(ie noble gases). I have excized the previous DOUBLELY STUPID sentence. The electron, absent or not, have NOTHING to do with the stability of the nucleus (to any measurable extent).67.124.102.77 06:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the magic numbers for electrons are different than those of protons and nuetrons. That statement leads to the idea that a magically numbered atom is particularly stable electronically also, which is not the case.

What of three?

Friends, I have it on good authority that three is a magic number, yet it is missing from the list. Should the list be marked incomplete? 86.20.180.82 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, 3 is not a magic number. What good authority? I have citable one. Say lecture notes : Nuclear and Particle Physics, University of Edinburgh - Dr Daniel Watts; or book : Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics 2nd Edition, A. Das and T. Ferbel. -- KTC 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research / Unverifiable Claims?

I'm not an expert on the subject, but the only cited source on the work of Xavier Borg is a Blaze Labs page. A Google Scholar search doesn't turn up any peer-reviewed papers by Xavier Borg, and also on Blaze Labs is another paper by the same author that claims to have a theory that allows the extraction of free energy from zero-point energy. This other paper is clearly not mainstream, so is there any related work in the scientific mainstream, or is this guy just crackpot? Should this section be in the article? Moocowpong1 05:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]