Here, the editors do not make clear what a classical system is and what a quantum-mechanical one is. This would be bad enough, but the editors then go on to build off that confusing dichotomy, referring to the "resulting liquid-drop model." Since the reader has no idea what a classical or quantum-mechanical system is, the reader cannot even begin to grasp what a liquid-drop model might be, if the other had even bothered to explain what the fucking model was, or how it resulted from the ability to approximate a q/m system as a classical one.
Here, the editors might have redeemed themselves by explaining something about quantum-mechanical effects. They at least mention a nuclear shell model, but then, infuriatingly, leave it at that. They do, however, go on to explain what this nuclear shell model implies, now leaving us totally in the dark, and chewing on ourselves in frustration.
Finally, the editors continually make deductions that are not obvious to the reader, and don't bother to explain how they, or any physicist, arrived at them.
This is not a problem merely with this article: it exists in many others. Our articles are only useful as encyclopedia articles if they are penetrable to the layman.
As a conclusion to this general rant, could someone knowledgable about the physics of atomic nuclei clarify these points? Graft
I don't see a problem with using jargon. In fact, the jargon is an aid to understanding because the meanings are very precise. However, when jargon is used, there need to be links to articles explaining the concepts. I've added a bunch of links to this article, so it should be easier for a reader without any education in science to follow.
To use the existing example, if one doesn't know what surface tension is, then the liquid-drop model may not be obvious. Hence, a link to surface tension was needed.
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|