@kevinpanini thanks for accepting. Do you have any opinion on the helium nucleus I talked about in the rationale for change? I think it makes sense to add into the cloze. Similar to how I added the gamma ray in this suggestion you accepted.
I also think it would also make sense to add the alpha and beta particles for the other ones. @Brian_BH any opinion on this?
I am not sure, I converted them to mathjax long ago, and they were originally that way. Ahmed had it like that when he made the images, and I didn’t really question it.
In this case I’m a little torn, owing to a couple of thoughts:
All alpha decay, by definition, will include a 4/2 Helium nucleus. That is definitional to the thing.
Second, the presence, and inclusion, of the Helium nucleus is also illustrated in the image in the extra field.
Third, the most common way that I recall these questions popping up is usually either the annotation of element and its decay product (A - B), or vice versa.
From there, the deck already has however many cards that identify this pattern:
I’m not wholly against it, but I wonder if it’s adding information that is already contained/covered.
The way I think about the products of different types of decay is by knowing the “decay particle” associated with it. For example, I would write out the 0/-1B particle when thinking about products of beta- decay and then what’s needed to balance the two sides. Similar to how it’s presented in this video.
Helium nuclei, electrons (0/-1B), and positrons (0/1B) are part of what is produced by these types of decay and I do think it’s kind of like an incomplete chemical equation without them to be honest. For example, for beta - decay you might know that a neutron has turned into a proton based on 14/6C → 14/7N but without the 0/-1B particle there’s no pointing to the fact that an electron is produced. While for alpha and gamma decay the emission of a helium nucleus or gamma ray is directly tested in a cloze in a separate card, the emission of a positron or electron is only mentioned in the extra section for other B+ and B- decay cards so it is also much less redundant.
I personally like how it’s presented in the extra section here and would cloze everything after the arrow.
We are also inconsistent in the extra section. For beta plus decay we point to the creation of a position using e+ instead of 0/1B and also indicate that a neutrino is produced.
For both types of decay, we also indicate that a neutrino/antineutrino is produced in these cards.
Kaplan: Beta decay is the emission of a β-particle, which is an electron and is given the symbol e− or β−. Electrons do not reside in the nucleus, but they are emitted by the nucleus when a neutron decays into a proton, a β-particle, and an antineutrino (ν¯). Because an electron is singly charged and 1836 times lighter than a proton, the beta radiation from radioactive decay is more penetrating than alpha radiation. In some cases of induced decay (positron emission), a positron is released, which has the mass of an electron but carries a positive charge. The positron is given the symbol e+ or β+. A neutrino (ν) is emitted in positron decay, as well. Note that neutrinos and antineutrinos are not tested on the MCAT, and are therefore omitted in subsequent discussion.
This then kind of creates the question of should we be indicating where neutrinos and antineutrinos are produced? Kaplan says they are not tested on the MCAT. Therefore, should I change the equation for the beta+ card to match the beta- equation? Meaning instead of:
its 11/6C → 11/5B + 0/1B. Ultimately what goes in the extra section will depend on your opinion on my other comment above though.
^B associated with position would be a beta symbol. Perhaps worth considering a different starting atom so both products are not B to avoid confusion.
For sure no matter what we decide, consistency is going to be ideal. Every argument is sort of deflated if we have 3+ different approaches across similar content. That’s not to say that everything needs to be identical all the time or it’s not worth making any changes, but consistency should be given significant priority as much and when we can (or, at the very least, when it’s practical for us to do so).
Part of my hesitation comes from imagining a typical use-case by a user: they’ve seen this card maybe 50 times, 100 times, and then they wake up tomorrow and suddenly the cloze following 11/6C just tripled in length and detail. Again, that’s not to say we absolutely shouldn’t make this change, but I think there is a tendency on our end (I’m guilty of it too) of interfacing with the deck and considering our individual perspective, which inevitably leads to a lack of consideration for user experience that is not a good thing. User experience is not a secondary externality; it’s central to the thing (which creates difficulties, but also should not be taken as an argument that we shouldn’t make changes, it just raises the bar of what constitutes an appropriate change to justify shifting the ground under people’s feet as they wake up tomorrow morning).
I’ve used the analogy of us being librarians before which is, admittedly, not a perfect analogy but I think it fits in the idea that a librarian’s sole allegiance is not only to the books; a library without user experience is just a warehouse (maybe there’s a better analogy there, but you get the idea). It’s important that we be sensitive to the idea that we’re fiddling with a live wire and that should be given importance and consideration.
For sure the antineutrino and similar are going to be far lower yield than electrons and helium nuclei and the like. Makes sense, potentially, to make sure that they’re either mentioned in the extra field, or denoted in an appropriate image, for reference sake. I think this is one of those things where images are very useful for illustrating the idea in a way that can be relatively more abstract with just numbers and letters.
I think I probably land in the middle here: I see the argument for including helmium nuclei, electron, etc., but probably defer on including antineutrinos and etc., at least behind the cloze. This is in keeping with, as you point out, Kaplan notes that they’re not as readily (or at all) testable and UWorld essentially concurs:
“Some sources choose to omit neutrinos and antineutrinos…to give abbreviated statements…that focus on the particles that are most relevant”
TL; DR: I think my vote would be add helium nuclei and/or electrons, as appropriate, to the cloze/s, relegate secondary particles (antineutrino, etc.) to a note in the extra field and/or ensure that they’re denoted in explanatory images.
Lemme know ur thoughts
Great! That’s exactly my thoughts in terms of what should be added in the text vs extra section. I’ll work on those suggestions.