Message Boards Message Boards

The 2016 Atomic Mass Evaluation (AME2016) data

Estevao Teixeira
Posted 5 years ago
POSTED BY: Estevao Teixeira
3 Replies
Sort By:

enter image description here - Congratulations! This post is now featured in our Staff Pick column as distinguished by a badge on your profile of a Featured Contributor! Thank you, keep it coming, and consider contributing your work to the The Notebook Archive! Please note, we consolidated your two separate posts in one as they are closely related.
POSTED BY: Moderation Team

Estevao, thank you for your "mini-study"! And I agree with your conclusion. Unfortunately, Wolfram's data may be inconsistent even within itself – different data functions may provide different values for the same entity. E.g., when using functions like Quantity, Entity (with "Particle"/"PhysicalConstant") or ParticleData you get inconsistent values for the proton's mass or elementary charge, which seems to affect the results of UnitConvert function. I came upon it when trying to calculate the mass/energy change in a hydrogen atom formation reaction. So, currently Wolfram's data cannot be relied upon.

P.S. What is the $$Data variable supposed to denote in your code? Can you provide a downloadable version of your study (as an .nb fiile)?

POSTED BY: Alexander Lozovsky

Hi, Alexander,

A good thing that you can do is to parse the AME2016 file and use their values, as I did first.

$$Data was a mistake. I changed to finalData. I submitted this dataset to the Data Repository but it is not available yet. You can check the notebook at https://github.com/sbrno/AME2016_WolframLanguage.
POSTED BY: Estevao Teixeira
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Tag limit exceeded
Note: Only the first five people you tag will receive an email notification; the other tagged names will appear as links to their profiles.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard

Group Abstract Group Abstract