Concepts of Nuclear Physics Bernard L. Cohen Projesor of Physics Diveclor, Scaife Nudear Phyaien Laboratory Universly of Pitsbarat McGraw-Hill Book Company New Vork St. Touis San Francisco Dasseldorf Johannesburg Kuala Lurspar London Mexico Montreal New Dethi Panama Rig de Junsiro Singapore Sydney TorontoConcepts of Nuclear Physics Copyright © 1971 by MeGraw-Nill, Ine. Alt rights reserved. Printed in tie United States of America. No part of this publication wing be seprediced, stored in a retrieval aystom, or transmitted. in apy forin or By any means, electronic, mechanioul, photocopying, recording. for piherwise, without the prier written permission of the publisher Library of Congress Cotalon Card Number 10138856 0T-011556.-7| 1234567890 MAMM 79876543210 ‘This hook was set ia Bostoni Book sud News Gotbii: by The Maple Press Cinupuny, ond printed om peruninent paper and bound by The Miple Press Company. The swings were donc by dohn Cordes, J. & R. Teshnival Secviers, Ine The editors were Bradfocd Boyne sad Beary Tianjaunia, Sturt Lesine wipetvieed production,to my parents ‘Mollie Friedinan Cohen cad Sarnuel Coben fon their seventy-fifth and eightieth birthdays and theie fiftieth wedding anniversaryPreface The structure of nuclei is now ahout as well-understood as the elvetroni structuce of atoms, but there is a tremendous difference in the extent to which this anderstanding has been diffused. Atomic structure is taught for tive frst time i the fourth or fifth grade of elementary scliool, and more advanced treatiments are presented at beast twice more befare the end of secondary school. Modera- physies courses eavering atomie structure ace taken by nearly all scientists and engineers on an elementary level and by all physics majors at te seuior level. A course on quantuo mechanics, required of all physies graduate students, ine cludes more details of atomic structure, ‘The structure of nuclei, on the other hand, is not taught at all in elementary and secondary schools aud is exserstially ignored even in the education of physics ‘majors up to the advanced graduate level. Thus while atomic structure is familiar in outline to hundreds of millions of people, nuclear structure is wot even familiar to many with Ph.D.s in pliysies. Often an elective advanced undergraduate or first-year graduate course in nuclear physics is olfered, but it usually devotes a lange block of time to experi- mental aspects of the subject and gives highly phenomenological teentments of decay and reaction processes, heavily influenced by the historical order in which things weee discovered. Only near the end does it present @ short discussion of nuclear modets, in whiel: the impression is given that we are still digging in the dark in our elforts to understand mnelear strueture. This woukl be the equivalent of tenchiug atomic physies by spending the majority of the natuce of light, optical speetroseopy, and atomic colli near the end by presenting a brief disenssion an models of atomi¢: structure. Mainic physies is taught, in a much more fogical way, and this book repre- sonts an elfort to introduce similar logic into the teaching of an advanced imder- graduate or first-year graduate course in nuctear physics. The only absolute pre- requisite isan ele:nentary course in modern physics such as the one usually taught 8 pack of tie elementary physics sequence. Whenever matters are discussed which would not he understandable t students with that preparation, this i clearly indicated in the text and these discussions can be omitted without loss of continuity. Quantum theory is widely used, but it is reviewed for these students in Chapter 2 with a fucther extension in Section 10-1. Every physicist has his own on such subjects as ious, and only brielly vilway of introducing quantum mechonies, and many may not Tike my appraseh. For this I can only apologize and cxeourage iusteuctors ty handle the subject in secordancs with their own Lastes. The hook originally developed out of courses for students with this minimal proparation given at the University of Pittsburgh duriny the fall terms of 1967 and 1968, although many sections were omilted or covered only briefly. On the ther hand, concepts which can hesl he understood hy the use of moe advanced quantumemechanical techniques arr generally Leeated in that way for the benefit of advanced students, The book was used for a first-year graduate course in the spring of 1969, With all the advanced material included avd nearly all the hook. heing covored, there was no indication that. the course was too easy. ‘To my colleagues working in nuclear physics, I would like to offer apologies for weigiiting the material covered heavily toward areas iu whieh 1 ave bad research experience, Hind it most difficult to write about subjects T do not thor oughly understand, and most subjects on whieh I have had no research experience fall into that eategory. I also want 40 apologize for so frequently using my own work in examples. This has the advantages that the results are readily. available and wellunderstood, they are usually presented in a manner attuned to my tastes and my style of writing, and the original data are available for replotting for combining in different ways. CX special apology is in order fur the use of our old data in Figure 13-1 when so much newer and hetter data are available, but after hours of searching, L could fiud sothing thal gives coverage to the full mass range.) To avoid giving an imbalanced impression, T have ot included authors’ names on figures from our data, for which Tapologize to my collaborators. Tam: greatly indebted to Miss Bazhara Frarik for an outstanding jab of typing, to Drs. F. Tabakin, N. Auster, E. Sanderson, R. ML. Dritko, D. 8. Brom- ley, and R, A. Soresison for helpful discussions anid suggestions, and to the sta- dents who suffered through the developmental stages of this material without a textbook to fall hack on. Bernard L. Cohen viii PrefaceContents Preface Chapter 1 Introduction to the Nucleus Lt 1 1 Lt 15. 16 Mass, Charge, and Constituents of the Nucleus Nuclear Size and the Distribution of Nucleons Energies of Nueleons in the Nuclevs 1s te Nucleus # Chussical of a Quantum System? What Holds the Nucleus Together? Some Oller Properties of Nuclei Chapter 2 Quantum Theory of a Particle in a Potential Well 2a 23 2 25 26 at 8 Particle in » One-dimensional Square Well—Sieaplified Treatment Particie ie a One-dimensional Potentiai Well—Accurate Treatment Particle in a Three-timensional Potential Well ~Simrplified Treatment Particle in a Throe-dimensional Putential Well—Aecurate Treatment Orbit Mosel fector Model for Addition of Angular Momentum Parity Mensurable Properties of Quantum ystems, Chapter? The Nuclear Force au 32 Be Bt 35 36 37 Be 30 310 3a ae 313 lethods of Approach Bound States of Two Nueleons—Cunclusions frei the Binding Energy and Size of the Deuteran Spin States of the Tro-nucleon System Effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle Magnotic Dipote and Electric Quadcupole Moments of the Deuteron— ‘The Tensor Force Genctal Propert Exchange Foreas ‘Velocity-dependent Forces Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces ‘Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering ‘The Nuclear Furee as We Now Kaow Tt Charge Independence of Nuclear Forces Many-body Forces of the Nuctear Foree—Static Forces vil B an 18 » a 26 26 2 az 23 36 36 49 a7 3L 55, 60 60 ixChapter 4 Complex Nuclei: Sheil Theory 41 42 43 aa 45 46 a8 ‘Choice of an Appropriate Approximation ‘The Shell-theory Potential Effective Mase Allowed Ochits in the Shell-thoory Potential Filling of Allowed Orbits in the Shell-theory Potential Separation Energies of Nucleons Energy Spucings between Shells Nonspherical Nuelei Chapter 5 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: Spherical Even-Even Nuclei 1 Collisions Cazes where Collisions ‘re Forbidden, An Important Example of Collisions~The Pairing Interaction Quantum-mechanical Teowment of the Enesy Gap ‘The Ground States of Even-Even Nuclei Broken Pairs and Quesi-particle Number Ocoupation Numbers Low-energy Fxcited Slates —An Tntroduction Shape Oselllations af a Liquid Drop Colloctive Vibrations of Spherical Even-Even Nuclet Noncollective Excited States of Fveu-Even Nuclei Limitations of the Shell Apptasimation, Some Results rom Angular-momentur Coupling Chapter 6 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: Other Nuclei 61 62 63 ot 65 66 67 68 Odd-A Spherical Nuclei Spherical Oud-Oed Nucl Isobarie Spin and Isobaric Analog States Spleridal Nuclei—The Shell-theory Potential States of Kven-yen Spheraidal Nuclet—The Grouad-state Rotational Band Collective Vibrations and Other States in Spheruidal Even-Even Nukes Generalized Treatmeg of Nuclear Soapes States of Spheraidal OkldeA Nuclei Chapter 7 Miscellaneous Aspects of Nuclear Structure ww 72 13 a 8 Masses ant Winding Energies of Nuclei ‘The Sesniompirieal Musy Formula Hartree-Fock Calculations and Nuclear Matter Magnetic Dipale Womens Electric Quadrupole Moments Chapter8 Nuclear Decay and Reaction Processes 8a 82 Electromagnetie Decay Processes Beta Decay x Contents 22 3 9 2 6 25 78 a0 oy 88 oa 2 im 102 105 107 no 16 18 121 126 15 16 Ms ur 11 1st 156 160 160 163 ne vt 179 5 183 18783 Nudeon Mmission 93 8-4 Combinations of Decays 195 85 Decay Laws 196 3:6 Nuclear Reactions—Some Basic Propertios 130 87 Chart of Nuctides 201 Chapter 9 Experimental Methods of Nuclear Physics 24 O-L Unusual Advantages in Nuclear Experimentation 201 9-2 Interaction of a Charged Particle with Matter 206 93 Detectors for Energetic Charged Partielos 210 Gt Energy Measurements and Identification of Energetic Charged Particles 210 95 Magnetic Instruments 208 9-6 Detection, Energy Mevsurement, and Stopping af Neutrons und Ganmna Rays 230 9-7 Timing Techniques 233 9-8 Accalerators 239 9.9 Radinchomistry 263 Chapter 10 Nucleon Emission 27 10-1 Roffection and ‘Prarstission af Waves at Entertaces 2a 10-2 Decay Bates in Nucleon Emission—f = 0 Neutron Emissions 232 10.3 Decay Rates in Nucleon Emission—Penetration of Angular-momentuen Butriers 255 10-4 Decay Rates in Nucleon Emission—Penetcalion of Coulomb Barriers 258 10.5 Reduced Widths for Emission of Alpha Particles sud Piso 260 L0-6 Barrier Penetration and Decay Rutes in Alpha-pacticle Emission 263 10-7 Barrier Penetration and Decay Rates in Fission 265 Chapter 11 Geta Decay Fo 111 Bnergy Spectrum of Hootrans Emitted in Beta Decay 270 IL-2 Anpular-momentum Consierations oo 13 Selection Poles 276 14 Matrix Elenients in Bota Decay 278 115 Deray Rate in Beta Decay 282 11-6 Operation of Selection Rules 23 11-7 Decay Rates in Electron Capture 2s Chapter 12 Gamma-ray Emission 28 Electric Multipole Radiation from Quentum Systemes 288 ‘Teansitions between Nuclear States 290 ‘Magnetic Multipole Radiation 295 Selection Rules 296 Angular-correlation Studies 200 Isorverisan 302 Internal Conversion 304 Contents x1Chapter 13 Nuclear Reactions: Compound-nucleus Reactions 33-1 Qualitative Description of Compound-nucleus Reactions— Classical Treatment 2 Qualitative Deseripiion of Compounds Quantum Treatment 13-3 Elastic Seattering and Reuetion Cross Section 13: The Lmaginary Potential W 18-5 Rewnnnces in Nuclear Resetions 13-6 Nuclear Renotions in the Resonance Region 13-7 Strength Functions 14 Nuclear Reactions Induced by Low-energy Neutrons, 13-9 Compound-nueleus Reactions ~Stetistical Region 18-10 Nuolear Reactions Induced by Gamma Kays 1 ucleus Reaetions— Chapter 14 Nuclear Reactions: Direct Reactions 14-1 Mechanisms in Direot Reactions 4-2 Angular Distributions of Partioles Emitted in Direct Reactions 143 Nuclear-structure Studies with Onenacloun Transter Resetio 144 Nuclear-structure Studies with Isobaric Analog: 145 Multinucleon Transfer Reactions 146 Other Types of Direct Reactions 147 Coulomb Excitation Chapter 15 Applications of Nuclear Physi 15-1 Applications of Radioactivity $52 Energy Production and Thecmwonuclear Reactions Energy Prodvetion in Stacs “The Origin of Complex Nuclei ‘Thermoouclear Renctions on the Burth Fission as a Source of Energy Appendix General References Index xi Contents an an 313 316 322 325 307 332 36 3383 88 392 396 03 geeChapter 1 Introduction to the Nucleus An atom consists of a small, massive core called the naeleus, surrounded by orbit~ ing electrons. It is the purpose of this hook to explain all aspects of the nucleus, its structure, its behavior under various com ms, and its effect on nature and oon mankind, In this chapter we introduce some of its most basic charactersties, its mass, size, shape, and other externally observable propertivs. We also consider some deeper questions such as the forve that Kolds the nucleus together an the mechanical laws that. are in «fect. We shall iatrodace more problems than we solve, but our purpose will be to lay out a framework for later discussions. 1-1 Mass, Charge, and Constituents of the Nucleus Let us begin by reviewing a few fundamental faets that are probably already familiar. The nucleus is made up of neutrons and protons, two particles which are about 1,840 times more massive than electrons. ‘They are spoken of collee- rely as nucleons. The muraber of protons in a nucleus is just oqual to its atomic number Z, and the total number of racleous A is the integer closest to its atomic weight: hence the number of neutrons is 4 — Z, Thus the nucleus of j1Ne®, a sodium atom which has atomie unmber If and atomic weight very close te 23, contains 11 protons and 12 neutrons. This is a relatively light nucleus; « typical boavy aucleus is >-Au'®, which obviously contains 79 protons and 118 neutrons. ‘The mass of the nuclens is very nearly equal to the mass of tie atom: in kilo gram il is the atomic weight divided by Avogadro's number, 6.03% 103 The nucleus was first discovered in 1911 iu experiments conducted by Lord Rutherford and his associates on scattering of alpha pacticles by atoms. He found that the seattering pattern could be explained if atoms consist of a small, massive, positively charged core surrounded by orbiting electeons. While most of his results could be calculated on the basis of an infinitely small nucleus, deviations indicated that. the nuclear size is of the order of 10-1 m., Since this is 10,000 times smaller than the diameter of atoms, it is small cuough to be negligible in prac- tically all atomic problems. For studies of the nucleus itself, however, we must have more aceurate size deteriaination1-2 Nuclear and the Distribution of Nucleons ‘The straightforward approach to studying the size and shape of nuclei is to shoot, i particles at them and measure the effects produced. ‘There is, however one well-known Jimitation in this endeavor: the wavelength of the probing par- ticles must be of the order of the size of the nuclei being studied or smaller. Since ordinary light, for example, has a wavelength of about 10-? m, which is many orders of magnitude larger than the nuclear size, itis not suitable, Light of very short wavelength, i.c., gamma rays, is also unsuitable because nuclei always occur in nature surrounded by electrons and electromagnetic waves interact more strongly with these electrons than with the nuclens, It is therefore better to einploy particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons as probes, all three of which have been used. Neutrons and protons have the advantage that their wavelength is sulliciently short for energies of about 20 MeY,' whereas for elec trons over 100 MeV of energy is required, whieh is much more dificult to obtain. However, clectrons have the advantage that their interaction with the nucleus is very well known (it is the familiar electromagnetic interaction), so the most accurate results have been obtained with electrous as probes. The experiments consist of shooting high-energy clectrons at a thi larget MoV is milion electron vubte, Ge ueit uf enorgy we wall genoeally uses 1 MeW « 10! eV 16 X 10-1 joule J). FIGURE 141 Experimental arrangement for measuring the angular variation of slectron seattering from muclel. The angle # 1s varied by moving the detector, and for each # measurements are made of the ratio betwaen the number of scattered electrons it detects and the number af electrons ‘the beam as determined by the collector. (Since vary fow slectrons are deflected by large angles, practically all of the beam reaches the collector.) Typical results of these meas- urements are shown in Fig, 1-2. The detector is actually a very large and complex group of instruments capable of determining the energies af the electrons. tin target bean of matetial collector to be studied “ ato ray 2D seces Pe 2 Intyoduetion to the Nucleusof the material under study and observing the probability of various angular deflections, as shown in Fig. I-L. In concept, it is very similar to the Rutherford scattering experiments, in which Uhe nucleus was first. discovered. Some typical results of these measurements are shown in Fig. 1-2. IF one assumes some density distribution p(7) for the nuelcons in the nucleus and assumes that the neutrons have the same density distribution as (he protons, the probability of various FIGURE 12 Angular distributions of MS-MeV electrons scattered from va ‘ous nsclel. The curves through the data are theoretical fits. [From 8, Hata, D.G. Raveahall, and R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev., toi: 131 58) RELATIVE INTENSITY, Teg, scale 50" 70” 90° 110° 130° ANGLE OF SCATTERING @ Nuclear Size and the Distribution of Nucfeans 3angular deflections car be calculated and compared with the experimental results, If they do not fit, other p(r) can be tried until a fit is obtained. ts have been performed and analyzed for a great many nuclei ident electron energics, AU the results cat be approximately explained by a charge distribution given by ofr) = an oo TF opie — Wal A plot of (1-1) is shown in Fig. 1-3, where the physical significance of the various, parameters is illustrated. We see there that gs is the aucleon devsity near the center of the nucleus, R is the radius at which the density has decreased by a factor of 2 below its central value, and ais a measure of the surface Uickness such that the distance over which the density falls from 90 percent of au to 10 percent of po is 4.ta, ‘The fits to the data obtained with {1-1} are shown by the solid lines in Fig. 1-2, and the density distributions determined by these fits are illustrated by the curves in Fig. I+. These give us the answer to our questions about the size and density distributions in anclei, but itis interesting to see what systematie informa tion about nuclei can be obtained from these fits. Tt turns out that the rosults for all nuclei are reasonably well approximated by (L-1} with 0% L.65 X U4 mucteons/m? = 0.163 nucleons/ EY Re 1074 P ae as055 F ‘Note that we use the fermi (abbreviated F), 10-1 m, as the unit of length. “These results are extremely simples they indicate that the density of nucleons in the inner regions of ail nuclei is about the same and that the surfece thicknesses of all nuclei are very similar, These facts are readily discernible from Fig. 1-4. “The AY variation of the nuclear radius, a name frequently uaed for #, is expected FLGURE 1-4 Plot of Eq, (1+) for p(e) vs. % ‘The meaning of pn FR, and c are illustrated. peel oly, 4 tntroduction to the Nucleus8 075 ose NUCLEON DERSITY, relative 025 ious nuclei as obtained feom ‘he fits tothe data shown in Fig. 1-2. Fram 8. Hab, 0. G. Raverhall, ‘and R Hofstadter, Phys. Rev., Oh: 113 (1956),] cof the uucleus be al to BA from the constancy of gs since His requires that the vol proportions! to A, and the volume ts, of course, propoct 1-3. Energies of Nucleons in the Nucleus We shall eventually he treating the Rinclie energies of nucleons in the nucleus in great detail, but at this stage we require an order-of-magnitude estimate. The ‘energies of eta rays and gamma rays emitted from nuclei are typically of the order of I MeV, but these processes arc transitions of nucleons fear one state to another so theic energies are differences between nucleon enecgies in two different states: the actual nucleon eneray should be much larger. Ons approach to the problem is to calculate the electrostatic energy Ee required to insert @ proton into a nucleus. ‘This is approximately fe Geeih E @ which for a medium-weight nucleus (Z — $0, A ~ 120) is 50(1.6 x 10-1)" CP 1d nev $8.9. 10%) 1.07 x 1204 x 10-1 mE NM LO UY = 13 X J0feV = 13 Mev 3a) Energies of Nucleons in the Nucleus 5where G is the abbreviation for conlomb and N thet for newton, This much conlounb energy would he released if the proton were allowed to come out of the nuclens, but still it does not ordinarily come out. This means that it is Sound ia, the nucleus by even more energy. Prom these simple arguments, we might guess thal energies of nucleons the nucleus are of the general order of LO MeV. We shall soe Inter that this is something of an underestimate, bul it is the correet order of magnitude. Since the velocity of a 10-MeV nucleon is only about 15 percent of the speed of light, this micans that relativistic elfects are not important in considering the notion of nucleons in the nucleus. The nonrelativistic relations between mass, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy may be used freely. 1-4 Is the Nucleus a Classical or a Quantum System? ‘The next interesting question is whether the wave mature of malter ig relevant in q ncleus, as it is in atotns, or whether the nucleus is more like systems en countered in onr everyday life, where classical mechanics is a sullieiently good approximation. Asa general rule, the wave natuew of etter is relevant where the wavelength of the particles is of the order of the size of the system, so Tet us compare them. ‘The wavelength of a nucleon with an energy of about 10 MeV is hoot Me” Vante Lg m/s a i The 1 The eV oe (2x gS. x 10 x tore x 16 x9 = 9.8 X 108 mn = 98 B 6.6 % WSs x This is clearly of the order of the size of @ nuckaus as given by (1-2), so the wave nature of matier is indeed relevant. ‘The motions of nucleons in the nucleus are governed by the laws of q physies: classical pictures in which mucleons are considcred as little balls moving arouud—applied so successfully in descsibing cgnses or liquids--are of limited usefulness, We sliall therefore have to use and expand our Kuowledze of the waye nature of matter, A review of this subject is presented in Chap. 2. 1-5 What Holds the Nucleus Together? ‘The next question we lave to face is perhaps the most difficult if we have only our previous experience to go ou: What holds Lhe nucleons together in a nucleus? 6 Introduction to the NucleusSystems are held together by forees, and the only forces we aye encounterad classical physics or in atomic physics have bren the gravitational and clectro- magnetic forces. Can these do the job? The clectromagnetic force most certainly cannot. Neutrons have uo electric charge, so they do not experience the electro- magnetic force at all and the principal elocteomagnetie fore between protons ise strong coulomb repulsion, which tends to tear the aucleus apart, The gravie tational force is an attractive one between every pair of nucteons, but itis smaller hy a factor of abont 10° than the electrical forve between two protons. [ts effects are completely negligible in all uuclear and atorsic phenomena Thus, the only two forces we have previously eneountered canuot account for the existence of nuclei. The only explanation is to eecngnize that there is a third force in uature, known as the sencleur force. We see immediately that this force must he very strong at. distaices of the order of te nuetear size, since it must more that, compensate the coulomb repulsion between protons. On the other hand, molocnlar structure can be aceurately accounted for by the electro- magnetic force alone, so we may conchide that at distances of the order of the spacing betweeu nuclei in molecules (~107" mn) the muiclear forte must be neglie gible. It is therefore a short-range force, falling of more rapidly with distance than Trt Before we can proceed very far in studying the structure of the aucteus, we must learn more about the nuelear foree. ‘This will form the subject matter of lap. 3. 1-6 Some Other Properties of Nuclei We learned in elementary physics that if there are ao external torques acting on a system, ils angular momentwn is conserved. Since an isolated nucleus is such a system, its angular momentum is one of its constant properties. Methods of measuring angular momenta of muelei by use of atomie beams in Stern-Gerlac experiments and by studying the hyperfine strueture of atomic spectral fines with, and without applied magnetic fields are genierally discussed in modern physi courges. Several other smetteds will be developed later in this book. Tu quantum physics, conserved quantities are represeuted by quantum num bers. The quantum namber for the total angulac momentum of a nucleus is Ts the two are related by ‘Total angular momentuin = W774 1) an Actuslly sines, os we hall sce in the noxt section, the neutron pussies « mogueli i experiences a force is mea, vouniform aiagacticfirld, but this is toe small to matter here, ‘Some Other Properties of Nuclei 7where fi is Planck's constant (6.25 x t0-# J-s) divided by 2x. Values of F will be given and explained in many comneetians throughout this book. A compilation of divcctly measured values is given in ‘Table A-2 of the Appendix. In courses on eleciromagnetism it is shown that a current loop enclosing an area @ and cartying @ earrent i has @ maguetic dipole moment given by rig as For a circular orbit of radius», traversed j times per second by a charge ¢ moving with velocity v @ ingest een whenee, from (1-5), fn at weg ye where L is the angular moms jum, Mer. More generally. ae syle an where y isa factor called the gyromagnetic ratio. Ts aevordans derivation, g = 1 when the ciarge and mass distributions « particle traverses an orbit, fn quantam theory, Eis * quan For orbital mation with quantum number b 9 with the above neide, as when a number tines fief 2, whence, trom (1-6), eh t 3 an ‘The magnetic moment due to spin is a more comples problem which ean he understood only in terms of relativistic quantum theory: the result for ex electron, a8 is well known froin atomic physics, is, ch “OM hich, since the spin quantum number is }, corresponds to ge ~ 2. Measure- ments corroborate this result, For nucleons, however, measurements give * Bp = 2.7025 ah an we 10 which corresponds to g, values exqual to 2 times the munerical factors in (1-8). “These resulis, and their contrast with the results for an electron, lead oue to 1The statement given here ie mot quite accurate: it is Use masianan: component of Zin ony lvoetion that ie equal to [8 8 Introduction to the Nucleusbelieve that an electron is a very simple elementary particle but that neutrous and protons are complex structures dicluding nontvivial electric charge distribu tions. Efforts have been made to explain this stracture in terns of eliarged meson clouds surrounding nucleons (see Sec. 3-9). Methods of measuring magnctie moments of nuclei are usually discussed i modeva-physies courses in connection with Stern-Gerlack atomie-beam oxpesi- ‘ments and the hyperfine structure of atornie spectral lines iu the Zeeman elfvet. Othee methods involve microwave spectrosrapy, tmueloar magectic resonance iat solide aud liquids, molecular hand spectroscopy, ete.’ Measured values of wing~ netic moments are listed mm Table 4-2 of the Appendix, In all eases, nuclei with TO have w = 0: this can be shown to he # general quantun-mechanical result, ‘The magnetic moment of a comple nucleus is the vector sum of contribu. tious from the spins and orbital motion af its component nucleons, each of whose contributions are given by (1-T) aud (L-8).? An understanding of this vector suri clearly roquires am understanding of the deta clei. This problem will he discussed in Sec, T=. In most hooks un electromagnetism, it is shown that eleetric charge produces an elvetrical potential which, at a large distance & + direction, can be expanded as voip tp cay . veal [Apo sap fat tay f nti — ay ] ry where p is the charwe density aud the integral is over the region containing th ceelrie charge, Beeause of the increasing powers of F in the denominator, th is a rapidly conversing series. The integral in the first term is the net ebarges for very large R, only this term is important, and the potential is the sare as all the charge were located at a point. ‘The integral in the second tert ig ealled the dipole moment, the iutegrab in the third term is called the quadrupole moment, es It will bo shovu in Sec. T-L that a nucleus must have a zero electric dipole moment, so the lowest-order deviation ftom the field duc to a point charge arises from the quadrupole montent, descriptions of these methods for determiniag waynetic moments and elactaie quadrupole manicats are given in WT. A. Tage, “lutroduction to Nuclear Physics,” Addison-Wesley, Reading. Mass., 1966, and in Nucl. Deta, 5: 443 (1909). More complete descriptions ure raferred to in the Further Reading Hist st de end of this chapter Tn addition hece uns small contebotions from: meson exehnge eucrents, which we: ore here, + Por example, W. M. Sehweare. 1964, intermediate Electromagnetic Theory," Wiley, New York, “These are not the moat generil definitions of the dipole and quadrupole miomenta, 28 they depend on the chinios of the coordinate axes. ‘Some Other Properties of Nuclei 9FIGURE 15 Two exampios of systems hav- ing an electric quadrupole momant: (aj four polnt charges lecated as shown: {b) a unt: form positively charged distribution of ‘llipsoidal shape (at the left) which Is elec- ‘rically equivalent to a uniform positively charged sphere plus extre positive and negative charges as shown at the right. Two examples of charge distributions containing nonzero electric quadrupole moments are shown ‘The example in part (a) is the simplest case, and. the fact that it consists of four charges is responsible for tie name; note tha its net charge and dipole monent are zero, whence the entire field is produced by the quadrupole moment. The example in part (6), a uniformly changed ellipsoid, is more like what a nuclens might he; it has both a net charge and a quadrupole moment, but its dipole moment is zero. Its charge distribution can be well approximated, a8 shown at the right in the fignee, by a spherical charge distribution plus an elementary quadrupole. . There is well-knovin theorem in electrostatics which states that the cleetrie field duc to a uniformly charged shell at all points outside of it all the charge were concentrated atthe center of the shell. From 1 clear that the field duc to any nucleus with a spherically symmetrie charge distribution is the sane ax if all the charge were located at the center of the nucleus. This field can then be represented by the first term only of (1-9), s0 we may conclude that a nucleus with a spherieally symmetric charge distribution has xno electric quadrupole moment or higher electrie moments. This can, of course, also he easily derived from the expressions iu (1-9). Electric quadrapole moments of nuclei ean be determined from hyperfine the same as if ‘theorem it is 10 Introduction to the Nucleus.splitting of atomic spectrat lines, microwave nbsorption spectroscopy, molecular bbeam resonance methods, etc.’ A suenmiary of the results is given in Table A-2 of the Appendix. The explanation of electric quadrupole moments from the ru- clear structure standpoint is discussed in See. 7 Problems 1-L Calculate the mags of an Fe** nuelens iu kilograms, 1-2 From (1-1) and (1-2) calculate and plot the nuclou density distribution in Phew, 1-8 In the approximation that the nucleus has constant density pr for r< and zero density for r > R, calculate p: if R is given by (1-2); compare with 9 from (2-2), LA From the uneectaiaty prineiple ap Ar anid the fact that a nucleon is, confined the nucleus, what.ean be concluded about the energies of nucleons in a ancleus? 15 Calculate the ratio of the coulomb and gravitational frees between two protons. How does this ratio vary with the distauce between them? 1-6 Ifthe total angular-smomentum sjvantum number ofa nucleus with A = 00 Js I = Land if it is duc to a rotation of the nucleus as a rigid body, approxi- mately how many rotations per second would it make and how much energy ‘would be involved in this rotation according to classical mechanics? 1-7 Ifa prowe with nucleus with A to this motion? 1 traverses an orbit with radive equal to the radivs of a 3, what is the electric current and the inagaetie moment due 148 If the charges shows in Fig. I-ia are due to single electrons and protons and they lie cn the surface of a nucleus with A = 100, what is the quadrupole moment, in units of electron eharge-(Fersi)*? 1-9 Show that the electric dipole moment of the charge distribution in Fig. 1-56 is zero. 110 Hf the surface of the nuclens shown in Fig. 1-56 has the eqaation Py tLe = "S00 footnote 1, page 9. Problems 11where Ris the radius of a nucleus with A = 200, calculate its quadrupole moment. Assume that its total charge Ze is uniformly distributed through the volume, Further Reading See Generat References, following the Appendix Elton, L. R, B.: “Nuclear Sizes,” Oxford Luiversity Press, Loudon, 1961. Hofstadter, R.: “Electeon Scattering and Nuclear and Nucleon Structure,” Benjamin, New York, 1963. Kupferman, H.: "Nuclear Moments,” Academiv, New York, 1958, Ramsey, N. F.: “Nuclear Moments,” Wiley, New York, 1953. 12 Introduction to the Nucleus.Chapter 2 Quantum Theory of a Particle in a Potential Well In Soc. 1-4 we found that the wave nature of matter is relevant in considering ‘the motions of neutrons aud protons ia muck, ie,, that the nucleus is a quantum- mechanical system. Therefore we cannot proceed very far in our discussion with- out using quantum concepts. Most students have already been introduced to ‘these ideas in a modern-physics course. However, since the content of stich courses varies considerably, we devote this chapter to a review of these concepts, It includes nearly all the quantum mechanics needed for this book. We concentrate here on the problem of a particle in a potential well. Since 1 potential represents a force, this corresponds to the motion of a particle under the influence of a force. The force exerted by one nucleon on another and the average foree exerted on one nucleon by all the other nucleons in the nucleus are examples of situations in which this teeatmont is applicable. These, as we shail see, are among the central problems of nuclear physics. In general, the forces are complicated functions of coordinates, aa the poten- tial well is a three-dimensional one of complex shape. However, the most impor- tant concepts can be understood in terms of a one-dimensional well of rectilinear shape, popularly known as a square well, The mathematics is greatly simplified in this situation, #0 we start by using its in fact, in Sec. 2-1 we even introduce an additional approximation to simplify the treatment further. This simplification and then the rectilinear shape are dropped in Sec. 2-2, the problem ie generalized to three dimensions with some simplifying approximations in Sec. 2-8, and finally ‘the results of an accurate treatment are prescuted in Soc, 2-4. The usefulness of this slow, nmultistage development transcends the avoidance of mathematical complexity. The results of See, 2-1 and of the elementary aspects of Sec. 2-8 will serve the student well in economy of thought, Many sophisticated research physiciste think in terms of these elementary solutions and consider everything ‘else to be minor modifications of them. Other simplifications are introduced for economy of thought in Secs. 2-5 and 2-6. “21 Particle in a One-dimensional Square Well—Simplified Treatment ‘When we say that matter has a wave nature, we mean that a particle of matter is assoriated with a ware funtion Ya,y.2), which behaves like a wave as a function of position, ‘The physical interpretation of ¢ is that y* di dy dz is the probability that the particle will he found within the interval z to x + dx, y to y + dy, 2 to 2+ dr. The wavelength associated with ¥ for a particle of mass AT and velocity v is h A ey where we have used the familiac expression for the total energy, B = }5f0* + Vy with V representing the potential energy. ‘These ideas are most easily applied to a particle in a one-dimensioual square potential well (Fig. 2-1), and the most interesting cases are when F< 0, so that the particle is hound, ie., not free to escape from the well, Based an the ahove ‘ideas, the simplest assumption would he i L A cos ke or A sin he en Particle In a One-dimensional Potential Well—Accurate Treatment 15=o been | ' FIGURE 22 Energoe and wave functions for a particle nthe one-dimensional square well shown Inine upper figie- Dashed lines are the soins the simplified trentmentf See 2 witnenergiex siren by @5) and nave Tunclone gram by (22s), Salta tines are the saltons trom the accurte treatment of Sec. 72, with energies abtnined from the salutlon ofthe fat a 0) and wavefunction given by (2-4) with the last tro equations of (2-10). (note that £ is negative). Acceptance of these solutions goes beyoud our simple picture of matter having a wave nature, but it turns out to be correet, Fquation (2-6), with the substitution of (2-3) and (2-1), ean he written ah dy 2M ae + Ve = By ay and is kuown as the time-independent Sehrédinger equation in aue dimension. In addition, quantum theory ituposes the requirements that ¥ and dy/dr be finite and con nuous everywhere. The requirement on is natural in view of the physical interpretation of y# as a probability, and the cequirement on dy/de arises from a relationship between that quantity and the velocity in more ad- vanced treatments. 16 Quantum Theory ofIn our problem, then, some of the solutions are | A ek L L adn —beack teluer aot on gat JL ce neal Note that the solutions e for # > L/2 and efor # < L/2 are physically anne- ceptable since they hecome infinite, ‘Phe requicemerit on the eontinuity of $ at #= 4L/2 leads to Asin t= Bows = gees and the requirement of the continuity of dvdr abs = +L/2 gives kA cos kG = wale = art Solving these simultaneously, we find hk coe = np C=-B eam RL Be A sinh ait any The first of {2-10) can be satisfied uly by certain values of £, so again energy is quantized. Another set of solutions based ony = A cos hy inside the well ean be obs fained by analogous methods. The wave functions and energies for several states are shown by the solid fines in Fig. 2-2, (is readily seen that they correspond, closely with the solutions by the approximate method of the last section except nee # need not reach quite lo zero abc = £L/2, the “wavelengths” are slightly longer and consequently from (2-1) the energies ace slightly lower, Be- cause of this close correspondence, it is often convenient to think of the actual solutions in terins of the approximate ones. For example, the wave function ys may be referred to as the ane-ard-a-half-warelength solution, Once ¢ is known, the probability p(s) ds, that the particle will be between ands + drcan be calculated as pte) de = de an Particle in a One-dimensional Potential Well—Accurate TreatmentThe constant A is dotormined by requiring that the total probability for the particle to be at sore value of zis uaity, whence [eden ax ‘Next we cousider a situation where V(2) is not as simple as in Fig. 2-1 but isa more general funetion of 2, as in Fig. 2-8. This greatly complicates the mathe- maties in solving (248), and in general the solutions cannot be given in closed form; but qualitatively, they differ from those for a similar square well in thal the wave- length varies with z in accordance with (2-1), ‘The comparison is shown in Fig, 2-3 {or the lowest-eneray state Ei, where the square-well wave function is shown by dashed lines, The solid curve has a shorter wavelength near: = 0, where E-~ V is larger, and a longer wavelength at larger values of |x|, where & ~ V is smaller. (When we say a portion of a curve has a certain wavelength, we refer crudely to FIGURE23 Aone-dimens plicated shape (ior) and ‘the lowest energy state in it. A simias square well and the wave function for the ‘corresponding state in it are shown by the dashed lines, The difference between the twa wave functions Is exaggerated, 38 Quantum Theary of a Particle in a Potential Wellthe wavelength of a sine wave approximately fitted to it.) Prom (2-8), y changes from a “wave” (curving toward the # axis) to an “expon from the axis) at the value of 2 where F hecomes less than V, making E — V negative. The exponential falls off less rapidly for the solid curve since | — P| is smaller than for the juare well 2:3. Particle in a Three-dimensional Potential Welt—Simplified Treatment While the one-dimensional problem is very instructive, actual physical systems such as eu atom or a nucleus ave three-dimensional. In a three-dimensional peab- lem the wave function must be a wave in each of the three dimensions. Sinee systems like atoms and nuclei have basically spherical rather than rectangular symmetry, it is profitable to use spherical coordinates, so we can say crudely that ¥ must bea wave in the r direetion, a wave in the # direction, aud a wave in the # direction, Let us first concentrate on the # direotion, ‘The wave in the d direction must consist of an integral number of wavelengths around a cycle, or else it will cancel itself in successive cycles, This requires that mth Ber te ~ Mar ey ‘where 1 is an integer and w = do/dt. Equation (2-13) gives an especially interest- ing result for the orbital angular momentum , which is familiar in classical mechanics as L = so = Mr's, where # is the moment of inertia. Inserting (2-13), we find th b= Mito = 5 = th Thus the requirement that the wave function be a wave of wavelength h/ Muy in the @ direction leads to the result that. angular momentum is quantized. The accurate result obtained from solving the Sehrédinger equation LaVE DA eu ‘The 6 dependence of the wave fuuctions in this simplified picture is Yn @ 0s 18 oF to eH ‘Now let us focus our attention on the fact thet the + dependence of the wave function ¥, must be a wave in the r direction. Actually it turns out that a more convenient function than gr is u(r), defined as u(r) = rye e169 Particle in a Throe-dimensional Potential Well—Simplified Treatment 19‘This hae the property that p(r) dr, the probability of the particle's being be- tween rand r+ dr, is pio) dee fdr sin 0dr do da utd which is anologous to (2-11), This (7, it turns ont, that must be a wave. If the particle is in a potential well (7), the wavelength of the function u(r) is as given by (2-1), but if we want to concentrate our attention on the + direction alone, we must take into account the fact that the motion in the 8 direction gives an cffcctive force in the r direction, namely, the centrifugal force, Fy = Mu'r. From the definition of L and (2-14) this is rs M+ bn Mp MP which can be expressed in potential form as for = [Pes de Fig = Mate = 1 ean ‘The complete potential to be used in calewlating the wavelength from (2-4) is the sum of the potential arising from forces, V(r), plus Vay, whence the differ ential equation for u(r) is, in analogy with (2-8), _ Bee WEDD oy , a gee [va+ Tae ee ey ‘The problem of calculating wir) is now reduced to a one-dimensional problem like thoso treated in le previous sections. However, we sre that the differe equation must be solved separately for each 1. Tt is conventional to use the spectroscopic notation fainifiar from atomic physics, in which valtes of U are designated by letters, ag shawn in Table 2-1. ‘The simplest solution of (2-18) is for the s states (J = 0), since the ecntrifugal force term then vaniehos. If Vio) is taken to be a square well, Vo re VO) = ton the problem becomes very similar to the one solved in Sec. 2-2, There are two ditferences, however: (1} 7 never becomes negative, so we hi fe no region cor- ‘TABLE 241: SPECTROSCOPIC NOTATION FOR { VALUES. 20 Quantum Theory of a Particle in a Potential Wellresponding to the third of (2-9); and (2) we eannot have cosine solutions because they would make ¥ infinite at r = @ from (2-16). The only acecptable sotutions are therefore Asinkr or R where & and ¢ are defined in (2-3) and (2-7). From the conditions that the wave function and its derivative must be continuous everywhere, we obtain as bound ary conditions at r— utr) = Asin BR = Bew® A cos kR = — xB” Solving these simultaneously gives cok = — 5 an B = Ae® sin BR As was the caso in connection with (2-19), the first of (2-19) can he satisfied only for certain values of the energy E, so again we find that encray is quantized, The constant A can again he evaluated by the analog of (2-12) as AP [sin hr de + BP > em dr = 1 When these integrals are evaluated and the second of (2-19) is inserted, the result is (Gin? RR} tse) aT ‘The first column of Fig. 2-4 shows the effective potontial well for |= 0 Ejust V(0)], the energies of the states (abeted Es Bx» « . «) and their correspond ing wave functions, diy toy» . . » Tt is readily sven that they correspond closely to the solutions for the one-dimensional ease shown in Fig. 2-2. We shall refer to the energies and wave functions as Ey: and Yai, respectively, and call 1 a ‘quantum number. Its physical significance is that. Ey: is the nth lowest energy for orbital angular momentum J; we algo see from Fig, 2-4 that use goes through zero n times counting the one at r = 0 (but not counting the ono at r = #). For 1 0, the solation of (2-18) is more complicated. The two potential energy terms, V(r) and Var, are platted as dashed curves in the top row of Fig. 2-4, and their sum, the total effective potentials, are shown as solid lines. ‘These potentials are no longer square wells; to find the wave functions we must employ the ideas discussed in the last part of Sec. 2-2. Asan aid in drawing them, “oquiv- Particle in a Three-dimensional Potential Wall—Simplified Treatment 21the solutions for |= 0,2, 2, and 3, respectively. The top row shows the two contributors te the effective potential, V7) and V.,, a8 dashed lines and their sum, the offec- tive potential a soll lines, Square wells similar to these effective potentials are shovin as dot 9s; they were used in deawing the wave functions which are plotted below. Note that the half wavelengths in the range of r covered by the potantial well with ‘exponential tails going rapidly to 2070 inthe region outside the potential well. The energies of, ‘the states, shown in the top row, are moved upward as the well becomes shallower and nar- rower. The energies shown are not quantitatively correct for @ square well. 2 Quantum Theory of a Particle in a Potential Wellalent’ square wells have been sketched in as dot-dash Tines int the top row of Fig. 2-4. These equivalent aquare wells are not clearly defined (they are just square wells which ronghily approximate the actual potratial wells shown by the solid lines), but they will help in our discussion much as the aquace well in Fig. ‘was helpful. tis immediately evident that as J increases, the potential well becomes both narrower and shallower. ‘The narrowing arises from the faet that a pa high orbital angular momentum is strongly repelled from small ra ifugal force. As the well becomes narrower, the waveleugth of a wave which iven number of balf wavelengths into the width of the well becomes smaller, and, in accordance with (2-1), a shorter wavelength leads to a higher value of E-~ V. Thuts, the distance from the bottom of the equivalent square well to any given enorgy level, say Ey, increases with {. In addition, the battow of the well rises with increasing thereby pushing the energy levels up event higher. For hhoth these reasons, Eu, Ean Ext ett. inerease monotonically ‘The wave functions are simultaneously squeezed toward larger ca For wells other than square well, everything happens ina quali ilar way. For the 1/r well encountered in the hydrogen atom, Bi, is it coincides iu energy with H,. Similarly Fhas ey, and £). coincide nay be expressed as si up 60 far th in energy; eto. Th Bas = Boryn = 007 = Beesne The n quantum aumber commonly used in atomic physivs is x + 1 im our nota- tion. This coineidence in energies is valid only for the L/r potential: the potentials applicable in nuclear physics do not deviate from a syftare well nearly as dra- matically as the 1/r potential does, so the shifting of Baz with increasing ¢ is much Less rapid. Before closing our discussion of the solutions of (2-18), it fg interesting to point out that there are not necessarily any hound states of a system even thongit the forces are attractive. For a state to be hound, E aust be less than zero, whence, from (2-3), the maximus value of & is ke aM Vo ad 7 In order to satisfy the first equation of (2-19), the left side must be negative, which requires that Ragalt be greater than /2. With theabove expression for ks the condition that there be at Teast one hound state becomes sar hyt VIMVEG > 5 Particle in a Three-dimonsional Potential Weil—Simplified Treatmont 23which simplifies to yore TE Von > Te ey When this condition is not fulfilled, the system has no bound states even thongh the foroes are attractive. Up to this point we have made use of the fact that ¥ must be a wave in hoth the # and r directions, and this has led us to two quantum numbers, (and n, respectively. We have still to consider the consequences of the fact that vis a wave in the direction. Clearly this wave, Tike that i dircetion, roust eon of an integral number of wayclengths around a cycle to avoid cancellation am successive eyeles. The applicable ra tion requires for $ motion is r sin 4 s0 this condi > = mde = mt nl Bar sin 0 = midy = mu gh Mag sin 6 where mz ig an integer and a is the # componeut of angular velocity. In classical mechanics, the : couponent of orbital angular momentwa Lis Li = MP sin? 6, Combining these two equations gives La thems ow We see that Ly is quantized to integer vaiues of A, giving vise to @ third quantum umber, m. Since the 2 component of any vector must not be larger than the: vector itself, Ly < Li whence from comparing (2-14) with (2-21) we find Ira 0 and n> Lan at a considerably higher energy, s0 it seems not unlikely, in view of the fact the the lowest state is barely hound, that these states should be unbound. But what about the Is, $= 0 slate, the state which differs from the ground state only ir that the spins of the neutron and proton are antiparallel rather than parallel Apparently it is also at-a high enough energy to be unbound. Actually this state ia known from scattering experiinents, anc! it turns out to be unbound by onl about 60 keV. But Uhe important point is that here we bave a case where thi nergy of a state is different if the spins are parallel than if ey are antiparallel From See. 2-3 we know that the energy of a state depends only on the potentia well, which is derived from the farce, We can therefore cowclude that the foret between a nevetron and a proton is spin-dependent; it depends on whether the spins are parallel or antiparallel, whether their total spin is S= 1 or S = 0, The nuclear force is not just a function of r like the coulomb and gravitational forces, but it depends on other thingss and worse i yet to come. 3-4 Effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle We are now at a point where we might begin to wonder about why the two-nets tron aud two-proton systems do not have stable states. Does this imply that the nuclear foree is alse different between two neutrons aud between a neutron and a proton? ‘The answer to this question is basieally no, but this takes some explana- tion. To understand the problem, one must take into account the Pauli exclusion 36 The Nuclear Forceprinciple, This prineipte plays a very important part ia atomic physies, as we all junow, but in most elementary moder-physies courses, itis introduced only in a limited form. For the present application, we must couisider it more deeply.! It is commonly stated in elementary school science courses that “no two objects are exactly alike.” This gives a good account of the fact that no two suiowllakes are exactly alike, but it is just not true in the atomie aud nuclear worlds. It is a hasic tenet. of quantam physics that all the information one ean have about a system is its wave function, and certainly the wave functions of all hydrogen atoms are exactly the same, Two hydrogen atoms are therefore indis- tinguishable in principle, Tt is not only very dificult to toll sny difference be- tween them, but it is absolutely impossible. They are absolutely identical, as are any two electrons, any two protons, any two nentrons, any two denterons, ete, In many cases the fact that. two particles or two systems of particles are identical presents no complication since they can be kept separate by their loca~ tions, However, let us consider the situation for the two electrons ina helium atom, The probability of electron L being at (rfid: and of electron 2 being nal to the square of the wave function Yrs, biste 42): for skort we call this ¥(1,2). For example, if we take the potential as @ square welt (a poor approximation for a coulomb potential, but it illustrates the point) and consider the region r < Ry the wave furiction from See. 2-2 might. be sin kury sin srs oo where ky and ky are the solutions of (2-19) correspo Notice that we have taken the wave functi ing to energies By and By a as a product ¥ = valrabvetrad on ‘This may he understood from the fact that the probability far clectron L to be at r; and for electron 2 to he at ry is the product of the individual probabilities for I to be at rs and for 2 to be at rs, which cam be expressed as Ve = belt) just the result. we would get fro (3-7). examining (3-6), we notice someth implies that we can distinguish between partic not possible Just from their iocations: from (3-6) either particle can easily be at almost any Yalue of r ( § isthe spin-dependent force discussed in Sec. 3-3; we have already seen thal r+ $ is nol allowed but (r-$)¥ is allowed and is, in fact, the tensor force discussed in Sev. 3-5. A prod of $+ $ and (r+ §)! sould be indistinguishabte from the tensor force sinee that force is applicable only for S = 1, in which case the valuc of $+ $ is determined. Inaddition to these veetors, there is o18 other property that a static nueleon- nucleon force can depend on, namely, the parity of the wave function describing the system. While this may seem strange at first, a reasonable explavation will be given in the next section. Since the parity depends on whether L is even of odd, this means thal. the force is different for even L than for odd £, A complete list of possible static forces therefore includes six members (a: $= 0, Ladd, central (Be S = 0, Leven, central ): S = 1, Lodd, central (Dy: S = 1, Leven, central ow (BE): S = 1, Lodd, tensor Fs S = t Leven, tensor ‘The most general static potontial is the sum of those six terms, cach being @ fune- tion of 7, as V = Vale) + Vale) + Vole) + Vole) + Vole) + Vote) easy) General Properties of the Nuclear Forc—Static Forces 43with the subsidiary condition that terms are zoro unless L and S are as in (3-14), For example, in the ground state of the deuteron, all terme are zero except Vo and Vp. 3-7 Exchange Forces Tt may seem intuitively repulsive for the nuclear force to depend on whether $= or | and on whether / is even or odd. This behavior is due to the fact the nuclear foree arises from the exchange of mesons, as will be discussed in Sec. 3-9, and mesos exchange leads to exchange forces. There are three types of exchange forces: the space-exchange, or Majorana force; the spin-exchange, or Bartlett, force: and the space-spin exchange, or Heisenberg, force. The Majorana potential Viz, as it operates on a ware fancti defined as ¥, may be Vv = rule where tw(r) is an ordinary function of r and P* is an operator which exchanges ‘the positions (but not the spins) of the two particles in the wave funetion which follows. Ina two-nucleon system, exchanging the xo particles is a reflection about the origin, and we have already seen in See, 2-7 that such a reflection changes the sign of gif the parity is odd and leaves ¥ unchanged if the parity even. Since the evenness or oddness or parity was shown in See. 2-7 to depend only on the evenness or oddness of L, ray [MON Leven Me nine Ladd ow Tn view of the fact that ¥ appears in the Schrédinger equation (2-23) followed by y, (8-16) fully takes into account the effects of P+. We sew that the Majorana force provides an explanation of the fact that the nuclear potential depends on whether Z is even or odd. “The Bartlett potential Vy is defined as ve where ra(e) is an ordinary funetion of ¢ and P* is an operator whici interchanges ‘the spins (hut not the spatial positions) of the two particles in the wave function which follows. From @-11) we see that interchanging spins does not affect the wave funetion if 8 = 1, and ftom (12) we ser that if S = 0, interchanging (PY spins merely changes the sign of the wave function. Therefore we have: ty S=1 Vie = 7 slew oan The Nuclear ForceThis fully takes into account the effects af the P# operator aud provides an ex- planation for why the nuclear potential is different for S'= 0 and S = 1. Since from the familiar properties of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, sis=se+y-[? (3-17) can be expressed more succinetly as’ Vath) = (8° ~ Draieiy aun ‘The Heisenberg potential Vi is defied as Var = tu(r) PP Combining the effects of Pr and Pr, we find [ S= 1, Leven tudes Oren} o.T=0 S=0,Leven). , WO SL noua Jie Vig = oy 1 where ry,(r) is an ordinary funetion of 7. The isobaric spin T is a vector which has the same mathematical propertion as S, whence Gel8) can he expressed rote succinctly as? Vag = (0+ T= Loolay Gam) It.can also be readily checked that (3-16) can be written? Vuk = (8-8 — DTT = Devo Gta) This works out to vur(r)y for Leven and —ey(riy for L odd for either $ = 0 or S = 1, as couuired by G16). In addition to the three exchange forces, there cat also be an ordinary, i.e, no exchange, force called a Wigner fore: it ean be written View = twtoy "oo atydents familiar with 2 opezators, Cl-Ia) can be written in ite more eotmion forms Vole) «a + er erate + In terms of raporators, which bear the sa1se relationship to operators ay"T does Wo S, (+184) and (3-160) can be written Vw Vat SMa terete HMO Feed br Tew Exchange Forcesregardless of S or L, Tn torms of these four basic potentials, the central potentials in (3-14) can be written in accordance with (316) to (3-18) as (A) S$ =0,bodd: Va = tw ~ tu te tte (B) 8 = 0, Leven Va = te +t to (©) $= 1, Lodi Ve =e — owt ty — ne ~” (D) S=VLeven: = Vente bowt oboe Since these are four linearly independent equations in four unknowns, we see thal expressing the central part of the muelear force as a sum of the frst four terms in (3-15) is completely equivalent to expressing it as a sum of Vir + Var Vax + Vax Since the exchange forces have a physical basis in meson theory, this, gives a physical basis to the four centeal potentials in (8-45). Similarly, the eo tensor potentials Vz and Vy of (15) ean be expressed in terms of tensor components of Vis, Var, Va, and Vx, which are proportional to Sisewr(t, SuctunG), Sreter(), and Sit (r), respectively, where ter, « « . are simple fané- tions of # and Siz is from G13). Here again the two cepresentations are com- pletely equivalent As a result of this equivalence, by using the exchange forces (8-160), (3-174), (3-180), we can write (18) as a single expression, V = te) + Serer) — (8-8 — DTT = Diese) + Serr) 4 (S68 > Dbl) + Serartrl) = UT = Lilewir) + Sure) 2m “The form (3-20) is sometimes of value due to ils forsaal simplicity in not requiring subsidiary conditions, However, the experiments directly determine the eix poten tials in (3-15), so it is more conventional to use that expression the form 3-8 Velocity-dependent Forces While we might have hoped that the nucleae force is stat It is therefore useful to consider the simplest velocity-dependent forces. White this name is widely used, what we shall really be discussing is moneentum-deper= dent peientiats, Why we use potentials instead af forees is obvious from the fact that quantum theory is formulated in terms af potentials (see Chap. 2}; one clear reason for using momentum rather than velocity is that the latter behaves peculiarly in the relativistic energy cegion and there is nothing leading us to believe that the nuclear force behaves that way. If, as now seems probable, the nuclear force has a very complex velocity dependence, it can be discovered only by continuous studies of two-nncleon sys- twins at ever-increasing energics, However, if our principal intereet is in under- standing mnclear structure, we need understand only the mnclear foree up to the gies of nucleons in uuclei, whieh ig not snore than a few hundred MeV. One ht hope that itis sullicient for this purpose to cousider a low-energy approxi- 4§ The Nuclear Forcemation, in which the Towest-arder lors ia the momentum p are the most inipor- tant in momentiem-dependent potenti In view of our discussion of the last section, the simplest terms of lowest order in p would he scalar products of p and I, with r and 8. OF the four possible combinations, the ouly one that fias not already heew eliminated by our rulvs is L+ 8. There is very good evidence for such a term in the potential; itis called the spincorbit inleraction. Lbs twagnitude obviously depends on the angle hetween the spin and orhital motion as well as on the magnitude of L: if 8 = 0, it vanishes. Many move complicated scalars of the first order i p can he formed from four four veetors, but all tart oat to he forhidden by the rales given in the last sention or to he equivalent to the spin-orbit term, Let us illusteate Usis with a fow examples, If the velocity dependence is given by a p, rule 2 requires that there also be aut odd power of r and yule 8 requires that there be an odd power of $ (note that there cate no L if it is fo he of first order in p). ‘hese recquirements would be satisfied by r+ p X $ or p+ XS, but in both cases these are identically equal toe X pS = 1-8, I the velocity depeudence is given by an L, rule 2 requires that there be an even poner of e aud rule 3 vequires that there be an odd power of S: (rx S)-{r xf) would satisfy these requirements, but thi reduces by a veetor identity to (r+ 1)(L» 8) ~ (r+ Ey(e+ $) and the second term is zero torn the definition of 1, whence we again have only the L$ term. It can be sllawn quite yenevally Uial no other Lernt of frst order in velocity depend= ence ## possible Tt would have been very pleasint if the available data on two-nueleon sys tems could have beeu fit witht no other velocity dependence than at T+ S$ term, and several extensive attempts have bees made to do just this, However, not even semiquantitative fits to the data could be oblaizied, so il was concluded that higher-order yolocity-dependent terms wert zweeded. The obvious nest step is to Surlude terms of second order in p, which means that they comtain two powers of p or L or our power of cach, If there arc two powers of p or F, the rules of See. 3-6 neq tlrat there be eveu powers of r and $; satisfactory examples are psp, Lee L, or (e+ 8)? If there is one power each of pand 1, the rules require ati odd power ofr, which in most simple expres- sons ears he converted tor x p = L. Tu any ease, Hie number of possible terms With second-order velocity dependence is so large that no one has yet tried to determine the importaues of all of them. The usaal approach is to use aly some of the simpler ones, and with these, reasonably satisfuctory fits to the experitental data ou the two-nuclewn gystem haye been obtnined. 3:9 Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces Forces in physics are derived from quantum field theories, but quantum field theory is among the most complex concepts of theoretical physics. It is generally Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces 47not dealt with before second-year graduate courses, 80 we cannot go into it her, except in @ most elementary way. ‘A somewhat familiar example of a quantum field theory is the one whict ‘teats the electromagnetic force, In it, this force is transmitted by the exchangt of the field particle, namely, the familiar photon, Electromagnetic field theary thus explains the coulomb force without hypothesizing the philosophically dis tasteful idea of action at a distance. It explains why that force is not trans instantaneously but with the velocity of light. It has had great success in predict ing probabilities for auch electrouagnotic interactions as the photoslectric affect Compton scattering, pair production and armnihitation, bremsstrahlung, ete, none of these probabilities can be calculated in any other way, All in all, it hai been a useful and successful theory. ‘The gravitational Geld also is presumably derived from a quantum fila theory. The force is assumed to be carried by a field particle, the graviton. Like the photon, it has zero mass and travels with the speed of light ax it ie exchanged between particles of matter. “The nuclear force also derives from a quantum field theory, and in this ease the prineipal field partielo is the x meson, which, fortunately, las been observed and studied extensively. It has @ mass abont 270 times that of the electron (M,ct > 140 MeV) and occurs in three forms, with positive, negative, andj neutsal (zero) electric charge. : There is one immediate and simple consequence of the fact that the field: partie for the nuclear force, unlike that. for the electromagnetic and gravitational’ forces, has @ finite mass; namely, the force is of short range. To sce this, we note thal when a meson is sent from one nucleon to another (as it must be to transmit, the nuclear force}, the ereation of the meson violates conservation of energy by! an amount A£ of the order of the meson rest mass M, ! AB Mut Such a violation of energy conservation canupt Inst longer than @ time Af which, from the uncertainty principle, is Even assuming that the meson travels it ean go in this time is 1, the farthest ; on This is the punge of the nuclear fore. Nut whieh i sally it works out to be 14 Fy general agreement with our provious discussion. Note that a similar 48 The Nuclear ForceFIGURE 3.3 The Yukawa potential, Eq. 02, ‘aleulation for the electromagnetic or gravitational field yields an infinite range singe the mass of the fiold particle is zero, A vory elementary calculation from meson field theory gives the potential energy of interaction hetweent two nmcleons as or vee on where y is a constant and pis defined by (3-21). This potential is shown in Fig. 3-3 It was fiest obtained by H. Yokawa in 1937, and is commonly known as the Yukawa polentiat. For the more advanced student, the plausibility of (3-22) may be made more evident as follows. The electromagnetic field is well known to be derivable from Maxwell's wave equation 108 oe 1 ee aa ex) This may be considered to he derived quantumn-mechanically from the energy equation for photons =e B= 0 en with the usual operators —AY substituted for p an ‘The time-independent field equation is obtained fror ih /0l substituted for E, (3-23) by taking B= bie en Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces 49Using this in (3-23), we find that ¢ obeys ve=0 ow which has the welldenown solution emf ex Proceeding by analogy for the meson field, the encegy oquation is apie Met + B= 0 2) ‘which, with the substitution of operators, becomes v2 yoo amy where wis as defined in (3-21). Using (3-25), the field equation becomes Vig — ate = 0 0-268) for which the solution is, % erm “The constant 7 ceenpies @ place in meson theory analogous to tat of e in eleetro- magnetic theory, #o as the potential encrgy in tho latler ease ie V = e6, in the former itis 76. Using this in (@-272) leads to (8-22). A more detailed calculation from meson theory gives an elaboration of (3-22), the one-pion exchange potential (OPEP}, which may be written as! # ape: (MAY cop. 343 yer ~ awe (Tiy ent [+e coll ean where Siz is the expression for the tonsor foree, (3-13). It fs important to nate that (3-28) is of the form (3-20), with vp, rs, to, and ty all nonzcre, Hence we se from this exsnple Uhat the tensor force and the four exchange forces of See. 3-7 arise in a natural way from meson theory. The eonstant g in (3-28) has heen determined from experiments with mesons (meson-nucleon seattering). Its value is auch that the dimensionless quanlity g3/he is about 0.3. This quantity plays a role in meson field theories analogous to eke = Hfg7 in electromagnetic field thoory. In tevating electromagnetic peromens, an expansion is frequently made in powers of e?/Ae, and we see that this gives a rapidly converging series. Tn analogous expansions in mwson theory, however, the convergence is obviously such more questionable, which lends fo many serious difliealties. Another way to state this problem is to point out that the potential (3-28) corresponds to the exchange of ane-x meson, whereas, when two mucleons are close § 2 [as-s-o+5 \ Por students forilie with e uperators, 28-8 — 3 =e. :2T-T eter, 50 The Nuclear For:enough, itis possible far bro mesons to he exchanged simultaneously. Tn compar json with the calculation leading to (3-21), AB is twice as large, whence Ab is halved, whence the range of the force is halved. This then contributes terms to the potential proportional to e~*", Similarly, triple meson exchauge leads to terms proportional to €*, ete, Unfortunately, multiple meson exchange is a very cou plicated process which cannot be treated wnanibignously hy current field theories, 10 its effect on the muclear force cannot be reliably catcutated, In addition to the © meson, there are other mote massive mesons which cuutribute to tie nuclear foree. ‘These are all bosons, which for present purposes means they have intager (or zero) spin, and they have zcro hyperckarge, a elassi- fication used in elementary-particle physics. The best known of these are 3 meson: My! = 549 MeV ‘p meson: Myc! ~ 769 MeV ‘w meson: M,c = 73 MeV Fach of these leads to terms of the form (3-22) with y given by (3-21) with the approptiate rargon. mass. Ih accordance with @-21}, the range of the forces due to heavier mesons and maitiple mesou exchange is considerably fess than that due to one-pion exchange, 80 (8-28) is valid at large distances, say > 3 F 3:40 Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering In Se. 3-1 we pointed out that there are two basic methods for studying the nuclear force, by studyinig the bound state—the deuteron—and by stndying the scattering of nucleons by nucleons. From the properties of the deuteron we learned a great deal about. the nuclear potential; we estimated its range and depth and found that it was spin-dependent and had a noncentral component. However, by far the most. powerful tevhniqrue for investigating the nuclear force is nticleon- rueloon scattering. ‘A simple scattering experiment similar to the one shown in Fig. I-L consists of shooting a beam of nentrons or protons at a target of hydrogen and observing the probability for various angles of deflertion. A hydrogen target is equivalent, toa target of protons, since the electrons in hnydrogen cannot deflect an incident, neutron or proton any more than a basketball can deflect an automobile; in both ceases, the latter is about 2,000 tines heaviee than the formacr. We have here two different experiments, n-p and p-p scattering. The latter system is restrieted hy the Pauli exclusion principle to the T= 1 states so only potentials B, C, and E'of (3-15) are effective, whereas all six potentials ace opera- tive in n-p scattering. ‘The two experiments therefore give complementary Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering 511,000 100 40/29, mbar do /d9. most yo 10 0 19 20 30 40 60 60 70 a0 0 20 40 60 80100 340 180 Fu Pom we @ FIGURE 2-4 Results trom nucleon-nucleon scattering experiments. Cross sections for (a) ‘op and (0) nop seattating at various angles tor various incident energies (numbers attached to curves, in MeV). (From M. J. Moravesit, "The Two Mucieon Interaction,” Clarendon Press, Oxtord, 1963; by cermission.) information. The seattering of neutrons by neutrons, n-n seattering, hus not yet been studied experimentally because sofficiently concentrated targets of neutrons are not available. A summary of some of the results of p-p and n-p seaitering experiments at energies above 9 MeV is shown in Fig. 3-4. The data al iower energies wonid look Jess spectacular on plots of this type, but they are remarkable for their extreme accuracy. ‘The analysis of these data makes use of quantum-mechanieal scattering theory, whieh is beyond the scope of this text, It allows the measured cross sections to he transformed into a phase shift for each Land J = |1. + Slin theineie dent beam, Measurements at various energies determine the energy dependence of these phase shifts, Many shortcuts and tricks have been developed for the analysis. For example, all the low-energy data cam be described by just two paramoters, a scattering length and an effective range. Much of the anelysis is now computerized. in addi nto simple scattering experiments, there have been double- ‘52 The Nuclear Forceswattering experiments, in whieh the seattered particles are deflected again by asccond target, and even triple-scattering experiments. In some cases, polarized sms, ie., beams of particles with their spins predominantly in the same dir tion, and polarized targets have been used. A complete analysis of these exper ments determines 10 indepenstent quantities, exch being # function of angle and of encrgy. The eross section shown in Fig. 8-4 is only one of these; another will be shown in Fig. 3-6. ‘To illustrate the value of these more complex measurements, let-us give an. example of how a double scattering experiment can reveal the existence of a spin-orbit force. Consider the experimental arrangement. in the upper part of Fig. 3-3. For simplicity let us assume that the onily force operating is the spin- ings on a micro- jncussed in the tont. The shaded circes are ‘the target nucleons. TARGET 1 incident ‘eam g TARGET 2 a fy ® TARGET 2 w Nucleon-Nucleon Seattering 53orbit force and that it is attractive if the spin S and orbital angular momentum L, are in the same direction ¢parallcl) and repulsive if they are in opposite dirce- tions (antiparallel). Now consider the microscopic description shown in Fig. 3-50, whore the citele is a target proton. ‘The spin of the target proton can he out of the page (out) or into the page (in). First let us assume that itis ie. If the incident particle has spin out, the total spin is zero, 80 there is no spin-orbit foree and no deflection. If the spin of the incident pacticle is in, the net spin is in and we have two possibilities to consider: (1) if it passes to the right of the nucleus, Lis oul (e right-hand serew would move out if rotated in the way the line joining the two partictes is rotated), so L and S are antiparallel, the motion is thorefore repulsive, and the incident particle is deflected to the right; (2) if t passes to the let of the nucleus, the orbital angular momentuc is i, whence I. and § are parallel, the force is atirmotive, whence again the particle is dellected to the right. Note thet. in oth eases, te spin is in and the particle is deliceted to the righ All the above analysis was under the assumption that the target spin ig ia. AE the target spin is out, a sintilar argument shows that incident particles with spin fn ace not deflected and those with spin ouf are deflected to the left mgardless of whether they pass to the Ieft oF right of the target proton, In summary, spin-in, particles are cithee not deflected or ave deflected to the right, and spin-out par- ticles are cither uot dellected or auc deflected to the left. To look at things anather ‘way, the particles dellected to the right are polarized in that they all have spin in while those deflected Lo the lett are polarized in having spin oat. In an ordinary single-seattering experiment, this polarization is uot observed; from the symmetry of the experimental setup, a detector wiich is insensitive to polarization must record the same number of particles at a given angle on cach side of the beam. Llowever, if these particles undergo a second scattering in target 2, we again expect that spin-ie particles will be deflected to the right and spin-out particles to the left, But there acc no spin-ou! particles striking the target, so no particles are deflected to the fell, Hence, if detectors are placed at positions (R) and (2) n Fig. 3-5a, the detector at (22) will record a great number of particles white the detector at {L) will record uote, In actual cascs, of course, there are other forves than the spin-orbit force present, and the situation is more complex, but still among the particles dellected to the right iu the first scattering there will be more with spin in than with spin out, and thece will be more particles detected at (R) than at (0). The polarization P is defined by {R) ~ (L) pial L) (Fo) where (ft) and (£) are the number of partivles reaching the detectors designated by those symbols, Mensured values of P are shown in Fig. 36; note that the am 54 The Nuclear Forceos asa a os 03 oo oe 029 on 030 Po P ozs . 01 020 f moa ois “03 a0 708 6 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 60 20 78 G0 40 60 UO 100 120 140 160 180 ‘ fo Co) FIGURE 3-5. Polarization in nucleon-nucleon scattering experiments. This is P, as defined by G29), a5 gle in the two scatterings, for various energies of the incident Daicle a5 designated in MeV by the numbers on tho curves: (2) n-p and (0) p-p scattering. (ftom M. J. Moravesit, "The Two Nucleon interaction,” Clarendon Prass, Onfors, 1968; by peemission.) determination of its sigu requitcs a different type of esperiment, whieh wa shall w: here, From these data, information on the spin-orbit force can be 3-11 The Nuclear Force as We Now Know It We are now, at last, in # position to discuss the results of all the experitnents and theoretical analyses referred to in the previous sections, These results should not be considered to be the nucisar force but. a approximation to it. They will explain all our information about the deuteron plus all the information obtained from aucleon-nucleon seattering experiments up to about 350 MeY. In addition, there fre some data of importance om the reaction (3-1), on the breakup of deuterons by gamuma rays, aud on scattering of neutrons by hydrogen molecules. The prin- cipal reason for the 350-MeV limitation is that at higher energies the production of y mogons in nucleon-nucleon scattering becomes important (the energy avail~ able in the center-of-mass system is sufficient to produce the rest mass of a x meson ‘The Nuclear Force as Wa Now Know It $5above 270 MeV), and this fact greatly complicates the analysis. Other contribut- ing reagons are that the velocity dependence becomes more important at. higher mergies so nse of the lowest-order terms ix not justified, there are fewer high- quality experimental data available, and one might hope that higher energies do not play a very important role in nuclear structure, vex: to explain the data up to 350 Mev, it is necessary to include velocity- dependent terms of lowest, and next lowest order, so we have a potential with & great many terms, each being an arbitrary function of r. Since there are not nearly enough data to determine all these functions at all radii, meson theory is used as an aid in the qualysis. This is done in either of two ways. A purely. empirical approach is to take the r dependence as a linear combination of terms like (3-22) with various values of « and y adjusted to fit the experimental data. A moce ambitious approach is to use a onte-boson exchange potential (OBEP) in which single exchange of each of tie mesons listed in Seo. 3-9 is treated in details this ignores multiple meson exehaage, but these elects are presinmed to be less im- portant except at quite small distances. Unfortunately, the OBEP approach docs not fit the experimental data when only the known mesons are ineluded, so it is necessary to assumie the existence of one or 4wo additional mesons for Which there is no direct experimental evidence. ‘This approach is therefore not, much more basic than the purely empirical approach. Since the latter is more accurately developed, it is more widely used in applications to uwelear structure andl we shall use it here. In deter the detailed behavior of the potentials al small radii by seattecing experiments, we run inte the fundamental diffraction limitations men Hioned in See. 1-2. The wavelength of 330-MeV nucleons is about 1.4 F, so we caumot hope to determine a great deal of detail about the structure of the potential at radii much smaller than this, Unfortunately, much of the region of greatest interest is blucred by this limitatic With these apologies and imitations in mind, let us now consider Ue results, ‘The most important qualitative feature of the results is that the nucleon-nucleon force contains a repulsite core: ic. it becomes very strongly repulsive at distances {ess than 0.3 F, This is widely believed to be due to forces arising from «meson exchange. Because of the ditfcaction limitation, the detailed nature of this repal- i he discerned, so for simplicity it is often taken as a hard eare, which incans that the potential goes Lo + at some value of r. ‘This means that two hucleons cannot approach one another closer thau this distance under any One of the most widely uscd nucleon-nucleon potentials is that due to Hamnda and Johastou.’ In addition to the six static potentials (3-14), it includes ©, Hamaga and 1D. Joliaston, Wark Phys. ts 82 (1962), ‘The Nuclear Forcespin-orbit. potentials for even Land odd £, referred to as F-8; and second-order velocity-dependent, potentials of the form [I - 1 — (L- $}#}, whic for even Land odd L and for 8 = | and S = 0. All tie central static potentials are taken to have a hard core at ¢ >: 0.50 F; that is, the potentials go distoutinu- ously to + © at that distaace. Since ove of these four is applicable in all situations and the addition of anything to © is still =, the hard core is effective in the tatat potential. ‘Phe 12 components of the Hamada-Jolinstou potential are shown in Pig. 3-7 We should remember here that a positive potential is repulsive and a uezative FIGURE 27 The components of the Hamads-Johnston patential. (From T. Hamada and f. 0. obosten, Nucl. Phys, 3: 382 (1962}] +100 b vi Mev ° - s=2 Sel s=0 s=0 100 - even ode L even L odd E D-L LL LL 1 200 fe +100 fF V, Mew ° s s= s-1 =100 even L ed Z odd *ensor tensor Ts ~200 Jeo 1 ib + a 4 & sa2 s= even Z| odd L ental ental 0519 20 0510 20 0510 20 Force as We Now Know It 57‘TABLE 3: FACTORS MULTIPLYING V2. AND Vans ON FIG. 37 +s} x Ves x View Le L L Lt +n -@+) Lis=) ot ab + 2b 1 L(S=0) - 2b +) potential is attractive. The L-S and L-L potentials shown are to be multiplied hy the factors listed in Table 3-1. Those factors dopend on the relative orientation of the Land $ vectors, as may be deduced from the frst column of that tabte; they arise from the values of LS and LL, themselves (note that we have avoided the problein of products of angular-momentum vectors because of its mathematical complexity). We see that these factors are sometimes much greater than unity and sometimes change the potential from attractive to repulsive or vice versa. (This is obviously true of the 1+ S term.) ‘The tensor potentiats, aside from a multiplicative factor close to unity, are as shown in Fig. 37 for he orientation of the particles relative to the spin as in Fig. 3-25; when the orientation is as in Fig. 3-26, the multiplicative factor is close to ~ I. We sce that the direction of the tensor force indicated in Fig. 3-2 is valid only in even-L states. It should be understood that the actual potential experienced by two inter- acting nucleons is the sum of all applicable potentials; e.g., if their spins are parallel (S~ 1) and they are interactivg in an L = 1 state, the applicable poten- tials are the fonrti in the bottont row, the second and fourth in the middle row, and the second in the top row. If the two interacting nucleons are both protons, there is, in addition, the coulomb force, Tis value is +14 MeV at r= 1 F, and it of course varies as 1/rs i plotted in Fig. 3-7, it would be too small to be dis- tinguished fom the ¥ — 0 line From the fact that all the potentials in Fig. 3-7 are different we may con= clude that exchange forces play a very itnportant role in the nuclear force. We may especially note that corresponding potentials for oven L and odd L tend to be of opposite sign. This implics that space exchange forces are especially strong, since we saw in See. 3-6 that this is Hhe foree thgt leads to a dependence on whether Lis even or odd. Its of interest to compare the potential What is most important jm the ground state of the denteron, the S = 1, evew-L, central potential, with the square well obtained in Sec. 3-2: the latter is shown hy a dashed line in Fig. 3-7. Some degree ‘of qualitative similarity is observed especially if it is uoted that our square well ‘extends to ‘The Nuclear Forceev 6 Raid softcore 400 eid softcore s 40 Lb 600. ~800 16 040812 >, Fermi FIGURE 3-8. Comparison of the Reid hard-core and soft-core potentials with the Hamada ohnston potential for various states of interaction. (Fram R. V. Raid, Ph.D. Thesis, Covnell University, (955,) ‘The Nuclear Force as We Know It 53In addition to the Hamada-Fohnston potential iMlustrated in Fig. $7, several other potentials haye been developed whick fit all available data ou the nuclean- hnueleon systems. The best-known of these are those developed by Breit. and coworkers at Yale and by Heid at Cornell, The former is quite similar to the Tamada-Johnston potential, but the latter handles the velocity dependence by using different potentials for each L value. In addition, one of the Reid potentials does not use a hard core but employs a repulsive potential at short distances with dependence of the Form (3-22) with « = 4.9 F-%; since it does not go abruptly to infinity, itis referred to as a softcore polential. ‘Tho Reid hard-core and soft core and Hamada-Sobnston potentials for a few typical states of interaction are counpared in Fig. 3-. While they are qualitatively similar, there are clear quan- titative differences. These differences may be considered to be @ crade measure of the degrer of uncertainty in our knowledge of the nuclear foree. While they do appear to be sahstantial, they are not lacge enoagh to lead to serious diffcn]- tics in applications to umelear-structure problems. 312 Charge Independence of Nuclear Forces For all the complications that Haye been encountered with the muelear force, there is one complication that could very easily have heen preseat but is nots i.e., with the obvious exception af the coulomb force between two protons, the potential of the last section arr the saine whether the juteraction is between lwo neutrons, a ncutron and a proton, or twa protons.” This fact, that the force is the same whether the nuclions are charged (protons) or uncharged (nextrons}, is referred to as charge independener uf nuclear forces. It has many interesting and important consequences for nuclear structure (see See. 6-8). 3:13 Many-body Forces Up to this point, we have been tacitly assuming that the uuelear force is a two body foree: i.e. if we have nucleons A, B, and € elose together, as in Fig. 3-9, the forces on 4 ate just Pan + Mavs where Fan is the force beween A and B if C were not present and Fac is the force between 4 and C if B were not present. ‘This is certainly the way electromaguctic and gravitational forces behave. From our picture of forces arising from meson exchange, this implies that meson ex- " Actually Uiece are stall dilerences that are outside the experisaental uncertainty, but itis widely hnlioved thet they cam he explained away by considerations froei wneson theory, deyend= ing pn the (etal) differences in muss between charged and neutral mesons. 60 The Nuclear ForceQ@ © © FIGURE 34° Three ‘mutually interacting faucleons. changes operate only between pairs. But it is immediately clear that other exchange patterns are present. For example, when otily two nucleons are present and one nucleon emits two mesons, both must be absorbra by the other nucleon, but if two other nucleons are present, one ean be absorbed by each. This would ive rise to a three-body force, one in which the above definition of « two-body force is not fulfilled. Tt is easy to soe that the meson-exehiange picture also predicts fonr-hody forces, five-body forces, etc., which are collectively referred to as many-body forees. ‘Since many meson massrs must be ereated simnultancously in these provesses, up to (3-21) requires that the range of the forces decrease as the number of “hodies” increases; crudely we may estimate that thr: range of hndy forces is L/(n — 1) times the range of the two-body force. Lf we take the range to be Us this is about 14, 0.7, 047, 035, .. Ffor 2434 4,55. ++ body forces, respectively. To estimate the distances between nucleons in @ nucleus, we note that the volume per unelcon is 1/A times the nuclear volume, whieh, from (1-2), is 4¢4(1.07 ¥); this implies that, on an average, cach nucleon eocupies the volume of a sphere with radius 1.07 F, whence the average distance between uacleous in the nucleus is about 2.4 F, Moreover, as was pointed ot in See, 3-10, nucleons almost never approach cach other closer than about 0.5 F duc to the very strong repulsion experienced at these distances, We may therefore expect that the two- body force would be by lar the most important one in determining noclear strue- ture and that four- or higher-body forees would be unimportant. The principal many-body foece which need coneern ns is therefore the three-body force. This i most easily studied in systems containing titre nucleons. ‘Que method of approach fa the problem is then to study three-rmeleon sys- ‘tems and see il theie properties can be calculated from two-body forces. If they cannot, this will be evidence for three-body forces. Three-nucleon systems can be studied as bound states, the TT? and He! nuclei, ot by scattering of neutrons or protons from deuterons, and a great deal of information is available. Many-body Forces 61The analysis is very diffienlt since the three-body problem cannot be solved exactly in classical mechanics and these sasne difficulties extend to quantuan mechanics. However, a great effort has heen expended on calculating the binding energy of Hi (the triton), which is experimentally kuown to he 8.48 MeV, The results seem to indicate that two-body forces give a binding of only about 7 MeV, which implics that about 1.3 MeV of binding derives from three-body forces. TT agceement with estimates from other approaches to the problem. From this we infer that three-body forers are about 20 percent as important as two-body forces in nucteis in more complex wuclei the estimates are about. 15 percent. Problems 3-1 If the binding energy of the deuteron bad been found to be 10 MeV, what. would he the approximate depth of the potential in Fig. 3-1? Plot the wave func- tion and estimate ra. 3-2 Solve 3-2) and (-4) simultaneously and accurately without introducing the approximations used in the text. 3-3 From the fact that the 8 — 0 state of the deuteron is just barely unbound (E~ 0) obtain a relationship hetween 1% and R for the squace-well appeoxi ion to the § = 0, even-! potential. [Hint: Note the development used to obtain (2-20)-| Compare the result. with the corresponding one for the S = 1, event potential 344 Since both the neutrou and proton have magnetic moments, there is a differ- ence in their enetgy in the two arrangements shown in Kig, 3-2c and 6, Estimate this ‘when they are separated by re aud whew the » vector joiuiug thein is parallel to their spins und perpendicular to them. Compare tis with the tensor force from F 3:5 Explain why the following dependences for potentials are not acceptable for use in this chapter: (a) Ur XS) > (eX SHS - S) xX Dep (2) (LS) L) ad) (opie 8) (2) Ge pL 8) 46 When a 10-MeV’ proton interacts with an electron which is initially at re what is the maxivum angle by which the proton can be deflected? Trrat both particles nonrelativistically. (2 The Nuclear Force3-7 Which of the pol Fig. 3-7 are applicable when @ neutron and a proton interact in an L = 1, 8 = 0 state? In an L = 2, 8 = O slate? Which are applicable when two neutrons interact in anf; = 3, 8 = 0-state? Inan b= 3, S= state? 38 Solve the deateron problem in Prob. 3-2 if the potential is a square well with « hard core at r ~ 0.5 F. 39 Lock up the Yale nucleon-nucleon potential? and compare it with the Hamada-Johnston potential. Further Reading See General References, following the Appendix. Brink, D. M.: “Nuclear Forces,” Oxford University Press, New York, 1965. Marshak, R, E.: "Meson Physics," MoGraw-Hill, New York, 1952. Moravesik, M. J.: “The Two Nucleon hiteraction,” Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963. Rosenfeld, L.: Nuclear Forces," North-llollaud, Amsterdam, 1948, Schwoher, S.S., H. A. Bethe, and F, detfoftman: "Mesous and Fields,” Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL, 1955. Wilson, .: "The Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction,” Interseionce, New York, 1963, 1, Segre, "Nuclet and Particles.” Beng New York, 1965 Further Reading 63Chapter 4 Complex Nuclei: Shell Theory If an accurate solution for the three-nucleon system is es diffiealt as described in Sec, 3-13, it is evident that an accurate solution for a nucteas with dozens or hundreds of nucleons is all but impossible. In order to understand the structure of complex nuclei, we must therefore resort to approximations. In the scerch for appropriate approximations, nuclear physicists have been extremely lucky: the simplest and easiest to use approach has turned out to be suzprisingly accurate, This chapter deals with the choice of this approximation and its development. 4-1 Choice of an Appropriate Approximation The approximation sed in the study of complex nuctet is to assume that fram the standpoint of any one nucleon, the forces exerted on it by all the other necleons in the nucleus can be represented, to a first approximation, ty @ potential well. For reasons that will become evident Inter, this potential well is known as the shell- theory potential, The power of this approximation is evident; Ue complex many- body problem is immediately converted to the simplest probles in all of quantum physics-—a single particle in a potential well, which is just the subject we reviewed in Chap. 2. Moreover, the problems of nuclear straetuce then become closely related to those of atomie structure, whence nuclear-structure theory inherits a rich legacy of calcalational techniques aud a wide variety of other experience. But while the convenience of this approach is obvious, its usefulness i not, immediately ctear. We know that the solution of the problem in this way will lead to an orbit picture, much like that for electrons in atoms, ‘This method can be useful only if the nucleons in the nacleus make one or maore turns around their orbits before undergoing an orbit-changing disturbance, somewhat as is illus: (cated in Fig. 4-14. On the other hand, if the motion is as in Fig. 2-10, where the direction is radically changed after a sinalt fraction of the orbit has heen traversed, the notion of orf less and our approximation is of little value, In the early tion resembled case (4), so other approximations wore tried. Models based on the motion of atoins in liquids or gases were cleveloped, but these approaches turnedwe FIGURE 41 Situations in which an orbit In @) nucleons traverse ‘ol an orbit betwaen collisions. out to be largely unfraitfal; the motions of nucleons in the mucleas are more ike case (2). When this was fiest realized from an analysis of experimental data in the late 1940s (M. G. Mayer and J. H. D, Jenseit later received @ Nobel prize for this work}, it seemed astounding. With so many other nucleons to collide with and with such stroug forces acting between them, low ean a nucleon go arcand complete orbits without a collision? In spite of extensive efforts, the answer to this question was not fortheom for nearly a decade, until K. A. Brueckner and collaborators sueeeeded in develop ing approximate solutions to the many-body problem. Starting with the twoe nucleon forces we have discussed i. Chap. 3, they Were able to show that case (2) is actually closer to the correct one, The explanation relies heavily on the Pauli exclusion principle. There are endless numbers of collisions that could take place if a nucleus were a class system, an assemblage of little balls moving with high velocity and confined to & small yolume, But in reality the nucteus is a quantum systet in which nucleons are restricted toa very limited number of allowed otbits, with the further restric- tion from the Pauli exclusion principle that there ca never be more than one nucleon of a given type Gieuteon or protou} in aury orbit, This severcly limits the possibilities for collisions; in fact we shall see in Chap. 5 that in some nuclei collisions are all hut impossible. 42 The Shell-theory Potential Now let us proceed under the assuraption that our approximation is correct, that nacleons move as though they are ix a potential well, The first prablem is to detex- ine the shape of this sheli-theory potential, One might hope that the calculations of the Brueckner gcoup would answer this question, but unfortunately they are not sufficiently accurate, We must rely on less basie approaches. ‘The Sholl-theory Potential 65Since the potential well is caused by the forces exerted by all the nucleons in the nucleus, it seems reasonabli to agsume that the depth of the well should be roughly proportional to the density of nucleons, ‘The potential is therofore taken, in accordance with (1-1), as y Vs *~ Tren fal “ The constants in (4-1) have been determined by methods to be described in Sec, 13-3. They are Voy 57 MeV + correetions R= LBA AME wy a~ 0.65 F It may be noted that both Ft and @ in (4-2) arc lacgee than the corresponding quantities in (1-2). This is due to the fact that the potential extends beyoud the positions of the outermost nucleoue by the range of the nuclear force. ‘The most important correction to the value of Va given in (1-2) is due to whet, is known as the syvamelry energy, which atises from unoqual numbers of neutrons and profons in the nurieus. As we have seen in See. 3-4, a neutron aud a proton can interact in more ways thaw wo neutrous or two protous because in the latter ceases, mony of the interactions are forbidden by the Panli exelusion principle, The effective forme hetween a neutron and a proton ik thus stranger than. the others, Therefore, if a uuelous fas more neutrons than protons, Vy is stronger than (1-2) for a proton, since ils interaction trons, and weaker than (4 + the nucleus is mostly with neue ) for a weutron, since its interaction is mostly with other neutrons. The shift in Vo due to this symmetry effect A, has also been determined by the methods of See. 18-8. TL is approximately y= bat Mev xe MTZ | ~ neutrons aVe= 421 MeV xo + protons o The shell-theory potential for a proton must juclude, in addition to G4) and (4-3), a repulsive coulomb potential. In order to estimate it, let. us for sim plicity assume that the nucleus has a sharp edge atr = #,aud a coustant electeie charge density » inside. Thera isa well-known theorem in electcostatics which states that for a spherically symmetric charge distribution, the electric Held at radius 1’ is the sate as if all the charge at r introdvoed by the tensor fares, Effective Mass @9FIGURE 44 The effect of the spin-orbit Interaction on the shell-theory potential. thas no effect for /=0, s0 that curve is from (4) and (42). The spin-orbit inter- setion introduces added attraction if | and are parallel an repulsion if | 4s are antiparallel in the surface region, shallower). This can be expressed a8 a power scries in tie momentum dependence of Va;sinee Vo isa scalar, this must be a power seties in p> py oF p%, as Vo = Veo + ap? + Bot + oo First we consider only the lowest-order term. The expression for energy which serves as the basis for much of classical mechanics and esse quantum mechanies then becomes ‘his can be rewrittenwhere we have introduced the effective mass M* defined hy rou 2M= ~ 2M aa ae We see that the lowest-order velocity dependence can he taken into account in practically all problems merely by redelining the mays. Lu this way, no new formal difficulties are introduced into the solution of problems: e.g., all methods and restlts given in Chap, 2 aro still valid if we omy make the trivial reptacement of M by M#, Very roughly, higher-order terms in (45) can be considered to he Variations in M* with enevay. Much of our knowledge of nuclear structure comes from @ rather limited eaergy region, and from (2-3) we sce that in a limited energy region any change in M can be compensated for by a change in Vo without altering the values of & and B. Since energies and wave functions depend ouly on & and 6, we cannot determine M and Fe separately from studies in a limited energy region. Ut is therefore conventional to use M¥ = AF and determine Vy from these studies. ‘This method was used in obtaining the value (= 37 MeV) given iu (1-2), and that value will be used here. Our present, knowledge is insufficient to justify any other procedure. On the other hand, it should be made clear that this procedure is at best an approximation valid over a limited energy region. Energies of proton orbits have been reliably mcasued Lo be as low as ~ 60 MeV, which would be impossible in the potential well (4-1), (4-2), whieh, including the coulomb term, is less than 50 MeV deep. Calculations of Vo by methods to be discassed in Sec. 7-3 indivate that itis eloser to 100 MeV for very low velocity nucleons, Measurements of Vs at higher energies, to he described in Sec. 13-3, indicate that it does change with onergy. A rather direct determination of Af*/A4 will be discussed. in conncetion with (4-19), and the ratio is not unity, Ong probiem introduced! by the velocity dependence of V> arises because, from Fig, 4-2, the total potential well is shallower for protons than for neutrons Aue to coulomb forces. For the same total energy E, tle kinetic energy is there fore lower for protons, whence, in aceordanee with (1-3), Ve is different for neu ‘trans and protons. This difference is a function of AV. and hence of Z/A%, One analysis of measurements of V, for protons in the energy range between 9 and 22 MeV gives Zz Ve (MeV) = 63.3 ~ 0.552 (MeV) + oak, +27 an 1B. G. Peeey, Phys. Ren, 181, 745 (1963), Effective Mass 71is the velocity dependencs (4-5), the third teem represents the nebween protons and neutrons discussed above, and the last term is, Jnst (4-3), Note that the minus sign in the second term of (4-7) implics that ain (4-5) is negative, whence from (46), MF is smaller than Mf in this region. Unfare tunately, (4-7) is valid only over a limited energy region, and this does wot include the region of grentest interest in studies of nuclear structure, We therefore have no reasonable alternative to the use of (4-2) in conjunction with (1-3). 4-4 Allowed Orbits in the Shell-theory Potential Onew we have our shelltheory potential, the problem of solving for the energies and wave functions available to nucleons in the nucleus (we shall ase our orbit- model language and refer to them as the allowed orbits) is just the problem con- sidered iu Chap. 2, In fact, the energy-level scale iu Fig. 2-1 was distorted so as to make the results correspond coughly te those in the shell-theory potential (4-1) rather than to those ina square well. Henee, the solutions are essentially the ones fromm Fig. 2-4 in conjunction with the other terms in (2-25). The energy levels from Fig. 2-4 (extended) are platted on the left side of Fig. 45. However, hefare using them we snust consider the effcets of the spin-orbit interaction We have had sonic experience: iu atomic phy For example, Ube yellow fine in th doublet, with the tyro compa (h spin-orbit interactions, optieal spectrum from sadinm is actually a snts bein split hy the atomic spit-orbit interaction, We found in atomic physies that when there is a spin-orbit interaction, it is profitable to introduce the total angular momentum of a particle j = 1+ 5. Associated with it is a quantum number j sek that, in analogy with other angular momenta, l= VIG A (4) Also, the r component of j is quantized as Jes imh roy where m may be ~j, —F+ 1, +.» +i, a total of 2j + 1 allowed valnes. Usit the metiiods of Spe. 2-7 and recognizing that ¢ = 33 for nucleons, we find 1433 Us ts tie f=itate se) For a given | there are these two possible values of j. For example, nucleons in U = 2 orbitsean haveJ = 34 or 34, In asing the spectroscopic notation introduced it Table 2-1, the value of j appears as a subscript, so the cases in oor example are designated dy, or dh;, We shall think of these as different orbits even though theie (0,6) dependences ace the same. 72 Complex Nuc I Shell TheoryNow let us consider the effects of the spin-orbit interaction on the energies of these states. From Fig. 4-4, we see thal the potential weil is narrower snd shal- lower when 1 and « are antiparallel (j = {— 4) than when they are parallel G =U 34), In Soc. 2-3 we showed that when a well is made narrower and shal- lower, the energy level is pushes! up. The tay level is therefore at @ higher energy than the 1d level in Fig, 2-1, and, conversely, the ih level is ata lower enctay. The 1d Jovel is said to be splil by the spin-orbit interaction, and the energy difterence between the two is referred to ag the spin-orbit splifling. Since the strength of the spin-orbit interaction is proportional to 4, this energy difference increases approximately linearly with f; for example, the energy difference be- ‘tween py: and py, orbits is about one-third of the energy differonce between f, aad fy, As we see from Fig. 4-4, the spin-orbit interaction changes the poteutial only near the outer edge of the nucleus; since the relative ianportane® of the outer edge relative to the entire volume of the nucleus decreases as the well gets wider, the magnitude of the spin-orbit splitting decreases with increasing «4. When the locations of the states from Fig. 2-4 are modified by this spin-orbit splitting, the various energy levels fall approximately as in Eig. dea. Siuce thi {igure will be extremely important in many of our future disenssions, the student should he certain to understand its origin thoroughly. The most striking observation from Fig. 1-3 is that the energies occur in ‘groups: several orbits are close together in energy, and then there is a lange gap, and this pattern repeats itself mauy times. A grouping of energy levels with large gaps between the groups also ocene in atomic physics, as we all know very well. Tn the atomic-physics problem, the groups of orbits with the same energy also love the property that their average radivs is about the same, whenee these electrons lie in spherical shells, The groups are theceforc refereed to as shells. This name has caeried over to the nuclear case, where the ouergy groupings are also referred to as shells. As we can see from the wave funetions in Fig. 2-4, these isno very strong tendency for nucleons in the saine shell to have the same average raiias, so this term is something of a misnomer. We have assigned numbers % to the shells in Fig, 4-5 as an aid in oue dige cussion, It is well worthwhile for any student of nuclear physics to remernber the states in cach shell. This requires very little memorizing if one recognizes that, as a first approximation, the shells contain the very orderly seqtience listed in Table 4-1. This is the sequence cbtained from Fig. 2-4, and more advanced stu- dents may recognize that it is exactly the one derived from a harmonic oscillator potential, Va Vit Mate? an where Vi and « are constants, The harmonic oscillator potential is a rather goud ation to the potential (1), and hecause of its mathematical simplicity Allowed Orbits in the Shall-theory Potential 73y 3a Bey, ae 34, ae % ling u a, ap =——,, mi ay See, 1k 3s ae de 2p uy, uw * My, te 2s Bey, Ip Me le FIGURE 4-5. Energy levels in the shell-theory potential. The energy lovels at the left are roughly what is expected without spin-orbit Interaction. They are just the levels from Fig. 2-4 extended (0 larger potential wells The right side shows the effect ofthe spin-orbit inter- into two with j= UF 3 roughly proportional 74 Complex Nuclet: Shell Theory‘TABLE 41: ORBITS (M EACH SHELL IN FIRST APPROXIMATION ‘These are aise the arts in each grouping for a harmonic oscillator pete it is often used in calculations. The wave functions then become associated Hermite polynomials. It should be clearly realized, however, that (4-9) is merely 4 potential-well shapes nothing is oseiliating in the classieal senso. Tn order to go from Table 4-1 to Fig. +5, we must recognize that, due to spin-orbit splitting, the highest j state in each shell above the fourth is moved down to the next shell. The highest j state in the 3 = 4 still, te Ie, is also moved down but not. far enough to become a menther of the st = 3 shell. It is therefore botwoen the % = 3 and 4 shells, and is hence often treated as a separate sbell, which we designate %% = 34. Aside from these changes, the orbits in each, shell are as listed in Table 4-1. The next point of interest in connection with Fig. 4-5 is the number of allowed orbits in cach shell, Fach state in Fig. 4-5 represents 2j + 1 allowed orbits corresponding to the vacious values of m, so the total number of allowed orbits ing = Lis 2, in = isd +2=6, in % = 3 is6 +2 = 12, in = 34 is 8 in WA is 146-424 10 = 22, otc, The cumulative member of orbits up to the top of each shell js then 2, 8, 20, 28, 60, ei, These numbers are cirelec Fig. 43. 45 Filling of Allowed Orbits in the Sheil-theory Potential We now turn our attention to the question of how the allowed orbits show Fig. 45 fill as nucleons are put together to form nuclei. Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, there can be no more than one neutron and ove proton in each orbit, h the same n, {, j, m quantum numbers, so if we confine our attention to naclei in their lowest-energy states, We expect the orbits to fill im oder of increas- Filling of Allowed Orbits in the Shell-theory Potential 75ing energy as in the famitiar case of olectrons in atoms. For example, the nucleus ‘with two protons and two seutrons, ;Het, would have all 3. = 1 orbits full and, all others empty. A nucleus of this type, with all shells cither completely full or completely empty, is called a closed-shell nucleus. Other closed-shell nuclei found in nature are 40%, Cat, Ca‘, and mPb#, They play a role in nuclear structure analogous to that of the noble gases, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Ne, and Rn, in atomic structure. Another interesting type of nucleus is the so-called single perficle nucleus, which has all shells completely full or completely empty except for a single n the lowest-energy otherwise empty shell. Examples of these are elle’, woCatt, and :Set!, Their role is analogous to thet of the alkali etc. in atomic siructure. ‘ closely related group arc the single- liole nuclei, ones in which all shells are completely full or completely empty ex- cept for a single missing nucleon in the highest-enerey filled shell. Some examples of single-hole nuciei are OF, "Nh, and «Ca®*, Theie cole in nuclear struc ture is similar to thot of the hatogens, F, Cl, Br, ete., in atomic steaetur. metals, Li, Na, 4-6 Separation Energies of Nucleons Im ordcr to get a feel for the propertics of the shelltheory potential, in this suc- tion and the next we do some simple catcalations with it, If time is short, they may be omitted without loss of continuity provided the principal results, (1-11) and (1-15), are accepted. Te this section, we do a rough caleulation to sce how far up in the well the levels are filled in unctei we normally encounter, ‘The easiest caleulation we ean do is for sy, states in a square well. Inside the well, the wave functions are of the form sin kr and if we use the simplified approach of Sec. 2-1, there are m'2 wavelengths fitting into the radius R, or =R ‘This can be solved to give he aa BMRE om =-V+ The calculations are outlined in Table 4-2; fet us go through them, In ace cordance with the ordering of orbit encrgies in Fig. 4-5, the 2s, orbit should fill after the Lt, Lpis Ipx and 2d orbits: as these accommodate respectively 2444246 = 14 nucleons, the fiteenth neutron and proton go into the 2x, orbits. Similarly we can easily cattulate that the sixty-fifth neutron and proton go into the ss, orhits and the one hundred seventy-first 20 into ds. orbits. We shall do our calculation for nuclei with these nuinbers of weutrons and protons. 76 Complex Nuclei: Shell TheoryTABLE42: CALCULATION OF THE ENERGY OF THE LEAST BOUND NUCLEON, E= Sy OR ~Sy IN VARIOUS NUCLEI IN WHICH IT IS IN AN 1:5 ORGIT Energies in Mev. the last fine is the experimentally determined separation snaray Sor S, averaged between the two 4); nucleen' in each ease Neutrons Protons Bee ts ae B68 am 16 4 uae 10k 6 6 kN no) a0T 484 0 6510 5M 38 608 81 3986.8 2 3 4 2 a a9 61 a8 3948 5580 30 33 a ¥ st aT 87 81 ayy H10 4d -65 $10 +49 ay, 0 o 0 -12-179 e 360 529 0504 50H ‘The number of protons and neutrons, respectively, in these nuclei ean be found from atomic numbers and atomic weights of clemeuts found in nature; @ short extrapolation is needed for the nucleus with 17L neutrons. The next. few fines of Table 4-2 are devoted to determining Ht from (1-2), and then £ — ¥ from 4-10), (the seventh linw is for a later use). ‘The following four lines of Table 4-2 show a calculation of the depth of the potential well Vas the sura of Vs (from (4-2), AV; from (4-3), and the coulomb potential for protons AV. For the sake of simplicity we take 4 V. to be a constant equal to the average of the coulomb potentials (1-8) at r =O and r= R. By adding V to # — V, we obtain E. This calcudation is not very accrate because of the squacc-well assumption ‘and the use of the simplification of Sec. 2-1, However, itis correct in indicating that B is close to zero; the shell-theory potential is filled with nucleons “nearly ta the top.” Moreover, as is also indicated by the calenlation in Table +2, B is Separation Energies of Nuctoons 77nearly the same for stable nuctei of all masses, and it is the same for both neutrons| and protons. ‘This approximate equality of the highest neutron and proton energiea in 8 nucleus is, as we shall see in Sec. 8-2, a condition for stability against beta decay ‘and must therefore be a property of all stable nuclei. It is this condition that determines the relative number of neutrons and protons in a stable nucleus. The potential well for protons is shallower than the one for nevtrans (by AV, — 24¥, in Table 4-2 of, more qualitatively, from Fig. +2), whence it takes fewer protons than neutrons to fill all orbits up to a given energy. This explains why hoavy nuclei have more nedtrons than protons. Tt is hasivally a coulomb effect. V2: the symmetry effect. AV, works against this inequality but is much weaker. ‘The energy required to remove the least hound nenttron or proton from a nucleus is called the nucleon separation energy Sy or Sp. For the nuclei considered in Table 4-2, it corresponds to —E because the ss; nucleons are the least bound in those muclei, and if a nucleon is to be removed from a nucleus, its energy must bbe raised to E = D. Separation energies can be determived experimentally in various ways including the one mentioned in connection with (31) and another to be described in Sec. 7-4. The pertinent values are listed in the last row of Tabie 4-2. We see there that separation energies are typically Sp = Sy = 8 MeV aay ‘The accuracy of the valculation in Table 4-2 may he judged by comparing the last two lines; itis iu error by a few MeV, which is not too bad eonsidering that the total effects being catealated are of the order of 30 MeV. 4-7 Energy Spacings between Shelts For future applications we shall find it useful to know the energy difference Debween successive shells, dBydR. Since the Lis Bq Ry + « - orbits are in the % = 1,3 3... Shells of Fig. 4-5, if we restrict our considerations to the 24 orbits, we can write = tn way dBA is then 3d /dn, whence, from (4-10), die enamel However, this result, implyiug that the energy spacing between shells increases rapidly with inoreasing i, is incorreet, Otiee again the difficulty arises from the use of a square well and the simplification of See. 2-1. Calculations with the poten- tial (4-1), (3-2) indicate that 48/8 is soughly coustant for all shelis in a given 78 Complex Nuclei: Shell Theoryaucleus. More advanced students may recognize this to he thr same as the situa tion in a harmonic oscillator potential, for whick™ AV t (8 + 1g aay whence fe = const ow Complete calenlations for either the potential (1-1), (1-2) or for the har- ‘monic oscitlator potential (1-9) give more specifically. ae Al Mev ai wan For the harmonic oscillator this may be understood crudely if we realize that the energy of the least bound nucleon —S, is related to the radius #¥ of the potential at that energy by (4-9), Equating this euergy as obtained from (4-13) and (4-9) gives (M+ dope = Mat ato From (1-12) and line 7 of Table £2 we see that, (0 a rather good approximation, Meta Qn 09K Ik-we take R’ as the radius of the potential (lel), (142) at B= — of medium mass it is approximately Sw for nuclei R= Lik Using these in (1-16) reduces that equation to L36h? _ 41 MeV fe un Tae aan which substituted into (4-14) gives (4-15). If we had used the effective mass Mf* in this calculation, we see From (4-17) that the result would have been ae AL MeV ot hes mi [a a The second tenn in this foemola ia usually giveu us {92 4 $e, but this assumed Se = 0 for Ihe lowest energy slate whereas we call this state 3 = L. Energy Spacings between Shelis 79In the energy region where otbits are filling in stable nuclei, & » —8 MeV, ex- sntal determinations by methods to be discussed in connection with Fi give! ea Comparing this with (1418), we find M* « L340 in this energy region. The strange variations in the ratio M*/Af are considered in Prob. 4-3. 4.8 Nonspherical Nuclei ‘The fact that the shelltheory potential represents the average interactions Letween 2 given nucleon and all the other nucleons in the mucleus has a very Important consequence: it, causes many nuclei to be nonspherical in shape. ‘This cant he understood with the help of the following greatly oversimplified. model, In a completely filled shelf, the fact that all orbits of each j are occupied ‘means that all possible values of the spatial orientation quantum number a are cqnally represented among occupied orbits, so closed-shell nuclei must be spherically symmetric, as shown by the citele in Pig. 4-6. Now let us assume that ‘the allowed orbits in the next shell, when viewed edge on, can have six orfentic 1 Pays, Ren, 180-227 (1968); Am. J. Piye,, $8: LOLI (1965) FIGURE 46 Schematic representa- tion ofa clased.shel! nucleus ¢spherl- cally symmetric. and hence repre sented by a citcle) and the orbits in ‘the next 3 ~ Closed all rucleus 90 Complex Nuclel: Shell Theorytions in space, as shown by the six numbered lines i the figure, Let. us see what happens as these orbits are filed with nucleons. Let ns say the first nuctoon in the now sliell gocs into a 1 orbit. ‘Tho lowest energy situation for a second uncleon is in another 1 orbit, sinew in this orbit it feels the added attraction of the first nucieon, Further added uueloons will go into 1 orbits for the same reason, until all 1 oxhits are filled. The nest added nucleons will go into 2 or 3 orbits, as these bring tem as close as possible to the nucleons already there. By the tine all the 1, 2, and 3 orbits are filled, there is @ considerably greater number of nucleons in horizontal than in vertical orbits, What does this do to the stiell-theory poteutial? ‘That potential represents the average farce exerted on a nicleon by all the other nucleons in the nueleas, itis roughly proportional to the density distribution of nucleons. ‘The fact that ‘most nucleons are in horizontal orbits then means that the density distribution isnot spherically symmetric. As a result, the shell-thcory potential is deformed into an ellipsoidal shape, elongated in the horizontal directiou. Sinee the potential is delocmed, even the orbits in the closed shells are deforned, and the whole rmeleus takes on an ellipsoidat shape. Now let us return to our filling, procedure based on Pig. +6, Once the 1, 2, ‘ud 3 orbits are filled, the only orbits in that shell let to fill are the vertical ones, 4,3, and 6, Of contse there are many more horizontal orbits itt the next: higher stell, hut to put nucteons int thei remuires a sizable additionat cuergy given hy (115). It is therefore more ecouomnical in energy for the added nucleons to go into the vertical orbits. As these filt, the excess of nucleons ix horizontal orbits decreases, and consequently the density of neeleons (and therefore also the shell- theory potential) hecomos less ellipsoidal, Finally, when all orbits of Fig. 4-6 are filled (the shell is closed), all directions are equally represented and the nucleus is, spherically symmetric. This simple model is, of course, far from realistic. "The space orientation of orbits isa much more complex matter than the two-dimensioual cepresentation in Fig. -6. Moreover, no aceount was taken of the fact that the average distance between nucleons is a minimum for a given nucleon density when the nucleus is spherical, go the strongest average force is obtained in a spherical shape. This leads to an especially strong preference for a spherical shape when the forces are of very short range. Nevertheless, the basic content of the model is correct. Nuclei whose nucleon nuinbers are far from closed shells take on a rather stable ellipsoidal shape. The principal regions of elfipsoidal nuclei are where the 2% = 2 shells are sbout half full G7, Be, B,C), where the st = 3 shells are about half full (Mg, Al, Si), where the & = 5 proton and s% = 6 newtron shells are simultancously about half full (heavy rare earths, Ta, W) and where Ue si = 6 proton and 3 = T nentron shells are about Jmlf full (Th, UJ, transuranics). Note that there Nonspherical Nuciei 81is a large region through the middle of the periodic table (A = 85 to A= 150) where either the neutyons ot protons are always near enough to closed shells to prevent the nucleus from assoming a stable cllipsoidal deformation. Such nuclei will be referred to as spherical although, as we shall see in See. 6-7, this is not a very accurate description. Tt turns out that in almost all cases the ellipsoidat shape assumed by nou spherical nuclei is an ellipsoid of revolution, otherwise called spheroid; i.e., two of the three principal axes are equal. Tn eases where the third (unequal) axis is Jonger than the others, the nucleus has something of a football shape: it is called proiale. In the other easc, where the unequal axis is shorter than the others so that the nuctous has something of a pumpkin shape, it is called oblate, More extreme profate shapes would be those of a cigar or a hot dog; more extreme oblate shapes would be those of a paneake or a hamburger. However, deviations from the spherical shape ace not that farge in nuclei, Among the heavy nonspherical nuclei, the longest and shortest axes differ in length by about 20 percent. In fighter muclei, however, the fraction of the nucleons in unfilled shells is larger. so lauger deformations are obtained, and thore is one nucleus at feast, Mg", in which all three axes are believed to he unequal, Where deformations are very large, the ellipsoid approximation breaks down and nore comples shapes are encountered. Ax extreine example is the G' nucteus; one caleutation of its shape is show: FIGURE 67 Calculated density distribution of nucleons in a C'= nucleus. Numbers attached to curvos are relative nucleon densities. [From G. Ripks, fairer. Nuch. Phys, 1: 254 (1967; by penssion | symmetry ale 82 Complex Nuclei: Shell TheoryProblems 4t Calculate the depth of the sheli-theory potential for neutrons and for pro- tons in Pb*"; in Ca, 42 If Ve increases by 1 MeV 2 &-MeV nucleon energy interval, what is M*? 43. (a) If Voy is 10 MeV and Vy is 57 MeV near # = 9, calculate M*. ‘This represents the value obtained from the calculations described in Sec. 7-3. (b) Estimate 4" from (4-7) under the assumption that Voo = 100 MeV. {c) Compare those with the value given at the end of Sec. 4-7. 44 If the spin-orbit interetion were nmach smaller, i. €lose to zero, and Table AALwere accurate, what lotal numbers of nucleons would constitute elosed shells? 45° List at least 10 nuclei found in natuce which have closed neutron shells and 10 others which have closed proton shells. List at least tree single-particle and ‘three single-hole nuclei that. are foand in nature but sot mentioned in the text. 46 Plot the potentials for! — 0 neuteous and protons in Pb, AT Asgnming that @ nucteus with ITL protons contaius 100 neutrons, carry out the ealeulations of Table 4-2. 48. Give some justification for taking Ue square well used in the ealoulation of Table 4-2 to have a radius J? + a. Repeat the calculation for this radius. 49° Kxplain qualitatively why dii/dit incceases more rapidly with for a square well than for the potential (4-1), creasing Further Reading ‘See General References, following the Appendix. Mayer, M. G., and J, UL D. Jensen: “Elementary ‘Theary of Nuclear Shell Structure,” Wiley, New York, 1955. deShalit, A. and I. Talmi: “Nuclear Shell Theory, Academic, New York, 1963. Further Reading $3Chapter 5 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: Spherical Even-Even Nuclei We have said from the be clearly inspossifle to tals ing that the shell theory is an approximation. It fo account accurately all the complex intera a nucleus witha simple potential well. In particular, the frequency and strength h which one nucleon interacts with other nucleons in close encounters depeads on what orbit iis in and on what other orbits are occupied, properties that o simple potential well dovs not portray, The forces resulting from these close encounters, kssowit as residual interactions, produce energy charges and other effects which nuist then he considered as corzections to the results obtained from solutions to the potential-welt problem, it this chapter we study these effects 1d thereby devetop a deseription of the structure of nuclei iv its simpler aspectss tine snore complicated aspeets ars left far Chap. 6. 5-1 Collisions In order to hep the development on asin actions as collisions between uct iat this point of view, the effect of a povticle's heing iv the shell theory potential well is to cause it to nave in a stable orbit. However, the motion is actually fike that in Fig. 4-1a, where every once in a while the particle undergoes a collision, causing it to chauge its orbit. We now consider these collisions, For the orbit madel to work here we must impose on the collisions a few rallier reasonable-sounding conditions, as follows (we label the two participating ucleous Laud 2 and use pritied and unprimed syushols lo designate properties after and hefore the collision respectively): ple Ievel, we shall treat residual inter- s. Fe Both nucleons involved in a collision must be iu adlawed and otherwise un {orbits after, aa well as before, the col of quant jon, By an allowed orbit we mean one ig (1-8). janabers 2h, fj, mi satiny‘2. Energy must be approximately conserved. This requirement, as we shall see, is equivalent to Sky + le = MI + 9 on 3. Angular momentum must be conserved; that is, tie inth ima + my = mah + sad 4. Parity must be conserved; that is, Teh + tris even, Uj + & must be even on o If + his odd, i + (; must be odd eH) ‘These rules follow in a straightforward way from the rules for classical collisions and previously stated quantum restrictions on the orbit model; the only exception ‘a rule 2, where we require that energy be only approximately, rather than * exactly, conserved. This difference arises from the well-known uncertainty prin- ciple (3-20), which, as we haye already secu in Sec. 3-9, says that energy conserva tion may be violated by an amount AE provided the violation does not last longer than a time At given by me BOX 1 MeV-8 Ala Seo aE oo But in our situation this violation of energy conservation must last long enough for the nucteons to have another collision, since each orbit has a definite energy (os shown in Fig. 45) and the only way for a nucleon to change ite energy is to change its orbit by a collision. Hence Af isof the order of the average time between collisions. But we have previously said that the time between collisions ia at least, ‘of the order of the time required for a nucleon (o go around its orbit, or ae 2 2 EX 6 XI m ar 8 X10? m/s Jo. evaluating (5-5) we have taken the radius of a medium-mass nucleus from (1-2) and the velocity corresponding to a nucleon of about 40 MeV kinetic energy fgr reasons discussed in Sec. 4-5, Solving (5-4) for AF and inserting (5-5), we find AE Z1 MeV oo = 5x los on This is of the order of the energy difference between orbits in the same sbell | isimuch lese than the energy difference betweeh different shells givedtby (419).‘Thorefore a collision in which one nueleon stays in the same shell while the other changes shells is in violation of (5-6). However, due to the fact that the energy cing hetween shells ix constant in a given nucleus (See. 4-7), energy consorva- tion is still satisfied if the 2 of one nucleon incceases by the same number as the of the other mucteon decreases: Henee we obtiain (5-1). 5-2 Cases where Collisions Are Forbidden Let us now apply the rules of Sec. 5-1 to a fow special cases. Fitst we consider a ‘oucleus with alll shells up to and including 2p filled and with a few nucleons in the shot! Xo + 1. Can the nucleons in the filled shells have collisions? If two nucleons in the shell Xp were to have a collision, sesording to rule 2 either hoth would lieve to end up in other & — m. orbits or one would have to go to a higher and the other to a lower-% orbit. But all other %) othits are filled, and all orbits with lower % are filled, $0 neither of these is possible, If a nucleon in au Xo orbit were to have a collision with one in an Sto + 1 orbit, rules { and 2 requite that one end up i the original Ns orbit, whenet the occupancy of X orhits is aot changed. We might think that the othce nucleon could go into a different, Sot L orbit, but this is forbidden by rule 3 since, from Fig. 4-3, each orbit in a given shell has a differeut angular momentum, Thus no collisious of this type We may therefore conclude that in the nucleus described above, the nucleons in filed shells cannot have collisions. © special case of this type is a closed-shell ueleus, so we may conclude that in closed-shell nuclei like Me, OF, Ca, ete, there can be no collisions at all . Another special ease is the single-particle nucleus. If the uucleous in the closed shell cannot have collisions, there is no nucleon with which the eatea particle can have collisions, so it eannot have collisions either. There cau therefore bbe uo collisions in a single-particle mucteus Hike OF, Cat), ete, A third ease of interest is the single-hole nucleus. From energy couservation, there ate no possi Dilivies for changing shells, and eolfisions between nucleons in the sane shell ean only change the orbit of one nacleon into the unoccupied orbit, But since ail orbits in the same shell have dilferent angular momenta, this would violate angulac-momentuzn conservation, We therefore find that there ean he no collisions in single-hole nuclei. ‘The fact that collisions are forbidder in closed-shell, single-particle, and singlechole nn makes Uheir wave functions trivially simple. Since, a8 ex ‘This ig wot completely true, as will be explained in See, 5-12 86 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: Spherical Even-Even Nucleiplained in connection with (3-7), the total wave function is the product of the ‘wave functions of each particle," we can write for He, for example, He") = Waa abas Waa,Sangeene on here faa, 9 the wave function (2-25) with | = m = Oand u(r) given by thecurve labeled 1s in Fig. 2-4. However, a much simpler notation is generally used, with the following changes: (1) there is no point in writing v's everywhere: hey are understood; (2) there is no need for writing the quantum number sitice one would not ordinarily consider the 2s, orbit, which is two shells removed, to he ‘occupied in He; and (3) the subscripts protons and neutrons ean he ceplaced by symbols, x and », respectively. With these simplifications, 43-7) ea be written Yl!) = w6sus)tabss)® er Similarly we can write, from Fig. 4-3, HOM) = alsstpatpy? hess Psp) (0) = ws:etpestps®) Cs yctputpytda,) oy HO") = a4, 8°) 3c Pmt Dy) Since nucleons in closed shells do not undergo collisions, theit orbits wre not usu ally of immediate concer and in auy case they eau be infested, so they need not be written out explicitly. Hence ouly the deviatious from the closed shell are ordingcily written, for example, 10") = dy HO") = ar! Note that where it is clear from the nature of the nucleus whether it is protons ‘or seutrons which deviate from closed shells, the-x or » are not ordinarily written, From the nature of the muclei—O!? with eight protons and nine neutrons, and O° with eight protons and seven neutrons—it is evident that in both these eases itis the neutrons which deviate from the closed shell of cight. Similarly we cotld write 2) BON) = (pa? YGRY) he 2 where it is clear that the terms on the right represent deviations of the protons from closed shells. In eases where there is a chance for confusion between protons and neutzona, the # and » gre written cxplicily. Tb may be noted that « simple product does not have the antisymmetry ander exchange of ‘any two agcleous required by the Pauli exclusion peineiple, but we ignore that compl Tere. Tt can be readily taken exce nf without changing the resully we shall obi Cases where Collisions Are Forbidden 875-3. An important Example of Collisions—The Pairing interaction 4n nuclei with two nucleons in a shell, matty collisions are possible. Let us study ‘one particular example, Consider two nucleons with the same n, f, and j quantum jumbers and with m quantum nambers equal but of opposite sign. In our orbit model, this corresponds to two nucleons moving in the same orbit but in opposite directions. Let them have @ collision in which they go into another orbit, again ‘moving it opposite directions. An example is shown in Fig, 5-1. Now let us check to seo if this type of collision. satisfies the rules of Sec. 5-1. The first and second, rules are easily satisficd if the new orbits are in the same shell as the old; if there are only two nucleons in a abell, there are certainly many unoccupied orbits in ‘that shell. The angular momente of the two particles are equal in magnitude and opposite in sign, whence the total angular momenturn is zero, both before and after the collision; hence the thied rule is satisfied. Since the two nucleons have the same f value, i +4 ~ 2h and (; + I; = 20; both stuns are eten regardless of the values of f and I, 40 parity is conserved, We see that all the cles are satistied, so this type of collision can orcur. In fact it turns out to be the most corninoa and important type of collision in nuel In 0%, which has two neutrons outside of closed shells, for exainple, there are pairs of orbits that can be reached from one another by this type of collision, ‘They aze listed in Table 5-1 and consist of all 12 allowed orbits im the = 3 shell artanged in pairs with equal but oppasite m values. FIGURE 5.1. A simple type of allowed collision betweon two nucleons. They are moving in the same orbit in oppo- site directions before the collision; after the coliston they are in a diferent orbit than the original ons the same orbit ac each other and moy- ing in opposite directions. f \ ‘Spherical Even-Even NucleiTABLE 5: ORBIT PAIRS IN 07" WITH EF h a Spectroscopic ‘nolation tay)* nee any one of these arcangements ean be reached from any other by collisions, we may assume that in some states of 0" the two neutrons spend a fraction of their time in eack. We may therefore write the wave function for one of these states as HO") SOA te tal ted + ok + oh on Since probabilities are proportional to squares of wave functions, (5-9) implies that ey is! the fraction of the time the uucleus spends in arrangement A, cst is the fraction of the time it spends in arrangement B, etc. As the Lotal probability for the two muclrons to be in oue of the six arrangements is unity (a0 other arrangement can fe reached hy collisions), we have of ted test test bet + Since A, B, aud € differ only in the orientation of the orbits in space, there is no reason why the nucleus should spend different amonnts of time in them. Even, H there wore some spatial anisotropy such as a magnetic field, its effect would be equal and opposite for the two nucleons and would therefore cause no energy differences or other distinctions between A, B, and C. Hence we expect em et sof sete Gay ‘where ay is @ new coellicient. The total feaction of the time the anolens spends A, B, and Cis now a7. These arrangements can be labeled (dy)* in view of our notation developed in the last section. Sinee (Hyx}* ean have several ditferon | Mors advanced atndents may recognize that ¢, can sometimes be a oomplox nummbec. 1 this in ao, ev should be intonpreted as les: we hall Jeave off the sbeolute-value signe i this boo, ‘An Important Example of Collisions—The Pairing Interaction %9angulac momenta [, we shall add a subscript 0 to indicate that 1 is zcro, so the designation becomes (ds,)s’, commonly read “dy squared coupled to zero.” With these considerations in mind, we can now write (5-9) in its final form WOM) = aldo? + balou dot + es(adet on where, in analogy with the dufinition of ax, ct abt ote om In view of (3-10), (3-L1), and (5-13), Pht bet ow Wall six ¢ coelfivionts were equal, we would have a3 = 6 the denominators arv the number of arrangements in Table Sel they represent, ‘These numbers are (2j + 11/2. 80 we cau say that the corllicients ita wave fune- 5-12) contain an inherent proportionality to V2] + L. However, while ‘ne reason for diffecenees between 6%, 62, and ¢:? or between es! and ee, theee is every reason Lo expect differences between e(, 63% and e:? since tl represent orbital arraug Hh different energies. If the energy available for each nuclon is close to the enorgy of Ute Id, orbit in Fig. 1-3, they ean only reach states D, E, and F by collisions w late energy conservation; stch violations, avcording to the wicertainty pritiviple, ean fast for ouly a very short time. The system therefore spends aan less time in Hand # since, from Fig. 4 of energy conservation. Heare we have ext/2, where se sly tor Duo represent a larger violation sep - Gay) Ou the other hau, if the energy of (he system were close to that requized to put ‘the thn sleutrons into the 1d orbit of Fig. 1-5, situations a, 2, and C could de reached only hy violation of euergy conservation fof opposite sign, Intl Unis does ink mutter), whence lin nucleus spends ess tine ju the Jatter so Meat ye bref Itia easy to conceive of an energy intermediate between these where 90 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: spherical Even-Even NucleiHowever, there is no choice of energy that could Krad to Belore proceeding further with our discussion it is necessary to pause here to establish a few basic definitions, A configuration is a listing of what orbits are occupied without regard to im values. For example, (d,}* iscalled 9 configuration. Note that we do not specify the total angular niomeutum, so it ig not necessarily zero. Other configurations ‘re might oneountor in O' are duty, dates ote. The energy of a configuration is the surt of the energies of all nccupied orbits as taken from Fig. 43. A ferm is @ configuration with angular-momentum coupling specified, For example, (dis) is a terin, A different term would be (,)«! although these have the same configuration. Other terms in O" would be (side, (sid (isthady, ete, Note that in alt cases, Fis one of the valurs that ean he obtained from Leintis in accordance with the rules of See. 2-7. The enecgy of a (erm is just the energy of the configuration from whicl it is de A sfaie is a very definite quantum-mechanical concrpt whicl is not to be coufused with the meaning of this wort in other contests. A slate is the solution of the Selniidinger vyuation for the systea; it lias a definite energy, a definite n, @ definite total angular miomncutum, a definite parity, aud several ite properties, such as electric and magnetic moments, For example, the wave function for a state provided the values of a, bs, and es are citosen to satisfy the Schriidinger equation for 0". ‘The total angular monienti of this state is 0 and its parity is positive since for each component, fx + leis eves The total angular momentum and parity of a state are conventionally written fogether as F, which in this case is (Im. In order to clarify the difference between terms and states, we recall that the orbit picture including Fig. 1-3 was derived by solving the Schsidinger eqwa- tion (2-21) with V replaced by the shel-theory potential, Ef all the forces in the problem eonkd be accurately represented by the shelktheory potential, the states would therefore be identical with the terms. However, we know that the shell- theory potentiai does niot take inte account short-range interactions that depend on what orbits particles are in, which we refer to as collisions. The inclusion of hese collisions in the ¥ of (2-24) is what distinguishes states from terms. The ect of including collisions, as we have seen in (5-22) for example, is to convert states into Linear combinations of terms. However, there is a furidamental theorem in quantum theory which requires that in this process the number of states be ‘An Important Example of Collisions—The Pairing interaction 91unchanged. Therefore, since there are Uhree terms in (5-12), there must be three states of that form, We ean write their wave functions as PCO} = ca ldschot + balsyde® + ex(dogo WON} = aaldsga? + Balsydel + ex(da)s! 18, 360") = asldisdet + balsade? + esldg)e®” where in each case, the coefficients satisfy (5-14). All three of these states are, of course, 0+. Quantum theory requires that certain additional relationships, known as orthogonality eonditions, he satislied by the coeflicients in (5-16). These are axes + Bibs + eves = 0 sas + Brbs + exes = 0 yay + bib + ese, = 0 Tt may be noted from these equations that some of the coefficients in (5-16) must de negative, In fact it is readily seen that no more than one of the three wave Functions in (5-16) can have all positive coefficients. ies, Up to this point, all energy cou siderations have been derived from Fig. 4-3, which gives the energy of each orbit, An expanded view of the m% = 3 shell is shown it Fig. 5-2. Orbit energies are defined at the left; since we are interested only in relative energies, we have set the energy of the lowest slate equal to zero. ‘The encegy of a configuration, or of the terms derived fcom it, is just the sum of the energies of the occupied orbits. For example, the energies of the configura- FIGURE 5:2 Energies of orbits in the = 3 shell, This is an enlargement of 2 section of Fig. 5 with ns of, and vy 1, ay, 92 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: Spherical Even-Even Nucleienergies of energies of configurations I= O states and terms FIGURE 5.3 Engeries of 1 = 0 terms and slates in O° (two neutrons in the 9. = 3 shell), The energies of the terms are the sum of the energies of the occupled orbits; 28 is the energy tions in (5-16) are 0, 2c, and 2ee for (dis)® (sy), and. (@s)* respectively. These are shown at the left in Vig. 5-3. ‘The energy of a slaie, however, isa much more subtle and complicated matter. ‘The orbit energies of Fig. 445 were determined from the shell-tieory potential, wich represents the average force of all the other nucleons in the nucleus. How- ever, such an average force cannot possibly take into account the short-range forces that come into effect when two nucleons are colliding, ie, the residual teractions. These forces cause small changes in the encrgy of a state, making itdeviate from the average energy of the configurations it includes by an amount depending on the pattern of collisions. In most cases, the deviation is not. large, ‘and we might expect the three states (5-16) to have energies in the region between 0 and 2. This is indeed 1rne for two of the three states, but something very strange happens to the thicd: it gets pushed far down in energy, as shown for state 1 in Fig. 5-8! This behavior is easily derived using the mathematical tech- niques of quanti theory, as will bo shown in Sec. 8-4. Tn our orbit-model picture, the effect may seem plausible if we say that in state I a very orderly and rhythinie: ‘collision pattern develops such that sll the residual interactions combine in coherent way to give the maximum possible uct attractive force. In the other two states, 2 and 3, the collision pattern is not so regular aud coherent, so the residual interactions are sometimes attractive and sometimes repulsive, whence the total energy is not much affected. ‘An Important Example of Collistons—The Pairing Interaction $3The energy 2A by which the lowest-energy state is below the energy ‘of the lowest configaration! is known as the energy gap. Tt plays an important part in the energy-level structure of all eyesreven nuclei, é., nuclei with even numbers of neutrons and protons, and has au interesting counterpart in the theory of superconductivity, an important phenomenott in low-temperature and solid state physics. ‘The type of collision we have beet discussing in this section is known ax pairing, Revall that it is an interaction between a pair of particles moving in the same orbit but, in opposite diccctions; they undergo frequent collisions of the 5-1; these collisions change their orbits, but they always remain paired with both particles in the same orbit going in opposite directions. Asa result of the pairing interaction, the nucleus is taken from one 0* term to another, so the wave functions for 0* states are linear combinations of these terins. Tho energies of these states beliaye as shown in Fig. 5-8, with one state pushed far down in eneray so as to give an energy gap, 5-4 Quantum-mechanical Treatment of the Energy Gap Tn he last section we discussed the orderly and rhythmic collision pattern which, causes one state to be substantially lowered in euergy, thereby creating an energy gap. While this may give some impression of the phenomenon, a true understand ing of it ean only be obtained from a quantum-mechanical treatment. We give ele mentary Leeatments in this section, which shiould be mnderstaxdable to students who have fiad an advanced course in modern physics or the equivalent, For others, the remainder of this section may le ornitted sithout serious loss of continuity We give two treatments here, oa based on perturbation theory, w! more likely to be familiar to less advauced studets, aud @ more complete and general treatment which should appeal more to students whe have had a regular course in quantum mechanics. In the first treatment, we must assume that the energies of all Ceruis are ecru, Chat is, «= es = 0 in the exaraple of See, 3-8, and use degenevule-perfurbution theory. If the energies of several states are the sane before perturbations 1” fit our case, the residual interactions) arc considered, the elfoot of the perturbations is to give slates whose energies differ from Lie usper= turbed energy by the eigenvalues of the matcin. fm te ey “A more quantitative defiaition of 3 will be given in See, 2.2, 94 The Structure of Complex Nuclef: Spherical Even-Even Nucleiwhere tan = FOV! bn de om and de, @ are the unpertuched wave functions. In the case diseusard in Sec. 5-3, these are gy = (tha)® ds = (9)% and gy ~ (a) In onder to illustrate aur effect, Jet us say all ogy are equal. ‘The matrix then becomes 1 on eum ba it rit Iethe matrix is 3 X 3, as in our example, the cigenvalics are tu, 0, and 0. ‘Thus the encraics of two of the states are uuchanged hy the residual interactions, while the third is pushed down! in energy to 3ra. This is very erudely the situation shown in Fig. 5-3. From degenerate-perturhation theory, the wave functions of the states are the cigenttunctions of (5-17) with each componeatt multiplied hy the corresponding wave function. In our exarnple, this givest dye)? + OST)? + = O.207E)" + 0.707)? O.816(dis}? — 0.408{s59)? — 0.408(d,)* Thds)* Note that for the wave function of the lowest-energy state i all terms carry the samo sign whereas this is wot true for any of the other states (as can easily bbe understood from the ortiogonatity conditions}. ‘The property of having alt lerms with the same sign is spoken of as coherence: it corresponds to the “orderly and rhythmic collision pattern” described in the last section, Ifthe matrix (5-17a) includes p cows and cohurens, which have the same e sigenvalucs are ., if there ace p states ergy before residual interactions are considered, the — pe By= Boss = B= co Here ngain one state is pushed far down in energy while the others remain un- changed. Once again the wave function for the state with lowered energy lias all torms of the same sign, ic. itis coherent, while the wave functions corresponding to the vera vigenvalues do not have this property. “the residual interactions are attuctive, and eno ty are nagstive "The coficenta in these wave functions are not proportional to VIFF, 9 suggested by the discussion Sullowing (5-14), because the assuinption that afl aq 8fe equal isan ovesiaplil- cation, ” ‘Quantum-mechanical Treatment of the Energy Gap 95Ttis interesting to point out from (5-19) Uat the amount by which the energy of the coherent state is lowered is proportional to p, which is the number of terms, ‘of which it is @ linear combination. Tt is also proportional to tx, which is in turn proportional to ¥’, the strength of the residual interaction, ‘The use of degenerate-perturbation theory in this discussion is subject to criticism on two basic accounts: (1) the unpertuched energies in Fig. 5-3 are 0, 2e, 2ea, which are not equal to one another, and (2) the cesidual interactions might ‘de loo strong to he considered ag a small perturbation. These difficulties can be eliminated by the following treatment which, however, requires more experience ‘with quantum theory, Let the configuration wave Tunetions, (dsp)s*, (S508, and (ds) in our exam ple, be designated ¢. They are solutions of the Schrédinger equation with V taken as the shell-theory potential V, or Hei = 06: Gan hore H is the operator fa n= -Moey, Since they are solutions of a Schrédinger equation, the}, are orthonormal, or Jo? ode = diy ay If we represent the potentials introduced by the residual interactions as ¥’, the actual energies E are given by solutions of the complete Schrédinger equation + Vo = By ox where ¥ ate the wave functions for the actuat states. Expanding ¥ a8 v= Dee and insecting this into (5-22) gives” HEei6i + VEe8i Exeebe Using (5-20) in the First terma, multiplying from the left with @f dr, and integrating then gives, by use of (6-21). eat de f eT Vbidr = Be, Making use of (3-18) and writing this out explicitly gives for the case where there are three terms: forj = 1: ey(ta + a — E) + cats + cats for j = 2: ceytan + coltas bee > EE) + eves for j = 3: fats + cans + exlea + — 8) 96 The Structure of Complex Nuclei: Spherical Even-Even Nuclei