Do Protons and Neutrons Move around in the Nucleus?

In summary: I think they're called 'Dynomix'?Yes, I have seen those videos. The nucleus is not a classical world. In summary, the classical view of two protons and two neutrons vibrating in some fashion inside the nucleus does not make sense on a quantum level.
  • #1
Ryan Reed
51
4
Protons and Neutrons vibrate in place, but do they change positions within the nucleus? Let's say that there's a helium atom which has two protons and two neutrons. If the particles were set up on the corners of a square for easy representation with a neutron on the top left and top right, and a proton on the bottom left and bottom right, could a proton move from bottom left to top left?
 
  • Like
Likes Manikandan_487
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Setting them up in the corners of a square is impossible by principle, things at that scale just don't work that way, any classical model like that just fail.
 
  • #3
The classical picture you seem to have of a nucleus does not work. Also, the protons are exactly the same so there is no way of telling wether they have changed places or not.
 
  • Like
Likes ujellytek and bcrowell
  • #4
I did not believe the nucleus works like that, I used it for easy representation.
 
  • #5
You misunderstand me. The notion of the particles "moving" and the thought that they are actually separable entities is what does not make sense on a quantum level.
 
  • #6
I think you got two good replies, but I have one more point to add to completely kill the classical view of two protons and and two neutrons vibrating in some fashion inside the nucleus. Had that been even approximately true, the Helium-4 nucleus will exhibit an electric dipole moment, which should be measurable. In fact there is none as far as we know, which says that the average charge distribution inside the He-4 nucleus should be spherically symmetric. As soon as you classically separate the two protons, you are going to get an electric dipole moment, no matter where you place them, and no matter how you arrange them to vibrate. The nucleus is not a classical world.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and Dale
  • #7
two protons and and two neutrons vibrating in some fashion inside the nucleus.

I guess that's a misconception caused by (for example) the liquid drop-model?
 
  • #8
Hmm, I'd always thought that the protons and neutrons existed in energy levels like electrons do when they are in atomic/molecular orbitals.
 
  • #9
Drakkith said:
Hmm, I'd always thought that the protons and neutrons existed in energy levels like electrons do when they are in atomic/molecular orbitals.

They do.

This thread has been troubled from the beginning because the title and the initial post ask different questions. One cannot paint a big red X on one proton and see if at a later time the X is in some other position. Even in principle. However one can ask about the expectation value of velocity (well, velocity squared) and that can be non-zero.
 
  • Like
Likes e.bar.goum
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
They do.

This thread has been troubled from the beginning because the title and the initial post ask different questions. One cannot paint a big red X on one proton and see if at a later time the X is in some other position. Even in principle. However one can ask about the expectation value of velocity (well, velocity squared) and that can be non-zero.

Okay. Well, I know about how electrons are arranged in atomic orbitals. Are nucleons arranged in anything similar? By 'arranged' I just mean that the orbitals have specific shapes, not that the electrons are rigidly set into specific orbitals.
 
  • #11
fermi said:
I think you got two good replies, but I have one more point to add to completely kill the classical view of two protons and and two neutrons vibrating in some fashion inside the nucleus. Had that been even approximately true, the Helium-4 nucleus will exhibit an electric dipole moment, which should be measurable. In fact there is none as far as we know, which says that the average charge distribution inside the He-4 nucleus should be spherically symmetric. As soon as you classically separate the two protons, you are going to get an electric dipole moment, no matter where you place them, and no matter how you arrange them to vibrate. The nucleus is not a classical world.
A set of two classical charged spheres next to each other does not have a dipole moment. It has a quadrupole moment and higher moments.

Drakkith said:
Okay. Well, I know about how electrons are arranged in atomic orbitals. Are nucleons arranged in anything similar? By 'arranged' I just mean that the orbitals have specific shapes, not that the electrons are rigidly set into specific orbitals.
Yes, but the orbitals look more complicated as the potential is not a simple 1/r potential.
 
  • #12
In an earlier thread Are subatomic particles spherical, I learned that we must treat a nucleus as a quantum particle. It has a quantum state, but the identity of its constituents are lost. Scattering experiments can attempt to probe the shape and other properties, but they can't expose the identity of individual nucleons.

You can see some liquid drop videos of nucleus shape changes, but the thread says that such simulations are not supported by QM calculations.

Drakkith said:
Okay. Well, I know about how electrons are arranged in atomic orbitals. Are nucleons arranged in anything similar? By 'arranged' I just mean that the orbitals have specific shapes, not that the electrons are rigidly set into specific orbitals.

My knees shake to question a staff mentor, but I believe that the internal arrangement of a nucleus can not be defined in the same sense that you can't determine the spin of an electron in a singlet pair.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #13
Drakkith said:
Are nucleons arranged in anything similar?

Similar, but even electron orbitals don't have those pretty shapes. Those are for hydrogenic atoms. In many-electron atoms, each electron feels the fields from the others, and you have a much, much more complicated system, and the wavefunctions change shapes to accommodate this in a less-than-simple way.

Nuclear shapes are very complicated - and the last time I said something was very complicated, the level of discussion immediately ratcheted up about twelve notches, leaving the OP behind in the dust. To give a well-known example, U-238 is a 0+ nucleus, so it appears spherical to all measurements: there is no direction for an asymmetry to point. Np-239 is essentially a single proton orbiting a U-238 core. One can use this proton to "map out" the U-238 core, and when you do, you discover it's cigar-shaped.
 
  • Like
Likes DrewD, Astronuc, Drakkith and 1 other person
  • #14
Vanadium 50 said:
Similar, but even electron orbitals don't have those pretty shapes. Those are for hydrogenic atoms. In many-electron atoms, each electron feels the fields from the others, and you have a much, much more complicated system, and the wavefunctions change shapes to accommodate this in a less-than-simple way.

Hmmm, I guess we didn't cover that in my Chemistry 151 class. :biggrin:

One can use this proton to "map out" the U-238 core, and when you do, you discover it's cigar-shaped.

Smoke if you got 'em?
 
  • #15
anorlunda said:
You can see some liquid drop videos of nucleus shape changes, but the thread says that such simulations are not supported by QM calculations.

You can of course do QM calculations that show non-spherical nuclei. In fact, the very thread you just linked to has an example from me -- I linked to a Time Dependent Hartree Fock calculation of 40Ca + 238U! You can clearly see the deformed nature (cigar shaped, as V50 points out) of 238U and the spherical structure of 40Ca.

dens.png


And yes, nuclei have a shell structure, but it's rather complicated, as you don't have a nice 1/r potential. The shell structure is very important though - just like the noble gasses in chemistry, you have equivalently well bound nuclei - "doubly magic nuclei" - like 48Ca and 208Pb - where both the neutrons and protons are in closed shells. In fact, it's only near these closed shells that you're guaranteed to get spherical nuclei! In fact, if you didn't have the shell model, we'd have no explanation why the superheavy isotopes can exist at all - it's the shell structure that gives you enough stability.

Now, on the other end of the scale, we can talk about clustering in very light nuclei. Rather than talking about shells, you can talk about, say, 7Li as if it were a somewhat loosely bound ##\alpha## and ##t## pair. (That is, a large part of the ground-state wavefunction has an ##\alpha## and ##t## structure). 9Be is thought of as ##\alpha + \alpha + n##. And so on - this is where halo nuclei can appear. For instance, 11Li can be thought of as a 9Li core + 2n halo. It has a cross section comparable to 208Pb! Tl;dr - nuclei are complicated, but interesting.

Halo_Nucleus.png
But of course, in all this, you can't "tag" individual protons and neutrons inside the nucleus, you're always talking about wavefunctions.
 
  • Like
Likes Bandersnatch and Nugatory
  • #16
e.bar.goum said:
You can of course do QM calculations that show non-spherical nuclei.

I apologize e.bar.goum. I wrote what I did thinking that I was quoting you. But a recheck of the earlier thread:

e.bar.goum said:
The simulation I linked to is actually totally quantum mechanical - that's a Time Dependent Hartree Fock calculation. I believe what is plotted there is density isosurfaces(which is of course an observable).

You do occasionally see liquid drop model simulations that look an awful lot like that, and you're right, that's not quantum mechanical.

shows that I quoted and misquoted you at the same time.
 
  • Like
Likes e.bar.goum
  • #17
anorlunda said:
I apologize e.bar.goum. I wrote what I did thinking that I was quoting you. But a recheck of the earlier thread:
shows that I quoted and misquoted you at the same time.

No worries! I clicked the link wondering who on Earth would say such a thing, and for a moment, I was afraid it was me! o0)
 
  • Like
Likes nnunn
  • #18
At the risk of complicating things, the idea that there is some sort of energetics - and thus motion - going on is strongly suggested by one very simple observation: there are 170 long-lived even-even nuclei. There are 110 even-odd nuclei. There are 9 odd-odd nuclei: deuterium, Li-6, B-10, N-14, and
K-40, V-50 (yay!), La-138, Lu-176, and Ta-180. If there were not some dynamics going on, this is very improbable.
 
  • #19
I've been trying to follow along so far and if I've understood this correctly, this thread has blown my mind. I always pictured nuclei as "static" objects, a bunch of spheres vibrating in place. Now my question is are the positive magnetic fields static or dynamic? If they are dynamic and change "shape", does the shape of the field determine where the electron orbitals are?
 
  • #20
Ryan Reed said:
Now my question is are the positive magnetic fields static or dynamic?

This is the first mention of magnetic fields in this thread. What are you talking about?
 
  • #21
Vanadium 50 said:
This is the first mention of magnetic fields in this thread. What are you talking about?
Not that It has been mentioned before, I'm saying that the conversation has brought this to mind.
 
  • #22
Yes, but without giving us any context, it's a total non sequitur. "How about magnetic fields?" is like "How about them Red Sox?". You're going to have to link them up for us, because I sure can't figure out the connection.
 
  • #23
The inner details of the nucleus are (nearly) irrelevant for the electron orbitals. The nucleus is simply too small. The innermost electrons of very heavy elements are an exception, and if you want to do spectroscopy at the 14th significant digit it is relevant for lighter nuclei as well, but usually the effects are completely negligible.
 
  • #24
Vanadium 50 said:
Yes, but without giving us any context, it's a total non sequitur. "How about magnetic fields?" is like "How about them Red Sox?". You're going to have to link them up for us, because I sure can't figure out the connection.
I have an idea of something and have set "goals". Having one of my "goals" answered above, I moved onto another goal which I believed could be quickly answered without starting a new thread.
 
  • #25
Are you saying it's a different question entirely? Then you should start a new thread.
 
  • #26
I agree. Please post the new question to a new thread. The connection to this thread is tenuous at best, as far as I can tell.
 
  • #27
e.bar.goum said:
You can of course do QM calculations that show non-spherical nuclei.

Very nice picture, and more. The dogleg shaped nuclei are a big surprise to me. Are these time independent?
 
  • #28
stedwards said:
Very nice picture, and more. The dogleg shaped nuclei are a big surprise to me. Are these time independent?
Ah, no, it's a Time Dependent Hartree Fock calculation of the 40Ca + 238U quasi-fission reaction, shown at two different angular momenta, what you're seeing is different time-steps. For the L=80 case, for instance, you see the 40Ca come in, the two nuclei form a neck between them, they rotate for about a 1/4 turn, then re-seperate, with fairly similar masses to what they started with. The L =20 case is similar, except the sticking time is longer, and the mass-transfer is larger.

Usually, when you see these simulations they're done as a video. I don't have any to hand, but I will see if I can dig one up, they're really neat.
 
  • #29
e.bar.goum said:
Ah, no, it's a Time Dependent Hartree Fock calculation of the 40Ca + 238U quasi-fission reaction, shown at two different angular momenta, what you're seeing is different time-steps. For the L=80 case, for instance, you see the 40Ca come in, the two nuclei form a neck between them, they rotate for about a 1/4 turn, then re-seperate, with fairly similar masses to what they started with. The L =20 case is similar, except the sticking time is longer, and the mass-transfer is larger.

Usually, when you see these simulations they're done as a video. I don't have any to hand, but I will see if I can dig one up, they're really neat.

Success! Found some gif's in Wakhle et. al. PRL. 113 (2014). http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.182502
Bonus: It's also 40Ca + 238U. Each frame is 0.3 zs.
L=20

L_20.gif

L=80
L_80.gif


ETA: The L=20 case doesn't seem to auto-loop. Refresh the page if you can't see it move.
 
  • Like
Likes nnunn
  • #30
e.bar.goum said:
Ah, no, it's a Time Dependent Hartree Fock calculation of the 40Ca + 238U quasi-fission reaction, shown at two different angular momenta, what you're seeing is different time-steps.

Of, course, how foolish of me.

Usually, when you see these simulations they're done as a video. I don't have any to hand, but I will see if I can dig one up, they're really neat.

That would be very nice to see.

I did a short search on images of "nuclear orbitals" and came up empty. Do you have anything like this? It would be fairly in line with the OPs initial question.
 
  • #31
stedwards said:
Of, course, how foolish of me.
That would be very nice to see.

I did a short search on images of "nuclear orbitals" and came up empty. Do you have anything like this? It would be fairly in line with the OPs initial question.

See above. :wink:

I've never seen a "picture" of nuclear orbitals like the ones you see for atoms (e.g. http://www.sccj.net/publications/JCCJ/v5n3/a81/fig1.gif) although there is a relationship - you have the same angular momentum coupling in nuclei too, but there's ... more - you can't ignore spin-orbit coupling, for starters. The picture that comes to my mind would be the Nilsson model, showing the single particle energy levels for nucleons:
fig1.png


Where ##\beta## is the deformation of the nucleus. Then, you can realize that these are single-particle levels, and you can then build a rotational band on top of each of these. You can then compare that to a set of atomic energy levels.

But this is way more intimidating than is actually educational, unless you're already familiar with this sort of thing. o_O

(ETA - each number there is a number of nucleons. Solid vs dashed lines indicate parity. The colours indicate subshells)
 
  • #32
e.bar.goum said:
See above. :wink:
You're very kind.
I've never seen a "picture" of nuclear orbitals like the ones you see for atoms (e.g. http://www.sccj.net/publications/JCCJ/v5n3/a81/fig1.gif) although there is a relationship - you have the same angular momentum coupling in nuclei too, but there's ... more - you can't ignore spin-orbit coupling, for starters. The picture that comes to my mind would be the Nilsson model, showing the single particle energy levels for nucleons:
fig1.png


Where ##\beta## is the deformation of the nucleus. Then, you can realize that these are single-particle levels, and you can then build a rotational band on top of each of these. You can then compare that to a set of atomic energy levels.

But this is way more intimidating than is actually educational, unless you're already familiar with this sort of thing. o_O

Not at all educated on nuclear physics(!), which is why us, unfamiliar with the discipline, like pictures--at least, I do. In searching "Nilsson model" I did find one apparently relevant pictorial, prepending an http://ns.ph.liv.ac.uk/~esp/lectures/PHYS490/Phys490.pdf for a class course in what appears to be Liverpool.
 
  • #33
stedwards said:
You're very kind.Not at all educated on nuclear physics(!), which is why us, unfamiliar with the discipline, like pictures--at least, I do. In searching "Nilsson model" I did find one apparently relevant pictorial, prepending an http://ns.ph.liv.ac.uk/~esp/lectures/PHYS490/Phys490.pdf for a class course in what appears to be Liverpool.

HAH! Your link kicked something in my mind. Naturally, you can get these kind of pictorial representations in TDHF calculations! I have slides showing 16O states! Unfortunately, it's not something I have online. But, here are a selection of examples. These show density.
Screenshot from 2015-07-06 15:29:55.png


Screenshot from 2015-07-06 15:29:55.png
Screenshot from 2015-07-06 15:30:14.png
Screenshot from 2015-07-06 15:30:48.png
Screenshot from 2015-07-06 15:30:54.png
Screenshot from 2015-07-06 15:31:11.png
 
  • Like
Likes Jeff Rosenbury
  • #34
Nice.

They are very peculiar, and not at all like superpositions of s, p, d, f electron orbitals, with weirdly, less symmetry.

Are they derived theoretically or from experimental data?

Of course, experimental data is interpreted through theory, but what I mean to ask is---I'm not really sure how to put it. Maybe you can enlighten me.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
stedwards said:
Nice.

They are very peculiar, and not at all like superpositions of s, p, d, f electron orbitals, with weirdly, less symmetry.

Are they derived theoretically or from experimental data?

Like I said, they're TDHF calculations for 16O. I don't know that you could get these from experiment - nuclear shapes are the sum of all of these orbitals. However, the input nuclear force for this particular simulation is derived from experimental data. (For the experts, it's Skyrme SLy6). Now, a valid question would be -- "how well does TDHF, being a mean field approximation, reproduce the shapes of orbitals?", to which my answer is, I've no idea. :sorry:
 

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
607
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top