How Large Can a Nucleus Get Before Instability Sets In?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter John Richard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Maximum Nucleus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of nuclear size and stability, specifically addressing how many protons can be added to a nucleus before instability occurs. Participants explore theoretical and empirical aspects of nuclear physics, including the balance of forces within the nucleus and the implications of the periodic table.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that there is a known limit to the size of a nucleus, referencing that nuclei with atomic numbers greater than 109 are unstable and decay quickly.
  • One participant describes the nucleus as a "quark-liquid," proposing that the balance between attractive quark forces and repulsive Coulomb interactions determines nuclear size.
  • Another participant mentions that while larger nuclei than those currently in the periodic table could theoretically exist, they would have very short lifespans, making them practically useless.
  • There is a discussion about the electromagnetic repulsion eventually overcoming the strong nuclear force as more protons are added, leading to instability.
  • Some participants reference theoretical stable isotopes, such as element 114, suggesting that specific combinations of protons and neutrons could lead to larger, stable nuclei.
  • One participant explains that the binding energy of the nuclear force increases linearly with the number of nucleons, while electrostatic energy increases more rapidly, contributing to instability.
  • Another participant notes the Pauli exclusion principle as a factor preventing the existence of pure neutron atoms, which complicates the balance of protons and neutrons in stable nuclei.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the limits of nuclear size and stability, with no consensus reached on a definitive answer. The discussion includes both theoretical perspectives and empirical observations, indicating ongoing debate in the field.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of stability and size, as well as unresolved mathematical steps regarding the balance of forces in large nuclei.

John Richard
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
If a free proton is pushed to within 10^-13 centimeters of a nucleus, it overcomes the repulsion interactions and is locked into the nucleus.

Is there a known limit to the size of a nucleus? Is there a limit to how many protons we can add to a nucleus?

Thanks for your help

John
 
Physics news on Phys.org
John Richard said:
I
Is there a known limit to the size of a nucleus? Is there a limit to how many protons we can add to a nucleus?

Thanks for your help

John
Really interesting question...
I think that accordingly to our present knowledge the answer is in the periodic table..

regards
marco
 
Hm, I remember I took a coarse about this once. There is a limit size or in other words number of protons (mixed with a special fraction of neutrons) in the nucleus. Nucleus with Z>109 are instable and decay very quickly into lighter atoms, also radiating [tex]\gamma[/tex]-rays.

Since protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks each, you could think of the nucleus as a "quark-liquid" (like [tex]H_2O[/tex] molecules in a small water drop). Each quark carries electric charge and Coulomb repulsion/attraction will occur (mainly repulsion). Phenomenologically one introduce also an attractive force between the quarks like:

[tex]U_{i,j} = + constant\mtimes\mid\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j\mid[/tex]

The balance between attractive quark force and repulsive coulomb interaction will determine the size of the nucleus. If you try to move quarks from each other to far, the energy will be so high that this energy could create particle-antiparticles and will decay.

The idea is that in large enough "quark-soup" there could be effectively to large quark-quark distances involved (attraction energy increases above [tex]mc^2[/tex]), so that the nucleus will decay rapidly.I hope it give you something,
Per
 
Last edited:
John Richard said:
If a free proton is pushed to within 10^-13 centimeters of a nucleus, it overcomes the repulsion interactions and is locked into the nucleus.

Is there a known limit to the size of a nucleus? Is there a limit to how many protons we can add to a nucleus?

Thanks for your help

John

As per said, it matters how long you want the nucleas to stay togever without decaying. As shown in periodic table, the biggest nucleus discovered so far is Ununoctium, but it stays togever for very little time and decays. So in theory you could have probably a lot more than there is currently in periodic table, but it would last for such a short time, it would be hardly any use to us.

Tachyon.
 
Thank you for your helpful replies.

Can I put it crudely to see if I am getting the right idea.

Is it assumed to be a build up of the electromagnetic repulsion interaction that eventually defeats the strong nuclear attraction interaction?

In a manner of speaking, does the strong force break because the volume added to a nucleus by the addition of a proton exceeds the overall volume increase of the nucleus. The disproportionality eventually leading to an unstable nucleus?

I am looking into the implications that the relative atomic mass has for my enquiry, thanks for the pointers to the periodic table.

Thanks again for your valued help.

John
 
If it helps further, there are theoretical sizes of nuclei that are (potentially) extremely stable elements; element 114 (more specifically the 286(?) isotope), is a theoretical size that physical chemists and nuclear physicists have been trying to create for a little while now. Although I have to admit that I don't really understand why certain superheavy elements are so stable, from the way it was explained to me it seems that the right combination of neutrons and protons in the right pattern could potentially produce nuclei quite large, but only of specific sizes. Glenn Seaborg won a Nobel Prize for his work in this, and there is an article in Nature about element 114:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5723/abs/280543a0.html
 
Last edited:
John Richard said:
Thank you for your helpful replies.

Is it assumed to be a build up of the electromagnetic repulsion interaction that eventually defeats the strong nuclear attraction interaction?

In a manner of speaking, does the strong force break because the volume added to a nucleus by the addition of a proton exceeds the overall volume increase of the nucleus. The disproportionality eventually leading to an unstable nucleus?
John

Yes, the electromagnetic repulsion will eventually overcome strong nuclear force: nuclear force has low reach, so it acts only between neighbour nucleons. Consequently it's binding energy increases only lineary with the number of nucleons A.
Electrostatic energy is proportional to e^2/r, so it will increase as Z^2/A^(1/3). (radius of nucleus increases as A^(1/3)). Z is the number of protons, which is aproximately proportional to the number of nucleons (A), so the (positive) electrostatic energy will increase aproximately as A^5/6, which is faster than strong force energy (A).

You might ask why we can't have a pure nevtron atom (to get rid of electrostatic repulsion). The reason is Pauli exclusion principle, which forces fermions (nevtrons, protons) to ocupy higher energy states as their density increases (this energy has a minimum when the numbers of nevtrons (N) and protons (Z) are equal). This energy is high enough to forbid pure nevtron atom, but can't always force Z=N, since it has to compete with electrostatic energy.

There are also some other effects involved: I advice you to search for "semi-empiric mass formula" (for example on wikipedia), which uses liquid drop model to estimate binding energies of atoms (as a function of numbers N and Z).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
13K