Hypernuclei: Understanding the Heaviest Atom & Stability Principles

  • Thread starter Thread starter jerich1000
  • Start date Start date
jerich1000
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
What is the heaviest possible hypernucleus (atom), and why?

Are hypernuclei prone to exist with isotopes with more or fewer neutrons, and why?

What would it take for there to be a fully stable hypernucleus? I know there isn't any such thing--but I am trying to learn the principles involved.

Thank you for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
More neutrons, definitely. Protons are repulsive, and the higher the Z, the more energy it takes to add a proton. Adding a neutron only increases energy due to Pauli exclusion, which tends to require less energy in heavy nuclei.

It's apparent from trends too. Light nuclei have roughly the same number of protons and neutrons. That's due to Pauli exclusion. But the heavier you go, the more neutrons start to dominate. That's Coulomb repulsion.

As an extreme case, we can look at neutron stars. These are essentially hypernuclei held together by gravity. And I do think gravity is the only way to make it work. As mentioned above, energy of adding extra particles just keeps increasing. Without some form of long-range purely attractive force, you can't keep it together. And besides gravity, I can't think of anything.
 
K^2 said:
More neutrons, definitely. Protons are repulsive, and the higher the Z, the more energy it takes to add a proton. Adding a neutron only increases energy due to Pauli exclusion, which tends to require less energy in heavy nuclei.

It's apparent from trends too. Light nuclei have roughly the same number of protons and neutrons. That's due to Pauli exclusion. But the heavier you go, the more neutrons start to dominate. That's Coulomb repulsion.

As an extreme case, we can look at neutron stars. These are essentially hypernuclei held together by gravity. And I do think gravity is the only way to make it work. As mentioned above, energy of adding extra particles just keeps increasing. Without some form of long-range purely attractive force, you can't keep it together. And besides gravity, I can't think of anything.

That sounds about right, then you reach the point of absolute collapse, end of story. At high enough energies QCD isn't enough, so colour confinement is out of the picture. Gravity is it, or some kind of completely new physics.
 
Thank you for your responses!
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top