1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nuclear Decay - Semi Empirical Formula

  1. Apr 18, 2015 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    (a) What processes changes atomic number by 1? What are the favourable conditions? How do you tell a neutrino is involved? How can we use this to understand the mass of this particle?
    (b) Use semi empirical mass formula to explain why odd-odd isobars are unlikely, while even-even isobars are possible. Why is ##Tc## the lightest odd-odd isobar? Show by mass difference ##Mo## is stable.
    (c) What is the other possible process and its ##Q## value?
    (d) What background is suppressed and what other background exists? What's the significance of T=Q?
    2014_B4_Q3.png

    2. Relevant equations


    3. The attempt at a solution
    This question completely stumped me, as I have no idea how to proceed.

    Part (a)
    I suppose the two processes are neutron capturing: ##_a ^b X + n \rightarrow _a ^{b+1} Y + \gamma## and fission: ##_a ^b Z + n \rightarrow _a ^{b-1} W + 2n + \gamma##.
    I think favourable conditions are an odd-even nucleus? Not sure what other conditions there are.
    When a neutrino is involved, I suppose we find leptons? How do we use leptonic decay to figure out the mass?

    Part (b)
    For an odd-odd configuration, ##\delta_P < 0## so lower binding energy compared to an even-even configuration where ##\delta_P = 0##. Not sure why ##(Z,N) = (43,57)## is the lightest odd-odd isobar. What about ##(41,59)##?
    It seems that ##Mo## has a higher binding energy than ##Tc##, so I suppose it is more stable.



    Not sure for the other parts of this question..
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2015 #2

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    For part a), it's the atomic number which changes. Which particle determines the atomic number of an atom?

    Does fission change the atomic number by 1? Or does fission do something entirely different to a nucleus?
     
  4. Apr 18, 2015 #3
    Ok, the atomic number is the proton number. So instead of a neutron it would be a proton then.

    Fission actually breaks the nucleus into many parts + some other neutrons, so I don't think it will be applicable in this case.
     
  5. Apr 18, 2015 #4

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Is capturing a proton the only process which increases the atomic number of an atom? Think about the different types of radioactivity (there are three types).
     
  6. Apr 18, 2015 #5
    Ok, I can think of 3 radiations:
    Beta decay: ##_a X~ \rightarrow~ e^- + _{a+1}Y ##
    Alpha decay: Won't this change the atomic number by ##2##?
    Gamma decay: ##_a X~ \rightarrow~ _{a+1}Y + e^- + \nu_e + \gamma##.
     
  7. Apr 18, 2015 #6

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Does gamma emission always lead to a change in atomic number? What about beta decay?
     
  8. Apr 18, 2015 #7
    Gamma emission doesn't always, but beta decay has to (conservation of charge).
     
  9. Apr 18, 2015 #8

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Can you answer question a) now?
     
  10. Apr 18, 2015 #9
    What are the favourable conditions? How do we tell if a neutrino is involved? Even if a neutrino is involved, I can't see how that can be used to figure out the mass of the reactants...
     
  11. Apr 18, 2015 #10

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You're misreading what question a) actually asks:

    The question is not asking for the mass of the reactants ...
     
  12. Apr 18, 2015 #11
    I suppose one of the experimental signature that the sum of the partial widths is less than it would be a peak/resonance in the cross-section where ##E=m_Z## due to the production of the ##Z^0## boson. The "missing" or "invisible" width belongs to the neutrino?
     
  13. Apr 19, 2015 #12
    I suppose the mass of the neutrino can be calculated from the width ##\Gamma_{\nu}##?
     
  14. Apr 19, 2015 #13

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The question is a bit vague. IMO, "understand" is not the same as "calculate", w.r.t. the mass of the neutrino.

    I think the question here is looking for a qualitative estimate of whether neutrinos are relatively massive particles, or if there is not much mass to one ...
     
  15. Apr 19, 2015 #14
    True, I read it has a very low but non-zero mass.

    For part (b), why is the ##Tc## the lightest isobar? Why can't ##Z=41, N=59## be formed?
     
  16. Apr 19, 2015 #15

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm afraid my knowledge of atomic physics is pretty much exhausted after being able to tell the difference between atomic number and atomic mass ...
     
  17. Apr 20, 2015 #16
    No problem, thanks alot for spending time on this problem.

    Would appreciate help from anyone else who have done atomic physics!
     
  18. Apr 22, 2015 #17
  19. Apr 25, 2015 #18
  20. Apr 30, 2015 #19
  21. May 4, 2015 #20
    bumpp would appreciate any help to start
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Nuclear Decay - Semi Empirical Formula
  1. Nuclear Decay (Replies: 2)

  2. Nuclear Physics decay (Replies: 0)

Loading...