Nuclear physics - number of nucleons on surface?

aliaze1
Messages
173
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



For a nucleus of A=220, estimate very roughly how many nucleaons would be at the surface.

Homework Equations



R0=1.5 x 10-15

r=A1/3 x R0

The Attempt at a Solution



Using the formulas, I calculated R to be 7.2441729 x 10-15

The book says that the number of nucleons at the surface and the total number of nucleons has a ratio of ~1/r

1/r= 1.3804 x 1014

I tried the following:

1.3804 x 1014 = 220/x

which didn't make sense...

what am I doing wrong?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the key here is 'very roughly'. You have a big sphere made of 220 smaller spheres. Roughly, what's the volume of that sphere in terms of the radius of the smaller sphere. What's the total area of that sphere? Each smaller sphere exposes, roughly, pi*r^2 of outer surface area. How many are there? Roughly.
 
so I could set a volume of a sphere as 220, solve for r, and then find the surface area based on that?
 
aliaze1 said:
so I could set a volume of a sphere as 220, solve for r, and then find the surface area based on that?

Yes, then use the area to estimate the number of spheres with volume 1 on the surface. I think that's what they're after. It's certainly a 'rough estimate'.
 
thanks!
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top