I Quantum Kinetic Energy of Neutrons, Protons and Electrons

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the quantum kinetic energy formulas for neutrons, protons, and electrons, particularly in the context of a neutron star's composition. A specific equation for the total quantum kinetic energy of neutrons is provided, derived from the total kinetic energy of fermionic particles. Clarification is sought regarding the classification of protons and neutrons as fermions despite their integer spin, which leads to confusion about the distinction between fermions and bosons. It is explained that while baryons like protons and neutrons are composed of quarks with half-integer spins, they still adhere to the properties of fermions due to their overall half-integer spin. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the initial confusion regarding particle properties.
gennarakis
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I have a problem to solve in Cosmology which says:

"Write the formulas for the quantum kinetic energy of neutrons, protons and electrons as well as the formula for the gravitational energy for a neutron star that is comprised of free neutrons, protons and electrons in a ratio of Nn : Np : Ne = 93,4 : 6,6 : 6,6 (Nν=Nn+Nn=1,8x1057)

The numerical coefficients should be these for homogeneous density."
Attempt for solution

I find in the book "From Quarks to Quasars" by E.N.Economou that the total quantum kinetic energy of neutrons is 92,14% of the total, Uk,tot=Uk,n/0,9214=(ακ/0,9214)ħ2N5/3/(mnR2). The coefficients are aκ=1,1.

This equation is derived from the total kinetic energy of N fermionic particles (s=1/2) that are similar and non relativistic.

And my question is:

How can this equation be used for neutrons (and protons) which are bosons and don't follow Fermi's exclusion principle (where this equation is derived from)?
 
Space news on Phys.org
gennarakis said:
How can this equation be used for neutrons (and protons) which are bosons and don't follow Fermi's exclusion principle (where this equation is derived from)?

Protons and neutrons are fermions with spin 1/2 h/2π, and they are subjects to the Pauli exclusion principle.
All baryons are fermions, without exception.
 
  • Like
Likes gennarakis
Garlic said:
Protons and neutrons are fermions with spin 1/2 h/2π, and they are subjects to the Pauli exclusion principle.
All baryons are fermions, without exception.

I was confused for a second though I see my question is probably of lack of knowledge..but all bosons must have an integer spin, right? so, how baryons which are comprised of three quarks and hence have an integer spin are fermions and not bosons?
 
gennarakis said:
I was confused for a second though I see my question is probably of lack of knowledge..but all bosons must have an integer spin, right? so, how baryons which are comprised of three quarks and hence have an integer spin are fermions and not bosons?

Neutrons and protons have half-integer spin (1/2 h/2π).
This can be explained with the fact that individual quarks have spin 1/2 h/2π, and therefore baryons have ±1/2 or ±3/2 spin (as quarks can have different positions).
Mesons (like pions) however, have always integer spins.
 
  • Like
Likes gennarakis
Garlic said:
Neutrons and protons have half-integer spin (1/2 h/2π).
This can be explained with the fact that individual quarks have spin 1/2 h/2π, and therefore baryons have ±1/2 or ±3/2 spin (as quarks can have different positions).
Mesons (like pions) however, have always integer spins.

Thanks a lot! You are right...I confused the electric charge with the spin of the particle and I couldn't see how three quarks with 2/3 and -1/3 spins cannot be integers...
 
gennarakis said:
Thanks a lot! You are right...I confused the electric charge with the spin of the particle and I couldn't see how three quarks with 2/3 and -1/3 spins cannot be integers...

I'm glad I could help. :smile:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top