Simple expression for Coloumb energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression for Coulomb energy in nuclear physics, specifically examining its components and implications for energy barriers in nuclear reactions. Participants explore the relationship between the variables involved, including charge, radius, and nucleon number, while questioning the interpretation of energy barriers in the context of nuclear stability and splitting.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the origin of the term ##\frac{\alpha}{2}## in the expression for Coulomb energy and its implications for energy calculations.
  • There is confusion regarding the calculation of energy values, with one participant stating that using ##Z=40## and ##A=100## yields ##3.3 \times 10^{14} J##, while others challenge the unit consistency of this result.
  • Some argue that the Coulomb energy increases with increasing nucleon number (A and Z), while the overall energy barrier for splitting the nucleus decreases, leading to conflicting interpretations.
  • Participants discuss the significance of the energy barrier and its relation to the energy required to split the nucleus, with some suggesting that it involves the difference in total energy between initial and final states, including surface terms and electrostatic potential differences.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the apparent contradiction in statements regarding whether the energy barrier increases or decreases with additional protons.
  • There is mention of a specific expression for the energy barrier being proportional to ##Z^2 A^{-\frac{1}{3}}##, prompting further inquiry into its implications.
  • Some participants seek clarification on the source of the text being referenced in the discussion, indicating a need for context regarding the definitions used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the Coulomb energy expression and its implications for energy barriers. Multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between nucleon number and energy barrier behavior.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the definitions and assumptions underlying the energy calculations, particularly regarding unit consistency and the interpretation of energy barriers in nuclear processes.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
coloumb1.png


How did they arrive at this expression? I understand the ##Q^2## term in the nominator and the ##r = r_0 (A)^{\frac{1}{3}}## term in the denominator. Where did the ##\frac{\alpha}{2}## term come from?

Putting in Z=40, A=100 gives ##3.3 \times 10^{14} J##, not ##65 MeV##.

The energy term should be of the form ## \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{Q^2}{R}##.

Also, shouldn't the energy barrier ##E_{barrier}## decrease with increasing nucleon number?

coloumb2.png


However, the text seems to imply the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This could be related to the chosen unit system. Alternatively, it is the difference between a single sphere and the two spheres. Where does the text come from?

How did you get 1014 J? That does not work in any unit system.

The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z as you have more and more protons but the distance does not grow that much.
The full energy barrier decreases, to see that you have to include the original coulomb energy (as a single nucleus) - you'll see it is larger than the energy for two separated halves.
 
mfb said:
This could be related to the chosen unit system. Alternatively, it is the difference between a single sphere and the two spheres. Where does the text come from?

How did you get 1014 J? That does not work in any unit system.

The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z as you have more and more protons but the distance does not grow that much.
The full energy barrier decreases, to see that you have to include the original coulomb energy (as a single nucleus) - you'll see it is larger than the energy for two separated halves.

Using ##\alpha = \frac{1}{137}##, ## r_0 = 1.2 \times 10^{-15} m##, ##Z=40## and ##A=100## gives ##10^{14} ##.

I'm confused. You say: "The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z..." and you then say "The full energy barrier decreases..". Does the energy barrier increase or decrease?
 
unscientific said:
Using ##\alpha = \frac{1}{137}##, ## r_0 = 1.2 \times 10^{-15} m##, ##Z=40## and ##A=100## gives ##10^{14} ##.
No, it gives 1014/m. Which shows you got the units wrong, or there is some prefactor missing. Either way, you cannot simply put some arbitrary unit of energy (like Joule) to it.

I'm confused. You say: "The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z..." and you then say "The full energy barrier decreases..". Does the energy barrier increase or decrease?
The expression there increases, but the energy barrier for splitting decreases.
 
mfb said:
The expression there increases, but the energy barrier for splitting decreases.

Since ##E_{barrier} \propto Z^2 A^{-\frac{1}{3}}##, shouldn't the energy barrier increase with addition of protons?
 
This is not the energy needed to split the nucleus.
 
mfb said:
This is not the energy needed to split the nucleus.

Ok, if the energy barrier is not the energy needed to split the nucleus, then:

1. What does the energy barrier mean?
2. What then, is the energy required to split the nucleus?
 
unscientific said:
1. What does the energy barrier mean?
That's what I asked in post 2: where is the text from?
2. What then, is the energy required to split the nucleus?
The difference in total energy between the two discussed states, including the surface term that has been mentioned in post 1 and the electrostatic potential difference between initial and final state. That is not exact, but it will should give a reasonable approximation.
 
mfb said:
That's what I asked in post 2: where is the text from?
The difference in total energy between the two discussed states, including the surface term that has been mentioned in post 1 and the electrostatic potential difference between initial and final state. That is not exact, but it will should give a reasonable approximation.

This came from our lecture notes.

That splitting energy makes sense. The notes are confusing, as they say:

"For larger values of A, the energy barrier (7.1) continues to increase relative to final state of two well-separated daughters. "

Shouldn't (7.1) decrease with A?!
 
  • #10
That looks more like the energy barrier for fusion (because it is compared two two well-separated nuclei). I don't know.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K