What Determines the r_0 Constant in Nuclear Radius Calculations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mateomy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atomic Nucleus
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the constant term r_0 in the formula for nuclear radius, R = r_0 A^{1/3}, where A represents the number of nucleons. Participants are exploring the origins and values of r_0, as well as its implications in nuclear physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the derivation of the r_0 constant and its empirical determination from experiments. There are discussions about the variability in its assigned values by different sources and the implications of interpreting r_0 as the size of a single nucleon.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the empirical nature of r_0 and its role in the formula. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of r_0, but no consensus has been reached on its exact derivation or value.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of different values for r_0 from various sources, which raises questions about the consistency of these measurements. Additionally, the fuzzy nature of nuclei and the approximation of their radii are acknowledged as factors in the discussion.

mateomy
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
I've been noticing that for expressions finding the nuclear radius there is a constant term r_0, that I can't seem to find an explanation for. The full term is
R=r_{0}A^{1/3}
That the atomic radius is roughly the 3rd root of the number of nucleons. But where is the r_0 coming from? I'm using Cottingham and Wong as sources but both of them fail to mention it's derivation. Plus, they both give {slightly} different values, without looking I think Wong assigns it a value of 1.7 fm and Cottingham 1.1 fm. Can anyone explain this to me?


Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nuclei are sort of fuzzy and don't have definite radii (they're not even necessarily spherical). The formula gives an approximate value of the radius and the value of ro in the formula is determined from various experiments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_size.
 
This is I think an expression found by experimental or at least phenomenological means. As there ##A## is the number of nucleons, you would have that ##r_0## is the size of a single nucleon (and has to be determined experimentally of course). It is needed in this expression formally to give the right dimension to ##R##.

Also notice that (something I think is interesting) if you compute the volume of the nucleus (interpreting really ##r_0## as the radius of the single nucleon), you will have that the total volume is ##A## times the volume of a nucleon, which is clearly consistent with what one would imagine.
 
TSny said:
the formula is determined from various experiments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_size.

Looking in the Wikipedia article to the values given for the experimental sizes of neutron and proton, indeed ##r_0## is a constant determined empirically and seems to me a sort of mean value of the two.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
22K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K