Very basic (?) particle/nuclear physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter fysikjatack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
fysikjatack
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi! I am taking a course called Modern Physics and I have this small issue when it comes to particle physics.

Homework Statement



"An \alpha-particle collides with a silicon nucleus, 29Si, and a nuclear reaction takes place. One proton is emitted. What is the reaction?
Hint: 12Mg,13Al, 14Si,15P, 16S are "available" nuclei."

Homework Equations



-

The Attempt at a Solution



So I´m just thinking:

an alpha-particle is two protons and two neutrons and the Si nucleus is 14 protons and 15 neutrons. Addition would give 14+2=16 protons and 15+2=17 neutrons.

Hence, the result would be 33S. 33S is stable and naturally occurring (0.75%). Then one proton is emitted; subtraction one proton would give 32P. This is not naturally occurring and half-life of it is ~14 d. The rection would then be something like:

29Si + \alpha --> 33S* --> 32P + p

Can one just add protons and neutronsl like this? The problem text states that the collision results in that a nuclear rection takes place. Can I assume that I am supposed to just add neutrons and protons like this? But why would the stable 33S emit a proton? And wouldn't it be strange to have the reaction product being the unstable 32P?

Or could it possibly be that the collision results in a reaction where the only result is one proton being emitted, resulting in an Al nucleus?

Either way, it seems TOO trivial and the hint with all the nuclei seems confusing.
Do I need to somehow look closer into nuclear stability and decay series of sorts in order to solve this problem? Or should one, somehow, just realize that the reaction is something different than my idea of "simple addition" of alpha + Si and then subtraction of p? Other particles (beta, gamma)...are they not involved here at all?

Maybe the reaction does not take the way over 33S? At first I wanted to call this 33S an excited sulfur nucleus, would that be correct terminology? I did add the "*" in the answer because of this thought...
Help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
My best guess is that you're right; I'd have reasoned the same way. The (33)S is excited, or more likely never forms because the proton is knocked out immediately. But I have never taken a nuclear physics course.
 
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