What Is the Minimum Possible KE of an Electron Confined to Nuclear Dimensions?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum possible kinetic energy (KE) of an electron confined to nuclear dimensions, specifically about 5 femtometers (fm). The problem involves relativistic energy-momentum relations and the implications of confinement on the electron's properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different approaches to relate the confinement of the electron to its kinetic energy, questioning the validity of various equations and assumptions. There is discussion on the application of the uncertainty principle and how it impacts the momentum of the electron.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, sharing their attempts and questioning the assumptions made regarding the uncertainty in position and momentum. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of the uncertainty principle, but there is no explicit consensus on the correct approach or calculations yet.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the interpretation of the confinement dimensions and how they relate to the uncertainty in position. Participants are considering different estimates for the uncertainty and its implications for the calculations.

JoshuaR
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider an electron confined in a region of nuclear dimensions (about 5fm). Find its minimum possible KE in MeV. Treat as one-dimensional. Use relativistic relation between E and p.


Homework Equations


KE = p2/(2a) = [tex]\hbar[/tex]2/(2ma2)
p = h/[tex]\lambda[/tex]
E = hf
E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2
E = mc2 + KE


The Attempt at a Solution


First attempt: [tex]KE = p^2/(2m) = (pc)^2/(2mc^2) = (E^2-(mc^2)^2)/(2mc^2)<br /> Thus, K2mc^2=E^2-(mc^2)^2 = K^2 + 2Kmc^2 + (mc^2)^2.[/tex]However, here everything cancels out and I get:
K^2 = 0, which can't be right. (Answer in book is 40 MeV)

Another approach: [tex]E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2=(mc^2)^2 + 2mc^2K + K^2[/tex](setting the invariant energy squared equal to the energy squared where E = K + mc^2

This leads to a quadratic equation: [tex]K = -2mc^2 \pm[/tex] [tex]\sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2}[/tex]
OR
K = -2mc^2 [tex]\pm[/tex] [tex]\sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(hc/\lambda)^2}[/tex]

When I plug in those values, I don't get 40 MeV. I feel like I'm missing something very simple and fundamental. This shouldn't be a hard problem. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KE=p^2/2m is only valid for p<<mc

You should only use E = sqrt[(mc2)2 + (pc)2] and therefore,
KE = E - mc^2 = sqrt[(mc2)2 + (pc)2] - mc^2.
 
That was indeed my guess on the second approach. If I take just that:
KE = [tex]sqrt[(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2] - mc^2[/tex], I still don't get there. Using the formula [tex]p = h/\lambda[/tex]

If I do as I did on the "second approach" then setting energies equal, I also have trouble. I'm a bit puzzled because I am sure I am missing something simple, and this is just straightforward.
 
You should transform the statement that the electron is confined to small region in space to a statement about the uncertainty in position.

Then, you use the uncertainty relation to find a minimum for the expectation value of p^2.

That's the value you substitute in your relativistic relation between E and p, and you extract K from that, as you already correctly noted.
 
You get 40Mev if you use p=hbar/lambda.
 
weejee said:
You get 40Mev if you use p=hbar/lambda.

Yes...and the correct explanation for that is the one I posted.
 
Mmkay, I think I've tried that.

I have [tex]\delta p\delta x = \hbar/2.[/tex]

Thus, when I use the KE form from before:[tex] <br /> KE = sqrt[(mc^2)^2 + (\hbar c/\delta x*2)^2] - mc^2[/tex]

I must be doing incorrect math... sigh.
 
Last edited:
Gah!

Where's the math mistake?

[tex]-.511MeV + sqrt[.511^2 + (6.58E-22*3E8/(2*5E-15))^2)[/tex]
 
What you wrote down is the minimum uncertainty condition, which is only satisfied for special cases such as the gaussian wave packet.

Normally people use [tex]\delta p\delta x \sim \hbar[/tex].

Actually, since it is an order of magnitude estimation, you can't really say it's wrong even if you use values like 2*hbar or hbar/2.

In my opinion, any value between 10MeV and 100Mev is OK for the answer.
 
  • #10
\delta x is not equal to 5fm, the better estimate is 2.5fm: it's the uncertainty in the position, and we can assume the expectation value of the position of the electron corresponds to the center of the region.

Apart from that, I agree with weejee: an order of magnitude estimate will have to do: the actual physics is too complicated to get the "real" answer.
 
  • #11
I see. It all makes so much more sense now, lol. Just take away that darn factor...

New question on this. I figured I should use minimum uncertainty for [tex]\delta x[/tex] since we were confining it to a box of size 5E-15m. Do you suppose my problem here was assuming the box was [tex]\delta x[/tex]? After all, [tex]\delta x[/tex] is usually only one side of the wave packet (akin to radius, not diameter). Thus, if I have a region of some size, then [tex]\delta x[/tex] is half the width of the region. Then when I plug in for minimum uncertainty, I get 2*0.5*width...

Thanks for the help.
 
  • #12
Right, borgwal, I think that was the problem. Thanks again!
 
  • #13
Welcome!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K