Why Are Proton-Proton and Neutron-Neutron Bonds More Stable in Atomic Nuclei?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jeffbarrington
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bonds Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the stability of proton-proton and neutron-neutron bonds in atomic nuclei, particularly in relation to the pairing term in the semi-empirical mass formula (SEMF) and the implications of the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP). Participants explore the differences between nucleon interactions in nuclei compared to simpler two-nucleon systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why proton-proton and neutron-neutron bonds are more stable in the nucleus, suggesting that the pairing term in the SEMF indicates higher binding energy for these pairs compared to neutron-proton pairs.
  • Another participant asserts that nuclear physics operates differently from chemistry, emphasizing that nucleon interactions cannot be simplified to individual bonds, as each nucleon experiences the potential from all other nucleons.
  • A follow-up comment suggests that the pairing term in the SEMF relates to the shell model, drawing a parallel to electron configurations in atoms where aligned spins in different orbitals lead to lower energy states.
  • One participant notes that nuclei can accommodate spins up and down, allowing pairs of neutrons or protons in available energy levels, while the next odd nucleon must occupy a higher energy level, which may influence stability.
  • A question is raised about the PEP and its relevance, with a participant expressing confusion about the favorability of neutron-proton combinations due to isospin considerations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of nucleon interactions and the implications of the pairing term in the SEMF. There is no consensus on the role of the PEP or the favorability of neutron-proton bonds compared to proton-proton and neutron-neutron bonds.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of nucleon interactions and the applicability of the PEP in nuclear contexts remain unresolved. The discussion highlights the complexity of nuclear binding and the influence of various factors such as spin and energy levels.

jeffbarrington
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
I am curious as to why proton-proton, neutron-neutron bonds are preferable in the nucleus; the pairing term in the semi empirical mass formula for the nucleus comes from the fact that pp and nn bonds are more stable in the nucleus (higher binding energy or more negative potential energy, however you want to look at it) whereas when talking about the formation of simple, two nucleon particles, the only one allowable is np, i.e. deuterium because of the PEP. Why isn't the PEP applying in the nucleus? Why does the pairing term not favour np bonds?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nuclear physics is not chemistry. You don't make nuclei by considering individual nucleon-nucleon bonds. Each nucleon feels the potential created by the other nucleons.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Nuclear physics is not chemistry. You don't make nuclei by considering individual nucleon-nucleon bonds. Each nucleon feels the potential created by the other nucleons.
Of course, but the pairing term of the SEMF is to be thought of as being to do with pp and nn pairs in the nucleus. Is this an effect of the shell model? Like how in atoms it's lower energy (high binding energy) for the spins to be aligned if the electrons are all in different orbitals?
 
Nuclei can have spin up and down, every available energy level can get two neutrons or protons, respectively. That makes pairs favorable, the next (odd) nucleon has to occupy a higher energy level.
 
jeffbarrington said:
two nucleon particles, the only one allowable is np, i.e. deuterium because of the PEP

What is the PEP? I thought the combination pn was favorable because of isospin issues?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K