G.

Gamow, ZP, 51, 204 1928

Quantum Theory of the Atomic Nucleus
G. Gamow
(Received 1928)
It has often been suggested that nonCoulomb attractive forces play a
very important role inside atomic nuclei. We can make many hypotheses
concerning the nature of these forces. They can be the attractions between
the magnetic moments of the individual constituents of the nucleus or the
forces engendered by electric and magnetic polarization.
In any case, these forces diminish very rapidly with increasing distance
from the nucleus, and only in the immediate vicinity of the nucleus do they
outweigh the Coulomb force.
From the scattering of particles we may conclude that for heavy ele-
ments the forces of attraction are still not measurable down to a distance of
10
12
cm. We may therefore take the potential energy as being correctly
represented by the curve in [Fig. 1].
Here r

gives distance down to which it has been shown experimentally

that the Coulomb repulsion alone exists. From r

down the deviation (r

is unknown and perhaps much smaller than r

) from the Coulomb force

is pronounced and the Ucurve has a maximum at r
0
. For r < r
0
the
attractive forces dominate; this region, the particle circles around the rest
of the nucleus like a satellite.
This motion, however, is not stable since the particles energy is posi-
tive, and, after some time, the -particle will y out ( -emission). Here,
however, we meet a fundamental diculty.
1
Figure 1:
To y o, the particle must overcome a potential barrier of height U
0
[Fig. 1]; its energy may not be less than u
0
. But the energy of the emitted
particle, as veried experimentally, is much less. For example, we nd on
analyzing the scattering of Ra c

particles by uranium that for the

uranium nucleus the Coulomb law is valid down to distances of 3.2 10
12
cm. on the other hand, the -particles emitted by uranium itself have an
energy which represents a distance of 3.210
12
cm ( r
2
in [Fig. 1] ) on the
repulsive curve. If an -particle, coming from the interior of the nucleus,
is to y away, it must pass through the region r
1
and r
2
where its kinetic
energy would be negative, which, naturally, is impossible classically.
To overcome this diculty, Rutherford assumed that the -particles in
the nucleus are neutral, since they are assumed to have two electrons there.
Only at a certain distance from the nucleus, on the other side of the potential
barriers maximum, do they, according to Rutherford. lose their two elec-
trons. which fall back into the nucleus while the -particles y on impelled
by the Coulomb repulsion. But this assumption seems very unnatural, and
can hardly be a true picture.
If we consider the problem from the wave mechanical point of view, the
above diculties disappear by themselves. In wave mechanics a particle
always has a nite probability, dierent from zero, of going from one region
to another region of the same energy, even through the two regions are
separated by an arbitrarily large but nite potential barrier.
As we shall see further, the probability for such a transition, all things
considered, is very small and, in fact, is smaller the higher the potential
barrier is. To clarify this point, we shall analyze a simple case [see Fig. 2].
We have a rectangular potential barrier and we wish to nd the solution
2
Figure 2:
of Schroedingers equation which represents the penetration of the particle
from right to left. For the energy E we write the wave function in the
following form:
= (q)e
(2i/h)Et
,
where (q) satises the amplitude equation

q
2
+
8
2
m
h
2
(E U) = 0 (1)
For the region I we have the solution

1
= Acos (kq +)
where A and are two arbitrary constants and
k =
2

2m
h

E (2a)
In the region II the solution reads

II
= B
1
e
k

q
+B
2
e
k

q
where
k

=
2

2m
h

_
U
0
E (2b)
At the boundary q = 0 the following conditions apply:

I
(0) =
II
(0) and
_

I
q
_
q=0
=
_

II
q
_
q=0
,
3
from which we easily obtain
B
1
=
A
2 sin
sin( +); B
2
=
A
2 sin
sin( ),
where
sin =
1
_
1 + (
k
k

)
2
The solution in region II therefore reads

II
=
A
2 sin
[sin( +) e
k

q
sin( )e
k

q
].
In III we again have

III
= C cos(kq +)
At the boundary q = l we have from the boundary conditions
A
2 sin
[sin( +)e
lk

] sin( )e
+lk

] = C cos(kl +)
and
A
2 sin
k

[sin( +)e
lk

] sin( )e
+lk

] = kC sin(kl +).
Hence
C
2
=
A
2
4 sin
2

__
1 +
_
k

k
_
2
_
sin
2
( ) e
2lk

_
1
_
k

k
_
2
_
2 sin( ) sin( +)
+
_
1 +
_
k

k
_
2
_
sin
2
( +) e
2lk

_
. (3)
The calculation of is of no interest to us. We are interested only in the
case in which lk

is very large so that we need consider only the rs term in

(3).
We thus have the following solution:
left: right:
Acos(kq +) . . . A
sin( )
2 sin

_
1 +
_
k

k
_
2
_
1/2
e
+lk

cos(kq +).
4
If we now write

2
instead of multiply the obtained solution by i,
and then add the two solutions, we obtain on the left
= Ae
i(kq+)
, (4a)
on the right, however,
=
A
2 sin

_
1 +
_
k

k
_
2
_
1/2
e
+lk

{sin( ) cos(kq +)
i cos( +) cos(kq +

)
_
, (4b)
where

is the new phase.

If we multiply this solution by e
2i
E
h
t
, we obtain for on the left the
(from right to left) advancing wave; on the right, however, the complex
oscillatory phenomenon with a very large amplitude (e
lk

) that departs only

slightly from a standing wave. This means nothing other than that the wave
coming from the right is partly reected and partly transmitted.
We thus see that the amplitude of the transmitted wave is smaller the
smaller is the total energy E, and in fact the factor
e
lk

= e
2

2m
h

U
0
E .l
plays an important role in this connection.
We can now solve the problem for two symmetrical potential barriers
[Fig. 3]. We shall seek two solution.
Figure 3:
One solution is to be valid for positive q, and for q > q
0
+l is to give the
wave:
Ae
i(
2E
h
tkq+)
5
The other solution is valid for negative q, and for q < (q
0
+ l) gives the
wave
Ae
i
_
2El
h
+qk

_
.
We cannot attach the two solutions each other continuously at q = 0 since we
have here two boundary conditions to fulll and only one arbitrary constant
to adjust. The physical reason for this impossibility is that the func-
tion constructed from these two solutions does not satisfy the conservation
law

t
+(q
0
+l)
_
(q
0
+l)

dq = 2
h
4 i m
_
grad



grad

I
To overcome these diculties we must assume that the vibrations are damped
and make E complex
E = E
0
+i
h
4
where E
0
is the usual energy and is the damping decrement (decay con-
stant). We then see from the relations (2a) and (2b) that k and k

are
complex, that is, that the amplitude of our wave also depends exponen-
tially on the coordinate q. For example, for the running wave the am-
plitude in the direction of the diverging wave will increase. This means
nothing more than that if the vibrations are damped at the source of the
wave, the amplitude of the wave segment that left earlier must be larger.
We can now determine so that the boundary conditions are fullled.
But the exact solution does not interest us. If is small compared to
E
h
(forRa c
E
h

=
10
5
10
27
sec
1
= 10
22
sec
1
and = 10
5
sec
1
) the change
in (q) is very small and we can simply multiply the old solution with e

2
t
.
The conservation principle then reads

t
e
t
+(q
0
+l)
_
(q
0
+l)

(q)
II,III

(q)
II, III
dq = 2
A
2
h
4 i m
2ik e
t
,
from which we obtain
=
4hk sin
2

m
_
1 +
_
k

k
0
_
2
_
2(l +q
0
)
k
e

4l

2m
h

U
0
E
, (5)
where k is a number of order of magnitude one.
6
This formula gives the dependence of the decay constant on the decay
energy for our simple nuclear model.
Now we can go over to the case of the actual nucleus.
We cannot solve the corresponding wave equation because we do not
know the exact formula for the potential in the neighborhood of the nucleus.
But even without an exact knowledge of the potential we can carry over to
the actual nucleus results obtained from our simple model.
As usual, in the case of a central force, we seek the solution in polar
coordinates and, in fact, in the form
= u(, )(r).
For u we obtain the spherical harmonics, and must satisfy the dierential
equation
d
2

dr
2
+
2
r
d
dr
+
8
2
m
h
2

_
E U
h
2
8
2
m

n(n + 1)
r
2
_
= 0,
where n is the order of the spherical harmonic. We can place n = 0, since
if n > 0, this would really be just as through the potential energy were
enlarged, and because of this damping for these oscillations is much smaller.
The particle must rst pass over to the state n = 0 and can only then y
away.
It is quite possible that such transitions are the cause of the rays which
always accompany emission. The probable shape of U is shown in [Fig.
4].
For large values of r, we shall take for the solution
I =
A
r
e
i(
eE
h
tkr)
Even through we cannot obtain the exact solution of the problem in this
case, we can still say that on the average in the regions I and I

, does not
decrease very rapidly (in the three dimensional case like l/r).
In the region III, however, decreases exponentially, and in analogy
with our simple case we may state that the relation between the amplitude
decrease and E is given by the factor
e

2m
h
r
2
_
r
1

U E dr
7
Figure 4:
If we use the conservation principle we can again write down the formula
= D . e

2m
h
r
2
_
r
1

U Edr (6)
where D depends on the particular properties of the nuclear model. We can
neglect the dependence of D on E compared to its exponential dependence.
We may also replace the integral
r
2
_
r
1

U E dr
by the approximate integral
2Ze
2
E
_
0
_
2Ze
2
r
E dr
The relative error we introduce in this way is of the order of
_
r
1
r
2
. Since
r
1
/r
2
is small, this error is not very large. Since E does not dier much for
dierent radioactive elements, we write as an approximation
log = const
E
+B
E
. E,
8
. . . where
B
E
=

2

2m 2Ze
2
hE
3/2
. (7)
We wish to compare this formula with the experimental results. It is
known that if we plot the logarithm of the decay constant against the energy
of the emitted -particle, all the points for a denite radioactive family fall
on a straight line. For dierent families we obtain dierent parallel lines.
The empirical formula reads
log = const +bE
where b is a constant that is common to all radioactive families.
The experimental value of b is b
exp
= 1.02 10
7
(calculated from RaA
and Ra).
If we put the energy value for RaA into our formula, we get
b
theoretical
= 0.7 10
7
This order of magnitude agreement shows that the basic assumptions of our
theory must be correct . . .
9