Shell model
Experimental evidence
Comparing to atomic shell theory
• Because of the successful applications of the shell model in describing
the behavior of atomic electrons, nuclear physicists tried to use
similar theory for the nucleus in order to understand its structure.
• In the atomic shell model, we fill the shells with electrons in order of
increasing energy (without violating the pauli principle).
• the model then assumes that atomic properties are determined
primarily by the valence electrons (electrons of the last shell).
• From the data, we see that we got smooth variations filling the
subshell and also a drastic changes filling one subshell and entering
the next.
The relation between filling subshells and the atomic radius.
The smooth curves within the same subshell clearly
appears.
Logical objections in nuclear shell
model.
• In atomic shell model the potential is supplied by the Coulomb field of our
assumption of the spherically symmetric nucleus, but in nucleus there is no
such external agent where the nuclear components (nucleons) themselves
provide the potential.
• In atomic shell model the electrons move is spatial orbits free from collisions
because of the small dimensions of electrons (almost point charges) in
comparison with the space they’re moving in and their energies (taking the
uncertainty principle into account)is much less than the energy separations.
• But in the case of nucleus, nucleons have a significant diameter compared to
the diameter of the nucleus and the possibility of collisions is much larger and
so we can’t regard a well defined orbits with their energies (including the
uncertainty limit).
Experimental evidence of the
nuclear shell model.
Separation energies of protons (constant N) and
neutrons (constant z) plotted as a deviation from the Ionization energies of atomic electrons
semi-empirical mass formula with varying (Z).
Comments on the plots :
• In atomic shell model, the ionization energy peaks in corresponding to filling a
major-shell which means that it’s much harder to pull an electron from a filled shell
than partially filled shell (due to the effective nuclear charge).
• As we see from the separation energies graph of protons and neutrons, the
separation energy, like the atomic ionization energy, increases gradually with N or Z
except for a few sharp drops that occur at the same neutron and proton numbers.
• so we might guess that these sharp discontinuities in separation energies
corresponds to filling a major shell (like the atomic case) at the same proton and
neutron numbers (N or Z = 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126), we call them ‘’magic numbers’’
• Which strongly support a shell like nuclear model because the semi-empirical
formula couldn’t predict them.
Additional
evidence for
nuclear shell
structure.
Energies of alpha particles emitted
by the isotopes (constant Z) of the
element Rn.
We note a sudden increase at the
expected magic number of N=126
of the daughter nuclei ( N=128 of
the parent).
If the daughter nucleus is more
tightly bound, the a decay is able to
carry away more energy supporting
the prediction of more tightly
bound nucleus corresponding to
filling major shells.
Additional
evidence for
nuclear shell
structure.
A plot of neutron capture cross section
versus the neutron number, a cross section
is a quantity proportional to the probability
that a nuclear reaction takes place.
In order for neutron capture to be possible,
a neutron of a given kinetic energy must
find an empty nuclear level at the correct
energy.
The further spaced energy levels are, the
smaller the probability of capture.
Because we’re expecting a energy gap after
a magic number , the neutron capture
cross section must far below the curve
which is the case.
Additional
evidence for
nuclear shell
structure.
The plot of change in nuclear
charge radius when ΔN is equal to
2.
Note the sudden jumps at the
magic numbers 20, 28, 50, 82, and
126.
To emphasize the shell effects, the
radius difference ΔR has been
divided by the standard ΔR
expected from the dependence.
Additional
evidence for
nuclear shell
structure.
Separation energy of the last
neutron in the nucleus (Z, N+1) for
Z=N (even) as a function of the
neutron number N of the final
nucleus.
For N= 7,20,28 the separation
energy is particularly low.
As expected that it’s easier to pull a
neutron when it’s alone in a
subshell over the major-shell
corresponding to a magic number.
Additional comments.
• The question of the existence of a nuclear potential is dealt with by
the fundamental assumption of the shell model: the motion of a
single nucleon is governed by a potential caused by all of the other
nucleons. If we treat each individual nucleon in this way, then we can
allow the nucleons in turn to occupy the energy levels of a series of
subshells.
• The existence of definite spatial orbits depends on the Pauli principle.
Which limits the possible collisions between nucleons to the point
where they are almost transparent to each other and so the well
defined energy indeed exists.