Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:26:04.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interaction of alpha-particles and the binding energy of 8Be

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

S. F. Edwards
S. F. Edwards
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius CollegeCambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A calculation of the binding energy of 8Be is given, based upon the separation of the eight nucleons into two groups of four, using Gaussian functions and a Yukawa central force. The calculation is considerably simplified by the use of an integral identity between the Gaussian potential and the Yukawa potential. The energy is calculated with a Gaussian potential, and the identity used to convert the result to that which would have been obtained by direct use of the Yukawa potential. The results of the variational calculation show that unless the saturation conditions usually adopted in the theory of heavy nuclei are abandoned, there can be no binding, confirming an earlier result of Margenau, obtained with a Gaussian potential. The results do not depend essentially on the range of the force, nor on the central two-body type of force adopted. When the old saturation conditions are abandoned, quite reasonable results are obtained. The magnitude of the energies due to the exchange of single particles and pairs of particles indicates that the force between alpha-particles is not additive. A discussion of the saturation conditions and of the alpha-particle model in the light of the results is given.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 1952 , pp. 652 - 664
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Barnes, C. A., French, A. P. and Devons, S.Nature, Lond., 166 (1950), 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Blatt, J. M. and Jackson, J. D.Phys. Rev. (2), 76 (1950), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Grönblom, B. O. and Marshak, R. E.Phys. Rev. (2), 55 (1939), 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Haefner, H. H.Rev. mod. Phys. 23 (1951), 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Inglis, D. R.Phys. Rev. (2), 60 (1941), 837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Irving, J.Phil. Mag. (7), 42 (1951), 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Margenau, H.Phys. Rev. (2), 59 (1941), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Murnaghan, F. D.Group representations (Baltimore, 1938), p. 109, eq. 4·24.Google Scholar
(9)Rosenfeld, L.Progr. theor. Phys., Osaka, 5 (1950), 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Rosenfeld, L.Nuclear forces (Amsterdam, 1948), § 13·12.Google Scholar
(11)Van der Pol, B. and Bremmer, H.Operational calculus (Cambridge, 1950), chap, xi, p. 4.Google Scholar
(12)Waffler, H. O.Helv. phys. Acta. 23 (1950), 239.Google Scholar
(13)Weisskopf, V. M. and Ewing, D. H.Phys. Rev. (2), 57 (1940), 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Wergeland, H.K. norske vidensk. Selsk. Skr., Trond., no. 1 (1941).Google Scholar
(15)Wheeler, J. A.Phys. Rev. (2), 52 (1937), 1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar