Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In a paper I'm looking at and also in a similar program, the authors note that the nuclear radius $R$ is given in "natural units" as $R = 3.11\times 10^{-3}\;A^{1/3}$. This has me slightly confused, as I seem to be missing a factor of 2. My understanding is that natural units usually entail $\hbar = c = 1$, so that length is measured in units of inverse energy. A typical estimate of the nuclear radius as a function of nucleon number $A$ is $R = 1.2\, \text{fm}$, so (I thought) $R_{natural} = R/\hbar c$ and thus $$ R = \frac{1.2\,A^{1/3}\,\text{fm}}{197.327 \, \text{MeV-fm}} = 6.1 \times 10^{-3} \, A^{1/3} $$ in natural units, which is about twice what I expect to get. I'm not overly comfortable in these units yet, so I can't spot the error. Where is this factor of two coming from?

share|improve this question
    
You can't answer without knowing which natural units they are using--- they might not even set c=1, since nuclear stuff is nonrelativistic usually. –  Ron Maimon Jun 16 '12 at 6:45
    
I thought the (nuclear physics) natural units for length were just fm. Can you post a reference to the paper? –  John Rennie Jun 16 '12 at 8:07
    
@JohnRennie We tend to use femtometers because it is roughly the size of a single nucleon (which means about the length scale for the effective strong interaction), so it is "natural" in that sense, but there isn't a unique choice without specifying the energy of the probe. Also, read my comment on the OP's answer about the "size" of nucleons. –  dmckee Jun 16 '12 at 17:28
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I think the answer is found in another reference on beta decay, similar to where this question originated. It describes the nuclear radius R as being expressed in terms of the electron Compton wavelength. Then $$ R_{natural} = \frac{R}{\hbar\,/\,m_ec} = R\frac{m_ec^2}{\hbar c} \approx \frac{(1.2\,\text{fm})\, (0.511 \,\text{MeV})}{197.327\,\text{MeV fm}}A^{1/3} \approx 3.3 \times 10^{-3} A^{1/3}, $$ if I make the assumption the authors mean the reduced Compton wavelength and again set $\hbar = c = 1$.

This makes sense in the context of beta decay (which I did not mention I was looking at originally). Nuclear physics is normally non-relativistic, but beta decay results in relativistic electrons and neutrinos and we must handle them relativistically. Integrals are then often made dimensionless by expressing energies in the ratios $\epsilon = E\,/\,m_e$, so a dimensionless nuclear radius is logical here.

share|improve this answer
1  
BTW--Even the selection of $1.2\text{fm}$ for the radius of a single nucleon is a little tricky. I believe that value comes from a fit to make this power law work. The charge radius is around $1.5\text{ fm}$, and the nucleon--nucleon hard scattering range is about $1\text{ fm}$ suggesting a hard-core size of about $0.5\text{ fm}$. At these scales classical concepts really take a beating even where they are useful. –  dmckee Jun 16 '12 at 17:25
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.