2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to make a simplified approximation and solve Schrodinger equation in the finite square well to model the nucleus of Ca (shell nuclear model). The potential is $ V(r) = -V_0$ for $0<r<a$ and $V(r)=0$ for $r>a$. So $\psi_{nlm}(r,\theta,\phi) = R_{nl}(r)Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$. Now I am solving the equation for $R$: $$ \frac{d^2 R}{d \rho^2}+\frac{2}{\rho}\frac{dR}{d\rho}+ \left[1-\frac{l(l+1)}{\rho^2} \right]R=0 $$ Where $\rho = \alpha r$ if $r<a$ and $\rho = \beta r$ if $r>a$. And $$ \alpha = \left[ \frac{2m(V_0-|E|)}{\hbar^2} \right]^{1/2} \\ \beta = \left[ \frac{2m|E|}{\hbar^2} \right]^{1/2} $$ To calculate $E$, I am using the Coulomb potential given by: $$ E = \frac{3}{5}\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\frac{Z(Z-1)}{R'} $$ Where $R'$ is the nuclear radius and $R' = R_0 A^{1/3}$, with $R_0=1.2$ fm and $A$ is the mass number (=48 for Calcium). Plugging these numbers in and making $Z=20$ I found $E\approx 75$ MeV. But I am supposed to use $V_0=45$ MeV, which does not make sense since I expected $E<V_0$. What could be the problem here?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I can confirm that your $E$ is around 75 MeV (assuming "eV" was a typo). I observe that calcium-48 has a mass excess of $-44$ MeV (though that's different from the binding energy). But I don't understand how you're using both a square well and a Coulomb potential. Shouldn't your $E$ be the eigenvalue of $\hat H$ once you've found your wavefunction? Are you treating protons and neutrons differently? Modeling $\beta$ or $2\beta$ decay? $\endgroup$
    – rob
    May 30, 2014 at 3:43
  • $\begingroup$ The Coulomb potential was used in order to estimate the energy of the proton. Yes, I am treating them differently. Only protons will have this energy $E$. Page 140 of this pdf shows something similar to what I am trying to do physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chap8_12.pdf $\endgroup$
    – Thiago
    May 30, 2014 at 3:59
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't you then have a deep square well for the neutrons and a shallower square well for the protons? $\endgroup$
    – rob
    May 30, 2014 at 4:08
  • $\begingroup$ I think so. But I am solving only for protons in this model. $\endgroup$
    – Thiago
    May 30, 2014 at 4:15

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

You can't have both a square well and a Coulomb potential — they are mutually exclusive. In Gamow's model for $\alpha$ decay you see people talking about a square well for the $\alpha$ while it's inside the nucleus, and a $1/r$ potential while it's outside the nucleus. Sometimes the Gamow potential is said to have a "Coulomb barrier." But that's not the potential that you describe: you have $V=0$ outside the nucleus.

In that case your electrostatic energy $E$ is a red herring. The energy that matters in the Schrödinger equation is the eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian operator $H$, once you have found a suitable wavefunction.

If you wanted to treat the neutrons and protons differently you would have two square wells, a deep one for the neutrons and a shallower one for the protons.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are completely correct. After thinking a bit more about this, I realised I should find the energies $E$ by applying the condition of continuity at $r=a$. $\endgroup$
    – Thiago
    May 30, 2014 at 6:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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