Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Modern Physics: The Quantum Physics of Atoms, Solids, and Nuclei: Third Edition
    Modern Physics: The Quantum Physics of Atoms, Solids, and Nuclei: Third Edition
    Modern Physics: The Quantum Physics of Atoms, Solids, and Nuclei: Third Edition
    Ebook1,121 pages12 hours

    Modern Physics: The Quantum Physics of Atoms, Solids, and Nuclei: Third Edition

    By Robert L. Sproull and W. Andrew Phillips

    4.5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This introduction to the concepts and methods of quantum mechanics employs the analysis of one-dimensional problems to offer students a quantitative understanding of atomic, molecular, solid-state, and nuclear physics. Applications of these concepts and methods help answer the most intriguing questions of modern physics: What holds matter together? Holds it apart? How does the variety of chemical properties of different elements arise? How do electrons move through solids? Why do nuclei that occur in nature possess only certain combinations of protons and neutrons?
    The text presents meaningful problems by topic — supplemented by ample illustrations, applications, and exercises — that address the most intriguing questions of modern physics. Answers to selected problems appear in the appendix. Geared toward science and engineering majors, this volume is also appropriate for independent study by those who have completed a general physics course.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDover Publications
    Release dateJan 19, 2015
    ISBN9780486802268
    Modern Physics: The Quantum Physics of Atoms, Solids, and Nuclei: Third Edition

    Related to Modern Physics

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Physics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      How the Universe Remembers Information

      Feb 28, 2019

      It was one of the great missed connections of physics. In 1965 a particle theorist derived a formula for the collision of elementary particles. Twenty years later two gravitation theorists, using completely different techniques, derived a formula for

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World

      Feb 28, 2019

      In my 50s, too old to become a real expert, I have finally fallen in love with algebraic geometry. As the name suggests, this is the study of geometry using algebra. Around 1637, René Descartes laid the groundwork for this subject by taking a plane,

      9 min read

    • Article

      The Joy of Condensed Matter

      Feb 24, 2021

      Everyone seems to be talking about the problems with physics: Peter Woit’s book Not Even Wrong, Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics, and Sabine Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math leap to mind, and they have started a wider conversation. But is all of phys

      7 min read

    • Article

      The Joy of Condensed Matter: Hard times in fundamental physics got you down? Let’s talk excitons.

      Dec 31, 2021

      Happy Holidays. In this special issue we are reprinting our top stories of the past year. This article first appeared online in our “Wonder” issue in February, 2021. Everyone seems to be talking about the problems with physics: Peter Woit’s book Not

      7 min read

    • Article

      A Supermassive Lens On The Constants Of Nature

      Nov 25, 2020

      The 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics went to three researchers who confirmed that Einstein’s general relativity predicts black holes, and established that the center of our own galaxy houses a supermassive black hole with the equivalent of 4 million suns

      9 min read

    • Article

      What Is The Theory Of Everything?

      Jun 20, 2019

      The theory will have to bring together a lot of different aspects of physics, from Einstein’s general theory of relativity that governs our understanding of the largest structures in the universe to the Standard Model that helps us understand the sma

      2 min read

    • Article

      Why Physics Can’t Tell Us What Life Is

      Oct 21, 2020

      There is just something obviously reasonable about the following notion: If all life is built from atoms that obey precise equations we know—which seems to be true—then the existence of life might just be some downstream consequence of these laws tha

      11 min read

    • Article

      Books

      Jan 20, 2022

      Dr Sten Odenwald Arcturus £14.99 • HB Discovering the Universe is designed to be a book for beginners, providing an introduction to different aspects of the Universe via eight chapters that include ‘How to build a Universe’, ‘Stellar evolution’ and ‘

      4 min read

    • Article

      Is The Law Of Conservation Of Energy Cancelled?

      Dec 12, 2019

      Physics is often baffling, but one principle seems rock-solid: the law of conservation of energy. The world contains this thing called “energy” whose amount never changes. It can change its form or go from one body to another, but its total amount re

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Trouble with Theories of Everything: There is no known physics theory that is true at every scale—there may never be.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Whenever you say anything about your daily life, a scale is implied. Try it out. “I’m too busy” only works for an assumed time scale: today, for example, or this week. Not this century or this nanosecond. “Taxes are onerous” only makes sense for a ce

      8 min read

    • Article

      When Gravity Breaks Down

      Feb 15, 2019

      When Gravity Breaks Down
      5 min read

    • Article

      The Sacred, Spherical Cows of Physics: Theoretical physics milks symmetry to power its newest tool.

      May 1, 2014

      Early in their training, many physics students come across the idea of spherical cows. Cows in the real world—even at their most plump and well-fed—are hardly spherical, and this makes it tricky to calculate things like, say, how their volume or surf

      11 min read

    • Article

      The THEORY of EVERYTHING

      Jun 20, 2019

      The THEORY of EVERYTHING
      6 min read

    • Article

      The Universe Began With a Big Melt, Not a Big Bang

      Oct 5, 2017

      There are two tantalizing mysteries about our universe, one dealing with its final fate and the other with its beginning, that have intrigued cosmologists for decades. The community has always believed these to be independent problems—but what if the

      10 min read

    • Article

      Is The Standard Model Broken?

      Jun 2, 2021

      Is The Standard Model Broken?
      3 min read

    • Article

      The Discovery Of The Century May Be Just Around The Corner, As PHYSICISTS SEARCH FOR A NEW FORCE OF NATURE

      Jul 6, 2022

      Mysterious forces are in play 100 metres below the ground in Switzerland. Scientists from the European nuclear research institute of CERN cannot get their results to fit basic physics theories. For 14 years CERN scientists have made particles collide

      5 min read

    • Article

      What Quantum Gravity Needs Is More Experiments

      Feb 2, 2017

      In the mid-1990s, I studied mathematics. I wasn’t really sure just what I wanted to do with my life, but I was awed by the power of mathematics to describe the natural world. After classes on differential geometry and Lie algebras, I attended a semin

      8 min read

    • Article

      What Quantum Gravity Needs Is More Experiments

      Dec 12, 2019

      In the mid-1990s, I studied mathematics. I wasn’t really sure just what I wanted to do with my life, but I was awed by the power of mathematics to describe the natural world. After classes on differential geometry and Lie algebras, I attended a semin

      8 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Modern Physics

    4.5/5

    7 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Modern Physics - Robert L. Sproull

      Nuclei

      1

      ATOMS, NUCLEI, AND PARTICLES

      1-1 INTRODUCTION

      An analytical introduction to much of the basic physics developed in the twentieth century is presented in this book. The new physics has been of great intrinsic interest, almost a new science in itself, and in addition has provided applications in engineering that are already considerable and are expanding rapidly. The study of modern physics has led to new devices and energy sources, to more convenient and accurate instruments, to new materials of construction, and to a clearer understanding of existing materials.

      This book is primarily concerned with physical laws and processes, but applications in other sciences and in engineering will be described frequently. Television camera tubes, transistors, nuclear reactors, and other devices will be analyzed as part of the application of the basic physics; but most of the applications will be found in other science and engineering courses and in engineering practice.

      The atom can be said to mark the boundary between nineteenth and twentieth century physics. Although the idea that matter is composed of atoms was popular in the nineteenth century, it was only at the end of the century that consistent measurements of atomic size became available, and the atomic theory placed on a sound quantitative footing. Since 1900 physics has been increasingly concerned with the internal structure of atoms, and such studies have provided an important element in the development of twentieth century physics. In this first chapter we parallel the historical development by describing a number of experiments that have been used to investigate atomic structure in more and more detail, and in so doing we introduce many important concepts and theories, useful later in the book. At various places in this chapter, as indeed in the first few chapters, it will frequently be necessary to assert some properties of particles and to assume the existence of sources and detectors. These assertions and assumptions will be justified only much later in the book. However, in the later chapters we attempt a uniformly analytical approach; that is, we make assertions or conclusions only by logical arguments based on experiments or on theories well tested by experiment.

      This chapter opens with an account of a modern experiment that effectively allows one to see atoms and gives estimates of atomic sizes and binding energies. The properties of two subatomic particles, the electron and the proton, are described in Sec. 1-3, and this is followed by an account of the first investigation of the structure of the atom. The conclusion of this investigation is that the atom consists of a tiny, positively charged core, the nucleus, surrounded by one or more electrons. Although most of our discussion of the nucleus is left to Chapters 11 and 12, Sec. 1-6 gives some idea of the sizes and binding energies of nuclei. However, to provide a background to nuclear physics, the variation of mass with velocity and the famous Einstein E = Mc² relation are presented in Sec. 1-5. Finally, a section is devoted to particle physics, where we try to give an idea of the properties of highly energetic particles.

      As the chapter progresses, we look at the atom (or nucleus) on a finer and finer spatial scale and in general at effects that occur at higher and higher energies. These spatial and energy scales bring us to the most important conclusion of this chapter, that the problem of the interactions among particles can be divided into two separate problems: (1) The binding together of protons and neutrons into the nucleus at the center of the atom; (2) the motions of the electrons around the nucleus. This division can be achieved because (1) the energies of interaction between protons and neutrons in a nucleus are very much greater, by a factor of between 10² and 10⁶, than the energies of interaction between electrons and nuclei; (2) a nucleus is much smaller than an atom. Therefore the size and energy scales of atomic experiments are such that the nuclei remain unchanged; we can consider the nucleus as a heavy particle and can ignore its size and internal structure. Nuclear experiments, on the other hand, involve such large energies and small distances that the presence of electrons surrounding the nucleus are of little consequence. Therefore we can deal separately with atomic physics (Chapters 3 to 6) and nuclear physics (Chapters 11 and 12). Furthermore, we shall see in Sec. 1-7 that the whole field of particle physics can be considered almost independently of the question of the structure of the nucleus.

      1-2 THE ATOM

      The idea that matter is composed of atoms is so basic to modern physics that it is difficult to realize that it was only at the turn of the century that scientists were finally convinced of the truth of the atomic theory. Philosophically, the idea is of long standing, but scientists were persuaded of the truth of the theory only when consistent measurements of atomic size became available. Perhaps the most important of these measurements was provided by X-ray diffraction experiments; these will be described in Sec. 3-5. A more recent technique, known as field-ion microscopy, is described in this section and comes as close as we can get to an actual picture of an atom.

      In the field ion microscope a very fine needle of tungsten, niobium, or some other refractory metal is placed at the center of an evacuated chamber (as shown in Fig. 1-1a). A large potential difference is established between the needle, which is positive, and a negative or ground electrode close to the outer wall. The glass surface of the chamber is coated with a phosphor so that a flash of light is produced when it is struck by energetic particles (just as a television tube produces a flash of light when the screen is struck by electrons). Typically, the radius of curvature of the needle is approximately 100 nm, so that a voltage of 5000 V applied between needle and screen gives an electric field at the tip of the needle of 5 × 10¹⁰ Vm–1 (Problem 1-1). When a small amount of helium gas is let into the chamber, a pattern of spots appears on the phosphor, as shown in Fig. 1-2.

      Even without any detailed explanation, this picture gives strong evidence that matter is not continuous but discrete on a scale of approximately 10–10 m. This scale can be evaluated by combining a measurement of the spot separation on the screen with the magnification of about 10⁷, the ratio of the effective radii of the tip and the chamber.

      FIGURE 1-1

      The field-ion microscope, showing (a) a schematic of the experimental arrangement and (b) ionization at regions of enhanced electric field.

      FIGURE 1-2

      Field ion microscope picture of gold, showing clearly the positions of individual atoms. The tip has a radius of approximately 50 nm and this part of the pattern occupies a region of approximately 10 × 20 mm on the screen. (Photograph courtesy of M.J. Southon and E. D. Boyes, Cambridge University.)

      The explanation of the effect makes use of the well-known concentration of electric field on the more pointed parts of a conductor (Problem 1-1). The average field at the tip of the needle is large, because of the small radius of curvature, but on an atomic scale (Fig. 1-1b) there are field variations between one atom and the next, and there is field enhancement at the bumps. A helium atom striking the tips may lose an electron through ionization (described in Sec. 5-4), which occurs preferentially at points where the field is largest. The resulting positive ion is strongly repelled from the surface and travels almost exactly along a radius, starting from the point at which it lost an electron. The pattern of spots on the phosphor produced by the helium ions therefore provides an enormously magnified image of the surface irregularities. As can be seen in Fig. 1-2, individual atoms can be resolved.

      X-ray diffraction experiments are visually less dramatic but give more precise measurements of the distances between atoms in solids. If it is assumed that the atoms are packed so closely together that they touch, these experiments give a measurement of the size of atoms. Other estimates of atomic size are provided by studies of collisions between atoms in a gas (Sec. 2-5). All these experiments give the same result: atoms have average diameters of just over 10–10 m.*

      1-3 THE ELECTRON AND THE PROTON

      It is a little ironic that just as precise measurements of atomic size were becoming available, evidence was also accumulating that atoms had an internal structure. The electron was the first subatomic particle to be identified from studies of the internal glow observed when an electrical discharge is struck in a gas at low pressure. We now know that such a discharge consists of a mixture of negatively charged electrons, positively charged ions, and neutral gas atoms. The charged particles are accelerated by the electric field and by colliding with neutral atoms can produce more electrons and ions so that the discharge is self-sustaining. Electrons are attracted to the anode, and by making a hole in the anode we can obtain a beam of electrons. The term cathode ray was first applied to the electrons, as it was thought that they originated at the cathode.

      The identification of the cathode rays as electrons was made by J.J. Thomson in 1897 through a measurement of the ratio e/m, where e is the charge on the electron and m is the mass. This ratio, as we shall see, labels a particle almost unambiguously, although, as described in Sec. 1-5, at velocities close to the velocity c of light the mass of a particle depends on its velocity. The value of e/m that is quoted for a particular particle is, strictly speaking, the ratio e/m0 appropriate to zero velocity. Since throughout this book we deal with velocities very much less than c, we usually omit the subscript. Where both m and m0 appear in an equation m will be the actual mass and m0 will be the mass of the electron at rest. A similar convention will be followed where necessary for other particles.

      The original apparatus used by Thomson is shown in Fig. 1-3. Although his result for e/m is now known to be rather inaccurate, we describe his method, since the principles involved are essentially the same as those used in more recent experiments. Electrons from the discharge (on the left) pass through the pair of slits which define their direction, and then between a pair of aluminum deflection plates. The end of the tube is coated with a phosphor, a material that emits light when struck by electrons and so allows them to be seen. The physics of this process is described in Sec. 9-6. A potential difference can be applied between these plates to give an electric field, and a magnetic field can also be generated in the same region of the tube by means of external coils (not shown in Fig. 1-3). Notice that the design of the system resembles very closely that of a modern cathode-ray tube, although in a modern tube electrons are generated by heating a metallic filament. This process is known as thermionic emission, and is described in Sec. 9-8.

      FIGURE 1-3

      The original tube used by Thomson to measure e/m for the electron.

      A deflection of the electrons can be produced by applying a potential Vd between the two plates. The force on the electron of charge –e (e > 0) is –eVd/d, so when they leave the region of electric field the electrons have a transverse velocity equal to

      where l is the length of the plates and v is the initial velocity along the tube. The angular deflection, if small, is given by

      The sign of the deflection, of course, gives the sign of the charge on the particle.

      If instead of an electric field the electrons move through a magnetic field the force is

      where F, v, are all vectors. The direction of this force is at right angles to both v . Since v the magnitude of F is just

      This force produces a deflection ϕ given by

      was adjusted so that ϕ = θ which, on equating eqs. 1-2 and 1-4 gives

      Combining eq. 1-5 with eq. 1-2 gives

      All the quantities on the right of eq. 1-6 can be measured, so that e/m can be found.

      The best modern value, obtained with much greater precision than was possible in Thomson’s experiment, is

      Even though Thomson obtained a value roughly half this, his result was highly significant. Experiments on electrolysis had previously shown that the ratio of charge to mass for hydrogen, the smallest atom, was approximately 1000 times smaller than Thomson’s value for the electron. The implication was clear: particles smaller than the atom could exist.

      The e/m ratio of the electron is larger than the similar ratio for any other particle or aggregate of particles. This fact and the relative ease with which electrons can be emitted from solids are responsible for the great usefulness of electrons in vacuum-tube devices. Particles with smaller charge-to-mass ratios are more sluggish in electric and magnetic fields. If such particles were used in electron tube devices, the tubes could be used only at low frequencies.

      Thomson’s experiment gave a value only for the ratio e/m. The charge on the electron was measured by another classic experiment, the Millikan oil-drop experiment. The apparatus is shown in Fig. 1-4. A pair of horizontal, parallel condenser plates is mounted inside an enclosure, which prevents drafts and allows the pressure to be varied. Except in very precise work (where the pressure must be varied to determine small corrections), the chamber is filled with ordinary air at atmospheric pressure. An atomizer is used to spray fine drops of nonevaporating oil between the plates. A telescope with horizontal hairs permits a single drop to be observed and the vertical velocity measured. The velocity is determined by measuring the time required for the drop to rise or fall the fixed distance d between the images of the hairs. This distance is usually considerably less than D, the spacing between the plates.

      A source of ionizing radiation that can be turned on or off is provided. This source can be an X-ray tube or an ultraviolet arc. The process of ionization will be considered in detail in later chapters; at this point, all we need to know is that it is possible to remove an electron from an atom by X rays or by ultraviolet light. If this atom is a gas atom, a positive ion and an electron are formed, either one of which may be captured by the oil drop. If this atom is one of the atoms making up the oil drop, the oil drop will attain a positive charge. Thus, while the ionizing radiation is turned on, the oil drop can have its charge either increased or decreased but always by an integral number of electron charges.

      FIGURE 1-4

      Geometry of the oil-drop experiment for determining e. The forces shown assume that the charge on the drop is negative.

      A falling drop of the size used in this experiment reaches its terminal velocity 1 s). When the drop moves at this constant velocity, the drag caused by the viscosity of air is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the other forces (gravitational or gravitational plus electrical) acting on the drop. For spherical drops, this viscous force has been found by ordinary hydrodynamics experiments to be

      where η is the viscosity of the medium, a is the radius of the sphere, and v is its terminal velocity. Equation 1-7 is called Stokesʹ law (it requires a correction of a few percent for the very small drops used to measure e, but this correction can be found by varying the pressure of the air in the chamber). Drops of the size encountered in this experiment are spherical because of the surface tension of the oil.

      The procedure of this experiment is illustrated in Fig. 1-5. A drop is selected, its time t0 of fall through a distance d is measured with no electric field, and its terminal velocity is then determined from the relation v0 = d/t0 (velocities downward are considered positive). Since the drop is not accelerating, the sum of the forces on it must be zero. Therefore the sum of the gravitational force Mg (downward) and the viscous force F (upward) must be zero, and

      FIGURE 1-5

      Procedure of the oil-drop experiment. Steps 1–3 produce many drops and select a suitable drop. Steps 4–11 are repeated many times with the same drop.

      where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.80 ms ²) and M is the mass of the drop. Since the drop is spherical,

      where ρ is the density of the oil. Equations 1-8 and 1-9 have two unknowns (M and a); therefore M and a can be determined from them. Because the drop is so small, neither M nor a can be measured directly; the order of magnitude of a is 10–6 m.

      Next a short burst of × rays produces some charge on the drop, the electric field V/D is applied in the correct sense to move the drop upward, and the time t1 of rise is measured. The velocity of rise is d/t1, and, if there are n1 electronic charges on the drop

      The drop is again allowed to fall without an electric field, another burst of ionization changes the charge to n2e, and a new time t2 of rise is observed

      The subtraction of eq. 1-10 from eq. 1-11 yields

      This procedure is repeated over and over. By making the bursts of ionization short enough, the differences (n2 — n1), (n3 — n2), and so on, can be kept small. These differences are therefore small integers (like 3, –2, 4, 1, . . .). A table of values (ni+1 — ni)e can be prepared, and the integers and e can be determined from this table. Hundreds of rise times have been measured for a single drop, and the change in charge is never smaller than 1.6 × 10¹⁹ C. This fact is strong evidence that the fundamental quantity of change is the charge on the electron (however, see Sec. 1-7) and that all electrical processes (e.g., ionization) involve the transfer of an integral number of electronic charges. The best modern value is

      It should be noted that the Millikan oil-drop experiment and Thomson’s e/m experiment allow the determination of atomic quantities by measurements of quantities of ordinary laboratory size. This is accomplished in the former by the use of an oil drop that is large enough to be seen and to move slowly, yet is small enough so that its motion is appreciably affected by a change in charge of only 1.6 × 10–19 C.

      The value for e can be combined with the experiment described in the last section to give an estimate for the minimum energy needed to remove an electron from an atom. The field-ion microscope uses a field of approximately 5 × 10¹⁰ Vm–1 to produce ions. Over a length equal to the size of an atom, the energy difference is 9 × 10–19 J (joules). Since the electron can be removed by a field of this magnitude, the binding energy (or ionization energy) must be of this order of magnitude. A similar value is obtained by noting that after the electron has been removed, the ion and electron both have a charge equal to |e|. Two such charges a distance 10–10 m apart have an energy of approximately 10–18 J.

      In practice, the joule is so large that it is inconvenient as a unit of energy for a single electron. A much easier unit to use is the electron volt (eV). The electron volt is defined as the kinetic energy of an electron accelerated from rest through a potential difference of 1 V. The work done by the electric field in this case is

      Therefore

      so that our estimate of the minimum energy required to remove an electron from an atom is approximately 5 eV.

      To take another example, an electron in a television tube may be accelerated through a potential difference of 10 kV; its kinetic energy is hence 10⁴ eV, or 10 keV. Of course, energy that we actually measure in the laboratory is always a very large number of electron volts, since very large numbers of electrons are participating in laboratory-scale experiments. An electron volt is therefore not a convenient unit to use, for example, in measuring the energy taken from a battery when a charge of 1 C has passed through the battery. The electron volt is a convenient and appropriate unit throughout atomic and nuclear physics, since we are frequently concerned with an individual electron or positive ion. It must be kept in mind that a volt is a unit of potential difference. An electron volt is a unit of energy.

      Other properties of the electron, in addition to the mass and charge, are also of importance. No experiments capable of measuring the size of the electron have been performed, although an upper limit to the size of the electron can be obtained from experiments in which electrons at very high energies are used as projectiles and other particles are used as targets. The maximum size that an electron could have and still be consistent with these experiments is approximately 10–16 m. This distance is sufficiently small for us to consider the electron as a mass point with zero extension in space. Such a mass point is called a particle in mechanics.

      The behavior of an electron is such that it must possess a definite angular momentum. It acts as if it were spinning about its center with this angular momentum. The principal experiments indicating this fact are observations of details of the line spectra of light emitted by atoms, which will be described briefly in Chapter 5. This property is usually referred to as the spin angular momentum (or just spin) to distinguish it from any angular momentum the electron may have because of its motion in space. (The angular momentum of a rigid body is represented as a vector that can be computed from the angular velocity vector and the moment of inertia. Since the size and shape of an electron are not properties that can be found by experiment, it is useless to inquire about the angular velocity and moment of inertia of an electron.) The numerical value of the spin is given in Table 1-1, and it should be noted that it is the same as that of the other particles in the table. In fact all particles have a spin that is an integral or half-integral value of a constant h/2π, where h is known as Planck’s constant and has the value 6.626 × 10–34Js. The quantity h plays a central role in the quantum theory described in Chapters 3 and 4.

      , can be measured very accurately using an applied microwave field. A detailed explanation of the technique relies on a knowledge of the quantum theory presented in Chapters 4 and 5, but the value obtained is listed in Table 1-1. It should be noted that the forces between electrons (or between electrons and external magnetic fields) arising from the electron magnetic moment are usually much less than the forces present because of the charge and velocity of the electron. Spin and magnetic moment are nevertheless important attributes of the electron, as we shall discover when considering electrons in atoms and in solids.

      TABLE 1-1

      Soon after the Thomson experiment demonstrated the existence of electrons, it was apparent that the ratio e/M of the positive ions of mass M could also be studied by a similar method to that used for the electrons. If the anode and the cathode are reversed in the tube shown in Fig. 1-1, a beam of positive ions passes through the slits. Of all possible ions, the ratio e/M was largest for hydrogen, and it was realized that the hydrogen ion is itself a fundamental particle, which we now call the proton. In practice, this method did not give very good results for e/M; M is larger than m by a factor of 1836 and so the deflection produced by a given magnetic field is smaller by a factor of approximately 40. However, more precise results can be obtained using a mass spectrometer, described in Sec. 1-6. Unlike the electron, the proton does have a nonzero size, which can be measured in scattering experiments and which turns out to be approximately 10–15 m. The basic properties of the proton are included in Table 1-1, which also gives the corresponding properties of the neutron, anticipating our discussion in Sec. 1-6.

      1-4 THE NUCLEAR ATOM

      The first fact of value in understanding the structure of atoms is that atoms are electrically neutral. They can be ionized by removing one or more electrons, but in their normal states they are neutral. If they were not, enormous fields would be exhibited by laboratory-size objects. For example, a sphere of iron weighing 1 g would have a field of 4 × 10¹⁵ Vm–1 at its surface if the number of electrons were only 0.01% more than the number of protons in it.

      We assume that atoms are composed of at least electrons and protons, since these particles are the products of the ionization of the hydrogen atom. Later it is demonstrated that neutrons also are present and always are found close to the protons, the protons and neutrons together constituting the nucleus.

      We learned in Sec. 1-2 that the diameter of a typical atom is approximately 3 × 10–10 m. An atom contains at most a few hundred particles like protons and electrons. We learned in Sec. 1-3 that these particles are smaller than 10–14 m in diameter. It is therefore apparent that an atom is mostly empty space and that the constituent particles are not packed tightly together.

      Two conceivable structures of an atom are illustrated in Fig. 1-6: (a) the positive charges are distributed uniformly, and (b) they are concentrated into a core that is called the nucleus. A third conceivable structure with the electrons concentrated in the center is not consistent with experiment, since with that structure the products of ionization would be a proton and a negative ion, rather than an electron and a positive ion (as observed).

      Experiments have decided in favor of the nuclear atom as sketched in Fig. l-6b. The experiment demonstrating this was the Rutherford scattering experiment, originally carried out by Rutherford and co-workers in 1910. The basic idea of this experiment is to shoot energetic charged particles at a group of atoms and to examine the angular distribution of the particles after passing through the atoms. From the deflections observed, inferences can be made about the structure of the atoms. The particles used in the original experiment were α particles with kinetic energies of 4 to 8 MeV. α particles are doubly charged helium ions, which have four times the mass and twice the charge of protons. They would be deflected through only very small angles by the kind of atom illustrated in Fig. l-6a, since even a nearly head-on collision with a single proton would not deflect the α particle appreciably. The proton would move rapidly away, like a light ball struck by a heavy ball. On the other hand, the atom of Fig. l-6b makes large-angle deflections of the α particles possible. Whenever one of the α particles comes close to the nucleus, it is deflected by the electrostatic repulsion of all the protons of the nucleus, which is a much larger force than that of just one. Furthermore, the nucleus is heavier than the α particle, and so the nucleus does not move rapidly away from the α particle. This collision is like a light ball colliding with a heavy ball: the light ball suffers a large change in its direction after a collision.

      FIGURE 1-6

      Possible structures of the atom, (a) Uniform model, (b) Nuclear model.

      The theory of the scattering of α particles by a nucleus was developed by Rutherford in conjunction with the experiments. This theory assumes that the force between an α particle and a nucleus is merely the electrostatic repulsion (Coulomb force) between two particles, one of charge +2e (the α particle) and the other of charge + Ze (the nucleus, with Z protons). The force acts along the line of centers and is

      where r is the distance between the two particles.

      FIGURE 1-7

      Geometry of the α-particle scattering experiment. Any α particle scattered at an angle θ0 will go through the annular region between θ0 and θ0 + dθ0 (dashed ring). Only a fraction f of these will go into the detector, which has a circular opening of area A.

      The geometry of a typical experiment is shown in Fig. 1-7. A detector pivots about O as center. All those particles that enter the detector of area A are counted by the use of a photographic plate or a particle counter like those described in Sec. 12-6. As shown in Appendix E, the number of α particles ∆n entering the detector is

      where R and θ0 are defined in Fig. 1-7, N is the number of nuclei per unit area of the target foil, and n is the total number of incident α particles, each with kinetic energy K.

      Figure 1-8 compares data for silver with the theoretical expression in eq. 1-13. A logarithmic scale for the ordinate has been used because of the enormous range of ∆n values. All the quantities on the right side of eq. 1-13 can be observed directly except Z. Different Z’s can be tried until agreement with experiment is secured. (Changing Z moves the curve up or down in Fig. 1-8 without changing its shape, because Z² is a factor multiplying the rest of the expression for ∆n, and therefore log10Z² appears in log10 (∆n) as an additive constant.)

      FIGURE 1-8

      Comparison between an α-particle scattering experiment (data points) and theory. The solid line is eq. 1-13 with Z=47. The dashed line is eq. 1-13 with Z=60. (Data from Rutherford, Chadwick, and Ellis, Radiations from Radioactive Substances, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1951.)

      The agreement of the shape of the curve with the experiments is excellent over a range of ∆n values covering five orders of magnitude, and this constitutes proof that the nuclear model of the atom (Fig. l-6b) is correct. Furthermore, the number of nuclear charges Z that gives the best fit to the data is 47. We therefore conclude that silver has a small, heavy nucleus with a charge +47e and has 47 electrons surrounding the nucleus. The chemical properties of an atom depend on the number of electrons it possesses (see Chapter 5). Therefore atoms of a chemical species (e.g., silver) are specified by giving the value of Z (e.g., 47), which is called the atomic number. Other methods of measuring the atomic number are described in Chapter 5, and they agree with this Rutherford scattering method.

      Disagreement between experiment and eq. 1-13 is expected if the incoming particles actually strike the nucleus. In deriving eq. 1-13, we assumed that the nucleus acted like a point charge, with zero dimensions. Scattering experiments show that this theory is in agreement with experiment for values of K such that the incoming particles approach to within 2 × 10–14m of the centers of silver nuclei. Thus a silver nucleus must be no larger in radius than 2 × 10–14m, a distance that is sufficiently small compared to the size of an atom (about 10–10 m) to be considered as a point in the study of the physics of atomic structure.

      In the above discussion, we ignored the electrons. As explained earlier, the deflections produced by a diffuse distribution of low-mass particles would all be so small that they would not be observable. It might be thought that the nuclear charge +Ze would be partially neutralized by electrons. This neutralization indeed becomes important when very low-energy α particles are used with their correspondingly large distances of closest approach to the target nuclei. However, for the usual α-particle energies, the predominant deflection occurs so close to the nucleus that the chance of electrons being inside the region where the deflection occurs is negligible. This is the common situation in the scattering experiments of nuclear physics.

      This section can be summarized as follows: the scattering of high-energy particles demonstrates that the atom is composed of a heavy nucleus with charge +Ze surrounded by Z electrons, where Z is the atomic number. The nucleus is so small that it can be considered as a point in studies of atomic phenomena.

      1-5 RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS

      All the experiments we have considered up to this point have involved particle velocities less than about 10⁷ ms–1. In this velocity range, the e/m of the electron and e/M of the proton are found experimentally to be independent of velocity, at least within the limits of error of the experiments. Laboratory-size objects moving at laboratory-size velocities (a few meters per second) also have masses independent of velocity and, if charged, charges independent of velocity.

      At higher velocities, m and all other masses vary appreciably with velocity. The experiments described below actually prove only that the ratio of charge to mass varies with velocity. We ascribe the variation to the mass (rather than to e) for two reasons: (1) There are experiments that show that e is constant even at very high velocities; one of these (the Duane-Hunt limit experiment) is described in Sec. 3-6. (2) The theory of special relativity predicts that mass should change with velocity in just the way m/e is observed to change, and this theory agrees with experiment in many other ways.

      The earliest experiments that show the way m varies with velocity were performed by Bucherer, Wolz, and Neumann. Neumann’s apparatus of 1914 is shown schematically in Fig. 1-9. There are two parallel plate electrodes, arranged as in Fig. 1-3 (0.251 mm separation in the original apparatus). A small quantity of radium emits β– particles (high-energy electrons). A uniform magnetic field is provided by a large solenoid. A photographic plate is placed a distance a from the edge of the electrodes, and the apparatus is placed in an evacuated chamber.

      FIGURE 1-9

      perpendicular to the plane AOBC. [G. Neumann, Ann. Physik, 45, 529 (1914)].

      Electrons are emitted by the radium in all directions and with all energies up to 1.2 MeV. We shall be concerned with only those electrons that move in the plane AOBC and that are emitted toward the right. When there is no electric or magnetic field, the electrons strike the photographic plate at O. An exposure of several hours is made under these conditions. Next, electric and magnetic fields are applied in the directions indicated in Fig. 1-9. The magnetic and electrostatic forces are oppositely directed and so form a velocity selector: to pass through the closely spaced deflection plates the electrons must be undeflected and must, therefore, have a velocity given by

      After leaving the velocity selector the electrons are acted upon by only the magnetic force, which has the constant magnitude

      and acts in the direction at right angles to the velocity v. Therefore the acceleration F/m is constant in magnitude and at right angles to v. This is precisely the condition that the orbit of the electron be an arc of a circle. Motion in a circle of radius r requires a centripetal acceleration v²/r, constant in magnitude and everywhere perpendicular to the circular path. Hence:

      A region of constant magnetic field and zero electric field is therefore a momentum selector, since particles with different values of the momentum describe circles of different radii. An exposure of several hours is made with the electric and magnetic fields on. From the position B of the exposed spot on the photographic plate we can measure y and hence r.

      As mentioned above, we assume that e is constant, independent of v. By measuring Vd, , and d we obtain v from eq. 1-5, and by also determining r we find mv from eq. 1-14. A series of exposures with different values of Vd therefore permits measurement of m as a function of v.

      The results of many photographs for values of v from 0.4c to 0.8c, where c is the velocity of light (3.00 × 10⁸ms–1), are consistent with the expression

      m0 is called the rest mass, the value of m when v² c²’. This expression also follows from the Einstein theory of relativity. (As mentioned in Sec. 1-3, it was really m0 that was measured in the experiment described there.)

      The validity of eq. 1-15 is not confined to the electron. Section 1-7 shows how verification of this relation for protons and heavier particles is provided by high-energy accelerators.

      It should be noted that we could not expect to prove or disprove eq. 1-15 by performing mechanics experiments using a pendulum or inclined plane, since the velocities used are so small compared to c that an impossible precision would be required. Figure 1-10 illustrates the velocity scale involved. For example, pendulum experiments in the laboratory adequately verify Newton’s laws but could never tell us whether Newton’s laws were still valid in some widely different range of masses or velocities. As experiments open up new ranges of any parameter (e.g., the velocity), we must test our familiar, laboratory-scale mechanics in this range. In most experiments Newtonian mechanics work well. But a situation may be found (e.g., v near c) where a new, more general physics must replace the old physics to obtain agreement with experiment. Of course the new laws must reduce to the old laws in the regions (e.g., low velocity) where the old laws have been observed to be adequate. Thus eq. 1-15 reduces to a practically constant mass when |v|/c is less than 0.01.

      In the preceding paragraph, a rather obvious situation was discussed in some detail. The reason for the present discussion is that we shall find a very similar situation to the variation of mass with velocity when we discuss the new wave mechanics in Chapters 3 and 4. There, too, when experiments entered new ranges (in that case, the very small lengths and momenta necessary to describe electrons in atoms), the old laws were found to be invalid in these ranges. New laws were found that are valid in the new ranges of parameters and reduce to the old laws for laboratory sizes.

      FIGURE 1-10

      Dependence of mass on velocity.

      At high velocities particle mechanics is also modified. In Newtonian particle mechanics the two statements (force) = (mass) × (acceleration), and (force) = (rate of change of momentum) are equivalent if the mass is constant, since

      These statement are incompatible in the region of high velocities, where M is a function of v; since v usually is a function of t, we cannot treat M as a constant in the differentiation process. Which one of these statements (if either) are we to use when v is appreciable compared to c? The theory of relativity answers this question in favor of the momentum statement. The paths and times of flight of particles in high-energy accelerators (see Sec. 1-7) confirm this theory. We therefore write

      which holds for all velocities, even velocities near c.

      It is instructive to consider a simple, one-dimensional problem of the acceleration of a particle of rest mass M0 and charge e along the direction of x. , and this field is in the +x direction. The force on the particle is still e . Therefore:

      We should like to obtain an equation for the kinetic energy K. K is equal, as in Newtonian mechanics, to the work done by the field since the initial kinetic energy is zero. This work is ∫e dx. The simplest approach is to multiply both

      Here Val difference through which the particle has been accelerated. It should be noted that as the acceleration proceeds the velocity approaches the velocity c of light but never reaches or exceeds it (see Problem 1-26).

      Equation 1-19 states that the increase in kinetic energy is equal to the product of c² and the increase in mass. We have proved a very special case of a general law: energy and mass are merely two different ways of describing the same thing, and

      Thus, for any change in mass of a particle or a system, there is a change in energy. A particle of mass M0 at rest in the laboratory has a rest energy equal to M0c². If it is given a kinetic energy, its new total energy (kinetic plus rest energy) is Mc². The rest energy is thus an additional energy, similar to the potential energy. The familiar conservation of energy must therefore be generalized to become the conversation of mass-energy. Equation 1-20 is a consequence of the theory of relativity, but we shall make no attempt to give a general proof. The nuclear binding energy experiments described in Sec. 1-6 and the work of Chapters 11 and 12 give sufficient experimental confirmation.

      It is easy to show that eq. 1-18 or 1-19 is not in conflict with Newton’s laws in the region v² c², where these laws should apply. We can do this by expanding eq. 1-18 by means of the binomial expansion:

      This expression is valid when u² < 1 and useful when u² 1.

      and u = —v²/c², and obtain from eq. 1-18

      When (v²/c²1, the terms in v⁴/c⁴ and higher powers of v/c can be neglected, and then

      in agreement with Newton’s laws.

      Equation 1-20 can be written in the alternative form

      where E is the total energy. This can be combined with the relativistic expression for momentum,

      to give the relation

      Equation 1-22 is very useful when evaluating the energies and momenta of particles involved in nuclear reactions.

      This section has described the consequences of relativity physics that are most important for our work. We have based our discussion on the Neumann experiment. It would be more satisfying, but would require an extensive digression from our study of atomic physics, to give a systematic account of the Einstein theory of relativity. This theory developed from the postulate that the laws of physics are the same in all reference systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. The implications of this postulate are far-reaching and surprising, requiring time (time dilation) and length (Lorentz contraction) to have different values in different reference systems moving with respect to one another. The theory of relativity is a fascinating study, and the books cited at the end of this chapter give introductory accounts.

      1-6 NUCLEAR BINDING ENERGIES

      In Sec. 1-4, we presented experimental evidence to show that the diameter of a nucleus is smaller than that of an atom by a factor of at least 10⁴. We turn now to the energy that is involved in the formation of the nucleus and show that this too differs enormously in scale from the energy required to remove electrons from an atom: nuclear energies are greater by a factor of approximately 10⁵. One of the most important ways in which nuclear energies can be determined is through accurate measurements of the mass of the nucleus. Since the mass of an atom is only slightly greater than that of a nucleus, and since the mass of the electrons is known, the nuclear mass can be calculated from the atomic mass (but see Problem 1-40).

      The most convenient method of measuring an atomic mass is by measuring the q/M of the ionized atom, where q is its charge. If the ion is singly charged (i.e., it has lost one electron and q = e), we must then correct the measured M by adding one electron mass m. Similar corrections can be made for more highly ionized atoms. Since the instruments to be described measure q/M and not M, it might be thought that an ambiguity would arise as to whether q = e, or 2e, or 3e, etc. No such ambiguity arises because doubly and more highly charged ions are always accompanied by singly charged ions, and therefore the smallest q/M of a series e/M, 2e/M, etc. corresponds to the singly charged ion. Furthermore, by changing the conditions in the ion source it is possible to get a beam composed exclusively of singly charged ions. For example, if the ion source consists of energetic electrons colliding with gas atoms, the electron energy can be decreased until only singly charged ions are formed. In the following discussion we assume that all ions are singly charged except in a few cases where the charge is specified.

      Instruments used to measure ionic, and hence atomic, masses are known as mass spectrometers. There is a large variety of these instruments, but we describe here one of the earliest and one of the easiest to understand. This is the Dempster mass spectrometer, developed in approximately 1918, but still used for rough (0.1 to 1%) measurements of atomic masses and for the accurate determination of the relative amounts of different atoms or molecules present in a sample.

      The spectrometer is illustrated in Fig. 1-11. The vacuum tube is placed in a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the tube. The three principal parts of the tube are the ion source, the sorting chamber, and the ion detector. Since the pathlength of the ions is short in the source and detector regions the effect of the magnetic field is important only in the sorting chamber.

      The ion source consists of an electron beam that ionizes some of the atoms of the gas in the small metal box, which is nearly closed at the left. Electrons are emitted from the coiled filament (Fig. 1-11) and formed into a beam by appropriate electrodes (not shown in the illustration). Ions formed have kinetic energies of 0 to 1 or 2 eV at the place of ionization, and they are accelerated toward slit 1 by a small electric field. Those ions that go through slit 1 are then accelerated in a much stronger field. The total acceleration is through a potential difference V of about 1000 V, and hence the ion kinetic energy is nearly equal to V eV as it enters and traverses the sorting chamber. The velocity is therefore given by

      A motor-driven potentiometer provides the sawtooth voltage V(t) illustrated in Fig. 1-11.

      and zero electric field. Ions move in a circular path in the magnetic field and the radius is given by a combination of eqs. 1-23 and 1-14

      FIGURE 1-11

      normal to the plane of the semi-circular glass tube and directed upward. The plots at the bottom show how the accelerating voltage V is swept and how the plot of detector current versus time presents the mass spectrum.

      If the combination of V is just right for a particular ion, r will be half the distance between the entrance and exit slits, and the ion will go through the exit slit and be detected. Since the other quantities can be measured directly, M can be determined. The instrument therefore sorts ions according to their masses. To make sure that the ions do not collide with gas molecules, a very low pressure is maintained in the sorting chamber (the mean free path, as defined in Chapter 2, is much longer than the path the ion follows).

      The detector begins with an electrode that collects all ions passing through the exit slit. Any potential difference across the high resistance R(10¹⁰ or 10¹¹ Ω) is amplified and applied to a recorder. Because V is proportional to time during any one cycle of the sawtooth, the time scale is also a voltage scale. Hence the output of the detector is ion current as a function of ion energy V and so gives ion current (proportional to the relative abundance of ions) as a function of ion mass M. Of course the mass scale must be calibrated either by knowing V(t), , and r accurately or by using atoms of known mass intentionally mixed into the sample gas to give calibration points.

      A typical mass spectrum is illustrated in Fig. 1-12. Ion current is plotted as a function of ion accelerating voltage V each point on the abcissa scale corresponds to a particular mass M, according to eq. 1-24. The only gas present in the ion source used to obtain Fig. 1-12 was neon (Z = 10), yet the mass spectrometer shows that there are three different masses present. Thus the mass spectrometer demonstrates the existence of isotopes, nuclei of different masses M but the same charge Ze The masses of the three neon isotopes are approximately 20, 21, and 22 times the proton mass. The chemical properties of neon atoms with any one of these three nuclei are the same, since they have the same Z and hence the same number of electrons. Therefore isotopes cannot be separated chemically. There are methods of effecting partial separation by physical means, and these partial separations can be repeated over and over to provide nearly pure isotopes. The mass spectrometer can be used to separate very tiny quantities of isotopes (see Problem 1-35).

      FIGURE 1-12

      Recorder trace of ion current as a function of accelerating voltage that shows the three isotopes of neon. (The amplifier gain was increased by a factor of 10 in order to present the middle peak.)

      The relative abundance of the three isotopes in natural neon is also indicated in Fig. 1-12. The atomic weight of natural neon is evidently a weighted average of the three masses, each weighted according to its relative abundance (see Problem 1-32). Every element has several isotopes, but for some elements only one or even none is stable enough to occur in nature. (None is stable for Z = 43 and Z = 61; none is stable for Z > 83, although several are stable enough to be found in nature).

      A specific nucleus is referred to as a nuclide. A nuclide is thus a nuclear species with a particular mass and charge. The masses of nuclides are conveniently and conventionally measured in atomic mass units (u). One u is defined as exactly one-twelfth of the mass of the most abundant isotope of carbon: this carbon nuclide thus has by definition a mass of precisely 12.000000 u.

      Appendix D contains a partial but representative list of nuclides. Study of this list reveals the interesting feature that the masses of all nuclides are close to whole numbers when measured in u. This fact provides an especially convenient way of specifying a particular nuclide: we call the nearest whole number to the mass in atomic mass units the mass number, and we use the symbol A for it. Thus the neon isotopes (the nuclides with Z = 10) are A = 20, A = 21, and A = 22. The conventional way of specifying A These symbols generalize the ordinary chemical symbols by giving the additional information about mass. Giving both Z and the chemical symbol is convenient but unnecessary, and the subscript Z molecules are also present in natural oxygen.

      A nucleus of atomic number Z and mass number A is composed of Z protons and (A — Z) neutrons. It was once thought that A protons and (A — Z) electrons were the constituents. However, there are strong theoretical arguments showing that an electron cannot exist as an independent particle inside the nucleus. These arguments require a knowledge of the contents of Chapters 4 and 5 and so will be given in the discussion of nuclear physics in Chapter 11. The most convincing experimental argument in favor of the proton-neutron combination was the observation by Chadwick in 1932 of a neutral particle with a mass approximately equal to that of a proton. Neutrons also have an angular momentum and a magnetic moment; the values are given in Table 1-1. The constituents of the nucleus, protons and neutrons, are called nucleons.

      Some frequently used masses, given in u, are:

      a 1 u= 1.66053 × 10–27kg.

      The Dempster mass spectrometer has an important focusing property. Figure 1-13 shows the paths of three ions of the same mass and hence the same r that enter the sorting chamber at slightly different angles. All go through the exit slit, even though their paths differ considerably. This property, known as directional focusing, can be simply demonstrated by drawing three circles with diameters making small angles with each other. Without it we would be unable to obtain an appreciable current of ions through the instrument without an intolerable loss in resolution, the ability to distinguish ions of different masses.

      The resolution of a spectrometer can be increased by reducing the width of the exit slit, but if we try to do this we find that the efficiency decreases for the following reason: Ionization in the ion source produces ions with a range of energies between approximately 0 and 2 eV, which, although small compared to the total kinetic energy imparted by the accelerating voltage V, gives a range of values of r (Problem 1-34). If the slit width is smaller than this range of r, only a fraction of the ions are collected for a given V. Reducing the width of the slit reduces the number of ions collected.

      FIGURE 1-13

      Direction focusing of the Dempster mass spectrometer.

      This problem can be overcome, as it must be for the precise measurements of atomic mass needed to estimate nuclear binding energies, by double focusing. Ions with a given e/M are collected not only for a range of initial directions but also for a range of initial velocities. Double-focusing spectrometers are considerably more complicated than the Dempster spectrometer, involving a combination of electric and magnetic fields in the sorting region. The effect of these fields is to bring all ions with a given e/M to a sharp focus. Often a photographic plate is used to record the separation between the foci of different ions, replacing the detector in Fig. 1-11.

      , V, and the positions of slits, electrodes, magnet pole pieces, and the photographic plate. All these precision measurements are difficult, but these difficulties can be avoided by the method of doublets. This method takes advantage of the fact that all nuclide masses are nearly integers. Suppose, for example, that we seek a precision determination of the mass of ⁶Li. We produce both singly charged ⁶Li and doubly charged ¹²C ions in the same instrument. The resulting lines on the photographic plate lie very close together, since the ratio of charge to mass of (¹²C)+ + is nearly the same as that of (⁶Li) + . If these ratios were identical, the lines would coincide. We can determine by a separate experiment the approximate (perhaps to 0.1%) calibration of mass as a function of distance along the photographic plate; for example, nuclei whose masses were known to a precision of 0.1% could be used to calibrate the plate. Therefore we can compute from the measured separation of the two lines of the doublet the mass difference

      FIGURE 1-14

      doublet made by H. Ewald with a double-focusing mass spectrometer. (From Experimental Nuclear Physics, Vol. 1, E. Segrè, Ed., Wiley, New York, 1953.)

      Once ⁶Li has been determined, it can be used as a further stepping stone to measure other masses. Since carbon compounds are available with a wide variety of masses extending to hundreds of mass units, ¹²C is especially well suited to be the standard mass. The method of doublets provides a gain in precision of approximately a factor of 1000 over direct measurements.* A doublet that has been measured to a very high precision is reproduced in Fig. 1-14, which shows a small part of the photographic plate of a double focusing mass spectrometer.

      A table of nuclides is given in doublet establishes an important conclusion: although there are the same numbers of protons and neutrons in two ⁶Li nuclei as in one ¹²C, the mass of ⁶Li2 differs from that of ¹²C. Thus the mass of a nucleus is not the sum of the masses of its protons and neutrons, a fact that can easily

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1