Scribd
Upload
36 views

Dueteron P+N (S 1, J 1) : Take The Hamiltonian, Which Is Related To The One-Pion Exchange (To Be Discussed Below)

The document discusses a model for the deuteron using a one-pion exchange potential and variational approach. It finds values for kinetic energy, potential energy, binding energy, and other properties that roughly match experimental results, though the coupling constant is larger than expected from other models. Additional reading is suggested to improve the model.

Uploaded by

SyakirYusof
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views

Dueteron P+N (S 1, J 1) : Take The Hamiltonian, Which Is Related To The One-Pion Exchange (To Be Discussed Below)

The document discusses a model for the deuteron using a one-pion exchange potential and variational approach. It finds values for kinetic energy, potential energy, binding energy, and other properties that roughly match experimental results, though the coupling constant is larger than expected from other models. Additional reading is suggested to improve the model.

Uploaded by

SyakirYusof
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

Lecture 2

Dueteron = p+n (S=1, J=1)


Binding energy is very low
IbM

(0.1)

Ed 2.23 MeV
Compare

62

Ni

58

Fe
IbM

(0.2)

ENi, Fe 9 MeV
Free neutron exibits -decay
-

n p + e + e

(0.3)

Dm p-n c2 1.29 MeV

(0.4)

Jd = 1

(0.5)

ld = 0, "almost 0, a little bit of 2"

(0.6)

Sd = 1

(0.7)

rcharge 2.14 fm

(0.8)

r A = 1.2 A13 fm 1.5 fm

(0.9)

with total energy producion

while d is stable.
Total angular momentum

The orbital momentum is "almost" zero (see below)

The spin

The charge radius of the deuteron is

Compare

which gives the "excess" in volume as large as three

2.14
1.2 213

2.83575

Yukawa potential (one-pion exchange), variational estimation

Take the Hamiltonian, which is related to the one-pion exchange (to be discussed below)

H=

p2

- r

- g2

;
r
mp

2m
m p mn
m=

m p + mn

(0.10)

= m = 140 MeV; 1 = 1.41 fm


For other possible models see Brown and Jackson.

Variational approach.

Take the wave function, which depends on a parameter


HrL =

32 - r
;

Take some value for g and find which makes the energy the smallest

(0.11)

2 Lecture-2.nb

E min X H \

After that choose g in such a way that the energy reproduces the necessary value Eexp = -2.23 MeV.
Fulfill calculations in units:
@energyD = MeV, @rD = MeV-1 , @mD = @D = @D = MeV, @D = MeV32 .

(0.13)

-1

(Observe that [r] is taken in MeV , not in fm. This is convenient for numerical approach.)
The routine for X | H | \

Clear@m, , , gD;
@r_D :=

32

- r ;

Normalization = AssumingB > 0, @rD2 4 r2 rF


0

1
H = AssumingB > 0 && > 0,
2m

2
2
2
'@rD I4 r M r - g
0

- r
r

@rD2 I4 r2 M rF

1
4 g2 3

2
2m

H2 + L2

Hence, for the chosen wave function


E HL = X H \ =

2
2m

4 g 2 3

H2 + L2

(0.14)

Minimum of X | H | \

Find the minimum of X | H | \ over , and then choose g in such a way that the binding energy 2.23 MeV is reproduced correctly

(0.12)

Lecture-2.nb 3

= 140;
938
m=
;
2
Ed = 2.23;
Clear@, gD;
F@_, g_D =

2
2m

4 g 2 3

H2 + L2

Plot@8F@, .606D, -2.23<, 8, 0, 1.5 <,


PlotLabel "Energy HMeVL vs HMeVL for g=0.606"D
Plot@8F@, .60604D, -2.23<, 8, 113, 125<,
PlotLabel "Energy HMeVL vs HMeVL for g=0.60604"D

Energy HMeVL vs HMeVL for g=0.606


3
2
1

50

100

150

200

-1
-2

Energy HMeVL vs HMeVL for g=0.60604


-2.210

-2.215

-2.220

-2.225

116

118

120

122

124

Observe that at g=0.606 there is the minimum at =119 MeV, in which the binding energy E = -2.23 Mev is reproduced accurately.
From this we derive
g = 0.606;
= 119;

(0.15)

4 Lecture-2.nb

Present results graphically

938
g = 0.606; = 119; = 140; m =

;
2

r2

32

PlotB:4
197

- r197

, -g2

- r197

197, -g2

AspectRatio .8, AxesLabel :"rH


"Blue: 4 r2 2 HrL, red: UHrL=-

1
MeV

g2
r

197
r

>, 8r, 0, 5<, PlotRange 8-100, 70<,

L ">, Frame True, FrameLabel

- r , yellow: H-

g2
r

L Hall in MeVL vs r HfmL"F

50

1
rH

MeV

-50

-100
0

Blue: 4 r2 2 HrL, red: UHrL=-

3
g2
r

- r , yellow: H-

4
g2
r

L Hall in MeVL vs r HfmL

Lecture-2.nb 5

r2

1
4

PlotB:

32

1972

197

- r197

-g2

- r197
r

197 >, 8r, 0, 4<, AxesLabel 8"r HfmL"<,

Frame True, FrameLabel "4 r2 2 HrL UHrL H

MeV
fm

L vs r HfmL"F

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12
0

2
4 r2 2 HrL UHrL H

3
MeV

L vs r HfmL

fm
U
Maximum here takes place at rmax
=0.00265

1
=
MeV

0.52 fm
Calculate relevant parameters

1
K=
2m

2
2
'@rD I4 r M r N;
0

P = AbsB '@rD @rD I4 r2 M rF N;


0

P
v=

;
m

U = -g2

- r
r

@rD2 I4 r2 M r;

0
0.00265

U1 = -g2

- r
r

@rD2 I4 r2 M r;

K + U;

R = 197 r @rD2 I4 r2 M r N;
Print@"Kinetic Energy HMeVL = ", KD
Print@"Everaged Momentum HMeVcL = ", PD
Print@"Velocity HcL = ", vD
Print@"Potential Energy HMeVL = ", UD
Print@"Potential Energy for r <0.522 fm HMeVL = ", U1 D
Print@"Total Energy HMeVL = ", K + UD
Print@"Radius HfmL = ", RD
0

6 Lecture-2.nb
Kinetic Energy HMeVL = 15.097

Everaged Momentum HMeVcL = 119.


Velocity HcL = 0.253731

Potential Energy HMeVL = -17.3246

Potential Energy for r <0.522 fm HMeVL = -4.5887


Total Energy HMeVL = -2.22756
Radius HfmL = 2.48319
1

197

137 1.5
- 0.01 N
0.958637
0.246597
Constant g2

Compare the coupling constant g with Bjorken Drell (BD)


Eq.(10.51) of BD reads
f2 =

g02

= 14

4 2 mp

g02
=14
4

= 14
2 mp

140
2 939

= 0.00556

(0.16)

Here it is taken into account that


g02
4

= 14

(0.17)

Take Eq.(10.53) of BD
V = -2 f 2

- r
r

Hthe repulsive core is neglected here L

(0.18)

2
Observe, what in these notes the coefficient is called g 2 ; following the BD book the same coefficient should be called gBD
2
2
One should expect that g gBD . However, instead of this we have
2
0.16 = gBD
< g 2 = 0.37

In[1]:=

(0.19)

g = 0.606;
PrintA"g2 = ", g2 E
2

mp = 939; = 140; 2

2 mp
PrintB"g2BD = 2f2 = 2

g20

N;

4 2 mp

L2 = ", 2 14

2 mp

NF

g2 = 0.367236
g2BD = 2f2 = 2

g20

4 2 mp

L2 = 0.155605

Conclusions.
1.

The model considered fails to incorporate g 2 accurately, precisely what BD state after Eq.(10.53).

2.

The trouble does not look terrible though, a factor of 2 only. One can expect therefore that corrections, two-pion exchange etc, should be
able to improve it, see the references in DE SWART, M.C.M. RENTMEESTER, R.G.E. TIMMERMANS,.

3.

One must not using the bare -NN constant


scaled sown constant

g02
4

J 2 m N 0.1.
2

g02
4

= 14, should take into account instead the pseudosclar nature of -meson, which gives the

Lecture-2.nb 7

Additional reading :
1. Bjorken and Drell, QFT, Vol.1, Ch.10,
2. L.B.Okun, Weak interactions.
3. J.J. DE SWART, M.C.M. RENTMEESTER, R.G.E. TIMMERMANS, PiN Newslett.13:96-107,1997, nucl-th/9802084,
http://astro.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/Preprints/1998/StatusofPion/status_of_pionnucleon.pdf.
Results for model

The considered model for the deuteron


H=

p2

- r

- g2

;
r

2m

g 2 = 0.367;
mp
m=
MeV;
2
= m = 140 MeV; 1 = 1.41 fm

(0.20)

The variational solution is chosen as follows


HrL =

32 - r

IMeV32 M;

(0.21)

= 119 MeV;
The results read
-

K = 15.097 MeV
-

(0.22)

U = -17.325 MeV
-

E = K + U = Eexp = -2.23 MeV


r = X r \ = 2.48 fm

g 2 = 0.37

H ~ 16 % larger than the experimental value 2.14 fmL

2
2 times larger than gBD
=2

g02

4 2 mp

= 2 14

= 0.16
2 mp

(0.23)

(0.24)

You might also like