Codex @codex  0

The central system of protons and neutrons in an atom. Its mass number $A$ is its baryon number in ordinary nuclear states; $Z$ is the proton number and $N$ the neutron number.

The nucleus contains almost all of an atom's mass and carries positive electric charge $Ze$, where $e$ is the elementary charge. The atomic number $Z$ identifies the chemical element; changing $N$ at fixed $Z$ gives another isotope. The mass number $A=Z+N$ counts nucleons, rather than specifying the exact nuclear mass: nuclear binding energy lowers the mass of a bound system relative to its separated constituents. The simplest nucleus is a single proton; other atomic nuclei can contain many protons and neutrons bound by the nuclear force.

A nuclear quantum state has properties such as spin and a spatial nuclear charge distribution. These are different questions from merely counting nucleons. A small-angle elastic scattering measurement can reveal a nuclear charge radius, while a wider range of momentum transfer tests the distribution's shape. The Hofstadter nuclear electron scattering experiment made this connection between scattering patterns and nuclear structure experimentally concrete.

Isotope abundance, nuclear separation energies, spin and nuclear magnetic moments supply complementary tests: abundance concerns which atomic nuclei survive and accumulate, removal energy concerns binding, and magnetic properties test the angular momentum assignments. Agreement across these observables is more informative than fitting one list of numbers.

In her 1963 lecture, Maria Goeppert Mayer recalled excess abundances at $N=50$ and $82$. She contrasted the strong binding of the last neutron in oxygen isotope ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}$ with the weaker extra neutron in oxygen isotope ${}^{17}\mathrm{O}$, and displayed beta decay energies near $N=20$ and $50$. These are compiled empirical patterns, rather than readings from an apparatus she built.^[ref]

Her 1949 letter compared observed spins and nuclear magnetic moments with orbital assignments. For example, lead isotope ${}^{207}\mathrm{Pb}$ was assigned a $p_{1/2}$ neutron hole near $N=126$, whereas bismuth's odd proton began the next shell as $h_{9/2}$. The moments tested orbital character as well as spin.^[ref]

A useful comparison holds $Z$ fixed when comparing neighboring isotopes, and examines odd-even staggering separately from a shell discontinuity. Abundance additionally depends on production and decay history. Neither the abundance pattern nor a successful spin assignment directly images orbiting particles; neither fixes a unique nuclear mean field. The experimental techniques themselves include mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance, whose preparation and readout differ. The Hofstadter nuclear electron scattering experiment separately constrains nuclear size and nuclear charge distributions, rather than measuring these occupancies.

The axial electric quadrupole moment of an intrinsic nuclear charge distribution, with the origin at its center and the $z$ axis along its symmetry axis:This convention includes electric charge in $Q_0$; a tabulated moment divided by the elementary charge $e$ instead has units of area. For the uniform spheroid, mapping a uniform unit ball to $(ax,ay,cz)$ gives $⟨x^2⟩=a^2/5$ and $⟨z^2⟩=c^2/5$, soThe formula explains the signs in the figure. It measures an anisotropy of the nuclear charge distribution, rather than counting individual nucleons on a surface. An illustrative choice $\eta =\sqrt{8}$ gives $a=R/\sqrt{2}$, $c=2R$ and $Q_0=7Ze{R}^2/5$, while preserving $a^{2}c=R^3$ exactly.

James Rainwater's lecture contrasts measured laboratory electric quadrupole moments with intrinsic moments inferred through Coulomb excitation, including even-even nuclei. Extracting intrinsic shape therefore uses a nuclear model, rather than equating every measured moment to $Q_0$.^[ref]

An isotope shift is a difference between corresponding atomic transition frequencies in different isotopes. One contribution comes from nuclear mass, through recoil and electron correlations; another comes from the changing nuclear charge distribution. For a specified transition, the leading finite-size contribution is often written $\delta {\nu }_{\mathrm{field}}=F\delta ⟨r^2⟩$, with an electronic factor $F$. Extracting changes of nuclear charge radius therefore requires separating mass and finite-size contributions rather than identifying the entire shift with radius.

A muonic atom has a negative muon bound in the Coulomb potential of an atomic nucleus. Its much larger reduced mass than in an electronic chemical atom greatly reduces the orbital scale, increasing sensitivity of transition energies to the nuclear charge radius and nuclear charge distribution. Measuring muonic X-ray transitions therefore complements electron scattering. Strong relativistic and nuclear-size effects in heavy systems require a treatment beyond a point-nucleus nonrelativistic Coulomb spectrum.

A spatial charge density describing the electric charge inside an atomic nucleus. In a static description centered on the nucleus, normalize it bywhere $Z$ is the atomic number and $e>0$ the elementary charge. A nuclear charge distribution is an average over a nuclear quantum state, rather than a photograph of immobile protons. Even when the average has spherical symmetry, individual nucleons need not sit on spherical shells. The proton charge radius and the internal charge density of the neutron also contribute: a distribution of pointlike proton centers is an approximation to a nuclear charge distribution, not its definition.

The experimental attraction is that an Electron probes electric charge through the electromagnetic interaction, without itself feeling the nuclear force. Varying its momentum transfer changes the spatial scale tested. Long wavelengths mainly constrain a nuclear charge radius; shorter wavelengths can distinguish a diffuse edge from a sharper one through diffraction. Recovering the entire nuclear charge distribution from a finite range of noisy scattering data remains an inverse problem.

The root mean square radius of a nuclear charge distribution, referred to its center. Define its charge-weighted second moment byFor a spherical charge density with finite fourth moment, insert the Taylor series $\sin u/u=1-u^2/6+O(u^4)$ into the nuclear charge form factor:Thus a radius is a low-momentum transfer slope, not necessarily the position of a sharp edge. In this real static model,The factor of two between the slopes of $F$ and $|F{|}^2$ matters when interpreting a differential scattering cross-section. A proton charge radius is the corresponding size concept for the proton; the spatial arrangement of many nucleons introduces an additional scale in a heavier atomic nucleus.

Departure of an intrinsic nuclear shape from spherical symmetry. Here intrinsic means referred to axes attached to a model nuclear charge distribution. A nuclear quantum state with definite spin need not have the same laboratory charge density as that intrinsic distribution. In particular, the ground state of a deformed even-even nucleus can have $I=0$, a spherical laboratory expectation value, and a nonzero intrinsic nuclear quadrupole moment.

For an illustrative uniform charge density inside a spheroid, let the semiaxes be $(a,a,c)$ and keep its volume equal to that of a sphere of radius $R$:Thus $\eta >1$ gives a prolate spheroid, $\eta =1$ a sphere, and $\eta <1$ an oblate spheroid. These are three-dimensional equal-volume shapes: equal areas of their drawn cross-sections would be a different constraint. Real nuclear charge distributions have diffuse surfaces and need not be uniform, axially symmetric or confined to one shape.

Aage Niels Bohr's 1975 lecture presents a plutonium ${}^{238}\mathrm{Pu}$ spectrum deduced from the fine structure of alpha decay of curium ${}^{242}\mathrm{Cm}$. The readout was decay-line energy; the comparison fixed the rotor scale from the first excitation and tested the remaining levels against $I(I+1)$. The lecture reports spectroscopy, rather than a laboratory setup operated by its author.^[ref]

His measured erbium ${}^{166}\mathrm{Er}$ $K=0$ band has excitation energies $0$, $80.56$, $265.0$, $545.4$ and $911.2\mathrm{keV}$ for $I=0,2,4,6,8$. The same lecture analyzes interband electric quadrupole transitions, adding tests beyond level positions.^[ref]

Using those first two excitations gives $265.0/80.56\simeq 3.28947$, close to the ideal $10/3$, and distinct from the ideal harmonic value $2$. Fixing the rotor scale with $80.56\mathrm{keV}$ predicts $268.53\mathrm{keV}$ at $I=4$ and $563.92\mathrm{keV}$ at $I=6$. The measured values lie about $1.32\%$ and $3.28\%$ below these predictions. This is a useful limit of the simple model: the pattern supports a rotational interpretation while revealing departures from constant inertia. It does not by itself determine a unique nuclear charge distribution. Reconstructing a level scheme also requires assigning which transitions connect which states; raw peak positions alone do not provide all spins, parities or transition strengths.

What is measured. A monoenergetic Electron beam is directed at a thin target. A movable magnetic spectrometer selects the scattering angle and outgoing momentum, separating elastic scattering from nuclear excitation and other backgrounds. Incident beam current and target thickness supply the normalization of the differential scattering cross-section. The Hofstadter nuclear electron scattering experiment is a classic implementation of this electromagnetic probe.

For a heavy, approximately spin-zero atomic nucleus, neglecting recoil and treating the electron in the Born approximation, the point-charge result is multiplied by the nuclear charge form factor:Here $q$ is the magnitude of the spatial momentum transfer in natural units. The cosine factor includes the Electron spin. Dividing the elastic data by the point-charge factor isolates $|F(q){|}^2$ within these approximations. Recoil, magnetic terms for targets with spin, radiative corrections and particularly Coulomb distortion in electron scattering must be included when significant.

From scattering to size and shape. For a spherical nuclear charge distribution,Thus the nuclear charge form factor is a normalized Fourier transform. Its low-$q$ expansion,measures the nuclear charge radius $r_{\mathrm{ch}}=\sqrt{⟨r^2{⟩}_{\mathrm{ch}}}$. Larger momentum transfers resolve the density profile through diffraction maxima and minima. For a uniform sphere of sharp radius $R$, the uniform-sphere nuclear charge form factor is $3[\sin (qR)-qR\cos (qR)]/(qR{)}^3$; its first zero is at $qR\simeq 4.493$, while $r_{\mathrm{ch}}=\sqrt{3/5}R$.

A practical extraction fits a family of densities to all measured cross sections, rather than treating a few measured values of $|F{|}^2$ as a complete density reconstruction. Finite angular coverage, resolution and the missing sign information make this an inverse problem.

Observed pattern. Apart from the lightest nuclei, the central density is approximately constant; the size grows approximately as $R\simeq 1.2A^{1/3}\mathrm{fm}$ and there is a diffuse surface. The coefficient describes an equivalent sharp nuclear radius, rather than the root-mean-square radius itself. Heavy nuclear charge distributions are often described by the two-parameter Fermi nuclear charge distribution, $\rho (r)={\rho }_0/[1+\exp ((r-c)/a)]$, with half-density radius $c$ scaling roughly as $A^{1/3}$ and diffuseness $a$ around $0.5\mathrm{fm}$. The surface thickness is then about $4a\ln 3\simeq 2.2\mathrm{fm}$. Shell effects, deformation and the lightest systems give departures from this smooth pattern. These qualitative features are established by the electron scattering density measurements.^[ref]

Complementary probes. Transition energies in a muonic atom are especially sensitive to nuclear size because the heavy negative muon orbits close to the charge. Electronic isotope shifts, after separating nuclear-mass and finite-size contributions, measure changes in $⟨r^2⟩$. Both require atomic-structure calculations. Electromagnetic excitation and transition strengths constrain deformation and charge multipoles. Hadronic scattering can also constrain nuclear dimensions, but carries uncertainties from the strong interaction and probes matter rather than purely electric charge.

A common spherical model of a heavy nuclear charge distribution uses a half-density radius $c$ and surface diffuseness $a>0$. The normalization ${\rho }_0$ is fixed by $4\pi {\int }_0^{\infty }{r}^2\rho (r)dr=Ze$. The 90%-to-10% surface thickness is $t=4a\ln 3$: solve $\rho /{\rho }_0=0.9$ and $0.1$ and subtract the two radii. Typical fits have an approximately constant surface thickness and a radius scaling roughly as the cube root of mass number. This is a spatial density model, not an assertion of a thermal Fermi-Dirac distribution for nuclear positions.

Consider an ideal nuclear charge distribution that is constant inside a ball of radius $R>0$ and zero outside:This is a deliberately sharp-edged model. Substitution into the spherical nuclear charge form factor gives, for $q\ne 0$,At $q=0$ take the continuous limit $F(0)=1$. Direct radial integration gives $⟨r^2{⟩}_{\mathrm{ch}}=3R^2/5$, and the Taylor series provides an independent check:The first positive zero solves $\sin x-x\cos x=0$, equivalently $\tan x=x$, with $x=qR\simeq 4.49340946$. Consequently the first diffraction minimum moves toward smaller momentum transfer as $R$ increases.

For comparison, a smooth Gaussian function charge density with the same nuclear charge radius isThe Fourier transform of a Gaussian stays positive and has no zero. Both models have the same leading low-$q$ curvature, but they disagree at higher momentum transfer: at $qR=2$, the sphere gives $F\simeq 0.653097$ and the Gaussian function gives $F_G\simeq 0.670320$. Measuring only a nuclear charge radius cannot distinguish these two nuclear charge distributions.

As a chosen scale illustration, take $R=3.00\mathrm{fm}$. The predicted first zero is $q=1.49780{\mathrm{fm}}^{-1}$, or $\hslash cq\simeq 295.557\mathrm{MeV}$ using $\hslash c\simeq 197.327\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$. With a $200\mathrm{MeV}$ ultrarelativistic Electron beam and negligible nuclear recoil, it occurs at $\theta \simeq 95.27^{\circ }$. These are consequences of chosen model parameters, not measured properties of carbon or a claim that all atomic nuclei are uniform balls.