1.

The shell model is based upon the idea that the constituent parts of a nucleus move
independently. The liquid-drop model implies just the opposite, since in a drop of
incompressible liquid, the motion of any constituent part is correlated with the motion of all the
neighbouring pairs. This emphasizes that models in physics have a limited domain of
applicability and may be unsuitable if applied to a different set of phenomena. As knowledge
evolves, it is natural to try and incorporate more phenomena by modifying the model to become
more general, until (hopefully) we have a model with firm theoretical underpinning which
describes a very wide range of phenomena, i.e. a theory. The collective model, which uses the
ideas of both the shell and liquid drop models, is a step in this direction. We will conclude this
section with a brief summary of the assumptions of each of the nuclear models we have
discussed and what each can tell us about nuclear structure.

2. It is clear from the above that there is at present no universal nuclear model. What we currently
have is a number of models and theories that have limited domains of applicability and even
within which they are not always able to explain all the observations. For example, the shell
model, while able to give a convincing account of the spins and parities of the ground states of
nuclei, is unable to predict the spins of excited states with any real confidence. And of course
the shell model has absolutely nothing to say about whole areas of nuclear physics phenomena.
Some attempt has been made to combine features of different models, such as is done in the
collective model, with some success. A more fundamental theory will require the full apparatus
of many-body theory applied to interacting nucleons and some progress has been made in this
direction for light nuclei, as we will mention in Chapter 9. A theory based on interacting quarks
is a more distant goal.

3. In the neutron-proton nuclear model, nuclei with even Z and even N have no magnetic moment
as well as no angular momentum in the ground state because of pairing of the nucleons. In a
sequence of nuclei of odd mass number magnetic moments change when spin values change,
e.g. at the magic numbers (section 3.4 and chapter 4). In a nucleus with just one unpaired
nucleon, the magnetic moment can be predicted by a simple calculation following the derivation
of the Lande g factor in atomic physics. From this the nuclear g factor is found to b

4. A brief survey of the development of nuclear models was given in section 1.4 and some of the
main features of the nuclear level spectrum were listed in section 3.10. It will be clear from
those sections that models of nuclear structure are closely related to models which describe
nuclear reactions, but it will be convenient to postpone the consideration of the unbound states
that influence reactions until a later chapter (chapter 6). The early nuclear model of an assembly
of protons and electrons, possibly grouped in part into a particles and held together by the
Coulomb force, was abandoned for the following reasons. (a) The observed spin and statistics of
many nuclei disagree with the model. Even-mass nuclei of odd charge, e.g. jH, ^N, obey Bose
statistics and have integral spin, contrary to the proton-electron prediction. (b) Nuclear
magnetic moments are of the order of the nuclear magneton eh/2mp rather than the Bohr
magneton eh/2me. (c) An electron confined within nuclear dimensions would have to move
with a kinetic energy of about 20 MeV and there is no evidence that the proton-electron
interaction could bind such a particle. (d) It is no longer necessary (see chapter 5) to postulate
 the emission of pre-existing electrons in |3 radioactivity. The discovery of the neutron in 1932
by Chadwick (chapter 6) removed the difficulties (a)-(c) and a neutron-proton assembly is now
the basis of all models which attempt to interpret overall nuclear properties in terms

5. of individual particle states. These states are essentially those occupied by fermions in a
spherical nucleus represented by a potential well of depth approximately 50 MeV, as shown in
idealized form in figure 4.1 for a nucleus of A % 100, Rc « 5.2 fm (which is sufficiently large to
avoid dominance of surface effects). There are separate distributions for neutrons and protons
and the proton well is raised above the neutron well by the Coulomb potential energy. The
particles fill their respective wells, in accordance with the Pauli principle, to the kinetic energy
known as the Fermi energy £F. This may be calculated easily (cf. section 3.9) for a nucleus of
known volume 4nRl/3 and known constituent nucleon numbers; for the neutrons it is found that
£F % 40 MeV, roughly independent of A. The nuclear radius and equivalent well radius increase
in accordance with equation (3.6) as nucleons are added. The Fermi energies for neutrons and
protons in a stable nucleus must be at about the same position below zero to ensure stability
against mutual decay, although this may be inhibited by the Pauli principle. If the zero of energy
is taken to represent a nucleon plus residual nucleus at rest at infinite separation, the position of
the Fermi level gives the nucleon separation energy. This is equivalently described as the binding
energy of the ‘last’ nucleon which is experimentally comparable with, though not identical to,
the average binding energy per nucleon, B/A % 8 MeV (shown in figure 4.1). Actual effective
potentials must be generated by the interactions between particles themselves. Following
atomic theory it is possible to think of a self-consistent field, known as the Hartree-Fock field, in
which the particles move as if under the influence of a central THE NUCLEAR SHELL MODEL . 129
potential. Detailed calculations are beset with difficulties arising from the hard core of the
internucleon force, but if a phenomenological potential is assumed then there is some
justification for setting up a quasi-atomic or shell model. The shells are defined by significant
gaps in the spectrum of states in the assumed potential well and the levels within each shell
specify allowed states of motion for a nucleon. Nuclei of the successive existing elements arise
from the filling-up of the sequence of states of the potential well with nucleons as allowed by
the Pauli principle. In its extreme form the shell model neglects interactions between nucleons
and nuclear properties, including total energy, are just due to the combination of single-particle
values. This single-particle shell model (SPSM) is especially appropriate to nuclei in which there
are just a few nucleons outside a filled shell, or a few vacancies in one. Once interactions
between nucleons are introduced, shell-model calculations, although more realistic, become
increasingly difficult as the number of particles being considered increases. The cooperative
effects then seen in nuclear properties can be described by phenomenological collective models.
There is still an underlying microscopic shell structure and models in which both shell and
collective features appear are described as unified. A familiar example of these is the Nilsson
model (section 4.4) which calculates single-particle spectra for a deformed potential well.

6. 6The Coulomb potential describes a long-range force and is not appro¬ priate for the short-
range interactions of nuclear physics. For nuclear model calculations (chapter 4) it is often
convenient to start with the three-dimensional oscillator potential V(r) = — U + \ma)2r2 (D.2)
 where co is the angular frequency of the particle, e.g. a proton of mass m, in the field of force.
Figure D.l shows this potential for a particular set of parameters, representative of a proton
moving in a volume comparable with that of an average nucleus. The radial eigenfunctions for
the oscillator potential are the associated Laguerre polynomials, or Hermite polynomials
ifCartesian coordinates are used. For a one-dimensional oscillator it is well known that the
energy levels, measured from the bottom of the well, are at excitation

7. One of the first nuclear models, proposed in 1935 by Bohr, is based on the short range of
nuclear forces, together with the additivity of volumes and of binding energies. It is called the
liquid-drop model. Nucleons interact strongly with their nearest neighbors, just as molecules do
in a drop of water. Therefore, one can attempt to describe their properties by the corresponding
quantities, i.e. the radius, the density, the surface tension and the volume energy.

8. Rutherford’s planetary model of the atom (also called the nuclear model of the atom) was a
major step toward how we view the atom today

9. through the foil (see Figure 6.3), while in the Rutherford nuclear model the nucleus is so tiny
that the chance of even a single significant encounter is small and the chance of encountering
more than one nucleus is negligible. (b) N(𝜃) ∝ Z2. In this experiment, Geiger and Marsden used
a variety of different scattering materials, of approximately (but not exactly) the same thickness.
This proportionality is therefore much more difficult to test than the previous one, since it
involves the comparison of different thicknesses of different materials.