What Is the Minimum Possible KE of an Electron Confined to Nuclear Dimensions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum possible kinetic energy (KE) of an electron confined to a nuclear-sized region of about 5 femtometers. Participants explore various equations, including the relativistic energy-momentum relation, and attempt to derive the correct KE, which is stated to be 40 MeV in the textbook. A key point raised is the importance of applying the uncertainty principle correctly, with suggestions that the uncertainty in position should be considered as half the width of the confinement region. Participants express frustration over mathematical errors and clarify that using the correct uncertainty value is crucial for obtaining the expected result. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of the physics involved and the necessity of careful calculations.
JoshuaR
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider an electron confined in a region of nuclear dimensions (about 5fm). Find its minimum possible KE in MeV. Treat as one-dimensional. Use relativistic relation between E and p.


Homework Equations


KE = p2/(2a) = \hbar2/(2ma2)
p = h/\lambda
E = hf
E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2
E = mc2 + KE


The Attempt at a Solution


First attempt: KE = p^2/(2m) = (pc)^2/(2mc^2) = (E^2-(mc^2)^2)/(2mc^2)<br /> Thus, K2mc^2=E^2-(mc^2)^2 = K^2 + 2Kmc^2 + (mc^2)^2.However, here everything cancels out and I get:
K^2 = 0, which can't be right. (Answer in book is 40 MeV)

Another approach: E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2=(mc^2)^2 + 2mc^2K + K^2(setting the invariant energy squared equal to the energy squared where E = K + mc^2

This leads to a quadratic equation: K = -2mc^2 \pm \sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2}
OR
K = -2mc^2 \pm \sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(hc/\lambda)^2}

When I plug in those values, I don't get 40 MeV. I feel like I'm missing something very simple and fundamental. This shouldn't be a hard problem. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KE=p^2/2m is only valid for p<<mc

You should only use E = sqrt[(mc2)2 + (pc)2] and therefore,
KE = E - mc^2 = sqrt[(mc2)2 + (pc)2] - mc^2.
 
That was indeed my guess on the second approach. If I take just that:
KE = sqrt[(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2] - mc^2, I still don't get there. Using the formula p = h/\lambda

If I do as I did on the "second approach" then setting energies equal, I also have trouble. I'm a bit puzzled because I am sure I am missing something simple, and this is just straightforward.
 
You should transform the statement that the electron is confined to small region in space to a statement about the uncertainty in position.

Then, you use the uncertainty relation to find a minimum for the expectation value of p^2.

That's the value you substitute in your relativistic relation between E and p, and you extract K from that, as you already correctly noted.
 
You get 40Mev if you use p=hbar/lambda.
 
weejee said:
You get 40Mev if you use p=hbar/lambda.

Yes...and the correct explanation for that is the one I posted.
 
Mmkay, I think I've tried that.

I have \delta p\delta x = \hbar/2.

Thus, when I use the KE form from before:<br /> <br /> KE = sqrt[(mc^2)^2 + (\hbar c/\delta x*2)^2] - mc^2

I must be doing incorrect math... sigh.
 
Last edited:
Gah!

Where's the math mistake?

-.511MeV + sqrt[.511^2 + (6.58E-22*3E8/(2*5E-15))^2)<br />
 
What you wrote down is the minimum uncertainty condition, which is only satisfied for special cases such as the gaussian wave packet.

Normally people use \delta p\delta x \sim \hbar.

Actually, since it is an order of magnitude estimation, you can't really say it's wrong even if you use values like 2*hbar or hbar/2.

In my opinion, any value between 10MeV and 100Mev is OK for the answer.
 
  • #10
\delta x is not equal to 5fm, the better estimate is 2.5fm: it's the uncertainty in the position, and we can assume the expectation value of the position of the electron corresponds to the center of the region.

Apart from that, I agree with weejee: an order of magnitude estimate will have to do: the actual physics is too complicated to get the "real" answer.
 
  • #11
I see. It all makes so much more sense now, lol. Just take away that darn factor...

New question on this. I figured I should use minimum uncertainty for \delta x since we were confining it to a box of size 5E-15m. Do you suppose my problem here was assuming the box was \delta x? After all, \delta x is usually only one side of the wave packet (akin to radius, not diameter). Thus, if I have a region of some size, then \delta x is half the width of the region. Then when I plug in for minimum uncertainty, I get 2*0.5*width...

Thanks for the help.
 
  • #12
Right, borgwal, I think that was the problem. Thanks again!
 
  • #13
Welcome!
 
Back
Top