Inside the Nuclei: Neon and Sodium Dynamics
A look into the behavior of Neon and Sodium nuclei.
Chandan Sarma, Praveen C. Srivastava
― 5 min read
Table of Contents
Nuclear physics can seem as complex as trying to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. But let's break it down into bite-sized, easy-to-digest pieces. We’re diving into the fascinating world of atomic nuclei, focusing on two types: Neon (Ne) and Sodium (Na). Think of these as the quirky twins of the atomic world, each with their own personality quirks.
What Are Nuclei?
At the heart of every atom lies the Nucleus, which is a mix of protons (positively charged) and neutrons (neutral). These tiny particles are held together by forces that work harder than a barista on a Monday morning. The number of protons in a nucleus determines the element. For instance, Ne has 10 protons, while Na has 11. This makes Ne a bit more “chill”, while Na is a tad more “energetic.”
Why Study Nuclei?
Studying nuclei helps us understand the building blocks of matter and the fundamental forces of nature. It’s like peeking under the hood of the universe's car. By understanding how these particles interact, scientists can better grasp phenomena from the functioning of stars to the workings of everyday materials.
A Peek Inside the Shell Model
Now, let’s pull back the curtain on the shell model, which is a way of imagining how these particles are arranged. Picture a multi-layered cake, where each layer represents a different energy level. The protons and neutrons fill these layers just like how we fill cakes with flavors and fillings until they’re ready to eat!
In this model, the innermost layers (or shells) are filled first. As we add more protons and neutrons, they move to the outer layers-this is when things can get a little chaotic, like a family Thanksgiving dinner where everyone has a different opinion on how to carve the turkey.
Single-orbital Entanglement
Here’s where it gets really interesting. Sometimes, particles like to play a game of hide and seek, where their states can be linked or "entangled." Imagine two dance partners who mirror each other’s moves no matter how far apart they are. This “single-orbital entanglement” helps scientists understand how these nuclei behave when they combine or interact with other particles.
Frequencies
CollectingWhen studying the energy of our atomic cake, we need to understand the frequencies at which these particles vibrate. Different frequencies correspond to different energy states. It’s like tuning a guitar; get it right, and you have music, get it wrong, and it sounds like a cat in a blender. By finding the optimal frequencies, researchers can understand how the nuclei bond together and react during interactions.
The Experiment: What Did We Do?
In our quest for knowledge, we calculated various properties of Ne and Na using realistic models (think of them as very detailed blueprints). We also looked at how the entanglement between their particles changes as we tweak our experimental parameters (like adding a dash of salt to a recipe).
To visualize the results, we plotted the energy states against different frequencies. The goal? To find that sweet spot where everything aligns perfectly. The results showed us a fascinating dance of numbers and connections, revealing more about how these elements work.
Results and Observations
As we delved into our calculations, we noticed something quite intriguing. The entanglement (or connection) between the particles in Ne and Na changed based on their state and energy. It’s as if these particles had moods, getting along better in some states than in others.
When we plotted our findings, we saw that Ne and Na had distinct behaviors. For Ne, increasing the complexity of our model generally increased the entanglement, but there was a tipping point where too much complexity led to a drop in entanglement. It’s like adding too many toppings to a pizza; sometimes simplicity is key!
Electromagnetic Transitions
Hold on! We're not done yet. We also explored how energy transitions occur when these nuclei interact with electromagnetic fields. Imagine a light switch that only flicks on when it reaches a certain energy level-this is how transitions work at a tiny scale.
By looking at specific transitions in Ne and Na, we could measure the strength of these interactions, revealing just how well they respond to external influences. It’s like watching how well a celebrity responds to a fan’s request for an autograph. Sometimes they’re eager; sometimes they’re not!
Interaction Models
ComparingTo make things even more interesting, we used two different models to see how they would change our results. The INOY model and the N LO model were like two different chefs preparing the same dish with their own special twists. The INOY model tended to perform better in some situations, while N LO excelled in others.
When testing these models, we saw varying results for the transition strengths in Ne and Na. This was exciting, as it showed us how different approaches to modeling nuclear interactions can lead to different predictions.
Conclusion: What Did We Learn?
In summary, studying the entanglement of Ne and Na gives us a closer look at the underlying structures of atomic nuclei. We saw how frequency, interaction models, and state changes could impact these tiny particles’ behavior.
Just like how every family dinner has its fair share of drama, the world of atomic nuclei is filled with complex interactions and surprising results. Our exploration into the workings of Ne and Na is a reminder that even at a microscopic level, the universe is bizarre and beautiful.
So, as we close this chapter on nuclear structures, let’s keep an eye on our atomic twins. Who knows what other secrets they might reveal? After all, science is always waiting to surprise us, much like that unexpected extra slice of pie after dinner!
Title: Investigation of entanglement in $N = Z$ nuclei within no-core shell model
Abstract: In this work, we explore the entanglement structure of two $N = Z$ nuclei, $^{20}$Ne and $^{22}$Na using single-orbital entanglement entropy within the No-Core Shell Model (NCSM) framework for two realistic interactions, INOY and N$^3$LO. We begin with the determination of the optimal frequencies based on the variation of ground-state (g.s.) binding energy with NCSM parameters, $N_{max}$ and $\hbar \Omega$, followed by an analysis of the total single-orbital entanglement entropy, $S_{tot}$, for the g.s. of $^{20}$Ne and $^{22}$Na. Our results show that $S_{tot}$ increases with $N_{max}$ and decreases with $\hbar \Omega$ after reaching a maximum. We use $S_{tot}$ to guide the selection of an additional set of optimal frequencies that can enhance electromagnetic transition strengths. We also calculate the low-energy spectra and $S_{tot}$ for four low-lying states of $^{20}$Ne and six low-lying states of $^{22}$Na. Finally, we calculate a few $E2$ and one $M1$ transition strengths, finding that N$^3$LO provides better results for $B(E2; 5^+_1 \to 3^+_1$) and INOY performs well for the $B(M1; 0_1^+ \to 1_1^+)$ transition in the $^{22}$Na nucleus while considering the first set of optimal frequencies. We also observe that the second set of optimal frequencies enhances electromagnetic transition strengths, particularly for the states with large and comparable $S_{tot}$. Also, for both nuclei, the $S_{tot}$ for INOY and N$^3$LO are close while considering the second set of optimal frequencies, suggesting that the calculated $S_{tot}$ are more dependent on $\hbar \Omega$ than the interactions employed for the same model space defined by the $N_{max}$ parameter.
Authors: Chandan Sarma, Praveen C. Srivastava
Last Update: 2024-11-04 00:00:00
Language: English
Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01861
Source PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.01861
Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Changes: This summary was created with assistance from AI and may have inaccuracies. For accurate information, please refer to the original source documents linked here.
Thank you to arxiv for use of its open access interoperability.
Reference Links
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.10.003
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5728
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.61.044001
- https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.014308
- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001
- https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4371
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213
- https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.12.603
- https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.64.2091
- https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.68.246
- https://doi.org/10.1143/ptp/92.6.1045
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.75.061001
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.034301
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.62.054004
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.041001
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.67.064005
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.054001
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38
- https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/
- https://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/R/30/3/705/pdf
- https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427
- https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.034328
- https://www-nds.iaea.org/nuclearmoments/
- https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.53.r1483