Systematic study of \mathcal{\alpha} decay half-lives based on Gamow–like model with a screened electrostatic barrier

Systematic study of decay half-lives based on Gamow–like model with a screened electrostatic barrier

Jun-Hao Cheng Jiu-Long Chen Jun-Gang Deng Xi-Jun Wu wuxijun1980@yahoo.cn Xiao-Hua Li lixiaohuaphysics@126.com Peng-Cheng Chu kyois@126.com School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, 421001 Hengyang, People’s Republic of China School of Math and Physics, University of South China, 421001 Hengyang, People’s Republic of China Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology Equipment, University of South China, 421001 Hengyang, People’s Republic of China Key Laboratory of Low Dimensional Quantum Structures and Quantum Control, Hunan Normal University, 410081 Changsha, People’s Republic of China School of Science, Qingdao Technological University, 266000 Qingdao, People’s Republic of China
Abstract

In the present work we systematically study decay half-lives of nuclei using the modified Gamow-like model which includes the effects of the centrifugal potential and electrostatic shielding. For the case of even-even nuclei, this model contains two adjustable parameters: the parameter related to the screened electrostatic barrier and the radius constant , while for the case of odd-odd and odd-A nuclei, it is added a new parameter i.e. hindrance factor which is used to describe the effect of an odd-proton and/or an odd-neutron. Our calculations can well reproduce the experimental data. In addition, we use this modified Gamow-like model to predict the -decay half-lives of seven even-even nuclei with and some un-synthesized nuclei on their decay chains.

keywords:
decay, Gamow-like model, electrostatic shielding, un-synthesized nuclei
journal: Journal of LaTeX Templates

1 Introduction

decay, the spontaneous emission of a He by the nucleus and the formation of a new nuclides, was first defined by Rutherford in 1899. Since then, great efforts have been made in the realm of both theory and experiment, e.g., from the discovery of the atomic nucleus by scattering to the Geiger-Nuttall law describing a relationship between decay half-life and decay energy PhysRevC.85.044608 (); Dong2005 (); VIOLA1966741 (); PhysRevLett.103.072501 (), from the barrier tunneling theory based on the quantum mechanics to the investigation of superheavy nuclei(SHN) Gamow1928 (); 0034-4885-78-3-036301 (); RevModPhys.84.567 (); PhysRevLett.110.242502 (); SOBICZEWSKI2007292 (); RevModPhys.70.77 (); PhysRevLett.104.142502 (). decay, as an important tool to investigate SHN, provides abundant information about the nuclear structure and stability of SHN0034-4885-78-3-036301 (); Hofmann2016 (); PhysRevC.85.044608 (); Yang2015 (). Nowadays, there are many theoretical models used to study decay including the cluster model PhysRevLett.65.2975 (); PhysRevC.74.014304 (); XU2005303 (), the unified model for decay and capture PhysRevC.73.031301 (); PhysRevC.92.014602 (), the liquid drop model 0305-4616-5-10-005 (); PhysRevC.48.2409 (); 0954-3899-26-8-305 (); PhysRevC.74.017304 (); GUO2015110 (), the two-potential approach 1674-1137-41-1-014102 (); PhysRevC.94.024338 (); PhysRevC.93.034316 (); PhysRevC.95.014319 (); PhysRevC.95.044303 (); PhysRevC.96.024318 (); PhysRevC.97.044322 (), the empirical formulas PhysRevC.85.044608 (); 0954-3899-39-1-015105 (); PhysRevC.80.024310 (); 0954-3899-42-5-055112 () and others PhysRevLett.59.262 (); SANTHOSH201528 (); PhysRevC.87.024308 (); 0954-3899-31-2-005 (); PhysRevC.81.064318 (); QI2014203 ().

Recently, K. Pomorski et al. proposed a Gamow-like model which is a simple phenomenological model based on the Gamow theory for the evaluations of half-life for decay PhysRevC.87.024308 (); 1402-4896-2013-T154-014029 (), while the nuclear potential is chosen as the square potential well, the centrifugal potential is ignored and the Coulomb potential is taken as the potential of a uniformly charged sphere with radius defined as Eq.(7). They also extended this model to study the proton radioactivityZdeb2016 (), for the proton radioactivity shares the same mechanism as the decay. In 2016, Niu Wan et al. systematically calculated the screened decay half-lives of the emitters with proton number by considering the electrons in different external environments such as neutral atoms, a metal, and so on. They found that the decay energy and the interaction potential between particle and daughter nucleus are both changed due to the electrostatic shielding effect. And the electrostatic shielding effect is found to be closely related to the decay energy and its proton numberWan2016 (). In 2017, R. Budaca and A. I. Budaca proposed a simple analytical model based on the WKB approximation for the barrier penetration probability which includes the centrifugal and overlapping effects besides the electrostatic repulsionBudaca2017 (). In their model, there is only one parameter which is used to describe the electrostatic shielding effect of Coulomb potential by using the Hulthen potentialBudaca2017 (). They systematically calculated the half-lives of proton emission for nuclei. The results can well reproduce the experimental data. Combining these points, in this work we modify the Gamow-like model proposed by K. Pomoski et al., considering the shielding effect of the Coulomb potential and the influence of the centrifugal potential, to systematically study the decay half-lives. All the database are taken from the latest atomic nucleus parameters from NUBASE 2016 1674-1137-41-3-030001 (). We also extend our model to predict the decay half-lives of seven even-even superheavy nuclei with and some un-synthesized nuclei on their decay chains.

This article is organized as follows. In Sec. II the theoretical framework for decay half-life is described in detail including Gamow-like model and other models such as Coulomb potential and Proximity potential model (CPPM) with Bass73 formalism, the Viola–Seaborg–Sobiczewski (VSS) empirical formula, the Universal curve (UNIV), Royer formula, the Universal decay law (UDL) and the Ni-Ren-Dong-Xu empirical formula (NRDX). In Sec. III, the detailed calculations, discussion and predictions are provided. A brief summary is given in Sec. IV.

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Gamow-like model

decay half-life , an important indicator of nuclear stability, can be calculated by the decay constant as

(1)

where is the so-called hindrance factor of decay due to the effect of an odd-proton and/or an odd-neutron. For the even-even nuclei, = 0, while for nuclei with an odd number of nucleons i.e. even-, odd- nuclei or odd-, even- , odd-, odd- nuclei . The decay constant is given by PhysRevC.83.014601 ()

(2)

where represents the preformation probability of particles in decay. According to Ref. PhysRevC.87.024308 (), it can be known that the value of the preformation probability can be changed by adjusting the radius constant appropriately. The results show that the best fitting result can be obtained with =1, meanwhile fm, which also confirms the conclusion of Refs. PhysRevC.83.014601 (); 0954-3899-17-S-045 (). Then we choose =1 in this work.

given in Eq. (2) represents the penetration probability of the particle crossing the barrier, calculated by the classical WKB approximation. Its concrete representation in the Gamow-like model is expressed as

(3)

here is the kinetic energy of particle emitted during decay. and are decay energy and the mass number of the parent nucleus, respectively. is the classical turning point. It satisfies the condition . is the reduced mass of the particle and the daughter nucleus in the center-of-mass coordinate with and being masses of the daughter nucleus and particle. is the total –daughter nucleus interaction potential.

In general, the –daughter nucleus electrostatic potential is by default of the Coulomb type as

(4)

where and are the proton numbers of particle and daughter nucleus. Whereas, in the process of decay, for the superposition of the involved charges, movement of the emitted particle which generates a magnetic field and the inhomogeneous charge distribution of the nucleus, the emitted -daughter nucleus electrostatic potential behaves as a Coulomb potential at short distance and drop exponentially at large distance i.e. the screened electrostatic effectBudaca2017 (). This behavior of electrostatic potential can be described as the Hulthen type potential which is widely used in nuclear, atomic, molecular and solid state physicsdoi:10.1063/1.4995175 (); PhysRevC.91.034614 () and defined as

(5)

where is the screening parameter. In this framework, the total –daughter nucleus interaction potential is given by

(6)

where is the depth of the square well. and are the Hulthen type of screened electrostatic Coulomb potential and centrifugal potential, respectively. The spherical square well radius is equal to the sum of the radii of both daughter nucleus and particle, it is expressed as

(7)

where and are the mass number of the daughter nucleus and particle, respectively. , the radius constant, is the adjustable parameter in our model.

Because is a necessary correction for one-dimensional problem Gur31 (), the centrifugal potential is chose as the Langer modified form in this work. It can be expressed as

(8)

where is the orbital angular momentum taken away by the particle. for the favored decays, while for the unfavored decays. Based on the conservation laws of party and angular momentum PhysRevC.82.059901 (), the minimum angular momentum taken away by the particle can be determined by

(9)

where . , , , represent spin and parity values of the parent and daughter nuclei, respectively.

The represents the collision frequency of particle in the potential barrier. It can be calculated with the oscillation frequency and expressed as PhysRevC.81.064309 ()

(10)

where is the nucleus root-mean-square (rms) radius and is the radius of the parent nucleus. is the main quantum number with and being the radial quantum number and the angular quantity quantum number, respectively. In the work of Ref. PhysRevC.69.024614 (), for decay, can be obtained by

(11)

2.2 Other models

2.2.1 Coulomb potential and Proximity potential model with proximity potential Bass73 formalism (CPPM-Bass73)

In CPPM, the decay half-life is related to the decay constant as

(12)

where the decay constant can be obtained by

(13)

The assault frequency can be calculated with the oscillation frequency and expressed as

(14)

where is the Planck constant. The zero-point vibration energy can be calculated with and expressed as Poenaru1986 ()

(15)

denote the semiclassical WKB barrier penetration probability, which is expressed as

(16)

where and are the classical turning points which satisfy the conditions . The total interaction potential , between the emitted proton and daughter nucleus, including nuclear, Coulomb and centrifugal potential barriers. It can be expressed as

(17)

are same as Eq.(8), can be expressed as

(18)

We select proximity potential Bass73 to calculate the nuclear potential BASS1973139 (); BASS197445 (), which is given by

(19)

where the fm is the range parameter, and the surface term in the liquid drop model mass formula MeV. The is the specific surface energy of the liquid drop model. represents the the sum of the half-maximum density radii with fm.

2.2.2 The Viola–Seaborg–Sobiczewski (VSS) semi-empirical relationship

The Viola–Seaborg–Sobiczewski semi-empirical relationship, one of the commonly used formulas for calculating the half-life of decay, is proposed by Viola and Seaborg and the value given by Sobiczewski instead of the original value given by Viola and Seaborg VIOLA1966741 (). It can be expressed as

(20)

where is the atomic number of the parent nucleus and is hindrance factor. The values of parameters are and

(21)

2.2.3 The Universal curve (NUIV)

Poenaru et al. proposed the Universal (UNIV) curve for calculating the decay half-lives by extending a fission theory to larger asymmetry, which can be expressed as PhysRevC.83.014601 (); PhysRevC.85.034615 ()

(22)

The penetrability of an external Coulomb barrier may be obtained analytically asSANTHOSH201833 ()

(23)

where fm with fm and fm being the two classic turning points. The logarithmic form of the pre-formation factor is given by

(24)

is the additive constant PhysRevC.83.014601 (); PhysRevC.85.034615 ().

2.2.4 Royer formula

Royer proposed the analytical formula for determining decay half-lives by fitting emitters experimental data 0954-3899-26-8-305 (). It can be written as

(25)

The parameters a, b and c are given by

(26)

2.2.5 The Universal decay law (UDL)

Qi et al. given a new universal decay law (UDL) for describing -decay and cluster decay modes starting from -like -matrix theory and the microscopic mechanism of the charged-particle emissionPhysRevLett.103.072501 (); PhysRevC.80.044326 (). It can be expressed as

(27)

where and . Here the parameters and are determined by fitting to experiments of and cluster decays.PhysRevLett.103.072501 (); PhysRevC.80.044326 ()

2.2.6 The Ni-Ren-Dong-Xu empirical formula (NRDX)

Ni et al. proposed a new general formula with three parameters for determining half-lives and decay energies of decay and cluster radioactivity PhysRevC.78.044310 ().This new formula is directly deduced from the WKB barrier penetration probability with some approximations. Their calculations by using this formula show excellent agreement between the experimental data and the calculated values. It can be given by,

(28)

The parameters a, b and c are given by

(29)

This formula successfully combines the phenomenological laws of decay and cluster radioactivity.

3 Results and Discussion

In this work, we use the least squares principle to fit the adjustable parameters, while the database are taken from the latest evaluated nuclear properties table NUBASE2016 1674-1137-41-3-030001 (). At first, for the parameter being used to describe the effect of an odd-proton and/or an odd-neutron, we choose the experimental data of decay half-lives of 169 even-even nuclei as the database to obtain the parameters and , while . Then choosing the experimental data of decay half-lives of 132 odd-, even- nuclei, 94 even-, odd- nuclei and 66 doubly-odd nuclei as the database to determine the parameter , while fixed the parameters and , using the relationship . The values of 3 adjustable parameters are given as

(30)

The value of is small but it observably impacts on the classical turning point , whereas the decay half-life is sensitive to . For intuitively display the effects, in Fig. 1 we show the different kinetic energy values correspond to difference in values for the pure Coulomb and Hulthen potential, i.e., no centrifugal potential contribution, where and represent the value calculated using Coulomb and using the Hulthen potential, respectively. From this figure, we can find that the smaller decay energy and larger proton number of the daughter nucleus are, the greater difference in the value between the pure Coulomb and the Hulthen potential be.

Figure 1: The difference between and obtained by only considering the Coulomb potential. For obtained , Coulomb potential is taken as the potential of a uniformly charged sphere expressed as Eq. (4), while for Coulomb potential is taken as Hulthen potential with expressed as Eq. (5).

Using our modified Gamow–like model, we systematically calculate the decay half-lives of even-even, odd-odd, odd- nuclei. The detailed results are shown in the Fig. 25. In Fig. 2, we show the 169 decay experimental data of even-even nuclei and the theoretical values of decay half-live calculated by different methods. The X-axis represents the mass number in the corresponding decay, the Y-axis represents the logarithmic of the decay half-life. The three coordinate points represent logarithmic form of the experimental decay half-lives, logarithmic forms of the calculated decay half-lives in this work denoted as and by the theoretical model and parameters in Ref. PhysRevC.87.024308 () denoted as , respectively. The cases of even-, odd- nuclei, odd-, even- nuclei and odd-, odd- nuclei are shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. The meanings of each coordinate in Fig. 35 is same as Fig. 2.

Figure 2: The calculation of the decay half-life of the even-even nuclei. is the logarithmic form of the decay half-life calculated in this work, and is the logarithmic form of the decay half-life calculated by the theoretical model and parameters in Ref.PhysRevC.87.024308 (). The experimental decay half-lives and decay energies are taken from the latest evaluated nuclear properties table NUBASE2016 1674-1137-41-3-030001 () and evaluated mass number table AME2016 1674-1137-41-3-030003 ().
Figure 3: The same as Fig. 2, but for the case of even-, odd- nuclei.
Figure 4: The same as Fig. 2, but for the case of odd-, even- nuclei.
Figure 5: The same as Fig. 2, but for the case of odd-, odd- nuclei.

As can be seen from the Fig. 25, the can better reproduce with experimental data than . In order to intuitively compare with , we calculate the standard deviation between decay half-lives of calculations and experimental data. The results , represent standard deviations between , and , which are given in the Table 1. From this table, we can clearly see that for the cases of even-even, odd-proton, odd-neutron and doubly-odd nuclei, our calculations improve , , and compared to , respectively. It is shown that can better reproduce with experimental data than by considering the shielding effect of the Coulomb potential and the centrifugal potential in this work. And for even-even nuclei, are calculated by Gamow-like model proposed by K. Pomorski PhysRevC.87.024308 () which contain only one parameter , and are calculated by our improved Gamow-like model with two parameters and . So the addition of the parameter makes the more consistent with the experimental data than . In many of the Fig. 25 we can see dips and peaks in half-lives, it is because , and is the magic core, and the nucleons in the core play an essential role on the preformation probabilityPhysRevC.94.024338 ().

n
e-e 169 0.348 0.487
e-o 132 0.3455 0.681 0.967
o-e 94 0.3455 0.598 0.789
o-o 66 0.691 0.748 1.235
Table 1: Compare root-mean-square deviations of between our calculations and calculations using parameters and models of Ref. PhysRevC.87.024308 (). In the first row of the table, and are parity of the number of protons and neutrons, respectively. The second row is the corresponding total number of nuclei, and the third row is the corresponding value. The fourth row is the root-mean-square of this work, and the fifth row is the root-mean-square of Ref.PhysRevC.87.024308 ()

The synthesis and research of SHN have became a hot topic in nuclear physics PhysRevC.97.064609 (); 1674-1137-41-7-074106 (); PhysRevC.98.014618 (). Now we extend our model to predict the decay half-lives of nuclei i.e. , ,,,, as well as and some un-synthesized nuclei on their decay chains. From the conclusion of decay properties for SHN in Ref. SANTHOSH201833 (), we can obtain the decay chains of these nuclei, which are , , , , , , and . In our previous studies of the superheavy nucleus1674-1137-42-4-044102 (); 1674-1137-41-12-124109 (), the decay energy is one key input for calculating the decay half-life. Meanwhile Sobiczewski PhysRevC.94.051302 () discovered that the calculation taking decay energy from WS3+ PhysRevC.84.051303 () can best reproduce experimental decay half-life. In the present work, we use decay energy from WS3+ to calculate the half-life of even-even nuclide with proton number and nuclei on their decay chains except the five known nuclei i.e. Og, Lv, Fl, Lv and Fl are taken from NUBASE2016 1674-1137-41-3-030001 ().

For comparatively, we also systematically calculate the decay half-lives of even-even nuclei of proton numbers and nuclei on their decay chain using Coulomb potential and Proximity potential model with proximity potential Bass73 formalism (CPPM-Bass73) BASS197445 (), the Viola-Seaborg-Sobiczewski (VSS) empirical formula VIOLA1966741 (), the Universal (UNIV) curve PhysRevC.83.014601 (); PhysRevC.85.034615 (), Royer formula 0954-3899-26-8-305 (), the Universal decay law (UDL) PhysRevLett.103.072501 (); PhysRevC.80.044326 () and the Ni-Ren-Dong-Xu (NRDX) empirical formula PhysRevC.78.044310 (), respectively. The logarithmic forms of calculated decay half-lives are listed in Table 2. In this tables, the first two columns represent the parent nucleus of the decay and the decay energy, the next seven columns represent the theoretical decay half-lives calculated by CPPM-Bass73, VSS, UNIV, Royer, UDL, NRDX and our improved Gamow-like model denoted as (s), (s), (s), (s), (s), (s) and (s), respectively. The last column represents logarithmic form of the experimental decay half-lives taken from NUBASE2016 1674-1137-41-3-030001 (). It can be seen from Table 2 that for the decay of the same parent nuclear, the logarithmic form of theoretical decay half-life of all models are not much different, and the decay theoretical half-lives of the CPPM-Bass73 model is smaller than other models. For the parent nuclei with known experimental half-life, the maximum difference between the logarithmic forms of experimental half-life value and the logarithmic forms of theoretical half-life obtained from the model of this work is less than 0.65. To make a more intuitive comparison of these theoretical predictions, the theoretical half-life of decay calculated using this seven theoretical models are plotted in Fig. 6. In this figure, decay chains begin with an nucleus with a proton number , the nucleus at the end of each decay chain is spontaneous fission, and the decay of the remaining nucleus is decay. The X-axis represents the mass number in the corresponding decay chain, the Y-axis represents the logarithmic of the decay half-life.

Nucleus (MeV) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
120 13.187 -6.189 -5.613 -5.884 -5.774 -5.842 -5.398 -5.662
Og 12.015 -4.264 -3.662 -4.044 -3.842 -3.809 -3.516 -3.832
Lv 11.105 -2.698 -2.082 -2.527 -2.275 -2.165 -1.994 -2.326
Fl 10.666 -2.202 -1.568 -2.018 -1.767 -1.647 -1.515 -1.831
Cn 10.911 -3.471 -2.797 -3.183 -2.999 -2.975 -2.744 -3.006
Ds 10.976 -4.259 -3.555 -3.891 -3.76 -3.802 -3.508 -3.723
Hs 9.54 -1.077 -0.406 -0.823 -0.603 -0.477 -0.425 -0.678
120 12.9 -5.643 -5.032 -5.371 -5.231 -5.258 -4.826 -5.148
Og 11.835 -3.889 -3.254 -3.688 -3.471 -3.408 -3.115 -3.474 -2.939
Lv 11.005 -2.482 -1.832 -2.319 -2.062 -1.932 -1.748 -2.12 -2.097
Fl 10.365 -1.431 -0.771 -1.28 -1.008 -0.833 -0.731 -1.097 -0.456
Cn 10.106 -1.375 -0.695 -1.186 -0.934 -0.776 -0.677 -1.014
Ds 10.31 -2.601 -1.882 -2.315 -2.122 -2.057 -1.862 -2.15
120 13.287 -6.461 -5.811 -6.13 -6.045 -6.116 -5.591 -5.907
Og 11.561 -3.279 -2.612 -3.109 -2.867 -2.759 -2.484 -2.895
Lv 10.775 -1.922 -1.243 -1.784 -1.51 -1.338 -1.168 -1.587 -1.602
Fl 10.065 -0.624 0.06 -0.506 -0.214 0.017 0.087 -0.325 -0.125
120 12.878 -5.671 -4.986 -5.391 -5.259 -5.273 -4.781 -5.166
Og 12.118 -4.607 -3.893 -4.358 -4.182 -4.148 -3.741 -4.144
Lv 10.451 -1.083 -0.379 -0.981 -0.683 -0.453 -0.319 -0.785
120 12.745 -5.43 -4.71 -5.162 -5.019 -5.011 -4.509 -4.937
Og 11.905 -4.162 -3.414 -3.935 -3.741 -3.672 -3.27 -3.719
Lv 10.777 -2.002 -1.248 -1.853 -1.588 -1.406 -1.172 -1.654
120 13.823 -7.59 -6.836 -7.169 -7.175 -7.296 -6.595 -6.949
Og 11.995 -4.404 -3.618 -4.16 -3.98 -3.92 -3.47 -3.944
120 13.036 -6.102 -5.309 -5.784 -5.689 -5.709 -5.096 -5.559
Og 13.104 -6.789 -5.96 -6.389 -6.354 -6.434 -5.769 -6.178
Table 2: Partial experimental data of decay and the predicted results as logarithmic forms of the theoretical values of decay half-live calculated by different methods of proton numbers and nuclei on their decay chain.
The case of The case of The case of The case of and The case of and
Figure 6: The different cases of decay half-lives calculated by different theories. The abscissa A represents the mass of the nucleus, and the ordinate is the theoretical value of the decay half-life, the different color lines represent the calculations using different theoretical models.

From Fig. 6, we can clearly see that theoretical calculations of decay half-lives by different models of the same nucleus are different due to the model dependent. But all theoretically calculated decay half-life curves have the same trend. In order to intuitively compare different theories, we calculate the standard deviation between decay half-lives of calculations and experimental data of different theories in Table 3.

A of nucleus
298 0.817 0.299 0.656 0.443 0.360 0.276 0.482
300 0.419 0.286 0.299 0.091 0.212 0.342 0.142
Table 3: between decay half-lives of calculations and experimental data of different theories.

We can clearly see that NRDX model reproduces experimental half lives well in superheavy region in case , Royer formula reproduces experimental half lives well in superheavy region in case . In particular, our calculations are sandwiched in other decay chains, and closed to the known experimental data for the half-lives, which shows that the model and calculated parameters of present work are believable.

4 Summary

In summary, we modify the Gamow-like model by considering the effects of screened electrostatic for Coulomb potential and the centrifugal potential and use this model systematically to study decay half-lives for nuclei. In addition, we extend this model to the superheavy nuclei, and predict the half-lives of seven even-even nuclei with a proton number and some un-synthesized nuclei on their decay chains. This work is useful for the future research of superheavy nuclei.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11205083), the construct program of the key discipline in Hunan province, the Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 15A159 and 18A237), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 2015JJ3103 and No. 2015JJ2123), the Innovation Group of Nuclear and Particle Physics in USC, the double first class construct program of USC.

References

References

  • (1) Y. Ren, Z. Ren, New geiger-nuttall law for decay of heavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 044608. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044608.
  • (2) T. Dong, Z. Ren, New calculations of -decay half-lives by the viola-seaborg formula, Eur. Phys. J. A 26 (1) (2005) 69–72. doi:10.1140/epja/i2005-10142-y.
  • (3) V. Viola, G. Seaborg, Nuclear systematics of the heavy elements—ii lifetimes for alpha, beta and spontaneous fission decay, Nucl. Chem. 28 (3) (1966) 741 – 761. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1902(66)80412-8.
  • (4) C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta, R. Wyss, Universal decay law in charged-particle emission and exotic cluster radioactivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 072501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072501.
  • (5) G. Gamow, Zur quantentheorie des atomkernes, Z. phy. 51 (3) (1928) 204–212. doi:10.1007/BF01343196.
  • (6) Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Super-heavy element research, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78 (3) (2015) 036301. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/3/036301.
  • (7) M. Pfützner, M. Karny, L. V. Grigorenko, K. Riisager, Radioactive decays at limits of nuclear stability, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 567–619. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.567.
  • (8) A. N. Andreyev, M. Huyse, P. Van Duppen, C. Qi, R. J. Liotta, S. Antalic, D. Ackermann, S. Franchoo, F. P. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, I. Kojouharov, B. Kindler, P. Kuusiniemi, S. R. Lesher, B. Lommel, R. Mann, K. Nishio, R. D. Page, B. Streicher, S. Saro, B. Sulignano, D. Wiseman, R. A. Wyss, Signatures of the shell closure in -decay process, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 242502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.242502.
  • (9) A. Sobiczewski, K. Pomorski, Description of structure and properties of superheavy nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58 (1) (2007) 292 – 349. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.05.001.
  • (10) A. B. Balantekin, N. Takigawa, Quantum tunneling in nuclear fusion, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70 (1998) 77–100. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.70.77.
  • (11) Y. T. Oganessian, F. S. Abdullin, P. D. Bailey, D. E. Benker, M. E. Bennett, S. N. Dmitriev, J. G. Ezold, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, Y. V. Lobanov, A. N. Mezentsev, K. J. Moody, S. L. Nelson, A. N. Polyakov, C. E. Porter, A. V. Ramayya, F. D. Riley, J. B. Roberto, M. A. Ryabinin, K. P. Rykaczewski, R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. A. Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, R. Sudowe, A. M. Sukhov, Y. S. Tsyganov, V. K. Utyonkov, A. A. Voinov, G. K. Vostokin, P. A. Wilk, Synthesis of a new element with atomic number , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 142502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502.
  • (12) S. Hofmann, S. Heinz, R. Mann, J. Maurer, G. Münzenberg, S. Antalic, W. Barth, H. G. Burkhard, L. Dahl, K. Eberhardt, R. Grzywacz, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, J. M. Kenneally, B. Kindler, I. Kojouharov, R. Lang, B. Lommel, K. Miernik, D. Miller, K. J. Moody, K. Morita, K. Nishio, A. G. Popeko, J. B. Roberto, J. Runke, K. P. Rykaczewski, S. Saro, C. Scheidenberger, H. J. Schött, D. A. Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer, P. Thörle-Pospiech, K. Tinschert, N. Trautmann, J. Uusitalo, A. V. Yeremin, Review of even element super-heavy nuclei and search for element 120, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (6) (2016) 180. doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16180-4.
  • (13) H. B. Yang, Z. Y. Zhang, J. G. Wang, Z. G. Gan, L. Ma, L. Yu, J. Jiang, Y. L. Tian, B. Ding, S. Guo, Y. S. Wang, T. H. Huang, M. D. Sun, K. L. Wang, S. G. Zhou, Z. Z. Ren, X. H. Zhou, H. S. Xu, G. Q. Xiao, Alpha decay of the new isotope 215u, Eur. Phys. J. A 51 (7) (2015) 88. doi:10.1140/epja/i2015-15088-9.
  • (14) B. Buck, A. C. Merchant, S. M. Perez, New look at decay of heavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2975–2977. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2975.
  • (15) C. Xu, Z. Ren, Global calculation of -decay half-lives with a deformed density-dependent cluster model, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 014304. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.014304.
  • (16) C. Xu, Z. Ren, Favored -decays of medium mass nuclei in density-dependent cluster model, Nucl. Phys. A 760 (3) (2005) 303 – 316. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.06.011.
  • (17) P. Mohr, -nucleus potentials, -decay half-lives, and shell closures for superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 031301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.031301.
  • (18) V. Y. Denisov, O. I. Davidovskaya, I. Y. Sedykh, Improved parametrization of the unified model for decay and capture, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 014602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.014602.
  • (19) D. N. Poenaru, M. Ivascu, A. Sandulescu, Alpha decay as a fission-like process, J. Phys. G 5 (10) (1979) L169. doi:10.1088/0305-4616/5/10/005.
  • (20) M. Goncalves, S. B. Duarte, Effective liquid drop description for the exotic decay of nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 2409–2414. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2409.
  • (21) G. Royer, Alpha emission and spontaneous fission through quasi-molecular shapes, J. Phys. G 26 (8) (2000) 1149. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/26/8/305.
    URL http://stacks.iop.org/0954-3899/26/i=8/a=305
  • (22) H. Zhang, W. Zuo, J. Li, G. Royer, decay half-lives of new superheavy nuclei within a generalized liquid drop model, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 017304. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.017304.
  • (23) S. Guo, X. Bao, Y. Gao, J. Li, H. Zhang, The nuclear deformation and the preformation factor in the -decay of heavy and superheavy nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A 934 (2015) 110 – 120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.12.001.
  • (24) X.-D. Sun, X.-J. Wu, B. Zheng, D. Xiang, P. Guo, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of preformation probability of nuclear isomeric and ground states, Chin. Phys. C 41 (1) (2017) 014102. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/1/014102.
  • (25) X.-D. Sun, P. Guo, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of favored -decay half-lives of closed shell odd- and doubly-odd nuclei related to ground and isomeric states, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 024338. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024338.
  • (26) X.-D. Sun, P. Guo, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of decay half-lives for even-even nuclei within a two-potential approach, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 034316. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034316.
  • (27) X.-D. Sun, C. Duan, J.-G. Deng, P. Guo, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of decay for odd- nuclei within a two-potential approach, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 014319. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014319.
  • (28) X.-D. Sun, J.-G. Deng, D. Xiang, P. Guo, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of decay half-lives of doubly odd nuclei within the two-potential approach, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 044303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.044303.
  • (29) J.-G. Deng, J.-C. Zhao, D. Xiang, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of unfavored -decay half-lives of closed-shell nuclei related to ground and isomeric states, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 024318. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024318.
  • (30) J.-G. Deng, J.-C. Zhao, P.-C. Chu, X.-H. Li, Systematic study of decay of nuclei around the shell closures within the cluster-formation model and proximity potential 1977 formalism, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 044322. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044322.
  • (31) D. N. Poenaru, R. Gherghescu, W. Greiner, Simple relationships for -decay half-lives, J. Phys. G 39 (1) (2012) 015105. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/39/1/015105.
  • (32) D. S. Delion, Universal decay rule for reduced widths, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 024310. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.024310.
  • (33) Z. Wang, Z. Niu, Q. Liu, J. Guo, Systematic calculations of -decay half-lives with an improved empirical formula, J. Phys. G 42 (5) (2015) 055112. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/42/5/055112.
  • (34) S. A. Gurvitz, G. Kalbermann, Decay width and the shift of a quasistationary state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 262–265. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.262.
  • (35) K. P. Santhosh, I. Sukumaran, B. Priyanka, Theoretical studies on the decay of 178–220pb isotopes, Nucl. Phys. A 935 (2015) 28 – 42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.12.008.
  • (36) A. Zdeb, M. Warda, K. Pomorski, Half-lives for and cluster radioactivity within a gamow-like model, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 024308. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.024308.
  • (37) O. Tavares, E. Medeiros, M. L. Terranova, Alpha decay half-life of bismuth isotopes, J. Phys. G 31 (2) (2005) 129. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/2/005.
  • (38) D. Ni, Z. Ren, New approach for -decay calculations of deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 064318. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064318.
  • (39) C. Qi, A. Andreyev, M. Huyse, R. Liotta, P. V. Duppen, R. Wyss, On the validity of the geiger–nuttall alpha-decay law and its microscopic basis, Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 203 – 206. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.066.
  • (40) A. Zdeb, M. Warda, K. Pomorski, Half-lives for and cluster radioactivity in a simple model, Phys. Scr. 2013 (T154) (2013) 014029. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2013/t154/014029.
  • (41) A. Zdeb, M. Warda, C. M. Petrache, K. Pomorski, Proton emission half-lives within a gamow-like model, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (10) (2016) 323. doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16323-7.
  • (42) N. Wan, C. Xu, Z.-Z. Ren, -decay half-life screened by electrons, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27 (6) (2016) 149. doi:10.1007/s41365-016-0150-2.
  • (43) A. I. Budaca, R.and Budaca, Proton emission with a screened electrostatic barrier, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (8) (2017) 160. doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12352-0.
  • (44) G. Audi, F. Kondev, M. Wang, W. Huang, S. Naimi, The nubase2016 evaluation of nuclear properties, Chin. Phys. C 41 (3) (2017) 030001. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030001.
  • (45) D. N. Poenaru, R. A. Gherghescu, W. Greiner, Single universal curve for cluster radioactivities and decay, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 014601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014601.
  • (46) D. N. Poenaru, W. Greiner, Rare decay modes by cluster emission from nuclei, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 17 (S) (1991) S443. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/17/s/045.
  • (47) Wahyulianti, A. Suparmi, C. Cari, K. N. Wea, Construction of solvable potential partner of generalized hulthen potential in d-dimensional schrödinger equation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1868 (1) (2017) 060011. doi:10.1063/1.4995175.
  • (48) U. Laha, J. Bhoi, Higher partial-wave potentials from supersymmetry-inspired factorization and nucleon-nucleus elastic scattering, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 034614. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.034614.
  • (49) J. J. Morehead, Asymptotics of radial wave equations, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 5431. doi:10.1063/1.531270.
  • (50) V. Y. Denisov, A. A. Khudenko, Erratum: -decay half-lives: Empirical relations [phys. rev. c 79, 054614 (2009)], Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 059901. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.059901.
  • (51) J. Dong, W. Zuo, J. Gu, Y. Wang, B. Peng, -decay half-lives and values of superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 064309. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064309.
  • (52) C. Xu, Z. Ren, decay of nuclei in extreme cases, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 024614. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.024614.
  • (53) D. N. Poenaru, W. Greiner, M. Ivaşcu, D. Mazilu, I. H. Plonski, Odd-even staggering of heavy cluster spontaneous emission rates, Zeitschrift für Physik A Atomic Nuclei 325 (4) (1986) 435–439. doi:10.1007/BF01290046.
    URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01290046
  • (54) R. Bass, Threshold and angular momentum limit in the complete fusion of heavy ions, Physics Letters B 47 (2) (1973) 139 – 142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(73)90590-X.
    URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026937390590X
  • (55) R. Bass, Fusion of heavy nuclei in a classical model, Nucl. Phys. A 231 (1) (1974) 45 – 63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(74)90292-9.
  • (56) D. N. Poenaru, R. A. Gherghescu, W. Greiner, Cluster decay of superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 034615. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.034615.
  • (57) K. P. Santhosh, C. Nithya, Predictions on the modes of decay of even z superheavy isotopes within the range , Atom. Data Nucl. Dat. 119 (2018) 33 – 98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2017.03.003.
  • (58) C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta, R. Wyss, M. Y. Zhang, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, D. Hu, Microscopic mechanism of charged-particle radioactivity and generalization of the geiger-nuttall law, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 044326. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.044326.
  • (59) D. Ni, Z. Ren, T. Dong, C. Xu, Unified formula of half-lives for decay and cluster radioactivity, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 044310. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.044310.
  • (60) M. Wang, G. Audi, F. Kondev, W. Huang, S. Naimi, X. Xu, The ame2016 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references, Chin. Phys. C 41 (3) (2017) 030003. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003.
  • (61) Z.-H. Wu, L. Zhu, F. Li, X.-B. Yu, J. Su, C.-C. Guo, Synthesis of neutron-rich superheavy nuclei with radioactive beams within the dinuclear system model, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 064609. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.064609.
  • (62) J.-H. Liu, S.-Q. Guo, X.-J. Bao, H.-F. Zhang, Predictions of decay modes for the superheavy nuclei most suitable for synthesis, Chin. Phys. C 41 (7) (2017) 074106. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/7/074106.
  • (63) F. Li, L. Zhu, Z.-H. Wu, X.-B. Yu, J. Su, C.-C. Guo, Predictions for the synthesis of superheavy elements and 120, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 014618. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.014618.
  • (64) J.-G. Deng, J.-C. Zhao, J.-L. Chen, X.-J. Wu, X.-H. Li, decay properties of 296 og within the two-potential approach, Chin. Phys. C 42 (4) (2018) 044102. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/42/4/044102.
  • (65) J.-G. Deng, J.-H. Cheng, B. Zheng, X.-H. Li, decay properties of 297 og within the two-potential approach, Chin. Phys. C 41 (12) (2017) 124109. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/12/124109.
  • (66) A. Sobiczewski, Theoretical predictions for the nucleus , Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 051302. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.051302.
  • (67) N. Wang, M. Liu, Nuclear mass predictions with a radial basis function approach, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 051303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.051303.
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
362904
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description