Processing math: 100%

Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model

  • In this study, based on the Gamow-like model, we systematically analyze two-proton (2p) radioactivity half-lives of nuclei near or beyond the proton drip line. It is found that the calculated results can reproduce experimental data well. Furthermore, using this model, we predict the half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates whose 2p radioactivity is energetically allowed or observed but not yet quantified in the latest table of evaluated nuclear properties, i.e., NUBASE2016. The predicted results are in good agreement with those from other theoretical models and empirical formulas, namely the effective liquid drop model (ELDM), generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), Sreeja formula, and Liu formula.
  • Two-proton (2p) radioactivity, i.e., the spontaneous emission of two protons from the ground state or isomer state of a radioactive nucleus, has become a significant tool in the last decades to shed new light on the nuclear structure information of rich-proton nuclei near or beyond the proton drip line [1-8]. This new decay mode was predicted for the first time in 1960s by Zel’dovich and Goldansky [1-3]. Subsequently, the not true 2p radioactivity (i.e., the 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p>0 and proton radioactivity released energy Qp>0) produced by short-lived nuclear resonances was reported [9-14]. With the development of theoretical studies and the improvement of experimental techniques, in 2002, true 2p radioactivity (Q2p>0 and Qp<0) was reported for the first time with the observation of 45Fe 43Cr +p+p in two independent experiments at GANIL and GSI, respectively [15, 16]. Later on, the 2p radioactivity of 19Mg, 48Ni, and 54Zn were also reported in different experiments [17-19]. Recently, in an experiment conducted with the BigRIPS separator at the RIKEN Nishina Center, the 2p radioactivity of 67Kr was observed [20], showing a good agreement with the predictions of possible 2p radioactivity candidates by theoretical mass models [21-25]. Moreover, the 2p radioactivity of the long-lived isomer 94Agm, whose parent nucleus has a very large deformation, was observed by Mukha et al. in an experiment at GSI [26].

    Concerning 2p radioactivity process, owing to the pairing interactions of nucleons, a sequential emission of two protons is impossible. The two protons of this process may be an isotropic emission with no angular correlation or a correlated emission forming 2He-like cluster with strongly correlation from the parent nuclei [15, 27-29]. In theory, many models were proposed to study 2p radioactivity. These models successfully reproduced the half-lives of 2p radioactive nuclei or predicted the possible 2p radioactivity candidates, such as the direct decay model [30-34], the simultaneous versus sequential decay model [2, 35], the diproton model [3, 4], and the three-body model, among others [5, 36-39]. Especially, the three-body model treats 2p radioactivity process as a three-body problem in which the parent nucleus is composed by two protons and a remnant core. Furthermore, empirical formulas constitute an effective tool to investigate 2p radioactivity. These formulas were proposed on the basis of the distinguished Geiger and Nuttal (G-N) law [40], including a four-parameter empirical formula proposed by Sreeja et al. [41] and a two-parameter empirical formula proposed by Liu et al. [42]. In 2013, based on the Gamow theory, Zdeb et al. proposed a simple phenomenological model named Gamow-like model that contains a single effective nuclear radius parameter, i.e., r0, to investigate α decay and cluster radioactivity [43, 44]. Using this model, the calculated half-lives were found to agree reasonably well with the experimental data. Recently, the Gamow-like model was successfully extended to study proton radioactivity [45]. Essentially, the physical processes of α decay, cluster, and proton radioactivity are similar. They can be easily described as a quantum mechanical tunneling effect in which the emitted particles are different [46-52]. Considering a 2p radioactivity process that shares the same theory with α decay, cluster, and proton radioactivity processes, whether the Gamow-like model can be extended to study 2p radioactivity or not is an interesting question. To this end, in this study, we systematically analyzed the half-lives of 2p radioactive nuclei with 4 < Z < 36 using the Gamow-like model.

    This article is organized as follows. In the next section, the theoretical framework of the Gamow-like model and two different empirical formulas are briefly presented. In Section III, the results are presented and discussed. Finally, a summary is given in Section IV.

    In the framework of the Gamow-like model, the 2p radioactivity half-life is evaluated as

    T1/2=ln2λ,

    (1)

    where λ is a decay constant that can be obtained from

    λ=S2pνP,

    (2)

    where S2p = G2[A/(A2)]2nχ2 is the spectroscopic factor of the 2p radioactivity obtained by the cluster overlap approximation [4] with G2=(2n)!/[22n(n!)2] [53]; n(3Z)1/31 is the average principal proton oscillator quantum number [54]. In this study, χ2 is set as 0.0143, according to a previous study by Cui et al. [55]. ν, i.e., the frequency of assaults on the barrier, can be given by the harmonic oscillator frequency present in the Nilsson potential [56],

    hν=ω41A1/3,

    (3)

    where h, , ω, and A are the Planck constant, the reduced Planck constant, the angular frequency, and mass number of parent nucleus, respectively.

    P, i.e., the Gamow penetrability factor through the barrier, is calculated by the semi-classical Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation and expressed as [57]

    P=exp[2RoutRin2μ(V(r)Ek)dr],

    (4)

    where μ=m2pmd/(m2p+md)938.3×2×Ad/AMeV/c2 represents the reduced mass with m2p, md, and Ad being the mass of the emitted two protons, the residual daughter nucleus, and the mass number of daughter nucleus, respectively. In addition, Ek=Q2p(A2)/A denotes the kinetic energy of emitted protons, and V(r) is the total interaction potential between the paired two protons and the daughter nucleus (see Fig. 1), which is written as

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Sketch map of interaction potential V(r) versus the distance between the preformed paired two-proton (blue sphere) and the daughter nucleus (red sphere) centers for 2p radioactivity.

    V(r)={V0,0rR,VC(r)+Vl(r),r>R.

    (5)

    Rout is the outer turning point from the potential barrier determined by the condition V(Rout) = Ek; Rin represents the spherical square well radius, which can be obtained by the sum of the half-width of radial distribution of the proton pair and the radius of the daughter nucleus. It can be expressed as

    Rin=r0(A1/32p+A1/3d),

    (6)

    where A2p=2 is the mass number of the emitted two protons, and r0 denotes the effective nuclear radius parameter, which is determined by fitting the experimental data.

    In this framework, V0 is the depth of the potential well. Moreover, VC(r)=2Zde2/r, which can be obtained under the assumption of a uniformly charged sphere with radius R; r denotes the center-of-mass distance between the paired two protons and the daughter nucleus. Finally, Vl(r)=2(l+12)2/2μr2 is adopted as the Langer modified centrifugal barrier because l(l+1)(l+12)2 , which is a necessary correction for one-dimensional problems [58]; l is the orbital angular momentum taken away by the emitted two-proton.

    1   Sreeja formula

    Based on the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives T1/2 of 33 nuclei extracted from a study by Goncalves et al. [27], Sreeja and Balasubramaniama analyzed the relationship between log10T1/2 and the inverse square root of the 2p radioactivity released energy Q1/22p corresponding to different angular momenta, l = 0, 2, and 4. Fitting the slopes and intercepts obtained for l = 0, 2, and 4, a unified four-parameter empirical formula was proposed to investigate 2p radioactivity, expressed as [41]

    log10T1/2=((a×l)+b)ξ+((c×l)+d),

    (7)

    where ξ=Z0.8d/Q1/22p, with Zd being the charge of daughter nucleus; a=0.1578, b=1.9474, c=1.8795, and d=24.847 are adjustable parameters.

    2   Liu formula

    In a previous study of ours, based on experimental data and partial calculated results extracted from the aforementioned study by Goncalves et al. [27] and considering the contributions of the charge of the daughter nucleus Zd and the angular momentum l to 2p radioactivity half-lives, we proposed a two-parameter empirical formula to study 2p radioactivity that can be expressed as [42]

    log10T1/2=a(Z0.8d+lβ)Q1/22pb,

    (8)

    where the adjustable parameters a and b are 2.032 and 26.832, respectively. The value of β is 0.25, which reflects the effect of different l-values on the 2p radioactivity half-lives.

    In this study, the value of the only one adjustable parameter in Gamow-like model, r0, is equal to 1.28 fm as a result of fitting the experimental data of 19Mg, 45Fe, 48Ni, 54Zn, and 67Kr. This value is close to that obtained for α decay, cluster radioactivity (r0 = 1.20 fm) [43, 44], and proton radioactivity (1.21 fm) [45]. This confirms the rationality of such a value. Below, we systematically calculate the 2p radioactivity half-lives of nuclei having experimental data within the Gamow-like model. For comparison, the experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives as well as the calculated ones using the effective liquid drop model (ELDM), the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), and two different empirical formulas are also provided. All the detailed numerical results are presented in Table 1. In this table, the first three columns represent the 2p radioactive parent nuclei, the 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p, and the logarithmical experimental 2p radioactivity half-life log10Texpt1/2, respectively. The last five columns represent the logarithmical 2p radioactivity half-life calculated by three different theoretical models and two empirical formulas, which are denoted as Gamow-like, ELDM, GLDM, Sreeja, and Liu, respectively. More intuitively, Fig. 2 shows the differences between the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives using the different theoretical models, i.e., Gamow-like, ELDM, and GLDM, empirical formulas of Sreeja and Liu, and the experimental data log10Tcalc1/2log10Texpt1/2. Note that all the differences for the true 2p radioactive nuclei (19Mg, 45Fe, 48Ni, 54Zn, and 67Kr) are basically within ±1, which means that the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives using the Gamow-like model can reproduce the experimental ones for the true 2p radioactivity nuclei well.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Comparisons between the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives using three different theoretical models, two empirical formulas, and the experimental values. The experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives log10Texpt1/2 and experimental 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p are extracted from the corresponding references.
    NucleiQ2p/MeVlog10T1/2/s
    ExptGamow-likeELDM [27]GLDM [55]Sreeja [41]Liu [42]
    6Be1.371 [9]20.30 [9]19.7019.9719.3721.9523.81
    12O1.638 [14]>20.20 [14]18.0418.2719.7118.4720.17
    1.820 [2]20.94 [2]18.3019.4618.7920.52
    1.790 [12]20.10 [12]18.2619.4318.7420.46
    1.800 [13]20.12 [13]18.2719.4418.7620.48
    16Ne1.330 [2]20.64 [2]16.2316.4515.9417.53
    1.400 [11]20.38 [11]16.4316.6016.6316.1617.77
    19Mg0.750 [19]11.40 [19]11.4611.7211.7910.6612.03
    45Fe1.100 [16]2.40 [16]2.092.231.252.21
    1.140 [15]2.07 [15] 2.582.711.662.64
    1.154 [18]2.55 [18]2.742.432.871.802.79
    1.210 [59]2.42 [59]3.373.502.343.35
    48Ni1.290 [60]2.52 [60]2.592.621.612.59
    1.350 [18]2.08 [18]3.213.242.133.13
    54Zn1.280 [61]2.79 [61]0.930.870.101.01
    1.480 [17]2.43 [17]3.012.522.951.832.81
    67Kr1.690 [20]1.70 [20]0.760.061.250.310.58
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Deviations between the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives and the experimental ones for the true 2p radioactive nuclei and not true 2p radioactive nuclei.

    To further demonstrate the good agreement between the 2p radioactivity half-lives calculated by the Gamow-like model and the experimental data, the standard deviation σ was used, which is defined by

    σ=[1nni=1(log10Texpt.i1/2log10Tcalc.i1/2)2]1/2.

    (9)

    Here, log10Texpt.1/2i and log10Tcalc.1/2i represent the logarithmic forms of experimental and calculated 2p radioactivity half-life for the i-th nucleus, respectively. The σ values resulting from the experimental data are also compared with the calculations using ELDM, GLDM, and two different empirical formulas, according to Eq. (9). All the calculated results are listed in Table 2. From this table, we can clearly see that the σ value between the experimental data and the values calculated using the Gamow-like model is smaller than those resulting from using GLDM and the two different empirical formulas. This means that the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives obtained by the Gamow-like model can better reproduce the experimental data of true 2p radioactive nuclei. Nevertheless, regarding the short-lived 2p radioactive nuclei (6Be, 12O and 10Ne), the experimental data cannot be reproduced properly, especially for 10Ne, with a reported Q2p = 1.33 MeV and 1.40 MeV. Note that the differences between the experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives and the calculated ones exceed two orders of magnitude. Considering the imperfection of detection technologies and radioactive beam facilities in early experiments, the experimental data may not be accurate enough. Moreover, it is worth noting that several studies have indicated that the nuclear deformation effect or collective mechanisms will affect the 2p radioactivity half-lives to some extent. The above factors should be considered in the context of the Gamow-like model, GLDM, and ELDM in future studies [62, 63]. In general, the Gamow-like model can be treated as a new and effective tool to study 2p radioactivity.

    Table 2

    Table 2.  Standard deviation σ between the experimental data and the calculated values using different theoretical models and empirical formulas for the true 2p radioactive nuclei.
    ModelquantityGamow-likeELDMGLDMSreejaLiu
    σ0.8440.5310.8521.2220.967
    cases104101010
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Given the good agreement between the calculated results with the Gamow-like model and the experimental data, as well as other theoretical calculated values, we used this model to predict the half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates with 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p>0, extracted from the latest evaluated atomic mass table AME2016 [64, 65]. The detailed results are presented in Table 3. For comparison, the predicted results using ELDM, GLDM, and the two different empirical formulas are also presented in Table 3, in which the first three columns denote the possible 2p radioactivity candidate, the angular momentum taken away by the emitted two-proton, and the 2p radioactivity released energy; they were extracted from a previous study by Gonalves et al. [27]. The last five columns represent the predicted 2p radioactivity half-lives using the Gamow-like model, ELDM, GLDM, Sreeja formula, and Liu formula, respectively. Note from this table that the predicted results using these models and formulas basically have the same magnitude. Taking 22Si as an example, the predicted results are 13.31, 13.32, 13.30, 12.30, and 13.73, respectively. More intuitively, to illustrate the consistency of the predicted results using different models and formulas, we plot the logarithmic predicted half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates in Fig. 3. In this figure, the black square, red circle, blue upward triangle, magenta downward triangle, and olive diamond represent the logarithmic form of predicted half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates using ELDM, GLDM, Sreeja formula, Liu formula, and Gamow-like model, respectively. Note from this figure that the 2p radioactivity half-lives predicted using the Gamow-like model show better agreement with the ones predicted using ELDM in most cases, compared to others models. This further confirms the rationality of the Gamow-like model as a useful tool to study 2p radioactivity. Furthermore, the predicted possible 2p radioactivity candidates can provide theoretical direction for future experiments.

    Table 3

    Table 3.  Comparison of the predicted half-lives for possible 2p radioactivity candidates whose 2p radioactivity is energetically allowed or observed but not yet quantified in NUBASE2016 [66].
    NucleiQ2p/MeVllog10TPre1/2/s
    Gamow-likeELDM [27]GLDM [55]Sreeja [41]Liu [42]
    22Si1.283013.2513.3213.3012.3013.74
    26S1.755013.9213.8614.5912.7114.16
    34Ca1.474010.109.9110.718.659.93
    36Sc1.993012.0011.7410.3011.66
    38Ti2.743013.8413.5614.2711.9313.35
    39Ti0.75800.910.811.340.281.19
    40V1.842010.159.858.469.73
    42Cr1.00202.652.432.881.782.76
    47Co1.04200.420.110.210.69
    49Ni0.492014.5414.6414.4612.7812.43
    56Ga2.44308.578.006.427.61
    58Ge3.732012.3211.7413.109.5310.85
    59Ge2.10206.315.716.974.445.54
    60Ge0.631014.2414.6213.5512.4012.04
    61As2.28206.766.124.745.85
    10N1.300117.3617.6420.0418.59
    28Cl1.965213.1112.9514.5212.46
    32K2.077212.4912.2513.4611.55
    57Ga2.04725.915.305.224.14
    62As0.692214.0614.5213.8314.18
    52Cu0.77248.949.368.628.74
    60As3.49249.408.6810.848.33
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Comparison of the predicted 2p radioactivity half-lives using the Gamow-like, ELDM, GLDM, and two different empirical formulas.

    In the present study, based on the Gamow-like model, the half-lives of two-proton (2p) radioactivity nuclei with 4 < Z < 36 were systematically investigated. The only parameter in this model, i.e., the effective nuclear radius, was found to be r0 = 1.28 fm, obtained by fitting the experimental data of 19Mg, 45Fe, 48Ni, 54Zn, and 67Kr. This value is close to those for α decay, cluster, and proton radioactivity processes. The calculated results are in good agreement with the experimental data and values calculated using other theoretical models and empirical formulas. In addition, the half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates were predicted, with reasonable agreement with other predictions. This study provides a theoretical reference for future experimental studies.

    We would like to thank Prof. K. Pomorski, Dr. X. -D. Sun, and J. -G. Deng for useful discussions.

    [1] Y. B. Zel’dovich, Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 812 (1960
    [2] V. I. Goldansky, Nucl. Phys. 19, 482 (1960 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(60)90258-3
    [3] V. I. Goldansky, Nucl. Phys. 27, 648 (1961 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(61)90309-1
    [4] B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 43, R1513 (1991 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.43.R1513
    [5] L.V. Grigorenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 22 (2000 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.22
    [6] E. Olsen, M. Pfützner, N. Birge et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 222501 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.222501
    [7] I. Mukha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 202501 (2015 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.202501
    [8] B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054332 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054332
    [9] W. Whaling, Phys. Rev. 150, 836 (1966 doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.150.836
    [10] G. J. KeKelis et al., Phys. Rev. C 17, 1929 (1978 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.17.1929
    [11] C. J. Woodward et al., Phys. Rev. C 27, 27 (1983 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.27.27
    [12] R. A. Kryger, A. Azhari, M. Hellström et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 74, 860 (1995 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.860
    [13] D. Suzuki, H. Iwasaki, D. Beaumel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 103, 152503 (2009 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.152503
    [14] M. F. Jager, R. J. Charity, J. M. Elson et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 011304(R) (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.011304
    [15] J. Giovinazzo, B. Blank, M. Chartier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 89, 102501 (2002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.102501
    [16] M. Pfützner, E. Badura, C. Bingham et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 14, 279 (2002 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2002-10033-9
    [17] B. Blank et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 232501 (2005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.232501
    [18] C. Dossat, A. Bey, B. Blank et al., Phys. Rev. C 72, 054315 (2005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.054315
    [19] I. Mukha, K. Sümmerer, L. Acosta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 182501 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.182501
    [20] T. Goigoux, P. Ascher, B. Blank et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 117, 162501 (2016 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.162501
    [21] J. Jänecke and P. Masson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 39, 265 (1988 doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(88)90028-9
    [22] A. Pape and M. Antony, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 39, 201 (1988 doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(88)90020-4
    [23] W. E. Ormand, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2407 (1997 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.55.2407
    [24] B. J. Cole, Phys. Rev. C 59, 726 (1999 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.726
    [25] B. A. Brown, R. R. C. Clement, H. Schatz et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 045802 (2002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.045802
    [26] I. Mukha et al., Nature (London) 439, 298 (2006 doi: 10.1038/nature04453
    [27] M. Gonalves, N. Teruya, O. Tavares et al., Phys. Lett. B 774, 14 (2017 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.032
    [28] O. A. P. Tavares and E. L. Medeiros, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 65 (2018 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2018-12495-4
    [29] D. S. Delion, R. J. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034328 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034328
    [30] V. Galitsky and V. Cheltsov, Nucl. Phys. 56, 86 (1964 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(64)90455-9
    [31] L. V. Grigorenko and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014009 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.014009
    [32] B. Blank et al., Acta Phys. Pol. B 42, 545 (2011 doi: 10.5506/APhysPolB.42.545
    [33] A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30, 257 (1958 doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.30.257
    [34] K. Miernik et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 192501 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.192501
    [35] R. Álvarez-Rodríguez, H. O. U. Fynbo, A. S. Jensen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 100, 192501 (2008 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.192501
    [36] L. V. Grigorenko, R. C. Johnson, I. Mukha et al., Phys. Rev. C 64, 054002 (2001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.054002
    [37] L. V. Grigorenko and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054005 (2003 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.054005
    [38] V. Vasilevsky, A. Nesterov, F. Arickx et al., Phys. Rev. C 63, 034607 (2001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.034607
    [39] L. V. Grigorenko and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014008 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.014008
    [40] H. Geiger and J. Nuttall, Eur. Phys. J. A 22, 613 (1911 doi: 10.1080/14786441008637156
    [41] I. Sreeja and M. Balasubramaniam, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 33 (2019 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12694-5
    [42] H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, X Pan et al., Chin. Phys. C, 45, 024108 (2021)
    [43] A. Zdeb, M. Warda, and K. Pomorski, Phys. Rev. C 87, 024308 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.024308
    [44] A. Zdeb, M. Warda, and K. Pomorski, Phys. Scr. T 154, 014029 (2003
    [45] A. Zdeb, M. Warda, C. M. Petrache et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 323 (2016 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16323-7
    [46] D. N. Basu, P. Roy. Chowdhury, and C. Samanta, Phys. Rev. C 72, 051601 (2005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.051601
    [47] Z. Z. Ren, C. Xu, and Z. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 70, 034304 (2004 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.034304
    [48] J. M. Dong, W. Zuo, and J. Z. Gu, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064309 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064309
    [49] Y. Z. Wang, S. J. Wang, Z. Y. Hou et al., Phys. Rev. C 92, 064301 (2015 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.064301
    [50] Y. W. Zhao, S. Q. Guo, and H. F. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 42, 074103 (2018 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/42/7/074103
    [51] H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, X Pan et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 094106 (2020 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/9/094106
    [52] J. H. Cheng, X. Pan, Y. T. Zou et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 273 (2020 doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00280-z
    [53] N. Anyas-Weiss et al., Phys. Rep. 12, 201 (1974 doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(74)90045-3
    [54] A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure (Benjamin, New York, 1969), Vol. 1
    [55] J. P. Cui, Y. H. Gao, Y. Z. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 014301 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.014301
    [56] S. G. Nilsson, Dan. Mat.-Fys. Medd 29(16), (1955
    [57] J. G. Deng, J. C. Zhao, P. C. Chu et al., Phys. Rev. C 97, 044322 (2018 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044322
    [58] J. J. Morehead, J. Math. Phys. 36, 5431 (1995 doi: 10.1063/1.531270
    [59] L. Audirac, P. Ascher, B. Blank et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 179 (2012 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2012-12179-1
    [60] M. Pomorski, M. Pfützner, W. Dominik et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 014311 (2014 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014311
    [61] P. Ascher, L. Audirac, N. Adimi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 102502 (2011 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.102502
    [62] J. Rotureau, J. Okolowicz, and M. Ploszajczak, Nucl. Phys. A 767, 13 (2006 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.12.005
    [63] L. V. Grigorenko, Phys. Part. Nucl. 40, 674 (2009 doi: 10.1134/S1063779609050049
    [64] W. Huang, G. Audi, M. Wang et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 030002 (2017 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030002
    [65] M. Wang, G. Audi, F. C. Kondev et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 030003 (2017 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003
    [66] G. Audi, F. Kondev, M. Wang et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 030001 (2017 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030001
  • [1] Y. B. Zel’dovich, Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 812 (1960
    [2] V. I. Goldansky, Nucl. Phys. 19, 482 (1960 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(60)90258-3
    [3] V. I. Goldansky, Nucl. Phys. 27, 648 (1961 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(61)90309-1
    [4] B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 43, R1513 (1991 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.43.R1513
    [5] L.V. Grigorenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 22 (2000 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.22
    [6] E. Olsen, M. Pfützner, N. Birge et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 222501 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.222501
    [7] I. Mukha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 202501 (2015 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.202501
    [8] B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054332 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054332
    [9] W. Whaling, Phys. Rev. 150, 836 (1966 doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.150.836
    [10] G. J. KeKelis et al., Phys. Rev. C 17, 1929 (1978 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.17.1929
    [11] C. J. Woodward et al., Phys. Rev. C 27, 27 (1983 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.27.27
    [12] R. A. Kryger, A. Azhari, M. Hellström et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 74, 860 (1995 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.860
    [13] D. Suzuki, H. Iwasaki, D. Beaumel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 103, 152503 (2009 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.152503
    [14] M. F. Jager, R. J. Charity, J. M. Elson et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 011304(R) (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.011304
    [15] J. Giovinazzo, B. Blank, M. Chartier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 89, 102501 (2002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.102501
    [16] M. Pfützner, E. Badura, C. Bingham et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 14, 279 (2002 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2002-10033-9
    [17] B. Blank et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 232501 (2005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.232501
    [18] C. Dossat, A. Bey, B. Blank et al., Phys. Rev. C 72, 054315 (2005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.054315
    [19] I. Mukha, K. Sümmerer, L. Acosta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 182501 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.182501
    [20] T. Goigoux, P. Ascher, B. Blank et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 117, 162501 (2016 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.162501
    [21] J. Jänecke and P. Masson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 39, 265 (1988 doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(88)90028-9
    [22] A. Pape and M. Antony, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 39, 201 (1988 doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(88)90020-4
    [23] W. E. Ormand, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2407 (1997 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.55.2407
    [24] B. J. Cole, Phys. Rev. C 59, 726 (1999 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.726
    [25] B. A. Brown, R. R. C. Clement, H. Schatz et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 045802 (2002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.045802
    [26] I. Mukha et al., Nature (London) 439, 298 (2006 doi: 10.1038/nature04453
    [27] M. Gonalves, N. Teruya, O. Tavares et al., Phys. Lett. B 774, 14 (2017 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.032
    [28] O. A. P. Tavares and E. L. Medeiros, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 65 (2018 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2018-12495-4
    [29] D. S. Delion, R. J. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034328 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034328
    [30] V. Galitsky and V. Cheltsov, Nucl. Phys. 56, 86 (1964 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(64)90455-9
    [31] L. V. Grigorenko and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014009 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.014009
    [32] B. Blank et al., Acta Phys. Pol. B 42, 545 (2011 doi: 10.5506/APhysPolB.42.545
    [33] A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30, 257 (1958 doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.30.257
    [34] K. Miernik et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 192501 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.192501
    [35] R. Álvarez-Rodríguez, H. O. U. Fynbo, A. S. Jensen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 100, 192501 (2008 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.192501
    [36] L. V. Grigorenko, R. C. Johnson, I. Mukha et al., Phys. Rev. C 64, 054002 (2001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.054002
    [37] L. V. Grigorenko and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054005 (2003 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.054005
    [38] V. Vasilevsky, A. Nesterov, F. Arickx et al., Phys. Rev. C 63, 034607 (2001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.034607
    [39] L. V. Grigorenko and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014008 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.014008
    [40] H. Geiger and J. Nuttall, Eur. Phys. J. A 22, 613 (1911 doi: 10.1080/14786441008637156
    [41] I. Sreeja and M. Balasubramaniam, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 33 (2019 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12694-5
    [42] H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, X Pan et al., Chin. Phys. C, 45, 024108 (2021)
    [43] A. Zdeb, M. Warda, and K. Pomorski, Phys. Rev. C 87, 024308 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.024308
    [44] A. Zdeb, M. Warda, and K. Pomorski, Phys. Scr. T 154, 014029 (2003
    [45] A. Zdeb, M. Warda, C. M. Petrache et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 323 (2016 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16323-7
    [46] D. N. Basu, P. Roy. Chowdhury, and C. Samanta, Phys. Rev. C 72, 051601 (2005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.051601
    [47] Z. Z. Ren, C. Xu, and Z. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 70, 034304 (2004 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.034304
    [48] J. M. Dong, W. Zuo, and J. Z. Gu, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064309 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064309
    [49] Y. Z. Wang, S. J. Wang, Z. Y. Hou et al., Phys. Rev. C 92, 064301 (2015 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.064301
    [50] Y. W. Zhao, S. Q. Guo, and H. F. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 42, 074103 (2018 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/42/7/074103
    [51] H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, X Pan et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 094106 (2020 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/9/094106
    [52] J. H. Cheng, X. Pan, Y. T. Zou et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 273 (2020 doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00280-z
    [53] N. Anyas-Weiss et al., Phys. Rep. 12, 201 (1974 doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(74)90045-3
    [54] A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure (Benjamin, New York, 1969), Vol. 1
    [55] J. P. Cui, Y. H. Gao, Y. Z. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 014301 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.014301
    [56] S. G. Nilsson, Dan. Mat.-Fys. Medd 29(16), (1955
    [57] J. G. Deng, J. C. Zhao, P. C. Chu et al., Phys. Rev. C 97, 044322 (2018 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044322
    [58] J. J. Morehead, J. Math. Phys. 36, 5431 (1995 doi: 10.1063/1.531270
    [59] L. Audirac, P. Ascher, B. Blank et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 179 (2012 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2012-12179-1
    [60] M. Pomorski, M. Pfützner, W. Dominik et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 014311 (2014 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014311
    [61] P. Ascher, L. Audirac, N. Adimi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 102502 (2011 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.102502
    [62] J. Rotureau, J. Okolowicz, and M. Ploszajczak, Nucl. Phys. A 767, 13 (2006 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.12.005
    [63] L. V. Grigorenko, Phys. Part. Nucl. 40, 674 (2009 doi: 10.1134/S1063779609050049
    [64] W. Huang, G. Audi, M. Wang et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 030002 (2017 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030002
    [65] M. Wang, G. Audi, F. C. Kondev et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 030003 (2017 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003
    [66] G. Audi, F. Kondev, M. Wang et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 030001 (2017 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030001
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Jiang, J.-D., Liu, X., Zhang, D.-M. et al. A simple model for two-proton radioactivity[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(10): 104108. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad6417
2. Carmel Vigila Bai, G.M., Abisha, R. POSSIBLE 2p DECAY EMISSION IN THE REGION 4 ≤Z ≤ 54 USING THE MODIFIED CYE MODEL[J]. Ukrainian Journal of Physics, 2024, 69(3): 149-157. doi: 10.15407/ujpe69.3.149
3. Zhang, D.-M., Hu, X.-Y., Qi, L.-J. et al. Theoretical calculations of proton emission half-lives based on a deformed Gamow-like model[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(4): 044102. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad243d
4. Zou, Y.-T., Cheng, J.-H., Xu, Y.-Y. et al. Laser-assisted two-proton radioactivity[J]. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 2024, 51(4): 045103. doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ad2691
5. Saeed Abdulla, N.P., Preethi Rajan, M.K., Biju, R.K. Systematic study of two proton radioactivity within the effective liquid drop model[J]. Physica Scripta, 2024, 99(3): 035310. doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ad2a2f
6. Saeed Abdulla, N.P., Rajan, M.K.P., Biju, R.K. An empirical formula for the half-lives of one- and two-proton radioactivity[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2024, 33(1-2): 2450007. doi: 10.1142/S0218301324500071
7. Saeed Abdulla, N.P., Pavithran, A., Preethi Rajan, M.K. et al. INVESTIGATION OF TWO-PROTON DECAY USING MODIFIED FORMATION PROBABILITY[J]. Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, 2024, 25(2): 105-114. doi: 10.15407/jnpae2024.02.105
8. Yusofvand, Z., Naderi, D. Competition of proton radioactivity with α- and β+-decays[J]. Indian Journal of Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s12648-024-03280-7
9. Abdulla, N.P.S., Rajan, M.K.P., Biju, R.K. Investigation of two proton decay using modified wood saxon potential[J]. Indian Journal of Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s12648-024-03255-8
10. Abdulla, N.P.S., Rajan, M.K.P., Biju, R.K. An empirical formula for the two-proton decay half-lives in the ground and excited states[J]. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2023.07.013
11. Zhu, D.-X., Xu, Y.-Y., Chu, L.-J. et al. Two-proton radioactivity from excited states of proton-rich nuclei within Coulomb and Proximity Potential Model[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2023, 34(9): 130. doi: 10.1007/s41365-023-01268-2
12. Srinivas, M.G., Munirathnam, R., Sowmya, N. et al. A systematic analysis for one proton radioactivity of ground state nuclei[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122673
13. Zhang, D.-M., Qi, L.-J., Zhu, D.-X. et al. Systematic study on the proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2023, 34(4): 55. doi: 10.1007/s41365-023-01201-7
14. Sharifi, B., Naderi, D. Theoretical study of superheavy elements 294,297Og using different versions of proximity potential[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122606
15. Yuan, Z., Bai, D., Wang, Z. et al. Research on two-proton radioactivity in density-dependent cluster model[J]. Science China: Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 2023, 66(2): 222012. doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1994-8
16. Santhosh, K.P.. Two-proton radioactivity within a Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(5): 054604. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.054604
17. Zou, Y.-T., Pan, X., Li, X.-H. et al. Favored one proton radioactivity within a one-parameter model* * Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.12175100 and No. 11705055), the construct program of the key discipline in Hunan province, the Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 18A237), the Innovation Group of Nuclear and Particle Physics in USC, the Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation, China (Grant No. ZR2019YQ01), and the Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation For Postgraduate (Grant No. CX20210942).[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2022, 74(11): 115302. doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/ac7e2c
18. Zhu, D.-X., Xu, Y.-Y., Liu, H.-M. et al. Two-proton radioactivity of the excited state within the Gamow-like and modified Gamow-like models[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2022, 33(10): 122. doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01116-9
19. Royer, G.. Calculation of two-proton radioactivity and application to Be 9, Li 6,7, He 3,6, and H 2,3 emissions[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(3): 034605. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.034605
20. Zhu, D.-X., Li, M., Xu, Y.-Y. et al. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within various versions of proximity formalisms[J]. Physica Scripta, 2022, 97(9): 095304. doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac8585
21. Soylu, A., Koyuncu, F., Alavi, S.A. et al. Calculations on the proton decay with modified preformation probability[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2022, 31(7): 2250062. doi: 10.1142/S0218301322500628
22. Pan, X., Zou, Y.-T., He, B. et al. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity half-lives using two-potential approach with different Skyrme interactions[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2022, 31(5): 2250051. doi: 10.1142/S0218301322500513
23. Zhu, D.-X., Liu, H.-M., Xu, Y.-Y. et al. Two-proton radioactivity within Coulomb and proximity potential model *[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(4): 044106. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac45ef
24. Xing, F.-Z., Cui, J.-P., Wang, Y.-Z. et al. Two-proton emission from excited states of proton-rich nuclei | [激发态丰质子核的双质子发射][J]. Wuli Xuebao/Acta Physica Sinica, 2022, 71(6): 062301. doi: 10.7498/aps.71.20211839
25. Singh, A., Shukla, A., Kumar, V. et al. STUDY OF TWO-PROTON EMISSION HALF-LIVES USING RELATIVISTIC MEAN-FIELD MODEL[J]. Acta Physica Polonica B, 2022, 53(10): A10. doi: 10.5506/APhysPolB.53.10-A3
26. Santhosh, K.P.. Theoretical studies on two-proton radioactivity[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(6): 064613. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064613
27. Pan, X., Zou, Y.-T., Liu, H.-M. et al. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity half-lives using the two-potential and Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approaches[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(12): 124104. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac2421
28. Xing, F., Cui, J., Wang, Y. et al. Two-proton radioactivity of ground and excited states within a unified fission model[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(12): 124105. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac2425
29. Zou, Y.-T., Pan, X., Li, X.-H. et al. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity with a screened electrostatic barrier[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(10) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac1b96
30. Liu, H.-M., Zou, Y.-T., Pan, X. et al. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity half-lives based on a modified Gamow-like model[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2021, 30(8): 2150074. doi: 10.1142/S0218301321500749
31. Pan, X., Zou, Y.-T., Liu, H.-M. et al. Released energy formula for proton radioactivity based on the liquid-drop model[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2021, 73(7): 075302. doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/abf822

Figures(3) / Tables(3)

Get Citation
Hong-Ming Liu, Xiao Pan, You-Tian Zou, Jiu-Long Chen, Jun-Hao Cheng, Biao He and Xiao-Hua Li. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe10f
Hong-Ming Liu, Xiao Pan, You-Tian Zou, Jiu-Long Chen, Jun-Hao Cheng, Biao He and Xiao-Hua Li. Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe10f shu
Milestone
Received: 2020-12-09
Article Metric

Article Views(1633)
PDF Downloads(76)
Cited by(32)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model

    Corresponding author: Xiao-Hua Li, lixiaohuaphysics@126.com
  • 1. School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
  • 2. Xiang Yang NO.1 People's Hospital, Xiangyang 441000, China
  • 3. Nuclear Power Institute of China, Chengdu 610041, China
  • 4. College of Physics and Electronics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
  • 5. National Exemplary Base for International Sci & Tech. Collaboration of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Safety, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
  • 6. Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology & Equipment, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China

Abstract: In this study, based on the Gamow-like model, we systematically analyze two-proton (2p) radioactivity half-lives of nuclei near or beyond the proton drip line. It is found that the calculated results can reproduce experimental data well. Furthermore, using this model, we predict the half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates whose 2p radioactivity is energetically allowed or observed but not yet quantified in the latest table of evaluated nuclear properties, i.e., NUBASE2016. The predicted results are in good agreement with those from other theoretical models and empirical formulas, namely the effective liquid drop model (ELDM), generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), Sreeja formula, and Liu formula.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Two-proton (2p) radioactivity, i.e., the spontaneous emission of two protons from the ground state or isomer state of a radioactive nucleus, has become a significant tool in the last decades to shed new light on the nuclear structure information of rich-proton nuclei near or beyond the proton drip line [1-8]. This new decay mode was predicted for the first time in 1960s by Zel’dovich and Goldansky [1-3]. Subsequently, the not true 2p radioactivity (i.e., the 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p>0 and proton radioactivity released energy Qp>0) produced by short-lived nuclear resonances was reported [9-14]. With the development of theoretical studies and the improvement of experimental techniques, in 2002, true 2p radioactivity (Q2p>0 and Qp<0) was reported for the first time with the observation of 45Fe 43Cr +p+p in two independent experiments at GANIL and GSI, respectively [15, 16]. Later on, the 2p radioactivity of 19Mg, 48Ni, and 54Zn were also reported in different experiments [17-19]. Recently, in an experiment conducted with the BigRIPS separator at the RIKEN Nishina Center, the 2p radioactivity of 67Kr was observed [20], showing a good agreement with the predictions of possible 2p radioactivity candidates by theoretical mass models [21-25]. Moreover, the 2p radioactivity of the long-lived isomer 94Agm, whose parent nucleus has a very large deformation, was observed by Mukha et al. in an experiment at GSI [26].

      Concerning 2p radioactivity process, owing to the pairing interactions of nucleons, a sequential emission of two protons is impossible. The two protons of this process may be an isotropic emission with no angular correlation or a correlated emission forming 2He-like cluster with strongly correlation from the parent nuclei [15, 27-29]. In theory, many models were proposed to study 2p radioactivity. These models successfully reproduced the half-lives of 2p radioactive nuclei or predicted the possible 2p radioactivity candidates, such as the direct decay model [30-34], the simultaneous versus sequential decay model [2, 35], the diproton model [3, 4], and the three-body model, among others [5, 36-39]. Especially, the three-body model treats 2p radioactivity process as a three-body problem in which the parent nucleus is composed by two protons and a remnant core. Furthermore, empirical formulas constitute an effective tool to investigate 2p radioactivity. These formulas were proposed on the basis of the distinguished Geiger and Nuttal (G-N) law [40], including a four-parameter empirical formula proposed by Sreeja et al. [41] and a two-parameter empirical formula proposed by Liu et al. [42]. In 2013, based on the Gamow theory, Zdeb et al. proposed a simple phenomenological model named Gamow-like model that contains a single effective nuclear radius parameter, i.e., r0, to investigate α decay and cluster radioactivity [43, 44]. Using this model, the calculated half-lives were found to agree reasonably well with the experimental data. Recently, the Gamow-like model was successfully extended to study proton radioactivity [45]. Essentially, the physical processes of α decay, cluster, and proton radioactivity are similar. They can be easily described as a quantum mechanical tunneling effect in which the emitted particles are different [46-52]. Considering a 2p radioactivity process that shares the same theory with α decay, cluster, and proton radioactivity processes, whether the Gamow-like model can be extended to study 2p radioactivity or not is an interesting question. To this end, in this study, we systematically analyzed the half-lives of 2p radioactive nuclei with 4 < Z < 36 using the Gamow-like model.

      This article is organized as follows. In the next section, the theoretical framework of the Gamow-like model and two different empirical formulas are briefly presented. In Section III, the results are presented and discussed. Finally, a summary is given in Section IV.

    II.   THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

      A.   Gamow-like model

    • In the framework of the Gamow-like model, the 2p radioactivity half-life is evaluated as

      T1/2=ln2λ,

      (1)

      where λ is a decay constant that can be obtained from

      λ=S2pνP,

      (2)

      where S2p = G2[A/(A2)]2nχ2 is the spectroscopic factor of the 2p radioactivity obtained by the cluster overlap approximation [4] with G2=(2n)!/[22n(n!)2] [53]; n(3Z)1/31 is the average principal proton oscillator quantum number [54]. In this study, χ2 is set as 0.0143, according to a previous study by Cui et al. [55]. ν, i.e., the frequency of assaults on the barrier, can be given by the harmonic oscillator frequency present in the Nilsson potential [56],

      hν=ω41A1/3,

      (3)

      where h, , ω, and A are the Planck constant, the reduced Planck constant, the angular frequency, and mass number of parent nucleus, respectively.

      P, i.e., the Gamow penetrability factor through the barrier, is calculated by the semi-classical Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation and expressed as [57]

      P=exp[2RoutRin2μ(V(r)Ek)dr],

      (4)

      where μ=m2pmd/(m2p+md)938.3×2×Ad/AMeV/c2 represents the reduced mass with m2p, md, and Ad being the mass of the emitted two protons, the residual daughter nucleus, and the mass number of daughter nucleus, respectively. In addition, Ek=Q2p(A2)/A denotes the kinetic energy of emitted protons, and V(r) is the total interaction potential between the paired two protons and the daughter nucleus (see Fig. 1), which is written as

      Figure 1.  (color online) Sketch map of interaction potential V(r) versus the distance between the preformed paired two-proton (blue sphere) and the daughter nucleus (red sphere) centers for 2p radioactivity.

      V(r)={V0,0rR,VC(r)+Vl(r),r>R.

      (5)

      Rout is the outer turning point from the potential barrier determined by the condition V(Rout) = Ek; Rin represents the spherical square well radius, which can be obtained by the sum of the half-width of radial distribution of the proton pair and the radius of the daughter nucleus. It can be expressed as

      Rin=r0(A1/32p+A1/3d),

      (6)

      where A2p=2 is the mass number of the emitted two protons, and r0 denotes the effective nuclear radius parameter, which is determined by fitting the experimental data.

      In this framework, V0 is the depth of the potential well. Moreover, VC(r)=2Zde2/r, which can be obtained under the assumption of a uniformly charged sphere with radius R; r denotes the center-of-mass distance between the paired two protons and the daughter nucleus. Finally, Vl(r)=2(l+12)2/2μr2 is adopted as the Langer modified centrifugal barrier because l(l+1)(l+12)2 , which is a necessary correction for one-dimensional problems [58]; l is the orbital angular momentum taken away by the emitted two-proton.

    • B.   Two different empirical formulas

      1.   Sreeja formula
    • Based on the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives T1/2 of 33 nuclei extracted from a study by Goncalves et al. [27], Sreeja and Balasubramaniama analyzed the relationship between log10T1/2 and the inverse square root of the 2p radioactivity released energy Q1/22p corresponding to different angular momenta, l = 0, 2, and 4. Fitting the slopes and intercepts obtained for l = 0, 2, and 4, a unified four-parameter empirical formula was proposed to investigate 2p radioactivity, expressed as [41]

      log10T1/2=((a×l)+b)ξ+((c×l)+d),

      (7)

      where ξ=Z0.8d/Q1/22p, with Zd being the charge of daughter nucleus; a=0.1578, b=1.9474, c=1.8795, and d=24.847 are adjustable parameters.

    • 2.   Liu formula
    • In a previous study of ours, based on experimental data and partial calculated results extracted from the aforementioned study by Goncalves et al. [27] and considering the contributions of the charge of the daughter nucleus Zd and the angular momentum l to 2p radioactivity half-lives, we proposed a two-parameter empirical formula to study 2p radioactivity that can be expressed as [42]

      log10T1/2=a(Z0.8d+lβ)Q1/22pb,

      (8)

      where the adjustable parameters a and b are 2.032 and 26.832, respectively. The value of β is 0.25, which reflects the effect of different l-values on the 2p radioactivity half-lives.

    III.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • In this study, the value of the only one adjustable parameter in Gamow-like model, r0, is equal to 1.28 fm as a result of fitting the experimental data of 19Mg, 45Fe, 48Ni, 54Zn, and 67Kr. This value is close to that obtained for α decay, cluster radioactivity (r0 = 1.20 fm) [43, 44], and proton radioactivity (1.21 fm) [45]. This confirms the rationality of such a value. Below, we systematically calculate the 2p radioactivity half-lives of nuclei having experimental data within the Gamow-like model. For comparison, the experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives as well as the calculated ones using the effective liquid drop model (ELDM), the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), and two different empirical formulas are also provided. All the detailed numerical results are presented in Table 1. In this table, the first three columns represent the 2p radioactive parent nuclei, the 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p, and the logarithmical experimental 2p radioactivity half-life log10Texpt1/2, respectively. The last five columns represent the logarithmical 2p radioactivity half-life calculated by three different theoretical models and two empirical formulas, which are denoted as Gamow-like, ELDM, GLDM, Sreeja, and Liu, respectively. More intuitively, Fig. 2 shows the differences between the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives using the different theoretical models, i.e., Gamow-like, ELDM, and GLDM, empirical formulas of Sreeja and Liu, and the experimental data log10Tcalc1/2log10Texpt1/2. Note that all the differences for the true 2p radioactive nuclei (19Mg, 45Fe, 48Ni, 54Zn, and 67Kr) are basically within ±1, which means that the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives using the Gamow-like model can reproduce the experimental ones for the true 2p radioactivity nuclei well.

      NucleiQ2p/MeVlog10T1/2/s
      ExptGamow-likeELDM [27]GLDM [55]Sreeja [41]Liu [42]
      6Be1.371 [9]20.30 [9]19.7019.9719.3721.9523.81
      12O1.638 [14]>20.20 [14]18.0418.2719.7118.4720.17
      1.820 [2]20.94 [2]18.3019.4618.7920.52
      1.790 [12]20.10 [12]18.2619.4318.7420.46
      1.800 [13]20.12 [13]18.2719.4418.7620.48
      16Ne1.330 [2]20.64 [2]16.2316.4515.9417.53
      1.400 [11]20.38 [11]16.4316.6016.6316.1617.77
      19Mg0.750 [19]11.40 [19]11.4611.7211.7910.6612.03
      45Fe1.100 [16]2.40 [16]2.092.231.252.21
      1.140 [15]2.07 [15] 2.582.711.662.64
      1.154 [18]2.55 [18]2.742.432.871.802.79
      1.210 [59]2.42 [59]3.373.502.343.35
      48Ni1.290 [60]2.52 [60]2.592.621.612.59
      1.350 [18]2.08 [18]3.213.242.133.13
      54Zn1.280 [61]2.79 [61]0.930.870.101.01
      1.480 [17]2.43 [17]3.012.522.951.832.81
      67Kr1.690 [20]1.70 [20]0.760.061.250.310.58

      Table 1.  Comparisons between the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives using three different theoretical models, two empirical formulas, and the experimental values. The experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives log10Texpt1/2 and experimental 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p are extracted from the corresponding references.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Deviations between the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives and the experimental ones for the true 2p radioactive nuclei and not true 2p radioactive nuclei.

      To further demonstrate the good agreement between the 2p radioactivity half-lives calculated by the Gamow-like model and the experimental data, the standard deviation σ was used, which is defined by

      σ=[1nni=1(log10Texpt.i1/2log10Tcalc.i1/2)2]1/2.

      (9)

      Here, log10Texpt.1/2i and log10Tcalc.1/2i represent the logarithmic forms of experimental and calculated 2p radioactivity half-life for the i-th nucleus, respectively. The σ values resulting from the experimental data are also compared with the calculations using ELDM, GLDM, and two different empirical formulas, according to Eq. (9). All the calculated results are listed in Table 2. From this table, we can clearly see that the σ value between the experimental data and the values calculated using the Gamow-like model is smaller than those resulting from using GLDM and the two different empirical formulas. This means that the calculated 2p radioactivity half-lives obtained by the Gamow-like model can better reproduce the experimental data of true 2p radioactive nuclei. Nevertheless, regarding the short-lived 2p radioactive nuclei (6Be, 12O and 10Ne), the experimental data cannot be reproduced properly, especially for 10Ne, with a reported Q2p = 1.33 MeV and 1.40 MeV. Note that the differences between the experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives and the calculated ones exceed two orders of magnitude. Considering the imperfection of detection technologies and radioactive beam facilities in early experiments, the experimental data may not be accurate enough. Moreover, it is worth noting that several studies have indicated that the nuclear deformation effect or collective mechanisms will affect the 2p radioactivity half-lives to some extent. The above factors should be considered in the context of the Gamow-like model, GLDM, and ELDM in future studies [62, 63]. In general, the Gamow-like model can be treated as a new and effective tool to study 2p radioactivity.

      ModelquantityGamow-likeELDMGLDMSreejaLiu
      σ0.8440.5310.8521.2220.967
      cases104101010

      Table 2.  Standard deviation σ between the experimental data and the calculated values using different theoretical models and empirical formulas for the true 2p radioactive nuclei.

      Given the good agreement between the calculated results with the Gamow-like model and the experimental data, as well as other theoretical calculated values, we used this model to predict the half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates with 2p radioactivity released energy Q2p>0, extracted from the latest evaluated atomic mass table AME2016 [64, 65]. The detailed results are presented in Table 3. For comparison, the predicted results using ELDM, GLDM, and the two different empirical formulas are also presented in Table 3, in which the first three columns denote the possible 2p radioactivity candidate, the angular momentum taken away by the emitted two-proton, and the 2p radioactivity released energy; they were extracted from a previous study by Gonalves et al. [27]. The last five columns represent the predicted 2p radioactivity half-lives using the Gamow-like model, ELDM, GLDM, Sreeja formula, and Liu formula, respectively. Note from this table that the predicted results using these models and formulas basically have the same magnitude. Taking 22Si as an example, the predicted results are 13.31, 13.32, 13.30, 12.30, and 13.73, respectively. More intuitively, to illustrate the consistency of the predicted results using different models and formulas, we plot the logarithmic predicted half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates in Fig. 3. In this figure, the black square, red circle, blue upward triangle, magenta downward triangle, and olive diamond represent the logarithmic form of predicted half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates using ELDM, GLDM, Sreeja formula, Liu formula, and Gamow-like model, respectively. Note from this figure that the 2p radioactivity half-lives predicted using the Gamow-like model show better agreement with the ones predicted using ELDM in most cases, compared to others models. This further confirms the rationality of the Gamow-like model as a useful tool to study 2p radioactivity. Furthermore, the predicted possible 2p radioactivity candidates can provide theoretical direction for future experiments.

      NucleiQ2p/MeVllog10TPre1/2/s
      Gamow-likeELDM [27]GLDM [55]Sreeja [41]Liu [42]
      22Si1.283013.2513.3213.3012.3013.74
      26S1.755013.9213.8614.5912.7114.16
      34Ca1.474010.109.9110.718.659.93
      36Sc1.993012.0011.7410.3011.66
      38Ti2.743013.8413.5614.2711.9313.35
      39Ti0.75800.910.811.340.281.19
      40V1.842010.159.858.469.73
      42Cr1.00202.652.432.881.782.76
      47Co1.04200.420.110.210.69
      49Ni0.492014.5414.6414.4612.7812.43
      56Ga2.44308.578.006.427.61
      58Ge3.732012.3211.7413.109.5310.85
      59Ge2.10206.315.716.974.445.54
      60Ge0.631014.2414.6213.5512.4012.04
      61As2.28206.766.124.745.85
      10N1.300117.3617.6420.0418.59
      28Cl1.965213.1112.9514.5212.46
      32K2.077212.4912.2513.4611.55
      57Ga2.04725.915.305.224.14
      62As0.692214.0614.5213.8314.18
      52Cu0.77248.949.368.628.74
      60As3.49249.408.6810.848.33

      Table 3.  Comparison of the predicted half-lives for possible 2p radioactivity candidates whose 2p radioactivity is energetically allowed or observed but not yet quantified in NUBASE2016 [66].

      Figure 3.  (color online) Comparison of the predicted 2p radioactivity half-lives using the Gamow-like, ELDM, GLDM, and two different empirical formulas.

    IV.   SUMMARY
    • In the present study, based on the Gamow-like model, the half-lives of two-proton (2p) radioactivity nuclei with 4 < Z < 36 were systematically investigated. The only parameter in this model, i.e., the effective nuclear radius, was found to be r0 = 1.28 fm, obtained by fitting the experimental data of 19Mg, 45Fe, 48Ni, 54Zn, and 67Kr. This value is close to those for α decay, cluster, and proton radioactivity processes. The calculated results are in good agreement with the experimental data and values calculated using other theoretical models and empirical formulas. In addition, the half-lives of possible 2p radioactivity candidates were predicted, with reasonable agreement with other predictions. This study provides a theoretical reference for future experimental studies.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • We would like to thank Prof. K. Pomorski, Dr. X. -D. Sun, and J. -G. Deng for useful discussions.

Reference (66)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return