-
Although the SF process is described as the quantum tunneling effect in physics, it is difficult to solve such a multidimensional penetration problem. This problem can be simplified to a one-dimensional WKB approach. Similarly to the AD, the only unknown term is the potential, and the so-called Hill-Wheeler formula can be obtained in a parabolic potential [70]. By modeling the potential, the following expression of spontaneous fission was given by Xu et al. [70]
$ T_{\rm SF} = \frac{{\rm ln}2}{n.P_{\rm SF}} = e^{{2\pi[c_{0}+c_{1}A+c_{2}Z^{2}+c_{3}Z^{4}+c_{4}(N-Z)^{2}-Q_{\rm SF}]}}, $
(1) where
$ Q_{\rm SF} = 0.13323\displaystyle\frac{Z^{2}}{A^{1/3}}-11.64 $ . Eq. (1) has five parameters that were obtained from fitting to the experimental SF half-lives of 45 even-even nuclei from 232Th to 286114. These values are given in Ref. [70] as$ c_{0} = $ $ -195.09227 $ ,$ c_{1} = 3.10156 $ ,$ c_{2} = -0.04386 $ ,$ c_{3} = 1.40301\times $ $10^{-6} $ ,$ c_{4} = -0.03199 $ .In this study, moving from the idea of Xu et al. [70], a new function is proposed and used by establishing similarity with the nuclear liquid drop model. It is given by
$ T_{\rm SF} = e^{2\pi[aA+bA^{2/3}+cZ(Z-1)/A^{1/3}+d(N-Z)^{2}/A+eZ^{4}+f]}, $
(2) where Z, N and A are the proton, neutron and mass numbers of the parent nuclei, and a, b, c, d, e, f are the adjustable parameters that can be obtained by fitting to experimental SF half-lives. This equation is given in terms of years.
Eq. (2) is a new semi-empirical formula proposed for spontaneous fission half-lives. It can be considered as the modified form of the formula of Xu et al. [70]. Hence, this formula was inspired by the binding energy formula of the liquid drop model. Each term in the liquid drop model is assumed to correspond to a change of the SF half-lives with Z, N, and A. The aA term, i.e., the volume effect, is used to model an increase in SF half-lives with A. The
$ bA^{2/3} $ term, which depicts the surface effect, shows an increase of SF half-lives proportional to$ A^{2/3} $ . The$cZ(Z-1)/ $ $ A^{1/3} $ term, depicting the Coulombic effect, is used to model an increase in SF with$ Z(Z-1)/A^{1/3} $ , and the$ d(N-Z)^{2}/A $ represents the isospin effects. Finally, the$ eZ^{4} $ term is added to formula to consider a higher-order correction of the Coulomb term, which describes the transition from asymmetric to symmetric charge distributions for various fission nuclei [70]. Furthermore, the f parameter is added to the expression to take into account other contributions to SF half-lives. The obtained fitting parameters are given by a = −10.0987592959, b = 119.319858732, c = −0.516609881059, d = −9.52538327068, e = 1.92155604207×10-6, and f = −1496.05967574. In the fitting used in the calculations, the curve fit function was used in Scipy in Python 2.7 program language based on Spyder 2 with Anaconda [74]. As the SF is considered to be dependent on the binding energy of the nucleus and the Q-value, this can be modeled in terms of the liquid drop model, as in Eq. (2). It is not necessary to consider$ {Q}_{\rm SF} $ separately in Eq. (2), as the equation already includes this term.When comparing this new formula for the SF with the formula of Xu et al. [70], there is one extra term, which depicts the surface term, in the new formula that resultantly comprises six parameters. However, this does not include the
$ {Q}_{\rm SF} $ term, which is within the formula of Xu et al. [70]. Since all parameters include the atomic number A in this new form, the values of fitting parameters are changed as well. Moreover, even if most of the parameters of this formula were inspired by the terms of the binding energy formula of the liquid drop model, this model produces the experimental SF values of similar rms to the formula of Xu et al., which was obtained from the basically effective potential, including the nuclear, Coulomb, and isospin potential. -
The AD half-life can be obtained using the following formula
$ T_{1/2} = \hbar \frac{{\ln 2}}{\Gamma }, $
(3) where
$ \Gamma $ denotes the decay width for the decay. According to the semi-classical WKB method, the$ \alpha $ -decay width$ \Gamma $ is given by,$ \Gamma = P_\alpha F\frac{{\hbar ^2 }}{{4\mu }}\exp \left[ - 2\int\limits_{r_2 }^{r_3 } {k(r} ){\rm d}r\right], $
(4) where
$ P_\alpha $ is the preformation probability of the$ \alpha $ particle in a parent nuclei [75, 76]. In the half-life calculations, similar studies [77] and the experimental study, the preformation probabilities are specified as$ P_\alpha $ = 1.0 for even-even nuclei,$ P_\alpha $ = 0.6 for odd-A nuclei, and$ P_\alpha $ = 0.35 for odd-odd nuclei. In Eq. (4), the normalization factor is$ F = 1\bigg/\int\limits_{r_1 }^{r_2 } {\frac{1}{{k(r)}}} {\rm d}r\cos ^2 \left(\int\limits_{r_1 }^r {k(r'){\rm d}r'} - \frac{\pi }{4}\right), $
(5) where the squared cosine term might be replaced by 1/2 without significant loss of accuracy [75, 77]. In Eqs. (4) and (5), the wave number k(r) is given by,
$ k(r) = \sqrt {\frac{{2\mu }}{{\hbar ^2 }}\left| {Q - V_{\rm eff}(r)} \right|}, $
(6) where Q is Q-value for the AD, and
$ {V}_{\rm eff}(r) $ is the effective potential between the$ \alpha $ and core nuclei that stems from the binary clustering model that assumes the parent nuclei as the$ \alpha $ particle surrounding the daughter (core) nuclei. Hence, the only unknown term in these equations is the effective potential between$ \alpha $ and the core, and it is given by,$ V_{\rm eff}(r) = V_{N}(r)+V_{C}(r)+V_{L}(r), $
(7) where r is the separation radius between the center of mass of the
$ \alpha $ particle and the daughter nucleus.In this study, the modified form proposed by Brink and Takigawa in Ref. [78] was used instead of the Coulomb potential to solve the discontinuity in the Coulomb potential in WKB semi-classical calculations as follows
$ {\widetilde{V}}_{ \rm{C}}(r) = \frac{Z_{d} Z_{\alpha}e^{2}}{r}(1-e^{-\varphi r-\frac{1}{2} (\varphi r)^2-0.35(\varphi r)^3}),\\ \;\;\;\; \varphi R = \frac{3}{2}, $
(8) where
$ Z_\alpha $ and$ Z_d $ are the charge numbers of the$ \alpha $ and daughter nuclei, and R is the Coulomb radius. In Eq. (7), the last term is Langer modified centrifugal barrier potential [79] that is given by$ V_{L}(r) = \frac{\hbar^{2}(L+1/2)^{2}}{2\mu r^{2}}, $
(9) with the WKB being valid for one-dimensional problems, the above modification from
$ L(L+1)\rightarrow(L+\frac{1}{2})^{2} $ is essential to ensure the correct behavior of the WKB wave function near the origin as well as the validity of the connection formulas used in Ref. [80]. In this study, L = 0 is used in the calculations.Although the forms of the Coulomb and centrifugal potentials are known very well, the shape of the nuclear potential in Eq. (7) is the only unknown term. As the analytical formula for the nuclear interaction between the
$ \alpha $ and core nuclei cannot be written, various potential models, phenomenological or microscopic, should be used to determine the nuclear interaction. In this study, the nuclear potential is considered as phenomenological cosh potential similar to Ref. [41]. The cosh potential was proposed by Buck and Pilt [81], and it is a symmetrized form of the Woods-Saxon form,$ V_{N}(r) = -V_{0} \frac{1+{\rm cosh}\left(\dfrac{\lambda}{a}\right)}{{\rm cosh}\left(\dfrac{r}{a}\right)+{\rm cosh}\left(\dfrac{\lambda}{a}\right)}, $
(10) where
$ V_{0} $ and a are the depth of the nuclear potentials and diffuseness parameters, respectively. The studies using this form of potential were conducted to obtain both the AD and exotic decay half-lives of heavy nuclei [77, 82, 83]. Furthermore,$ \lambda $ , the renormalization factor, is obtained by the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization. As the isospin effect plays a important role in nuclear physics, one should take into account isospin effect in AD calculations as well. If protons and neutrons in the nucleus have a different nucleon density, the asymmetry of the isospin might affect the motion of alpha particles on the surface, and the nuclear interaction potential between the$ \alpha $ and core nuclei would be isospin-dependent. In Ref. [41], the authors have added a parameter related to the isospin in the depth of the nuclear potential to include it in their considerations. They have used this potential form to investigate the isospin effects on the$ \alpha $ -decay half-lives for the even-even nuclei from Z = 62 to Z = 118 using the two-potential approach. Considering this effect improved the results by 6.8% in Ref. [41]. In this study, to be able to consider the isospin effects on the AD as well as the SF, the isospin-dependent potential parameter$ V_{0} = 192.42+ $ $31.059(N-Z)/A $ MeV similar as Ref. [41] and a = 0.75 fm were used.$ V_{0} $ and a were obtained phenomenologically to obtain the best AD half-life values that are close to the experiment.Moreover,
$ \lambda $ is determined separately for each decay by applying the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition. The$ \lambda $ in the Eq. (10) can be calculated for every single decay by using the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rule,$ \int\limits_{r_1 }^{r_2 } {\sqrt {\frac{{2\mu }}{{\hbar ^2 }}(Q - V_{\rm eff}(r))} {\rm d}r = (G - L + 1)\frac{\pi }{2}}, $
(11) where G are global quantum numbers coming from the Wildermuth condition [84], and they are used as follows [75, 76]
$ \begin{array}{l} G = 22 \;\;\;\;(N > 126), \\ G = 20 \;\;\;\;(82 < N \leqslant 126), \\ G = 18 \;\;\;\;(N \leqslant 82). \\ \end{array} $
(12) In the semiclassical WKB approximation, there are three classical turning points, which are
$ r_1 $ ,$ r_2 $ , and$ r_3 $ . They are obtained by numerical solutions of the equation of$ V_{\rm eff}(r) = Q $ , where Q is the$ \alpha $ -decay energy for special decays [77, 85]. -
The SF half-lives of even-even nuclei with Z = 90–114 were calculated using the proposed formula in Eq. (2) to find how the present formula obtains experimental SF half-lives. The obtained results and results of other models (by Xu et al. [70], by Bao et al. [71], and by Santhosh et al. [72]) are listed in Table 1. In Table 1, the first column depicts the nuclei, the second column depicts the proton number Z and neutron number N for parent nuclei, respectively. The Exp. column shows the experimental
$ \log_{10}T_{\rm SF} $ values (in years) of spontaneous fission (SF) of nuclei with Z = 90–114, which are taken from Refs. [13, 86]. The results obtained by Xu et al. [70] (Xu), Bao et al. [71] (Bao), and Santhosh et al. [72] (KPS) are also presented in Table 1.nuclei Z N Exp. Xu[70] Bao[71] KPS[72] present nuclei Z N Exp. Xu [70] Bao[71] KPS[72] present 232Th 90 142 21.08 21.88 22.22 21.87 21.13 250Fm 100 150 −0.10 −1.57 −0.67 −0.35 −1.37 234U 92 142 16.18 16.03 16.04 16.44 15.87 252Fm 100 152 2.10 −0.92 0.89 0.36 −0.77 236U 92 144 16.40 16.56 16.26 16.36 16.42 254Fm 100 154 −0.20 −0.98 −1.04 −0.26 −0.92 238U 92 146 15.91 16.38 16.04 15.35 16.17 256Fm 100 156 −3.48 −1.76 −3.71 −1.61 −1.83 236Pu 94 142 9.18 9.71 9.65 10.24 9.81 252No 102 150 −6.54 −6.04 −5.38 −4.70 −6.00 238Pu 94 144 10.68 10.99 10.24 11.18 11.18 254No 102 152 −3.04 −4.65 −3.28 −3.12 −4.61 240Pu 94 146 11.06 11.55 10.84 11.40 11.74 256No 102 154 −4.77 −3.97 −4.72 −2.90 −3.99 242Pu 94 148 10.83 11.40 10.92 10.81 11.51 254Rf 104 150 −12.14 −10.62 −9.35 −9.14 −10.74 244Pu 94 150 10.82 10.54 11.08 9.57 10.52 256Rf 104 152 −9.71 −8.48 −6.98 −6.73 −8.57 240Cm 96 144 6.28 5.02 4.52 5.40 5.28 258Rf 104 154 −9.35 −7.06 −7.74 −5.63 −7.17 242Cm 96 146 6.85 6.33 5.34 6.62 6.65 260Rf 104 156 −9.2 −6.36 −8.87 −5.24 −6.54 244Cm 96 148 7.12 6.92 6.69 7.00 7.23 262Rf 104 158 −7.18 −6.36 −8.32 −5.20 −6.65 246Cm 96 150 7.26 6.80 7.35 6.74 7.03 258Sg 106 152 −10.04 −12.34 −9.63 −10.19 −12.48 248Cm 96 152 6.62 5.96 7.41 5.67 6.06 260Sg 106 154 −9.65 −10.17 −9.80 −8.31 −10.31 250Cm 96 154 4.05 4.41 4.61 3.37 4.35 262Sg 106 156 −9.32 −8.72 −10.41 −7.13 −8.91 242Cf 98 144 −1.33 −1.27 −1.17 −0.71 −1.13 264Sg 106 158 −8.93 −7.98 −9.42 −6.30 −8.26 246Cf 98 148 3.26 2.12 2.09 2.75 2.43 266Sg 106 160 −7.86 −7.96 −7.48 −5.80 −8.35 248Cf 98 150 4.51 2.74 3.27 3.42 3.02 264Hs 108 156 −10.2 −11.02 −12.10 −9.14 −11.10 250Cf 98 152 4.23 2.65 4.31 3.25 2.84 270Ds 110 160 −8.6 −9.46 −10.22 −7.23 −9.39 252Cf 98 154 1.93 1.84 2.11 1.76 1.90 282112 112 170 −10.58 −9.39 −11.28 −7.21 −9.40 254Cf 98 156 −0.78 0.32 −0.82 −0.33 0.23 284112 112 172 −8.5 −11.43 −9.65 −8.14 −11.52 246Fm 100 146 −6.60 −5.01 −4.15 −4.14 −4.94 286114 114 172 −8.08 −7.12 −5.95 −4.45 −6.44 248Fm 100 148 −2.94 −2.93 −2.43 −1.92 −2.76 Table 1. Calculated
$ \log_{10}T_{\rm SF} $ (in years) and results of other models for SF half-lives of nuclei with Z = 90–114.To compare the results, the rms deviations of the decimal logarithmic values are calculated using the following equation,
$ \sigma = [{\frac{1}{{n- 1}}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {[\log _{10} (T_{\rm SF}^{\rm cal} ) - } \log _{10} (T_{\rm SF}^{\rm exp } )]^2}]^{1/2}, $
(13) where n denotes the number of the related nuclei [32]. The rms deviation (
$ \sigma $ ) was computed for the present model calculations. The obtained value is presented in Table 2. In Table 2,$ \sigma $ values were also presented for Xu [70], Bao [71], and KPS [72]. As depicted in Table 2,$ \sigma = 1.22 $ was obtained for this present model.Table 2. Rms values for all models.
The parameters obtained by fitting and Eq. (2) have been used to calculate the SF half-lives and compare them with the results of three different models for the even-even superheavy nuclei with Z = 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120 as listed in Table 3, 4, and 5, respectively. In these Tables, the Z, N, A depict the proton, neutron and mass number of nuclei, respectively. The Xu column lists the results of Xu et al. [70], the Bao lists the results of Bao et al. [71], the KPS shows the results of Santhosh et al. [72], and the "present" column depicts the obtained
$ \log_{10}T_{\rm SF} $ values in terms of second in this study.Z N A Xu[70] Bao [71] KPS [72] present 108 150 258 −12.26 −7.71 −10.18 −12.46 108 152 260 −8.63 −5.32 −6.31 −8.72 108 154 262 −5.72 −4.77 −3.61 −5.77 108 156 264 −3.53 −4.47 −1.64 −3.60 108 158 266 −2.05 −3.18 −0.04 −2.19 108 160 268 −1.29 −0.89 1.23 −1.53 108 162 270 −1.24 0.69 1.74 −1.61 108 164 272 −1.90 −0.04 1.09 −2.40 108 166 274 −3.28 −3.43 −0.79 −3.90 108 168 276 −5.38 −6.43 −3.07 −6.10 108 170 278 −8.18 −6.58 −5.08 −8.98 108 172 280 −11.70 −5.40 −7.19 −12.52 110 154 264 −8.63 −7.5 −6.68 −8.41 110 156 266 −5.69 −5.25 −3.94 −5.47 110 158 268 −3.47 −4.76 −1.63 −3.30 110 160 270 −1.96 −3.1 0.27 −1.89 110 162 272 −1.17 −1.04 1.61 −1.22 110 164 274 −1.1 −1.03 1.62 −1.27 110 166 276 −1.73 −2.41 0.38 −2.04 110 168 278 −3.09 −4.79 −1.26 −3.51 110 170 280 −5.15 −4.53 −2.4 −5.67 110 172 282 −7.93 −10.27 −3.99 −8.50 110 174 284 −11.42 −7.65 −5.97 −12.00 Table 3. Comparison of calculated
$ \log_{10}T_{\rm SF} $ (s) with other models for Z = 108 and Z = 110.Z N A Xu[70] Bao [71] KPS [72] present 112 158 270 −4.67 −8.33 −3.34 −3.95 112 160 272 −2.42 −5.9 −0.87 −1.79 112 162 274 −0.88 −3.51 0.98 −0.37 112 164 276 −0.06 −3.53 1.64 0.31 112 166 278 0.04 −5.7 1.17 0.28 112 168 280 −0.57 −6.02 0.67 −0.46 112 170 282 −1.89 −4.02 0.29 −1.90 112 172 284 −3.93 −2.29 −0.65 −4.02 112 174 286 −6.68 −0.84 −2.11 −6.81 114 160 274 −2.56 −8.4 −1.8 −1.08 114 162 276 −0.29 −6.24 0.53 1.08 114 164 278 1.28 −2.49 2.7 2.51 114 166 280 2.12 −1.03 3.71 3.20 114 168 282 2.25 −0.4 3.97 3.19 114 170 284 1.67 −0.14 3.62 2.47 114 172 286 0.38 1.13 3.05 1.06 114 174 288 −1.64 2.95 2.16 −1.02 116 168 284 5.47 0.21 6.04 7.58 116 170 286 5.63 1.77 6.52 7.59 116 172 288 5.07 2.73 6.33 6.89 116 174 290 3.81 3.58 5.64 5.52 116 176 292 1.82 5.34 4.74 3.48 116 178 294 −0.87 5.84 3.06 0.78 116 180 296 −4.28 5.39 0.72 −2.57 116 182 298 −8.41 4.55 −2.13 −6.56 116 184 300 −13.24 2.64 −5.65 −11.16 116 186 302 −18.79 −2.84 −10.48 −16.39 116 188 304 −25.06 −9.05 −15.86 −22.21 Table 4. Comparison of calculated
$ \log_{10}T_{\rm SF} $ (s) with other models for Z = 112, Z = 114 and Z = 116.Z N A Xu[70] Bao [71] KPS [72] present 118 170 288 10.07 1.97 9.12 13.60 118 172 290 10.25 3.24 9.47 13.62 118 174 292 9.73 4.3 9.27 12.95 118 176 294 8.48 4.29 8.33 11.61 118 178 296 6.53 5.49 7.27 9.60 118 180 298 3.86 4.38 5.16 6.94 118 182 300 0.48 2.98 2.57 3.64 118 184 302 −3.62 0.92 −0.59 −0.29 118 186 304 −8.43 −4.5 −5.01 −4.84 120 172 292 16 3.25 12.69 21.38 120 174 294 16.21 4.63 13 21.42 120 176 296 15.71 4.45 12.42 20.78 120 178 298 14.5 4.78 11.53 19.46 120 180 300 12.57 3.58 9.8 17.49 120 182 302 9.93 2.07 7.57 14.87 120 184 304 6.57 −0.23 4.73 11.62 120 186 306 2.5 −5.65 0.69 7.74 Table 5. Comparison of calculated
$ \log_{10}T_{\rm SF} $ (s) with other models for Z = 118 and Z = 120.As shown in the tables, even if the logarithmic values of Xu, Bao, KPS, and the present study exhibit similar behaviors of change according to the mass number of the parent nuclei, their size is different. However, the results of Bao et al. show slightly different behavior in comparison to the others.
A successful model should produce both experimental SF half-lives and predict the decay modes of nuclei. Superheavy nuclei decay through the AD, followed by the SF. If the half-lives of AD are shorter than the SF, then nuclei survive the fission and therefore decay through the AD. The
$ \alpha $ decay half-lives for even-even nuclei from Z = 104 to Z = 118 were calculated within the framework of the WKB method and BS quantization rule by considering the isospin-dependent effects and the SF half-lives using the proposed formula (Eq. (2)). The obtained results are shown in Table 6. To make predictions about which decay is dominant for each nuclei, the branching ratios for SF (%) (($ T_{\alpha}/(T_{\rm SF}+T_{\alpha} $ ))$ \times $ 100) and$ \alpha $ decay (%) (($ T_{\rm SF}/(T_{\rm SF}+T_{\alpha} $ ))$ \times $ 100) were calculated, and subsequently the modes of decays were predicted and compared with the decay modes in Ref. [72] as well as the experimental ones, as seen in Table 6. In Table 6, the nuclei column shows the related superheavy nuclei,$ {Q}_{\alpha}^{\rm exp.} $ shows the experimental Q-value taken from Ref. [87].$ T_{\rm SF} $ and$ T_{\alpha} $ are the calculated values for SF and AD, respectively.$ {\rm{BR}}_{\rm SF}$ (%) and$ {\rm{BR}}_{\alpha} $ (%) show the calculated branching ratio values for SFs and ADs, respectively. The present column shows the dominant decay modes in present calculations; Ref. [72] shows the predicted decay modes for nuclei in Ref. [72], and the Exp. column shows the dominant decay modes in the experiment taken from Ref. [87]. In the "present" column, the parenthesis is used to depict the dominant decay mode. As can be seen in Table 6, the decay modes predicted in present calculations are in very good agreement with the predicted decay modes in Ref. [72] and the experimental ones, with the exception of some nuclei. When the present results are compared to Ref. [72], the predictions are different for some nuclei even if all other predictions obtained in this study are agreement with the ones in Ref. [72]. The SF values of half-lives are observed to increase with the Z number of parent nuclei, whereas the AD half-lives are tend to decrease.nuclei ${Q} _{\alpha}^{\rm exp.} $ [87]$ {T}_{\rm SF}{\rm (s)} $ $ {T}_{\alpha}{\rm (s)} $ ${\rm{BR}} _{\rm SF} $ (%)$ {\rm{BR}}_{\alpha} $ (%)present Ref. [72] Exp. [87] 294118 11.82 4.044e+11 1.976e-03 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 294117 11.18 2.118e+06 8.768e-02 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 293117 11.32 2.638e+07 2.340e-02 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 293116 10.71 1.613e+02 3.704e-01 0.229 99.771 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 292116 10.78 2.998e+03 1.458e-01 0.005 99.995 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 291116 10.89 3.816e+04 1.271e-01 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 290116 11.00 3.314e+05 4.029e-02 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 290115 10.41 1.084e+01 1.814e+00 14.336 85.664 $ \alpha/{\rm SF} (\alpha) $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 289115 10.49 1.410e+02 6.436e-01 0.454 99.546 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 288115 10.63 1.250e+03 4.719e-01 0.038 99.962 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 287115 10.76 7.526e+03 1.270e-01 0.002 99.998 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 289114 9.98 4.935e-03 7.492e+00 99.934 0.066 SF $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 288114 10.07 9.620e-02 2.490e+00 96.280 3.720 SF $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 287114 10.17 1.279e+00 2.175e+00 62.956 37.044 $ \alpha/{\rm SF} ({\rm SF}) $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 286114 10.35 1.158e+01 4.215e-01 3.511 96.489 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha = 0.6,{\rm SF} = 0.4 $ 285114 9.492 7.104e+01 1.977e+02 73.561 26.439 $ \alpha/{\rm SF} ({\rm SF}) $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 286113 9.79 2.013e-03 2.018e+01 99.990 0.010 $ \alpha/{\rm SF} ({\rm SF}) $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 285113 10.01 2.739e-02 2.771e+00 99.021 0.979 SF $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 284113 10.12 2.531e-01 2.338e+00 90.230 9.770 SF $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 283113 10.38 1.582e+00 2.711e-01 14.626 85.374 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ Table 6. Calculated
$ {T}_{\rm SF}{\rm (s)} $ ,$ {T}_{\alpha}{\rm (s)} $ ,$ {\rm{BR}}_{\rm SF} $ (%),${\rm{BR}} _{\alpha} $ (%), and the predicted decay modes of superheavy nuclei and their experimental modes for nuclei with Z = 104 to Z = 118.To be able to make the predictions for the unknown decay modes of superheavy nuclei, the AD half-lives in the WKB method considering the isospin-dependent potential and BS quantization condition, as well as the SF half-lives using the new formula proposed in this study, have been calculated for possible AD chains from isotopes superheavy nuclei with Z = 119–120. The calculations of the SF and AD for Z = 119,120 are obtained and presented in Table 7. In Table 7, the nuclei column depicts the superheavy nuclei,
${{Q}} _{\alpha}^{\rm exp.} $ shows the experimental Q-value taken from Ref. [87], and$ T_{\rm SF} $ and$ T_{\alpha} $ are calculated values for SF and AD, respectively. With regard to$ BR_{\rm SF} $ and$ BR_{\alpha} $ , they show the calculated branching ratio values for SF and AD, respectively. The "present" column depicts the dominant decay modes in calculations, and the Bao [71] column shows the obtained decay modes by Bao et al. [71]. In the "present" column, the parenthesis is used to depict the dominant decay mode. As seen in the table, similar behaviors have been shown for nuclei with Z numbers ranging from 104 to 118.nuclei $ {Q}_{\alpha}^{\rm exp.} $ $ {T}_{\rm SF}{\rm (s)} $ $ {T}_{\alpha}{\rm (s)} $ $ {\rm{BR}}_{\rm SF} $ (%)$ {\rm{BR}}_{\alpha} $ (%)present Bao [71] 300120 13.31 3.096e+17 6.485e-06 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 296118 11.75 3.973e+09 2.872e-03 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 299120 13.25 3.613e+18 1.384e-05 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ 295118 11.90 4.841e+10 2.195e-03 0.000 100.000 $ \alpha $ $ \alpha $ Table 7. Calculated
$ {T}_{\rm SF}{\rm (s)} $ ,$ {T}_{\alpha}{\rm (s)} $ ,$ {\rm{BR}}_{\rm SF} $ (%),$ {\rm{BR}}_{\alpha} $ (%), and the predicted decay modes of superheavy nuclei without known experimental decay modes and predictions of Bao et al. [71].It should be also underlined that the reason why the predictions for some nuclei are different from each other in the presented SF values in Tables 6 and 7 would come from the fact that the present model does not consider shell effects, magic numbers, and also whether the mass, proton and neutron numbers of the related nuclei are odd or even.
Search for decay modes of heavy and superheavy nuclei
- Received Date: 2019-02-27
- Available Online: 2019-07-01
Abstract: Spontaneous fission (SF) with a new formula based on a liquid drop model is proposed and used in the calculation of the SF half-lives of heavy and superheavy nuclei (Z = 90–120). The predicted half-lives are in agreement with the experimental SF half-lives. The half-lives of