Proposition of Pathways Modulation Probability ...€¦ · 8/5/2018 · 268 Firas Mohammed Ali...

Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics

Vol. 12, 2018, no. 6, 267 - 280

HIKARI Ltd, www.m-hikari.com

https://doi.org/10.12988/astp.2018.8729

Proposition of Pathways Modulation Probability,

Generalized Liquid Drop Model Methods to

Determine the Qα-Value of Heavy and

Super Heavy Nuclei

Hala Akram Hadi and *FathiFiras Mohammed Ali

, IraqMosul, University , MosulCollege of Science sics Department,Phy

authorCorresponding *

Copyright © 2018 Firas Mohammed Ali Fathi and Hala Akram Hadi. This article is distributed

under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The Q- value of alpha decay of asset of heavy and super heavy nuclei chain from

Z=78 to 120 have been analyzed systematically within the propose method of

probability of modulation pathways (ppnn, pnpn, pnnp, nnpp, npnp and nppn)

beside the generalized Liquid Drop Model. The results are reasonable agreement

with the published experimental data for alpha decay Qα- value of studied nuclei.

The first method has shown the possibility to forming of alpha particle of any

proposed pathway. Also has been shown it is not significantly affected by nuclei

with closed shell or nearby. The second method also showed acceptable results

that corresponding to the experimental values of the wide range of the studied

nuclei that decay of alpha particle emission along with nuclei that dissolve

spontaneously. For this purpose, a computer program was prepared in Mat lab

software, to reduce many of the data, along with reducing many of the time and

effort. The values of unknown masses were obtain for some nuclei in atomic mass

units through another program was prepared in Mat lab software with high

accuracy. These methods may help in synthesis and identification of new heaviest

nuclei.

Keywords: Qα-Value, Alpha decay, Super heavy nuclei

268 Firas Mohammed Ali Fathi and Hala Akram Hadi

1. Introduction

Alpha decay was discovered in France by Henri Becquerel [1] and it was

identified as 4He emission by Ernest Rutherford [2]. Manjunatha and Sridhar

selected the most probable projectile super heavy nuclei Z=126[3]. Also

Manjunatha and Somya studied the half lives of spontaneous fission, ternary

fission and cluster decay of this predicted nuclei Z=126 and compared with that of

alpha decay using the theoretical Qα –value[4].Dong et al., [5] studied the alpha

decay half lives of super heavy nuclei in the ground state depending on

theoretically Qα –value. In experiment one usually measures the alpha Qα-values

and half-lives, while one of the major goals of theory is to predict the half lives to

serve the experimental design. As one of the crucial quantity for a quantitative

prediction of decay half-life, Qα-value strongly affect the calculation of the half-

life due to the exponential law [Geigger - Nuttal]. Therefore, it is extremely

important and necessary to obtain an accurate theoretical Qα-Value in reliable

half-life prediction during the experiments design [6]. In fact, it is a challenge to

interpret the existing decay data in literature, with theoretical model in order to

better understanding the complex nuclear structure phenomena and reaction

mechanism [7]. Several studies of research groups have been developed a nuclear

mass formula, which predicts the Qα-Value of various decays including β-decay,

proton-emission, and α-decay in the nuclide region, including the extremely have

mass region [8, 9, 10]. Dong et.al. [11], derive an expression of Qα-Value based

on the Liquid Drop Model, which can be used as an input to quantitatively predict

the half-lives of unknown nuclei. The present study is an attempt to understand

the nuclear structure of heavy and super heavy nuclei, as well as understanding

the mechanism of formation of the alpha particle and its emission. Intensive

efforts have been made to explain other aspect of the nuclear structure of another

nuclei as in [12, 13].The aim of this paper to propose the pathways modulation

probability as a new formula to determine the Qα-Value of heavy and super heavy

from Z=78 to 120 (even-even and even-odd nuclei) with high accuracy to predict

the half-lives of all nuclei understudy especially at the super heavy nuclei. For the

same purpose, another method was proposed based of the idea of modification of

Liquid Drop Model in determine the Qα-Value of the nuclei mentioned above.

2. Theory

2.1 Theoretical framework of the pathways modulation probability method

Each nucleon (proton and neutron) in any nucleus moves in any orbit with a

definite angular momentum comprising the vector sum of orbit and spin

components. One of the major difference in electrons distribution within atomic

orbital as well as nucleons distribution within a nucleus orbital is the existence of

two families of shells inside the nucleus. One of them belongs to the proton

distribution and the other belongs to neutron distribution. When these shells are

happened to be fully filled according to its allowed number, nuclei that belong to

these shells are considered to be fully stable. The nuclei containing 2, 8, 20, 50,

Proposition of pathways modulation probability … 269

82, 126 neutrons or protons and the super heavy nuclei containing Z=112,114,

116, N=122,172,174 are considered to be exceptionally stable. Nuclei with both

types of completely shells filled are the most stable. Thus, the pb 82208 nucleus with

82 protons and 126 neutrons is essentially stable. Thus in the nucleus pb,82210 the

last proton (number 82) has a high binding energy of 8.37MeV (according to

Eq.2).In order to add one more proton to form Bi83211 , a certain amount of energy is

needed, while adding another proton needs an additional amount of energy to

form po84212 . The basic principle that we have adopted in present method is that

any heavy nucleus can decay with a massive alpha particles emission if the sum of

the separation energies of two protons and another two neutrons has less alpha

binding energy (28.3MeV) [14]. Another principle that has been adopted in this

method is the proposition that there are probability pathways for the formation of

the parent nucleus to separate the two neutrons and two protons from it. That is to

emit the massive alpha particles an independent entity, then the decay energy Qα-

Value can be calculate after summing the total separation energies of all protons

and neutrons (2p+2n) and subtracting it from the binding energy of alpha particles

(28.3Mev) i.e.

Qα−value = B. E(α−particle) − Stot (1)

Where B. E(α−particle) is the binding energy of alpha particle, Stot is the total separation energy of the two protons and two neutrons, Qα−value is the energy of alpha decay.

The proposed pathways can be illustrated by only six probabilities, as follow

1- p→p→n→n (Separation of proton, proton, neutron and neutron)

2- p→n→p→n (Separation of proton, neutron, proton and neutron)

3- p→n→n→p (Separation of proton, neutron, neutron and proton)

4- n→n→p→p (Separation of neutron, neutron, proton and proton)

5- n→p→n→p (Separation of neutron, proton, neutron and proton)

6- n→p→p→n (Separation of neutron, proton, proton and neutron)

For example, take the parent nucleus of U92234 that gives the experimental Qα-Value

as by (4.86MeV), the probability of forming the first pathway can be applied to calculate the separation energy of last two protons using the following equation twice [15].

Sp = [ MZ−1A−1

N − MZA

N]c2 + Mp c

2 (2)

Where MZ−1A−1

N, MZA

Nand Mp is the masses of daughter, parent nucleus and proton respectively (in amu). And using the following equation twice, to determine the separation energy of the last two neutrons.

Sn = [ MZA−1

N−1 − MZA

N]c2 + Mnc

2 (3)


Where MZA−1

N−1, MZA

N and Mn is the masses of the daughter, parent and neutron respectively (in amu), Sp & Sn is the separation energy of proton and neutron respectively.

The total separation energy of the last two protons is (6.6331MeV+5.2469MeV), and the total separation energy of the last two neutrons is (6.4405MeV+5.1175MeV).Finally, Eq.(1) can be used to obtain the Qα-value of the U 92

234 nucleus, which is equal to

Qα calc.−value = 28.3MeV − (6.6331 + 5.2469 + 6.4405 + 5.1175)MeV = 4.862 MeV

This result is consistent with the experimental value of Qα (4.86MeV) and by comparison it does not exceed (0.04٪).According to the first path, the decay mode of the U92

234 nucleus can be expressed as:

Up→92

234 pap→91

233 Th90232

n→ Th

n→ Th90

23090

231

The separation energy of last proton can be calculated by the parent nucleus U92234 ,

while the separation energy of the other last proton can be calculated by the pa91233

nucleus (not from the parent core) .The separation energy of the last neutron can be calculated by the Th90

232 nucleus and the separation energy of the other last neutron can be calculated by the Th90

231 nucleus, so here dose the pathway end up. This method can be applied to the rest of the pathways. Based on these data, it can be said that, if the Qα-value for the other pathways is found to be comparable with Qα-value of the first pathway, the proposed method is considered reliable in determining the Qα-values. Hence, this method can be generalized to all heavy and super heavy nuclei under study with contentment and acceptability. Each of the six pathways has a decay mode which is different from the other. There is a certain point at which the method is no longer valid, that is when the separation process of the last two protons and two neutrons are not from the parent nucleus, as it will inevitably reach a wrong result which does not fit with the experimental values. For example, when separating two protons and two neutrons out of the parent nucleus U92

234 , the separation energy is equal to

S2p + S2n = (6.6331 + 6.6331) + (6.845 + 6.845) = 26.9562MeV

By applying Eq.(1), a value of Qα (1.343MeV) will be obtained and that is far

from the experimental value (4.86MeV).It is also far from the calculated value

(4.862MeV),as mentioned earlier.

2.2 Unknown masses calculation of some nuclei

When conducting calculation with respect to the separation energy of protons and

neutrons within the proposed pathways. All the values of the atomic mass (amu)

of parent and daughter nuclei with the other nuclei within any studied pathway

must be known. Of course, it was not initially possible to obtain all these value, so

an alternative way to obtain those values, using the semi-empirical formula of

particular nucleus was tracked, in the following form [16]. M(Z,A) = Zmp + Nmn − B(A,Z) c

2⁄ (4)


Where M(A,Z) is the mass of particular nucleus, Z is the number of protons, N is the number of neutrons, mp is the proton mass (1.007825 amu), mn is the neutron mass (1.008665 amu), B(A,Z) is the binding energy of a particular nucleus.

The B(A,Z) can be obtained, using Liquid Drop Model represent by the following formula [16].

B(A,Z) = avA − asA2 3⁄ − ac

Z2

A1 3⁄− asy

(N−Z)2

A± δ (5)

Where A is Mass number of particular nucleus

av = 15.835MeV, as = 16.8MeV, ac = 0.703MeV, asy = 24.8MeV, ap = 11.2MeV,

δ = ±apA−1 2⁄ MeV

By substituting equation(5) in equation(4), the unknown nucleus mass can be obtained as the following:

M(Z,A) = Zmp + Nmn − (avA − asA2 3⁄ − ac

Z2

A1 3⁄+ as

(N−Z)2

A± δ) c2⁄ (6)

And from substituting M(Z,A) value either in equation (2) or (3) the Qα-value (Eq.1) can be established. This was done by working out a computer program in the language of Mat lab through the formula of equation (6) with the data of equation (2) and equation (1). To be precise, a global program known as ''binding energy'' was used, which gave values very close to the values of the program that has been worked out.

2.3 Theoretical framework of the generalized liquid drop model

The local formula of binding energy for nuclei with 78 ≤ 𝑍 ≤ 120 of even-even and even-odd nuclei[17] using the Liquid Drop Model this is given by B(Z, A) = Bv + Bs + Bc + Ba + Bp

= avA − asA2 3⁄ − acZ

2A−1 3⁄ − asy (A

2− Z)

2

A−1 + apδA−1 2⁄ (7)

Where Bv , Bs , Bc are respectively the volume, surface and the coulomb energy between the protons. Note that Bs arises because nucleus has surface, where the nucleons interact with only on the average, half as many nucleon as those in the interior, and may be considered as a correction to Bv. In this formula the average pairing energy Bp is described by apδA

−1 2⁄

𝛿 = {1 for even − even nuclei0 for odd A nuclei

−1 for odd − odd nuclei

Means that the strengths of the (nn) and (pp) pairing are considered to be equal, and that the correlations between (np) and perhaps other few-body correlations (i.g., α correlation) are ignored [17].While the av, as, ac, asy, ap represent the volume,


surface, coulomb, symmetry and pairing constant, these have been determined by[16] to be

av = 15.835MeV, as = 16.8MeV, ac = 0.703MeV, asy = 24.8MeV, ap = 11.2MeV

The energy release of alpha decay of heavy and super heavy nuclei given by the

Liquid Drop Model is (14)

Qα = M(A, Z) − M(A − 4, Z − 2) − M(4,2) (8)

In order for α-decay to occur energy must be conserved, such that Qα value for α-decay can be determine by:

Qα = Bα + B(Z − 2, A − 4) − B(Z, A) (9) By substitution equation (7) in eq.(9) can be obtained the following equation

Qα = Bα + [av(A − 4) − avA] + [asA2 3⁄ − as(A − 4)

2 3⁄ ] + [−ac(Z − 2)2(A − 4)−1 3⁄ ] +

acZ2A−1 3⁄ + [−asy (

N−Z

2)

2(A − 4)−1 + asy (

N−Z

2)

2A−1] + [apδ(A − 4)

−1 2⁄ −

apδ(A)−1 2⁄ ] (10)

The term of B(4,2) in the binding energy of alpha particle which is equal to

28.3Mev.the volume energy(av) is only constant and the surface energy(as) can be

regarded a constant since it is varies very little in this region there for the above

formula can be simplified further, the binomial theory[18] was used. It is found

that the pairing energy (ap) contribute very little to the Qα-value and can be

neglected [17], and the surface energy (as term) can be regarded a constant

because it varies little in this local region especially at super heavy nuclei and can

be neglected [11].Therefore, the previously mentioned formula can be simplified

further to

Qα = aZA−4 3⁄ (3A − Z) + b (

N−Z

A)

2+ e (11)

The best fit parameter are

a = 0.9373MeV, b = −99.3027MeV , e = −27.453MeV According to this formula(11)(i.g generalized Liquid Drop Model), and when it

employed to calculate Qα-value, the results are not very good with high deviations

between theoretical and experimental Qα-values with standard deviation equal

to(0.7798).It might be feasible to deduce a more accurate formula for Qα-value

with fewer parameters based on eq.(11). And for this purpose the term of relative

neutron excess (N−Z

A) was added in Eq.(7), to obtain another form of nuclear

binding energy, and substitute this formula in Eq.(11),the following form is

produced

Qα = aZA−4 3⁄ (3A − Z) + b (

N−Z

A)

2

+ e + c [(N−2)−(Z−2)

A−4−

N−Z

A] (12)


Where a, b, e they are the same constant in Eq.(11)but the (c) constant was

obtained the best fit to the nuclei with 78 ≤ 𝑍 ≤ 120 to give a little deviation between the theoretical and experimental binding energy and so

c = {450 for nuclei with78 ≤ Z ≤ 90

170.65 for nuclei with 92 ≤ Z ≤ 120

The last term of Eq.(12) which was extremely important in Qα-value suitability

and its approach to experimental value. The term of relative neutron excess was

suggested by the researchers (Ali & khalil)in Ref.(19).

calc.-αQ and .exp -αQ etweenCalibration curves b 2.4

In order to overcome the long and burdensome calculations for more than 4500

times, the prepared program was used, and in order to process the data that was

obtained and to show it in simple and clear way, in addition to obtaining a

relationship between the experimental and theoretical Qα-value, the (Treat

function) was used in the Matlab software. The horizontal axis is arranged in

ascending order according to the vertical axis of matlab. The standard deviation

(σ) and the roots mean square deviation (rmsd) of the Qα-value of all nuclei (for any proposed pathway) under study and for generalized Liquid Drop Model

method are as follows [20,21]

σ = ∑ |Qαexp. −Qαcalc. | N⁄Ni=1 (13)

rmsd = √∑ (Qαexp. −Qα. calc)2 N⁄Ni=1 (14)

3. Result and Discussion

The standard deviations (σ) are equal to (0.026, 0.027, 0.028, 0.021, 0.022, 0.018) and the roots mean square deviations are equal to (0.1, 0.098, 0.098, 0.076,

0.076, 0.062 ) for ppnn ,pnpn ,pnnp ,nnpp ,npnp and nppn pathway respectively,

i.e. the very little deviation of Qα-value confirm the suggested method of

probability of modulation pathways that will be very useful for experimentalists.

Furthermore the calculation of Qα versus mass number (A) for ppnn pathway are

shown graphically in Fig.(1) which reveals a Qα-value increase as the mass

number (A) increases on the whole. It also shows that the Qα-value decrease by

increasing the mass number of isotopes of a particular element. The behavior of

Qα-value for the rest of the suggested pathways will certainly give the same

behavior because the values of the standard deviations and root mean square

deviations are close to the all pathways.


ass number(A) according to the mversus value-αQ he theoreticalT Figure1:proposed method (ppnn pathway).

While Fig (2) and Fig (3) illustrate the relationship between the difference of the

experimental and theoretical value of Qα with both atomic number and neutron

number respectively of the studied nuclei within the ppnn pathway.

Figure 2: The relation between Qα exp.- Qα calc. with atomic number (Z)for(ppnn) pathway

eutron number(N) for nwith calc. αQ -exp. αQ nhe relation betweeT :3 Figureppnn) pathway.)

The very slight deviation in Fig.(2) and Fig.(3), indicate the super agreement

between experiment and theoretical value of Qα even at the stable nuclei that have a magic number in its proton (Z=108,112,114,116)or in its neutron (N=122,172,174)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300

Qα

Calc

.(M

eV

)

Mass number(A)

-0,8-0,7-0,6-0,5-0,4-0,3-0,2-0,1

00,10,20,30,40,50,60,7

70 80 90 100 110 120

Qα

exp

. -Qα

calc

.(M

eV

)

Atomic number(Z)

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Qα

ex

p. -Qα

ca

l.(M

eV

)

Neutron number (N)


or both, as well as at the nuclei located near the nuclei that posses magic

number(but with slightly higher deviation compared to other nuclei),which in turn

shows the extent of the possibility and the high acceptability shown by the

proposed method in estimating the Qα-value within the pathway ppnn. The

deviations between the Qα exp. and Qα calc. for the rest pathways certainly give

the same behavior due to the values of the standard deviations, moreover, the

roots mean square deviations came close to all other pathways. The Fig. (4 a, b, c,

d, e, f) shows the strong relationship between the experimental and theoretical

values of Qα produced by the application of the program which contained the

(Treat function) for all the proposed pathways. That is to form the alpha particle

moment of escape from the parent nucleus for all nuclei under study. The results

obtained through the application of the above program summarized in Table 1

which include the calibration equations containing the slope values and the

constants of calibration.

according to svalue-αhe experimental versus the theoretical QT :4Figure

ppnn, pnpn, pnnp, nnpp, npnp, nppn pathways for all nuclei under study

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Q alpha calc.(MeV)

Q alp

ha e

xp.(M

eV)

Figure (a) ppnn

y = 0.99*x + 0.087

data 1

linear

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Q alpha calc.(MeV)

Q alp

ha e

xp.(M

eV)

Figure (c) pnnp

y = 0.99*x + 0.084

data 1

linear

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Q alpha calc.(MeV)

Q alp

ha e

xp.(M

eV)

Figure (e) npnp

y = 1*x + 0.039

data 1

linear

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Q alpha calc.(MeV)

Q alp

ha e

xp.(M

eV)

Figure (b) pnpn

y = 0.99*x + 0.083

data 1

linear

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Q alpha calc.(MeV)

Q alp

ha e

xp.(M

eV)

Figure (d) nnpp

y = 1*x + 0.042

data 1

linear

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Q alpha calc.(MeV)

Q alp

ha e

xp.(M

eV)

Figure (f) nppn

y = 0.99*x + 0.063

data 1

linear


TABLE I: The calibration equation for all pathway

Fig.(4) and Table.1show that the slope values are about (0.99-1) for all pathways. This mean that there is a close consensus with accuracy between the experimental and theoretical value of Qα .Therefore, the proposed method is one of the methods that can be used to characterize the alpha particle emission, and to determine the half-life with high accuracy a long side the values of standard deviations and the roots mean deviations. That is due to the fact that there has been nearly no approach which can provide an accurate Qα-value theoretically with deviation less than 0.5MeV.Hence, predicting the half-life with good accuracy is proven to be a very difficult work, since the Qα-value of the reference nuclei will have to be extremely precise, especially for super heavy nuclei which still await independent verification by the other laboratories. This task is not easy as the new super heavy nuclei from isolated island tend to be not linked through the α-decay chains with any known nuclei, making theoretical support ever more important and necessary. In spite of the shell closed should playing a particular an important role in the heavy and super heavy system. However, that is despite of the fact that there are associated problem with the closed shell. The Fig.(5) which represent the relationship between the theoretical Qα-value versus the mass number (A) according to generalized Liquid Drop Model , where we observe that the behavior is similar to the behavior of the first method.

Figure (5) The theoretical Qα-value versus Mass number(A) according to

generalized Liquid Drop Model

Calibration equation Pathways

Y=0.99*X+0.087 ppnn

Y=0.99*X+0.083 pnpn

Y=0.99*X+0.084 pnnp

Y=1*X+0.042 nnpp

Y=1*X+0.039 npnp

Y=0.99*X+0.063 nppn

2468

101214

160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Qα

Calc

.(M

eV

)

Mass Number(A)


While Fig.(6)and Fig.(7) represent the relationship between the difference of the

experimental and theoretical Qα-value once with the number of protons (Z) and

once with the number of neutrons (N).

Figure (6) The relation between Qα exp.-Qα Calc.with atomic number(Z) according to generalized Liquid Drop Model

Figure (7) The relation between Qα exp.- Qα Calc. with neutron number(N)

according to generalized Liquid Drop Model

The deviation in Fig. (6,7) .Indicate the acceptable agreement with experimental and theoretical value of Qα-even at the stable nuclei that have magic number but less accurately then the method suggest by pathways. As we can infer it through the values of standard deviation (𝜎 = 0.32) and the root mean square deviation (rmsd=0.411) for generalized Liquid Drop Model. Also we can say, the precision is improved by a factor(59%), when comparing between the standard deviation of the formula (11) with standard deviation of the formula (12)which contain a term of relative neutron excess. Since the Qα-values can be calculate with acceptable accurately, one can expect that the experimental single-and two nucleon separation energies, and that the values of unknown nuclei in this region can be predicted reliably. The experimental Qα-values of the newly synthesized nucleus 298120 is (12.62MeV) is taken from Fig (5). The Qα-values is deduced from the kinetic energy of α-particle(Eα) by using the standard relation [22].

Qα = [Ap

Ap−4] Eα + (0.63Zp

7 5⁄ − 80.0Zp2 5⁄ ) ∗ 10−6MeV

-2

-1

0

1

2

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Qα

exp

. -

Qα

Calc

.(M

eV

)

Neutron Number(N)

-2

-1

0

1

2

70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Qα

exp

. -

Qα

Calc

.(M

eV

)

Atomic Number(Z)

278 Firas Mohammed Ali Fathi and Hala Akram Hadi Where Zp and Ap are the proton and mass number of the α-emitter, respectively,

from the measured α kinetic energy Eα=12.367Mev [23], we obtain its

Qα=12.587,which is very close to the experimental value and our result from

improved formula is 12.9MeV.also close to the experimental Qα-values.

4. Conclusion

The result of the present calculations of Qα-value are in excellent a agreement

with experimental data with very little deviation. Qα-value predictions are made

from many unknown nuclei from the region of Z=78 to 120 (even-even and even-

odd).This region is typically unstable with respect to α-decay. The proposed

method demonstrated its high accuracy in determining the Qα-values of all types

of nuclei studied for their high correlation with experimental data. This method

has shown the possibility to forming of alpha particle of any proposed pathway,

because the total sum of the separation energies are equal to any proposed

pathway. In this work, theoretical approach is in very close agreement as to the

position of closed shell. The simple program that was prepared, to reduce much of

the data due to the difficulty of showing them in tables, along with reducing much

of the time and effort we can conclude by proposing a generalized Liquid Drop

Model Method that there is acceptable consensus between the theoretical and

experimental values of Qα but with less accuracy as in the first method. We also

find that Qα-value dependence becomes increasingly weaker as the atomic number

increases on the whole, which implies that the uncertainty of the Qα-value is

smaller for heavier nuclei; thus, it is exactly what we expect to predict the α-decay

half life of super heavy nuclei (SHN).And the isotopes finally, the Qα-values

besides the half life perhaps insufficient to obtain more information about the

nuclear structure and other properties of SHN(such as rotational band, isomeric

states, and various deformations). In brief, by studying the decay channels, it is

possible to inter-relate most nuclear species on the energy time content basis and

to determine the regions greater stability which may help in synthesis and

identification of new heaviest nuclei.

References

[1] J. K. Pansaers, Paris, 122, (1896), 420-521

[2] Ernest Rutherford, Disintegration of the Radioactive Elements,

Harper's Monthly Magazine, (1904), 279-284.

[3] H. C. Manjunatha, K. N. Sridhar, Projectile target combination to synthesis

superheavy nuclei Z=126, Nucl. Physics A, 962 (2017), 7- 23.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.03.007



[4] H. C. Manjunatha, N. Sowmya, Competition between spontaneous fission

ternary fission cluster decay and alpha decay in the super heavy nuclei of

Z=126, Nucl. Physics A, 969 (2018), 68-82.


[5] J. Dong, H. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. Zuo, J. Li, Alpha-decay for heavy nuclei in

the ground and isomeric state, Nucl. Physics A, 832 (2010), 198-208.


[6] J. Dong, W. Zuo, W. Scheid, Correlation Between α-decay Energies of

Super heavy Nuclei Involving Effect of Symmetry Energy, Phys. Rev.

Lett., 107 (2011), 012501. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.107.012501

[7] A.V. Babu, S.S. Kumar, Alpha decay Q-Value of super heavy

nuclei, Nucl. Physics A, 58 (2013), no. 4, 364-365.

[8] H. Koura, M. Uno, T. Tachibana, M. Yamada, Nuclear mass formula

with Shell Energy Calculated by New Method. Nucl. Physics A, 674 (2000),

47-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0375-9474(00)00155-x

[9] H. Koura, T. Tachibana, M. Uno, M. Yamada, Nuclidic mass formula

on a spherical basis with an improve even-odd term, Prog. Theor. Phys.,

113 (2005), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.1143/ptp.113.305

[10] H. Koura, T. Tachibana, How for dose the area of super heavy element

extends-Decay modes of super heavy nuclei. Butsuri, 60 (2005), no. 9, 717-

724.

[11] J. Dong, W. Zuo, J. Gu, Y. Wang, B. Peng, Alph-decay half-lives and Qα-

Value of super heavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C, 81 (2010), 201-219.

https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.81.064309

[12] A. H. Taqi, E.G. Khidher, Nuclear structure of 40Ca and 48Ca within a self

consistent skyrme HF-RPA calculations, Advanced Studies in Theoretical

Physics, 12 (2018), no. 5, 129-231. https://doi.org/10.12988/astp.2018.8524

[13] H. Uechi, Correlations between saturation properties of Isospin symmetric

Nuclear matter in a Nonlinear 𝜎 − 𝜔 − 𝜌 mean field Approximation, Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics, 2 (2008), no. 11, 519-548.

[14] A. Beiser, Concept of Modern Physics, Sixth Edition, Vol. 1221, Mc Graw-

Hill, Inc., New York, 2003.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.09.008https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.10.082https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.107.012501https://doi.org/10.1016/s0375-9474(00)00155-xhttps://doi.org/10.1143/ptp.113.305https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.81.064309https://doi.org/10.12988/astp.2018.8524


[15] B.L. Cohen, Concept of Nuclear Physics, McGraw-Hill Company, Inc., 1971.

[16] K.S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, John Wiely & Sons. Inc, New

York, 1988.

[17] T. Dong, Z. Ren, Improved version of a binding energy formula for heavy

and super heavy nuclei with Z ≥ 90 and N ≥ 140, Physical Review C, 77 (2008), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.77.064310

[18] Bino. Wiki. https://en.m.wikipedia.org

[19] F.M. Ali, M.I. Khalil, The development of semi empirical relationship for the

determination of the half-lives of even-even nuclei that emit alpha particle,

Iraqi J. of Sci., 1 (2015), no. 1, 750-766.

[20] D. Jian-Min, Z. Hong-Fei, Z. Wei, L. Jun-Qing, Half-Lives of super heavy

Nuclei in Z=113 Alpha decay chain, Chinese Physics Letters, 25 (2008), no.

12, 4230-4232. https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307x/25/12/012

[21] D.Ni, Z. Ren, Binding energies α-decay and α-decay half-lives for heavy and

super heavy Nuclei, Nuclear Physics A, 893 (2012), 13-26.


[22] B. Buck, A.C. Merchant, S.M. Perez, Alpha decay calculation with a

realistic potential, Phys. Rev. C, 45 (1992), 2247-2253.

https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.45.2247

[23] S.L. Nelson, K.E. Gregorich, I. Dragojevic, M.A. Garcia, J.M. Gates, R.

Sudowe, H. Nitsche, Lightest Isotopes of Bh produce the 209Bi (52Cr,n) 260Bh reaction, Phys. Rev. Letters, 100 (2008), 022501.

https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.022501

Received: July 21, 2018; Published: September 18, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.77.064310https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307x/25/12/012https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.08.006https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.45.2247https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.022501

Proposition of Pathways Modulation Probability ...€¦ · 8/5/2018 · 268 Firas Mohammed Ali...

Documents

Transcript of Proposition of Pathways Modulation Probability ...€¦ · 8/5/2018 · 268 Firas Mohammed Ali...