-
α -decay is one of the main decay modes of superheavy nuclei (SHN). It was first observed by Rutherford and explained as a quantum tunneling process independently by Gamow [1] and Condon and Gurney [2]. Theα -decay properties reflect information on the nuclear structure and nuclear stability. In experiments,α -decay chains are commonly used to identify the newly synthesized SHN. To detect the “island of stability” [3-14], many SHN have been synthesized using the hot fusion reaction [15] and cold fusion reaction [16]. As the existence and stability of SHN can be mainly attributed to shell effects, it is important to evaluate the magic numbers carefully and calculate theα -decay properties accurately [17-21].Many theoretical approaches have been proposed to describe the
α -decay process, such as the shell model, fission-like model, and cluster model [22-25]. Many semiclassical models have been employed to reproduce theα -decay half-lives, such as the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [26-28], Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) [29], unified fission model (UFM) [30], and density-dependent cluster model (DDCM) [31]. Based on the Geiger-Nuttall law [32], many empirical relationships, such as the Viola-Seaborg formula [33, 34], Brown formula [35], Royer's formula [36], and universal decay law (UDL) [37, 38] have also been proposed to calculate theα -decay half-life. These methods provide a very good description of the tunnelling of theα -particle across the Coulomb barrier for heavy and super heavy nuclei. While it is difficult to describeα -decay in a fully microscopic way, many works have considered microscopic modifications in theα -decay calculations [39-46].In this work, we use the GLDM with shell correction, Royer's formula and UDL to calculate the
α -decay half-lives of even-Z superheavy nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126. In the framework of the GLDM, two methods are adopted to calculate theα -preformation factor. In the first method, theα -preformation factor is considered as a constant, which is fitted from the experimental half-lives, for each type of nuclei (even-even, odd-A, odd-odd). The second method involves the use of the cluster formation model (CFM) [47-50]. We adopt the updated Weizsäcker-Skyrme-4 (WS4) model to calculateQα [51], as the accuracy of the WS4 model has been generally certified [52]. To predict the decay modes, two modified shell-induced Swiatecki's formula are used to calculate the theoretical SF half-lives. One empirical relation was formulated by Santhosh and Nithya (KPS) [53, 54], while the other was modified by Bao et al. [55].This paper is structured as follows. Sec. 2 introduces the theoretical framework. The results and corresponding discussion are presented in Sec. 3. The conclusions are presented in the last section.
-
In the framework of the GLDM, the decay width is defined as
λ =Pα ν0 P. The Wenzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation is used to calculate the barrier penetrability P,P=exp[−2hRout∫Rin√2B(r)(E(r)−E(sphere))dr],
(1) where
Esphere is the ground state energy of the parent nucleus.E(Rin) =E(Rout) =Qexpα ,B(r) =μ , where the parameterμ is the reduced mass of the daughter nucleus andα -particle.Pα is theα -preformation factor, andν0 is the assault frequency that is calculated by [56]ν0=12R√2EαMα,
(2) where
Mα is the mass,Eα is the kinetic energy of theα particle that has been corrected for recoil, and R is the radius of the parent nucleus.The model considers shell correction, which is shape-dependent as defined below, [57]
Eshell=Esphereshell(1−2.6α2)e−α2,
(3) where
α2=(δR)2/a2 is the root mean square of the deviation, which includes all types of deformation, for the particle surface from the sphere. With increase in the distortion of the nucleus, the complete shell correction energy becomes zero owing to the attenuating factore−α2 .The term
Esphereshell is defined asEsphereshell=cEsh,
(4) which represents the shell correction for a spherical nucleus.
Esh is the shell correction energy, which can be calculated by the Strutinsky process [58]. The Strutinsky calculations use the smoothing parameterγ=1.2ℏω0 and order p = 6 of the Gauss-Hermite polynomials, whereℏω0=41A−1/3 is the mean distance between the gross shells. The parameter c is scaled to adapt the separation of the binding energy between the macroscopic part and microscopic correction [59]. -
The
α -preformation factorPα is adopted from two methods. The first involves considering the same preformation factor for certain type of nuclei [60, 61]. The experimentalPα values are extracted from nuclei with N⩾ 152, Z⩾ 82, a least squares fit to the experimentalα -decay half-lives is performed, and thePα values,Pα = 0.33 (even-even),Pα = 0.05 (odd-A), andPα = 0.01 (odd-odd) are obtained. These results are consistent with those extracted from the GLDM in Ref. [62].Another method to obtain the
α -preformation factor involves the use of the CFM [47-50],Pα=EfαE,
(5) where
Efα is the formation energy of theα particle, and E is the total energy combining the intrinsic energy for theα particle and the interaction energy between theα particle and daughter nucleus.The energy
Efα is calculated from the separation energies[48, 49],Efα={2Sp+2Sn−Sc(even−even),2Sp+S2n−Sc(even−odd),S2p+2Sn−Sc(odd−even),S2p+S2n−Sc(odd−odd),
(6) E=Sc(A,Z),
(7) where
S2n is the two-neutron separation energy,S2p is the two-proton separation energy, andSc is theα -particle separation energy,S2n(A,Z)=B(A,Z)−B(A−2,Z),
(8) S2p(A,Z)=B(A,Z)−B(A−2,Z−2),
(9) Sc(A,Z)=B(A,Z)−B(A−4,Z−2),
(10) where B is the binding energy. The binding energy can be calculated from the nucleus excess mass
ΔM . Hence,S2p ,S2n , andSc can be written as,S2p(A,Z)=ΔM(A−2,Z−2)−ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMp,
(11) S2n(A,Z)=ΔM(A−2,Z)−ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMn,
(12) Sc(A,Z)=ΔM(A−4,Z−2)−ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMp+2ΔMn.
(13) -
Royer's formula fits different types of nuclei to calculate the
α -decay half-lives [36]. For even-even nuclei, this formula fits 131 even-even nuclei, with a root mean square (RMS) deviation of 0.285,log10[T1/2(s)]=−25.31−1.1629A1/6Z1/2+1.5864Z/√Qα.
(14) For the subset of 106 even-odd nuclei, the following equation was obtained (RMS deviation = 0.39),
log10[T1/2(s)]=−26.65−1.0859A1/6Z1/2+1.5848Z/√Qα.
(15) For odd-even nuclei, 86 nuclei were adopted with a RMS deviation of 0.36,
log10[T1/2(s)]=−25.68−1.1423A1/6Z1/2+1.592Z/√Qα.
(16) For odd-odd nuclei, 50 nuclei were used (RMS deviation = 0.35),
log10[T1/2(s)]=−29.48−1.113A1/6Z1/2+1.6971Z/√Qα.
(17) The UDL were also adopted to calculate the
α -decay half-lives [37, 38],log10[T1/2(s)]=aZαZd√AQα+b√AZαZd(A1/3d+A1/3α)+c,
(18) where
A=AdAαAd+Aα , a=0.4314, b=−0.4087, and c=−25.7725, which can be determined from the experimental data. -
The spontaneous fission half-lives are calculated using semi-empirical formulas based on the Swiatecki formula [63]. One formula was modified by Santhosh and Nithya [54] (KPS), while the other was reported by Bao et al. [55]. Both empirical relations considered the isospin effect (
N−ZN+Z ), fissionability parameter (Z2A ) , and shell effect [53-55, 64].The KPS formula is defined as follows [53, 54],
log10(T1/2(yr))=aZ2A+b(Z2A)2+c(N−ZN+Z)+d(N−ZN+Z)2+eEshell+f,
(19) where a = −43.25203, b = 0.49192, c = 3674.3927, d = −9360.6, e = 0.8930, and f = 578.56058.
Eshell is the shell correction energy from the FRDM [65].The modified empirical formula reported by Bao et al. is determined as follows [55],
log10[T1/2(yr)]=c1+c2(Z2(1−kI2)A)+c3(Z2(1−kI2)A)2+c4Esh+hi,
(20) where
Z2/(1−kI2)A is the fissionability parameter considering the isospin effect. The constant k = 2.6 [36]. The coefficientsc1 = 1174.353441,c2 = −47.666855,c3 = 0.471307, andc4 = 3.378848, which were fitted from 45 even-even nuclei. The blocking effect is also considered by parameterhi , whereheo = 2.609374 (even-odd),hoe = 2.619768 (odd-even),hoo =heo +hoe (odd-odd), andhee = 0 (even-even). The shell correction energyEsh is derived from Ref. [65]. -
Table 1 presents the
α -decay half-lives of known nuclei from Fl to Og calculated with the GLDM, UDL, and Royer's formula. These nuclei are regarded as the “upper super heavy region” [66] and are produced by hot-fusion reactions. ThePα adopted in the GLDM is obtained via a least squares fit to the experimental half-lives for known SHN from N⩾ 152 and Z⩾ 82. The experimentalQα values are derived from Ref. [67]. The standard deviation was used to compare the calculation results and experimental values,Ele. A Qexp.α /MeVTexp.1/2 /sT1/2 /sT1/2 /sT1/2 /sT1/2 /sRoyer UDL GLDM GLDM shell Fl 285 10.56 ± 0.051.00 × 10−1 1.60 × 10−1 4.27 × 10−2 6.61 × 10−2 6.57 × 10−2 286 10.35 ± 0.041.20 × 10−1 1.08 × 10−1 1.62 × 10−1 3.16 × 10−2 3.37 × 10−2 287 10.17 ± 0.024.80 × 10−1 1.68 × 100 5.25 × 10−1 5.67 × 10−1 6.67 × 10−1 288 10.07 ± 0.036.60 × 10−1 5.93 × 10−1 1.01 × 100 1.47 × 10−1 1.99 × 10−1 289 9.98 ± 0.021.90 × 100 5.34 × 100 1.82 × 100 1.60 × 100 2.55 × 100 Mc 287 10.76 ± 0.053.70 × 10−2 4.70 × 10−2 2.60 × 10−2 4.06 × 10−2 3.85 × 10−2 288 10.65 ± 0.011.74 × 10−1 4.49 × 10−1 5.05 × 10−2 3.57 × 10−1 3.47 × 10−1 289 10.49 ± 0.053.30 × 10−1 2.23 × 10−1 1.37 × 10−1 1.67 × 10−1 1.82 × 10−1 290 10.41 ± 0.046.50 × 10−1 2.00 × 100 2.25 × 10−1 1.26 × 100 1.51 × 100 Lv 290 11 ± 0.078.30 × 10−3 8.94 × 10−3 1.21 × 10−2 3.00 × 10−3 2.88 × 10−3 291 10.89 ± 0.071.90 × 10−2 8.94 × 10−2 2.31 × 10−2 3.41 × 10−2 3.51 × 10−2 292 10.78 ± 0.021.30 × 10−2 3.01 × 10−2 4.46 × 10−2 8.84 × 10−3 1.04 × 10−2 293 10.71 ± 0.025.70 × 10−2 2.41 × 10−1 6.72 × 10−2 8.01 × 10−2 1.04 × 10−1 Ts 293 11.32 ± 0.052.20 × 10−2 6.89 × 10−3 3.57 × 10−3 6.59 × 10−3 6.65 × 10−3 294 11.18 ± 0.045.10 × 10−2 7.25 × 10−2 7.98 × 10−3 6.45 × 10−2 7.23 × 10−2 Og 294 11.82 ± 0.065.80 × 10−4 3.67 × 10−4 4.26 × 10−4 1.64 × 10−4 1.60 × 10−4 0.38 0.39 0.35 0.35 Table 1. Experimental and theoretical
α -decay half-lives of known SHN from Fl to Og. The theoretical results are calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, and the GLDM with and without shell corrections by inputting the experimentalQα [67]. ThePα adopted in the GLDM is a constant, which is fitted from the experimental data (Pα = 0.33 for even-even nuclei,Pα = 0.05 for odd-A nuclei, andPα = 0.01 for odd-odd nuclei). Here,σ represents the standard deviation between the experimental results and theoretical calculations obtained with Eq. (21).σ=[1n−1n∑i=1(log10Ttheo.1/2−log10Texp.1/2)2]1/2.
(21) The
σ values of Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM, and GLDM with shell correction are 0.38, 0.39, 0.35, and 0.35, respectively. The effect of shell correction is more obvious for nuclei near the predicted shell-closure [68]. For example, considering289 Fl,T1/2α increases from 0.32 s to 0.51 s.The results obtained with the GLDM are systematically lower than the experimental data. After shell correction, the calculated
α -decay half-lives increase slightly. Theσ values indicate that using the experimentally fitted constantPα , the models with and without shell correction can all accurately calculate theα -decay half-lives. -
The
α -preformation factors are calculated using the CFM [48, 49]. BothQα andPα are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. TheQα andPα values of even-even nuclei from Z = 120 to 126 are plotted in Fig. 1. ThePα values of even-even nuclei are approximately 0.1–0.3, which satisfies the general experimental features [49, 69]. The figure shows that theQα values decrease with larger neutron numbers, indicating an increase in the stability of the nucleus againstα -decay. BothQα andPα exhibit very similar trends.The discontinuity of
Qα represents the position of the magic numbers. Moreover, in the region where thePα value is relatively small, the nuclei are regarded to be stable [70]. However the positions of thePα discontinuity andQα discontinuity are not particularly the same, as shown in the case of Z = 120 even-even isotopes in Fig. 1(a). This is because thePα value of one nucleus is calculated based on five nuclei around it. ThePα values may contain the complex structure information of several nearby nuclei.We use the
Qα andPα values to predict the stable nuclei for Z = 122 – 126 elements. Figure 1(a) shows that for Z = 120, the nuclei around N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 204, 206, 218, 228 might be stable. For Z = 122, the nuclei with N = 182, 184, 196, 202, 206, 216 show higher stability. For Z = 124 nuclei, the nuclei with N = 204, 208, 216, 220 might be stable againstα -decay. Figure 1(d) indicates that Z = 126 even-even nuclei have no obvious shell structures. This is because theQα of Z = 126 isotopes are smoothly continuous, and thePα distribution has no dips. It can be observed that when the atomic number increases, the neutron numbers of stable nuclei also increase. It appears that with larger proton numbers, the nucleus requires more neutrons to remain stable. -
Figure 2 presents the
α -decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even isotopes. This figure shows that at N< 186, theα -decay half-lives increase with increasing nuclear mass. This phenomenon indicates that this might correspond to a shell closure at N< 186. For Z = 120 nuclei, there is one obvious peak at N = 184. However, this peak gradually disappears with increase in the Z values. Theα -decay half-lives indicate that the neutron magic number at N = 184 is not observed at Z = 122, 124, 126. This phenomenon is consistent with the results shown byPα andQα in Fig. 1. For Z = 122, nuclei with N = 182 and 184 both have relatively longer half-lives, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The correspondingQα andPα values in Fig. 1(b) are relatively small. Hence, for element Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes,304 120 would probably be stable and might be a shell closure.The
α -decay half-lives and SF half-lives of287−339 120,294−339 122,300−339 124, and306−339 126 are presented in Table 2. To identify the decay modes of unknown nuclei, the competition betweenα -decay and spontaneous fission was studied [71-77]. The predicted decay modes of nuclei are presented in the last column of Table 2. Both SF equations consider the shell correction. However, the SF half-lives calculated with Eq. (20) would be more sensitive to the nuclear structures [78]. The results show that most nuclei at around N = 184 would undergoα -decay. With a larger Z, the competition betweenα -decay and SF would be more obvious. By comparing theα -decay and SF half-lives, we predict that287−307 120 would undergoα -decay,308−309 120 would undergo bothα -decay and SF, and310−339 120 would experience SF. The294−309 122 isotopes would undergoα -decay,310−314 122 would have two decay modes, and315−339 122 would experience SF. For Z = 124 nuclei,300−315 124 would haveα -decay,316−320,326,327,331 124 would have bothα -decay and SF, and321−325,328−330,332−339 124 would undergo SF. As the competition between the two decay modes for the328−339 126 isotopes is very obvious,328−335,337,339 126 would experience bothα -decay and SF,336,338 126 would undergo SF, and306−327 126 would undergoα -decay.Z A QWS4α /MeVTα1/2/s Tα1/2/s Tα1/2/s Tα1/2/s TSF1/2/s TSF1/2/s Decay mode Royer UDL GLDM GLDM Pα Eq. (20) [55] KPS [54] 120 287 13.85 7.90E-07 8.96E-08 1.12E-06 4.46E-07 3.39E+03 1.03E+10 α 288 13.73 2.18E-07 1.53E-07 2.62E-07 3.39E-07 1.68E+01 5.83E+10 α 289 13.71 1.31E-06 1.55E-07 1.79E-06 7.17E-07 1.70E+05 4.73E+11 α 290 13.70 2.23E-07 1.59E-07 2.82E-07 3.72E-07 3.45E+02 1.16E+12 α 291 13.51 2.96E-06 3.73E-07 3.75E-06 1.50E-06 5.63E+05 3.19E+12 α 292 13.47 5.65E-07 4.36E-07 6.66E-07 8.62E-07 1.76E+03 4.86E+12 α 293 13.40 4.41E-06 5.77E-07 5.28E-06 2.26E-06 1.65E+07 1.20E+13 α 294 13.24 1.43E-06 1.19E-06 1.52E-06 2.06E-06 4.25E+04 9.94E+12 α 295 13.27 7.26E-06 9.91E-07 7.85E-06 3.29E-06 1.50E+08 1.10E+13 α 296 13.34 8.30E-07 6.79E-07 8.70E-07 1.20E-06 2.84E+04 2.66E+12 α 297 13.14 1.21E-05 1.72E-06 1.15E-05 5.32E-06 2.37E+07 1.18E+12 α 298 13.01 3.56E-06 3.24E-06 2.90E-06 4.24E-06 6.02E+04 3.40E+11 α 299 13.26 6.56E-06 9.08E-07 6.53E-06 2.72E-06 2.58E+07 7.66E+10 α 300 13.32 7.82E-07 6.59E-07 7.40E-07 1.01E-06 3.80E+03 6.33E+09 α 301 13.06 1.48E-05 2.18E-06 1.23E-05 5.16E-06 1.67E+06 8.84E+08 α 302 12.89 5.21E-06 5.02E-06 3.73E-06 5.17E-06 1.17E+02 3.73E+07 α 303 12.81 4.53E-05 7.25E-06 3.15E-05 1.25E-05 3.32E+04 2.91E+06 α 304 12.76 8.79E-06 8.89E-06 5.13E-06 7.12E-06 5.87E-01 5.42E+04 α 305 13.28 4.74E-06 6.64E-07 3.56E-06 1.45E-06 3.40E-01 5.27E+02 α 306 13.79 7.76E-08 5.94E-08 7.03E-08 9.47E-08 2.24E-06 4.88E+00 α 307 13.52 1.48E-06 1.94E-07 1.15E-06 4.72E-07 6.53E-05 8.70E-02 α 308 12.97 2.84E-06 2.76E-06 1.44E-06 1.78E-06 3.20E-08 1.65E-03 α /SF309 12.16 9.06E-04 1.81E-04 2.97E-04 1.09E-04 9.87E-06 3.64E-05 α /SF310 11.50 4.88E-03 7.72E-03 1.10E-03 1.60E-03 1.32E-09 3.28E-07 SF 311 11.20 1.68E-01 4.73E-02 3.47E-02 1.71E-02 2.43E-07 4.25E-09 SF 312 11.22 2.27E-02 4.02E-02 4.20E-03 6.97E-03 1.79E-11 2.22E-11 SF 313 11.02 4.26E-01 1.29E-01 7.60E-02 3.96E-02 5.39E-09 2.24E-13 SF 314 10.76 3.29E-01 6.99E-01 4.84E-02 1.75E-01 5.15E-13 8.66E-16 SF 315 9.43 1.73E+04 1.04E+04 7.27E+03 3.99E+03 1.86E-10 6.38E-18 SF 316 9.19 1.71E+04 7.33E+04 8.70E+03 2.09E+04 3.41E-14 2.04E-20 SF 317 9.93 4.26E+02 2.05E+02 1.28E+02 7.12E+01 7.92E-12 9.44E-23 SF 318 9.93 6.57E+01 2.01E+02 1.88E+01 3.53E+01 1.74E-15 2.26E-25 SF 319 9.84 7.35E+02 3.70E+02 2.20E+02 1.28E+02 4.86E-13 7.81E-28 SF 320 9.68 3.68E+02 1.28E+03 1.18E+02 2.16E+02 1.75E-16 1.53E-30 SF 321 9.53 6.77E+03 3.97E+03 2.34E+03 1.36E+03 3.02E-13 6.21E-33 SF 322 9.37 3.44E+03 1.40E+04 1.28E+03 2.42E+03 1.12E-16 8.92E-36 SF 323 9.12 1.48E+05 1.07E+05 6.75E+04 3.73E+04 6.68E-14 2.01E-38 SF Continued on next page Table 2. Theoretical
α -decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the287−339 120,294−339 122,300−339 124, and306−339 126 isotopes. TheQth.α values are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. Columns (4-7) present theα -decay half-lives calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFMPα , respectively. Columns (8-9) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.In addition, the FRDM
Qα values are used to calculate theα -decay half-lives, and the results are shown in Table 3. For Z = 120 isotopes,296−307 120 would undergoα -decay,308 120 may undergo bothα -decay and SF, and309−327 120 would experience SF. For Z = 122 nuclei,300−309,311 122 would probably undergoα -decay,310,312−315 122 may exhibit both decay modes, and316−331 122 experience SF. The304−315,317 124 isotopes probably undergoα -decay,316,318−320,327 124 have bothα -decay and SF, and321−335 124 would undergo SF. For Z = 126,308−322,325 126 may experienceα -decay,323,326−335,337,339 126 would probably exhibit two decay modes, and324,336,338 126 would exhibit the SF decay mode. As the adoptedQα values are different in Table 2 and Table 3, the theoreticalα -decay half-lives are slightly different. However, the predicted decay modes from the two sets of results are mostly similar. Both the FRDM and WS4 models are capable of providing accurateQα values for theα -decay calculations.Z A QFRDMα /MeVTα1/2/s Tα1/2/s TSF1/2/s TSF1/2/s Decay mode GLDM GLDM Pα Eq. (20) [55] KPS [54] 120 296 13.59 3.80E-07 7.40E-07 2.84E+04 2.66E+12 α 297 13.65 1.99E-06 1.30E-06 2.37E+07 1.18E+12 α 298 13.24 1.42E-06 2.43E-06 6.02E+04 3.40E+11 α 299 13.74 1.31E-06 5.87E-07 2.58E+07 7.66E+10 α 300 13.69 2.20E-07 3.75E-07 3.80E+03 6.33E+09 α 301 13.62 1.83E-06 1.01E-06 1.67E+06 8.84E+08 α 302 13.56 3.18E-07 5.64E-07 1.17E+02 3.73E+07 α 303 13.52 2.23E-06 1.24E-06 3.32E+04 2.91E+06 α 304 13.55 2.38E-07 4.41E-07 5.87E-01 5.42E+04 α 305 14.26 1.16E-07 5.92E-08 3.40E-01 5.27E+02 α 306 14.27 1.49E-08 2.06E-08 2.24E-06 4.88E+00 α 307 13.62 8.93E-07 2.30E-07 6.53E-05 8.70E-02 α 308 12.97 1.58E-06 1.58E-06 3.20E-08 1.65E-03 α /SF309 11.76 2.43E-03 8.53E-04 9.87E-06 3.64E-05 SF 310 11.28 4.18E-03 7.11E-03 1.32E-09 3.28E-07 SF 311 10.76 5.08E-01 3.32E-01 2.43E-07 4.25E-09 SF 312 10.71 9.12E-02 1.87E-01 1.79E-11 2.22E-11 SF 313 10.50 2.09E+00 1.33E+00 5.39E-09 2.24E-13 SF Continued on next page Table 3. Theoretical
α -decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the296−327 120,300−331 122,304−335 124, and308−339 126 isotopes. TheQth.α values are extracted from the FRDM [65]. Columns (4-5) present theα -decay half-lives calculated with the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFMPα . Columns (6,7) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes. -
We compare our results with those calculated with phenomenological models [78, 79]. For the
α -decay half-lives obtained using the FRDMQα values, we compare our results with those reported in Ref. [78]. Theα -decay and SF half-lives are shown in Fig. 3. The results show that the SF half-lives calculated with the modified equation reported by Bao et al. [55, 78] have an even-odd effect. This is because in Eq. (20), the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon has been considered. The SF half-lives show a trend where with increasing A, thelog10 TSF1/2 values decrease. It appears that the SF equation modified by Refs. [55, 78] is more sensitive to the nuclear strucure [78]. Theα -decay half-lives and SF half-lives reported in this work and Ref. [78] are slightly different. This is because we use FRDM2016 [65] to calculate theQα and shell correction, whereas the results from Ref. [78] are based on FRDM1995 [80]. However, the predicted decay modes for most nuclei are the same.Figure 3. (color online) The
α -decay half-lives and SF half-lives of296−308 120,300−310 122, and304−312 124. Thelog10 Tα1/2 values calculated using the UDL and GLDM are derived from Ref. [78].We compare the
α -decay half-lives calculated with the WS4Qα values with the results from Ref. [79]. Theα -decay half-lives from this work and Ref. [79] are presented in Fig. 4. Thelog10 Tα1/2 values obtained using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) and Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) are from Ref. [79]. The SF half-lives calculated with the KPS equation [54] are exactly the same, and decrease smoothly with increasing A for Z = 120, 122 isotopes. For Z = 124, 126 nuclei, the SF half-lives also show a similar trend, which is consistent with the results presented in Fig. 3. For the319−322 124 and326−329 126 isotopes, the competition betweenα -decay and SF is obvious, indicating that these nuclei may have two decay modes. The results show that with similarQα values, different phenomenological models show good consistency.Figure 4. (color online) The
α -decay half-lives and SF half-lives of295−309 120,301−314 122,307−323 124, and313−331 126. Thelog10 Tα1/2 values calculated with the Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) and Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) are from Ref. [79].As we use a fully phenomenological approach, we compare our results with those from calculations considering microscopic modifications [45]. As generally known, the
Qα values deduced would have an obvious influence on the calculatedα -decay half-lives. A 1 MeV change in theQα value may lead to a change of around three orders of magnitude or more in thelog10 Tα1/2 value. In Ref. [45], different mass tables are used to calculateQα , including the WS4 mass table. Hence, we compare ourlog10 Tα1/2 with thelog10 Tα1/2 value calculated with the WS4 mass model in Ref. [45]. In Fig. 3 from Ref. [45], thelog10 Tα1/2 values of Z = 120,122,124 nuclei have dips atNd = 184, whereNd represents the neutron number of the daughter nucleus. In this work, Fig. 2 shows the same trend for theα -decay half-lives. The above discussion indicates that with similarQα values, the results obtained with the phenomenological approach are highly consistent with the results from calculations considering microscopic modifications [81]. -
We used shell correction induced GLDM to calculate the
α -decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The preformation factorPα used in the model is of two types, where one is a constant for each type of nuclei, which was adopted from a least-squares fit to the known experimental half-lives (N⩾ 152, Z⩾ 82). The other type was calculated using the CFM. We compared our calculations with the experimental data for known nuclei from Fl to Og, and found that all the investigated methods could reproduce theα -decay half-lives well. Subsequently, our method was used to predict theα -decay properties of the even-Z SHN from Z = 120 to 126.The theoretical
Pα values calculated using the CFM are very sensitive to the nuclear structure. ThePα andQα values show similar trends. They both reflect the position of shell structures. However,Pα contains more complex shell structure information as it is adopted from several nearby nuclei. From theQα andPα values, we present some nuclei that might be stable, i.e., Z = 120, N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 206, 218, 228; Z = 122, N = 182,184, 196, 202, 206, 216; and Z = 124, N = 204, 208, 216, 220. With larger proton numbers, more neutrons are needed for a nucleus to be stable.With the information of the
α -decay half-lives, we find that at N = 184, there is no obvious shell structure for Z = 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The304 120 nucleus is predicted to be stable compared with the nearby nuclei. The competition betweenα -decay and SF is increasing evident from Z = 120 to 126. However, the nuclei at around N = 184 would mostly undergoα -decay. The predicted decay modes for287−339 120,294−339 122,300−339 124, and306−339 126 are presented in Table 2.We compared our results with other works, including the results obtained with microscopic calculations. The comparisons showed that the phenomenological and microscopic methods can produce highly similar
α -decay half-lives, when similarQα values are adopted. We suggest the selection of suitableQα values, as theQα values tend to clearly influence the calculations.The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, Beijing Normal University.
Ele. | A | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Royer | UDL | GLDM | GLDM![]() | ||||
Fl | 285 | 10.56 ![]() | 1.00![]() ![]() | 1.60![]() ![]() | 4.27![]() ![]() | 6.61![]() ![]() | 6.57![]() ![]() |
286 | 10.35 ![]() | 1.20![]() ![]() | 1.08![]() ![]() | 1.62![]() ![]() | 3.16![]() ![]() | 3.37![]() ![]() | |
287 | 10.17 ![]() | 4.80![]() ![]() | 1.68![]() ![]() | 5.25![]() ![]() | 5.67![]() ![]() | 6.67![]() ![]() | |
288 | 10.07 ![]() | 6.60![]() ![]() | 5.93![]() ![]() | 1.01![]() ![]() | 1.47![]() ![]() | 1.99![]() ![]() | |
289 | 9.98 ![]() | 1.90![]() ![]() | 5.34![]() ![]() | 1.82![]() ![]() | 1.60![]() ![]() | 2.55![]() ![]() | |
Mc | 287 | 10.76 ![]() | 3.70![]() ![]() | 4.70![]() ![]() | 2.60![]() ![]() | 4.06![]() ![]() | 3.85![]() ![]() |
288 | 10.65 ![]() | 1.74![]() ![]() | 4.49![]() ![]() | 5.05![]() ![]() | 3.57![]() ![]() | 3.47![]() ![]() | |
289 | 10.49 ![]() | 3.30![]() ![]() | 2.23![]() ![]() | 1.37![]() ![]() | 1.67![]() ![]() | 1.82![]() ![]() | |
290 | 10.41 ![]() | 6.50![]() ![]() | 2.00![]() ![]() | 2.25![]() ![]() | 1.26![]() ![]() | 1.51![]() ![]() | |
Lv | 290 | 11 ![]() | 8.30![]() ![]() | 8.94![]() ![]() | 1.21![]() ![]() | 3.00![]() ![]() | 2.88![]() ![]() |
291 | 10.89 ![]() | 1.90![]() ![]() | 8.94![]() ![]() | 2.31![]() ![]() | 3.41![]() ![]() | 3.51![]() ![]() | |
292 | 10.78 ![]() | 1.30![]() ![]() | 3.01![]() ![]() | 4.46![]() ![]() | 8.84![]() ![]() | 1.04![]() ![]() | |
293 | 10.71 ![]() | 5.70![]() ![]() | 2.41![]() ![]() | 6.72![]() ![]() | 8.01![]() ![]() | 1.04![]() ![]() | |
Ts | 293 | 11.32 ![]() | 2.20![]() ![]() | 6.89![]() ![]() | 3.57![]() ![]() | 6.59![]() ![]() | 6.65![]() ![]() |
294 | 11.18 ![]() | 5.10![]() ![]() | 7.25![]() ![]() | 7.98![]() ![]() | 6.45![]() ![]() | 7.23![]() ![]() | |
Og | 294 | 11.82 ![]() | 5.80![]() ![]() | 3.67![]() ![]() | 4.26![]() ![]() | 1.64![]() ![]() | 1.60![]() ![]() |
0.38 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.35 |