0 Up votes0 Down votes

0 views11 pagesDec 25, 2017

fliessbach1976.pdf

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

fliessbach1976.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

- Ettore Majorana
- An Introduction to Signal Detection and Estimation - Second Edition Chapter IV: Selected Solutions
- 11082017am
- 580-3
- Quantum Mechanics
- Lecture 09
- appsc-degreelecturer-2018syllabus
- quant_ENG
- Qprobs
- GRE facts
- Particle in a One Dimensional Box
- 2.3. Schrod-Heisenberg 2-22-07
- MP13QuantumMechanics2.ppt
- 1993_Contributions to the Electromagnetic Wave Theory of Bounded Homogeneous Anisotropic Media
- Density Matrix
- theory of quantum entropy analysis
- Quantum Measure Theory and Irs Interpretation
- Detailed Programme
- 2006-7 Module 113 - lecture 5
- Quantum Physics Meets the Philo - Antonella Corradini

You are on page 1of 11

, Amsterdam

N o t to be reproduced by photoprint or microfilm without written permission from the publisher

O N A B S O L U T E V A L U E S OF ~-DECAY RATES

T. FLIESSBACHt

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., USA

and

H. J. MANG

Technische UniversitiitMiinchen, 8046 Garchiny, Germany

Received 8 August 1975

Abstract: A possible way to remove the discrepancy between calculated and measured ~-widths is

discussed. The decay rates of 212Po and 21°po are computed with the help of shell-model

wave functions for parent and daughter nucleus.

1. Introduction

The discrepancy between calculated and measured ~-widths on tb.e one hand and

the rather good agreement for relative decay rates on the other has long been a cum-

bersome fact for theorists *). In the following we suggest how to possibly remove

this discrepancy. As a first step we offer a thorough criticism of those basic assump-

tions which underly all existing theories of ~-decay.

This is done in sect. 2 where also a general formula for the decay constant is

rederived. In sect. 3 the computational techniques which are used are described,

and sect. 4 contains an application to the decay of Z*2po and 2*°po.

ih a = hie>, (2.1)

~t

with the initial condition

I~k>,=o = [q~a+4), (2.2)

where [~a+47 is the wave function of the parent nucleus, one can obtain the decay

constant in the following way: Write

75

76 T. FLIESSBACH AND H. J. MANG

with

(~EI~e,) = 5(E--E'), (2.4a)

<~elHl~g,> - - E,~(E-E'). (2.4b)

The ket ICe) is of course not an exact eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, but the set [~n)

diagonalizes H in a subspace of the Hilbert space. The wave functions ICe) used

here are given in eq. (2.7) below. Upon inserting I•) ofeq. (2.3) into the Schr6dinger

equation, one obtains with the help of well-known techniques 2)

2 -- 2= [(~a+4lH_Eol~go>12" (2.5)

h

The essential assumption which enters into this derivation is that the width F = h2

is small compared to the kinetic energy Ex of the emitted ~-particle. This assump-

tion, however, is not problematic at all.

The trouble starts as soon as the matrix element (~A+41H-EoI~Eo> is evaluated

with model wave functions for I~a+4) and I~Eo). The wave function of the parent

nucleus [~A+4) is then taken as a generalized shell-model wave function 1) and

I~Eo) is written in the more general case as

[~eo) = E d [ U~,(R~,)X~,~a), (2.6)

V

where Iz~) is the intrinsic wave function of the ~-particle and 1 ~ ) is the wave

function of the daughter nucleus. The function U~,,(R~,)describes the relative motion

of the two nuclei. The index v labels the states of the daughter nucleus that can

be reached in the decay. The symbol d stands for antisymmetrization. The proper

coupling of angular momenta is understood.

For the sake of simplicity only the case of a single 0 ÷ to 0 + transition will be

considered in this paper. In this case the wave function I ~ o ) h a s the simpler

form

I ~ o ) = d l Uv.~,(R~,)Z~~a). (2.7)

Before going on, it should be noted that when I~eo) is introduced into eq. (2.5),

the antisymmetrization operator ~¢ can, of course, be replaced by a factor [-(z)g)-]~.

Obviously the approximate expressions for ICeo) are good approximations only

for not too small values of R~ because all closed channels are neglected in

eqs. (2.6) and (2.7). Being more specific, this means that R~ should certainly be larger

than the rms radius of the daughter nucleus 1). Such a restriction poses no serious

problem provided [~A+4) is eigenfunction of a Hamiltonian H 0 where

nol~a+4> = Eol~a+4>, (2.8)

which coincides with the Hamiltonian H for radii smaller than a radius Ro which

in turn is large enough so that I~o> is still a good approximation at Ro in the sense

g-DECAY RATES 77

just described. Then values of R~ which are smaller than R 0 give no contribution to

the matrix element ( ~ a +41H- Eol~Eo). If, moreover, the relation

with

H = ~

Hiatr+ a _ _ _ A. + W,a(R~),

Hintr

2M.

is valid for values of R~ larger than R 0, then the matrix element can be brought into

the form

N Z

That such a radius can be found, is the basis of the theory. Attempts have been

made to avoid the introduction of such a radius 3), but then the question arises how

to compute I~Eo) for small values of R.

In the derivation presented here, the next step is the calculation of U~,(R). It can

definitely not be calculated from a Schr6dinger equation of the type

2M~,

where V ( R ) is an ordinary energy independent potential. Clearly eq. (2.11) has as

the consequence that

(U~[ U~,) = 6 ( E - E ' ) , (2.12)

and this equation contradicts eq. (2.4a), as can be shown in the following way:

We define 4)

,J

This normalization of UE deviates from the normalization to a di-function (eq. (2.12))

and this deviation has a drastic effect on the final result.

78 T. FLIESSBACI-/AND H. J. MANG

eq. (2.4a) just discussed. Eq. (2.4b), however, leads to a Schr6dinger equation for

UE with a non-hermitian Hamiltonian which contradicts eq. (2.11). Therefore, one

cannot use a real local potential to calculate UE in a consistent theory. One way to

circumvent such difficulties is to introduce a new function 4)t

= (1- (2.16)

with a real local potential. This can be seen immediately for the normalization

(eq. (2.4a)), because the states [ d ( 1 - / ~ ) * - * r S ( R - R ~ ) z ~ # a ) are exactly normalized

to 5(R-R'). The Schr6dinger equation for f2E is discussed in detail in ref. 5). The

matrix element (#A+4[H-Eo[#Eo) can now be written

2M~ d ~ n, ~ dR R= Rodr2'

with

GN(R) = (1 - g)-~G(R). (2.19)

In practice this means that one must substitute GN for G in the usual a-decay theory.

At the same time, UE has to be replaced by f2E. In practice this means no change

at all, because Ur has been calculated always as if it were f2E.

The essential problem now is the calculation of the operator ( 1 - / ~ ) - ~ . The

treatment will be restricted to states I~A+4) and I~A) with angular momentum zero,

as already indicated. The radial wave functions of the single-particle states are taken

as oscillator functions.

Two possibilities have been considered to calculate eigenvalues and eigenfunctions

of/~:

(a) The state I d S ( R - R ~ ) x ~ ) is expanded in a series of oscillator wave functions.

The coefficients of the expansion are denoted by gk(R) where k stands for the set of

quantum numbers which determine a four-particle state uniquely:

¢ If the operator K has eigenvaluesequal to 1, we restrict the operator to the space orthogonal to

the corresponding eigenfunctions.

o~-DECAY R A T E S 79

k

The sum runs over all configurations k which contain at least one occupied level

of I~A>. Therefore the sum is not finite and R could not be calculated with the

required accuracy within a reasonable finite configuration space. For the

simplified model where the oscillator constants of [X~> and kbA> are set equal, (3.1)

is a direct expansion in eigenfunctions o f / ( and can be easily evaluated. Two examples

are given in ref. s).

(b) The operator R is written as a matrix in the space of functionsfi(R) defined by

fi(R) = n exp ( - 2fl(R- D,)2). (3.2)

4

f~(R,)x, = ]--I q h s ( r j - D , ) x ° ( 1, 2)X°( 3, 4), (3.3)

j=l

where qbls are harmonic oscillator functions of a 1S state and go° are singlet spin

functions for protons and neutrons respectively.

Because of (3.3), a matrix element of 1 - R turns out to be just the overlap of

two Slater determinants

Furthermore the angular integration can be carried out analytically and one is left

with functions hi(R).

The only problem with this procedure is whether a choice of points D i can be

made so that the space {hi} is sufficient to describe/~. Because of the non-orthogonality

of the basis the distance between neighbouring points D i and Di+ 1 cannot be chosen

smaller than a certain AD which is determined by the number of relevant digits in the

numerical calculation. With sixteen relevant digits and for equidistant points D i,

D can be choosen as small as 0.4 fm. On the other hand with D = 0.4 fm the set of

functions {hi) can be used to describe smoothly varying functions and oscillating

functions with a maximum wave number kmax = 2rc/2AD ~ 8 fm-1. Obviously/~

is non-zero only if the wave function of the 0~-particle and the wave function of the

daughter nucleus 1@4> overlap. Therefore the spatial position of the ~-particle

must be in the region of non-zero I4',t> and it must not move too fast. This means that

the important regions are given by R, < 1.2A ~ fm and k~ < 4kF = 5.4 fm-1

Therefore the space described above is sufficient to determine K with reasonable

accuracy. Numerically the convergence of the results could be shown for AD tending

towards 0.4 fm. The relative error in the result for K is then 10 -4 or smaller.

It is clear from this discusssion that for sufficiently large R the function g2r of

eq. (2.16) must tend towards liE. Therefore the question is now, whether R 0 can be

80 T. FLIESSBACH A N D H. J. M A N G

chosen in this "asymptotic" region and at the same time be small enough to allow

the approximation of I~A+4) by a shell-model wave function. The answer to this

question was implicitely given by many authors (including one of us H.J.M.) in

many papers and was yes. In the following section we shall demonstrate that in the

light of the numerical calculations for the decays of 212Po and 21°Po the answer

must be changed to no.

The two 0t-transitions

210~ 206 4

8¢V0126 --* s 2 P b 1 2 ¢ q - 2 H e 2 ,

212~ 208 4

aerO~28 -+ a2Pb,26+2He2,

were chosen to test the theory, because these are the cases in which one can hope

to approximate the wave functions reasonably well by simple shell-model wave

functions. The configuration of the protons in Po was taken as (lh~)2+ and the con-

figuration of the neutrons was (2g~)02+ for 212p0 and (3P~)o 2 for 2°6pb.

The oscillator constants are ~ = 0.17 fm -2 for 1~,4+4~ and I~a) in the region

around 2°apb, and fl = 0.47 fm -2 for [Z~).

In figs. 1 and 2 the reduced amplitudes G(R) and GN(R) are shown. In a very simple

physical picture one writes the decay constant as

2 = p=vP, (4.1)

where p~ is the at-particle density, v the velocity of the ~-particle, and P the barrier

penetrability. Here we identify p~ with R2[GNI 2 while earlier p~ was identified with

R21GI 2. That the latter identification is incorrect has been already indicated and is

discussed in detail in ref. s). Of course, we shall show that eq. (2.5) together with

eq. (2.18) leads to an expression for the decay constant which is essentially the

same as eq. (4.1). As a first result we read offfigs. 1 and 2: On the basis of pure shell-

model wave functions the ~-particle density p~ = R E ] G N [ 2 is larger than usually

thought (when p~ = R21G[2) by a factor of 300 to 400 on the average. The factor is

approximately 100 at the nuclear surface (R ~ 7 fm) where p= has its maximum.

The final problem to be discussed is the choice of a radius Ro. When such a

choice has been made the decay constant can be calculated. We first note that in

the surface region of the nucleus GN and also G, decrease like e x p ( - ? R 2 ) . This

means that the effective potential felt by the ~-particle when emerging from the nucleus

rises drastically in the nuclear surface. Such an effective potential can be calculated

from G~

- E . -- RG,. (4.2/

I t J I | J ~ J I I

(~hg/z)o2 (3p1,,2)~

R.G N A 21°Po ~ ~ +2°6pb - - - - RG. IO (Ih912)(~ (29112)(~

T

E

% 'E R,

% C~

0 5 0 5

R (fm) R (fro)

Fig. 1. The functions G and GN ('or 21°Po --> z°6Pb+c¢. Fig. 2. The functions G and GN for 212Po --~ z°aPb+c(.

82 T. FLIESSBACH AND H. J. MANG

i I I I I I I

30 R GN(212po) Igo's best fit

(Woods -Saxon )

Igo's exponenti¢ll Veff(GN)

potentiol

20

/'\.

>

®I0

. -- //

-I0

1 I I I I I

6 T 8 I0 II 12 13 14

R (fro)

Fig. 3. The effective potential Veff(GN) as defined in eq. (4.2) is compared to two of Igo's potentials

which fit the scattering data on 2°Spb.

s-nucleus potential, however, such a rapid rise occurs only at R = R a + R which is

substantially larger than R a + , as can be seen in fig. 3.

We cannot but conclude that R0, the channel radius, must be chosen smaller than

7.0 fm in the cases considered here. F r o m 6.2 fm to 7.0 fm eq. (4.2) yields an

effective potential which is approximately equal - 20 MeV. Below 6.2 fm Veff looses

its meaning at the zeros o f GN where it becomes singular• The reason is that GN

is not really solution o f a Schr6dinger equation with a local potential. Because f2E,

on the other hand, is taken as the solution o f just such an equation it can only be

joined to GN in the region mentioned above, i.e. for values o f R 0 between 6.2 and

7.0 fm. Then the value o f the decay constant will be independent o f the exact

choice o f Ro within these limits.

O n the basis o f these assumptions we can n o w proceed to a calculation o f

the absolute value o f the decay constant. According to eqs. (2.5) and (2.18) the decay

constant 2 is given by t

2 -- 2zr h 2 R 2 GN t912~ OGN f2 E . (4.3)

h 2M~ t3R tgR ~=Ro

* The integration on angles has been performed in eq. (4.3), and hence Gn and "Qea depend

only on R[see ref. 5)].

or-DECAY RATES 83

2 = -1p62, (4.4)

h

where P is the barrier penetrability. The WKB approximation for P yields

P = exp -2 ,

(4.5)

q= ~ VR-E ,

For values of R < R 1 the WKB approximation gives t

with

K(R) = [2M~

m h2 ( E - V ( R )

)]~, (4.7)

where V(R) is the a-nucleus potential. Upon inserting (4.6) in (4.3) one obtains for the

reduced width

2M~ R 2 2R o K(Ro) 1 - iR o K ~R

Because RoK(Ro) >> 1, formula (4.8) can be further simplified.

,:o

2M~ Ro2 ~ - (R° GN)2+ - - " (4.9)

K2(Ro) \ aR l J

Finally we must check whether the reduced width is indeed approximately constant

for 6.2 f m < Ro < 7 fm and how it agrees with experimental data. In an exact

theory, of course, the result of the calculation should be completely independent of

the choice of R0. Here we can only hope to have this independence in the limited

region indicated above, because only there GN and OE can be considered as solutions

of a Schr6dinger equation with the same potential. Unfortunately this potential

is not determined by scattering data, because they are insensitive to the value of the

potential for distances smaller than 8.5 fro. We therefore decided to use the value

which follows from eq. (4.2) and the calculated GN. This prescription gives K(Ro) = 2

fm-1, and with this value our results are indeed nearly constant for a channel radius

R o in the range 6.2 fm < Ro -< 7.0 fro, the variation being less than 10%.

t Normalization corresponds to J(Ro)/j(oo)= P and Jf2E*(R)~E,(R)R2dR = tS(E--E') where j is

the current.

84 T. FLIESSBACH AND H. J. MANG

Besides eq. (4.9) we also used a formula which expresses the reduced width as

a product of a single-particle width 62p. [ref. 6)] and a spectroscopic factor S.

In our case S is given by

(In earlier calculations G was used instead of GN.) The width t52.p,is defined in

ref. 6). We evaluated the expression given there but inserted a single-particle wave

function (single-~) which had the same number of nodes as GN (or G). The number of

nodes is ten for 2t°po and eleven for 21Zpo.

TABLE 1

6 2 in units of 10 -2 MeV

~2 from

Mang's formula ~2 = ~52s.p.S c52= F,xp/P

Calculated from GN

2t2po 0.7 1.6 2 . 9 . . . 15.6

2t°po 0.8 1.2 0.4... 4

Calculated from G

212p0 0.006 0.004 2 . 9 . . . 15.6

2t°po 0.004 0.0035 0.4... 4

penetrabilities from two different ~-nucleus potentials. One was Igo's best fit 1)

to scattering of oc-particles on lead and the other Igo's exponential potential 1).

Experimental and calculated results are compared in table 1. Clearly we can reproduce

the oc-width of 210po even without configuration mixing. On the other hand it comes

as no surprise that the width of 212p0 cannot be reproduced without admixing

other shell-model configurations. From the fact tbat 212p0 is just doubly magic 2°spb

plus an ~-particle, one would expect that quite a substantial admixing of bigher con-

figurations is needed to explain the ~-width. This problem is under investigation.

One of us (T.F.) thanks the "Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft" for a grant and the

Nuclear Chemistry Division of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for the hospitality

extended to him.

References

1) H . J . Mang, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 14 (1964) 1

2) H. Casimir, Physica 1 (1934) 193

g-DECAY RATES 85

3) V. I. Furman, S. Holan, S. G. Kadmensky and G. Stratan, Nucl. Phys. A2,26 (1974) 131;

K. Harada and E. A. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. 169 (1968) 818;

S. G. Kadmensky and V. E. Kalechits, Yad. Fiz. 12 (1970) 70

4) H. Feshbach, Documents on modern physics: Reaction dynamics (Gordon and Breach, New

York, 1973)

5) T. Fliessbach, Z. Phys. A272 (1975) 39

6) R. G. Thomas, Prog. Theor. Phys. 12 (1954) 253

7) G. Igo, Phys. Roy. 115 (1959) 1665

- Ettore MajoranaUploaded bysamarkayta
- An Introduction to Signal Detection and Estimation - Second Edition Chapter IV: Selected SolutionsUploaded byShakil Ahmed Chowdhury
- 11082017amUploaded byGauravKinng
- 580-3Uploaded byNuruddin Zanki Basith
- Quantum MechanicsUploaded byAnonymous wH8gUfAFn
- Lecture 09Uploaded byBeauponte Pouky Mezonlin
- appsc-degreelecturer-2018syllabusUploaded byPulibabu
- quant_ENGUploaded byPriya Talreja
- QprobsUploaded byノエル ビクトリア
- GRE factsUploaded byMohamed IBrahim
- Particle in a One Dimensional BoxUploaded byAgnivesh Sharma
- 2.3. Schrod-Heisenberg 2-22-07Uploaded bykapil
- MP13QuantumMechanics2.pptUploaded byAhmad Fikry Iskandar
- 1993_Contributions to the Electromagnetic Wave Theory of Bounded Homogeneous Anisotropic MediaUploaded bykhungcua10
- Density MatrixUploaded bykunal3902323
- theory of quantum entropy analysisUploaded byapi-186101394
- Quantum Measure Theory and Irs InterpretationUploaded byThyago Mendes
- Detailed ProgrammeUploaded byRene Kotze
- 2006-7 Module 113 - lecture 5Uploaded byapi-19928045
- Quantum Physics Meets the Philo - Antonella CorradiniUploaded byAnonymous QlPAj0rl9
- Physical SciencesUploaded bySunny Payasi
- Sumilla de Las AsignaturasUploaded byG
- Pruning the Multi VerseUploaded byFrederick Turner
- Lect33 SpinUploaded byjestamil
- Eugene Demler and Fei Zhou- Spinor Bosonic Atoms in Optical Lattices: Symmetry Breaking and FractionalizationUploaded byPomac232
- Quantum Theroy Consciousness and BeingUploaded byBasti
- CHEM F213 Handout 2016Uploaded byShubh
- Albert Einstein xavi.pptxUploaded byelia pinillos
- On the Nature of ScienceUploaded byconditioned_genesis1504
- Mean Preserving SpreadUploaded bymokus2000

- Santos-elementary Algebra BookUploaded byWalter Won
- Edexcel C3 Cheat SheetUploaded byAli Alanni
- Method for Solving Fuzzy Integro Differential Equation by Using Fuzzy Laplace TransformationUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- Fft Tutorial PDFUploaded byLaura
- L19 MV Controllability RGAUploaded byanon_123108908
- Pair of Lines Second Degree General EquationUploaded byarjunsai
- La Place TransformUploaded byaalokjain
- I.L. Kantor, A.S. Solodovnikov-Hypercomplex Numbers_ an Elementary Introduction to Algebras (1989)Uploaded byFidelis Castro
- Or Note Farhan IdzniUploaded bySyafiq Ibnu Radzuan
- Calculus III Chapter 4Uploaded byasdf
- A Guide to Positive Matrix FactorizationUploaded bySinisa Gale Gacic
- ES 1 03 - Geometric Construction 3.pdfUploaded bychristie Merloin
- ACJC Promo PaperUploaded byMathathlete
- 2nd Puc Mathematics Model Paper Above AverageUploaded byKartik Durg
- 02.3 Chapter2 Solving Linear Programs.pdfUploaded byAshoka Vanjare
- Hatibovic_Alen_tezisfuzet.pdfUploaded byHai Tung
- Numerical methods (1).pptUploaded byJitendra S
- Fifty Famous Curves - Stephen KokoskaUploaded bygauss202
- DISEÑOS PENDULARES.pdfUploaded byDavid Cristhian
- Water Filling Capacity Analysis in Large MIMO SystemsUploaded byHuyHungHãn
- GATE Electronics and Communication Engineering SyllabusUploaded byAnkitjee86
- frequency-domain-analysis-and-stability-determination.pptxUploaded bysureshlls
- PPT 05 Inventory Management DiscountsUploaded bykavish09
- Sir Dawood December Last Assignment by CA Study MaterialUploaded byAhsan Saeed
- Complex Geometry - Jean-Pierre DemaillyUploaded byChristopher Breeden
- AZ_Field10_StudyGuideUploaded byntnewelljr
- 1 PetE211 Ch4 OD NewUploaded byrestoffical
- Two-Point Perspective.pptUploaded byAnkitaBansalGarg
- Exponential Equations Base eUploaded bySadharshan Singh
- 030130301 - Differential EquationUploaded bykrunal02895

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.