Professor Mahadevan's PHD Thesis

Contents
Acknowledgements vi
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
List of Symbols xi
Abstract xii
1 General Introduction 1
1.1 Alpha decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Research objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Review of WKB and S-matrix Methods 13
2.1 The WKB approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1 WKB methods for three dimensional case . . . . . . . 19
i
2.2 Analytical S-Matrix theory and resonances . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.1 Definition of Jost function and S-Matrix . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2 S-Matrix, phase shift and cross section . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Analytical properties of Jost functions and S-Matrix . . . . . . 27

2.3.1 Bound states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.2 Resonance states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3.3 Unphysical(virtual) states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4 Analytical S-Matrix theory for Coulomb nuclear problem . . . 32
3 Comparative Study of S-matrix and WKB Methods for Resonance
Calculations 40
3.1 Assault frequency factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2 Model calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2.1 Rectangular pocket cum barrier potential . . . . . . . 45
3.2.2 Quasi bound state wave function . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.3 Smoother potential barrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3 Role of the tail region of the potential barrier . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4 Alpha Decay in Super Heavy Elements 66

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2 Review of experimental work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.3 Status of theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.4 Alpha decay process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.4.1 Semi empirical relations for α-decay half lives . . . . 74

4.4.2 Q-values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
ii
4.5 Relativistic mean field theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.6 The microscopic nuclear potentials by double folding model . 79
5 Calculation of α-Decay Energies and Half-lives 83
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.2 Details of calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.3 Results and discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.4 Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.5 Potential for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
A Numerical Techniques 101
A.1 Runge-Kutta method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

A.2 Newton-Raphson method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
References 105
List of Publications 117
iii
Acknowledgements
I express my deep gratitude to Prof C. S. Shastry, my thesis supervisor who has

been a source of inspiration and motivation to carry out my research in the field
of Nuclear Physics. His dedication, pursuit for excellence and uncompromis-
ing nature for accuracy and rigor, with a personal touch, has been a constant
driving force for me throughout this work.
With great respect and humility I wish to thank Brahmachari Abhayamrita
Chaithanya, our Chief Operating Officer for his encouragement and support
during the entire course of my work.
I thank our Vice Chancellor Prof. P. Venkat Rangan and our Dean (Admin-
istration) Prof. S. Krishnamoorthy for the support and words of encourage-
ment.
I record my heartfelt thanks to Dr. N. S. Pandian, Chairman, CPGP for
the constant encouragement,guidance and his dedication for maintaining high
quality research work.
I thank Dr. M. P. Chandrasekharan, Dean (Engineering) for his support to
carry out this work.
I thank Prof. G. Prema, the Chairperson of Doctoral committee for her
constant encouragement during the course of this work. I also thank Dr. D.
Kannan and Prof. C. R. Ramakrishnan, Doctoral committee members for their
generous support.
I thank Prof Y. K. Gambhir, IIT Mumbai and Ameeya Bhagawat, IIT Ahemed-
abad for the valuable discussions and for providing us with the RMF potentials
iv
of the alpha decay chains.
I thank Prof. B. Sahu, and Dr. S. K. Agarwalla of North Orissa University
for the constant encouragement and support through out the course of this work
I thank Prof. N. Narayana Pillai for his encouragement during the course
of my work. I thank Prof. P. S. Radhakrishnan who was my teacher right from
my under graduation for his constant encouragement and motivation to carry
out this work.
I thank Prof. A. K. Balakrishnan Nair for the words of encouragement and
for spending time to go through the manuscript and providing me with valuable
suggestions.
I am indebted to Prof. V. M. Rajalakshmi, Prof. T. Ramachandran, Prof.
K. I. Ramachandran, Prof. K. P. Soman, Prof. K. Mohandas, Prof. K. B.
M. Nambudiripad, Prof. K. Kannan , Prof. K. A. Narayanankutty and Prof.
P. Achutahan for their interest and words of encouragement during the entire
period of this research work.
I thank Dr. M. Sivakumar for rendering his precious time to help in format-
ting the thesis which has enormously helped me in bringing the thesis in this
shape.
I thank Ms. P. Prema for the constant support during the course work and
also for spending her time in reading the manuscript carefully and trying to
make it error free.
I thank all faculty members of Department of Sciences, especially Ms. A.
Umamaheswari, Mr. K. Narayanankutty and Mr. T. G. Satheesh Babu my
colleagues for the support that they gave me during the entire period of my
course work and research work.
Finally, I record, with deep concern, the emotional support that I received
from my family members which include my mother, brother, sister, especially
my wife S. Padmapriya, my daughter M. Sreelakshmi and my son M. Siddharth
during the entire period of this work.
S. Mahadevan
v
List of Figures
2.1 Potential well-linear turning point occurs at x1 and x2 . . . . . . 17

2.2 Tunneling through a potential barrier. The turning points are
x1 and x2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 Typical alpha daughter potential. The turning points are r1 , r2
and r3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4 Illustration of Singularities of S ` (k) in the k plane of Yukawa
potential of range µ-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1 Typical one-particle potential for alpha-decay used by Elton. . 43

3.2 Distribution of zeros and poles of S-matrix for a rectangular
potential in k-plane. Potential parameters are U1 =10, a=3,
b=5. When the imaginary part of the poles and zeros are very
small, they are very close to each other and hence indistin-
guishable in the figure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3 Variation of the magnitude of typical wave function for quasi
bound states[QB] by the potential given byEq.(3.12)with po-
tential parameters U1 = 10,a=3,b=5 and the bound states[B]
for potential given by Eq. (3.24)with potential parameters U1 =
10,a=3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.4 Plot of the potential given by Eq. (3.25). Potential parameters
are Uo =10, rz =4.5, c1 =1.2, c2 =1.2, a1 = 0.12, a2 = 0.12 . . . . 53
3.5 Plot of the potential given in Eq. (3.26).Potential parameters
are Uo = 10, ro = 4, a1 = 1.5, a2 = 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
vi
3.6 Plot of the potential given by Eq.(3.27).Potential parameters
are Uo = −16,Uco = 28, rz = 7.5,rc = 7.5,a = 0.5,b = 2. . . . 59
3.7 Plot of the potential given by Eq.(3.28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 3-Dimensional rendering of the theoretical Island of Stability

(adapted from en.wikipedia.org). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.2 Periodic table with elements colored according to the half-life
of their most stable isotope . (adapted from en.wikipedia.org) . 68
4.3 Geometry of double folding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.1 The observed α - decay chains originating from the super heavy
elements (A=277, Z=112) and (A=269, Z=110). . . . . . . . 86
5.2 The microscopic numerical α - nucleus (A=269, Z=108) po-
tential fitted with the WS shape. Parameters are: Vo = -78.0
MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz = 7.6013 fm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.3 The microscopic numerical α - nucleus (A=253, Z=100) po-
tential fitted with the WS shape. Parameters are: Vo = -78.0
MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz = 7.598 fm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.4 Comparison of log τ1/2 values obtained using empirical for-
mula (EF) and S-Matrix (SM) method. The Q-value used in
the EF are the one which was obtained using SM method. . . . 98
vii
List of Tables
3.1 Pocket resonances using S-matrix method and comparison of

resonance widths from S-matrix and WKB methods for the po-
tential given in Eq.(3.12). We have used the units fm−2 for en-
ergy, fm −1 for k p and fm for length. In the calculation of widths
from both methods resonance energies ER (SM) obtained by
SM method are used. The results obtained from Eqs. (3.16)
and (3.15) are represented by Γ2R (WKB) and Γ2R (WKB*) re-
spectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2 Quasi Bound states energy positions(ER ) for Eq.(3.12) and bound
state energy positions (Eb ) for Eq.(3.24). We have used the
units fm−2 for energy, and fm for length. Potential parame-
ters for Eq.(3.12)are U1 =10, a=3, b=5 and for Eq. (3.24)are
U1 =10, a=3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3 Resonance poles and comparison of half widths from S-matrix
and WKB method for smoother potential given by Eq.(3.25).
ER (SM) and ER (WKB) denote the resonance energies ob-
tained using SM and WKB methods respectively. Units are
as stated in Table 3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
viii
3.4 Comparison of half widths from S-matrix and WKB method
for smoother potential given by Eq.(3.25). Γ2R (WKB)denotes
the half width computed using the Elton’s approach . Γ2R (WKB1)
denotes the half width computed using the simple expression
for A f = 2R v
. Γ2R (WKB2) denotes the half width computed
v̄ ΓR
using the expression forA f = 2R . 2 (WKB3) denotes the half
width computed using the expression for A f = v2R rm
. Units are
as stated in Table 3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.5 Pocket resonances using S-matrix method and WKB meth-
ods for the potentials given in Eq.(3.26). In the calculation
of widths using SM method, resonance energies ER (S M) ob-
tained by SM method is used. Units are same as in Table 3.1 . 58
3.6 Comparison of resonance widths from S-matrix and WKB meth-
ods for the potentials given in Eq. (3.26). In the calculation
of widths from both methods, resonance energies ER (S M) ob-
tained by SM method are used. Γ2R (WKB1)denotes the half
width computed using the simple expression for A f = 2R v
. Γ2R
(WKB2) denotes the half width computed using the expression
v̄
for A f = 2R . Γ2R (WKB3) denotes the half width computed us-
ing the expression for A f = v2R
rm
. Units are same as in Table
3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.7 Pocket resonance position and width using SM method for the
potentials given in Eq.(3.27). Commmon potential parameters
are rz = 7.5,rc = 7.5,a = 0.5,b = 2. Γ2R (WKB) denotes the half
width computed using the expression for A f = v2R rm
. Units are
same as in Table 3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
ΓR
3.8 Comparison of 2
generated by SM method and WKB type
v
formula using assault frequency = 2R for the potential given in
Eq (3.28). In the latter the tail region has no role if ER > U2
. Units are same as in Table 3.1. The symbol* indicates the
resonances states with ER < U2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
ix
4.1 The different sets of Lagrangian parameters commonly used
in the RMF/RHB calculations. The masses are in MeV. All
the coupling constants are dimensionless, except g2 which is
expressed in terms of f m−1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.1 Comparison of numerical potential V f m (r) obtained using tρρ

folding model and its parameterization by Woods-Saxon po-
tential Vws (r) using χ2 and volume integrals defined in Eq. (5.2)
and Eq. (5.3) respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.2 Q values (in MeV) and log τ1/2 obtained from S-Matrix (SM)
and WKB methods. The calculated WKB half lives using the
S-Matrix Q-values are listed under the columns log τ1/2 SM-Q.
The results in the columns indicated as log τ1/2 SM and log τ1/2
WKB are based on S-Matrix and WKB methods respectively.
The Woods Saxon potential parameters used for nuclear po-
tential are Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz = rz A1/3
D with
rz = 1.2 − (AD − 249)2 × 3.27 × 10−5 fm. . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.3 Q-SM and log τ1/2 (SM) are the Q-values (in MeV) and log τ1/2
obtained from S-Matrix (SM) method. log τ1/2 (EF) are ob-
tained from the empirical formula (EF) (Eq. 4.4 to 4.7). The
Q-values used in the EF are obtained from S-Matrix method.
Woods Saxon potential parameters used for nuclear potential
are Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz = rz A1/3
D with rz = 1.2 − (AD −
249)2 × 3.27 × 10−5 fm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
x
List of Symbols
The list of some of the important symbols used in the thesis is given below
with their description.
Symbol Description
T Transmission co-efficient
Af Assault Frequency factor
F` (±k) Jost functions
S ` (k) Partial wave S-matrix
λ Decay constant
λd De-broglie wavelength
h Planck’s constant
ER Resonance Energy
Γ Decay width
τ1/2 Half life
τ Mean life
f` (±k, r) Jost solutions
Mιη,`+ 21 (2ιkr) Whittacker functions
W±ιη,`+ 21 (±2ιkr) Whittacker functions
F1 (a, c; x) Confluent hypergeometric function
J`+ 21 (kr) Bessel function
(1)
H`+ 1 (kr) Hankel function
2
F`C (±k) Jost functions for Coulomb problem
S Cl (k) Coulomb S-matrix
F` (η, kr) Regular Coulomb wave function
G` (η, kr) Irregular Coulomb wave function
xi
Abstract
One of the most exciting fields in nuclear physics in recent times is the produc-
tion, identification and study of super heavy nuclei. It has been possible to syn-
thesize nuclei upto Z =118 in the laboratory. With the discovery of many super
heavy elements beyond Z=100 and their decay processes involving, among
others, α-decay chains have revived interest in the careful analysis of Q-values
of α-decay and the corresponding decay constant. For the study of α-decay
one requires a reliable input of α-daughter nucleus potential. Using the latest
developments in mean field theory methods, many potentials for many pairs of
α-daughter nuclei systems have become available. For example, using explic-
itly calculated neutron and proton densities in the double folding model (tρρ
approximation) one can generate the alpha-nucleus potentials.
The most commonly used simple method to study α-decay is to treat it as
a tunneling problem and evaluate the decay constant or life time in terms of
transmission across the Coulomb barrier and assault frequency at the decay
energy. Further, it is also possible to evaluate the decay energy using WKB
type approximation for bound states. It should be noted that the WKB formula
is semi-classical approximation having its own limitations and essentially takes
into account only the barrier felt by the decaying state as far as the determina-
tion of the transmission co-efficient (T) is concerned. Input from the potential
pocket region is only in terms of assault frequency for which classical expres-
sion is often used. The potential beyond the outermost turning point has no
role in this approach. On the other hand, one notices that formation and de-
xii
cay of the Quasi bound(QB) state associated with α-decay is more accurately
described by the full partial wave Schrödinger equation and hence the com-
putation of QB state parameters within the frame work of complete solution
of Schrödinger equation is desirable. Analytic S-matrix theory of potential
scattering provides a frame work for undertaking such a task.
In analytic S-matrix theory two body scattering by a central potential is
studied in terms of the S-matrix. The partial wave S-matrix in its mathemati-
cal structure as a function of momentum (or equivalently energy) extended to
complex plane gives a unified picture of bound states, resonances and contin-
uum states in terms of the singularities of the S- matrix. Resonance can be
visualized as a positive energy state with finite width. If the resonance is very
sharp, it corresponds to a long lived quasi-bound state of the two body system.
The alpha decaying systems that we considered can be thought of as the quasi-
bound states of daughter-alpha system and all the techniques and methods of
S-matrix theory can be fruitfully used to obtain in a comprehensive way both
the energy and life time of such a state. Unlike WKB method, this approach is
exact in principle and valid for a large class of potentials and main difficulties
are mainly in the computational domain.
In Chapter 2 of the thesis we give a brief review of S-matrix and WKB
methods for the study of resonance states along with its generalization to Coulomb
- nuclear scattering. In Chapter 3, as part of general study we demonstrate the
reliability of WKB methods for calculating decay energy and widths by com-
paring the results with more exact S-matrix methods for several illustrative
potentials.
In Chapter 4 we give a brief review of the topics related to alpha decay
of superheavy elements. The microscopically derived α-daughter potentials
for the parents appearing in the α chain of the superheavy element (A=277,
Z=110) and Ds(A = 269, Z = 110) were used in the double folding (tρρ)
approximation to generate the α -daughter nucleus potential. These potentials
were approximated by Woods Saxon(WS) potential with same strength and
diffuseness parameters with a small dependance on the mass of the daughter
nucleus. This global WS potential is used to calculate the Q values and the half-
lives of alpha decaying systems using both S-matrix and WKB methods. The
xiii
WKB results compare well with those of S-matrix. However, differences do
occur when log τ1/2 is very large its calculation using S-matrix method causes
numerical difficulties. Details of these calculations and discussion of the results
are included in Chapter 5.
Based on our calculations, we find that if only order of the half widths are
what is needed, it is reasonable to use WKB type formula for the calculation,
but if more details of half widths are required, more exact SM method is to
used.
xiv
1
General Introduction
One of the most exciting fields in nuclear physics in recent times is the pro-
duction, identification and study of super heavy nuclei [1–12]. It has been
possible to synthesize nuclei upto Z =118 in the laboratory [12]. Superheavy
nuclei present an exciting challenge to the existing nuclear theories as their

very existence is a quantum effect, the liquid drop barrier being either absent
or negligibly small. Predictions from theory plays a very important role in the
identification of nuclei in the super heavy region.
In the early days of nuclear science itself, Hahnn and Strassmann(1939)
discovered the possibility that a heavy nucleus might “divide itself into two
nuclei” and appropriately named it as nuclear fission. Applying the charged

liquid-drop model of the nucleus (Gamow, 1930) [13], nuclear fission was ex-
1
plained quite naturally. It was also shown that fission will likely limit the num-
ber of elements to be 100-125. These numbers were arrived from the balance
of two fundamental nuclear parameters: the strength of the attractive nuclear
surface tension and the repulsive Coulomb force [3].

Properties of nuclei are not smooth, uniform functions of the proton and
neutron numbers, but show deviations from uniformity, as evidenced, for ex-
ample, by the measured atomic masses. At the “magic” proton (or neutron)
numbers 2, 8, 20, 28, 50 and 82 the nuclei have an increased binding energy
relative to the average trend. As far as neutron numbers are concerned N=126
is also identified as a magic number. Further, the highest stability is observed
in the case of the doubly magic nuclei. Other special properties of these stable
nuclei are that they are spherical and resist deformation.
Production of heavy and super heavy elements beyond uranium is done in

the laboratory artificially. Up to the element fermium, neutron capture in high
flux reactors and successive β− decay is used to build elements one by one.
Beyond fermium, elements are produced by heavy-ion reactions generated by
the bombardment of heavy element targets with heavy ions from an accelerator.
Various combinations of projectiles and targets are in principle possible for

the synthesis of heavy elements; actinide targets irradiated by light projectiles
of elements from neon to calcium, targets of lead and bismuth irradiated by
projectiles from calcium to krypton, and symmetric combinations, like tin plus
tin, up to samarium plus samarium.
First accelerators used for the production of heavy elements were the cy-
clotrons in Berkley, California and later in Dubna, Russia. Larger and more
powerful cyclotrons were built in Dubna for the investigations of reactions us-
2
ing projectiles near calcium. The UNILAC (Universal Linear Accelerator) was
constructed in Darmstadt, Germany aiming at the acceleration of ions as heavy
as uranium.
Among other things, the study of decay properties of superheavy elements,

primarily by α emissions has become an important area of research [14–26].
This study presents a unique opportunity for probing the nuclear density in
this mass region where other common methods such as scattering are not yet
possible. α-decay is understood as tunneling through the potential barrier by
the particle. The potential barrier depends on the density profile of the daughter
nucleus. Thus, α- decay life times may provide a stringent test of the ability of
nuclear structure theories to predict nuclear density.
1.1 Alpha decay
Theoretical and experimental studies of nuclei over the past several years have
revealed that the nucleons constituting a nucleus are not uniformly distributed
inside a nucleus but form clusters. Of all such clusters, the one formed by two
protons and two neutrons is the most studied one because of its high symmetry
and binding energy. This particle is referred to as α particle, although its prop-
erties inside a nucleus may not be the same as that of a free α particle, due to
the influence of the surrounding nucleons. Some unstable nuclei spontaneously
emit α particle and this phenomenon, discovered at the very beginning of the
nuclear era is known as α-decay.
There is a renewed interest in α-decay due to an increase of the role played
by α-decay in the spectroscopy of the unstable nuclei [27]. This is motivated
3
by the questions involving clustering of nucleons in nuclei [28–31] and partly
due to “exotic” decay modes by the spontaneous emission of heavier clusters
such as 14C, 20 O, 24 Ne, etc. discovered in 1984 [32].
Historically, the theory of α- decay has developed through three stages:
• The first stage was characterized by theoretical explanation of the global
characteristics of the process: quantum mechanical barrier penetration.
This approach was independently and almost simultaneously given by
Gamow [13] and Condon and Guerney [33]. This stage was associated
with the observation of the most intense (favoured) α transitions.
• The second stage evolved as more and more alpha spectra called un-
favored (or hindered) α transitions were identified. The description of

these modes was possible with the shell models and the R-matrix theory.
In this model, the α- decay involves two parts: the process of formation
(structure part) and the process of penetration through the barrier (energy
part). The probability of formation depends on the structure of nuclear
states and determines the different classes of α transitions.
• In the original formulation of the R-matrix theory, the structure of the
nucleus was little known and a black box model was therefore proposed,
while in the third stage of development, the description of the nuclear
structure by single-particle or collective models were proposed.
The great success of Gamow’s theory was due to the excellent description
of the penetration of the α particle through the Coulomb barrier. It also ex-
plained the linear relation between the logarithm of the decay width and the
4
energy of the emitted particle (Q-value). In this approach the α particle is
treated as a small ball moving in the mother nucleus which, through bouncing
upon the nuclear surface, eventually penetrates the surrounding Coulomb bar-
rier. This semiclassical approach does not give allowance for the possibility
that the emitted particle and/or the residual nucleus are not “preformed” in the
parent. In spite of the pre-formation hypothesis, Gamow’s model reproduces

the experimental relative decay life times quite well. This indicates that the
pre-formation probability vary from case to case much less than barrier pene-
tration probabilities.
Gamow put forward also the bold idea that since the time dependance of
the wave function, corresponding to the decaying resonance, should have sta-
tionary form and the resonance energy could be considered complex with the
real part representing the resonance energy and the imaginary part the decay
width. This idea proved to be of great significance in the study of all resonance
process. One of its important consequences is that, by going to the complex
energy plane, the theory becomes rather difficult, but it has the great feature
of transforming a time dependent process into a stationary one [34]. This as-
sumption is justified as follows: The half lives of all α emitters are very long
(10−6 − 1017 s) in comparison with the “periods” of nucleon motions (10−21 s).
Thus the average time before decay occurs is at least 1015 “nuclear periods”.
In the time evolution of a decaying state the nucleus has many opportunities
to establish a pattern of motion before it can actually disintegrate. Thus α-
decay can be considered as a quasi -stationary process [35, 36]. Since the same
compound nucleus can be formed in different channels, the disintegration of
the system is virtually independent of its birth. In this respect, a compound
5
resonance is reminiscent of a decaying state. If one assumes that the reaction
process is practically stationary (which is shown to be true in the case of α-
decay) and that the resonance that one is interested in is narrow, the collision
matrix (S-Matrix), as a function of energy, can be parameterized in a many

level Breit-Wigner form [37], and the residues of the S-Matrix are the partial
decay widths.
The dominant feature of reaction process involving the collision of two
nuclei to form a long lived compound nucleus that subsequently decays into
a pair of nuclei, is the appearance of resonances or Quasi Bound (QB) states.
According to Lovas et al., [36] this resonance state corresponds to a pole of the
S-Matrix in the complex energy plane with a positive real part, or equivalently
to the zero of the Jost function.
From the above discussion, we find that considerable insight can be gained
by treating the alpha decay as a quasi-stationary state of daughter nucleus and
the alpha particle system. It may be noted that alpha-nucleus system is of
wider interest in nuclear physics. In fact, alpha-nucleus reactions are at the
border line of what are known as heavy ion collisions. The term“heavy-ion”
generally refers to a composite nucleus of mass number A>4.0. The inter-

action of α-particles with nuclei also exhibits features characteristic of much
heavier complex projectiles and therefore the α-particle is often considered as
the lightest heavy-ion [38].
Heavy-ion collision studies can be done by solving the Schrödinger equa-
tion for the colliding system. Normally, the effective potential in the radial
Schrödinger equation for the interaction between two ions has three terms: the
repulsive Coulomb term, the attractive nuclear potential term of short range
6
and the repulsive centrifugal term that accounts for the increasing difficulty for
ions with higher orbital angular momentum to approach each other [39].
Due to the larger mass, size and electrical charge involved in typical heavy-
ion collisions (HIC), heavy-ion systems generally show the following charac-
teristic features: strong Coulomb interaction, short de-Broglie wavelength with
large orbital angular momentum and strong absorption. These features make
them amenable to simple methods of analysis within the frame work of quan-
tal scattering theory and optical model of elastic scattering. The main input for
these calculations is the nucleus-nucleus potential.

The nuclear potential between two heavy ions, broadly speaking, varies
like Woods Saxon potential and hence this potential is commonly used in the
phenomenological study of heavy ion collisions. However, nuclear potentials
can also be computed in a more fundamental way using the nucleon density
distributions of interacting nuclei and suitable effective interactions. Further,
the nuclear density distributions can be computed using the modern approaches
like relativistic mean field (RMF) theories [40–42]. It is of interest to examine
whether such α-nucleus potentials are successful in describing the energy and
lifetimes of the decaying nucleus. This is investigated in this thesis using the
analytic S-Matrix formulation of resonances. It is hoped that such an approach
will help to achieve, in due course, a unified and comprehensive understanding

of α-decay and daughter nucleus-α scattering.
7
1.2 Resonances
Resonances play vital role in nature by their influence in the evolution of colli-
sion process involving two interacting particles. They are one of the fundamen-
tal features of quantum mechanics. They appear in a wide variety of systems
ranging from atoms and nuclei to subnuclear particles encompassing very dif-
ferent size and energy scales. A sharp resonance in potential scattering reflects
the existence of QB state of the corresponding collisions system and hence its
properties provide a powerful tool to learn the internal structure of the quantum
system.
Resonances, like the bound states, are generated by the potential between
the interacting particles. Resonances are more complex in nature than the
bound states because of the following reasons[43]:
1. Bound state wave functions are mostly confined to the interaction zone
and normalizable, whereas in the case of resonances, it is only partially

confined and as such cannot be normalized signifying the fact that system
gets well separated due to decay.
2. Partial confinement of resonances gives rise to several classes of reso-
nances depending on the nature of confinement and their spacial local-
ization.The potentials with a pocket followed by a barrier can generate

sharp resonances localized in the pocket region whereas broader reso-
nances are generated at above barrier energies and are localized in the
barrier region [44]. Similarly purely attractive potentials cannot gener-
ate sharp resonances. Some potential like the Coulomb potential does
not generate resonance at all.
8
3. In potential scattering theory, unlike bound states, resonances are states
with positive energies and do not have radial quantum number. They are
further characterized by decay width and associated finite life time.
In the present study we confine our focus to the generally accepted defini-
tion of resonance in potential scattering theory valid for well-behaved poten-

R∞
tials vanishing sufficiently rapidly with distance such that 0 r|V(r)|dr < ∞.
This definition is based on the singularities of the partial wave S-Matrix as a
complex function of momentum k or energy (E = k2 ). Thus, in the complex k
-plane, poles of the S-Matrix along the positive imaginary axis correspond to
bound state and the poles in the lower half k -plane close to real k -axis can
be associated with resonances. Equivalently, in the first sheet of the complex
E -plane, bound state poles are located along the negative real axis and reso-
nances identified with the poles in the lower half of the second Riemann sheet
close to the real axis. Thus this definition of resonance provides an integrated
approach both for bound states and resonant states. It should be stated that for
certain potentials S-Matrix has cuts in the imaginary k-axis in complex k-plane.
However, our study is confined to poles related to resonances.
The nature of resonance is further clarified as follows: In a given partial
wave, if the scattering potential is purely attractive, one will not generally get
sharp resonances. This is because the potential pocket formed in the effective
potential which is the sum of the attractive potential and the centrifugal term
may not generate adequate potential pocket to cause long-lived positive energy
resonance states even for higher partial waves. However, in heavy ion scatter-
ing the total potential composed of nuclear and effective Coulomb potentials is
characterized by a pocket in the interior followed by a barrier. Hence, types of
9
potentials that we would consider in our study are the ones which have an at-
tractive well followed by a repulsive barrier. Such potentials are also common
in the study of α-decay problems. In the case of several partial waves, the cor-
responding effective potential which includes centrifugal barrier gives rise to

pocket between centrifugal barrier near the origin and the outer Coulomb bar-
rier. These pockets can generate sharp resonance states or quasi-bound states
at energies sufficiently below the barrier height. Of course, beyond a critical
partial wave l = lc potential pockets may not be deep enough to trap long lived
resonance states.
1.3 Research objectives
Most of the theoretical analysis in quantal scattering is done for the cases where
potentials are well behaved and short range. In this thesis we examine the
resonances generated by several short range potentials as a part of general
study. However for α-nucleus system or any other two body Coulomb nu-
clear system the total potential is the sum of the short range nuclear potential
and the long range electrostatic potential. The formulation of scattering the-
ory for Coulomb-nuclear scattering is more complicated due to the long range
Coulomb potential and has to be worked out using Coulomb distorted wave
asymptotic conditions for incident and outgoing waves. Such formulations
have been developed in literature[45–50]. In the study of α- decay by S-Matrix
method one has to utilize these formulations.
The most commonly used simple method to study α- decay is to treat it
as a tunneling problem and evaluate the decay constant or life time in terms of
10
transmission across the Coulomb barrier and assault frequency at the decay en-
ergy. Further, it is also possible to evaluate the decay energy using WKB type
approximation for bound states. Thus, one has a substantially simpler WKB
type approach to evaluate both energy and life time in alpha decay. However,
these are approximate methods. Generally, WKB based methods are not used
to evaluate decay energy because small error in energy will drastically alter
the decay constant. It should further be noted that the WKB formula is semi-
classical approximation having its own limitations and essentially takes into
account only the barrier felt by the decaying state as far as the determination of
the transmission co-efficient (T) is concerned. Input from the potential pocket
region is only in terms of assault frequency for which classical expression is
often used. The potential beyond the outermost turning point has no role in
this approach. On the other hand, one notices that formation and decay of
the QB state associated with α-decay is more accurately described by the full
partial wave Schrödinger equation and hence the computation of QB state pa-
rameters within the frame work of complete solution of Schrödinger equation
is desirable. Analytic S-Matrix theory of potential scattering mentioned earlier

provides a frame work for undertaking such a task. Further, such a study will
help us to determine the extent to which conventional WKB based methods are
accurate.
In this thesis, we describe the results of calculations carried out with this
as one of the objectives and make a study of α-decay of super heavy ele-
ments(SHE)in the frame work of analytical S-Matrix theory and compare the
same with the results obtained using more commonly used WKB approxima-
tion based methods. .
11
The thesis is organized as follows. In Chapter 2 we summarize the theo-
retical methods like WKB based approaches for α- decay, analytic S-Matrix
theory of potential scattering, generalization of analytic S-Matrix theory meth-
ods to Coulomb -nuclear potential which governs the α- decay. In Chapter

3, we present a detailed comparative study of WKB based methods and S-
Matrix methods using typical illustrative model potential and the conclusions
are summarized. Chapter 4 gives a brief review of the α- decay of super heavy
elements. In Chapter 5 we describe the results of our calculation of decay
energies and life times of α- decay of super heavy elements.
12
2
Review of WKB and
S-matrix Methods
In this chapter we give a brief review of the theoretical methods used by us in

studying the QB states and α- decay of super heavy elements. First we describe
the semi-classical WKB approximation based methods and then summarize the
method of computing resonance state parameters using the analytic S-matrix
theory.
13
2.1 The WKB approximation
Among the different approximation methods for solving Schrödinger equa-
tion, the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB), also known as Wentzel-Kramers-

Brillouin-Jeffreys (WKBJ) [51–54] is the most commonly used semi-classical
treatment for bound states, QB states,tunneling problems, and phase shift cal-
culations. It is based on an expansion of the wave function in powers of ~,

which, though is of a nonconvergent or asymptotic character, is very useful
for the approximate solution of quantum-mechanical problems in appropriate
cases [55].
Let us first consider the solution of time independent Schrödinger equation
in one dimension governed by potential V(x) and total energy E. In WKB

approach, it is convenient to write it in the form:
d2 u
2
+ k2 (x)u = 0 , k2 > 0 , (2.1)
dx
d2 u
+ κ2 (x)u = 0 , κ2 > 0 , (2.2)
dx2
k(x) and κ(x) are always real and signify the local wave numbers. These are
equivalent to one-dimensional wave equation, if we put:
1p
k(x) = + 2m(E − V(x)) where V(x) < E , (2.3)
~
1p
κ(x) = + 2m(V(x) − E) where V(x) > E , (2.4)
~
where m is the mass of the particle described by the Schrödinger equation.
14
The domain in which k(x) > 0 is classically allowed region and the domain in
which κ(x) > 0 is the classically forbidden domain. In the WKB method one
seeks the solution u(x) in the form
ιS (x)
u(x) = A exp . (2.5)
~
Here S (x) signifies the classical action. Substitution of this in Eq. (2.1) leads
to
d2 S
i~ 2
− S 02 + ~2 k2 = 0 , (2.6)
dx
where prime denotes differentiation with respect to x. If we substitute an ex-

pansion of S in powers of ~ like:
S = S o + ~S 1 + ...... , (2.7)
into Eq. (2.6) and equating equal powers of ~, we get:
0 d2 S o
−S o2 + 2m(E − V) = 0, ι − 2S o0 S 10 = 0 etc (2.8)
dx2
Integration of the these equations gives:
Zx
1
S 0 (x) = ±~ k(x0 )dx0 S 1 (x) = ι ln k(x) . (2.9)
2
Thus for case E > V, in the WKB approximation the wave function has the
form:
15
Zx
1
u(x) = A √ exp(±ι k(x)dx) . (2.10)
k(x)
Similarly for E < V(ie in the classically forbidden region) one obtains:
Zx
1
u(x) = B √ exp(± κ(x)dx) . (2.11)
κ(x)
The accuracy of these WKB solutions can be seen by comparing the mag-
nitudes of the successive terms S o and ~S 1 in the series for S . Since S o is a
monotonically increasing function of x so long as k does not vanish, the ra-

~S 1 ~S 10
tio So
is expected to be small if S o0
is small. Using this criteria one gets the
following condition for the reasonable validity of the solutions given by Eq.
(2.10) and Eq. (2.11):
~S 10 1 dk
0 |=| 2 |1, (2.12)
So 2k dx
Equivalently, Eq.(2.12) can be written as:
λd (x) dk
| |k, (2.13)
4π dx
where λd (x) is the local de Broglie wavelength = 2πk . This means that the frac-
λd
tional change in k (or the wavelength) in the distance 4π
is small compared to
unity. Thus the WKB solutions are useful when the potential energy changes
so slowly that the momentum of the particle is sensibly constant over many
wavelengths. Further Eq. (2.10) and Eq. (2.11) blows up at the point where
E = V(x). These points are called the classical turning points. Therefore
16
V(x)
Region 1 x1 Region 2 x2 Region 3 x
Figure 2.1: Potential well-linear turning point occurs at x1 and x2 .
the WKB approximations are valid only at points which are several wave-
lengths away from these turning points. So the solutions Eq. (2.10) and Eq.
(2.11) are asymptotically valid in the sense that they can be used several wave-
lengths from the nearest turning point provided the wavelength is slowly vary-
ing. These asymptotic solutions are most useful if one knows how to connect
an oscillating solution like Eq. (2.10) to an exponential solution like Eq. (2.11)
across a turning point. The formulas which connect these two regions are called
connection formulae. However, it should be noted that many applications of
WKB approximation do not depend critically on the precise way in which the
connections are made [55].
Starting with the WKB solutions, one obtains a formula for the calculation
of bound state eigen values generated by a potential well illustrated in Fig. 2.1.
At a given energy the domain in which k(x) > 0 is confined to x1 < x < x2 . At
bound state energy eigen values, the following relation is satisfied:
17
Zx2
1
k(x)dx = (n + )π n = 0, 1, 2, .... (2.14)
2
x1
where:
1p
k(x) = 2m(E − V(x)) . (2.15)
~
Hence one evaluates the left side of equation Eq. (2.14) as a function of en-
ergy and picks up the appropriate eigenvalues E = En such that Eq. (2.14) is
satisfied.
It can be seen from Eq. (2.14) that n is the number of nodes of the WKB
wave function between the turning points. As stated earlier, the approximation
is good only if the turning points are several wavelengths apart or if n is large
in comparison with unity. This confirms that WKB method is a semiclassical
approximation, since it is expected to be most useful in the nearly classical
limit of large quantum numbers.
Using WKB method, one can obtain a formula to calculate the tunneling
probability T of a particle to tunnel through a one dimensional potential barrier
V(x) as shown in Fig. 2.2 using WKB approximation. Here the particle is
incident from region 1 and tunnels through the barrier to reach region 3.
 
 Zx2 
 
T = exp −2 κ(x) dx . (2.16)
 
x1
where x1 and x2 are the two turning points and:
1p
κ(x) = 2m(V(x) − E) V(x) > E . (2.17)
~
18
V(x)
Region 1 x1 Region 2 x2 Region 3 x
Figure 2.2: Tunneling through a potential barrier. The turning points are x1 and
x2 .
2.1.1 WKB methods for three dimensional case
The results contained in equations Eq. (2.14) and Eq. (2.16) can be generalized
for system in three dimension governed by the spherically symmetric potential

U(r) for a particle of mass µ. If one is dealing with the equivalent one body
problem corresponding to two particle system, the mass µ signifies the reduced
mass of the two body system. The radial wave function Rl (r) satisfies:
! " #
1 d 2 dRl (r) 2µ l(l + 1)
r + 2 [E − U(r)] − Rl (r) = 0 . (2.18)
r2 dr dr ~ r2
In the case of Coulomb nuclear potential U(r) is the sum of nuclear and
Coulomb potentials.
Defining the modified radial equation φl (r) = rRl (r), one gets the modified
radial equation for the lth partial wave as:
19
d2 φl (r)
+ [k2 − Ve f f (r)]φl (r) = 0 , (2.19)
dr2
This equation is essentially a one dimensional Schrödinger equation for µ

governed by the effective potential:
l(l + 1)
Ve f f (r) = V(r) − (2.20)
r2
and
2µE 2µU(r)
k2 = , V(r) = (2.21)
~2 ~2
restricted to the domain r > 0. Hence one can readily extend the WKB tech-
nique for its solution. However some care is necessary to retain the r(l+1) behav-
ior of the radial function φl (r) near origin. It is found that this can be achieved
l(l+1) (l+1/2)2
in the WKB approach by replacing the centrifugal term r2
by r2
. This is
known as Langer condition [55]. A typical potential for the lth partial wave is
shown in Fig 2.3. This potential is similar to the effective potential one has to
deal in heavy ion scattering and α- decay problems. Clearly, at a given positive
energy below the barrier it is characterized by three turning points r1 , r2 , r3 .
r1 < r < r2 and r2 < r < r3 specify the classically allowed pocket and classi-
cally forbidden barrier regions respectively. It is the pocket region which can
generate long lived resonant or QB states which eventually will decay by tun-
neling across the barrier. Hence we can specify WKB methods to obtain the
energies of QB states by adopting the corresponding formula for one dimen-

sional case as:
20
Zr2
1
k(r) dr = (n + )π . (2.22)
2
r1
p
with k(r) = (k2 − Ve f f (r)) in the pocket region where k2 > Ve f f (r).
Further, one can write the WKB expression for the transmission coefficient
across the barrier T as:

 
 Zr3 
 
T = exp −2 κ(r) dr . (2.23)
 
r2
p
with κ(r) = (Ve f f (r) − κ2 ) in the barrier region where Ve f f (r) > κ2 ,
This can be used to evaluate life time. The decay constant λ is related to
the T as:
λ = Af T . (2.24)
where A f is called the assault frequency which in its simplest approximate

v
form is given by A f = 2R
, with R = r2 − r1 and v is the velocity of the particle.
The decay constant λ, is related to mean life τ and half life τ1/2 through the
relations:
1 τ1/2
= τ= . (2.25)
λ ln(2)
Thus, within the general framework of WKB approximation we can use
Eq.(2.22) and Eq.(2.24) to calculate energy and width of a QB state and hence
can be used to study α-decay. However T is very sensitive to even small change
in energy and hence Eq.(2.22)may not be adequate in several cases.
21
Veff( r)
r3
r1 r2
E
Figure 2.3: Typical alpha daughter potential. The turning points are r1 , r2 and
r3
.
2.2 Analytical S-Matrix theory and resonances
The calculation of quasi bound state energy and width can be done within
the frame work of analytic S-Matrix(SM)theory. This approach is different in
details, and more exact formulation than WKB method described earlier. This
formalism provides a unified description of resonances and bound states of a
quantal scattering problem. The SM theory in potential scattering is a well-

established subject elaborated in a number of texts [45, 46, 56–59]. Some of
the basic features and results relevant to our present study are summarized in
the following sections.
22
2.2.1 Definition of Jost function and S-Matrix
The partial wave analysis of the scattering by a central potential is governed by
the modified radial Schrödinger equation
d2 φ` (k, r)
+ [k2 − Ve f f (r)]φ` (k, r) = 0 , (2.26)
dr2
In quantal scattering theory, in order to solve Eq. (2.26), the following
restrictions are imposed on U(r):
(a) U(r) is continuous (2.27)
ZC
(b) r|U(r)|dr < ∞ , (2.28)
0
Z∞
(c) |U(r)|dr < ∞ C, C 0 > 0 , (2.29)
C0
Essentially, the above conditions restrict the potential to those which are
not highly singular at origin and decrease as r → ∞ such that incident plane
wave and undistorted outgoing spherical waves boundary conditions are appli-
cable. For the class of potential for which the above restrictions are imposed
, the radial Schrödinger equation has a regular singular point at r = 0 and an
irregular singular point at r = ∞; the term l(l + 1) multiplies the former and
23
the term k2 multiplies the latter. Therefore the term l plays an important role
in the nature of the regular solutions and the term k2 has an important role in
determining the nature of the solutions defined with respect to the boundary
conditions at infinity. Solutions corresponding to a physical scattering prob-

lem has boundary conditions imposed both at r = 0 and r = ∞; therefore both l
and k play important role. The regular solution of Eq. (2.26) satisfies the initial
condition as r → 0:
φ` (k, r) −−−→ r`+1 , (2.30)

r→0
The irregular solutions f` (k, r) (also called Jost solutions) are defined with
respect to the following boundary conditions at r = ∞:
f` (±k, r) −−−→ exp ∓ιkr (2.31)

r→∞
The wave function φ` (k, r), which is regular at origin and which has both
incoming and outgoing wave components as r → ∞, can be obtained by ex-
pressing φ` (k, r) as a linear combination of f` (±k, r);
φ` (k, r) = C f` (k, r) + D f` (−k, r) , (2.32)
one can determine C and D from the Wronskians
[ f` (k, r), f` (−k, r)] = 2ιk , (2.33)
24
[φ` (k, r), f` (±k, r)] = F` (±k) , (2.34)
which is independent of r and obtain the solution as:
1
φ` (k, r) = [F` (−k) f` (k, r) − F` (k) f` (−k, r)] , (2.35)
2ιk
the functions F` (±k) are known as the Jost functions. The partial wave S-
Matrix S ` (k) is , except for a phase factor exp(iπ`), the ratio of the amplitudes
of the outgoing wave to the incoming wave and is given by:
F` (k) ιπ`
S ` (k) = e , (2.36)
F` (−k)
The power of analytic SM theory lies in the fact that physical features like
bound states and resonant states can be represented in terms of singularities

and analytical structure of S ` (k)[46].
2.2.2 S-Matrix, phase shift and cross section
The asymptotic form (r → ∞) of the wave function is
1 l
φ` (k, r) ' sin(kr − π + δl ) , (2.37)
kr 2
25
whereas ,the corresponding behaviour of the wave function in the absence of
the potential is given by
1 l
u` (k, r) ' sin(kr − π) . (2.38)
kr 2
The former has got a phase shift δl with respect to the latter. It can be shown
that S ` (k) defined in Eq.(2.36) can be expressed as
S ` (k) = exp 2ιδl (2.39)
The partial wave S-Matrix measures the response of the scattering target
by determining the phase of the resulting outward-traveling spherical wave

relative to what it would be if there were no target. When the phase shift is
real, the absence of absorption is clear by the fact that S ` (k) is of magnitude
unity. Once the phase shift is known, the scattering amplitude can be expressed
as
1 X
∞
A(k, cosθ) = (2l + 1)(e2ιδl − 1)Pl (cosθ) , (2.40)
2ιk l=0
where θ is the scattering angle and Pl (cosθ)is the Legendre polynomial. The
differential cross section σ(θ) per unit solid angle is given by
σ(θ) = |A(k, cosθ)|2 (2.41)
which can be determined experimentally. The total cross section is then given
26
by
Z
4π X
∞
σtotal = σ(θ)dΩ = 2 (2l + 1) sin2 δl , (2.42)
k l=0
2.3 Analytical properties of Jost functions and S-
Matrix
Analytical properties of the Jost functions follow directly from those of the
regular and irregular solutions and the nature of the singularities of SM can
be established from the properties of Jost functions. The analytic properties of
Jost functions F` (±k) can be deduced from the analytic properties of φ` (k, r)
and f` (k, r). For the class of potentials specified earlier, F` (k) is a complex
function of two variables ` and k and is analytic in the direct product of regions
Re` > 0 and Imk < 0. In general, it follows that the analyticity regions of
F` (k) and φ` (k, r) in the ` plane are same; and similarly analyticity regions of
F` (k) and f` (k, r) are same in k -plane. In our study, we do not deal with the
analytical properties of S-Matrix in complex l plane. It may be pointed out that
in the case of more restricted class of potentials like Yukawa type potentials,
the analyticity of Jost function can be extended to the entire complex plane,
except for branch cut along part of the imaginary k-axis. For cut-off potentials
having U(r) = 0, r > R, Jost functions are analytic in the entire k-plane. The
poles of S- matrix which are of physical interest are generated by the zeros of
F` (−k).
27
2.3.1 Bound states
Consider a zero of F` (−k) in the upper half k-plane at k = kb . Then from the
radial Schrödinger equation, one can deduce that:
Z∞
2Rekb Imkb |φ` (kb , r)|2 dr = 0 (2.43)
0
Since φ` (kb ) , 0, either Rekb = 0 or Imkb = 0. But if latter is true, then:
F` (kb ) = F` (−kb ) = 0 , (2.44)
which implies that wave function becomes identically zero. Therefore the
only choice left is Rekb = 0 which means that the zeros of F` (−k) can occur
only on the positive imaginary axis. For these values of k, the radial wave
function is real and goes to zero as exp(|kb r|) and has energy eigen value Eb =
−|kb2 |. Thus the zero of F` (−k) on the upper imaginary axis, that is a pole of
S ` (k) on the upper imaginary axis, corresponds to a bound state. Number of
these poles are finite and simple [59]. A typical distribution of poles and zeros
in the k - plane for Yukawa type potential of range µ-1 is given Fig. 2.4.
2.3.2 Resonance states
Consider a zero of F` (−k) in the lower half of complex k-plane which gives rise
to a pole in the S-Matrix. When Imkr << Rekr , this corresponds to a resonant
28
Im k
Bound states
Resonant states
Virtual and anti

bound states
Cuts
µ/2
Re k
µ/2
Figure 2.4: Illustration of Singularities of S ` (k) in the k plane of Yukawa po-

tential of range µ-1
.
29
state with positive resonance energy ER and width ΓR , where:
ER = (Rekr )2 − (Imkr )2 , (2.45)
ΓR = −4Rekr Imkr , (2.46)
That is, in the complex energy plane the resonance pole position is ER − ι Γ2R .
The smaller the Imkr , the narrower is the width and hence it corresponds to a
long lived state. The eigen function corresponding to the pole at k = −kr∗ is
related to that at k = kr by time reversal[60]. Therefore kr and −kr∗ corresponds
to a single resonance only.
2.3.3 Unphysical(virtual) states
Consider a zero of F` (−k) at k = kv in the lower half of k-plane for |Imkv | >
|Rekv |. These poles correspond to a state of negative energy Ev and positive

width Γv :
Ev = (Rekv )2 − (Imkv )2 , (2.47)
Γv = −4Rekv Imkv , (2.48)
This state is unphysical. The zeros of F` (−k) in the lower half k−plane for
which Rekv = 0 are termed as antibound states. From the above discussions
the following points are noteworthy:
30
• the analytical properties and singularity properties of the SM will depend
on the analytical properties of Jost functions.
• the analytical properties of Jost functions in turn depends on the analyti-
cal properties of regular and irregular solutions.
• In general, for well behaved exponentially decaying potentials, S ` (k)
must be an analytic function of k except for the poles and branch cuts
(Fig. 2.4)
• the poles along the positive imaginary axis in the upper half of k-plane
generated by the zeros of F` (−k) correspond to bound states.
• the poles in the lower half of the k-plane generated by the zeros of F` (−k)
correspond to resonances,anti bound states and virtual states.
In this thesis , we confine to the calculation of resonance pole positions for

various potentials chosen for our study.
The general procedure for the evaluation of the parameters of a resonant

state is:
• Using a suitable method obtain the regular solution φ` (k, r)of the Schrodinger
equation and its derivative using them along with asymptotic Jost solu-
tions, compute Jost functions F` (±k).
• Next determine the complex zeros close to the real k-axis of the Jost
function F` (−k) using an iterative method like Newton Raphson method

with reasonable starting trial values which converge to the desired zero
position of F` (−k) in the complex k-plane and verify that one is ap-
proaching the resonance pole by evaluating S ` (k) for the same k.
31
• Using the complex zero position of F` (−k) evaluate resonant energy and
width using Eq. 2.45 and Eq. 2.46.
2.4 Analytical S-Matrix theory for Coulomb nu-
clear problem
If nuclear scattering at low energies by charged particle projectiles like protons,
alpha particles etc is considered, it becomes mandatory to take into account the
long range Coulomb potential in addition to the short range nuclear interaction.
Here the scattering potential is the sum of nuclear potential U N (r) and the elec-
Z1 Z2 e2
trostatic potential UC (r) = r
between the target and the projectile having
charges Z2 e and Z1 e respectively. The characteristic parameter governing this
Z1 Z2 e2 µ
potential is the Rutherford parameter η = k~2
. This electrostatic Coulomb
potential is a long range potential for which both the integrals
Z∞
|UC (r)|dr , (2.49)
0
and
Z∞
r|UC (r)|dr . (2.50)
0
are divergent. On the other hand, most of the analytical properties of S-Matrix
are established for well behaved short range potential where asymptotic spher-
ical wave boundary conditions apply. In order to study scattering by a short
range plus Coulomb potential, scattering amplitude needs to be defined with
respect to asymptotic Coulomb distorted spherical waves. Therefore it is not
32
surprising if the analytical properties of Coulomb nuclear S-Matrix are more
complicated in the k plane. The complications in Coulomb nuclear formulation
1
arise due to the r
asymptotic behavior. The analytical properties of Coulomb-
nuclear S-Matrix in the k plane are studied by various authors[47–50]. We will

not consider these details here but restrict to the definition of S-Matrix and Jost
function relevant to our calculations.

The modified radial Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb-nuclear prob-
lem is
" #
d2 φ` (η, kr) 2 2ηk
+ k − − Ve f f (r) φ` (η, kr) = 0 , (2.51)
dr2 r
with
Z1 Z2 e2 µ
η= . (2.52)
k~2
2ηk
where the term r
represent the Coulomb potential. It should be pointed out
that in the case of nucleus-nucleus potential or alpha-nucleus potential, the

2ηk
electrostatic potential within the Coulomb radius Rc is different from r
and
should be replaced by more realistic electrostatic potential which takes into
account the charge distribution of target and projectile.
We define the regular solutions φ` (η, kr) with the boundary condition at the
origin as r → 0:
φ` (η, kr) ≈ r`+1 . (2.53)

r→0
The two irregular solutions f` (η, ±kr) obey the incoming and outgoing wave
boundary condition as r → ∞:
π
lim [ f` (η, ±kr)e±ιkr e∓ιln(2kr) ] = e−η 2 . (2.54)
r→∞
33
The “ f ree” (with the short range nuclear potential U N (r) = 0) regular solution
φo` (η, kr) and ”free” irregular solution fò (η, ±kr) of Eq.(2.51) are:
1
φo` (η, kr) = M 1 (2ιkr) , (2.55)
(2ιk)`+1 ιη,`+ 2
fò (η, ±kr) = W±ιη,`+ 12 (±2ιkr) , (2.56)
Here Mιη,`+ 12 (2ιkr) and Wιη,`+ 12 (2ιkr) are Whittacker functions which are de-
fined as[61]
Mιη,`+ 12 (2ιkr) = e−ιkr (2ιkr)`+1 F1 (` + 1 − ιη, 2(` + 1)); 2ιkr) , (2.57)
Wιη,`+ 21 (2ιkr) = e−ιkr (2ιkr)`+1 F2 (` + 1 − ιη, 2(` + 1); 2ιkr) . (2.58)
where F1 is the confluent hypergeometric function. F2 is related to F1 through
the relation
Γ(1 − c) Γ(c − 1) 1−c

F2 (a, c; x) = F1 (a, c; x) + (x) F1 (a − c + 1, 2 − c; x) .
Γ(a − c + 1) Γ(a)
(2.59)
The following relations give the correspondence between the Bessel and
Hankel functions used in short range potential scattering and the corresponding
Mιη,`+ 12 (2ιkr) and W±ιη,`+ 21 (±2ιkr) used in Coulomb nuclear scattering.
34
3 3 1
Mo,`+ 12 (2ιkr) = Γ(` + )ι`+1 22`+ 2 (kr) 2 J`+ 12 (kr) , (2.60)
2
r
πkr ιπ (`+1) (1)
Wo,`+ 21 (−2ιkr) = e 2 H`+ 1 (kr) , (2.61)
2 2
r
πkr −ιπ (`+1) (2)
Wo,`+ 21 (2ιkr) = e 2 H`+ 1 (kr) . (2.62)
2 2
Jost functions are defined as before by the Wronskions of φ` (η, kr) and
f` (η, kr):
F` (±k) = Wr [φ` (η, kr), f` (η, ±kr)] , (2.63)
and the S-Matrix is given by:
F` (k)
S ` (k) = eιπ` = exp (2ιδ` ) . (2.64)
F` (−k)
where δ` is the Coulomb-nuclear phase shift

Now we define Jost functions for the Coulomb problem by F`C (±k) and
Coulomb S-Matrix by S Cl (k), as
Γ(2(` + 1))
F`C (k) = −(2ιk)−` , (2.65)
Γ(` + 1 − ιη)
Γ(2(` + 1))
F`C (−k) = −eιπ` (2ιk)−` , (2.66)
Γ(` + 1 + ιη)
Γ(` + 1 + ιη)
S C` (k) = = exp (2ισ` ) . (2.67)
Γ(` + 1 − ιη)
where σ` represents the Coulomb phase shift. Now we define the ”nuclear”
35
Jost function F`N (±k) by the ratio:
F` (±k)
F`N (±k) = , (2.68)
F`C (±k)
and the corresponding ”nuclear” S-Matrix S `N (k) is given by:
F`N (k)
S `N (k) = = exp(2ιδlN ) . (2.69)
F`N (−k)
where δlN is the ”nuclear” phase shift. It should be stressed that δlN has some
residual dependance on η.
For the purpose of computation, the regular Coulomb wave function F` (η, kr)
can be related to the “ f ree” regular solutions φo` (η, kr) through:
−πη Γ(` + 1 + ιη) `+1 o

F` (η, kr) = 2` e( 2 ) (k) φ` (η, kr) , (2.70)
Γ(2` + 2)
The corresponding irregular Coulomb wave function G` (η, kr)can also be

related to “free” irregular solution fò (η, ±kr). The explicit definition of G` (η, kr)
can be found in [61]

For our purpose, the important point is to note that F` (η, kr) and G` (η, kr)
have the asymptotic behavior
" #
lπ
Fl (η, kr) → sin kr − η ln 2kr − + σl , (2.71)
kr→∞ 2
" #
lπ
Gl (η, kr) → cos kr − η ln 2kr − + σl . (2.72)
kr→∞ 2
Comparing this with the case of scattering problem for short range poten-
36
tial, one notes that Fl (η, kr) and Gl (η, kr) correspond to the functions (kr) jl (kr)
and (kr)ηl (kr) in the uncharged short range potential scattering. When the
Rutherford parameter η = 0, the Coulomb-nuclear scattering formulation re-
duces to usual short-range potential scattering formulation.

For r beyond the range of nuclear potential,the wavefunction φl (η, kr) is the
linear combination of Fl (η, kr) and Gl (η, kr):
φl (η, kr) = al [Fl (η, kr)cosδlN + Gl (η, kr)sinδlN ] , (2.73)
where al is the overall constant.
φl (η, kr) has the asymptotic form:
lπ
φl (η, kr) → sin(kr − η ln 2kr − + δlN + σl ) . (2.74)
kr→∞ 2
the nuclear phase shift δlN defined above satisfies the relation
δlN = δl − σl . (2.75)
and δlN goes to zero when nuclear potential is ”switched off” as it should be.
N
Further the ”nuclear ” S-Matrix S lN = exp2ιδl becomes unity for l ≥ kRo , where
Ro is the range of the short range nuclear potential whereas σ` is significant
even for large ` due to long range of the Coulomb potential.
The procedure to calculate the phase shift is similar to that of the non-
Coulomb case and involves the following steps [62]:
• Using initial condition φl (η, kr) → rl+1 and φ0l (η, kr) → (l + 1) φl (η,kr)
r
,
kr→0 kr→0
solve the modified radial equation to obtain the solution φl (η, kr) and its
37
derivative φ0l (η, kr) at r = Ro , where Ro is outside the range of nuclear
potential.
• Using appropriate numerical techniques chosen depending on the values
of η and kr at r = Ro , evaluate the regular and irregular Coulomb wave
functions Fl (η, kr),Gl (η, kr) and their derivatives Fl0 (η, kr),G0l (η, kr)with
respect to r ,
• Set up the relations:
φ` (η, kRo ) = al [cosδ`N F` (kr) + sinδ`N G` (kr)]|r=Ro . (2.76)
φ0` (η, kRo ) = al [cosδ`N F`0 (kr) + sinδ`N G0` (kr)]|r=Ro . (2.77)
to obtain the following expression for nuclear phase shift δ`N :
" #
ρF` (η, kr) − F`0 (η, kr)
tan δ`N =− . (2.78)
ρG` (η, kr) − G0` (η, kr)
where
φ` (η, kr)
ρ= |r=R . (2.79)
φ0` (η, kr) o
• Evaluate all relevant phase shifts for l = 0, 1, ...till l = lo where nuclear
phase shift approaches zero to the desired degree of accuracy.
• The ”nuclear” S-Matrix S `N (k) can be related to tan δ`N by the relation
1 + ι tan δ`N
S `N (k) = . (2.80)
1 − ι tan δ`N
38
Substituting the value of tan δ`N from Eq.(2.78),
[ρG` (η, kr) − G0` (η, kr)] − ι[ρF` (η, kr) − F`0 (η, kr)] F`N (k)
S `N (k) = = .
[ρG` (η, kr) − G0` (η, kr)] + ι[ρF` (η, kr) − F`0 (η, kr)] F`N (−k)
(2.81)
• Using the complex zero position of F`N (−k)the resonant energy and width
can be computed using Eq. (2.45) and Eq. (2.46).
It is clear that the search for pole requires the computation of ρ, Coulomb
wave functions F` (η, kr),G` (η, kr) and their derivatives for complex k. This is
to be done by taking into account the complications in the numerical evaluation

of Coulomb function for different combinations of η, k and r.
39
3
Comparative Study of
S-matrix and WKB
Methods for Resonance
Calculations
As discussed in Chapter 2, analytic S-matrix theory describes the widths of

resonance in terms of the imaginary part of the resonance pole position in com-
plex energy plane. However, normally such widths or life times are evaluated
40
by treating the decay of the state as tunneling phenomena across the barrier.
The required transmission coefficients for tunneling are generally evaluated
using the WKB type approach. As we will show, this approach gives the cor-
rect order of life times but differs from the corresponding S-matrix results in
detail. It should be noted that the WKB formula for transmission coefficient is
an approximation and essentially takes into account only the barrier felt by the
decaying state but in S-matrix approach, which in principle is exact, resonance
energy and width are evaluated using the full potential. In order to assess the
degree of accuracy of the WKB approach, it is important to carry out a compar-

ative study of the calculation of the resonance position and width employing
both the S-matrix and the WKB methods. In this chapter we examine numer-
ically the s-wave resonance data generated by S-matrix method (SM) and the
WKB method for the case of several model potentials as illustrative examples.
In the WKB approach the width is expressed as the product of the assault fre-
quency A f and the Gamow factor. In the simplest form assault frequency A f
v
can be calculated in terms of collision frequency as A f = 2R
where v is the
velocity of the particle inside the well and R the width of the well experienced
by the decaying state inside the potential pocket. But we found that this sim-
plified view is not adequate in the case of smoothly varying potential, hence
we use more rigorous alternative expressions for assault frequency and make a
comparative study for different model potentials.
41
3.1 Assault frequency factor
The width Γ of the resonant state or quasi-bound state is related to the decay
constant λ by the relation
Γ = λ~ . (3.1)
Using the WKB formula for width[Eq. (2.23)] involving Gamow factor and
the assault frequency factorA f , the width Γ at κ = kR corresponding to energy
kR2 can be expressed as:
 
 Zr3 q 
 
Γ = A f ~ exp −2 (Ve f f (r) − kR2 ) dr , (3.2)
 
r2
v
where A f = 2R
. However, there have been alternative, presumably better ex-
pressions for assault frequency. For example, in the case of the potential: (see
Fig. 3.1),
U(r) = − U0 , r<R, (3.3)
Z1 Z2 e2
U(r) = , r≥R. (3.4)
r
used by Elton [63] for the analysis of α- decay, the assault frequency term was
calculated using the approximate solution of the Schrödinger equation for a

complex eigen value representing the resonance energy and width. His result
42
U ( r)
r1 r2 r3 r
-Uo
r2 - r1 = R
r1 = 0
R = r2
Figure 3.1: Typical one-particle potential for alpha-decay used by Elton.
is:
4[E + Uo ]
Af = p , (3.5)
2mR(Z1 Z2 e2 − ER)
2[k2 + Vo ]~
Af = p , (3.6)
mR (V1 − k2 )
where
~2 k 2 ~2 Vo 2mZ1 Z2 e2
E= , Uo = , V1 = . (3.7)
2m 2m ~2 R
For more smoother potential which is substantially flat in the interior and
which rises to the barrier height rapidly, one can use the slightly modified ver-
43
sion of Eq.(3.7)at k2 = kR2 given by
2~(kR2 + Vo )
Af = q , (3.8)
mR VB − kR2
where,
Zr2
1
Vo = Ve f f (r)dr . (3.9)
r2 − r1
r1
which is the average potential between the pocket turning points r1 and r2 and
VB is the height of the barrier. However, for a general shape of potential pocket
and barrier we found that the approach adopted by Elton to get A f is not easily
generalized. In our calculations with model potentials of various shapes, we
v ~k
find that assault frequency factor 2R
with speed term v = m
is not adequate
because speed is affected by the potential inside the pocket. Therefore suitable
average speed is to be used. Within the classical picture this can be done in
two different ways.
R r2 q
~ r1
(kR2 − Ve f f (r))dr
(i) v̄ = , (3.10)
m(r2 − r1 )
Within the framework of WKB approximation the numerator of Eq.(3.10) can
be equated to ~(n + 12 )π where n is the eigenvalue quantum number generating
the decaying resonant state.
sR r
2
~ r1
(kR2 − Ve f f (r)) dr
(ii) v̄rm = . (3.11)
m (r2 − r1 )
44
In our model calculations with potentials of various shapes,we make a com-
parative study of the results obtained using assault frequency with v̄ and vrm in
the WKB formula for width. In effect the term A f represents the role of the po-
tential pocket in generating the width. However it should be noted that v,v̄,vrm
are essentially classical definitions which may affect the result only marginally.
3.2 Model calculations
In this section we examine numerically the s-wave resonance in the case of
a potential having a rectangular pocket followed by a flat barrier using the S-

matrix method (SM). We also calculate the result of width calculation using
WKB type tunneling formula.
3.2.1 Rectangular pocket cum barrier potential
In the case of a rectangular barrier given by:
U(r) = 0 , r<a,
U(r) = U1 , a<r<b,
U(r) = 0 , r>b. (3.12)
ΓR
the expression for half width 2
using simple form of assault frequency factor
v ~k
Af = 2a
with v = m
becomes
ΓR ~2 kR q
2
= exp −2 V1 − kR (b − a) , (3.13)
2 2ma
45
and using the modified Elton’s approach the expression for Γ2R becomes:
ΓR ~2 2kR2 q
2
= h i1/2 exp −2 V1 − kR (b − a) . (3.14)
2 2ma V1 − kR2
In our calculations we have used the unit convention ~2 = 1 and 2m = 1,
Then the above equations reduces to:
ΓR kR q
= exp −2 V1 − kR2 (b − a) , (3.15)
2 2a
ΓR 2kR2 q
2
= h i1/2 exp −2 V1 − kR (b − a) . (3.16)
2 a V1 − kR2
In this unit convention length has unit fm, k has unit f m−1 and k2 has unit f m−2 .
In the case of rectangular potential the resonant state positions should not
be calculated using Eq. (2.22) because the potential is not smoothly varying
around turning point as required in the WKB approach whereas the above for-
mulae for widths are expected to give reasonable results. On the other hand the
calculation of pole positions of S-matrix is quite suitable for the simultaneous
evaluation of resonance positions and widths. In this case the exact expression
for the s-wave S-matrix is given by [44]:
(1 + α/k)A exp(ιαb) + (1 − α/k)B exp(−ιαb)

S (k) = exp(−2ιkb) , (3.17)
(1 − α/k)A exp(ιαb) + (1 + α/k)B exp(−ιαb)
46
where,
2A = [sin(ka) − (ιk/α)cos(ka)] exp(−ιαa) , (3.18)
2B = [sin(ka) + (ιk/α)cos(ka)] exp(ιαa) , (3.19)

p
α = (k2 − V1 ) . (3.20)
In S-matrix approach if k p = kr − ιki represents the resonance pole position of
a particular partial wave S-matrix, then one can write:
ΓR
k2p = kr2 − ki2 − ι2kr ki = ER − ι . (3.21)
2
the corresponding resonance energy and half width are:
~2 2 ~2
ER = kr − ki2 = k2 , (3.22)
2m 2m R
ΓR ~2
= (4kr ki ) . (3.23)
2 2m
We consider the rectangular barrier using the potential given by Eq. (3.12)
for different combinations of a and b. This potential gives rise to quite sharp
resonance states from the potential pocket confined to the domain 0 < r < a.
In order to obtain the pole position of S-matrix in k-plane we adopted Newton-
Raphson iterative method starting with reasonable trial values [43, 44]. This
iterative procedure converges to the pole position,ie,the zero position of F(−k)
fairly fast. The complex pole positions kp and corresponding resonance energy
47
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Poles
Im k
0
zeros
-0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Re k
Figure 3.2: Distribution of zeros and poles of S-matrix for a rectangular poten-
tial in k-plane. Potential parameters are U1 =10, a=3, b=5. When the imaginary
part of the poles and zeros are very small, they are very close to each other and
hence indistinguishable in the figure.
ER for various combinations of a and b are listed in Table 3.1. The half-width
of the resonance obtained by S-matrix (SM) method and by the WKB type
formula are also listed in the Table 3.1 for comparison.
As an illustration, in Fig (3.2) a plot of the distribution of the poles and

zeros of the S-matrix for the potential given in Eq. (3.12) with potential pa-
rameter U1 = 10, a = 3 and b = 5 is shown[43]. From the properties of the

Jost functions, it can be shown that if k = kr − ιki is a pole of the S-matrix,
the corresponding zero of the same is at k = kr + ιki which is illustrated in this

figure. The points very close to the real axis correspond to the QB poles and
corresponding zeroes are very close to the pole position since ki is very small.
This means that in the vicinity of a very narrow resonance, a slight change
in Imk can make the S-matrix to jump from the pole position to zero position.
48
This is a source of difficulty in the numerical computation of QB state positions
and widths. The well separated poles and zeroes correspond to above barrier
broader resonances.
There is one more aspect one needs to examine in the decay of quasi bound
states. If the quasi-bound state or resonance state is obtained by calculating
ΓR
the pole of the S-matrix in the complex energy plane, the half width 2
is
given by the imaginary part of the pole position . The WKB barrier penetration
formula together with the assault frequency factor is also used to calculate the
same. However, there is a basic difference between these two methods. In

the WKB method, the width is independent of the tail region of the potential
because the barrier penetration formula is confined to the integral between two
turning points on either side of the barrier and is not affected by the potential
beyond the outermost turning point and A f is constructed using classical or

semiclassical picture. On the other hand, the width by the S matrix is the
result of the complete solution of the Schrödinger equation in the entire range
of the potential. Hence, if feasible, one should use the more exact S-matrix
method to calculate the position and width of resonant or quasi-bound states.

In the WKB results for widths we have used Eq. (3.16) and the resonance
energy used in all calculations are from the pole positions of S-matrix. In
this table WKB* results correspond to those obtained through Eq.(3.15) which
uses the simpler assault frequency factor (v/2a). From the results listed in
Table 3.1 it is clear that the half widths generated by S- matrix are reasonably
well reproduced by the WKB type formula Eq. (3.16) but the corresponding
results from the simpler formula Eq. (3.15) indicated by WKB* are not equally
satisfactory. The assault frequency factor in Eq. (3.15) is purely classical in its
49
Table 3.1: Pocket resonances using S-matrix method and comparison of res-
onance widths from S-matrix and WKB methods for the potential given in
Eq.(3.12). We have used the units fm−2 for energy, fm −1 for k p and fm for
length. In the calculation of widths from both methods resonance energies
ER (SM) obtained by SM method are used. The results obtained from Eqs.
(3.16) and (3.15) are represented by Γ2R (WKB) and Γ2R (WKB*) respectively.
Potential kp ER (SM) Γ2R (SM) Γ2R (WKB) Γ2R (WKB*)
Parameters
U1 =10, 0.946-ι0.560e-6 0.895 0.106e-5 0.113e-5 0.903e-6
a=3, b=5 1.882-ι0.104e-4 3.542 0.391e-4 0.358e-4 0.121e-4
U1 =12, 0.954-ι0.139e-6 0.910 0.266e-6 0.299e-6 0.260e-6
a=3, b=5 1.900-ι0.234e-5 3.610 0.890e-5 0.774e-5 0.295e-5
U1 =8, 0.934-ι0.384e-4 0.874 0.717e-4 0.726e-4 0.518e-4
a=3, b=4.5 1.855-ι0.468e-3 3.44 0.174e-2 0.178e-2 0.512e-3
U1 =10, 0.591-ι0.102e-6 0.349 0.120e-6 0.180e-6 0.237e-6
a=5, b=7 1.180-ι0.719-6 1.393 0.170e-5 0.152e-5 0.945e-6
1.766-ι0.443e-5 3.120 0.157e-4 0.132e-4 0.490e-5
content, whereas Eq. (3.16) is obtained by the solution of Schrödinger equation

in an approximate way and hence gives results closer to the exact S-matrix
results. Close examination of Table 3.1 further reveals the extent of validity of
the WKB type barrier penetration formula for rectangular pocket followed by
barrier as compared to the results obtained by more exact S-matrix method.
3.2.2 Quasi bound state wave function
The quasi bound (QB) state wave function can be treated as the solution of the
modified radial Schrödinger equation, Eq.(2.19),with complex energy eigen
value generating an asymptotic state decaying exponentially in time, but di-
verging as exp(ιkr) as r → ∞. Thus, the wave function is strictly speaking not

normalizable. However in the interaction region the behavior of the wave func-
tion is very similar to the corresponding bound state wave function generated
50
by the potential
U(r) = 0, r<a
U(r) = U1 , r>a (3.24)
In Table 3.2 we give the results for the QB state energies generated from the
potential (Eq. (3.12)along with the bound state energies generated from the po-
tential (Eq. (3.24). The numerical difference between them is more for higher
state. Mathematically speaking, this difference is due to the different boundary
conditions used for QB and bound state calculations.In other words,the differ-
ence in(ER ) and (Eb ) are due to the finite range of the barrier (b-a) in QB state
and infinite range of the barrier in the bound state.
The nature of QB and bound state wave function can be illustrated by study-
ing the variation of the magnitude of the wave functions as a function of r. In
Fig. 3.3 we show the variation of the magnitude of typical quasi bound state
wave functions generated by the potential given by Eq. (3.12)and the cor-
responding results for bound states generated by the potential given by Eq.
(3.24). It should be pointed out that behavior of the quasi bound state wave
function with k = kr − ιki will be very similar to that one generated by k = kr in
the interior provided ki << 0. On the other hand, asymptotically, the latter will
be a sinusoidal for large r but the former will be an outgoing spherical wave
behaving asymptotically as exp(ιkr). The similarity of the wave function in the
interior region of the bound and the corresponding long lived quasi bound state
can be fruitfully exploited in some practical applications [64]. As expected,
51
1
0.8
φ 0.6
0.4 QB
0.2 B
0
0 1 2 3 4
r(fm)
1
0.8
φ 0.6
QB
0.4 B
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4
r(fm)
Figure 3.3: Variation of the magnitude of typical wave function for quasi bound
states[QB] by the potential given byEq.(3.12)with potential parameters U1 =
10,a=3,b=5 and the bound states[B] for potential given by Eq. (3.24)with po-
tential parameters U1 = 10,a=3.
the quasi bound state has longer range than the corresponding bound state. It
should be noted that QB state energy and corresponding bound state energy
differ significantly, particularly for higher states. The difference in ER and Eb
is due to the finite range of the barrier (b − a) in QB state and infinite range of
the barrierin the bound state.
52
Table 3.2: Quasi Bound states energy positions(ER ) for Eq.(3.12) and bound
state energy positions (Eb ) for Eq.(3.24). We have used the units fm−2 for
energy, and fm for length. Potential parameters for Eq.(3.12)are U1 =10, a=3,
b=5 and for Eq. (3.24)are U1 =10, a=3.
ER Eb
0.895 1.02
3.542 3.954
10
8
6
v(r)
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
r
Figure 3.4: Plot of the potential given by Eq. (3.25). Potential parameters are
Uo =10, rz =4.5, c1 =1.2, c2 =1.2, a1 = 0.12, a2 = 0.12
3.2.3 Smoother potential barrier
Now we compare the results for positions and widths of the resonances using
SM and WKB methods for three smoother potentials.
(a) First we consider the potential given by Fig.3.4:
Uo
U(r) = , r ≤ rz ,
1 + exp {(rz − r − c1 )/a1 }
Uo
U(r) = , r > rz . (3.25)
1 + exp {(r − rz − c2 )/a2 }
If c1 /a1 = c2 /a2 the potential is continuous at r = rz . Further, when both
c1 /a1 and c2 /a2 are reasonably large compared to unity, the potential is contin-
uous at r= rz for all practical purposes. The potential is quite similar to rect-
53
angular barrier in overall shape. For these smooth potentials pocket resonant
positions are calculated using both S-matrix and WKB formula Eq. (2.22). In
Table 3.3 we summarize the results. It is clear that lower resonance positions
are not correctly reproduced by the WKB method. This is because Eq. (2.22)
is a better approximation for larger n and the potential is rather rapidly rising
to the barrier. Therefore in the calculation of widths using WKB type formulae
we have used the resonant state positions generated by S-matrix pole positions.
The Table 3.4 summarizes the widths obtained by S-matrix pole and also by
the WKB formulae with different assault frequency factors v/2R, v̄/2R, vrm /2R
where R is the relevant width of the pocket. We also give the results based on
expression Eq. (3.14) (Elton’s approach) for assault frequency. It is clear that
WKB results and S-matrix results agree as far as exponential (10−p ) factor is
concerned, but in general, differ significantly in the multiplicative factor. On

the whole these results demonstrate that WKB type formulae are satisfactory
for widths only when one requires the order of magnitudes of the width; for
more precise results S-matrix method should be adopted.
54
Table 3.3: Resonance poles and comparison of half widths from S-matrix and WKB method for smoother potential given by
Eq.(3.25). ER (SM) and ER (WKB) denote the resonance energies obtained using SM and WKB methods respectively. Units
are as stated in Table 3.1.
ΓR ΓR ΓR
Potential Parameters kp ER (SM) ER (WKB) 2
(SM) 2
(WKB) 2
(WKB)
using ER (SM) using ER (WKB)
−10 −10
Uo =10, rz =4.5, c1 =1.5 0.978 - ι0.447×10 0.957 0.770 0.874×10 0.343×10−10 0.177×10−10
c2 =2.0, a1 =0.12, a2 =0.25 1.929 - ι0.779×10−8 3.719 3.715 0.300×10−7 0.374×10−7 0.370×10−7
55
Uo =10, rz =4.5, c1 =1.0 0.847 - ι0.223×10−6 0.718 0.560 0.378×10−6 0.217×10−6 0.132×10−6
c2 =1.0, a1 =0.12, a2 =0.12 1.679 - ι0.407×10−5 2.819 2.760 0.137×10−4 0.130×10−4 0.119×10−4
Uo =10, rz =4.0, c1 =1.2 1.042 - ι0.496×10−7 1.086 0.890 0.103×10−6 0.515×10−7 0.347×10−7
c2 =1.2, a1 =0.12, a2 =0.12 2.049 - ι0.310×10−5 4.197 4.230 0.127×10−4 0.147×10−4 0.172×10−4
Uo =8, rz =4.5, c1 =1.2 0.883 - ι0.169×10−6 0.779 0.620 0.298×10−6 0.171×10−6 0.102×10−6
c2 =1.2, a1 =0.12, a2 =0.12 1.743 - ι0.572×10−5 3.037 3.030 0.199×10−4 0.228×10−4 0.225×10−4
Table 3.4: Comparison of half widths from S-matrix and WKB method for smoother potential given by Eq.(3.25). Γ2R
(WKB)denotes the half width computed using the Elton’s approach . Γ2R (WKB1) denotes the half width computed using the
v v̄ ΓR
simple expression for A f = 2R . Γ2R (WKB2) denotes the half width computed using the expression forA f = 2R . 2 (WKB3)
rm
denotes the half width computed using the expression for A f = v2R . Units are as stated in Table 3.1.
ΓR ΓR ΓR ΓR ΓR
Potential Parameters ER (SM) (SM) (WKB) (WKB1) (WKB2) (WKB3)
56
2 2 2 2 2
−10 −10 −10 −10
Uo =10, rz =4.5, c1 =1.5 0.957 0.874×10 0.343×10 0.458×10 0.587×10 0.446×10−10
c2 =2.0, a1 =0.12, a2 =0.25 3.719 0.300×10−7 0.374×10−7 0.196×10−7 0.220×10−7 0.190×10−7
Uo =10, rz =4.5, c1 =1.0 0.718 0.378×10−6 0.217×10−6 0.287×10−6 0.424×10−6 0.280×10−6
c2 =1.0, a1 =0.12, a2 =0.12 2.819 0.137×10−4 0.130×10−4 0.724×10−4 0.936×10−4 0.707×10−4
7
6
5
4
v(r)
3
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8
r
Figure 3.5: Plot of the potential given in Eq. (3.26).Potential parameters are
Uo = 10, ro = 4, a1 = 1.5, a2 = 1.5
(b) The second potential that we study is the symmetric or asymmetric

Gaussian barrier (Fig.3.5) given by:
r − ro 2
U( r) = Uo exp −[ ], r < ro ,
a1
r − ro 2
= Uo exp −[ ], r > ro . (3.26)
a2
The potential is symmetric if a1 = a2 . In Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 we summa-
rize the results of our calculations. In this case also, the resonance positions
used in the calculation of widths are results from the S-matrix method. From
the results we find that in this case the resonance positions obtained by the
WKB formula Eq. (2.22) are reasonably close to the corresponding S-matrix
results given by Eq. (3.22). This potential is not flat inside the pocket and rises
rather slowly and smoothly to the barrier height, the assault frequency formula
based on Elton’s approach is not suitable and hence the corresponding results
for widths are not included. In this case we used three different expressions
v
for speed in the term 2R , v̄
, vrm
2R 2R
where R is the relevant width of the pocket
57
Table 3.5: Pocket resonances using S-matrix method and WKB methods for the
potentials given in Eq.(3.26). In the calculation of widths using SM method,
resonance energies ER (S M) obtained by SM method is used. Units are same
as in Table 3.1
Potential parameters ER (WKB) kp ER (SM) Γ2R (SM)
Uo = 10, ro = 4, 1.8(n=0) 1.304-ι0.199e-7 1.861 0.544e-7
a1 = 1.5, a2 = 1.5 5.28(n=1) 2.304-ι0.285e-4 5.310 0.132e-3
8.90(n=2) 2.989-ι0.840e-2 8.935 0.502e-1
Uo = 6, ro = 4, 2.28(n=0) 1.518−ι0.228e-4 2.305 0.694e-4
a1 = 2.0, a2 = 1.0 5.12(n=1) 2.26−ι0.766e-2 5.109 0.346e-1
Uo = 8, ro = 3, 3.49(n=0) 1.874−ι0.199e-4 3.512 0.748e-4
a1 = 5.0, a2 = 1.5 7.70(n=1) 2.759−ι0.226e-2 7.616 0.125
corresponding to Eq. (3.10). The results are summarized in Table 3.6. It may
be noted that in the present set of results, some of the WKB results for width,
particularly that corresponding to assault frequency Eq. (3.11) are fairly close
to the corresponding S-matrix results.
(c) The third smooth potential (Fig.3.6) that we study is given by:
−Uo
U( r) = + Uc (r);
1 + exp −[ r−r
a
z
]
where
Uco r2
Uc (r) = [3 − 2 ], r < rc ,
rc rc
Uco r − rc
= 2 exp −[ ], r > rc . (3.27)
r b
For r < rc , this is the common Coulomb -nuclear potential used to describe
the phenomenological nucleus-nucleus potential in nuclear reaction theory. It
58
Table 3.6: Comparison of resonance widths from S-matrix and WKB methods
for the potentials given in Eq. (3.26). In the calculation of widths from both
methods, resonance energies ER (S M) obtained by SM method are used. Γ2R
(WKB1)denotes the half width computed using the simple expression for A f =
v ΓR
2R 2
. (WKB2) denotes the half width computed using the expression for A f =
v̄ ΓR
2R 2
. (WKB3) denotes the half width computed using the expression for A f =
vrm
2R
. Units are same as in Table 3.1
Potential parameters ER (SM) Γ2R (SM) Γ2R (WKB1) Γ2R (WKB2) Γ2R (WKB3)
Uo = 10, ro = 4, 1.861 0.544e-7 0.635e-7 0.582e-7 0.553e-7
a1 = 1.5, a2 = 1.5 5.310 0.132e-3 0.161e-3 0.171e-3 0.150e-3
8.935 0.502e-1 0.797e-1 0.850e-1 0.724e-1
Uo = 6, ro = 4, 2.305 0.694e-4 0.919e-4 0.759e-4 0.729e-4
a1 = 2.0, a2 = 1.0 5.109 0.346e-1 0.605e-1 0.581e-1 0.480e-1
Uo = 8, ro = 3, 3.512 0.748e-4 0.606e-4 0.405e-4 0.538e-4
a1 = 5.0, a2 = 1.5 7.616 0.125 0.183 0.144 0.156
3
2
1
0
-1 0 5 10 15 20 25
v(r)
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
r
Figure 3.6: Plot of the potential given by Eq.(3.27).Potential parameters are

Uo = −16,Uco = 28, rz = 7.5,rc = 7.5,a = 0.5,b = 2.
59
Table 3.7: Pocket resonance position and width using SM method for the po-
tentials given in Eq.(3.27). Commmon potential parameters are rz = 7.5,rc =
7.5,a = 0.5,b = 2. Γ2R (WKB) denotes the half width computed using the ex-
pression for A f = v2R
rm
. Units are same as in Table 3.1.
Potential ER (WKB) kp ER (SM) Γ2R (SM) Γ2R (WKB)
parameters
Uo = −16, 0.440(n=5) 0.637-ι0.332e-4 0.407 0.423-4 0.517e-4
Uco = 28 2.06(n=6) 1.425-ι0.197e-1 2.031 0.563e-1 0.864e-1
Uo = −15, 0.403(n=4) 0.603-ι0.675e-5 0.364 0.815e-5 0.865e-5
Uco = 30 1.932(n=5) 1.381-ι0.538e-2 1.909 0.148e-1 0.200e-1
can describe α-nucleus potential describing α-nucleus scattering and α decay.
Uc (r) for r < rc corresponds to the electrostatic potential between a charge and
a uniformly charged sphere of radius rc . To avoid the complications associated
with the long range Coulomb potential, we have made the Uc (r) decrease like
a Gaussian as r → ∞. The first term in Eq.(3.27) is the famous Woods-Saxon

potential describing the phenomenological average short range nuclear poten-
tial between two interacting nuclei. Normally, in nuclear scattering study an
attractive imaginary potential W(r) is added to U(r) such that the total poten-
tial is U(r) + iW(r). Hence the potential given by Eq. (3.27) is of considerable
importance in nuclear physics. In Table 3.7 we summarize the results of our

calculations for two typical cases. In this case also the resonance position ob-
tained by S-matrix method and the WKB method are fairly close to each other.
However the widths obtained by the WKB method using assault frequency
vrm
given by A f = 2R
are found to generate widths close to the SM results and
hence only this result is included in the table.
60
U1
U( r)
U2
a b c r
Figure 3.7: Plot of the potential given by Eq.(3.28)
3.3 Role of the tail region of the potential barrier
The half width calculated using WKB type barrier penetration formula is in-
dependent of the nature of the potential beyond the outer most turning point.
On the other hand in an exact S-matrix approach the resonant energy and half-
width depend on the entire potential. In order to ascertain the importance of
tail region beyond the effective barrier we calculate the resonant energy and
half width for the following potential
U(r) = 0 , r < a;
U(r) = U1 , a < r < b;
U(r) = U2 , b < r < c;
U(r) = 0 , r > c. (3.28)
Clearly this potential has a pocket in the region 0 < r < a, a barrier in
61
the region a < r < b and a tail in the region b < r < c (See Fig 3.7). One
notices that if resonance energy ER is larger than U2 , the WKB type formula for
corresponding width is independent of the tail region of the potential b < r < c.
If ER < U2 WKB type formula for half-width should include the total barrier in
the range a < r < c. This may be the case for some lower resonances. In Table
3.8 we give the S-matrix poles, S-matrix resonance energy and half-width and
WKB half-width in the case of pocket resonances for a various combination
of parameters U1 ,U2 , a, b and c. The resonance energy obtained from SM
method is used in WKB half-width calculations. Clearly, U2 and (c − b) control

the nature of the tail part of the potential. In the results listed in Table 9 we have
kept the parameters U1 ,a and b same (fixed) but the parameters U2 and c are
varied. This means that for same pocket and the barrier we are examining the
behavior of resonance position and width when the tail region of the potential
is varied. As one can expect, the position of the resonance is hardly affected
by the tail region but the presence of the tail region significantly alters the
width. If the height of the potential at the tail region is larger than the resonance
position ER < U2 (the results indicated by * mark in Table 3.8), WKB formula
for barrier transmission incorporates the total potential in the range a < r <
c whereas if ER > U2 , the tail region has no role in the WKB formula for
transmission. However, in the S-matrix method, in all cases the entire potential
plays a role in generating the widths. The results in Table 3.8 give a clear
estimate of this feature for the potential chosen. These results also demonstrate
that resonance positions are not significantly affected by the tail region, but
width is more affected. This clearly implies that for precise calculation of
widths, it is essential to use the method which incorporates the total potential
62
Table 3.8: Comparison of Γ2R generated by SM method and WKB type formula
v
using assault frequency = 2R for the potential given in Eq (3.28). In the latter
the tail region has no role if ER > U2 . Units are same as in Table 3.1. The
symbol* indicates the resonances states with ER < U2 .
Potential Parameters kp ER (S M) Γ2R (SM) Γ2R (WKB)
U1 =10, U2 =0, a=3, 0.946-ι0.115e-4 0.895 0.216e-4 0.231e-4
b=4.5,c = 0 1.882-ι0.132e-3 3.541 0.495e-3 0.453e-3
U1 =10, U2 =0.5, a=3, 0.946-ι0.545e-5 0.895 0.103e-4 0.231e-4
b=4.5,c = 7 1.882-ι0.120e-3 3.541 0.452e-3 0.453e-3
U1 =10, U2 =1.5, a=3, 0.946-ι0.264e-6 0.895* 0.498e-6 0.473e-6
b=4.5,c = 7 1.882-ι0.105e-3 3.541 0.394e-3 0.453e-3
U1 =10, U2 =2.0, a=3, 0.946-ι0.797e-7 0.895* 0.151e-6 0.121e-6
b=4.5,c = 7 1.882-ι0.136e-3 3.541 0.511e-3 0.453e-3
U1 =10, U2 =2.0,a=3, 0.946-ι0.649e-6 0.895* 0.123e-5 0.988e-6
b=4.5,c = 6 1.882-ι0.968e-4 3.541 0.364e-3 0.453e-3
in generating the resonances.
3.4 Summary and Conclusions
The resonance position and width are obtained in terms of real and imaginary
parts of the appropriate poles of S-matrix in complex k plane or equivalently
in the complex E plane. This procedure, in principle, is exact even though

in the numerical calculation suitable iterative procedure is needed to gener-
ate reliable pole positions of the S-matrix. This method automatically gives
both position and width of resonance. Alternatively, for smoother potentials
with wide barrier one can use the WKB approximation to obtain the positions
of quasi-bound states. Wide barrier ensures that the wave function is rapidly
damped in the barrier region and hence the WKB formula Eq.(2.22) for bound
states can be fruitfully adopted for approximate estimation of resonance posi-
tions. For width calculations WKB method has to use two terms (i) exponential
63
term related to barrier transmission and (ii) assault frequency term related to
the pocket region. From the results obtained in Table 3.1 to 3.8, the broad
conclusions are:
• The resonance position ER calculated using WKB method is not suffi-

ciently accurate in several cases. This is because the WKB approach is
a semiclassical approach and the validity of this formula is ensured only
for smoothly varying potential with wide barrier.
• The different formulae used for the calculation of assault frequency changes
the half width substantially. In the examples studied the assault fre-
quency term calculated using modified Elton’s approach , v̄ and vrm give
~k
better results than the simple formula v = m
.
• The WKB type formula is confined to the regions between classical turn-
ing points and hence not sensitive to the other regions of the potential
whereas the SM method incorporates the full potential. A comparison of
SM and WKB methods indicate that regions beyond turning points can
change the results significantly, particularly in the case of widths.
• In the WKB type approach the calculation of ER is independent of the

ΓR
calculation of 2
. The former uses the WKB approximation for the
bound state and the latter employs the WKB barrier penetration for-
mula. Each of these is an approximation and the error in ER causes
ΓR
more enhanced error in 2
. Further, each of these methods explores non-
overlapping regions of the potential. On the other hand, the SM method
treats the potential in totality within the frame work of the complete ra-
ΓR
dial Schrödinger equation and generates simultaneously both ER and 2
64
in terms of the real and imaginary parts of the pole position of the S
-matrix in the complex energy plane.
In conclusion, we may say that for the correct order of magnitude estimate of
widths, the WKB type estimate is adequate for reasonably well behaved poten-
tials. If more precise values of position and width of a resonant or QB states
are required, it is necessary to use more exact methods based on S-matrix. This
is because the latter gives a precise definition of the resonant state and bound
state in a unified way in terms of the poles of the S-matrix and hence reso-
nance position and width are computed simultaneously in SM pole search and
is based on the complete solution of the radial Schrödinger equation.
65
4
Alpha Decay in Super
Heavy Elements
4.1 Introduction
Ever since the prediction of “islands of stability” in the mass region (Z ∼
114, N ∼ 184) in 1960s, [1–12, 65](See Fig 4.1) the synthesis of super heavy
elements (SHE) and study of their α-decay half-lives among other ground state
properties is a subject that have been generating a sustained interest in the area
of nuclear physics. The research in this field explores the boarder line of the
nuclear chart towards its upper end where the strong Coulomb force acting
66
Figure 4.1: 3-Dimensional rendering of the theoretical Island of Stability
(adapted from en.wikipedia.org).
between many protons dominates and finally limit the number of elements by
instability leading to fission. If nuclei exist beyond this macroscopic limit it
can be only by microscopic stabilization through shell effects. According to

early theoretical model predictions, the next double closure above lead located
at Z=114 and N=184 [66] and recent calculations predict at Z=120, N=184
[67, 68]. The spectacular progress in experiments and accelerator technologies
has made it possible to reach the shore of the magic island around Z=120, 124
or 126 and N=184 [69]. Heavy elements with Z=107-112 have been success-
fully synthesized at GSI, Darmstadt [3]. Isotopes of these along with Z=114-
116and 118 have been synthesized at JINR-FLNR, Dubna [4–12, 70] and an
isotope of Z=113 has been identified at RIKEN, Japan [71, 72].
67
Stable
Half life over million years
Half life over 500 years
Half life over a day
Half life over a minute
Half life under a minute
68
Figure 4.2: Periodic table with elements colored according to the half-life of their most stable isotope . (adapted from
en.wikipedia.org)
4.2 Review of experimental work
Artificial elements heavier than uranium were synthesized in reactions of se-
quential capture of neutrons during long exposure at high flux reactors. Long
life time of the new nuclides made their separation and identification possible
using radiochemical methods followed by the measurement of their radioac-
tive decay properties. The pioneering work in this field was performed by G
Seaborg and collaborators in the period 1940-1953 in the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (USA). The heaviest nucleus thus synthesized was 257 Fm
with T 12 ∼ 100 days. Synthesis of elements beyond Fermium (257 Fm) has been
done in the laboratory by completely fusing heavy ions. Fusion reactions which
are used for the synthesis of heavy nuclei can be divided into two kinds:
1. Cold heavy-ion fusion reactions based on the use of 208 Pb or 209 Bi tar-
gets characterized by a large Q-reaction value, therefore, with a low ex-
citation energy(E ∼15-20MeV) . The appropriate projectiles used are the

most neutron rich isotopes available, such as 64 Ni and 70 Zn leading to the
production of elements 110,111 or 112.
2. Hot heavy-ion fusion reactions in which heavier nuclei, such as 244 Pu

or 248Cm with 48Ca projectiles to produce elements 114 and 116[70].
Using the cold fusion techniques together with increasingly sensitive de-
264,265
tection techniques, two isotopes of Hassium, Hs were created at GSI
270
in the 1980’s [6]. The GSI group has successfully produced elements Ds,
69
269,271 272 277
[73] Ds, 111, 112 [3] by the year 2002. The cold fusion reactions
have successfully been used to synthesize elements upto Z=112. However, the
maximum production cross section for this element(Z=112) is achieved at an
excitation energy of only 10 Mev. If one were to reach the heavier elements the
excitation energy at Coulomb barrier may drop below zero. Clearly as one ap-
proaches the predicted island of stability at N=184, a higher excitation energy

is required. This is achievable through greater neutron excess in both target
and projectiles as in the case of “hot fusion” reactions. The Dubna group have
48
successfully used actinide targets with a Ca beam to fuse Z ≥ 114, where
the compound nucleus is formed following the evaporation of three or more
286,287,288,289 287,288 290,291,293
neutrons. Elements 114, 115 and 116 [8, 10] have
thus been produced at higher excitation energies and different cross sections.
The evaporation residues (EVRs) of compound nuclei (CN) up to about Z=112

are produced primarily by successive α-decays to known nuclei enabling their
unambiguous identification by the method of α − α correlations. But above
48
Z=112,especially in reactions involving neutron-rich beams of rare Ca iso-
tope, α-decay chains do not end with known nuclei making the method of α−α
correlations insufficient for the unambiguous identification of isotopes. These
chains would end in unknown regions because with each successive α or β de-
cay, the daughter nuclei move away from the regions of stability. Therefore it
is reasonable to expect spontaneous fission (SF) to become the preferred decay
mode. Thus SF could then be considered as a reliable test for the formation of
heavy nuclei. When decay half-lives are shorter and production cross sections
are smaller(for higher Z), new methods have to be devised. New generation
“isotope separator on-line” (ISOL)-based machine such as mass analyzer for
70
superheavy atoms(MASHA) planned at JINR-Dubna will be able to overcome
these shortcomings.
The rate of discovery of new isotopes is expected to increase dramati-
cally with the advent of next generation heavy-ion accelerators, which pro-
vide higher energy as well as stronger intensity beams than the present heavy-
ion accelerators . One such accelerator is currently operational at RIKEN in

Japan under the name “Radioactive Isotope Beam Factory” (RIBF), which is
equipped with a highly efficient in-flight mass separator called BigRIPS. The
RIBF has immense potential to produce new radioactive isotopes. It is ex-

pected to produce approximately 1,000 new isotopes. The unique feature of
this accelerator complex of RIBF is that it is designed to provide intense and
high-energy beams for all elements from hydrogen to Uranium (U). Two new
palladium isotopes, 125 Pd and 126 Pd was reported by Ohnishi et al. [65], using
BigRIPS.
4.3 Status of theory
Several theoretical formulations have been developed in the last couple of

decades to describe the ground-state properties of each of the nuclei along the
α-decay chains including binding energies,Q-values and half lives. In general
Q-values can be measured quite accurately, uncertainties exist in experimen-
tal half-lives. Cross sections are less than 12 pico barn for the element Ds
and Z=111 and it is about 1 pico barn for the element Z=112 which limits the
measurement of half lives. Even the computation of half lives in microscopic
calculations are also severely affected by small variations in Q-values(to within
71
a couple of hundered KeV).
The two kinds of theoretical approaches are the microscopic theories and
microscopic-macroscopic (MIcMAc) models. The Moller-Nix or the Munitan
models are examples of the latter and Relativistic mean-field (RMF) theory,
Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) model belongs to the former.
Primary aim in the early studies using these models was to predict the com-
bination of neutron number(N) and proton number(Z) where spherical closure
may occur. An “island of stability” around Z=114 (N=184) has been predicted
about thirty years ago. Most theories predict N=184 as magic number, but
there is no consensus on the location of proton magic number. This is due
to differences in the treatment of the large Coulomb term and the spin-orbit
interaction.
MicMAc models, which assume a prior knowledge about the densities and
single particle potentials,include the Finite Range Droplet Model with folded
Yukawa single-particle potentials (FRDM + FY) [74] and the Yukawa plus
Exponential model with Woods-Saxon single-particle potentials (YPE + WS)
[75]. Both these models confirm the prediction of 298 114184 as being the next
spherical doubly magic number. Non-relativistic microscopic models such

as Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method [76], where the spin-orbit term
has to be manually introduced, predict Z=120 as probable as Z=114, indicat-
ing that magic shells in this region are isotope dependent. Relativistic Mean
Field (RMF) theories[42, 77–83] which incorporate the spin-orbit term natu-
rally have been very successful in describing the ground properties for nuclei
spanning the entire periodic table. This method is also successful in describing
the ground state properties of super-transactinides where both pairing effects
72
and deformation play an important role. In our calculation we use the potential
based on RMF approach and double folding models [40–42, 77, 78, 84, 85].
4.4 Alpha decay process
Among the various ground state properties of SHE, the study of α-decay has
become an important area of research [14–26]. To describe the α emission, two

different approaches have been developed. Cluster like theories suggest that
the α particle is preformed in the nucleus with a certain preformation factor

[14, 86] while the fission like approaches consider that the α particle is formed
progressively during the very asymmetric fission of the parent nucleus [87,
88]. Experimental investigation cannot clearly distinguish between these two
formation modes. The difference between the two approaches appears mainly
in the way in which the decay constant is determined. In the unified fission
models, the decay constant λ is the product of the constant assault frequency
A f and the Transmission coefficient T while in the preformed cluster models a

third factor is introduced; the cluster preformation probability P. The reliable
calculation of the preformation factor P which represents the probability of
the alpha cluster at the surface available for tunneling, is quite involved (see,
for example, [89]). Its value is expected to be slightly less than unity. The
usual practice, therefore, is either to ignore it completely ( see [16, 25, 90])
(i.e. put P=1) or treat it as a parameter (see [91] where it is determined from
the ratio between the calculated and the experimental half lives). We take P=1
throughout in our present study.
The α-decay process was described in 1928 [13, 33] in terms of quantum
73
tunneling through the potential barrier separating the mother nucleus energy
and the total energy of the separated α particle and daughter nucleus. This is
the simplest phenomenological model which assumes that the α particles are
already preformed in the nucleus. In spite of the pre-formation hypothesis,

Gamow theory was successful in its excellent description of the penetration
of the α particle through the Coulomb barrier. It also explained the linear
relation between the logarithm of the decay width λ and the energy of the
emitted particle Q.
There are other phenomenological models based on the pre-formation hy-
pothesis like the preformation cluster models (PCM) by Buck et al [92–95] and
Gurvitz and Kalbermann [96].
4.4.1 Semi empirical relations for α-decay half lives
Geiger and Nuttall[97] observed a dependance of the α-decay half-life on the

mean α particle range for a fixed radioactive family. Following this several
empirical relationships which connects α-decay half life to Q, Z and A were
proposed.
The α-decay half-life estimated by Viola-Seaborg semi-empirical relation-

ship with constants determined by Sobiczewski, Patyk and Cwiok[98] is:
−1
log10 τ 12 = [aZ + b][Q] 2 + cZ + d + hlog , (4.1)
where the half-life τ 12 is in seconds, the Q-value in MeV, Z is the atomic number
74
of the parent nucleus. The values of the constants
a = +1.66175, b = −8.5166, c = −0.20228, d = −33.9069 . (4.2)
The quantity hlog accounts for the hindrance associated with odd proton and
odd neutron numbers given by Viola and Seaborg[98] with values,
hlog = 0 f or Zeven − Neven ,
= 0.772 f or Zodd − Neven ,
= 1.066 f or Zeven − Nodd ,
= 1.114 f or Zodd − Nodd . (4.3)
G Royer and H F Zhang have reported another semiempirical formula for

α decay half-lives [14]. For even Z even N:
1 √ 1.5864Z
log10 τ 21 = −25.31 − 1.1629A 6 Z+ √ . (4.4)
(Qα )
For even Z odd N:
1 √ 1.5848Z
log10 τ 12 = −26.65 − 1.0859A 6 Z+ √ . (4.5)
(Qα )
For odd Z even N:
1 √ 1.592Z
log10 τ 12 = −25.68 − 1.1423A 6 Z+ √ . (4.6)
(Qα )
75
For odd Z odd N:
1 √ 1.6971Z
log10 τ 12 = −29.48 − 1.113A 6 Z+ √ . (4.7)
(Qα )
4.4.2 Q-values
The Q-value of a parent nucleus against α-decay is the difference between the
binding energy of the parent nucleus and the sum of binding energies of both
the resulting daughter and α particle. This theoretical Q value is given by the
relation:
Q = M − (Mα + Md ) = ∆M − (∆Mα + ∆Md ) , (4.8)
where M, Mα , Md and ∆Mα , ∆Md are the atomic masses and the atomic mass
excess of the parent nucleus, the emitted α particle and the residual daughter
nucleus respectively, all expressed in the units of energy. A positive Q value
allows decay.
The experimental decay Q values has been obtained from the measured α
particle kinetic energies Eα using the following expression:
Ap 7 2
Q= Eα + (65.3Z p5 − 80.0Z p5 ) × 10−6 MeV , (4.9)
Ap − 4
where the first term is the standard recoil correction and the second term is an
electron shielding correction.
76
4.5 Relativistic mean field theory
The Relativistic Mean Field theory (RMF) [42, 77, 78, 82, 83] is an established
and successful approach for the accurate description of nuclear properties. It

starts with a Lagrangian describing the Dirac spinor nucleons interacting via
exchange of mesons and the photon. The isoscalar-scalar σ, isoscalar -vector ω
and the isovector-vector ρ mesons are the mesons considered in this approach.
The σ mesons are responsible for long range attraction(short range repulsion),
whereas the ρ mesons are necessary for the isospin dependance of the nuclear
properties. The photon produces the Coulomb interaction.

The Lagrangian consists of free baryon and meson terms and the interaction
terms[99, 100].
L = Ψ̄(ιγµ δµ − M)Ψ − gσ Ψ̄σΨ − gω Ψ̄γµ ωµ Ψ − gρ Ψ̄γµ ρaµ τa Ψ+

1 µ 1 1 1
δ σδµ δ − m2σ σ2 − g2 σ3 − g3 σ4
2 2 3 4
1 1 1
+ c3 (ωµ ωµ )2 − Ωµν Ωµν + m2ω ωmu ωµ
4 4 2
1 aµν a 1 2 aµ a 1 µν 1
− R .Rµν + mρ ρ .ρν − F Fµν − eΨ̄γν Aν (1 − τ3 )Ψ , (4.10)
4 2 4 2
with,
Ωµν = δµ ων − δν ων , (4.11)
Raνµ = δµ ρaν − δν ρaν , (4.12)
F µν = δµ Aν − δν Aµ , (4.13)
where the meson field are denoted by σ,ων and ρaν and their masses are denoted
by mσ , mω and mρ respectively. The nucleon field and the rest mass are denoted
77
Table 4.1: The different sets of Lagrangian parameters commonly used in the
RMF/RHB calculations. The masses are in MeV. All the coupling constants
are dimensionless, except g2 which is expressed in terms of f m−1 .
NL3 NL-SV1
M 939 939
ma 508.194 510.035
mω 782.501 783
mρ 763 763
gσ 10.217 10.125
gω 12.868 12.727
gρ 4.474 4.492
g2 -10.431 -9.241
g3 -28.885 -15.388
by Ψ and M. Aν is the photon field which is responsible for the electromagnetic

e2
interaction, = 1 .
4π 137
The effective strengths of the coupling between the mesons
and the nucleons are respectively gσ , gω and gρ . g2 and g3 are the non-linear
coupling strengths of the σ meson. c3 is the self coupling term of the ω field.
The isospin Pauli matrices are written as τa , τ3 being the third component of τa .
The Lagrangian parameters are determined by reproducing the nuclear matter
properties and the ground state properties(like binding energies and the sizes)
16
of a few doubly closed shell nuclei (e.g O,40Ca and 208
Pb). Two different
sets of commonly used Lagrangian parameters NL3[99] and NL-SV1[100]in
the RMF calculations are listed in Table 4.1.
The Euler-Lagrange variational principle yields the equations of motion.
The mean field approximation is introduced and by replacing the fields by their
expectation values, one gets a set of non-linear coupled equations:
• The Dirac equation with potential terms involving meson and electro-
magnetic fields describing the nucleon dynamics.
78
Target
Projectile rpt
K
rp
Figure 4.3: Geometry of double folding.
• A set of Klein-Gordan type equations with sources involving nucleonic
currents and densities, for mesons and photons.
This set of equations, called RMF equations is to be solved self consistently.
The solutions of these RMF equations then give the ground state properties
like densities, radii etc for the nuclei. The effective densities are then obtained
through folding procedure to incorporate the finite size effects of the nucleon.
4.6 The microscopic nuclear potentials by double
folding model
Now we briefly out line the method of calculating the alpha-nucleus potential
using the double folding model. The Geometry of double folding is given in
Fig 4.3.
The nuclear interaction potential VN (R)between the daughter nucleus and

the emitted particle is obtained in a double folding model as [84, 85]:
Z Z
VN (R) = ρ1 (~
r1 )ρ2 (~
r2 )ν[|~ ~ 3 r1 d 3 r2 ,
r2 − r~1 + R|]d (4.14)
79
where ρ1 and ρ2 are the density distribution functions for the two composite
~ is the effective NN interaction. The
r2 − r~1 + R|]
nuclear fragments and ν[|~
density distribution function in case of α particle has the Gaussian form:
ρ(r) = 0.4229 exp(−0.7024r2 ) , (4.15)
whose volume integral is equal to Aα (= 4), the mass number of α-particle. The
matter density distribution for the daughter nucleus can be described by the
spherically symmetric Fermi function:
ρo
ρ(r) = (r−c)
, (4.16)
[1 + e a ]
where the equivalent sharp radius rρ , the half density radius c and the diffuse-
ness for the leptodermous Fermi density distributions are given by:
π2 a2 1
c = rρ (1 − ) , r ρ = 1.13A 3
d , a = 0.54 f m (4.17)
3rρ2
and the value of the central density ρo is fixed by equating the volume inte-
gral of the density distribution function to the mass number Ad of the residual
daughter nucleus. The distance s between any two nucleons, one belonging to
the residual daughter nucleus and the other belonging to the emitted α, is given
~ while the interaction potential between these two nucleons
r2 − r~1 + R|
by s = |~
v(s) appearing in Eq.(4.10) is given by the factorized DDM3Y effective inter-
action. The general expression for the DDM3Y realistic NN interaction used
80
to obtain the double-folded nucleus-nucleus interaction potential is given by:
v(s, ρ1 , ρ2 , ) = t M3Y (s, )g(ρ1 , ρ2 ) , (4.18)
M3Y M3Y
where the isoscalar t00 and the isovector t01 components of M3Y interac-
tion potential [84, 85] supplemented by zero range potentials are given by the
following equations:
M3Y exp (−4s) exp (−2.5s)

t00 (s, ) = 7999 − 2134 − 276(1 − α)δ(s) , (4.19)
4s 2.5s
M3Y exp (−4s) exp (−2.5s)

t01 (s, ) = −4886 + 1176 + 228(1 − α)δ(s) , (4.20)
4s 2.5s
where is the energy per nucleon. The isovector term does not contribute
if anyone(or, both) of the daughter and emitted nuclei involved in the decay
process has N=Z, N and Z being the neutron number and proton number re-
spectively. In the study of α-decay, only the isoscalar term contributes, because
N=Z in the case of α particles. The density dependance term g(ρ1 ρ2 ) can be
factorized into a target term times a projectile term as:
2 2
g(ρ1 ρ2 ) = C(1 − βρ13 )(1 − βρ23 ) (4.21)
where C, the overall normalization constant, is kept equal to unity and the
parameter β can be related to the mean-free path in the nuclear medium with
81
value equal to 1.6fm 2 . The ρ1 and ρ2 are the density distributions of the α-
particle and the daughter nucleus respectively.
In the present work to study the α-decay energies and half lives of SHE
chains A=273, Z=110 and A=269, Z=108 , the α daughter nucleus poten-
tials generated by using the double folded (DF) model with density-dependent
M3Y(DDM3Y) effective nucleon-nucleon interaction were used. The numeri-

cally computed potentials were conveniently parameterized using Woods-Saxon
form factor. With this, together with the pole search program of the Coulomb
nuclear S-Matrix developed by us, calculation of Q values and widths in an

integrated way becomes feasible. In the next chapter we describe the results
obtained using these and WKB type methods in the study of two chains of
alpha decay of super heavy elements.
82
5
Calculation of α-Decay
Energies and Half-lives
5.1 Introduction
The production, identification and study of the super heavy elements is a chal-
lenging task which is being vigorously pursued by a number of laboratories

around the world [1–12]. These elements are very short lived and decay pri-
marily through spontaneous α - emission. Thus, they can be identified through

α - α correlations. So far, the elements up to Z=118 [12] have been success-
fully produced, identified and the decay properties (Q - values and the life time)
83
of the nuclei appearing in their respective α - decay chains have been measured
[3]. The ground state properties of these SHE have been successfully described
in both relativistic and non-relativistic mean field theories. The decay life times
have also been calculated [23, 40] in the WKB approach using the respective
α - daughter nucleus potential. These required potentials have been either in-
troduced phenomenologically (in the form like Woods-Saxon (WS) shape with
adjustable parameters) or calculated microscopically. The latter is obtained by
the double folding (tρρ) approximation. In this approach the empirical density
of alpha (4 He) together with the daughter nucleus densities calculated using
the mean field theory or phenomenological WS shape are folded with M3Y
nucleon - nucleon interaction.
We now attempt to calculate Q-value and log τ1/2 value for different α - nu-
cleus systems, using the corresponding microscopic potentials. These poten-

tials have been generated [23] in the tρρ approximation using the calculated nu-
clear (both proton and neutron) densities generated using the relativistic mean
field (RMF) theory [41, 42, 80, 101].
5.2 Details of calculation
The numerical nuclear potentials for various alpha-daughter nucleus systems
were examined and we found that they can be fitted quite well using Woods-
Saxon form factor. Then we examined whether a single global phenomenolog-
ical Woods-Saxon potential can be generated with least number of adjustable

parameters, which reproduce the numerical potential obtained in the tρρ frame-
work. It is found that numerical real nuclear potentials can be fitted with Woods
84
Saxon potential of the form:
Vo
V(r) = = Vws (r) , (5.1)
1 + exp {(r − Rz )/a}
with Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm, and:
Rz = rz A1/3 2
D with rz = 1.2 − (AD − 249) × 3.27 × 10
−5
f m.
That is, in this potential we keep Vo and a as fixed parameters and rz is given
slight AD dependence, where AD is the mass number of the daughter nucleus.
We have tested this WS potential with respect to the corresponding numerical
potential V f m (r) obtained using tρρ folding model by evaluating them at N =

1000 equispaced data points in the range 0 < ri < 20 fm. χ2 which reflects the
quality of the fit is obtained using:
h i2
X
N V f m (ri ) − Vws (ri )
χ2 = . (5.2)
i=1
N
In Table 5.1 we list the χ2 values of the fits obtained by using the above poten-
tial for the numerical potentials along with volume integrals
Z Z∞
J = U(r) dr = 4π U(r)r2 dr , (5.3)
0
for both V f m (r) and Vws (r). The corresponding J values we indicate by J f m and
Jws respectively.
These results indicate that the WS parameterization that we obtained is

quite good in reproducing V f m (r) and provide a good semi-phenomenological
85
Table 5.1: Comparison of numerical potential V f m (r) obtained using tρρ folding
model and its parameterization by Woods-Saxon potential Vws (r) using χ2 and
volume integrals defined in Eq. (5.2) and Eq. (5.3) respectively.
AD Z χ2 J for V f m J for Vws
(MeV ) (MeV fm ) (MeV fm3 )
2 3
273 110 0.640 157.22 154.95

269 108 0.785 158.60 157.23
265 108 0.412 159.30 159.15
265 106 0.676 158.97 159.15
261 104 0.987 158.87 160.70
257 104 0.283 159.15 161.88
257 102 0.866 157.57 161.88
253 102 0.345 157.65 162.70
253 100 0.961 156.75 162.70
249 100 0.408 150.75 163.13
real potential for studying the alpha decay of the above systems. Fig. (5.2) and
Fig. (5.3) illustrate this for two specific cases where comparison of V f m (r) and
Vws (r) is shown.
α1 α2 α3 α4 α5 α6
277 273 269 265 261 257 253
112 Ds Hs Sg Rf No Fm
S. Hoffman et . al., Z. Phys. A 354(1996), 220.
α1 α2 α3 α4 α5
269 265 261 257 253 249
Ds Hs Sg Rf No Fm
S. Hoffman et . al., Z. Phys. A 357(1997), 125.
Figure 5.1: The observed α - decay chains originating from the super heavy
elements (A=277, Z=112) and (A=269, Z=110).
Our calculation of the QB state pertaining to α-decay is based on the solu-
86
A = 2 6 9 , Z=1 0 8
-10
V (r) (M eV )
-30
W S -W S p o te n tia l
-50 N-Nu m e r ic a l p o te n tia l
-70 N
WS
-90
0 5 10 15 20
d is t a n c e (f m )
Figure 5.2: The microscopic numerical α - nucleus (A=269, Z=108) potential

fitted with the WS shape. Parameters are: Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz
= 7.6013 fm.
tion of Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb-nuclear potential
−Vo Z1 Z2 e2
V(r) = + 3
(3RC2 − r2 ) r < Rz (5.4)
1 + exp[(r − Rz )/a] 2RC
Z1 Z2 e2
V(r) = r > Rz (5.5)
r
The second term Eq.(5.4) is the Coulomb potential between point charge Z1 e
1
and uniformly charged sphere of radius RC and charge Z2 e, where RC = rc (AD3 ).
rc is the radius parameter which is taken as 1.2 fm in the present work.
Usually, one introduces a multiplicative factor (see for example,[91]) to the
nuclear part of the folded optical potential. We do not intend to introduce any
additional parameters in the present study. We have calculated Q-values and
the log τ1/2 using the microscopically derived α - daughter potentials [23] for
the parents appearing in the α - decay chains (Fig. 5.1) of the super heavy
269
element (A=277, Z=112) and Ds (A=269, Z=110) employing both the S-
87
A=253 Z=100
10
-10
WS -WS potential
V(r)(MeV) -30 N = Numerical Potential
-50
WS
-70
N
-90
0 5 10 15 20
distance(fm)
Figure 5.3: The microscopic numerical α - nucleus (A=253, Z=100) potential

fitted with the WS shape. Parameters are: Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz
= 7.598 fm.
Matrix and WKB type methods. For these calculations we have used the pa-
rameterized potential Vws given by Eq. (5.1). This potential reproduces the
microscopically calculated numerical potentials reasonably well (Fig5.2 and
Fig 5.3) in terms of attractive Woods-Saxon potential having three parameters

Vo , a, Rz . The Coulomb potential is characterized by the radius parameter rc
= 1.2 fm. The Coulomb barrier height for these cases is between about 25-30
MeV and barrier location is around 10-11 fm.
The Q-value and log τ1/2 value for different α - nucleus systems was cal-
culated using both the WKB method and SM method. In the WKB method,
the Q-values were found using the formula Eq 2.14 and the half lives were cal-
culated using the Eq 2.16. Assault frequency was calculated using the Elton’s
approach.
As indicated in Chapter 2, the resonance or quasi-bound state calculation
for the α-daughter nucleus system is to be done by examining the poles of
88
Coulomb-nuclear S-Matrix obtained using Coulomb distorted asymptotic wave
boundary conditions. Such calculations for real energies are routinely done in
α nucleus optical model calculations to obtain scattering and reaction cross sec-
tions. For studying complex poles of S- matrix this scheme has to be suitably
modified to handle complex energy and momentum. This was carried out. The
following flow chart summarizes the major steps involved in the calculations.
• Feed in the input data like potential parameters etc
• Compute Coulomb functions, amplitudes and phase shifts
• Set up initial starting values for the solution of Schrödinger equation.
• Carry out the numerical solution of wave function and derivatives upto
r = Ro .
• Compute the S-Matrix elements
• Represent S-Matrix as the ratio of Jost functions (Fl (k) and Fl (−k)).
• Search for the zeros of the Jost function Fl (−k) in the lower half of the
complex k-plane just below the real axis in order to identify resonance
poles. One should confirm the same by checking the S-Matrix
• From the pole of the S-Matrix compute Q value and half width using Eq
3.22 and Eq 3.23.
The numerical solution of Schrödinger equation was carried out using the
Runge-Kutta Method. The search for the zero of the Jost function was done us-
ing the Newton’s Raphson method. In Appendix A, we summarize the Runge-
Kutta and Newton Raphson methods.
89
5.3 Results and discussions
Before presenting the results we describe some difficulties one faces in the cal-
culations of half-lives in alpha decay problems. The problem has two aspects.
Firstly, if there is an alpha decay with comparatively long half-life, it implies
that the corresponding resonant pole of the S-Matrix has infinitesimally small
imaginary part. For example let us say that Q value is 8 MeV and log τ1/2 is
3.5. This means the corresponding resonant pole in complex energy plane is
at E = 8.0 − ι0.72 × 10−25 . The imaginary part associated with the width
is exceedingly small compared to real part. On the other hand if log τ1/2 is
-3.5 the corresponding pole position is at E = 8.0 − ι0.72 × 10−18 . That is
imaginary part has become larger by 7 orders of magnitude. While computing

the pole position, if imaginary part is too small, because of inherent numerical
limitations, the iterative method of calculation of the pole fails to accurately
compute the imaginary part of the pole even though real part is generated satis-
factorily. This is also due to the fact that for a real potential, zeros and poles of
the S-Matrix are complex conjugates of each other implying that the S-Matrix
fluctuates between zero and infinity too rapidly. We found that several other
methods described in reference [43] are also not reliable in precise calcula-
tion of infinitesimally small widths. Even when one uses methods based on
R-matrix and complex energy [102] for calculations of widths, infinitesimally
small widths do pose numerical difficulties. Hence in such cases it is better to
rely on WKB based formulae for widths.
The physical reason for very small values of imaginary part of the pole po-
sition in alpha decay problem is due to the fact that compared to the Q value the
90
Table 5.2: Q values (in MeV) and log τ1/2 obtained from S-Matrix (SM) and
WKB methods. The calculated WKB half lives using the S-Matrix Q-values
are listed under the columns log τ1/2 SM-Q. The results in the columns in-
dicated as log τ1/2 SM and log τ1/2 WKB are based on S-Matrix and WKB
methods respectively. The Woods Saxon potential parameters used for nu-
clear potential are Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz = rz A1/3 D with
2 −5
rz = 1.2 − (AD − 249) × 3.27 × 10 fm.
AD Z Q-SM Q-WKB Q-Expt. log τ1/2 log τ1/2 log τ1/2 log τ1/2
SM-Q SM WKB Expt.
273 110 11.21 11.28 11.62 -4.17 -3.58 -4.34 -3.55
269 108 10.45 10.52 11.25 -2.98 -2.39 -3.16 -3.95
265 108 10.67 10.74 11.28 -3.53 -2.95 -3.71 -3.62
265 106 9.75 9.81 9.37 -1.79 -1.20 -1.97 1.29
261 106 10.04 10.10 10.73 -2.58 -1.98 -2.74 -2.63
261 104 9.10 9.17 8.90 -0.61 -0.05 -0.83 1.38
257 104 9.46 9.52 9.62 -1.66 -1.07 -1.83 -1.47
257 102 8.52 8.59 8.65 0.50 1.05 0.26 0.67
253 102 8.94 9.01 8.71 -0.85 -0.24 -1.03 1.14
253 100 8.00 8.07 8.47 1.53 3.61 1.28 1.17
249 100 8.49 8.56 8.14 -0.11 0.48 -0.34 1.63
height of the Coulomb barrier is large and the slow decrease of the Coulomb
tail makes the effective width of the barrier also very large. For example in a
typical case with daughter nucleus mass number A=253 and Z=100 the height
of the Coulomb barrier is about 24.21 MeV and effective width at energy, say,
E = 8.47 MeV is 10.79 fm. Hence the resonant state at this energy has exceed-
ingly small width. In the model calculations that we presented the potential
parameters were chosen such that widths of resonant states are not too small
like the alpha decay case. Hence while carrying out S-Matrix calculations for
alpha decay, the corresponding results from WKB method help us to keep track
of the computation in the right directions when numerical difficulties arise.
In the calculation of resonant poles of the S- matrix for alpha-nucleus sys-

tem,we deal with the Coulomb-nuclear problem. In this case,partial wave S-
91
Matrix is generally expressed as a product of corresponding Coulomb S-Matrix
(S C` (k)) and the so called nuclear S- matrix (S `N (k)). The poles corresponding
to resonances originate in the nuclear S-Matrix. The Coulomb S-Matrix has no
resonant poles. In our calculations we use the WS form for nuclear potential.
The total potential is the sum of nuclear potential and the Coulomb potential
associated with the uniformly charged sphere with radius parameter rc . Com-
putations involve the evaluation of regular solution of the radial equation for
the total potential with complex energy and matching them with the appropri-
ate combinations of Coulomb wave functions outside the range of the nuclear
potential. The pole positions of the s wave Coulomb nuclear S-Matrix can be
identified with the zeroes of the function:
χ(k) = φ0 (r) f (η, −kR) − kφ(r) f 0 (η, −kR) ,
Here η is the Rutherford parameter and R is the matching radius at which nu-
clear potential is negligible. The Coulomb nuclear Jost solutions f (η, kR) and
f (η, −kR) for s- wave are appropriate linear combinations of regular and ir-
regular s- wave Coulomb wave functions F0 (η, kR) and G0 (η, kR) [61]. Here
φ(r) and φ0 (r) are the regular solution of modified radial Schrödinger equation
and the corresponding derivative with respect to r. In order to compute the

resonance position and its width one has to search for zeros of χ(k) close to
real axis in the lower half of complex k-plane. This gives rise to two prob-
lems in computation. First, as described earlier in alpha decay problems, both

the height and the width of the barrier at required Q-value are quite large, and
hence the magnitude of the imaginary part of the zero position (kr − ιki ) is in-
92
finitesimally small (typically ki /kr is 10−18 or less). Further, the S-Matrix has a
zero at kr + ιki . Thus the S-Matrix jumps from pole position and zero position
too rapidly and hence great care has to be taken in getting saturation in the
iterative process in the S-Matrix pole search. Second, while numerically com-
puting the above function, we face another difficulty. The G0 (η, kR) function
takes exponentially large values for large η and kR [61] and hence searching
the zero of χ(k) causes additional difficulty. The reason behind this can be
illustrated as follows. Suppose we need to calculate the zero of the function:
F(x) = (x − x0 )g(x) ,
where g(x) is of the order of 1010 at x = x0 . Even when one substitutes the
value of x0 accurate up to 3 significant decimals, the function F(x) will still
be of the order of 107 and hence one does not get a feel that x0 computed is
very close to the exact zero position of F(x). In such situations, it becomes
necessary to renormalize the function F(x) by factoring out the power factor
in order to ascertain the zero position. Further, in numerical computation the
resonance position and width computed using the WKB method should be used
as indicators for the saturation of the iterative method in the computation of
S-Matrix resonance poles. From this description one can visualize why it is
easier to get the widths accurately using the S-Matrix method when log τ1/2 is
negative but causes difficulty when it is positive.
It should be mentioned here that, in recent years, several other methods

have been developed for the computation of half lives when the width is too
narrow(log τ1/2 is positive)[64, 103–105]. This includes the direct wave func-
93
tion method(WF) [64, 103] and distorted wave function (DW) method [104,
105]. These methods exploit the fact that QB state wave function is quite sim-
ilar to the bound state wave function in the interaction domain. B Sahu,Y K
Gambhir and C S Shastry [106]has recently made a comparison of WF and

DW methods with the SM method for the calculation of α-decay half width
for the chain(A=277,Z=112). All three methods give practically same results
for the widths. Strictly speaking the WF method is an appropriate modification
of the S-Matrix method specially suited when widths are very very small. In
WF method, calculation of the energy of resonance or QB state is equivalent

to getting the real part of the complex pole of the S-Matrix. The computation
of imaginary part or width is decoupled from the real part calculation. This
is justified because the QB state energy is practically independent of ki when
ki <<< kr . The SM method has a wider applicability for the computation of

Q-value and widths particularly when widths are larger. However WF can be
used to confirm the results from SM method when width is very very small.
In fact, at present in literature there are variety of methods closely related to
SM method[43, 64, 103, 107] to calculate resonances and widths and these are
more suitable than WKB approximation based methods.
B.Sahu has recently reported a different approach for the computation of

extremely narrow widths[108]. His approach is based on WF method and use
of exactly solvable Ginocchio type potential to represent the alpha-nucleus po-
tential. Using this expression for wave function together with WF method,
widths were calculated. A good fit of experimental values of Q-value and

logτ 12 was obtained for several α-decay chains by varying one parameter in
the potential.
94
The results of our calculations are summarized in Table 5.2. This table pro-
vides a variety of results (see table caption). The Q-values from S-Matrix and
WKB (using Eq. (2.14)and Eq. (2.44)) methods are fairly close but they differ
to some extent from the experimental values. It is to be mentioned that the

Q-values calculated using the relativistic mean field (RMF) theory reproduce
the experiment remarkably well (with 0.5 MeV deviation on the average) [24].
The RMF explicitly takes into account the structure effects like deformation,
shell closures etc. The RMF results for Q-values are relatively superior to the
corresponding S-Matrix and WKB results. As stated earlier it is essential to

use the same input (Q-values, Potential etc.) for the half width calculation in
both the S-Matrix and WKB methods.
However, there is difference as far as the S-Matrix and WKB half-life re-
sults are concerned. The WKB results seem to be better for positive log τ1/2 .
As elaborated earlier, this is because of the difficulty in finding the reliable
imaginary part of the S-Matrix pole, when it is infinitesimally small. As ex-
pected, when values are negative, the S-Matrix results seem to be substantially
better.
As stated earlier, in our calculations we use WS form of nuclear potential
obtained after fitting the numerical potential obtained by double folding model.
We have verified that if exact numerical potential is used instead of its parame-
terization using WS form factor, the results for Q-value remain practically the
same; however, in some cases log τ1/2 show some difference.
In Chapter 4, we have listed a few empirical formulae for the half lives of
alpha decay. It is interesting to compare the results obtained by one of these
empirical formulae(EF) which was obtained by analyzing a number of α-decay
95
chains [14]with the more exact result obtained by our SM methods. In Table
5.3 we list the half lives calculated using the SM method and those using the EF
pertaining to our data along with the experimental half lives. The Q-value used
in the calculations is the energy calculated using SM method. As is seen from

the table, there is a good agreement between the values of half-lives obtained
from SM method and empirical formula (See Fig 5.4). Hence these results
provide a theoretical backing for the EF.
Before concluding this section, it should be noted that the Coulomb-nuclear
potential for alpha-daughter nucleus used by us generates several resonances
one of them having the observed Q-value. In general, there are few QB states
below this and few above this experimentally observed decay Q-value. For
example, in the case of the system (A=268,Z=108) energies of possible s-wave
QB states are (using WKB method) : 2.92 MeV, 10.52 Mev,18.13 Mev and
24.88 Mev. The observed Q = 10.52 Mev. The lower ones have very large life
times and and the higher ones are very short lived and hence difficult to verify in
the case of super heavy elements decay. The possible role of these neighboring
QB states generated by alpha-nucleus potential is unclear. However, in α-

nucleus scattering, these states will become obscure due to the imaginary part
of the complex potential used in the calculation of scattering cross section.
96
Table 5.3: Q-SM and log τ1/2 (SM) are the Q-values (in MeV) and log τ1/2
obtained from S-Matrix (SM) method. log τ1/2 (EF) are obtained from the
empirical formula (EF) (Eq. 4.4 to 4.7). The Q-values used in the EF are
obtained from S-Matrix method. Woods Saxon potential parameters used
for nuclear potential are Vo = -78.0 MeV, a = 0.95 fm and Rz = rz A1/3
D with
rz = 1.2 − (AD − 249)2 × 3.27 × 10−5 fm.
AD Z Q-SM Q-Expt. log τ1/2 log τ1/2 log τ1/2
SM (EF) Expt.
273 110 11.21 11.62 -3.58 -3.55 -3.55
269 108 10.45 11.25 -2.39 -2.37 -3.95
265 108 10.67 11.28 -2.95 -3.72 -3.62
265 106 9.75 9.37 -1.20 -1.11 1.29
261 106 10.04 10.73 -1.98 -1.89 -2.63
261 104 9.10 8.90 - -0.05 -0.007 1.38
257 104 9.46 9.62 -1.07 -0.985 -1.47
257 102 8.52 8.65 1.05 1.07 0.67
253 102 8.94 8.71 -0.24 -0.167 1.14
253 100 8.00 8.47 3.61 2.07 1.17
249 100 8.49 8.14 0.48 0.53 1.63
5.4 Summary and conclusions
We now summarize the main results of our calculations described in Chapter 3

and section 5.3
• We investigated the method based on the calculations of the poles of
S-Matrix to evaluate resonance energies and widths using some model

potentials and compared the same with WKB type methods. Whereas
the resonance position and width depend on the entire potential in the
former, in WKB type approaches, these are independent of the tail region
of the potential beyond the outer turning point. Our calculations show
that this neglect of tail region can cause some error in the results obtained
for widths by WKB type methods.
97
5
253
4
3
2 257 249
logW1/2
1 261 253 EF
log 0 265 257
261 SM
-1
-2
269
273 265
-3
-4
-5
1
110 2
108 3
108 4
106 5
106 6
104 7
104 8
102 9
102 10
100 11
100
Z
Figure 5.4: Comparison of log τ1/2 values obtained using empirical formula
(EF) and S-Matrix (SM) method. The Q-value used in the EF are the one
which was obtained using SM method.
• Further, it was found that use of more accurate assault frequency fac-
tor in WKB type formula for width is important in order to obtain better
results. Further, one notices that the resonance position or Q-value calcu-
lation using WKB method is less reliable for lower states and also when
the potential is not smoothly varying. Hence, WKB type formula can be
treated as a mathematically simple approach to calculate life times ap-
proximately when energy or Q-value of the decaying state is known from
other sources. On the other hand, SM approach handles the computation
of Q-value and width simultaneously in terms of the pole position of the
S-Matrix and is based on the full solution of the Schrödinger equation.
• We then applied the S-Matrix and WKB methods to calculate the Q-
values and half-lives of α decaying nuclei beyond Z=100. The micro-
scopic potentials calculated using tρρ folding model for a number of

alpha-daughter nucleus systems in the super heavy mass region with
Z>100 can be very satisfactorily approximated by WS potential with
same strength and diffuseness parameters a and rz with a small AD de-
98
pendence. This global WS potential is used to calculate the Q values and
the half-lives of alpha decaying systems using both S-Matrix and WKB
methods. The WKB results compare well with those of S-Matrix. How-
ever, differences do occur when log τ1/2 is very large and its calculation
using S-Matrix method causes numerical difficulties.
• Based on our calculations, we find that if only order of the half widths
is what is needed, it is reasonable to use WKB type formula for the cal-
culation , but if more details of half widths are required, more exact SM
method is to used.
5.5 Potential for future work
• In the α-decay problem, the daughter α- nucleus system can be treated
with a real potential, but in the corresponding α-daughter nucleus col-

lision analysis several other reaction channels open up hence within the
optical model framework, effective potential has to be made complex.
The microscopically calculated alpha nucleus potential, parameterized
reasonably well with minimum parameters can now be used to explain
the scattering data to test its credibility. Since enough data in the case
of super heavy nuclei scattering is not available, the idea mentioned may
be initially tried in the cases where scattering data is available. This is a
fruitful effort which can be taken as an extension of the present work.
• In view of the usefulness of the analytic S-Matrix method of calculating
the quasi-bound state energies and widths, this approach can be used to
99
make a comprehensive analysis of all α decaying nuclear systems. In
order to do this in a systematic manner one has to generate the α-nucleus
potentials using RMF method and double folding model. Such work will
make available the complete analysis of α-decay within the frame work
of analytical S-Matrix.
• Further the method of calculating resonance position and width devel-

oped by us can be fruitfully used to study the nature of resonances oc-
curring in nuclear reactions in particular heavy ion reactions. Some work
in this lines has already been done and there is potential to make further
study along these lines to determine the role of potential resonances in
phenomena like sub-barrier and above barrier fusion etc.
100
A
Numerical Techniques
In this section we briefly discuss the numerical methods used in this work for
the solution of the Schödringer equation, namely Runge Kutta method and
the technique used for searching the complex zeros of the Jost functions, the
Newton Raphson method.
A.1 Runge-Kutta method
Runge Kutta (RK) methods are an important class of methods for integrating
initial value problems formed by Ordinary differential equations. The basic

idea is to build a series of “stages”, ki that approximate the solution y at var-
ious points using samples of f (x, y) from other stages. Finally, the numerical
101
solution u(n+1) is constructed from a linear combination of all the pre-computed
stages. We will summarize the steps of the fourth order Runge Kutta (RK4)
method which is the most commonly used method for the solution of a first
order ODE:
d f (x, y)
− f (x, y) = 0 , (A.1)
dx
For the inital condition y(xo ) = yo and the step size between any two consecu-
tive values of the independent variable x to be h:
k1 = h f (xn , yn )
h k1
k2 = h f (xn + , yn + )
2 2
h k2
k3 = h f (xn + , yn + )
2 2
k4 = h f (xn + h, yn + k3 ) , (A.2)
k1 k2 k3 k4
yn+1 = yn + + + + + O(h5 ) . (A.3)
6 3 3 6
The error involved in the calculation is of the order of h5 .
For the second order differential equation having the form:
d2 ( f (x, y))
− f (x, y) = 0 , (A.4)
dx
the corrections terms evaluated at each steps are:
102
k1 = h f (xn , yn )
h h
k2 = h f (xn + , yn + y0n + )
2 8
h
k3 = h f (xn + h, yn + hy0n + k2 ) , (A.5)
2
where y0 corresponds to the first derivative of y with respect to x. The correc-
tions to be applied to yn and y0n for the next step are:
1 1
∆y = h[y0n + (k1 + 2k2 )] ∆y0 = (k1 + 4k2 + k3 ) . (A.6)
6 6
Thus, y(xn + h) and its derivative y0 (xn + h) are given by:
yn+1 = yn + ∆y y0n+1 = y0n + ∆y0 , (A.7)
and the steps are repeated until y is obtained at the required point x. Here also
the error involved in the calculation is of the order of h5 .
A.2 Newton-Raphson method
In numerical analysis, Newton-Raphson is perhaps the best known method for
finding successively better approximations to the zeros (or roots) of a real-
valued function. This method can often converge remarkably quickly, espe-
cially if the iteration begins ”sufficiently near” the desired root. The idea of the
method is as follows: one starts with an initial guess which is reasonably close
to the true root, then the function is approximated by its tangent line , and one
computes the x-intercept of this tangent line. This x-intercept will typically be
103
a better approximation to the function’s root than the original guess, and the
method can be iterated. Let f (x) = 0, be the given equation and let xn be the
current approximation of the root. If h denotes the correction to be applied to
get the exact root, then:
xn+1 = xn + h , (A.8)
so that:
f (x) = f (xn + h) = 0 . (A.9)
Expanding this by Taylor’s theorem upto first order, we have:
f (xn + h) = f (xn ) + h f 0 (xn ) = 0 , (A.10)
solving:
f (xn )
h=− . (A.11)
f 0 (xn )
Then we can write:

f (xn )
xn+1 = xn − . (A.12)
f 0 (xn )
This formula can be used iteratively until the value of h becomes smaller than
the desired value. The error involved in this method is of the order of h2 .
But the value of h decreases at every iteration, the error is very small and the
method is thus powerful to obtain the roots of equation.We used this method
to compute the complex zeros of the Jost function and thereby to evaluate the
pole of the S-Matrix.
104
References
[1] Sven Gsta Nilsson, Chin Fu Tsang, Adam Sobiczewski, Zdzis-

law Szyma ski, Slawomir Wycech, Christer Gustafson, Inger-Lena
Lamm, Peter Möller, and Böjrn Nilsson. “On the nuclear structure and
stability of heavy and superheavy elements”. Nucl. Phys, A 131(1),
1969.
[2] Gottfried Münzenberg. “Discoveries of the heaviest elements”. J. Phys.

G: Nucl. Part. Phys, 25(717-725), 1999.
[3] S. Hoffman and Gottfried Münzenberg. “The discovery of the heaviest

elements”. Rev. Mod. Phys., 72:733, 2000.
[4] Yu. Ts. Oganessian. “The synthesis and decay properties of the heaviest
elements”. Nucl. Phys., A 685(17c), 2001.
[5] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. S. Abdullin,

A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G. G. Gulbekian,
S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin,
A. M. Sukhov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody,
J. F. Wild, N. J. Stoyer, M. A. Stoyer, , R. W. Lougheed, C.A.Laue, Ye.
A.Karelin, and A.N.Tatarinov. “Observation of the decay of 292 116”.
Phys. Rev. C, 63(011301), 2001.
[6] Gottfried Münzenberg. “SHE Research at GSI-Achievments and Plans”.

Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences, 3(1), 2002.
105
[7] Yu. Ts. Oganessian and Yu. E. Penionzhkevich. “Low energy radioactive
ion beams in Dubna”. Nucl. Phys., A 701(104c), 2002.
[8] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh. Abdullin,

A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov,
A. A. Voinov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N.
Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, K. Subotic, V. I.
Zagrebaev, G. K. Vostokin, M. G. Itkisk, J. Moody, J. B. Patin, D. A.
Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, P. A. Wilk, J. M. Kenneally,
J. H. Landrum, J. F. Wild, and R. W. Lougheed. “Synthesis of the iso-
topes of elements 118 and 116 in the 249 Cf and 245
Cm + 48
Ca fusion
reactions”. Phys. Rev. C, 69(021601(R)), 2004.

A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagre-
baev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer,
N. J. Stoyer, D. A. Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, P. A. Wilk, R. W.
Lougheed, R. I. Iókaev, and S. P. Vesnovskii. “Measurements of cross
sections and decay properties of the isotopes of elements 112, 114, and
116 produced in the fusion reactions 233,238 U , 242 Pu,and 248 Cm+48 Ca”.
Phys. Rev. C, 70(064609), 2005.
[10] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, S. N. Dmitriev, Yu. V. Lobanov,

M. G. Itkis, A. N. Polyakov, Yu. S. Tsyganov, A. N. Mezentsev, A. V.
Yeremin, A. A. Voinov, E. A. Sokol, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov,
S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, G. V. Buklanov, S. V. Shishkin,
V. I. Chepygin, G. K. Vostokin, N. V. Aksenov, M. Hussonnois, K. Sub-
otic, and V. I. Zagrebaev. “Synthesis of elements 115 and 113 in the
reaction 243 Am + 48 Ca”. Phys. Rev. C, 72(034611), 2005.
[11] Yu. Ts. Oganessian. “Towards the “island of stability” of superheavy

elements”. Radiat. Phys. Chem. C, 61:259, 2001.
106
A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov,
A. A. Voinov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N.
Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, K. Subotic, V. I. Za-
grebaev, G. K. Vostokin, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody, J. B. Patin, D. A.
Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, P. A. Wilk, J. M. Kenneally,
J. H. Landrum, J. F. Wild, and R. W. Lougheed. “Synthesis of the iso-
topes of elements 118 and 116 in the 249 Cf and 245 Cm + 48 Ca fusion
reactions”. Phys. Rev. C, 74(044602), 2006.
[13] G. Gamow. Z. Phys., 51:204, 1928.
[14] G. Royer and H. F. Zhang. “Recent α-decay half-lives and analytic

expression predictions including superheavy nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C,
77(037602), 2008.
[15] Madhubrata Bhattacharya and G Gangopadhyay. “α-decay lifetime in

superheavy nuclei with A > 282”. Phys. Rev. C, 77(047302), 2008.
[16] P. R. Chowdhary, C. Samanta, and D. N. Basu. “Search for long

lived heaviest nuclei beyond the valley of stability”. Phys. Rev. C,
77(044603), 2008.
[17] C. Samanta, P. R. Chowdhary, and D. N. Basu. “Predictions of alpha

decay half lives of heavy and superheavy elements”. Nucl. Phys. A,
789:142–154, 2007.
[18] C. Samanta, D. N. Basu, and P. R. Chowdhary. “Quantum tunneling in

277
112 and its α decay chains”. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn, 76(124201), 2007.
[19] P. Roy Chowdhary, C. Samanta, and D. N. Basu. “α decay chains from

element 113”. Phys. Rev. C, 75(047306), 2007.
[20] H. F. Zhang and G. Royer. “Theoretical and experimental α decay half

lives of the heaviest odd-Z elements and general predictions”. Phys. Rev.
C, 76(047304), 2007.
107
[21] J. C. Pei, F. R. Xu, Z. J. Lin, and E. G. Zhao. “α-decay calculations
of heavy and superheavy nuclei using effective mean field potentials”.
Phys. Rev. C, 76(044326), 2007.
[22] P. R. Chowdhary, C. Samanta, and D. N. Basu. “α-decay half-lives of

new superheavy elements”. Phys. Rev. C, 73(014612), 2006.
[23] Y. K. Gambhir, A. Bhagwat, and M. Gupta. “Microscopic description

of superheavy nuclei”. Ann. of Phys. (NY), 320:429–452, 2005.
[24] Y. K. Gambhir, A. Bhagwat, and M. Gupta. “α-decay half-lives of the

superheavy nuclei Z=108-118”. Phys. Rev. C, 71(037301), 2005.
[25] Y. K. Gambhir, A. Bhagwat, M. Gupta, and Arun K. Jain. “α radioac-

tivity of superheavy nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 68(044316), 2003.
[26] G. Royer and R. A. Gherghescu. “On the formation and α-decay of

superheavy elements”. Nucl. Phys. A, 699:479–492, 2002.
[27] E. Roecki. Radiochem. Acta, 70-71, 1995.
[28] Gordana Dodig Crnković, F. A. Janouch, and R. J. Liotta. “α-clusterring

and absolute α-decay widths in spherical nuclei”. Phys. Lett. B, 139:143,
1984.
[29] D. S. Delion, A. Sandulescu, and W. Greiner. “Evidence of α clustering

in heavy and superheavy nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 69(044318), 2004.
[30] S. S. Malik and R. K. Gupta. “Theory of cluster radioactive decay and

of cluster formation in nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 39:1992, 1989.
[31] D. S. Delion, A. Insolia, and R. J. Liotta. “α and exotic cluster decay

with a new single particle basis”. Nucl. Phys A, 654:673–676, 1999.
[32] H. J. Rose and G. A. Jones. “A new kind of natural radioactivity”.

Nature, 307:245, 1984.
[33] E. U. Condon and R. W. Guerney. “Quantum mechanics and radioactive

disintegration”. Nature, 33:439, 1928.
108
[34] D. S. Delion, R. J. Liotta, and R. Wyss. “Theories of proton emission”.
Phys. Rep., 424:113–174, 2006.
[35] M. A. Preston and R. K. Bhaduri. “Structure of the Nucleus, Chap-11”.

Addison-Weiley Publishing Company, Oxford, 1975.
[36] R. G. Lovas, R. J. Loitta, A. Insolia, K. Varaga, and D. S. Delion. “Mi-

croscopic theory of cluster radioactivity”. Phys. Rep., 204:265, 1998.
[37] G. Breit and E. P. Weigner. “Capture of slow neutrons”. Phy. Rev.,

49:519, 1936.
[38] R. Bass. “Semi-classical Methods for Nucleus-Nucleus Scattering”.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
[39] P. E. Hodgson. “Nuclear Heavy Ion reaction”. Clarendon Press, Oxford,

1978.
[40] G. A. Lalazissis, M. M. Sharma, P. Ring, and Y. K. Gambhir. “Su-

perheavy nuclei in the relativistic mean-field theory”. Nucl. Phys.,
A608:202, 1996.
[41] Y. K. Gambhir, P. Ring, and A. Thimet. “Relativistic mean field theory

for finite nuclei”. Ann. Phys. (NY), 198:132, 1990.
[42] Y. K. Gambhir and P. Ring. “The relativistic mean-field description of

the ground-state nuclear properties”. Pramana J. Phys, 32:389, 1989.
[43] B. Sahu, L. Sathpathy, and C. S. Shastry. “Nature and identification of

resonances in collision process”. Phys. Lett. A, 303:105, 2002.
[44] P. Susan, B. Sahu, B. M. Jywra, and C. S. Shastry. “Pocket and

barrier resonances in potential scattering and application to heavy-ion
reactions”. J. Phys. G; Nucl. Part. Phys., 20:1243–1256, 1994.
[45] R. G. Newton. “Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles”. McGraw-

Hill, New York, 1966.
109
[46] V. De Alfaro and T. Regge. “Scattering Theory”. Wiley, New York,
1972.
[47] S. Muckherjee and C. S. Shastry. “Analytical studies in charged-particle

partial-wave amplitude”. Nucl. Phys., B3(1), 1967.
[48] Yu. L. Mentkovsky. “Analytical properties of partial scattering ampli-

tudes of charged particles”. Nucl. Phys., 65:673, 1965.
[49] C. S. Shastry and R. K. Sathpathy. “Regge type representation for

Coloumb-nuclear S-matrix”. Phy.Rev., 175(4), 1968.
[50] C. S. Shastry. “Remarks on the Regge phenomenology in nuclear

scattering”. Phy. Rev., 187(4), 1969.
[51] N. G. Kelkar and H. M. Castaneda. “Critical view of WKB decay

widths”. Phy.Rev. C, 76(064605), 2007.
[52] H. Jeffreys. “On certian approximation solutions of linear differential

equations of the second order”. In Proc.London Math Soc., volume 23,
page 428, 1923.
[53] Mohsan Razavy. “Quantum theory of tunneling”. World Scientific,

Singapore, 2003.
[54] N. Froman and P. Froman. “JWKB Approximaation: Contribution to

the theory”. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1965.
[55] L. I. Schiff. “Quantum Mechanics, 3rd Ed.”. McGraw-Hill, New York,

1968.
[56] V. De Alfaro and T. Regge. “Potential Scattering”. North Holland

Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1965.
[57] C. J. Jochain. “Quantum Collision Theory”. North Holland Publishing

Company, Amsterdam, 1965.
[58] R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. Iolive, and J. C. Polkinghome. “The

Analytic S-Matrix”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
110
[59] R. G. Newton. “Complex j plane”. W A Benjamin Inc., 1964.
[60] J. Humblet and L. Rosenfeld. “Theory of nuclear reactions:1.Resonant

states and collision matrix”. Nucl. Phys., 26:529, 1961.
[61] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (Ed.). “Handbook of Mathematical

Functions ”,pp-537-555. Dover Publications, New York, 1965.
[62] C. S. Shastry. “Lecture notes on optical model calculation, heavy ion

collision and resonances in potential scattering. Private communication,
SERC School in Nuclear Physics”, April 2004.
[63] L. R. B. Elton. “Introductory Nuclear Theory ”,pp. 202-205. W. B.

Saunders Co, 1966.
[64] E. Maglione, L. S. Ferreira, and R. J. Liotta. “Nucleon decay from

deformed nuclei”. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 1998.
[65] Tetsuya Ohnishi, Toshiyuki Kubo, Kensuke Kusaka, Atsushi Yoshida,

Koichi Yoshida, Naoki Fukuda, Masao Ohtake, Yoshiyuki Yanagisawa,
Hiroyuki Takeda, Daisuke Kameda, Yoshitaka Yamaguchi, Nori Aoi,
Ken ichiro Yoneda, Hideaki Otsu, Satoshi Takeuchi, Takashi Sugimoto,
Yosuke Kondo, Heiko Scheit, Yasuyuki Gono, Hiroyoshi Sakurai, Tohru
Motobayashi, Hiroshi Suzuki, Taro Nakao, Hitomi Kimura, Yutaka Mi-
zoi, Masafumi Matsushita, Kazuo Ieki, Takamasa Kuboki, Takayuki Ya-
maguchi, Takeshi Suzuki, Akira Ozawa, Tetsuaki Moriguchi, Yusuke
Yasuda, Takashi Nakamura, Takashi Nannichi, Tomoyuki Shimamura,
Yoshiaki Nakayama, Hans Geissel, Helmut Weick, Jerry A. Nolen,
Oleg B. Tarasov, Anthony S. Nettleton andDaniel P. Bazin, Bradley M.
Sherrill, David J. Morrissey, and Wolfgang Mittig. “Identification
of new isotopes 125 Pd and 126 Pd produced by in-flight fission of 345
Mev/nucleon 238 U: First results from the RIKEN RI beam factory”. J.
Phys. Soc. Jpn., 77(083201), 2008.
[66] U. Mosel and W. Greiner. Z. Phys. A, 222:261, 1969.
111
[67] K. Rutz, M. Bender, T. Burvenich, T. Schilling, P. G. Reinhard, J. A.
Maruhn, and W. Greiner. “Superheavy nuclei in self-consistent nuclear
calculations”. Phys. Rev. C, 56(23), 1997.
[68] A. T. Kruppa, M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz, P. G. Reinhard, T. Vertse,

and S. Cwiok. “Shell corrections of superheavy nuclei in self-consistent
calculations”. Phys. Rev. C, 61(034313), 2000.
[69] M. A. Stoyer. “Nulear physics:Island ahoy!”. Nature, 442(7105), 2006.
[70] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. S. Abdullin,

A. M. Sukhov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody,
J. F. Wild, N. J. Stoyer, M. A. Stoyer, , R. W. Lougheed, C. A. Laue, Ye.
A.Karelin, and A. N. Tatarinov. “Observation of the decay of 292 116”.
Phys. Rev. C, 63(011310), 2001.
[71] Kosuke Morita, Kouji Morimoto1, Daiya Kaji, Takahiro Akiyama, Sin
ichi Goto, Hiromitsu Haba, Eiji Ideguchi, Rituparna Kanungo, Kenji
Katori, Hiroyuki Koura, Hisaaki Kudo, Tetsuya Ohnishi, Akira Ozawa,
Toshimi Suda, Keisuke Sueki, HuShan Xu, Takayuki Yamaguchi, Akira
Yoneda, Atsushi Yoshida, and YuLiang Zhao. “Experiment on the syn-
thesis of element 113 in the reaction 209 Bi(70 Zn,n)278 113”. J. Phys. Soc.
Jpn., 73:2593–2596, 2004.
[72] K. Morita, K. K. Morimotoa, D. Kajib, S. Gotoc, H. Habaa,

E. Ideguchia, R. Kanungoa, K. Katoria, H. Kourad, H. Kudoc,
T. Ohnishia, A. Ozawaa, J. C. Petere, T. Sudaa, K. Suekif, I. Tanihataa,
F. Tokanaig, H. Xuh, A. V. Yeremini, A. Yonedaa, A. Yoshidaa, Y. L.
Zhaoj, and T. Zhengk. “Status of superheavy element research using
GARIS, RIKEN”. Nucl. Phys. A, 734:101, 2004.
[73] S. Hofmann, F. P. He ßberger, D. Ackermann, S. Antalic, P. Cagarda,

B. Kindler, P. Kuusiniemi, M. Leino, B. Lommel, O. N. Malyshev,
R. Mann, G. Münzenberg, A. G. Popeko, S. Sáro, B. Streicher, and A. V.
112
Yeremin. “Properties of heavy nuclei measured at the GSI SHIP”. Nucl.
Phys. A, 734:93, 2003.
[74] P. Moller, J. R. Nix, and K. L. Kratz. “At. Data Nucl. Data Tables”,
66:131, 1997.
[75] I. Muntian and A. Sobiczewski. “Superdeformed ground state of super-

heavy nuclei”. Phys. Lett. B, 586:254, 2004.
[76] S. Cwiok, W. Nazarewicz, and P. H. Heenen. “Structure of odd-N su-

perheavy elements”. Phys. Rev. Lett, 83(1108), 1999.
[77] J. D. Walecka. “Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics”. Oxford

University Press, Oxford, 1995.
[78] B. D. Serot and Walecka. Adv. Nucl. Phys., 16(1), 1986.
[79] L. S. Geng, H. Toki, and J.Meng. “α decay chains of 288 287

173 115 and 172 115
in the relativistic mean field theory”. Phys. Rev. C, 68(061303), 2003.
[80] Tapas Sil, S. K. Patra, B. K. Sharma, M. Centelles, and X. Vias. “Super-

heavy nuclei in a relativistic effective Lagrangian model”. Phys. Rev.C,
69(044315), 2004.
[81] B. D. Serot. Rep. Prog. Phys., 55:1855, 1992.
[82] L. S. Warrier and Y. K. Gambhir. “Single particle spectrum and spin

orbit splittings in relativistic mean field theory”. Phys Rev. C, 49:871,
1994.
[83] P. Ring. “Relativistic mean field theory in finite nuclei ”. Prog. Part.
Nucl. Phys., 37:193, 1996.
[84] G. R. Satchler and W. G. Love. “Folding model potentials from realistic

interactions for heavy-ion scattering”. Phys. Rep., 55:183, 1979.
[85] A. M. Kobos, B. A. Brown, R. Lindsay, and G. R. Satchler. “Fold-

ing model analysis of elastic and inelastic α -particle scattering using a
density-dependent force”. Nucl. Phys. A, 425:205, 1984.
113
[86] D. N. Poenaru, M. Ivascu, A. Sandulesu, and W. Greiner. “Atomic nu-
clei decay modes by spontaneous emission of heavy ions”. Phys. Rev.
C, 32:572, 1985.
[87] A. Ludu, A. Sandulesu, and W. Greiner. “A new large amplitude collec-

tive motion in nuclei: Clusters as solitons on the nuclear surface”. Int.
J. Mod.Phys. E, 1:169, 1992.
[88] S. S. Malik and R. K. Gupta. “Theory of cluster radioactive decay and

of cluster formation in nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 39:1986, 1989.
[89] D. S. Delion, A. Insolia, and R. J. Liotta. “Microscopic description of

cluster decay”. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 20:1483, 1994.
[90] V. Yu. Denisov and H. Ikezoe. “α-nucleus potential for α-decay and
sub-barrier fusion”. Phys. Rev. C, 72(064613), 2005.
[91] P. Mohr. “α nucleus potential for α-decay half-lives, and shell closures
for superheavy nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 73(031301(R)), 2006.
[92] B. Buck, S. M. Perez, and A.C. Merchant. “New look at α-decay of

heavy nuclei”. Phys. Rev. Lett., 65:2975, 1990.
[93] B. Buck, A. C. Merchant, and S. M. Perez. “α-decay calculations with

a realistic potential”. Phys. Rev. Lett., 45:2247, 1992.
[94] B. Buck, A. C. Merchant, and S. M. Perez. At.Data. Nucl. Data Tables,

54:53, 1993.
[95] B. Buck, A. C. Merchant, and S. M. Perez. “Systematics of α-cluster

states above double shell closures”. Phys. Rev. C, 51:559, 1995.
[96] S.A. Gurvitz and G. Kalbermann. “Decay width and the shift of a qua-
sistationary state”. Phys. Rev. Lett., 59:262, 1987.
[97] H. Geiger and J. M. Nuttal. Philos. Mag., 22:613, 1911.
114
[98] V. E. Viola and G. T. Seaborg. “Nuclear systematics of the heavy ele-
ments II, lifetimes for alpha, beta and spontaneous fission decay ”. J.
Inorg. Nucl. Chem., 28:741, 1966.
[99] G. A. Lalazissis, J. Konig, and P. Ring. “New parametrization for the La-
grangian density of relativistic mean field theory”. Phys.Rev.C, 55:540,
1977.
[100] M. M. Sharma, A. R. Farhan, and S. Mythili. “Shell effects in nu-

clei with vector self-coupling of the ω-meson in the relativistic Hartee-
Bogoliubov theory”. Phys.Rev.C, 61(054306), 2000.
[101] S. Das and G. Gangopadhyay. “Relativistic mean field study of the

newly discovered α - decay chain of 287 115”. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part.
Phys., 30:957, 2004.
[102] T. Vertse, K. F. Pal, and Z. Balgoh. “Gamow, a program for calculat-

ing the resonant state solution of the radial schrodinger equation in an
arbitarary optical potential”. Comp. Phys. Comm., 27:309–322, 1982.
[103] C. N. Davids and Esbension Henning. “Decay rates of spherical and

deformed proton emitters”. Phys. Rev. C, 61(054302), 2000.
[104] V. P. Bugrov, S. G. Kadmensky, V. I. Furman, and V. G. Khlebostroev.

Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 41:717, 1998.
[105] S. Aberg, P. B. Semmes, and W. Nazarewicz. “Spherical proton

emitters”. Phys. Rev. C, 56:1762, 1997.
[106] Basudeb Sahu, Y. K. Gambhir, and C. S. Shastry. “S-matrix and wave

function methods for the calculation of small decay widths”. Private
communication, April 2008.
[107] A. T. Kruppa and W. Nazarewicz. “Gamow and R-matrix approach to

proton emitting nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 69(054311), 2004.
115
[108] Basudeb Sahu. “Analytical expression for the α decay half-life and
understanding the data including very long life-times and superheavy
nuclei”. Phys. Rev. C, 78(044608), 2008.
116
LIST OF
PUBLICATIONS
Following publications are based on the thesis:

International Journals
1. S. Mahadevan, P. Prema, C. S. Shastry and Y. K. Gambhir, Compara-
tive Study of Half width Calculations using S-Matrix and WKB methods,
Phys. Rev. C, Vol. 74, (2006), 57601-1-4.
2. P. Prema, S. Mahadevan, C. S. Shastry, A. Bhagawat, Y. K. Gambhir,

Study of Alpha decay of Superheavy elements using S-Matrix and WKB meth-
ods, International Journal of Modern Physics E, Vol. 17, No. 4, (2008), pp.
611-629.
Conference Publications
3. S. Mahadevan, P. Prema, C. S. Shastry, Comparative studies of Half
Width Calculations Using S-Matrix and WKB Methods, Proceedings of the
DAE-Symposium on Nuclear Physics, Vol. 51, (2006), pp. 371.
4. S. Mahadevan, C. S. Shastry, Y. K. Gambhir, Calculation of widths

of very sharp quasi stationary states, Proceedings of DAE Symposium on Nu-
clear Physics, Vol. 52, (2007), pp. 351-352.
117
Other Publications in related areas:
International Journals
5. Agarwala, S. K., G. S. Mallick, P. Prema, S. Mahadevan, B. Sahu and
C. S. Shastry, Analysis of 16 O + 28 Si elastic scattering in the laboratory energy
range 50.0 Mev to 142.5 Mev., J. Phys. G; Nucl. Part. Phys., 32, (2006), pp.
165 - 178.
6. Umamaheswari, A., S. Mahadevan, P. Prema, C. S. Shastry and S. K.

Agarwalla, Transmission and scattering by Absorptive potential, Amer. Jour.
Physics, Vol. 75(3), (2007). pp 245-253.
National Journals
7. S. Mahadevan, A. Umamaheswari, P. Prema and C. S. Shastry, Quantum
Mechanical Transmission with Absorption, Physics Education Journal, Vol. 23,
No.1, (2006), pp. 13-20.
8. S. Mahadevan, P. Prema, S. K. Agarwala, B. Sahu, C. S. Shastry, Res-

onance like tunneling across a barrier with adjacent wells, Pramana-Jour. of
Physics, Vol. 67, (2006), pp. 401 - 413.
Conference Publications
9. A.Umamaheswari, P.Prema and S.Mahadevan, Study of Quasi Bound
States and Resonant tunneling in twin Symmetric barriers(accepted for pub-
lication in the 53rd DAE Solid State Physics Symposium to be held in BARC,
Mumbai between December 16-20, 2008.)
118

Professor Mahadevan's PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Professor Mahadevan's PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Professor Mahadevan's PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

List of Tables viii

1.1 Alpha decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Research objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Review of WKB and S-matrix Methods 13

2.1 The WKB approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1.1 WKB methods for three dimensional case . . . . . . . 19

2.2.1 Definition of Jost function and S-Matrix . . . . . . . . 23

2.3 Analytical properties of Jost functions and S-Matrix . . . . . . 27

2.3.2 Resonance states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.4 Analytical S-Matrix theory for Coulomb nuclear problem . . . 32

3 Comparative Study of S-matrix and WKB Methods for Resonance

3.1 Assault frequency factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.2 Model calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2.2 Quasi bound state wave function . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.2.3 Smoother potential barrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.3 Role of the tail region of the potential barrier . . . . . . . . . 61

3.4 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4 Alpha Decay in Super Heavy Elements 66

4.3 Status of theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4.4 Alpha decay process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.4.1 Semi empirical relations for α-decay half lives . . . . 74

4.6 The microscopic nuclear potentials by double folding model . 79

5 Calculation of α-Decay Energies and Half-lives 83

5.2 Details of calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.4 Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.5 Potential for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

A Numerical Techniques 101

A.1 Runge-Kutta method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

List of Publications 117

I express my deep gratitude to Prof C. S. Shastry, my thesis supervisor who has

2.1 Potential well-linear turning point occurs at x1 and x2 . . . . . . 17

3.1 Typical one-particle potential for alpha-decay used by Elton. . 43

4.1 3-Dimensional rendering of the theoretical Island of Stability

3.1 Pocket resonances using S-matrix method and comparison of

5.1 Comparison of numerical potential V f m (r) obtained using tρρ

nuclei present an exciting challenge to the existing nuclear theories as their

identification of nuclei in the super heavy region.

In the early days of nuclear science itself, Hahnn and Strassmann(1939)

nuclei” and appropriately named it as nuclear fission. Applying the charged

surface tension and the repulsive Coulomb force [3].

Production of heavy and super heavy elements beyond uranium is done in

Various combinations of projectiles and targets are in principle possible for

tin, up to samarium plus samarium.

Among other things, the study of decay properties of superheavy elements,

possible. α-decay is understood as tunneling through the potential barrier by

1.1 Alpha decay

the influence of the surrounding nucleons. Some unstable nuclei spontaneously

nuclear era is known as α-decay.

There is a renewed interest in α-decay due to an increase of the role played

by α-decay in the spectroscopy of the unstable nuclei [27]. This is motivated

Historically, the theory of α- decay has developed through three stages:

• The first stage was characterized by theoretical explanation of the global

characteristics of the process: quantum mechanical barrier penetration.

This approach was independently and almost simultaneously given by

favored (or hindered) α transitions were identified. The description of

• In the original formulation of the R-matrix theory, the structure of the

while in the third stage of development, the description of the nuclear