PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004

)

Lifetimes in

126

Te from in-beam „n , n

… measurements

J. R. Vanhoy,* J. A. Tanyi, K. A. Crandell, and T. H. Churchill
Department of Physics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland 21402, USA

S. F. Hicks, M. C. Burns, and P. A. Roddy
Department of Physics, University of Dallas, Irving, Texas 75062, USA

N. V. Warr
Institut für Kernphysik, Universität zu Köln, D-50937 Köln, Germany

T. B. Brown† and S. R. Lesher
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506, USA (Received 21 April 2004; published 23 June 2004) The excited levels of 126Te have been studied using the n , n reaction. Excitation functions, coincidences, angular distributions, and Doppler shifts were measured for rays from levels up to an excitation energy of 3.2 MeV; multipole-mixing and branching ratios and transition rates were deduced. Experimental values of electromagnetic transition rates were compared with the anharmonic vibrator model, the general collective model, the neutron-proton interacting boson model with intruder mixing, and particle-core coupling model calculations. No advantage is found in using an intruder description for the low-spin states of 126Te. All models used reproduce some features of the level scheme and many transition rates, but the particle-core coupling model was found to have better overall success describing the observed properties of this nucleus. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.064323 PACS number(s): 25.40.Fq, 27.60. j, 23.20. g

I. INTRODUCTION

II. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

The 126Te nucleus lies in a transitional region of the Te isotopic chain. The lighter Te nuclei are generally considered to be vibrational in character while the heavier tellurium nuclei are better described by a more independent-particle approach. This is evident if one considers the near constant excitation energy of the 6+ state for A 124. Such behavior 1 can be well described if the state is treated as a few-particle excitation, but not in a collective three-quadrupole phonon representation [1]. The level scheme of 126Te is known [2] from a series of measurements by a variety of probes, among which are reactor n , n [3,4], EC and − decay [5–8], , [9,10], 3 , 2n [11], He, n transfer [12], p , p [13], and a recent n , study [14]. Absent from these previous measurements is extensive absolute transition rate information required for a stringent comparison of various nuclear model descriptions. The present investigation includes the measurement of level lifetimes required to determine absolute transition rates. In Sec. II we briefly describe the experimental procedures used to extract level information. Section III is used to present details of our level scheme that differ from previous findings. In Sec. IV we compare the new absolute transition rate information with various model predictions. Our results are summarized in Sec. V.

Measurements were made using the neutron scattering facilities at the University of Kentucky 7 MV Van de Graaff Accelerator Laboratory. The 3H p , n 3He reaction was used as a neutron source. The 47.6 g metallic 126Te sample, isotopically enriched to 99%, was placed in a thin-walled polyethylene container with diameter of 2.2 cm and height of 4.0 cm. For coincidence measurements, neutrons emerging from the source reaction were formed into a 1 cm beam by

*Electronic address: vanhoy@usna.edu
Present address: SRTC, Westinghouse, Savannah River Co, Aiken, SC 29808, USA. 0556-2813/2004/69(6)/064323(12)/$22.50

FIG. 1. A portion of the -ray spectrum obtained by gating on the 857 keV transition depopulating the 5− state. The two largest 1 lines are the lower-lying 666 and 695 keV transitions. Nine of the remaining lines were identified as direct feeders into the 5− state. 1 ©2004 The American Physical Society

69 064323-1

1. 2. (d) The excitation function of the 2217. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. and to confirm branching ratios. The sample was hung coaxially with this beam and four high-efficiency HpGe detectors were placed in a transverse arrangement approximately 6 cm from the center of the sample. angular distributions.33 MeV was used.1 keV full width at half-maximum (FWHM) at 1. These angular distributions were fit to even-order Legendre polynomial expan- 064323-2 . 258. VANHOY et al.4 keV 5− state is unusual in 1 that the yield continues to rise due to feeding from higher-lying levels. The shape and yield is consistent with a spin-0 parent state. Shown are the three transitions placed with the 2386. and 3. The neutron scattering facilities. Gamma-ray excitation functions.J. TOF neutron background suppression. Angular distributions of rays were measured at neutron energies of En = 2. and 373 keV lines. neutron monitoring. 2. For this arrangement. (c) The excitation function of the 1447 keV line is shown along with statistical model cross section calculations. and data reduction techniques have been described elsewhere [15]. A sample spectrum gated on the 857 keV line is shown in Fig. [16]. Theoretical cross sections were calculated using the statistical model code CINDY [17] with optical model parameters appropriate for this mass and energy region [18]. were used to place rays in the level scheme. Interpretation of the 966 keV line is not clear as its yield is a doublet. as discussed in Ref. Data were stored in event mode.3 keV state. (a) Excitation functions for rays originating from the same level must have identical thresholds and shapes. to assist in spin assignments.36. the use of a lithium-loaded collimator approximately 75 cm long. The gain stability of the system was monitored using radioactive 56Co and 152Eu sources. R. Sample experimental and calculated excitation functions are shown in Fig. Experimental -ray relative production cross sections were then compared to theoretical values for each level to assess level spins and -ray branching ratios. Prompt and background spectra were recorded simultaneously for each run by setting two different windows in the time-offlight (TOF) pulsed-beam spectrum. 064323 (2004) FIG. measured at incident neutron energies between 2. while the background spectrum was gated on a uniform region of equal time width off the prompt peak.3 MeV in 80 keV steps. Gamma-ray excitation functions. 2. A BGO annulus detector surrounding the main detector was used for Compton suppression.34 MeV. and a twodimensional matrix was constructed off line by considering pairwise coincidences. and Doppler shifts were measured with a singles -ray detector configuration. In this example the 1719 keV transition clearly should not be placed with 169. The prompt spectrum was time gated on the peak. a Comptonsuppressed n-type HpGe detector with 53% relative efficiency and an energy resolution of about 2. Sample excitation function analyses.80. (b) The branching ratios of rays from the same level must have consistent branching ratios across the range of the excitation function.2 and 3.

The 2533 keV 4+ state. 5. -ray placements. n MEASUREMENTS PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. sions and compared to calculations from the statistical model code CINDY [17] in order to extract multipole-mixing ratios and level spins. Sample experimental -ray angular distributions. for B E2 transition rates [24] in this mass region. 2. along with the Legendre polynomial best fits. We note that the recent neutron capture measurement [14] has better sensitivity to weak transitions. The angular distribution of the 1447. are shown in Fig. 064323 (2004) FIG.u. The lines are fits to a fourth-order Legendre polynomial function. These placements are confirmed in the -coincidence data by gating on the feeding transition from the 2815. 3. = vc. Spin and parity assignments.0 and 947. while 064323-3 .6 keV line indicates it is a doublet above En 2.8. branching ratios. as shown in Fig. [14] also produce an anomalously large rate of B E2 = 120 W. the -ray centroids have the following angular dependence: E = E0 1 + F cos .7 MeV excitation energy and the revised placement of only a few transitions.6. 4. Only a few states merit detailed discussion. The curve F = 3. For the recoil energies present in this experiment. since this method has been shown to yield reliable lifetimes with a variety of targets [21.22]. multipole-mixing ratios.3 keV states. The additional placement of the 693. and E is the -ray energy measured at angle . 1 is the Dopplerwhere E0 is the unshifted -ray energy. as discussed in Refs. This is confirmed by the shape and intensity of its excitation function. The 2113 keV 0+ state.. when combined with our values for the branching ratios. The excitation functions of the rays depopulating the 5− state are unusual in that they con1 tinuously rise above threshold without turning over. lifetimes. MODEL DISCUSSION The lighter A = 118– 122 tellurium nuclei exhibit structures that are often described by vibrational models. The corresponding excitation functions are not entirely consistent with spin-4 and suggest a missing decay branch. The 2385. which is far in excess of the recommended upper limit of 300 W.u. Lifetimes were determined by comparing experimental and theoretical Doppler-shift attenuation factors.LIFETIMES IN 126 Te FROM IN-BEAM n .7 keV and 2386.1 keV rays indicate these transitions belong to the same level. is the -ray emission angle with respect to the incident neutron beam.1 keV line de-exciting this level has a2 and a4 Legendre coefficients consistent with zero which suggests a spin-0 assignment. However. The 2309 keV 4+ state. 1h11/2 . The lifetime of this state appears well determined from the Doppler shift of the 1172. This behavior indicates the state is strongly fed by numerous higher-lying levels. LEVEL SCHEME DISCUSSION The previously existing level scheme [2] was confirmed. Sample -ray angular distributions. many transitions were placed with a level near 2385 keV excitation. 2. and transition rates for all observed levels are given in Table I. but we were unable to identify a suitable transition. Shell model calculations by Kerek [23] suggest this state is formed from the coupling of the neutron −1 −1 −1 −1 hole configurations 2d3/2 . for this same transition. F shift attenuation factor that carries all the dependence on lifetime. 258. level energies.7 keV transitions strongly prefer a 4+ spin assignment. Previously. The Doppler shifts observed for a selection of transitions are shown in Fig. (See Fig. Level lifetimes were extracted using the Doppler-shift attenuation method. with the addition of only 20 new levels above 2. average attenuation factors. 1h11/2 or 3s1/2 . The 2217 keV 5− state.0 keV transition of B E2 = 440 W. [16] and [19]. The angular distributions of the 889.) The excitation function of the 965. Doppler shift data were derived from the -ray centroids in the angular distribution data sets. 2. Similar effects have been observed for the 5− states in the neighboring nuclei 1 124 Te and 128Te.4 keV line.4 keV transition with this level was suggested from its excitation function and confirmed by -coincidence analysis. 3. III. Mean lifetimes in the range of 2 fs to 2 ps were determined in versus for the En this experiment. and 1719.4 keV transitions belong to a different level.u.5 keV state. as shown in Fig. one obtains a transition rate for the 758. The lowest possible En data set was used to determine for a given level to avoid complications from feeding. Theoretical attenuation factors F were calculated using the stopping theory of Winterbon [20]. IV. Excitation functions of the 168. and the 965.m.4. 1024. It should be noted that the branching ratios given in Ref.34 MeV data is shown in Fig.3. / c.6 MeV. and 373.

The vertical axis is chosen to indicate the maximum allowed shift of each ray. 4. 064323 (2004) FIG. the heavier A = 128– 130 tellurium nuclei require particle-like descriptions.J. A selection of -ray Doppler shifts. even with an O 6 admixture. thus we compare our experimental results to several models with structure admixtures. the general collective model (GCM). however. The correspondence between the theoretical attenuation factor F and level lifetime for the En = 3. 6. while transition rates are compared in Table II. the IBM-1 model predicts too few levels below 3 MeV excitation [14. 5. Tellurium-126 lies in an intermediate position. Anharmonic vibrator model FIG. We examine this nucleus within the anharmonic vibrator model (AHV). Some features of the 126Te level sequence may be reproduced using the pure U 5 dynamical symmetry limit of the IBM-1 [14]. The level structures derived from the various models discussed in the following sections are displayed in Fig.26]. A. This model is equivalent to the 064323-4 .34 MeV Doppler shift data. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. To extend further the efforts to describe the low-lying structure of this nucleus within a vibrational picture. R. and a particle-core coupling model (PCM). the classic AHV [27] is considered.25. the neutron-proton interacting boson model IBM-2 with intruder mixing. VANHOY et al.

8(81) 23.38−12 +19 1.0−1E − 3 +2 0.38−7 +13 1.52(5) 1517. B E2 W.13(5) 1034.95−8 +7 9.77(75) 4+ 2479.017(7) 0.3−6E − 3 +3 1.77−43 +60 71−40 +1 17−1 +1 2.03−6 +9 0.4−5 B B B +5 6.38−10 E1 E1 E1 +6 0.17−1 +1 0.26(5) 1837. Transition rate uncertainties are from the uncertainties in the level lifetime and do not reflect uncertainties in the multipole-mixing ratio.10(5) 708.95−9 +7 0.09(8) 2045.2−3E − 4 +2 E1 = 5.03−10 E2 +16 −0.55−7 +1 2.7−2E − 5 +9 E1 = 2.6(10) 29.203(5) +18 379−18 +2 95−2 2ps +30 450−30 +7 230−7 +9 13−8 +5 7.66−3 E2 E2 E2 +10 −0. Mixing ratios that could not be determined are denoted by “—.5(16) 42.97(5) 999.7(61) XL/ tan−1 a ¯ F fs b b +170 6520−170 +1730 3900−1730 c +170 1770−170 J 2+ 4+ 2+ B M1 W. 064323 (2004) TABLE I.1−5 +10 8.2(99) 51.4−1 +1 2.47(8) 2128.5−1E − 2 +1 1.36−2 +8 66−8 +4 3.06−9 E2 +25 0.48−13 +9 −0.161(11) +30 300−20 +1 1.8(12) 98.1−1 +2 0.0(10) 72.43(5) 1719.94(5) 1462.2(10) 42.97(5) 1206.4−7 +28 34−28 +5 45−4 +2 0.5−8E − 2 0.75(5) 2045.31−4 E2 +12 0.1(46) 83.594(12) +170 130−60 +2 41−2 +46 0.69(5) 856.1−1E − 2 064323-5 .13(5) 766.46(6) 2184.064(9) +100 747−81 +140 847−110 +6 4.3(1) 6.04(9) 2385.29(8) 1 + 2181.12−2 +8 1.35(5) 168.057(6) 0.9−1E − 2 +1 1.7−3 +1 1.7−4E − 2 +3 E1 = 9.07(5) 2181. Ex keV 666.10(7) 0+ 3+ 2113.093(7) 0.55(6) 297.5(16) 9.1−1E − 7 6 0+ 4+ 2+ + 1775.0(10) 4.6(10) 64.0(10) 90.9( 9) 22.26−6 E1 E1 +19 −0. +7 25.73(5) 624.25−3 E2 +6 −0.9−10 +10 12−9 +3 3.42(6) 1118.36(7) 1420.9(12) 88.0(10) 12.09(9) 1873.06(55) 2420.u.60−25 E2 +31 −1.91−16 +26 −0.78(5) Ef keV 0 666 666 0 1361 666 1361 666 1420 666 0 1420 666 1420 1361 666 666 0 666 2013 1361 1420 1361 1420 1361 666 2217 2128 2013 1775 1361 1420 666 0 1361 666 666 0 2217 BR % 100 100 93.4(10) 4.32(5) 695.82(10) 5− E2 E2 +6 −1.10−1 +66 0.1−1E − 3 +1 0.028(8) +2 2.LIFETIMES IN 126 Te FROM IN-BEAM n .306(147) 0. Uncertainties are in the last digit(s).1(16) 16.8−3E − 3 +2 1.56(5) 1024.00(5) 1515.57(9) 2 + 2503.9(37) 13.12(5) 414.15−1 +5 18.” The attenuation factor ¯ F is the average value for the level.072(8) 0.11(7) E keV 666. Levels and transition rates in 126Te.71(8) 2+ 5− 4+ 3− 4− 2386.2(27) 15.22−9 −9 0.6(10) 48.41(5) 1447.2(10) 28.u.123(10) +40 410−30 +2 2.133(6) 0.75(5) 889.78(5) 1420.70(5) 965.8(49) 35.7( 9) 27.32−6 +16 1.08(5) 620.31(7) 2013.01(5) 2503.35−6 +9 −0.44(7) 2514.10−6 E1 E1 E2 +15 0.3−8E − 2 +2 3.052(3) +2900 98100−2900 +120 960−90 +50 570−50 +72 1054−66 +2 0.32(10) 6+ 2+ 2396.26−22 0.20(5) 1813.8(32) 5.8(2) 100 100 57.76(5) 1346.72−16 +22 0.4−4 +12 81−12 +2 15−2 +8 0.2−2E − 2 0.5−8 +8 0.53−30 +1 0.29−1 +8 8.9( 7) 62.93(5) 204.04(5) 753.25(7) 2217.44(9) 2309.16(5) 693.97(5) 1378.2(18) 84.00(5) 947.385(4) 0.2−2E − 3 0.00−3 +13 1.7−8E − 4 0.99(5) 651.3(37) 86.2−2E − 3 +1 1.8(26) 26(2) 74(2) 60.88(5) 2421.66−22 M1 +13 0.0(10) 100 1.32(5) 1361.115(7) 0.30(5) 373.44+18 +19 0.1−2E − 3 b 0.59(5) 1754. n MEASUREMENTS PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69.78(5) 258.11−1 0.03−6 E2 E2 E2 +6 −1.

(Continued.171(11) 0.82(6) 2116.86(5) 429.16−2 4− 2+ 2815.2−3E − 2 +16 5.41(9) 2587.40(5) 1216. 064323 (2004) J Ef keV 1775 2217 1775 1361 1361 666 1361 666 2217 1775 1420 666 2013 1361 1873 1361 0 1420 666 2013 1361 1775 1420 1361 666 1420 666 1361 2217 2217 666 1420 2515 1420 1361 1775 1420 666 0 2385.80(5) 812.53−10 +16 −1.1−26E − 2 +4 1.06−6 +13 −0. VANHOY et al.22−7 +9 0.5−4E − 2 +2 2.03−3 +38 −0.6(89) 26.0−1E − 3 +4 2.7−3E − 4 +4 3.19−22 +31 0.2(36) 25.65(9) 2585.4−1E − 2 — 064323-6 .33(5) 301.17(5) 1324.088(22) +229 617−133 0.9(80) 100 100 71.061(7) +2 49−2 +10 160−10 +110 890−110 +1 0.33−1 +3 6.5−1E − 3 +5 3. B E2 W.8(47) 28.130( 9) +38 399−26 0.0−3 +5 1.06−25 +22 1.099(24) +4 72−4 +192 546−118 2.105(32) 0.3−1 +1 3.13−1 +4 3.96(31) 2789.5−2 +7 9.29(9) 2679.33(5) d E1 E1 E2 +13 0.6−5E − 2 +26 9.0−1 +3 0.08(5) 1393.u.6−1E − 2 +1 1.30(9) 2703.90(10) 2639.62(10) 2782.93(5) d 1369.J.99(5) 928.9−2E − 3 +14 4.29−9 +13 −1.2(77) 61(12) 39( 4) 61( 4) 69.0(26) 5.28(5) 1224.2−3E − 2 +1 17−1 +2 3.u.231(26) 0.44(5) 648.37(6) d 1317.26−3 +2 0.2(34) 100 12.48(9) d PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69.4−4 +4 13−4 +1 1.2(51) 68.47(10) 2+ 5− 0+ 5− 2+ 0+ 4+ 6+ (3) 2680.12(6) 1919.70(5) 1035.5(15) 94.8−3E − 3 +20 440−20 1.5−16E − 3 +4 1.86(5) 807.49(6) 2147.77(5) d 1317.04−25 — +19 0.65(5) 673.549(14) 0.5E − 2 — d1369.113(13) +7 122−6 +40 251−26 +1 0.3 2.4( 4) 21.462(13) 0.47(5) 1220.4−4E − 5 +1 20−2 +4 5.17(10) 2813.7 2217 1420 BR % 16.28−31 +63 −0.36(5) 2071.66−28 — — — 0.35−3 — 0.94(9) 2661.8(51) 100 48.25−7 +13 −0.06−3 +6 0.63(10) 2533.34(5) 1911.5−36E − 4 +30 B E1 = 4.37(5) (4) 5− 1.7(42) 25( 5) 75( 5) 15( 5) 85( 5) 4( 2) 46( 2) 40( 2) 30( 5) 70( 5) 31.6−5E − 2 +3 1.3(61) 100 25(5) 75(5) 49.02(5) 1258.44−9 E2 +9 −1.75−16 +35 1.01(5) 370.8−2 0.51−6 +2 0.2(39) 78.23(9) 2775.36(5) 2679.3−1 +3 8.211(12) 0.53(5) 2015.6( 3) 100 100 12.06(9) 2+ 2737.76(5) 558.68(5) 1382.1−14E − 2 +4 2.6−25E − 4 +2 2.35−17 +31 0.113(13) +14 156−10 +251 508−129 +69 471−55 +2 2.67(5) d 2812.58(9) 1382. R.63−91 +103 −0.52(5) E2 +28 −1.3−2E − 2 +1 3.93(5) 597.88(5) 1413.6(39) 26.0(26) 51.29(10) 2731.19(5) 758.75−16 +7 0.) Ex keV E keV 739.39−25 +19 0.20(5) 1310.1(51) 87.5(30) 73.3(56) 26.50(11) 2803. 6 4+ 3 + 2518.48(10) 2833.171(11) +21 292−21 0.28(5) 1299.43(20) 2577.14(5) 565.00(9) 2810.7−4E − 2 +6 0.41−5 f 0.0(37) XL/ tan−1 a ¯ F fs B M1 W.82(5) d 1441.5) 4+ (6) 2 2744.1−3E − 2 +1 1.3 (6.64(9) +1 4.00(6) 1172.2−6 0.68(5) 285.00−13 +15 0. TABLE I.5−4E − 3 +2 2.8−2 +3 23−3 +2 2.00−6 E1 E2 E2 E1 E1 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 +25 0.164(83) 0.2−5E − 2 +1 2.68(5) 2064.272(11) 0.00−9 +7 0.79(9) 2800.3(9) 2686.070(21) +20 220−20 +360 300−120 +360 770−190 +43 B E1 = 6.31−3 +22 1.5E − 6 +4 9.0(5) 1973.

3−2E − 2 1.9−2E − 2 5.7( 7) 78( 3) 22( 2) 75.96(9) 2927.30(5) 1476.) PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69.23(6) 1515.18(6) 2229.3−22E − 2 +13 0.78−8 +11 3.78(6) 2196.58(10) 2877.40(5) 2877.53−16 E2 +72 0.63(70) 0.20(6) 1438.51−13 E2 +19 −1.54(5) 1614.0(8) 92.33(5) 1501.65(7) 48(12) 52(8) 100 15.2(99) 24.47(5) 3045.2−10E − 3 +2 29−2 +199 321−95 +13 132−11 +9 107−9 +2 1.3 5.620(21) 0.1−18E − 3 +4 0.8(49) 100 100 70(11) 29.100(28) 0.62(10) 3096.0(29) 100 50( 1) 50( 1) 19.33(31) 2935.8−41 +51 446−50 +59 192−41 B M1 W.4( 7) 17.0E − 2 +24 4.7−4E − 5 +12 4.5−2E − 5 +3 4.2 +9 5.9E .40(8) 959.240(47) +6 196−6 +56 5.7 1361 1420 666 BR % 31.251(13) +12 182−12 (1–3) 4 + 3066.31−3 +7 0.3−10E − 2 +25 9.28(10) 2379.6 3 2911.00(5) 2261.918(56) 0.60(5) 2992.2−10 +20 6.257(38) 0.316(20) 0.208( 8) 0.2−22E − 3 B E2 W.5(51) 80(20) 20(10) 57( 5) 43( 5) 63(21) 37(14) — +12 −0.056(38) 0.7(12) 60.44(8) 1190.90(5) 1576.51(7) 2897.53(5) 3015.60(6) 1507.5(88) 7.2 4.178(23) +40 176−30 +2230 1000−420 +17 373−17 +288 412−126 +47 279−39 3.33(5) 1476.746( 6) +400 493−160 +11 231−11 +1 22−1 +9 2.85−22 E2 — — M1 — — — — — — — a ¯ F fs 0.28(10) 2858.5 3.2−7E − 4 +7 0.44−9 — +22 −0.8E − 2 +5 5.195(16) +4 39−3 +29 248−21 +3 B E1 = 3.64(6) 2974.62(10) 3015.0−9E − 2 +1 2.8−3E − 4 0.0(165) e XL/ tan−1 +32 0.LIFETIMES IN 126 Te FROM IN-BEAM n .2−3E − 3 (1) 4+ 2974.2(20) 42.3−1E − 4 +5 B E1 = 3.5( 8) 23.05(5) 656.27−1 — — 5+ 2+ 1+ 2868.9(9) 4 + 2996.157(54) 0.55(5) 849.102(79) +1979 527−253 2.54(9) 2 + 3045.19−28 +31 −0.60(5) 403.09−62 — +19 0.24(8) Ef keV 666 1361 1420 666 2013 1420 1361 666 1361 2217 666 0 1420 666 0 1361 1420 666 1420 666 1775 1360 2013 1420 666 0 2588 2217 666 1420 1361 1361 666 1775 0 1420 666 0 666 0 1420 666 2385.74(9) 2862.4−1 +2 3.60(6) 2341.22−29 +16 0.54(5) 3034.3−3E − 3 +7 B E1 = 7.43(5) 2897.34(61) 3072.51(9) 2966.27−12 +2 0.7(56) 6.5 − 2838.3 2.62(5) d 1441.127(48) 0.4−2E − 2 0. +1 2.60(7) d 1552.66−15 E2 — — E1 +28 −0.69(6) 2430.70(5) 2305.45(5) 3034.60(6) 1676.53(5) 1606.41(8) 1646.7E .u. +2 5.6−1E − 2 — 4.15(5) 2269.44−16 — — 0.80(6) 1237.7−1E − 3 7.1 4.47(6) 2326.86(5) 1550.84(6) 2399.48−3 — +3 0.u.7−18 +25 9.81(6) + 32 5. (Continued.50(5) 2192.68(9) d 0.0−4E − 2 +2 2.04(9) 3012. 064323 (2004) J Ex keV E keV 2167.54(56) +3 13−3 +21 7.6−6 E − 2 2.7−4E − 2 +1 1.44−2 +1 0.7E − 3 1.108(45) 0. n MEASUREMENTS TABLE I.3 2.19−13 — E1 E1 +19 −0.139( 6) 0.74(5) 1635.14(5) 2211.16−12 +22 −1.3(42) 56.57(6) 1507.06−7 E1 E1 E2 E2 +123 0.7(38) 14( 2) 14( 2) 71( 5) 100 15(5) 85(5) 95( 3) 5( 2) 76.236( 6) 0.9(183) 23.8 +1 B E1 = 1.3 0.030(43) 760 064323-7 .20(6) 1646.38−13 +19 −0.7(30) 2972.4 1 2+ + 3008.57(5) 1711.364(19) +229 540−133 +10 3.49(9) 0.119(12) 0.687(17) 0.41(9) 2873.0E − 2 2.90(6) 776.76−6 +4 4.6( 5) 100 100 43.8−8E − 3 — — — +4 2.46(8) 2368.40(8) 686.

−3. 0.60(6) 3132.7−9E − 2 — +7 0.1−5E − 2 +2 1. The levels shown in Fig.22−9 0. The excitation energy of the 6+ state 1 and its transition rate are not well described by the model. and threephonon multiplets. C2 = −148± 100. B E2 W. C4 = −34 100± 100. large-N U 5 limit of the IBM-1 [28] and is attractive because it addresses the observed two-phonon-like transitions that do not appear in IBM treatments.90(6) 2477.2.4 = 0. f Value obtained is greater than the recommended upper limit for E2 transition rates in this mass region [24]. These parameters are able to reproduce the up-shift in energy of the lowspin two-phonon levels while providing the down-shifted energy trend in the three.72−11 0.u.77−13 +16 8. C3 = −2360± 1000. 6 and the transition rates listed in Table II were calculated with the following set of parameters (in MeV). This result is not surprising since the level is thought to be predominately a few-particle excitation [1.661 10−4 . d Doublet line. Transition-rate pa1 rameters were derived from the two-phonon multiplet decays.4(53) 37. Reproduction of the inverted staggering of experimental states in the second column of the level scheme (Fig. −0.39−6 +12 0.23].4 = −1. e Doublet line. Most of the yield in the singles data is background from copper.91(9) −0.22−9 — +13 −1. 064323 (2004) ¯ F fs J 1+ 2+ 3+ B M1 W.65.213. There is also difficulty reproducing the 0+.1(67) 15(17) 100 57(18) 43(14) XL/ tan−1 a PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. 2 To reproduce the elevated experimental energy of the 0+ state 2 with respect to the 4+ level requires solutions with C2 0 1 and thus a deformed equilibrium shape.187(18) +39 193−30 +35 262−27 +3 1. Nilsson model calculations performed by Heyde [35] demonstrate that the energy required to produce these 064323-8 .3E − 3 +5 3. This potential indicates the nuclear surface has softened with a very weak minimum in between 0.62(5) 2500. 6) requires C3 0. This can be considered evi3 dence that the 0+ state has a structure not well described as a 2 normal vibrational excitation.5−2E − 3 +32 2. (Continued. TABLE I.8−15E − 2 +2 1.07−3 +16 −0.8−33E − 3 +9 8.) Ex keV 3132. The B E2 transition rates of the 2+ and 0+ states are severely 2 3 reduced from the AHV calculation in the preceding section and with respect to the experimental values.57(5) 3143. VANHOY et al. however. The alternate solution leads to much larger B E2 and smaller B M1 rates. the lower tan−1 value has been used.9−2 +9 7.80(9) E keV 1711.45(13) 2528.25−15 +13 −1.85(7) 1781. c +850 Literature value given. This model has the feature that both rotational and vibrational macroscopic collective behaviors are treated as one. Model parameters that specify excitation energies were determined from a fit to the one-.76 1 and t0. The formalism of the model and the resulting analytic expressions for level energies and transition rates can be found in Kerman [29] and Brink [30]. The Gneuss-Greiner form of potential energy may be expressed Bands are observed in the neighboring Sn and Sb nuclei where intruder configurations based on g9/2 holes are associated with nuclear deformation and produce rotational band structures.360(39) +19 109−16 a In situations where 2 vs plots yield two equally good solutions for the mixing ratio.56(7) Ef keV 1420 0 666 0 1420 1361 666 666 1420 666 BR % 45(10) 55(10) 76(4) 24(2) 48.40(13) 1747.232.10.0−1E − 3 +14 0. General collective treatments in terms of the standard polar intrinsic deformation variables and by V .J. B. R. 0+ → 2+ leads to nonphysical values for two of the 2 1 B E2 rates from the 2+ state. two-.239(32) 0.65(7) 3166.u.1−10E − 3 1. = C2 1 5 2 − C3 2 35 3 cos 3 1 + C4 5 4 .06– 0.31(9) 3143. excluding the 6+ state.2. The negative value of t0 required to reproduce the experimental B E2 .83(6) 2535. but did not well describe the behavior of any of the levels.and 2+-level energies. 3 3195. Angular distributions of 1+ → 2+ transitions are not sufficiently sensitive to the mixing ratio to allow a reliable determination. Intruder descriptions The general collective model [31–34] may also be used to provide a description of the collective motion of nuclei based upon the standard quadrupole radial shape function.and four-phonon multiplets. −4. C.81 10−3 produce the level scheme shown in Fig.69 M1 +12 1.38−9 +13 −0. b Literature value [2].16−9 E2 +3 −1. this parameter requirement leads to problems with the absolute positioning of the band energies. Values from this experiment are consistent but have large uncertainties F = 0. The cal2 3 culated relative sizes of decay branches within each level are in reasonable agreement with experimental observations. The inclusion of additional experimental levels in the fitting procedure resulted in a parameter set that was more harmonic in nature.028 8 . The values Ex 2+ = 693. −0. 6 and transition rates provided in Table II.53(5) 1804.17(7) 3201.8 keV. = 1900−450 fs.

0+ 2 → 2+ . Model wave functions indicate the intruder spin-0 strength is split between the 0+ and 0+ states. p – h pairs is greatly reduced if the nucleus acquires a slight deformation 0. Sb [38].39]. Rikovska [45] used the IBM-2 framework to model the effects of g9/2-hole intruder configurations in the lower-mass Te nuclei.46] agree rather well with the experimental data. The calculations were extended by Warr in Ref. and I [40]. how- ever. Intruder structures in the tellurium nuclei have proven to be elusive and are often only assigned at high spin where band structures are apparent [41–43]. which is almost a factor of 2 too high. [14] to 126Te. The resulting level scheme is shown in Fig. 6.2 . The calculated levels below 2300 keV [14. n MEASUREMENTS PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. The reader is referred to the original papers for details of parameter selection and model calculations. 6. Sn [38. These intruder configurations [36] are observed in all the neighboring nuclei: Cd [37].19 can be used to improve the model B E2 . The difficulties found reproducing the elevated position of the 0+ state discussed in 2 the preceding sections.45]. the parameters are summarized in Table III. 0+ → 2+ without 3 2 significantly impacting either the level scheme or other tran- 064323-9 . A slightly larger value of the parameter 5. 064323 (2004) FIG. Calculated 4 4 transition rates agree reasonably well with experimental rates for the two-phonon states with the exception of B E2 . and transition rates are provided in Table II. and that the spin-2 and spin-4 intruder 2 3 strength is concentrated in the 2+ and 4+ states.LIFETIMES IN 126 Te FROM IN-BEAM n . Comparison of the experimental 126Te level scheme with model calculations. 6+ → 4+ deviates substantially from the experimental 1 1 value which is consistent with calculations from other models and expected because of the few particle nature of this excitation.1– 0. The calculated 1 B E2 . and the behavior of this state across the tellurium isotopic chain are often cited as evidence of low-lying intruder configurations mixing with normal collective excitations [44.

5 3.2 0.J.3 5.9 Te.03 PCM PS1 Ref.17 29 0.45] 28 38 34 0.1 30 2.0066 2.9 3.7 0.075 −0.6 1.2 0.9 0.090 9.88 0.4(7) 3. [14. Intruder Refs.092 0. [48] 29 40 21 1.23 0. Degriek [49].20 2.28 Normal configuration −1.24 3.u.21 1.7(3) 13(1) 75(7) 0. Intruder parameter set.0010(1) b 0.9 26 25 18 0. The parameter set PS1 calculations better position the 6+ level as a result of placing slightly 1 greater emphasis on particle configurations.23 0.15 0.9(10) 18.45 GCM 27 30 13 0.2 0. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. 4 2 3 respectively.u.13 13 36 7.36(2) 66(8) 3.1(5) 12(10) a 8.5 PCM PS2 Ref.7 4.1 1.40 15 6. The reader is referred to the original papers for details of parameter selection and model calculations.92 2. Transitions not observed in this experiment or Ref.4(4) Value estimated using branching ratio from Ref.2 0. D.019(1) 0. Particle-core coupling model The near constant excitation energy of the 6+ state and its 1 apparently depressed level energy in the heavier tellurium nuclei motivated the consideration of the PCM [47] which incorporates two-proton excitations for 126Te.1 0.37 1.26 10 21 7.28 0. VANHOY et al. The PS2 param- TABLE III.075 0. Uncertainities are symmetrized values of those found in Table I. All B E2 : Ii – I f 21 – 01 41 – 21 22 – 21 22 – 01 02 – 21 61 – 41 42 – 41 42 – 22 42 – 21 31 – 41 31 – 22 31 – 21 23 – 41 23 – 22 23 – 21 23 – 02 23 – 01 03 – 22 03 – 21 a b Experiment 25.10 −0.23 −0. PS1 and PS2. Results from the von Egidy and Lopac calculations are displayed in Fig.24 17 32 0.32 — — 0.15(2) 8. are summarized in Table IV. sition rates.080 17 0. d MeV MeV n p Cn0 MeV Cn2 MeV Cn4 MeV 0. R. The calculations differ principally in their choice of singleparticle orbital energies.60 MeV 5.4 59 0. respectively.22 0.1 0. 064323 (2004) 126 TABLE II. 6 and Table II. The associated parameter sets.0 13 3.1 0.15 8. These strong branches are not observed in this experiment nor the neutron capture measurements of von Egidy [14] from either the fourth or fifth 2+ state. [14] 26 34 30 0.37 0.0 Intruder configuration −1.4 15 34 7.51(5) b AHV 25 34 45 0.025 4.18 6.4(7) 34(28) 45(4) 0.2 29 0.29 0. [14].11 064323-10 .19 17 40 18 18 0. Several related calculations were performed some years ago on various tellurium nuclei by Lopac [48]. Both parameter sets adequately reproduce the observed level density. Two issues arise in the level scheme: the positioning of the 6+ and 2+ states and the relative sequencing of the states 1 2 not in the ground-state band.15 −0.. and Warr [50].6 18 0. A recent calculation was completed by von Egidy [14].6 2.8 9. Comparisons of experimental transition rates with model calculations for low-lying positive parity transitions in transition rates are in W. [14]. The intruder model calculation predicts E2 decays from the 2+ into the 0+ and 0+ levels of 10 and 20 W.8 11 0.38 0.01 2.24 13 35 0.

Meyer. Spectroscopic informa- The support of the National Science Foundation for this project through Grant Nos. 1455 (1975). R. Tanczyn. B. N. R. Phys. Phys. L. E. Holmberg. Kumbartzki. 6. Nucl. Transl. Wolf. D. Lee. angular distributions. Neither set of calculations well positions the 2+ state near the 2 4+ level. N. and Doppler shifts were measured. A.1 eter set calculations produce a more realistic dispersion of states in the second and third columns of the level scheme. Phys. Bargholtz. J. V.1 2. and J. P. Jolie. Rev. Acad. [5] S. H. Beshai.6 2. Natl.. Dorsett.W. G. H. T. 38. A227. Phys. M. Vanhoy. This suggests that an intruder description of the 0+ state is not necessary.25 Phonon energies keV 2 3 Couplings 2 3 1130 1130 2100 2100 2. R.20 0. F. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. Ser. P. As expected. Phys. one discovers that any reasonable choice of the d3/2-orbital energy produces the inverted staggering in the second column of the level schemes in Fig. and O. I. R. All models can reproduce features of the level scheme and many transition rates. [17] E. [7] C. Stand. W. C 26. A528. Godfrey. L. Yagi. Gan. Warr. Talbert. Aoki. Weil. 373 (1974). Jackson and R. 796 (1973).LIFETIMES IN 126 Te FROM IN-BEAM n . V. Weinbeck.) 52. Bargholtz. [12] H. Katakura and K. Phys. and J. von Egidy. 181 (1988). [19] J. Rev. the 2+ 2 level energy is too high. W. Kern. Davoren. [8] C. Lind. A247. Part II (Atomizdat. C 11. Anthony. D. Yates of the University of Kentucky and invaluable assistance from the accelerator staff at the laboratory. 1978). and W. I.2 MeV in excitation. R. however. S. A250. [2] J. Holmberg. Barker. [15] P. Matoba. Farris. Govor. including the small values observed for the 6+ and 0+ level decays. The strong B E2 rates of the 0+ and 2+ 3 3 states are better described by the collective descriptions. Hyakutake. Technol. J. Soares. Phys. van Patter. M. M. 1432 (1982). Rammo. Anderson. C 8. M. [6] J. C. The level scheme and transitions between levels were examined from the viewpoints of the anharmonic vibrator model. Wyckoff and J. Z. J. Both parameter sets provide an adequate description of the relative sizes of many B E2 transition rates. one can obtain slightly better agreement for the 6+ 1 level energy by use of the PCM that emphasizes particle degrees of freedom. M. Ahmed. R. USSR. Harper. Both parameter sets lead to calculations that 1 2 strongly emphasize d7/2 orbital configurations coupled to one. Warr. Phys. [1] C. Atlas of Gamma-Ray Spectra from the Inelastic Scattering of Reactor Fast Neutrons. including spins. J. Glascock. Nucl. Govor. Fielding. Hicks. A237. and V. Haas. [14] T. Rev. B. 1 2 Parameter set PS1. Bull. and N. Sheldon and D. A. W. C. C 15. N. 520 (1978). Garrett. Akad. Gidefeldt. S. Crittin. SUMMARY tion. Fiz. Res. Phys. D. M. 355 (2003). Moreh. A. Jr. J. Becker. 064323 (2004) Orbital energies keV Source/Ref. L. Inst. coincidences. Alford. 1806 (1977). the general collective model. Shahal. Nucl. Moscow. Mikhailov. W. [13] M. 274 (1975). Al-Assafi. 2 V. G. Nucl. Zafiratos. We also acknowledge helpful discussions with Professor M. R. Rev. A 272. 227 (1975). Nauk SSSR. Higher d3/2 orbital energies tend to do a better job placing the 6+ state near the observed experi1 mental energy. PPCORE parameter sets.and two-phonon vibrations for the 2+ state. Nucl. V. A. PS1 [14] PS2 [48] g7/2 0 0 d5/2 1000 750 h11/2 2030 2400 d3/2 3190 1800 s1/2 3300 2000 Pairing G 0. A714. Doll. A. and L. In all cases. [18] R. in particular. W.6 2. M. Berendakov. 52. Mod. multipole-mixing ratios. [3] S. and W. Genilloud. F. and Y. Hubel. Wohn. 381 (1991). n MEASUREMENTS TABLE IV. Phys. D. A. D. Phys. Szczepanski. Demidov. 143 (1966). L. M. Becker. M. but the PCM calculations give the best overall agreement with experimental results. Al-Amili. Faulkner. B. S. L. Fransson. [16] S. H. Nucl. Vanhoy. Sci. G. Yu. Phys. J. There is no clear advantage to using an intruder description for the low-lying levels of 126Te. R. W. E. Data Sheets 97. [10] A. Phys. Phys. 105. 765 (2002). C. Nucl. K. T. Thomas. 141 (2000). J. P. 2264 (1998). Kunz. [11] W. and I. W. Cherepantsev. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The level scheme of 126Te has been determined utilizing -ray spectroscopy following inelastic neutron scattering. an IBM-2-based intruder model. Henry. and lifetimes were obtained for most levels below 3. K. M. and S. Rev. K. Herzog. Draper. M. Eriksson. McEllistrem and Professor S. Ser. Izv. 064323-11 . Phys. 2 By varying the parameters about these two cases. K.T. Nucl. and references therein. A. E. [4] A. K. Rev. J. The 0+ state can be explained 2 equally well by collective or hybrid particle descriptions. Excitation functions. Kitao. and J. Al-Najjar. and L. S. Demidov. Kluge. C. L. 260 (1975). J. M. Cizewski. [9] F. and the particle-core coupling model. 1020 (1988). (Engl. 3 (1975). and L. K. Fransson. C 57. Yates. branching ratios. Stefansson. A304. PHY-0139504 and PHY-9901508 is deeply appreciated. well describes the exact values for the lower states. Benedict. Halbig.

Phys. Gollwitzer. H. Molnár. Forbes. D. J. M. M. S. E. Phys. D. M. Brussaard. van PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69. Data Sheets 71. Greenlees. Nucl. Phys. von Egidy. Jones. M. R. Eisenberg and W. Cutoiu. G. Brink. J. 413 (1965). I. [45] J. Gale. A593. Nucl. and W. Borg. R. Phys. Julin. Fazekas. Degrieck and G. P. 101 (1992). Bohm. [44] J. 19. J. T. and Ch. C 61. Schenker. N. S. C 52. Galindo-Uribarri. Davoren. A. Nuclear Theory Vol. M. Waroquier. Phys. W. Wadsworth. Julin. T. Nazarewicz. T. Phys. C. A231. Albers. Greiner. M. and M. Janzen. D. F. J. Warr (private communication). Rev. Hicks. -L. Nucl. Hauschild. Veres. 640 (1992). [43] T. Gelberg. A 338. M. 1. A. Rep. Gatenby. von Brentano. A607. A. 135 (1976). Lehmann. Á. G. Hibbert. J. Amsterdam. M. O. Nucl.-P. and P. 535 (1987). F. A505. N. S. P. R. and C. Molnár. K. J. P. L. 249 (1992). S. M. 379 (1998). A. R. P. C. James. J. Törmänen. 151 (1962). V. Woods. C. 311 (1993). Heyde. Wood. Page. Kankaanpää. Z. Rev. C. Kantele. A 296. A104. [40] E. J. Savelius. [38] D. Phys. Walbran. O. and H. Radford. Ott. R. J. Nucl. and P. Schauer. Lopac. Phys. L. M. K. L. [37] J. Genilloud. Seiwert. H. Lett. 1. C 48. B. Stoyanov. Rev. R. A. Jones. 461 (1994). Lett. J. A. R490 1993). LaFosse. Heyde and P. and W. Joyce. 261 (1991). Wirth. and P. Vorlet. Rev. Nucl. Phys. 212 (1955). and V. D. Verho. Nucl. Piotrowski. A. B. Shakin. [49] E. P. Jolie. and J. M. Z. A224. M. A636. S. N. Gizon. Brenner. [47] K. Endt. P. Nucl. Kerman. 47 (1981). Passoja. Sklaney. P. Scharff-Goldhaber and J. Trzaska. Phys. T. A246. Greiner. Rikovska. VANHOY et al. Rev. Jolie. Phys. J. Nucl. Garrett. K. Kern. S. G. R. B. J. C 36. Schnare. Drissi. P. A. E. Garrett. A557. W. Phys. J. Tamura. Stone. Valnion. K. R. 064323 (2004) Duppen. Garrett. Phys. Hertenberger. in Computational Nuclear Physics 1: Nuclear Structure (Springer-Verlag. Z. Vanhoy. S. Kern. Kern. M. Phys. Hackman. A. 141 (1974). Yates. E. A. Schimmer. M. K. B. B. Rikovska. K. de Toledo Piza. D. A652. 21 (1995). R. P. A. and P. Nucl. Phys. J. Phys. Phys. Kerek. Phys. and S. 98. Gizon. Lehmann. Carle. Huyes. 43 (1996). J. 293 (1975).-F. Sellin. F. Grinberg. 367 (1974). A155. M.J. H. Warr. Phys. W. 64B. Georgii. P. Hess. J. Yates. Kumpulainen. [50] N. Mannanal. Walters. N. Phys. 117 (1991). Vaaramaki. Belgya. and W. J. Dewald. and J. H. Walters. Waring. [46] N. Graw. A. Velazquez-Aguliar. (North-Holland. C 68. J. Wirowski. Hess. Troltenier. R. New York. H. D. J. Maruhn. R. [41] J. R. [48] V. B. M. Doll. Phys. A 338. F. P. W. W. Weneser. Gill. Corminboeuf. J. T. Greiner. Heyde. 3rd ed. van Isacker. R. A548. R. A. Nucl. D. Coleman. P. O. 014312 (2000). [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] 064323-12 . K. A. Belgya. Phys. Clark. Phys. A. Muikku. M. A. and J. Lett. F. Warr. W. Cunningham. A. and M. Beausang. Hess. J. J. Davinson. [39] M. J. L. Juutinen. R. Maruhn. T. S. W. Matsuzaki. E. J. S. D. Piiparinen. Phys. Phys. Casten. 215. 147 (1980). Nucl. 1991). Crandell. and T. Jämsen. Rev. S. R. [42] S. Fossan. and A. Helariutta. Phys. Otsuka. G. Stone. Data Nucl. Nucl. and S. 81 (1967). Nuclear Models. At. C 45. A. B. Phys. G. P. Jolie. Rev. Data Tables 26. Paul. A. Kerman and C. 2162 (1987). and P. R. V. H. Simpson. 145 (1989). 59. 034315 (2003). Vincx. S. Lett. Meehan. Ivascu. M. Van den Berghe. 1987). Winterbon. H. and A. 2387 (1995). Troltenier. Aprahamian. Rev. 339 (1999). Lundstedt. Maruhn. Hamilton. Hicks. P. G. A. K. 513 (1970).