-
The zero-range two-body tensor force employed in this study was originally proposed by Skyrme [32, 33]:
$ \begin{aligned}[b] {V^T} =& \frac{T}{2}\Big\{ [\big({\sigma _{\boldsymbol{1}}} \cdot {{\boldsymbol{k}}^\prime })({\sigma _{\boldsymbol{2}}} \cdot {{\boldsymbol{k}}^\prime }) - \frac{{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{3}}}\left( {{\sigma _{\bf{1}}} \cdot {\sigma _{\bf{2}}}} \right){{\boldsymbol{k}}^{\prime {\bf{2}}}}]\sigma ({\boldsymbol{r}})\\ & + \delta ({\boldsymbol{r}})[({\sigma _{\boldsymbol{1}}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{k}})({\sigma _{\bf{2}}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{k}}) - \frac{{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{3}}}\left( {{\sigma _{\bf{1}}} \cdot {\sigma _{\bf{2}}}} \right){{\boldsymbol{k}}^{\bf{2}}}]\Big\} \\ & + \frac{U}{2}\Big\{ \left( {{\sigma _1} \cdot {{\boldsymbol{k}}^\prime }} \right)\delta ({\boldsymbol{r}})({\sigma _{\bf{2}}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{k}}) + \left( {{\sigma _{\bf{2}}} \cdot {{\boldsymbol{k}}^\prime }} \right)\delta ({\boldsymbol{r}})({\sigma _{\bf{1}}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{k}})\\ &- \frac{2}{3}\left[ {({\sigma _{\bf{1}}} \cdot {\sigma _{\bf{2}}}){{\boldsymbol{k}}^\prime } \cdot \delta ({\boldsymbol{r}}){\boldsymbol{k}}} \right]\Big\} . \end{aligned}$
(1) The parameters T and U denote the strengths of the triplet-even (TE) and triplet-odd (TO) tensor terms, respectively. The density-dependent contact (i.e., zero-range) surface pairing interactions are given as follows [29, 34]:
$ \begin{eqnarray} V_{\rm IV}({\boldsymbol{r_1,r_2}}) = V_0\frac{1-P_{\sigma}}{2}\left(1-\frac{\rho({\boldsymbol{r}})}{\rho_o}\right)\delta({\boldsymbol{r_1- r_2}}), \end{eqnarray} $
(2) $ \begin{eqnarray} V_{\rm IS}({\boldsymbol{r_1,r_2}}) = fV_0\frac{1+P_{\sigma}}{2}\left(1-\frac{\rho({\boldsymbol{r}})}{\rho_o}\right)\delta({\boldsymbol{r_1,r_2}}), \end{eqnarray} $
(3) where
$ {\boldsymbol{r = (r_1-r_2)}}/2 $ ,$ \rho_0 $ is assumed to be$ \rho_0 $ = 0.16 fm-3, and$ P_\sigma $ is the spin exchange operator. As the iso-scalar (IS) pairing strength is not yet well constrained, factor f represents the ratio between the strengths of the IS and iso-vector (IV) pairing forces.We start the calculation by solving the HFB equation in coordinate-space [35, 36]. The solved HFB wavefunctions are expanded on the canonical basis [37]. We then solve the pnQRPA equations:
$ \begin{eqnarray} \left( \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\ -B & -A\end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c} X \\ Y \end{array}\right) = E_{\rm QRPA}\left(\begin{array}{c} X \\ Y \end{array}\right), \end{eqnarray} $
(4) where
$ \begin{aligned}[b] A_{pn,p^\prime n^\prime} =& E_{pp^\prime}\delta_{nn^\prime}+E_{nn^\prime}\delta_{pp^\prime}\\ &+V_{pn,p^\prime n^\prime} ^{ph}(u_pv_nu_{p^\prime}v_{n^\prime}+v_pu_nv_{p^\prime}u_{n^\prime})\\ &+V_{pn,p^\prime n^\prime}^{pp}(u_pu_nu_{p^\prime}u_{n^\prime}+v_pv_nv_{p^\prime}v_{n^\prime}), \end{aligned} $
(5) $ \begin{aligned}[b] B_{pn,p^\prime n^\prime} =& V_{pn,p^\prime n^\prime}^{ph}(v_pu_nu_{p^\prime}v_{n^\prime}+ u_pv_nv_{p^\prime}u_{n^\prime})\\ &-V_{pn,p^\prime n^\prime}^{pp}(u_pu_nv_{p^\prime}v_{n^\prime}+v_pu_nu_{p^\prime}u_{n^\prime}). \end{aligned}$
(6) In the p-p channel, both the IS and IV pairing interactions are included, with
$ V_0 = (V_{0n}+V_{0p})/2 $ in$ V_{pn,p'n'}^{pp} $ . After the above equations are solved by diagonalizing the QRPA matrix, the transition amplitudes in the$ \beta_- $ channel with the operator$ \hat{O} $ can then be expressed as$ \begin{eqnarray} B_-^\nu& = &-\sum_{pn}(X_{pn}^\nu u_pv_n+Y_{pn}^\nu v_pu_n)\langle p||\hat{O}_-||n\rangle, \end{eqnarray} $
(7) The
$ \beta^- $ decay rates λ are defined as follows [38–41]:$ \begin{eqnarray} \lambda& = {\rm ln}2/t_{1/2} = f/8896 ({\rm s}^{-1}), \end{eqnarray} $
(8) with the phase space factor
$ f_\beta $ of the form$ \begin{eqnarray} f_\beta& = &\int_1^{w_0} C(w)F(Z,w)pw(w_0-w)^2{\rm d}w, \end{eqnarray} $
(9) $ \begin{eqnarray} C(w)& = &k+kaw+kb/w+kcw^2, \end{eqnarray} $
(10) where w is the electron energy in units of the electron mass, and
$ w_0 $ is the maximum electron energy that can be released from the decay in units of the electron mass. It is defined following Ref. [9]:$ \begin{eqnarray} w_0 = (\Delta M_{n-H}-E_{\rm QRPA}-\lambda_p+\lambda_n)/m_e+1, \end{eqnarray} $
(11) with
$ \Delta M_{n-H} = 0.78227 $ MeV, and$ \lambda_p $ ,$ \lambda_n $ being the fermi energy of proton and neutron, respectively.$ F(Z,w) $ is the Fermi function as expressed in Ref. [38], and$ k,\;ka,\;kb $ , and$ kc $ are the nuclear matrix elements depending on the respective nuclear structure following the expressions in Eq. (7). The detailed expressions of the respective operators are presented in [22, 23, 38]. The log$ ft $ values can be defined as$ \begin{eqnarray} \text{log}ft& = \text{log}(f_0C/\lambda), \end{eqnarray} $
(12) with
$ f_0 $ is the phase space factor for the allowed GT decays$ \begin{eqnarray} f_0& = &\int_1^{w_0}F(Z,w)pw(w_0-w)^2{\rm d}w. \end{eqnarray} $
(13) -
In this study, we use the Skyrme force
$ {\rm{SKO}}^\prime $ [42], which adopted the s-wave time-odd Landau-Migdal parameter$ g_0^\prime = 0.79 $ . The tensor interaction is then added on the top of$ {\rm{SKO}}^\prime $ perturbatively. For HFB, we choose the maximum angular momentum of the quasi-particle states$ J_{\rm max} $ = 19/2, for N ~ 126 nuclei, and$ J_{\rm max} $ = 15/2 for other nuclei. The cut-off of quasi-particle energy is set at 180 MeV. At the HFB level, the IS pairing is not included as we neglect the proton-neutron mixing for the ground states, and the strength of the IV pairing is separately determined to reproduce the odd-even mass staggering of protons and neutrons, i.e., we actually use different IV pairing strengths$ V_{0p} $ and$ V_{0n} $ for protons and neutrons, respectively, to obtain better fits. The values of$ V_{0p} $ and$ V_{0n} $ for different isotopic and isotonic chains are listed in Table 1.Cd N=80 N=82 N=84 N=124 N=126 N=128 $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ $V_{0n}$ $V_{0p}$ w/o −380.0 −590.0 −380.0 −590.0 −380.0 −590.0 −420.0 −590.0 −450.0 −660.0 −450.0 −680.0 −420.0 −680.0 w/i −380.0 −590.0 −380.0 −590.0 −440.0 −590.0 −440.0 −590.0 −480.0 −660.0 −450.0 −680.0 −420.0 −700.0 Table 1.
$V_{0n}$ and$V_{0p}$ strengths used in HFB for different isotopic or isotonic chains, with (w/i) or without (w/o) tensor force.The IS pairing p-p interaction was the most concerned interaction in the previous calculations of β-decay half life [9, 26]. However, due to the fact that no observables are directly related to the proton-neutron IS pairing and its strength is still not well constrained, different IS pairing strengths are used in various ocassions. One straightforward constraint for IS pairing might be the low-energy super GT states observed in N = Z+2 pf shell nuclei, especially in 42Ca, 46Ti, and 50Cr, whose formations are supposed to be directly triggered by IS pairing [43–46]. This leaves a constraint of
$ f = 1.0\sim1.05 $ [34]. In this work, we hence use$ f = 1.05 $ for IS pairing.The tensor interaction has been reported to produce a strong effect on the β-decay for closed-shell nuclei [30] because the it strongly affects the low energy GT states [27, 28]. In Ref. [11], the tensor interaction was included in the FAM-QRPA calculation to carry out global calculations in even-even nuclei. In that case, the tensor interaction is carefully fitted to reproduce the GT and SD main peak energies, as well as the β-decay half-lives in some chosen nuclei. In the previous work, the tensor interaction was constrained by the GT and SD main peak energies in 90Zr and 208Pb, as performed in Ref. [47], together with the energy differences between
$ 1h_{11/2} $ and$ 1g_{7/2} $ single-proton states along the Z = 50 isotopes [48].$ {\rm{SKO}}^\prime $ is well fitted for β-decay with reasonable$ g_0^\prime $ value. Thus, a rather wide acceptable range of tensor interaction can be obtained by the GT and SD data, while a much stronger constraint comes from the single-particle energies. Finally, the strength of the TO tensor interaction is constrained to the interval from −350 to −270 MeV·fm5, and that of TE tensor interactions from approximately 270 to 600 MeV·fm5 [49]. In this section, we adopt (T, U) = (500.00, −320.00) MeV·fm5 as the baseline parameter, which is close to the centre of the optimized region. -
In this subsection, the decay scheme of nuclei in Cd isotopes will be investigated to adjust the quenching factor. To understand the effect of tensor force and to adjust the parameter better, detailed studies of β-decay beyond half-lives are needed. As performed in [14], we investigate the detailed decay scheme and compare both decay energies as well as log
$ ft $ values (the equivalence of nuclear matrix elements). The decay energies can be compared directly with those from the experiments, while the log$ ft $ value comparison is less straightforward, as there always exists the problem of axial-vector coupling constant ($ g_A $ ) quenching, which has an empirical value of approximately$ g_A = 0.75g_{A0} $ , and its origin is still being debated. A recent study suggests that it may come from the many-body weak current [50]. In spite of such common quenching effect from nuclear medium, the many-body approximations may also bring certain quenching. As pointed out in Ref. [14], the QRPA method is in a sense an approximation to the exact shell model calculations. The calculated peak may be further broadened by multi-phonon effects beyond this approach, and this approximation may introduce an effective quenching in addition to the previous quenching for$ g_A $ mentioned above, namely,$ g_A = q g_{A}^{m} $ , where$ g_A^{m}\approx 0.7-0.8g_{A0} $ is the$ g_A $ in nuclear medium extracted from various shell model calculations. Given that both$ {\rm GT} $ and$ {\rm FF} $ decay branches are studied in this article, we should also take into account an effective quenching of$ g_V $ due to the lack of strength spreading of the QRPA method, in the same manner as that of$ g_A $ , that is,$ g_V = q $ instead of 1.The allowed (GT) decays are relatively simple. Meanwhile, the measurements suggest that β-decays of Cd isotopes are dominated by GT decays, so one could fix the quenching factors by the decay schemes of the Cd isotopic chain. In Table 2, we present a comparison of GT branches for Cd isotopes with
$ g_A = 0.5g_{A0} $ . Our observation is that without tensor force, the decay energies of the specific decay channels are underestimated. This can be ignored if the detailed decay scheme information is not included. In that case, one would either simply resort to a larger$ g_A $ , which could correctly produce the half-lives, or increase the IS pairing strength to obtain a larger decay energy; the necessity of the introduction of the tensor force may be neglected.SKO $^\prime$ SKO $^\prime$ +TExp. [51] $Q_i$ log $ft$ $Q_i$ log $ft$ $Q_i$ log $ft$ 120Cd 1.211 4.17 2.171 4.03 2.281 4.10 122Cd 1.922 4.21 2.973 4.05 3.431 3.95 124Cd 2.579 4.25 3.761 4.06 126Cd 3.191 4.29 4.538 4.08 128Cd 3.769 4.33 5.312 4.09 6.241 4.17 130Cd 4.328 4.39 6.083 4.11 6.741 4.10 132Cd 4.700 4.49 6.401 4.12 Table 2. Decay energies and log
$ft$ values of the largest GT branches for Cd isotopes using a quenching of$g_A=0.5g_{A0}$ .The inclusion of the tensor force becomes a better option, as it can give a much better agreement for the decay energy for most of the Cd isotopes and, with a proper quenching, it also gives better agreement to the log
$ ft $ values. The inclusion of the tensor force thus provides simultaneous agreements of decay energies and log$ ft $ values of specific decay channels with proper IS pairing and$ g_A $ quenching, which are difficult to achieve without it. Moreover, these results agree well with those obtained by the QRPA with realistic forces [14].Accordingly, the β-decay half lives for the Cd isotopic chain are displayed in Fig. 1, in which the strength of the tensor terms is set as (T,U) = (500, −320) MeV·fm5, the IS pairing strength is set at f = 1.05, and
$ g_A = 0.5g_{A0} $ . For the Cd isotopes, it is shown in Fig. 1 that without tensor force, the deviation of the calculations from the measurements can be as large as one order of magnitude. The introduction of the tensor force helps improve the situation, achieving qualitative improvements in the results, not only regarding the half-lives but also the excitation energies and matrix elements, as can be observed in Table 2.Figure 1. (color online) β-decay half lives for the Cd isotopic chain, calculated by HFB+QRPA with
$ {\rm{SKO}}^\prime $ . The strength of the tensor terms is selected as (T,U) = (500, −320) MeV·fm5. The IS pairing strength is set at f = 1.05. The experimental data are taken from Ref. [51].
Roles of tensor and isoscalar pairing interactions in β-decay calculations for possible r-process waiting point nuclei with N ~ 82 and 126
- Received Date: 2022-01-25
- Available Online: 2022-11-15
Abstract: In this study, we adopt the self-consistent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) theory with the proton-neutron quasi-particle random phase approximation (pnQRPA) based on the Skyrme force for calculation of the β− decay half-lives for nuclei with N ~ 82 and 126 on possible r-process paths. In the calculations, the Skyrme interaction (e.g., SKO') is adopted, and the tensor interaction is added self-consistently in both HFB and QRPA calculations. We systematically study how the half-life is changed by varying the strength of the triplet-even (TE) and triplet-odd (TO) components as well as the IS pairing. We find that a variation in strength of the IS pairing of approximately 20% does not produce a substantial effect on β-decay rates with or without the tensor force, while a strength variation of the TO tensor force considerably affects the change in the β-decay half-lives for the very neutron rich N ~ 82 and 126 isotonic chains. In addition, with the inclusion of the tensor force, the GT decay becomes dominant for very neutron-rich nuclei.