Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. INTRODUCTION 2+ + +
1 )/B(E2; 21 → 01 ) ratio (hereafter known as B4/2 )
is larger than unity for collective excitations. However,
in nuclei near closed shells where single-particle motion
The emergence of collective behavior in atomic nuclei
dominates the nuclear structure, the increasing trend of
outside closed shell configurations represents one of the
the B(E2) values can be reversed [12]. Ten nuclei with
most important paradigms in the description of many-
B4/2 ratios less than unity were identified in a survey of
body quantum mechanical systems [1, 2]. The system-
reduced transition probability ratios [13]. Some of the
atics of excited states reveal fundamental information
cases have been remeasured using complementary exper-
about the evolution of nuclear structure [3]. The largest
imental techniques and the anomaly rectified (e.g. 98 Ru
range of isotopes between consecutive magic numbers
and 180 Pt) [14]. However, the anomaly persists in several
that can be synthesised and studied in their excited states
other nuclei, such as 114 Xe and 114 Te [15, 16].
is found within the 82 ≤ N ≤ 126 shell. The longest con-
tinuous chain with known excited states is for osmium, This paper reports an extension to the level scheme in
168
which spans 37 isotopes from 162 Os (N = 86) [4] to 198 Os Os and the measurement of mean lifetimes of excited
(N = 122) [5]. The Os excitation energy systematics states using the recoil distance Doppler-shift (RDDS)
E(4+ + method. The anomalously low value for the B4/2 ratio
1 )/E(21 ) show the development from single-particle
excitations near the N = 82 closed shell [4, 6], through deduced from the measurements cannot be reproduced
soft triaxial rotors (N ∼ 92) [7] and shape coexistence by IBM-2 model calculations based on the SkM* energy-
(N = 96) [8, 9] towards well-deformed prolate shapes density functional.
near the midshell at N = 104. Beyond N = 104 collec-
tivity decreases towards N = 126 due to the diminishing
valence space [5, 10, 11], see Fig. 1(a). II. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Reduced transition probabilities, particularly B(E2)
values, serve as a more sensitive experimental probe for Excited states of 168 Os were populated in the fusion-
analyzing collectivity as a function of nucleon number. evaporation reactions in experiments performed at the
The B(E2) values usually increase as a function of spin Accelerator Laboratory of the University of Jyväskylä
within a rotational band and follow a parabolic trend listed in Table I. In each experiment γ rays were de-
across a shell, increasing with valence nucleon number [2]. tected with the JUROGAM γ-ray spectrometer consist-
A consequence of this feature is that the B(E2; 4+ 1 → ing of 43 Eurogam Phase I-type escape-suppressed spec-
2
III. RESULTS
FIG. 2: Level scheme deduced for 168 Os. The transition energies are given in keV and their relative intensities are proportional
to the widths of the arrows. Excited states are labelled with their excitation energies relative to the ground state and their
spin and parity assignments. Parentheses indicate tentative assignments.
4
FIG. 4: Double-gated γ-ray coincidence spectra correlated FIG. 5: Double-gated γ-ray coincidence spectra correlated
with a recoil implantation in the GREAT spectrometer. Spec- with a recoil implantation in the GREAT spectrometer. Spec-
tra show a new decay path from the 12+ state to the 9− state tra show a new decay path from the 12+ state to Band 1.
in Band 3. (a) spectrum showing γ rays in coincidence with Insets to the figure show the high-energy linking transitions
the 243 and 532 keV transitions. (b) Spectrum showing γ from the quasi-β band to the ground-state band. (a) spec-
rays in coincidence with the 243 and 365 keV transitions. trum showing γ rays in coincidence with the 126 and 516 keV
transitions. (b) Spectrum showing γ rays in coincidence with
the 516 and 543 keV transitions. (c) Spectrum showing γ rays
detector angles of 158◦ (5 detectors) and 134◦ (10 de- in coincidence with the 543 and 582 keV transitions.
tectors) in coincidence with the γ rays recorded with all
the detectors to allow the measurements of the 2+ and 4+
state lifetimes using the Differential Decay Curve Method The final lifetime is an error-weighted average of indi-
(DDCM) [26]. In the DDCM mean lifetimes are obtained vidual lifetimes obtained at different target-to-degrader
from the relative intensity variation with distance of the distances through Eq. 1 as shown in the insets of Fig. 7.
fully Doppler-shifted and degraded components of the
In order to obtain statistically viable γ-ray spectra, co-
γ-ray transitions feeding and depopulating the level of
incidences were demanded between the full line shape of
interest through the Equation
the 516 keV (4+ → 2+ ) and 642 keV (6+ → 4+ ) direct
d
Idepop d
(x) − αIfeed (x) feeding transitions, recorded with the whole JUROGAM
τ= d s
, (1) array, and the depopulating transitions recorded with the
v dx [Idepop (x)]
JUROGAM detectors at 158◦ or 134◦ , in order to ex-
i
where Idepop i
(x) and Ifeed (x) are the γ-ray intensities for tract the lifetimes of the 2+ and 4+ states, respectively.
the shifted (i = s) and degraded (i = d) components Examples of recoil-correlated γγ-coincidence spectra are
measured at the target-to-degrader distance x for the de- shown in Fig. 6 and decay curves are shown in Fig. 7. The
populating and feeding transitions, which are denoted by present variant of DDCM, in which the full line shape is
the subscripts depop and feed, respectively. The γ-ray used for gating, has been used and discussed in refer-
intensities I recorded with different distances x are nor- ences [25, 27].
malized by the sum of their fully shifted and degraded The lower intensities of the higher-lying transitions
components. The normalization constant α corrects for precluded lifetime measurements using γγ coincidences.
the γ-ray detection efficiency of the different energies. Instead these lifetimes were obtained using γ-ray sin-
6
60 30
+ + + +
50 (a) 2 → 0 25 (b) 4 → 2
40
100 µm 20
100 µm
30 15
20 10
10 5
0 0
Counts/0.5 keV
1000 µm d 25
1000 µm d
50
40 s 20 s
30 15
20 10
10 5
0 0 FIG. 7: The decay curves for (a) the 2+ and (b) the 4+ states
3200 µm 20 3200 µm extracted from the coincidence spectra gated directly above
30 the states under investigation and recorded with five Ge de-
15 tectors at 158◦ are shown with the fits of the decay curves.
20 Only the relevant distances around the region of sensitivity
10 [26] are included in the fits. The insets show the individual
and final average level lifetimes τ extracted for the 2+ and 4+
10
5 states within the framework of the present DDCM.
0 0
320 330 340 350 360 490 500 510 520 530 540
Eγ (keV)
equation
5 2 2
B(E2; Ii → If ) = e Qt hIi 020|If 0i2 . (2)
16π
Similarly, the measured B(E1) values can be expressed
in terms of the transition dipole moment Dt with the
relation
3 2
B(E1; Ii → If ) = D hIi 010|If 0i2 . (3)
4π t
Equations 2 and 3 hold for an axially symmetric rotating
nucleus with K = 0. Although these relations are not
exact for the transitional case where non-axial degrees of
freedom are expected to occur, the quantities |Qt | and
|Dt | can be regarded as parameters in the context of
the present work, in which they will be used for sys-
tematic comparisons. Table III lists the measured mean
lifetimes τ , reduced transition probabilities B(Eλ) and FIG. 9: Energy levels in the ground-state band (filled cir-
the absolute values for the transition dipole (Dt ) and cles) and excited positive-parity structure (unfilled circles) as
quadrupole (Qt ) moments. The B(E2)/B(E1) branches a function of mass number. The data are labelled by their
for the negative-parity states have been extracted from assigned spins and parities. Data for the A ≥ 170 Os isotopes
the measured lifetimes using the relative γ-ray intensities are taken from reference [32].
given in Table III. The B(E1) transition probabilities for
decays from the (7− ) and (9− ) states in band 3 are large
(see Table II) and support their interpretation as an oc- ratios reflect the tendency of B(E2) values to increase as
tupole vibrational band at low frequency. a function of spin within a rotational band structure as
generally predicted in collective models [34]. The ratio
deduced for 168 Os, B4/2 = 0.36(14), shows a marked de-
IV. DISCUSSION viation from the heavier isotopes and seems to suggest
a remarkably low collectivity of the 4+ +
1 → 21 transition
+ +
A. The excited positive-parity structure. compared with the 21 → 01 transition, see Fig. 1(c). If
168
Os were an axially symmetric rotor, one would expect
Band 1 is assigned to be a positive-parity structure a B4/2 = 1.5, which for the measured 2+ lifetime would
that forms one of the decay paths from the 12+ state require a 4+ state lifetime of τ ≈ 3.5 ps.
in band 2. Similar decay paths to positive-parity bands This striking behavior was not anticipated in theoret-
have been observed in nearby nuclei such as 156 Dy [30] ical calculations for 168 Os. Previous calculations include
and 158 Er [31]. Excited positive-parity bands have been a QCD-inspired relativistic energy-density functional ap-
observed in the heavier even-N Os isotopes than 170 Os proach [35] in which systematic ground-state deforma-
in experiments probing non-yrast states populated in the tions across isotopic chains were compared with experi-
β decay of the odd-odd Ir precursors [9, 32]. Figure 9 mental values derived from B(E2) values [36]. No sud-
compares band 1 in 168 Os with the systematic trends es- den change in deformation was predicted at N = 92
tablished for the heavier isotopes. These trends resemble in these calculations although a small discontinuity was
those established for the W isotopes by Kibédi et al., who present at N = 98. Smoothly varying behavior was
found that the states in the first excited positive-parity also predicted by other theoretical approaches including
bands have a parabolic energy dependence on neutron a number-projected BCS model [37] and a QRPA de-
number [33]. scription based on realistic interactions [38].
In this work, spectroscopic calculations of the ex-
cited state energies and absolute B(E2) values have
B. The B(E2; 4+ + + +
1 → 21 )/B(E2; 21 → 01 ) ratio. been performed within the proton-neutron interacting
boson model (IBM-2) [39]. The parameters of IBM-2
The smooth variation of the E4/2 ratio between the were determined by mapping the potential energy sur-
vibrational and rotational regimes belies an intriguing face, calculated by a constrained Hartree-Fock plus BCS
feature in the reduced transition probabilities of 168 Os92 . (HF+BCS) calculation [40] with the Skyrme SkM* (or
Figure 1(b) shows the variation of the B4/2 ratio as a the “modified SkM”) interaction [41], onto the classical
function of neutron number for the Os isotopes. The limit of the IBM-2 Hamiltonian. Details of the calcula-
measured ratios extracted for the N ≥ 96 isotopes indi- tion technique can be found in Refs. [42, 43]. The pro-
cate values that are typical of rotational nuclei. The B4/2 ton and neutron effective charges were set to be equal
8
168
TABLE III: Electromagnetic properties of Os extracted from the present work.
Iπ
τ (ps) →Iiπ Eγ (keV) B(E2) (e b ) B(E2) (W.u.) |Qt | (eb) B(E1) (10−3 W.u.) |Dt | (10−3 eb1/2 )
Ifπ 2 2
+ + +
2 41(7) 2 →0 341.1 0.41(7) 74(13) 4.5(4)
4+ 15(5) 4+ → 2+ 516.3 0.15(5) 27(9) 2.3(4)
(12+ ) 740(50) (12+ ) → 10+ 382.3 0.0135(9) 2.4(2) 0.63(5)
(14+ ) 17(2) (14+ ) → (12+ ) 365.4 0.70(9) 130(15) 4.5(3)
(5− ) 59(7) (5− ) → (3− ) 267.0 0.23(4) 42(7) 2.8(3)
(5− ) → 4+ 879.9 0.0053(7) 0.97(7)
(5− ) → 6+ 237.6 0.029(4) 2.1(15)
(7− ) 21(4) (7− ) → (5− ) 417.3 0.28(6) 50(10) 2.9(3)
(7− ) → 6+ 656.3 0.0041(12) 0.84(15)
the differential decay curve method have been performed the Academy of Finland under the Finnish Centre of
in a complementary experiment using these devices in Excellence Programme 2006-2011 (Nuclear and Acceler-
conjunction with the IKP Köln plunger. The particularly ator Based Physics contract 213503) and the UK Sci-
small B(E2; 4+ + + +
1 → 21 )/B(E2; 21 → 01 ) ratio deduced ence and Technology Facilities Council. The UK/France
for 168 Os could not be reproduced using IBM-2 model cal- (STFC/IN2P3) Loan Pool and GAMMAPOOL network
culations based on the SkM* energy-density functional. are acknowledged for the EUROGAM detectors of JU-
This anomaly appears unlikely to arise from seniority or ROGAM. TG, PTG and CS acknowledge the support
shape coexistence phenomena. Further work is required of the Academy of Finland, contract numbers 131665,
to investigate whether the expected triaxiality of 168 Os 111965 and 209430, respectively. Financial support (KH)
might contribute to this unusual observation. from the ”FWO-Vlaanderen” and the InterUniversity At-
traction Pole Programme, Belgian State Federal Office
for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs (IAP Grant
Acknowledgments No P7/12) is acknowledged.
[1] A. Bohr and and B.R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure Vol- (2001).
ume 1: Single-Particle Motion (W. A. Benjamin Inc, [22] P. Rahkila, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 595,
New York, USA, 1969). 637 (2008).
[2] A. Bohr and and B.R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure Vol- [23] D. C. Radford, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A
ume 2: Nuclear Deformation (W. A. Benjamin Inc, New 361, 297 (1995).
York, USA, 1975). [24] L. Cleemann et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods 156, 477
[3] K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1467 (1978).
(2011). [25] T. Grahn et al., Phys. Rev. C 80, 014324 (2009).
[4] D. T. Joss et al., Phys. Rev. C 70, 017302 (2004). [26] A. Dewald, S. Harissopulos, and P. von Brentano, Z.
[5] Z. Podolyak et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 031305(R) (2009). Phys. A 334, 163 (1989).
[6] M. C. Drummond et al., Phys. Rev. C 87, 054309 (2013). [27] A. Dewald et al., Phys. Rev. C 68, 034314 (2003).
[7] D. T. Joss et al., Nucl. Phys. A 689, 631 (2001). [28] R. D. Page, P.J. Woods, R.A. Cunningham, T. Davinson,
[8] J. L. Durell, G. D. Dracoulis, C. Fahlander and A. P. N.J. Davis, A.N. James, K. Livingston, P.J. Sellin and
Byrne, Phys. Lett. B 115, 367 (1982). A.C. Shotter., Phys. Rev. C 53, 660 (1996).
[9] P.M. Davidson, G.D. Dracoulis, T. Kibedi, A.P. Byrne, [29] M. Scheck, T. Grahn, A. Petts, P. A. Butler, A. De-
S.S. Anderssen, A.M. Baxter, B. Fabricius, G.J. Lane wald, L. P. Gaffney, M. B. G. Hornillos, A. Görgen, P. T.
and A.E. Stuchbery, Nucl. Phys. A 568, 90 (1994). Greenlees, K. Helariutta, et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 014310
[10] C. Wheldon et al., Nucl. Phys. A 699, 415 (2002), ISSN (2010).
0375-9474. [30] M. A. Riley et al., Nucl. Phys. A 486, 456 (1988).
[11] P. D. Bond, R. F. Casten, D. D. Warner and D. Horn, [31] T. S. Dinoko et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 63, 01005 (2013).
Phys. Lett. B 130, 167 (1983). [32] T. Kibedi, G.D. Dracoulis, A.P. Byrne and P.M. David-
[12] A. de Shalit and I. Talmi, Nuclear Shell Theory (Aca- son, Nucl. Phys. A 567, 183 (1994).
demic Press, New York, 1963). [33] T. Kibedi, G.D. Dracoulis, A.P. Byrne, and P.M. David-
[13] R. B. Cakirli, R. F. Casten, J. Jolie, and N. Warr, Phys. son, Nucl. Phys. A 688, 669 (2001).
Rev. C 70, 047302 (2004). [34] D. J. Rowe and J. L. Wood, Fundamentals of nuclear
[14] E. Williams et al., Phys. Rev. C 74, 024302 (2006). models: foundational models, vol. 1 (World Scientific,
[15] G. de Angelis et al., Phys. Lett. B 535, 93 (2002), ISSN 2009).
03702693. [35] P. Finelli, N. Kaiser, D. Vretenar, and W. Weise, Nuclear
[16] O. Möller et al., Phys. Rev. C 71, 064324 (2005). Physics A 770, 1 (2006), ISSN 03759474.
[17] Data extracted using the NNDC On-Line Data Service [36] S. Raman, C. W. Nestor, and P. Tikkanen, At. Data
from the ENSDF database, file revised as of 22.2.2010. Nucl. Data Tables 78, 1 (2001).
M. R. Bhat, Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File [37] N. Benhamouda et al., in AIP Conference Proceedings
(ENSDF), Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, (AIP, 2009), vol. 1090, p. 613.
page 817, edited by S. M. Qaim (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, [38] S. Peltonen, D. Delion, and J. Suhonen, Physical Review
Germany, 1992). C 71 (2005).
[18] C. W. Beausang et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. [39] T. Otsuka et al, Nucl. Phys. A 309, 1 (1978).
Res. A 313, 37 (1992). [40] P. Bonche et al, Compt. Phys. Commun. 171, 49 (2005).
[19] M. Leino et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B [41] J. Bartel et al., Nucl. Phys. A 386, 79 (1982).
99, 653 (1995). [42] K. Nomura et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 142501 (2008).
[20] R. D. Page et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B [43] K. Nomura et al, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044307 (2010).
204, 634 (2003). [44] J. J. Ressler et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034317 (2004).
[21] I. H. Lazarus et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 48, 567 [45] P. Van Isacker and S. Heinze, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,
10