4.5 Article

Exploring the uncertainties in theoretical predictions of nuclear β-decay half-lives

Journal

CHINESE PHYSICS C
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/abodf42

Keywords

beta decay; nuclear mass; r process

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11805004, 11875070]
  2. Key Research Foundation of Education Ministry of Anhui Province [KJ2020A0485]
  3. Open fund for Discipline Construction, Institute of Physical Science and Information Technology, Anhui University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The nuclear beta-decay half-lives are predicted using an empirical formula and mass predictions from various nuclear models. The empirical formula performs well in predicting half-lives, especially for short-lived nuclei. The uncertainties in half-life calculations mainly come from beta-decay energies and parameters of the empirical formula, with heavier nuclei and those near the neutron-drip line having relatively large uncertainties.
Nuclear beta-decay half-lives are predicted based on an empirical formula and the mass predictions from various nuclear models. It is found that the empirical formula can reproduce the nuclear beta-decay half-lives well, especially for short-lived nuclei with T112 < 1 s. The theoretical half-life uncertainties from beta-decay energies and the parameters of the empirical formula are further investigated. It is found that the uncertainties of the half-lives are relatively large for heavy nuclei and nuclei near the neutron-drip line. For nuclei on the r-process path, the uncertainties for those with N = 126 are about one order of magnitude, which are much larger than the uncertainties for those with N = 50 and 82. However, theoretical uncertainties from the parameters of the empirical formula are relatively small for the nuclei on the r-process path, which indicates that the empirical formula is very suitable for predicting the beta-decay half-lives in r-process simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available