4.4 Article

Sensitivity studies for the main r process: β-decay rates

期刊

AIP ADVANCES
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4867192

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [PHY0758100]
  2. Joint Institute of Nuclear Astrophysics [PHY0822648]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Physics [1068192] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Physics
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1430152] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pattern of isotopic abundances produced in rapid neutron capture, or r-process, nucleosynthesis is sensitive to the nuclear physics properties of thousands of unstable neutron-rich nuclear species that participate in the process. It has long been recognized that the some of the most influential pieces of nuclear data for r-process simulations are beta-decay lifetimes. In light of experimental advances that have pushed measurement capabilities closer to the classic r-process path, we revisit the role of individual beta-decay rates in the r process. We perform beta-decay rate sensitivity studies for a main (A > 120) r process in a range of potential astrophysical scenarios. We study the influence of individual rates during (n, gamma)-(gamma, n) equilibrium and during the post-equilibrium phase where material moves back toward stability. We confirm the widely accepted view that the most important lifetimes are those of nuclei along the r-process path for each astrophysical scenario considered. However, we find in addition that individual beta-decay rates continue to shape the final abundance pattern through the post-equilibrium phase, for as long as neutron capture competes with beta decay. Many of the lifetimes important for this phase of the r process are within current or near future experimental reach. (C) 2014 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据