删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Calculations of the α-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

闂備浇顕х€涒晠顢欓弽顓炵獥闁圭儤顨呯壕濠氭煙閸撗呭笡闁抽攱鍨堕妵鍕箛閸撲焦鍋у銈忕到瀵墎鎹㈠┑瀣劦妞ゆ帒瀚粻銉︺亜閺冣偓閸庡啿鐣烽妷銉㈡斀妞ゆ梻鐡斿▓妯汇亜閿斿墽銆楅梻鍌氬€烽悞锔锯偓绗涘懐鐭欓柟鐑橆殕閸庢銇勯弬鍨挃闁告宀搁幃妤€鈽夊▎瀣窗闂佸磭绮Λ鍐蓟濞戙垹唯闁靛繆鍓濋悵锕€鈹戦悙鎻掓倯鐎光偓閹间礁钃熼柕鍫濐槸缁狙囨煕椤垵鏋熸繛鍫濈埣濮婅櫣绱掑Ο鐓庘拡闂佺ǹ绨洪崐妤冨垝濞嗘劕绶為柟閭﹀墰椤旀帡姊洪懖鈹炬嫛闁告挻鐩獮濠傗攽鐎n偆鍘介梺缁樏鑸靛緞閸曨厸鍋撶憴鍕闁挎洏鍨介弫鎰版倷绾版ê浜鹃柨婵嗛娴滃墽绱掗幉瀣М闁哄瞼鍠愬ḿ蹇斻偅閸愨晩鈧秴顪冮妶鍡樺暗闁硅櫕鎹囨俊鎾箳閹搭厽鍍甸梺鎯ф禋閸嬪棝濡存繝鍌楁斀闁绘﹩鍋勬禍楣冩⒑閸涘﹦鈽夐柣掳鍔戝鏌ヮ敆閸曨剙鈧爼鏌i幇顓炵祷闁抽攱姊规穱濠勪沪閸屾艾顫囬梺鍝勭焿缁绘繂鐣锋總鍓叉晝闁靛繒濮寸粻鎵磽閸屾瑧鍔嶆い銊ユ嚇钘濋梻鍫熺〒閺嗭附鎱ㄥ鍡楀伎缂佹唻绲介湁闁挎繂瀚鐔访归悡搴㈠枠婵﹥妞藉畷銊︾節閸屾粎鎳嗘繝纰樻閸嬪懐鎹㈤崼銉у祦闁圭増婢橀柋鍥煛閸モ晛鏋戞繛鍛墬缁绘稒娼忛崜褏袣濠电偛鎷戠紞浣哥暦閳ユ枼鍫柛顐ゅ枎閳ь剛鏁婚弻锝夊閻樺吀绮甸梺鎼炲€愰崑鎾绘⒒娴h鍋犻柛鏂跨Ф閹广垽宕熼鐐茬亰闁荤姴娲ゅ顒勫籍閸屾浜鹃柨婵嗛婢т即鏌ㄥ☉铏
547闂傚倸鍊风粈浣革耿闁秲鈧倹绂掔€n亞锛涢梺鐟板⒔缁垶鍩涢幒妤佺厱闁哄洦顨嗗▍鍛存煟韫囷絼閭柡宀嬬到铻栭柍褜鍓熼弻濠囨晲婢跺﹦鐤囬梺瑙勫礃椤曆呯矆閸愨斂浜滈煫鍥ㄦ尰椤ユ粓鏌i幘瀵告创婵﹥妞藉畷妤呭礂閼测晛鍤掗梻浣告憸閸c儵宕戦崟顖涘仼闁绘垼濮ら弲鎼佹煥閻曞倹瀚�1130缂傚倸鍊搁崐椋庣矆娓氣偓钘濇い鏍ㄧ矌閻捇鏌i姀銏╂毌闁稿鎹囧畷褰掝敃閿濆洦顓婚梻渚€鈧偛鑻晶鍙夈亜椤愩埄妲洪柛鐘诧工椤撳吋寰勬繝鍐发闂備線鈧偛鑻晶鎾煛鐏炵ǹ澧茬€垫澘瀚埀顒婄秵娴滄粓锝炴惔鈾€鏀介柣鎰皺婢ф盯鏌涢妸銉т虎闁伙絿鍏橀弫鎾绘偐閼碱剦妲伴柣鐔哥矊缁绘帞鍒掑▎鎾崇倞闁冲搫鍟伴敍婊勭節閵忥絾纭鹃柨鏇檮閺呫儵姊绘担鍛婂暈閼垦囨煕婵犲啰澧辩紓鍌涙崌閹稿﹥绔熼埡鍌涱棃鐎规洦浜濋幏鍛喆閸曨厽袙闂傚倷绀佸﹢閬嶅储瑜旈幃娲Ω閳轰胶顔囬梺鍓插亝濞叉牠鎮為崹顐犱簻闁瑰鍋涢婊呯磼娴e搫顣奸柕鍥у椤㈡洟濮€閳轰礁澹夐梻浣瑰缁嬫帡宕濆▎鎾跺祦閻庯綆鍣弫宥嗙節婵犲倹濯兼俊鏌ユ敱缁绘繈鎮介棃娑楁勃闂佹悶鍔岀紞濠傤嚕椤愩倗鐭欐俊顐ゆ暩閸庛倗鎹㈠┑瀣倞闁靛ǹ鍎查娲⒑閸濆嫷妲搁柣妤佺矒瀹曟垿骞掑Δ鈧崥褰掓煛閸愩劎澧涢柣鎾崇箻閺屾盯鍩勯崘鈺冾槷闂佺ǹ绻愰惉鑲╂閹烘鏁婇柛蹇擃槸娴滈箖鎮洪幒宥嗙グ妞ゎ偄顦甸獮鍡涘棘鎼存挻顫嶉梺鍦劋閸ㄨ櫕绔熼弴鐔虹閺夊牆澧介幃濂告煛閸滀礁浜滈崡閬嶆煕椤愮姴鍔滈柣鎾存礋閺岀喖鎮滃Ο璇查瀺闂佺ǹ顑囨繛鈧柡灞界Х椤т線鏌涜箛鏃傘€掓繛鍡愬灩椤繄鎹勫ú顏咃紬濠德板€х徊浠嬪疮椤栫偛绠犳慨妯诲閸嬫捇鐛崹顔煎闂佸摜鍠撴繛鈧€规洘鍨块獮妯尖偓娑櫭鎾绘⒑缂佹ê鐏﹂柨姘舵煃瑜滈崜娑㈠磻閻旂厧鐒垫い鎺戝枤濞兼劙鏌熼鑲╁煟鐎规洘娲熼、娑㈡倷閼碱剙濮︽俊鐐€栭崹濂稿磿婵犳艾绀傞悘鐐板嫎娴滄粓鏌熼幆褏鎽犻柛濠冨姍閺岀喖顢欓懖鈺佺厽閻庤娲熸禍鍫曠嵁閸ヮ剙惟闁靛鍊曢ˉ姘攽閻愯埖褰х紒鑼亾缁傚秹鎳為妷褜娴勯梺鎸庢磵閸嬫捇妫佹径鎰厱闊洦娲栫敮鍫曟煙閸忓吋鍊愰柡灞界Х椤т線鏌涜箛鏃傗槈闂囧鏌涢妷顔煎缁炬儳銈搁弻鏇熺節韫囨洜鏆犲銈嗘礉妞存悂骞堥妸銉庣喓绮欓崹顔碱潕闂備胶枪椤戝棝骞愭繝姘闁告侗鍨遍崰鍡涙煕閺囥劌澧伴柡鍡樺哺濮婄粯鎷呴崫鍕粯閻庢鍠楅崕濂稿Φ閹版澘绀冩い蹇撴婢跺嫭淇婇妶蹇曞埌闁哥噥鍨跺畷鎴︽偐缂佹ḿ鍘遍梺鏂ユ櫅閸燁偅鎱ㄩ埀顒勬⒑缁嬫鍎愰柟绋款煼楠炲繘宕ㄧ€涙ê浠惧銈嗙墬閼瑰墽绮婚幋锔解拻濞达絽鎲¢幆鍫ユ煕婵犲媱鍦弲闂侀潧绻堥崐鏇㈡倿閸偁浜滈柟瀵稿仜椤曟粎绱掓担瑙勭凡妞ゎ叀娉曢幉鎾礋椤掆偓绾炬娊鎮楀▓鍨灓闁轰礁顭烽妴浣糕槈濡粎鍠庨悾鈩冿紣娴e壊妫滄繝鐢靛仩閹活亞绱為埀顒併亜椤愩埄妯€闁诡噯绻濋崺鈧い鎺戝閳锋帡鏌涚仦鎹愬闁逞屽厸缁瑩銆佸▎鎰瘈闁告洦鍓﹀ḿ鐔兼⒑閸撴彃浜濇繛鍙夌墱缁崵绱掑Ο闀愮盎闂佸湱鍋撳ḿ娆撍夊鑸电厱閻庯綆鍋呯亸浼存煙瀹勭増鍤囩€规洜鍏橀、妯衡攦閹傚婵犵數濮村ú锕傚磹閸偆绠鹃柟瀛樼箘閺嬪啰绱掗埀顒傗偓锝庡枟閻撳啰鎲稿⿰鍫濈婵炴垶姘ㄩ惌鍡椕归敐鍫熴€冮柣鎺戯躬閺岀喎鈻撻崹顔界亐闂佺ǹ顑嗛幐鎼佸煡婢跺备鍋撻崷顓炐ユい锔垮嵆濮婃椽鏌呴悙鑼跺闁告ê鎲$换娑㈠级閹寸偛鏋犲銈冨灪閿曘垹鐣烽锕€唯鐟滃瞼绮径濞炬斀閹烘娊宕愰幘缁樺€块柨鏃€宕樻慨铏叏濡灝鐓愰柣鎾崇箻閺屾盯鍩勯崘鈺冾槶濡炪倧璁f俊鍥焵椤掆偓濠€杈ㄧ仚濡炪値鍘奸崲鏌ユ偩閻戣姤鏅查柛銉檮閸曞啴姊虹粙鎸庢拱妞ゃ劌鎳忕粋宥夊箚椤€崇秺閺佹劙宕ㄩ鍏兼畼闂備礁鎲″ú鐔虹不閺嶎厼钃熼柨婵嗩槹閸婄兘鏌涘▎蹇f▓婵☆偅鍨垮娲焻閻愯尪瀚伴柛妯绘倐閺岋綁骞掗悙鐢垫殼閻庢鍣崜鐔风暦閹烘埈娼╅柨婵嗘閸欏啯绻濆▓鍨灓闁硅櫕鎸哥叅闁绘ǹ顕х壕濠氭煙閹呮憼濠殿垱鎸抽弻娑樷槈濮楀牊鏁鹃梺闈╃稻閹倿寮婚敐鍡樺劅闁靛繒濮撮弸娆撴煟閻樺啿濮夐柛鐘崇墵瀹曟椽鍩€椤掍降浜滈柟瀵稿仜椤曟粍銇勯敃鍌ゆ缂佽鲸鎸搁濂稿椽娴gǹ澹庨梻浣侯攰濞呮洟鎮ч悩璇茬疇闁绘ɑ妞块弫鍡涙煕閹邦喖浜鹃柦鎴濐槺缁辨捇宕掑▎鎴濆闂佸憡鍔曢…鐑界嵁韫囨稒鏅搁柨鐕傛嫹28缂傚倸鍊搁崐椋庢閿熺姴纾诲鑸靛姦閺佸鎲搁弮鍫涒偓浣肝旈崨顔间簻闂佹儳绻愬﹢閬嶆偂鐎n喗鈷戦悷娆忓閸庢鏌涢妸銉э紞濠㈣娲熼弫鎾绘晸閿燂拷
Zhishuai Ge 1,2,
, Gen Zhang 1,2,
, Shihui Cheng 1,2,
, Yu. S. Tsyganov 3,
, Feng-Shou Zhang 1,2,4,,
,
Corresponding author: Feng-Shou Zhang, fszhang@bnu.edu.cn
1.Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, Beijing Radiation Center, Beijing 100875, China
2.Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, College of Nuclear Science and Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
3.Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU- 141980 Dubna, Russian Federation
4.Center of Theoretical Nuclear Physics, National Laboratory of Heavy Ion Accelerator of Lanzhou, Lanzhou 730000, China
Received Date:2009-04-30
Available Online:2020-10-01
Abstract:The $\alpha$-decay properties of even-Z nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 are predicted. We employ the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), Royer's formula, and universal decay law (UDL) to calculate the $\alpha$-decay half-lives. By comparing the theoretical calculations with the experimental data of known nuclei from Fl to Og, we confirm that all the employed methods can reproduce the $\alpha$-decay half-lives well. The preformation factor $P_{\alpha}$ and $\alpha$-decay energy $Q_{\alpha}$ show that $^{298,304,314,316,324,326,338,348}$120, $^{304,306,318,324,328,338}$122, and $^{328,332,340,344}$124 might be stable. The $\alpha$-decay half-lives show a peak at Z = 120, N = 184, and the peak vanishes when Z = 122, 124, 126. Based on detailed analysis of the competition between $\alpha$-decay and spontaneous fission, we predict that nuclei nearby N = 184 undergo $\alpha$-decay. The decay modes of $^{287-339}$120, $^{294-339}$122, $^{300-339}$124, and $^{306-339}$126 are also presented.

HTML

--> --> -->
1.Introduction
$ \alpha $-decay is one of the main decay modes of superheavy nuclei (SHN). It was first observed by Rutherford and explained as a quantum tunneling process independently by Gamow [1] and Condon and Gurney [2]. The$ \alpha $-decay properties reflect information on the nuclear structure and nuclear stability. In experiments, $ \alpha $-decay chains are commonly used to identify the newly synthesized SHN. To detect the “island of stability” [3-14], many SHN have been synthesized using the hot fusion reaction [15] and cold fusion reaction [16]. As the existence and stability of SHN can be mainly attributed to shell effects, it is important to evaluate the magic numbers carefully and calculate the $ \alpha $-decay properties accurately [17-21].
Many theoretical approaches have been proposed to describe the $ \alpha $-decay process, such as the shell model, fission-like model, and cluster model [22-25]. Many semiclassical models have been employed to reproduce the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives, such as the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [26-28], Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) [29], unified fission model (UFM) [30], and density-dependent cluster model (DDCM) [31]. Based on the Geiger-Nuttall law [32], many empirical relationships, such as the Viola-Seaborg formula [33, 34], Brown formula [35], Royer's formula [36], and universal decay law (UDL) [37, 38] have also been proposed to calculate the $ \alpha $-decay half-life. These methods provide a very good description of the tunnelling of the $ \alpha $-particle across the Coulomb barrier for heavy and super heavy nuclei. While it is difficult to describe $ \alpha $-decay in a fully microscopic way, many works have considered microscopic modifications in the $ \alpha $-decay calculations [39-46].
In this work, we use the GLDM with shell correction, Royer's formula and UDL to calculate the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives of even-Z superheavy nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126. In the framework of the GLDM, two methods are adopted to calculate the $ \alpha $-preformation factor. In the first method, the $ \alpha $-preformation factor is considered as a constant, which is fitted from the experimental half-lives, for each type of nuclei (even-even, odd-A, odd-odd). The second method involves the use of the cluster formation model (CFM) [47-50]. We adopt the updated Weizs?cker-Skyrme-4 (WS4) model to calculate $ Q_{\alpha} $ [51], as the accuracy of the WS4 model has been generally certified [52]. To predict the decay modes, two modified shell-induced Swiatecki's formula are used to calculate the theoretical SF half-lives. One empirical relation was formulated by Santhosh and Nithya (KPS) [53, 54], while the other was modified by Bao et al. [55].
This paper is structured as follows. Sec. 2 introduces the theoretical framework. The results and corresponding discussion are presented in Sec. 3. The conclusions are presented in the last section.
2.Theoretical framework
2
2.1.$ \alpha $-Decay
-->

2.1.$ \alpha $-Decay

3
2.1.1.GLDM
-->
2.1.1.GLDM
In the framework of the GLDM, the decay width is defined as $ \lambda $ = $ P_{\alpha} $$ \nu_{0} $P. The Wenzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation is used to calculate the barrier penetrability P,
$ P = \exp \left[ { - \frac{2}{h}\int\limits_{R_{\rm in} }^{R_{\rm out} } {\sqrt {2B\left( r \right)\left( {E\left( r \right) - E\left( {\rm sphere} \right)} \right)} {\rm d}r} } \right], $
(1)
where $ E_{\rm sphere} $ is the ground state energy of the parent nucleus. $ E(R_{\rm in}) $ = $ E(R_{\rm out}) $ = $ Q_{\alpha}^{\rm exp} $, $ B(r) $ = $ \mu $, where the parameter $ \mu $ is the reduced mass of the daughter nucleus and $ \alpha $-particle.
$ P_{\alpha} $ is the $ \alpha $-preformation factor, and $ \nu_{0} $ is the assault frequency that is calculated by [56]
$ \nu _0 = \frac{1}{{2R}}\sqrt {\frac{{2E_\alpha }}{M_\alpha}}, $
(2)
where $ M_{\alpha} $ is the mass, $ E_{\alpha} $ is the kinetic energy of the $ \alpha $ particle that has been corrected for recoil, and R is the radius of the parent nucleus.
The model considers shell correction, which is shape-dependent as defined below, [57]
$ E_{\rm shell} = E_{\rm shell}^{\rm sphere} \left( {1 - 2.6\alpha ^2 } \right){\rm e}^{ - \alpha ^2 }, $
(3)
where $ \alpha ^2 = \left( {\delta R} \right)^2 /a^2 $ is the root mean square of the deviation, which includes all types of deformation, for the particle surface from the sphere. With increase in the distortion of the nucleus, the complete shell correction energy becomes zero owing to the attenuating factor $ {\rm e}^{ - \alpha ^2 } $.
The term $ E^{\rm sphere}_{\rm shell} $ is defined as
$ E_{\rm shell}^{\rm sphere} = cE_{\rm sh}, $
(4)
which represents the shell correction for a spherical nucleus. $ E_{\rm sh} $ is the shell correction energy, which can be calculated by the Strutinsky process [58]. The Strutinsky calculations use the smoothing parameter $ \gamma = 1.2\hbar \omega _0 $ and order p = 6 of the Gauss-Hermite polynomials, where $ \hbar \omega _0 = 41A^{ - 1/3} $ is the mean distance between the gross shells. The parameter c is scaled to adapt the separation of the binding energy between the macroscopic part and microscopic correction [59].
3
2.1.2.The $ \alpha $-preformation factor
-->
2.1.2.The $ \alpha $-preformation factor
The $ \alpha $-preformation factor $ P_{\alpha} $ is adopted from two methods. The first involves considering the same preformation factor for certain type of nuclei [60, 61]. The experimental $ P_{\alpha} $ values are extracted from nuclei with N $ \geqslant $ 152, Z $ \geqslant $ 82, a least squares fit to the experimental $ \alpha $-decay half-lives is performed, and the $ P_{\alpha} $ values, $ P_{\alpha} $ = 0.33 (even-even), $ P_{\alpha} $ = 0.05 (odd-A), and $ P_{\alpha} $ = 0.01 (odd-odd) are obtained. These results are consistent with those extracted from the GLDM in Ref. [62].
Another method to obtain the $ \alpha $-preformation factor involves the use of the CFM [47-50],
$ P_\alpha = \frac{{E_{f\alpha } }}{E}, $
(5)
where $ E_{f\alpha} $ is the formation energy of the $ \alpha $ particle, and E is the total energy combining the intrinsic energy for the $ \alpha $ particle and the interaction energy between the $ \alpha $ particle and daughter nucleus.
The energy $ E_{f\alpha} $ is calculated from the separation energies[48, 49],
$ E_{f\alpha } = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 2S_p + 2S_n - S_c \left( {{\rm{even - even}}} \right), \\ 2S_p + S_{2n} - S_c \left( {{\rm{even - odd}}} \right), \\ S_{2p} + 2S_n - S_c \left( {{\rm{odd - even}}} \right), \\ S_{2p} + S_{2n} - S_c \left( {{\rm{odd - odd}}} \right), \\ \end{array} \right. $
(6)
$ E = S_c \left( {A,Z} \right), $
(7)
where $ S_{2n} $ is the two-neutron separation energy, $ S_{2p} $ is the two-proton separation energy, and $ S_{c} $ is the $ \alpha $-particle separation energy,
$ S_{2n} \left( {A,Z} \right) = B\left( {A,Z} \right) - B\left( {A - 2,Z} \right), $
(8)
$ S_{2p} \left( {A,Z} \right) = B\left( {A,Z} \right) - B\left( {A - 2,Z - 2} \right), $
(9)
$ S_{c} \left( {A,Z} \right) = B\left( {A,Z} \right) - B\left( {A - 4,Z - 2} \right), $
(10)
where B is the binding energy. The binding energy can be calculated from the nucleus excess mass $ \Delta M $. Hence, $ S_{2p} $, $ S_{2n} $, and $ S_{c} $ can be written as,
$ S_{2p} \left( {A,Z} \right) = \Delta M\left( {A - 2,Z - 2} \right) - \Delta M\left( {A,Z} \right) + 2\Delta M_p , $
(11)
$ S_{2n} \left( {A,Z} \right) = \Delta M\left( {A - 2,Z} \right) - \Delta M\left( {A,Z} \right) + 2\Delta M_n , $
(12)
$ S_c \left( {A,Z} \right) = \Delta M\left( {A - 4,Z - 2} \right) - \Delta M\left( {A,Z} \right) + 2\Delta M_p + 2\Delta M_n . $
(13)

3
2.1.3.Empirical formulas
-->
2.1.3.Empirical formulas
Royer's formula fits different types of nuclei to calculate the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives [36]. For even-even nuclei, this formula fits 131 even-even nuclei, with a root mean square (RMS) deviation of 0.285,
$ \log _{10} [T_{1/2} ({\rm s})] = - 25.31 - 1.1629A^{1/6} Z^{1/2} + 1.5864Z/\sqrt {Q_\alpha }. $
(14)
For the subset of 106 even-odd nuclei, the following equation was obtained (RMS deviation = 0.39),
$ \log _{10} [T_{1/2} ({\rm s})] = - 26.65 - 1.0859A^{1/6} Z^{1/2} + 1.5848Z/\sqrt {Q_\alpha }. $
(15)
For odd-even nuclei, 86 nuclei were adopted with a RMS deviation of 0.36,
$ \log _{10} [T_{1/2} ({\rm s})] = - 25.68 - 1.1423A^{1/6} Z^{1/2} + 1.592Z/\sqrt {Q_\alpha }. $
(16)
For odd-odd nuclei, 50 nuclei were used (RMS deviation = 0.35),
$ \log _{10} [T_{1/2} ({\rm s})] = - 29.48 - 1.113A^{1/6} Z^{1/2} + 1.6971Z/\sqrt {Q_\alpha }. $
(17)
The UDL were also adopted to calculate the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives [37, 38],
$ \log _{10} [T_{1/2} ({\rm s})] = aZ_\alpha Z_d \sqrt {\frac{A}{{Q_\alpha }}} + b\sqrt {AZ_\alpha Z_d \left( {A_d^{1/3} + A_\alpha ^{1/3} } \right)} + c, $
(18)
where $ A = \frac{{A_d A_\alpha }}{{A_d + A_\alpha }} $, a=0.4314, b=?0.4087, and c=?25.7725, which can be determined from the experimental data.
2
2.2.Spontaneous fission
-->

2.2.Spontaneous fission

The spontaneous fission half-lives are calculated using semi-empirical formulas based on the Swiatecki formula [63]. One formula was modified by Santhosh and Nithya [54] (KPS), while the other was reported by Bao et al. [55]. Both empirical relations considered the isospin effect ($ \frac{{N - Z}}{{N + Z}} $), fissionability parameter ($ \frac{{Z^2 }}{A} $) , and shell effect [53-55, 64].
The KPS formula is defined as follows [53, 54],
$ \begin{split}{\log _{10}}\left( {{T_{1/2}}{(\rm yr)}} \right) =& a\frac{{{Z^2}}}{A} + b{\left( {\frac{{{Z^2}}}{A}} \right)^2} + c\left( {\frac{{N - Z}}{{N + Z}}} \right)\\&+ d{\left( {\frac{{N - Z}}{{N + Z}}} \right)^2} + e{E_{\rm shell}} + f,\end{split}$
(19)
where a = ?43.25203, b = 0.49192, c = 3674.3927, d = ?9360.6, e = 0.8930, and f = 578.56058. $ E_{\rm shell} $ is the shell correction energy from the FRDM [65].
The modified empirical formula reported by Bao et al. is determined as follows [55],
$ \begin{split} \log _{10} [T_{1/2} ({\rm yr})] =& c_1 + c_2 \left( {\frac{{Z^2 }}{{\left( {1 - kI^2 } \right)A}}} \right)\\& + c_3 \left( {\frac{{Z^2 }}{{\left( {1 - kI^2 } \right)A}}} \right)^2 + c_4 E_{\rm sh} + h_i, \end{split} $
(20)
where $ Z^{2}/(1 - kI^{2})A $ is the fissionability parameter considering the isospin effect. The constant k = 2.6 [36]. The coefficients $ c_1 $ = 1174.353441, $ c_2 $ = ?47.666855, $ c_3 $ = 0.471307, and $ c_4 $ = 3.378848, which were fitted from 45 even-even nuclei. The blocking effect is also considered by parameter $ h_{i} $, where $ h_{\rm eo} $ = 2.609374 (even-odd), $ h_{\rm oe} $ = 2.619768 (odd-even), $ h_{\rm oo} $ = $ h_{\rm eo} $ + $ h_{\rm oe} $ (odd-odd), and $ h_{\rm ee} $ = 0 (even-even). The shell correction energy $ E_{\rm sh} $ is derived from Ref. [65].
3.Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives of known nuclei from Fl to Og calculated with the GLDM, UDL, and Royer's formula. These nuclei are regarded as the “upper super heavy region” [66] and are produced by hot-fusion reactions. The $ P_{\alpha} $ adopted in the GLDM is obtained via a least squares fit to the experimental half-lives for known SHN from N $ \geqslant $ 152 and Z $ \geqslant $ 82. The experimental $ Q_{\alpha} $ values are derived from Ref. [67]. The standard deviation was used to compare the calculation results and experimental values,
Ele.A $Q_{\alpha}^{\rm exp.}$/MeV$T_{1/2}^{\rm exp.}$/s$T_{1/2}$/s$T_{1/2}$/s$T_{1/2}$/s$T_{1/2}$/s
RoyerUDLGLDMGLDM$_{\rm shell}$
Fl28510.56 $\pm$ 0.051.00$\times$10$^{-1}$1.60$\times$10$^{-1}$4.27$\times$10$^{-2}$6.61$\times$10$^{-2}$6.57$\times$10$^{-2}$
28610.35 $\pm$ 0.041.20$\times$10$^{-1}$1.08$\times$10$^{-1}$1.62$\times$10$^{-1}$3.16$\times$10$^{-2}$3.37$\times$10$^{-2}$
28710.17 $\pm$ 0.024.80$\times$10$^{-1}$1.68$\times$10$^{0}$5.25$\times$10$^{-1}$5.67$\times$10$^{-1}$6.67$\times$10$^{-1}$
28810.07 $\pm$ 0.036.60$\times$10$^{-1}$5.93$\times$10$^{-1}$1.01$\times$10$^{0}$1.47$\times$10$^{-1}$1.99$\times$10$^{-1}$
2899.98 $\pm$ 0.021.90$\times$10$^{0}$5.34$\times$10$^{0}$1.82$\times$10$^{0}$1.60$\times$10$^{0}$2.55$\times$10$^{0}$
Mc28710.76 $\pm$ 0.053.70$\times$10$^{-2}$4.70$\times$10$^{-2}$2.60$\times$10$^{-2}$4.06$\times$10$^{-2}$3.85$\times$10$^{-2}$
28810.65 $\pm$ 0.011.74$\times$10$^{-1}$4.49$\times$10$^{-1}$5.05$\times$10$^{-2}$3.57$\times$10$^{-1}$3.47$\times$10$^{-1}$
28910.49 $\pm$ 0.053.30$\times$10$^{-1}$2.23$\times$10$^{-1}$1.37$\times$10$^{-1}$1.67$\times$10$^{-1}$1.82$\times$10$^{-1}$
29010.41 $\pm$ 0.046.50$\times$10$^{-1}$2.00$\times$10$^{0}$2.25$\times$10$^{-1}$1.26$\times$10$^{0}$1.51$\times$10$^{0}$
Lv29011 $\pm$ 0.078.30$\times$10$^{-3}$8.94$\times$10$^{-3}$1.21$\times$10$^{-2}$3.00$\times$10$^{-3}$2.88$\times$10$^{-3}$
29110.89 $\pm$ 0.071.90$\times$10$^{-2}$8.94$\times$10$^{-2}$2.31$\times$10$^{-2}$3.41$\times$10$^{-2}$3.51$\times$10$^{-2}$
29210.78 $\pm$ 0.021.30$\times$10$^{-2}$3.01$\times$10$^{-2}$4.46$\times$10$^{-2}$8.84$\times$10$^{-3}$1.04$\times$10$^{-2}$
29310.71 $\pm$ 0.025.70$\times$10$^{-2}$2.41$\times$10$^{-1}$6.72$\times$10$^{-2}$8.01$\times$10$^{-2}$1.04$\times$10$^{-1}$
Ts29311.32 $\pm$ 0.052.20$\times$10$^{-2}$6.89$\times$10$^{-3}$3.57$\times$10$^{-3}$6.59$\times$10$^{-3}$6.65$\times$10$^{-3}$
29411.18 $\pm$ 0.045.10$\times$10$^{-2}$7.25$\times$10$^{-2}$7.98$\times$10$^{-3}$6.45$\times$10$^{-2}$7.23$\times$10$^{-2}$
Og29411.82 $\pm$ 0.065.80$\times$10$^{-4}$3.67$\times$10$^{-4}$4.26$\times$10$^{-4}$1.64$\times$10$^{-4}$1.60$\times$10$^{-4}$
0.380.390.350.35


Table1.Experimental and theoretical $\alpha$-decay half-lives of known SHN from Fl to Og. The theoretical results are calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, and the GLDM with and without shell corrections by inputting the experimental $Q_{\alpha}$ [67]. The $P_{\alpha}$ adopted in the GLDM is a constant, which is fitted from the experimental data ($P_{\alpha}$ = 0.33 for even-even nuclei, $P_{\alpha}$ = 0.05 for odd-A nuclei, and $P_{\alpha}$ = 0.01 for odd-odd nuclei). Here, $\sigma$ represents the standard deviation between the experimental results and theoretical calculations obtained with Eq. (21).

$ \sigma {\rm{ = }}\left[ {\frac{1}{{n - 1}}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {\left( {\log _{10} T_{1/2}^{\rm theo.} - \log _{10} T_{1/2}^{\exp .} } \right)^2 } } \right]^{1/2} . $
(21)
The $ \sigma $ values of Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM, and GLDM with shell correction are 0.38, 0.39, 0.35, and 0.35, respectively. The effect of shell correction is more obvious for nuclei near the predicted shell-closure [68]. For example, considering $ ^{289} $Fl, $ T_{\alpha}^{1/2} $ increases from 0.32 s to 0.51 s.
The results obtained with the GLDM are systematically lower than the experimental data. After shell correction, the calculated $ \alpha $-decay half-lives increase slightly. The $ \sigma $ values indicate that using the experimentally fitted constant $ P_{\alpha} $, the models with and without shell correction can all accurately calculate the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives.
2
3.1.$ \alpha $-preformation factor
-->

3.1.$ \alpha $-preformation factor

The $ \alpha $-preformation factors are calculated using the CFM [48, 49]. Both $ Q_{\alpha} $ and $ P_{\alpha} $ are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. The $ Q_{\alpha} $ and $ P_{\alpha} $ values of even-even nuclei from Z = 120 to 126 are plotted in Fig. 1. The $ P_{\alpha} $ values of even-even nuclei are approximately 0.1–0.3, which satisfies the general experimental features [49, 69]. The figure shows that the $ Q_{\alpha} $ values decrease with larger neutron numbers, indicating an increase in the stability of the nucleus against $ \alpha $-decay. Both $ Q_{\alpha} $ and $ P_{\alpha} $ exhibit very similar trends.
Figure1. (color online) Preformation factors of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even nuclei.

The discontinuity of $ Q_{\alpha} $ represents the position of the magic numbers. Moreover, in the region where the $ P_{\alpha} $ value is relatively small, the nuclei are regarded to be stable [70]. However the positions of the $ P_{\alpha} $ discontinuity and $ Q_{\alpha} $ discontinuity are not particularly the same, as shown in the case of Z = 120 even-even isotopes in Fig. 1(a). This is because the $ P_{\alpha} $ value of one nucleus is calculated based on five nuclei around it. The $ P_{\alpha} $ values may contain the complex structure information of several nearby nuclei.
We use the $ Q_{\alpha} $ and $ P_{\alpha} $ values to predict the stable nuclei for Z = 122 – 126 elements. Figure 1(a) shows that for Z = 120, the nuclei around N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 204, 206, 218, 228 might be stable. For Z = 122, the nuclei with N = 182, 184, 196, 202, 206, 216 show higher stability. For Z = 124 nuclei, the nuclei with N = 204, 208, 216, 220 might be stable against $ \alpha $-decay. Figure 1(d) indicates that Z = 126 even-even nuclei have no obvious shell structures. This is because the $ Q_{\alpha} $ of Z = 126 isotopes are smoothly continuous, and the $ P_{\alpha} $ distribution has no dips. It can be observed that when the atomic number increases, the neutron numbers of stable nuclei also increase. It appears that with larger proton numbers, the nucleus requires more neutrons to remain stable.
2
3.2.$ \alpha $-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes
-->

3.2.$ \alpha $-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes

Figure 2 presents the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even isotopes. This figure shows that at N $ < $ 186, the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives increase with increasing nuclear mass. This phenomenon indicates that this might correspond to a shell closure at N $ < $ 186. For Z = 120 nuclei, there is one obvious peak at N = 184. However, this peak gradually disappears with increase in the Z values. The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives indicate that the neutron magic number at N = 184 is not observed at Z = 122, 124, 126. This phenomenon is consistent with the results shown by $ P_{\alpha} $ and $ Q_{\alpha} $ in Fig. 1. For Z = 122, nuclei with N = 182 and 184 both have relatively longer half-lives, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The corresponding $ Q_{\alpha} $ and $ P_{\alpha} $ values in Fig. 1(b) are relatively small. Hence, for element Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes, $ ^{304} $120 would probably be stable and might be a shell closure.
Figure2. (color online) The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives of even-even isotopes of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126.

The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of $ ^{287-339} $120, $ ^{294-339} $122, $ ^{300-339} $124, and $ ^{306-339} $126 are presented in Table 2. To identify the decay modes of unknown nuclei, the competition between $ \alpha $-decay and spontaneous fission was studied [71-77]. The predicted decay modes of nuclei are presented in the last column of Table 2. Both SF equations consider the shell correction. However, the SF half-lives calculated with Eq. (20) would be more sensitive to the nuclear structures [78]. The results show that most nuclei at around N = 184 would undergo $ \alpha $-decay. With a larger Z, the competition between $ \alpha $-decay and SF would be more obvious. By comparing the $ \alpha $-decay and SF half-lives, we predict that $ ^{287-307} $120 would undergo $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{308-309} $120 would undergo both $ \alpha $-decay and SF, and $ ^{310-339} $120 would experience SF. The $ ^{294-309} $122 isotopes would undergo $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{310-314} $122 would have two decay modes, and $ ^{315-339} $122 would experience SF. For Z = 124 nuclei, $ ^{300-315} $124 would have $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{316-320,326,327,331} $124 would have both $ \alpha $-decay and SF, and $ ^{321-325,328-330,332-339} $124 would undergo SF. As the competition between the two decay modes for the $ ^{328-339} $126 isotopes is very obvious, $ ^{328-335,337,339} $126 would experience both $ \alpha $-decay and SF, $ ^{336,338} $126 would undergo SF, and $ ^{306-327} $126 would undergo $ \alpha $-decay.
ZA$Q_{\alpha}^{\rm WS4}$/MeV$T_{1/2}^{\alpha}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\alpha}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\alpha}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\alpha}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\rm SF}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\rm SF}\;/{\rm s}$Decay mode
RoyerUDLGLDMGLDM$_{P_{\alpha}}$Eq. (20) [55]KPS [54]
12028713.857.90E-078.96E-081.12E-064.46E-073.39E+031.03E+10$\alpha$
28813.732.18E-071.53E-072.62E-073.39E-071.68E+015.83E+10$\alpha$
28913.711.31E-061.55E-071.79E-067.17E-071.70E+054.73E+11$\alpha$
29013.702.23E-071.59E-072.82E-073.72E-073.45E+021.16E+12$\alpha$
29113.512.96E-063.73E-073.75E-061.50E-065.63E+053.19E+12$\alpha$
29213.475.65E-074.36E-076.66E-078.62E-071.76E+034.86E+12$\alpha$
29313.404.41E-065.77E-075.28E-062.26E-061.65E+071.20E+13$\alpha$
29413.241.43E-061.19E-061.52E-062.06E-064.25E+049.94E+12$\alpha$
29513.277.26E-069.91E-077.85E-063.29E-061.50E+081.10E+13$\alpha$
29613.348.30E-076.79E-078.70E-071.20E-062.84E+042.66E+12$\alpha$
29713.141.21E-051.72E-061.15E-055.32E-062.37E+071.18E+12$\alpha$
29813.013.56E-063.24E-062.90E-064.24E-066.02E+043.40E+11$\alpha$
29913.266.56E-069.08E-076.53E-062.72E-062.58E+077.66E+10$\alpha$
30013.327.82E-076.59E-077.40E-071.01E-063.80E+036.33E+09$\alpha$
30113.061.48E-052.18E-061.23E-055.16E-061.67E+068.84E+08$\alpha$
30212.895.21E-065.02E-063.73E-065.17E-061.17E+023.73E+07$\alpha$
30312.814.53E-057.25E-063.15E-051.25E-053.32E+042.91E+06$\alpha$
30412.768.79E-068.89E-065.13E-067.12E-065.87E-015.42E+04$\alpha$
30513.284.74E-066.64E-073.56E-061.45E-063.40E-015.27E+02$\alpha$
30613.797.76E-085.94E-087.03E-089.47E-082.24E-064.88E+00$\alpha$
30713.521.48E-061.94E-071.15E-064.72E-076.53E-058.70E-02$\alpha$
30812.972.84E-062.76E-061.44E-061.78E-063.20E-081.65E-03$\alpha$/SF
30912.169.06E-041.81E-042.97E-041.09E-049.87E-063.64E-05$\alpha$/SF
31011.504.88E-037.72E-031.10E-031.60E-031.32E-093.28E-07SF
31111.201.68E-014.73E-023.47E-021.71E-022.43E-074.25E-09SF
31211.222.27E-024.02E-024.20E-036.97E-031.79E-112.22E-11SF
31311.024.26E-011.29E-017.60E-023.96E-025.39E-092.24E-13SF
31410.763.29E-016.99E-014.84E-021.75E-015.15E-138.66E-16SF
3159.431.73E+041.04E+047.27E+033.99E+031.86E-106.38E-18SF
3169.191.71E+047.33E+048.70E+032.09E+043.41E-142.04E-20SF
3179.934.26E+022.05E+021.28E+027.12E+017.92E-129.44E-23SF
3189.936.57E+012.01E+021.88E+013.53E+011.74E-152.26E-25SF
3199.847.35E+023.70E+022.20E+021.28E+024.86E-137.81E-28SF
3209.683.68E+021.28E+031.18E+022.16E+021.75E-161.53E-30SF
3219.536.77E+033.97E+032.34E+031.36E+033.02E-136.21E-33SF
3229.373.44E+031.40E+041.28E+032.42E+031.12E-168.92E-36SF
3239.121.48E+051.07E+056.75E+043.73E+046.68E-142.01E-38SF
Continued on next page


Table2.Theoretical $\alpha$-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the $^{287-339}$120, $^{294-339}$122, $^{300-339}$124, and $^{306-339}$126 isotopes. The $Q_{\alpha}^{\rm th.}$ values are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. Columns (4-7) present the $\alpha$-decay half-lives calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFM $P_{\alpha}$, respectively. Columns (8-9) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.

In addition, the FRDM $ Q_{\alpha} $ values are used to calculate the$ \alpha $-decay half-lives, and the results are shown in Table 3. For Z = 120 isotopes, $ ^{296-307} $120 would undergo $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{308} $120 may undergo both $ \alpha $-decay and SF, and $ ^{309-327} $120 would experience SF. For Z = 122 nuclei, $ ^{300-309,311} $122 would probably undergo $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{310,312-315} $122 may exhibit both decay modes, and $ ^{316-331} $122 experience SF. The $ ^{304-315,317} $124 isotopes probably undergo $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{316,318-320,327} $124 have both $ \alpha $-decay and SF, and $ ^{321-335} $124 would undergo SF. For Z = 126, $ ^{308-322,325} $126 may experience $ \alpha $-decay, $ ^{323,326-335,337,339} $126 would probably exhibit two decay modes, and $ ^{324,336,338} $126 would exhibit the SF decay mode. As the adopted $ Q_{\alpha} $ values are different in Table 2 and Table 3, the theoretical $ \alpha $-decay half-lives are slightly different. However, the predicted decay modes from the two sets of results are mostly similar. Both the FRDM and WS4 models are capable of providing accurate $ Q_{\alpha} $ values for the $ \alpha $-decay calculations.
ZA$Q_{\alpha}^{\rm FRDM}$/MeV$T_{1/2}^{\alpha}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\alpha}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\rm SF}\;/{\rm s}$$T_{1/2}^{\rm SF}\;/{\rm s}$Decay mode
GLDMGLDM$_{P_{\alpha}}$Eq. (20) [55]KPS [54]
12029613.593.80E-077.40E-072.84E+042.66E+12$\alpha$
29713.651.99E-061.30E-062.37E+071.18E+12$\alpha$
29813.241.42E-062.43E-066.02E+043.40E+11$\alpha$
29913.741.31E-065.87E-072.58E+077.66E+10$\alpha$
30013.692.20E-073.75E-073.80E+036.33E+09$\alpha$
30113.621.83E-061.01E-061.67E+068.84E+08$\alpha$
30213.563.18E-075.64E-071.17E+023.73E+07$\alpha$
30313.522.23E-061.24E-063.32E+042.91E+06$\alpha$
30413.552.38E-074.41E-075.87E-015.42E+04$\alpha$
30514.261.16E-075.92E-083.40E-015.27E+02$\alpha$
30614.271.49E-082.06E-082.24E-064.88E+00$\alpha$
30713.628.93E-072.30E-076.53E-058.70E-02$\alpha$
30812.971.58E-061.58E-063.20E-081.65E-03$\alpha$/SF
30911.762.43E-038.53E-049.87E-063.64E-05SF
31011.284.18E-037.11E-031.32E-093.28E-07SF
31110.765.08E-013.32E-012.43E-074.25E-09SF
31210.719.12E-021.87E-011.79E-112.22E-11SF
31310.502.09E+001.33E+005.39E-092.24E-13SF
Continued on next page


Table3.Theoretical $\alpha$-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the $^{296-327}$120, $^{300-331}$122, $^{304-335}$124, and $^{308-339}$126 isotopes. The $Q_{\alpha}^{\rm th.}$ values are extracted from the FRDM [65]. Columns (4-5) present the $\alpha$-decay half-lives calculated with the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFM $P_{\alpha}$. Columns (6,7) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.

2
3.3.Comparison with other works
-->

3.3.Comparison with other works

We compare our results with those calculated with phenomenological models [78, 79]. For the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives obtained using the FRDM $ Q_{\alpha} $ values, we compare our results with those reported in Ref. [78]. The $ \alpha $-decay and SF half-lives are shown in Fig. 3. The results show that the SF half-lives calculated with the modified equation reported by Bao et al. [55, 78] have an even-odd effect. This is because in Eq. (20), the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon has been considered. The SF half-lives show a trend where with increasing A, the $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\rm SF} $ values decrease. It appears that the SF equation modified by Refs. [55, 78] is more sensitive to the nuclear strucure [78]. The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives and SF half-lives reported in this work and Ref. [78] are slightly different. This is because we use FRDM2016 [65] to calculate the $ Q_{\alpha} $ and shell correction, whereas the results from Ref. [78] are based on FRDM1995 [80]. However, the predicted decay modes for most nuclei are the same.
Figure3. (color online) The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of $ ^{296-308} $120, $ ^{300-310} $122, and $ ^{304-312} $124. The $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ values calculated using the UDL and GLDM are derived from Ref. [78].

We compare the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives calculated with the WS4 $ Q_{\alpha} $ values with the results from Ref. [79]. The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives from this work and Ref. [79] are presented in Fig. 4. The $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ values obtained using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) and Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) are from Ref. [79]. The SF half-lives calculated with the KPS equation [54] are exactly the same, and decrease smoothly with increasing A for Z = 120, 122 isotopes. For Z = 124, 126 nuclei, the SF half-lives also show a similar trend, which is consistent with the results presented in Fig. 3. For the $ ^{319-322} $124 and $ ^{326-329} $126 isotopes, the competition between $ \alpha $-decay and SF is obvious, indicating that these nuclei may have two decay modes. The results show that with similar $ Q_{\alpha} $ values, different phenomenological models show good consistency.
Figure4. (color online) The $ \alpha $-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of $ ^{295-309} $120, $ ^{301-314} $122, $ ^{307-323} $124, and $ ^{313-331} $126. The $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ values calculated with the Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) and Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) are from Ref. [79].

As we use a fully phenomenological approach, we compare our results with those from calculations considering microscopic modifications [45]. As generally known, the $ Q_{\alpha} $ values deduced would have an obvious influence on the calculated $ \alpha $-decay half-lives. A 1 MeV change in the $ Q_{\alpha} $ value may lead to a change of around three orders of magnitude or more in the $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ value. In Ref. [45], different mass tables are used to calculate $ Q_{\alpha} $, including the WS4 mass table. Hence, we compare our $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ with the $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ value calculated with the WS4 mass model in Ref. [45]. In Fig. 3 from Ref. [45], the $ \log_{10} $$ T_{1/2}^{\alpha} $ values of Z = 120,122,124 nuclei have dips at $ N_{d} $ = 184, where $ N_{d} $ represents the neutron number of the daughter nucleus. In this work, Fig. 2 shows the same trend for the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives. The above discussion indicates that with similar $ Q_{\alpha} $ values, the results obtained with the phenomenological approach are highly consistent with the results from calculations considering microscopic modifications [81].
4.Summary
We used shell correction induced GLDM to calculate the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The preformation factor $ P_{\alpha} $ used in the model is of two types, where one is a constant for each type of nuclei, which was adopted from a least-squares fit to the known experimental half-lives (N $ \geqslant $ 152, Z $ \geqslant $ 82). The other type was calculated using the CFM. We compared our calculations with the experimental data for known nuclei from Fl to Og, and found that all the investigated methods could reproduce the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives well. Subsequently, our method was used to predict the $ \alpha $-decay properties of the even-Z SHN from Z = 120 to 126.
The theoretical $ P_{\alpha} $values calculated using the CFM are very sensitive to the nuclear structure. The $ P_{\alpha} $ and $ Q_{\alpha} $ values show similar trends. They both reflect the position of shell structures. However, $ P_{\alpha} $ contains more complex shell structure information as it is adopted from several nearby nuclei. From the $ Q_{\alpha} $ and $ P_{\alpha} $ values, we present some nuclei that might be stable, i.e., Z = 120, N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 206, 218, 228; Z = 122, N = 182,184, 196, 202, 206, 216; and Z = 124, N = 204, 208, 216, 220. With larger proton numbers, more neutrons are needed for a nucleus to be stable.
With the information of the $ \alpha $-decay half-lives, we find that at N = 184, there is no obvious shell structure for Z = 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The $ ^{304} $120 nucleus is predicted to be stable compared with the nearby nuclei. The competition between $ \alpha $-decay and SF is increasing evident from Z = 120 to 126. However, the nuclei at around N = 184 would mostly undergo $ \alpha $-decay. The predicted decay modes for $ ^{287-339} $120, $ ^{294-339} $122, $ ^{300-339} $124, and $ ^{306-339} $126 are presented in Table 2.
We compared our results with other works, including the results obtained with microscopic calculations. The comparisons showed that the phenomenological and microscopic methods can produce highly similar $ \alpha $-decay half-lives, when similar $ Q_{\alpha} $ values are adopted. We suggest the selection of suitable $ Q_{\alpha} $ values, as the $ Q_{\alpha} $ values tend to clearly influence the calculations.
The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, Beijing Normal University.
相关话题/Calculations decay properties