arxiv: v2 [nucl-th] 29 Feb 2008

Transcription

1 NUCLEAR HALF-LIVES FOR ALPHA RADIOACTIVITY OF ELEMENTS WITH 100 Z 130 arxiv: v2 [nucl-] 29 Feb 2008 P. ROY CHOWDHURY a,1 and C. SAMANTA a,b,c,2 a Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata , India b Physics Department, Gottwald Science Center, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173, U.S.A. c Physics Department, Virginia Commonweal University, Richmond, VA , U.S.A. and D.N. BASU d,3 d Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata , India Abstract Theoretical estimates for e half lives of about 1700 isotopes of heavy elements wi 100 Z 130 are tabulated using eoretical Q-values. The quantum mechanical tunneling probabilities are calculated wiin a WKB framework using microscopic nuclear potentials. The microscopic nucleus - nucleus potentials are obtained by folding e densities of interacting nuclei wi a density dependent M3Y (DDM3Y) effective nucleon - nucleon interaction. The α-decay half lives calculated in is formalism using e experimental Q-values were found to be in good agreement over a wide range of experimental data spanning about twenty orders of magnitude. The eoretical Q-values used for e present calculations are extracted from ree different mass estimates viz. Myers-Swiatecki [MS], Muntian-Hofmann-Patyk- Sobiczewski [M] and Koura-Tachibana-Uno-Yamada [KUTY]. PACS: b, e, Tg, Fe Key words: SHE; Mass formula; Q-value; DDM3Y; WKB; VSS; Half life. 1 para.roychowdhury@saha.ac.in 2 chhanda.samanta@saha.ac.in 3 dnb@veccal.ernet.in ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 31 October 2018

2 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 CALCULATIONAL DETAILS Calculation of Theoretical Q-values Atomic Masses Used as Input Quantities Selection Criteria of Parent Nuclides Meod of Calculation of α-decay Half Lives of Superheavy Nuclides Comparison wi Experimentally Measured α-decay Lifetimes Sources of Experimental Data Summary 10 3 EXPLANATION OF TABLES 13 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Plots of α-decay half life [T 1/2 (sec)] versus proton number Z for different mass number A (indicated on top of each coloumn). (a) Hollow columns of solid lines wi error bars are experimental α-decay half lives (T [Exp]), (b) filled columns are eoretical half lives (T [Q-M]=T 1/2 [Q M ]) in WKB frame work wi DDM3Y interaction and [Q M ] from Muntian-Patyk-Hofmann-Sobiczewski mass formula, (c) hollow columns of dashed lines are (T [Q-KUTY]= ]) in e same framework but wi [ ] from Koura-Tachibana- Uno-Yamada mass estimates. 14 LIST OF TABLES 1 α-decay half lives of nuclei using eoretical Q-values (MeV) from Muntian-Patyk-Hofmann-Sobiczewski [M] and Myers-Swiatecki [MS] mass estimates α-decay half lives of nuclei using eoretical Q-values (MeV) from Koura-Tachibana-Uno-Yamada [KUTY] mass estimates. 27 2

3 1 INTRODUCTION In 1939 Bohr and Wheeler (1) studied mechanism of nuclear fission on e basis of e liquid drop model (LDM) which treats e nucleus as a drop of charged liquid wiout any structure. As long as e surface tension in e drop is larger an e repulsive Coulomb force due to e protons, a potential barrier prevents it from splitting and e LDM suggests at e potential barrier approaches zero when e atomic number Z >100 (2; 3). This puts an upper limit to e stability of nuclei. In mid sixties e importance of nuclear shell effects in stabilising heavy nuclei was realised and possible existence of superheavy elements was predicted (4; 5; 6). The nuclear shell model predicted at e next magic proton number beyond Z = 82 would be Z = 114. For neutron, N = 184 was predicted to be magic wi an appreciable shell gap. Due to double magicity e nucleus wi Z = 114, N = 184 was predicted to be e center of an island of stability. Element 114 wi neutron number N = 175 has been discovered so far. Measured lifetime (7) of is nucleus is raer short ( s) but it is still far away from e desired magic N = 184. Inclusion of higher orders of deformation (8; 9; 10) suggested at ground state shell correction energy of deformed nuclei around Z = 108, N = 162 are comparable to at of e doubly magic nucleus which has zero deformation. In fact discovery of high alpha-decay half life of 270 Hs, e doubly magic deformed nucleus, provides e first evidence of N = 162 shell stability (11). Modern microscopic nuclear eories suggest at e island of stability would be around Z = 120, 124, or, 126 and N = 184 or, N = 172 (12; 13). These predictions as well as earlier predictions (14; 15; 16) at some of e superheavy nuclei might have lifetimes comparable to e age of e ear ( years) have encouraged a world-wide effort to search for superheavy neutron-rich long-lived nuclei in laboratories as well as in nature (2). In is context it is imperative to find out wheer e predicted wide shell gap (or, shell stabilization of super and hyperheavy nuclei wiout magic gap) at high Z and N values would lead to high stability of e superheavy nuclei against alpha-decay. In is work we present eoretical estimates for e α-decay half lives of about 1700 heavy and superheavy elements wi Z = If e existing eoretical predictions are correct, elements on e islands of stability should not decay via spontaneous fission. Instead ey should undergo α-decay. As a result, ese elements will leave a clear experimental signature: a daughter nucleus at is lighter an its parent by two protons and two neutrons, followed by a grand daughter nucleus at is lighter by four protons and four neutrons, and so on (7; 17). Heavy elements wi Z = have been successfully synesized at GSI, Darmstadt (18; 19; 20). Isotopes of ese elements along wi Z = and 118 have been synesized 3

4 at JINR-FLNR, Dubna (7; 17; 21) and Z = have been produced at RIKEN, Japan (22; 23; 24). Periodic table arranges elements according to eir outermost electrons which dictate eir chemical properties. Due to presence of large number of protons in superheavy nuclei some orbital electrons move wi velocities close to e speed of light. The relativistic effects might significantly alter e order of e elements electronic orbitals, and us influence eir chemical reactivity. For example superheavy element 112, provisionally named ununbium, was predicted to belong to eier group 12 of e periodic table (which includes e familiar transition metals zinc, cadmium and mercury) or, act like radon (25). The heaviest elements which are chemically characterized so far are seaborgium (element 106), bohrium (element 107), hassium (element 108) and recently, e element 112. The first ree behave according to eir respective positions in groups 6, 7 and 8 of e periodic table, and now it has been confirmed (26) at e element 112 is very volatile and, unlike e inactive radon, reveals a metallic interaction wi e gold surface. These adsorption characteristics establish element 112 as a typical element of group 12. There exists still now strong controversies on e real observation of superheavy nuclei wi charge higher an 112(27; 28; 29) for which heavy element chemistry would be essential. While e experiments have already presented concrete evidence in support of measurable stability of several nuclei wi Z > 100, some recent eoretical calculations in e quantum tunneling model have provided realistic estimation of eir α-decay half lives. In fact, e α-decay modes and lifetimes of medium to light heavy nuclei agree well wi e predictions of e half life calculations in a WKB framework wi DDM3Y interaction (30; 31; 32; 33; 34). Alough e generalized liquid drop model [GLDM] (35) or wi its parameters refitted to improve predictability (36) are less sophisticated, yet ose descriptions provide comparable results in certain cases. For e heaviest nuclei also calculations in e above framework provide excellent agreement wi e measured half lives of 27 new nuclei wi atomic numbers between 106 and 118 (31; 32; 33; 34). The purpose of e present paper is to update e half life estimations into e regions of nuclei far from stability and of SHE using ree different mass tables (37; 38; 39; 40; 41) as input data which will be useful for furerance of experimental studies towards e much envisaged island of stability in superheavy nuclei. 2 CALCULATIONAL DETAILS The α-decay half lives are calculated in e framework of quantum mechanical tunneling of an α-particle from a parent nucleus (34). The required nuclear 4

5 interaction potentials are calculated by double folding e density distribution functions of e α-particle and e daughter nucleus wi density dependent M3Y effective interaction. The microscopic α-nucleus potential us obtained, along wi e Coulomb interaction potential and e minimum centrifugal barrier required for e spin-parity conservation (30), form e potential barrier. The half lives of nuclear disintegration process via α-particle emissions are calculated using e WKB approximation for barrier penetrability. Spherical charge distributions have been used for calculating e Coulomb interaction potentials. The Q-values of α-decay are obtained directly from Muntian-Patyk-Hofmann-Sobiczewski estimates and using atomic mass excesses from e eoretical mass predictions of Myers-Swiatecki and Koura- Tachibana-Uno-Yamada, but for α-particle measured (42) atomic mass excess [ MeV] is used. 2.1 Calculation of Theoretical Q-values From e energetics point of view, spontaneous emission of α-particles is allowed if e released energy Q = M (M α +M d ) = M ( M α + M d ) (1) is a positive quantity. In is equation, M, M α, M d and M, M α, M d are e atomic masses and e atomic mass excesses of e parent nucleus, e emitted α-particle and e residual daughter nucleus, respectively, all expressed in e units of energy. The released energy which is called e decay Q-value is obtained eoretically from e eoretical estimates for e atomic mass excesses (37; 38; 39; 40; 41). 2.2 Atomic Masses Used as Input Quantities The eoretical Q-values Q used for e present calculations are extracted from ree different mass estimates. All e available 314 Q -values for parent nuclei [102 Z 120, where Z is e atomic number] from I. Muntian, S. Hofmann, Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski (M) (38; 39; 40) are used for half life calculations. Corresponding Q -valuescalculated using W.D. Myers andw.j. Swiatecki (MS) (37) are also used. All possible α-decay modes are predicted using eoretical mass estimates of H. Koura, T. Tachibana, M. Uno and M. Yamada(KUTY)(41) and corresponding half lives are calculated eoretically. In e present work, only for 100 Z 130, Q -values and half lives are tabulated. 5

6 2.3 Selection Criteria of Parent Nuclides All e new 27 nuclei wi atomic numbers between 106 and 118 are selected for eoretical half life calculations using eoretical Q-values and plotted for comparison wi e measured half lives. Calculations using experimental Q- values are found to provide excellent estimates (32; 33; 34) for e α-decay half lives. Since e spin parities of SHE and eir α-decay daughters are not known while ose for many of nuclei wi atomic number Z 102 are known (30), we use a lower cut-offof Z forparent nuclei at100. The upper cutoff Z for parent nuclei is kept at 130 which is limited by e availability of e eoretical mass excesses. This selection criteria provides about 1700 positive Q -values. Forall ese nuclei half lives are calculated assuming e minimum centrifugal barrier required for e spin-parity conservation to be zero since e spin parities of SHE and eir α-decay daughters are not known. 2.4 Meod of Calculation of α-decay Half Lives of Superheavy Nuclides The half lifeof a parent nucleus decaying via α emission iscalculated using e WKB barrier penetration probability. The barrier penetrability wi DDM3Y interaction is used to provide estimates of α-decay half lives for Z = α emitters. This procedure of obtaining nuclear interaction energy for e α - nucleus interaction is quite fundamental in nature since e strengs of e M3Y interaction were fixed (43) by fitting its matrix elements in an oscillator basis to ose elements of e G-matrix obtained wi e Reid-Elliott soft-core NN interaction and e density dependence (DD) was obtained from nuclear matter calculations (44). Earlier it was shown at e half lives calculated in is framework were more reliable (30) an by oer meods such as e GLDM (35), e analytic super-asymmetric fission model (45; 46) or Viola-Seaborg semi-empirical relationship (47) wi constants determined by Sobiczewski, Patyk and Cwiok (48). It was also shown (34) at e eoretical Q values Q M extracted from e mass formula of Muntian et al. (38; 39; 40) can reasonably reproduce e experimental data on several SHE α-decay Half Life for Quantum Tunneling wi Microscopic Potential The barrier penetrability P in e improved WKB (49) framework for any continuous (rounded) potential barrier is given by, P = 1/[1+exp(K)] (2) 6

7 where K is e action integral and e decay constant λ = νp where ν is calculated from E v = 1 hν, e zero point vibration energy. The zero point 2 vibration energies used in e present calculations are E v = Q for eveneven, Q for odd Z-even N, Q for even Z-odd N, Q for oddodd parent nuclei and are e same as at described in ref. (50) immediately after eqn.(4) which were obtained from a fit to a selected set of experimental data on α emitters and includes e shell and e pairing effects. The assault frequency ν comes out to be s 1 and s 1 for e α decays from nuclei and , respectively, using eoretical Q values calculated from KUTY masses while at for some new superheavy elements using experimental Q values are listed in ref. (32). The half life can us be obtainedfromt 1/2 = ln2/λ = [(hln2)/(2e v )][1+exp(K)]. Theactionintegral K wiin e WKB approximation is given by K = (2/ h) R b R a [2µ(E(R) E v Q)] 1/2 dr (3) where e total interaction energy E(R) between e α and e residual daughter nucleus is equal to e sum of e nuclear interaction energy V N (R), Coulomb interaction energy V C (R) and e centrifugal barrier. Thus E(R) = V N (R)+V C (R)+ h 2 c 2 l(l+1)/(2µr 2 ) (4) where c is e velocity of light in e vacuum, e reduced mass (in MeV) µ = M α M d /(M α + M d ) and V C (R) is e Coulomb potential between e α and e residual daughter nucleus. R a andr b are e second and ird turning points of e WKB action integral determined from e equations E(R a ) = Q+E v = E(R b ) (5) whose solutions provide ree turning points. The α-particle oscillates between e first and e second turning points and tunnels rough e barrier at R a andr b.thenuclear interactionpotentialv N (R)between edaughter nucleus and e emitted particle is obtained in a double folding model (51) as, V N (R) = ρ 1 ( r 1 )ρ 2 ( r 2 )v[ r 2 r 1 + R ]d 3 r 1 d 3 r 2 (6) where ρ 1 and ρ 2 are e density distribution functions for e two composite nuclear fragments and v[ r 2 r 1 + R ] is e effective NN interaction. The density distribution function in case of α-particle has e Gaussian form ρ(r) = exp( r 2 ) whose volume integral is equal to A α (= 4), e mass number of α-particle. The matter density distribution for e daughter nucleus 7

8 can be described by e spherically symmetric Fermi function ρ(r) = ρ 0 /[1+ exp((r c)/a)] where e equivalent sharp radius r ρ, e half density radius c and e diffuseness for e leptodermous Fermi density distributions are given byc = r ρ (1 π 2 a 2 /3rρ 2),r ρ = 1.13A 1/3 d,a =0.54fmandevalueofecentral density ρ 0 is fixed by equating e volume integral of e density distribution function to e mass number A d of e residual daughter nucleus. The distance s between any two nucleons, one belonging to e residual daughter nucleus and oer belonging to e emitted α, is given by s = r 2 r 1 + R while e interaction potential between ese two nucleons v(s) appearing in eqn.(6) is given by e factorised DDM3Y effective interaction. The general expression for e DDM3Y realistic effective NN interaction used to obtain e double-folded nucleus-nucleus interaction potential is given by, v(s,ρ 1,ρ 2,ǫ) = t M3Y (s,ǫ)g(ρ 1,ρ 2 ) (7) where e isoscalar t M3Y 00 of M3Y interaction potential (51) supplemented by zero range potential is given by e following equation: t00 M3Y (s,ǫ) = 7999 exp( 4s) 2134 exp( 2.5s) 276( ǫ)δ(s) (8) 4s 2.5s where ǫ is e energy per nucleon and e isovector term does not contribute if anyone (or, bo) of e daughter and emitted nuclei involved in e decay process has N=Z, N and Z being e neutron number and proton number respectively. Therefore in α-decay calculations only e isoscalar term contributes. The density dependence term g(ρ 1,ρ 2 ) can be factorized (32) into a target term times a projectile term as, g(ρ 1,ρ 2 ) = C(1 βρ 2/3 1 )(1 βρ 2/3 2 ) (9) where C, e overall normalisation constant, is kept equal to unity and e parameter β = 1.6 fm 2 (32) obtained from e nuclear matter calculation can be related to e mean-free pa in e nuclear medium. The ρ 1 and ρ 2 are e density distributions of e α-particle and e daughter nucleus respectively Viola-Seaborg-Sobiczewski systematics for α-decay Half Life The α decay half lives estimated by Viola-Seaborg semi-empirical relationship (47) wi constants determined by Sobiczewski, Patyk and Cwiok (48) is given by log 10 [T 1/2 /sec] = [az +b][q/mev] 1/2 +cz +d+h log (10) 8

9 where e half-life T 1/2 is in seconds, e Q-value is in MeV, Z is e atomic number of e parent nucleus. Instead of using original set of constants by Viola and Seaborg, more recent values a = , b = , c = , d = (11) at were determined in an adjustment taking account of new data for new even-even nuclei (48) are used. The increased deviations in e neighbourhood of magic numbers present wi e constants of e original Viola-Seaborg(47) formula get smooed out by ese constants or using e semi-empirical formula based on fission eory (52). The quantity h log in eqn.(10) accounts for e hindrances associated wi odd proton and odd neutron numbers given by Viola and Seaborg (47), namely h log = 0 for Z even N even = for Z odd N even = for Z even N odd = for Z odd N odd (12) The uncertainties in e calculated half lives due to is semi-empirical approach are smaller an e uncertainties due to errors in e calculated energy release. 2.5 Comparison wi Experimentally Measured α-decay Lifetimes To study e predictive power of e mass formula, Q-values are also calculated using e mass formulae [MS] of Myers-Swiatecki [Q MS ] (37) and [M] of Muntian-Patyk-Hofmann-Sobiczewski [Q M ] (38; 39; 40) and [KUTY] of Koura-Tachibana-Uno-Yamada [ ] (41). Fig. 1 shows comparison between e experimental α-decay half lives (7; 17; 21; 24) and e eoretical estimates wi Q -values from e mass formulae of Muntian et al. [Q M ] (38; 39; 40) and Koura et al. [QKUTY ] (41). The latter highlyoverpredicts inmost ofecases. Inafewcases forodd-oddorodd-even nuclei e mass formula M underestimates e experimental data. This arises from non-zero l transfers (30; 33) not considered in e present calculations. Table 1 contains T 1/2 predictions for e α-decay half lives of Z = calculated in e WKB framework wi DDM3Y interaction and estimations (34) of Viola-Seaborg semi-empirical relationship (47) wi constants determined by Sobiczewski, Patyk and Cwiok (48) [VSS]. The Q-values are extracted from e mass formulae of Myers-Swiatecki [Q MS ] (37) and Muntian et al. 9

10 [Q M ] (38; 39; 40). Calculations wi M do not indicate extra stability at Z = 120 and N = 184, or, existence of a SHE above 102 wi half life comparable to e age of e ear while e predictions using masses from Koura et al. at high Z, N are sometimes far more an e age of e universe. Table2containsα-decayhalflivesofnucleiwiZ= usingeoretical Q-values [ ] from Koura et al. [KUTY] mass estimates (41). As shown in Fig. 1 half lives wi KUTY mostly over predicts e experimental data at large N. Nevereless, none of e α-decay half life calculations present here indicates extra stability of e Z = 120 and N = 172 or, Sources of Experimental Data The experimental data for e α-decay energies and measured lifetimes of various SHE are taken from Yu.Ts. Oganessian et al., JINR-FLNR, Dubna (7; 17; 21) and Kosuke Morita and co-workers at e RIKEN laboratory in Tokyo, Japan (22; 23; 24). 2.7 Summary We present eoretical estimates for e α-decay half lives of about 1700 heavy andsuperheavy elements wiz= inwkb frameworkwiddm3y interaction, using eoretical Q-values. This formalism has been found to be quite reliable when experimental Q-values are used (32; 33; 34). The eoretical Q-values are taken from e mass formulae of Myers-Swiatecki [MS] (37), Muntian et al. [M] (38; 39; 40) and Koura et al. [KUTY] (41). The Viola- Seaborg-Sobiczewski [VSS] estimates of α-decay half lives using e Q-values from Muntian et al. [M] (38; 39; 40) and Myers-Swiatecki [MS] (37) mass estimates are also presented for comparison. The updated half life estimations into e regions of very heavy and of superheavy nuclei will be useful for furer experimental studies in region of superheavy nuclei. 10

11 REFERENCES [1] N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 56, 426 (1939). [2] Yu.Ts. Oganessian, Pure Appl. Chem. 78, 889 (2006). [3] Yu.Ts. Oganessian, Jour. Phys. G 34, R165 (2007). [4] A. Sobiczewski, F.A. Gareev and B.N. Kalinkin, Phys. Lett. 22, 500 (1966). [5] W.D. Myers and W.J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. 81, 1 (1966). [6] S.G. Nilsson et al., Nucl. Phys. A 131, 1 (1969). [7] Yu.Ts. Oganessian et al., Phys. Rev. C 70, (2004); Phys. Rev. C 71, (E) (2005). [8] Z. Patyk, A. Sobiczewski and S. Cwiok, Nucl. Phys. A 502, 591 (1989) [9] Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski, Nucl. Phys. A 533, 132 (1991) [10] M. Bender, P. -H. Heenen and P. -G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003) [11] J. Dvorak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, (2006) [12] M. A. Stoyer, Nature 442, 876 (2006) ; see references erein. [13] S. Cwiok, P.-H. Heenen and W. Nazarewicz, Nature 433, 705 (2005); see references erein. [14] E.O. Fiset and J.R. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A 193, 647 (1972). [15] J. Randrup et al., Phys. Scr. 10A, 60 (1974). [16] P. Moller and and J.R. Nix, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1461 (1976). [17] Yu.Ts. Oganessian et. al., Phys. Rev. C 69, (R) (2004); Phys. Rev. C 72, (2005). [18] S. Hofmann et al., Nucl. Phys. A 734, 93 (2004). [19] S. Hofmann and G. Münzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 733 (2000). [20] D. Ackermann, Nucl. Phys. A 787, 353c (2007). [21] Yu.Ts. Oganessian et. al., Phys. Rev. C 74, (2006); see references erein. [22] K. Morita et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73, 2593 (2004). [23] K. Morita et al., Nucl. Phys. A734, 101 (2004). [24] K. Morita et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76, (2007). [25] Andreas Türler, Nature 447, 47 (2007). [26] R. Eichler et al., Nature 447, 72 (2007). [27] P. Armbruster, Eur. Phys. J. A 7, 23 (2000). [28] W. Loveland et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, (2002). [29] K.E. Gregorich et al., Phys. Rev. C 72, (2005). [30] D.N. Basu, Phys. Lett. B 566, 90 (2003). [31] D.N. Basu, Jour. Phys. G 30, B35 (2004). [32] P.RoyChowdhury,C.SamantaandD.N.Basu,Phys.Rev.C73, (2006). [33] P.RoyChowdhury,D.N.BasuandC.Samanta,Phys.Rev.C75, (2007). [34] C. Samanta, P. Roy Chowdhury and D.N. Basu, Nucl. Phys. A 789, 142 (2007). 11

12 [35] G. Royer, R. Moustabchir, Nucl. Phys. A 683, 182 (2001). [36] N. Dasgupta-Schubert and M.A. Reyes, Atomic Data and Nuclear data Tables 93, 907 (2007). [37] W.D. Myers and W.J. Swiatecki, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory preprint LBL-36803, December (1994) and Nucl. Phys. A 601, 141 (1996). [38] I. Muntian, Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 32, 691 (2001). [39] I. Muntian, S. Hofmann, Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 34, 2073 (2003). [40] I. Muntian, Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski, Phys. At. Nucl. 66, 1015 (2003). [41] H. Koura, T. Tachibana, M. Uno and M. Yamada, KUTY mass formula 2005 revised version, m246.dat, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113, 305 (2005). [42] G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra andc. Thibault, Nucl. Phys. A 729, 337(2003). [43] G. Bertsch, J. Borysowicz, H. McManus, W.G. Love, Nucl. Phys. A 284, 399 (1977). [44] D.N. Basu, Jour. Phys. G 30, B7 (2004). [45] D.N. Poenaru, D. Schnabel, W. Greiner, D. Mazilu and R. Gherghescu, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 48, 231 (1991). [46] D.N. Poenaru, I.H. Plonski and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 74, (2006). [47] V.E. Viola and G.T. Seaborg, J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 28, 741 (1966). [48] A. Sobiczewski, Z. Patyk and S. Cwiok, Phys. Lett. B 224, 1 (1989). [49] E.C. Kemble, Phys. Rev. 48, (1935) 549. [50] D.N. Poenaru, W. Greiner, M. Ivascu, D. Mazilu and I.H. Plonski, Z. Phys. A 325, 435 (1986). [51] G.R. Satchler and W.G. Love, Phys. Reports 55, 183 (1979); see references ere in. [52] D.N. Poenaru, I.H. Plonski, R.A. Gherghescu and W. Greiner, Jour. Phys. G 32, 1223 (2006). 12

13 3 EXPLANATION OF TABLES We present eoretical estimates for e α-decay half lives of about 1700 heavy and superheavy elements wi atomic numbers ranging from 100 to 130 in e WKB framework wi DDM3Y interaction, using eoretical Q-values in tables 1 and 2. TABLE 1. α-decay half lives of nuclei using Q-values (MeV) from Muntian-Hofmann-Patyk-Sobiczewski [M] and Myers-Swiatecki [MS] Tabulates for e isotopes of e elements Z= , e α-decay Q-values calculated using mass esitmates from MS (37) and M (38; 39; 40) and corresponding half lives calculated in WKB framework wi DDM3Y interaction and using Viola-Seaborg-Sobeczewiski [VSS] semi-empirical relationship (48). Z A Q MS Q M The atomic number of e parent nucleus The mass number of e parent nucleus Theoretical Q-value in MeV obtained using MS mass estimates Theoretical Q-value in MeV obtained using M mass estimates DDM3Y(MS) T 1/2 [Q MS ] Half life in seconds calculated using QMS and DDM3Y interaction DDM3Y(M) T 1/2 [Q M ] VSS(MS) T VSS 1/2 [QMS ] Half life in seconds calculated using QM and DDM3Y interaction Half life in seconds estimated by VSS formula using QMS VSS(M) T VSS 1/2 [QM ] Half life in seconds estimated by VSS formula using QM TABLE 2. α-decay half lives of nuclei using Q-values (MeV) from and Koura-Tachibana-Uno-Yamada [KUTY] Tabulates for e isotopes of e elements Z= , e α-decay Q-values calculated using mass esitmates from KUTY (41) and corresponding half lives calculated in WKB framework wi DDM3Y interaction. Z The atomic number of e parent nucleus A The mass number of e parent nucleus Theoretical Q-value in MeV obtained using KUTY mass estimates ] Half life in seconds calculated using and DDM3Y interaction 13

14 T 1/2 (sec) 1.0E E E E E-03 T 1/2 (sec) T 1/2 (sec) 1.0E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Z Z T [Exp] T [Q-M] T [Q-KUTY] Z T 1/2 (sec) 1.0E E E E E E E Z Fig. 1. Plots of α-decay half life [T 1/2 (sec)] versus proton number Z for different mass number A (indicated on top of each coloumn). (a) Hollow columns of solid lines wi error bars are experimental α-decay half lives (T [Exp]), (b) filled columns are eoretical half lives (T [Q-M]=T 1/2 [Q M ]) in WKB frame work wi DDM3Y interaction and [Q M ] from Muntian-Patyk-Hofmann-Sobiczewski mass formula, (c) hollow columnsofdashedlinesare(t [Q-KUTY]= ])inesameframework but wi [ ] from Koura-Tachibana-Uno-Yamada mass estimates. 14

15 Table 1 α-decay half lives of nuclei using eoretical Q-values (MeV) from Muntian-Patyk- Hofmann-Sobiczewski [M] and Myers-Swiatecki [MS] mass estimates. Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s TVSS 1/2 [QMS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s TVSS 1/2 [QM ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

16 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 01 16

17 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

18 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

19 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 06 19

20 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 05 20

21 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

22 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

23 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 04 23

24 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 02 24

25 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 04 25

26 Parent MS M DDM3Y(MS) VSS(MS) DDM3Y(M) VSS(M) Q MS Q M T 1/2 [Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q MS ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s T 1/2[Q M ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 07 26

27 Table 2 α-decay half lives of nuclei using eoretical Q-values(MeV) from Koura-Tachibana- Uno-Yamada [KUTY] mass estimates. Parent KUTY DDM3Y(KUTY) Parent KUTY DDM3Y(KUTY) ] s ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

28 ] s ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 02 28

29 ] s ] s E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E