1: \documentclass[aps,prc,twocolumn,nofootinbib,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}
5:
6: \def\bea {\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \def\eea {\end{eqnarray}}
8: \def\be {\begin{equation}}
9: \def\ee {\end{equation}}
10: \def\ben{\begin{enumerate}}
11: \def\een{\end{enumerate}}
12: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
13: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
14: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
15: \def\viz{{\it viz.}\ }
16: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
17: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
18: \def\F{{\cal F}}
19: \def\prl {Phys. Rev. Lett.\ }
20: \def\pl {Phys. Lett.\ }
21: \def\pr {Phys. Rev.\ }
22: \def\np {Nucl. Phys.\ }
23: \def\GV{G_{\mbox{\tiny V}}}
24: \def\GA{G_{\mbox{\tiny A}}}
25: \def\GF{G_{\mbox{\tiny F}}}
26: \def\DRV{\Delta_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^{\mbox{\tiny V}}}
27: \def\DRA{\Delta_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^{\mbox{\tiny A}}}
28: \def\fV{f_{\mbox{\tiny V}}}
29: \def\fA{f_{\mbox{\tiny A}}}
30: \def\mA{m_{\mbox{\tiny A}}}
31: \def\mZ{m_{\mbox{\tiny Z}}}
32: \def\hyphen{{\mbox{-}}}
33: \newcommand{\sfrac}[2]{\mbox{\small{$\frac{#1}{#2}$}}}
34: \def\2p{|2p\rangle }
35: \def\4p2h{|4p\hyphen 2h\rangle }
36: \def\6p4h{|6p\hyphen 4h\rangle }
37:
38: \begin{document}
39: \title{Branching Ratios for the Beta Decay of $^{21}$Na}
40: \author{V.E. Iacob, J.C. Hardy, C.A. Gagliardi, J. Goodwin, N. Nica, H.I. Park, G. Tabacaru, L. Trache, R.E. Tribble,
41: Y. Zhai and I.S. Towner\footnote{Present address: Physics Department, Queen's University, Kingston,
42: Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada}}
43: \affiliation{Cyclotron Institute, Texas A \& M University, College Station, Texas 77843}
44:
45: \date{\today}
46: \begin{abstract}
47:
48: We have measured the beta-decay branching ratio for the transition from $^{21}$Na to the
49: first excited state of $^{21}$Ne. A recently published test of the standard model, which
50: was based on a measurement of the $\beta$-$\nu$ correlation in the decay of $^{21}$Na,
51: depended on this branching ratio. However, until now only relatively imprecise
52: (and, in some cases, contradictory) values existed for it. Our new result, $4.74(4)\%$,
53: reduces but does not remove the reported discrepancy with the standard model.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \pacs{27.30.+t, 23.40.-s}
57:
58: \maketitle
59:
60:
61: \section{Introduction}
62: \label{intro}
63:
64: A recent publication by Scielzo {\it et al.}\cite{Sc04} reported a measurement of the
65: $\beta$-$\nu$ angular correlation coefficient, $a_{\beta\nu}$, for the $\beta$-decay
66: transition between $^{21}$Na and the ground state of its mirror, $^{21}$Ne.
67: The authors compare their result with the standard-model prediction for $a_{\beta\nu}$,
68: with a view to testing for scalar or tensor currents, the presence of which would
69: signal the need for an extension of the standard model. Although they found a
70: significant discrepancy -- the measured value, $a_{\beta\nu} = 0.524(9)$, disagrees
71: with the standard-model prediction of 0.558 -- they stop short of claiming a
72: fundamental disagreement with the standard model.
73:
74: Scielzo {\it et al.} \cite{Sc04} offer two alternative explanations that would have to
75: be eliminated before their result could begin to raise questions about the need for an
76: extension to the standard model. One is that some $^{21}$Na$_2$ dimers formed by cold
77: photoassociation could also have been present in their trap, thus distorting the result;
78: they themselves propose to do further measurements to test that possibility. The other
79: is that the branching-ratio value they used for $\beta$ decay to the first excited state of
80: $^{21}$Ne might not be correct. Because Scielzo's measurement could not distinguish between
81: positrons from the two predominant $\beta$-decay branches from $^{21}$Na (see Fig. \ref{fig:1}),
82: the adopted branching ratio for the $\beta$ transition to the first excited state not only affects
83: their data analysis but also helps determine the theoretical prediction for $a_{\beta\nu}$
84: itself, since the axial-vector component of the ground-state branch can only be determined
85: from its $ft$ value, which also depends on the branching ratio. This branching ratio is a
86: key component of their standard-model test, yet the five published values \cite{Ta60,Ar63,Al74,Az77,Wi80}
87: are between 25 and 45 years old, are quite inconsistent with one another and range from
88: 2.2(3) to 5.1(2)\%. To remedy this problem, we report here a new measurement of the ground-state
89: branching ratio, for which we quote $\pm$0.8\% relative precision, five times better than the best
90: precision claimed in any previous measurement.
91:
92: \begin{figure}[b]
93: \epsfig{file=na21_fig1.eps,width=6.5cm}
94: \caption{$\beta$-decay scheme for $^{21}$Na}
95: \label{fig:1}
96: \end{figure}
97:
98: \section{Experiment}
99: \label{exp}
100:
101: We produced 22.5-s $^{21}$Na using a 28{\it A}-MeV $^{22}$Ne beam from the Texas A\&M K500
102: superconducting cyclotron to initiate the $^1$H($^{22}$Ne, $2n$)$^{21}$Na reaction on a
103: LN$_2$-cooled hydrogen gas target. The ejectiles from the reaction were fully stripped and, after
104: passing through the MARS spectrometer \cite{Tr91}, produced a $^{21}$Na secondary beam of $>$99\%
105: purity at the extraction slits in the MARS focal plane. This beam, containing $\sim$$3\times10^5$
106: atoms/s at $24.4A$ MeV, then exited the vacuum system through a 50-$\mu$m-thick Kapton window,
107: passed successively through a 0.3-mm-thick BC-404 scintillator and a stack of aluminum
108: degraders, finally stopping in the 76-$\mu$m-thick aluminized mylar tape of a tape transport
109: system. Since the few impurities remaining in the beam had ranges different from that of $^{21}$Na,
110: most were not collected on the tape; residual collected impurities were concluded to be less
111: than $0.1$\% of the $^{21}$Na content.
112:
113: \begin{figure}[t]
114: \epsfig{file=na21_fig2.eps,width=8cm}
115: \caption{Spectrum of $\beta$-delayed $\gamma$ rays observed in coincidence with positrons following
116: the decay of $^{21}$Na. It includes about half of the
117: total data collected. The peaks attributable to $^{21}$Na are marked with their energy in keV;
118: the sum peak is identified by its components. The small unmarked peak at 682 keV is caused by
119: summing of one 511-keV $\gamma$ ray with the back-scattered $\gamma$ ray (171 keV) from the
120: second 511-keV $\gamma$ ray.}
121: \label{fig:2}
122: \end{figure}
123:
124: In a typical measurement, we collected $^{21}$Na on the tape for a few seconds, then
125: interrupted the beam and triggered the tape-transport system to move the sample in 180 ms to
126: a shielded counting station located 90 cm away, where the sample was positioned between
127: a 1-mm-thick BC404 scintillator to detect $\beta^+$ particles, and a 70\% HPGe detector for
128: $\gamma$ rays. Two timing modes were used: in one, the collection and detection periods
129: were 3 and 30 s, respectively; in the other, they were 6 and 60 s. In both cases, after the
130: detection period was complete, the cycle was repeated and, in all, some 3,200 cycles were
131: completed over a span of 32 hours.
132:
133: Time-tagged $\beta$-$\gamma$ coincidence data were stored event by event. The $\beta$ and
134: $\gamma$-ray energies, the coincidence time between them, and the time of the event after
135: the beginning of the cycle were all recorded, as was the total number of $\beta$-singles
136: events for each cycle. The same discriminator signal used for scaling was also used in
137: establishing the $\beta$-$\gamma$ coincidences.
138:
139: Essential to our experimental method is the precise absolute efficiency of the $\gamma$-ray
140: detector, which was positioned 15 cm from the collected sample. We have meticulously
141: calibrated our HPGe detector at this distance over a five-year period using,
142: in total, 13 individual sources from 10 different radionuclides: $^{48}$Cr, $^{60}$Co,
143: $^{88}$Y, $^{108m}$Ag, $^{109}$Cd, $^{120m}$Sb, $^{133}$Ba, $^{134}$Cs, $^{137}$Cs and
144: $^{180m}$Hf. Two of the $^{60}$Co sources were specially prepared by the
145: Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt \cite{Sc02} with activities certified to 0.06\%. The
146: details of our calibration procedures, which include both source measurements and Monte
147: Carlo calculations, have been published elsewhere \cite{Ha02,He03,He04}. The absolute
148: efficiency of our detector is known to 0.2\% in the energy range from 50 to 1400 keV, and
149: to 0.4\% from 1400 keV to 3.5 MeV.
150:
151: The absolute efficiency of the $\beta^+$ detector, which was located 1.5 cm from the collected
152: sample, is not required for our measurement but its dependence on energy is of some importance
153: (see section \ref{res}). We have explored the efficiency of this detector {\it via} measurements
154: and Monte Carlo calculations, and its dependence on $\beta^+$ energy is now reasonably well
155: understood \cite{Ia06}.
156:
157: A typical $\gamma$-ray spectrum recorded in coincidence with betas is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:2}.
158: Apart from the annihilation radiation, the only significant peak in the spectrum is the 351-keV
159: $\gamma$ ray from the first excited state in $^{21}$Ne. In 3,200 total cycles we recorded more
160: than $8\times10^4$ counts in this peak.
161:
162: It was important to our later analysis that we establish the contribution of room background both
163: to the $\beta$-$\gamma$ coincidence spectrum and to the $\beta$-detector singles rate. For this
164: purpose, we recorded data with the cyclotron beam on but with a thick degrader inserted just
165: upstream from the tape; everything was thus identical to a normal measurement except that no
166: $^{21}$Na was implanted in the tape. Both the coincidence and singles rates were observed to
167: drop to 0.04\% of the rate observed when $^{21}$Na was correctly implanted. Room background
168: was thus effectively negligible in our analysis.
169:
170:
171: \section{Results}
172: \label{res}
173:
174: The $\beta$-decay scheme of $^{21}$Na is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. The only branch in addition
175: to those populating the ground and first excited states is known to be very weak \cite{Wi80}
176: and can be ignored in our analysis. In that case, the branching ratio, $R_1$, for population
177: of the first excited state can be determined from the measured intensity ratio of the 351-keV $\gamma$
178: ray relative to the total number of $^{21}$Na decays. Thus, we obtain $R_1$ from the following
179: relationship:
180: \be
181: R_1 = \frac{N_{\gamma \beta}}{N_{\beta} \epsilon_\gamma} k ,
182: \label{R}
183: \ee
184: \noindent where $N_{\gamma \beta}$ is the number of 351-keV $\gamma$ rays observed in coincidence
185: with betas; $N_{\beta}$ is the number of (singles) betas observed; $\epsilon_{\gamma}$ is the
186: efficiency of the HPGe detector for 351-keV $\gamma$ rays; and $k$ is a factor ($\sim$ 1) that
187: accounts for small experimental corrections that will be enumerated in what follows. Note that
188: the efficiency of the beta detector does not appear in Eq. \ref{R}, although its dependence on
189: $\beta^+$ energy will be seen to play a minor role in the evaluation of $k$.
190:
191: Before determining the ratio $N_{\gamma \beta}/N_{\beta}$ from our data, we eliminated those
192: cycles in which the collected source was not positioned exactly between the $\beta$ and $\gamma$
193: detectors. Although the tape-transport system is quite consistent in placing the collected
194: source within $\pm3$ mm of the designated counting location, it is a mechanical system, and
195: occasionally larger deviations occur. For each cycle we recorded not only the total number of
196: positrons detected but also the total number of $^{21}$Na ions that emerged from the MARS
197: spectrometer, as detected by the scintillator located immediately in front of the aluminum
198: degraders. The ratio of the former to the latter is a very sensitive measure of how well the
199: source is positioned with respect to the $\beta$ detector. In analyzing the data, we rejected
200: the results from any cycle with an anomalous (low) ratio. Under these conditions, we obtained
201: the result $N_{\gamma \beta}/N_{\beta} = 2.378(13)\times 10^{-4}$.
202:
203: As stated in section \ref{exp}, the absolute efficiency, $\epsilon_\gamma$, of our detector at
204: 15 cm is known to $\pm 0.2\%$. However, this applies to a highly controlled situation in which
205: the source-to-detector distance can be measured by micrometer to a small fraction of a millimeter.
206: With the fast tape-transport delivery system, we cannot be assured of reproducibility at the same
207: level of precision. Taking $\pm 0.5$ mm to be our actual uncertainty in position under experimental
208: conditions, we add an uncertainty of $\pm 0.6\%$ to the detector efficiency in quadrature with the
209: basic $\pm 0.2\%$ uncertainty. For the 351-keV $\gamma$ ray, this leads to $\epsilon_\gamma =
210: 5.12(3)\times 10^{-3}$, the value we insert in Eq. \ref{R}.
211:
212: Although the ratio $N_{\gamma \beta}/N_{\beta}$ and $\epsilon_\gamma$ are the predominant
213: experimental quantities required to evaluate the branching ratio, it is the correction factor $k$
214: that holds the key to our achieving high precision. In fact, $k$ is really a product of four
215: separate corrections, $k_1 ... k_4$. We will deal with each individually.
216:
217: {\it Random coincidences $(k_1)$. ---} Since the time between each coincident $\beta$ and $\gamma$ ray
218: was recorded event by event, we could project out the time spectrum corresponding to the 351-keV $\gamma$
219: ray. In that spectrum, the prompt coincidence peak stood prominently above the flat random distribution,
220: allowing us clearly to distinguish the relative contributions of real and random coincidences. The correction
221: factor required to account for the random contribution to the $\beta$-coincident 351-keV $\gamma$-ray
222: peak was thus determined to be $k_1$ = 0.9884(10). Naturally, this correction accounts not only for random
223: coincidences among $^{21}$Na $\beta$ and $\gamma$ rays but also for random coincidences between $^{21}$Na
224: betas and any $\gamma$ rays originating from room background.
225:
226: {\it Real-coincidence summing $(k_2)$.---} Since each 351-keV $\gamma$ ray from the decay of the first excited
227: state in $^{21}$Ne is accompanied by a positron from the $^{21}$Na $\beta^+$-decay branch that populated
228: the state, there is a significant probability that a 351-keV $\gamma$ ray and 511-keV annihilation
229: radiation will reach our HPGe detector simultaneously and be recorded as a single $\gamma$ ray with
230: the combined energy of both. Any summing of this kind will rob events from the 351-keV photopeak.
231: Our first step in accounting for the resultant loss was to obtain the area of the observed 862-keV
232: (511+351) sum peak. Since losses from the 351-keV photopeak result not just from its summing with the
233: 511-keV photopeak but also with the latter's Compton scattered radiation, as a second step we multiplied the
234: sum-peak area by the known ``total-to-peak" ratio for our detector at 511 keV (see Fig. 11 in
235: reference \cite{He03}). Finally, this result for losses was increased by 4\% to account for
236: annihilation in flight, which leads to 351-keV peak summing with annihilation radiation of different
237: energies, and by another 2.5\% to account for summing with positrons backscattered from the plastic
238: scintillator. The total loss due to real-coincidence summing was thus determined to be 1.78\%: {\it i.e.}
239: $k_2$ = 1.0178(17).
240:
241: {\it Dead time $(k_3)$.---} Equation \ref{R} depends upon $N_{\gamma \beta}$ and $N_{\beta}$ being recorded
242: for identical times. In our experiment they were, of course, gated on and off together, but during the
243: counting period the circuit dead time for $N_{\gamma \beta}$, which was limited by the relatively slow
244: electronics used for $\gamma$-ray counting, was much greater than that for $N_{\beta}$, which was simply
245: scaled. We determined the dead time associated with $N_{\gamma \beta}$ from the total rate in the
246: HPGe detector during the counting period and from the known processing time (32 $\mu$s) for each coincident
247: event. The scaler dead time per event was only 100 ns but the total rate in the scaler was much higher
248: than the HPGe rate; nevertheless the dead time associated with $N_{\beta}$ turned out to be smaller by a
249: factor of three than that associated with coincidence events. The overall correction factor is
250: $k_3$ = 1.0018(1).
251:
252: \begin{table} [b]
253: \begin{center}
254: \caption{Error budget for the measured branching ratio $R_1$
255: \label{err}}
256: \begin{ruledtabular}
257: \begin{tabular}{lc}
258: & \\ [-3mm]
259: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Origin of uncertainty}
260: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\%$ uncertainty} \\
261: & \\ [-3mm]
262: \hline
263: & \\ [-3mm]
264: Experimental ratio, $N_{\gamma \beta}/N_{\beta}$ & 0.52 \\
265: HPGe detector efficiency & 0.20 \\
266: Source-detector distance & 0.60 \\
267: Random coincidences & 0.11 \\
268: Real-coincidence summing & 0.17 \\
269: Dead time & 0.01 \\
270: $\beta$-detector efficiency {\it vs} energy & 0.13 \\
271: & \\
272: Total uncertainty on $R_1$ & 0.85 \\
273: \end{tabular}
274: \end{ruledtabular}
275: \vspace{-0.5cm}
276: \end{center}
277: \end{table}
278:
279:
280: {\it Beta-detector response function $(k_4)$.---} The correction factor associated with the $\beta$-detector
281: response function is given by
282: \be
283: k_4 = \frac{\epsilon_{\beta_{total}}}{\epsilon_{\beta_1}}
284: \simeq \frac{0.95\epsilon_{\beta_0}+0.05\epsilon_{\beta_1}}{\epsilon_{\beta_1}} ,
285: \label{k}
286: \ee
287: \noindent where $\epsilon_{\beta_0}$ and $\epsilon_{\beta_1}$ are the detector efficiencies for the
288: $\beta$ transitions to the ground and first excited states respectively. If the detector response
289: function were completely independent of energy, then this correction factor would be unity. In fact,
290: though, the efficiency does change slightly with energy. We have studied this effect using
291: measurements with sources -- $^{90}$Sr, $^{133}$Ba, $^{137}$Cs and $^{207}$Bi -- aided by Monte
292: Carlo calculations \cite{Ia06}. Including the effects of our low-energy electronic threshold, we
293: determine that $\epsilon_{\beta_1}/\epsilon_{\beta_0}$ = 0.987, which leads to the correction factor
294: $k_4$ = 1.0129(13).
295:
296: Multiplying $k_1$ through $k_4$ we determine the correction factor in Eq. \ref{R} to be $k$ = 1.0208(24).
297: When combined in Eq. \ref{R} with the other factors already discussed, this yields the final result for
298: the branching ratio to the first excited state in $^{21}$Na:
299: \be
300: R_1 = 0.0474(4).
301: \label{Result}
302: \ee
303: \noindent The complete error budget corresponding to our quoted $\pm0.85\%$ uncertainty is given in Table \ref{err}.
304:
305:
306:
307:
308: \section{Analysis}
309: \label{ana}
310:
311: Our measured branching-ratio value is compared with previous measurements in Table \ref{pre}. All
312: previous experiments determined the branching ratio from a comparison of the area of the 351-keV
313: peak to that of the annihilation radiation. This method has the advantage that only relative
314: detector efficiencies are required, but it has three serious disadvantages: i) contaminant activities
315: may well make an unknown contribution to the annihilation radiation; ii) most positrons do not annihilate
316: at the source position, where the $\gamma$ rays originate, so the relative detection efficiencies
317: cannot be simply determined from calibration sources; and iii) the significant effect ($\sim$5\%)
318: of positron annihilation in flight is a first-order correction that must be calculated and corrected
319: for. All previous measurements except possibly reference \cite{Al74} were susceptible to potential
320: contaminants; only the last three references \cite{Al74,Az77,Wi80} mention accounting for a spatially
321: distributed source of 511-keV radiation; and only the last two \cite{Az77,Wi80} appear to have taken
322: account of annihilation in flight.
323:
324: \begin{table} [b]
325: \begin{center}
326: \caption{Measurements of the branching ratio $R_1$
327: \label{pre}}
328: \begin{ruledtabular}
329: \begin{tabular}{lll}
330: & & \\ [-3mm]
331: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Date}
332: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Reference}
333: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Result(\%)} \\
334: & & \\ [-3mm]
335: \hline
336: & & \\ [-3mm]
337: 1960 & Talbert \& Stewart \cite{Ta60} & 2.2(3) \\
338: 1963 & Arnell \& Wernbom \cite{Ar63} & 2.3(2) \\
339: 1974 & Alburger \cite{Al74} & 5.1(2) \\
340: 1977 & Azuelos, Kitching \& Ramavataram \cite{Az77} & 4.2(2) \\
341: 1980 & Wilson, Kavanagh \& Mann \cite{Wi80} & 4.97(16) \\
342: & & \\
343: 2006 & This measurement & 4.74(4) \\
344: \end{tabular}
345: \end{ruledtabular}
346: \vspace{-0.5cm}
347: \end{center}
348: \end{table}
349:
350: Given the age of the previous measurements and the potential hazards associated with their experimental
351: method -- not to mention their mutual inconsistency -- we choose not to average our result with them
352: but instead to use our present result alone in extracting the properties of the $^{21}$Na $\beta$-decay
353: scheme.
354:
355: Since there are only two significant $\beta$-decay branches from $^{21}$Na -- to the ground and first excited
356: states of the daughter -- with $R_1$ determined, the branching ratio to the ground state, $R_0$, follows
357: directly from it:
358: \be
359: R_0 = 0.9526(4) ,
360: \label{R0}
361: \ee
362: \noindent where this result is actually determined to a precision of 0.04\%. We now proceed from this value
363: for $R_0$ to obtain the $ft$ value for this transition, the relative contributions of axial-vector and vector
364: components, and ultimately the standard-model expectation for its $\beta$-$\nu$ angular correlation coefficient.
365:
366: In deriving the $ft$ value for the ground-state mirror transition, we take the half-life of $^{21}$Na
367: to be $t_{1/2}$ = 22.49(4) s and its total decay energy to be $Q_{EC}$ = 3547.6(7) keV. The former is the
368: average of two mutually consistent results \cite{Al74,Az77} and the latter is the value quoted in the 2003
369: Atomic Mass Evaluation \cite{Au03} where it was obtained from a single $^{20}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{21}$Na
370: measurement made in 1969 \cite{Bl69} and then revised by Audi {\it et al.} \cite{Au03} to take account of
371: more up-to-date calibration energies. With the calculated electron-capture probability for the ground-state
372: transition being 0.00095, the average half life, when combined with our branching ratio value from Eq. \ref{R0},
373: yields a partial half-life for the transition of 23.63(4) s.
374:
375: Next we compute the value of $f$ from the $Q_{EC}$ value following methods similar to those we used in the
376: analysis of superallowed $\beta$ decay; these are described in the Appendix to reference \cite{Ha05}. To make an
377: ``exact" calculation that includes, for example, the effects of weak magnetism and other induced corrections we
378: need a shell-model calculation of the appropriate nuclear matrix elements. For this we used an $(s,d)$-shell
379: model space and the universal $(s,d)$-shell effective interaction of Wildenthal \cite{Wi84}. This interaction
380: has been demonstrated \cite{Br85} to reproduce energy spectra and Gamow-Teller matrix elements in this mass
381: region providing that the axial-vector coupling constant is quenched. In our calculation, we fine-tuned the
382: amount of quenching to reproduce our experimental data\footnote{We adjusted the quenching so that it reproduced
383: our measured value of $\lambda$ (see Eq. \ref{lambdaexp}). This corresponded to $\GA \simeq \GV$ and is
384: essentially the same result that Brown and Wildenthal \cite{Br85} established for the shell as a whole.}.
385:
386: For a mirror transition like this one, which includes both vector and axial-vector components, the $f$ value
387: calculated for the vector part of the weak interaction, $\fV$, is slightly different from the value calculated
388: for the axial-vector part, $\fA$. In the allowed approximation it is always assumed that $\fV$ = $\fA$ = $f$ but,
389: where high precision is sought, a more exact calculation is required. The results we obtain, $\fV$ = 170.974
390: and $\fA$ = 174.157, are nearly 2\% different from one another, principally as a result of the influence
391: of weak magnetism on the shape correction factor of the axial-vector component. In quoting the $ft$ value
392: for the mirror ground-state transition, we make the (arbitrary) choice to use $\fV$, with the result that
393: \be
394: \fV t = 4040(9) s .
395: \label{ft}
396: \ee
397:
398: Like any other $ft$ value, this result can be related to vector and axial-vector coupling constants, and
399: to the matrix elements pertaining to the specific transition. To do so with the precision required for
400: a standard-model test requires that radiative and charge-dependent corrections be incorporated. The
401: expression we use is the following:
402: \bea
403: \Bigm{[}\fV\GV^2\langle1\rangle^2(1 + \delta_{NS} - \delta_C )(1 + \DRV)~~~~~~~~~~~ & &
404: \nonumber \\
405: + \fA\GA^2\langle\sigma\rangle^2(1 - \delta_A)(1
406: + \DRA)\Bigm{]}(1 + \delta_R^{\prime})t & = & K ~~~~~~~~
407: \label{fVfA}
408: \eea
409: \noindent where $K/(\hbar c )^6 = ( 8120.271 \pm 0.012 ) \times 10^{-10}$ GeV$^{-4}$s; $\GV$ and
410: $\GA$ are the vector and axial-vector coupling constants for nuclear weak decay; and $\langle1\rangle$ and
411: $\langle\sigma\rangle$ are the Fermi (vector) and Gamow-Teller (axial-vector) matrix elements, respectively,
412: for the ground-state transition. For this particular transition between T=$\frac{1}{2}$ states, $\langle1\rangle$=1.
413: The transition-dependent radiative correction terms, $\delta_R^{\prime}$ and $\delta_{NS}$, and the
414: isospin-symmetry-breaking correction, $\delta_C$, all have their conventional definitions \cite{Ha05} but,
415: in the present context of a mixed vector and axial-vector transition, we note that $\delta_R^{\prime}$ is
416: the same for both components while $\delta_C$ and $\delta_{NS}$ only pertain to the vector component. The
417: latter two terms have their equivalents that must be applied to the axial-vector component but we subsume
418: them into a term we call $\delta_A$: as it turns out, we will not have to calculate a value for $\delta_A$.
419: Finally, the transition-independent radiative correction also takes on different values for the vector and
420: axial-vector components, $\DRV$ and $\DRA$; but neither will have to be calculated.
421:
422: Rearranging Eq. \ref{fVfA}, we obtain the result:
423: \bea
424: \fV t(1 + \delta_R^{\prime})(1 + \delta_{NS} - \delta_C ) =
425: \frac{K}{\GV^2(1 + \DRV)\bigm{[}1+\lambda^2\frac{\fA}{\fV}\bigm{]}}
426: \label{ftcor}
427: \eea
428: \noindent where
429: \vspace{-3mm}
430: \bea
431: \lambda = \frac{\GA\langle\sigma\rangle(1 - \delta_A)^{1/2}(1 + \DRA)^{1/2}}{\GV(1 + \delta_{NS} - \delta_C )^{1/2}(1 + \DRV)^{1/2}}.
432: \nonumber
433: \label{lambda}
434: \eea
435: \noindent Here $\lambda$ is the ratio of axial-vector to vector components in the transition. A further
436: simplification in this equation can be achieved by our implementing the results from superallowed
437: $0^+\rightarrow0^+$ beta decays, which provide an experimental determination of the product $\GV^2(1 + \DRV)$.
438: The average corrected ${\F t}$ value from these decays \cite{Ha05} is related to the vector coupling
439: constant via the relationship:
440: \be
441: \overline{\F t} = \frac{K}{2\GV^2(1 + \DRV)}.
442: \label{Ft}
443: \ee
444:
445: Since it is the term $\lambda$ that we need to extract from experiment in order to calculate the
446: $\beta$-$\nu$ angular correlation coefficient, we now re-express Eq. \ref{ftcor} in the following form:
447: \be
448: \lambda^2 = \frac{\fV}{\fA}\Bigm{[}\frac{2\overline{\F t}}{\fV t(1 + \delta_R^{\prime})(1 +
449: \delta_{NS} - \delta_C )}-1 \Bigm{]}.
450: \label{lambda1}
451: \ee
452: We have calculated the three remaining correction terms using the same methods as were described in
453: reference \cite{To02}, the results being $\delta_R^{\prime}$ = 1.492(15)\%, $\delta_C$ = 0.268(16)\% and
454: $\delta_{NS}$ = -0.065(20)\%. We then adopt the value, $\overline{\F t}$ = 3072.7(8), which is the
455: average result extracted from superallowed $0^+\rightarrow0^+$ beta decays when the correction terms
456: are calculated by the same methods as those used here (see Eq. 11 in reference \cite{Ha05}). Thus we
457: finally obtain
458: \be
459: \lambda = 0.7033(24)
460: \label{lambdaexp}
461: \ee
462: \noindent for the ground-state mirror transition.
463:
464: Based on this result for $\lambda$ we have computed the beta-neutrino correlation coefficient exactly,
465: following the formalism of Behrens-B\"{u}hring \cite{Be82}. These authors write the electron-neutrino
466: correlation $\omega(\theta,W)$ as:
467: \be
468: \omega(\theta,W) = \sum_k D(k,W) P_k(\cos \theta) ,
469: \label{omega}
470: \ee
471: \noindent where $W$ is the electron energy (in rest-mass units), $\theta$ is the angle between the
472: emitted electron and neutrino directions, and $P_k$ are Legendre polynomials. The sum is over
473: $k=0,1,2$. The coefficients $D(k,W)$ are expressed fully by Behrens and B\"{u}hring \cite{Be82},
474: from which it can be seen that $D(0,W)$ is exactly equal to 1.0, and $D(2,W)$ is small. The term $D(1,W)$
475: relates to the beta-neutrino angular correlation coefficient, $a_{\beta\nu}$, {\it via} the
476: expression
477: \be
478: D(1,W) = a_{\beta\nu} p/W ,
479: \label{D}
480: \ee
481: \noindent where $p = \sqrt{W^2-1}$. For the exact expression for $a_{\beta\nu}$ we compute
482: \be
483: a_{\beta\nu} = \langle D(1,W) W/p \rangle ,
484: \label{a}
485: \ee
486: \noindent where $\langle .. \rangle$ signifies an average over the beta spectrum. It should be noted
487: that this exact evaluation of $a_{\beta\nu}$ yields a result that is about 1\% different from the
488: approximate expression that is often used: {\it viz.}
489: \be
490: (a_{\beta\nu})_{approx} = (1 - \lambda^2/3)/(1 + \lambda^2) .
491: \label{approx}
492: \ee
493: \noindent The exact expression in Eq. \ref{a} differs from this approximate one by the inclusion of energy
494: dependence as well as weak magnetism and other small effects. Our final computed result for the exact
495: $\beta$-$\nu$ angular correlation coefficient based on our new experimental result for $\lambda$ is
496: \be
497: a_{\beta\nu} = 0.553(2) .
498: \label{exact}
499: \ee
500: \noindent This can now stand as the ``standard-model prediction" for $a_{\beta\nu}$, against which the
501: measured angular-correlation coefficient can be compared. Our new value is 0.9\% lower than the one
502: originally used by Scielzo {\it et al.} \cite{Sc04}.
503:
504:
505: \section{Conclusions}
506: \label{conc}
507:
508: As noted in the Introduction, the value of the branching ratio affects not only the standard-model
509: prediction for $a_{\beta\nu}$ (see Eq. \ref{exact}) but also the analysis by Scielzo {\it et al.}
510: \cite{Sc04} of their measurement of that coefficient. With the excited-state branching ratio taken to be
511: 5.02(13)\%, they applied a correction of +6.81(18)\% to their result. Since this correction scales
512: with the branching ratio \cite{Sc05}, our new value for the latter leads to a new correction factor
513: of +6.44(5)\%. This downward shift of 0.4\% is actually rather small compared to the overall
514: uncertainties quoted by Scielzo {\it et al.}, and their value for $a_{\beta\nu}$ as obtained from
515: $^{21}$Ne$^{1+}$ only changes from 0.524(9) to 0.523(9).
516:
517: As a result of our new measurement we have improved -- and lowered slightly -- the standard-model prediction
518: of the $\beta$-$\nu$ angular correlation coefficient for the mirror transition from $^{21}$Na. This new
519: prediction still leaves the Scielzo {\it et al.} experimental result \cite{Sc04} in disagreement with the
520: prediction. However, the authors themselves expressed concern about the possible presence of $^{21}$Na$_2$
521: dimers in their trapped samples; this would have caused a dependence of their result on the trapped-atom
522: population and could easily reconcile their result with the standard model. With a precise branching ratio now
523: determined, an investigation of the actual make-up of the trapped-atom samples in the Scielzo {\it et al.}
524: experiment is essential if the $^{21}$Na result is to become a real test of the standard model.
525:
526: Finally, we draw attention to the fact that the ``standard-model prediction" for $a_{\beta\nu}$ depends
527: on the half-life of $^{21}$Na and its $\beta$-decay $Q$ value through the $\fV t$ value for the ground-state
528: transition (see Eq. \ref{ft} and the preceeding paragraphs). The half-life has only been measured twice
529: \cite{Al74,Az77} -- in experiments that did not obtain branching ratios in agreement with our current result --
530: and the $Q$ value comes from a single 35-year-old (p,$\gamma$) measurement \cite{Bl69} originally based on
531: long-outdated calibration energies. Clearly, both these results could be improved significantly by modern
532: measurements.
533:
534: The authors would like to thank N.D. Scielzo for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S.
535: Department of Energy under Grant No.~DE-FG03-93ER40773 and by the Robert A. Welch Foundation under Grant
536: No.~A-1397.
537:
538:
539: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
540:
541: \bibitem{Sc04}
542: N.D. Scielzo, S.J. Freedman, B.K. Fujikawa and P.A. Vetter, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 102501 (2004).
543:
544: \bibitem{Ta60}
545: W.L. Talbert, Jr. and M.G. Stewart, Phys. Rev. {\bf 119}, 272 (1960).
546:
547: \bibitem{Ar63}
548: S.E. Arnell and E. Wernbom, Arkiv f\"ur Fysik {\bf 25}, 389 (1963).
549:
550: \bibitem{Al74}
551: D.E. Alburger, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 9}, 991 (1974).
552:
553: \bibitem{Az77}
554: G. Azuelos, J.E. Kitching and K. Ramavataram, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 15}, 1847 (1977).
555:
556: \bibitem{Wi80}
557: H.S. Wilson, R.W. Kavanagh and F.M. Mann, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 22}, 1696 (1980).
558:
559: \bibitem{Tr91}
560: R.E. Tribble, C.A. Gagliardi and W. Liu, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B {\bf 56/57}, 956 (1991).
561:
562: \bibitem{Sc02}
563: E. Sch\"onfeld, H. Janssen, R. Klein, J.C. Hardy, V.E. Iacob, M. Sanchez-Vega, H.C. Griffin, M.A. Luddington,
564: Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isot. {\bf 56}, 215 (2002).
565:
566: \bibitem{Ha02}
567: J.C. Hardy, V.E. Iacob, M. Sanchez-Vega, R.T. Effinger, P. Lipnik, V.E. Mayes, D.K. Willis, R.G. Helmer,
568: Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isot. {\bf 56}, 65 (2002).
569:
570: \bibitem{He03}
571: R.G. Helmer, J.C. Hardy, V.E. Iacob, M. Sanchez-Vega, R.G. Neilson, J. Nelson, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys.
572: Res., Sect. A {\bf 511}, 360 (2003).
573:
574: \bibitem{He04}
575: R.G. Helmer, N. Nica, J.C. Hardy, V.E. Iacob, Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isot. {\bf 60}, 173 (2004).
576:
577: \bibitem{Ia06}
578: V.E. Iacob {\it et al.}, to be published.
579:
580: \bibitem{Au03}
581: G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra and C. Thibault, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 729}, 337 (2003).
582:
583: \bibitem{Bl69}
584: R. Bloch, T. Knellwolf and R.E. Pixley, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 123}, 129 (1969).
585:
586: \bibitem{Ha05}
587: J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 71}, 055501 (2005).
588:
589: \bibitem{Wi84}
590: B.H. Wildenthal, Prog. in Part. and Nucl. Phys. {\bf 11}, 5 (1984).
591:
592: \bibitem{Br85}
593: B.A. Brown and B.H. Wildenthal, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 33}, 347 (1985).
594:
595: \bibitem{To02}
596: I.S. Towner and J.C. Hardy, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 66}, 035501 (2002).
597:
598: \bibitem{Be82}
599: H. Behrens and W. B\"{u}hring, {\it Electron Radial Wave Functions and
600: Nuclear Beta-decay}
601: (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982).
602:
603: \bibitem{Sc05}
604: N. Scielzo, private communication (2005).
605:
606:
607:
608: \end{thebibliography}
609:
610:
611: \end{document}
612: