1: %\newpage
2:
3: \section{Magic numbers for superheavy nuclei}
4: \label{sec:she}
5:
6: One of the fundamental and persistent questions in nuclear science
7: is the exploration for the limits of charge and mass that a
8: nucleus can attain and the creation of nuclei with masses and
9: charges much larger than those we are familiar with, i.e.,
10: superheavy nuclei. The properties of superheavy nuclei are
11: important to understand not only the nuclear structure, but also
12: the structure of the stars and the evolution of the universe.
13: However, after lots of efforts for both higher luminosities and
14: better detection efficiencies as well as the impressive progresses
15: on the synthesis of superheavy nuclei, the borders of the
16: upper-right corner in the nuclear chart still remain unknown.
17:
18: Due to fission resulting from the balance of the attractive
19: nuclear surface tension and the repulsive Coulomb force, the
20: superheavy nuclei cannot exist in the classical charged
21: liquid-drop model. The stability of superheavy nuclei is mainly
22: determined by shell effects. At the magic proton or neutron
23: numbers 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, and 82, as well as N=126 for neutrons,
24: nuclei have higher stability and abundance compared with their
25: neighbors. Particularly, the highest stability is observed in the
26: case of the doubly magic nuclei. Amongst other special properties,
27: the doubly magic nuclei are spherical. A semblance of the same
28: would work also for superheavy nuclei, if there were magic numbers
29: in this region. Consequently, these nuclei will be guarded against
30: a faster decay by fission and have more opportunities to be bound.
31: Therefore, it is important to find out the regions in the ($Z$,
32: $N$) plane where the shell effects are strong and the long
33: lifetimes of the superheavy nuclei can be expected.
34:
35: The pioneering works on the superheavy elements are a series of
36: macro-microscopic nuclear shell model calculations performed over
37: more than 30 years to determine nuclear masses and energy
38: surfaces, which suggested the existence of a group of relatively
39: stable nuclei separated in neutron and proton numbers from the
40: known heavy elements by a higher instability when approaching the
41: closed spherical shells Z=114 and N=184~\cite{Myers66, Meldner67,
42: Nilsson69, Mosel69}. This group of nuclei become to be known as
43: the island of superheavy elements and the verification of their
44: existence is one of the most challenging topics in world-wide
45: heavy ion research facility.
46:
47: Experimentally, however, although the superheavy elements up to
48: $Z$=116 are synthesized or claimed to be
49: synthesized~\cite{Hofmann95a, Hofmann95b, Hofmann96, Ghiorso95,
50: Lazarev94, Lazarev95, Lazarev96, Hofmann98, Oganessian99,
51: Hofmann00, Oganessian00, Oganessian01, Morimoto04, Oganessian04}
52: by different heavy ion reaction types including the cold, warm and
53: hot fusion reactions, they are not examples of the originally
54: thought island of superheavy elements yet.
55:
56: There is no consensus among different theories with regard to the
57: center of the island of superheavy nuclei. Based upon
58: phenomenological models such as finite-range droplet model (FRDM),
59: the shell closures were predicted at $Z$=114 and
60: $N$=184~\cite{Moller94}. Additionally, the FRDM also predicts
61: larger shell gaps at $Z$=104, 106, 108, 110 and at $N$=162,
62: 164~\cite{Moller94}. In Nilsson-Strutinsky scheme, a similar
63: pattern of deformed nuclei have been predicted about $Z$=108 and
64: $N$=162 as in FRDM~\cite{Patyk91, Sobiczewski94}. However, the
65: main obstacle is the question whether the macroscopic approaches
66: which apply to the region of $\beta$-stability line can be
67: extrapolated to the superheavy nuclei. Recently, microscopic
68: calculations~\cite{Wu96, Lalazissis96, Cwiok96, Rutz97, Bender98,
69: Bender99, Bender00, Meng00, Reinhard02, Long02, Geng03a,
70: Burvenich04} are also attempted in describing the superheavy
71: nuclei. In the framework of RHB theory, calculations with a
72: finite-range pairing force of Gogny interaction D1 and effective
73: interaction NLSH show that $Z$=114 and $N$=160, $N$=166, $N$=184
74: exhibit stability compared to their neighbors and indications for
75: a doubly magic character at $Z$=106 and $N$=160 are also
76: observed~\cite{Lalazissis96}. The Skyrme Hartree-Fock (SHF) method
77: with interactions SkP and SLy7 predicts magic numbers at $Z$=126
78: and $N$=184, and also predicts the increased stability due to the
79: deformed shell effects at $N$ = 162~\cite{Cwiok96}. Considering
80: non-relativistic SHF effective interactions SkM*, SkP, SLy6, SkI1,
81: SkI3, SkI4 and relativistic mean field (RMF) effective
82: interactions PL-40, NLSH, NL-Z, TM1, the doubly magic spherical
83: nuclei $_{184}$114, $_{172}$120 and $_{184}$126 based on
84: two-nucleon gaps $\delta_{2p}$ and $\delta_{2n}$ are
85: given~\cite{Rutz97}. The uncertainty on the magic numbers lies in
86: the uncertain strength of the spin-orbit coupling in
87: non-relativistic approaches or the effective interactions in
88: relativistic models. The prediction of magic numbers in superheavy
89: nuclei remains a challenge for the nuclear models, which have to
90: be rigorously tested by a wide variety of nuclear properties
91: throughout the periodic table.
92:
93: As the RCHB formalism allows for the proper description of the
94: coupling between the bound states and the continuum by the pairing
95: force and has shown a remarkable success in the description of
96: nuclei with unusual $N/Z$ ratio ~\cite{Meng96, Meng98prl,
97: Meng98npa, Meng02plb, Meng02r}, it is suitable to apply the RCHB
98: theory for superheavy nuclei. In principle, only a calculation in
99: a large multidimensional deformation space can definitively decide
100: the appropriate ground-state shape. However, as the traditional
101: superheavy nuclei are expected to be spherical and are located on
102: the nuclear chart around a spherical doubly magic nucleus next to
103: $^{208}_{126}$Pb, the RCHB theory with the assumption of spherical
104: shape can be applied for the search. Therefore here we will mainly
105: focus on the magic numbers in spherical superheavy nuclei. Some
106: crucial observables in searching shell closures and magic numbers
107: are taken into account, including two-nucleon separation energies,
108: two-nucleon gaps, the shell correction energies, as well as the
109: pairing energies and the effective pairing gaps. At the end of
110: this section, a brief discussion on the stability of the doubly
111: spherical nuclei against deformation and the main progress on the
112: investigation of the deformed superheavy nuclei will be given, as
113: well as the $\alpha-$ decay half-lives of superheavy nuclei.
114:
115:
116: \subsection{Two nucleon separation energies}
117:
118: Traditionally, the magic nuclei are characterized by higher
119: stability than their neighboring ones and the magic numbers can be
120: revealed by the differences of the binding energy, i.e. the one-
121: or two-nucleon separation energies~\cite{Bohr69}. Therefore, the
122: nucleon separation energies are good starting points to
123: investigate the magic numbers in superheavy region. Due to the
124: absence of odd-even effects, the two-nucleon separation energy
125: $S_{2p}$ ($S_{2n}$) is better to quantify shell effects than the
126: single-nucleon separation energy $S_{p}$ ($S_{n}$). For an
127: isotonic (isotopic) chain, the $S_{2p}$ ($S_{2n}$) decrease with
128: the proton (neutron) number and its sudden jump indicates the
129: occurrence of a proton (neutron) magic number.
130:
131: \begin{figure}[htbp]
132: \centering
133: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FigE1a.eps}
134: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{FigE1b.eps}
135: \caption{ {The two-proton(left panel) and two-neutron (right panel)
136: separation energies, $S_{2p}$ and $S_{2n}$, as a function of mass
137: number $A$ obtained by RCHB calculation with PK1 effective
138: interaction. Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}.}} \label{FigE1}
139: \end{figure}
140:
141: In Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}, the two-proton and two-neutron
142: separation energies have been investigated in the superheavy
143: region with proton number $Z$ ranging from 100 to 140 and neutron
144: number $N$ from $(Z+30)$ to $(2Z+32)$ by the RCHB theory with NL1,
145: NL3, NLSH, TM1, TW99, DD-ME1, PK1 and PK1R. As an example, the
146: results with PK1 are shown as a function of mass number $A$ in
147: Fig.~\ref{FigE1}. For the proton in left panel, the large gaps
148: appear at $Z=106, 120, 132, 138$, while the usual $Z$=114 does not
149: appear. Furthermore, all the gaps are strongly neutron dependent.
150: On the neutron side in right panel, the relatively larger gaps can
151: be seen at $N$=138, 172, 184, 198, 228, 238, 252, 258, and 274,
152: and also the size and the shape of the gaps differ notably.
153:
154:
155: From similar investigations with other effective
156: interactions~\cite{ZhangW05}, it is found that the magic proton
157: numbers $Z$=120, 132, and 138 are common while $Z$=106 is observed
158: only for NL3, NLSH, TW99, PK1, and PK1R. Furthermore the gaps do
159: not exist for all isotopes. On the neutron side, $S_{2n}$ show
160: distinguishable gaps at $N$=138, 172, 184, 198, 228, 238, 252,
161: 258, and 274 with all the effective interactions. Apart from
162: these, there are also other gaps which appear only for some
163: effective interactions, e.g., $N$ = 164 for NLSH, TW99, DD-ME1,
164: PK1 and PK1R, and $N$ = 216 for NLSH, TW99, PK1, and PK1R. For the
165: magic numbers marked either by the common gaps or the
166: interaction-dependent gaps, the shell quenching phenomena, i.e.,
167: the gaps at $N$=184, 198 (NL1), 216 (NLSH, TW99, PK1, and PK1R),
168: 228 (NL1, NL3, NLSH, TM1, PK1, and PK1R), 238, 252, and 258 (NLSH,
169: TM1, PK1, and PK1R) appear only for certain $Z$, are observed.
170:
171:
172: \subsection{Two-nucleon shell gaps}
173:
174:
175: The changes of the two-nucleon separation energies can be
176: quantified by the second difference of the binding energies, i.e.,
177: the two-nucleon shell gaps:
178: \beqn
179: \delta_{2p}(N,Z) &=& S_{2p}(N,Z)-S_{2p}(N,Z+2)
180: =2E_B(N,Z)-E_B(N,Z+2)-E_B(N,Z-2) \\ \nonumber
181: \delta_{2n}(N,Z) &=& S_{2n}(N,Z)-S_{2n}(N+2,Z)
182: =2E_B(N,Z)-E_B(N+2,Z)-E_B(N-2,Z).
183: \eeqn
184: A pronounced peak of the two-nucleon shell gaps corresponds to a
185: drastic change of the two-nucleon separation energies and
186: indicates the shell closure~\cite{Nazarewicz95}. So far, the
187: two-nucleon shell gaps have been extensively used to be an
188: indicator for the magic number~\cite{Rutz97, Bender99} and to
189: analyze the shell quenching phenomenon~\cite{Novikov02}.
190:
191:
192: \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering
193: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{FigE2a.eps}
194: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{FigE2b.eps}
195: \caption{The
196: two-proton shell gaps, $\delta_{2p}$, as a function of proton
197: number obtained by RCHB calculation with effective interactions
198: NL1, NL3, NLSH, TM1, TW-99, DD-ME1, PK1, and PK1R, respectively.
199: Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}.}
200: \label{FigE2}
201: \end{figure}
202:
203:
204: \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering
205: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FigE3a.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}
206: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FigE3b.eps}
207: \caption{The
208: two-neutron shell gaps, $\delta_{2n}$, as a function of neutron
209: number obtained by RCHB calculation with effective interactions
210: NL1, NL3, NLSH, TM1, TW-99, DD-ME1, PK1, and PK1R, respectively.
211: Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}.}
212: \label{FigE3}
213: \end{figure}
214:
215: The two-proton gaps $\delta_{2p}$ from the RCHB calculations for
216: even-even nuclei with $Z$=102 - 138 as a function of $Z$ are shown
217: in Fig.~\ref{FigE2}. The two-proton gaps $\delta_{2p}$ with the
218: same $N$ are connected as a curve. A peak at certain $Z$ in the
219: curve suggests the existence of magic proton number. The sharpness
220: of the peaks represent the goodness of the magic numbers while the
221: quenching effects are associated with the bundle of the curves at
222: the certain $Z$. The size of the gaps of two-proton separation
223: energies $S_{2p}$ in Fig. \ref{FigE2} correspond to the magnitude
224: of the peaks of two-proton gaps $\delta_{2p}$ in Fig. \ref{FigE2}.
225: It is observed that common magic proton numbers $Z$=120, 132, and
226: 138 exist for all the effective interactions while $Z$=106 is
227: observed only for NL3, NLSH, TW99, DD-ME1, PK1, and PK1R.
228: Furthermore, the peak at $Z$=114 for NLSH and TW99 and the peak at
229: $Z$=126 for NL1 are also observed, though they are not so obvious
230: as that at $Z$=120.
231:
232: Similar figure for two-neutron gaps $\delta_{2n}$ are shown in
233: Fig. \ref{FigE3}. There are interaction-independent peaks of
234: two-neutron gaps $\delta_{2n}$ at $N$=138, 172, 184, 198, 228,
235: 238, 258, and 274 which are consistent with the conclusion from
236: the two-neutron separation energies $S_{2n}$ . Moreover, small
237: peaks are also observed for $N$=154 (NLSH and TW99), $N$=164 (NL3,
238: NLSH, TW99, DD-ME1, PK1, and PK1R), and $N$=216 (NLSH, TW99, PK1,
239: and PK1R).
240:
241: \subsection{Shell correction energies}
242:
243: The shell correction energy, representing the overall behavior of
244: the single-particle spectra, is another suitable observable to
245: identify the shell closure. This quantity, which is derived from
246: the single-particle spectra by the Strutinsky
247: procedure~\cite{Strutinsky68}, is defined as the difference
248: between the total single-particle energy $E$ and the smooth
249: single-particle energy $\bar {E}$:
250: \beq
251: E_{shell} = E - \bar {E}
252: = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N(Z)} {e_i }
253: - 2\int\limits_{ -\infty }^{\bar{\lambda}} {e\bar {g}(e)de},
254: \eeq
255: where $N(Z)$ is the particle number, $e_i$ is the single-particle
256: energy, $\bar{\lambda}$ is the smoothed Fermi level determined by
257: the particle number equation
258: $N(Z) = 2\int\limits_{ - \infty}^{\bar{\lambda}} {\bar {g}(e)de}$, and
259: $\bar{g}(e)$ is the smoothed level density \beq
260: \bar{g}(e)= \dfrac{1}{\gamma} \int\limits_{ -\infty }^\infty
261: {\left(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty
262: {\delta(e'- e_i)}\right) f(\frac{e' - e}{\gamma })de'}
263: = \dfrac{1}{\gamma} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty
264: {f(\dfrac{e_i - e}{\gamma }) },
265: \eeq
266: with the smoothing range $\gamma$ , the folding function $f(x) =
267: \dfrac{1}{\sqrt \pi}e^{ - x^2}P(x)$, and $P(x)$ the associated
268: Laguerre polynomial $L_s^{1 / 2}(x^2)$. The shell correction
269: energy provides an indicator about the deviation in the level
270: structure of nuclei away from uniformly distributed ones. A large
271: negative shell correction energy corresponds to shell closure at
272: certain nucleon number.
273:
274: \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering
275: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{FigE4a.eps}
276: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{FigE4b.eps}
277: \caption{The shell
278: correction energies for proton, $E_{shell}^{p}$, as a function of
279: proton number obtained by RCHB calculation with effective
280: interactions NL1, NL3, NLSH, TM1, TW-99, DD-ME1, PK1 and PK1R,
281: respectively. Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}.} \label{FigE4}
282: \end{figure}
283:
284:
285: \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering
286: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{FigE5a.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}
287: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{FigE5b.eps}
288: \caption{The shell
289: correction energies for neutron, $E_{shell}^{n}$, as a function of
290: neutron number obtained by RCHB calculation with effective
291: interactions NL1, NL3, NLSH, TM1, TW-99, DD-ME1, PK1 and PK1R,
292: respectively. Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}.} \label{FigE5}
293: \end{figure}
294:
295:
296: With the proton single-particle spectra in canonical basis from
297: the RCHB calculations, the shell correction energies
298: $E_{shell}^{p}$ for even-even nuclei with $Z$ ranging from 100 to
299: 140 are shown as a function of $Z$ in Fig. \ref{FigE4}. The nuclei
300: with the same $N$ are connected as a curve. A deep valley at
301: certain $Z$ on a curve hints the shell closure. The valleys at
302: $Z$=120, 132, and 138 are conspicuous for all the effective
303: interactions. Possible shell closure at $Z$=106 for NL1, NL3,
304: NLSH, TW99, DD-ME1, PK1, and PK1R, at $Z$=114 for NLSH, TW99, PK1,
305: and PK1R, and at $Z$=126 for NL1 are also observed. The shell
306: closure from the shell correction energies for proton
307: $E_{shell}^{p}$ are consistent with the peaks of the two-proton
308: gaps $\delta_{2p}$, though the magnitude of magicity slightly
309: differs. Similar to the two-proton gaps $\delta_{2p}$, the spread
310: of the valleys of the shell correction energies for proton
311: $E_{shell}^{p}$ indicates the quenching of the magic number. In
312: view of the shell correction energies for proton $E_{shell}^{p}$,
313: the quenching phenomena of magic proton numbers in RCHB
314: calculation are universal. These facts suggest that the magic
315: proton numbers depend also on neutron number $N$.
316:
317: The corresponding shell correction energies for neutron
318: $E_{shell}^{n}$ for even-even nuclei with $N$=130 - 312 are
319: demonstrated as a function of $N$ in Fig. \ref{FigE5}. As the
320: neutron numbers extend from $N$=130 to $N$=290, the valleys for
321: shell correction energies for neutron $E_{shell}^{n}$ in Fig.
322: \ref{FigE5} are not so obvious as those for shell correction
323: energies for proton $E_{shell}^{p}$ in Fig. \ref{FigE4}. However,
324: similar conclusions as the two-neutron separation energies
325: $S_{2n}$ and the two-neutron gaps $\delta_{2n}$ for magic neutron
326: numbers can also be drawn. Similar calculation has also been done
327: in Ref.~\cite{Bender01plb} with SHF and RMF.
328:
329: The first valley locates in $N$=184 for all the effective
330: interactions and involves $N$=172 (NL3, NLSH, TM1, TW99, DD-ME1,
331: PK1, and PK1R), even $N$=164 (NLSH and TW99). And the other valley
332: is the mixture of the valleys at $N$=228 (TW99 and DD-ME1),
333: $N$=252 (NLSH, TM1, PK1, and PK1R) and $N$=258. These fine
334: structures suggest the smearing of magic neutron numbers. Based on
335: the shell correction energies, the shell closures are smeared
336: compared with those from the two-nucleon separation energies
337: $S_{2p}$ and $S_{2n}$ and the two-nucleon gaps $\delta_{2p}$ and
338: $\delta_{2n}$. However, it is found in Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05} that
339: the magic numbers at $Z$=120, 132, and 138 are common but strongly
340: quenched, the shell closures near $N$=172 and $N$=184, and
341: $N$=228, $N$=252, and $N$=258 are blurred. The other magic numbers
342: from the shell correction energies, such as $Z$=106, 114, and 126,
343: appear only for some effective interactions.
344:
345:
346: In the usual Hartree or HF mean field level, as the nonphysical
347: particle continuum are involved, much efforts have been made to
348: avoid the divergence of single particle energy density around the
349: threshold~\cite{Nazarewicz94, Sandulescu97b, Vertse98, Kruppa00}.
350: Based on the Green's-function approach to the level density, a
351: method of calculating shell corrections has been adopted within
352: the SHF and RMF theories to a large-scale survey of spherical
353: shell energies throughout the whole landscape of conceivable
354: superheavy nuclei~\cite{Bender01plb}. From SHF with SkP, SLy6,
355: SkI3 and SkI4 and RMF with NL3 and NL-Z2, the total shell
356: correction energies $E_{shell}$ for spherical superheavy nuclei
357: around the expected island of stability around $Z$ = 120 and $N$ =
358: 180 are given in Fig.~\ref{FigE6}. Instead of narrow stripes of
359: large $E_{shell}$ localized around magic numbers for normal
360: nuclei, a wide area of shell stabilization is found to spreads
361: over all shell closures predicted. In other words, the predicted
362: magic shells for superheavy nuclei are much mellowed, which are
363: consistent with the results from RCHB theory. The disappearance of
364: a familiar pattern of magic numbers and the appearance of broad
365: valleys of shell stability are due to the rather large
366: single-particle level density and the appearance of many low $j$
367: shells around the Fermi level~\cite{Bender01plb}.
368:
369: \begin{figure}[htbp]
370: \centering
371: \includegraphics[scale=1.0,angle=-90]{FigE6.eps}
372: \hspace{0.5cm}
373: \caption{ {Total shell correction energies, calculated from SHF
374: with SkP, SLy6, SkI3 and SkI4 and RMF with NL3 and NL-Z2, for
375: spherical even-even superheavy nuclei around the expected island
376: of stability around $Z$ = 120 and $N$ = 180. The thick solid lines
377: denote two-particle drip lines. Black squares mark nuclei
378: calculated to be stable with respect to $\beta$ decay. White color
379: indicates nuclei with positive shell corrections, black color
380: denotes nuclei with $E_{shell}$ beyond -12 MeV. Taken from
381: Ref.~\cite{Bender01}.}}
382: \label{FigE6}
383: \end{figure}
384:
385:
386:
387: \subsection{ {Magic numbers and deformations}}
388:
389: \subsubsection{ {Magic numbers for spherical superheavy nuclei}}
390:
391: After the detailed analysis of the two-nucleon separation
392: energies, $S_{2p}$ and $S_{2n}$, the two-nucleon shell gaps,
393: $\delta_{2p}$ and $\delta_{2n}$, the shell correction energies,
394: $E_{shell}^{p}$ and $E_{shell}^{n}$, as well as the pairing
395: effects, the magic numbers for superheavy nuclei in the RCHB
396: theory are found to be~\cite{ZhangW05}: $Z=120,132,138$ for proton
397: and $N=172,184,198,228,238,258$ for neutron. As many theoretical
398: methods have been adopted to probe the superheavy magic numbers
399: and there is no consensus among them with regard to the center of
400: the island of superheavy nuclei. It is interesting to briefly
401: review the up-to-date studies of the superheavy magic numbers
402: including the present one:
403:
404: \begin{itemize}
405: \item {\bf $Z$=106:} As we have seen, this shell closure is strongly
406: supported by the effective forces NL3, NLSH, TW-99, PK1, and PK1R,
407: partially by NL1 and DD-ME1, but not at all by TM1. We also noted
408: that the shell closure at $Z$=106 depends sensitively on the
409: neutron number and is visible only around $N$ $\sim$ 154 and
410: $\sim$ 218, while the later can only be clearly seen in the
411: results calculated with TW-99 and NLSH. The RHB calculations with
412: the effective force NLSH and the Gogny interaction D1 for the
413: pairing correlation predicts a doubly magic character at $Z$=106
414: and $N$=160~\cite{Lalazissis96}. In addition, the shell closures
415: at $Z$=104, 106, 108, and 110 and $N$=162, and 164 which
416: correspond to prolate deformations are predicted by the
417: FRDM~\cite{Moller94} and the deformed shell closure occurs at
418: $Z$=108 in Nilsson-Strutinsky scheme~\cite{Patyk91,
419: Sobiczewski94}.
420:
421: \item {\bf $Z$=114:} The shell closures are predicted at $Z$=114 and
422: $N$=184 in the phenomenological shell
423: models~\cite{Nilsson69,Mosel69, Patyk91, Moller94}. However, as we
424: have noted, in the RCHB theory the magicity of $Z$=114 is not at
425: all obvious, in agreement with other RMF
426: investigations~\cite{Rutz97,Lalazissis96,Furnstahl96,Serot97,Sil04}.
427: By adopting a new effective interaction NL-RA1, the nucleus
428: $^{298}_{184}114$ is predicted to be the next spherical doubly
429: magic nucleus in a RMF plus BCS calculation~\cite{Rashdan01}.
430: Within the SHF approach, only SkI4 prefers the doubly magic
431: nucleus at $Z$=114 and $N$=184, which is not supported by other
432: Skryme forces such as SkM*, SkP, SkI1, SkI3, SLy6, and
433: SLy7~\cite{Rutz97,Bender99}.
434:
435: \item {\bf $Z$=120:} The shell closure at $Z$=120 is strongly
436: supported in the RCHB calculations. The doubly magic
437: characteristic of $^{292}_{172}120$ has been addressed within the
438: RMF theory~\cite{Rutz97, Bender99, Rashdan01, Kruppa00} as well as
439: the effective field theory~\cite{Sil04}. Most Skyrme HF
440: investigations also suggest that this nucleus is doubly magic
441: except for SkP~\cite{Rutz97, Bender99}. Due to the strong shell
442: quenching effect in the $Z$=120 isotopic chain, other doubly magic
443: candidates with $N$=184, 198, 228, 238, 252, 258, and 274 are
444: interaction-dependent and need to be investigated in more detail.
445:
446: \item {\bf $Z$=126:} Several Skyrme HF investigations with the effective
447: interactions such as SkP, SkM*, SLy6 and SLy7 predict doubly magic
448: system at $Z$=126 and $N$=184~\cite{Cwiok96, Rutz97, Bender99}.
449: However, this conclusion is not supported by the RMF calculations
450: although $N$=184 might be a neutron magic number.
451:
452: \item {\bf $Z$=132 and 138:} Little attention has been paid to
453: the possible proton shell closures at $Z>130$ due to their large
454: Coulomb repulsive potentials. However, the shell closures at
455: $Z$=132 with $N \sim$ 210-240, and at $Z$=138 with $N\sim$ 180-200
456: and $N \sim$ 258 appear in most relativistic and non relativistic
457: mean field models~\cite{Rutz97, ZhangW05}, .
458: \end{itemize}
459:
460: %=====Single particle levels
461:
462: Normally the magic numbers correspond to the large energy gaps
463: between the single particle levels and the doubly magic nuclei are
464: those with protons and neutrons filled up to the gap. It is
465: therefore interesting to study the single-particle level structure
466: in these doubly magic nuclei, or vice versa.
467:
468: \begin{figure}[htbp]
469: \centering
470: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{FigE7a.eps}
471: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{FigE7b.eps}
472: \hspace{0.5cm}
473: \caption{ {Spherical single particle spectra in $^{292}_{172}$120
474: for protons (left) and neutrons in various mean-field calculations
475: as indicated. Taken from Ref.~\cite{Bender99}.}}
476: \label{FigE7}
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: As examples, the spherical single particle spectra in
480: $^{292}$120 for protons (left) and neutrons in various mean-field
481: calculations are given in Fig.~\ref{FigE7}~\cite{Bender99}. The
482: occurrence of the shell closure at $Z=120$ depends on the
483: amplitude of the spin-orbit splitting of the 3p states above the
484: Fermi level and the 2f levels below the Fermi energy. It has also
485: been pointed out that the shell closures may be coupled to the
486: density profiles (and vice versa) based on the systematic analysis
487: of density distribution of superheavy nuclei. For $^{292}$120, a
488: significant central depression or central semibubble is obtained
489: in the spherical case~\cite{Bender99, Decharge99}. Recently, the
490: influence of the central depression in the density distribution of
491: spherical superheavy nuclei on the shell structure is studied in
492: some detail within the RMF theory~\cite{Afanasjev05}. It is found
493: that a large depression leads to the shell gaps at the proton $Z$
494: = 120 and neutron $N$ = 172 numbers, whereas a flatter density
495: distribution favors $N$ = 184 and leads to the appearance of a $Z$
496: = 126 shell gap and to the decrease of the size of the $Z$ = 120
497: shell gap. On the other side, the deformation effect has been
498: found to be significant in the calculation of the density
499: distribution in this nucleus, namely only a weak central
500: depression in the deformed case for $^{292}$120 compared to the
501: predicted semibubble at the spherical
502: shape~\cite{Pei05,Afanasjev05}.
503:
504:
505: \subsubsection{ {Stability of the doubly magic superheavy nuclei
506: against deformation}}
507:
508: The magic numbers discussed above are mainly based on the
509: assumption of spherical geometrical configuration. However, such
510: assumption is not always true for superheavy
511: nuclei~\cite{Moller94,Patyk91, Sobiczewski94,Ren02c}. It is
512: worthwhile to investigate the potential energy surfaces to see the
513: validity of spherical configuration.
514:
515: In Fig. \ref{FigE8}, the potential energy surfaces for
516: $^{292}$120, $^{304}$120, $^{318}$120, $^{348}$120, $^{358}$120,
517: and $^{378}$120 (solid lines) {obtained from constrained RMF
518: calculations with the pairing correlations treated by BCS
519: approximations} are displayed. Although these nuclei have the same
520: proton number, their potential energy surfaces are quite different
521: from each other as shown in Fig. \ref{FigE8}. For nuclei
522: $^{292}$120, $^{304}$120 and $^{378}$120, there is an obvious
523: local minimum with the spherical configuration $\beta_2 \sim 0$,
524: while another local minimum with large deformation $\beta_2 \sim
525: 0.6$ can be also clearly seen. For $^{318}$120, the spherical
526: local minimum is very shallow, and for $^{348}$120 and
527: $^{358}$120, the spherical minimum is hardly seen and a local
528: minimum with $\beta_2 \sim 0.25$ appears instead. There are also
529: local minimum around $\beta_2 \sim -0.4$ with oblate deformation.
530: In addition to the local minima discussed above, we would like to
531: make a few remarks on the absolute minima for these nuclei. For
532: $^{292}$120 and $^{378}$120, the two minima with different
533: deformations have almost the same energies, i.e. the so-called
534: ``shape coexistence" may exist. In particular, the spherical
535: minimum is indeed the absolute minimum for $^{292}$120 ($E_B=$
536: -2064.3 MeV with $\beta_2 \sim 0$ vs. $E_B=$ -2063.6 MeV with
537: $\beta_2 \sim 0.6$), while the ground state of $^{378}$120 is
538: quite delicate with $E_B=$ -2398.7 MeV for $\beta_2 \sim 0$ and
539: $E_B=$ -2398.7 MeV for $\beta_2 \sim 0.6$. For $^{304}$120, the
540: absolute minimum at $\beta_2\sim 0.6$ is much deeper ($\sim$ 5.5
541: MeV) than the spherical configuration. In addition for
542: $^{348}$120, the absolute minimum lies at $\beta_2 \sim 0.2$, and
543: it is a well-deformed nucleus according to the present
544: calculation. From the RCHB and the constrained RMF+BCS
545: calculations, it is shown that spherical doubly magic nuclei may
546: exist, e.g., $^{292}$120 and $^{378}$120~\cite{ZhangW05}.
547:
548: The role of shell effects in superheavy nuclei can be also
549: seen in Fig. \ref{FigE8}, in which the corresponding macroscopic
550: energy, defined as the difference between the binding energy and
551: the total shell correction energy, $E_B-E_\mathrm{shell}$, is
552: plotted with dashed lines. It can be seen that without the shell
553: effects, the superheavy nuclei hardly exist. As noted long time
554: ago, the shell effects play an essential role to stabilize the
555: superheavy nuclei against the fission.
556:
557: \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering
558: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FigE8a.eps}
559: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FigE8b.eps}
560: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FigE8c.eps}
561: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FigE8d.eps}
562: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FigE8e.eps}
563: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FigE8f.eps}
564: \caption{The total energy, $E_B$, and the equivalent macroscopic energy,
565: $E_B-E_\mathrm{shell}$, of $^{292,304,318,348,358,378}$120
566: calculated in the constrained RMF theory with effective
567: interaction NL3. Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}. } \label{FigE8}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570: %======Some discussions on potential energy surfaces
571:
572: Apart from axial symmetric case, the influence of other
573: deformation such as triaxiality and reflection asymmetry
574: deformations has been investigated as well, e.g., see
575: Ref.\cite{Bender03, Burvenich04}. Figure~\ref{FigE9} presents an
576: example of potential energy surface of the typical actinide
577: nucleus $^{240}$Pu, which has often served as a benchmark for
578: mean-field models, obtained with the Skyrme force SLy6. A typical
579: doubled-humped fission barrier is well shown. The inner barrier
580: explores triaxial degrees of freedom, which reduce the axial
581: barrier by about 3 MeV, while the outer barrier explores
582: reflection asymmetric shape~\cite{Burvenich04}. The similar
583: behavior is held for heavier nuclear system~\cite{Bender98}. It is
584: also noted that though the further deformation degrees of freedom
585: reduce the fission barriers obviously, they hardly change the
586: energies of mimina. Therefore, the constraint RMF model with axial
587: symmetry remains valid to confirm the spherical configuration of a
588: superheavy nucleus.
589:
590:
591: \begin{figure}[htbp]
592: \centering
593: \includegraphics[scale=1.0, angle=-90]{figE9.eps}
594: \caption{ {Double-humped fission barrier of the typical actinide
595: nucleus $^{240}$Pu. The dotted line denotes an axial and
596: reflection-symmetric calculation, the full line denotes a triaxial
597: (inner barrier) and axial and reflection-asymmetric calculation
598: (outer barrier). The various shapes along the axial paths are
599: indicated by the contours of the total density at $r_0=0.07$
600: fm$^{-3}$. Taken from Ref.\cite{Burvenich04}}}
601: \label{FigE9}
602: \end{figure}
603:
604:
605:
606:
607: \subsection{Alpha decay and the half-lives}
608: \label{subsec:shealpha}
609:
610: The preferred decay mode of shell stabilized superheavy nuclei is
611: $\alpha$ decay. A key quantity for $\alpha$ decay, the $Q_\alpha$
612: value is defined as
613: \begin{equation}
614: Q_\alpha(N, Z) = E(N, Z) - E(N - 2, Z - 2) - E(2, 2),
615: \end{equation}
616: which is the energy of the $\alpha$-particles emitted by
617: radioactive heavy and superheavy nuclei. It is interesting to
618: compare the $Q_\alpha$ data of the discovered superheavy nuclei
619: with predictions from mean-field models. Such works have been done
620: in various of mean field framework, e.g. Refs.~\cite{Meng00,
621: Reinhard02,Long02, Geng03a,Bender03,Cwiok05}. In the recent
622: experiments designed to synthesize the element 115 in the
623: $^{243}$Am+$^{48}$Ca reaction at Dubna in Russia, three similar
624: decay chains consisting of five consecutive $\alpha$-decays, and
625: another different decay chain of four consecutive $\alpha$-decays
626: are observed, and the decay properties of these synthesized nuclei
627: are claimed to be consistent with consecutive $\alpha$-decays
628: originating from the parent isotopes of the new element 115,
629: $^{288}115$ and $^{287}115$, respectively \cite{Oganessian04}. The
630: deformed RMF+BCS calculation with a density-independent
631: delta-function interaction in the pairing channel and the
632: effective interaction TMA is made to study these newly synthesized
633: superheavy nuclei $^{288}115$, $^{287}115$, and their
634: $\alpha$-decay daughter nuclei~\cite{Geng03a}. The calculated
635: $\alpha$-decay energies and half-lives agree well with the
636: experimental values and with those of the macroscopic-microscopic
637: FRDM+FY and YPE+WS models.
638:
639: For an area of enhanced stability, the $\alpha$-decay half-lives
640: are expected to be longer than its neighbors. The half-lives of
641: $\alpha$-decay can be obtained with $Q_\alpha$ value by
642: phenomenological Viola and Seaborg systematics \cite{Viola66}:
643: \beq
644: log_{10}T_{\alpha}
645: =(1.66175 Z - 8.5166) Q_{\alpha}^{-1/2}-(0.20228 Z + 33.9069)
646: \label{eq:vs}
647: \eeq
648: where $Z$ is the proton number of the parent nucleus,
649: $T_{\alpha}$ in second and the parameters taken from
650: Ref.~\cite{Sobiczewski89}. It should be noted that
651: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vs}) is based on the WKB approximation, and provides
652: only a rather crude estimation of $T_{\alpha}$ since it disregards
653: many structure effects such as deformation, and configuration
654: changes, etc.
655:
656: \begin{figure}[htbp]
657: \centering
658: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FigE10.eps}
659: \caption{The $\alpha$-decay half-lives $T_{\alpha}$
660: as a function of neutron number obtained by RCHB calculation with
661: PK1 effective interaction. Taken from Ref.~\cite{ZhangW05}.}
662: \label{FigE10}
663: \end{figure}
664:
665: In Fig. \ref{FigE10}, the half-lives $T_{\alpha}$ from the RCHB
666: calculation in logarithm scale are plotted as a function of
667: neutron number $N$ with the effective interaction PK1. The
668: half-lives corresponding to 1 ns, 1 $\mu$s, 1 ms, 1 s, 1 h, 1 y,
669: and 1 ky are marked by the dashed lines. Each curve in this figure
670: corresponds to an isotopic chain in the region with $Z$ ranging
671: from 102 to 140. In Fig. \ref{FigE10}, the half-lives
672: $log_{10}T_{\alpha}$ increase with $N$. The jumps of the curves
673: correspond to magic proton numbers $Z$=106, 120, 132, and 138,
674: which depend on the effective interactions. The peaks of each
675: curve correspond to magic neutron numbers, i.e., $N$=172, 184,
676: 228, 238 and 258. It can be seen that the magic numbers suggested
677: by two-neutron separation energies $S_{2n}$(two-neutron gaps
678: $\delta_{2n}$) or two-proton separation energies $S_{2p}$
679: (two-proton gaps $\delta_{2p}$) can also be found here. It should
680: be noted that the half-lives $T_\alpha$ shown here are obtained
681: from the spherical RCHB calcualtions. In fact, both the pairing
682: correlation and deformation are essential to reproduce the
683: experiment $Q_\alpha$ values~\cite{Meng00, Long02, Xu04}.
684: Calculations along this line are necessary.
685: