1: %\documentstyle[aps,epsfig,preprint]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[epsfig,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title{$\beta$-decay in neutron-deficient Hg, Pb, and Po isotopes}
6:
7: \author{O. Moreno,$^1$ P. Sarriguren,$^1$
8: R. \'Alvarez-Rodr\'{\i}guez,$^1$ and E. Moya de Guerra$^2$}
9: \address{$^1$Instituto de Estructura de la Materia,
10: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\'{\i }ficas, \\
11: Serrano 123, E-28006 Madrid, Spain}
12: \address{$^2$Departamento de F\'{\i}sica At\'omica, Molecular
13: y Nuclear, Facultad de Ciencias F\'{\i}sicas, \\
14: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain}
15:
16: %\date{\today}
17: \maketitle
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20:
21: The effect of nuclear deformation on the energy distributions of the
22: Gamow-Teller strength is studied in neutron-deficient Hg, Pb, and Po
23: even isotopes. The theoretical framework is based on a self-consistent
24: deformed Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean field with pairing correlations
25: between like nucleons in BCS approximation and residual spin-isospin
26: interactions treated in the proton-neutron quasiparticle random phase
27: approximation. After a systematic study of the Gamow-Teller strength
28: distributions in the low excitation energy region, relevant for
29: $\beta^+$-decay, we have identified the best candidates to look for
30: deformation signatures in their $\beta^+$-decay patterns. $\beta^+$
31: half-lives and total Gamow-Teller strengths $B(GT^\pm)$ are analyzed
32: as well.
33:
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36: \pacs{PACS: 21.60.Jz, 23.40.-s, 27.70.+q, 27.80.+w}
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39: The existence of spherical and deformed nuclear shapes coexisting in a
40: given nucleus at low excitation energies is nowadays a well established
41: feature characterizing many isotopes in the neutron-deficient Hg, Pb,
42: and Po region (see Ref. \cite{julin} and references therein). These
43: coexisting structures have been found experimentally by studying the
44: $\gamma$-rays in coincidence with the emitted $\alpha$-particles in the
45: $\alpha$-decay of the fusion products created in selected
46: fusion-evaporation reactions. As a matter of fact, the existence of at
47: least one low-lying excited $0^+$ state in all even Pb isotopes between
48: $A=184$ and $A=194$ has been experimentally observed at excitation
49: energies below 1 MeV \cite{julin,andreyev}. Similarly, Hg isotopes from
50: $A=180$ up to $A=190$ have been found to be oblate in their ground
51: states with prolate excited states in the 1 MeV range.
52:
53: Within a mean field description of the nuclear structure, the presence
54: of several $0^+$ states at low energies is understood as due to the
55: coexistence of different collective nuclear shapes. The energies of the
56: different shape configurations are calculated using a nuclear potential
57: with the energies of the single particle orbitals depending on the
58: deformation. Calculations of the potential energy surface have become
59: more and more refined with time. Phenomenological mean fields and
60: Strutinsky method \cite{bengtsson}, are already able to predict the
61: existence of several competing minima in the deformation energy surface
62: of neutron-deficient Hg and Pb isotopes. Self-consistent mean field
63: calculations \cite{smirnova,niksic02} and calculations including
64: correlations beyond mean field \cite{libert,egido,bender04} confirm
65: these results. In particular, for Pb isotopes, all the approaches
66: analyzed in Ref. \cite{egido}, from mean field up to very sophisticated
67: angular momentum projected generator coordinate methods, provide the
68: same underlying basic picture of strong coexisting spherical and
69: deformed shapes. This justifies the use of mean field approaches as a
70: first estimate to a qualitative description of the energy minima and
71: to associate the $0^+$ states with coexisting energy minima in this
72: energy surface.
73:
74: The relative energies of the different shapes predicted by mean field
75: calculations in the neutron-deficient Hg-Pb region have been found to
76: be very sensitive to fine details in the calculations, specially to
77: pairing effects. This is true in both non-relativistic \cite{tajima1}
78: and relativistic calculations \cite{niksic02,yoshida94,yoshida97}.
79: In particular, standard deformed relativistic mean field (RMF)
80: calculations \cite{yoshida94,lala99} do not reproduce the experimentally
81: observed spherical ground states in the neutron-deficient Pb isotopes.
82: In RMF, these isotopes are found to be deformed using standard forces
83: with constant pairing gaps \cite{yoshida94,lala99}. It should be
84: emphasized that the same RMF+BCS calculations that lead to good agreement
85: with experimental data in systematic studies of ground state properties
86: carried out over 1300 even-even isotopes \cite{lala99}, fail to account
87: for the spherical ground states in this neutron-deficient Pb region.
88: It has been also shown \cite{yoshida97} that using constant strengths
89: for the pairing interaction, which makes the gap parameters dependent on
90: deformation, produces spherical ground states in the Pb isotopes. Yet,
91: more recently \cite{niksic02}, an improved treatment of pairing was used
92: by means of a relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov calculation with the
93: NL3 effective interaction and a finite range Gogny force to describe
94: the pairing properties. However, it produced again oblate ground states
95: in $^{188-194}$Pb, contradicting the experimental data. In order to
96: recover the spherical ground states, a new parametrization of the
97: effective interaction was proposed \cite{niksic02}.
98:
99: In a recent work \cite{sarri05}, we have calculated the $\beta$-decay
100: properties of the neutron-deficient Pb isotopes using a deformed Skyrme
101: HF+BCS+QRPA approach. This approach was used extensively \cite{sarr}
102: to demonstrate that the $\beta$-decay properties of unstable nuclei may
103: depend on the nuclear shape of the decaying parent nucleus and to predict
104: to what extent the GT strengths may be used as fingerprints of the
105: nuclear shapes. Accurate measurements of the GT strength distributions
106: in Kr and Sr isotopes \cite{isolde} have supported the usefulness of
107: these studies. By analyzing the energy deformation curves corresponding
108: to those Pb isotopes we found that, although the relative energies of
109: the various minima are dependent on both the Skyrme and pairing forces,
110: the existence of shape isomers as well as the location of their
111: equilibrium deformations are rather stable. We also found that the
112: Gamow-Teller (GT) strength distributions calculated at the various
113: equilibrium deformations exhibit specific features that can be used as
114: signatures of the shape isomers, and what is important, these features
115: basically remain unaltered against changes in the Skyrme and pairing
116: forces. Therefore, although an accurate calculation of the excitation
117: energies of the $0^+$ states is beyond the scope of the theoretical
118: framework used here, our estimate of the $\beta^+$-decay patterns is
119: reliable and has been proved to be useful \cite{sarr,isolde}.
120:
121: Motivated by the interest in this type of calculations, not only in Pb
122: isotopes but also in the neighbor regions where shape coexistence is
123: found as well, in this paper we extend the calculations of the GT
124: strength distributions to the neutron-deficient
125: $^{180,182,184,186,188,190,192}$Hg, $^{184,186,188,190,192,194}$Pb and
126: $^{198,200,202,204,206}$Po even isotopes, using the Skyrme force
127: SLy4 \cite{sly4}, which is one of the most recent and successful forces.
128: The reason for this choice of isotopes is that they are the best
129: candidates for $\beta$-decay experimental studies. They are
130: $\beta^+$-unstable isotopes, yet not dominated by other decay modes
131: such as $\alpha$-decay. In addition they have relative large half-lives
132: and large enough $Q_{EC}$ energies to make experiments feasible.
133: Nevertheless, we present the results obtained not only within the
134: $Q_{EC}$ window relevant for the $\beta^+/EC$-decay, which is being
135: considered as a real possibility to be measured at ISOLDE/CERN
136: \cite{algora}, but also the GT strength distributions for $GT^+$ and
137: $GT^-$ in the whole range of excitation energies up to 25 MeV that
138: could be extracted from charge exchange reactions in the near future
139: at the new experimental facilities involving radioactive isotope beams,
140: such as FAIR. Charge exchange reactions at small momentum transfer are
141: a powerful tool to study GT strength distributions when $\beta$-decay
142: is not energetically possible. For incident energies above 100 MeV the
143: isovector spin-flip component of the complex effective interaction is
144: dominant and the cross section at forward angles is proportional to the
145: GT strength \cite{tad}.
146:
147: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we briefly present the
148: main features of our theoretical framework. Sec. III contains our results
149: on the energy deformation curves and Gamow-Teller strength distributions
150: in the neutron-deficient Hg, Pb, and Po isotopes relevant for
151: $\beta^+$-decay. We also discuss the half-lives, the summed GT strengths,
152: and the GT strength distributions in the whole range of excitation
153: energies. Sec. IV contains the main conclusions.
154:
155: \section{Brief description of the formalism}
156:
157: The theoretical formalism used to describe the GT strength distributions
158: has been already shown elsewhere \cite{sarr}. Here we only summarize the
159: basic ingredients of the method and discuss our choice of interactions
160: and parameters. The method starts from a self-consistent deformed
161: Hartree-Fock mean field calculation with effective two-body
162: density-dependent Skyrme interactions including pairing correlations in
163: BCS approximation. In this paper we consider the force SLy4 \cite{sly4},
164: which has been specially designed to improve the isospin properties of
165: nuclei away from beta stability and therefore, it may be more adequate
166: to describe the neutron-deficient Hg, Pb, and Po under study in this
167: work. Comparison with other widely used Skyrme forces like Sk3 \cite{sk3}
168: and SG2 \cite{sg2} was done in the past \cite{sarri05,sarr} concluding
169: that the main characteristics of the $\beta$-decay patterns are not
170: significantly changed when using different forces.
171:
172:
173: In this work we have restricted our study to axially deformed nuclear shapes.
174: The single-particle wave functions are then expanded in terms of the
175: eigenstates of an axially symmetric harmonic oscillator in cylindrical
176: coordinates, using eleven major shells.
177: This simple picture is validated from triaxial calculations
178: \cite{bengtsson,libert,bender04}, which show at most slight triaxiality
179: ($\gamma \lesssim 10^\circ $) only in very few cases. However, the triaxial
180: barriers are not in general sufficiently high to fully support the axial
181: symmetry assumption and it would be interesting to consider these
182: effects in future works.
183:
184: The method also includes pairing between like nucleons in the BCS
185: approximation with fixed gap parameters for protons $\Delta _{\pi},$
186: and neutrons $\Delta _{\nu}$, which are determined phenomenologically
187: from the odd-even mass differences through a symmetric five term formula
188: involving the experimental binding energies \cite{audi}. When the
189: experimental masses are not known we use the expression
190: $\Delta = 12 A^{-1/2}$ MeV for protons and neutrons. Occupation
191: probabilities are determined at each Hartree-Fock iteration by solving
192: the corresponding gap and number equations. The energy curves as a
193: function of deformation are calculated performing constrained HF
194: calculations with quadrupole constraints \cite{constraint}, minimizing
195: the HF energy for each nuclear deformation.
196:
197: We add to the mean field a separable spin-isospin residual interaction
198: to describe GT transitions. The advantage of using separable forces is
199: that the QRPA energy eigenvalue problem is reduced to find the roots
200: of an algebraic equation. The residual interaction contains two parts,
201: particle-hole ($ph$) and particle-particle ($pp$). The $ph$ part
202:
203: \begin{equation}
204: V^{ph}_{GT} = 2\chi ^{ph}_{GT} \sum_{K=0,\pm 1} (-1)^K \beta ^+_K
205: \beta ^-_{-K}, \qquad
206: \beta ^+_K = \sum_{\pi\nu } \left\langle \nu \left| \sigma _K \right|
207: \pi \right\rangle a^+_\nu a_\pi \, ,
208: \end{equation}
209: is responsible for the position and the general structure of the GT
210: resonance \cite{sarr,moller,homma}. The usual procedure to determine
211: the coupling strength $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ is to reproduce the energy
212: of the resonance \cite{homma}. In this work we use the same value of
213: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ for all the isotopes considered in this mass region.
214: The value is fixed by comparison of the calculations in $^{208}$Pb to
215: the experimental GT strength resonance observed at an energy of 19.2 MeV,
216: relative to the parent nucleus, from $(p,n)$ charge exchange reactions
217: \cite{gaarde}. In this way, we reproduce the energy of the resonance
218: with $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}= 0.08$ MeV.
219:
220: The particle-particle residual interaction is a neutron-proton pairing
221: force in the $J^\pi=1^+$ coupling channel. We introduce this interaction
222: as a separable force in the usual way \cite{homma,hir}
223:
224: \begin{equation}
225: V^{pp}_{GT} = -2\kappa ^{pp}_{GT} \sum_K (-1)^K P ^+_K P_{-K}, \qquad
226: P ^+_K = \sum_{\pi\nu} \left\langle \pi \left| \left( \sigma_K\right)^+
227: \right|\nu \right\rangle a^+_\nu a^+_{\bar{\pi}} \, .
228: \end{equation}
229: Once the value of the $ph$ spin-isospin residual force has been established,
230: the coupling strength $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ is usually adjusted to reproduce
231: the measured half-lives \cite{homma,hir} because the peak of the GT
232: resonance is almost insensitive to the $pp$ force. In our case, as
233: explained in Ref. \cite{sarri05} we have found that the calculated
234: half-lives as a function of $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ are very little dependent
235: on this parameter and we use $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=0.02$ MeV, which is
236: compatible with the parametrization of Ref. \cite{homma}, obtained from
237: a systematic fitting procedure over the nuclear chart.
238:
239: For even-even nuclei, the Gamow-Teller strength $B(GT^{\pm})$ in the
240: laboratory frame for a transition
241: $I_{i}^{\pi_i} K_i (0^+0)\rightarrow I_{f}^{\pi_f} K_f(1^+K)$
242: can be obtained as
243:
244: \begin{equation}
245: B(GT^{\pm})= \sum_{M_i,M_f,\mu} \left| \left< I_fM_f \left|
246: \beta ^\pm _\mu \right| I_i M_i \right> \right|^2= \left\{ \delta_{K_f,0}
247: \left< \phi_{K_f} \left| \beta ^\pm _0 \right| \phi_0\right> ^2 +2
248: \delta_{K_f,1} \left< \phi_{K_f} \left| \beta ^\pm _1 \right|
249: \phi_0\right> ^2 \right\} \, ,
250: \label{streven}
251: \end{equation}
252: in units of $g_A^2/4\pi$ and in terms of the intrinsic amplitudes
253: calculated in QRPA\cite{sarr}. To obtain this expression we have used
254: the initial and final states in the laboratory frame expressed in terms
255: of the intrinsic states $|\phi_K >$, using the Bohr-Mottelson factorization
256: \cite{bm}.
257:
258: The $\beta$-decay half-life is obtained by summing up all the allowed
259: transition probabilities, weighed with phase space factors, up to
260: states in the daughter nucleus with excitation energies lying within
261: the $Q_{EC}$-window,
262:
263: \begin{equation}
264: T_{1/2}^{-1}=\frac{A^2}{D}\sum_{\omega }f\left( Z,\omega \right) B(GT)\, ,
265: \label{t12}
266: \end{equation}
267: where $D=6200$~s. We include the standard effective factor
268:
269: \begin{equation}
270: A^{2}=\left[ \left( g_{A}/g_{V}\right) _{\rm eff}\right] ^{2}=\left[
271: 0.77\left( g_{A}/g_{V}\right) _{\rm free}\right] ^{2} \, . \label{quen}
272: \end{equation}
273:
274: In this work we use experimental $Q_{EC}$ values because as it was
275: discussed in Ref. \cite{sarri05} the $Q_{EC}$-values calculated from the
276: binding energies of parent and daughter nuclei are quite similar for the
277: various shapes and are close to the corresponding experimental values.
278: In $\beta^+/EC$ decay, $f\left( Z,\omega \right) $ consists of two parts,
279: positron emission and electron capture. We have computed them
280: numerically for each value of the energy.
281: The Fermi integrals $f^{\beta^\pm}\left( Z,\omega \right) $ are given by
282:
283: \begin{equation}
284: f^{\beta^\pm} (Z, W_0) = \int^{W_0}_1 p W (W_0 - W)^2 \lambda^\pm(Z,W)
285: {\rm d}W\, ,
286: \end{equation}
287: with
288:
289: \begin{equation}
290: \lambda^\pm(Z,W) = 2(1+\gamma) (2pR)^{-2(1-\gamma)} e^{\mp\pi y}
291: \frac{|\Gamma (\gamma+iy)|^2}{[\Gamma (2\gamma+1)]^2}\, ,
292: \end{equation}
293: where $\gamma=\sqrt{1-(\alpha Z)^2}$ ; $y=\alpha ZW/p$ ; $\alpha$ is the fine
294: structure constant and $R$ the nuclear radius. $W$ is the total energy of the
295: $\beta$ particle, $W_0$ is the total energy available in $m_e c^2$ units, and
296: $p=\sqrt{W^2 -1}$ is the momentum in $m_e c$ units. In the numerical calculation,
297: we have included screening and finite size effects as explained in
298: Ref. \cite{gove}. The electron capture rates $f^{EC}$ have also been included
299: following Ref. \cite{gove}:
300:
301: \begin{equation}
302: f^{EC}=\frac{\pi}{2} \sum_{x} q_x^2 g_x^2B_x
303: \end{equation}
304: where $x$ denotes the atomic subshell from which the electron is captured,
305: $q$ is the neutrino energy, $g$ is the radial component of the bound state
306: electron wave function at the nucleus, and $B$ stands for other exchange and
307: overlap corrections \cite{gove}.
308:
309: \section{Results and discussion}
310:
311: In this section we present the results obtained for the $\beta$-decay
312: patterns of the neutron-deficient $^{180-192}$Hg, $^{184-194}$Pb and
313: $^{198- 206}$Po even isotopes. First, we discuss the energy surfaces
314: and shape coexistence expected in these isotopes. Then, we present the
315: results obtained for the Gamow-Teller strength distributions with
316: special attention to their dependence on the nuclear shape and discuss
317: their relevance as signatures of deformation to be explored experimentally.
318: Finally, we discuss the half-lives and the summed GT strengths both within
319: the $Q_{EC}$ and in the whole energy range.
320:
321: \subsection{Equilibrium deformations}
322:
323: We show in Fig. 1 the HF energies calculated with the Skyrme force SLy4
324: and pairing correlations treated in the fixed gap approach. We show the
325: results for Hg (left), Pb (middle), and Po (right) isotopes as a function
326: of the quadrupole deformation parameter calculated as
327: $\beta=\sqrt{\pi/5}Q_p/(Z<r^2>)$, which is defined in terms of the proton
328: quadrupole moment $Q_p$ and charge r.m.s. radius $<r^2>$. The curves have
329: been scaled to the energy of their ground states and have been shifted by
330: 1 MeV from one isotope to the next one, starting from the lightest one.
331:
332: In the case of Hg isotopes we get prolate and oblate minima in all the
333: isotopes from $A=180$ up to $A=192$. The ground state is prolate for
334: $^{180}$Hg and $^{182}$Hg and oblate for $^{184-192}$Hg isotopes.
335: Comparable results were also obtained in RMF calculations \cite{lala99},
336: where oblate ground states where obtained at $\beta \sim -0.2$ with
337: prolate minima close in energy at $\beta \sim 0.13$. This is in
338: qualitative agreement with experiment, where it is observed that a weakly
339: oblate ground-state band is crossed in the vicinity of $A=188$ by a
340: deformed band associated with a prolate energy minimum. The prolate states
341: minimize their energies for $A=182$, although they still lie above the
342: ground state. We get qualitative agreement although the details of the
343: energy minima depend much on the effective Skyrme force and pairing
344: treatment used in the calculations. In the case of Pb isotopes we obtain
345: a prolate ground state for $^{184}$Pb and oblate ground states for
346: $^{186-194}$Pb isotopes. As we can see in the figure, prolate and oblate
347: minima are always present from $A=184$ to $A=190$. Spherical local
348: minima can be clearly seen also in $A=184$ and shallow profiles are found
349: in other cases. For Po isotopes we find oblate ground states in all the
350: isotopes considered $^{198-206}$Po. We also find prolate solutions, which
351: are more prominent in $A=200,202,204$ isotopes.
352:
353: In general, we observe that both oblate and prolate deformed minima occur
354: at smaller deformation as the number of neutrons increases, approaching
355: the $N=128$ closed shell. This is true in Hg, Pb, and Po isotopes and the
356: effect is more pronounced in the prolate shapes. The oblate minima are
357: rather stable at $\beta = -0.2$ in Hg and Pb isotopes and at about
358: $\beta = -0.1$ in Po isotopes.
359:
360: We get similar qualitative results for the Hg, Pb, Po isotopes considered
361: when other Skyrme forces are used. More specifically, we obtain the same
362: patterns of coexistence with minima at about the same deformations although
363: the relative energies may change from one force to another.
364: In the case of Hg and Pb isotopes the correspondence of the minima obtained
365: with different forces is almost perfect. In the case of Po isotopes we find
366: the deformation of the minima with SG2 and SLy4 almost coincident. Sk3 shows
367: only one oblate minimum that corresponds quite well with the oblate minimum
368: obtained with the other forces, but in the prolate region Sk3 shows only a
369: small distortion of the curve without developing a minimum. In the case of
370: $^{206}$Po, Sk3 and SG2 exhibit only a flat minimum centered at the spherical
371: shape.
372:
373: In general, our results agree with experiment in the sense that we find
374: different coexisting shapes in this mass region, but in some cases they
375: are at variance with experiment in the predicted shape of the ground state.
376: This is especially true with respect to Pb isotopes. This discrepancy, also
377: found in different theoretical frameworks \cite{niksic02,tajima1}, was
378: discussed in \cite{sarri05}, where we demonstrated on some examples the
379: sensitivity of the energy curves to fine details of the two-body
380: interactions, showing that the deformation minima remain at about the same
381: deformation values but their relative energies may change considerably.
382:
383: \subsection{Gamow-Teller strength distributions}
384:
385: In this subsection we study the energy distribution of the Gamow-Teller
386: strengths calculated at the equilibrium shapes that minimize the energy
387: of the nucleus.
388:
389: In Fig. 2 we show the GT strength distributions in ($g_A^2/4\pi$) units
390: as a function of the excitation energy in the daughter nucleus for the
391: Hg isotopes under study. The results correspond to QRPA with the force
392: SLy4, fixed pairing gaps obtained from experimental masses and residual
393: separable interactions $ph$ and $pp$ with coupling strengths given by
394: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.08$ MeV and $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=0.02$ MeV, respectively.
395: The left panels contain the discrete strengths for both prolate
396: (upward) and oblate (downward) equilibrium deformations. The dashed arrows
397: indicate the experimental $Q_{EC}$ values of the decay.
398: We have used the same energy scale to appreciate better the differences
399: as we increase the number of neutrons. The scale of energies is 6 MeV,
400: enough to include all the $Q_{EC}$ energies, whose maximum value is
401: $Q_{EC}=5.352$ MeV in $^{180}$Hg. The right panels
402: contain the accumulated GT strength for prolate (thick lines) and oblate
403: (thin lines) deformations. In this case the energy axis is extended up to
404: the $Q_{EC}$ value in order to observe directly the allowed energy window
405: and the total GT strength expected in the decay.
406: Although such kind of accumulated plots contain in principle the same
407: information as the pure spectrum, it offers a more global and appealing
408: view, which is sometimes preferable.
409: One should also notice that in figures 2-7 the quenching factor
410: (see Eq.(\ref{quen})) is not included and therefore, one should consider
411: a reduction of this strength by a factor of about two when comparing to
412: experiment.
413:
414: From Fig. 2 one can see that prolate and oblate nuclear shapes give rise
415: to GT strength distributions whose patterns can be clearly distinguished
416: from each other. The oblate strength appears in all cases very fragmented
417: over the whole $Q$-window, which induces a straight increasing of the
418: strength in the accumulated plot. On the other hand, the distributions
419: in the prolate cases show a concentration of the GT strength in a single
420: strong peak located at very low excitation energy (below 0.7 MeV in all
421: the isotopes). This single excitation carries practically the whole
422: strength contained in the $Q$-window in the $A=190,192$ isotopes and
423: about half of it in $A=180-188$.
424: The accumulated plots are then characterized by the successive appearance
425: of large vertical steps followed by large flat regions, in contrast to
426: the oblate case. With the help of the accumulated plots we can also observe
427: immediately that although the total strength contained within the $Q_{EC}$
428: energy is quite similar for oblate and prolate shapes, the distribution
429: of this strength along the energy axis is very different.
430:
431: Fig. 3 contains the same information as Fig. 2 but for Pb isotopes. In
432: this case we also include results for spherical shapes in such a way
433: that the left panels contain the results from prolate shapes (upper
434: plots), oblate shapes (middle plots) and spherical shapes (lower plots),
435: except in the $A=194$ isotope where we only have two shapes. Similarly,
436: the right panels contain three lines, thick line for prolate, thin for
437: oblate, and dashed for spherical shapes. As in the case of Hg isotopes,
438: the signature of the prolate shapes is a strong isolated peak at low
439: excitation energies (there is a second strong peak in $A=188$). This
440: makes again the accumulated plots to appear as big steps. The oblate
441: distributions show a very fragmented structure, starting at higher
442: energies than the strong prolate peak. This produces an accumulated
443: pattern which increases in a steady way, starting at higher energy than
444: the prolate pattern. In the spherical case, the strength is practically
445: collected in a single peak, which corresponds to the
446: $\pi h_{11/2} \rightarrow \nu h_{9/2}$ transition. This excitation
447: carries less strength than the prolate case and occurs in all the
448: isotopes except in $A=184$ at an energy higher than the
449: prolate peaks. It is also worth noticing that oblate and prolate shapes
450: generate practically the same total GT strength within the $Q_{EC}$ window
451: although the internal distribution of this strength is in general very
452: different. The total strength in the spherical case is always clearly
453: below the prolate or oblate strength, except in the isotope $A=194$, where
454: the small strength and $Q_{EC}$ makes it not very relevant.
455:
456: Fig. 4 shows the same results as in Fig. 2 for Po isotopes. In the cases
457: of $A=198,200$ we find in the prolate case below $Q_{EC}$ a strong single
458: peak carrying most of the strength, while again the oblate shapes produce
459: a very fragmented distribution. In the other cases, $A=202,206$,
460: the strength below $Q_{EC}$ is insignificant and could not tell much
461: to distinguish the shapes.
462:
463: In general, we observe that the GT strength distributions corresponding
464: to prolate shapes in both Hg and Pb isotopes are characterized by the
465: appearance of a strong excitation below 1 MeV that collects a large amount
466: of the total strength contained in the whole region below the $Q_{EC}$
467: energy. On the other hand, the GT strength distributions corresponding
468: to oblate shapes are always very fragmented and are extended over the
469: whole $Q_{EC}$ window. In the case of the Pb isotopes this strength is
470: located at excitation energies higher than the prolate peak. For Pb
471: isotopes the GT strength distributions corresponding to spherical shapes
472: appear as single peaks carrying all the strength below $Q_{EC}$ and also
473: at higher energies than the prolate peak. These features are in agreement
474: with the conclusions in Ref. \cite{sarri05} using the force Sk3.
475: The most noticeable difference with respect to the results obtained from
476: Sk3 force \cite{sarri05} appears in the spherical case, where the GT
477: strength obtained with Sk3 is displaced to higher energies as compared
478: to the strength obtained with SLy4. The origin of the shift in the
479: excitation energy can be traced back to the predicted energies for the
480: $h_{9/2}$ and $h_{11/2}$ spherical shells. The main contribution to the
481: GT strength at low energies comes from the transition connecting the
482: almost fully occupied $\pi h_{11/2}$ shell with the partially unoccupied
483: $\nu h_{9/2}$ shell, and the relative position of the two shells
484: determines the GT excitation energy. The effect of deformation is to allow
485: for multiple transitions fragmenting the strength and smoothing the
486: differences caused by the forces.
487:
488: In Figs. 5-7 we show the $B(GT^{\pm})$ strength distributions in the Hg, Pb
489: and Po isotopes. We plot continuous distributions resulting from a folding
490: procedure using $\Gamma=1$ MeV width gaussians on the discrete spectrum.
491: The energy range of excitation energies in the daughter nucleus is extended
492: up to 20 MeV in order to cover all the strength. We find the strength beyond
493: 20 MeV to be insignificant, except for Po isotopes where we extend the scale
494: up to 25 MeV. The interest of these figures, not limited by the $Q_{EC}$
495: energies, is to show the whole strength distributions that could be explored
496: from charge exchange reactions such as $(n,p)$ and $(p,n)$ or similar
497: reactions. The $B(GT^-)$ strength on the right panels is much stronger than
498: the corresponding $B(GT^+)$ strength on the left panels, as it should be
499: according to the Ikeda sum rule
500: $\Sigma_{\omega} [B(GT^-)(\omega) -B(GT^+)(\omega)] = 3(N-Z)$,
501: which is fulfilled in all our calculations up to a small few percent
502: discrepancy. Ikeda sum rule ranges from $3(N-Z)=60$ in $^{180}$Hg up to
503: $3(N-Z)=114$ in $^{206}$Po. We can see in the last three columns of Tables
504: 1, 2, and 3 the total sums of the $B(GT^+)$, $B(GT^-)$, and the percentage
505: of the Ikeda sum rule fulfilled in the calculation for Hg, Pb, and Po
506: isotopes, respectively.
507:
508: In Fig. 5, the profiles of the $B(GT^-)$ strength show a first bump, which
509: for the lightest isotopes considered is a double bump, moving from 4 MeV in
510: $A=180$ up to 7 MeV in $A=192$. We can also see a big resonance at higher
511: energies, that moves from 11 MeV in $A=180$ up to 14 MeV in $A=192$.
512: In any case, the profiles obtained from oblate and prolate shapes are quite
513: similar and then, it will be very difficult to use this information to
514: distinguish between one shape or another. In the case of the $B(GT^+)$
515: strength, there is a resonance at low energy below 2 MeV, which is rather
516: constant in all the isotopes. As we have seen in more detail in Fig. 2, it
517: is in this region below $Q_{EC}$ where the shape dependence could be
518: exploited because prolate and oblate shapes produce distinguishable
519: distributions of the GT strength.
520:
521: Fig. 6 is similar to Fig. 5 for Pb isotopes. Again we see in the profiles
522: of the $B(GT^-)$ strength on the right panels a small bump between 5 and
523: 6 MeV and a resonance centered at 12-13 MeV. The nuclear shapes can hardly
524: be identified looking at the strength distributions. The $B(GT^+)$
525: strengths show also a resonance at low energies, which corresponds to the
526: analysis made in Fig. 3. Fig. 7 for Po isotopes shows once more the small
527: bump in the $B(GT^-)$ distribution at 6-7 MeV and the big resonance at
528: 12-14 MeV with similar characteristics in all the isotopes and shapes.
529: The $B(GT^+)$ strength shows in this case a resonance at high energy
530: around 20 MeV and the low energy distributions that were studied in Fig.4.
531:
532: \subsection{Half-lives and summed strengths}
533:
534: It is also interesting to calculate integral magnitudes from the GT strength
535: distributions that characterize them in a single quantity. This is the case
536: of the total half-lives and total GT strength contained in the energy range
537: available in the $\beta^+$-decay. These magnitudes depend differently on
538: the GT strength distribution, one of them is simply a sum and the other one
539: is a weighted sum (see Eq.(\ref{t12})). While the total GT strength involved
540: in the $\beta^+$-decays are not measured yet, there is experimental
541: information on the half-lives\cite{audi} that allows to contrast our
542: calculations and to check that there is no substantial disagreement with
543: experiment. We can see the results in Tables 1, 2, and 3 for Hg, Pb, and Po
544: isotopes, respectively. The first column in Tables 1-3 contains the
545: experimental $Q_{EC}$ energies \cite{audi}. Since the $\beta^+ /EC$ decay
546: mode competes in this mass region with $\alpha$-decay, we show in the second
547: column of the tables the percentage of the total decay assigned to
548: $\beta^ +$ \cite{audi}. The third column contains the total experimental
549: half-lives \cite{audi} and within brackets the corresponding $\beta^ +$
550: half-lives extracted from the percentage in the second column. The next
551: columns contain theoretical results calculated at the equilibrium shapes
552: obtained with the force SLy4. We can see first the $\beta^+/EC$ half-lives
553: calculated with quenching factors (\ref{quen}) and experimental $Q_{EC}$
554: values, as discussed in Ref. \cite{sarri05}. Next, we can see the $B(GT^+)$
555: strength summed up to the $Q_{EC}$ energies, the total $B(GT^-)$ and
556: $B(GT^+)$ sums and the percentage of the Ikeda sum rule fulfilled.
557:
558: In Table 1 one can see that the half-lives obtained for Hg isotopes agree
559: in general with experiment within a factor of 2.
560: Only the most stable isotope $A=192$ deviates considerably from this
561: agreement, but this case is not very relevant because of the small energy
562: window allowed for the decay $Q_{EC}=0.765$ MeV and because of the small
563: strength involved, which makes it meaningless.
564: A factor of 2 is perfectly acceptable in this type of calculations taking
565: into account the uncertainties coming from the forces used, the level
566: of approximations, the quenching factors and the $Q_{EC}$ energies.
567: For instance, reasonable quenching factors could change the half-lives
568: within a $25\%$ effect and varying $Q_{EC}$ values within 1 MeV range could
569: change the half-lives by a factor of two. Another source of uncertainty
570: in the half-lives is induced by the determination of the pairing gaps
571: from the experimental binding energies. Through variations of $20\%$
572: below and above the adopted proton and neutron pairing gap values,
573: we obtain half-lives which in general do not differ by more than $20\%$
574: from the original results.
575: We also find that in the spherical cases the half-lives are more sensitive
576: to these uncertainties than in the deformed cases.
577: Nevertheless, as we have discussed, this does not rule out the conclusions
578: extracted based on the patterns shown by the GT strength distributions.
579: We also include in the table the strength contained below the $Q_{EC}$
580: energy that could be measured in $\beta$-decay
581: experiments \cite{algora}. We should keep in mind that in contrast to the
582: calculation of the half-lives, we do not include quenching factors in
583: the summed strengths and thus, a reduction of about $50\%$ of the values
584: written in the tables are expected when comparing to experiment.
585: The sums over the whole energy region of the $B(GT^+)$ and $B(GT^-)$
586: strengths show that the total $B(GT^-)$ is much stronger than $B(GT^+)$
587: as it should happen in order to fulfill Ikeda sum rule, as it was
588: discussed above. In the case of Hg isotopes we can see that the half-lives
589: from prolate deformations are in general larger than those from oblate
590: ones with the already mentioned exception of $A=192$.
591: The summed strengths are practically the same no matter what the
592: deformation is.
593:
594: The same general comments can be applied also to Table 2 for Pb isotopes.
595: We get in general half-lives that agree with experiment within a factor
596: 2-3 . This is also true when we consider other Skyrme forces. In particular,
597: the half-lives obtained with the forces Sk3 and SG2 are very similar to the
598: corresponding SLy4 ones shown in the tables. The only disagreement appears
599: in the spherical cases. We find in the spherical case differences
600: up to factors of 4-5 in the half-lives obtained from various forces.
601: As we have already discussed above, this is due to the different predicted
602: energies of the spherical shell gaps.
603: If we compare the half-lives from different deformations, we can see that
604: the half-lives from the spherical shapes are larger than those
605: corresponding to the deformed shapes, and the prolate shapes give always
606: lower half-lives than the oblate ones. In the case of SLy4, the half-lives
607: from the spherical shapes agree with experiment at the same qualitative
608: level as the half-lives from deformed shapes. This is at variance with
609: what we found in Ref. \cite{sarri05} using Sk3 and SG2 forces, in the
610: sense that there, we only found agreement with experimental half-lives
611: with deformed shapes. The strengths summed up to $Q_{EC}$ are very close
612: to each other for oblate and prolate deformations and are much larger
613: than the corresponding strength for the spherical case.
614:
615: In Table 3 we have the results for Po isotopes. In this case the total GT
616: strength involved in the decay is very small in all the cases and
617: therefore the half-lives are large and not very meaningful. Only in the
618: two more unstable isotopes $A=198,200$ this comparison makes sense and
619: we can see that again the half-lives agree with experiment within a factor
620: of two. The oblate half-lives are larger than the corresponding prolate
621: ones.
622:
623: Although the deformation does not show up in the total GT strengths,
624: it does in the internal distribution of the GT strength, specially in
625: the $B(GT^+)$ at low excitation energy where the $\beta^+$-decay is
626: sensitive. The only purpose of showing half-lives and summed strengths
627: is to contrast the validity of the calculation against some measured
628: quantities in the case of half-lives or to predict the expected total
629: strength coming into play in the other case.
630:
631: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
632:
633: We have studied the energy distribution of the Gamow-Teller strength in
634: the neutron-deficient $^{180-192}$Hg, $^{184-194}$Pb, and $^{198-206}$Po
635: isotopes. We use a deformed pnQRPA formalism with spin-isospin $ph$ and
636: $pp$ separable residual interactions. The $ph$ coupling strength is
637: fixed to reproduce the energy of the GT resonance in $^{208}$Pb.
638: The $pp$ coupling strength is taken from existing global parametrizations,
639: although we find our results to be quite insensitive to this value.
640: The quasiparticle mean field is generated from a deformed HF approach
641: with the two-body Skyrme effective interaction SLy4. It includes pairing
642: correlations in BCS approximation, using fixed gap parameters extracted
643: from the experimental masses. The equilibrium deformation is derived
644: self-consistently within the HF procedure.
645:
646: An analysis of the energy deformation curves shows that oblate and prolate
647: coexisting shapes are expected in the neutron-deficient Hg and Po isotopes.
648: In the case of Pb isotopes we also get in some cases a spherical minimum
649: giving rise to a triple shape coexistence.
650: We should remark again that the relative energies of the minima in these
651: calculations are very sensitive to the Skyrme force and type of pairing
652: used and therefore the predicted shapes for the ground states can be
653: altered depending on the choice of these forces.
654: However, for a given isotope, the equilibrium deformations at which the
655: minima occur are hardly shifted.
656:
657: The GT strength distributions calculated at the equilibrium shapes
658: show that the effect of the deformation is much stronger than the effects
659: coming from the Skyrme or pairing forces used. As a general rule, we find
660: that the GT strength distributions calculated from prolate shapes are
661: characterized by strong single peaks at low excitation energies carrying
662: a sizable amount of the total GT strength involved in the $\beta^+$-decay.
663: The small remaining GT strength is scattered over the energy interval up
664: to $Q_{EC}$. On the other hand, the signature of oblate shapes is
665: a distribution spread all over the available $Q$-window energy.
666: In the case of Pb isotopes, the GT strength distributions calculated from
667: spherical shapes are characterized by single peaks that contain all the
668: GT strength, which are in general located at higher energies than the
669: prolate peaks. The detailed analysis performed allows us to identify
670: good candidates to explore experimentally the signatures of deformation
671: on the GT strength distributions. We find that the most interesting
672: isotopes are $^{184-188}$Hg, $^{188-192}$Pb and $^{198,200}$Po.
673:
674: We have also investigated the GT strength distributions in the whole
675: range of excitation energies without the limitations imposed by the
676: $\beta^+$-decay. This analysis is worth as a prediction for the cross
677: sections to be expected in charge exchange reactions.
678:
679: The detailed analysis at low excitation energies in the $B(GT^+)$
680: distribution shows that the $\beta^+$-decay process is the most sensitive
681: to the nuclear shape.
682:
683: The calculated total strength involved in the $\beta^+$-decay shows
684: little dependence on the nuclear shape, except in the case of the
685: spherical shapes in Pb isotopes, where this strength is much smaller.
686: The calculated $\beta^+ /EC$ half-lives agree with experiment within
687: a factor of 2 or 3. In general we can conclude that neither the half-lives
688: nor the summed strengths are good observables to study deformation effects,
689: but the strength distributions are.
690:
691: \vskip 1cm
692:
693: \begin{center}
694: {\Large \bf Acknowledgments}
695: \end{center}
696: We are grateful to A. Algora and B. Rubio for useful discussions.
697: This work was supported by Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (Spain)
698: under contract number FIS2005-00640. O.M. thanks Ministerio
699: de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (Spain) for financial support. R.A.-R. thanks
700: I3P Programme (CSIC, Spain) for financial support. We also acknowledge
701: participation in the EXL-EURONS European Collaboration (RI3-506065).
702:
703: \newpage
704:
705: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
706:
707: \bibitem{julin} R. Julin, K. Helariutta and M. Muikku, J. Phys. G.: Nucl.
708: Part. Phys. {\bf 27}, R109 (2001).
709:
710: \bibitem{andreyev} A.N. Andreyev {\em et al.}, Nature {\bf 405}, 430 (2000).
711:
712: \bibitem{bengtsson} R. Bengtsson and W. Nazarewicz, Z. Phys. A {\bf 334},
713: 269 (1989); W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 305}, 195 (1993).
714:
715: \bibitem{smirnova} N.A. Smirnova, P.-H. Heenen and G. Neyens, Phys. Lett. B
716: {\bf 569}, 151 (2003).
717:
718: \bibitem{niksic02} T. Niksic, D. Vretenar, P. Ring and G.A. Lalazissis, Phys.
719: Rev. C {\bf 65}, 054320 (2002).
720:
721: \bibitem{libert} J. Libert, M. Girod and J.-P. Delaroche, Phys. Rev. C
722: {\bf 60}, 054301 (1999).
723:
724: \bibitem{egido} J.L. Egido, L.M. Robledo and R.R. Rodr\'{\i}guez-Guzm\'an,
725: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 082502 (2004); R.R. Rodr\'{\i}guez-Guzm\'an,
726: J.L. Egido and L.M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69}, 054319 (2004).
727:
728: \bibitem{bender04} M. Bender, P. Bonche, T. Duguet and P.-H. Heenen, Phys.
729: Rev. C {\bf 69}, 064303 (2004).
730:
731: \bibitem{tajima1} N. Tajima, H. Flocard, P. Bonche, J. Dobaczewski and
732: P.-H. Heenen, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 551}, 409 (1993).
733:
734: \bibitem{yoshida94} S. Yoshida, S.K. Patra, N. Takigawa and C.R. Praharaj,
735: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 50}, 1398 (1994).
736:
737: \bibitem{yoshida97} S. Yoshida and N. Takigawa, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 55},
738: 1255 (1997).
739:
740: \bibitem{lala99} G.A. Lalazissis, S. Raman, and P. Ring, Atomic Data and
741: Nuclear data Tables {\bf 71}, 1 (1999).
742:
743: \bibitem{sarri05} P. Sarriguren, O. Moreno, R. \'Alvarez-Rodr\'{\i}guez, and
744: E. Moya de Guerra, Phys. rev. C {\bf 72}, 054317 (2005).
745:
746: \bibitem{sarr} P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, A. Escuderos and A.C.
747: Carrizo, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 635}, 55 (1998); P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de
748: Guerra and A. Escuderos, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 658}, 13 (1999); Nucl. Phys.
749: A {\bf 691}, 631 (2001); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 064306 (2001).
750:
751: \bibitem{isolde} E. Poirier {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69}, 034307
752: (2004); E. N\'acher {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 232501 (2004).
753:
754: \bibitem{sly4} A. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R.
755: Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 635}, 231 (1998).
756:
757: \bibitem{algora} A. Algora, B. Rubio and W. Gelletly, private communication.
758:
759: \bibitem{tad} T.N. Taddeucci {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 469}, 125 (1987).
760:
761: \bibitem{sk3} M. Beiner, H. Flocard, N. Van Giai and P. Quentin, Nucl.
762: Phys. A {\bf 238}, 29 (1975).
763:
764: \bibitem{sg2} N. Van Giai and H. Sagawa, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 106},
765: 379 (1981).
766:
767: \bibitem{audi} G. Audi, O. Bersillon, J. Blachot and A.H. Wapstra,
768: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 729}, 3 (2003).
769:
770: \bibitem{constraint} H. Flocard, P. Quentin, A.K. Kerman and D. Vautherin,
771: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 203}, 433 (1973).
772:
773: \bibitem{moller} J. Krumlinde and P. Moeller, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 417},
774: 419 (1984); P. Moeller and J. Randrup, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 514}, 1 (1990).
775:
776: \bibitem{homma} H. Homma, E. Bender, M. Hirsch, K. Muto, H.V.
777: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and T. Oda, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54}, 2972 (1996).
778:
779: \bibitem{gaarde} C. Gaarde et al. Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 369}, 258 (1981);
780: {\it ibid.} {\bf 396}, 127c (1983).
781:
782: \bibitem{hir}
783: M. Hirsch, A. Staudt, K. Muto and H.V.
784: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A535}, 62 (1991);
785: K. Muto, E. Bender, T. Oda and H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,
786: Z. Phys. A {\bf 341}, 407 (1992).
787:
788: \bibitem{bm} A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, {\em Nuclear Structure}, (Benjamin,
789: New York 1975).
790:
791: \bibitem{gove} N.B. Gove and M.J. Martin, Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 10}, 205
792: (1971).
793:
794:
795: \end{thebibliography}
796:
797: \newpage
798:
799: \begin{center}
800:
801: \begin{table}[t]
802: \caption{ Half-lives and $B(GT^{\pm})$ strengths in Hg isotopes. The
803: table contains experimental $Q_{EC}$ values [MeV], percentage of the
804: $\beta^+/EC$ involved in the total decay, total experimental half-lives
805: [s] \protect\cite{audi} and within brackets, the $\beta^+/EC$ experimental
806: half-lives extracted from the percentage. Then we find theoretical
807: results obtained with the force SLy4: half-lives [s],
808: $B(GT^+)$ strength $[g_A^2/(4\pi)]$ summed up to $Q_{EC}$ energies,
809: total $B(GT^+)$ and $B(GT^-)$ strengths contained in the whole
810: energy range considered $(E_{ex}<30)$ MeV, and percentage of the
811: Ikeda sum rule fulfilled in our calculations.}
812: \label{table.1}
813: \begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}\cr
814: isotope & $Q_{EC}$ & \% $\beta^+$ & $T_{1/2,exp}^{\rm total}$
815: $(\beta^+)$ & $T_{1/2,SLy4}^{\beta^+/EC}$ &
816: $\Sigma _{Q_{EC}} B(GT^+)$ & $\Sigma B(GT^+)$ & $\Sigma B(GT^-)$ & \% Ikeda
817: \cr \cr
818: \hline
819: \cr
820: $^{180}$Hg, obl & 5.352 & 52 & 2.6 (4.9) & 3.0 & 3.10 & 4.63 &
821: 64.20 & 99.28 \cr
822: prol & &&& 4.6 & 2.73 & 4.43 & 63.99 & 99.27 \cr \cr
823: $^{182}$Hg, obl & 4.725 & 86.2 & 10.8 (12.6) & 5.6 & 2.49 & 4.27 &
824: 69.62 & 99.02 \cr
825: prol & &&& 7.5 & 2.28 & 4.18 & 69.51 & 98.98 \cr \cr
826: $^{184}$Hg, obl & 3.970 & 98.89 & 30.6 (30.9) & 17.5 & 1.71 & 3.06 &
827: 74.46 & 99.17 \cr
828: prol & &&& 17.0 & 1.46 & 3.08 & 74.50 & 99.19 \cr \cr
829: $^{186}$Hg, obl & 3.176 & 100 & 82.8 (82.8) & 47.2 & 1.22 & 2.57 &
830: 79.85 & 99.08 \cr
831: prol & &&& 68.4 & 0.89 & 2.46 & 79.76 & 99.10 \cr \cr
832: $^{188}$Hg, obl & 2.099 & 100 & 195 (195) & 185.1 & 0.78 & 2.51 &
833: 85.64 & 98.96 \cr
834: prol & &&& 218.9 & 0.74 & 2.59 & 85.72 & 98.96 \cr \cr
835: $^{190}$Hg, obl & 1.511 & 100 & 1200 (1200) & 506.9 & 0.63 & 2.10 &
836: 90.84 & 98.60 \cr
837: prol & &&& 493.8 & 0.47 & 2.27 & 91.35 & 98.98 \cr \cr
838: $^{192}$Hg, obl & 0.765 & 100 & 17460 (17460) & 5200 & 0.14 & 1.71 &
839: 96.55 & 98.79 \cr
840: prol & &&& 1970 & 0.27 & 1.80 & 96.94 & 99.10 \cr
841: \end{tabular}
842: \end{table}
843:
844:
845: \begin{table}[t]
846: \caption{ Same as in Table 1 for Pb isotopes.}
847: \begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}\cr
848: isotope & $Q_{EC}$ & \% ($\beta^+/EC$) & $T_{1/2,exp}^{\rm total}$
849: $(T_{1/2,exp}^{\beta^+/EC})$ & $T_{1/2,SLy4}^{\beta^+/EC}$ &
850: $\Sigma _{Q_{EC}} B(GT^+)$ & $\Sigma B(GT^+)$ & $\Sigma B(GT^-)$ & \%
851: \cr \cr
852: \hline
853: \cr
854: $^{184}$Pb, sph & 5.84 & 20 & 0.49 (2.45) & 5.6 & 0.85 & 1.95 &
855: 61.65 & 99.50 \cr
856: obl & &&& 5.6 & 2.31 & 3.61 & 63.31 & 99.50 \cr
857: prol & &&& 3.3 & 2.55 & 4.01 & 63.70 & 99.48 \cr \cr
858: $^{186}$Pb, sph & 5.51 & 60 & 4.82 (8.03) & 16.3 & 0.54 & 1.65 &
859: 67.28 & 99.44 \cr
860: obl & &&& 10.7 & 1.73 & 2.91 & 68.58 & 99.50 \cr
861: prol & &&& 4.8 & 1.91 & 3.34 & 68.94 & 99.39 \cr \cr
862: $^{188}$Pb, sph & 4.53 & 90.7 & 25.5 (28.1) & 28.0 & 0.76 & 2.11 &
863: 73.76 & 99.51 \cr
864: obl & &&& 20.3 & 1.35 & 3.05 & 74.72 & 99.54 \cr
865: prol & &&& 16.1 & 1.46 & 3.16 & 74.78 & 99.47 \cr \cr
866: $^{190}$Pb, sph & 3.92 & 99.6 & 71 (71) & 80.0 & 0.54 & 1.92 &
867: 79.48 & 99.44 \cr
868: obl & &&& 41.7 & 0.99 & 2.67 & 80.26 & 99.47 \cr
869: prol & &&& 26.4 & 0.99 & 2.89 & 80.32 & 99.27 \cr \cr
870: $^{192}$Pb, sph & 3.32 & 100 & 210 (210) & 251.7 & 0.41 & 1.90 &
871: 85.57 & 99.61 \cr
872: obl & &&& 93.4 & 0.70 & 2.44 & 86.12 & 99.62 \cr
873: prol & &&& 45.6 & 0.79 & 2.70 & 86.26 & 99.48 \cr \cr
874: $^{194}$Pb, sph & 2.62 & 100 & 720 (720) & 655.8 & 0.62 & 2.02 &
875: 90.70 & 98.53 \cr
876: obl & &&& 482.5 & 0.56 & 2.32 & 90.99 & 98.52 \cr
877: \end{tabular}
878: \end{table}
879:
880: \begin{table}[t]
881: \caption{ Same as in Table 1 for Po isotopes.}
882: \begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}\cr
883: isotope & $Q_{EC}$ & \% ($\beta^+/EC$) & $T_{1/2,exp}^{\rm total}$
884: $(T_{1/2,exp}^{\beta^+/EC})$ & $T_{1/2,SLy4}^{\beta^+/EC}$ &
885: $\Sigma _{Q_{EC}} B(GT^+)$ & $\Sigma B(GT^+)$ & $\Sigma B(GT^-)$ & \%
886: \cr \cr
887: \hline
888: \cr
889: $^{198}$Po, obl & 3.900 & 43 & 106 (247) & 342 & 0.387 & 2.23 &
890: 91.13 & 98.78 \cr
891: prol & &&& 160 & 0.333 & 2.24 & 91.25 & 98.90 \cr \cr
892: $^{200}$Po, obl & 3.416 & 88.9 & 690 (776) & 1390 & 0.085 & 1.82 &
893: 96.64 & 98.77 \cr
894: prol & &&& 1066 & 0.189 & 1.82 & 96.76 & 98.90 \cr \cr
895: $^{202}$Po, obl & 2.809 & 98.08 & 2682 (2735) & 8799 & 0.029 & 1.42 &
896: 102.9 & 99.46 \cr
897: prol & &&& 5341 & 0.015 & 1.41 & 102.88 & 99.48 \cr \cr
898: $^{204}$Po, obl & 2.334 & 99.34 & 12708 (12729) & 29788 & 0.013 & 1.32 &
899: 108.88 & 99.59 \cr
900: prol & &&& 12167 & 0.018 & 1.31 & 108.90 & 99.62 \cr \cr
901: $^{206}$Po, obl & 1.846 & 94.55 & 760320 (804145) & 256650 & 0.0037 & 1.25 &
902: 114.78 & 99.59 \cr
903: prol & &&& 55352 & 0.0046 & 1.24 & 114.72 & 99.54 \cr
904: \end{tabular}
905: \end{table}
906:
907: \newpage
908: \begin{figure}[t]
909: \epsfig{file=FIG1.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
910: \vskip 1cm
911: \caption{HF energy scaled to the ground state energy (see text) obtained
912: from constrained HF+BCS calculations with the Skyrme force SLy4
913: and fixed pairing gap parameters as a function of the quadrupole
914: deformation $\beta$.
915: Left: $^{180-192}$Hg isotopes, middle: $^{184-194}$Pb isotopes, and
916: right: $^{198-206}$Po isotopes.}
917: \end{figure}
918:
919: \newpage
920:
921: \begin{figure}[t]
922: \epsfig{file=FIG2.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
923: \vskip 1cm
924: \caption{Left: Gamow-Teller strength distributions $[g_A^2/(4\pi)]$
925: in Hg isotopes for prolate (upward) and oblate (downward) shapes. The
926: experimental $Q_{EC}$ energies are shown by dashed arrows. Right:
927: Accumulated Gamow-Teller strength for prolate (thick lines) and oblate
928: (thin lines) shapes plotted up to the $Q_{EC}$ energies.
929: Results are obtained from SLy4 force with fixed gap parameters.}
930: \end{figure}
931:
932: \newpage
933:
934: \begin{figure}[t]
935: \epsfig{file=FIG3.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
936: \vskip 1cm
937: \caption{Same as in Fig. 2 for Pb isotopes. In this case we also include results
938: from spherical shapes.}
939: \end{figure}
940:
941: \newpage
942:
943: \begin{figure}[t]
944: \epsfig{file=FIG4.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
945: \vskip 1cm
946: \caption{Same as in Fig. 2 for Po isotopes.}
947: \end{figure}
948:
949: \newpage
950:
951: \begin{figure}[t]
952: \epsfig{file=FIG5.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
953: \vskip 1cm
954: \caption{Folded Gamow-Teller strength distributions
955: $B(GT^{\pm})\; [g_A^2/(4\pi)]$ for the various shapes of the Hg
956: isotopes in the range of excitation energies up to 20 MeV.}
957: \end{figure}
958:
959: \newpage
960:
961: \begin{figure}[t]
962: \epsfig{file=FIG6.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
963: \vskip 1cm
964: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for Pb isotopes.}
965: \end{figure}
966:
967: \newpage
968:
969: \begin{figure}[t]
970: \epsfig{file=FIG7.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
971: \vskip 1cm
972: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for Po isotopes.}
973: \end{figure}
974:
975: \end{center}
976:
977: \end{document}
978:
979: