pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.06877 · v1 · pith:RV2YL3SWnew · submitted 2019-07-16 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Microscopic calculations of weak decays in superheavy nuclei

P. Sarriguren This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 20:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords superheavy nucleibeta decayelectron capturealpha decaySkyrme Hartree-Focknuclear half-livesdeformed mean field
0
0 comments X

The pith

Microscopic calculations show alpha decay dominates over beta+ and electron capture in nuclei such as 290Fl and 293Mc.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper computes half-lives for beta+ decay and electron capture in four superheavy nuclei produced in hot fusion reactions. It models the nuclei with deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations that include pairing correlations. The work examines how the results change with nuclear deformation and with the still-unmeasured QEC energies. Direct comparison with phenomenological alpha-decay half-lives establishes that alpha emission is the faster process. This identifies the main decay channel that limits the observable lifetimes of these nuclei.

Core claim

Deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations that include pairing correlations are used to obtain the nuclear structure of 290Fl, 293Mc, 294Lv, and 295Ts; the resulting beta+ and electron-capture half-lives are longer than the corresponding phenomenological alpha-decay half-lives, so that alpha decay is the dominant mode in this mass region.

What carries the argument

Deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations with pairing correlations, which supply the single-particle energies, wave functions, and Q-values needed to evaluate the weak-decay rates.

If this is right

  • Alpha decay sets the effective lifetime scale for these and neighboring superheavy species.
  • The calculated weak-decay rates remain sensitive to the precise QEC values until those energies are measured.
  • Deformation changes the overlap factors and therefore the weak-decay matrix elements.
  • Phenomenological alpha formulas can be used with greater that they capture the leading decay channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same microscopic framework could be applied to additional superheavy isotopes to locate where weak and alpha branches become comparable.
  • Measured QEC values would allow a direct test of the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock wave functions against weak-decay data.
  • If alpha dominance persists across the island of stability, synthesis experiments must optimize for rapid alpha chains rather than beta-delayed fission.

Load-bearing premise

The nuclear structure of these superheavy nuclei is accurately captured by deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations that include pairing correlations.

What would settle it

An experimental QEC value or direct half-life measurement for any of the four nuclei that makes the beta+ or electron-capture rate faster than the phenomenological alpha rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.06877 by P. Sarriguren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Deformation-energy curve for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Ratios of calculated and experimental half-lives fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Ratios of calculated and experimental half-lives fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Ratios of calculated and experimental half-lives fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Calculated and experimental half-lives for Fm, Md, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Same as in Fig. 1, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Gamow-Teller strength distribution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the QEC energies calculated with masses obtained from three mass formulas (FRDM, FRDM-12, and DZ) and two microscopic calculations (SkP and SLy4). The masses from FRDM-12 [66] are a recent improved upgrade of the FRDM masses. Although there are no experimental values for these nuclei, I also add extrapolated values from the systematics in this mass region extracted from Ref. [59], that appear in the … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Calculated half-lives, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Half-lives of beta+ decay and electron capture are studied in some selected superheavy nuclei produced in hot fusion reactions, namely, 290Fl, 293Mc, 294Lv, and 295Ts. The nuclear structure is described microscopically from deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations that include pairing correlations. The sensitivity of the half-lives to deformation and to the QEC energies, which are still not determined experimentally, are studied. The results are compared with phenomenological alpha-decay half-lives, showing that the latter decay mode is dominant in this mass region.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes beta+ and electron-capture half-lives for the superheavy nuclei 290Fl, 293Mc, 294Lv and 295Ts using deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations that incorporate pairing correlations. It examines the dependence of these half-lives on nuclear deformation and on the still-undetermined QEC values, then compares the resulting weak-decay lifetimes with phenomenological alpha-decay half-lives to conclude that alpha decay dominates in this mass region.

Significance. If the microscopic results prove robust, the work supplies a parameter-consistent nuclear-structure input for weak-decay rates in the superheavy region, complementing the phenomenological alpha-decay systematics that currently guide experimental planning. The explicit treatment of deformation and QEC sensitivity is a constructive step toward reducing reliance on purely empirical extrapolations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that alpha decay is dominant requires an explicit demonstration that the microscopically computed beta+/EC half-lives remain longer than the phenomenological alpha values even at the lower edge of the plausible QEC range. Because the phase-space factor scales as (QEC)^5, a single nominal QEC value is insufficient to establish robustness; the manuscript must tabulate or plot the weak-decay lifetimes across the full experimental uncertainty interval of QEC.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the work and for the constructive suggestion to strengthen the robustness of the central claim. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that alpha decay is dominant requires an explicit demonstration that the microscopically computed beta+/EC half-lives remain longer than the phenomenological alpha values even at the lower edge of the plausible QEC range. Because the phase-space factor scales as (QEC)^5, a single nominal QEC value is insufficient to establish robustness; the manuscript must tabulate or plot the weak-decay lifetimes across the full experimental uncertainty interval of QEC.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration across the full QEC uncertainty interval is required to establish robustness, given the strong phase-space dependence. Although the manuscript already studies the sensitivity of the half-lives to QEC, it does not provide a direct side-by-side comparison at the lower edge. In the revised manuscript we will add a table (or plot) that lists the computed beta+/EC half-lives at the lower, nominal, and upper edges of the plausible QEC range for each nucleus and compares them directly with the phenomenological alpha-decay half-lives, thereby confirming that alpha decay remains dominant throughout the interval. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation uses external Skyrme parameters and independent phenomenological alpha lifetimes

full rationale

The paper computes beta+/EC half-lives from deformed Skyrme-HF mean-field wave functions (with standard external Skyrme forces and pairing) and compares them directly to separate phenomenological alpha-decay formulas. No equation defines a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain. QEC values are treated as external experimental inputs whose uncertainty is explicitly propagated; the dominance conclusion is therefore a comparison between two independent classes of input rather than an internal redefinition. This is the normal non-circular case for a structure-plus-decay calculation paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Results rest on the domain assumption that Skyrme-HF plus pairing reproduces the ground-state properties of these nuclei well enough for decay-rate predictions; no new entities or free parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Deformed self-consistent Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean-field calculations that include pairing correlations accurately describe the nuclear structure of the selected superheavy nuclei.
    This premise supplies the single-particle energies, deformations, and pairing gaps used to compute the weak-decay matrix elements and phase space.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5616 in / 1176 out tokens · 22070 ms · 2026-05-24T20:53:18.671810+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hofmann and G

    S. Hofmann and G. M¨ unzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 733 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A. S...

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Yuri Oganessian, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 34, R165 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian and V. K. Utyonkov, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 62 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    J. H. Hamilton, D. Hofmann, and Y. T. Oganessian, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 383 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Juhee Jong, G. G. Adamian, and N. V. Antonenko, Phys. Lett. B 764, 42 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    S. A. Giuliani, Z. Matheson, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, P.- G. Reinhard, J. Sadhukhan, B. Schuetrumpf, N. Schunck, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 011001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Hofmann, S

    S. Hofmann, S. Heinz, R. Mann, J. Maurer, G. M¨ unzenberg, S. Antalic, W. Barth, H.G. Burkhard, L. Dahl, K. Eberhardt, R. Grzywacz, J.H. Hamilton, R.A. Henderson, J.M. Kenneally, B. Kindler, I. Kojouharov, R. Lang, B. Lommel, K. Miernik, D. Miller, K.J. Moody, K. Morita, K. Nishio, A.G. Popeko, J.B. Roberto, J. Runke, K.P. Rykaczewski, S. Saro, C. Scheide...

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nuclear Phys. 81, 1 (1966)

    work page 1966

  10. [10]

    Sobiczewski, F

    A. Sobiczewski, F. A. Gareev, and B. N. Kalinkin, Phys. Lett. 22, 500 (1966)

    work page 1966

  11. [11]

    S. G. Nilsson, J. R. Nix, A. Sobiczewski, Z. Szymanski, S. Wycech, C. Gustafson, and P. M¨ oller, Nucl. Phys. A 115, 545 (1968)

    work page 1968

  12. [12]

    Patyk and A

    Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski, Nucl. Phys. A 533, 132 (1991)

    work page 1991

  13. [13]

    M¨ oller and J

    P. M¨ oller and J. R. Nix, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 20, 1681 (1994)

    work page 1994

  14. [14]

    Smolanczuk, J

    R. Smolanczuk, J. Skalski, and A. Sobiczewski, Phys. Rev. C 52, 1871 (1995)

    work page 1995

  15. [15]

    K. Rutz, M. Bender, T. B¨ urvenich, T. Schilling, P.-G. Reinhard, J. A. Maruhn, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 56, 238 (1997)

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    A. T. Kruppa, M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz, P.-G. Rein- hard, T. Vertse, and S. ´Cwiok, Phys. Rev. C 61, 034313 (2000)

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    Bender, W

    M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz , and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Lett. B 515, 42 (2001)

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006)

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Dobaczewski, A

    J. Dobaczewski, A. V. Afanasjev, M. Bender, L. M. Rob- ledo, and Yue Shi, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 388 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    A. N. Kuzmina, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014319 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    A. V. Karpov, V. I. Zagrebaev, Y. Martinez Palazuela, L. Felipe Ruiz, and Walter Greiner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 21, 1250013 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    V. I. Zagrebaev, A. V. Karpov, and Walter Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014608 (2012)

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Heenen, J

    P.-H. Heenen, J. Skalski, A. Staszczakc, and D. Vretena r, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 415 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    M¨ oller, J

    P. M¨ oller, J. R. Nix, and K.-L. Kratz, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 66, 131 (1997)

    work page 1997

  26. [26]

    M¨ oller, J

    P. M¨ oller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Swiatecki, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 59, 185 (1995)

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    E. O. Fiset and J. R. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A 193, 647 (1972),

    work page 1972

  28. [28]

    Sarriguren, E

    P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, A. Escuderos, and A. C. Carrizo, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 55 (1998)

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Sarriguren, E

    P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, and A. Escuderos, Nucl. Phys. A 658, 13 (1999)

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    Sarriguren, E

    P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, and A. Escuderos, Nucl. Phys. A 691, 631 (2001)

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    Sarriguren, E

    P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, and A. Escuderos, Phys. Rev. C 64, 064306 (2001)

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 231 (1998)

    work page 1998

  33. [33]

    Bender, G

    M. Bender, G. F. Bertsch, and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 78, 054312 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    M. V. Stoitsov, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, S. Pitte l, and D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054312 (2003)

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972); D. Vautherin, Phys. Rev. C 7, 296 (1973)

    work page 1972

  36. [36]

    M. V. Stoitsov, W. Nazarewicz, and S. Pittel Phys. Rev. C 58, 2092 (1998); M. V. Stoitsov, J. Dobaczewski, P. Ring, and S. Pittel, Phys. Rev. C 61, 034311 (2000)

    work page 2092

  37. [37]

    Krumlinde and P

    J. Krumlinde and P. M¨ oller, Nucl. Phys. A 417, 419 (1984)

    work page 1984

  38. [38]

    Homma, E

    H. Homma, E. Bender, M. Hirsch, K. Muto, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, and T. Oda, Phys. Rev. C 54, 2972 (1996)

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    J. M. Boillos and P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034311 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    K. Muto, E. Bender, T. Oda, and H. V. Klapdor- Kleingrothaus, Z. Phys. A 341, 407 (1992)

    work page 1992

  41. [41]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vols. I and II, (Benjamin, New York 1975)

    work page 1975

  42. [42]

    Schunck, J

    N. Schunck, J. Dobaczewski, J. McDonnell, J. Mor´ e, W. Nazarewicz, J. Sarich, and M. V. Stoitsov, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024316 (2010)

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Perez-Martin and L

    S. Perez-Martin and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 78, 014304 (2008)

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Sarriguren, R

    P. Sarriguren, R. Alvarez-Rodr ´ ıguez, and E. Moya de Guerra, Eur. Phys. J. A 24, 193 (2005)

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 79, 044315 (2009); Phys. Lett. B 680, 438 (2009); Phys. Rev. C 83, 025801 (2011)

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    Sarriguren, O

    P. Sarriguren, O. Moreno, R. Alvarez-Rodr ´ ıguez, and E . Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rev. C 72, 054317 (2005)

    work page 2005

  47. [47]

    Moreno, P

    O. Moreno, P. Sarriguren, R. Alvarez-Rodr ´ ıguez, and E . Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rev. C 73, 054302 (2006)

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    Sarriguren and J

    P. Sarriguren and J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064314 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Sarriguren, A

    P. Sarriguren, A. Algora, and J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034311 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 91, 044304 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Sarriguren, A

    P. Sarriguren, A. Algora, and G. Kiss, Phys. Rev. C 98, 024311 (2018)

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 95, 014304 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Sarriguren, E

    P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, and R. Alvarez- Rodr ´ ıguez, Nucl. Phys. A716, 230 (2003)

    work page 2003

  54. [54]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 87, 045801 (2013)

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054309 (2016)

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    N´ acher, A

    E. N´ acher, A. Algora, B. Rubio, J. L. Ta ´ ın, D. Cano- Ott, S. Courtin, Ph. Dessagne, F. Mar´ echal, Ch. Mieh´ e, E. Poirier, M. J. G. Borge, D. Escrig, A. Jungclaus, P. Sarriguren, O. Tengblad, W. Gelletly, L. M. Fraile and G. Le Scornet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 232501 (2004)

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    Gove and M.J

    N.B. Gove and M.J. Martin, Nucl. Data Tables 10, 205 (1971)

    work page 1971

  58. [58]

    G. Audi, F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, B. Pfeiffer, X. Sun, J. Blachot, and M. MacCormick, Chinese Physics C 36, 12 1157 (2012); M. Wang. G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra, F. G. Kondev, M. MacCormick, X. Xu, and B. Pfeiffer, Chinese Physics C 36, 1603 (2012)

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Aboussir, J

    Y. Aboussir, J. M. Pearson, A. K. Dutta, F. Tondeur, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 61, 127 (1995)

    work page 1995

  60. [60]

    Duflo and A

    J. Duflo and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. C 52, R23 (1995)

    work page 1995

  61. [61]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035804 (2010)

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    M. V. Stoitsov, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and P. Ring, Comp. Phys. Comm. 167, 43 (2005)

    work page 2005

  63. [63]

    www.nuclearmasses.org

    work page

  64. [64]

    Hilaire and M

    S. Hilaire and M. Girod, Eur. Phys. J. A 33, 237 (2007); www-phynu.cea.fr/science en ligne/carte potentiels mi- croscopiques/carte potentiel nucleaire eng.htm

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Parkhomenko and A

    A. Parkhomenko and A. Sobiczewski, Acta Physica Polonica B 36, 3095 (2005)

    work page 2005

  67. [67]

    Royer, J

    G. Royer, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 26, 1149 (2000)

    work page 2000

  68. [68]

    V. E. Viola, Jr., and G. T. Seaborg, J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 28, 741 (1966)

    work page 1966

  69. [69]

    Sobiczewski, Z

    A. Sobiczewski, Z. Patyk, and S. ´Cwiok, Phys. Lett. B 224, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989