pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.01762 · v1 · pith:ZDGFFI7Nnew · submitted 2019-07-03 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Prediction of stable superheavy nuclei

H.C. Manjunatha , L. Seenappa , K.N. Sridhar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 10:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords superheavy nucleiisland of stabilityalpha decayspontaneous fissioncluster decayhalf-livesnuclear stabilitysuperheavy elements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Calculations identify twelve superheavy nuclei with long lifetimes as evidence for the island of stability.

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

The paper calculates half-lives for alpha decay, cluster decay, and spontaneous fission in superheavy nuclei to locate those with the longest lifetimes. It reports nine nuclei around Z=123-125 that survive longest via fission and three around Z=125-126 that survive longest via alpha decay. A sympathetic reader would care because these nuclei are presented as the most stable superheavy species that could be made in accelerators, directly testing whether an island of stability exists. The work treats the listed half-lives as concrete predictions that would become observable once the nuclei are synthesized.

Core claim

By studying the decay properties such as alpha decay, cluster decay and spontaneous fission, nine stable nuclei in the island of stability which can be detected through fission are identified: 318123(10.5 ms), 319123(4.68 μs), 317124(1.74×10^4 y), 318124(2.70×10^1 y), 319124(2.83×10^{-2} y), 320124(1.91×10^{-5} y), 319125(2.46×10^9 y), 320125(3.81×10^6 y) and 321125(3.99×10^3 y). Three stable superheavy nuclei which can be detected through alpha decay are 318125(1.03×10^{12} y), 319126(5.77×10^{11} y) and 320126(3.99×10^{10} y). These nuclei will become most stable nuclei if they are synthesized in the laboratory. The identified twelve stable nuclei is the evidence for the hypothesis of the岛

What carries the argument

Half-life calculations for alpha decay, cluster decay and spontaneous fission applied to nuclei with Z near 123-126.

If this is right

  • The listed nuclei become the primary targets for synthesis experiments seeking long-lived superheavy elements.
  • If produced, the nine fission-stable nuclei would be observable on millisecond to year timescales via fission products.
  • The three alpha-stable nuclei would persist for billions of years and could be studied by alpha spectroscopy.
  • The set of twelve nuclei supplies concrete support for the existence of an island of stability centered near Z=124-126.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These half-life predictions could be used to prioritize beam energies and target choices in heavy-ion fusion reactions.
  • Agreement or disagreement with measured lifetimes would constrain the parameters of nuclear mass and barrier models in the superheavy region.
  • Extension of the same decay-rate approach to Z>126 might reveal whether additional islands of stability appear at still higher proton numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The formulas used to compute decay rates stay accurate when applied to nuclei with atomic numbers 123-126.

What would settle it

Laboratory synthesis of 318124 or 319125 followed by direct measurement of its half-life to test whether the observed lifetime matches the calculated value.

read the original abstract

We have investigated most stable superheavy nuclei by studying the decay properties such as alpha decay, cluster decay and spontaneous fission. We have investigated nine stable nuclei in the island of stability which can be detected through fission are 318123(10.5ms), 319123(4.68{\mu}s), 317124(1.74x104 y), 318124(2.70x101 y), 319124(2.83x10-2 y), 320124(1.91x10-5 y), 319125(2.46x109 y), 320125(3.81x106 y) and 321125(3.99x103 y). Present work also investigates three stable superheavy nuclei which can be detected through alpha decay which are 318125(1.03x1012 y), 319126(5.77x1011 y) and 320126(3.99x1010 y). These nuclei will become most stable nuclei if they synthesized in the laboratory. The identified twelve stable nuclei is the evidence for the hypothesis of island of stability

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates half-lives for alpha, cluster, and spontaneous-fission decay channels in the Z=123–126 region and identifies twelve nuclei (nine via fission: 318123, 319123, 317124, 318124, 319124, 320124, 319125, 320125, 321125; three via alpha: 318125, 319126, 320126) as sufficiently long-lived to constitute stable members of an island of stability, presenting the list as direct evidence for the hypothesis.

Significance. If the extrapolated lifetimes prove quantitatively reliable, the work would supply concrete targets for synthesis experiments and strengthen the theoretical case for an island of stability; the explicit numerical predictions constitute a falsifiable output that could be tested once the nuclei are produced.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the half-lives (e.g., 10.5 ms for 318123, 2.46×10^9 y for 319125) are obtained from decay-rate formulas whose parameters are fixed on lighter nuclei; no section demonstrates that these formulas remain accurate when both Z and the fission barrier are extrapolated to the unmeasured domain Z≈123–126.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the twelve nuclei constitute “evidence for the hypothesis of island of stability” rests on the quantitative accuracy of the extrapolated lifetimes, yet the manuscript supplies neither comparisons to measured half-lives of known superheavy nuclei (Z=114–118) nor uncertainty estimates on the predicted values.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the classification of nuclei as “stable” and “detectable through fission” or “alpha decay” is load-bearing for the result, but the text does not specify which semi-empirical or microscopic formulas are employed or whether additional parameters are introduced for the superheavy region.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: numerical formatting is inconsistent (1.74x104 y, 2.70x101 y) and should be standardized to scientific notation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase “most stable superheavy nuclei” is repeated without a clear definition of the stability criterion (e.g., half-life threshold).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the half-lives (e.g., 10.5 ms for 318123, 2.46×10^9 y for 319125) are obtained from decay-rate formulas whose parameters are fixed on lighter nuclei; no section demonstrates that these formulas remain accurate when both Z and the fission barrier are extrapolated to the unmeasured domain Z≈123–126.

    Authors: The decay formulas used are standard in the field and have been previously applied to superheavy nuclei in the literature. However, we agree that an explicit demonstration of their accuracy in the extrapolated region is lacking in the current manuscript. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated paragraph discussing the extrapolation and referencing prior works that have used these formulas for Z > 120. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the twelve nuclei constitute “evidence for the hypothesis of island of stability” rests on the quantitative accuracy of the extrapolated lifetimes, yet the manuscript supplies neither comparisons to measured half-lives of known superheavy nuclei (Z=114–118) nor uncertainty estimates on the predicted values.

    Authors: We acknowledge this limitation. The manuscript focuses on predictions for the Z=123-126 region without including a validation against known data. We will revise the manuscript to include a table comparing our calculated half-lives with experimental values for nuclei with Z=114-118 where available, and we will discuss the uncertainties inherent in the models. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the classification of nuclei as “stable” and “detectable through fission” or “alpha decay” is load-bearing for the result, but the text does not specify which semi-empirical or microscopic formulas are employed or whether additional parameters are introduced for the superheavy region.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from a clearer specification of the formulas. We will revise the text to explicitly detail the semi-empirical formulas used for each decay channel and confirm that no additional parameters were introduced for the superheavy region. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard model extrapolation to new nuclei

full rationale

The paper computes half-lives via established semi-empirical formulas for alpha, cluster, and fission decay, then flags nuclei whose computed lifetimes exceed certain thresholds as 'stable.' This is a conventional forward application of pre-calibrated models to an unexplored mass region rather than any self-referential definition, parameter refit, or load-bearing self-citation. No equation or section reduces the stability assignment to the paper's own inputs by construction; the listed lifetimes are outputs of external formulas applied to candidate (Z,N) values. The claim that these 12 nuclei constitute evidence for the island of stability therefore rests on the (unverified) accuracy of the extrapolation, not on circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard nuclear decay models whose parameters are fitted to known data and on the untested assumption that those models remain valid at Z=123-126.

free parameters (1)
  • decay-model parameters
    Alpha, cluster, and fission rate formulas contain multiple constants adjusted to experimental data on lighter nuclei.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Decay-rate formulas calibrated on known nuclei remain accurate for Z>120
    Invoked when the authors extrapolate to the listed superheavy candidates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5733 in / 1271 out tokens · 51660 ms · 2026-05-25T10:01:50.464161+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

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    simple empirical formulae [ 20-44] are also available to determining decay half -lives

    Various phenomenological and microscopic models such as fission mo del [16], cluster model [17], generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [ 18], unified model for alpha -decay and alpha capture (UMADAC) [ 19] are available in the literature to study the different decay modes of superheavy nuclei . simple empirical formulae [ 20-44] are also available to deter...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the figure 1, we have highlighted the minimum energy difference (M p-Md) between parent and daughter

    The energy released during the decay process is depend on the difference between the mass excess of parent and daughter. In the figure 1, we have highlighted the minimum energy difference (M p-Md) between parent and daughter. If the value of (Mp-Md) is low t hen the corresponding half -lives are high. Figure 2 shows the variation of energy released Qα (Me...

    work page

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

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

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    G.G.Adamian, N.V.Antonenko, H.Lenske, Nuclear Physics A 970 (2018) 22–28 5

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Oganessian, et al., Phys

    Yu.Ts. Oganessian, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 142502

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Oganessian, et al., Phys

    Yu.Ts. Oganessian, et al., Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014302

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Utyonkov, et al., Phys

    V.K. Utyonkov, et al., Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034609

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Oganessian, V.K

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

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Stavsetra, K.E

    L. Stavsetra, K.E. Gregorich, J. Dvorak, P.A. Ellison, I. Dragojevic, M.A. Garcia, H. Nitsche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 132502

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    Düllmann, et al., Phys

    Ch. Düllmann, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 252701

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Gates, et al., Phys

    J.M. Gates, et al., Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 054618

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Hofmann, et al., Eur

    S. Hofmann, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 48 (2012) 62

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Khuyagbaatar, et al., Phys

    J.M. Khuyagbaatar, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 172501

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Oganessian, et al., Phys

    Yu.Ts. Oganessian, et al., Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 024603

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Düllmann, TASCA Collaboration, in: Fission and Properties of Neutron-Rich Nuclei, vol.44, World Scientific, Singapore, 2013, p.271

    C.E. Düllmann, TASCA Collaboration, in: Fission and Properties of Neutron-Rich Nuclei, vol.44, World Scientific, Singapore, 2013, p.271

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Hofmann, et al., Eur

    S. Hofmann, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 180, 52 (2016) 116

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Poenaru, M

    D.N. Poenaru, M. Ivascu, A. Sandulescu, W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 32 (1985)572

    work page 1985

  19. [19]

    Buck, A.C

    B. Buck, A.C. Merchant, S.M. Perez, Phys. Rev. C 45 (1992) 2247

    work page 1992

  20. [20]

    Zhang, G

    H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 047304

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    V. Yu. Denisov and H. Ikezoe, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064613

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    D. N. Poenaru, R. A. Gherghescu, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 83, 014601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    D.Ni, Z.Ren, T.Dong, C.Xu, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044310 (2008)

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    Sobiczewski, Z

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

    work page 1989

  25. [25]

    Myers and W.J

    W.D. Myers and W.J. Swiatecki, Phys. Rev. C 62, 044610 (2000)

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 072501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    B. Sahu, R. Paira, and B. Rath, Nucl. Phys. A 908, 40 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Y., & Khudenko, A

    Denisov, V. Y., & Khudenko, A. A. (2009). Phys. Rev. C, 79(5), 054614

    work page 2009

  29. [30]

    M.Horoi, B.A.Brown, A.Sandulescu, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 30, 945 (2004)

    work page 2004

  30. [31]

    V.Yu.Denisov, A.A.Khudenko, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054614 (2009) 82, 059901 (E) (2010)

    work page 2009

  31. [32]

    A.Sobiczeweski, Z.Patyk, S.Cwiok, Phys.Lett B, 224(1989)1

    work page 1989

  32. [33]

    A.Parkhomenko, A.Sobiczeweski, Acta Physica Pol.B 36(10)(2005)3095-3108

    work page 2005

  33. [34]

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

    work page 2000

  34. [35]

    B 36(10)(2005) 3095-3108

    A.Parkhomenko, A.Sobiczewski, Acta Physica pol. B 36(10)(2005) 3095-3108

    work page 2005

  35. [36]

    D.T.Akrawy, H.Hassanabadi, S.S.Hosseini, K.P.Santhosh, Nucl. Phys. A 971 (2018)130-137

    work page 2018

  36. [37]

    G.Royer, Nucl. Phys. A, 848, 279 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [38]

    Alex Brown, Phys

    B. Alex Brown, Phys. Rev. C 46, 811 (1992)

    work page 1992

  38. [39]

    Brown, Phys

    B.A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 46 (1992) 811

    work page 1992

  39. [40]

    Budaca, R.Budaca, I.Silisteanu, Nuc

    A.I. Budaca, R.Budaca, I.Silisteanu, Nuc. Phys. A 951 (2016) 60-74

    work page 2016

  40. [41]

    D. N. Poenaru, W. Greiner, M. Ivaşcu, D. Mazilu, and I. H. Plonski, Z. Phys. A: At. Nucl. 325, 435 (1986)

    work page 1986

  41. [42]

    A.Sobiczewski, A.Parkhomenko, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 292 (2007)

    work page 2007

  42. [43]

    Akrawy and D

    D.T. Akrawy and D. N. Poenaru, Jour. Phys. G: Nuc. and Part. Phys. 44, 10 (2017)

    work page 2017

  43. [44]

    Akrawy and D

    D. Akrawy and D. N. Poenaru, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 44, 105105 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [45]

    J. M. Dong, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 832, 198 (2010) 6

    work page 2010

  45. [46]

    Ismail, A

    M. Ismail, A. Y. Ellithi, M. M. Botros and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 024602

    work page 2010

  46. [47]

    Manjunatha (2016) Int

    H.C. Manjunatha (2016) Int. J Mod. Phy. E 25(11):1650100

    work page 2016

  47. [48]

    Manjunatha (2016) Int

    H.C. Manjunatha (2016) Int. J Mod. Phy. E 25(9):1650074

    work page 2016

  48. [49]

    Manjunatha (2016) Nucl

    H.C. Manjunatha (2016) Nucl. Phy. A (2016) 945:42–57

    work page 2016

  49. [50]

    Manjunatha, N.Sowmya (2018) Nucl

    H.C. Manjunatha, N.Sowmya (2018) Nucl. Phy. A (2018) 969: 68–82 Table 1: comparison of the alpha decay halflives with that of the values produced by the different semi empirical formulae available in the literature Method 318123 319123 317124 318124 319124 320124 318125 319125 320125 321125 319126 320126 Present work 32.87 35.95 15.96 29.00 34.51 38.18 17...

    work page 2018