logo

Two-proton radioactivity from excited states of proton-rich nuclei within Coulomb and Proximity Potential Model

NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Two-proton radioactivity from excited states of proton-rich nuclei within Coulomb and Proximity Potential Model

De-Xing Zhu
Yang-Yang Xu
Li-Jia Chu
Xi-Jun Wu
Biao He
Xiao-Hua Li
Nuclear Science and TechniquesVol.34, No.9Article number 130Published in print Sep 2023Available online 08 Sep 2023
36804

In the present work, we extend the Coulomb and Proximity Potential Model (CPPM) to study two-proton (2p) radioactivity from excited states while the proximity potential is chosen as AW95 proposed by Aage Withner in 1995. Demonstration reveals that the theoretical results acquired by CPPM exhibit a high level of consistency with prior theoretical models, such as the unified fission model (UFM), generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) and effective liquid drop model (ELDM). Furthermore, within the CPPM, we predicted the half-lives of potential 2p radioactive nuclei for which experimental data are currently unavailable. The predicted results were then assessed, compared with UFM, ELDM, and GLDM models, and examined in detail.

2p radioactivityCPPMhalf-livesexcited state
1

Introduction

Except for the well-known α, β, γ and cluster decays, etc [1-10], there exist some exotic modes of radioactivity in proton-rich nuclei [11-13], such as proton and two-proton (2p) radioactivity [14-18]. 2p radioactivity is an extremely exotic mode that is energetically possible in less massive nuclei near the proton-drip line [19-25], and it can reveal abundant information of nuclear structure, including the nuclear radius, wave function of the emitted two protons, spin and parity, deformation effect and so on [26-28]. This novel decay mode was firstly predicted by Zel’dovich and Goldansky in 1960s [29-31]. Based on the pioneering work of Zel’dovich and Goldansky, an extensive range of theoretical models have been proposed to describe this exotic decay process [32-35]. However, due to the limitations in radioactive beam facilities and detection technology, 2p radioactivity was not experimentally confirmed until the observation of 45Fe 43Cr+p+p decay by Giovinazzo et al. at GANIL (France) and independently by Pfützner et al. at GSI (Germany) in 2002, which provided the first experimental evidence of this decay mode [36, 37]. Since then 2p radioactivity has been recognized as the significant decay mode for proton-rich nuclei [38], and it has been detected and studied in several nuclei, such as the resonant ground state of 6Be [39, 40] and 12O [41], and in the excited state selectively populated in 6Be [40] and 14O [42], etc.

Numerous studies have shown that the 2p radioactivity not only occurs from ground state but also from short-lived excited state. Jänecke was the first to discuss the possibility of β-delayed 2p (β2p) radioactivity [38], while Goldansky predicted the occurrence of β2p radioactivity could be found in β2p emitters of Z=10-20. In 1983, Cable et al. reported the first experimental observation of β2p radioactivity [43]. Subsequently, an increasing number of β2p emitters have been detected using silicon detector telescopes, making it possible to measure the energy of two individual protons with high precision. Since Cable et al. [43] discovered the β2p radioactivity from 22Al, shortly they observed more β2p radioactivity from 26P [44] and 35Ca [45]. Hereafter, several other β2p nuclei were found, including 23Si [46], 27S [47], 31Ar [48], 39Ti [49], 43Cr [50, 51] and 50Ni [52]. In addition to populating excited state 2p radioactivity via β decays, 2p radioactivity has also been observed from excited state fed by nuclear reactions such as pick up, transfer or fragmentation, including 14O [42], 17,18Ne [53-57], 22Mg [58, 59] and 28,29S [60, 61]. In 2006, Mukha et al. first reported 2p radioactivity from 94Ag in an experiment at GSI [62].

From a theoretical perspective, several methods have been proposed over the past few decades to study the mechanism of 2p radioactivity, including both microscopic and phenomenological models. In general, there are three distinct ways for proton-rich nuclei to emit two protons: (1) two-body sequential emission, (2) three-body simultaneous emission, and (3) diproton emission (also called 2He cluster emission). The 2He cluster emission is an extreme scenario with the two strongly correlated protons that can only survive for a brief time before splitting after passing through the Coulomb barrier. Recently, based on the CPPM, Yao et al. [64] and Ghodsi et al. [65], as well as Deng et al. [66] and Santhosh et al. [67], performed comparative studies of various proximity potential formalisms to study α decay, proton radioactivity and cluster radioactivity, respectively. Considering that the 2p radioactivity decay process shares the same theory as α decay and proton radioactivity, i.e., barrier penetration [68-73], we extended the CPPM presented in Ref. [74] to account for ground state 2p radioactivity. It was found that both the calculated and predicted results were highly consistent with experimental data and results from other theoretical models. In fact, except for theoretical models the empirical formulae are excellent tools for investigating 2p radioactivity involving a four-parameter empirical formula provided by Sreeja et al. [34] and a two-parameter empirical formula proposed by Liu et al. [63]. Consequently, a desirable question is whether 2p radioactivity from excited states can be regarded as 2He cluster emission and described by the CPPM. To address this question, we systematically studied the half-lives of 2p radioactivity from excited states within the CPPM for nuclei with 8 < Z < 47 in this work.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, the theoretical framework of 2p radioactivity half-life and the CPPM formalism are described briefly. In Sect. 3, detailed calculations and discussion are presented. Finally, a summary is given in Sect. 4.

2

Theoretical framework

2.1
The 2p radioactivity half-life formalism

The half-life of 2p radioactivity is generally determined by T1/2=ln 2λ=ln 2νPS2p, (1) where λ is the decay constant. ν is the assault frequency related to the harmonic oscillation frequency presented in the Nilsson potential [75], it can be written as hν=ω41A1/3. (2) Here h, , A and ω are the Planck constant, reduced Plank constant, mass number of parent nucleus and angular frequency, respectively. S2p=G2[A/(A2)]2nχ2 represents the preformation probability of the emitted two protons in parent nucleus obtained by the cluster overlap approximation[74]. Here G2=(2n)!22n(n!)2 [20, 86] with n(3Z)1/31 is the average principal proton oscillator quantum number and χ2 is set as 0.0143 acrooding to Ref. [23]. The penetration probability P can be calculated by the WKB approximation and written as P=exp[2rinroutK(r)dr], (3) where K(r)=2μ2|V(r)Q2p|, μ denotes the reduced mass [35]. r is the mass center distance between the daughter nucleus and emitted two protons. rin and rout are classical inner and outer turning points which can be obtained from the conditions V(rin)=V(rout)=Q2p. The whole interaction potential V(r) between the emitted two protons and daughter nucleus is composed of the Coulomb potential VC(r), nuclear potential VN(r) and centrifugal potential Vl(r). It can be expressed as V(r)=VN(r)+VC(r)+Vl(r). (4) In CPPM, the nuclear potential is replaced by proximity potential. A detailed description of the proximity potential will be provided in Sect. 2.2.

Assuming a homogeneous spherical charge distribution for the daughter nucleus, the Coulomb potential VC(r) is postulated to be the potential of a uniformly charged sphere with radius R. It is expressed as follows: VC(r)={Z1Z2e22R[3(rR)],r<R,Z1Z2e2r,r>R, (5) where R=R1+R2 is the separation radius with R1 and R2 being the radii of daughter nucleus and emitted two protons, respectively.

For Vl(r), we choose the Langer modified form, because l(l+1)(l+12)2 is a necessary correction for one-dimensional problems [76]. It can be written as Vl(r)=2(l+12)22μr2, (6) where l is the obrital angular momentum taken away by the emitted two protons.

2.2
The proximity potential formalism

The phenomenological proximity potential was first proposed by Blocki et al. [77] in 1970s for heavy-ion reactions. It provides a simple formula for the nucleus-nucleus interaction energy as a function of the separation between the surfaces of the approaching nuclei, with adjustable parameters that makes use of the measured values of the nuclear surface tension and surface diffuseness. In the CPPM, the potential energy barrier is modeled as the sum of Coulomb potential, proximity potential and centrifugal potential for both the touching configuration and separated fragments. In this work, we select the AW95 proposed by Aage Withner in 1995 [78] as an example to replace nuclear potential. This set of proximity potential can be expressed as VN(r)=V01+exp(rR00.63). (7) Here V0=16πR1R2R1+R2γa with a=11.17(1+0.53(A11/3+A21/3))fm. (8) Ri=(1.2Ai1/30.09) fm (i=1,2) R0=R1+R2. The surface energy constant γ has the form as γ=γ0[1ks(N1Z1A1)(N2Z2A2)], (9) where the coefficients γ0 = 0.95 Mev/fm2 and Ks = 1.8. Here Ai, Zi and Ni (i=1,2) are the mass number, proton number and neutron number daughter nucleus and emitted two protons, respectively.

3

Results and discussion

Blocki first presented the proximity potential in 1977 to characterize the interaction potential between any two nuclei in the separation degree of freedom, based on the proximity force theorem [77]. Hence, numerous nuclear proximity potentials have been widely used in nuclear physics research [79-83]. The CPPM is a phenomenological model that is commonly used to study the two-body problem in the context of 2p radioactivity. It considers the interaction potential between the parent and daughter nuclei as the sum of the nuclear potential, Coulomb potential, and centrifugal potential. Unlike other models, the CPPM utilizes the proximity potential, which replaces the nuclear potential with a simplified formalism based on the proximity force. This provides the model with the advantage of adjustable parameters, making it simple yet accurate. In our previous work [74], we extended the CPPM to study 2p radioactivity from the ground state, the main intention of this work is to further extend the CPPM to investigate 2p radioactivity from excited states.

Firstly, we performed the calculations on 2p radioactivity half-lives for 14O*, 17Ne*, 18Ne*, 22Mg*, 29S* and 94Ag* (* represent the excited state), all of the calculated results are listed in the Table 1. In this table, the former four columns represent the 2p decay process, experimental 2p radioactivity released energy, spin and parity of the initial and final state of the nucleus, angular momentum taken away by the emitted two protons, respectively. The fifth column is the experimental half-lives of 2p radioactivity of excited state. From the sixth to ninth columns, they represent the logarithmic form of 2p half-lives obtained by CPPM, ELDM, GLDM and UFM, respectively. In general, from this table, it is obviously seen that the theoretical half-lives obtained by CPPM are highly consistent with other theoretical models, except for the nuclei 22Mg* (with the Q2p=6.11 MeV) and 29S* (with the Q2p=5.12 MeV). In order to intuitively explain this phenomenon, we plot the interaction potential curve of 22Mg* and 29S* in Fig. 1. In Sect. 2.1, the half-lives of 2p radioactivity are depended on penetration probability P which is obtained by Eq. 3 and conditions V(rin)=V(rout)=Q2p.

Table 1
Comparison between the experimental 2p radioactivity half-lives of excited state and those within different theoretical models.
2p emission Q2p (MeV) jiπjfπ l log10T1/2Expt. log10T1/2CPPM log10T1/2ELDM[84] log10T1/2GLDM[84] log10T1/2UFM[85]
14O*12C 1.20 2+0+ 2 >-16.12 -16.65 -15.49 -16.10 -16.02
14O*12C 3.15 2+0+ 2   -19.25 -18.22 -19.58 -18.87
14O*12C 3.35 4+0+ 4   -17.53 -16.25 -16.76 -15.96
17Ne*15O 0.35 3/21/2 2 >-10.59 -8.11 -6.98 -6.79 -7.11
17Ne*15O 0.82 5/21/2 2   -13.54 -12.41 -12.68 -12.73
17Ne*15O 0.9 7 3/21/2 1   -15.41 -14.20 -14.68 -14.69
18Ne*16O 0.59 2+0+ 2   -11.82 -10.59 -10.96 -10.91
18Ne*16O 1.63 10+ 1 16.150.06+0.06 -17.56 -16.34 -17.20 -16.79
22Mg*20Ne 6.11 0+ 0   - -19.75 -19.58 -18.97
29S*27Si 1.72-2.52 5/2+ 0   -16.851~-14.78 -15.5~-13.4 -14.7~-17.2 -16.4~-14.3
29S*27Si 4.32-5.12 5/2+ 0   -~-19.04 -18.4~-17.8 -19.2~-18.8 -18.9~-18.5
94Ag*92Rh 1.90 21+11+ 6~10 1.900.20+0.38 6.25~11.89 9.42~14.63 8.22~13.38 9.38~15.21
94Ag*92Rh 1.98       5.45~11.07 8.61~13.80 7.41~12.55 8.56~14.37
94Ag*92Rh 2.05       4.79~10.39 7.95~13.11 6.74~11.86 7.89~13.68
94Ag*92Rh 3.45       -3.82~1.41 -0.8~4.04 -2.03~2.75 -0.92~4.56
Show more
Fig. 1
(color online) The whole interaction potential of 22Mg* and 29S*
pic

Unfortunately, in Fig. 1, the whole interaction potential curve of 22Mg* and 29S* can’t satisfied the conditions mentioned above, so that we can’t calculate corresponding P, naturally, the half-lives can’t be obtained.

For the reason of this phenomenon, we turn our attention to remarkable deformation effect. In fact, the half-lives of 2p radioactivity are highly sensitive to proton-proton interaction due to the paring effect of valence protons. The quasi-classical 2He model can’t account for the experimentally observed proton-proton correlations, which indicate back-to-back proton emission. Moreover, for the nucleus 22Mg* and 29S*, their spin-parity of the initial state of the parent nuclei are uncertain, and the the values of Q2p are floating, all of these factors have nonnegligible impact on V(r) curve.

In order to describe the agreement of the half-lives for the 2p radioactivity of excited state which calculated by CPPM, partial theoretical results are plotted in Fig. 2. In this figure, the logarithmic half-lives of the 2p radioactivity of excited state obtained by ELDM, GLDM and UFM are compared with our calculations [84, 85]. For the 14O*, in Table 1, its experimental data are given as log10T1/2> -16.12 s, the calculated half-lives by CPPM are very close to those from ELDM, GLDM and UFM, simultaneously the calculated results are better than from the some empirical formulas such as R-matrix theory [42], Sreeja formula and Liu formula [85], whose half-lives are -18.12 s, -19.94 s and -16.85 s, respectively. In order to intuitively discuss the influence of angular momentum l and release energy Q2p on the half-lives of the 2p radioactivity from excited state, we select 14O* and 94Ag* as an example to analyze their contribution to the half-lives. In Table 1, it is obviously found that the half-lives of 14O* obtained by CPPM for the same value of l nearly have three magnitudes deviation with different released energy Q2p value (Q2p= 1.20 MeV and Q2p= 3.15 MeV). Simultaneously, for the 94Ag*, identical Q2p but different l also have three magnitudes while the value of angular momentum are 6 to 10. In fact, this conclusion is same with our previous work [87]. It is obviously found that either Q2p or l has a nonnegligible contribution to the 14O* and 94Ag* for their corresponding theoretical half-lives within CPPM, ELDM, and GLDM. The reason for this phenomenon is the theory of these models are similar, the penetration probatbility P are calculated by WKB approximation. In other word, these theoretical models have a strong dependency with Q2p and l, and we suspect the corresponding experimental data are not precise enough. Configuration mixing and three-body dynamics are commonly utilized in nuclear and molecular physics to describe systems with numerous interacting particles. However, due to the limitations of the phenomenological theoretical model, which fails to account for configuration mixing and three-body dynamics, our calculations treat the two emitted protons as strongly correlated, thus reducing them to a two-body problem. As a result, CPPM cannot provide comprehensive information on particle dynamics. Up to now, the experimental 2p radioactivity data of excited state are rare, the reason is that it’s hard to observe this decay process due to the extremely short half-lives. From the scheme of these excited nuclei, it is evident that one-proton (1p) radioactivity also exists alongside two-proton radioactivity during their decay process, as well as three-proton (3p) radioactivity decay process. Therefore, the branching ratios between 1p and 2p decay serve as a crucial index for comprehending the abundant information on nuclear structure of these nuclei and merit further investigation.

Fig. 2
(color online) Comparing the half-lives of the nuclei which obtained by CPPM in Table 1 with other theoretical models.
pic
4

Conclusion

In this work, we extend the CPPM to study the excited 2p radioactivity of 14O*, 17Ne*, 18Ne*, 22Mg*, 29S* and 94Ag*. It is found that the theoretical values obtained by CPPM are highly consistent with corresponding experimental data and theoretical values obtained by ELDM and GLDM. For the nuclei 22Mg* and 29S* (with the Q2p=5.12 MeV), the CPPM is not suitable, the reason for this phenomenon perhaps caused by the angular momenta are not available because the spin-parity of the initial state of the parent nuclei has not determined. In addition, the uncertain values of Q2p also provided strong influence on calculated results. Simultaneously, it is found that the half-lives of excited 2p radioactivity have a strong relationship with Q2p and l. Comparing with the theoretical results obtained by ELDM, GLDM and UFM, the half-lives of the excited 2p radioactivity by CPPM are reliable, it maybe as a positive guideline for future experiments.

References
1. X. D. Sun, P. Guo and X. H. Li,

Systematic study of α decay half-lives for even-even nuclei within a two-potential approach

. Phys. Rev. C 93, 034316 (2016). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034316
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
2. X. D. Sun, P. Guo and X. H. Li,

Systematic study of favored α-decay half-lives of closed shell odd-A and doubly-odd nuclei related to ground and isomeric states

. Phys. Rev. C 94, 024338 (2016). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024338
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
3. C. Z. Shi and Y. G. Ma,

α-clustering effect on flows of direct photons in heavy-ion collisions

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 32, 66 (2021). doi: 10.1007/s41365-021-00897-9
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
4. M. Ji and C. Xu,

Quantum Anti-Zeno Effect in Nuclear β Decay

. Chin. Phys. Lett 38, 032301 (2021). doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/38/3/032301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
5. C. W. Ma, H. L. Wei, X. Q. Liu et al.,

Nuclear fragments in projectile fragmentation reactions

. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys 121, 103911 (2021). doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103911
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
6. C. W. Ma, J. P. Wei, X. X. Chen et al.,

Precise machine learning models for fragment production in projectile fragmentation reactions using Bayesian neural networks

. Chin. Phys. C 46, 074104 (2022). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac5efb
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
7. L. L. Zhu, B. Wang, M. Wang and H. Zheng,

Energy and centrality dependence of light nuclei production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 33, 45 (2022). doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01028-8
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
8. C. Shen and L. Yan,

Recent development of hydrodynamic modeling in heavy-ion collisions

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 31, 122 (2020). doi: 10.1007/s41365-020-00829-z
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
9. F. Zhang and J. Su,

Probing neutron-proton effective mass splitting using nuclear stopping and isospin mix in heavy-ion collisions in GeV energy region

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 31, 77 (2020). doi: 10.1007/s41365-020-00787-6
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
10. Y. J. Wang, F. H. Guan, X. Y. Diao et al.,

CSHINE for studies of HBT correlation in heavy ion reactions

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 32, 4 (2021). doi: 10.1007/s41365-020-00842-2
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
11. M. Pfützner, M. Karny, L. V. Grigorenkoet et al.,

Radioactive decays at limits of nuclear stability

. Rev. Mod. Phys 84 (2012) 567. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.567
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
12. E. Olsen, M. Pfützner and N. Birge,

Landscape of Two-Proton Radioactivity

. Phys. Rev. Lett 110 (2013) 222501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.222501
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
13. K. W. Brown, R. J. Charity, L. G. Sobotka et al.,

Observation of Long-Range Three-Body Coulomb Effects in the Decay of 16Ne

. Phys. Rev. Lett 113 (2014) 232501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.232501
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
14. K. P. Santhosh and Indu. Sukumaran,

Description of proton radioactivity using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 034619. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034619
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
15. D. S. Delion and S. A. Ghinescu,

Two-proton emission systematics

. Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) L031301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L031301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
16. D. N. Basu, P. Roy Chowdhury and C. Samanta,

Folding model analysis of proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters

. Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 051601(R). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.051601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
17. X. Pan, Y. T. Zou, H. M. Liu et al.,

Released energy formula for proton radioactivity based on the liquid-drop model

. Commun. Theor. Phys 73 (2021) 075302. doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/abf822
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
18. H. M. Liu, J. Zhang, Z. H. Li et al.,

Microscopic nuclear equation of state at finite temperature and stellar stability

. Phys. Rev. C 106 (2022) 025801. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.025801
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
19. Y. T. Wang, D. Q. Fang, X. X. Xu et al.,

Implantation-decay method to study the β-delayed charged particle decay

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 29 (2018) 98. doi: 10.1007/s41365-018-0438-5
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
20. B. A. Brown,

Diproton decay of nuclei on the proton drip line

. Phys.Rev.C 43 (1991) R1513. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.43.R1513
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
21. L. V. Grigorenkoet, R. C. Johnson, I. G. Mukha et al.,

Theory of Two-Proton Radioactivity with Application to 19Mg and 48Ni

. Phys.Rev.Lett 85 (2000) 22. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.22
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
22. I. Mukha, L. V. Grigorenkoet, X. Xu et al.,

Observation and Spectroscopy of New Proton-Unbound Isotopes 30Arand 29Cl: An Interplay of Prompt Two-Proton and Sequential Decay

. Phys.Rev.Lett 115 (2015) 202501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.202501
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
23. J. P. Cui, Y. H. Gao, Y. Z. Wang et al.,

Two-proton radioactivity within a generalized liquid drop model

. Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 014301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.014301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
24. G. Royer,

Calculation of two-proton radioactivity and application to 9Be, 6,7Li, 3,6He,and 2,3H emissions

. Phys. Rev. C 106 (2022) 034605. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.034605
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
25. F. Z. Xing, J. P. Cui, Y. H. Gao and J. Z. Gu,

Two-proton radioactivity of exotic nuclei beyond proton drip-line

. Commun. Theor. Phys 73 (2021) 075301. doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/abfa00
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
26. B. Blank, M. Ploszajczak,

Two-proton radioactivity

. Rep. Prog. Phys 71 (2008) 046301. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/71/4/046301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
27. A. Kruppa, W. Nazarewicz,

Gamow and R-matrix approach to proton emitting nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 054311. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.054311
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
28. L. S. Ferreira, M. C. Lopea and E. Maglione,

Decays of drip line nuclei

. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys 59 (2007) 418. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.01.011
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
29. V. I. Goldansky,

On neutron-deficient isotopes of light nuclei and the phenomena of proton and two-proton radioactivity

. Nucl. Phys 19 (1960) 482. doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(60)90258-3
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
30. V. I. Goldansky,

Two-proton radioactivity

. Nucl. Phys 27 (1961) 648. doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(61)90309-1
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
31. Y. B. Zel’dovich,

On the existence of new isotopes of light nuclei and the equation of state of neutrons

. Sov. Phys. JETP 11 (1960) 812. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4200134biblio/4200134
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
32. B. A. Brown, B. Blank and J. Giovinazzo,

Hybrid model for two-proton radioactivity

. Phys.Rev.C 100 (2019) 054332. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054332
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
33. O. A. P. Tavares and E. L. Medeiros,

A calculation model to half-life estimate of two-proton radioactive decay process

. Eur. Phys. J. A 54 (2018) 65. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2018-12495-4
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
34. I. Sreeja and M. Balasubramaniam,

An empirical formula for the half-lives of exotic two-proton emission

. Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2019) 33. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12694-5
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
35. H. M. Liu, X. Pan, Y. T. Zou et al.,

Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model

. Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 044110. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe10f
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
36. M. Pfützner, E. Badura, C. Bingham et al.,

First evidence for the two-proton decay of 45Fe

. Eur. Phys. J. A 14 (2002) 279. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2002-10033-9
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
37. J. Giovinazzo, B. Blank, M Chartier et al.,

Two-Proton Radioactivity of 45Fe

. Phys. Rev. Lett 89 (2002) 102501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.102501
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
38. J. Jänecke,

The emission of protons from light neutron-deficient nuclei

. Nucl. Phys 61 (1965) 326. doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(65)90907-7
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
39. D. F. Geesaman, R. L. McGrath, P. M. S. Lesser et al.,

Particle decay of 6Be

. Phys. Rev. C 15 (1977) 1835. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.15.1835
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
40. Bochkarev O V, Chulkov L V, Korsheninnikov A A et al.,

Democratic decay of 6Be states

. Nucl. Phys. A 505 (1989) 215. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(89)90371-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
41. R. A. Kryger, A. Azhari, M. Hellström et al.,

Two-Proton Emission from the Ground State of 12O

. Phys. Rev. Lett 74 (1995) 860. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.860
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
42. C. R. Bain, P. J. Woods, R. Coszach et al.,

Two proton emission induced via a resonance reaction

. Phys. Lett. B 373 (1996) 35. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(96)00109-8
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
43. M. D. Cable, J. Honkanen, R. F. Parry et al.,

Discovery of Beta-Delayed Two-Proton Radioactivity: 22Al

. Phys. Rev. Lett 50 (1983) 404. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.404
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
44. J. Honkanen, M/ D. Cable, R. F. Parry et al.,

Beta-delayed two-proton decay of 26P

. Phys. Lett. B 133 (1983) 146. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(83)90547-6
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
45. J. Äystö, D. M. Moltz, X. J. Xu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 55 (1985) 1384. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.1384
46. B. Blank, F. Boué, S. Andriamonje et al.,

Spectroscopic studies of the βp and β2p decay of 23Si

. Z. Phys. A 357 (1997) 247. doi: 10.1007/s002180050241
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
47. V. Borrel, J. C. Jacmart and F. Pougheon,

31Ar and 27S: Beta-delayed two-proton emission and mass excess

. Nucl. Phys 531 (1991) 353. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(91)90616-E
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
48. J. E. Reiff, M. A. C. Hotchkis and D. M. Moltz,

A fast in-beam recoil catcher wheel and the observation of beta-delayed two-proton emission from 31Ar

. Nucl. Instrum. Methods. A 276 (1989) 228. doi: 10.1016/0168-9002(89)90637-2
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
49. D. M. Moltz, J. C. Batchelder, T. F. Lang et al.,

Beta-delayed two-proton decay of 39Ti

. Z. Phys. A 342 (1992) 273. doi: 10.1007/BF01291509
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
50. V. Borrel, R. Anne, D. Bazin et al.,

The decay modes of proton drip-line nuclei with A between 42 and 47

. Z. Phys. A 344 (1992) 135. doi: 10.1007/BF01291696
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
51. J. Giovinazzo, B. Blank, C. Borcea et al.,

First Direct Observation of Two Protons in the Decay of 45Fe with a Time-Projection Chamber

. Phys. Rev. Lett 99 (2007) 102501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.102501
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
52. C. Dossat, N. Adimi, F. Aksouh et al.,

The decay of proton-rich nuclei in the mass A=36-56 region

. Nucl. Phys. A 792 (2007) 18. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.05.004
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
53. M. J. Chromik, B. A. Brown, M. Fauerbach et al.,

Excitation and decay of the first excited state of 17Ne

. Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 1676. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.55.1676
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
54. J. Gómez del Campo, A. Galindo-Uribarri, J. R. Beene et al.,

Decay of a Resonance in by the Simultaneous Emission of Two Protons

. Phys. Rev. Lett 86 (2001) 43. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.43
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
55. G. Raciti, G. Cardella, M. De Napoli et al.,

Experimental Evidence of 2He Decay from 18Ne Excited States

. Phys. Rev. Lett 100 (2008) 192503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.192503
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
56. M. J. Chromik, P. G. Thirolf, M. Thoennessen et al.,

Two-proton spectroscopy of low-lying states in 17Ne

. Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 024313. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.66.024313
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
57. T. Zerguerras, B. Blank, Y. Blumenfeld et al.,

Study of light proton-rich nuclei by complete kinematics measurements

. Eur. Phys. J. A 20, 389 (2004). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2003-10176-1
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
58. Y. G. Ma, D. Q. Fang, X. Y. Sun et al.,

Different mechanism of two-proton emission from proton-rich nuclei 23Al and 22Mg

. Phys. Lett. B 743 (2015) 306. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.066
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
59. D. Q. Fang, Y. G. Ma, X. Y. Sun et al.,

Proton-proton correlations in distinguishing the two-proton emission mechanism of 23Al and 22Mg

. Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 044621. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.044621
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
60. C. J. Lin, X. X. Xu, H. M. Jia et al.,

Experimental study of two-proton correlated emission from 29S excited states

. Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 014310. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.014310
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
61. X. X. Xu, C. J. Lin, H. M. Jia et al.,

Correlations of two protons emitted from excited states of 28S and 27P Phys

. Lett. B 727 (2013) 126. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.029
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
62. I. Mukha, E. Roeckl, L. Batist et al.,

Proton-proton correlations observed in two-proton radioactivity of 94Ag

. Nature 439 (2006) 298. doi: 10.1038/nature04453
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
63. H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, X. Pan et al.,

New Geiger-Nuttall law for two-proton radioactivity

. Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 024108. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abd01e
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
64. Y. J. Yao, G. L. Zhang, W. W. Qu et al.,

Comparative studies for different proximity potentials applied to α decay

. Eur. Phys. J. A 51 (2015) 122. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2015-15122-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
65. O. N. Ghodsi and A. Daei-Ataollah,

Systematic study of α decay using various versions of the proximity formalism

. Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 024612. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.024612
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
66. J. G. Deng, X. H. Li, J. L. Chen et al.,

Systematic study of proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters within various versions of proximity potential formalisms

. Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2019) 58. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12728-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
67. K. P. Santhosh and I. Sukumaran,

Heavy particle decay studies using different versions of nuclear potentials

. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132 (2019) 431. doi: 10.1140/epjp/i2017-11743-x
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
68. Y. Z. Wang, S. J. Wang, Z. Y. Hou, and J. Z. Gu,

Systematic study of α-decay energies and half-lives of superheavy nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 064301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.064301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
69. Y. Z. Wang, J. P. Cui, Y. L. Zhang et al.,

Competition between α decay and proton radioactivity of neutron-deficient nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 92 (2017) 064301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014302
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
70. Y. Z. Wang, F. Z. Xing, Y. Xiao and J. Z. Gu,

An improved semi-empirical relationship for cluster radioactivity

. Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 044111. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe112
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
71. J. G. Deng, J. H. Cheng, B. Zheng and X. H. Li,

α decay properties of 297Og within the two-potential approach

. Chin. Phys. C 41 (2017) 124109. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/12/124109
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
72. H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, P. Xiao et al.,

Systematic study of the α decay preformation factors of the nuclei around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures within the generalized liquid drop model

. Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 094106. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/9/094106
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
73. F. Z. Xing, H. Qi, J. P. Cui et al.,

An improved Gamow-like formula for α-decay half-lives

. Nucl. Phys. A 1028 (2022) 122528. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122528
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
74. D. X. Zhu, H. M. Liu, Y. Y. Xu et al.,

Two-proton radioactivity within Coulomb and proximity potential model

. Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 044106. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac45ef
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
75. S. G. Nilsson,

Binding states of individual nucleons in strongly deformed nuclei

. Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd 29 (1955) 16. https://cds.cern.ch/record/212345/files/p1.pdfcds.cern.ch/record/212345/files/p1.pdf
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
76. J. J. Morehead,

Asymptotics of radial wave equations

. J. Math. Phys 36 (1955) 5431. doi: 10.1063/1.531270
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
77. J. Blocki, J. Randrup, W. J. Świątecki et al.,

Proximity forces

. Ann. Phys 105 (1977) 427. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(77)90249-4
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
78. A. Winther,

Dissipation, polarization and fluctuation in grazing heavy-ion collisions and the boundary to the chaotic regime

. Nucl. Phys. A 594 (1995) 203. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(95)00374-A
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
79. C. L. Guo and G. L. Zhang,

Analysis of proton radioactivity of nuclei by using proximity potential with a new universal function

. Eur. Phys. J. A 50 (2014) 187. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2014-14187-5
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
80. L. Zheng, G. L. Zhang et al.,

Calculation of half-lives of cluster decay by using proximity potential with a new universal function

. Nucl. Phys. A 915 (2013) 70. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.06.012
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
81. W. W. Qu, G. L. Zhang et al.,

Comparative studies of Coulomb barrier heights for nuclear models applied to sub-barrier fusion

. Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 064603. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.064603
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
82. R. Kumar and M. K. Sharma et al.,

Systematic study of various proximity potentials in 208Pb-daughter cluster radioactivity

. Phys. Rev. C 85 (2014) 054612. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.054612
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
83. I. Dutt, and R. K. Puri,

Comparison of different proximity potentials for asymmetric colliding nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 064609. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064609
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
84. F. Z. Xing, J. P. Cui, Y. Z. Wang et al.,

Two-proton emission from excited states of proton-rich nuclei

. Acta Phys.Sin 71 (2022) 062301. doi: 10.7498/aps.71.20211839
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
85. F. Z. Xing, J. P. Cui, Y. Z. Wang and J. Z. Gu,

Two-proton radioactivity of ground and excited states within a unified fission model

. Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 124105. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac2425
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
86. N. Anyas-Weiss, J. C. Cornell, P. S. Fisher et al.,

Nuclear structure of light nuclei using the selectivity of high energy transfer reactions with heavy ions

. Phys. Rep 12 (1974) 101. doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(74)90045-3
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
87. D. X. Zhu, Y. Y. Xu, H. M. Liu et al.,

ITwo-proton radioactivity of the excited state within the Gamowlike and modified Gamow-like models

. Nucl. Sci. Tech 32 (2022) 122. doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01116-9
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
Footnote

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.