Next Article in Journal
Improved Opposition-Based Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Global Optimization
Next Article in Special Issue
Description for N = 126 Isotones 210Po and 212Rn with Particle-Hole Excited Nucleon-Pair Approximation and Realistic Effective Interaction
Previous Article in Journal
An Asymmetric Bimodal Double Regression Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nuclear Structure Evolution Reflected from Local Relations
 
 
symmetry-logo
Article Menu

Article Menu

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

β-Delayed γ Emissions of 26P and Its Mirror Asymmetry

by
Hao Jian
1,2,†,
Yufeng Gao
1,3,†,
Fanchao Dai
1,2,
Jiajian Liu
1,
Xinxing Xu
1,2,4,5,6,*,
Cenxi Yuan
3,*,
Kazunari Kaneko
7,
Yang Sun
1,5,8,
Pengfei Liang
4,
Guozhu Shi
1,2,9,
Lijie Sun
5,8,
Latsamy Xayavong
10,
Chengjian Lin
5,11,
Jenny Lee
4,
Zhihuan Li
12,
Yanyun Yang
1,2,
Pengjie Li
1,4,
Rui Fan
1,2,
Sixian Zha
1,2,
Haofan Zhu
1,2,
Jinhai Li
1,2,
Qirui Gao
1,
Zhaozhan Zhang
1,3,
Ruofu Chen
1,
Jiansong Wang
1,13,
Dongxi Wang
5,
Hongyi Wu
12,
Kang Wang
1,14,
Yihua Lam
1,2,
Fangfang Duan
1,2,9,
Peng Ma
1,
Zhihao Gao
1,9,
Qiang Hu
1,
Zhen Bai
1,
Junbing Ma
1,
Jianguo Wang
1,
Fupeng Zhong
5,11,
Chenguang Wu
12,
Diwen Luo
12,
Ying Jiang
12,
Yang Liu
12,
Dongsheng Hou
1,2,
Ren Li
1,2,
Nanru Ma
5,
Weihu Ma
1,15,
Gongming Yu
1,16,
Dipika Patel
1,17,
Shuya Jin
1,2,
Yufeng Wang
1,18,
Yuechao Yu
1,18,
Qingwu Zhou
1,19,
Peng Wang
1,19,
Liyuan Hu
16,
Xiang Wang
12,
Hongliang Zang
12,
Qingqing Zhao
4,
Lei Yang
5,
Peiwei Wen
5,
Feng Yang
5,
Huiming Jia
5,
Gaolong Zhang
20,
Min Pan
5,20,
Xiaoyu Wang
20,
Haohan Sun
5,
Meng Wang
1,2,6,
Zhengguo Hu
1,2,6,
Xiaohong Zhou
1,2,6,
Yuhu Zhang
1,2,6,
Hushan Xu
1,2,6,
Minliang Liu
1,
Hooi-Jin Ong
1,2,21,22 and
Weiqing Yang
1
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
CAS Key Laboratory of High Precision Nuclear Spectroscopy, Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
Sino-French Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
4
Department of Physics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
5
Department of Nuclear Physics, China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing 102413, China
6
Advanced Energy Science and Technology Guangdong Laboratory, Huizhou 516003, China
7
Department of Physics, Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka 813-8503, Japan
8
School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
9
School of Nuclear Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
10
Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, National University of Laos, Vientiane 01080, Laos
11
College of Physics and Technology, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
12
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
13
College of Science, Huzhou University, Huzhou 313000, China
14
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
15
Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
16
Fundamental Science on Nuclear Safety and Simulation Technology Laboratory, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China
17
Department of Physics, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat 395007, India
18
School of Physics and Astronomy, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
19
School of Physical Science and Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400044, China
20
School of Physics and Nuclear Energy Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
21
Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Osaka 567-0047, Japan
22
Joint Department for Nuclear Physics, Lanzhou University and Institute of Modern Physics, CAS, Lanzhou 730000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-first authors.
Symmetry 2021, 13(12), 2278; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13122278
Submission received: 26 October 2021 / Revised: 19 November 2021 / Accepted: 20 November 2021 / Published: 30 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Experiments and Theories of Radioactive Nuclear Beam Physics)

Abstract

:
The study of the origin of asymmetries in mirror β decay is extremely important to understand the fundamental nuclear force and the nuclear structure. The experiment was performed at the National Laboratory of Heavy Ion Research Facility in Lanzhou (HIRFL) to measure the β -delayed γ rays of 26 P by silicon array and Clover-type high-purity Germanium (HPGe) detectors. Combining with results from the β decay of 26 P and its mirror nucleus 26 Na, the mirror asymmetry parameter δ ( ≡ f t + / f t − 1) was determined to be 46(13)% for the transition feeding the first excited state in the daughter nucleus. Our independent results support the conclusion that the large mirror asymmetry is close to the proton halo structure in 26 P.

1. Introduction

In 1932, Heisenberg introduced the elegant concept of isospin, which described the charge-independence of nucleons in nuclei, namely, he considered protons and neutrons the same particles in different states [1]. This has been proven valuable in simplifying the construction of the nucleon–nucleon interactions in nuclear models, as well as in describing both systematic and specific features of nuclear structures [2]. However, because of the differences in mass and electromagnetic interaction between a proton and a neutron, the concept of isospin symmetry is approximate. Isospin symmetry breaking caused by the Coulomb force acting between protons and other isospin nonconserving (INC) forces [3] frequently implies new physics, and the systematic study of the origin of breaking is extremely important for a deeper understanding of the fundamental nuclear force and the nuclear structure. In a recent study, the evidence of mirror-symmetry violation for the ground state within the 73 Br/ 73 Sr partners was reported [4]. The ground states of the particle-bound nuclei 73 Sr and 73 Br appeared to have J π = 5 / 2 and J π = 1 / 2 , respectively. The breaking of symmetry was probably revealed by an inversion of states, this observation offering insights into charge-symmetry breaking forces acting in atomic nuclei.
Investigating β decays of mirror nuclei which have the interchanged number of protons and neutrons is of fundamental importance in nuclear and particle physics, since it directly addresses the isospin symmetry problems. In Gamow–Teller (GT) transitions, the reduced transition probability ( f t ± ) values can be extracted to define the mirror asymmetry parameter:
δ = f t + f t 1 ,
where the f t + and f t values are associated with the β + decay and the β decay of the mirror pair, respectively. The δ also describes the extent of isospin-symmetry breaking [5]. Large asymmetries in mirror Gamow–Teller transitions have been associated with transitions involving halo states [6]. So as to systematically study the isospin symmetry breaking, β decays of the s d shell mirror nuclei near the proton drip line have been investigated [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The largest value of mirror asymmetry ( δ = 209(96)%) in low-lying states in 22 Si/ 22 O was found in a recent paper [8], supporting the proton halo in 22 Al. For the extremely proton-rich phosphorus isotopes, the mirror asymmetry parameters in 26 P/ 26 Na partners was observed to be 51(10)% [14].
The INC forces related to the s 1 / 2 orbit, commonly adopted to interpret isospin-symmetry breaking for the nuclei in s d shell, were used to reproduce the large mirror asymmetry between 26 P and 26 Na [5]. These results support the conclusion that 26 P is a candidate nucleus with a proton halo. In addition, the low separation energy of 26 P with narrow momentum distribution and enhanced cross section observed in proton-knockout reactions was associated with the existence of a proton halo in 26 P. In this paper, we present the independent and rather complete results of the β -delayed γ decay of 26 P. The mirror asymmetries were discussed concerning the shell-model calculation.

2. Experimental Setup

The experiment was performed at the Heavy Ion Research Facility of Lanzhou (HIRFL) [16] in November 2017. The secondary radioactive ions were produced via the projectile fragmentation of the 32 S 16 + beam impinging on a 1581- μ m-thick 9 Be target, which was accelerated to 80.6 MeV/nucleon at intensity of ∼87 enA (∼5.4 pnA) using the K69 Sector Focus Cyclotron and the K450 Separate Sector Cyclotron. The Radioactive Ion Beam Line in Lanzhou (RIBLL1) [17] was a powerful tool concerning optimization and selection of 26 P.
The particle identification was done by the combination of energy loss ( Δ E ), time of flight (ToF), and magnetic rigidity ( B ρ ), shown in Figure 1, according to the LISE++ simulation [18]. The ToF was measured by two plastic scintillators (T1,T2), and the Δ E was measured by two silicon detectors ( Δ E 1, Δ E 2). The correlations using energy and time signals were applied to acquire the valid number of implanted 26 P ions from contaminants.
The detection system reported in reference [19] consisted of three double-sided silicon strip detectors (DSSDs) [20] backed by three quadrant silicon detectors (QSDs) [21] surrounded by five clover-type high-purity germanium (HPGe) detectors and three lanthanum bromide detectors. The different thicknesses of the detectors are given in Table 1. A series of measurement techniques, such as circulating alcohol cooling, constant fraction timing, and front and back coincidence of DSSDs, were used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and the accurate measurement of decay events with high detection efficiency and low detection energy threshold [22].
The 304- μ m-thick DSSD3 was an important supplement to DSSD2 due to a higher detection efficiency for high-energy protons and β particles. QSDs of different thicknesses were set in the downstream of the beam, in which 1546- μ m-thick QSD1 was used to detect β particles and take protons escaping from DSSDs into account. Besides, 300- μ m-thick QSD2 and QSD3 were located at the very end of the beam and used to serve as anti-coincident detectors for light particles. The surrounding Clover-type HPGe detectors were placed outside the silicon detectors to measure γ rays emitted after the β decay.
The SPA02- and SPA03-type charge sensitive amplifiers (CSAs) [22] were assembled in all the silicon detectors. Since the three DSSDs are needed to measure high-energy implanting signals and low-energy decaying signals simultaneously, the output signals of the preamplifiers via 16 printed circuit board (PCBs) feedthroughs were split into two different amplitudes. The data acquisition system PKU DAQ was triggered by the implantation or decay signals of the three DSSDs. The DAQ system was adapted from the RIBF DAQ [23]. More detailed information concerning this experiment is given in reference [9].
Our experimental setup was quite similar to the one by J.C.Thomas [24]. Because of more implanting DSSDs and surrounding HPGe detectors, we got more accurate data as well as the position information and the β -delayed particles simultaneously. Not only that, we also measured and calculated the 25 A l ( p , γ ) 26 S i reaction rate [19]. Focusing mainly on the β -delayed γ rays, germanium double-sided strip detectors (GeDSSDs) and 16 SeGA detectors were used in the experiment by Pérez-Loureiro [14]. So the partial branching ratio of the γ ray was slightly more accurate than ours.

3. Data Analysis and Experimental Results

In continuous beam mode, the nuclei of interest were stopped by DSSDs. The total thickness of Al degraders in this experiment was set as 220 μ m so that the proportions of 26 P ions stopped in DSSD2 and DSSD3 were approximately equal. The high energy calibrations of three DSSDs could be performed by the secondary beam combined with LISE ++ calculations [18], and then the particle energies were converted to the implanted depths using the SRIM program [25]. The secondary beam was scattered through multiple sets of Al degrader, making the distribution of 26 P more uniform across the silicon surface. Figure 2 shows the surface distributions of 26 P implanted on DSSD3 in the x-y axis. The stopped position of each 26 P particle could be determined by the x-y information to obtain the original position of each decay particle. The total number of 26 P implantations in DSSD1, DSSD2, DSSD3 were 6954, 139,308, and 139,801, respectively.

3.1. Half-Life

Each DSSD was divided into 16 × 16 pixels, and the correlations were based on the time difference between the implantation events and the decay events recorded in the same pixel. The decay-time spectrum is shown in Figure 3. Most of the implantation events were correlated with the decay events under the high implanting rate beam condition, except for a relatively small number of noise or background events which would form a constant background on the decay-time spectrum. The fitting was performed by Maximum Likelihood Fitting (MLF) [26]. The fitting expression is shown in the following:
N ( t ) = A e t l n 2 T 1 / 2 + B
where N ( t ) is the total number of ions decaying in unit time, t is the decay time, A is the number of ions decaying at the beginning, B is the constant background in the decay, and T 1 / 2 is the half-life. The half-life of 26 P was deduced to be T 1 / 2 = 43.7 ± 0.3 ms with the error of the fitting uncertainty (including statistical error), which is in good agreement with the literature value of 43.7 ± 0.6 ms given by J.C.Thomas et al. [24].

3.2. β -Delayed γ Rays

In this experiment, five Clover-type HPGe detectors were installed to measure γ rays. The β - γ detection efficiency was defined by the product of the detection efficiency of β particles in DSSDs and the detection efficiency of γ rays in the Clover-type HPGe detectors. Since the thickness of DSSD3 (304 μ m) is much larger than that of DSSD1 (142 μ m) and DSSD2 (40 μ m), only the β signal in DSSD3 and the corresponding γ rays recorded by the Clover-type HPGe detectors were used for the calibration of the β - γ detection efficiency. The number of β -delayed γ rays observed at energy E is
N γ ( E ) = N 0 × ε β γ ( E ) × I γ ( E )
where N 0 is the total number of ions stopped in DSSD3, ε β γ is the β - γ detection efficiency parametrized by ε = a E b , and I γ is the absolute γ -ray intensity. The β - γ detection efficiency was obtained by 452 keV (18.4(42)%), 493 keV (15.3(34)%), 945 keV (10.4(23)%), 1612 keV (15.2(32)%) from 25 Si [24] and 1248.5 keV (38.2(69)%),1985.6 keV (31.1(54)%), 2062.3 keV (34.1(58)%) from 22 Al [27] β -delayed γ rays.
Figure 4 shows the γ spectrum coincided with β particles in the decay of 26 P. Fifteen peaks were identified, of which 13 labeled γ 1 γ 13 are directly related to the decay of 26 P. The total uncertainty was associated with the fitting uncertainty and the calibration of detectors. Statistically, the significant peak in the spectrum is the well-known 511 keV γ ray originated from the positron–electron annihilation. The 1367 keV ray is assigned as the deexcitation from the first 2 + excited state to the ground state of 24 Mg. The detailed information of the β -delayed γ -ray transitions are listed in Table 2.

3.3. Discussion

Excitation energies of the low-lying proton-bound states in 26 Si were deduced by the measured γ ray energies. The branching ratio of the proton-bound excited energy level was deduced from the related γ -ray intensities:
B R = I o u t I i n
where I o u t ( I i n ) is the total intensity of γ ray observed decaying from (feeding to) the energy level in the present experiment.
The β -feeding intensity to the 1796 keV state of 26 Si was determined to be B R 1 = 43.1(34)% by extracting the intensities of the 968.6(7)-, 986.6(7)-, 1796.1(2)-, 2342.3(9)-, 2388.4(6)-, and 2647.9(4)-keV γ rays. Because of the large uncertainty, the intensity of the 2782 keV excited state could not be determined. Figure 5 shows the partial decay scheme of 26 P deduced from present experiment data comparing with mirror nuclei 26 Na in corresponding energy levels.
In order to investigate the isospin asymmetry, we compared the Gamow–Teller decays between the mirror partners. The corresponding l o g f t value for each state of 26 Si was calculated using the LOGFT analysis program provided by the NNDC website [28] incorporating the half-life, the excitation energies, the β feeding intensities, and β -decay energy (Q E C /Q β ). The mirror asymmetries for the first 2 + excited states between 26 Si and 26 Mg, extracted from experimental data of the present work and the mirror nucleus 26 Na, is 46(13)%, which is in good agreement with the literature value of 51(10)% [14]. For the 3 1 + and the 2 3 + states between 26 Si and 26 Mg, the mirror asymmetry parameter are −19(19)% and −31(15)%, respectively, as shown in Table 3. Due to the low branching ratio, we did not calculate the mirror asymmetry parameter for the 4 + excited state. The mirror energy difference (MED) represents the degree of energy differences between the T Z = ± T states for the mirror nuclei [29,30]:
M E D = E x ( I , T , T Z = T ) E x ( I , T , T Z = T )
where E x ( I , T , T Z = T ) is the excitation energy of the states of spin I and isospin T, T z . The data are listed in Table 3.
In a pure Gamow–Teller transition, the f t value is related to the nuclear matrix element through the expression:
f t = K ( g A g V ) 2 B G T
where K is a constant, g V and g A are the free-vector and axial-vector coupling constants of the weak interaction, and B G T is the Gamow–Teller reduced transition probabilities [32]. Therefore, the mirror asymmetry parameter δ could be expressed in another way through
δ = f t + f t 1 = B G T B G T + 1 = Δ B G T B G T +
where the deviation Δ B G T is defined as Δ B G T = B G T B G T + .
The properties of s d shell nuclei were studied by the Hamiltonian including USD [33,34], USDA, and USDB [35], which are represented in Table 4. Each of these three Hamiltonians are isospin symmetric with zero values of δ . Because of the weakly bound nature of proton s 1 / 2 orbit, it is suggested both one- and two-body parts of Hamiltonian should be modified [36]. After modification, MED is well reproduced in mirror partners around A = 20. In the present work, only the transition to the first 2 + state is concentrated because the absolute values of other B G T transitions are small. The δ values feeding the first 2 + excited state are 22%, 17%, and 16% given by modified USD, USDA and USDB, respectively (WBE1 in Table 4). The shell-model calculations do not agree with the experimental results perfectly. Actually, the WBE should be considered in not only the Hamiltonian but also the overlap of the wave function. If the proton s 1 / 2 orbit in the Gamow–Teller transition is weakly bound while the neutron s 1 / 2 orbit is not, the overlap of their wave functions is smaller than one. Considering both weakly bound effects in both the Hamiltonian and the wave function, the δ are corrected to 55%, 51%, and 49% (WBE2 in Table 4), fitting well with the experimental value 46(13)%.
Generally, the large mirror asymmetries were caused by those nuclei where more protons occupy the s 1 / 2 orbit near the proton drip line. This also explains that those nuclei have a smaller proton separation energy than the neutron separation energy in their mirror nuclei. The mirror asymmetry known as the Thomas–Ehrman shift [37,38] corresponds to the reduction of the Coulomb energy caused by the spatial expansion of the s-wave proton. The total Hamiltonian, including the Coulomb energies for protons, the single-particle energy shifts resulting from the spin-orbit interaction for both protons and neutrons, and the isospin-nonconserving (INC) forces are usually theoretically discussed to intepret the problems of mirror asymmetry [3]. Thus, the calculation concerning INC forces associated with the s 1 / 2 orbit are important to explain the large mirror asymmetry. The quantitative calculation including the T = 1 , J = 2 , 3 INC forces by Kaneko and Sun [5] reproduced the results in 26 P/ 26 Na.
From the above results, it could be concluded that the Coulomb force acting between protons and other INC forces would lead to an extended proton wave function and give rise to mirror asymmetry when approaching the proton drip line.

4. Conclusions

In the present work, the experiment was carried out using the RIBLL1 facility at HIRFL to study the β decays of proton-rich nuclei 26 P. The excitation energies and branching ratios of the low-lying proton-bound states were determined. A total of thirteen β -delayed γ -ray branches of 26 P were identified by five clover-type HPGe detectors. Compared with the information of its mirror nucleus, 26 P was investigated for the mirror asymmetries. The mirror asymmetry parameter for the first 2 + excited state of 26 Si and 26 Mg extracted from this experiment was deduced to be 46(13)%, which is well reproduced by the shell-model calculations considering the weakly bound effect in both the Hamiltonian and the wave function. Our results and the observation by Pérez-Loureiro [14] support the conclusion that the large mirror asymmetry is close to the proton halo structure in 26 P.
We wish to acknowledge the support of the HIRFL operations staff for providing high-quality beams and the effort of the RIBLL1 collaborators in performing the experiment.

Author Contributions

Data curation, X.X., P.L. (Pengfei Liang), G.S., L.S., C.L., J.L. (Jenny Lee), Z.L., Y.Y. (Yanyun Yang), P.L. (Pengjie Li), R.F., S.Z., H.Z. (Haofan Zhu), J.L. (Jinhai Li), Z.Z., Q.G., R.C., J.W. (Jiansong Wang), D.W., H.W., K.W., F.D. (Fangfang Duan), Y.L. (Yihua Lam), P.M., Z.G., Q.H., Z.B., J.M., J.W. (Jianguo Wang), F.Z., C.W., D.L., Y.J., Y.L. (Yang Liu), D.H., R.L., N.M., W.M., G.Y., D.P. (Dipika Patel), S.J., Y.W., Y.Y. (Yuechao Yu), Q.Z. (Qingwu Zhou), P.W. (Peng Wang), L.H., X.W. (Xiang Wang), H.Z. (Hongliang Zang), Q.Z. (Qingqing Zhao), L.Y., P.W. (Peiwei Wen), F.Y., H.J. (Huiming Jia), G.Z., M.P., X.W. (Xiaoyu Wang), H.S. and W.Y.; Formal analysis, H.J. (Hao Jian) and Y.G.; Funding acquisition, X.X. and C.Y.; Methodology, C.Y., L.X. (Latsamy Xayavong), K.K. (Kazunari Kaneko) and Y.S.; Supervision, X.X., M.W., Z.H., X.Z., Y.Z., H.X., M.L. and H.-J.O.; Writing-original draft, H.J. (Hao Jian) and Y.G.; Writing-review & editing, F.D. (Fanchao Dai), J.L. (Jiajian Liu), X.X. and C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Science grant number XDB34010300, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under National Key R&D Programs grant numbers 2018YFA0404404 and 2016YFA0400503, National Natural Science Foundation of China grant numbers 11775316, 12022501, U1932206 and U1632136, and the Heavy Ion Research Facility in Lanzhou (HIRFL) grant number HIR2021ZD001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
HIRFLHeavy Ion Research Facility in Lanzhou
RIBLL1Radioactive Ion Beam Line in Lanzhou
INCisospin nonconserving
DSSDdouble-sided silicon strip detector
QSDquadrant silicon detector
HPGehigh-purity germanium
CSAcharge sensitive amplifier
PCBprinted circuit board
DAQdata acquisition system
MEDmirror energy difference

References

  1. Heisenberg, W. On the structure of atomic nuclei. Z. Fur Phys. 1932, 77, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Warner, D.D.; Bentley, M.A.; Isacker, P.V. The role of isospin symmetry in collective nuclear structure. Nat. Phys. 2006, 2, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bentley, M.; Lenzi, S.M. Coulomb energy differences between high-spin states in isobaric multiplets. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2007, 59, 497–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hoff, D.E.M.; Rogers, A.M.; Wang, S.M.; Bender, P.C.; Brandenburg, K.; Clark, J.A.; Dombos, A.C.; Doucet, E.R.; Jin, S.; Childers, K.; et al. Mirror-symmetry violation in bound nuclear ground states. Nature 2020, 580, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kaneko, K.; Sun, Y.; Mizusaki, T.; Jenkins, D.G.; Ghorui, S.K.; Tazaki, S. Large mirror asymmetry in Gamow–Teller β-decay in the A = 26 isobaric multiplets. Nucl. Phys. A 2019, 986, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Tanihata, I.; Savajols, H.; Kanungo, R. Recent experimental progress in nuclear halo structure studies. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2013, 68, 215–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wu, C.G.; Wu, H.Y.; Li, J.G.; Luo, D.W.; Li, Z.H.; Xu, X.X.; Lin, C.J.; Lee, J.; Sun, L.J.; Liang, P.F.; et al. β-decay spectroscopy of the proton drip-line nucleus 22Al. Phys. Rev. C 2021, 104, 044311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lee, J.; Xu, X.X.; Kaneko, K.; Sun, Y.; Lin, C.J.; Sun, L.J.; Liang, P.F.; Li, Z.H.; Li, J.; Wu, H.Y.; et al. Large Isospin Asymmetry in 22Si/22O Mirror Gamow–Teller Transitions Reveals the Halo Structure of 22Al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 125, 192503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sun, L.J.; Xu, X.X.; Lin, C.J.; Lee, J.; Hou, S.Q.; Yuan, C.X.; Li, Z.H.; José, J.; He, J.J.; Wang, J.S.; et al. β-decay spectroscopy of 27S. Phys. Rev. C 2019, 99, 064312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Wang, Y.T.; Fang, D.Q.; Wang, K.; Xu, X.X.; Sun, L.J.; Bai, Z.; Bao, P.F.; Cao, X.G.; Dai, Z.T.; Ding, B.; et al. β-delayed particle emission from 21Mg. Eur. Phys. J. A 2018, 54, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, Y.T.; Fang, D.Q.; Xu, X.X.; Sun, L.J.; Wang, K.; Bao, P.F.; Bai, Z.; Cao, X.G.; Dai, Z.T.; Ding, B.; et al. Implantation-decay method to study the β-delayed charged particle decay. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 2018, 29, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, L.J.; Xu, X.X.; Fang, D.Q.; Lin, C.J.; Wang, J.S.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, Y.T.; Li, J.; Yang, L.; Ma, N.R.; et al. β-decay study of the TZ = -2 proton-rich nucleus 20Mg. Phys. Rev. C 2017, 95, 014314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Xu, X.X.; Lin, C.J.; Sun, L.J.; Wang, J.S.; Lam, Y.H.; Lee, J.; Fang, D.Q.; Li, Z.H.; Smirnova, N.A.; Yuan, C.X.; et al. Observation of β-delayed two-proton emission in the decay of 22Si. Phys. Lett. B 2017, 766, 312–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pérez-Loureiro, D.; Wrede, C.; Bennett, M.B.; Liddick, S.N.; Bowe, A.; Brown, B.A.; Chen, A.A.; Chipps, K.A.; Cooper, N.; Irvine, D.; et al. β-delayed γ decay of 26P: Possible evidence of a proton halo. Phys. Rev. C 2016, 93, 064320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ichikawa, Y.; Onishi, T.K.; Suzuki, D.; Iwasaki, H.; Kubo, T.; Naik, V.; Chakrabarti, A.; Aoi, N.; Brown, B.A.; Fukuda, N.; et al. Proton-rich nuclear structure and mirror asymmetry investigated by β-decay spectroscopy of 24Si. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2011, 312, 092031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhan, W.L.; Xia, J.W.; Zhao, H.W.; Xiao, G.Q.; Yuan, Y.J.; Xu, H.S.; Man, K.D.; Yuan, P.; Gao, D.Q.; Yang, X.T.; et al. HIRFL Today. Nucl. Phys. A 2008, 805, 533c–540c. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, Z.; Zhan, W.L.; Guo, Z.Y.; Xiao, G.; Li, J.X. RIBLL, the radioactive ion beam line in Lznzhou. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 2003, 503, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tarasov, O.B.; Bazin, D. LISE++: Radioactive beam production with in-flight separators. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B 2008, 266, 4657–4664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liang, P.F.; Sun, L.J.; Lee, J.; Hou, S.Q.; Xu, X.X.; Lin, C.J.; Yuan, C.X.; He, J.J.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, J.S.; et al. Simultaneous measurement of β-delayed proton and γ emission of 26P for the 25Al(p,γ) 26Si reaction rate. Phys. Rev. C 2020, 101, 024305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Xu, X.X.; Teh, F.C.E.; Lin, C.J.; Lee, J.; Yang, F.; Guo, Z.Q.; Guo, T.S.; Sun, L.J.; Teng, X.Z.; Liu, J.J.; et al. Characterization of CIAE developed double-sided silicon strip detector for charged particles. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 2018, 29, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bao, P.F.; Lin, C.J.; Yang, F.; Guo, Z.Q.; Guo, T.S.; Yang, L.; Sun, L.J.; Jia, H.M.; Xu, X.X.; Ma, N.R. Development of large-area quadrant silicon detector for charged particles. Chin. Phys. C 2014, 38, 126001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Sun, L.J.; Xu, X.X.; Lin, C.J.; Wang, J.S.; Fang, D.Q.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, Y.T.; Li, J.; Yang, L.; Ma, N.R.; et al. A detection system for chaeged-particle decay studies with a continuous-implantation method. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accerators Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 2015, 804, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baba, H.; Ichihara, T.; Ohnishi, T.; Takeuchi, S.; Yoshida, K.; Watanabe, Y.; Ota, S.; Shimoura, S. New data acquisition system for the RIKEN radioactive Isotope Beam Factory. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accerators Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 2010, 616, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thomas, J.C.; Achouri, L.; Aysto, J.; Beraud, R.; Blank, B.; Canchel, G.; Czajkowski, S.; Dendooven, P.; Ensallem, A.; Giovinazzo, J.; et al. Beta-decay properties 25Si and 26P. Eur. Phys. J. A 2004, 21, 419–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ziegler, J.F.; Ziegler, M.D.; Biersack, J.P. SRIM-The stopping and range of ions in matter. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms. 2010, 268, 1818–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Bergmann, U.C.; Riisager, K. New statistical methods for exotic nuclei. Nucl. Phys. A 2002, 701, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Achouri, N.L.; de Oliveira Santos, F.; Lewitowicz, M.; Blank, B.; Aysto, J.; Canchel, G.; Czajkowski, S.; Dendooven, P.; Emsallem, A.; Giovinazzo, J.; et al. The β-decay of 22Al. Eur. Phys. J. A 2006, 27, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gove, N.B.; Martin, M.J. Log-ftables for beta decay. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 1971, 10, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zuker, A.P.; Lenzi, S.M.; Martínez-Pinedo, G.; Poves, A. Isobaric Multiplet Yrast Energies and Isospin Nonconserving Forces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 142502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kaneko, K.; Sun, Y.; Mizusaki, T.; Tazaki, S. Isospin nonconserving interaction in the T=1 analogue states of the mass-70 region. Phys. Rev. C 2014, 89, 031302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Basunia, M.S.; Hurst, A.M. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 26. Nucl. Data Sheets 2016, 134, 1–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Hardy, J.C.; Towner, I.S. Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclear β decays: A new survey with precision tests of the conserved vector current hypothesis and the standard model. Phys. Rev. C 2009, 79, 055502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Wildenthal, B.H. Empirical strengths of spin operators in nuclei. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 1984, 11, 5–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brown, B.A.; Wildenthal, B.H. Status of the nuclear shell model. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 1988, 38, 29–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brown, B.A.; Richter, W.A. New “USD” Hamiltonians for the sd shell. Phys. Rev. C 2006, 74, 034315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Yuan, C.X.; Qi, C.; Xu, F.R.; Suzuki, T.; Otsuka, T. Mirror energy difference and the structure of loosely bound proton-rich nuclei around A = 20. Phys. Rev. C 2014, 89, 044327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Thomas, R.G. An Analysis of the Energy Levels of the mirror Nuclei, C13 and N13. Phys. Rev. 1952, 88, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ehrman, J.B. On the Displacement of Corresponding Energy Levels of C13 and N13. Phys. Rev. 1951, 81, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Two-dimensional identification plot of Δ E and ToF for the ions in the secondary beam. The heavy ions of 26 P are marked with a red circle. The others are marked with the corresponding isotope symbols.
Figure 1. Two-dimensional identification plot of Δ E and ToF for the ions in the secondary beam. The heavy ions of 26 P are marked with a red circle. The others are marked with the corresponding isotope symbols.
Symmetry 13 02278 g001
Figure 2. The surface distributions of 26 P ions implanted on DSSD3 in the x-y axis.
Figure 2. The surface distributions of 26 P ions implanted on DSSD3 in the x-y axis.
Symmetry 13 02278 g002
Figure 3. The decay-time spectrum of 26 P.
Figure 3. The decay-time spectrum of 26 P.
Symmetry 13 02278 g003
Figure 4. γ -ray spectrum of 26 P in coincidence with a β particle from 26 P decay. Peaks have been labeled by the energy.
Figure 4. γ -ray spectrum of 26 P in coincidence with a β particle from 26 P decay. Peaks have been labeled by the energy.
Symmetry 13 02278 g004
Figure 5. (Left) Partial decay scheme of mirror nuclei 26 Na. (Right) Partial decay scheme of 26 P deduced from present experiment data.
Figure 5. (Left) Partial decay scheme of mirror nuclei 26 Na. (Right) Partial decay scheme of 26 P deduced from present experiment data.
Symmetry 13 02278 g005
Table 1. The thickness of different detectors used in this experiment.
Table 1. The thickness of different detectors used in this experiment.
DetectorsDSSD1DSSD2DSSD3QSD1QSD2QSD3
Thickness ( μ m)142403041546300300
Area(mm 2 )49.5 × 49.549.5 × 49.549.5 × 49.550 × 5050 × 5050 × 50
Table 2. Data on the β -delayed γ -rays of 26 P. Total 13 γ peaks have been identified.
Table 2. Data on the β -delayed γ -rays of 26 P. Total 13 γ peaks have been identified.
Peak E γ (keV) I γ (%) J ( i ) π J ( f ) π E i * (keV) E f * (keV)
γ 1 968.6(7)1.5(3)3 + 2 + 3756.5(3)2786(1)
γ 2 986.6(7)5.7(9)2 + 2 + 2786(1)1796.1(2)
γ 3 1329.4(6)1.4(3)4 + 3 + 5515.8(6)4185.4(11)
γ 4 1399.4(6)3.5(15)3 + 2 + 4185.4(11)2786(1)
γ 5 1759.3(6)0.3(1)4 + 3 + 5515.8(6)3756.5(3)
γ 6 1796.1(2)58(3)2 + 0 + 1796.1(2)0
γ 7 1960.4(9)1.6(5)3 + 2 + 3756.5(3)1796.1(2)
γ 8 2019.6(5)3.2(14)2 + 2 + 4805.6(11)2786(1)
γ 9 2342.3(9)5.1(10)2 + 2 + 4138.4(9)1796.1(2)
γ 10 2388.4(6)1.5(4)3 + 2 + 4185.4(11)1796.1(2)
γ 11 2647.9(4)1.0(4)4 + 2 + 4444.0(4)1796.1(2)
γ 12 2729.5(4)0.6(3)4 + 2 + 5515.8(6)2786(1)
γ 13 2786(1)3.7(7)2 + 0 + 2786(1)0
Table 3. Comparison between the transitions in the mirror β decays of 26 P/ 26 Na.
Table 3. Comparison between the transitions in the mirror β decays of 26 P/ 26 Na.
26 P( β γ ) 26 Si, T Z = 2 26 Na( β γ ) 26 Mg, T Z = 2
T 1 / 2 = 43.7(3) ms, Q EC = 18,258(90) keVT 1 / 2 = 1.07128(25) s, Q β = 9354(4) keV [31]
J i π 26 Si E * (keV)BR (%)log ( ft + ) 26 Mg E * (keV)BR (%)log ( ft ) δ (%)MED
2 1 + 1796.1(2)43.1(34)4.88(4)1808.81(16)87.80(7)4.7148(12)46(13)−13(16)
3 1 + 3756.5(3)2.8(6)5.78(10)3941.48(17)1.31(4)5.870(14)−19(19)−185(17)
2 3 + 4138.4(9)5.1(10)5.46(9)4332.02(17)1.65(3)5.62(1)−31(15)−180(21)
3 2 + 4185.4(11)3.6(16)5.6(2)4350.02(17)3.17(7)5.33(1)86(86)−165(20)
Table 4. Comparison of calculated δ values using different Hamiltonian for the first 2 + excited state.
Table 4. Comparison of calculated δ values using different Hamiltonian for the first 2 + excited state.
Hamiltonian δ
OriginWBE1WBE2
USD0%22%55%
USDA0%17%51%
USDB0%16%49%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jian, H.; Gao, Y.; Dai, F.; Liu, J.; Xu, X.; Yuan, C.; Kaneko, K.; Sun, Y.; Liang, P.; Shi, G.; et al. β-Delayed γ Emissions of 26P and Its Mirror Asymmetry. Symmetry 2021, 13, 2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13122278

AMA Style

Jian H, Gao Y, Dai F, Liu J, Xu X, Yuan C, Kaneko K, Sun Y, Liang P, Shi G, et al. β-Delayed γ Emissions of 26P and Its Mirror Asymmetry. Symmetry. 2021; 13(12):2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13122278

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jian, Hao, Yufeng Gao, Fanchao Dai, Jiajian Liu, Xinxing Xu, Cenxi Yuan, Kazunari Kaneko, Yang Sun, Pengfei Liang, Guozhu Shi, and et al. 2021. "β-Delayed γ Emissions of 26P and Its Mirror Asymmetry" Symmetry 13, no. 12: 2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13122278

APA Style

Jian, H., Gao, Y., Dai, F., Liu, J., Xu, X., Yuan, C., Kaneko, K., Sun, Y., Liang, P., Shi, G., Sun, L., Xayavong, L., Lin, C., Lee, J., Li, Z., Yang, Y., Li, P., Fan, R., Zha, S., ... Yang, W. (2021). β-Delayed γ Emissions of 26P and Its Mirror Asymmetry. Symmetry, 13(12), 2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13122278

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop