Isovector dipole strength in nuclei with extreme neutron excess

Arteaga, Daniel; Khan, E.; Ring, P.

doi:10.1103/physrevc.79.034311

Cited by 71 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5) while the integral strength is a few times larger than the experimental value. A similar behavior was observed in other self-consistent calculations [48] (see Fig. 5).…”

Section: Pygmy Dipole Resonancessupporting

confidence: 73%

“…The second region includes unstable isotopes, A > 132, for which these systematics fail. Similar conclusions for mean energies can be made out of the calculations obtained within the relativistic deformed QRPAapproach (RQRPAZ) approach [48].…”

Section: Dipole Excitations and Giant Dipole Resonancessupporting

confidence: 64%

“…It has to be noted that other theoretical approaches (see Fig. 3) [7,48] give very similar results, which possibly means that further experimental investigations on the 132 Sn GDR may be needed.…”

Section: Dipole Excitations and Giant Dipole Resonancesmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The resulting mean energies E = E 1,0 and B(E1) values are shown in Fig. 5, along with the relativistic QTBA (RQTBA) [7,54] and RQRPAZ [48] results as well as the available experimental data [32,55].…”

Section: Pygmy Dipole Resonancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One may also try to separate out the GDR and PDR in the same way as done in Ref. [48] using 132 Sn as the benchmark in the definition of the border between these two resonances. This procedure is somewhat artificial and, anyway, for unstable nuclei the GDR centroid energy itself does not follow the systematics, nor does the mean energy taken in the whole 0-30 MeV interval.…”

Section: Dipole Excitations and Giant Dipole Resonancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Self-consistent calculations of the strength function and radiative neutron capture cross section for stable and unstable tin isotopes

Авдеенков

Goriely²,

Kamerdzhiev

et al. 2011

Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The E1 strength function for 15 stable and unstable Sn even-even isotopes from A = 100 to A = 176 are calculated using a self-consistent microscopic theory which, in addition to the standard (quasiparticle) randomphase approximation [(Q)RPA] approach, takes into account phonon coupling and the single-particle continuum (by means of the discretization procedure) with a cutoff of 100 MeV. Our analysis shows two distinct regions for which the integral characteristics of both the giant and pygmy resonances behave rather differently. For neutron-rich nuclei, starting from 132 Sn, we obtain a giant E1 resonance which significantly deviates from the widely used systematics extrapolated from experimental data in the β-stability valley. We show that the inclusion of phonon coupling is necessary for a proper description of the low-energy pygmy resonances and the corresponding transition densities for A < 132 nuclei, while in the A > 132 region the influence of phonon coupling is significantly smaller. The radiative neutron capture cross sections leading to the stable 124 Sn and unstable 132 Sn and 150 Sn nuclei are calculated with both the (Q)RPA and the beyond-(Q)RPA strength functions and shown to be sensitive to both the predicted low-lying strength and the phonon-coupling contribution. The comparison with the widely used phenomenological generalized Lorentzian approach shows considerable differences both for the strength function and the radiative neutron capture cross section. In particular, for the neutron-rich 150 Sn, the reaction cross section is found to be increased by a factor greater than 20. We conclude that the present approach may provide a complete and coherent description of the γ -ray-strength function for astrophysics applications. In particular, such calculations are highly recommended for a reliable estimate of the electromagnetic properties of exotic nuclei.

show abstract

“…5) while the integral strength is a few times larger than the experimental value. A similar behavior was observed in other self-consistent calculations [48] (see Fig. 5).…”

Section: Pygmy Dipole Resonancessupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Dipole Excitations and Giant Dipole Resonancessupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Dipole Excitations and Giant Dipole Resonancesmentioning

confidence: 75%