Tables of Nuclear Shell Structure

Klinkenberg, P.F.A.

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.24.63

Cited by 218 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…d 5/2 + subshell is slightly lower than the g 7/2 + subshell (and thus one should find a subshell closure at N = 56 instead of N = 58), there is some evidence from the ground state spins of J = 5/2 + for neighboring N = 59 nuclei like 105 Pd, 107 Cd, and 109 Sn that the g 7/2 + neutron subshell is filled at N = 58. Note that the lowering of the g 7/2 + subshell below the d 5/2 + subshell is well established for the proton subshells [46]. This weak subshell closure may explain the relatively small total reaction cross section of 106 Cd.…”

Section: Variation Of the Scattering Cross Section Along Isotopicmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cd110,116(α,α)
Kiss
¹
,
Mohr
²
,
Fülöp
³

et al. 2011
Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The elastic scattering cross sections for the reactions 110,116 Cd(α,α) 110,116 Cd at energies above and below the Coulomb barrier are presented to provide a sensitive test for the α-nucleus optical potential parameter sets. Additional constraints for the optical potential are taken from the analysis of elastic scattering excitation functions at backward angles which are available in literature. Moreover, the variation of the elastic α scattering cross sections along the Z = 48 isotopic and N = 62 isotonic chain is investigated by the study of the ratios of the 106,110,116 Cd(α,α) 106,110,116 Cd scattering cross sections at E cm ≈ 15.6 and 18.8 MeV and the ratio of the 110 Cd(α,α) 110 Cd and 112 Sn(α,α) 112 Sn reaction cross sections at E cm ≈ 18.8 MeV, respectively. These ratios are sensitive probes for the α-nucleus optical potential parametrizations. The potentials under study are a basic prerequisite for the prediction of α-induced reaction cross sections (e.g., for the calculation of stellar reaction rates in the astrophysical p or γ process).

show abstract

Section: Variation Of the Scattering Cross Section Along Isotopicmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The apparently different behavior of 106 Cd may be understood from a weak subshell closure of the g 7/2 + neutron shell at N = 58. Although one textbook reference of the shell model [46] shows in its Fig. 1 106 Cd are taken from [20,21].…”

Section: Variation Of the Scattering Cross Section Along Isotopicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cd110,116(α,α)
Kiss
¹
,
Mohr
²
,
Fülöp
³

et al. 2011
Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the pure S-state ,,~s) _ ,, P~3H --k~p and ,,(s) _ ,, which values deviate from the mea-/~3He --/~n sured moments by -6.2 % and + 10 % respectively. The measured moments lie outside the Schmidt corridors [2,10]. Thus the A = 3 nuclei definitely do not consist of a spinless core (pn) plus one (S-state) valence nucleon.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main differences, from the start, are due to different intrinsic properties of the constituents. This line of approach is just a quantum-mechanical one [10,11], and will be pursued here. In the following a counter-example providing an answer to question 2 is presented as an exact and almost unique solution of the 3H, 3He-problem.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic moments and structure of the nuclei3H,3He and of baryons

Wolters¹

1982

Z Physik A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a solution of the problem of magnetic moments of the nuclei 3H and 3He, two properties are obtained: -These nuclei have mixed orbital ground states. -These states are not charge symmetric. The first property is expected to hold also for baryons in the quark model, on account of recently measured magnetic moments. Supporting evidence and implications for baryon structure are discussed.Long ago an analysis of the magnetic moments of the A=3 nuclei 3H and 3He led to the conclusion that these moments could not be understood in terms of a mixed orbital ground state, which is dominantly an S-state [1]. For the pure S-state ,,~s) _ ,, P~3H --k~p and ,,(s) _ ,, which values deviate from the mea-/~3He --/~n sured moments by -6.2 % and + 10 % respectively. The measured moments lie outside the Schmidt corridors [2,10]. Thus the A = 3 nuclei definitely do not consist of a spinless core (pn) plus one (S-state) valence nucleon. A solution could almost be obtained at the price of P-state probabilities greater than 15 %. This outcome was considered unacceptable on grounds based mainly on model-dependent binding energy calculations [1,2]. It was thought more reasonable to assume that "exchange moments", due to virtual currents, are responsible for the discrepancies. The anomaly of the nucleon magnetic moments was speculatively interpreted in a similar way [1,2]. The quark model for baryons has lifted this anomaly, leaving the task of finding an interpretation in terms of quark magnetic moments and quark structure of the nucleon [3]. At the same time however the proposed way out of the problem of the A = 3 nuclei is jeopardized. Recently the quark model approach of baryon magnetic moments in its early form [4] has been seriously challenged by improved measurements of hyperon magnetic moments [5]. The predicted values for the Z § -and cascade -hyperons differ from the experimental results by about three standard deviations. The differences vary between 15% and 30~o of the measured values. They are large and significant. For the nucleon moments a significant deviation was known since long, but since it is small* this caused no great concern: the ratio #p/#, equals -1.46, is predicted to be -3/2 [3,4], and the experimental accuracy is better than 1 ppm [6]. Just as was the case with the 3H, 3He magnetic moments, all baryon-moment discrepancies result from an assumed S-state structure. A comprehensive discussion of the baryon-moment problem in the quark model is due to Lichtenberg [7]. There, following Franklin [3], the mixed orbital state hypothesis was envisaged as one of the conceivable solutions. Making use of a non-relativistic approximation, it was shown that the nucleon moments could in fact be understood, but at the price of admitting "a rather large admixture in the nucleon wave function of configurations with orbital angular momenta different from zero", and the subject was not pushed further along this line. Since alternatives [8] introduce more arbitrariness, exchange moments being far less plausible in the quark m...

show abstract

“…nucleus (one unpaired neutron spin [48]) with a natural 129 Xe as a function of xenon density and in gas mixtures [49]. Perturbations arising from interactions with a solid surface can also give rise to shifts in the 129 Xe resonant frequency.…”

Section: Nmr Spectroscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution of metal and adsorbed guest species in zeolites

Chmelka¹

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tables of Nuclear Shell Structure

Cited by 218 publications

References 19 publications

Cd110,116(α,α)
Kiss
¹
,
Mohr
²
,
Fülöp
³

et al. 2011
Phys. Rev. C

Cd110,116(α,α)
Kiss
¹
,
Mohr
²
,
Fülöp
³

et al. 2011
Phys. Rev. C

Magnetic moments and structure of the nuclei3H,3He and of baryons

Distribution of metal and adsorbed guest species in zeolites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Tables of Nuclear Shell Structure

Cited by 218 publications

References 19 publications

Cd110,116(α,α)Kiss1, Mohr2, Fülöp3 et al. 2011Phys. Rev. C

Cd110,116(α,α)Kiss1, Mohr2, Fülöp3 et al. 2011Phys. Rev. C

Magnetic moments and structure of the nuclei3H,3He and of baryons

Distribution of metal and adsorbed guest species in zeolites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Cd110,116(α,α)
Kiss
¹
,
Mohr
²
,
Fülöp
³

et al. 2011
Phys. Rev. C

Cd110,116(α,α)
Kiss
¹
,
Mohr
²
,
Fülöp
³

et al. 2011
Phys. Rev. C