See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/384494187

Microscopic calculations of nuclear incompressibility from cluster

radioactivity

Article in Physical Review C · September 2024

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034329

CITATIONS READS

2 39

6 authors, including:

Xiaohua Li
University of South China
117 PUBLICATIONS 1,585 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaohua Li on 26 November 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

Microscopic calculations of nuclear incompressibility from cluster radioactivity

Xiao Liu,1 Jie-Dong Jiang,1 Xun Chen ,1,* Xi-Jun Wu,2,† Biao He,3 and Xiao-Hua Li 1,4,5,‡
1
School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, 421001 Hengyang, People’s Republic of China
2
School of Math and Physics, University of South China, 421001 Hengyang, People’s Republic of China
3
School of Physics and Electronics, Central South University, 410083 Changsha, People’s Republic of China
4
Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology & Equipment,
University of South China, 421001 Hengyang, People’s Republic of China
5
National Exemplary Base for International Sci & Tech. Collaboration of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Safety,
University of South China, Hengyang 421001, People’s Republic of China

(Received 6 June 2024; revised 13 August 2024; accepted 6 September 2024; published 30 September 2024)

In the present work, based on the framework of the two-potential approach, we systematically investigate
the incompressibility of nuclear matter K from cluster radioactivity by considering the sum of an attractive
double-folding potential and a repulsive Gaussian potential as the total nuclear potential of nucleon-nucleon
interactions. The strength of the repulsive Gaussian core caused by the Pauli exclusion principle can be obtained
by reproducing the cluster radioactivity experimental half-lives of 28 trans-lead nuclei ranging from 221 Fr to
242
Cm. The incompressibility of nuclear matter can be calculated in the case of completely overlapped densities
inside the potential barrier, which is related to the curvature of the nuclear matter equation of state. The obtained
values for the incompressibility of nuclear matter range from 202.13–247.54 MeV. In addition, the influences of
isospin asymmetry δ and the effective number of the valence particles Np Nn on the incompressibility of nuclear
matter from cluster radioactivity are also discussed. The results show that the incompressibility of nuclear matter
K is linear to product of isospin asymmetry and the effective number of the valence particles Np Nn δ. At the same
time, the estimated incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter deduced from the results obtained for different
asymmetric nuclei is K (δ = 0) = 251.14 MeV.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034329

I. INTRODUCTION which is a widely recognized conclusion at present [6,7]. In

addition, the isoscalar giant dipole resonance (ISGDR) data
In recent years, the incompressibility of nuclear matter
could also be taken as a further probe of the incompressibility
K has remained at the forefront of experimental and theo-
of nuclear matter, but the incompressibility of nuclear matter
retical investigations because it plays an important role in
K extracted from ISGDR is too small (K = 23.0 ± 0.3 MeV,
understanding a wide variety of phenomena in nuclear physics
K = 22.2 ± 0.3 MeV) in comparison with the values obtained
and astronomy. For instance, the basic properties of nuclear
from the ISGMR data [8,9]. At the same time, the incompress-
ground state, the stability of neutron-rich nuclei [1], the ex-
ibility of nuclear matter K was found to be 290 ± 50 MeV in
citation energies of giant monopole resonances, the structure
recent experiments based upon the production of hard photons
of neutron stars [2], the dynamics of heavy-ion collisions
in heavy-ion collisions [10].
[3], and the simulation of core collapse supernova [4] all are
In addition to the analysis and interpretation of data in
affected by the incompressibility of nuclear matter. However,
experiments, considerable efforts have been made in the the-
the values of K cannot be measured directly, but it can be
oretical calculation of K [11–19]. Since the early 1960s to
obtained by extracting from the experimental centroid ener-
the present, there are numerous models and/or approaches
gies of the isoscalar giant monopole resonance (ISGMR) in
that have been proposed to make theoretical predictions about
medium-heavy nuclei, which has proven to be the cleanest, the incompressibility of nuclear matter, which are mainly
most direct route [5]. Over the past few decades, with the divided into three categories. The first is considered as the
development of experimental techniques, a relatively large so-called realistic potential models with parameters fitted the
amount of the values of ISGMR centroid energy have been data of free nucleon-nucleon scattering (phase shifts, effective
collected for more complicated and accurate data analysis to ranges) and properties of the deuteron [12,13]. The sec-
obtain unambiguous information about K ≈ 240 ± 20 MeV, ond is considered as the microscopic models, which utilizes
the self-consistent methods with effective density-dependent
nucleon-nucleon interactions by fitting the data of the (double)
*
Contact author: [email protected] closed shell nuclei and the saturation properties of nu-
†
Contact author: [email protected] clear matter while containing nonrelativistic and/or relativistic
‡
Contact author: [email protected] effects [14–16]. The third is considered as the macroscopic

2469-9985/2024/110(3)/034329(9) 034329-1 ©2024 American Physical Society

LIU, JIANG, CHEN, WU, HE, AND LI PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

models by utilizing the semiempirical mass formula as well parent nuclear is approximately twice that of the emitted
as its development to the liquid drop model and variants, cluster particle. The doubling of the density will increase the
whose the incompressibility of finite nuclei is parameterized interaction energy per nucleon V in the overlapping region,
in the form of a leptodermous expansion in powers of A−1/3 which is proportional to the increase of the energy per parti-
[17–19]. Based on the above theories, the incompressibility cle of nuclear matter ε(ρ, δ) [52–54]. Whereas the definition
of nuclear matter has been extensively studied, but the re- of nuclear incompressibility is then related to the curvature
sults are not consistent. In 1961, Falk and Wilets adopted of the energy per particle of nuclear matter ε(ρ, δ) at the
Puff-Martin model with Yamaguchi potential by fitting free saturation density [55,56]. Therefore, the values of K could
nucleon-nucleon scattering data to obtain the value of K as be obtained by inferring V , which can be determined by
214 MeV [12]. In 1971, Bethe obtained the values of K in reproducing the experimentally measured half-lives of clus-
the range from 100–200 based on various realistic potential ter radioactivity within the framework of the two-potential
models [13]. The values of K predicted by nonrelativistic approach (TPA). To this end, we present microscopic cal-
and relativistic mean-field models are also significantly dif- culations aimed at probing the incompressibility of nuclear
ferent from each other in the general theoretical observations matter from cluster radioactivity in this work. The calcu-
[20,21]. Based on the former, the values of K extracted by lated results show that the values for incompressibility of
the Skyrme functionals and the Gogny functionals range from nuclear matter is in excellent agreement with values extracted
210–220 MeV [22] as well as 210–230 MeV [23], respec- from experiments. In addition, we obtain incompressibility
tively. Meanwhile, the fully self-consistent calculations of of symmetric nuclear matter K (δ = 0) = 251.14 MeV by ex-
the ISGMR using Skyrme forces lead to K ranging from trapolation, which is approximate to the one obtained by Seif
230–240 MeV [24]. Based on the latter, the values of K are et al. [57].
predicted a wide range of higher values, which are obtained This paper is organized as follows. The theoretical frame-
from 250–270 MeV as well as 280–350 MeV using random work of the cluster radioactive half-lives and its relationship
phase approximation (RPA) with and without the inclusion of with the incompressibility of nuclear matter are exhaustively
negative-energy states in the response function, respectively introduced in Sec. II. The results and discussion are distinctly
[25,26]. The difference between the two former and latter presented in Sec. III. Finally, a brief summary is given in
may be due to the fact that the relativistic mean-field model Sec. IV.
has a larger symmetric energy value at the saturation density
than the nonrelativistic mean-field model. Furthermore, the II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
theoretical estimate of K from the refractive α-nucleus scat-
A. Incompressibility of nuclear matter
tering, infinite nuclear matter model (INM) and a mean-field
calculation with the density-dependent M3Y interaction are The incompressibility of nuclear matter K is defined in
about 240–270 MeV, 288 ± 20 MeV and 290 MeV, respec- terms of the curvature of the energy per particle ε(ρ, δ) at the
tively [27–30]. It is clear that the appropriate value of K shows saturation density as [27]
fierce model dependence and its the theoretical scenario still  2 
2∂ ε
remains unclear. So the final determination of the K still needs K =9 ρ |ρ=ρ0 , (1)
to carry out long-term research. ∂ρ 2
On the other hand, the cluster radioactivity also has re- where ρ0 = 0.161 fm−3 is the saturation density. ε(ρ, δ) is
ceived special attention in the contemporary nuclear physics considered as a function of the nuclear density ρ = ρn +
community [31–40]. This exotic radioactivity mode was first ρ p and the isospin asymmetry δ = (ρn − ρ p )/(ρn + ρ p ) with
predicted on theoretical ground by Sandulescu et al. in 1980 ρn and ρ p being the neutron and proton densities, respec-
[41]. Experimentally, it was established as a new fundamental tively. In the Thomas-Fermi model, ε(ρ, δ) is predicted
spontaneous radioactive process by Rose and Jones in 1984 as [58]
[42]. It is an intermediate process between α decay and spon-   2/3    5/3 
taneous fission, in which the parent nucleus emits a cluster ρ ρ ρ
particle that is heavier than an α particle but lighter than ε(ρ, δ) = εF A(δ) +B(δ) +C(δ) ,
ρ0 ρ0 ρ0
the lightest fission fragment, while decaying into a doubly
magic daughter nucleus 208 Pb or its neighboring daughter (2)
nucleus [43–47]. However, an overlapping region with dou-
bled nucleon density will be formed within the parent nucleus where εF is the Fermi energy of normal nuclear matter. The
before the cluster particle is fully released from the barrier. In detailed expressions of A(δ), B(δ) and C(δ) can be found in
this internal region, the wave functions of the two fermionic Ref. [58]. In the case of a parabolic expansion around the
systems will overlap. To prevent this overlapping effect, it is equilibrium density, we can obtain an approximate nuclear
proposed to include a repulsive force in the nuclear part of matter equation of state (EOS), which can be expressed [59]
the interaction potential due to the Pauli exclusion principle, K
which will reach the maximum value at the complete over- ε(ρ, δ) = ε(ρ0 , δ) + (ρ − ρ0 )2 . (3)
18ρ02
lap [48–51]. Furthermore, in the case of complete overlap
(r = 0), if we assume that the densities of the two nuclei In addition, the interaction energy per nucleon V will in-
are frozen when estimating the nuclear interaction potential, crease when the cluster particle completely overlaps with the
then the total density of unlaunched cluster particle in the parent nucleus (r = 0), which is determined by EOS. It can

034329-2
MICROSCOPIC CALCULATIONS OF NUCLEAR … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

be expressed as [53] and r3 are classical turning points, which satisfy the condi-
tions V (r1 ) = V (r2 ) = V (r3 ) = Qc with Qc being the cluster
V ≈ 2Ac [ε(2ρ0 , δ) − ε(ρ0 , δ)], (4) radioactivity released energy. It can be obtained by using [71]
where Ac is the mass number of the emitted cluster. It has been Qc = B(Ac , Zc ) + B(Ad , Zd ) − B(A p , Z p ), (11)
assumed that V must be identified with the nuclear part of
the interaction potential VN (r) at the coordinate origin (r = 0) where B(Ac , Zc ), B(Ad , Zd ), and B(A p , Z p ) are the binding
to calibrate the strength of the repulsive core potential. While energy of the emitted cluster, daughter, and parent nucleus, re-
VN (r) is described in detail in Sec. II B. At the same time, spectively. They are taken from AME2020 and NUBASE2020
combining the Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), we can obtain [60] [72,73]. Ac , Zc , Ad , Zd , and A p , Z p are the mass and pro-
ton numbers of the emitted cluster, daughter, and parent
V VN (0)
K ≈9 ≈9 . (5) nucleus, respectively. V (r) is the total interaction potential
Ac Ac between daughter nucleus and emitted cluster. In general,
Therefore, the incompressibility of nuclear matter K can be it consists of the nuclear potential VN (r), Coulomb poten-
calculated directly from the nuclear potential at the coordinate tial VC (r), and centrifugal potential V (r), which can be
origin. expressed as
V (r) = VN (r) + VC (r) + V (r). (12)
B. Half-lives of the cluster radioactivity
In this study, for the centrifugal potential V (r), we adopt
In the framework of two-potential approach (TPA), the the Langer modified form, because ( + 1) → ( + 21 )2 is
cluster radioactivity half-life T1/2 could be determined by the a necessary correction for one-dimensional problems [74]. It
decay width  [61–63]. It can be written as can be expressed as
h̄ln2
T1/2 = , (6) ( + 1/2)2 h̄2
 V (r) = , (13)
2μr 2
where h̄ is the reduced Planck constant. The decay width 
depending on the cluster particle preformation probability Sc , where is the angular momentum carried by the emitted
the normalized factor F and the penetration probability P, can cluster. It can be obtained by
be expressed as ⎧
⎪
⎪ j, foreven  j and π p = πd ,
⎪
⎨ + 1, foreven  and π = π ,
h̄2 Sc F P j j p d
= , (7) = (14)
4μ ⎪
⎪ j, forodd  j and π p = πd ,
⎪
⎩ + 1, forodd  and π = π ,
where μ = mmdd+mmc
c
is the reduced mass of emitted cluster- j j p d

daughter nucleus system with md and mc being the daughter where  j = | j p − jd − jc |, j p , π p , jd , πd , and jc , πc
nucleus and the emitted cluster mass, respectively [64]. In represents spin and parity values of parent, daughter,
1988, the cluster preformation probability Sc was found to and cluster nuclei, respectively, which are taken from
possess a simple mass dependence on the emitted cluster [65]. NUBASE2020 [73].
It can be expressed as The Coulomb potential VC (r) is taken as the potential of
Sc = (Sα )(Ac −1)/3 , (8) a uniformly charged sphere with radius R, which can be ex-
pressed as
where Ac is the mass number of the emitted cluster and Sα ⎧   2 
is the preformation probability for the α decay. The sim- ⎪ Zd e2
⎨ Zc2R 3 − Rr , r  R,
ilar Sα values can be obtained by fitting the experimental VC (r) = (15)
⎪
⎩ Zc Zd e2 ,
data in different models [40,66–69]. In this study, we choose r
r > R,
Sα = 0.02897 for even-even parent nuclei and Sα = 0.0214
for odd-A parent nuclei [40]. The normalized factor F and the where e2 = 1.4399652 MeV fm is the square of the electronic
penetration probability P can be calculated by using the in- elementary charge and R = 1.2A1/3 d [37].
tegration over the internal region and the semiclassical WKB The nuclear potential VN (r) usually exhibits an attractive
approximation action integral, respectively. They can be ex- property. Nevertheless, there is a repulsive contribution to the
pressed as [70] inner part of the nucleus-nucleus interaction potential when
1 the densities of two nuclei basically overlap, which is mainly
F =  r2 1 , (9) due to the Pauli exclusion principle that hinders the full over-
r1 2κ (r) dr lap. Therefore, the total nuclear potential should consist of
r3
P = exp − 2 κ (r)dr . (10) both attractive and repulsive types of nuclear potential, which
r2 can be expressed as [52]
 
Here κ (r) = 2μ |V (r) − Qc | is the wave number of the VN (r) = λ VNa (r) + VNr (r) , (16)
h̄2
cluster particle. r is the mass center distance between the where λ is the renormalization factor in the nuclear potential
preformed cluster particle and the daughter nucleus. r1 , r2 , to guarantee a true behavior of the wave function and to ensure

034329-3
LIU, JIANG, CHEN, WU, HE, AND LI PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

an cluster-core quasibound state, which can be determined by cleus. The experimental data are adopted from Ref. [79]
using the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition [75,76] and the fitted formula for the rms proton radii can be
r2
π π expressed as
κ (r)dr = (2n + 1) = (Gc − + 1) . (17)  −4/3  1/3
r1 2 2 p
Rrms = a + bA−2/3
c,d + cAc,d Ac,d , (22)
Here Gc is the global quantum number. It can be obtained where the parameters a = 0.891 fm, b = 1.52 fm, and c =
by using the relationship Gc =  Gα4Ac  with Gα is the global −2.8 fm [80]. r0n can be determined from Rrms n
through the
quantum number of α decay (“ ” represents round down). neutron skin thickness radii rnp . It can be written as
Gα can be determined by using the Wildermuth quantum rule,
which can constrain the range of repulsive Gaussian potential
n
Rrms = Rrms
p
+ rnp , (23)
and compensate for the deficiency of the repulsive Gaussian where rnp = (−0.04 ± 0.03) + (1.01 ± 0.15)I is found to
potential in simulating Pauli exclusion principle to some ex- be in a linear relationship with the neutron-proton asymmetry
tent. It can be expressed as [75] term I = N−Z [81]. a = an = a p = 0.56 fm is the aver-
⎧ A
⎨22, N > 126, age surface diffuseness value [82]. Equation (19) is usually
Gα = 20, 82 < N  126, (18) solved by numerical calculations of six-dimensional integrals,
⎩18, N  82. which is obviously complicated. For the sake of convenience,
we choose an analytic expression by using an approximate
Here N is the neutron number of parent nucleus. For the attrac- method, which is considered that the range of the effective
tive nuclear potential VNa (r), it is chosen as a double-folding nucleon-nucleon interaction is negligible in comparison with
form in this work and can be expressed as [77] the diffuseness of the nuclear densities. In this approach
 n   υ(s) ≈ Va δ(s), the double-folding potential can be obtained
VNa (r) = ρ1 (R1 ) + ρ1p (R1 ) ρ2n (R2 ) + ρ2p (R2 ) via [82,83]
 
× υ(s)dR1 dR2 , (19) 2πVa ∞ r+R1
VN (r) =
a
R1 ρ1 (R1 ) R2 ρ2 (R2 )dR2 dR1 ,
where υ(s) is the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction, which r 0 |r−R1 |
can only be considered meaningful if it is truly realis- (24)
tic. s = |r + R2 − R1 | represents the distance between the
two interacting nucleons. ρ1p,n (R1 ) and ρ2p,n (R2 ) are re- with
spectively denoted the proton (denoted by p) and neutron ρ1 (R1 ) = ρ1p (R1 ) + ρ1n (R1 ), ρ2 (R2 ) = ρ2p (R2 ) + ρ2n (R2 ).
(denoted by n) density distribution of the emitted cluster
and daughter nucleus in a frozen density approximation, (25)
which are taken with the standard Fermi form. They can be Here Va is the volume integral of the M3Y effective inter-
expressed as action and it can be given by [57]
ξ
ρc,d  
ξ
ρ1,2 (r) = , 4π 4π Ec
 ξ  ξ 
(20) Va = 7999 3 − 2134 3 − 276 1 − 0.005 , (26)
1 + exp r − cc,d a 4 2.5 Ac
where ξ is p or n as well as the subscripts “1” and “2” where Ec = (AAcd+AQc
is the kinetic energy of the cluster. In
c)
respectively correspond to the subscripts “c” and “d”, which order to obtain an analytical expression of the double-folding
ξ
represent the emitted cluster and daughter nucleus. The ρc,d is potential in the case of finite diffusion values, we need further
determined by integrating the density distribution equivalent a approximation. If both the emitted cluster and daughter
to the proton number or the neutron number of the correspond- nucleus have the same diffuseness parameter a, then the Fermi
ξ
ing nucleus. cc,d = r0ξ A1/3 ξ
c,d and a are the half-density radii distribution can be approximately replaced with a simpler
and surface diffuseness of the neutron or proton density of the form [82]
corresponding nucleus, respectively. In this work, we consider ξ
 ξ

the neutron skin-type assumption with r0n > r0p and an = a p ρc,d ξ
r − cc,d
ξ
≈ ρc,d D , (27)
that is an extreme case of density distribution, which can be 1 + exp[(r − cc,d )/a] a
used to represent the difference in the density distribution of
neutrons and protons [78]. Furthermore, the rms proton and with

neutron radii of the cluster or the daughter nucleus can be 1 − 78 ex + 38 e2x , x  0,
obtained by D(x) =   (28)
 e−x 1 − 78 e−x + 38 e−2x , x > 0,
 ρ ξ (r)r 4 dr
ξ
Rrms = r 2  =  ξ . (21) r−cξ
ρ (r)r 2 dr where x = a c,d . In integrals involving the two-parameter
Fermi distribution, this approximation is particularly effective
So the density parameters r0p can be determined from the for solving its analytic expressions. After an elaborate alge-
experimental rms proton radii of the corresponding nu- braic manipulation, we can obtain a simple expression of the

034329-4
MICROSCOPIC CALCULATIONS OF NUCLEAR … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

Eq. (24), which is represented as the sum of a large number of terms

⎧   
⎪  n p  n p 4  a 2
⎪
⎪Va ρc + ρc ρd + ρd π Rc 1 + 9.7 Rc − 0.875 R3 − 1
3 Rd3
⎪
⎪ 3
⎪
⎪
c

⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Rd2 −(Rd −Rc )/a
⎪
⎪ + a
2.4 + e , r  Rd − Rc + a,
⎪
⎪
Rc Rc2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
p p 4  1   3 τ τ2

VN (r) ≈ Va [ρcn + ρc ][ρdn + ρd ] π R3 1+ζ τ τ 2 8 + 4 + ζ 16
a
(29)
⎪
⎪ 3
⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪ +2.4η 1 − 8 η − ζ τ + 45 η − 21 eε
2 5 2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪+ 1 + 5 η e−(ε+2Rc /a) , Rd − Rc + ar  Rd + Rc ,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
8
⎪
⎪
⎩  n  
Va ρc + ρcp ρdn + ρdp π a2 Rg(τ )(1 + S/a)e−S/a , r  Rd + Rc ,

with forms of both are basically the same. For the repulsive nuclear
−ε potential VNr (r), we have adopted a Gaussian shape repulsive
1 + τ + τ ζ /3 + η + (η + 1/2)e
2
g(τ ) = . (30) potential, which is selected to give the repulsive term with
1 + ζτ lower range compared to the other ones and can be considered
R S as a repulsive core from origin in size of a nucleon. It can be
Here S = r − (Rc + Rd ), R = 2Rc Rd
(Rc +Rd )
, ζ = (Rc +Rd )
, τ= R
, expressed as [52,86]
η= R a
, and ε = Sa . Ri = 1/3
1.2Ai (i = c, d ) are the matter
VNr (r) = Vr e−2r ,
2
radii of the emitted cluster and daughter nucleus, respectively (31)
[37,82–84]. In addition, in order to compare the difference
between the double-folding potential obtained by the approxi- where Vr is the strength of the repulsive core. It can be ob-
mate analytical method and integral method, we take 222 Ra → tained by reproducing the experimental half-lives of cluster
208
Pb + 14 C as the example and plot its the double-folding radioactivity.
potential obtained by two different methods in Fig. 1 for
analysis. The double-folding potential obtained by the integral III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
method and approximate analytical method are respectively
denoted as DFP1 and DFP2 , whose relevant data are respec- The aim of this work is to systematically investigate the
tively obtained from Ref. [85] and Eq. (29). From the Fig. 1, incompressibility of nuclear matter K from the cluster ra-
we can find that the double-folding potential obtained by dioactivity. The value of K for each parent nuclear matter is
the approximate analytic method has a larger potential well determined by choosing suitable the strength of the repulsive
depth than that obtained by the integral method but the curve core Vr that can be obtained by verifying the experimen-
tal half-life of its cluster radioactivity. For all 28 trans-lead
nuclei in cluster radioactivity, the strength of the repulsive
core Vr approximately varies from 5062–10 622 MeV. Then
using the obtained Vr , we can further calculate the value
of nuclear incompressibility K = 202.13–247.54 MeV. Their
calculation results and the some relevant experimental data
are shown in detail in Table I. In this table, the first to third
columns represent the cluster decay process, the cluster ra-
dioactivity released energy Qc and the angular momentum
taken away by the emitted cluster, respectively. The fourth
and fifth columns show the cluster radioactivity preformation
probability log10 Sc and the experimental data of the cluster
exp
radioactivity half-lives log10 T1/2 in logarithmic form, respec-
tively. The sixth to eighth columns are the renormalization
factor λ, the strength of the repulsive core Vr and the ob-
tained incompressibility of nuclear matter K, respectively.
The effective number of valence protons and neutrons for the
parent nucleus expressed as Np = Z − Z0 and Nn = N − N0
FIG. 1. Schematic of the double-folding potential between the are presented in the ninth and tenth columns with Z and N
cluster and daughter nucleus obtained using the integral method being the proton and neutron numbers of parent nucleus. Z0
DFP1 and approximate analytical method DFP2 . The relevant data and N0 are, respectively, the proton and neutron numbers of
on DFP1 are obtained from Ref. [85]. the nearest closed shells, which can be considered as Z0 = 82

034329-5
LIU, JIANG, CHEN, WU, HE, AND LI PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

TABLE I. The incompressibility value K for the nuclear matter of each parent nucleus in trans-lead nuclei are deduced within the
framework of the two-potential approach (TPA). The cluster radioactivity released energy Qc , the strength of the repulsive core Vr and the
incompressibility of nuclear matter K are in units of MeV. The experimental half-lives of cluster radioactivity in the unit of s and are taken
from taken from Refs. [87–89].
exp
Cluster decay Qc log10 Sc log10 T1/2 λ Vr K Np Nn δ
221
Fr → 207 TI + 14 C 31.29 3 −7.24 14.52 0.1912 5181 247.54 5 8 0.213
221
Ra → 207 Pb + 14 C 32.40 3 −7.24 13.39 0.1907 5134 240.08 6 7 0.204
222
Ra → 208 Pb + 14 C 33.05 0 −6.67 11.01 0.1984 5099 245.65 6 8 0.207
223
Ra → 209 Pb + 14 C 31.83 4 −7.24 15.06 0.1877 5133 236.58 6 9 0.211
224
Ra → 210 Pb + 14 C 30.53 0 −6.67 15.86 0.1993 5103 247.47 6 10 0.214
226
Ra → 212 Pb + 14 C 28.20 0 −6.67 21.19 0.1998 5062 243.09 6 12 0.221
223
Ac → 209 Bi + 14 C 33.06 2 −7.24 12.60 0.1922 5172 246.03 7 8 0.202
225
Ac → 211 Bi + 14 C 30.48 4 −7.24 17.28 0.1880 5116 234.11 7 10 0.209
228
Th → 208 Pb + 20 O 44.72 0 −9.74 20.87 0.2099 6728 231.57 8 12 0.211
231
Pa → 208 Pb + 23 F 51.88 1 −12.24 26.02 0.2098 7520 220.47 9 14 0.212
230
U → 208 Pb + 22 Ne 61.39 0 −10.77 19.57 0.2102 7523 232.29 10 12 0.200
230
Th → 206 Hg + 24 Ne 57.76 0 −11.79 24.61 0.2153 7984 233.98 8 14 0.217
231
Pa → 207 TI + 24 Ne 60.41 1 −12.80 22.89 0.2113 7908 222.75 9 14 0.212
232
U → 208 Pb + 24 Ne 62.31 0 −11.79 20.39 0.2125 8026 232.53 10 14 0.207
233
U → 209 Pb + 24 Ne 60.49 2 −12.80 24.84 0.2083 7895 217.82 10 15 0.210
234
U → 210 Pb + 24 Ne 58.82 0 −11.79 25.92 0.2131 8043 234.79 10 16 0.214
235
U → 211 Pb + 24 Ne 57.36 1 −12.80 27.42 0.2106 7824 214.88 10 17 0.217
233
U → 208 Pb + 25 Ne 60.70 2 13.36 24.84 0.2092 8190 221.25 10 15 0.210
234
U → 208 Pb + 26 Ne 59.41 0 12.82 25.92 0.2164 8396 224.72 10 16 0.214
234
U → 206 Hg + 28 Mg 74.11 0 13.84 25.54 0.2176 9056 219.40 10 16 0.214
236
U → 208 Hg + 28 Mg 70.73 0 13.84 27.58 0.2178 9020 217.35 10 18 0.220
236
Pu → 208 Pb + 28 Mg 79.67 0 13.84 21.67 0.2146 9143 220.59 12 16 0.203
238
Pu → 210 Pb + 28 Mg 75.91 0 13.84 25.70 0.2152 9173 223.53 12 18 0.210
236
U → 206 Hg + 30 Mg 72.27 0 14.87 27.58 0.2208 9514 218.96 10 18 0.220
238
Pu → 208 Pb + 30 Mg 76.79 0 14.87 25.70 0.2179 9414 207.70 12 18 0.210
238
Pu → 206 Hg + 32 Si 91.19 0 15.89 25.27 0.2197 10279 217.69 12 18 0.210
238
U → 204 Pt + 34 Si 84.92 0 16.92 29.04 0.2249 10622 214.77 10 20 0.227
242
Cm → 208 Pb + 34 Si 96.54 0 16.92 23.24 0.2187 10571 202.13 14 20 0.207

and N0 = 126 for cluster radioactivity of trans-lead nuclei. the double-magic nucleus 208 Pb decreases with the increase
The last column shows the isospin asymmetry δ also known of the neutron numbers, which is caused by the emergence of
as relative neutron excess with values between −1 and 1 a soft monopole mode [91].
corresponding to pure proton matter and pure neutron matter, However, the emergence of a soft monopole mode is re-
respectively, while δ = 0 for standard nuclear matter. From lated to the opening of new major shells in which monopole
this table, we can find that the strength of the repulsive core Vr
elevates with the increase of the size of the emitted cluster par-
ticles whereas the situation of the incompressibility of nuclear
matter K is exactly the opposite that as the size of the emitted
cluster particles increases, its value shows a downward trend
as a whole. In order to further explore the relationship between
them, the correlation between Vr and Ac as well as K and Ac
are plotted in Fig. 2 and 3. From Fig. 2, we can clearly see
that there is a linear increasing relationship between Vr and
Ac . That may be because the larger cluster particles formed
in the parent nucleus, the stronger the repulsive force will
be generated when the two overlap, which is caused by the
Pauli exclusion principle [48]. From Fig. 3, we can find that
the value range of K in the same cluster emitted by different
parent nuclei varies greatly but the overall range of its value
moves rough linearly downward while the size of the emitted
cluster particle increases. This phenomenon is consistent with
the conclusions described in Ref. [90] since the incompress- FIG. 2. The linear relationship of the strength of the repulsive
ibility of nuclear matter in the neutron-rich nucleus beyond Gaussian core Vr versus the mass number of the cluster Ac .

034329-6
MICROSCOPIC CALCULATIONS OF NUCLEAR … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

FIG. 3. The linear relationship of the incompressibility of nu-

FIG. 5. The linear relationship of the incompressibility of nu-
clear matter K versus the mass number of the cluster Ac .
clear matter versus the quantity Np Nn δ.

particle-hole configurations are formed. There are numerous

nucleons in the new major shell formed beyond the Z0 = 82, structure information. It not only affects the nuclear ground-
N0 = 126 closed shell known as valence neutrons (Nn ) and state properties and stability of neutron-rich nuclei, but also is
protons (Np ). Using the concept of valence nucleons number closely related to the symmetry part of the nuclear equation of
instead of the number of nucleons is more helpful to explore state (EOS). While a deep understanding of the symmetric
the structural information of nuclear matter such as the in- part of the EOS can provide us with great help in solving
compressibility of nuclear matter and shell effects [92,93]. the dynamics of supernova explosions and the formation of
In order to directly and intuitively investigate the effect of neutron stars with highly asymmetric nuclear matter [94].
valence nucleons on the incompressibility of nuclear matter Therefore, we attempt to incorporate the isospin asymmetry
as well as predict the possible shell and subshell structures, δ into the form of Np Nn to explore its relationship with the
N N incompressibility of nuclear matter K. The plots of the depen-
a simple parameterized form N0p+Zn0 is plotted as a function of
dence for the K with Np Nn δ have been presented in Fig. 5. It
the incompressibility of nuclear matter in Fig. 4. As we can
is clear to see that the incompressibility of nuclear matter K
clearly see from this figure, the values for incompressibility of
is found to also exhibit a obvious linear behavior with product
nuclear matter are varying smoothly and have linear relation-
of isospin asymmetry and the effective number of the valence
ships with the products of the number of the valence protons
particles Np Nn δ. The above results show that the effective
and neutrons Np Nn . On the other hand, the isospin asymmetry
number of the valence particles Np Nn and the isospin asym-
δ is also one of the important quantities for exploring nuclear
metry δ have important effects on the incompressibility of
nuclear matter. At the same time, according to the calculation
results of incompressibility of asymmetric nuclei in Fig. 5,
we inversely deduce that the incompressibility of symmetric
nuclear matter K (δ = 0) = 251.14 MeV, which is basically
consistent with one K (δ = 0) = 241.28 MeV obtained by
Seif et al. [57]. Furthermore, based on the Fermi model, the
incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter value calcu-
lated by Myers et al. is K (δ = 0) = 234.44 MeV [58]. The
obtained range of incompressibility values for symmetric nu-
clear matter predicted from the refractive α-nucleus scattering
is K (δ = 0) = 240–270 MeV [28]. Therefore, compared with
the K (δ = 0) values obtained by the above different theoreti-
cal methods, our results are feasible and reasonable.
It is well known that pairing effects play an important
role in the spontaneous radioactivity of nuclei, which also
has a certain influence on the incompressibility of nuclear
matter [24]. It has been shown that the pairing correlations
affect the position of the giant monopole resonances (GMR)
FIG. 4. The linear relationship of the incompressibility of excitation energy [95]. In order to gain a deeper understanding
nuclear matter versus the product of the valance protons and of this, it is theoretically analyzed through isotopic chains
neutrons Np Nn . of the cluster radioactivity nuclear whose the experimental

034329-7
LIU, JIANG, CHEN, WU, HE, AND LI PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

half-lives have been measured. In the cases of 221–224,226 Ra → multiplication of this product with the isospin asymmetry. At
207–210,212
Pb + 14 C and 232–235 U → 208–211 Pb + 24 Ne from the same time, the incompressibility of symmetric nuclear
Table I, we can find the larger value of nuclear incompressibil- matter is K (δ = 0) = 251.14 MeV, which is deduced from
ity for the even(N)-even(Z) parent nuclei and the smaller ones the incompressibility of asymmetric nuclear matter through
for the odd(N)-even(Z) parent nuclei, which further verified the above linear relationship. Compared with the theoretical
that the pairing effect is closely to the incompressibility of results reported in the previous literature based on different
nuclear matter. methods, the range of values for the nuclear incompressibility
investigated here provides reasonable results.
IV. SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study demonstrates that we can probe the nuclear
incompressibility through the cluster decay of radioactive This work is supported in part by the National Natu-
nuclei. The obtained values of incompressibility of nuclear ral Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 12175100 and
matter K vary between 202.13 and 247.54 MeV. For isotope No. 11975132), the construct program of the key discipline
chains that emit the same cluster particles, even-even par- in hunan province, the Research Foundation of Education
ent nuclei have greater incompressibility than odd-A parent Bureau of Hunan Province, China (Grants No. 18A237, No.
nuclei, which proves that the pairing effect has a important 22A0305, and No. 19A440), the Shandong Province Natu-
influence on the incompressibility of nuclear matter. In addi- ral Science Foundation, China (Grant No. ZR2022JQ04), the
tion, the influence of the effective numbers of valence neutron Opening Project of Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear
Nn and proton Np in the new major shell formed beyond Fuel Cycle Technology and Equipment, University of South
the Z0 = 82, N0 = 126 closed shell as well as the isospin China (Grant No. 2019KFZ10), the Innovation Group of
asymmetry δ for the incompressibility of nuclear matter is Nuclear and Particle Physics in USC, Hunan Provincial Inno-
also discussed. Both of the results have shown that the in- vation Foundation for Postgraduate (Grant No. CX20230962).
compressibility of nuclear matter is linearly dependent on the Science and technology plan project of Hengyang City (Grant
products of the valence protons and neutrons as well as the No. 202150063428).

[1] B. G. Todd and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 67, 044317 [20] G. Colò, N. V. Giai, J. Meyer, K. Bennaceur, and P. Bonche,
(2003). Phys. Rev. C 70, 024307 (2004).
[2] J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 550, 426 (2001). [21] D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 68, 024310
[3] B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 192701 (2002). (2003).
[4] R. Buras, M. Rampp, H. T. Janka, and K. Kifonidis, Phys. Rev. [22] V. B. Soubbotin, V. I. Tselyaev, and X. Viñas, Phys. Rev. C 69,
Lett. 90, 241101 (2003). 064312 (2004).
[5] J. P. Blaizot, Phys. Rep. 64, 171 (1980). [23] M. Bender, P. H. Heenen, and P. G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys.
[6] D. H. Youngblood, H. L. Clark, and Y. W. Lui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 121 (2003).
82, 691 (1999). [24] J. Li, G. Colò, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064304 (2008).
[7] S. Shlomo, V. M. Kolomietz, and G. Colò, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, [25] Z. Y. Ma, N. Van Giai, H. Toki, and M. L’Huillier, Phys. Rev. C
23 (2006). 55, 2385 (1997).
[8] D. H. Youngblood, Y. W. Lui, B. John, Y. Tokimoto, H. L. Clark, [26] Z. Y. Ma, N. Van Giai, A. Wandelt, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring,
and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 69, 054312 (2004). Nucl. Phys. A 686, 173 (2001).
[9] M. Uchida, H. Sakaguchi, M. Itoh, M. Yosoi, T. Kawabata, [27] D. N. Basu, J. Phys. G 30, B7 (2004).
H. Takeda, Y. Yasuda, T. Murakami, T. Ishikawa, T. Taki, N. [28] D. T. Khoa, G. R. Satchler, and W. von Oertzen, Phys. Rev. C
Tsukahara, S. Terashima, U. Garg, M. Hedden, B. Kharraja, M. 56, 954 (1997).
Koss, B. K. Nayak, S. Zhu, M. Fujiwara, H. Fujimura et al. [29] D. T. Khoa, W. V. Oertzen, H. G. Bohlen, and S. Ohkubo,
Phys. Lett. B 557, 12 (2003). J. Phys. G 34, R111 (2007).
[10] Y. Schutz, Nucl. Phys. A 599, 97 (1996). [30] L. Satpathy, V. S. Uma Maheswari, and R. C. Nayak, Phys. Rep.
[11] J. R. Stone, N. J. Stone, and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. C 319, 85 (1999).
89, 044316 (2014). [31] B. B. Singh, S. K. Patra, and R. K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 82,
[12] D. S. Falk and L. Wilets, Phys. Rev. 124, 1887 (1961). 014607 (2010).
[13] H. A. Bethe, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 21, 93 (1971). [32] X. Liu, J. D. Jiang, L. J. Qi, Y. Y. Xu, X. J. Wu, and X. H. Li,
[14] D. M. Brink and E. Boeker, Nucl. Phys. A 91, 1 (1967). Chin. Phys. C 47, 094103 (2023).
[15] D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972). [33] L. J. Qi, D. M. Zhang, S. Luo, X. H. Li, C. T. Liang, and X. J.
[16] H. S. Köhler, Nucl. Phys. A 258, 301 (1976). Wu, Chin. Phys. C 47, 014101 (2023).
[17] W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Ann. Phys. (NY) 55, 395 [34] H. M. Liu, Y. T. Zou, X. Pan, X. H. Li, X. J. Wu, and B. He,
(1969). Phys. Scr. 96, 125322 (2021).
[18] W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Ann. Phys. (NY) 84, 186 [35] C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103,
(1974). 072501 (2009).
[19] W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Ann. Phys. (NY) 204, 401 [36] D. D. Ni, Z. Z. Ren, T. K. Dong, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 78,
(1990). 044310 (2008).

034329-8
MICROSCOPIC CALCULATIONS OF NUCLEAR … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 110, 034329 (2024)

[37] Z. Z. Ren, C. Xu, and Z. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 70, 034304 [67] M. Bhattacharya and G. Gangopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 77,
(2004). 027603 (2008).
[38] K. P. Santhosh, R. K. Biju, and A. Joseph, J. Phys. G 35, 085102 [68] Y. Z. Wang, F. Z. Xing, Y. Xiao, and J. Z. Gu, Chin. Phys. C 45,
(2008). 044111 (2021).
[39] D. N. Poenaru, R. A. Gherghescu, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. [69] X. Liu, J. D. Jiang, X. J. Wu, and X. H. Li, Chin. Phys. C 48,
Lett. 107, 062503 (2011). 054101 (2024).
[40] H. F. Zhang, J. M. Dong, G. Royer, W. Zuo, and J. Q. Li, Phys. [70] Z. Wang and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024306 (2023).
Rev. C 80, 037307 (2009). [71] L. J. Qi, D. M. Zhang, S. Luo, B. He, X. J. Wu, X. Chen, and
[41] A. Sandulescu, D. N. Poenaru, and W. Greiner, Sov. J. Part. X. H. Li, Chin. Phys. C 47, 064107 (2023).
Nucl. 11, 528 (1980). [72] M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi,
[42] H. J. Rose and G. A. Jones, Nature (London) 307, 245 Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021).
(1984). [73] F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, W. J. Huang, S. Naimi, and G. Audi,
[43] P. B. Price, L. M. Cook, and A. Markert, Nature (London) 325, Chin. Phys. C 45, 030001 (2021).
137 (1987). [74] J. J. Morehead, J. Math. Phys. 36, 5431 (1995).
[44] D. S. Delion, Phys. Rev. C 80, 024310 (2009). [75] C. Xu and Z. Z Ren, Phys. Rev. C 74, 014304 (2006).
[45] K. P. Santhosh and B. Priyanka, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 66 [76] N. Maroufi, V. Dehghani, and S. A. Alavi, Nucl. Phys. A 983,
(2013). 77 (2019).
[46] G. Royer and R. Moustabchir, Nucl. Phys. A 683, 182 (2001). [77] J. J. Liu, Z. Wang, H. T. Zhang, and Z. Z. Ren, Chin. Phys. C
[47] K. Wei and H. F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034318 (2020). 48, 014105 (2024).
[48] W. M. Seif, A. M. H. Abdelhady, and A. Adel, J. Phys. G 45, [78] L. W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064309
115101 (2018). (2005).
[49] M. Morshedloo, O. N. Ghodsi, and M. M. Amiri, Phys. Rev. C [79] I. Angeli and K. P. Marinovab, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99,
107, 034610 (2023). 69 (2013).
[50] M. M. Amiri and O. N. Ghodsi, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054602 [80] V. Dehghani, S. A. Alavi, R. Razavi, A. Soylu, and F. Koyuncu,
(2020). Chin. Phys. C 46, 044104 (2022).
[51] S. A. Seyyedi, A. Razmara, and A. Akhound, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [81] A. Trzcinska, J. Jastrzebski, P. Lubinski, F. J. Hartmann, R.
E 32, 2350017 (2023). Schmidt, T. V. Egidy, and B. Kłos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 082501
[52] F. Ghorbani, S. A. Alavi, and V. Dehghani, Nucl. Phys. A 1006, (2001).
122111 (2021). [82] L. C. Chamon, B. V. Carlson, L. R. Gasques, D. Pereira, C.
[53] Ş. Mişicu and H. Esbensen, Phys. Rev. C 75, 034606 (2007). De Conti, M. A. G. Alvarez, M. S. Hussein, M. A. Cândido
[54] Ş. Mişicu and H. Esbensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 112701 (2006). Ribeiro, E. S. Rossi, Jr., and C. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. C 66, 014610
[55] L. W. Chen, B. J. Cai, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, C. Shen, and Jun Xu, (2002).
Phys. Rev. C 80, 014322 (2009). [83] L. C. Chamon, D. Pereira, M. S. Hussein, M. A. Cândido
[56] Z. H. Li, U. Lombardo, H. J. Schulze, W. Zuo, L. W. Chen, and Ribeiro, and D. Galetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5218 (1997).
H. R. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 74, 047304 (2006). [84] J. D. Walecka, Oxford Stud. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1995).
[57] W. M. Seif, Phys. Rev. C 74, 034302 (2006). [85] D. D. Ni and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 82, 024311 (2010).
[58] W. D. Myers and W. J. Świa̧tecki, Phys. Rev. C 57, 3020 [86] F. Ghorbani, S. A. Alavi, and V. Dehghani, Nucl. Phys. A 1002,
(1998). 121947 (2020).
[59] J. Eisenberg and W. Greiner, Nuclear Theory, Nuclear Models, [87] L. J. Qi, D. M. Zhang, S. Luo, G. Q. Zhang, P. C. Chu, X. J.
Vol. 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987). Wu, and X. H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 108, 014325 (2023).
[60] E. Uegaki and Y. Abe, Prog. Theor. Phys. 90, 615 (1993). [88] R. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044612 (2012).
[61] S. A. Gurvitz and G. Kalbermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 262 [89] O. A. P. Tavares, L. A. M. Roberto, and E. L. Medeiros, Phys.
(1987). Scr. 76, 375 (2007).
[62] X. D. Sun, P. Guo, and X. H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034316 [90] E. Khan, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, L. G. Cao, H. Sagawa, and G.
(2016). Colò, Phys. Rev. C 87, 064311 (2013).
[63] J. G. Deng, J. C. Zhao, D. Xiang, and X. H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 96, [91] E. Khan, N. Paar, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 84, 051301(R)
024318 (2017). (2011).
[64] G. L. Zhang, Y. J. Yao, M. F. Guo, M. Pan, G. X. Zhang, and [92] R. F. Casten and N. V. Zamfir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 402 (1993).
X. X. Liu, Nucl. Phys. A 951, 86 (2016). [93] W. M. Seif, M. Shalaby, and M. F. Alrakshy, Phys. Rev. C 84,
[65] R. Blendowske and H. Walliser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1930 064608 (2011).
(1988). [94] F. D. Swesty, J. M. Lattimer, and E. S. Myra, Astrophys. J. 425,
[66] J. M. Dong, H. F. Zhang, J. Q. Li, and W. Scheid, Eur. Phys. J. 195 (1994).
A 41, 197 (2009). [95] E. Khan, Phys. Rev. C 80, 011307(R) (2009).

034329-9

View publication stats