# Fision products, the W coincidence

1. Apr 7, 2008

### arivero

Time ago I went to the NUDAT database to plot the number of known beta decays for each mass number; this is expected to reproduce the double peak curve of uranium decay, because of course more research have been done in the subproducts of this decay and then more excited, beta decaying, states are known. But I wonder if it could be argued in the contrary way: than the uranium decays into these peaks because the nuclei in the area have more excited states available, thus more phase space to decay into.

Attached you can see the plot first as as a curve/density plot in the (Z,N) plane, and as a histogram in the mass number A=Z+N.

File size:
36.2 KB
Views:
113
File size:
45.7 KB
Views:
63
2. Apr 7, 2008

### mormonator_rm

Hi Alex,

Tell me, when did L3 and OPAL see a massive charged scalar boson in that range? I saw this note in the histogram, around 70 or 75 GeV, and I was wondering because I had not heard of one since the unconfirmed LEP find in 2001 (which was at much higher mass anyway, closer to 100 GeV). Furthurmore, does the amplitude of beta decay die off near or around the start of the alpha decay dripline? I am not so much into atomic/nuclear physics as I am into nuclear/high-energy physics, so I am not quite as familiar with this, but I do remember your past paper on the nuclear dripline coincidences regarding boson masses. That was quite a few years ago.

Regards,
Patrick

3. Apr 7, 2008

### arivero

let me check: it is somewhere here

hep-ex/9909044, hep-ex/0009010, hep-ex/0105057

specially in the later. Thus before the 115 one. It took a good bunck of remix and analysis to clear it out, and yet it causes a small hole in the plots for 95% confidence level.

And yep, you have got good memory, I mentioned it in my puzzle of the driplines. Lubos argued against, on very reasonable theoretical grounds, I think to remember. But anyway, I was just reporting data. Amusing data.

Last edited: Apr 7, 2008