Nuclear models: excited states of 182Ta

joe_blogs
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I'm doing some test prep for a Nuclear Physics course and working on a past paper. I've attached a photo of the question. The diagram is 3.19 in Krane. The course is based on Krane, and so the relevant chapter is Chp 5: Nuclear Models.

Problem description

The problem is to explain the energy level spacing for a series of nuclei based on some basic nuclear models. I can do some of them - e.g. 120Te and 178Os show the regularity and spin-parity combinations expected for rotational and vibrational nuclei respectively.

What I'm stuck on is the slightly bizarre level scheme for 182Ta. There appear to be over 40 levels under 1MeV, and I don't understand why. It's a pretty vague question, but I assume any answer should explain the character of the level scheme - i.e. it's great complexity.

My attempted solution

I know that nuclei in the 150<A<190 range are deformed and often have level schemes characterized by rotational bands, and that explanations of level schemes often build together multiple explanations. e.g. p146 in Krane, the levels of 164Er are partially explained by appealing to three rotational bands, built on a deformed ground-state and two vibrational states.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Joe
 

Attachments

  • 04052010049.jpg
    04052010049.jpg
    25.1 KB · Views: 479
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I've made some progress, which is essentially a reworking of the 164Er case.

Rotational level spacing is of the order of 10 keV, so that's the clear candidate for the levels. I feel like I need to supplement this with an explanation of why there are so many levels, however. I'm thinking of a series of excitations with finely split levels. Say, a deformed ground state with excited vibrational bands (both beta and gamma vibrations) with rotations built onto all of those. 182Ta is big enough to be deformed in the g.s., and with the limited data available I'm not sure what more there is to say.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top