PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

Lifetimes in

126

Te from in-beam n , n

measurements

J. R. Vanhoy,* J. A. Tanyi, K. A. Crandell, and T. H. Churchill

Department of Physics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland 21402, USA

S. F. Hicks, M. C. Burns, and P. A. Roddy

Department of Physics, University of Dallas, Irving, Texas 75062, USA

N. V. Warr
Institut fr Kernphysik, Universitt zu Kln, D-50937 Kln, Germany

T. B. Brown and S. R. Lesher

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506, USA (Received 21 April 2004; published 23 June 2004) The excited levels of 126Te have been studied using the n , n reaction. Excitation functions, coincidences, angular distributions, and Doppler shifts were measured for rays from levels up to an excitation energy of 3.2 MeV; multipole-mixing and branching ratios and transition rates were deduced. Experimental values of electromagnetic transition rates were compared with the anharmonic vibrator model, the general collective model, the neutron-proton interacting boson model with intruder mixing, and particle-core coupling model calculations. No advantage is found in using an intruder description for the low-spin states of 126Te. All models used reproduce some features of the level scheme and many transition rates, but the particle-core coupling model was found to have better overall success describing the observed properties of this nucleus. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.064323 PACS number(s): 25.40.Fq, 27.60. j, 23.20. g

I. INTRODUCTION

II. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

The 126Te nucleus lies in a transitional region of the Te isotopic chain. The lighter Te nuclei are generally considered to be vibrational in character while the heavier tellurium nuclei are better described by a more independent-particle approach. This is evident if one considers the near constant excitation energy of the 6+ state for A 124. Such behavior 1 can be well described if the state is treated as a few-particle excitation, but not in a collective three-quadrupole phonon representation [1]. The level scheme of 126Te is known [2] from a series of measurements by a variety of probes, among which are reactor n , n [3,4], EC and decay [58], , [9,10], 3 , 2n [11], He, n transfer [12], p , p [13], and a recent n , study [14]. Absent from these previous measurements is extensive absolute transition rate information required for a stringent comparison of various nuclear model descriptions. The present investigation includes the measurement of level lifetimes required to determine absolute transition rates. In Sec. II we briey describe the experimental procedures used to extract level information. Section III is used to present details of our level scheme that differ from previous ndings. In Sec. IV we compare the new absolute transition rate information with various model predictions. Our results are summarized in Sec. V.

Measurements were made using the neutron scattering facilities at the University of Kentucky 7 MV Van de Graaff Accelerator Laboratory. The 3H p , n 3He reaction was used as a neutron source. The 47.6 g metallic 126Te sample, isotopically enriched to 99%, was placed in a thin-walled polyethylene container with diameter of 2.2 cm and height of 4.0 cm. For coincidence measurements, neutrons emerging from the source reaction were formed into a 1 cm beam by

*Electronic address: vanhoy@usna.edu

Present address: SRTC, Westinghouse, Savannah River Co, Aiken, SC 29808, USA. 0556-2813/2004/69(6)/064323(12)/$22.50

FIG. 1. A portion of the -ray spectrum obtained by gating on the 857 keV transition depopulating the 5 state. The two largest 1 lines are the lower-lying 666 and 695 keV transitions. Nine of the remaining lines were identied as direct feeders into the 5 state. 1 2004 The American Physical Society

69 064323-1

J. R. VANHOY et al.

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

FIG. 2. Sample excitation function analyses. (a) Excitation functions for rays originating from the same level must have identical thresholds and shapes. Shown are the three transitions placed with the 2386.3 keV state. (b) The branching ratios of rays from the same level must have consistent branching ratios across the range of the excitation function. In this example the 1719 keV transition clearly should not be placed with 169, 258, and 373 keV lines. Interpretation of the 966 keV line is not clear as its yield is a doublet. (c) The excitation function of the 1447 keV line is shown along with statistical model cross section calculations. The shape and yield is consistent with a spin-0 parent state. (d) The excitation function of the 2217.4 keV 5 state is unusual in 1 that the yield continues to rise due to feeding from higher-lying levels.

the use of a lithium-loaded collimator approximately 75 cm long. The sample was hung coaxially with this beam and four high-efciency HpGe detectors were placed in a transverse arrangement approximately 6 cm from the center of the sample. Data were stored in event mode, and a twodimensional matrix was constructed off line by considering pairwise coincidences. A sample spectrum gated on the 857 keV line is shown in Fig. 1. Gamma-ray excitation functions, angular distributions, and Doppler shifts were measured with a singles -ray detector conguration. For this arrangement, a Comptonsuppressed n-type HpGe detector with 53% relative efciency and an energy resolution of about 2.1 keV full width at half-maximum (FWHM) at 1.33 MeV was used. A BGO annulus detector surrounding the main detector was used for Compton suppression. The gain stability of the system was monitored using radioactive 56Co and 152Eu sources. Prompt and background spectra were recorded simultaneously for each run by setting two different windows in the time-ofight (TOF) pulsed-beam spectrum. The prompt spectrum

was time gated on the peak, while the background spectrum was gated on a uniform region of equal time width off the prompt peak. The neutron scattering facilities, TOF neutron background suppression, neutron monitoring, and data reduction techniques have been described elsewhere [15]. Gamma-ray excitation functions, measured at incident neutron energies between 2.2 and 3.3 MeV in 80 keV steps, were used to place rays in the level scheme, to assist in spin assignments, and to conrm branching ratios, as discussed in Ref. [16]. Theoretical cross sections were calculated using the statistical model code CINDY [17] with optical model parameters appropriate for this mass and energy region [18]. Experimental -ray relative production cross sections were then compared to theoretical values for each level to assess level spins and -ray branching ratios. Sample experimental and calculated excitation functions are shown in Fig. 2. Angular distributions of rays were measured at neutron energies of En = 2.36, 2.80, and 3.34 MeV. These angular distributions were t to even-order Legendre polynomial expan-

064323-2

LIFETIMES IN

126

Te FROM IN-BEAM n , n

MEASUREMENTS

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

FIG. 3. Sample -ray angular distributions. The lines are ts to a fourth-order Legendre polynomial function.

sions and compared to calculations from the statistical model code CINDY [17] in order to extract multipole-mixing ratios and level spins, as discussed in Refs. [16] and [19]. Sample experimental -ray angular distributions, along with the Legendre polynomial best ts, are shown in Fig. 3. Level lifetimes were extracted using the Doppler-shift attenuation method. Doppler shift data were derived from the -ray centroids in the angular distribution data sets. The lowest possible En data set was used to determine for a given level to avoid complications from feeding. For the recoil energies present in this experiment, the -ray centroids have the following angular dependence: E = E0 1 + F cos , 1

is the Dopplerwhere E0 is the unshifted -ray energy, F shift attenuation factor that carries all the dependence on lifetime, = vc.m. / c, is the -ray emission angle with respect to the incident neutron beam, and E is the -ray energy measured at angle . The Doppler shifts observed for a selection of transitions are shown in Fig. 4. Lifetimes were determined by comparing experimental and theoretical Doppler-shift attenuation factors. Theoretical attenuation factors F were calculated using the stopping theory of Winterbon [20], since this method has been shown to yield reliable lifetimes with a variety of targets [21,22]. Mean lifetimes in the range of 2 fs to 2 ps were determined in versus for the En this experiment. The curve F = 3.34 MeV data is shown in Fig. 5.
III. LEVEL SCHEME DISCUSSION

The previously existing level scheme [2] was conrmed, with the addition of only 20 new levels above 2.7 MeV excitation energy and the revised placement of only a few transitions. We note that the recent neutron capture measurement [14] has better sensitivity to weak transitions. Spin and parity assignments, level energies, -ray placements, branching ratios, multipole-mixing ratios, average attenuation factors, lifetimes, and transition rates for all observed levels are given in Table I. Only a few states merit detailed discussion. The 2113 keV 0+ state. The angular distribution of the 1447.1 keV line de-exciting this level has a2 and a4 Legendre coefcients consistent with zero which suggests a

spin-0 assignment. This is conrmed by the shape and intensity of its excitation function, as shown in Fig. 2. The additional placement of the 693.4 keV transition with this level was suggested from its excitation function and conrmed by -coincidence analysis. The 2217 keV 5 state. The excitation functions of the rays depopulating the 5 state are unusual in that they con1 tinuously rise above threshold without turning over, as shown in Fig. 2. This behavior indicates the state is strongly fed by numerous higher-lying levels. Similar effects have been observed for the 5 states in the neighboring nuclei 1 124 Te and 128Te. Shell model calculations by Kerek [23] suggest this state is formed from the coupling of the neutron 1 1 1 1 hole congurations 2d3/2 , 1h11/2 or 3s1/2 , 1h11/2 . The 2309 keV 4+ state. The angular distributions of the 889.0 and 947.7 keV transitions strongly prefer a 4+ spin assignment. The corresponding excitation functions are not entirely consistent with spin-4 and suggest a missing decay branch, but we were unable to identify a suitable transition. The 2385.7 keV and 2386.3 keV states. Previously, many transitions were placed with a level near 2385 keV excitation. Excitation functions of the 168.8, 258.3, and 373.1 keV rays indicate these transitions belong to the same level, and the 965.6, 1024.4, and 1719.4 keV transitions belong to a different level. (See Fig. 2.) The excitation function of the 965.6 keV line indicates it is a doublet above En 2.6 MeV. These placements are conrmed in the -coincidence data by gating on the feeding transition from the 2815.5 keV state. The 2533 keV 4+ state. The lifetime of this state appears well determined from the Doppler shift of the 1172.4 keV line. However, when combined with our values for the branching ratios, one obtains a transition rate for the 758.0 keV transition of B E2 = 440 W.u., which is far in excess of the recommended upper limit of 300 W.u. for B E2 transition rates [24] in this mass region. It should be noted that the branching ratios given in Ref. [14] also produce an anomalously large rate of B E2 = 120 W.u. for this same transition.
IV. MODEL DISCUSSION

The lighter A = 118 122 tellurium nuclei exhibit structures that are often described by vibrational models, while

064323-3

J. R. VANHOY et al.

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

FIG. 4. A selection of -ray Doppler shifts. The vertical axis is chosen to indicate the maximum allowed shift of each ray.

the heavier A = 128 130 tellurium nuclei require particle-like descriptions. Tellurium-126 lies in an intermediate position, thus we compare our experimental results to several models with structure admixtures. We examine this nucleus within the anharmonic vibrator model (AHV), the general collective model (GCM), the neutron-proton interacting boson model IBM-2 with intruder mixing, and a particle-core coupling model (PCM). The level structures derived from the various models discussed in the following sections are displayed in Fig. 6, while transition rates are compared in Table II.
A. Anharmonic vibrator model

FIG. 5. The correspondence between the theoretical attenuation factor F and level lifetime for the En = 3.34 MeV Doppler shift data.

Some features of the 126Te level sequence may be reproduced using the pure U 5 dynamical symmetry limit of the IBM-1 [14]; however, even with an O 6 admixture, the IBM-1 model predicts too few levels below 3 MeV excitation [14,25,26]. To extend further the efforts to describe the low-lying structure of this nucleus within a vibrational picture, the classic AHV [27] is considered. This model is equivalent to the

064323-4

LIFETIMES IN

126

Te FROM IN-BEAM n , n

MEASUREMENTS

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

TABLE I. Levels and transition rates in 126Te. Uncertainties are in the last digit(s). Mixing ratios that could not be determined are denoted by . The attenuation factor F is the average value for the level. Transition rate uncertainties are from the uncertainties in the level lifetime and do not reect uncertainties in the multipole-mixing ratio. Ex keV 666.32(5) 1361.36(7) 1420.11(7) E keV 666.32(5) 695.04(5) 753.78(5) 1420.12(5) 414.97(5) 1206.99(5) 651.76(5) 1346.73(5) 624.97(5) 1378.75(5) 2045.16(5) 693.41(5) 1447.10(5) 708.13(5) 766.94(5) 1462.00(5) 1515.07(5) 2181.52(5) 1517.93(5) 204.69(5) 856.75(5) 889.00(5) 947.70(5) 965.56(5) 1024.43(5) 1719.35(5) 168.78(5) 258.30(5) 373.08(5) 620.13(5) 1034.97(5) 999.59(5) 1754.88(5) 2421.42(6) 1118.20(5) 1813.26(5) 1837.01(5) 2503.55(6) 297.78(5) Ef keV 0 666 666 0 1361 666 1361 666 1420 666 0 1420 666 1420 1361 666 666 0 666 2013 1361 1420 1361 1420 1361 666 2217 2128 2013 1775 1361 1420 666 0 1361 666 666 0 2217 BR % 100 100 93.3(1) 6.8(2) 100 100 57.5(16) 42.5(16) 9.7( 9) 27.9( 7) 62.8(26) 26(2) 74(2) 60.1(16) 16.9( 9) 22.9(12) 88.0(10) 12.0(10) 100 1.8(12) 98.2(27) 15.2(18) 84.8(32) 5.4(10) 4.0(10) 90.6(10) 29.2(10) 42.2(10) 28.6(10) 48.2(99) 51.8(81) 23.0(10) 72.0(10) 4.6(10) 64.8(49) 35.3(37) 86.9(37) 13.1(46) 83.7(61) XL/ tan1
a

F fs
b b +170 6520170 +1730 39001730 c +170 1770170

J 2+ 4+ 2+

B M1 W.u.

B E2 W.u.
+7 25.47 +28 3428 +5 454 +2 0.151 +5 18.15 +10 8.910 +10 129 +3 3.73 +1 1.91E 2 +1 1.01E 3 +2 0.362 +8 668 +4 3.44 +12 8112 +2 152 +8 0.557 +1 2.41 +1 2.11E 7

6 0+ 4+ 2+

1775.09(9) 1873.31(7) 2013.09(8) 2045.10(7)

0+ 3+

2113.47(8) 2128.29(8)

2181.46(6) 2184.25(7) 2217.44(9) 2309.04(9) 2385.71(8)

2+ 5 4+ 3

2386.32(10)

6+ 2+

2396.06(55) 2420.77(75)

4+

2479.57(9)

2503.44(7) 2514.82(10)

E2 E2 +6 1.356 +9 0.663 E2 E2 E2 +10 0.253 E2 +6 0.036 +9 0.036 E2 E2 E2 +6 1.326 +16 1.229 9 0.44+18 +19 0.9116 +26 0.6622 M1 +13 0.003 +13 1.106 E1 E1 E2 +15 0.3810 E1 E1 E1 +6 0.387 +13 1.266 E1 E1 +19 0.0310 E2 +16 0.3812 +19 1.4813 +9 0.314 E2 +12 0.7216 +22 0.069 E2 +25 0.6025 E2 +31 1.2622

0.028(8)

+2 2.12E 3

0.057(6) 0.093(7) 0.052(3)

+2900 981002900 +120 96090 +50 57050 +72 105466

+2 0.122 +8 1.38E 2 +2 3.22E 3

0.072(8) 0.064(9)

+100 74781 +140 847110 +6 4.36E 3 +3 1.83E 3 +2 1.22E 3 +1 1.51E 2 +1 1.11E 3 +1 0.111

0.133(6) 0.385(4) 0.017(7) 0.115(7) 0.203(5)

+18 37918 +2 952

2ps
+30 45030 +7 2307 +9 138 +5 7.45

B B B

+5 6.74E 2 +3 E1 = 9.23E 4 +2 E1 = 5.72E 5 +9 E1 = 2.78E 4

0.306(147) 0.594(12)

+170 13060 +2 412

+46 0.5330 +1 0.171 +1 0.101

+66 0.7743 +60 7140 +1 171 +1 2.11 +2 0.291 +8 8.58 +8 0.959 +7 0.958 +7 9.58E 2

0.123(10)

+40 41030

+2 2.22E 2

0.161(11)

+30 30020

+1 1.11E 2

064323-5

J. R. VANHOY et al. TABLE I. (Continued.) Ex keV E keV 739.33(5) 301.19(5) 758.00(6) 1172.40(5) 1216.34(5) 1911.28(5) 1224.12(6) 1919.01(5) 370.80(5) 812.47(5) 1220.0(5) 1973.44(5) 648.28(5) 1299.86(5) 807.37(6) d 1317.36(5) 2679.02(5) 1258.53(5) 2015.65(5) 673.17(5) 1324.99(5) 928.20(5) 1310.93(5) d 1369.68(5) 2064.77(5) d 1317.36(5) 2071.37(5) (4) 5 1,3 2,3 (6,5) 4+ (6) 2 2744.23(9) 2775.62(10) 2782.96(31) 2789.79(9) 2800.50(11) 2803.00(9) 2810.17(10) 2813.48(9)
d

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

Ef keV 1775 2217 1775 1361 1361 666 1361 666 2217 1775 1420 666 2013 1361 1873 1361 0 1420 666 2013 1361 1775 1420 1361 666 1420 666 1361 2217 2217 666 1420 2515 1420 1361 1775 1420 666 0 2385.7 2217 1420

BR % 16.3(61) 100 25(5) 75(5) 49.0(26) 51.0(26) 5.5(15) 94.5(30) 73.3(56) 26.7(42) 25( 5) 75( 5) 15( 5) 85( 5) 4( 2) 46( 2) 40( 2) 30( 5) 70( 5) 31.2(51) 68.8(51) 100 48.6(39) 26.2(36) 25.2(39) 78.4( 4) 21.6( 3) 100 100 12.1(51) 87.9(80) 100 100 71.8(47) 28.2(34) 100 12.6(89) 26.2(77) 61(12) 39( 4) 61( 4) 69.0(37)

XL/ tan1

F fs

B M1 W.u.

B E2 W.u.

6 4+ 3
+

2518.63(10) 2533.43(20) 2577.65(9) 2585.41(9) 2587.90(10) 2639.94(9) 2661.29(9) 2679.47(10)

2+ 5 0+ 5 2+

0+ 4+ 6+ (3)

2680.3(9) 2686.30(9) 2703.29(10) 2731.06(9)

2+

2737.58(9)

1382.76(5) 558.14(5)

565.82(6) 2116.33(5)
d

E1 E1 E2 +13 0.009 +7 0.063 +6 0.033 +38 0.2831 +63 0.7516 +35 1.006 E1 E2 E2 E1 E1 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 +25 0.3517 +31 0.3925 +19 0.7516 +7 0.066 +13 0.227 +9 0.257 +13 0.5310 +16 1.516 +2 0.313 +22 1.0425 +19 0.0013 +15 0.6628

0.549(14) 0.272(11) 0.061(7)

+2 492 +10 16010 +110 890110 +1 0.331 +3 6.13E 2 +1 1.61E 2 +1 1.01E 3 +4 2.83E 3

+20 44020 1.5E 6 +4 9.25E 2 +1 2.51E 3 +5 3.74E 2 +6 0.415

0.211(12) 0.164(83) 0.070(21)

+20 22020 +360 300120 +360 770190 +43 B E1 = 6.536E 4 +30 B E1 = 4.625E 4

+2 2.52 +7 9.26

0.231(26) 0.113(13)

+7 1226 +40 25126 +1 0.131 +4 3.65E 2 +3 1.23E 2 +16 5.516E 3 +4 1.54E 3 +2 2.32E 2

+1 3.31 +1 3.31 +3 8.23E 2 +1 171 +2 3.82 +3 233 +2 2.03 +5 1.65E 2 +26 9.126E 2 +4 1.54E 2 +2 2.82

0.088(22)

+229 617133

0.130( 9)

+38 39926

0.171(11)

+21 29221

0.462(13) 0.099(24)

+4 724 +192 546118

2.5E 2

d1369.68(5) 285.68(5) 1382.82(5) d 1441.70(5) 1035.08(5) 1393.49(6) 2147.67(5) d 2812.86(5) 429.93(5) 597.88(5) 1413.52(5)

E2 +28 1.1922 +31 0.6391 +103 0.0625 +22 1.299 +13 1.449 E2
+9 1.353

0.171(11) 0.105(32) 0.113(13)

+14 15610 +251 508129 +69 47155 +2 2.92E 3 +14 4.114E 2 +4 2.73E 4 +4 3.44E 5

+1 202 +4 5.44 +4 134 +1 1.01 +3 0.263 +2 0.162

4 2+

2815.48(10) 2833.64(9)

+1 4.41E 2

064323-6

LIFETIMES IN

126

Te FROM IN-BEAM n , n

MEASUREMENTS TABLE I. (Continued.)

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

Ex keV

E keV 2167.33(5) 1476.20(6) 1438.50(5) 2192.55(5) 849.62(5) d 1441.33(5) 1501.78(6) 2196.57(6) 1507.05(5) 656.14(5) 2211.40(5) 2877.30(5) 1476.18(6) 2229.43(5) 2897.86(5) 1550.60(6) 1507.00(5) 2261.23(6) 1515.15(5) 2269.44(8) 1190.53(5) 1606.40(8) 959.60(7) d 1552.70(5) 2305.64(6) 2974.60(5) 403.90(6) 776.47(6) 2326.90(5) 1576.74(5) 1635.41(8) 1646.60(6) 2341.80(6) 1237.53(5) 3015.54(5) 1614.46(8) 2368.45(5) 3034.28(10) 2379.47(5) 3045.20(6) 1646.84(6) 2399.40(8) 686.57(5) 1711.60(6) 1676.69(6) 2430.24(8)

Ef keV 666 1361 1420 666 2013 1420 1361 666 1361 2217 666 0 1420 666 0 1361 1420 666 1420 666 1775 1360 2013 1420 666 0 2588 2217 666 1420 1361 1361 666 1775 0 1420 666 0 666 0 1420 666 2385.7 1361 1420 666

BR % 31.0(29) 100 50( 1) 50( 1) 19.2(20) 42.4( 7) 17.6( 5) 100 100 43.3(42) 56.7(38) 14( 2) 14( 2) 71( 5) 100 15(5) 85(5) 95( 3) 5( 2) 76.9(183) 23.0(165)
e

XL/ tan1
+32 0.1913 E1 E1 +19 0.5316 E2 +72 0.1928 +31 0.2229 +16 0.8522 E2 M1

F fs 0.236( 6) 0.918(56) 0.119(12) 0.240(47)

+6 1966 +56 5.841 +51 44650 +59 19241

B M1 W.u.
+2 5.32E 2 1.8 +1 B E1 = 1.31E 4 +5 B E1 = 3.74E 5 +12 4.310E 2 +25 9.222E 3

B E2 W.u.
+1 2.61E 2

4,5 3,1 4,5

2838.28(10) 2858.74(9) 2862.54(56)

+3 133 +21 7.718 +25 9.322E 2 +13 0.2712 +2 0.442 +1 0.271

5+ 2+ 1+

2868.41(9) 2873.58(10) 2877.51(7) 2897.63(70)

0.108(45) 0.208( 8) 0.746( 6)

+400 493160 +11 23111 +1 221

+9 2.09E 2 +1 2.71E 3

7.0E 2 2.0E 2 +24 4.66 E 2

2,3 2,3 2,3 5,6 3

2911.96(9) 2927.33(31) 2935.51(9) 2966.7(30) 2972.49(9)

0.257(38) 0.056(38) 0.139( 6) 0.127(48) 0.178(23)

+40 17630 +2230 1000420 +17 37317 +288 412126 +47 27939

3.9E - 2 4.7E 3 1.7E - 2 +9 5.88E 3

+4 2.23E 3

(1) 4+

2974.60(5) 2992.9(9)

2996.81(6)
+

32 5,4 1 2+
+

3008.04(9) 3012.62(10) 3015.54(5) 3034.54(9)

3045.65(7)

48(12) 52(8) 100 15.5( 8) 23.7(12) 60.7( 7) 78( 3) 22( 2) 75.2(99) 24.8(49) 100 100 70(11) 29.7(56) 6.0(8) 92.5(88) 7.5(51) 80(20) 20(10) 57( 5) 43( 5) 63(21) 37(14)

+12 0.067 E1 E1 E2 E2 +123 0.0962 +19 0.449

+22 0.1612 +22 1.5113 E2 +19 1.3813 +19 0.6615 E2 E1 +28 0.4416

0.620(21) 0.195(16)

+4 393 +29 24821

+3 B E1 = 3.33E 3 +7 B E1 = 7.27E 4 +7 0.788 +11 3.210 +20 6.118E 3 +4 0.483 +3 0.313 +7 0.766 +4 4.74E 2 +1 1.41 +2 3.42E 2

0.100(28) 0.687(17) 0.157(54) 0.316(20) 0.364(19)

+229 540133 +10 3.210E 3 +2 292 +199 32195 +13 13211 +9 1079 +2 1.92E 2 5.8E 2 +5 5.04E 2 +2 2.52E 5 +3 4.83E 4

0.251(13)

+12 18212

(13) 4
+

3066.34(61) 3072.62(10) 3096.68(9)

0.102(79)

+1979 527253

2,3

0.030(43)

760

064323-7

J. R. VANHOY et al. TABLE I. (Continued.) Ex keV 3132.31(9) 3143.65(7) 3166.80(9) E keV 1711.60(6) 3132.90(6) 2477.57(5) 3143.40(13) 1747.53(5) 1804.62(5) 2500.45(13) 2528.85(7) 1781.83(6) 2535.56(7) Ef keV 1420 0 666 0 1420 1361 666 666 1420 666 BR % 45(10) 55(10) 76(4) 24(2) 48.4(53) 37.1(67) 15(17) 100 57(18) 43(14) XL/ tan1
a

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

F fs

J 1+ 2+ 3+

B M1 W.u.

B E2 W.u.

3195.17(7) 3201.91(9)

0.69 M1 +12 1.169 E2 +3 1.073 +16 0.229 +13 1.389 +13 0.2515 +13 1.229

0.239(32) 0.187(18)

+39 19330 +35 26227

+3 1.52E 3 +32 2.833E 3 +9 8.110E 3 1.3E 3 +5 3.15E 2 +2 1.01E 3

+14 0.7713 +16 8.815E 2 +2 1.92 +9 7.79E 2 +7 0.396 +12 0.7211

0.360(39)

+19 10916

In situations where 2 vs plots yield two equally good solutions for the mixing ratio, the lower tan1 value has been used. The alternate solution leads to much larger B E2 and smaller B M1 rates. Angular distributions of 1+ 2+ transitions are not sufciently sensitive to the mixing ratio to allow a reliable determination. b Literature value [2]. c +850 Literature value given. Values from this experiment are consistent but have large uncertainties F = 0.028 8 , = 1900450 fs. d Doublet line. e Doublet line. Most of the yield in the singles data is background from copper. f Value obtained is greater than the recommended upper limit for E2 transition rates in this mass region [24].

large-N U 5 limit of the IBM-1 [28] and is attractive because it addresses the observed two-phonon-like transitions that do not appear in IBM treatments. The formalism of the model and the resulting analytic expressions for level energies and transition rates can be found in Kerman [29] and Brink [30]. Model parameters that specify excitation energies were determined from a t to the one-, two-, and threephonon multiplets, excluding the 6+ state. Transition-rate pa1 rameters were derived from the two-phonon multiplet decays. The values Ex 2+ = 693.8 keV, 0,2,4 = 0.213, 4.76 1 and t0,2,4 = 1.65, 0.232, 0.661 104 , 3.81 103 produce the level scheme shown in Fig. 6 and transition rates provided in Table II. The excitation energy of the 6+ state 1 and its transition rate are not well described by the model. This result is not surprising since the level is thought to be predominately a few-particle excitation [1,23]. There is also difculty reproducing the 0+- and 2+-level energies. The cal2 3 culated relative sizes of decay branches within each level are in reasonable agreement with experimental observations. The negative value of t0 required to reproduce the experimental B E2 ; 0+ 2+ leads to nonphysical values for two of the 2 1 B E2 rates from the 2+ state. This can be considered evi3 dence that the 0+ state has a structure not well described as a 2 normal vibrational excitation.
B. General collective treatments

in terms of the standard polar intrinsic deformation variables and by V , = C2

1 5

C3

2 35

cos 3

1 + C4 5

To reproduce the elevated experimental energy of the 0+ state 2 with respect to the 4+ level requires solutions with C2 0 1 and thus a deformed equilibrium shape. Reproduction of the inverted staggering of experimental states in the second column of the level scheme (Fig. 6) requires C3 0; however, this parameter requirement leads to problems with the absolute positioning of the band energies. The inclusion of additional experimental levels in the tting procedure resulted in a parameter set that was more harmonic in nature, but did not well describe the behavior of any of the levels. The levels shown in Fig. 6 and the transition rates listed in Table II were calculated with the following set of parameters (in MeV), C2 = 148 100, C3 = 2360 1000, C4 = 34 100 100. This potential indicates the nuclear surface has softened with a very weak minimum in between 0.06 0.10. These parameters are able to reproduce the up-shift in energy of the lowspin two-phonon levels while providing the down-shifted energy trend in the three- and four-phonon multiplets. The B E2 transition rates of the 2+ and 0+ states are severely 2 3 reduced from the AHV calculation in the preceding section and with respect to the experimental values.
C. Intruder descriptions

The general collective model [3134] may also be used to provide a description of the collective motion of nuclei based upon the standard quadrupole radial shape function. This model has the feature that both rotational and vibrational macroscopic collective behaviors are treated as one. The Gneuss-Greiner form of potential energy may be expressed

Bands are observed in the neighboring Sn and Sb nuclei where intruder congurations based on g9/2 holes are associated with nuclear deformation and produce rotational band structures. Nilsson model calculations performed by Heyde [35] demonstrate that the energy required to produce these

064323-8

LIFETIMES IN

126

Te FROM IN-BEAM n , n

MEASUREMENTS

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

FIG. 6. Comparison of the experimental 126Te level scheme with model calculations.

p h pairs is greatly reduced if the nucleus acquires a slight deformation 0.1 0.2 . These intruder congurations [36] are observed in all the neighboring nuclei: Cd [37], Sn [38,39], Sb [38], and I [40]. Intruder structures in the tellurium nuclei have proven to be elusive and are often only assigned at high spin where band structures are apparent [4143]. The difculties found reproducing the elevated position of the 0+ state discussed in 2 the preceding sections, and the behavior of this state across the tellurium isotopic chain are often cited as evidence of low-lying intruder congurations mixing with normal collective excitations [44,45]. Rikovska [45] used the IBM-2 framework to model the effects of g9/2-hole intruder congurations in the lower-mass Te nuclei. The calculations were extended by Warr in Ref. [14] to 126Te. The reader is referred to the original papers for details of parameter selection and model calculations; how-

ever, the parameters are summarized in Table III. The resulting level scheme is shown in Fig. 6, and transition rates are provided in Table II. The calculated levels below 2300 keV [14,46] agree rather well with the experimental data. Model wave functions indicate the intruder spin-0 strength is split between the 0+ and 0+ states, and that the spin-2 and spin-4 intruder 2 3 strength is concentrated in the 2+ and 4+ states. Calculated 4 4 transition rates agree reasonably well with experimental rates for the two-phonon states with the exception of B E2 ; 0+ 2 2+ , which is almost a factor of 2 too high. The calculated 1 B E2 ; 6+ 4+ deviates substantially from the experimental 1 1 value which is consistent with calculations from other models and expected because of the few particle nature of this excitation. A slightly larger value of the parameter 5.19 can be used to improve the model B E2 ; 0+ 2+ without 3 2 signicantly impacting either the level scheme or other tran-

064323-9

J. R. VANHOY et al.

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

126

TABLE II. Comparisons of experimental transition rates with model calculations for low-lying positive parity transitions in transition rates are in W.u. Uncertainities are symmetrized values of those found in Table I. Intruder Refs. [14,45] 28 38 34 0.19 17 40 18 18 0.24 13 35 0.24 3.2 0.37 1.5 3.9 0.080 17 0.03 PCM PS1 Ref. [14] 26 34 30 0.26 10 21 7.8 11 0.92 2.8 9.7 0.0066 2.2 0.21 1.6 2.1 0.40 15 6.9

Te. All

B E2 : Ii I f 21 01 41 21 22 21 22 01 02 21 61 41 42 41 42 22 42 21 31 41 31 22 31 21 23 41 23 22 23 21 23 02 23 01 03 22 03 21
a b

Experiment 25.4(7) 34(28) 45(4) 0.15(2) 8.9(10) 18.1(5) 12(10) a 8.4(7) 3.7(3) 13(1) 75(7) 0.51(5)
b

AHV 25 34 45 0.15 8.9 26 25 18 0.24 17 32 0.32 0.090 9.4 59 0.45

GCM 27 30 13 0.13 13 36 7.6 18 0.18 6.2 29 0.20 2.9 3.1 0.17 29 0.01 2.3 5.5

PCM PS2 Ref. [48] 29 40 21 1.4 15 34 7.0 13 3.7 4.1 30 2.6 1.1 1.2 0.37 0.092 0.025 4.1 0.38

0.019(1) 0.0010(1)
b

0.36(2) 66(8) 3.4(4)

Value estimated using branching ratio from Ref. [14]. Transitions not observed in this experiment or Ref. [14].

sition rates. The intruder model calculation predicts E2 decays from the 2+ into the 0+ and 0+ levels of 10 and 20 W.u., 4 2 3 respectively. These strong branches are not observed in this experiment nor the neutron capture measurements of von Egidy [14] from either the fourth or fth 2+ state.
D. Particle-core coupling model

The near constant excitation energy of the 6+ state and its 1 apparently depressed level energy in the heavier tellurium nuclei motivated the consideration of the PCM [47] which incorporates two-proton excitations for 126Te. Several related calculations were performed some years ago on various tellurium nuclei by Lopac [48], Degriek [49], and Warr [50].

The calculations differ principally in their choice of singleparticle orbital energies. A recent calculation was completed by von Egidy [14]. The reader is referred to the original papers for details of parameter selection and model calculations. Results from the von Egidy and Lopac calculations are displayed in Fig. 6 and Table II. The associated parameter sets, PS1 and PS2, respectively, are summarized in Table IV. Both parameter sets adequately reproduce the observed level density. Two issues arise in the level scheme: the positioning of the 6+ and 2+ states and the relative sequencing of the states 1 2 not in the ground-state band. The parameter set PS1 calculations better position the 6+ level as a result of placing slightly 1 greater emphasis on particle congurations. The PS2 param-

TABLE III. Intruder parameter set.

d

MeV

MeV

Cn0 MeV

Cn2 MeV

Cn4 MeV

0.88 0.60 MeV 5.10

0.23 0.29

0.28 0.28

Normal conguration 1.0 Intruder conguration 1.2

0.23 0.23

0.075 0.075

0.15 0.15

0.22

0.11

064323-10

LIFETIMES IN

126

Te FROM IN-BEAM n , n

MEASUREMENTS TABLE IV. PPCORE parameter sets.

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004)

Orbital energies keV Source/Ref. PS1 [14] PS2 [48] g7/2 0 0 d5/2 1000 750 h11/2 2030 2400 d3/2 3190 1800 s1/2 3300 2000

Pairing G 0.20 0.25

Phonon energies keV

2 3

Couplings
2 3

1130 1130

2100 2100

2.6 2.6

2.1 2.1

eter set calculations produce a more realistic dispersion of states in the second and third columns of the level scheme. Neither set of calculations well positions the 2+ state near the 2 4+ level. Both parameter sets lead to calculations that 1 2 strongly emphasize d7/2 orbital congurations coupled to one- and two-phonon vibrations for the 2+ state. 2 By varying the parameters about these two cases, one discovers that any reasonable choice of the d3/2-orbital energy produces the inverted staggering in the second column of the level schemes in Fig. 6. In all cases, however, the 2+ 2 level energy is too high. Higher d3/2 orbital energies tend to do a better job placing the 6+ state near the observed experi1 mental energy. Both parameter sets provide an adequate description of the relative sizes of many B E2 transition rates, including the small values observed for the 6+ and 0+ level decays. 1 2 Parameter set PS1, in particular, well describes the exact values for the lower states. This suggests that an intruder description of the 0+ state is not necessary. 2
V. SUMMARY

tion, including spins, branching ratios, multipole-mixing ratios, and lifetimes were obtained for most levels below 3.2 MeV in excitation. The level scheme and transitions between levels were examined from the viewpoints of the anharmonic vibrator model, the general collective model, an IBM-2-based intruder model, and the particle-core coupling model. There is no clear advantage to using an intruder description for the low-lying levels of 126Te. The 0+ state can be explained 2 equally well by collective or hybrid particle descriptions. As expected, one can obtain slightly better agreement for the 6+ 1 level energy by use of the PCM that emphasizes particle degrees of freedom. The strong B E2 rates of the 0+ and 2+ 3 3 states are better described by the collective descriptions. All models can reproduce features of the level scheme and many transition rates, but the PCM calculations give the best overall agreement with experimental results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The level scheme of 126Te has been determined utilizing -ray spectroscopy following inelastic neutron scattering. Excitation functions, coincidences, angular distributions, and Doppler shifts were measured. Spectroscopic informa-

The support of the National Science Foundation for this project through Grant Nos. PHY-0139504 and PHY-9901508 is deeply appreciated. We also acknowledge helpful discussions with Professor M.T. McEllistrem and Professor S.W. Yates of the University of Kentucky and invaluable assistance from the accelerator staff at the laboratory.

[1] C. S. Lee, J. A. Cizewski, D. Barker, R. Tanczyn, G. Kumbartzki, J. Szczepanski, J. W. Gan, H. Dorsett, R. G. Henry, and L. P. Farris, Nucl. Phys. A528, 381 (1991). [2] J. Katakura and K. Kitao, Nucl. Data Sheets 97, 765 (2002). [3] S. A. Berendakov, L. I. Govor, A. M. Demidov, and I. V. Mikhailov, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 52, 1020 (1988); Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Phys. Ser. (Engl. Transl.) 52, 181 (1988). [4] A. M. Demidov, I. Govor, Yu. K. Cherepantsev, M. R. Ahmed, S. Al-Najjar, M. A. Al-Amili, N. Al-Assa, and N. Rammo, Atlas of Gamma-Ray Spectra from the Inelastic Scattering of Reactor Fast Neutrons, Part II (Atomizdat, Moscow, 1978). [5] S. V. Jackson and R. A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. C 15, 1806 (1977). [6] J. C. Soares, P. Herzog, H. Hubel, A. Kluge, and W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A247, 274 (1975). [7] C. Bargholtz, J. Becker, K. Fransson, and L. Holmberg, Nucl. Phys. A250, 227 (1975). [8] C. Bargholtz, J. Becker, S. Beshai, L. Eriksson, K. Fransson, L. Gidefeldt, L. Holmberg, and V. Stefansson, Z. Phys. A 272, 3 (1975).

[9] F. K. Wohn, W. L. Talbert, Jr., R. S. Weinbeck, M. D. Glascock, and J. K. Halbig, Phys. Rev. C 11, 1455 (1975). [10] A. Wolf, R. Moreh, and O. Shahal, Nucl. Phys. A227, 373 (1974). [11] W. G. Wyckoff and J. E. Draper, Phys. Rev. C 8, 796 (1973). [12] H. W. Fielding, R. E. Anderson, P. D. Kunz, D. A. Lind, C. D. Zaratos, and W. F. Alford, Nucl. Phys. A304, 520 (1978). [13] M. Matoba, M. Hyakutake, K. Yagi, and Y. Aoki, Nucl. Phys. A237, 260 (1975). [14] T. von Egidy, C. Doll, J. Jolie, N. V. Warr, J. Kern, M. Crittin, and L. Genilloud, Nucl. Phys. A714, 355 (2003). [15] P. E. Garrett, N. Warr, and S. W. Yates, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 105, 141 (2000), and references therein. [16] S. F. Hicks, C. M. Davoren, W. M. Faulkner, and J. R. Vanhoy, Phys. Rev. C 57, 2264 (1998). [17] E. Sheldon and D. M. van Patter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 143 (1966). [18] R. W. Harper, T. W. Godfrey, and J. L. Weil, Phys. Rev. C 26, 1432 (1982). [19] J. R. Vanhoy, J. M. Anthony, B. M. Haas, B. H. Benedict, B. T.

064323-11

J. R. VANHOY et al. Meehan, S. F. Hicks, C. M. Davoren, and C. L. Lundstedt, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2387 (1995). K. B. Winterbon, Nucl. Phys. A246, 293 (1975). B. Fazekas, T. Belgya, G. Molnr, . Veres, R. A. Gatenby, S. W. Yates, and T. Otsuka, Nucl. Phys. A548, 249 (1992). T. Belgya, G. Molnr, and S. W. Yates, Nucl. Phys. A607, 43 (1996). A. Kerek, P. Carle, and S. Borg, Nucl. Phys. A224, 367 (1974). P. M. Endt, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 26, 47 (1981). J. Kern, P. E. Garrett, J. Jolie, and H. Lehmann, Nucl. Phys. A593, 21 (1995). W. Schauer, C. Doll, T. von Egidy, R. Georgii, J. Ott, H.-F. Wirth, A. Gollwitzer, G. Graw, R. Hertenberger, B. Valnion, M. Grinberg, and Ch. Stoyanov, Nucl. Phys. A652, 339 (1999). G. Scharff-Goldhaber and J. Weneser, Phys. Rev. 98, 212 (1955). A. Aprahamian, D. S. Brenner, R. F. Casten, R. L. Gill, and A. Piotrowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 535 (1987). A. K. Kerman and C. M. Shakin, Phys. Lett. 1, 151 (1962). D. M. Brink, A. F. R. de Toledo Piza, and A. K. Kerman, Phys. Lett. 19, 413 (1965). J. M. Eisenberg and W. Greiner, Nuclear Theory Vol. 1, Nuclear Models, 3rd ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987). P. O. Hess, M. Seiwert, J. A. Maruhn, and W. Greiner, Z. Phys. A 296, 147 (1980). D. Troltenier, J. A. Maruhn, and P. O. Hess, in Computational Nuclear Physics 1: Nuclear Structure (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991). D. Troltenier, J. A. Maruhn, W. Greiner, V. Velazquez-Aguliar, P. O. Hess, and J. H. Hamilton, Z. Phys. A 338, 261 (1991). K. Heyde, M. Waroquier, H. Vincx, and P. van Isacker, Phys. Lett. 64B, 135 (1976). J. L. Wood, K. Heyde, W. Nazarewicz, M. Huyes, and P. van

PHYSICAL REVIEW C 69, 064323 (2004) Duppen, Phys. Rep. 215, 101 (1992). [37] J. Kumpulainen, R. Julin, J. Kantele, A. Passoja, W. H. Trzaska, E. Verho, J. Vaaramaki, D. Cutoiu, and M. Ivascu, Phys. Rev. C 45, 640 (1992). [38] D. C. Radford, A. Galindo-Uribarri, G. Hackman, and V. P. Janzen, Nucl. Phys. A557, 311 (1993). [39] M. Schimmer, R. Wirowski, S. Albers, G. Bohm, A. Dewald, A. Gelberg, and P. von Brentano, Z. Phys. A 338, 117 (1991). [40] E. S. Paul, C. W. Beausang, S. A. Forbes, S. J. Gale, A. N. James, P. M. Jones, M. J. Joyce, R. M. Clark, K. Hauschild, I. M. Hibbert, R. Wadsworth, R. A. Cunningham, J. Simpson, T. Davinson, R. D. Page, P. J. Sellin, P. J. Woods, D. B. Fossan, D. R. LaFosse, H. Schnare, M. P. Waring, A. Gizon, and J. Gizon, Phys. Rev. C 48, R490 1993). [41] J. R. Vanhoy, R. T. Coleman, K. A. Crandell, S. F. Hicks, B. A. Sklaney, M. M. Walbran, N. V. Warr, J. Jolie, F. Corminboeuf, L. Genilloud, J. Kern, J. -L. Schenker, and P. E. Garrett, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034315 (2003). [42] S. Juutinen, A. Savelius, P. T. Greenlees, K. Helariutta, P. Jones, R. Julin, P. Jmsen, H. Kankaanp, M. Muikku, M. Piiparinen, S. Trmnen, and M. Matsuzaki, Phys. Rev. C 61, 014312 (2000). [43] T. Tamura, Nucl. Data Sheets 71, 461 (1994). [44] J. Rikovska, N. J. Stone, and W. B. Walters, Phys. Rev. C 36, 2162 (1987). [45] J. Rikovska, N. J. Stone, and W. B. Walters, Nucl. Phys. A505, 145 (1989). [46] N. Warr (private communication). [47] K. Heyde and P. J. Brussaard, Nucl. Phys. A104, 81 (1967). [48] V. Lopac, Nucl. Phys. A155, 513 (1970). [49] E. Degrieck and G. Van den Berghe, Nucl. Phys. A231, 141 (1974). [50] N. Warr, S. Drissi, P. E. Garrett, J. Jolie, J. Kern, H. Lehmann, S. J. Mannanal, and J.-P. Vorlet, Nucl. Phys. A636, 379 (1998).

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

[34] [35] [36]

064323-12