Paper detail

Systematics of Fission Barriers in Superheavy Elements

We investigate the systematics of fission barriers in superheavy elements in the range Z = 108-120 and N = 166-182. Results from two self-consistent models for nuclear structure, the relativistic mean-field (RMF) model as well as the non-relativistic Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach are compared and discussed. We restrict ourselves to axially symmetric shapes, which provides an upper bound on static fission barriers. We benchmark the predictive power of the models examining the barriers and fission isomers of selected heavy actinide nuclei for which data are available. For both actinides and superheavy nuclei, the RMF model systematically predicts lower barriers than most Skyrme interactions. In particular the fission isomers are predicted too low by the RMF, which casts some doubt on recent predictions about superdeformed ground states of some superheavy nuclei. For the superheavy nuclei under investigation, fission barriers drop to small values around Z = 110, N = 180 and increase again for heavier systems. For most of the forces, there is no fission isomer for superheavy nuclei, as superdeformed states are in most cases found to be unstable with respect to octupole distortions.

preprint2004arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.