Skip to main content
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Triplet energy differences and the low lying structure of Ga 62

  • Author(s): Henry, TW;
  • Bentley, MA;
  • Clark, RM;
  • Davies, PJ;
  • Bader, VM;
  • Baugher, T;
  • Bazin, D;
  • Beausang, CW;
  • Berryman, JS;
  • Bruce, AM;
  • Campbell, CM;
  • Crawford, HL;
  • Cromaz, M;
  • Fallon, P;
  • Gade, A;
  • Henderson, J;
  • Iwasaki, H;
  • Jenkins, DG;
  • Lee, IY;
  • Lemasson, A;
  • Lenzi, SM;
  • Macchiavelli, AO;
  • Napoli, DR;
  • Nichols, AJ;
  • Paschalis, S;
  • Petri, M;
  • Recchia, F;
  • Rissanen, J;
  • Simpson, EC;
  • Stroberg, SR;
  • Wadsworth, R;
  • Weisshaar, D;
  • Wiens, A;
  • Walz, C
  • et al.

Background: Triplet energy differences (TED) can be studied to yield information on isospin-non-conserving interactions in nuclei. Purpose: The systematic behavior of triplet energy differences (TED) of T=1, Jπ=2+ states is examined. The A=62 isobar is identified as having a TED value that deviates significantly from an otherwise very consistent trend. This deviation can be attributed to the tentative assignments of the pertinent states in Ga62 and Ge62. Methods: An in-beam γ-ray spectroscopy experiment was performed to identify excited states in Ga62 using Gamma-Ray Energy Tracking In-Beam Nuclear Array with the S800 spectrometer at NSCL using a two-nucleon knockout approach. Cross-section calculations for the knockout process and shell-model calculations have been performed to interpret the population and decay properties observed. Results: Using the systematics as a guide, a candidate for the transition from the T=1, 2+ state is identified. However, previous work has identified similar states with different Jπ assignments. Cross-section calculations indicate that the relevant T=1, 2+ state should be one of the states directly populated in this reaction. Conclusions: As spins and parities were not measurable, it is concluded that an unambiguous identification of the first T=1, 2+ state is required to reconcile our understanding of TED systematics.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View