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

Triplet energy differences and the low lying structure ofGa62

  • 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.
Abstract

© 2015 American Physical Society. 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
Current View