text:
# Gravitomagnetic time delay and the Lense-Thirring effect in Brans-Dicke theory of gravity

## I Introduction

The idea that mass currents generate a field called, by analogy with electromagnetism, the gravitomagnetic field, is no doubt a very appealing one. As is well known, according to general relativity, moving or rotating matter should produce a contribution to the gravitational field that is the analogue of the magnetic field of a moving charge or magnetic dipole. A clear manifestation of this field may be found, for instance, in the Lense-Thirring precession, an effect predicted soon after Einstein formulated general relativity. The gravitomagnetic field also contributes to the gravitational time delay, among other effects.

The real possibility that gravitomagnetic effects can be measured with the current technology of laser ranged satellites (LAGEOS and LAGEOS II) has aroused great interest in the subject. It should be mentioned that the Relativity Gyroscope Experiment (Gravity Probe B) at Stanford University, in collaboration with NASA and Lockheed-Martin Corporation, has a program of developing a space mission to detect gravitomagnetism effects directly. Certainly, these experimental programs will open new possibilities of testing general relativity against other metric theories of gravity , in particular the scalar-tensor theory, one of the most popular alternatives to Einstein theory of gravitation. Our aim in this paper is to investigate two gravitomagnetic effects: the time delay and the Lense-Thirring precession in the context of Brans-Dicke theory, and then compare the results with those predicted by general relativity.

To define the gravitomagnetic field in general relativity one assumes the weak field and slow motion approximation. On the other hand, it has been shown that in this approximation solutions of Brans-Dicke equations are simply related to the solutions of general relativity equations for the same matter distribution. By using this fact one can easily establish a straightforward correspondence between weak field effects in both theories, in particular gravitomagnetic effects.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we give a brief introduction to the basic ideas of gravitomagnetism. Then, in Section III, we show how general relativity and Brans-Dicke theory of gravity are related in the weak field approximation. The gravitomagnetic field in Brans-Dicke theory is defined in Section IV. We consider the Lense-Thirring effect and the gravitomagnetic time delay in Brans-Dicke theory in Sections V and VI, respectively. Section VII is devoted to some remarks.

## II The gravitomagnetic field in general relativity

Let us recall that in the weak field approximation of general relativity we assume that the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ deviates only slightly from the flat spacetime metric tensor. In other words, we assume that $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \upsilon }`$, where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,1)`$ denotes Minkowski metric tensor and $`h_{\mu \upsilon }`$ is a small perturbation term. Then, by keeping only first-order terms in $`h_{\mu \upsilon }`$, the Einstein equations become

$$\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{16\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
where $`\overline{h}_\nu ^\mu =h_\upsilon ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu h`$ and we are adopting the usual harmonic coordinate gauge $`(h_\upsilon ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu h),_\mu =0`$.

If we assume a non-relativistic matter distribution with a mass density $`\rho `$ and velocity field $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ , then (1) yields

$$\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{00}=\frac{16\pi G}{c^2}\rho $$
(2)
$$\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{0i}=\frac{16\pi G}{c^3}\rho v_i$$
(3)
where $`v_{i\text{ }}`$denotes the velocity components, and terms such as $`p`$ and $`v_iv_j/c^4`$ have been neglected. Let us now specialise to the case of a stationary gravitational field of a slowly rotating body. Then (2) and (3) reduce to

$$^2\left(\frac{c^2\overline{h}_{00}}{4}\right)^2(\mathrm{\Phi }_g)=4\pi G\rho $$
(4)
$$^2\overline{h}_{0i}=\frac{16\pi G}{c^3}\rho v_i$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$ is the gravitoelectric scalar potential (the gravitational counterpart of the electromagnetic scalar potential). Far from the source we will have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_g=\frac{GM}{r}$$
(6)
$$\stackrel{}{\overline{h}}=\frac{2G(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{r})}{c^3r^3}\frac{2\stackrel{}{A}_g}{c^2}$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}_g`$ is the gravitomagnetic vector potential vector ( the gravitational counterpart of the electromagnetic vector potential), $`\overline{h}_{0i}`$ are the components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{\overline{h}}`$, $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ are the total mass and angular momentum of the source. In close analogy with electrodynamics we define the gravitoelectric field to be $`\stackrel{}{E_g}=\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$ and the gravitomagnetic field to be

$$\stackrel{}{B}_g=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}_g=\frac{G}{c}\left[\frac{3\widehat{r}(\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{J})\stackrel{}{J}}{r^3}\right]$$
(8)
It is interesting to see that the condition $`\overline{h}^{\mu \nu },_\mu =0`$ leads to $`\stackrel{}{A}_g=0`$ (analogous to the Coulomb gauge of electromagnetism).

Let us note that for the case of a slowly rotating sphere with angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}=(0,0,J)`$, we obtain from (7) in spherical coordinates

$$\overline{h}_{0\phi }=h_{0\phi }=\frac{2GJ}{c^3r}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$
(9)
which is the $`g_{0\phi }`$ component of the Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates in the weak field and slow motion limit.

## III The weak field approximation of Brans-Dicke theory

In Brans-Dicke theory of gravity the field equations are given by

$$G_{\mu \upsilon }=\frac{8\pi }{c^4\varphi }T_{\mu \upsilon }+\frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}(\varphi ,_\mu \varphi ,_\upsilon \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \upsilon }\varphi ,_\alpha \varphi ^{,\alpha })+\frac{1}{\varphi }(\varphi ,_{\mu ;\upsilon }g_{\mu \upsilon }\mathrm{}\varphi )$$
(10)
Paralleling general relativity one can linearize Brans-Dicke field equations by assuming that the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi `$ can be written as $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \upsilon }`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi _0+ϵ`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is a constant and $`ϵ=ϵ(x)`$ is a first-order term ( it is assumed that both $`\left|h_{\mu \upsilon }\right|`$ and $`\left|ϵ\varphi _0^1\right|`$ are $`1`$). From these assumptions it follows that

$$\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{16\pi }{c^4\varphi _0}\left[T_{\mu \upsilon }\frac{\omega +1}{2\omega +3}\eta _{\mu \nu }T\right]$$
(11)
where we have used the Brans-Dicke gauge $`(h_\upsilon ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu h),_\mu =ϵ,_\upsilon \varphi _0^1`$.

It has been shown that the problem of finding solutions of Brans-Dicke equations of gravity in the weak field approximation may be reduced to solving the linearized Einstein field equations for the same energy-momentum tensor. Indeed, if $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}(G,x)`$ is a known solution of the Einstein equations in the weak field approximation for a given $`T_{\mu \upsilon }`$, then the Brans-Dicke solution corresponding to the same $`T_{\mu \upsilon }`$ will be given in the weak field approximation by

$$g_{\mu \upsilon }(x)=[1ϵG_0]g_{\mu \nu }^{}(G_0,x)$$
(12)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`G_0=\varphi _0^1=\left(\frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}\right)G`$ and the function $`ϵ(x)`$ is a solution of the scalar field equation

$$\mathrm{}ϵ=\frac{8\pi T}{c^4(2\omega +3)}$$
(14)
$`T`$ denoting the trace of $`T_{\mu \upsilon }`$.

## IV The gravitomagnetic field in Brans-Dicke theory

Let us now proceed to the definition of the gravitomagnetic field in Brans-Dicke theory. We start by defining $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \upsilon }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \upsilon }hϵG_0\eta _{\mu \upsilon }$$
(15)
It is easily seen from (11) that

$$\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{16\pi G_0}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu }$$
(16)
Thus, in close analogy to the general relativity case, if we again restrict ourselves to slow motion and stationary sources, we immediately arrive at the following equations, which are supposed to hold far from the source

$`\overline{h}_{00}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Phi }_g^{BD}}{c^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4G_0M}{c^2r}}`$

$`\stackrel{}{\overline{h}}={\displaystyle \frac{2G_0(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{r})}{c^3r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{A}_g^{BD}}{c^2}}`$

Therefore, in the context of Brans-Dicke theory we define the gravitoelectric field to be $`\stackrel{}{E_g}^{BD}=\mathrm{\Phi }_g^{BD}`$ and the gravitomagnetic field to be

$$\stackrel{}{B}_g^{BD}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}_g^{BD}=\frac{G_0}{c}\left[\frac{3\widehat{r}(\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{J})\stackrel{}{J}}{r^3}\right]$$
(17)
Another way of deriving the results above is to start with the Kerr metric in the weak field and slow motion approximation given in isotropic coordinates

$`ds^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2GM}{c^2r}}\right)c^2dt^2+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM}{c^2r}}\right)\left(dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{4GJ}{c^3r}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi cdt`$

Following the prescription given by the theorem discussed in Section III the corresponding solution in Brans-Dicke theory in the same approximation will be given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`[1ϵG_0][(1{\displaystyle \frac{2G_0M}{c^2r}})c^2dt^2+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2G_0M}{c^2r}})(dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_0J}{c^3r}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi cdt]`$
with the function $`ϵ`$ satisfying the equation (14) (recall that in this case there is no contribution from the angular momentum of the rotating body to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor). Therefore, for a slowly rotating sphere with angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}=(0,0,J)`$ we will have

$$\overline{h}_{0\phi }=h_{0\phi }=\frac{2G_0J}{c^3r}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$
(18)
## V The Lense-Thirring effect in Brans-Dicke theory

As is well known, the Lense-Thirring effect consists in a precession of gyroscopes relative to distant stars, or, equivalently, a dragging of inertial frames, an effect caused by the gravitomagnetic field. Denoting the angular momentum and the angular velocity of the precession by $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, then the torque acting on the gyroscope predicted by general relativity is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\tau }=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{S}\times \left(\frac{2}{c^2}\stackrel{}{B}_g\right)=\frac{d\stackrel{}{S}}{dt}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \stackrel{}{S}$$
(19)
with

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{c^2}\stackrel{}{B}_g=G\left(\frac{3\widehat{r}(\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{J})\stackrel{}{J}}{c^3r^3}\right)$$
(20)
Thus in the case of Brans-Dicke theory the equation (20) becomes

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{BD}=\frac{1}{c^2}\stackrel{}{B}_g^{BD}=G_0\left(\frac{3\widehat{r}(\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{J})\stackrel{}{J}}{c^3r^3}\right)$$
(21)
To compare the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ predicted by general relativity with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{BD}`$, predicted by Brans-Dicke theory, we must ascribe values for $`\omega `$, the scalar field coupling constant. According to the latest experimental results (VLBI measurements  ) the current value for $`\omega `$ is $`3500`$ . On the other hand, for a polar orbit at about $`650`$ km altitude the axis of a gyroscope is predicted to undergo a precession rate of $`42`$ milliarcsec per year . The expected accuracy of the experiment under these conditions (Gravity Probe B) is about $`0.5`$ milliarcsec per year. Since $`G_0=\left(\frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}\right)G`$ the predicted value of Brans-Dicke theory is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{BD}={\displaystyle \frac{7003}{7004}}\mathrm{\Omega }41.99\text{ milliarcsec per year.}`$

Therefore we see that within the precision of the experiment one cannot distinguish one theory from another.

## VI The gravitomagnetic time delay in Brans-Dicke theory

The time delay of light is considered a classical test of general relativity and its measurement was first proposed by Shapiro . It can be shown that this effect can be separated into two parts: the Shapiro time delay and the gravitomagnetic time delay, the latter due to the gravitomagnetic field. The gravitomagnetic time delay has been investigated recently by Ciufolini et al . Assuming again the weak field and slow motion approximation of general relativity one can show that the gravitational time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of a light signal travelling between two points $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2c}_{P_1}^{P_2}\overline{h}_{\mu \upsilon }(x)k^\mu k^\nu 𝑑l$$
(22)
where $`k^\mu =(1,\widehat{k})`$, $`\widehat{k}`$ denotes the light propagation unit vector and $`dl=\left|d\stackrel{}{r}\right|`$ is the Euclidean length element along the straight line that joins $`P_1`$ to $`P_2.`$ Now from (4), (7) and (22) it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ge}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{gm}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ge}=\frac{2}{c^3}_{P_1}^{P_2}\mathrm{\Phi }_g𝑑l$$
(23)
is the Shapiro delay and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{gm}=\frac{2}{c^3}_{P_1}^{P_2}\stackrel{}{A}_g𝑑\stackrel{}{r}$$
(24)
is the gravitomagnetic time delay.

Clearly, the above equations keep exactly the same form when we go from general relativity to Brans-Dicke theory, the only change needed is the substitution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_g^{BD}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}_g`$ $`\stackrel{}{A}_g^{BD}`$. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ge}^{BD}=\left(\frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{ge}$$
(25)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{gm}^{BD}=\left(\frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{gm}$$
(26)
At this point two comments are in order. Firstly, it should be noted that analogously to the general relativity approach the gravitomagnetic echo delay vanishes . Secondly, if the light rays travel along a closed loop around a rotating body (this can be arranged with the help of “mirrors”), then the time delay due to the gravitomagnetic field depends on the direction the rays go around the loop. Similarly to the general relativity case, the total time diference between two opposite-oriented paths is given by

$`\delta t^{BD}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{c^3}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{A}_g^{BD}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{c^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}}\right){\displaystyle \stackrel{}{A}_g𝑑\stackrel{}{r}}`$

## VII Final remarks

In this article, we have examined two effects associated with the so-called gravitomagnetism, namely, the Lense-Thirring effect and the gravitomagnetic time delay in Brans-Dicke theory of gravity. Following the same line of reasoning employed in this article it can easily be shown that the equations for the gravitational time delay in different images due to gravitational lensing in Brans-Dicke theory may be obtained again from the corresponding equations in general relativity by using the correction factor $`\frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}.`$ We believe that subsequent analyses of other weak field effects where the gravitomagnetic field can play a role may benefit of the simple theorem of Section III, which establishes a direct correspondence between general relativity and Brans-Dicke theory of gravity in the weak field approximation.

It is interesting to note that a major motivation that has led to the formulation of Brans-Dicke theory was the quest for a Machian theory of gravity. In this respect, one could say that the prediction of the gravitomagnetism, or the dragging of inertial frames, by both general relativity and Brans-Dicke theory alike make these theories, at least in a “weak sense” (as pointed out by Ciufolini et al ), satisfy the Principle of Mach.


format: text

text:
# The alpha decay of deformed superheavy elements. The work was partially sponsored by the State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P 03B 115 19

## 1 Introduction

Theoretical calculations suggesting existence of deformed superheavy nuclei from the areas of doubly magic $`{}_{}{}^{270}Hs`$ were made by Sobiczewski et. al.. Recently there have been calculated some collective properties of nuclei such as: deformation energies with the equilibrium shapes, energies of the first excited state $`E_{2+}`$ and the branching ratios between $`\alpha `$-decay to this state $`2+`$, to that to the ground state $`0+`$. Possible puzzling comparison of the obtained theoretical predictions with the experimental data promotes and motivates further studies of this problem. Therefore more extensive description of an $`\alpha `$ particle emission including additional degrees of freedom connected with deformation in ground state of emitting nucleus is necessary. Then different possition of $`\alpha `$ particle towards this nucleus is possible.

It is commonly known that the action integral giving probability of $`\alpha `$ particle tunneling depends strongly, among others, on the potential barrier shapes and even insignificant change of this barrier can change the obtained half-lives by the magnitude of the a few orders. Taking deformation of parent nucleus into account in our model can give more realistic results.

The aim of the paper is calculation of half-lives due to spontaneous $`\alpha `$ decay for the deformed superheavy nuclei which is a predominant process for them. The barriers were calculated using a suitable model in which the total interaction potential ($`V_{TOT}`$) consists of the nuclear ($`V_N`$), Coulomb ($`V_C`$) and centrifugal barrier ($`V_L`$) modified for the case of existing the deformation of parent nucleus. Chapter II includes brief description of all terms of the potential. Chapter III presents main formulas relating to the $`\alpha `$ decay used in this paper. Chapter IV includes the discussion of the results and the influence on half-lives of the various factors. The last chapter includes summing up and conlusions.

## 2 Interaction potential

### 2.1 Shape parameterization in the exit channel

The shape of nucleus surface area $`R_{P(\alpha )}(\theta _{P(\alpha )},\varphi _{P(\alpha )})`$ is parameterized in the standard way in the spherical harmonic base which can be written in the vector notation as follows:

$$\stackrel{}{r}_{P(\alpha )}=\{\begin{array}{cc}R_{P(\alpha )}(\theta _{P(\alpha )},\varphi _{P(\alpha )})\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{P(\alpha )})\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{P(\alpha )})\hfill & \\ R_{P(\alpha )}(\theta _{P(\alpha )},\varphi _{P(\alpha )})\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{P(\alpha )})\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{P(\alpha )})\hfill & \\ R_{P(\alpha )}(\theta _{P(\alpha )},\varphi _{P(\alpha )})\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{P(\alpha )})\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1)
The index $`P(\alpha )`$ refers to parent nucleus or alpha particle adequately. In the reference system connected with the parent nucleus the centre of the emitted particle is parameterized in the spherical system ($`R,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi }`$):

$$\stackrel{}{R}=\{\begin{array}{cc}R\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi })\hfill & \\ R\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi })\hfill & \\ R\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta })\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
Figure 1 shows geometry of this system where the shortest distance between the nucleus surface areas of $`\alpha `$ particle and the parent nucleus is denoted by s, the distance between the mass centers by R and the distance between the infinitely small volume elements in the nucleus of emitter and emitted particle by $`r_{P\alpha }`$.

Particle $`\alpha `$ is treated as a sphere of a radius $`R_\alpha =1.84fm`$. There were considered only axially symmetric deformed parent nuclei which results in the simplification - $`\varphi _{P(\alpha )}`$ = 0 and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ = 0.

### 2.2 Coulomb potential

The electrostatic interaction potential ($`V_C`$) between the parent nucleus with the proton ($`Z_P`$), mass numbers ($`A_P`$) and the emitted $`\alpha `$ particle is given by integral equation:

$$V_C=2e_{\nu _P}\frac{\rho _P(\stackrel{}{r}_P)}{r_{P\alpha }}𝑑\tau _P,$$
(3)
where $`e`$ is the charge unit and $`\rho _P(\stackrel{}{r}_P)`$ is a charge distribution with uniform density. It is $`\rho _P(\stackrel{}{r}_P)=\frac{3Z_Pe}{4\pi R_{CP}^{3}}`$ inside the parent nucleus and $`\rho _P(\stackrel{}{r}_P)=0`$ outside the nucleus. The equivalent sharp radius is taken as $`R_{CP}=1.15A_P^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. Integration over the parent nucleus volume ($`\nu _P`$) in the coordinates defined by equation (1) is carried out. In the outside area, when the distance between the mass centers is larger than the distances corresponding to the contact configuration of the parent nucleus and the alpha particle $`R>r_P+r_\alpha `$, expansion of distance reciprocity $`r_{P\alpha }`$ is of absolutely convergent series form:

$$\frac{1}{r_{P\alpha }}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{l_P}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{l_P}}{R^{l_P+1}}C_{l_P,0}^{0,0}Y_{l_P}^0(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi })Y_{l_P}^0(\theta _P).$$
(4)
After substitution of the expansion into the formula (3) and making simple transformations we obtain suitable multipole expansion for the Coulomb interactions of deformed nuclei:

$`V_C={\displaystyle \frac{2Z_Pe^2}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_P=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^{l_P+1}}}C_{l_P,0}^{0,0}Y_{l_P}^0(\mathrm{\Theta })Q_{l_P}^0,`$ (5)
Here $`C_{l_P,0}^{0,0}`$ are the Wigner coefficients. The required multipole moments $`Q_{l_P}^0`$ are calculated using the following definition :

$$Q_{l_P}^0=_{\nu _P}\rho _P(\stackrel{}{r}_P)r_P^{l_P}Y_{l_P}^0(\theta _P)𝑑\tau _P.$$
(6)
here $`Y_{l_P}^0(\theta _P)`$ are corresponding sherical harmonics. Let us note that the first term in the presented multipole expansion corresponds to the case of interaction when both fragments are spherical.

### 2.3 Nuclear potential

The nuclear part ($`V_N`$) was calculated using proximity aproximation . This hypothesis is based on the assumption, that the nuclear interaction takes place between two infinitesimal volume elements located closest for a given configuration, and additionally that the distance between them is of the order of a few fm. The surfaces could be treated then as flat parrallel slabs and the proximity energy between two semi-infinite nuclear matters is of a simpler form:

$$V_N=K\gamma \psi (s),$$
(7)
with the surface tension coefficient $`\gamma =0.9517(11.7826I^2)MeV/fm^2`$, where $`I=(NZ)/A`$. It allows for division of nucleus-nucleus interactions into two independent factors: $`K`$ connected with the shape of emitting nucleus surface area and the factor expressed by the universal function $`\psi (s)`$, independent of the system geometry. The form of universal function given in  is used in this paper.

Expansion of this approach for the deformed case consists in suitable redefining of the geometrical factor. In the case of deformed nuclei it is the geometrical mean of main reduced curvature radii $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$:

$$K_{DEF}=2\pi \sqrt{k_1k_2},$$
(8)
calculated on the nucleus surface area in the sites for which with the data R i $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the distance between surfaces is minimal $`s=min|\stackrel{}{R}+\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha \stackrel{}{r}_P|`$. To calculate the required curvature radii, we calculate fundamental forms of the first and the second orders of the nucleus surface in these points. Then we are able to calculate the Gauss curvature and the mean curvature and finally we obtain the first $`R_{1M(\alpha )}`$ and second $`R_{2M(\alpha )}`$ main radius curvatures . The main reduced curvature radius of the first and second orders $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ can be expressed by the relations:

$$k_1=\frac{R_{1M}R_{1\alpha }}{R_{1M}+R_{1\alpha }};k_2=\frac{R_{2M}R_{2\alpha }}{R_{2M}+R_{2\alpha }}.$$
(9)
Moreover, within small deformations the factor $`K_{DEF}`$ passes into the factor $`K`$ for the spherical case $`K_{DEF}(\beta _{l_P}=0)>K`$.

## 3 Theory of alpha decay

The emission of alpha particle from the axially symmetric deformed superheavy nuclei is considered. The half-life is given as a function of the position $`\alpha `$ particle:

$$T_{1/2}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{ln2}{\lambda (\mathrm{\Theta })},$$
(10)
where $`\lambda `$ is the decay constant. The $`\alpha `$-decay model for deformed superheavy elements presented here is based on the assumption that forming of $`\alpha `$ cluster in the inside of parent nucleus and passing over potential barrier are independent events. It is also assumed that the emission of $`\alpha `$ particle does not affect deformation of the nucleus from which it was emitted. Within these approximations the $`\alpha `$-decay tunnelling probability constant can be writen as:

$$\lambda (\mathrm{\Theta })=S\lambda _G(\mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(11)
where S is the quantum mechanical probability forming of $`\alpha `$ particle in the parent nucleus (preformation probability). It is additionally assumed that the deformation and orientation of parent nucleus do not have any influence on the preformation probability. By the $`\lambda _G(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ we denoted the tunneling probability (Gamow decay constant), which is a function of the energy of the $`\alpha `$ particle and angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ showing the direction of $`\alpha `$ emission. All informnation about the many body structure is contained in the S and because of it we sometimes call this constant the spectroscopic factor. This factor can be calculated as the mean value of the suitable projection operator $`\widehat{P}`$ between parent nucleus wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P`$ lies in the open channel space $`\mathrm{\Phi }_D\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ spread by the daughter nucleus wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_D`$ and $`\alpha `$ nucleus wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$.

$$S=\mathrm{\Phi }_P|\widehat{P}|\mathrm{\Phi }_P.$$
(12)
This problem was invesigated by Blendowske, Fliessbach and Walliser  for different exotic spontaneous emissions of clusters and for $`\alpha `$ particle needed here. Exact numerical evaluation and fitting procedure lead to the semiempirical formula for spectroscopic factor. In the $`\alpha `$ particle case this factor is equal to $`S_\alpha =6.310^3`$ . The favoured decays are considered here only. The barrier penetration probability $`\lambda _G`$ as a funcion of the angle can be expressed:

$$\lambda _G(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{\omega (\mathrm{\Theta })}{2\pi }e^{I(\mathrm{\Theta })},$$
(13)
where $`I(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is the action integral:

$$I(\mathrm{\Theta })=_{_{_{r_{en}(\mathrm{\Theta })}}}^{^{^{r_{ex}(\mathrm{\Theta })}}}\sqrt{\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}(V_{TOT}(R,\mathrm{\Theta })Q_\alpha )}dr,$$
(14)
The reduced mass of $`\alpha `$ particle is denoted by $`\mu `$, $`r_{en}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ and $`r_{ex}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ are the classical turning points determined for a given position of $`\alpha `$ particle by the relation $`V_{TOT}(R,\mathrm{\Theta })=Q_\alpha `$. The energy released when the nucleus (Z,N) emits an $`\alpha `$ particle to the state $`L+`$ is obtained from the mass or total binding energies:

$$Q_\alpha (Z,N)=E_B(Z2,N2)E_B(2,2)E_B(Z,N)E_{L+}(Z,N),$$
(15)
where $`E_{L+}`$ is the rotational energy of the $`L+`$ state of the nucleus (Z,N). The total potential ($`V_{TOT}`$) consists of Coulomb ($`V_C`$), nuclear ($`V_N`$) and centrifugal ($`V_L`$) energies:

$$V_{TOT}(R,\mathrm{\Theta })=V_C(R,\mathrm{\Theta })+V_N(R,\mathrm{\Theta })+V_L(R,\mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(16)
The centrifugal term of energy can be calculated:

$$V_L(R,\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{\mathrm{}^2L(L+1)}{2\mu R(\mathrm{\Theta })^2}.$$
(17)
The knocking frequency $`\frac{\omega (\mathrm{\Theta })}{2\pi }`$ is a slowly varying function of E.

$$\omega (\mathrm{\Theta })=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{E}{2\mu r_{in}^2(\mathrm{\Theta })}},$$
(18)
In our investigations we accepted the $`\alpha `$ particle kinetic energy $`E=112.1MeV`$ and $`\alpha `$ particle binding energies $`E_B(2,2)=28.30MeV`$ according to . The obtained half-lives were averaged with the surface function in order to compare them to the experimental data. This surface function in the axially symmetric geometry case is given by:

$$S=2\pi _0^\pi 𝑑S(\mathrm{\Theta })=2\pi _0^\pi 𝑑\mathrm{\Theta }R_P^2(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta })\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{R_P^2(\mathrm{\Theta })}\left(\frac{dR_P}{d\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2},$$
(19)
The mean half-life can be writen in the following way:

$$T_{1/2}=\frac{_0^\pi T_{1/2}(\mathrm{\Theta })𝑑S(\mathrm{\Theta })}{_0^\pi 𝑑S(\mathrm{\Theta })}.$$
(20)
## 4 Results

As follows from the formulae presented in the previous chapter, the precise knowledge of the barriers shapes depending on the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ at which the particle is emitted from the nucleus is necessary for the correct estimation of the tunnelling probability (formulae 13,14). Figure 2 shown the obtained total barriers $`V_{TOT}(R,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ in the function of the distance between the mass centres of $`\alpha `$ particle and the emitter for the deformed of the superheavy element $`{}_{}{}^{264}Hs_{156}`$. The equilibrium deformations {$`\beta _2,\beta _4,\beta _6`$} became taken from . The barriers for different orientations $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of the emitted $`\alpha `$ particle in the relation to the parent nucleus are shown. Note that position of the barrier maximum and its value change with the angle of $`\alpha `$ cluster emission as shown in the upper inside panel in figure 2. The lowest barrier height in the given example appears at the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }30^{}`$ but the highest one is obtained for the equatorial position $`\mathrm{\Theta }90^{}`$. The difference in the barrier maxima is $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{MAX}=1.7MeV`$ for this nucleus. It has significant influence on the half-lives as the difference in the barrier height being only $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{MAX}=0.5MeV`$ gives approximately the half-life differing the order of magnitude.

Another parameter to which emission probability is very sensitive is the entrance energy of $`\alpha `$ particle in the barrier $`V_{ENT}=V_{ST}+Q_\alpha `$ where $`Q_\alpha `$ is the $`\alpha `$-decay energy calculated from the formula (15) and is equal $`Q_\alpha =10.57MeV`$ for the studied isotope $`{}_{}{}^{264}Hs_{156}`$. $`V_{ST}`$ is the energy of potential corresponding to the configuration in the contact point between $`\alpha `$ particle and the parent nucleus (sticking configuration). It is functional dependence on the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is shown in the bottom panel in Figure 2. Taking into account the presented dependences leads to angular anisotropy and the largest difference is $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{ENT}=2.5MeV`$. As previously it can lead to essential differences in the values of action integral, the obtained tunnelling probabilities and further in calculated half-lives.

In order to show the effect of the deformation parameter $`\beta _6`$ on the obtained half-lives the calculation for both cases $`\beta _6>0`$ and $`\beta _6<0`$ ($`|\beta _6|=0.034`$) was made leaving the deformation parameters {$`\beta _2,\beta _4`$} unchanged. Figure 3 show the course of variability of tunneling probability function $`I(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ in both cases. Analyzing the diagrams it can be seen that position of the curve maximum at $`\beta _6<0`$ denoted with the solid line correspond to the position of minimum for the curve at $`\beta _6>0`$ denoted with the broken line. Position of the curve maximum for positive $`\beta _6`$ sign is shifted by about $`15^{}`$ towards smaller angles compared to the curve minimum with negative sign of $`\beta _6`$. As follows from the above analysis half-lives are very sensitive to even smallest changes of deformation parameter $`\beta _6`$.

On figure 4 calculated half-lives in the function of angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denoted by the thick solid line are shown. The value $`T_{1/2}`$ obtained after averaging in relation to the surface according to (20) is also denoted (thin solid line). The arrow indicates the experimental values . Half-lives differ from each other depending on the place of $`\alpha `$ particle emission even by 5 orders of magnitude and the obtained mean value of half-life for this element is close to the experimental value.

The dotted line correspond to the calculus without taking centrifugal potential into consideration (emission from ground to the ground state is considered). The calculated energy of the $`2+`$ state for this element is very small beeing $`E_{2+}=46.6keV`$ see eg. . One can also find that the contribution of the centrifugal barrier is small and it can be neglected.

Systematic calculus of half-life for superheavy elements Z=108,110,112,114 is presented in figure 5 where decimal logarithms of the average half-life (dark filled squares) in the function of the mass number A are shown. The obtained results are compared with literature calculations based on the phenomenological formulae given by Viola and Seaborg (V-S)  denoted by crosses, on the Generalized Liquid Drop Model (GLDM)  marked with blank squares and with available experimental values (EXP)  given by full triangles. The calculations were also made not taking deformation into account denoted with open circles. As can been seen not taking deformation into account leads to the lowest half-lives while including deformation degrees of freedom increases significantly the values of half-life. The best agreement with the experimental data is observed for the isotope with Z=110. For the element Z=108 the obtained results are the closest to the predictions obtained using the Viola-Seaborg formulae  and for the element Z=112 the largest agrement was obtained with calculations based on the GLDM model. The comparison of our results and those obtained from the Viola and Seaborg model shows that the latter are systematicaly higher. The results for the isotope Z=114 obtained by us lie below the values obtained using other models. Thus for the lately synthesized element $`{}_{}{}^{289}114`$ the phenomenological Viola-Seaborg formulae gives the value of half-life time logarithm $`log(T_{1/2})=4.86s`$ while that calculated in this paper is $`log(T_{1/2})=1.30s`$ and the experimental data indicate $`log(T_{1/2})=1.32s`$. For the neighbouring isotope $`{}_{}{}^{288}114`$ the experimentally predicted half-life is $`log(T_{1/2})=0.26s`$ see  ( and citations in it) but we obtain the value almost three orders of magnitude smaller $`log(T_{1/2})=2.86s`$ and estimation based on the Viola-Seaborg formulae gives the value $`log(T_{1/2})=2.80s`$ almost three times as large. This can be explained by small equilibrium deformation of superheavy nuclei under discussion. The results obtained for them are similar to those obtained for the spherical case and as mentioned earlier they are usually lower than the actual ones. Despite some discrepancies the values of the half-time obtained by us not based on any phenomenological formula are similar to the experimental values.

## 5 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from our investigation devoted to $`\alpha `$-decay of deformed superheavy elements:

* Taking deformation of nuclei into account affects significantly the potential barrier shapes: position of maximum and entrance energies and in consequence, the half-life time.
* Even small changes of deformation $`\beta _6`$ modify greatly the values of action integral.
* The half-life time for superheavy elements of Z=$`108÷114`$ without application of any phenomenological formula but taking into account deformation of nuclei in the ground state reproduce the experimental values well.
* The centrifugal term affects the obtained results insignificantly.