# How Well Do We Know the Beta-Decay of ¹⁶𝑁 and Oxygen Formation in Helium Burning 11footnote 1Work Supported by USDOE Grant No. DE-FG02-94ER40870.

## 1 Helium Burning: The $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ Reaction and the Beta-Delayed Alpha-Particle Emission of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$

The $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction rate is of importance for understanding helium burning  in massive (red giant) stars. The result of helium burning is to create an (onion) layer composed of oxygen and carbon. The C/O ratio determines the elemental composition of the core of the progenitor star prior to a supernova collapse and it turns  out that a carbon rich star tends to leave behind a remnant neutron star, while an oxygen rich star leaves a black hole.

We study the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction in its time reverse process using the beta-delayed alpha-particle emission of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$, allowing us to add useful data and constraints on the reaction rate, and the extraction of the p-wave astrophysical S-factor. However, it appears that early hopes for deducing the p-wave astrophysical S-factor ($`S_{E1}`$) using the $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ data are not substantiated. And further confusion is generated by inconsistent data on the beta-delayed alpha-particle emission of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ in addition to inconsistent data on the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction.

We emphasize that while data on the beta decay of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ may add useful constraint and may allow for extracting the (virtual) reduced alpha-particle width of the bound $`1^{}`$ state, the sign of the mixing phase of the bound and quasi-bound $`1^{}`$ states in the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction has nothing to do with the beta-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ and can not be directly determined from the data on the beta-delayed alpha-particle emission of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$. It turns out that this difficulty does not allow for unambiguous extraction of the p-wave S-factor even with the inclusion of the new data on $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$. Furthermore, a reanalysis of all existing data (including the $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ data) by Gerry Hale  demonstrates that a small S-factor solution could not be ruled out. In fact Hale’s best fit for the TRIUMF $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ data  is for an E1 S-factor approximately 20 keV-b. Interestingly, Hale’s best fit is consistent with a broader line shape. As we discuss below, such a broader line shape is observed in all other data sets, and it is quite possible that the narrow line shape of the TRIUMF data is an artifact of their data analysis.

### 1.1 The TRIUMF Result

A measurement of the beta-delayed alpha-particle emission of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ was performed at TRIUMF . The spectrum is observed with high statistics (approximately one million events) and indeed the TRIUMF collaboration claims to have deduced the p-wave astrophysical S-factor with high accuracy. Based on for example, their R-matrix analysis they quote a large value of: $`S_{E1}=81\pm 21keVb`$. The E1 S-factor was previously uncertain by approximately a factor of 10 and we note the relatively high accuracy and the implication that they determined the interference of the two $`1^{}`$ states in $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ to be constructive (i.e. large S-factor).

As we demonstrate in this paper there is enough reasons to doubt the TRIUMF data, and furthermore we do not confirm the conclusion of the TRIUMF group that the p-wave S-factor of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction has been measured.

### 1.2 The New Yale-UConn Experiment

A further measurement of the Beta-Delayed Alpha-Particle energy spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ at low energy was performed in continuation of the first generation Yale experiment . The final phase of this experiment was performed using the Yale ESTU tandem van de Graaff accelerator at the Wright Laboratory at Yale University during the summer of 1995 .

The $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ was produced using a 70 MeV $`{}_{}{}^{15}N`$ beam and a 1250 Torr, 7.5 cm long deuterium gas target with 25 $`\mu m`$ beryllium entrance and exit foils. The $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ emerged from the gas target with a broad recoil energy spectrum, with the lower 1 MeV portion stopping in a thin (190 $`\mu g/cm^2`$) aluminum catcher foil tilted at 7 with respect to the beam. After the $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ was captured, the catcher foil was rotated 180 into the counting area. While the arm rotated and the detectors counted, a tantalum beam chopper was used to block the beam far upstream. Each full production and counting cycle lasted 21 seconds, approximately twice the lifetime of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$.

Fig. 1: New Yale-UConn data, corrected for line shape, compared with TRIUMF  and Seattle  theory curves (with reduced chi-squares). The theory curves have been averaged over the experimental energy resolution.

The counting area contained, as in our previous experiment , 9 thin Silicon Surface Barrier (SSB) detectors used to measure the energy and timing information of the alpha-particles in coincidence with an array of 12 fast plastic scintillator detectors, which measured the timing of beta-particles. This timing information was used to reduce (by more than a factor of 100 over the low energy range of interest) the background in our SSB array due to detection of beta-particles and due to partial charge collection in the SSB detector.

The line shapes of both the first and second Yale-UConn data sets are the same . In order to consider the line shape of both Yale-UConn data sets, it is useful to consider a situation for a predicted spectrum which is constant in energy (or time). Clearly the yield at a specific energy (time) is directly proportional to the energy (time) resolution at that energy (time). In this case the energy (time) resolution is the integration interval. Hence our data need to be divided by the varying energy resolution for alpha-particles traversing our aluminum foil and the time resolution of our time of flight system. The time resolution of our experiment is measured directly in the data on the beta-delayed alpha-particle of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ as well as the beta-delayed alpha-particle emission of $`{}_{}{}^{8}Li`$ which was also measured in our experiment using the same setup and the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li(d,p)^8Li`$ reaction. Hence the line shape in the current (and previous) experiment(s) is deduced from measured $`E/x`$ data and the measured time resolution of our experiment.

We improved our previous Yale-UConn experiment  by: (1) A 20% improvement of our energy resolution (200 keV at 2.36 MeV), (2) More than a factor of five increase in statistics (292,000 events), and (3) An understanding of our line shape deduced from measured quantities. Our results are shown in Fig. 1. The data shown in Fig. 1 were corrected for the energy dependence of the $`\beta \alpha `$ coincidence efficiency and line shape, both deduced from measured quantities. The uncertainty of the three highest energy points include the uncertainty of the $`\beta \alpha `$ coincidence efficiency.

### 1.3 Comparison of TRIUMF data to other data sets

In Fig. 1 we also show our data compared to the Seattle  and TRIUMF  theory curves averaged over the variable energy resolution of our experiment. Note that the theory curves are a good representation of their respective data, but they allow us to carry out the energy averaging also over the edges of the finite data. With the Seattle theory superimposed on our data we calculate a $`\chi ^2`$ per data point of 1.4 and for TRIUMF theory 7.2. We conclude that our data confirm the Seattle data  but do not confirm the TRIUMF data . Most notable is the absence of a well defined minimum at approximately 1.4 MeV as suggested by the TRIUMF data. The data in the vicinity of 1.4 is dominated by the f-wave contribution and hence essentially determines the f-wave contribution. A larger f-wave contribution (at 1.4 MeV) would naturally lead to a smaller p-wave contribution at the interference maximum (at 1.1 MeV) and thus a smaller p-wave astrophysical S-factor.

Fig. 2: Ratio of the energy averaged TRIUMF theory curve  to the new Yale-UConn data.

Fig. 3: Ratios of (a) the TRIUMF data set  to the Seattle data set  and (b) the TRIUMF data set  to the (unaltered !) Mainz data set . Linear interpolations were used when necessary. Notice that the ratio plots are very similar to each other and to the plot in Figure 2, indicating that there are three data sets: the Mainz(’71), Seattle(’95), and the current Yale-UConn(’96) that agree with each other but disagree with the TRIUMF(’94) data.

Following the conclusion that our data is consistent with the Seattle data but not TRIUMF data, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, we received from Fred Barker  a copy of the original communication from Waffler to Barker dated 5 Feb. 1971, which includes approximately 32 million events and a measured beta-particle background spectrum. This data set was originally taken in a study of the parity violating alpha decay from the 8.8719 MeV $`2^{}`$ state in $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$. We first note that we do not confirm  the allegation that there is a problem with the energy calibration of the Mainz data. We have in fact shown  that the alteration of the Mainz data by the TRIUMF calibration can not be justified. Using the original unaltered Mainz data we observe that it agree with the Seattle data ($`\chi ^2`$ per data point of 2.5) and disagrees with the TRIUMF data ($`\chi ^2`$ per data point of 123). In Fig. 3 we show using a linear scale, the ratio of the TRIUMF(94) data to other data sets. Note that the disagreement with the TRIUMF data in all cases is equally bad on the high and low energy sides of the main peak at 2.35 MeV. This together with the fact that all data sets agree on the low energy interference maximum, negates arguments of low energy tails. We conclude that indeed all other data sets that were measured with the $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ produced via the $`{}_{}{}^{15}N(d,p)^{16}N`$ reaction including Mainz(71), Seattle(95) and Yale-UConn(96) agree with each other and exhibit the (same) disagreement with the TRIUMF(94) data.

### 1.4 Comparison of TRIUMF(93) data to TRIUMF(94)

These disagreements suggest two possible conclusions. One, that all data other than the TRIUMF data are wrong and only the TRIUMF data exhibit the true narrow line shape. Second, that the narrow line shape of the TRIUMF(94) data is an artifact of the coincidence data analysis.

In order to further investigate these two possibilities we have examined the TRIUMF(93) data  as compared to TRIUMF(94) data  – as reanalyzed by the graduate student James Powell. And in Fig. 4 we show the ratio of the TRIUMF(94) data to TRIUMF(93) data. Clearly the TRIUMF(93) data exhibit yet even a narrower line shape than TRIUMF(94). But the TRIUMF(93) data was already rejected by the TRIUMF collaboration, as discussed by the collaboration , and clearly this demonstrates that the narrow line shape of the TRIUMF(93) data is an artifact of the analysis (i.e. energy miscalibration).

Fig. 4: Ratio of the TRIUMF(94)  to TRIUMF(93)  data. The narrower line shape of the TRIUMF(93) data is understood to be an artifact of the analysis.

### 1.5 Conclusions

We have reviewed the status of both data and analyses pertaining to the p-wave astrophysical S-factor of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction. We observe that more recent global R-matrix fit of the data on $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$, elastic scattering and $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction data does not allow us to rule out a small S-factor solution and does not confirm the strong statement of the TRIUMF collaboration that the S-factor is now known. The sign of the interference of the two $`1^{}`$ states in $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ data is not directly determined by data on the beta-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$, and thus this problem remains unsolved and needs to be studied via additional low energy data on the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction itself.

We have improved our original data on the beta-delayed alpha-particle emission of $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$. A comparison of all four high statistics data on $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ reveals three data sets: the Mainz(’71), Seattle(’95), and the current Yale-UConn(’96) that agree with each other but disagree with the TRIUMF(’94) data (by up to a factor of 3). The current situation with discrepant data on $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$, let alone disagreement on data on $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ capture reaction, and disagreement in the extracted S-factor, do not allow us to conclude that the p-wave S-factor for the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction is known with an accuracy sufficient for stellar evolution models, and we do not confirm neither the TRIUMF data nor the large S-factor quoted by TRIUMF with a relatively high accuracy.

## 2 Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the work of my graduate student at Yale University, Dr. Ralph H. France III now at UConn, on the $`{}_{}{}^{16}N`$ data.