- Correlation

Colin R. Morrell Lab Partner: X. L. Li Date Submitted: December 4th, 2013

Abstract
In this experiment, coincidence measurements were made with the use of two NaI(TI) scintillation counters with the goal of determining the angular correlation of released gamma radiation as 22Na and 60Co undergo nuclear decay. Through experimentation, it was confirmed that the angular correlation of 22Na is in the form of a delta function that peaks when the detectors were separated by 180o.
60

Co emission was observed to have an angular correlation

associated with a Legendre Polynomial of the fourth degree. The coefficients of the polynomial were experimentally found to be and and then

compared to theory. These coefficients were confirmed as consistent with the quadrupolequadrupole characteristic of the decay of 60Co in the sequence 4+(1)2+(2)0+.

1. Introduction
When 60Co and 22Na decay to lower energy states, they are required to follow the law of conservation of momentum. Because of this, either two gamma rays are released from the same decay process or from separate, however consecutive, decays. The angle that these gamma rays are emitted relative to each other is what is known as the angular correlation Y(); Theta is the angle of the movable detector with respect to the origin, as is displayed in Figure 1. This angular correlation is a consequence of the change in angular momentum of the atom as it changes states, and thus, studying angular correlations of gamma rays allows for the determination of nuclear processes without the use of complicated nuclear physics. The purpose of this experiment was to study angular correlation s of spontaneously released gamma rays from a 22Na and 60Co source in order to determine their nuclear spins through transition. In order to experimentally discover the angular correlation between gamma rays from a given source, the technique of true coincidence measurement was implemented. This is a technique used in order to insure that any two gamma rays that are detected are a consequence of the same decay rather than from independent, unassociated decays. In order to do this, a timing delay is placed between the signals from the two gamma ray detectors. Doing so creates a setup where true coincidences will always have the same time delay, and so readings that have different timings can be excluded.

2. Experimental Details
a. Experimental Layout

Figure 1: Experimental Detector Setup

The experiment consisted of two 1 in x 2 in NaI(TI) scintillation counters stationed at an angle of 180o from each other so that counts of coincidence gamma rays could be made; one of these counters are connected to a motor that allowed it to rotate about the source so that angular correlation could be found. Each detector was connected to a preamplifier followed by a delay amplifier. The signal then entered the Timing SC Analyzer (TSCA) which allowed for a window to be set around the peak energy from the decays that the angular correlation is associated with; this allowed for all other energy levels to be ignored. The TSCA was also where an artificial timing delay between the two signals was set. After this, the signal entered the Time to Amplitude Converter (TAC) that was used to create a timing window about the prompt peak so that true coincidences between the two gamma rays could be detected. The last stop was a computer running the Maestro Program that counted the coincidence rates as a function of angle.

Figure 2: Experimental Electronics Setup

The range and intervals between angles of the mobile detector was set using computer software. Using the computer, the dwell time of the detector was also set. With use of the Maestro program, windows were set about the prompt energy peaks of interest and counts were recorded.
22

2.2

Na Source
When 22Na goes through decay, it initially experiences emission that results in the

positron annihilating with an electron. This annihilation results in two gamma rays of 511 keV that are released at 180o relative to the other. This symmetry occurs as a consequence of the need for the atom to conserve momentum. The angular function, therefore, is a delta function about 180o where all coincidence measurement will and were observed.
60

2.2

Co Source
The decay process for 60Co is comprised of a beta emission followed by two consecutive

decays releasing gamma rays of 1.17 MeV and 1.33 MeV in the sequence 4+(1)2+(2)0+ . When
60

Co undergoes decay it turns into 60Ni at a 99.925% rate. The rate of decay of the 60Ni is of

the order of 1 ps, and so the emission of the gamma rays is considered simultaneous in this experiment. Because the angular correlation of the gamma rays released results from the angular momentum and spin transitions within the atom, it can be represented using Legendre Polynomial Equation (4).

Figure 3: Decay Scheme of 60Co

3. Results
3.122 Na angular correlation
To begin, we discovered the - angular correlation for 22Na. The graphical result is below with statistical error bars; Note: the error bars are hardly visible. According to theory, the result should have been a delta spike at 180o due to the need for the atom to maintain a total angular momentum of 0. In the experiment, the results were smeared about 180o; this is because the detector has a finite frontal area, and so even when it is not 180o from the other detector, gamma rays are capable of entering both detectors. The statistical error comes from the Poisson distribution, and so, .

Number of Coincidance Measurements

Na22 Number of Counts as a Function of Angle for a Fixed Time of 50s per Angle
2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Detector Angle in Degrees

Plot 1: Angular Correlation of 22Na over range 0oto 120o at =15o and dwell time of 50s

3.2

60

Co Angular Correlation
Determining Background Radiation

3.2.a

In this experiment, there is the presence of background radiation that occurs due to accidental coincidences that are a consequence of unassociated decays from different atoms. To account for these, a large time delay was placed between the two detectors so that true coincidences were outside of the time range that was being counted. Several measurements were then made between 0 and 15O. Because the background is isotropic, the count rate was

combined over all measurements and then solved for as a function of time. The result is below. ( And so, ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( )

3.2.b Finding Coefficient a1

To begin, we wished to discover an experimental value of the coefficient a1 from the P1 term of the Legendre Equation (4) in order to prove that the angular correlation of 60Co is symmetric about the y-axis. To accomplish this, data was taken at angles ranging from 01350 at 15o intervals for duration of 1.5 hours per angle. The plot of angular correlation with errors is shown in Plot 2.

Co60, =0-135o, =15o

1650 Coincidence Counts 1600 1550 1500 1450 1400 1350 1300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Angle (o) Plot 2: Angular Correlation of 60Co with dwell time of 1.5 hours

Through an optimization of 2, we were left with the line of best fit that remained within 1 of all data points. The result of a1 displayed that there is asymmetry about 90o, however, this symmetry was not substantial enough of raise much concern over further measurements.

3.2.b Determining Values A, a2 and a4

Knowing that the angular correlation is approximately symmetric about 90o, we then took measurements ranging from 0 to 90o at intervals of 5o; the time duration per interval was 1 hour. With this data, it was possible utilize the reduced Legendre Equation (5) and the angular correlation adjustment factor discussed in 6.2 in order to fit the data in order to experimentally determine the parameters Ao, a2 and a4. Plot 4 graphically displays the results with errors and the fit. 60Co,
1050

0-90o, =5o

1000 Coincidence Count

950

900

850

800 0 20 40 Angle (o) 60 80 100

Plot 4: Angular Correlation of 60Co with dwell time of 1 hour

All data points taken are within 2 of the line of fit, and thus the data was determined to be acceptable. Through analysis, it was determined that 2 = 14.84 and that the reduced 2=0.927, given that there are 16 degrees of freedom, and so the fit was very acceptable. Ao, a2 and a4 were then found as well as their errors by varying individual parameters until 2 increased by +1.

4 Error Analysis
4.1Quantum numbers and error
From Figure 5 from 6.3, anticipated values for the numbers a2 and a4 can be compared to the experimental results and then used to determine whether or not the sequence 4+(1)2+(2)0+ is observed through this experiment. Clearly, while the error in the measurement of a4 is substantial, the experimental results are vastly more similar to that of the 4+(1)2+(2)0+ transition then other spin transitions, and so we claim that this was the spin sequence observed in our measurements. % error in a2 = 0% % error in a4 = 100%

4.2Sources of Error
The causes of sensitivity in the data measurements in this experiment are a consequence of imperfections within the detectors. For example, the surface area of the detector creates a smearing effect over an angle of measurement that produces data that must be corrected for. Refer to 5.2 for more discussion of this issue and how it is corrected for. A second issue arises from the fact that the detector does not detect every coincidence event that in incident upon it. Because of this, it is possible for a coincidence to be detected by one detector and not the otherresulting in a missing count. The last source of error that I will address is the lack of symmetry about the 90o angle resulting in a nonzero value for parameter a1. This lack of symmetry can result in all the angle measurements to be erroneous.

5 Appendix
5.1Legendre Polynomial
Legendre Polynomials are Eigenfunctions of quantum angular momentum, and so they are used in order to statistically analyze the - angular correlation of 60Co. These polynomials are represented by:

( )

( )

( )

Figure 4: Pl terms of Legendre Polynomials

In this experiment, values past l = 4 are omitted because they contribute minimally to Y(). Odd values of l are also ignored because cosine is an even function, and so the odd terms become zero. The exception to this rule is when l = 1 because it allows for confirmation that the function is symmetric about the y-axis. Assuming that it is symmetric about the y axis, the total equation reduces to the equation below where Ao is a normalization factor. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( )) ( ) ( )

5.2Angular Correlation Correction Factors

Due to the finite frontal area of the detectors used in this experiment, an error exists in the form of the smearing of gamma counts across the detector. In order to correct for this, the finite-opening-angle correction must be added to the Legendre Polynomial.

( )

[ ]

[ ]

( )

Because the interest in this experiment is around the transitions +4+2+0, the only l values of interest are 4 and 2. These values were determined with use of Figures 31 and 32 in the Lab Write up.

5.3Spin Quantum Numbers.

The table below displayed below displays the transitions in spin states and the Lagrange coefficients a2 and a4 that are associates with that spin transition. This experiment is interested in row 14 that represents the +4+2+0 transitions.

Figure 5: Spin Sequences

7. Conclusion
The results of this experiment confirmed the theories of expected gamma ray angular correlation from the decay of the nucleuses of 22Na and 60Co.
22

Na displayed the expected delta

function characteristics about the 180o mark as a result of positron annihilation and 60Co displayed the quadropole-quadropole +4+2+0 transition. With use of Legrandre polynomials,

the coefficients a2 and a4 were derived and determined to be within an appropriate range of theoretical values. A cause for concern in this experiment was the non-zero coefficient a1. Since this value was determined to be non-zero, there was unintended asymmetry about the 90o mark. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, we were unable to explore this result in detail. Had there been more time, we would have liked to have measured the angles of the setup and the positions of the mobile detector to ensure that the mechanical setup was calibrated correctly. It would have also been ideal to have had detectors of smaller surface area so that the smeared counts would have been minimized, perhaps reducing error in the a1 term, and causing the 22Na delta peak to have less of an impact on results.

8. References
1. Correlation Lab Write-up,