1: % REVTEX V4.0
2: %
3: %\documentclass[aps,prc,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[aps,prc,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
8: % \documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
9: % \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
10: \documentclass[aps,prc,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
11: % \documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
12: %\documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
13: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
14: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
15: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
16: % \documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig,psfig,graphicx]{revtex}
17:
18: \newcommand{\raa}{($\alpha$,$\alpha$)}
19: \newcommand{\rgn}{($\gamma$,n)}
20: \newcommand{\rng}{(n,$\gamma$)}
21: \newcommand{\rga}{($\gamma$,$\alpha$)}
22: \newcommand{\rag}{($\alpha$,$\gamma$)}
23: \newcommand{\rgp}{($\gamma$,p)}
24: \newcommand{\rpg}{(p,$\gamma$)}
25: \newcommand{\rna}{(n,$\alpha$)}
26: \newcommand{\ran}{($\alpha$,n)}
27: \newcommand{\rlid}{($^6$Li,d)}
28: \newcommand{\oaa}{$^{16}$O\raa $^{16}$O}
29: \newcommand{\oag}{$^{16}$O\rag $^{20}$Ne}
30: \newcommand{\nega}{$^{20}$Ne\rga $^{16}$O}
31: \newcommand{\lbo}{$\lambda_{\rm{bound}}$}
32: \newcommand{\lsc}{$\lambda_{\rm{scatt}}$}
33: \newcommand{\al}{$\alpha$}
34: \newcommand{\sfac}{S-factor}
35: \newcommand{\thcalc}{$T_{1/2,\alpha}^{\rm{calc}}$}
36: \newcommand{\thexp}{$T_{1/2,\alpha}^{\rm{exp}}$}
37: \newcommand{\thpre}{$T_{1/2,\alpha}^{\rm{pre}}$}
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: {
42: \title{
43: $\mathbf\alpha$-cluster states in intermediate mass nuclei
44: }
45:
46:
47: \author{Peter Mohr\footnote{Electronic address: WidmaierMohr@compuserve.de}}
48: %
49: \affiliation{
50: Diakonie-Klinikum Schw\"abisch Hall, D-74523 Schw\"abisch Hall,
51: Germany
52: }
53:
54: \date{\today}
55:
56:
57: \begin{abstract}
58: %
59: Properties of intermediate mass nuclei have been investigated within
60: the framework of the $\alpha$-cluster model in combination with
61: systematic double-folding potentials. Previously, this
62: $\alpha$-cluster model has been widely applied to light nuclei, in
63: particular to $^8$Be = $\alpha$ $\otimes$ $\alpha$, $^{20}$Ne =
64: $^{16}$O $\otimes$ $\alpha$, and $^{44}$Ti = $^{40}$Ca $\otimes$
65: $\alpha$, and to heavy nuclei, in particular to $^{212}$Po =
66: $^{208}$Pb $\otimes$ $\alpha$. In the present work a wide range of
67: nuclei is investigated with the magic neutron number $N = 50$ in the
68: mass range around $A \approx 80 - 100$: ($A$+4,$N$=52) = ($A$,$N$=50)
69: $\otimes$ $\alpha$. It is found that excitation energies, decay
70: properties, and transition strengths can be described successfully
71: within this model. The smooth and small variation of the underlying
72: parameters of the $\alpha$-nucleus potential may be used for
73: extrapolations to predict experimentally unknown properties in the
74: nuclei under study.
75: %
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \pacs{21.60.Gx,27.50.+e,27.60.+j}
79: % 21.60.Gx Cluster models
80: % 27.50.+e 59 <= A <= 89
81: % 27.60.+j 90 <= A <= 149
82:
83:
84: \maketitle
85: }
86:
87: \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
88: %
89: Atomic nuclei are complex many-body systems. Their properties are
90: defined by the short-range nuclear interaction and the long-range
91: Coulomb interaction which have to be included in the
92: quantum-mechanical many-body Schroedinger equation. The many-body
93: problem may be dramatically simplified in some cases where the nucleus
94: can be considered to be composed of two inert clusters like an
95: $\alpha$-particle and a closed-shell nucleus. In these cases a simple
96: two-body model is able to reproduce many properties like e.g.\
97: excitation energies and decay properties -- provided that the
98: interaction potential can be well described. This $\alpha$-cluster
99: model has been widely applied to light nuclei, in particular to $^8$Be
100: = $\alpha$ $\otimes$ $\alpha$, $^{20}$Ne = $^{16}$O $\otimes$
101: $\alpha$, and $^{44}$Ti = $^{40}$Ca $\otimes$ $\alpha$, and to heavy
102: nuclei, in particular to $^{212}$Po = $^{208}$Pb $\otimes$
103: $\alpha$. Here I apply this $\alpha$-cluster model in combination with
104: systematic $\alpha$-nucleus double-folding potentials to the analysis
105: of a wide range of nuclei with the magic neutron number $N = 50$ in
106: the mass range around $A \approx 80 - 100$: ($A$+4,$N$=52) =
107: ($A$,$N$=50) $\otimes$ $\alpha$. This study extends earlier work which
108: has focused on $^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr $\otimes$ $\alpha$.
109:
110: The \al -particle is the lightest doubly-magic nucleus. Thus it is
111: strongly bound, and its first excited state is located at the high
112: excitation energy $E_x = 20.2$\,MeV \cite{ENSDF,Til92}. Although
113: composed of four nucleons, the \al -particle may be considered as
114: inert in many investigations, i.e.\ the internal structure of the \al
115: -particle may be neglected. It has been stated that this ``concept of
116: \al -clustering is essential for understanding the structure of light
117: nuclei'' \cite{Ohk98}, and this concept has been extended to heavy nuclei
118: (e.g.\ \cite{Mic98,Yam98,Sak98,Ueg98,Has98,Koh98,Toh98}).
119:
120: As a consequence of the strong binding of \al -particles many
121: observables in the interaction of two \al -particles can be described
122: successfully using a simple two-body model. Typical observables are
123: scattering cross sections of the $^4$He\raa $^4$He reaction and
124: excitation energies, transition probabilities, and decay properties of
125: the $^8$Be = \al\ $\otimes$ \al\ nucleus. A prerequisite for the
126: successful application of the simple two-body model is an effective
127: potential between the two \al -particles. It has been shown that the
128: double-folding potential and the widely used DDM3Y interaction provide
129: an excellent description of the above observables \cite{Mohr94}.
130:
131: Similar arguments hold for the description of nuclei which are
132: composed of another doubly-magic nucleus and an \al -particle, and
133: numerous studies have been devoted to $^{20}$Ne = $^{16}$O $\otimes$
134: \al , $^{44}$Ti = $^{40}$Ca $\otimes$ \al , and $^{212}$Po =
135: $^{208}$Pb $\otimes$ \al\ (see e.g.\ the review papers of the
136: dedicated special issue of Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132},
137: \cite{Ohk98,Mic98,Yam98,Sak98,Ueg98,Has98,Koh98,Toh98}). However,
138: there is no stable doubly-magic nucleus with the magic neutron number
139: $N = 50$. In the present work I analyze nuclei with ($A$+4,$N$=52) =
140: ($A$,$N$=50) $\otimes$ \al\ between the two instable $N = 50$
141: doubly-magic nuclei $^{78}$Ni ($Z = 28$) and $^{100}$Sn ($Z =
142: 50$). Previous studies (e.g.\ \cite{Mic98,Ohk95,Buck95}) have been
143: restricted to $^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr $\otimes$ \al\ because of the
144: subshell closure at $Z = 40$ between $f$ and $p$ subshells and the
145: proton $g_{9/2}$ subshell. It will be shown that there is no need for
146: this restriction. The proton subshell closure at $Z = 40$ turns out to
147: be not important for the properties of \al -cluster states. Instead,
148: the \al -cluster model can be applied successfully in the same way to
149: all nuclei under study except the semi-magic $Z = 50$ nucleus
150: $^{102}$Sn = $^{98}$Cd $\otimes$ \al . The present study is restricted
151: to even-even nuclei. An extension of the present study to even-odd
152: nuclei is possible e.g.\ for $^{93}$Nb = $^{89}$Y $\otimes$ \al\ which
153: will be published together with the analysis of the $^{89}$Y\raa
154: $^{89}$Y scattering cross section \cite{Kiss08}.
155:
156: The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{sec:model} the
157: ingredients of the simple two-body model are briefly summarized. In
158: particular, the underlying double-folding potential and the formalism
159: for the calculation of bound state properties and transition strengths
160: is presented. In Sect.~\ref{sec:results} the results of the
161: calculations, i.e.\ the systematic behavior of the potential
162: parameters for the description of the bound state energies, are
163: shown. Sect.\ \ref{sec:disc} gives a discussion of the results, and
164: finally conclusions are drawn in Sect.~\ref{sec:conc}. In the
165: following discussion proton (neutron, mass) numbers $N_C$ ($Z_C$,
166: $A_C$) of the compound nucleus ($A_C$=$A$+4,$N_C$=$N$+2) = ($A$,$N$)
167: $\otimes$ \al\ are indexed by the subscript $C$ whereas $Z$ ($N$, $A$)
168: without index refers to the core nucleus; e.g., properties of the $N_C
169: = 52$, $Z_C = 42$, $A_C = 94$ nucleus $^{94}$Mo are calculated from
170: the potential between the $N = 50$, $Z = 40$, $A = 90$ core $^{90}$Zr
171: $\otimes$ \al .
172:
173:
174:
175: \section{\label{sec:model}Ingredients of the model}
176: %
177:
178:
179: \subsection{\label{sec:fold}Folding potentials}
180: %
181: The basic ingredient of the present study is the \al -nucleus
182: potential. Various parametrizations have been used in
183: literature. However, recent systematic studies have concentrated on
184: folding potentials and Woods-Saxon potentials. It has been shown that
185: the parameters of folding potentials, in particular the volume
186: integral $J_R$, show a very systematic behavior for intermediate and
187: heavy mass nuclei \cite{Atz96}. This study \cite{Atz96} has been
188: extended to the analysis of elastic scattering data at astrophysically
189: relevant energies around the Coulomb barrier
190: \cite{Mohr97,Ful01,Gal05,Kiss06,Kiss07}.
191: Experimental data for \rag\ capture reactions and other
192: \al -induced reactions like \ran\ have been studied using folding
193: potentials and other potential parametrizations, see e.g.\ in
194: \cite{Dem02,Gyu06,Som98,Spy07}. Further information on the systematics
195: of folding potentials has been obtained from the analysis of \al
196: -decay data for superheavy nuclei (e.g.\
197: \cite{Mohr06,Zha07,Sam07,Xu07,Xu05,Cho05,Den05}), for neutron-deficient
198: $p$-nuclei \cite{Mohr00,Fuj02,Xu05b}, and for nuclei slightly above the
199: doubly-magic $N = Z = 50$ nucleus $^{100}$Sn \cite{Xu06,Mohr07}. The
200: present work extends the study of \cite{Mohr07} to lighter $N =
201: 50$ nuclei because the double-folding potentials have proven to be
202: reliable in such a broad range of masses.
203:
204: Global and local Woods-Saxon potentials have also been determined
205: succssfully for the mass range under study in
206: \cite{Avr06,Avr06b,Avr03}. The description of scattering data is
207: similar to folding potentials \cite{Kiss07}. However, as will be shown
208: in Sect.~\ref{sec:bound}, it is not possible to obtain a reasonable
209: description of the excitation energies of rotational bands in
210: ($A$+4,$N$=52) = ($A$,$N$=50) $\otimes$ \al\ nuclei.
211:
212: Other parametrizations of the \al -nucleus potential like e.g.\
213: modified Woods-Saxon potentials \cite{Buck95} or the so-called
214: {\it{cosh}} potential \cite{Buck93} are not analyzed in this
215: work. Although the {\it{cosh}} potential was able to describe \al
216: -decay properties, the {\it{cosh}} potential or other potentials have
217: not been used for the simultaneous description of scattering and
218: reaction cross sections and bound state and decay properties.
219:
220: The double-folding potential $V_F(r)$ is calculated from the densities
221: of the interacting nuclei and an effective nucleon-nucleon
222: interaction. In the present work the nuclear densities were derived
223: from electron scattering data which are compiled in \cite{Vri87}. Many
224: nuclei under study are unstable, and electron scattering data are not
225: available in \cite{Vri87}. Therefore, the densities for all $N = 50$
226: nuclei in the present study were derived in the same way as in
227: \cite{Mohr06,Mohr07}; there it was shown that an averaged
228: two-parameter Fermi distribution provides reasonable densities over a
229: broad mass range by a simple scaling of the radius parameter $r \sim
230: A^{1/3}$. As will be discussed later, the resuls do not show a strong
231: dependence on the radius parameter. The widely used DDM3Y interaction
232: is also applied in this work. Details on the calculation of the
233: double-folding potential and the effective interaction can be found in
234: \cite{Sat79,Kob84,Abe93,Atz96}.
235:
236: The total potential $V(r)$ is given by the sum of the nuclear
237: potential $V_N(r)$ and the Coulomb potential $V_C(r)$:
238: %
239: \begin{equation}
240: V(r) = V_N(r) + V_C(r) = \lambda \, V_F(r) + V_C(r)
241: \label{eq:vtot}
242: \end{equation}
243: %
244: The Coulomb potential is taken in the usual form of a homogeneously
245: charged sphere where the Coulomb radius $R_C$ has been chosen
246: identically with the root-mean-square radius $r_{\rm{rms}}$ of the
247: folding potential $V_F$. The folding potential $V_F$ is scaled by
248: a strength parameter $\lambda$ which is of the order of $1.0 -
249: 1.3$. This leads to volume integrals of about $J_R \approx
250: 300$\,MeV\,fm$^3$ for all nuclei under study and is in agreement with
251: systematic \al -nucleus potentials derived from elastic scattering
252: \cite{Atz96,Dem02,Avr03}. (Note that as usual the negative sign of
253: $J_R$ is omitted in this work.)
254:
255: For comparison, calculations have also been performed with nuclear
256: potentials $V_N$ of Woods-Saxon shape: $V_N(r) = V_0 \times [1 +
257: \exp{(r-R)/a}]^{-1}$ with the potential depth $V_0$, radius parameter $R =
258: r_0 \times A^{1/3}$ and diffuseness $a$.
259:
260: It has been suggested that a temperature dependence of the optical
261: potential may improve the simultaneous description of scattering,
262: reaction, and decay data \cite{Avr06b}. The analysis of scattering and
263: reaction data requires a complex optical potential where the imaginary
264: part describes the absorption into other channels. The present study
265: focuses on bound state properties which can be calcuated from the real
266: part of the potential, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:vtot}). Because of the energy
267: and density dependence of the interaction and because of the above
268: mentioned temperature dependence it is clear that the real potentials
269: from this study will require minor modification so that they can be
270: used as real part of a complex potential in the analysis of
271: scattering and reaction data.
272:
273:
274:
275: \subsection{\label{sec:bound}Bound and quasi-bound states}
276: %
277: From a given nuclear potential it is a straightforward task to
278: calculate the eigenstates of the Hamilton operator, i.e.\ the energies
279: $E$ and wave functions $u(r)$. The Pauli principle is taken into
280: account by the so-called Wildermuth condition which relates the
281: quantum numbers $Q, N, L$ of the \al -particle to the quantum numbers
282: $q_i, n_i, l_i$ of the four constituent nucleons:
283: %
284: \begin{equation}
285: Q = 2N + L = \sum_{i=1}^4 (2n_i + l_i) = \sum_{i=1}^4 q_i
286: \label{eq:wild}
287: \end{equation}
288: %
289: where $Q$ is the number of oscillator quanta, $N$ is the number of
290: nodes and $L$ the relative angular momentum of the \al -core wave
291: function, and $q_i = 2n_i + l_i$ are the corresponding quantum numbers
292: of the four nucleons forming the \al\ cluster. I have taken $q = 4$
293: for the two neutrons above the neutron number $N=50$ and $q = 4$ ($q =
294: 3$) for protons above (below) the proton number $Z = 40$. This leads
295: to $Q = 16$ for nuclei above $^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr $\otimes$ \al\ and
296: $Q = 14$ for nuclei below $^{92}$Zr = $^{88}$Sr $\otimes$ \al .
297:
298: In a first calculation the strength of the nuclear potential is
299: adjusted to reproduce the binding energy $E_B$ of the \al -particle to
300: the $N=50$ core. E.g., for the $0^+$ ground state wave function of the
301: nucleus $^{96}$Ru = $^{92}$Mo $\otimes$ \al\ one finds $E_B =
302: -1692$\,keV \cite{ENSDF} ($E_B < 0$ for bound states). For the folding
303: potential a strength parameter of $\lambda = 1.1965$ is required to
304: reproduce this energy with $Q = 16$, i.e., a wave function with
305: angular momentum $L = 0$ and $N = 8$ nodes. For the Woods-Saxon
306: potential one finds $V_0 = 142.97$\,MeV (162.38\,MeV) using geometry
307: parameters of $r_0 = 1.3$\,fm (1.2\,fm) and $a = 0.7$\,fm. These
308: geometry parameters of the Woods-Saxon potential are close to the
309: Woods-Saxon potentials derived from scattering data
310: \cite{Avr06,Avr06b,Avr03}. The square of the wave functions $u(r)$ in
311: the different potentials is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wave}.
312: %
313: \begin{figure}[htb]
314: \includegraphics[ bb = 50 60 480 345, width = 80 mm, clip]{ru96wave.ps}
315: %\includegraphics[ bb = 50 60 480 345, width = 110 mm, clip]{ru96wave.ps}
316: \caption{
317: \label{fig:wave}
318: Square of the wave function $u(r)$ of the $0^+$ ground state of $^{96}$Ru
319: = $^{92}$Mo $\otimes$ \al\ at $E = -1692$\,keV using the folding
320: potential with $\lambda = 1.1965$ and the Woods-Saxon potentials
321: with two different radius parameters $r_0 = 1.2$\,fm and
322: 1.3\,fm. Corresponding to $Q = 16$, the number of nodes is eight.
323: }
324: \end{figure}
325:
326: In the next step the energies of all excited states with $Q = 16$ are
327: calculated using exactly the same potential as for the ground
328: state. The excitation energies $E_x$ are defined by $E = E_B +
329: E_x$. The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exc} for the chosen example
330: of $^{96}$Ru = $^{92}$Mo $\otimes$ \al . Experimentally states with
331: quantum numbers from $0^+$ to $16^+$ are known which form a rotational
332: band although the energies do not follow exactly the rigid rotator
333: rule $\sim L(L+1)$. A similar rotational behavior is found for the
334: folding potential; however, the excitation energies are much lower
335: than the experimental values. In contrast, the Woods-Saxon potentials
336: show an inversion of the levels; i.e., the $16^+$ state is strongest
337: bound in the Woods-Saxon potential. This finding is independent of
338: details of the chosen geometry parameters. In Fig.~\ref{fig:exc}
339: results for two radius parameters $r_0 = 1.2$\,fm and 1.3\,fm are
340: shown. Whereas in the case of the folding potential a minor
341: readjustment of the potential strength of less than 5\,\% is
342: sufficient to reproduce the excitation energies (see
343: Sect.~\ref{sec:results}), the Woods-Saxon potential requires strong
344: modification of more than 20\,\% to reproduce the excitation energy
345: spectrum.
346: %
347: \begin{figure}[htb]
348: \includegraphics[ bb = 125 40 525 830, width = 70 mm, clip]{ru96level.ps}
349: %\includegraphics[ bb = 125 40 525 830, width = 110 mm, clip]{ru96level.ps}
350: \caption{
351: \label{fig:exc}
352: Excitation energies for the nucleus $^{96}$Ru = $^{92}$Mo $\otimes$
353: \al . Experimentally one finds a rotational band $0^+$, $2^+$,
354: $4^+$, $\ldots$ $16^+$ (left). Although compressed in energy, the
355: folding potential reproduces such a rotational band (with the
356: energies $E_x = 31$, 123, 255, 417, 601, 816, 1088, and 1453\,keV
357: for the $2^+$, $4^+$, $\ldots$ $16^+$ states). In contrast, the Woods-Saxon
358: potentials show an inversion of the levels (right). All energies are given
359: in keV. The low-enery region (as indicated by the dashed box) is
360: scaled up in the upper part of the diagram for better readability.
361: }
362: \end{figure}
363:
364: It is interesting to note that the inversion of the excitation
365: energies in the Woods-Saxon potential is not directly related to the
366: width of the potential. As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:wave}, the
367: wave function of the Woods-Saxon potential with $r_0 = 1.2$\,fm is
368: concentrated at smaller radii than the folding wave function whereas
369: the wave function in the Woods-Saxon potential with $r_0 = 1.3$\,fm is
370: concentrated at larger radii. Nevertheless, both Woods-Saxon
371: potentials show the inversion of excitation energies, whereas the
372: folding potential reproduces a rotational band (see also
373: Fig.~\ref{fig:exc}).
374:
375:
376:
377: \subsection{\label{sec:trans}Transition strengths}
378: %
379: Reduced transition strengths $B(E{\cal{L}})$ for electromagnetic
380: transitions $L_i \rightarrow L_f$ can be calculated from the bound
381: state wave functions $u_{L_i}(r)$ and $u_{L_f}(r)$. The transition
382: strengths scale with the square of the overlap integral
383: %
384: \begin{equation}
385: B(E{\cal{L}}) \sim \left| \int u_{L_f}(r) \, r^{\cal{L}} \, u_{L_i}(r)
386: \, dr \right|^2
387: \label{eq:BE}
388: \end{equation}
389: %
390: The full formalism for the calculation of $B(E{\cal{L}})$ values can
391: be found e.g.\ in \cite{Hoy94,Buck94,Buck77}. The present study will
392: be restricted to quadrupole transitions with ${\cal{L}} = 2$. One
393: expects enhanced transition strengths of the order of several
394: Weisskopf units (W.u.) for the intraband transitions within a
395: rotational band. The present study extends earlier work which has
396: focused on transitions in $^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr $\otimes$ \al\
397: \cite{Mic98,Ohk95,Buck95}.
398:
399: As an example, Fig.~\ref{fig:BE} shows the wave functions
400: $u_{L=0}(r)$, $u_{L=2}(r)$, and the integrand of the overlap integral
401: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) for the transition from the $2^+$ state at $E_x =
402: 833$\,keV to the $0^+$ ground state in $^{96}$Ru. The dominating
403: contribution of the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) is located at the
404: nuclear surface around $6 - 8$\,fm.
405: %
406: \begin{figure}[htb]
407: \includegraphics[ bb = 40 65 480 465, width = 80 mm, clip]{ru96be.ps}
408: %\includegraphics[ bb = 40 65 480 465, width = 110 mm, clip]{ru96be.ps}
409: \caption{
410: \label{fig:BE}
411: Wave functions $u_{L=0}(r)$ and $u_{L=2}(r)$ (lower part), and the
412: integrand of the overlap integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) (upper part)
413: for the transition from the $2^+$ state at $E_x = 833$\,keV to the
414: $0^+$ ground state in $^{96}$Ru.
415: }
416: \end{figure}
417:
418: It is interesting to note that the calculated transition strengths
419: $B(E{\cal{L}})$ show only a weak dependence on the excitation energy
420: $E_x$ wich is discussed now for the shown example of the $2^+
421: \rightarrow 0^+$ transition in $^{96}$Ru. In a first calculation
422: $B(E{\cal{L}})$ is calculated using $\lambda = 1.1965$ (adjusted to
423: the binding energy of the ground state). This leads to $E_x(2^+) =
424: 31$\,keV (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exc}) instead of the experimental
425: $E_x = 833$\,keV. In a second calculation the wave function of the
426: $2^+$ state is calculated using a slightly changed potential strength
427: $\lambda = 1.1852$ (adjusted to fit the excitation energy of the $2^+$
428: state). The resulting $B(E{\cal{L}})$ value changes only by about
429: 2\,\% between these two calculations which can be explained by
430: Figs.~\ref{fig:wave} and \ref{fig:BE}. The dominating contribution of
431: the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) comes from the nuclear interior and
432: surface. However, a change in the excitation energy mainly leads to a
433: change in the asymptotic behavior of the wave function, i.e.\ a
434: different slope of the wave function in the exterior region. Although
435: the dependence of the $B(E{\cal{L}})$ values on the excitation energy
436: is relatively small, all $B(E{\cal{L}})$ values are calculated from
437: wave functions with correct asymptotic bahavior, i.e.\ the potential
438: strength has been readjusted to fit the respective excitation energy
439: $E_x$, see Sect.\ \ref{sec:results} and Fig.~\ref{fig:laml}.
440:
441:
442:
443: \section{\label{sec:results}Results}
444: %
445: It is one aim of the present investigation to study the behavior of
446: the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ of the folding potential
447: for a broad range of $N = 50$ nuclei. As will be shown, the parameter
448: $\lambda$ shows a very systematic and regular behavior. This can be
449: used to predict up-to-now unknown properties like e.g. \al -decay
450: energies or excitation energies \cite{Mohr07}. Alternatively,
451: clear deviations from the systematic behavior of the potential strength
452: parameter $\lambda$ may be interpreted as indications for shell
453: closures \cite{Mohr06}.
454:
455: The variation of the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ and the
456: resulting volume integral $J_R$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lamz} for
457: $N=50$ nuclei from $^{78}$Ni up to $^{100}$Sn. The strength parameter
458: $\lambda$ has been adjusted to reproduce the binding energies of the
459: nuclei from $^{82}$Zn = $^{78}$Ni $\otimes$ \al\ to $^{104}$Te =
460: $^{100}$Sn $\otimes$ \al\ which are taken from \cite{ENSDF,Wap03}.
461: It is obvious from Fig.~\ref{fig:lamz}
462: that both diagrams look very similar. Thus, in the following
463: presentation of the results only the systematics of the strength
464: parameter $\lambda$ is discussed. A similar systematics is obtained
465: for the volume integrals $J_R$. Note that minor differences for the
466: potential strength parameter $\lambda$ for $^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr
467: $\otimes$ \al\ between this study and earlier work in
468: \cite{Mic98,Ohk95} are the consequence of the global parametrization
469: for the nuclear density used in this study.
470: %
471: \begin{figure}[htb]
472: \includegraphics[ bb = 50 65 470 410, width = 80 mm, clip]{n50lamz.ps}
473: %\includegraphics[ bb = 50 65 470 410, width = 110 mm, clip]{n50lamz.ps}
474: \caption{
475: \label{fig:lamz}
476: Potential strength parameter $\lambda$ (upper part) and volume
477: integrals $J_R$ (lower part) for nuclei ($A$+4,$N$=52) =
478: ($A$,$N$=50) $\otimes$ \al\ in dependence of the proton number
479: $Z$. Data for $Z = 50$ are taken from the extrapolation in
480: \cite{Mohr07}. Further discussion see text.
481: }
482: \end{figure}
483:
484: The variation of $\lambda$ in dependence of the proton number $Z$ in
485: Fig.~\ref{fig:lamz} is very smooth except around $Z=40$ and
486: $Z=50$. Both discontinuities are related to shell closures. Changes of
487: the volume integral $J_R$ by more than about 10\,MeV\,fm$^3$
488: (corresponding to changes in $\lambda$ by more than about 0.035) are
489: typical for the crossing of a shell closure \cite{Mohr06}. Usually,
490: the crossing of a shell closure should be combined with a change of
491: the oscillator quanta $Q$. However, the situation around the magic
492: number $Z = N = 50$ is complicated by the fact that the $g_{9/2}$
493: subshell ($q = 4$) is located at relatively low energies close to the
494: $p$ and $f$ subshells with $q = 3$.
495:
496: From $Z = 48$ to $Z=50$ the oscillator quanta $Q$ in the model do not
497: change. However, the strength parameter $\lambda$ changes by about
498: 0.07 which reflects the strong $Z = 50$ shell closure at
499: $^{100}$Sn. (The potential parameters for $^{100}$Sn have been derived
500: from the systematics of various tin isotopes \cite{Mohr07}.) Such
501: changes in the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ may be used to
502: assign unknown magic numbers, e.g.\ for superheavy nuclei \cite{Mohr06}.
503:
504: The discontinuity at the subshell closure at $Z = 40$ between the $f$
505: and $p$ subshells and the proton $g_{9/2}$ subshell turns out to be an
506: artefact. Below $Z=40$, the wave functions have been calculated with
507: $Q = 14$, i.e.\ seven nodes for the $L=0$ ground state wave
508: function. Above $Z = 40$, the node number has been increased by one to
509: eight nodes ($Q = 16$). Obviously, the potential strength has to be
510: increased significantly to obtain a wave function with an additional
511: node at similar energies. As will be shown in the next paragraph, the
512: change in the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ is a pure
513: consequence of the changing oscillator quantum number $Q$ of the
514: model.
515:
516: A simple estimate of the strength of the subshell closure at $Z = 40$
517: can be obtained as follows. If there is a strong shell closure, a
518: discontinuity in $\lambda$ should also be observed when passing the
519: shell closure without changing the node number (as in the case around
520: $Z = 50$ discussed above). For this purpose the open symbols in
521: Fig.~\ref{fig:lamz} have been calculated at $Z = 38$ ($^{92}$Zr =
522: $^{88}$Sr $\otimes$ \al ) with $Q = 16$ (instead of $Q = 14$) and at
523: $Z = 40$ ($^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr $\otimes$ \al ) with $Q = 14$ (instead
524: of $Q = 16$). From the comparison with neighboring nuclei it is
525: evident that there is no strong shell closure at $Z = 40$ because the
526: variation of $\lambda$ is very smooth. The physical properties of \al
527: -cluster states are thus not affected by the subshell
528: closure at $Z = 40$.
529:
530: For the example of $^{96}$Ru = $^{92}$Mo $\otimes$ \al\ it has already
531: been shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exc} that the folding potential is able to
532: generate a rotational band. But the calculated excitation energies are
533: lower than the experimental energies. A small readjustment of the
534: potential strength parameter $\lambda$ for each state
535: of the ground state rotational band is required to
536: obtain the correct excitation energies. This readjustment procedure
537: has been done for all nuclei under study. The result is shown in
538: Fig.~\ref{fig:laml}.
539: %
540: \begin{figure}[htb]
541: \includegraphics[ bb = 70 65 470 380, width = 80 mm, clip]{n50laml.ps}
542: %\includegraphics[ bb = 70 65 470 380, width = 110 mm, clip]{n50laml.ps}
543: \caption{
544: \label{fig:laml}
545: Potential strength parameter $\lambda$ as a function of angular
546: momentum $L$ for the ground state rotational bands in ($N$=50)
547: $\otimes$ \al\ nuclei. For all nuclei $\lambda$ is slightly
548: decreasing with increasing $L$.
549: }
550: \end{figure}
551:
552: For all nuclei under study the same behavior is found. The potential
553: strength has to be reduced by less than 1\,\% for neighboring levels
554: of the rotational band (e.g., between $0^+$ and $2^+$ states or
555: between $6^+$ and $8^+$ states). The total change of the strength
556: parameter $\lambda$ within a rotational band, i.e.\ the change between
557: the $0^+$ ground state and the $14^+$ or $16^+$ state is about 5\,\%
558: in all nuclei under study.
559:
560: It has been suggested in \cite{Mic98,Ohk95} to parametrize the
561: variation in the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ by
562: %
563: \begin{equation}
564: \lambda(L) = \lambda(L=0) - c \times L
565: \label{eq:lampar}
566: \end{equation}
567: %
568: where the $\lambda(L=0)$ values are the required strength parameters
569: for the ground state binding energies (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lamz}). As
570: already pointed out above,
571: the variations in $\lambda$ are very small. Thus the parameter $c$
572: is extremely small, and variations in $c$ are hardly visible in
573: Fig.~\ref{fig:laml}. Therefore in Fig.~\ref{fig:lamc} the
574: parameter $c$ is shown separately; it is extracted from all data in
575: Fig.~\ref{fig:laml}. The potential variation parameter $c$ is almost
576: constant for all nuclei and all angular momenta. There is a weak
577: tendency of smaller $c$ values for states with higher angular momenta
578: at higher excitation energies.
579: %
580: \begin{figure}[htb]
581: \includegraphics[ bb = 55 65 470 380, width = 80 mm, clip]{n50lamc.ps}
582: %\includegraphics[ bb = 55 65 470 380, width = 110 mm, clip]{n50lamc.ps}
583: \caption{
584: \label{fig:lamc}
585: Variation of the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ according to
586: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lampar}): the parameter $c$ is extracted from the
587: previous Fig.~\ref{fig:laml}. By definition, $c = 0$ for $L = 0$
588: (not shown).
589: }
590: \end{figure}
591:
592: For the first excited $2^+$ state the parameter $c(L=2)$ takes values
593: between about 0.005 and 0.007. This result is illustrated in
594: Fig.~\ref{fig:cz} where $c(L=2)$ is plotted against the proton number
595: $Z$. An average value of $c(L=2) = 0.0057 \pm 0.0007$ is found for the
596: nuclei between $Z = 32$ and $Z = 46$. An exceptionally large value of
597: $c = 0.0102$ is found for $Z = 48$, i.e., for the first $2^+$ state in
598: $^{102}$Sn = $^{98}$Cd $\otimes$ \al . Again, such an exceptional
599: behavior is a signature of a shell closure. The first excited state of
600: the semi-magic $Z_C = 50$ nucleus $^{102}$Sn is located at a relatively high
601: excitation energy of $E_x = 1472$\,keV \cite{ENSDF}. As a consequence,
602: a relatively small potential strength parameter $\lambda$ and a
603: relatively strong variation parameter $c(L=2)$ are required for the
604: correct description of the excitation energy of this $2^+$
605: state. Interestingly, the excitation energy of the $4^+$ state in
606: $^{102}$Sn can be calculated using a much smaller and almost regular
607: value for $c(L=4)= 0.0066$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lamc}).
608: %
609: \begin{figure}[htb]
610: \includegraphics[ bb = 45 65 470 265, width = 80 mm, clip]{n50lamcz.ps}
611: %\includegraphics[ bb = 45 65 470 265, width = 110 mm, clip]{n50lamcz.ps}
612: \caption{
613: \label{fig:cz}
614: The parameter $c(L=2)$ is shown as a function of $Z$. An average
615: value of $c = 0.0057 \pm 0.0007$ (indicated by the shaded area) is
616: found with the exception of $c = 0.0102$ for $Z = 48$ which results
617: from the $Z_C = 50$ shell closure (see text).
618: }
619: \end{figure}
620:
621: Experimental data for transition strengths are available for nuclei
622: close to stability whereas almost no transition strengths have been
623: measured for nuclei far from the valley of stability. In Table
624: \ref{tab:BE} the experimentally available transition strength data
625: \cite{ENSDF} are compared to the calculated values in the \al -cluster
626: model. Additionally, $B(E2)$ values for $2^+ \rightarrow 0^+$
627: transitions from the first excited $2^+$ state to the $0^+$ ground
628: state are listed for all nuclei under study.
629: The results in Table \ref{tab:BE} have been calculated without
630: effective charge. In general, the theoretical results deviate by less
631: than a factor of two from the experimental values.
632: %
633: \begin{table}
634: \caption{\label{tab:BE} Experimental \cite{ENSDF} and calculated
635: transition strengths $B(E{\cal{L}})$ for \al -cluster states above
636: $N=50$ nuclei. All transition strengths are given in Weisskopf
637: units. The result for $^{104}$Te has been taken from \cite{Mohr07}.
638: }
639: %
640: \begin{center}
641: \begin{tabular}{c@{\,=\,}c@{\,$\otimes$ \al\ ~ }cc@{$\rightarrow$}ccc}
642: \multicolumn{3}{c}{nucleus}
643: & $L_i$
644: & $L_f$
645: & ~$B(E2)_{\rm{calc}}$~
646: & $B(E2)_{\rm{exp}}$~ \\
647: %
648: \hline
649: %
650: $^{82}$Zn & $^{78}$Ni & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 7.1 & $-$ \\
651: $^{84}$Ge & $^{80}$Zn & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 7.3 & $-$ \\
652: $^{86}$Se & $^{82}$Ge & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 7.4 & $-$ \\
653: $^{88}$Kr & $^{84}$Se & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 7.4 & $-$ \\
654: $^{90}$Sr & $^{86}$Kr & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 7.4 & 8.4(24) \\
655: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $4^+$ & $2^+$ & 10.2 & 5.1(9) \\
656: $^{92}$Zr & $^{88}$Sr & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 7.8 & 6.4(6) \\
657: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $4^+$ & $2^+$ & 10.6 & 4.04(12) \\
658: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $8^+$ & $6^+$ & 9.1 & 3.59(22) \\
659: $^{94}$Mo & $^{90}$Zr & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 8.9 & 16.0(4) \\
660: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $4^+$ & $2^+$ & 12.4 & 26(4) \\
661: $^{96}$Ru & $^{92}$Mo & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 8.7 & 18.0(6) \\
662: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $4^+$ & $2^+$ & 12.1 & 21(3) \\
663: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $6^+$ & $4^+$ & 12.1 & 12(8) \\
664: $^{98}$Pd & $^{94}$Ru & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 8.6 & $-$ \\
665: $^{100}$Cd & $^{96}$Pd & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 8.5 & $-$ \\
666: \multicolumn{3}{c}{~} & $8^+$ & $6^+$ & 10.5 & 0.0166(11) \\
667: $^{102}$Sn & $^{98}$Cd & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 8.5 & $-$ \\
668: $^{104}$Te & $^{100}$Sn & & $2^+$ & $0^+$ & 10.1 & $-$ \\
669: %
670: \end{tabular}
671: %
672: \end{center}
673: \end{table}
674:
675:
676:
677:
678: \section{\label{sec:disc}Discussion}
679: %
680: A very smooth variation of the potential strength parameter $\lambda$
681: and the variation parameter $c$ has been found for all nuclei under
682: study (see Figs.~\ref{fig:lamz} -- \ref{fig:cz}). This smooth behavior
683: can be used to predict up-to-now unknown properties. As an example, I
684: calculate the excitation energies of the first excited $2^+$ states of
685: $^{82}$Zn = $^{78}$Ni $\otimes$ \al\ and $^{84}$Ge = $^{80}$Zn
686: $\otimes$ \al . Properties of $^{104}$Te = $^{100}$Sn $\otimes$ \al\
687: have already been calculated in \cite{Mohr07}.
688:
689: From the average value of $c = 0.0057$ for the $L = 2$ states one
690: finds $\lambda(L=2) = 1.0922$ for the first $2^+$ state in
691: $^{84}$Ge. The corresponding energy is $E_x = 877$\,keV. The
692: uncertainty of the potential variation parameter $c(L=2)$ translates
693: to an uncertainty of about 100\,keV for the excitation energy of the
694: $2^+$ state in $^{84}$Ge. A similar calculation for the first $2^+$
695: state in $^{82}$Zn leads to an excitation energy of $E_x = 880$\,keV,
696: again with an uncertainty of abot 100\,keV.
697:
698: The excitation energy of the first excited $2^+$ state in $^{104}$Te
699: was estimated in \cite{Mohr07} as $E_x \approx 650$\,keV using values
700: of $c \approx 0.003 - 0.005$ from very few neighboring nuclei below
701: and above $^{104}$Te = $^{100}$Sn $\otimes$ \al . Using $c = 0.0057$
702: from this study of lighter $N=50$ nuclei, the revised excitation energy
703: is slightly higher: $E_x = 807$\,keV.
704:
705: Besides the ground state band, odd-parity and higher-nodal bands have
706: been identified in lighter nuclei, e.g.\ $^{20}$Ne = $^{16}$O
707: $\otimes$ \al\ and $^{44}$Ti = $^{40}$Ca $\otimes$ \al\ (as reviewed
708: in \cite{Mic98}). The most successful experimental method has been \al
709: -transfer in the \rlid\ reaction \cite{Yam98}. Unfortunately, no
710: experimental \rlid\ data can be found for the nuclei under study in
711: \cite{ENSDF}. Such experiments are difficult because of the relatively
712: high Coulomb barrier for intermediate mass nuclei which leads to small
713: reaction cross sections and because of the increasing level density.
714: Furthermore, experimental studies using the
715: \rlid\ reaction are almost impossible for unstable $N = 50$
716: nuclei. Higher-nodal bands have also not been identified in an \al
717: -transfer experiment using the
718: $^{90}$Zr($^{16}$O,$^{12}$C$\gamma$)$^{94}$Mo reaction
719: \cite{Bohn72}.
720:
721: As an example for higher-nodal bands, I calculate the excitation
722: energies of the band heads of the $Q = 17$ and $Q = 18$ bands in
723: $^{96}$Ru = $^{92}$Mo $\otimes$ \al\ and $^{94}$Mo = $^{90}$Zr
724: $\otimes$ \al . Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:lampar}), one finds $E_x \approx
725: 7$\,MeV for the $1^-$, $Q = 17$ band heads and $E_x \approx 11$\,MeV
726: for the $0^+$, $Q = 18$ band heads in both nuclei. This finding is in
727: reasonable agreement with earlier estimates for $^{94}$Mo
728: \cite{Mic98,Mic00,Ohk95}.
729:
730: In principle, the calculation of transition strengths from
731: Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) is straightforward. However, as can be seen from
732: Fig.~\ref{fig:BE}, the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) consists of the
733: product of two oscillating wave functions. Thus, the integrand also
734: oscillates, and the integral depends sensitively on the zeroes of the
735: wave functions, i.e.\ the radial location of the nodes. This is
736: particularly the case for wave functions with few nodes where positive
737: and negative regions of the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{eq:BE}) may cancel
738: each other. For $E2$, $2^+ \rightarrow 0^+$ transitions the dominating
739: contribution comes from the nuclear surface (see Fig.~\ref{fig:BE}),
740: and the calculated $B(E2)$ value is not extremely sensitive to the
741: nodes of the wave functions and does not depend very sensitively on
742: the underlying potential.
743:
744: In general, the calculated $B(E2)$ values do not deviate by more than
745: a factor of two from the experimental values (see Table
746: \ref{tab:BE}). This must be considered as a quite satisfactory result
747: because the nuclear structure of $A \approx 80-100$ nuclei is much
748: more complex than the simple \al -cluster description. On the other
749: hand, the reasonable agreement between calculated and experimental
750: $B(E2)$ values confirms that \al -clustering is still an important
751: feature for intermediate mass nuclei which has already been pointed
752: out earlier (e.g.\ \cite{Mic98,Ohk95,Buck95}).
753:
754: There is one striking deviation between calculated and experimental
755: $B(E2)$ values in Table \ref{tab:BE}: the strength of the $E2$
756: transition from the $8^+$ isomer at $E_x = 2548$\,keV to the $6^+$
757: state at $E_x = 2095$\,keV in $^{100}$Cd is overestimated by a factor
758: of more than 500. It is a very special feature of the $^{100}$Cd
759: nucleus that two $4^+$ levels, two $6^+$ levels, and two $8^+$ levels
760: are located very close to each other: $E_x(4^+) = 1799$\,keV and
761: 2046\,keV, $E_x(6^+) = 2095$\,keV and 2458\,keV, $E_x(8^+) =
762: 2548$\,keV and 3200\,keV \cite{ENSDF}. The assignment of each lower
763: state to the ground state band in \cite{ENSDF} seems to be at least
764: questionable because of the extremely low transition strength from the
765: $8^+$ isomer to the $6^+$ state at $E_x = 2095$\,keV. A larger
766: strength of $B(E2) = 1.8(8)$\,W.u.\ has been found for the transition
767: from the $8^+$ isomer to the $6^+$ state at $E_x =
768: 2458$\,keV. Unfortunately, no transition strength is known for the
769: decay of the second $8^+$ state at $E_x = 3200$\,keV which decays only
770: to the lower $6^+$ state at $E_x = 2095$\,keV. Summarizing the above,
771: a clear band assignment is not possible for $^{100}$Cd. Also mixing
772: may occur between states with the same quantum number $J^\pi$. Further
773: evidence for inconsistencies in the band assignment and/or mixing can
774: be read from Fig.~\ref{fig:lamc}. Here one finds relatively large $c$
775: values for $L=2$ and $L=4$; contrary, the $c$ values for $L=6$ and
776: $L=8$ are relatively small.
777:
778: The present study is restricted to semi-magic $N=50$ even-even
779: nuclei. An extension to semi-magic $N=50$ even-odd nuclei is
780: complicated by the additional spin $I$ of the even-odd $N=50$ core which
781: couples to the angular momentum $L$ of the \al -particle and leads to
782: multiplets of \al -cluster states. A first attempt for $^{93}$Nb =
783: $^{89}$Y $\otimes$ \al\ has been made together with a study of the
784: $^{89}$Y\raa $^{89}$Y scattering cross section \cite{Kiss08}. Here I
785: briefly summarize the results of \cite{Kiss08}. $^{89}$Y
786: has $I^\pi = 1/2^-$ corresponding to neighboring $^{90}$Zr with a
787: proton hole in the $p_{1/2}$ subshell. \al -cluster states with $L =
788: 0$, $J^\pi = 1/2^-$ and $L = 2$, $J^\pi = 3/2^-$, $5/2^-$ have been
789: clearly identified in $^{93}$Nb. The systematics of the potential
790: parameters strengthens a reassignment of $J^\pi$ of the state at $E_x
791: = 1500$\,keV in $^{93}$Nb. Whereas $J^\pi = 7/2$ is found in
792: \cite{ENSDF}, a recent experiment \cite{Orce07} has found strong
793: evidence for $J^\pi = 9/2^-$ and measured a transition strength of
794: $26.4^{+9.7}_{-6.2}$\,W.u.\ for the transition to the $L = 2$, $J^\pi
795: = 5/2^-$ \al -cluster state at $E_x = 810$\,keV. These experimental
796: data \cite{Orce07} confirm that the state at $E_x = 1500$\,keV is the
797: $L = 4$, $J^\pi = 9/2^-$ \al -cluster state in $^{93}$Nb = $^{89}$Y
798: $\otimes$ \al .
799:
800: The folding potential has been calculated throughout this work using a
801: simplistic scaling of the radius parameter of the density of the core
802: nucleus with $r \sim A^{1/3}$. This global parametrization for the density
803: has been applied successfully in a broad mass range
804: \cite{Mohr06,Mohr07}. The obtained results do not depend sensitvely on
805: the chosen radius parameter. For a study of this sensitivity, I have
806: increased the radius parameter of the density of $^{92}$Mo strongly by
807: 10\,\%. Because the other ingredients of the folding procedure, i.e.\
808: the \al -particle density and the interaction, remain unaffected, the
809: root-mean-square radius of the potential changes by only about
810: 5\,\%. Although the absolute values of the potential strength change
811: (standard potential: $\lambda = 1.1965$ and $1.1852$ for the $0^+$ and
812: $2^+$ states in $^{96}$Ru; increased radius potential: $\lambda =
813: 1.2296$ and $1.2162$), the variation $c$ of the potential strength in
814: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lampar}) remains very small and changes from 0.0057 to
815: 0.0067 (see also Figs.~\ref{fig:lamc} and \ref{fig:cz}). The
816: calculated $B(E{\cal{L}})$ value for the $2^+ \rightarrow 0^+$
817: transition in $^{96}$Ru increases by about 20\,\% using the potential
818: with the larger radius. These relatively small changes of the results
819: indicate that the simplistic scaling of the radius parameter in the
820: density parametrization can be used for extrapolations to unstable
821: nuclei with reasonable accuracy.
822:
823:
824: \section{\label{sec:conc}Conclusions}
825: %
826: The \al -cluster model has been applied successfully to intermediate
827: mass nuclei above the $N=50$ shell closure between $^{82}$Zn =
828: $^{78}$Ni $\otimes$ \al\ and $^{104}$Te = $^{100}$Sn $\otimes$ \al .
829: The underlying double-folding potentials show a systematic and very
830: smooth variation which has been studied in detail. This behavior
831: allows extrapolations with relatively small uncertainties.
832:
833: The present study is restricted to even-even nuclei. It may be
834: extended to even-odd nuclei although additional complications will
835: arise from the spin of the even-odd $N=50$ core which leads to
836: multiplets of \al -cluster states for each angular momentum $L > 0$.
837:
838: Transition strengths for $E2$ transitions have been calculated and are
839: in rough agreement with experimental results. A significant deviation
840: for $^{100}$Cd may be the result of an inconsistent band assignment in
841: \cite{ENSDF} and/or mixing.
842:
843: The results of the present study confirm that \al -clustering is an important
844: feature in intermediate mass nuclei. Experimental data from \al\
845: transfer reactions, in particular \rlid\ data, are urgently needed to
846: verify the theoretical predictions and to identify higher-nodal bands
847: in intermediate mass nuclei.
848:
849:
850: %\begin{acknowledgments}
851: %
852: %I thank G.\ Staudt for encouraging discussions.
853: %
854: %\end{acknowledgments}
855:
856:
857: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
858: %
859: \bibitem{ENSDF}
860: Evaluated and Compiled Nuclear Structure Data ENSDF,
861: {\it{http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf}}.
862: %
863: \bibitem{Til92}
864: J.\ H.\ Kelley, D.\ R.\ Tilley, H.\ R.\ Weller, G.\ M.\ Hale,
865: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A541}, 1 (1992).
866: %
867: \bibitem{Ohk98}
868: S.\ Ohkubo, M.\ Fujiwara, P.\ E.\ Hodgson,
869: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 1 (1998).
870: %
871: \bibitem{Mic98}
872: F.\ Michel, S.\ Ohkubo, G.\ Reidemeister,
873: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 7 (1998).
874: %
875: \bibitem{Yam98}
876: T.\ Yamaya, K.\ Katori, M.\ Fujiwara, S.\ Kato, S.\ Ohkubo,
877: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 73 (1998).
878: %
879: \bibitem{Sak98}
880: T.\ Sakuda and S.\ Ohkubo,
881: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 103 (1998).
882: %
883: \bibitem{Ueg98}
884: E.\ Uegaki,
885: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 135 (1998).
886: %
887: \bibitem{Has98}
888: M.\ Hasegawa,
889: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 177 (1998).
890: %
891: \bibitem{Koh98}
892: S.\ Koh,
893: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 197 (1998).
894: %
895: \bibitem{Toh98}
896: A.\ Tohsaki,
897: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 132}, 213 (1998).
898: %
899: \bibitem{Mohr94}
900: P.~Mohr, H.~Abele, V.~K\"olle, G.~Staudt, H.~Oberhummer, H.~Krauss,
901: Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 349}, {339} {(1994)}.
902: %
903: \bibitem{Ohk95}
904: S.\ Ohkubo,
905: \prl {\bf 74}, 2176 (1995).
906: %
907: \bibitem{Buck95}
908: B.\ Buck, A.\ C.\ Merchant, and S.\ M.\ Perez,
909: \prc {\bf 51}, 559 (1995).
910: %
911: \bibitem{Kiss08}
912: G.\ G.\ Kiss, P.\ Mohr {\it et al.},
913: to be published.
914: %
915: \bibitem{Atz96}
916: U.\ Atzrott, P.\ Mohr, H.\ Abele, C.\ Hillenmayer, and
917: G.\ Staudt,
918: \prc {\bf 53}, 1336 (1996).
919: %
920: \bibitem{Mohr97}
921: P.\ Mohr, T.\ Rauscher, H.\ Oberhummer, Z.\ M\'at\'e, Zs.\ F\"ul\"op,
922: E.\ Somorjai, M.\ Jaeger, and G.\ Staudt,
923: \prc {\bf 55}, 1523 (1997).
924: %
925: \bibitem{Ful01}
926: Zs.~F\"ul\"op, Gy.\ Gy\"urky, Z.~M\'at\'e, E.~Somorjai,
927: L.~Zolnai, D.~Galaviz, M.~Babilon, P.~Mohr, A.~Zilges,
928: T.~Rauscher, H.~Oberhummer, and G.~Staudt,
929: \prc {\bf64}, {065805} {(2001)}.
930: %
931: \bibitem{Gal05}
932: D.\ Galaviz, Zs.\ F\"ul\"op, Gy.\ Gy\"urky, Z.\ M\'at\'e, P.\ Mohr,
933: T.\ Rauscher, E.\ Somorjai, and A.\ Zilges,
934: \prc {\bf 71}, {065802} {(2005)}.
935: %
936: \bibitem{Kiss06}
937: G.\ G.\ Kiss, Gy.\ Gy\"urky, Zs.\ F\"ul\"op, Z.~M\'at\'e,
938: E.\ Somorjai, D.\ Galaviz, A.\ Kretschmer, K.\ Sonnabend, A.\ Zilges,
939: Europ.\ Phys. J.\ A {\bf 27}, s01, 197 (2006).
940: %
941: \bibitem{Kiss07}
942: G.\ G.\ Kiss, Gy.\ Gy\"urky, Zs.\ F\"ul\"op, E.\ Somorjai, D.\ Galaviz,
943: A.\ Kretschmer, K.\ Sonnabend, A.\ Zilges, P.\ Mohr, M.\ Avrigeanu,
944: J.\ Phys. G, in press.
945: %
946: \bibitem{Dem02}
947: P.\ Demetriou, C. Grama, and S.\ Goriely,
948: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A707}, 253 (2002).
949: %
950: \bibitem{Gyu06}
951: Gy.\ Gy\"urky, G.\ G.\ Kiss, Z.\ Elekes, Zs.\ F\"ul\"op, E.\ Somorjai,
952: A.\ Palumbo, J.\ G\"orres, H.\ Y.\ Lee, W.\ Rapp, M.\ Wiescher, N.\
953: \"Ozkan, R.\ T.\ G\"uray, G.\ Efe, T.\ Rauscher,
954: \prc {\bf 74}, 025805 (2006).
955: %
956: \bibitem{Som98}
957: %E.\ Somorjai {\it et al.},
958: E.\ Somorjai, Zs.\ F\"ul\"op, A.\ Z.\ Kiss, C.\ E.\ Rolfs, H.-P.\
959: Trautvetter, U.\ Greife, M.\ Junker, S.\ Goriely, M.\ Arnould, M.\
960: Rayet, T.\ Rauscher, H.\ Oberhummer,
961: Astron. Astroph. {\bf 333} (1998) {1112}.
962: %
963: \bibitem{Spy07}
964: A.\ Spyrou, H.-W.\ Becker, A.\ Lagoyannis, S.\ Harissopulos, C.\ Rolfs,
965: \prc {\bf 76}, 015802 (2007).
966: %
967: \bibitem{Mohr06}
968: P.\ Mohr,
969: \prc {\bf 73}, {031301(R)} {(2006)};
970: Err.: \prc {\bf 74}, {069902(E)} {(2006)}.
971: %
972: \bibitem{Zha07}
973: H.\ F.\ Zhang and G.\ Royer,
974: \prc {\bf 76}, 047304 (2007).
975: %
976: \bibitem{Sam07}
977: C.\ Samantha and P.\ R.\ Chowdhury,
978: Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf 789}, 142 (2007).
979: %
980: \bibitem{Xu07}
981: C.\ Xu and Z.\ Ren,
982: \prc {\bf 76}, 027303 (2007).
983: %
984: \bibitem{Xu05}
985: C.\ Xu and Z.\ Ren,
986: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 753}, 174 (2005).
987: %
988: \bibitem{Cho05}
989: P.-R.\ Chowdhury, C.\ Samanta, and D.\ N.\ Basu,
990: \prc {\bf 73}, 014612 (2006).
991: %
992: \bibitem{Den05}
993: V.\ Yu.\ Denisov and H.\ Ikezoe,
994: \prc {\bf 72}, 064613 (2005).
995: %
996: \bibitem{Mohr00}
997: P.\ Mohr,
998: \prc {\bf 61}, 045802 (2000).
999: %
1000: \bibitem{Fuj02}
1001: M.\ Fujiwara, T.\ Kawabata, and P.\ Mohr,
1002: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28}, 643 (2002).
1003: %
1004: \bibitem{Xu05b}
1005: C.\ Xu and Z.\ Ren,
1006: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A760}, 303 (2005).
1007: %
1008: \bibitem{Xu06}
1009: C.\ Xu and Z.\ Ren,
1010: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 74}, 037302 (2006).
1011: %
1012: \bibitem{Mohr07}
1013: P.\ Mohr,
1014: Europ.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 31}, 23 (2007).
1015: %
1016: \bibitem{Avr06}
1017: M.\ Avrigeanu and V.\ Avrigeanu,
1018: \prc {\bf 73}, 038801 (2006).
1019: %
1020: \bibitem{Avr06b}
1021: M.\ Avrigeanu, W.\ von Oertzen and V.\ Avrigeanu,
1022: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A764}, 246 (2006).
1023: %
1024: \bibitem{Avr03}
1025: M.\ Avrigeanu, W.\ von Oertzen, A.\ J.\ M.\ Plompen, and V.\
1026: Avrigeanu,
1027: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A723}, 104 (2003).
1028: %
1029: \bibitem{Buck93}
1030: B.\ Buck, A.\ C.\ Merchant, and S.\ M.\ Perez,
1031: At.\ Data Nucl.\ Data Tab.\ {\bf 54}, 53 (1993).
1032: %
1033: \bibitem{Vri87}
1034: H.\ de Vries, C.\ W.\ de Jager, and C.\ de Vries,
1035: At.\ Data Nucl.\ Data Tables {\bf 36}, 495 (1987).
1036: %
1037: \bibitem {Sat79}
1038: G.\ R.\ Satchler and W.\ G.\ Love,
1039: Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 55}, 183 (1979).
1040: %
1041: \bibitem{Kob84}
1042: A.\ M.\ Kobos, B.\ A.\ Brown, R.\ Lindsay, and
1043: R.\ Satchler,
1044: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A425}, 205 (1984).
1045: %
1046: \bibitem {Abe93}
1047: H.\ Abele and G.\ Staudt,
1048: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 47}, 742 (1993).
1049: %
1050: \bibitem{Hoy94}
1051: F.\ Hoyler, P.\ Mohr, and G.\ Staudt,
1052: \prc {\bf 50}, 2631 (1994).
1053: %
1054: \bibitem{Buck94}
1055: B.\ Buck, A.\ C.\ Merchant, S.\ M.\ Perez,
1056: \prl {\bf 72}, 1326 (1994).
1057: %
1058: \bibitem{Buck77}
1059: B.\ Buck and A.\ A.\ Pilt,
1060: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A280}, 133 (1977).
1061: %
1062: \bibitem{Wap03}
1063: A.\ H.\ Wapstra, G.\ Audi, and C.\ Thibault,
1064: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A729}, 129 (2003).
1065: %
1066: \bibitem{Bohn72}
1067: H.\ Bohn, G.\ Daniel, M.\ R.\ Maier, P.\ Kienle,
1068: J.\ G.\ Cramer, D.\ Proetel,
1069: \prl {\bf 29}, 1337 (1972).
1070: %
1071: \bibitem{Mic00}
1072: F.\ Michel, G.\ Reidemeister, S.\ Ohkubo,
1073: \prc {\bf 61}, 041601 (2000).
1074: %
1075: \bibitem{Orce07}
1076: J.\ N.\ Orce, C.\ Fransen, A.\ Linnemann, C.\ J.\ McKay, S.\ R.\
1077: Lesher, N.\ Pietralla, V.\ Werner, G.\ Friessner, C.\ Kohstall, D.\
1078: M\"ucher, H.\ H.\ Pitz, M.\ Scheck, C.\ Scholl, F.\ Stedile, N.\
1079: Warr, S.\ Walter, P.\ von Brentano, U.\ Kneissl, M.\ T.\
1080: McEllistrem, S.\ W.\ Yates,
1081: \prc {\bf 75}, 014303 (2007).
1082: %
1083: \end{thebibliography}
1084:
1085:
1086: \end{document}
1087: