1:
2:
3:
4: \documentclass{article}
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{On the Structure of Low Lying $0^{+}$ Excited
7: States of Pt
8: isotopes.}
9: \author{Vladimir P. Garistov \\
10: %EndAName
11: {\small Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy,}\\
12: {\small Sofia, Bulgaria.}\\
13: }
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: The description of the of nuclei energy spectra of 0$^{+}$
18: states has been
19: done involving the degree of their collectivity as a
20: systematics parameter.
21: Within the framework of this approach the parameter of the
22: collectivity is
23: mainly determined by pairs of particles placed on single
24: ''effective'' level
25: and coupled to monopole bosons. Holshtein-Primakoff
26: transformation of these
27: monopole bosons leads to clear physical explanation of the
28: structure of $%
29: 0^{+}$ states in terms of ''ideal bosons''.
30:
31: The results may be helpful both for experimentalists and
32: theorists in their
33: investigations of low-lying states structure and transition
34: probabilities.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: The great amount of experimental data for energy spectra
38: and
39: transition probabilities \ evokes the necessity of simplified
40: description that can be easily used by experimentalists for
41: explaining the collective properties of states and their
42: systematics. There are many investigations dedicated to the
43: $E0$
44: and $E2$ transition probabilities and analyzing the 0$^{+}$
45: spectra in different nuclei \cite{1}. For instance in the rare -
46: earth region the
47: values of the $\ B(E2;2_{K^{\pi }=0_{2}^{+}}^{+}-
48: >0_{g.s.}^{+})\;$and$%
49: \;B(E2;2_{K^{\pi }=0_{2}^{+}}^{+}->4_{g.s.}^{+})$ \
50: transitions \ as a
51: function of neutron number change drastically for different
52: isotopes \cite{2}%
53: . In this paper we study the low-energy \ 0$^{+\;}\;$spectra
54: of
55: $^{194}$Pt and $^{196}$Pt within the framework of
56: simplified
57: pairing vibrational model using Holstein-Primakoff
58: transformation
59: \cite{3}.\
60:
61: As the description of the structure of the 0$^{+}$ nuclear
62: states in terms
63: of pair configurations continues to be of great interest both
64: for theorists
65: and experimentalists we define the \ Hamiltonian in terms of
66: monopole phonon
67: operators:
68: \begin{equation}
69: \begin{array}{ll}
70: R_{+}^{j}= & {\frac{1}{2}}\sum\limits_{m}(-1)^{j-
71: m}\alpha
72: _{jm}^{\dagger }\alpha _{j-m}^{\dagger }\;
73: \begin{array}{ll}
74: R_{-}^{j}= & {\frac{1}{2}}\sum\limits_{m}(-1)^{j-
75: m}\alpha _{j-m}\alpha
76: _{jm}\;,
77: \end{array}
78: \\
79: &
80: \begin{array}{ll}
81: R_{0}^{j}= & {\frac{1}{4}}\sum\limits_{m}(\alpha
82: _{jm}^{\dagger }\alpha
83: _{jm}-\alpha _{j-m}\alpha _{j-m}^{\dagger })\;,
84: \end{array}
85: \end{array}
86: \label{RR}
87: \end{equation}
88:
89: where $\alpha _{jm}^{\dagger }$,$\;\alpha _{jm}$ are the
90: nucleons creation
91: and annihilation operators.
92:
93: Let us consider the Hamiltonian for $N$ particles placed on
94: ''effective''
95: single level j $\;$in terms of the operators
96: $R_{+}^{j}\;${\bf ,}$%
97: \;R_{-}^{j}\;${\bf , }$R_{0}^{j}$ :
98:
99: \begin{eqnarray}
100: H &=&{\bf \alpha }R_{+}^{j}R_{-}^{j}+{\bf \beta
101: }R_{0}^{j}R_{0}^{j}+\frac{%
102: {\bf \beta }\Omega ^{j}}{2}R_{0}^{j} \label{h1} \\
103: \Omega ^{j} &=&\frac{2j+1}{2} \nonumber
104: \end{eqnarray}
105:
106: Later in our calculations of the $0^{+}$states energies of
107: $^{194,196}Pt$
108: isotopes we take $\Omega ^{j}=6$ that corresponds to
109: $h\frac{11}{2}$ proton
110: system shell model level.
111:
112: The operators (\ref{RR}) satisfy the commutation relations :
113:
114: \begin{equation}
115: \left[ R_{0}^{j},R_{\pm }^{j}\right] =\pm R_{\pm
116: }^{j}\;\;\;\;\;
117: \left[ R_{+}^{j},R_{-}^{j}\right] =2R_{0}^{j} \label{cr1}
118: \end{equation}
119:
120: In order to simplify the notations further we will omit the
121: indices$\;j$.
122:
123: Let us now present this Hamiltonian in terms of \ ''ideal''
124: boson creation
125: and annihilation operators $\ \;\;\left[ b,b^{\dagger }\right]
126: =1\ ;\;\;\;%
127: \left[ b,b\right] =\left[ b^{\dagger },b^{\dagger }\right] =0\
128: $\
129: , using the Holstein-Primakoff transformation \cite{4} for the
130: operators $R_{+}$, $R_{-}\;$ and $R_{0}$ :
131: \begin{equation}
132: \begin{array}{ccc}
133: R_{-}=\sqrt{2\Omega -b^{\dagger }b}\;b &
134: R_{+}=b^{\dagger }%
135: \sqrt{2\Omega -b^{\dagger }b} & R_{0}=b^{+}b-\Omega
136: \end{array}
137: \label{HP}
138: \end{equation}
139:
140: The transformations ( \ref{HP}\ ) conserve the commutation
141: relations ( \ref{cr1}) between $R_{+}$, $R_{-}$ and
142: $R_{0}$
143: operators. Thus for the Hamiltonian (\ref{h1}) in terms of the
144: new boson creation and annihilation operators ''ideal bosons''
145: $b^{+},\;b$\ we have:
146: \begin{equation}
147: H=Ab^{\dagger }b-Bb^{\dagger }bb^{\dagger }b
148: \label{Hbos}
149: \end{equation}
150: \ $\ $where :
151:
152: \begin{equation}
153: \begin{tabular}{l}
154: $A=\alpha (2\Omega +1)-\beta \Omega $ \\
155: $B=$\ $\alpha -\beta $%
156: \end{tabular}
157: \label{param}
158: \end{equation}
159:
160: The energy of any monopole excited state\ \ $\left|
161: n\right\rangle =\frac{1}{%
162: \sqrt{n!}}(b^{+})^{n}\left| 0\right\rangle ;\;$where $b\left|
163: 0\right\rangle
164: =0\;\;$can be written as: \
165: \begin{equation}
166: E_{n}=\left\langle n\right| Ab^{\dagger }b-Bb^{\dagger
167: }bb^{\dagger }b\left|
168: n\right\rangle -\left\langle 0\right| Ab^{\dagger }b-
169: Bb^{\dagger
170: }bb^{\dagger }b\left| 0\right\rangle =An-Bn^{2} \label{en}
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: $\bigskip $
174:
175: If we analyze the behavior of the experimental 0$^{+}$-
176: state energies using
177: the notation $n$ - as a systematic parameter for the
178: corresponding \ 0$^{+}$%
179: - states after minimizing Chi-square values by permutation of
180: $n$ we find
181: that the distribution of the $0^{+}$ states energies as
182: function of $n$ can
183: be presented \ by simple formula:
184:
185: \begin{equation}
186: E_{n}=An-Bn^{2} \label{å1}
187: \end{equation}
188:
189: We see that the Hamiltonian (\ref{h1}) provides the same
190: energy
191: spectrum as spectrum ( \ref{å1} ). Also one can check that
192: similar behavior possess all the $0^{+}$ state energy
193: spectra in
194: nuclei of rare-earth region.
195:
196: The parameters of the approach which we have used are
197: presented in figure 1
198: along with the experimental and calculated 0$^{+}$state
199: distributions . The
200: calculated energies \ are distributed \ in bell form because of
201: the
202: anharmonic terms in the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hbos})\ and often
203: the lowest 0$%
204: ^{+}\;$states have much more collective structure ( bigger
205: $n$ )
206: than the states with higher energies. In the framework of this
207: simple model we can predict that additional 0$^{+}$states
208: should
209: exist. We indicate these predicted states by ''?'' in the figure
210: 1. Thus it may be interesting to measure $E0\ $\ transition
211: probabilities in these nuclei and especially in \ \
212: $^{194}Pt\;$nucleus from one phonon 0$^{+}$ state with
213: energy 0.6
214: MeV to the ground state, and in \ \ $^{196}Pt\; $nucleus
215: from one
216: phonon 0$^{+}$ state with energy 0.57 MeV to the ground
217: state,\
218: in $^{188}$Os from one phonon 0$^{+}\;$state - 0.75
219: MeV to the
220: ground state and in $^{158}$Er from one phonon 0$^{+}$
221: state -
222: 1.2 MeV to the ground state. We point out again that this is
223: only
224: a prediction produced by one simple model.
225:
226: Let us consider the simplest transition operator that can be
227: written within the framework of our model :
228: \begin{equation}
229: \widehat{E}_{0}=x(R_{+}+R_{-})=x(b^{\dagger
230: }\sqrt{2\Omega -b^{\dagger }b}+%
231: \sqrt{2\Omega -b^{\dagger }b}\;b) \label{E0}
232: \end{equation}
233:
234: Then in this approach the non-vanishing transition matrix
235: elements are:
236:
237: \begin{equation}
238: \begin{array}{c}
239: \left\langle n\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| n+1\right\rangle
240: =\left\langle
241: n+1\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| n\right\rangle = \\
242: \\
243: x\frac{1}{\sqrt{(n+1)!n!}}\left\langle 0\right|
244: b^{n}\sqrt{2\Omega
245: -b^{\dagger }b}(b^{\dagger })^{n}\left| 0\right\rangle + \\
246: \\
247: x\frac{1}{\sqrt{(n+1)!n!}}\left\langle 0\right|
248: b^{n}\sqrt{2\Omega
249: -b^{\dagger }b}b^{\dagger }b(b^{\dagger })^{n}\left|
250: 0\right\rangle
251: \end{array}
252: \end{equation}
253:
254: Using the commutation relations between the operators
255: $[b^{n},(b^{\dagger })^{m}]$ \cite{4}:
256:
257: \begin{equation}
258: \left[ b^{n},(b^{\dagger })^{m}\right] =\left\{
259: \begin{array}{c}
260: \sum\limits_{l=0}^{n-1}\frac{m!}{(m-n+l)!} \left(
261: \begin{array}{c} n \\
262: l
263: \end{array}
264: \right)
265: (b^{\dagger})^{m-n+l}b^{l}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;n\leq {m}
266: \\\\
267: \sum\limits_{l=0}^{m-1}\frac{n!}{(n-m+l)!}
268: \left(\begin{array}{c}m \\
269: l
270: \end{array}\right)(b^{\dagger})^{l}b^{n-
271: m+l}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;n\geq
272: {m}
273: \end{array}
274: \right.
275: \end{equation}
276:
277: for matrix elements (10) we have:
278: \begin{equation}
279: \begin{array}{c}
280: \left\langle n+1\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| n\right\rangle
281: =x\frac{1}{%
282: \sqrt{(n+1)!n!}}\left\langle n\right| \sqrt{2\Omega -
283: b^{\dagger }b}\left|
284: n\right\rangle + \\
285: \\
286: x\frac{n}{\sqrt{(n+1)!n!}}\left\langle n\right| \sqrt{2\Omega
287: -b^{\dagger }b}%
288: \left| n\right\rangle = \\
289: \\
290: x\sqrt{2\Omega -n}\sqrt{n+1}\;=\left\langle n\right|
291: \widehat{E}_{0}\left| n+1\right\rangle \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;n\geq 0
292: \end{array}
293: \end{equation}
294:
295: It is suitable to consider the ratio between nuclear matrix
296: elements:
297: $ \rho^2\sim \; \left\langle n\right|
298: \widehat{E}_{0}\left| n+1\right\rangle^{2}$ entering in
299: $E0$
300: transition probabilities:
301: \begin{equation}
302: F(n,k)=\frac{\left< n\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| n+1\right>
303: ^{2}}{\left< k\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| k+1\right>
304: ^{2}}=\frac{(2\Omega-n)(n+1)}{(2\Omega-k)(k+1)}
305: \end{equation}
306: because it does not depend on any additional parameters.
307: Here we
308: proposed that $x$ does not change with changing the
309: transition
310: energy $ \Delta E= E_{0}(n+1)-E_{0}(n)$
311:
312: $F(n,k)$ for isotopes under consideration ($\Omega=6\;$)
313: and
314: $n=1,2,3,4,5$ is presented in figure 2.
315: The curves in figure 2. indicate that $%
316: \left< k\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| k+1\right> ^{2}$ in the
317: region of $k=3 - 8$ are about four times larger than the
318: $\left<
319: 0\right| \widehat{E}_{0}\left| 1\right> ^{2}$ values.
320:
321: Experimental data about the rotational bands in deformed
322: nuclei show that
323: the dependence of the energy on angular momentum$\;L$ is
324: qualitatively
325: similar for the ground band and the bands constructed on
326: any excited $0^{+}$%
327: \ state . So in the first approximation one may consider the
328: rotational
329: bands constructed on different excited $0^{+}\;$states
330: without including the
331: band head structure. Nevertheless the influence of $0^{+}$
332: states structure
333: on the rotational spectra must be included in order to explain
334: the small
335: quantitative differences in rotational bands with different
336: $0^{+}$ band
337: heads as well as transition probabilities, for instance the
338: peculiarities in
339: $B(E2;2_{K^{\pi }=0_{n}^{+}}^{+}-
340: >0_{g.s.}^{+})\;$\cite{3}. This
341: investigation is in successful progress.$\ $Furthermore the
342: results of this
343: paper may be helpful for more sophisticated analysis of the
344: collective
345: structure of the low-lying nuclear states. Having in mind the
346: results of
347: this paper one can estimate directly the degree of collectivity
348: ( number of
349: bosons ) of any 0$^{+}$ excited state. $\ \ \ $
350:
351: $\ \ $ I would like to thank S. Pittel, M.Stoitsov, S.
352: Dimitrova,
353: A. Aprahamian, A. Georgieva and P. Terziev for fruitful
354: discussions and help.
355:
356: This work has been supported in part by the Bulgarian
357: National Foundation
358: for Scientific Research under project $\Phi $ - 809.
359:
360: \bigskip
361:
362: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
363: \bibitem{1} R. Julin et al., Z. Physik {\bf A }296, (1980),
364: 315;{\bf \ A }%
365: 412, (1984) 113;
366:
367: A. Aprahamian et al. , Phys. Lett. 140 {\bf B}, (1984), 1-2,
368: p.22;
369:
370: J. Kantele et al. - Z. Physik {\bf A }289, (1979) 157.
371:
372: S. T. Belyaev \ Mat. Fys. Medd \ Dan. Vid Seelgk.31,
373: {\small N}%
374: 11, (1959);
375:
376: G.Wenes et al. , Phys. Rev. {\bf C} 23, (1981) 2291;
377:
378: \ J. F. A. Van Hieven et al. , Nucl. Phys. {\bf A} 269,
379: (1976) 159;
380:
381: M. Sakahura et al.\ , Z. Physik {\bf A }289,\ (1979) 163 ;
382:
383: Shikata Y. et al. , Z. Physik {\bf A} 300, (1981) 217;\
384:
385: V. Lopak and V. Paar, Nucl.Phys. {\bf A} 297, (1978)
386: 471;
387:
388: H. F.De Vries , P. J. Brussard, Z. Physik{\bf \ A} 286,
389: (1978) 1;
390:
391: D. P. Ahalpara et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf A} 371, (1981) 210;\
392:
393: A. Arima , F. Iachello, Ann. Phys {\bf 99}, (1976) 253;
394: {\bf 111}, (1978)
395: 201; {\bf 123}, (1979) 68; \ P. D Duval . B. R. Barret,
396: Phys. lett. 100 {\bf %
397: B}, (1981) 223 and Nucl. Phys. {\bf A} 376, (1982) 213; \
398:
399: C.H. Druce et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf 8}, (1982) 1565;
400:
401: V. P. Garistov Bulg. J. Phys.{\bf 14}, 4, (1987) 317;
402:
403: S. Tazaki et al. , Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 71}, (1981), ch.4;
404:
405: T. D. Cohen, Nucl. Phys{\bf . A} 436, (1985) 16;
406:
407: C. Volpe et al., Nucl. Phys {\bf A} 647 (1999) 246;
408:
409: A. K. Kerman, Annals of Physics {\bf 12}, (1961) 300;
410:
411: D. M. Brink, A.F.R. De Toledo Piza, A.K. Kerman, Phys.
412: Lett. 19, {\small N}%
413: 5, (1965) 413; T. Kishimoto, T. Tamura, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A
414: }192, \ (1972)
415: 246;
416:
417: D.R.Bes and R.A. Sorensen - Adv. in Nucl. Phys. {\bf 2}
418: (1969) 129.
419:
420: \bibitem{2} A. Aprahamian, private communication
421:
422: \bibitem{3} T.Holstein, H.Primakoff, Phys. Rev. {\bf 58},
423: (1940) 1098;
424:
425: A.O. Barut, Phys. Rev. {\bf 139}, (1965) 1433;{\bf \ }
426:
427: R. Marshalek Phys. Lett. {\bf B }97 (1980) 337;
428:
429: C. C. Gerry, J. Phys. {\bf A} 16, (1983) 11.
430:
431: \bibitem{4} V. P. Garistov, P. Terziev, preprint nucl-th
432: 9811100.
433:
434: \bibitem{5} Mitsuo Sacai, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data
435: Tables {\bf 31},
436: (1984) 399-432;
437:
438: \end{thebibliography}
439:
440: \newpage
441: {\large \bf Captions to the figures.}
442: \\
443:
444: {\bf Figure 1.} The comparison of calculated distribution of $
445: 0^{+}$ state energies as a function of number of phonons
446: $n$ with
447: experiment. Experimental data are taken from tables \cite{5}
448: \\
449:
450: {\bf Figure 2.} Ratio $ F(n,k)$ (13) for different $n$.
451:
452:
453: \end{document}
454:
455: