1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LaTex Twice %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
4:
5: \oddsidemargin -0.25cm\evensidemargin -0.25cm
6: \topmargin -1.0cm
7: \textwidth 16.3cm
8: \textheight 22.3cm
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \baselineskip=14pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
13:
14: \begin{center}{\large \bf
15: $\Delta I=1$ staggering in octupole bands of light actinides:
16: ``Beat'' patterns}
17:
18:
19: \bigskip\bigskip
20:
21: {Dennis Bonatsos$^{\#}$,
22: C.~Daskaloyannis$^+$,
23: S. B. Drenska$^\dagger$,
24: N. Karoussos$^{\#}$,
25: N. Minkov$^\dagger$,
26: P. P. Raychev$^\dagger$,
27: R. P. Roussev$^\dagger$
28: \bigskip
29:
30: {$^{\#}$ Institute of Nuclear Physics, N.C.S.R.
31: ``Demokritos''}
32:
33: {GR-15310 Aghia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece}
34:
35: {$^+$ Department of Physics, Aristotle University of
36: Thessaloniki}
37:
38: {GR-54006 Thessaloniki, Greece }
39:
40: {$^\dagger$ Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian
41: Academy of Sciences }
42:
43: {72 Tzarigrad Road, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}}
44:
45: \end{center}
46:
47: \bigskip\bigskip
48: \centerline{\bf Abstract} \medskip
49: The $\Delta I=1$ staggering (odd--even staggering) in octupole bands of light
50: actinides is found to exhibit a ``beat'' behaviour as a function of the
51: angular momentum $I$, forcing us to revise the traditional belief that
52: this staggering decreases gradually to zero and then remains at this
53: zero value. Various algebraic models (spf-Interacting Boson Model,
54: spdf-IBM, Vector Boson Model, Nuclear Vibron Model) are shown to predict
55: in their su(3) limits
56: constant staggering for this case, being thus unable to describe the
57: ``beat'' behaviour.
58: An explanation of the ``beat'' behaviour is given in terms of two
59: Dunham expansions (expansions in terms of powers of $I(I+1)$~) with slightly
60: different sets of coefficients for the ground state band and the negative
61: parity band, the difference in the values of the coefficients being
62: attributed
63: to Coriolis couplings to other negative parity bands.
64: Similar ``beat'' patterns have already been seen in rotational bands
65: of some diatomic molecules, like AgH.
66:
67: \bigskip
68:
69: PACS numbers: 21.10.Re, 21.60.Fw, 21.60.Ev
70:
71: Section heading: Nuclear structure
72:
73: \newpage
74:
75: {\bf 1. Introduction}
76:
77: Rotational nuclear spectra have been long attributed to quadrupole
78: deformations
79: \cite{BM}, corresponding to nuclear shapes produced by the revolution
80: of an ellipsis around its maximum or minimum axis and rotating around an axis
81: perpendicular to their axis of symmetry. In addition,
82: it has been suggested that octupole deformation occurs in certain
83: regions, most notably in the light actinides \cite{Schueler}
84: and in the $A\approx 150$ mass region \cite{Phillips,Sheline},
85: corresponding to pear-like nuclear shapes
86: \cite{Leander,LeanderSh,Ahmad,Butler}.
87: In even nuclei exhibiting octupole deformation the ground state band, which
88: contains energy levels with $I^{\pi} = 0^+$, $2^+$, $4^+$, $6^+$, \dots,
89: is accompanied by a negative parity band containing energy levels
90: with $I^{\pi} =1^-$, $3^-$, $5^-$, $7^-$, \dots. After the first few
91: values of angular momentum $I$ the two bands become interwoven, forming
92: a single octupole band with levels characterized by $I^{\pi}=0^+$,
93: $1^-$, $2^+$, $3^-$, $4^+$, $5^-$, \dots \cite{Schueler,Phillips,Sheline}.
94: (It should be noted, however,
95: that in the light actinides alternative interpretations of these
96: bands in terms of alpha clustering have been proposed \cite{DaleyI,Buck}.)
97:
98: It has been observed \cite{Nazar}
99: that in octupole bands the levels with odd $I$ and
100: negative parity ($I^{\pi}=1^-$, $3^-$, $5^-$, \dots) are displaced
101: relatively to the levels with even $I$ and positive parity ($I^{\pi}=0^+$,
102: $2^+$, $4^+$, \dots), i.e. the odd levels do not lie at the energies
103: predicted by an $E(I)=A I (I+1)$ fit to the energy levels, but
104: all of them lie systematically above or all of them lie
105: systematically below the predicted energies. This is an example of
106: {\sl odd--even staggering} or {\sl $\Delta I=1$ staggering}, the latter
107: term due to the fact that each energy level with angular momentum $I$
108: is displaced relatively to its neighbours with angular momenta $I \pm 1$.
109:
110: A similar $\Delta I=1$ staggering effect (i.e. a relative displacement
111: of the levels with odd $I$ with respect to the levels of even $I$) is known
112: to occur in rotational $\gamma$ bands of even nuclei \cite{PLB200},
113: the difference being
114: that in $\gamma$ bands all levels possess positive parity.
115:
116: The $\Delta I=1$ staggering effect is different from the {\sl $\Delta I=2$
117: staggering} effect recently observed \cite{Fli1,Fli2,Ced} in superdeformed
118: nuclear bands \cite{Twin,Nolan,Janssens},
119: since the $\Delta I=2$ staggering effect refers to the systematic
120: displacement of the levels with $I=2$, 6, 10, 14, \dots relatively to the
121: levels with $I=0$, 4, 8, 12, \dots, i.e. in this case the level with
122: angular momentum $I$ is displaced relatively to its neighbours with
123: angular momenta $I\pm 2$.
124:
125: On the other hand, rotational spectra of diatomic molecules \cite{Herz}
126: are known to show
127: great similarities to nuclear rotational spectra, having in addition the
128: advantage that observed rotational bands in several diatomic molecules
129: are much longer than the usual rotational nuclear bands. In fact both
130: $\Delta I=1$ \cite{RMD}
131: and $\Delta I=2$ staggering effects \cite{PRA54,PRA1999}
132: have been recently observed
133: in rotational spectra of several diatomic molecules. $\Delta I=2$
134: staggering has been attributed \cite{PRA1999}
135: to the presence of one or more bandcrossings \cite{Pavli,MRM},
136: while $\Delta I=1$ staggering remains an open problem.
137:
138: It should be noted that all these effects are much larger than the relevant
139: experimental errors, with the notable exception of the $\Delta I=2$
140: staggering effect in superdeformed nuclear bands \cite{Fli1,Fli2,Ced},
141: for which only one
142: case (the (a) band of $^{149}$Gd \cite{Fli2}) is known to show an effect
143: outside the limits of the experimental errors.
144:
145: The dependence of the amplitude of the staggering effect on the angular
146: momentum $I$ presents much interest. The situation up to now has as follows:
147:
148: 1) Algebraic models of nuclear structure appropriate for the description
149: of octupole bands, like the spf-Interacting Boson Model (spf-IBM) with
150: u(11) symmetry \cite{EI1126},
151: the spdf-IBM with u(16) symmetry \cite{EI1126,EI61},
152: and the Vector Boson Model (VBM) with u(6) symmetry \cite{GRR8,GRR9,GRR12},
153: predict in their su(3) limits $\Delta I=1$ staggering of constant
154: amplitude, i.e. all the odd levels are raised (or lowered) by the same amount
155: of energy with respect to the even levels.
156: In other words, $\Delta I=1$ staggering takes alternatively
157: positive and negative values of equal absolute value as $I$ increases.
158:
159: 2) Algebraic models of nuclear structure suitable for the description
160: of alpha clustering effects, like the Nuclear Vibron Model (NVM) with
161: u(6)$\otimes$u(4) symmetry \cite{DaleyI},
162: also predict in the su(3) limit $\Delta I=1$ staggering of constant
163: amplitude.
164:
165: 3) Older experimental work \cite{Schueler,Phillips,Sheline}
166: on octupole nuclear bands suggests that
167: $\Delta I=1$ staggering starts from large values and its amplitude
168: decreases with increasing $I$. These findings are in agreement with
169: the interpretation that an octupole band is gradually formed as
170: angular momentum increases \cite{Leander,LeanderSh}.
171:
172: 4) Recent work on experimental data for diatomic molecules shows that
173: in some rotational bands $\Delta I=1$ staggering of constant amplitude seems
174: to appear \cite{RMD}, while in other bands a variety of shapes,
175: reminiscent of beats, are exhibited \cite{RMD}.
176:
177: Motivated by these recent findings, we make in the present work a systematic
178: study in the light actinide region of all octupole bands for which
179: at least 12 energy levels are known
180: \cite{Cocks,Schulz,Ra220,Th222,Th224,Th226,Th228},
181: taking advantage of recent detailed
182: experimental work in this region.
183: The questions to which we have hoped
184: to provide answers are:
185:
186: 1) Which patters of behaviour of the amplitude of the $\Delta I=1$
187: staggering appear? Are these patterns related to the ones seen in
188: diatomic molecules \cite{RMD}?
189:
190: 2) Can these patterns be interpreted in terms of the existing models
191: \cite{DaleyI,EI1126,EI61,GRR8,GRR9,GRR12},
192: or in terms of any other theoretical description?
193:
194: In Section 2 of the present paper the formalism of staggering is discussed,
195: and is subsequently applied to the experimental data for octupole bands
196: of light actinides in Section 3. Section 4 contains the relevant
197: predictions of various algebraic models, while an interpretation of the
198: experimental observations is given in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 contains
199: the conclusions reached, as well as plans for future work.
200:
201: {\bf 2. Formalism}
202:
203: Traditionally the odd--even staggering ($\Delta I=1$ staggering) in
204: octupole bands, as well as in gamma bands, has been estimated
205: quantitatively through use of the expression \cite{Nazar}
206: \begin{equation}
207: \delta E(I)= E(I)- {(I+1) E(I-1) +I E(I+1)\over 2I+1},
208: \end{equation} % (1)
209: where $E(I)$ denotes the energy of the level with angular momentum $I$.
210: This expression vanishes for
211: \begin{equation}
212: E(I)=E_0 + A I(I+1),
213: \end{equation} % (2)
214: but not for
215: \begin{equation}
216: E(I)=E_0 + A I(I+1) + B (I(I+1))^2.
217: \end{equation} % (3)
218: Therefore it is suitable for measuring
219: deviations from the pure rotational behaviour.
220:
221: Recently, however, a new measure of the magnitude of
222: staggering effects has been introduced \cite{Ced}
223: in the study of $\Delta I=2$ staggering
224: of nuclear superdeformed bands. In this case
225: the experimentally determined quantities are the
226: $\gamma$-ray transition energies between levels differing by two units
227: of angular momentum ($\Delta I=2$). For these the symbol
228: \begin{equation}
229: E_{2,\gamma}(I) = E(I+2)-E(I)
230: \end{equation} %\eqno(4)
231: is used.
232: The deviation of the $\gamma$-ray transition energies from the
233: rigid rotator behavior is then measured by the quantity \cite{Ced}
234: \begin{equation}
235: \Delta E_{2,\gamma}(I) = {1\over 16} (6E_{2,\gamma}(I) -4E_{2,\gamma} (I-2)
236: -4E_{2,\gamma}(I+2) +E_{2,\gamma}(I-4) +E_{2,\gamma}(I+4)).
237: \end{equation} %\eqno(5)
238:
239: \noindent Using the rigid rotator expression of Eq. (2) one
240: can easily see that
241: in this case $\Delta E_{2,\gamma} (I) $ vanishes.
242: In addition, the perturbed rigid rotator expression of Eq. (3)
243: gives vanishing $\Delta E_{2,\gamma} (I)$.
244: These properties are due to the fact that Eq. (5) is a (normalized)
245: discrete approximation of the fourth derivative of the function
246: $E_{2,\gamma}(I)$, i.e. essentially the fifth derivative of the
247: function $E(I)$. Therefore we conclude that Eq. (5) is a more sensitive
248: probe of deviations from rotational behaviour than Eq. (1).
249:
250: By analogy, $\Delta I=1$ staggering in nuclei can be measured by the
251: quantity
252: \begin{equation}
253: \Delta E_{1,\gamma}(I)= {1\over 16} (6 E_{1,\gamma}(I)-4 E_{1,\gamma}(I-1)
254: -4 E_{1,\gamma}(I+1) +E_{1,\gamma}(I-2) + E_{1,\gamma}(I+2) ),
255: \end{equation} %(6)
256: where
257: \begin{equation}
258: E_{1,\gamma}(I)= E(I+1)-E(I).
259: \end{equation} %(7)
260: The transition energies $E_{1,\gamma} (I)$ are determined directly from
261: experiment.
262:
263: {\bf 3. Analysis of experimental data}
264:
265: We have applied the formalism described above to all octupole bands
266: of light actinides for which at least 12 energy levels are known
267: \cite{Cocks,Schulz,Ra220,Th222,Th224,Th226,Th228}
268: and which show no backbending (i.e. bandcrossing) \cite{deVoigt} behaviour.
269: These nuclei are listed in Table 1, along with the relevant values of the
270: $R_4$ ratio,
271: \begin{equation}
272: R_4 ={E(4)\over E(2)},
273: \end{equation}
274: a well known characteristic of collective behaviour.
275: Several nuclei ($^{222-226}$Ra, $^{224-228}$Th) are rotational or
276: near-rotational (having $10/3 \geq R_4 \geq 2.7$), while others
277: ($^{218-222}$Rn, $^{220}$Ra, $^{220-222}$Th)
278: are vibrational or near-vibrational (having $2.4 \geq R_4 \geq 2$). .
279: A special case is $^{218}$Ra,
280: for which it has been argued \cite{Schulz} that it is an example of a new
281: type
282: of transitional nuclei, in which the octupole deformation dominates over all
283: other types of deformation.
284:
285: The staggering results for $^{218-222}$Rn, $^{218-226}$Ra, and
286: $^{220-228}$Th,
287: are shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3, respectively.
288: In all cases the
289: experimental errors are of the size of the symbol used for the experimental
290: point and therefore are not visible.
291: The following observations can be made:
292:
293: 1) In all cases the shapes appearing are consistent with the following
294: pattern: $\Delta I=1$ staggering starts from large values at low $I$,
295: it gradually decreases down to zero, then it starts increasing again,
296: then it decreases down to zero and starts raising again.
297: In other words, figures resembling beats appear. The most complete
298: ``beat'' figures appear in the cases of $^{220}$Ra, $^{224}$Ra, $^{222}$Th,
299: as well as in the cases of $^{218}$Ra, $^{222}$Ra, $^{226}$Ra.
300:
301: 2) In all cases within the first ``beat'' (from the beginning up to
302: the first zero of $\Delta E_{1,\gamma}(I)$~)
303: the minima appear at odd $I$,
304: indicating that in this region the odd levels are slightly raised
305: in comparison to the even levels. Within the second ``beat'' (i.e.
306: between the first and the second zero of $\Delta E_{1,\gamma}(I)$~),
307: the opposite holds: the minima appear at even $I$, indicating that
308: in this region the odd levels are slightly lowered in comparison to the
309: even levels. Within the third ``beat'' (after the second zero of
310: $\Delta E_{1,\gamma}(I)$~) the situation occuring within the first
311: ``beat'' is repeated. (Notice that $^{220}$Th is not an exception, since
312: what is seen in the figure is the second ``beat'', starting from $I=6$.)
313:
314: 3) In the case of $^{222}$Rn the decrease of the staggering with increasing
315: $I$, in the region for which experimental data exist, is very slow, giving
316: the impression of almost constant staggering. One can get a similar
317: impression from parts of the patterns shown, as, for example, in the cases of
318: $^{220}$Ra (in the region $I=12-20$), $^{222}$Ra (for $I=9-17$),
319: $^{224}$Ra (for $I=10-16$), $^{226}$Ra (for $I=14-20$), $^{222}$Th
320: (for $I=10-18$).
321:
322: These observations bear considerable similarities to $\Delta I=1$
323: staggering patterns found in rotational bands of diatomic molecules.
324: In particular:
325:
326: 1) Staggering patterns of almost constant amplitude have been found in
327: some rotational bands of the AgH \cite{RMD} molecule.
328:
329: 2) Staggering patterns resembling the ``beat'' structure have been
330: seen in several bands of the AgH molecule \cite{RMD}.
331:
332: The following comments are also in place:
333:
334: 1) In all cases bands not influenced by bandcrossing effects \cite{deVoigt}
335: have been
336: considered, in order to make sure that the observed effects are ``pure''
337: single-band effects.
338: The only exception is $^{220}$Th, which shows signs of
339: bandcrossings at $10^+$ and $13^-$, which, however, do not influence the
340: relevant staggering pattern, which is shown in Fig. 3(a) for reasons of
341: completeness. A special case is $^{218}$Ra, which shows a rather irregular
342: dependence of $E(I)$ on $I$. As we have already mentioned, it has been argued
343: \cite{Schulz} that this
344: nucleus is an example of a new type of transitional nuclei in which
345: the octupole deformation dominates over all other types of deformation.
346:
347: 2) The same ``beat'' pattern appears in both rotational and vibrational
348: nuclei. The only slight difference which can be observed, is that the
349: first vanishing of the staggering amplitude seems to occur at higher $I$
350: for the rotational isotopes than for their vibrational counterparts.
351: Indeed, within the Ra and Th series of isotopes under study, the $I$ at which
352: the first vanishing of the staggering amplitude occurs seems to be an
353: increasing function of $R_4$, i.e. an increasing function of the quadrupole
354: collectivity.
355:
356: 3) The present findings are partially consistent with older work
357: \cite{Schueler,Phillips,Sheline}.
358: The limited sets of data of that time were reaching only up to the $I$ at
359: which the first vanishing of the staggering amplitude occurs. It was then
360: reasonable to assume that the staggering amplitude decreases down to
361: zero and remains zero afterwards, since no experimental evidence for
362: ``beat'' patterns existed at that time.
363:
364: {\bf 4. Algebraic models}
365:
366: As we have seen in the previous section, certain $\Delta I=1$ staggering
367: patterns occur in the octupole bands of the light actinides. Before
368: attempting any interpretation of these results, it is instructive to
369: examine what kind of staggering patterns are predicted by various
370: algebraic models of nuclear structure describing such bands.
371: As we have already mentioned, these models are
372: related to the description of octupole degrees of freedom, which are
373: responsible for the presence of octupole bands, i.e. bands with a
374: sequence of levels with $I^{\pi}= 0^+$, $1^-$, $2^+$, $3^-$, $4^+$, $5^-$,
375: \dots \cite{Schueler,Phillips,Sheline}.
376: These bands are thought to be present in cases in which the nucleus
377: acquires a shape with octupole deformation, i.e. a pear-like shape
378: \cite{Leander,LeanderSh}.
379:
380: {\it 4.1 The spf-Interacting Boson Model}
381:
382: In the spf-IBM \cite{EI1126}, which possesses an u(11) symmetry,
383: $s$, $p$, and $f$ bosons (i.e. bosons
384: with angular momentum 0, 1, and 3, respectively)
385: are used. Octupole
386: bands are described in the su(3) limit, which corresponds to the chain
387: \begin{equation}
388: {\rm u}(11) \supset {\rm u}(10) \supset {\rm su}(3) \supset
389: {\rm o}(3) \supset {\rm o}(2).
390: \end{equation} % (20)
391: The relevant basis is
392: \begin{equation}
393: \vert N, N_b, \omega_b, (\lambda_b, \mu_b), K_b, I, M >,
394: \end{equation} % (21)
395: where $N$ is the total number of bosons labelling the irreducible
396: representations (irreps) of u(11),
397: $N_b$ is the total number of negative parity bosons ($p$ and $f$)
398: labelling the irreps of u(10), $\omega_b$ is the ``missing'' quantum
399: number in the decomposition u(10)$\supset$su(3),
400: $(\lambda_b, \mu_b)$ are the Elliott
401: quantum numbers \cite{Elliott}
402: labelling the irreps of su(3), $K_b$ is the ``missing''
403: quantum number in the decomposition su(3)$\supset$o(3) \cite{Elliott},
404: $I$ is the angular
405: momentum quantum number labelling the irreps of o(3), $M$ is the
406: $z$-component of the angular momentum labelling the irreps of o(2).
407: The energy eigenvalues are given by
408: \begin{equation}
409: E(N_b, \lambda_b, \mu_b, I)= \alpha +\beta N_b +\gamma N_b^2
410: +\kappa C(\lambda_b,\mu_b)+\kappa' I(I+1),
411: \end{equation} % (22)
412: where
413: \begin{equation}
414: C(\lambda,\mu)= \lambda^2 +\mu^2+ \lambda \mu+3\lambda +3\mu.
415: \end{equation} % (23)
416:
417: It is clear that positive parity states occur when $N_b$ is even, while
418: negative parity states occur when $N_b$ is odd. In the case of $N$ being
419: even, the ground state band is sitting in the $(3N,0)$ irrep, while
420: the odd levels of negative parity are sitting in the $(3N-3,0)$ irrep.
421: Then from Eq. (6) one obtains
422: \begin{equation}
423: \Delta E(I)=\cases{ -(\beta+\gamma (2N-1)+18\kappa N), & for $I=$ even, \cr
424: +(\beta+\gamma (2N-1)+18\kappa N), & for $I=$ odd. \cr}
425: \end{equation} % (24)
426: In the case of $N$ being odd, the ground state band is sitting in the
427: $(3N-3,0)$ irrep, while the odd levels of negative parity are sitting in the
428: $(3N,0)$ irrep. Then from Eq. (6) one has
429: \begin{equation}
430: \Delta E(I)=\cases{ +(\beta+\gamma (2N-1)+18\kappa N), & for $I=$ even, \cr
431: -(\beta+\gamma (2N-1)+18\kappa N), & for $I=$ odd. \cr}
432: \end{equation} % (25)
433: Since $N$ is a constant for a given nucleus, expressing the number of valence
434: nucleon pairs counted from the nearest closed shells \cite{IA},
435: we see that $\Delta I=1$
436: staggering of constant amplitude is predicted.
437:
438: {\it 4.2 The spdf-Interacting Boson Model}
439:
440: In the spdf-Interacting Boson Model \cite{EI1126,EI61}, which possesses a
441: u(16) symmetry, $s$, $p$, $d$, and $f$ bosons (i.e.
442: bosons with angular momentum 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively) are taken into
443: account. Octupole bands are described in the su(3) limit, which corresponds
444: to the chain
445: \begin{equation}
446: {\rm u}(16) \supset {\rm u_a}(6) \otimes {\rm u_b}(10) \supset
447: {\rm su_a}(3) \otimes {\rm su_b}(3)
448: \supset {\rm su}(3) \supset {\rm o}(3) \supset {\rm o}(2).
449: \end{equation} % (26)
450: The relevant basis is
451: \begin{equation}
452: \vert N, N_a, N_b, \omega_b, (\lambda_a, \mu_a), (\lambda_b, \mu_b),
453: (\lambda,\mu), K, I, M>,
454: \end{equation} % (27)
455: where $N$ is the total number of bosons labelling the irreps of u(16),
456: $N_a$ is the number of positive parity bosons labelling the irreps of
457: u$_a$(6),
458: and $N_b$ is the number of negative parity bosons labelling the irreps of
459: u$_b$(10). The rest of the quantum numbers are analogous to those appearing
460: in the basis of the u(11) model, described above. su(3) is the algebra
461: obtained by adding the corresponding generators of su$_a$(3) and su$_b$(3).
462: The energy eigenvalues are given by
463: $$E(N_b, \lambda_a, \mu_a, \lambda_b, \mu_b, \lambda, \mu, I)=$$
464: \begin{equation}
465: \alpha +\beta N_b +\gamma N_b^2+ \kappa_a C(\lambda_a,\mu_a)
466: +\kappa_b C(\lambda_b,\mu_b)+\kappa C(\lambda,\mu)+\kappa' I(I+1),
467: \end{equation} % (28)
468: with $C(\lambda,\mu)$ defined as in Eq. (12).
469:
470: The ground state band is sitting in the $(2N,0)_a$ irrep (which contains
471: $N$ bosons of positive parity and no bosons of negative parity),
472: while the odd levels of negative parity are sitting in the
473: $(2N-2,0)_a$ $(3,0)_b$ $(2N+1,0)$ band (which contains $N-1$ bosons of
474: positive parity and one boson of negative parity).
475: Then from Eq. (6) one has
476: \begin{equation}
477: \Delta E(I)= \cases{ +(\beta +\gamma-2 k_a (4N+1)+ 18 k_b+4 k (N+1)) &
478: for $I=$ even,\cr -(\beta +\gamma-2 k_a (4N+1)+ 18 k_b+4 k (N+1)) &
479: for $I=$ odd.\cr}
480: \end{equation} % (29)
481: Therefore $\Delta I=1$ staggering of constant amplitude is predicted,
482: since $N$ is a constant for a given nucleus, representing the number of
483: valence nucleon pairs counted from the nearest closed shells \cite{IA}.
484:
485: Another limit of the spdf-IBM in which octupole bands occur is the o(4)
486: limit \cite{EI61}, which corresponds to the chain
487: \begin{equation}
488: {\rm u}(16) \supset {\rm u}(4)_a \otimes {\rm u}(4)_b \supset
489: {\rm sp}(4)_a \otimes {\rm sp}(4)_b \supset {\rm su}(2)_a \otimes
490: {\rm su}(2)_b \supset {\rm o}(3) \supset {\rm o}(2),
491: \end{equation}
492: and owes its name to the isomorphism
493: \begin{equation}
494: {\rm su}(2)_a \otimes {\rm su}(2)_b \approx {\rm o}(4).
495: \end{equation}
496: The relevant basis is
497: \begin{equation}
498: | N, (n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4), (n'_{1a}, n'_{2a}), (n'_{1b}, n'_{2b}),
499: \nu, j_a, j_b, I, M>,
500: \end{equation}
501: where $N$ is the total number of bosons labelling the irreps of u(16),
502: $(n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4)$ are labelling the irreps of u(4)$_a$ and u(4)$_b$,
503: $(n'_{1a}, n'_{2a})$ and $(n'_{1b}, n'_{2b})$ are labelling the irreps of
504: sp(4)$_a$ and sp(4)$_b$ respectively, $\nu$ denotes the three missing
505: quantum numbers required in this case, $j_a$ and $j_b$ label the irreps of
506: su(2)$_a$ and su(2)$_b$ respectively, while $I$ and $M$ have the same
507: meaning as before. The energy eigenvalues are given by
508: $$ E(N, n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4, n'_{1a}, n'_{2a}, n'_{1b}, n'_{2b}, \nu,
509: j_a, j_b, I, M) $$
510: \begin{equation}
511: = E_0-2A [j_a (j_a+1) +j_b (j_b+1)] + (B+A) I(I+1)
512: = E_0 -A [\omega (\omega+2)+(\omega')^2]+ (B+A) I(I+1),
513: \end{equation}
514: where $(\omega, \omega')$ are labelling the irreps of o(4) and are
515: connected to $j_a$ and $j_b$ through the relations
516: \begin{equation}
517: \omega = j_a +j_b, \qquad \omega' =|j_a-j_b|.
518: \end{equation}
519: The lowest lying irrep is the irrep $(3N,0)$, which contains states
520: of positive parity and states of negative parity together, i.e. it contains
521: the states $0^+$, $1^-$, $2^+$, $3^-$, $4^+$, $5^-$, \dots, up to the state
522: with $I=3N$. It is clear that in this case Eq. (6) gives a vanishing result,
523: i.e. no $\Delta I=1$ staggering occurs in this limit.
524:
525: {\it 4.3 The Vector Boson Model}
526:
527: In the Vector Boson Model (VBM) \cite{GRR8,GRR9,GRR12},
528: the collective states are
529: described in terms of two distinct kinds of vector bosons, whose creation
530: operators $\mbox{\boldmath $\xi^+$ }$ and $\mbox {\boldmath $\eta^+$ }$
531: are o(3) vectors and in addition transform according to two independent
532: su(3) irreducible representations (irreps) of the type $(\lambda, \mu)
533: =(1,0)$, i.e. they are two distinct bosons of angular momentum 1.
534: Octupole bands are described
535: in the su(3) limit of the VBM, which corresponds to the chain
536: \begin{equation}
537: {\rm u}(6) \supset {\rm su}(3) \otimes {\rm u}(2) \supset
538: {\rm so}(3) \otimes {\rm u}(1).
539: \end{equation} % (30)
540: The relevant basis is
541: \begin{equation}
542: \vert N, (\lambda,\mu), (N,T), K, I, T_0 >,
543: \end{equation} % (31)
544: where $N$ is the total number of bosons labelling the irreps
545: of u(6), $(\lambda,\mu)$ are the Elliott quantum numbers \cite{Elliott}
546: labelling the irreps of su(3), $N$ and $T$ are the quantum numbers labelling
547: the irreps of u(2), $K$ is the ``missing'' quantum number in the
548: su(3)$\supset$so(3) decomposition \cite{Elliott}, $I$ is the angular momentum
549: quantum number labelling the irreps of so(3), and $T_0$ is the
550: pseudospin projection quantum number labelling the irreps of u(1).
551: The algebras su(3) and u(2) are mutually complementary
552: \cite{Quesne1,Quesne2,Quesne3},
553: their irreps $(\lambda,\mu)$ and $(N,T)$ being related by
554: \begin{equation}
555: N=\lambda+2\mu, \qquad T=\lambda/2.
556: \end{equation} % (32)
557: The energy eigenvalues are given by
558: \begin{equation}
559: E(N, \lambda, \mu, K, I, T_0=T)= a N+ a_6 N(N+5)
560: + a_3 C(\lambda,\mu) + b_3 I(I+1) +a_1 {\lambda^2\over 4},
561: \end{equation} % (33)
562: with $C(\lambda,\mu)$ defined as in Eq. (12).
563:
564: The ground state band is sitting in the $(0,\mu)=\left(0,{N\over2}\right)$
565: irrep of su(3), while the odd levels of negative parity are sitting in the
566: $(2,\mu-1)=\left(2,{N\over 2}-1\right)$ irrep.
567: Then from Eq. (6) one obtains
568: \begin{equation}
569: \Delta E(I)=\cases{ +(6 a_3+a_1),& for $I=$ even, \cr
570: -(6 a_3+a_1), & for $I=$ odd.\cr}
571: \end{equation} % (34)
572: Therefore $\Delta I=1$ staggering of constant amplitude is predicted.
573:
574: {\it 4.4 The Nuclear Vibron Model}
575:
576: As we have already mentioned, an alternative interpretation of the low lying
577: negative parity states appearing in the light actinides has been given
578: following the assumption that alpha clustering is important in this region
579: \cite{DaleyI,Buck}.
580: An algebraic model appropriate for the description of clustering effects
581: in nuclei is the Nuclear Vibron Model \cite{DaleyI},
582: which uses $s$ and $d$ bosons
583: for the description of nuclear collectivity, plus $s'$ and $p$ bosons
584: for taking into account the distance separating the center of the cluster
585: from the center of the remaining nucleus. The chain corresponding to the
586: su(3) limit of this model is
587: \begin{equation}
588: {\rm u}(6) \otimes {\rm u}(4) \supset {\rm su_a}(3)\otimes {\rm u_b}(3)
589: \supset {\rm su_a}(3) \otimes {\rm su_b}(3) \supset {\rm su}(3) \supset
590: {\rm o}(3) \supset {\rm o}(2),
591: \end{equation}
592: where the subscript {\rm a} labels the subalgebras of u(6), while
593: the subscript {\rm b} labels the subalgebras of u(4).
594: The relevant basis is
595: \begin{equation}
596: | N, M, (\lambda_a,\mu_a), n_p, (\lambda,\mu), \chi, I, M>,
597: \end{equation}
598: where $N$ is the number of the $s$ and $d$ bosons related to the u(6)
599: algebra, $M$ is the number of the $s'$ and $p$ bosons related to the u(4)
600: algebra, $(\lambda_a, \mu_a)$ are the Elliott quantum numbers
601: \cite{Elliott} related to
602: su$_a$(3), $n_p$ is the number of $p$ bosons, $(\lambda, \mu)$ are the
603: Elliott quantum numbers related to su(3), $\chi$ is the Vergados ``missing''
604: quantum number \cite{Vergados}
605: in the decomposition su(3)$\supset$o(3), while $I$ and $M$
606: represent the angular momentum and its $z$-component respectively, as usual.
607: The energy eigenvalues are given by
608: \begin{equation}
609: E(n_p, \lambda_a, \mu_a, \lambda, \mu, I)=
610: \epsilon_p n_p + \alpha_p n_p (n_p+3) +\kappa_d C(\lambda_a, \mu_a)
611: +\kappa C(\lambda, \mu) + \kappa' I(I+1),
612: \end{equation}
613: with $C(\lambda,\mu)$ defined as in Eq. (12).
614:
615: The ground state band is characterized by $(\lambda_a, \mu_a)=
616: (2N,0)$, $n_p=0$, $(\lambda, \mu)=(2N,0)$ (i.e. it contains $N$ bosons
617: of positive parity and no $p$-boson of negative parity),
618: while the negative parity band
619: is characterized by $(\lambda_a, \mu_a) = (2N,0)$, $n_p=1$,
620: $(\lambda, \mu)=(2N+1,0)$ (i.e. it contains $N$ bosons of positive parity
621: plus one $p$-boson of negative parity).
622: Then from Eq. (6) one has
623: \begin{equation}
624: \Delta E(I)=
625: \cases{+(\epsilon_p+4 \alpha_p+4 \kappa (N+1)), & for $I=$ even, \cr
626: -(\epsilon_p+4 \alpha_p+4 \kappa (N+1)), & for $I=$ odd. \cr}
627: \end{equation}
628: Therefore $\Delta I=1$ staggering of constant amplitude is predicted.
629:
630: {\it 4.5 Discussion}
631:
632: We conclude that the various algebraic models,
633: describing low lying negative parity bands in terms of octupole
634: deformation \cite{EI1126,EI61,GRR8,GRR9,GRR12}
635: or in terms of alpha clustering \cite{DaleyI},
636: predict in their su(3) limits odd--even staggering
637: ($\Delta I=1$ staggering) of constant amplitude. In all cases the
638: staggering results from the fact that the negative parity states belong
639: to an irrep different from the one in which the positive parity states
640: composing the ground state band sit.
641:
642: It should be noticed, as already remarked in Section 3, that the experimental
643: data indicate that the value of $I$
644: at which the first vanishing of the staggering amplitude occurs increases
645: as a function of $R_4$, i.e. as the rotational limit is approached.
646: The higher the value of $I$ at which the first vanishing occurs,
647: the more smooth the decrease of the staggering as a function of $I$ is.
648: We see, therefore, that as the rotational limit is approached, the
649: experimental data approach more and more the constant staggering
650: prediction provided by the various algebraic models. The best
651: example is provided by $^{228}$Th, the most rotational among the nuclei
652: studied here.
653:
654: As far as limits of algebraic models different from the su(3) limit are
655: concerned, no staggering occurs in the o(4) limit of the spdf-IBM, which
656: has been fully worked out \cite{EI61}.
657: Working out the details of other non-su(3) limits,
658: like the ones of the Vector Boson Model mentioned in Ref. \cite{GRR8},
659: is an interesting open problem.
660:
661: {\bf 5. Interpretation of the experimental observations}
662:
663: Although the results of the previous section
664: are sufficient for providing an explanation for
665: $\Delta I=1$ staggering in the cases in which this appears as having
666: almost constant amplitude, it is clear that some additional thinking
667: is required for the many cases in which the experimental results show
668: a ``beat'' pattern, as in Section 3 has been exhibited.
669:
670: A simple explanation for the appearance of ``beat'' patterns can be given
671: by the following assumptions:
672:
673: 1) It is clear that in each nucleus the even levels form the ground state
674: band,
675: which starts at zero energy,
676: while the odd levels form a separate negative parity band, which starts at
677: some higher energy. Let us call $E_0$ the bandhead energy of the negative
678: parity band.
679:
680: 2) It is reasonable to try to describe the ground state band by an expression
681: like
682: \begin{equation}
683: E_+(I)=A I(I+1) -B (I(I+1))^2 + C (I(I+1))^3 + \cdots
684: \end{equation}
685: where the subscript $+$ reminds us of the positive parity of these levels.
686: Such expansions in terms of powers of $I(I+1)$ have been long used for the
687: description of nuclear collective bands \cite{Xu}.
688: They also occur if one considers \cite{PLB251}
689: Taylor expansions of the energy expressions provided by the Variable
690: Moment of Inertia (VMI) model \cite{VMI} and the su$_q$(2) model
691: \cite{RRS}.
692: Notice that fits to experimental data \cite{Xu} indicate that one always has
693: $A > 0$, $B>0$, $C>0$, \dots, while $A$ is usually 3 orders of
694: magnitude larger than $B$, $B$ is 3 orders of magnitude larger
695: than $C$, etc.
696: Eq. (33) has been long used in molecular spectroscopy as well, under the
697: name of Dunham expansion \cite{Dunham}.
698:
699: 3) In a similar way, it is reasonable to try to describe the negative parity
700: levels by an expression like
701: \begin{equation}
702: E_-(I)= E_0+ A' I(I+1) - B' (I(I+1))^2 + C' (I(I+1))^3 +\cdots
703: \end{equation}
704: where the subscript $-$ reminds us of the negative parity of these levels,
705: while $E_0$ is the above mentioned bandhead energy.
706: In analogy to the previous case one expects to have $A'>0$, $B'>0$, $C'>0$,
707: \dots
708:
709: 4) In the above expansions it is reasonable to assume that
710: $A>A'$, $B>B'$, $C>C'$, \dots.
711: This assumption is in agreement with earlier work \cite{Neer1,Neer2,Vogel},
712: in which the Coriolis couplings between the lowest $K=0$ negative parity band
713: and higher negative parity bands with $K\neq 0$ are taken into account,
714: resulting in an increase of the monent of inertia of the lowest $K=0$ negative
715: parity band \cite{RohozG}. This argument means that the coefficient $A'$
716: in Eq. (34), which is inversely proportional to the moment of inertia
717: of the negative parity band, should be smaller than the coefficient $A$
718: in Eq. (33), which is inversely proportional to the moment of inertia
719: of the positive parity band. In analogy to the relation $A>A'$, which we
720: just justified, one can assume $B>B'$, $C>C'$, \dots. This last argument
721: is admitedly a weak one, which is however driving to interesting results,
722: as we shall soon see.
723:
724: Using Eqs (33) and (34) in Eqs (6) and (7) we find the following results
725: $$
726: \Delta E(I)= E_0 -(A-A') (I^2+2I+2) + (B-B') \left(I^4+4 I^3 +13 I^2 +18 I +
727: {23\over 2}\right)$$
728: $$
729: -(C-C') \left( I^6+ 6 I^5 + 33 I^4 + 92 I^3 +
730: {357\over 2} I^2 + {333\over 2} I + 68\right) $$
731: \begin{equation}
732: + 45 C' (I+1) +\cdots,
733: \quad {\rm for} \quad I={\rm even},
734: \end{equation}
735: $$
736: \Delta E(I)= -E_0 +(A-A') (I^2 + 2 I +2) -(B-B')\left( I^4+ 4 I^3+13 I^2+18 I+
737: {23\over 2}\right)$$
738: $$
739: +(C-C') \left( I^6+6 I^5+33 I^4+ 92 I^3 + {357\over 2}
740: I^2 + {333\over 2} I +68\right) $$
741: \begin{equation}
742: - 45 C' (I+1) +\cdots,
743: \quad {\rm for} \quad I={\rm odd}.
744: \end{equation}
745: A sample staggering pattern drawn using these formulae is shown in Fig. 4.
746: On these results the following comments can be made:
747:
748: 1) The expression for odd $I$ is the opposite of the expression with
749: even $I$. This explains why in Fig. 4 the staggering points for even $I$
750: and the staggering points for odd $I$ form two lines which are reflection
751: symmetric with respect to the horizontal axis.
752:
753: 2) For even $I$ the behaviour of the staggering amplitude is as follows:
754: At low $I$ it starts from a positive value, because of the presence of
755: $E_0$. As $I$ increases, the second term, which is essentialy proportional
756: to $I^2$, becomes important. ($E_0$ is expected to be much larger than
757: $(A-A')$.)
758: This term is negative (since $A>A'$), thus
759: it decreases the amplitude down to negative values. At higher values
760: of $I$ the third term, which is essentially proportional to $I^4$,
761: becomes important. (Remember that usually $B$ is 3 orders
762: of magnitude smaller than $A$ \cite{Xu}.)
763: This term is positive (since $B>B'$), thus it
764: increases the amplitude up to positive values.
765: (The behaviour up to this point can be seen in Fig. 4.)
766: At even higher
767: values of $I$ the fourth term, which is essentially proportional
768: to $I^6$, becomes important. (Remember that usually $C$ is 3 orders of
769: magnitude smaller than $B$ \cite{Xu}.)
770: This term is negative (since $C>C'$), thus
771: it decreases the amplitude again down to negative values, and so on.
772:
773: 3) For odd $I$ the behaviour of the staggering amplitude is exactly the
774: opposite
775: of the one described in 2) for even $I$. The amplitude starts from a negative
776: value and then becomes consequently positive (because of the second term),
777: negative (because of the third term), again positive (because of the
778: fourth term), and so on. The first three steps of this behaviour can be seen
779: in Fig. 4.
780:
781: 4) When drawing the staggering figure one jumps from an even $I$ to an
782: odd $I$, then back to an even $I$, then back to an odd $I$, and so on.
783: It is clear therefore that a ``beat'' pattern appears, as it is seen in
784: Fig. 4.
785:
786: The following additional comments are also in place:
787:
788: 1) In the case of a single band (i.e. in the case of $A=A'$, $B=B'$,
789: $C=C'$, etc), the first contribution to the staggering measure
790: $\Delta E(I)$ is the last term in Eqs (35), (36), which comes from the
791: $C (I(I+1))^3$ term in the energy expansion (see Eqs (33), (34)~).
792: This is understandable: Since Eq. (6) is a discrete approximation of the
793: fifth derivative of the function $E(I)$, as it has already been remarked,
794: the terms up to $B(I(I+1))^2$ are ``killed'' by the derivative,
795: while the $C (I(I+1))^3$ term gives a contribution linear in $I$.
796:
797: 2) The last term in Eqs (35), (36)
798: does not influence significantly the behaviour
799: of the staggering pattern, since $C$ is usually 6 orders of magnitude
800: smaller than $A$ and 3 orders of magnitude smaller than $B$ \cite{Xu}.
801:
802: 3) One could argue that the above reasoning is valid only for the case
803: of rotational or near-rotational bands, for which the expansions
804: of Eqs (33), (34) are known to be adequate (although one should be reminded
805: at this point that the VMI model describes quite well not only
806: rotational, but also transitional and even vibrational nuclei).
807: One can attempt to mend this problem by adding to the expansions of
808: Eqs (33) and (34) a linear term, in the spirit of the Ejiri formula
809: \cite{Ejiri},
810: the Variable Anharmonic Vibrator Model (VAVM) \cite{VAVM},
811: and the u(5) and o(6) limits of the Interacting Boson Model \cite{PRC50}
812: \begin{equation}
813: E_+(I)= A_1 I + A I(I+1)- B (I(I+1))^2 +C (I(I+1))^3 + \cdots,
814: \end{equation}
815: \begin{equation}
816: E_-(I)= E_0 +A'_1 I + A' I(I+1) - B' (I(I+1))^2 +C' (I(I+1))^3 + \cdots.
817: \end{equation}
818: Then Eqs (35) and (36) get modified as follows
819: $$
820: \Delta E(I)= E_0 -(A_1-A'_1) \left(I+{1\over 2}\right) - (A-A')
821: (I^2+2I+2) $$
822: \begin{equation}
823: + (B-B') \left( I^4+4I^3+13I^2+18I+{23\over 2}\right)-\cdots,
824: \quad {\rm for} \quad I={\rm even},
825: \end{equation}
826: $$
827: \Delta E(I)= -E_0 +(A_1-A'_1) \left( I+{1\over 2}\right) + (A-A') (I^2+2I+2)$$
828: \begin{equation}
829: -(B-B') \left( I^4+4I^3+13I^2+18I+{23\over 2}\right)+\cdots,
830: \quad {\rm for} \quad I={\rm odd}.
831: \end{equation}
832: We see that the extra term, which is proportional to $(A_1-A'_1)$,
833: plays the same role as the term proportional to $(A-A')$ in shaping
834: up the behaviour of the staggering amplitude. Therefore the conclusions
835: reached above for rotational nuclei apply equally well to vibrational and
836: transitional nuclei as well.
837:
838: 4) This type of explanation of the staggering patterns seems to be
839: outside the realm of the form of the su(3) limits of the algebraic models
840: presented above. Even if one decides to include
841: higher order terms of the type $(I(I+1))^2$, $(I(I+1))^3$, etc, in these
842: models, by including in the Hamiltonian higher powers of the relevant Casimir
843: operator, these terms will appear with the same coefficients for both
844: the ground state band and the negative parity band, even though these
845: two bands belong to different irreps. The only possible contributions
846: to the staggering will then come from terms like the last term in Eqs (35)
847: and (36),
848: which comes from the term $(I(I+1))^3$, and similar terms coming from
849: higher powers of $I(I+1)$. However, the term $(I(I+1))^3$ in the framework
850: of the algebraic models already corresponds to 6-body interactions \cite{IA},
851: which are usually avoided in nuclear structure studies.
852:
853: We conclude therefore that the ``beat'' pattern can be explained in terms
854: of two Dunham expansions with slightly different sets of coefficients,
855: one for the ground state band with quadrupole deformation and another
856: for the negative parity band in which in addition the octupole deformation
857: appears. This is, however, a phenomenological finding, the microscopic
858: origins of which should be searched for. On this open problem the
859: following comments apply:
860:
861: 1) As it has been mentioned above, the Coriolis coupling between the lowest
862: $K=0$ negative parity band and higher $K\neq 0$ negative parity bands
863: \cite{Neer1,Neer2,Vogel} results in an increase of the moment of inertia
864: of the lowest $K=0$ negative parity band \cite{RohozG},
865: offering in this way an argument in favor of using
866: different coefficients in the Dunham expansions for the negative parity
867: states and the positive parity states of the octupole band. However, this
868: argument holds for the coefficients of the $I(I+1)$ terms only. If
869: Coriolis coupling leads to different coefficients for the rest of the terms
870: of the Dunham expansion remains to be seen.
871:
872: 2) Nuclei with octupole deformation (pear-shaped nuclei) are supposed to be
873: described by double well potentials, the relative displacement of the negative
874: parity levels and the positive parity levels being attributed
875: to the tunneling through the barrier separating the wells
876: \cite{Leander,LeanderSh,Krappe}. The relative displacement vanishes in the
877: limit in which the barrier separating the two wells becomes infinitely high.
878: It should be examined if the details of the relevant potentials
879: \cite{Leander,LeanderSh,Krappe}
880: give rise to a ``beating'' behavior of the relevant displacement.
881:
882: 3) The coupling between the quadrupole modes and the octupole modes
883: can also give rise to relative displacement of the negative parity levels
884: and the positive parity levels of the octupole band \cite{Gajda}.
885: In this case the octupole deformation can be parametrized in the way
886: described in Refs \cite{Ham1,Ham2,Rohoz}. It should be examined if ``beating''
887: patterns appear in this case. Work in this direction is in progress.
888:
889: {\bf 6. Discussion}
890:
891: We have demonstrated that octupole bands in the light actinides
892: exhibit $\Delta I=1$ staggering (odd--even staggering),
893: the amplitude of which shows a ``beat''
894: behaviour. The same pattern appears in both vibrational and rotational
895: nuclei, forcing us to modify the traditional belief that in octupole bands
896: the
897: staggering pattern
898: is gradually falling down to zero as a function of the angular momentum $I$
899: and then remains there.
900:
901: It has also been demonstrated that the su(3) limits of
902: various algebraic models, including
903: octupole degrees of freedom \cite{EI1126,EI61,GRR8,GRR9,GRR12}
904: or based on the assumption that alpha
905: clustering is important in this region \cite{DaleyI},
906: predict $\Delta I=1$ staggering
907: of amplitude constant as a function of the angular momentum $I$.
908: Although this description becomes reasonable in the rotational limit,
909: it cannot explain the ``beat'' patterns appearing in both the rotational
910: and the vibrational regions. The detailed study of limits other than
911: the su(3) ones for these models remains an interesting open problem.
912:
913: A simple explanatation of the ``beat'' behaviour has been given by
914: describing the even $I$ levels of the ground state band and the odd $I$
915: levels of the negative parity band by two Dunham expansions \cite{Dunham}
916: (expansions in powers of $I(I+1)$) with slightly different sets of
917: coefficients, the difference
918: in the coefficients being attributed to Coriolis couplings of the negative
919: parity band to other negative parity bands. However, the microscopic origins
920: of the ``beat'' behavior need further elucidation, for example in the ways
921: mentioned at the end of Section 5.
922:
923: The ``beat'' patterns found here in the octupole bands of the light actinides
924: bear striking similarities to the ``beat'' patterns seen in the rotational
925: bands of some diatomic molecules, like AgH \cite{RMD}. It is expected that an
926: explanation of the ``beat''
927: behaviour in terms of two Dunham expansions with slightly different sets of
928: coefficients should be equally applicable in this case.
929:
930: It is also of interest to check if ``beat'' patterns appear in other kinds of
931: bands as well. Preliminary results indicate that such patterns appear in some
932: gamma bands ($^{164}$Er, $^{170}$Yb), as well as in a variety of
933: negative parity bands. Further work in this direction is needed.
934:
935: {\bf Acknowledgements}
936:
937: One of the authors (PPR) acknowledges support from the Bulgarian Ministry
938: of Science and Education under contract $\Phi$-547.
939: Another author (NM) has been supported by the Bulgarian National Fund
940: for Scientific Research under contract no MU-F-02/98.
941: Three authors (DB,CD,NK) have been supported by the Greek Secretariat
942: of Research and Technology under contract PENED 95/1981.
943:
944: \newpage
945: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
946:
947: \bibitem{BM}
948: A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, {\it Nuclear Structure Vol. II:
949: Nuclear Deformations} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
950:
951: \bibitem{Schueler}
952: P. Sch\"uler, Ch. Lauterbach, Y. K. Agarwal, J. de Boer, K. P. Blume,
953: P. A. Butler, K. Euler, Ch. Fleischmann, C. G\"unther, E. Hauber, H. J.
954: Maier,
955: M. Marten-T\"olle, Ch. Schandera, R. S. Simon, R. T\"olle and P. Zeyen,
956: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174}, 241 (1986).
957:
958: \bibitem{Phillips}
959: W. R. Phillips, I. Ahmad, H. Emling, R. Holzmann, R. V. F. Janssens,
960: T.-L. Khoo and M. W. Drigert, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 3257 (1986).
961:
962: \bibitem{Sheline}
963: R. K. Sheline and P. C. Sood, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 34}, 2362 (1986).
964:
965: \bibitem{Leander}
966: G. A. Leander, R. K. Sheline, P. M\"oller, P. Olanders,
967: I. Ragnarsson and A. J. Sierk, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 388}, 452 (1982).
968:
969: \bibitem{LeanderSh}
970: G. A. Leander and R. K. Sheline, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 413}, 375 (1984).
971:
972: \bibitem{Ahmad}
973: I. Ahmad and P. A. Butler, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 43}, 71 (1993).
974:
975: \bibitem{Butler}
976: P. A. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 349 (1996).
977:
978: \bibitem{DaleyI}
979: H. J. Daley and F. Iachello, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 167}, 73 (1986).
980:
981: \bibitem{Buck}
982: B. Buck, A. C. Merchant and S. M. Perez, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57}, R2095 (1998).
983:
984: \bibitem{Nazar}
985: W. Nazarewicz and P. Olanders, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 441}, 420 (1985).
986:
987: \bibitem{PLB200}
988: D. Bonatsos, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 200}, 1 (1988).
989:
990: \bibitem{Fli1}
991: S. Flibotte, H. R. Andrews, G. C. Ball, C. W. Beausang, F. A. Beck,
992: G. Belier, T. Byrski, D. Curien, P. J. Dagnall, G. de France, D. Disdier,
993: G. Duch\^ene, Ch. Finck, B. Haas, G. Hackman, D. S. Haslip, V. P. Janzen,
994: B. Kharraja, J. C. Lisle, J. C. Merdinger, S. M. Mullins, W. Nazaerwicz,
995: D. C. Radford, V. Rauch, H. Savajols, J. Styczen, Ch. Theisen, P. J. Twin,
996: J. P. Vivien, J. C. Waddington, D. Ward, K. Zuber and S. \AA berg,
997: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 4299 (1993).
998:
999: \bibitem{Fli2}
1000: S. Flibotte, G. Hackman, I. Ragnarsson, Ch. Theisen, H. R. Andrews,
1001: G. C. Ball, C. W. Beausang, F. A. Beck, G. B\'elier, M. A. Bentley, T. Byrski,
1002: D. Curien, G. de France, D. Disdier, G. Duch\^ene, B. Haas, D. S. Haslip,
1003: V. P. Janzen, P. M. Jones, B. Kharraja, J. A. Kuehner, J. C. Lisle,
1004: J. C. Merdinger, S. M. Mullins, E. S. Paul, D. Pr\'evost, D. C. Radford,
1005: V. Rauch, J. F. Smith, J. Styczen, P. J. Twin, J. P. Vivien, J. C.
1006: Waddington, D. Ward and K. Zuber,
1007: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 584}, 373 (1995).
1008:
1009: \bibitem{Ced}
1010: B. Cederwall, R. V. F. Janssens, M. J. Brinkman, I. Y. Lee, I. Ahmad, J. A.
1011: Becker, M. P. Carpenter, B. Crowell, M. A. Deleplanque, R. M. Diamond,
1012: J. E. Draper, C. Duyar, P. Fallon, L. P. Farris, E. A. Henry, R. G. Henry,
1013: J. R. Hughes, T. L. Khoo, T. Lauritsen, A. O. Macchiavelli, E. Rubel,
1014: F. S. Stephens, M. A. Stoyer, W. Satu\l a, I. Wiedenhoever and R. Wyss,
1015: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 3150 (1994).
1016:
1017: \bibitem{Twin}
1018: P. J. Twin, B. M. Nyak\'o, A. H. Nelson, J. Simpson, M. A. Bentley,
1019: H. W. Cranmer-Gordon, P. D. Forsyth, D. Howe, A. R. Mokhtar, J. D. Morrison,
1020: J. F. Sharpey-Schafer and G. Sletten,
1021: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 811 (1986).
1022:
1023: \bibitem{Nolan}
1024: P. J. Nolan and P. J. Twin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 38}, 533 (1988).
1025:
1026: \bibitem{Janssens}
1027: R. V. F. Janssens and T. L. Khoo, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 41}, 321
1028: (1991).
1029:
1030: \bibitem{Herz}
1031: G. Herzberg, {\it Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure, Vol. I:
1032: Spectra of Diatomic Molecules} (Van Nostrand, Toronto, 1950).
1033:
1034: \bibitem{RMD}
1035: P. Raychev, J. Maruani and S. Drenska, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}, 2759 (1997).
1036:
1037: \bibitem{PRA54}
1038: D. Bonatsos, C. Daskaloyannis, S. B. Drenska, G. A. Lalazissis, N. Minkov,
1039: P. P. Raychev and R. P. Roussev, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54}, R2533 (1996).
1040:
1041: \bibitem{PRA1999}
1042: D. Bonatsos, C. Daskaloyannis, S. B. Drenska, N. Karoussos, J. Maruani,
1043: N. Minkov, P. P. Raychev and R. P. Roussev, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 253
1044: (1999).
1045:
1046: \bibitem{Pavli}
1047: I. M. Pavlichenkov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 53}, 35 (1974).
1048:
1049: \bibitem{MRM}
1050: L. P. Marinova, P. P. Raychev and J. Maruani, Mol. Phys. {\bf 82}, 1115
1051: (1994).
1052:
1053: \bibitem{EI1126}
1054: J. Engel and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 1126 (1985).
1055:
1056: \bibitem{EI61}
1057: J. Engel and F. Iachello, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 472}, 61 (1987).
1058:
1059: \bibitem{GRR8}
1060: A. Georgieva, P. Raychev and R. Roussev, J. Phys. G {\bf 8}, 1377 (1982).
1061:
1062: \bibitem{GRR9}
1063: A. Georgieva, P. Raychev and R. Roussev, J. Phys. G {\bf 9}, 521 (1983).
1064:
1065: \bibitem{GRR12}
1066: A. Georgieva, P. Raychev and R. Roussev, Bulg. J. Phys. {\bf 12}, 147 (1985).
1067:
1068: \bibitem{Cocks}
1069: J. F. C. Cocks, P. A. Butler, K. J. Cann, P. T. Greenlees, G. D. Jones,
1070: S. Asztalos, P. Bhattacharyya, R. Broda, R. M. Clark, M. A. Deleplanque,
1071: R. M. Diamond, P. Fallon, B. Fornal, P. M. Jones, R. Julin, T. Lauritsen,
1072: I. Y. Lee, A. O. Macchiavelli, R. W. MacLeod, J. F. Smith, F. S. Stephens and
1073: C. T. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 2920 (1997).
1074:
1075: \bibitem{Schulz}
1076: N. Schulz, V. Vanin, M. A\"{\i}che, A. Chevallier, J. Chevallier, J. C. Sens,
1077: Ch. Brian\c{c}on, S. Cwiok, E. Ruchowska, J. Fernandez-Niello, Ch. Mittag
1078: and J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 2645 (1989).
1079:
1080: \bibitem{Ra220}
1081: A. Artna-Cohen, Nucl. Data Sheets {\bf 80}, 157 (1997).
1082:
1083: \bibitem{Th222}
1084: Y. A. Akovali, Nucl. Data Sheets {\bf 77}, 271 (1996).
1085:
1086: \bibitem{Th224}
1087: A. Artna-Cohen, Nucl. Data Sheets {\bf 80}, 227 (1997).
1088:
1089: \bibitem{Th226}
1090: Y. A. Akovali, Nucl. Data Sheets {\bf 77}, 433 (1996).
1091:
1092: \bibitem{Th228}
1093: A. Artna-Cohen, Nucl. Data Sheets {\bf 80}, 723 (1997).
1094:
1095: \bibitem{deVoigt}
1096: M. J. A. de Voigt, J. Dudek and Z. Szymanski, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 55}, 949
1097: (1983).
1098:
1099: %\bibitem{Dunham}
1100: %J. L. Dunham, Phys. Rev. 41 (1932) 721.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{Elliott}
1103: J. P. Elliott, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A {\bf 245}, 128 (1958).
1104:
1105: \bibitem{IA}
1106: F. Iachello and A. Arima, {\it The Interacting Boson Model}
1107: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).
1108:
1109: \bibitem{Quesne1}
1110: M. Moshinsky and C. Quesne, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 11}, 1631 (1970).
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Quesne2}
1113: G. Couvreur, J. Deenen and C. Quesne, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 24}, 779 (1983).
1114:
1115: \bibitem{Quesne3}
1116: C. Quesne, J. Phys. A {\bf 18}, 2675 (1985).
1117:
1118: \bibitem{Vergados}
1119: J. D. Vergados, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 111}, 681 (1968).
1120:
1121: \bibitem{Xu}
1122: F. X. Xu, C. S. Wu and J. Y. Zeng, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 40}, 2337 (1989).
1123:
1124: \bibitem{PLB251}
1125: D. Bonatsos, E. N. Argyres, S. B. Drenska, P. P. Raychev, R. P. Roussev
1126: and Yu. F. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 251}, 477 (1990).
1127:
1128: \bibitem{VMI}
1129: M. A. J. Mariscotti, G. Scharff-Goldhaber and B. Buck, Phys. Rev. {\bf 178},
1130: 1864 (1969).
1131:
1132: \bibitem{RRS}
1133: P. P. Raychev, R. P. Roussev and Yu. F. Smirnov, J. Phys. G {\bf 16}, L137
1134: (1990).
1135:
1136: \bibitem{Dunham}
1137: J. L. Dunham, Phys. Rev. {\bf 41}, 721 (1932).
1138:
1139: \bibitem{Neer1}
1140: K. Neerg\aa rd and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 145}, 33 (1970).
1141:
1142: \bibitem{Neer2}
1143: K. Neerg\aa rd and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 149}, 217 (1970).
1144:
1145: \bibitem{Vogel}
1146: P. Vogel, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 60}, 431 (1976).
1147:
1148: \bibitem{RohozG}
1149: S. G. Rohozi\'nski and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 128}, 1 (1983).
1150:
1151: \bibitem{Ejiri}
1152: H. Ejiri, M. Ishihara, M. Sakai, K. Katori and T. Inamura, J. Phys. Soc.
1153: Jpn. {\bf 24}, 1189 (1968).
1154:
1155: \bibitem{VAVM}
1156: D. Bonatsos and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 29}, 1879 (1984).
1157:
1158: \bibitem{PRC50}
1159: D. Bonatsos, C. Daskaloyannis, A. Faessler, P. P. Raychev and R. P. Roussev,
1160: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 50}, 497 (1994).
1161:
1162: \bibitem{Krappe}
1163: H. J. Krappe and U. Wille, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 124}, 641 (1969).
1164:
1165: \bibitem{Gajda}
1166: S. G. Rohozi\'nski, M. Gajda and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G {\bf 8}, 787 (1982).
1167:
1168: \bibitem{Ham1}
1169: I. Hamamoto, B. Mottelson, H. Xie and X. Z. Zhang, Z. Phys. D {\bf 21}, 163
1170: (1991).
1171:
1172: \bibitem{Ham2}
1173: I. Hamamoto, X. Z. Zhang and H. X. Xie, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 257}, 1 (1991).
1174:
1175: \bibitem{Rohoz}
1176: S. G. Rohozi\'nski, J. Phys. G {\bf 16}, L173 (1990).
1177:
1178:
1179: \end{thebibliography}
1180:
1181: \newpage
1182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1184:
1185: \begin{table}
1186:
1187: \caption{ Nuclei included in the study and their $R_4=E(4)/E(2)$ ratios
1188: (Eq. (8)~).}
1189: \bigskip
1190:
1191: \centering
1192: \begin{tabular}{ | c c | c c | c c | }
1193: \hline
1194: nucleus & $R_4$ & nucleus & $R_4$ & nucleus & $R_4$ \\
1195: \hline
1196: $^{218}$Rn & 2.014 & $^{218}$Ra & 1.905 & $^{220}$Th & 2.035 \\
1197: $^{220}$Rn & 2.214 & $^{220}$Ra & 2.298 & $^{222}$Th & 2.399 \\
1198: $^{222}$Rn & 2.408 & $^{222}$Ra & 2.715 & $^{224}$Th & 2.896 \\
1199: & & $^{224}$Ra & 2.970 & $^{226}$Th & 3.136 \\
1200: & & $^{226}$Ra & 3.127 & $^{228}$Th & 3.235 \\
1201: \hline
1202: \end{tabular}
1203: \end{table}
1204:
1205:
1206: \bigskip\bigskip
1207:
1208: \centerline{\bf Figure captions}
1209:
1210: \begin{itemize}
1211:
1212: \item[{\bf Fig. 1}] $\Delta E_1(I)$ (in keV), calculated from Eq. (6),
1213: for octupole bands of a) $^{218}$Rn \cite{Cocks}, b) $^{220}$Rn \cite{Cocks},
1214: and c) $^{222}$Rn \cite{Cocks}.
1215: The experimental error in all cases is of the order of the symbol used for
1216: the experimental point and therefore is not seen. See Section 3 for
1217: discussion.
1218:
1219: \item[{\bf Fig. 2}] Same as Fig. 1, but for a) $^{218}$Ra \cite{Schulz}, b)
1220: $^{220}$Ra \cite{Ra220}, c) $^{222}$Ra \cite{Cocks}, d) $^{224}$Ra
1221: \cite{Cocks}, and e) $^{226}$Ra \cite{Cocks}.
1222:
1223: \item[{\bf Fig. 3}] Same as Fig. 1, but for a) $^{220}$Th \cite{Ra220},
1224: b) $^{222}$Th \cite{Th222}, c) $^{224}$Th \cite{Th224}, d) $^{226}$Th
1225: \cite{Th226}, and e) $^{228}$Th \cite{Th228}.
1226:
1227: \item[{\bf Fig. 4}] $\Delta E_1(I)$, calculated from Eq. (6), using
1228: for the levels with even $I$ the expansion of Eq. (33) with
1229: $A=10$, $B=5\ 10^{-4}$, $C=0$, and for the levels with odd $I$ the
1230: expansion of Eq. (34) with $E_0=200$, $A'=9$, $B'=10^{-4}$, $C'=0$.
1231: See Section 5 for discussion.
1232:
1233: \end{itemize}
1234:
1235: \end{document}
1236:
1237:
1238:
1239: