1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LaTeX twice %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3:
4: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
5: \oddsidemargin -0.25cm\evensidemargin -0.25cm
6: \topmargin -1.0cm
7: \textwidth 16.3cm
8: \textheight 22.3cm
9: \begin{document}
10: \baselineskip=14pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
11: \begin{center}
12: {\Large \bf ``Beat'' patterns for the odd--even staggering in
13: octupole bands from a quadrupole--octupole Hamiltonian }
14: \end{center}
15: \medskip
16:
17: \begin{center}
18:
19: {\large Nikolay Minkov$^*$\footnote[1]{e-mail:
20: nminkov@inrne.bas.bg},
21: S. B. Drenska$^*$\footnote[2]{e-mail:
22: sdren@inrne.bas.bg},
23: P. P.Raychev$^{*}$\footnote[3]{e-mail:
24: raychev@inrne.bas.bg},
25: R. P. Roussev$^*$\footnote[4]{Deceased},
26: and
27: Dennis Bonatsos$^\dagger$\footnote[5]{e-mail:
28: bonat@mail.demokritos.gr}\\
29: \medskip
30:
31: $^*$ Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, \\
32: 72 Tzarigrad Road, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria\\
33: \medskip
34:
35: $^\dagger$ Institute of Nuclear Physics, N.C.S.R. ``Demokritos'',\\
36: GR-15310 Aghia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece}
37:
38: \end{center}
39:
40: \bigskip\bigskip
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43:
44: We propose a collective Hamiltonian which incorporates the standard
45: quadrupole terms, octupole terms classified according to the
46: irreducible representations of the octahedron group, a
47: quadrupole--octupole interaction, as well as a term for the
48: bandhead energy linear in $K$ (the projection of angular momentum
49: on the body-fixed $z$-axis). The energy is subsequently minimized
50: with respect to $K$ for each given value of the angular momentum
51: $I$, resulting in $K$ values increasing with $I$ within each band,
52: even in the case in which $K$ is restricted to a set of microscopically
53: plausible values.
54: We demonstrate that this Hamiltonian is able to reproduce a variety
55: of ``beat'' patterns observed recently for the odd--even staggering
56: in octupole bands of light actinides.
57:
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \bigskip
61:
62: PACS Numbers: 21.60.Fw, 21.60.Ev, 21.10.Re
63:
64: \bigskip
65:
66: \newpage
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: The properties of nuclear systems with octupole deformations
70: \cite{BM75} are of current interest due to increasing evidence for
71: the presence of octupole instabilities in various regions of the
72: nuclear table \cite{Ro88,Ahmad,BN96}. Furthermore, some ``beat''
73: patterns have been observed recently for the odd--even staggering
74: (the relative displacement of the odd levels with respect to the
75: positions at which they should have been located according to a fit
76: of the even levels by the formula $E(I)=A I(I+1)$, where $I$
77: denotes the angular momentum) in octupole bands of light actinides
78: \cite{DBoct00} based on recent experimental data
79: \cite{Cocks97,Cocks99}, calling for a study of the interactions
80: which could give rise to such shapes.
81:
82: Various parametrizations of the octupole degrees of freedom
83: \cite{Ro90,Ham91,HBXZ91,WD99} already exist, being a useful tool
84: for understanding the role of the reflection asymmetry correlations
85: and for analyzing the collective properties of such systems. Some
86: important questions in this direction are: which are the collective
87: nuclear interactions that correspond to the different octupole
88: shapes and how do they determine the structure of the respective
89: energy spectra? Physically meaningful answers should be obtained by
90: taking into account the simultaneous presence of other collective
91: degrees of freedom, such as the quadrupole ones \cite{Ro82}.
92:
93: In the present work we address the above problems by examining the
94: interactions that generate collective rotations in a system with
95: a simultaneous presence of octupole and quadrupole deformations.
96: The basic assumption of our consideration is that the rotational
97: motion of such a system can be interpreted in first
98: approximation as the motion of a body with a stable
99: quadrupole--octupole shape. In this respect our purpose is to
100: examine how the nuclear system behaves under collective
101: rotations if the presence of stable quadrupole--octupole
102: deformations is assumed.
103:
104: Based on the octahedron point symmetry parametrization of the
105: octupole shape \cite{Ro90,Ham91,HBXZ91}, we propose a collective
106: Hamiltonian which incorporates the interactions responsible for
107: the rotations associated with the different octupole
108: deformations. In addition we take into account the quadrupole
109: degrees of freedom and the appropriate higher order
110: quadrupole-octupole interaction. Below it will be shown that such
111: a general model Hamiltonian could incorporate the basic
112: properties of a nuclear system rotating under the above
113: assumption.
114:
115: Although this assumption seems to be rather strong (since the
116: presence of stable octupole deformations in nuclei is not yet
117: a well elucidated problem) we suppose that it could give a natural
118: possibility to estimate the extent to which some of the observed
119: nuclear octupole bands carry the characteristics of the stable
120: octupole shapes. Generally, the proposed consideration will
121: provide a direct physical insight into the nuclear collective
122: motion as far as the shape of the system and the respective
123: moments of inertia are slightly changed under the collective
124: motion. Similarly to the case of the pure quadrupole
125: deformations this requirement will be naturally satisfied for the
126: low angular momentum region of the spectrum which is, from another
127: perspective, accessible for detailed microscopic analysis, the
128: length of this region depending on the particular system.
129:
130: Furthermore, we expect that in the higher angular momentum regions
131: the approach suggested will outline some general properties of the
132: system and thus will provide a relevant guide for respective more
133: detailed studies from both microscopic and phenomenological points
134: of view. In particular it will be shown that the model
135: formalism developed in the present work proposes a schematic
136: explanation of the recently observed \cite{DBoct00} ``beat''
137: patterns for the odd--even staggering in octupole bands of light
138: actinides based on recent experimental data
139: \cite{Cocks97,Cocks99}.
140:
141: In Section 2 of the present work the octupole terms of the
142: Hamiltonian, classified by the irreducible representations
143: (irreps) of the octahedron group, will be described, while the
144: quadrupole terms and the octupole--quadrupole interaction will be
145: examined in Section 3, along with the bandhead term of the
146: Hamiltonian and the minimization procedure, which is a basic
147: ingredient of the present work. In Section 4 the diagonal parts
148: of the Hamiltonian will be analyzed and used for the production
149: of schematic odd--even staggering patterns, while the same
150: procedure will be repeated including the non-diagonal parts of
151: the Hamiltonian in Section 5. In Section 6 an analysis of the
152: model formalism under some restrictions on the permitted values of
153: the angular momentum projection on the body-fixed $z$-axis
154: will be presented, while further tests of the formalism will be performed
155: in Section 7. Finally, Section 8 will contain discussion
156: of the present results, while in Section 9 a summary of the
157: present results and plans for future work will be given.
158:
159: \section{Parametrization of the octupole deformation}
160:
161: Our model formalism is based on the principle that the collective
162: properties of a physical system in which octupole correlations
163: take place can be expressed by the following most general
164: octupole field in the intrinsic (body-fixed) frame \cite{Ham91}
165: \begin{equation}
166: V_{3}=\sum_{\mu =-3}^{3}
167: \alpha_{3\,\mu}^{fix}Y^{*}_{3\,\mu} \ ,
168: \label{field1}
169: \end{equation}
170: with
171: $(\alpha_{3\,\mu}^{fix})^{*}=(-1)^{\mu}\alpha_{3\, -\mu}^{fix}$
172:
173: This field can be written in the form \cite{Ham91}
174: \begin{equation}
175: V_{3}=\epsilon_{0}A_{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\epsilon_{1}(i)F_{1}(i)+
176: \sum_{i=1}^{3}\epsilon_{2}(i)F_{2}(i) \ ,
177: \label{field2}
178: \end{equation}
179: where the quantities \cite{Ham91}
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: A_{2}&=&-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(Y_{3\, 2}-Y_{3\, -2})
182: =\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{105}{4\pi}}xyz \ , \\
183: F_{1}(1)&=&Y_{3\, 0}=\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{7}{4\pi}}
184: z(z^{2}-\frac{3}{2}x^{2}-\frac{3}{2}y^{2}) \ , \\
185: F_{1}(2)&=&-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{5}(Y_{3\, 3}-Y_{3\, -3})
186: +\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{3}(Y_{3\, 1}-Y_{3\, -1}) \nonumber \\
187: &=&\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{7}{4\pi}}
188: x(x^{2}-\frac{3}{2}y^{2}-\frac{3}{2}z^{2}) \ , \\
189: F_{1}(3)&=&-i\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{5}(Y_{3\, 3}+Y_{3\, -3})
190: -i\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{3}(Y_{3\, 1}+Y_{3\, -1}) \nonumber \\
191: &=&\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{7}{4\pi}}
192: y(y^{2}-\frac{3}{2}z^{2}-\frac{3}{2}x^{2})\ , \\
193: F_{2}(1)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Y_{3\, 2}+Y_{3\, -2})
194: =\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{105}{16\pi}}
195: z(x^{2}-y^{2})\ , \\
196: F_{2}(2)&=&\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{3}(Y_{3\, 3}-Y_{3\, -3})
197: +\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{5}(Y_{3\, 1}-Y_{3\, -1}) \nonumber \\
198: &=&\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{105}{16\pi}}
199: x(y^{2}-z^{2})\ , \\
200: F_{2}(3)&=&-i\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{3}(Y_{3\, 3}+Y_{3\, -3})
201: +i\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{5}(Y_{3\, 1}+Y_{3\, -1}) \nonumber \\
202: &=&\frac{1}{r^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{105}{16\pi}}
203: y(z^{2}-x^{2}),
204: \end{eqnarray}
205: (with $r^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}$)
206: belong to irreducible representations (irreps) of the octahedron
207: group $O$. In particular, the first quantity (Eq. (3)~) belongs to
208: the one-dimensional irrep $A_{2}$, while the next three quantities
209: (Eqs (4)-(6)~) belong to the three-dimensional irrep $F_{1}$ and
210: the last three quantities (Eqs (7)-(9)~) belong to the
211: three-dimensional irrep $F_{2}$. The seven real parameters
212: $\epsilon_{0}$ and $\epsilon_{r}(i)$ ($r=1,2;\, i=1,2,3$),
213: appearing in Eq. (2), determine the amplitudes of the various
214: components of the octupole deformation. Their relation to the
215: coefficients $\alpha_{3\,\mu}^{fix}$ has been given in Ref.
216: \cite{Ham91}.
217:
218: As we have already seen, the quantities appearing in Eqs (3)-(9),
219: when expressed in terms of the cartesian coordinates $x$, $y$, and
220: $z$, contain linear combinations of terms cubic in the cartesian
221: variables. These specific linear combinations correspond to various
222: octupole shapes (as seen from their expressions in terms of the
223: spherical harmonics), and in addition correspond to the above
224: mentioned irreps of the octahedron group. Our proposition is the
225: following:
226:
227: a) We construct a Hamiltonian using the same cubic terms appearing
228: in Eqs (3)-(9), but replacing the cartesian coordinates $x$, $y$,
229: $z$ by the angular momentum operators $\hat I_x$, $\hat I_y$, $\hat
230: I_z$ (with $\hat I^2 = \hat I_x^2 + \hat I_y^2 + \hat I_z^2$). For
231: example, the term $z^3$ is replaced by $\hat I_z^3$.
232:
233: b) Due to the fact that the operators $\hat I_x$, $\hat I_y$, $\hat
234: I_z$ do not commute, while the coordinates $x$, $y$, $z$ do
235: commute, when making step a) we symmetrize each cubic expression
236: when we write it in terms of the angular momentum operators. For
237: example, the term $z (x^2-y^2)$ is replaced by $\hat I_z (\hat
238: I_x^2 - \hat I_y^2) + (\hat I_x^2-\hat I_y^2) I_z$.
239:
240: c) During the procedure described above, the $r^3$ factors
241: appearing in the denominators of Eqs (3)-(9) are replaced by $\hat
242: I^3$ factors. In the final result we normalize with respect to
243: $\hat I^3$, i.e. we multiply the results by $\hat I^3$, an
244: operation which is equivalent to the transition to a unit sphere, a
245: natural thing to do since we are interested in surface shapes.
246: Indeed, this operation is equivalent to the multiplication of the
247: quantities appearing in Eqs (3)-(9) by $r^3$, an action which
248: eliminates their radial dependence, leading to a transition to the
249: unit sphere. The transition to the unit sphere is the reason that
250: the standard quadrupole and octupole operators are defined to be
251: proportional to $r^2 Y_{2\mu}$ and $r^3 Y_{3\mu}$ respectively
252: \cite{BM75}.
253:
254: d) As a result, we obtain a Hamiltonian (as a function of the
255: angular momentum operators $\hat I_x$, $\hat I_y$, $\hat I_z$) the
256: terms of which correspond to the same octupole shapes which appear
257: in the Hamiltonian of Eqs (2)-(9).
258:
259: e) The terms of the resulting Hamiltonian in addition belong to the
260: same irreps of the octahedron group as the terms of the original
261: Hamiltonian, appearing in Eqs (3)-(9). In other words, through this
262: procedure we determine the octahedron point symmetry properties of
263: the system in angular momentum space.
264:
265: Our proposition is similar to the procedure used in Ref.
266: \cite{LuoLi} for the hexadecapole field.
267:
268: The following Hamiltonian is then obtained:
269: \begin{equation}
270: \hat{H}_{oct}=\hat{H}_{A_{2}}+
271: \sum_{r=1}^{2}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\hat{H}_{F_{r}(i)} \ ,
272: \label{Hoctgen}
273: \end{equation}
274: with
275: \begin{eqnarray}
276: \hat{H}_{A_{2}}&=&{a}_{2}\frac{1}{4}
277: [(\hat{I}_x\hat{I}_y+\hat{I}_y\hat{I}_x)\hat{I}_z+
278: \hat{I}_z(\hat{I}_x\hat{I}_y+\hat{I}_y\hat{I}_x)] \ ,
279: \label{HA} \\
280: \hat{H}_{F_{1}(1)}&=&\frac{1}{2}{f}_{11}
281: \hat{I}_z(5\hat{I}_z^{2}-3\hat{I}^{2}) \ ,
282: \label{HF11} \\
283: \hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}&=&\frac{1}{2}{f}_{12}
284: (5\hat{I}_x^{3}-3\hat{I}_x\hat{I}^{2}) \ ,
285: \label{HF12} \\
286: \hat{H}_{F_{1}(3)}&=&\frac{1}{2}{f}_{13}
287: (5\hat{I}_y^{3}-3\hat{I}_y\hat{I}^{2}) \ ,
288: \label{HF13} \\
289: \hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}&=&{f}_{21}\frac{1}{2}
290: [\hat{I}_z(\hat{I}_x^{2}-\hat{I}_y^{2})+
291: (\hat{I}_x^{2}-\hat{I}_y^{2})\hat{I}_z] \ ,
292: \label{HF21} \\
293: \hat{H}_{F_2(2)}&=&{f}_{22}
294: (\hat{I}_x\hat{I}^{2}-\hat{I}_x^{3}-
295: \hat{I}_x\hat{I}_z^{2}-\hat{I}_z^{2}\hat{I}_x) \ ,
296: \label{HF22} \\
297: \hat{H}_{F_2(3)}&=&{f}_{23}
298: (\hat{I}_y\hat{I}_z^{2}+\hat{I}_z^{2}\hat{I}_y+
299: \hat{I}_y^{3}-\hat{I}_y\hat{I}^{2})
300: \label{HF23}
301: \end{eqnarray}
302: The Hamiltonian parameters ${a}_{2}$ and ${f}_{r\, i}$ ($r=1$ ,2;
303: $i=1$, 2, 3), appearing in Eqs (11)-(17), are formally related to
304: the parameters in Eq. (\ref{field2}) as follows
305: \begin{equation}
306: {a}_{2}=\epsilon_{0}\sqrt{\frac{105}{4\pi}}, \qquad
307: {f}_{1\, i}=\epsilon_{1}(i)\sqrt{\frac{7}{4\pi}}, \qquad
308: {f}_{2\, i}=\epsilon_{2}(i)\sqrt{\frac{105}{16\pi}},
309: \qquad \ i=1,2,3 .
310: \end{equation}
311:
312: The non-vanishing matrix elements of the operators of Eqs
313: (\ref{HA})--(\ref{HF23}) in the states with collective angular
314: momentum $I$ are given in the Appendix.
315:
316: In the Appendix we remark that the operator $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(1)}$
317: (Eq.~(\ref{HF11})~), which corresponds to the term $Y_{3\, 0}$
318: (see Eq. (4)~), characterized by axial deformation, is the only
319: octupole operator possessing diagonal matrix elements. Below it
320: will be seen that this operator is of major importance in
321: determining the fine structure of collective bands with octupole
322: correlations. This fact does not come as a surprise, since it is
323: well known that the $Y_{3\, 0}$ (axial) deformation is the leading
324: mode in systems with reflection asymmetric shapes (see Ref.
325: \cite{BN96} for a relevant review).
326:
327: \section{Inclusion of quadrupole degrees of freedom}
328:
329: It is known, however, that the use of the pure octupole field of
330: Eq. (\ref{field1}) is not sufficient for the description of the
331: collective properties of nuclei exhibiting octupole deformation,
332: since the quadrupole deformation is also present. Therefore one has
333: to consider the octupole degrees of freedom together with the
334: quadrupole deformations, and in addition one has to deal with their
335: coupling. A general treatment of a combined quadrupole--octupole
336: field has been given earlier in the framework of a general
337: collective model for coupled multipole surface modes
338: \cite{Ro88,Ro82}.
339:
340: According to the above considerations it is reasonable to suggest
341: that the most general collective Hamiltonian of a system exhibiting
342: octupole deformations should also contain the standard (axial)
343: quadrupole rotation part
344: \begin{equation}
345: \hat{H}_{rot}= A\hat{I}^{2}+A'\hat{I}_{z}^{2} \ ,
346: \label{Hrot}
347: \end{equation}
348: where $A$ and $A'$ are the inertial parameters. In addition, it is
349: reasonable to try to describe the coupling between the quadrupole
350: and the octupole degrees of freedom by the following higher order
351: diagonal quadrupole--octupole interaction term, which corresponds
352: to the product $Y_{2\, 0}\ Y_{3\, 0}$,
353: \begin{equation}
354: \hat{H}_{qoc}=f_{qoc}\frac{1}{I^{2}}(15\hat{I}_{z}^{5}-
355: 14\hat{I}_{z}^{3}\hat{I}^{2}+
356: 3\hat{I}_{z}\hat{I}^{4}) \ ,
357: \label{Hqoc}
358: \end{equation}
359: since it is known that the axial deformation corresponding to
360: $Y_{3\, 0}$ is the leading mode in systems with reflection
361: asymmetric shapes \cite{BN96} and, in an analogous way, the axial
362: deformation corresponding to $Y_{2\, 0}$ is the leading mode in
363: systems with quadrupole deformations. The operator of Eq. (20) is
364: also normalized with respect to the multiplication factor $I^3$, in
365: the same way as the operators of Eqs (11)-(17) are, as described in
366: the previous Section. In other words, we use the product $I^3\
367: Y_{2\, 0}\ Y_{3\, 0}$, in order to ensure that all non-quadrupole
368: Hamiltonian terms will be of the same order.
369:
370: As a result, the total Hamiltonian of the system can be written in
371: the form
372: \begin{equation}
373: \hat{H}=\hat{H}_{bh}+\hat{H}_{rot}+\hat{H}_{oct}+
374: \hat{H}_{qoc} \ ,
375: \label{Hgen}
376: \end{equation}
377: where
378: \begin{equation}
379: \hat{H}_{bh}=\hat{H}_{0}+f_{k}\hat{I}_{z} \ ,
380: \end{equation}
381: is a pure phenomenological part introduced in order to reproduce
382: the bandhead energy in the form
383: \begin{equation}
384: E_{bh}=E_{0}+f_{k}K \ ,
385: \end{equation}
386: were $E_{0}$ and $f_{k}$ are free parameters. The bandhead energy
387: $E_{bh}$ is considered proportional to $K$ in analogy to what
388: happens in the five-dimensional quadrupole oscillator model (see
389: Appendix 6B of Ref. \cite{BM75}), as well as in the standard
390: rotation--vibration model (see section 6.5 of Ref. \cite{GM96}).
391: The $K$-dependence of $E_{bh}$ plays an important role in our
392: approach, since it provides the correct value of the bandhead
393: angular momentum projection $K$ in the variation procedure
394: described below.
395:
396: We remark that the Hamiltonian of Eq. (\ref{Hgen}) is not a
397: rotational invariant in general. It does not commute with the
398: total angular momentum operators and, as a result, any state with
399: given angular momentum $I$ is energy split with respect to the
400: quantum number $K$. Therefore, the physical relevance of this
401: Hamiltonian depends on the possibility to determine in a unique
402: way the angular momentum projection. Our basic assumption is that
403: $K$ is not frozen within the sequence of states of the collective
404: rotational band. We suggest that for any given angular momentum
405: $I$ the projection $K$ should be determined so as to minimize the
406: respective collective energy. The resulting octupole band is then
407: the yrast sequence of the energy levels produced by our model
408: Hamiltonian. It should be mentioned that a similar procedure has
409: been used in Refs \cite{HM,MQ} in relation to the $\Delta I=2$
410: staggering effect in superdeformed nuclei.
411:
412: \section{The diagonal parts of the Hamiltonian}
413:
414: As a first step in testing our Hamiltonian we consider its diagonal
415: part
416: \begin{equation}
417: \hat{H}^{d}=\hat{H}_{bh}+\hat{H}_{rot}+\hat{H}_{oct}^{d}+
418: \hat{H}_{qoc} \ ,
419: \label{Hdiag}
420: \end{equation}
421: where the operator $\hat{H}_{oct}^{d}\equiv \hat{H}_{F_{1}(1)}$
422: represents the diagonal part of the pure octupole Hamiltonian
423: $\hat{H}_{oct}$ of Eq.~(\ref{Hoctgen}).
424:
425: The following diagonal matrix element is then obtained
426: \begin{eqnarray}
427: E_{K}(I)&=&E_{0}+f_{k}K+AI(I+1)+A'K^{2}+
428: f_{11}\left( \frac{5}{2}K^{3}-\frac{3}{2}KI(I+1)\right)
429: \nonumber \\
430: &+&f_{qoc}\frac{1}{I^{2}}
431: \left( 15K^{5}-14K^{3}I(I+1)+
432: 3KI^{2}(I+1)^{2}\right) \ .
433: \label{EKI}
434: \end{eqnarray}
435:
436: Following the above mentioned assumption for the angular momentum
437: projection $K$, we determine the yrast sequence $E(I)$ by
438: minimizing for each value of $I$ the expression of Eq.~(\ref{EKI})
439: as a function of integer $K$ in the range $-I\leq K\leq I$. The
440: obtained energy spectrum depends on six model parameters: $E_{0}$
441: is a constant contributing to the bandhead energy; $f_{k}$ is
442: determined in order to correspond to the correct bandhead energy of
443: the octupole band for $I=1$, in which case one has $K=1$ as well
444: (This is appropriately modified in the case of bands starting with
445: higher $K$. For example in $K=5$ bands the lowest angular momentum
446: is $I=5$, and $f_k$ is fixed in order to provide the correct
447: bandhead energy for $I=K=5$.); $A$ and $A'$ are the quadrupole
448: inertial parameters which should in general correspond to the known
449: quadrupole shape (axes ratio) of the relevant nucleus; $f_{11}$ and
450: $f_{qoc}$ are the parameters of the diagonal octupole
451: (Eq.~(\ref{HF11})~) and quadrupole-octupole (Eq.~(\ref{Hqoc})~)
452: interactions respectively. In what follows we give fixed values to
453: the first four parameters ($E_0$, $f_k$, $A$, $A'$) and vary the
454: last two parameters ($f_{11}$, $f_{qoc}$) in order to examine the
455: influence of the last two terms of Eq. (25) on the odd--even
456: staggering pattern.
457:
458: A schematic energy spectrum of this kind, obtained for a sample
459: set of parameter values, is given in Table 1. It is seen that the
460: ``yrast'' values of the quantum number $K$, resulting from the
461: minimization procedure described above, gradually increase with
462: the increase of the angular momentum $I$. We remark that these
463: values of $K$ correspond to the local minima of the energy
464: expression of Eq.~(\ref{EKI}) as a function of $K$, which is
465: illustrated in Fig.~1 for the same set of parameters. We see that
466: these minima appear for positive values of $K$, are well
467: determined, and their depth increases with the increase of the
468: angular momentum $I$.
469:
470: These results indicate that the rotational motion of a system with
471: stable quadropole--octupole deformation is associated with complex
472: angular momentum dynamics, due to the complex shape contributions
473: to collectivity. More precisely, the following theoretical
474: proposition is formed: For this kind of rotational motion the
475: increase in the total angular momentum of the system is associated
476: with an energetically favorable increase in its third projection
477: $K$ on the body fixed axis. This means that the vector of the
478: angular momentum deviates ``step by step'' from the ``$x$-$y$''
479: body-fixed plane (which is perpendicular to the body-fixed
480: ``z''-axis) as its magnitude increases. In other words, the higher
481: angular momenta will be attended by stronger precession, or
482: ``wobbling motion'' of the system. These findings resemble the
483: recent results \cite{Ansari} obtained within the framework of a
484: self-consistent cranked HFB approach. Application of the method to
485: some Os isotopes has demonstrated that high-$K$ bands become
486: important in the high angular momentum region \cite{Ansari}.
487:
488: Such a behavior of the spectrum could also be interpreted as a
489: multiband-crossing phenomenon, since the obtained yrast sequence
490: can be considered as the envelope of the curves with different
491: values of the quantum number $K$, as it is illustrated in Fig.~2.
492: This interpretation can, however, be considered as a mathematical
493: description, not necessarily implying the physical existence of
494: several bands with different values of $K$.
495:
496: Thus, our schematic consideration suggests that the rotational
497: motion of a system with stable quadrupole--octupole deformations
498: invokes $K$-values essentially higher than the ones usually
499: considered in microscopic studies. We remark that the situation
500: considered here is essentially different from the case of pure
501: quadrupole rotations, where the bandhead $K$-value always provides
502: the minimum of the collective rotational energy along the whole
503: band (for example $E_{rot}=A I(I+1) + A'K^2$). Thus the obtained
504: wobbling motion appears as an effect of the higher multipolarity of
505: the considered collective interactions. The extent to which the
506: $K$-values appearing in our procedure provide physically reasonable
507: interpretations of various nuclear collective modes will be
508: considered in Section 6, where the limitation to $K\leq 3$ will be
509: studied.
510:
511: Now we can examine the fine structure of the collective bands
512: obtained in the above model procedure. We see in Table 1 that the
513: $K$-values characterizing the levels with increasing $I$ are
514: grouped in couples containing two successive values of $I$ (one
515: even and one odd). This fact implies the presence of an odd--even
516: staggering effect, as we shall immediately see. A measure of the
517: odd--even staggering effect is the quantity
518: \begin{equation}
519: Stg(I)= 6\Delta E(I)-4\Delta E(I-1)-4\Delta E(I+1)+
520: \Delta E(I+2)+\Delta E(I-2)\ ,
521: \label{stag}
522: \end{equation}
523: with
524: \begin{equation}
525: \Delta E(I)=E(I+1)-E(I).
526: \end{equation}
527: The quantity $Stg(I)$ is proportional to
528: the discrete approximation of the fourth
529: derivative of the function $\Delta E(I)$, i.e.
530: proportional to the fifth derivative
531: of the energy $E(I)$, and is able to demonstrate fine deviations
532: from the pure rotational behavior, as it has been demonstrated in
533: Ref. \cite{DBoct00} for the octupole bands of several light
534: actinides. An analog of this quantity has been introduced earlier
535: \cite{Fli1,Fli2,Ced} for the study of $\Delta I=2$ staggering in
536: nuclear superdeformed bands.
537:
538: The way in which the appearance of the $K$-values in couples for
539: successive values of $I$ leads to odd--even staggering can be seen
540: from Table 1, using the second term of Eq. (25) as an example. In
541: Table 1 we see that couples of $K$ values appear for $I\geq 8$. In
542: this region the contribution of the second term of Eq. (25) to
543: $\Delta E(I)$ is zero for even values of $I$, while it is $+f_k$
544: for odd values of $I$. Then we easily see from Eq. (26) that the
545: contribution of the second term of Eq. (25) to $Stg(I)$ is $+8 f_k$
546: for odd values of $I$, while it is $-8 f_k$ for even values of $I$.
547: Therefore the second term of Eq. (25) leads to odd--even staggering
548: of constant amplitude. The 4th, 5th and 6th terms of Eq. (25)
549: depend nonlinearly on $K$ and/or $I$, and therefore give odd--even
550: staggering of varying amplitude. In the case of the 4th term, it is
551: easy to see that it gives staggering with amplitude increasing
552: linearly as a function of I. (The terms $E_0$ and $A I(I+1)$ do not
553: contribute to the odd--even staggering, as it is known from Ref.
554: \cite{DBoct00}.)
555:
556: Several examples of odd--even staggering occurring from Eq. (26) for
557: different sets of parameter values used in Eq. (25) are given in
558: Fig. 3. The parameters $E_0$ and $f_k$ have been kept constant in
559: all parts of Fig. 3, while the parameters $A$ and $A'$ have been
560: kept constant in all parts of Fig. 3 except the last one (Fig.
561: 3(f)~). In contrast, the parameters $f_{11}$ and $f_{qoc}$ have
562: been given different values in the various parts of Fig. 3.
563:
564: Fig.~3(a) illustrates a long odd--even staggering pattern which
565: looks similar to the ``beats'' observed in the octupole bands of
566: some light actinides \cite{DBoct00} (with $^{220}$Ra, $^{224}$Ra
567: and $^{226}$Ra being probably the best examples), a difference
568: being that in the realistic cases of Ref. \cite{DBoct00} the
569: amplitude of the ``beats'' seems to be decreasing with increasing
570: $I$, while in Fig. 3(a) the opposite seems to hold.
571:
572: In Fig.~3(b) the increased values of $f_{11}$ and $f_{qoc}$
573: provide a wide angular momentum region (up to $I\sim 40$) with a
574: regular staggering pattern.
575:
576: The further increase of $f_{qoc}$ results
577: in a staggering pattern with different amplitudes,
578: shown in Fig.~3(c).
579:
580: The further increase of $f_{11}$ and $f_{qoc}$ leads to a
581: staggering pattern with many ``beats'', as shown in Fig~3(d).
582: Notice that in Fig. 3(d) the first three ``beats'' are completed by
583: $I\approx 40$, while in Fig. 3(a) the first three ``beats'' are
584: completed by $I\approx 70$.
585:
586: Fig.~3(e) illustrates what happens in the case of vanishing
587: quadrupole--octupole interaction term ($f_{qoc}=0$), keeping the
588: rest of the parameters the same as in Figs 3(b) and 3(c). We see
589: that in the present case the ``beat'' effect occurs very
590: frequently, while in Figs 3(b) and 3(c) the change was much slower.
591:
592: Finally, an example with almost constant staggering amplitude is
593: shown in Fig.~3(f). It resembles the form of the odd--even
594: staggering predicted in the SU(3) limit of various algebraic models
595: (see Ref. \cite{DBoct00} for details and relevant references). It
596: also resembles the odd--even staggering seen in some octupole bands
597: of light actinides \cite{DBoct00} (with $^{222}$Rn being probably
598: the best example).
599:
600: \section{The non-diagonal parts of the Hamiltonian}
601:
602: After seeing in the previous section the main features of the
603: diagonal part of the Hamiltonian, we can now focus our attention
604: on the general Hamiltonian of Eq. (\ref{Hgen}), including the
605: various non-diagonal terms given in Eqs (\ref{HA}),
606: (\ref{HF12})--(\ref{HF23}). The main problem in this case is the
607: fact that $K$ is in general not a good quantum number. We can,
608: however, make analysis for small values of the respective
609: parameters ($a_2$, $f_{12}$, $f_{13}$, $f_{21}$, $f_{22}$,
610: $f_{23}$), which keep $K$ ``asymptotically'' good. Keeping these
611: parameters small means that we use a weak $K$-bandmixing
612: interaction, which guarantees that for any explicit energy minimum
613: appearing in the diagonal case the corresponding eigenvalue of the
614: perturbed Hamiltonian will be uniquely determined. Thus we are
615: able to obtain for the perturbed Hamiltonian a $K$-mixed yrast
616: energy sequence analogous to the one we got in the previous
617: section for the diagonal part of the Hamiltonian.
618:
619: Our numerical analysis of the Hamiltonian eigenvector systems
620: shows that the parameters of the non-diagonal terms should be
621: smaller by an order of magnitude in comparison to the value of
622: the parameter $f_{11}$. In addition, by examining the
623: corresponding matrix elements in the Appendix, we deduce that the
624: following pairs of non-diagonal terms give identical contributions
625: to the energy spectrum: $\hat{H}_{A_{2}}$ and
626: $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}$; $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}$ and
627: $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(3)}$; $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}$ and
628: $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(3)}$. Therefore it suffices to keep from now on
629: only the terms $\hat{H}_{F_1(2)}$, $\hat{H}_{F_2(1)}$,
630: $\hat{H}_{F_2(2)}$.
631:
632: In Fig.~4 two staggering patterns in the presence of $K$-bandmixing
633: terms are illustrated. In the calculation we have included, as we
634: have already mentioned, the non-diagonal terms
635: $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}$, $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}$, and
636: $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}$, along with the already considered diagonal
637: Hamiltonian of Eq. (\ref{Hdiag}). The three non-diagonal terms have
638: been included with two different sets of parameters (both obeying
639: the above mentioned condition that the values of the parameters
640: accompanying the non-diagonal terms should be at least an order of
641: magnitude smaller than the value of the parameter $f_{11}$), shown
642: in Figs 4(a) and 4(b), while the parameters of the diagonal part
643: have been kept the same as in Fig.~3(b) (and in Table~1). Comparing
644: Figs 3(b) and 4(a) we see that the non-diagonal terms affect more
645: severely the higher angular momentum region by decreasing the
646: staggering amplitude. Moreover, the larger values for the
647: parameters of the non-diagonal terms, shown in Fig.~4(b), reduce
648: more seriously the staggering pattern in the higher angular
649: momentum region, as one can see by comparing Figs 3(b) and 4(b) and
650: noticing the different scales on the vertical axes of the two
651: figures. The pattern appearing in Fig. 4(b) resembles the
652: experimental situation in $^{218}$Rn and $^{228}$Th \cite{DBoct00}
653: (odd--even staggering with amplitude decreasing as a function of
654: $I$).
655:
656: \section{Low-$K$ ($K\leq 3$) analysis of the model formalism}
657:
658: A discussion on the $K$-values appearing in our model
659: consideration is appropriate in this place.
660:
661: Usually from microscopic point of view the eigenvalues of the total
662: angular momentum projection $I_z$ (which, in case of axial
663: symmetry, coincides with the intrinsic momentum projection $J_z$)
664: are restricted to $K=\leq 3$. This requirement is well justified in
665: the case of octupole vibrations of quadrupole deformed nuclei. It
666: reflects the shell model concept that the octupole degrees of
667: freedom could be generated by an octupole-octupole $\lambda =3$
668: interaction (where $\lambda$ stands, as usual, for the
669: multipolarity) which couples single-particle states of opposite
670: parity \cite{BN96}. In particular, this assumption gives a
671: satisfactory interpretation for the fine structure of negative
672: parity rotational bands built on octupole vibrations.
673:
674: In view of the above, it is interesting to examine our
675: formalism in the case when the space of the $K$-values is
676: restricted to $K_{max}=3$. Indeed such a test is important
677: especially for the low angular momentum regions, where the
678: intrinsic structure of octupole degrees of freedom is
679: microscopically well studied.
680:
681: Along these lines, we performed a schematic
682: calculation including the values
683: $K=0$, 1, 2, 3 in the angular momentum region up to
684: $I=10$, as well as another calculation including the values
685: $K=0$, 1, 2, 3 in the angular momentum region up to
686: $I=16$. The yrast sequences obtained are given in Tables 2 and 3
687: respectively, while the resulting staggering patterns are shown in
688: Fig. 5. We see that our formalism provides a regular staggering
689: pattern for the states up to $I=10$ [Fig. 5(a)] and a ``beat''
690: pattern for the spectrum up to $I=16$ [Fig. 5(b)]. These examples
691: (obtained for the parameter values given in Tables 2 and 3,
692: respectively) illustrate that our approach is capable to provide
693: reasonable staggering patterns under the restriction to $K\leq 3$,
694: at least in the low angular momentum region with $I=10$-16. In
695: other words, the schematic model gives reasonable results under the
696: restriction to $K\leq 3$, at least in the microscopically
697: accessible angular momentum regions.
698:
699: It is, however, important to remark that our approach suggests a
700: rather more extended treatment of the collective octupole degrees
701: of freedom, which is expected to be useful in view of the
702: increasing bulk of data indicating possible stable octupole
703: deformations in several nuclei, the light actinides providing the
704: best examples. Some of these bands (the octupole bands in
705: $^{224-226}$Ra and $^{224-228}$Th, for example) possess rather well
706: pronounced rotational structures (see Table~1 in
707: Ref.~\cite{DBoct00}). Our proposition is that in these cases the
708: concept of a rotating quadrupole--octupole shape should be more
709: evident. In these cases, in contrast to the pure octupole
710: vibrations, it is not {\it a priori} clear why the combined
711: quadrupole--octupole intrinsic configurations should be restricted
712: to $K \leq 3$ projection values. Namely for these kinds of
713: rotational motion our collective formalism suggests that $K$ could
714: be higher than $3$. One can easily see that for the relatively well
715: deformed nuclei, such as $^{224-226}$Ra and $^{224-228}$Th, the
716: Nilsson orbitals do not exclude the presence of reasonable $K>3$
717: intrinsic configurations \cite{Quentin}. This remark is of
718: particular importance for the higher angular momentum region ($I
719: \geq 10$-16), where pair breaking effects are possible.
720:
721: Another important question to be examined is whether the energy
722: gain in case of yrast rotations with $K>3$ is larger than the
723: intrinsic energy necessary to raise $K$ above $3$. There is no {\it
724: a priori} answer to this question, which would be an interesting
725: problem for future combined efforts from both collective and
726: microscopic points of view. Here we just remark that for the
727: collective motion considered the energy gain rapidly increases with
728: the increase of the angular momentum (see the depth of the minima
729: in the curves of Fig.~1).
730:
731: \section{Further tests of the model formalism}
732:
733: The restriction to $K \leq 3$ values, used in the previous section,
734: demonstrated that odd--even staggering and ``beat'' patterns
735: can indeed appear in this special case. This particular collection
736: of $K$ values ($K=0$, 1, 2, 3) has certain probability to appear
737: low in energy in the case of nuclei exhibiting octupole deformation,
738: but other possibilities also exist. In fact, it is well known from
739: experiment that the various $K$ values are built up through the
740: pair-breaking mechanism. As a result, $K$ is not a smoothly increasing
741: function (while $I$ is). Which $K$ values will appear lower in energy
742: in each nucleus depends strongly on the microscopic structure of the
743: nucleus. One is therefore confronted with the following questions:
744:
745: 1) Given a collection of $K$ values, which appear low in energy in a specific
746: nucleus because of microscopic reasons, is the present formalism
747: predicting odd--even staggering or not?
748:
749: 2) What is the meaning of minimization with respect to $K$ in this case?
750:
751: 3) In which order do the various allowed values of $K$ appear as $I$ is
752: increasing?
753:
754: We have performed several numerical tests, which need not to be reproduced
755: here in detail, in order to answer these questions. The following
756: conclusions have been reached:
757:
758: 1) Given a collection of $K$ values which are non-successive integers
759: (for example, $K=5$, 7, 9, 10, 15), odd--even staggering and ``beat''
760: patterns do appear for certain values of the Hamiltonian parameters.
761: One is therefore persuaded that in principle the model formalism can produce
762: ``beat'' patterns for any microscopically directed collection of $K$
763: values.
764:
765: 2) In the just mentioned case, $K$ is not a continuous variable. However,
766: one can still minimize the energy with respect to $K$, in the following
767: sense: Given a collection of $K$ values, for each value of $I$ one
768: determines (among the members of the collection) the $K$ value for which
769: the energy is minimum.
770:
771: 3) In all cases the allowed values of $K$ appear in increasing order
772: as $I$ is increasing, similarly to what occurs in Tables 1--3.
773:
774: In all of the above we have been assuming that $K$ takes only integer
775: values, i.e. that $K$ is a good quantum number. This is an assumption
776: of the model, which is quite usual in the realm of phenomenological
777: models (but not in the case of microscopic models), in which $K$ is assumed
778: to be a good (or asymptotically good) quantum number. One might
779: wonder, however, how strongly the appearance of odd--even staggering
780: and ``beat'' patterns in the present model depends on this assumption.
781: In order to confront this question, we have performed the following
782: tests: We repeated the calculations concerning Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)
783: allowing $K$ to vary not with a step of 1.0, but with a step of 0.5,
784: or 0.1, or 0.01, or 0.0001, as well as allowing $K$ to be a continuous
785: variable. The results need not be reproduced here in full detail,
786: but the conclusion was that in both cases the odd--even staggering
787: drops dramatically as the step of the variation of $K$ decreases,
788: and practically vanishes when $K$ is a continuous variable.
789: One therefore concludes that the appearence of odd--even staggering
790: and ``beat'' patterns in the present model strongly depends on the
791: assumption that $K$ is a good (or asymptotically good) quantum number,
792: taking integer values, an assumption which is rather common among
793: phenomenological models. In the other hand, as it has already been
794: mentioned in the beginning of this section, practically any
795: microscopically directed set of integer values of $K$ can lead
796: to the appearance of odd--even staggering and ``beat'' patterns
797: within the framework of the present model.
798:
799: In conclusion, the assumption that $K$ is a good (or asymptotically good)
800: quantum number, therefore taking integer values only, is a fundamental one
801: as far as the appearance of odd--even staggering and ``beat'' patterns
802: within the present model is concerned. Once $K$ is assuming only integer
803: values, odd--even staggering and ``beat'' patterns can in principle
804: be constructed (for appropriate parameter values in the Hamiltonian)
805: for any set of microscopically directed $K$ values lying low in energy.
806:
807: \section{Discussion}
808:
809: The staggering patterns illustrated so far (Figs~3 and 4) cover
810: almost all odd--even staggering patterns seen in nuclear octupole
811: bands. The amplitudes obtained for the sets of parameters
812: considered vary up to 300 keV. Staggering patterns with larger
813: values of $Stg(I)$ can be easily obtained for different parameter
814: sets. On this basis it is reasonable to assume that the model
815: parameters can be adjusted appropriately so as to reproduce the
816: staggering patterns seen in the octupole bands of the light
817: actinides \cite{DBoct00}, as well as in rotational negative parity
818: bands with $K\geq 1$ built on octupole vibrations. In the fitting
819: procedure one should take into account the minimization of the
820: energy with respect to $K$ for each given value of $I$. Work in
821: this direction is in progress.
822:
823: At this point the following comments on the structure of the
824: collective interactions used and the related symmetries are in
825: place:
826:
827: 1) The above mentioned fact that the six non-diagonal terms of the
828: octupole Hamiltonian can be arranged into three pairs, the terms
829: belonging to the same pair giving equal contributions, indicates
830: that only four terms of the octupole Hamiltonian (the diagonal
831: term plus three appropriately chosen non-diagonal terms) suffice
832: for the determination of the energy spectrum. This result
833: reflects the fact that in the intrinsic frame of reference three
834: octupole degrees of freedom, from the total of seven ones, are
835: related to the orientation angles. In the present case we chose
836: in Sec. 5 and in Fig. 4 to keep the diagonal term
837: $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(1)}$ and the non-diagonal terms
838: $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}$, $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}$ and
839: $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}$. Our analysis (related to the collective
840: rotations of the system) gives a natural way for determining the
841: four collective octupole interaction terms which give independent
842: contributions.
843:
844: 2) The symmetry of the various combinations of spherical harmonics
845: appearing in Eqs (3)-(9) has been considered in detail in Ref.
846: \cite{HBXZ91}. The $Y_{30}$ term is axially symmetric, i.e. it has
847: the symmetry of the D$_{\infty}$ group, while the term $Y_{3\, 1}
848: -Y_{3\, -1}$ has the symmetry of the C$_{2v}$ group, the term
849: $Y_{3\, 2}+Y_{3\, -2}$ has the symmetry of the T$_d$ group, and the
850: term $Y_{3\, 3}-Y_{3\, -3}$ has the symmetry of the D$_{3h}$ group.
851: >From the correspondence between Eqs (3)-(9) and Eqs (11)-(17) we
852: see that the diagonal term $\hat{H}_{F_1(1)}$ is axially symmetric,
853: while the non-diagonal terms $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}$,
854: $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}$ and $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}$ (mentioned in the
855: previous item 1)~) are constructed by using the combinations
856: $(Y_{3\, 1}-Y_{3\, -1})$, $(Y_{3\, 2}+Y_{3\, -2})$, and $(Y_{3\, 3}
857: -Y_{3\, -3})$.
858:
859: 3) Concerning the role of the various terms in the odd--even
860: staggering effect, our schematic results of Secs. 4 and 5
861: indicate that the non-diagonal $K$-bandmixing interactions suppress
862: the staggering pattern, while the axially symmetric term
863: $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(1)}$ is able to provide a ``beat'' staggering
864: behavior (see Fig.~3(e)). The quadrupole--octupole term
865: $\hat{H}_{qoc}$ does influence the staggering pattern, providing
866: wider angular momentum regions with regular staggering. In short,
867: the axially symmetric term seems to be the most important one
868: (among the terms involving the octupole degrees of freedom) for the
869: production of ``beat'' behavior in the odd--even staggering
870: pattern. However, it should be remembered at this point that the
871: octupole and octupole--quadrupole terms are not the only ones
872: contributing to the odd--even staggering effect. As we have already
873: mentioned in Sec. 4, the term $f_k K$, coming from the bandhead
874: energy, makes to the odd--even staggering a contribution of
875: constant amplitude, while the $A' K^2$ term, coming from the
876: quadrupole part of the Hamiltonian, makes a contribution to the
877: odd--even staggering with an amplitude which is increasing linearly
878: as a function of $I$. It should be noticed, though, that these
879: remarks are based only on a few schematic calculations and in no
880: way are final conclusions. In order to reach safer conclusions
881: about the relative importance of the various terms in giving rise
882: to a ``beat'' behavior of the odd--even staggering, one has to
883: perform detailed fits to the octupole bands of the light actinides,
884: as mentioned above.
885:
886: 4) As has already been commented is Secs. 4 and 6 the most general
887: schematic results we have obtained suggest that in the high angular
888: momentum region some high $K$ values should be involved (as a
889: result of the minimization of the energy with respect to $K$ for
890: each given value of $I$, which is an important ingredient of our
891: approach). The fact that the $K$ quantum number is not a good
892: quantum number (not even approximately) of the relevant states has
893: been realized long ago \cite{NV70a,NV70b,V70}. In microscopic
894: calculations in the rare earth region (with $152 \leq A \leq 190$)
895: \cite{NV70a}, in which the values $K=0$, 1, 2, 3 have been
896: included, it has been seen that in the beginning of the region the
897: values $K=0$, 1 are important for the lowest $3^-$ state, while in
898: the middle of the region the values $K=1$, 2 are important and in
899: the far end of the region the values $K=2$, 3 are important
900: \cite{NV70a}. These results are consistent with our low-$K$ model
901: analysis given in Section 6. The same authors have dealt with the
902: actinide region ($A\geq 222$) in Ref. \cite{NV70b}. One of the
903: authors of Refs \cite{NV70a,NV70b} in Ref. \cite{V70} finds that
904: the restriction to $K\leq 3$ is not justifiable for large energies.
905: These findings are in agreement with our results given in Table 1
906: as well as with our comments in the end of Sec. 6.
907:
908: 5) Concerning the analysis in Sec. 5 and the above comments 3) and
909: 4), we remark that the restrictions imposed on the non-diagonal
910: Hamiltonian terms (keeping $K$ asymptotically good) are rather
911: strong and reflect the particular physical assumptions of our
912: consideration. However, for a more general quantum mechanical
913: system there is no principal reason to restrict the analysis by
914: assuming the presence of small non-axial deformations only
915: \cite{Pittel}. In this direction an extension of the present work
916: not limited to small non-diagonal contributions could be of
917: interest.
918:
919: \section{Conclusions and outlook}
920:
921: In summary, we have considered a Hamiltonian involving octupole and
922: quadrupole terms, along with an octupole--quadrupole interaction
923: and a $K$-dependent bandhead term. The octupole terms have been
924: classified by using the irreducible representations (irreps) of the
925: octahedron group O. By minimizing the energy with respect to the
926: angular momentum projection $K$ for each given value of the angular
927: momentum $I$ we have reached the conclusion that $K$ is increasing
928: with increasing $I$, even in the case in which $K$ is allowed to assume
929: only a resticted set of microscopically dictated values, a result which can be
930: interpreted as corresponding to a wobbling motion. Various terms of the
931: Hamiltonian give rise to odd--even staggering depending on $I$ in
932: different ways, in this way making the Hamiltonian able to produce
933: several different odd--even staggering patterns, some of which have
934: been observed in the octupole bands of light actinides. In order to
935: examine the relative importance of the various terms giving rise to
936: odd--even staggering, detailed fits of the octupole bands of the
937: light actinides should be performed, a procedure which is not very
938: simple because of the above mentioned minimization procedure
939: involved in it. In addition, the applicability of the present
940: formalism to rotational bands with $K\geq 1$ built on octupole
941: vibrations, which also demonstrate odd--even staggering effects,
942: should be examined. The present Hamiltonian, because of the variety
943: of odd--even staggering patterns it can produce, seems to be a good
944: starting point for systematizing the different odd--even staggering
945: patterns seen in octupole bands, as well as in rotational bands
946: built on octupole vibrations. Work in this direction is in
947: progress.
948:
949: \bigskip \bigskip
950:
951: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}
952:
953: \medskip
954: The authors are grateful to Prof. P. Quentin for several
955: illuminating discussions at various stages of the development of
956: this work, as well as to Prof. S. Pittel for a careful reading of
957: manuscript and useful comments. One of authors (NM) is grateful to
958: Prof. N. Lo Iudice for hospitality during his stay in Universit\`a
959: di Napoli ``Federico II'' and for detailed discussions on the
960: subject of this work. This work has been supported by the Bulgarian
961: National Fund for Scientific Research under contract no
962: MU--F--02/98. Last but not least, the authors are grateful to an
963: unknown referee, whose questions and suggestions led to the
964: development of Sections 6 and 7 of the article.
965: \medskip
966:
967: This article is dedicated to the memory of Roussy Petkov Roussev,
968: dearest colleague and friend, who passed away soon after the
969: compilation of this work.
970:
971: \newpage
972: \bigskip \bigskip
973: \noindent {\bf Appendix}
974:
975: \medskip
976: Non-zero matrix elements of the operators of Eqs
977: (\ref{HA})--(\ref{HF23}) in the states $| I K \rangle$ with total
978: angular momentum $I$ and projection $K$, with $X=I(I+1)$:
979: \begin{eqnarray}
980: \left\langle I\, K+2|\hat{H}_{A_2}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
981: \frac{i}{4}{a}_{2}(K+1)
982: \sqrt{X-(K+1)(K+2)}\sqrt{X-K(K+1)}, \nonumber \\
983: %\label{MHAD}
984: %
985: \left\langle I\, K-2|\hat{H}_{A_2}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
986: -\frac{i}{4}{a}_{2}(K-1)
987: \sqrt{X-(K-1)(K-2)}\sqrt{X-K(K-1)}, \nonumber \\
988: %\label{MHAU}
989: %
990: \left\langle I\, K|\hat{H}_{F_{1}(1)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
991: \frac{1}{2}{f}_{11}K(5K^{2}-3X), \nonumber \\
992: %\label{MHF11DG}
993: %
994: \left\langle I\, K+1|\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
995: \frac{1}{16}{f}_{12}(3X-15K^{2}-15K-10)
996: \sqrt{X-K(K+1)}, \nonumber \\
997: %\label{MHF12D}
998: %
999: \left\langle I\, K-1|\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1000: \frac{1}{16}{f}_{12}(3X-15K^{2}+15K-10)
1001: \sqrt{X-K(K-1)}, \nonumber \\
1002: %\label{MHF12U}
1003: %
1004: \left\langle I\, K+1|\hat{H}_{F_{1}(3)}I\, |K\right\rangle&=&
1005: \frac{i}{16}{f}_{13}(3X-15K^{2}-15K-10)
1006: \sqrt{X-K(K+1)}, \nonumber \\
1007: %\label{MHF13D}
1008: %
1009: \left\langle I\, K-1|\hat{H}_{F_{1}(3)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1010: -\frac{i}{16}{f}_{13}(3X-15K^{2}+15K-10)
1011: \sqrt{X-K(K-1)}, \nonumber \\
1012: %\label{MHF13U}
1013: %
1014: \left\langle I\, K+2|\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1015: \frac{1}{2}{f}_{21}(K+1)\sqrt{X-(K+1)(K+2)}
1016: \sqrt{X-K(K+1)}, \nonumber \\
1017: %\label{MHF21D}
1018: %
1019: \left\langle I\, K-2|\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1020: \frac{1}{2}{f}_{21}(K-1)\sqrt{X-(K-1)(K-2)}
1021: \sqrt{X-K(K-1)}, \nonumber \\
1022: %\label{MHf21U}
1023: %
1024: \left\langle I\, K+1|\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1025: \frac{1}{8}{f}_{22}(X-5K^{2}-5K-2)
1026: \sqrt{X-K(K+1)}, \nonumber \\
1027: %\label{MHF22D}
1028: %
1029: \left\langle I\, K-1|\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1030: \frac{1}{8}{f}_{22}(X-5K^{2}+5K-2)
1031: \sqrt{X-K(K-1)}, \nonumber \\
1032: %\label{MHF22U}
1033: %
1034: \left\langle I\, K+1|\hat{H}_{F_{2}(3)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1035: -\frac{i}{8}{f}_{23}(X-5K^{2}-5K-2)
1036: \sqrt{X-K(K+1)}, \nonumber \\
1037: %\label{MHF23D}
1038: %
1039: \left\langle I\, K-1|\hat{H}_{F_{2}(3)}|I\, K\right\rangle&=&
1040: \frac{i}{8}{f}_{23}(X-5K^{2}+5K-2)
1041: \sqrt{X-K(K-1)}. \nonumber
1042: %\label{MHF23U}
1043: \end{eqnarray}
1044:
1045: \newpage
1046: \begin{thebibliography}{xx}
1047:
1048: \bibitem{BM75} A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, {\it Nuclear
1049: Stucture} vol. II (Benjamin, New York, 1975).
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Ro88} S. G. Rohozi\'nski, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 51}, 541
1052: (1988).
1053:
1054: \bibitem{Ahmad} I. Ahmad and P. A. Butler, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part.
1055: Sci. {\bf 43}, 71 (1993).
1056:
1057: \bibitem{BN96} P. A. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf
1058: 68}, 349 (1996).
1059:
1060: \bibitem{DBoct00}
1061: D. Bonatsos, C. Daskaloyannis, S. B. Drenska, N. Karoussos, N.
1062: Minkov, P. P. Raychev and R. P. Roussev, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62},
1063: 024301 (2000).
1064:
1065: \bibitem{Cocks97}
1066: J. F. C. Cocks, P. A. Butler, K. J. Cann, P. T. Greenlees, G. D.
1067: Jones, S. Asztalos, P. Bhattacharyya, R. Broda, R. M. Clark, M. A.
1068: Deleplanque, R. M. Diamond, P. Fallon, B. Fornal, P. M. Jones, R.
1069: Julin, T. Lauritsen, I. Y. Lee, A. O. Macchiavelli, R. W. MacLeod,
1070: J. F. Smith, F. S. Stephens and C. T. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
1071: 78}, 2920 (1997).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{Cocks99}
1074: J. F. C. Cocks, D. Hawcroft, N. Amzal, P. A. Butler, K. J. Cann, P.
1075: T. Greenlees, G. D. Jones, S. Asztalos, R. M. Clark, M. A.
1076: Deleplanque, R. M. Diamond, P. Fallon, I. Y. Lee, A. O.
1077: Macchiavelli, R. W. MacLeod, F. S. Stephens, P. Jones, R. Julin, R.
1078: Broda, B. Fornal, J. F. Smith, T. Lauritsen, P. Bhattacharyya and
1079: C. T. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 645}, 61 (1999).
1080:
1081: \bibitem{Ro90} S. G. Rohozi\'nski, J. Phys. G {\bf 16}, L173 (1990).
1082:
1083: \bibitem{Ham91} I. Hamamoto, X. Z. Zhang and H. Xie, Phys. Lett. B
1084: {\bf 257}, 1 (1991).
1085:
1086: \bibitem{HBXZ91}
1087: I. Hamamoto, B. Mottelson, H. Xie and X. Z. Zhang, Z. Phys. D {\bf
1088: 21}, 163 (1991).
1089:
1090: \bibitem{WD99} C. Wexler, G. G. Dussel, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60},
1091: 014305 (1999).
1092:
1093: \bibitem{Ro82} S. G. Rohozi\'nski, M. Gajda and W. Greiner, J.
1094: Phys. G {\bf 8}, 787 (1982).
1095:
1096: \bibitem{LuoLi}
1097: W. D. Luo and X. J. Li, Chin. Phys. Lett. {\bf 16}, 342 (1999).
1098:
1099: \bibitem{GM96} W. Greiner and J. A. Maruhn, {\it Nuclear Models}
1100: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996).
1101:
1102: \bibitem{HM} I. Hamamoto and B. Mottelson, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 333},
1103: 294 (1994).
1104:
1105: \bibitem{MQ} I. N. Mikhailov and P. Quentin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
1106: 74}, 3336 (1995).
1107:
1108: \bibitem{Ansari}
1109: A. Ansari, M. Oi, N. Onishi, and T. Horibata, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 460},
1110: 24 (1999).
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Fli1}
1113: S. Flibotte, H. R. Andrews, G. C. Ball, C. W. Beausang, F. A. Beck,
1114: G. Belier, T. Byrski, D. Curien, P. J. Dagnall, G. de France, D.
1115: Disdier, G. Duch\^{e}ne, Ch. Finck, B. Haas, G. Hackman, D. S.
1116: Haslip, V. P. Janzen, B. Kharraja, J. C. Lisle, J. C. Merdinger, S.
1117: M. Mullins, W. Nazarewicz, D. C. Radford, V. Rauch, H. Savajols, J.
1118: Styczen, Ch. Theisen, P. J. Twin, J. P. Vivien, J. C. Waddington,
1119: D. Ward, K. Zuber and S. \AA berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 4299
1120: (1993).
1121:
1122: \bibitem{Fli2}
1123: S. Flibotte, G. Hackman, I. Ragnarsson, Ch. Theisen, H. R. Andrews,
1124: G. C. Ball, C. W. Beausang, F. A. Beck, G. B\'elier, M. A. Bentley,
1125: T. Byrski, D. Curien, G. de France, D. Disdier, G. Duch\^{e}ne, B.
1126: Haas, D. S. Haslip, V. P. Janzen, P. M. Jones, B. Kharraja, J. A.
1127: Kuehner, J. C. Lisle, J. C. Merdinger, S. M. Mullins, E. S. Paul,
1128: D. Pr\'evost, D. C. Radford, V. Rauch, J. F. Smith, J. Styczen, P.
1129: J. Twin, J. P. Vivien, J. C. Waddington, D. Ward and K. Zuber,
1130: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 584}, 373 (1995).
1131:
1132: \bibitem{Ced}
1133: B. Cederwall, R. V. F. Janssens, M. J. Brinkman, I. Y. Lee, I.
1134: Ahmad, J. A. Becker, M. P. Carpenter, B. Crowell, M. A.
1135: Deleplanque, R. M. Diamond, J. E. Draper, C. Duyar, P. Fallon, L.
1136: P. Farris, E. A. Henry, R. G. Henry, J. R. Hughes, T. L. Khoo, T.
1137: Lauritsen, A. O. Macchiavelli, E. Rubel, F. S. Stephens, M. A.
1138: Stoyer, W. Satu\l a, I. Wiedenhoever and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1139: {\bf 72}, 3150 (1994).
1140:
1141: \bibitem{Quentin} P. Quentin, private communication (2000).
1142:
1143: \bibitem{NV70a} K. Neerg\aa rd and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 145},
1144: 33 (1970).
1145:
1146: \bibitem{NV70b} K. Neerg\aa rd and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 149},
1147: 217 (1970).
1148:
1149: \bibitem{V70} P. Vogel, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 60}, 431 (1976).
1150:
1151: \bibitem{Pittel} S. Pittel, private communication (2000).
1152:
1153: \end{thebibliography}
1154:
1155: \newpage
1156:
1157: \begin{table}
1158: \caption{The ``yrast'' energy levels, $E(I)$ (in keV), and the
1159: respective $K$-values (in $\hbar$) obtained from
1160: Eq.~(\protect\ref{EKI}) for the parameter set $E_{0}=500$ keV,
1161: $f_{k}=-7.5$ keV, $A=12$ keV, $A'=6.6$ keV, $f_{11}=0.56$ keV,
1162: $f_{qoc}=0.085$ keV, by minimizing the energy with respect to $K$
1163: for each given value of $I$. See Sec. 4 for further discussion. }
1164:
1165: \bigskip
1166:
1167: % {\small
1168: \begin{center}
1169: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
1170: \rule{0em}{2.2ex}
1171: \\
1172: \hline\hline
1173: $I$&$E(I)$&$K$&$I$&$E(I)$&$K$&$I$&$E(I)$&K \\
1174: \hline
1175: 1 & 522.772& 1& 13& 2335.81& 5 & 25& 5453.12& 11 \\
1176: 2 & 568.327& 1& 14& 2576.57& 6 & 26& 5694.49& 12 \\
1177: 3 & 637.095& 1& 15& 2827.57& 6 & 27& 5935.50& 12 \\
1178: 4 & 728.710& 1& 16& 3082.36& 7 & 28& 6157.50& 13 \\
1179: 5 & 840.857& 2& 17& 3344.94& 7 & 29& 6378.29& 13 \\
1180: 6 & 971.155& 2& 18& 3608.18& 8 & 30& 6575.37& 14 \\
1181: 7 & 1123.22& 2& 19& 3877.05& 8 & 31& 6770.62& 14 \\
1182: 8 & 1288.09& 3& 20& 4143.16& 9 & 32& 6937.23& 15 \\
1183: 9 & 1472.71& 3& 21& 4413.03& 9 & 33& 7101.62& 15 \\
1184: 10& 1668.56& 4& 22& 4676.45& 10& 34& 7232.21& 16 \\
1185: 11& 1880.56& 4& 23& 4942.01& 10& 35& 7360.44& 16 \\
1186: 12& 2101.68& 5& 24& 5197.18& 11& 36& 7449.45& 17 \\
1187: \hline\hline
1188: \end{tabular}
1189: \end{center}
1190: % }
1191: \label{tab:spec}
1192: \end{table}
1193:
1194: \ \ \ \ \ \
1195:
1196: %\newpage
1197:
1198: \begin{table}
1199: \caption{Same as Table 1, but for the parameter set $E_{0}=0$
1200: keV, $f_{k}=0$ keV, $A=12$ keV, $A'=9.96$ keV, $f_{11}=0.75$ keV,
1201: $f_{qoc}=0.15$ keV. The restriction $K \leq 3$ has been imposed.
1202: See Sec. 6 for further discussion. }
1203:
1204: \bigskip
1205:
1206: % {\small
1207: \begin{center}
1208: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
1209: \rule{0em}{2.2ex}
1210: \\
1211: \hline\hline
1212: $I$&$E(I)$&$K$& &$I$&$E(I)$&$K$ \\
1213: \hline
1214: 1 & 24.00& 0& & 6& 487.94& 1 \\
1215: 2 & 72.00& 0& & 7& 640.19& 2 \\
1216: 3 & 144.00& 0& & 8& 811.21& 2 \\
1217: 4 & 237.97& 1& & 9& 994.40& 3 \\
1218: 5 & 351.64& 1& & 10& 1194.18& 3 \\
1219: \hline\hline
1220: \end{tabular}
1221: \end{center}
1222: % }
1223: \label{tab:lowspec1}
1224: \end{table}
1225:
1226: \ \ \ \ \ \
1227:
1228: %\newpage
1229:
1230: \begin{table}
1231: \caption{Same as Table 1, but for the parameter set
1232: $E_{0}=100$ keV, $f_{k}=0.896$ keV, $A=19.2$ keV, $A'=18.24$ keV,
1233: $f_{11}=0.49$ keV, $f_{qoc}=0.074$ keV. The restriction $K\leq 3$
1234: has been imposed. See Sec. 6 for further discussion.}
1235:
1236: \bigskip
1237:
1238: % {\small
1239: \begin{center}
1240: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
1241: \rule{0em}{2.2ex}
1242: \\
1243: \hline\hline
1244: $I$&$E(I)$&$K$& &$I$&$E(I)$&$K$ \\
1245: \hline
1246: 1 & 138.40& 0& & 9& 1803.42& 1 \\
1247: 2 & 215.20& 0& &10& 2177.43& 1 \\
1248: 3 & 330.40& 0& &11& 2580.53& 2 \\
1249: 4 & 484.00& 0& &12& 3017.25& 2 \\
1250: 5 & 676.00& 0& &13& 3490.32& 2 \\
1251: 6 & 905.66& 1& &14& 3991.13& 3 \\
1252: 7 &1167.54& 1& &15& 4521.73& 3 \\
1253: 8 &1466.79& 1& &16& 5087.69& 3 \\
1254: \hline\hline
1255: \end{tabular}
1256: \end{center}
1257: % }
1258: \label{tab:lowspec2}
1259: \end{table}
1260:
1261: \ \ \ \ \ \
1262: \newpage
1263: \begin{center}
1264: {\bf Figure Captions}
1265: \end{center}
1266: \bigskip\bigskip
1267:
1268: \noindent
1269: {\bf Figure 1.} The diagonal energy matrix element $E_{K}(I)$ (in
1270: MeV), Eq.~(\protect\ref{EKI}), is plotted as a function of $K$ (in
1271: $\hbar$) for $I=1,2,...,10$, for the parameter set $E_{0}=500$ keV,
1272: $f_{k}=-7.5$ keV, $A=12$ keV, $A'=6.6$ keV, $f_{11}=0.56$ keV,
1273: $f_{qoc}=0.085$ keV.
1274: \bigskip
1275:
1276: \noindent
1277: {\bf Figure 2.} The diagonal energy matrix element $E_{K}(I)$ (in
1278: MeV), Eq.~(\protect\ref{EKI}), is plotted as a function of $I$ (in
1279: $\hbar$) for $K=10,11,12,13$, for the parameter set of Figure 1.
1280: \bigskip
1281:
1282: \noindent
1283: {\bf Figure 3.} Odd--even staggering patterns (calculated using
1284: Eq.~(\protect\ref{stag})~) as functions of $I$, obtained from the
1285: diagonal Hamiltonian of Eq. (\ref{Hdiag}) for several different
1286: sets of model parameters, given on the figures. Part (b)
1287: corresponds to the same set of parameters as Table 1 and Figs 1 and 2.
1288: The first four parameters remain the same in all parts of the figure,
1289: except (f).
1290: \bigskip
1291:
1292: \noindent
1293: {\bf Figure 4.} Odd--even staggering patterns (calculated using
1294: Eq.~(\protect\ref{stag})~) obtained by adding the three
1295: non-diagonal terms $\hat{H}_{F_{1}(2)}$ (Eq.~(\ref{HF12})~),
1296: $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(1)}$ (Eq.~(\ref{HF21})~), and $\hat{H}_{F_{2}(2)}$
1297: (Eq.~(\ref{HF22})~) to the diagonal Hamiltonian of Eq.
1298: (\ref{Hdiag}), for two different sets of model parameters, given
1299: on the figures. The first six parameters are the same as in Figs 1,
1300: 2 and 3(b).
1301: \bigskip
1302:
1303: \noindent {\bf Figure 5.} Same as Fig. 3, but with the restriction
1304: $K\leq 3$ imposed in the angular momentum regions:
1305: (a) $I\leq 10$ and (b) $I\leq 16$.
1306: The parameter sets correspond to Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
1307:
1308: \end{document}
1309:
1310: