1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % version 1 2/20, 2004
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{dcolumn}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: %\preprint{APS/123-QED}
12:
13:
14: \title{Competition between isoscalar and isovector pairing correlations in $N=Z$
15: nuclei}
16:
17: \author{K. Kaneko$^{1}$ and M. Hasegawa$^{2}$}
18: \affiliation{
19: $^{1}$Department of Physics, Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka 813-8503, Japan \\
20: $^{2}$Laboratory of Physics, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka 814-0193, Japan \\
21: }
22:
23:
24: \date{\today}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: We study the isoscalar ($T=0$) and isovector ($T=1$) pairing correlations in $N=Z$ nuclei.
29: They are estimated from the double difference of binding energies for odd-odd $N=Z$
30: nuclei and the odd-even mass difference for the neighboring odd-mass nuclei, respectively.
31: The empirical and BCS calculations based on a $T=0$ and $T=1$ pairing model reproduce
32: well the almost degeneracy of the lowest $T=0$ and $T=1$ states over a wide range of
33: even-even and odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei. It is shown that this degeneracy is attributed to
34: competition between the isoscalar and isovector pairing correlations in $N=Z$ nuclei.
35: The calculations give an interesting prediction that the odd-odd $N=Z$ nucleus $^{82}$Nb
36: has possibly the ground state with $T=0$.
37:
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \pacs{21.60.Cs, 21.10.Hw, 21.10.Dr}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: There is a current topic with increasing interests in studying isovector ($T=1$)
45: and isoscalar ($T=0$) proton-neutron ($pn$) pairing correlations in $N=Z$ nuclei \cite{Satula1}.
46: At present, it is not clear
47: whether $pn$ pairing correlations are strong enough to form a static condensate.
48: It is well known that an experimental signature of like-nucleon
49: proton-proton ($pp$) and neutron-neutron ($nn$) $J=0$ pairing correlations in nuclei with
50: neutron excess is the odd-even
51: mass difference, which is extra binding energy of even-even nuclei relative to
52: that of odd-mass nuclei. However, the odd-even mass differences for even-even $N=Z$ nuclei are
53: larger than those of the neighboring even-even $N=Z+2$ nuclei, and it reflects
54: the gain in pairing due to stronger $pn$ correlations \cite{kaneko}.
55: It has recently been shown \cite{Satula2,Dobaczewski} that the three-point odd-even mass
56: difference for an odd-mass nucleus with neutron excess is an excellent measure of $pp$
57: and $nn$ pairing correlations in neighboring even-even nucleus,
58: although it is still controversial \cite{Duguet}.
59: This conclusion suggests that the $pp$ and $nn$ pairing correlations
60: in $N=Z$ even-even nuclei also can be estimated from the odd-even mass
61: difference of neighboring odd-mass nuclei with $N=Z+1$.
62: On the other hand, the $pn$ pairing can be estimated from the double difference of
63: binding energies \cite{kaneko}.
64: When we assume isospin symmetry
65: in $N\approx Z$ nuclei,
66: the $T=1$ $pn$ pairing and like-nucleon ($pp$ and $nn$)
67: pairing are classified in the same $T=1$ pairing correlations, and the former correlation energy
68: should be the same as the latter one.
69:
70: Odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei are an ideal experimental laboratory for the study of $pn$ pairing
71: correlations.
72: It is well known that the lowest $T=0$ and $T=1$ states in odd-odd
73: $N=Z$ nuclei are almost degenerate and exhibit the inversion of the sign of the energy difference
74: $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}$,
75: while all even-even $N=Z$ nuclei have the $T=0$ ground states and the $T=1$ excited states with large
76: excitation energies.
77: Several authors \cite{Vogel,Janecke1,Zeldes,Macc,Janecke2,Frauendorf}
78: already pointed out that this degeneracy in odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei
79: reflects the delicate balance
80: between the symmetry energy and the pairing correlations.
81: The $T=0$ and $T=1$ ground-state binding energies of $N=Z$ nuclei were calculated by
82: using an algebraic model based on IBM-4 \cite{Baldini}.
83: In this paper, we study the $T=0$ and $T=1$ pairing correlations from a phenomenological point
84: of view, and analyze them in the BCS calculations within a schematic model
85: that includes $T=1$ and $T=0$ pairing interactions.
86:
87: We begin with the estimation of $T=1$ pairing correlations in $N=Z$ nuclei.
88: A typical indicator for $T=1$ pairing correlations is the following three-point odd-even mass
89: difference:
90: \begin{eqnarray}
91: \Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z,N) & = & \frac{(-1)^{N}}{2}[B(Z,N+1) \nonumber \\
92: & - & 2B(Z,N)+B(Z,N-1)], \label{eq:1}
93: \end{eqnarray}
94: where $B(Z,N)$ is the negative binding energy of a system.
95: Since $B(Z,N\pm 1)\approx B(Z,N)+\Delta \pm \lambda$ based on standard BCS theory
96: with pairing gap $\Delta$ leads to $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z,N)\approx \Delta$,
97: the indicator $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ is often interpreted as a measure of the empirical pairing gap.
98: However, it is well known that values of $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},N)$ are large
99: for even-$N$ and small for odd-$N$.
100: It was discussed \cite{Satula2} that $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},N={\rm odd})$ is an excellent
101: measure of $T=1$ pairing correlations, and the differences of $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ at
102: adjacent even- and odd-N nuclei reflect the mean-field contributions.
103: From a view point of the semi-empirical mass formula, the above indicator is well known to be
104: affected by the symmetry energy term in the liquid-drop model. In the macroscopic-microscopic
105: shell model, however, the curvature contribution cancels out the symmtery
106: energy contribution as pointed out by Satulta {\it et al.}\cite{Satula2}.
107: What does the magnitude of the pairing gap in the $N=Z$ nuclei mean?
108: We suggest that $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z,Z+1)$ of odd-mass nucleus
109: should be regarded as pure pairing gap in $N=Z$ adjacent even-even and odd-odd nuclei.
110: For the $N=Z$ nuclei, the four and five point indicators cannot be adopted because they include
111: large contributions from mean filed and $pn$ correlations \cite{kaneko,Duguet}.
112: Figure 1 shows experimental values of $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ in odd-mass nuclei, where we plot
113: $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z,Z+1)$ for $16<A<60$.
114: When there is no data of $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z,Z+1)$ for $60<A<110$, we adopt
115: $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ for nearest nuclei with $N=Z+1$.
116: The expected quenching of neutron pairing at magic (or semi-magic) particle number $N$ or
117: $Z$=14, 28, 40, and 50 is clearly seen in the figure.
118: %=============== fig. 1 ======================================================
119: \begin{figure}[t]
120: \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=8cm]{fig1.eps}
121: \caption{The experimental odd-even mass differences
122: $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},Z+1)$ (solid diamonds)
123: in odd-mass nuclei with $N=Z+1$, and
124: the pairing gaps (open circles) obtained by the BCS
125: calculations. The solid curve is $5.18A^{-1/3}$ and the dashed curve denotes
126: $12A^{-1/2}$.}
127: \label{fig1}
128: \end{figure}
129: %==============================================================================
130: The standard curve $12A^{-1/2}$ is also shown as a guide eye in Fig. 1.
131: We can see that the average pairing gap is smaller than the values of the curve $12A^{-1/2}$.
132: The global trend can be fitted by the curve $5.18A^{-1/3}$ MeV,
133: as discussed in
134: recent analyses \cite{Duflo,Vogel}, where $T=1$ pairing gap $\Delta_{T=1}$ obtained
135: from some binding energy difference is fitted by the mass-dependence $A^{-1/3}$ different
136: from the standard one $12A^{-1/2}$.
137: The difference between the two curves is
138: quite large for light nuclei, while it is small for heavy nuclei.
139: The average gap was recently analyzed \cite{Hilaire} by $\Delta=\alpha+\beta A^{-1/3}$
140: which has theoretical foundation. This analysis also supports the weaker mass-dependence.
141: We now consider the following pairing Hamiltonian to describe the $T=1$ pairing correlations:
142: \begin{eqnarray}
143: H & = & H_{0} + H_{P}
144: = \sum_{\alpha}\varepsilon_{a}c_{\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{\alpha}
145: - \frac{1}{2}G\sum_{\kappa}P_{\kappa}^{\dagger}P_{\kappa}, \label{eq:2}
146: \end{eqnarray}
147: where $\varepsilon_{a}$ is the single-particle energy and $P_{\kappa}$ is the $J=0$
148: pair operator with isospin $T=1, T_{z}=\kappa$. Implying isospin invariance to the above
149: Hamiltonian, the pairing part $H_{P}$ includes the isovector $pn$ interactions.
150: The standard BCS calculations with the pairing Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:2})
151: were performed in $sd$ and $fpg$ shells.
152: We adopted single-particle energies from a spherical Woods-Saxon
153: potential in the BCS calculations.
154: The pairing force strength $G=24.5/A$ was chosen so as
155: to fit the experimental odd-even mass difference $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},Z+1)$ in odd-mass
156: nuclei. The BCS results for $A > 40$ almost agree with the experimental
157: odd-even mass differences, and moreover reproduce the shell effects.
158: The BCS calculations reproduce well the behavior of the observed odd-even mass difference over
159: a wide range of $N=Z$ nuclei.
160: Thus the $T=1$ pairing correlations can be estimated from the odd-even mass difference
161: $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},Z+1)$ in odd-mass nuclei.
162: %=============== fig. 2 ======================================================
163: \begin{figure}[b]
164: \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=8cm]{fig2.eps}
165: \caption{The $pn$ pairing gaps estimated from the double differences of experimental
166: binding energies. The solid circles denote the $T=0$ $pn$ pairing gap, and
167: the solid triangles the the $T=1$ $pn$ pairing gap. The odd-even mass differences
168: in odd-mass nuclei with $N=Z+1$ are shown by the open squares. The dashed curve is
169: the half of the $T=0$ pairing force strength $k^{0}$. }
170: \label{fig2}
171: \end{figure}
172: %==============================================================================
173:
174: To describe the $pn$ pairing correlations in odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei, let us estimate the
175: following double difference of binding energies \cite{Janecke3,Jensen,kaneko}:
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: \Delta_{pn}^{T}(Z,N) & = & \frac{1}{2}[B(Z,N)^{T} - B(Z,N-1) \nonumber \\
178: & - & B(Z-1,N)+B(Z-1,N-1)], \label{eq:3}
179: \end{eqnarray}
180: where $B(Z,N)^{T}$ is the binding energy of lowest state with isospin $T$ in odd-odd
181: $N=Z$ nuclei.
182: Figure 2 shows the double difference of binding energies calculated from
183: the experimental binding energies. The odd-even mass differences
184: for odd-mass nuclei are also displayed. Then we can see that the
185: $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},Z+1)$ agrees with the $\Delta_{pn}^{T=1}(Z+1,Z+1)$.
186: This means that $T=1$ $pn$ pairing for odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei have the
187: same correlation energy as the like-nucleon $nn$ pairing, $\Delta_{n}=\Delta_{pn}^{T=1}$,
188: when assuming isospin symmetry.
189: Thus, the indicator $\Delta_{pn}^{T=1}$ gives the $T=1$ $pn$ pairing gap
190: in $N=Z$ nuclei. The $\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}$ can be regarded as the $T=0$ $pn$ pairing
191: gap as well.
192: Figure 2 with these estimations indicates that the $T=0$ $pn$ correlations
193: are superior to the $T=1$ $pn$ correlations in the ground states of $sd$
194: shell nuclei, and the inversion occurs in the $pf$ shell nuclei.
195: The $T=0$ $pn$ pairing gap $\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}$ cannot be explained by the $T=1$
196: pairing Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:2}).
197:
198: In a previous paper \cite{kaneko}, it has been shown that the $T=0$ matrix elements
199: of the monopole field $V_{m}^{T}(a,b)$ are significantly larger than the $T=1$ ones,
200: and are very important in determining the double
201: differences of binding energies, where $a, b$ are the single particle orbitals.
202: We can see that the matrix elements are quite large for isoscalar components but
203: small for isovector components. In the USD interaction, the monopole matrix elements
204: with $T=0$ have values around -3 MeV and are strongly attractive.
205: If we assume that the $T=0$ monopole matrix
206: elements are equal and independent of angular momentum $J$ and the single particle orbitals,
207: $V_m^{T=0}$ is reduced to the $J$-independent isoscalar {\it p-n} pairing
208: interaction.
209: Neglecting $T=1$ monopole components, let us add the $J$-independent $T=0$ $pn$ pairing
210: interaction \cite{kaneko,hasegawa} to the pairing Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:2})
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: H & = & H_{0} + H_{P} + H_{\pi\nu}^{\tau=0} \nonumber \\
213: & = & H_{0} + H_{P}
214: - k^{0}\sum_{a\geq b}\sum_{J,M}A_{JM,00}^{\dagger}(ab)A_{JM,00}(ab),
215: \label{eq:4}
216: \end{eqnarray}
217: where $A_{JM,00}^{\dagger}(ab)$ is the pair operator with spin $J$ and isospin $T=0$.
218: The $T=1$ pairing interaction does not contribute to the double difference of binding
219: energies $\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}$, and $\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}\approx k^{0}/2$.
220: Then, the $T=0$ pairing force strength $k^{0}=244.5(1-1.67A^{-1/3})/A$ is
221: chosen so as to fit the $T=0$ $pn$ pairing gap as seen in Fig. 2.
222: The isovector monopole components in USD are small, except for
223: $V_{m}^{T=1}(s_{1/2},s_{1/2})$.
224: The deviations from the curve $k^{0}/2$ for $^{30}$P and $^{34}$Cl in Fig. 2 would be
225: attributed to the large value of isovector component $V_{m}^{T=1}(s_{1/2},s_{1/2})$.
226: We recently introduced \cite{hasegawa} monopole corrections to improve
227: the energy levels of $^{48}$Ca, etc.
228: In this paper, we ignore these correction terms.
229:
230: If we assume degenerate single-particle energies $\varepsilon_{a}=0.0$, the above Hamiltonian
231: has SO(5) symmetry \cite{Hecht} and the eigenenergy is assigned by the valence nucleon number $n$ and
232: isospin $T$ \cite{kaneko},
233: \begin{eqnarray}
234: \langle H_{P_0}+H^{\tau =0}_{\pi \nu} \rangle_{SO(5)}
235: = -\frac{1}{2}Gn\left( \Omega - \frac{n-6}{4} \right) \nonumber \\
236: -{1 \over 2} k^0 {{n} \over 2}\left( {{n} \over 2} +1 \right)
237: + \frac{1}{2}(G+k^{0})T(T+1), \label{eq:5}
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: where $\Omega=\sum_{\alpha}$ is the degeneracy of shell orbits.
240: Note that the above equation includes the so-called symmetry energy term with coefficient
241: $a(A)/A=(G+k^{0})/2$.
242: The parameters $G$ and $k^{0}$ used above give just the empirical symmetry energy formula
243: $a(A)=134.4(1-1.52A^{-1/3})$ determined by Duflo and Zuker \cite{Duflo}.
244: %=============== fig. 3 ======================================================
245: \begin{figure}[t]
246: \includegraphics[width=9cm,height=7cm]{fig3.eps}
247: \caption{The energy difference between the $T=0$ and $T=1$ states in odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei.
248: The experimental values of the differences are denoted by solid diamonds.
249: The open squares present the values estimated from the experimental odd-even mass
250: differences in Fig. 1 and the $T=0$ pairing force strength $k^{0}$.
251: The dashed line is $k^{0}-10.4A^{-1/3}$.}
252: \label{fig3}
253: \end{figure}
254: %==============================================================================
255:
256: We next consider energy difference between the lowest $T=0$ and $T=1$ states in odd-odd
257: $N=Z$ nuclei.
258: Odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei with $A < 40$ have the ground states with $T=0, J > 0$ except for
259: $^{34}$Cl, while the ground states of odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei with $40 < A < 74$ are
260: $T=1$ and $J=0$ except for $^{58}$Cu.
261: Several authors discussed that this degeneracy is attributed to the delicate
262: balance between the symmetry energy and pairing correlations,
263: and that the energy difference between $T=1$ and $T=0$ states is well
264: reproduced by $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}=2a(A)/A-2\Delta_{T=1}$ using the value $\sim 75$ for
265: $a(A)$ and the pairing gap $\Delta_{T=1}=12A^{-1/2}$.
266: However, if we substitute the odd-even mass difference $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},Z+1)$
267: for $\Delta_{T=1}$, the energy difference $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}$ becomes larger than the
268: experimental value.
269: The energy difference can be regarded as a measure of competition
270: between the $T=0$ and $T=1$ pairing correlations as seen from the following identity,
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: E_{T=1}-E_{T=0} & = & 2(\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}-\Delta_{pn}^{T=1}).
273: \end{eqnarray}
274: The relationships $\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}\approx k^{0}/2$ and
275: $\Delta_{pn}^{T=1}\approx\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ offer an alternative relation
276: $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}\approx k^{0}-2\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ for the energy
277: difference except for $^{30}$P and $^{34}$Cl.
278: If we adopt the parameter $k^{0}=244.5(1-1.67A^{-1/3})/A$ and the average value of
279: pairing gap $5.18A^{-1/3}$ for $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$,
280: we get the dashed curve in Fig.3, which displays well the trend of the experimental values
281: of energy difference $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}$.
282: Adopting the experimental odd-even mass differences for $\Delta^{(3)}_{n}$ and
283: $k^{0}=244.5(1-1.67A^{-1/3})/A$, we obtain the energy difference $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}$ denoted
284: by the open squares.
285: These values nicely reproduce the experimental values except for $^{30}$P and $^{34}$Cl
286: as shown in Fig. 3.
287: The disagreements in $^{30}$P and $^{34}$Cl are attributed to the large deviations of $T=0$
288: pairing gap from the curve $k^{0}/2$ due to the neglect of the shell effects in Fig. 2.
289:
290: Moreover, we calculated the $T=0$ and $T=1$ energy differences for odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei with
291: $A \geq 78$, although there are no experimental data of the energy difference.
292: The calculation predicts that $^{82}$Nb has possibly the ground state with $T=0$, while the other
293: odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei have the $T=1$ ground state. We call this isospin inversion hereafter.
294: It is well known that a similar isospin inversion occurs at $^{58}$Cu.
295: The isospin inversion is due to characteristic situation, where the Fermi energy lies
296: between large spin and small spin orbits with large energy gap i.e., $1f_{7/2}$ and $2p_{3/2}$
297: for $^{58}$Cu, and $1g_{9/2}$ and $2p_{1/2}$ for $^{82}$Nb.
298: In these cases, the $T=1$ pairing gap is quite small as seen in Fig. 1, and energy difference
299: becomes large from the simple relation
300: $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}\approx k^{0}-2\Delta^{(3)}_{n}(Z={\rm even},Z+1)$.
301: %=============== fig. 4 ======================================================
302: \begin{figure}[t]
303: \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=8cm]{fig4.eps}
304: \caption{The calculated energy differences between the lowest $T=0$ and $T=1$ states
305: in even-even (upper plots) and odd-odd (lower plots) $N=Z$ nuclei.
306: The solid diamonds are the same as Fig. 3.
307: The open circles denote the energy differences obtained by the
308: BCS calculations. The dashed curve is $2a(A)/A$.}
309: \label{fig4}
310: \end{figure}
311: %==============================================================================
312:
313: Figure 4 shows the calculated energy differences $E_{T=1}-E_{T=0}$ in odd-odd and even-even
314: $N=Z$ nuclei.
315: The energy differences in the BCS approximations are calculated by $2a(A)/A+\Delta_{BCS}$
316: for even-even $N=Z$ nuclei and by $k^{0}-2\Delta_{BCS}$ for odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei
317: where $a(A)$ is the empirical symmetry energy coefficient and $\Delta_{BCS}$ is the BCS
318: pairing gap. The BCS calculations well reproduce the experimental
319: values of energy differences, except for odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei with $A < 40$.
320: The BCS calculations show that the $T=0$ and $T=1$ states in $^{82}$Nb are almost degenerate,
321: while the ground states of adjacent odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei have isospin $T=1$.
322:
323: In conclusion, we investigated the $T=0$ and $T=1$ pairing correlations in $N=Z$ nuclei.
324: The $T=1$ pairing correlations in $N=Z$ nuclei are extracted from the odd-even mass differences
325: of the neighboring odd-mass nuclei, which can be fitted by the curve $5.18A^{-1/3}$.
326: The $pn$ pairing correlations are estimated from the double difference of binding energies.
327: The $T=1$ $pn$ pairing gap is the same as the $nn$ pairing gap.
328: The indicator $\Delta_{pn}^{T=0}$ presents the magnitude of $T=0$ $pn$ pairing correlations.
329: The energy differences between the $T=0$ and $T=1$ states are well described by
330: the $T=1$ and $T=0$ pairing model.
331: In odd-odd $N=Z$ nuclei, the $T=1$ pairing correlations compete with the $T=0$
332: pairing correlations, and the degeneracy of the $T=0$ and $T=1$ states occurs.
333: The empirical values and BCS results reproduced
334: the energy difference. In particular, our results predict that odd-odd $N=Z$ nucleus $^{82}$Nb
335: has the $T=0$ ground state or the $T=0$ and $T=1$ states are almost degenerate.
336: The odd-even mass differences for even-even $N=Z$ nuclei are extremely
337: larger than those of the neighboring even-even $N\neq Z$ nuclei.
338: It would be affected by strong $pn$ correlations.
339: Further studies in this direction are in progress.
340:
341:
342: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
343: \begin{thebibliography} {99}
344:
345: \bibitem{Satula1} W. Satula and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4488(2001);
346: 87, 052504(2001).
347: \bibitem{kaneko} K. Kaneko and M. Hasegawa, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60}, 024301(1999);
348: Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 106}, 1179(2001).
349: \bibitem{Satula2} W. Satula, J. Dobaczewski, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},
350: 3599(1998).
351: \bibitem{Dobaczewski} J. Dobaczewski, P. Magierski, W. Nazarewicz, W. Satula,
352: and Z. Szymanski,
353: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 024308(2001).
354: \bibitem{Duguet} T. Duguet, P. Bonche, P.-H. Heenen, and J. Meyer, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65},
355: 014311(2001).
356: \bibitem{Janecke1} J. J$\ddot{\rm a}$necke, Nucl. Phys. {\bf 73}, 97(1965).
357: \bibitem{Zeldes} N. Zeldes and S. Liran, Phys. Lett. {\bf 62B}, 12(1976).
358: \bibitem{Macc} A. O. Macchiavelli, P. Fallon, R. M. Clark, M. Cromaz, M. A. Deleplanque,
359: R. M. Diamond, G. J. Lane, I. Y. Lee, F. S. Stephens, C. E. Svensson,
360: K. Vetter, and D. Ward, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 041303(R)(2000);
361: Phys. Lett. {\bf 480B}, 1(2000).
362: \bibitem{Janecke2} J. J$\ddot{\rm a}$necke, T. W. O'Donnell, and V. I. Goldanskii, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 66},
363: 024327(2002).
364: \bibitem{Frauendorf} S. Frauendorf and J. Sheikh, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A645}, 509(1999).
365: \bibitem{Vogel} P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A662}, 148(2000).
366: \bibitem{Baldini} E. Baldini-Neto, C. L. Lima, and P. Van Isacker, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65},
367: 064303(2002).
368: \bibitem{Duflo} J. Duflo and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 52}, 23(R)(1995).
369: \bibitem{Hilaire} S. Hilaire, J.-F. Berger, M. Girod, W. Satula, and P. Schuck, Phys. Lett.
370: {\bf 531B}, 61(2002).
371: \bibitem{Janecke3} J. J$\ddot{\rm a}$necke and H. Brehrens, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 9}, 1276(1974).
372: \bibitem{Jensen} A. S. Jensen, P. G. Hansen, and B. Jonson, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A431}, 393(1984).
373: \bibitem{hasegawa} M. Hasegawa and K. Kaneko, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 037306(2000);
374: M. Hasegawa, K. Kaneko, and S. Tazaki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A688}, 765(2000).
375: \bibitem{Hecht} K. T. Hecht, Phys. Rev. {\bf 139B}, 794(1965); Nucl. Phys. {\bf A102},
376: 11(1967).
377: \end{thebibliography}
378: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
379:
380:
381: \end{document}
382: