1: %\documentstyle[aps,epsfig,preprint]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[psfig,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title{A deformed QRPA formalism for single and two-neutrino double
6: beta decay}
7:
8: \author{R. \'Alvarez-Rodr\'{\i}guez, P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra}
9: \address{Instituto de Estructura de la Materia,
10: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\'{\i }ficas, \\
11: Serrano 123, E-28006 Madrid, Spain}
12: \author{L. Pacearescu, Amand Faessler}
13: \address{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at T\"ubingen,
14: D-72076 T\"ubingen, Germany}
15: \author{F. \v Simkovic}
16: \address{Department of Nuclear Physics, Comenius University,
17: SK-842 15, Bratislava, Slovakia}
18: \date{\today}
19: \maketitle
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22:
23: We use a deformed QRPA formalism to describe simultaneously the
24: energy distributions of the single beta Gamow-Teller strength and
25: the two-neutrino double beta decay matrix elements. Calculations
26: are performed in a series of double beta decay partners with
27: A = 48, 76, 82, 96, 100, 116, 128, 130, 136 and 150, using deformed
28: Woods-Saxon potentials and deformed Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean fields.
29: The formalism includes a quasiparticle deformed basis and residual
30: spin-isospin forces in the particle-hole and particle-particle channels.
31: We discuss the sensitivity of the parent and daughter Gamow-Teller
32: strength distributions in single beta decay, as well as the sensitivity
33: of the double beta decay matrix elements to the deformed mean field
34: and to the residual interactions. Nuclear deformation is found to be
35: a mechanism of suppression of the two-neutrino double beta decay.
36: The double beta decay matrix elements are found to have maximum values
37: for about equal deformations of parent and daughter nuclei. They
38: decrease rapidly when differences in deformations increase.
39: We remark the importance of a proper simultaneous description of
40: both double beta decay and single Gamow-Teller strength distributions.
41: Finally, we conclude that for further progress in the field it would
42: be useful to improve and complete the experimental information on the
43: studied Gamow-Teller strengths and nuclear deformations.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{PACS: 21.60.Jz, 23.40.Hc, 23.40.Bw}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: The recent experimental confirmation of neutrino oscillations has
51: reinforced the interest of nuclear processes involving neutrinos,
52: see \cite{bernabeu} and references therein. Nuclear double beta decay
53: is a rare second order weak interaction process that takes place when
54: the transition to the intermediate nucleus is energetically forbidden
55: or highly retarded. Two main decay modes are expected in this process.
56: The two neutrino mode, involving the emission of two electrons and
57: two neutrinos, and the neutrinoless mode with no neutrino leaving the
58: nucleus. While the first type of process is perfectly compatible with
59: the Standard Model, the second one violates lepton number conservation
60: and its observation is linked to the existence of a massive Majorana
61: neutrino. For this reason, considerable experimental and theoretical
62: effort is being devoted to the study of this process \cite{2breview}.
63:
64: From the theoretical point of view, one particular source of uncertainty
65: is the evaluation of the nuclear matrix elements involved in the process.
66: They have to be calculated as accurately as possible to obtain reliable
67: estimates for the limits of the double beta decay half-lives. Since
68: the nuclear wave functions and the underlying theory for treating the
69: neutrinoless and the two-neutrino modes are similar, the usual procedure
70: is to test first the nuclear structure component of the two-neutrino
71: mode against the available experimental information on half-lives.
72:
73: The proton-neutron quasiparticle random phase approximation (pnQRPA or
74: QRPA in short) is one of the most reliable and widely used microscopic
75: approximations for calculating the correlated wave functions involved
76: in $\beta$ and double beta decay processes. The method was first
77: studied in Ref. \cite{halb} to describe the $\beta$ strength and was
78: also successfully applied to the description of double beta decay
79: \cite{2bqrpa} after the inclusion of a particle-particle ($pp$)
80: residual interaction, in addition to the particle-hole ($ph$) usual
81: channel. Many more extensions of the QRPA method have been proposed in
82: the literature, see Ref. \cite{extension} and references therein.
83:
84: An extension of the pnQRPA method to deal with deformed nuclei was done
85: in Ref. \cite{kru}, where a Nilsson potential was used to generate single
86: particle orbitals. Subsequent extensions including Woods-Saxon type
87: potentials \cite{moll}, residual interactions in the particle-particle
88: channel \cite{homma}, selfconsistent deformed Hartree-Fock mean fields
89: with consistent residual interactions \cite{sarr} and selfconsistent
90: approaches in spherical neutron-rich nuclei \cite{doba}, can also be
91: found in the literature. In Refs. \cite{sarr,gese}, $\beta $-decay
92: properties were studied on the basis of a deformed selfconsistent
93: HF+BCS+QRPA calculation with density dependent effective interactions
94: of Skyrme type. A deformed QRPA approach based on a phenomenological
95: deformed Woods-Saxon potential was used to calculate the Gamow-Teller
96: strength distributions for the two decay branches in double beta decay
97: of $^{76}$Ge \cite{gese,doublege}.
98:
99: Recently, the issue of nuclear deformation, which has usually been
100: ignored in the QRPA-like treatments of nearly spherical nuclei, was
101: raised in Ref. \cite{doublege,feni}. In Ref. \cite{doublege} it was
102: found that differences in deformation between the initial and final
103: nuclei can have large effects on the double beta decay half-lives.
104: Within the deformed QRPA using axially-symmetric symmetric
105: Woods-Saxon single particle basis the particular case of the
106: two-neutrino double beta decay ($2\nu\beta\beta$-decay) of $^{76}$Ge
107: was analyzed \cite{doublege}. The effect of deformation on the other
108: double beta decay processes of experimental interest has not been
109: sufficiently studied yet, see \cite{doublege,raduta,radescu} and
110: references therein.
111:
112: In this work we extend these deformed calculations \cite{sarr,doublege}
113: by studying first the single $\beta$ branches that build up the double
114: beta process and then the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay process itself.
115: We focus on the $\beta^-$ Gamow-Teller (GT) transitions of the double
116: beta emitters as well as on the $\beta^+$ Gamow-Teller transitions of
117: the daughter nuclei ending up to the same intermediate virtual nucleus.
118: The cases considered are those where the two-neutrino double beta
119: decay half-lives have been measured, namely
120: \begin{eqnarray*}
121: &^{48}Ca\rightarrow ^{48}Ti;\qquad &^{76}Ge\rightarrow ^{76}Se; \\
122: &^{82}Se\rightarrow ^{82}Kr;\qquad &^{96}Zr\rightarrow ^{96}Mo; \\
123: &^{100}Mo\rightarrow ^{100}Ru;\qquad &^{116}Cd\rightarrow ^{116}Sn; \\
124: &^{128}Te\rightarrow ^{128}Xe;\qquad &^{130}Te\rightarrow ^{130}Xe; \\
125: &^{136}Xe\rightarrow ^{136}Ba;\qquad &^{150}Nd\rightarrow ^{150}Sm.
126: \end{eqnarray*}
127:
128: In sect. II, we present a brief summary containing the basic points in
129: our theoretical description. Section III contains the results obtained
130: for the ground state properties of the nuclei mentioned above. In sect.
131: IV we present our results for the GT strength distributions and discuss
132: their dependence on the deformed mean field and residual interactions.
133: Sect. V contains the results for the two-neutrino double beta decay
134: calculations. The conclusions are given in sect. VI.
135:
136: \section{Brief description of the theory}
137:
138: In this Section we summarize briefly the theoretical formalism used to
139: describe the Gamow-Teller transitions. More details can be found in
140: Refs. \cite{sarr,doublege,gese}.
141:
142: The single particle energies and wave functions are generated from two
143: different methods to construct the deformed mean field, which is
144: assumed to be axially symmetric. In one case we start from a deformed
145: Woods-Saxon potential. The parameters of this potential are taken from
146: Ref.\cite{tanaka}. The isospin dependence of this parametrization
147: allows one to extend it to any mass region. Previous QRPA calculations
148: have shown that it provides a realistic description of the ground state
149: properties of deformed nuclei as well as good results on $M1$
150: excitations \cite{m1} for nuclei in various mass regions. The quadrupole
151: deformation of the WS potential is determined by fitting the
152: microscopically calculated quadrupole moment to the corresponding
153: experimental value. The hexadecapole deformation is expected to be
154: small for these nuclei and we assume it is equal to zero.
155:
156: In the other method we follow a selfconsistent Hartree-Fock procedure
157: to generate microscopically the deformed mean field. This is done with
158: density dependent effective interactions of Skyrme type. Contrary to the
159: previous case, the equilibrium deformation of the nucleus is obtained now
160: selfconsistently as the shape that minimizes the energy of the nucleus.
161: In this work we present the results obtained with the most common of the
162: Skyrme forces, Sk3 \cite{beiner} although sometimes we also show for
163: comparison results obtained with the force SG2 \cite{giai}.
164:
165:
166: In both schemes, WS and HF, the single-particle wave functions are
167: expanded in terms of the eigenstates of an axially symmetric harmonic
168: oscillator in cylindrical coordinates, using eleven major shells in the
169: expansion. Pairing correlations between like nucleons are included
170: similarly in both cases in the BCS approximation with fixed gap parameters
171: for protons and neutrons. The gap parameters are determined
172: phenomenologically from the odd-even mass differences through a symmetric
173: five term formula involving the experimental binding energies. The values
174: obtained from this procedure for the nuclei under consideration can be
175: seen in Table 1.
176:
177: The deformed quasiparticle mean field is now complemented with a
178: spin-isospin separable residual interaction that contains two parts, an
179: attractive particle-hole and a repulsive particle-particle. The coupling
180: strengths of these forces $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ and $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ are
181: defined as positive. The strength of the $ph$ force is usually determined
182: by adjusting the calculated positions of the GT giant resonances to
183: experiment. The strength of the $pp$ force is determined by fitting the
184: $\beta$-decay half-lives of $\beta$ emitters. This fitting procedure was
185: systematically carried out in Ref. \cite{homma}, where the strengths
186: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$, and $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ were considered to be smooth
187: functions of the mass number $A$. The result found using a Nilsson
188: potential as the deformed mean field was
189: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}= 5.2 \; /A^{0.7}$ MeV and
190: $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}= 0.58\; /A^{0.7}$ MeV. Nevertheless, this
191: parametrization clearly depends on the model used for single particle
192: wave functions and energies, as well as on the set of experimental data
193: considered. Therefore, these coupling strengths can be used as a
194: reference but cannot be safely extrapolated to different mean fields or
195: different mass regions. As we shall see in the next section, the
196: strengths from Ref. \cite{homma} reproduce well the data when using the
197: WS potential, but one needs a somewhat smaller value of $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$
198: to reproduce the GT resonance with the HF mean field.
199:
200: We introduce the proton-neutron QRPA phonon operator for GT excitations
201: in even-even nuclei
202:
203: \begin{equation}
204: \Gamma _{\omega _{K}}^{+}=\sum_{\pi\nu}\left[ X_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}
205: \alpha _{\nu}^{+}\alpha _{\bar{\pi}}^{+}+Y_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}
206: \alpha _{\bar{\nu}} \alpha _{\pi}\right]\, , \label{phon}
207: \end{equation}
208: where $\alpha ^{+}\left( \alpha \right) $ are quasiparticle creation
209: (annihilation) operators, $\omega _{K}$ are the RPA excitation energies,
210: and $X_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}},Y_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}$ the forward and
211: backward amplitudes, respectively. The solution of the QRPA equations
212: can be found solving first a dispersion relation \cite{hir}, which is
213: of fourth order in the excitation energies $\omega_K$.
214:
215: In the intrinsic frame the GT transition amplitudes connecting the QRPA
216: ground state $\left| 0\right\rangle$ to one phonon states
217: $\left| \omega _K \right\rangle$ satisfying
218:
219: \begin{equation}
220: \Gamma _{\omega _{K}} \left| 0 \right\rangle =0 \qquad
221: \Gamma ^+ _{\omega _{K}} \left| 0 \right\rangle = \left|
222: \omega _K \right\rangle
223: \end{equation}
224: are given by
225:
226: \begin{equation}
227: \left\langle \omega _K | \sigma _K t^{\pm} | 0 \right\rangle =
228: \mp M^{\omega _K}_\pm \, .
229: \end{equation}
230: where
231:
232: \begin{equation}
233: M_{-}^{\omega _{K}}=\sum_{\pi\nu}\left( q_{\pi\nu}
234: X_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}+ \tilde{q}_{\pi\nu}
235: Y_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}\right) \, ; \qquad
236: M_{+}^{\omega _{K}}=\sum_{\pi\nu}\left( \tilde{q}_{\pi\nu}
237: X_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}+
238: q_{\pi\nu}Y_{\pi\nu}^{\omega _{K}}\right) \, ,
239: \end{equation}
240: and
241: \begin{equation}
242: \tilde{q}_{\pi\nu}=u_{\nu}v_{\pi}\Sigma _{K}^{\nu\pi };\ \ \
243: q_{\pi\nu}=v_{\nu}u_{\pi}\Sigma _{K}^{\nu\pi}\, ;\qquad
244: \Sigma _{K}^{\nu\pi}=\left\langle \nu\left| \sigma _{K}\right|
245: \pi\right\rangle \, ,
246: \label{qs}
247: \end{equation}
248: where $v'$s are occupation amplitudes ($u^2=1-v^2$).
249:
250: Finally, the GT strength $B(GT^\pm)$ in the laboratory system for a
251: transition $I_iK_i (0^+0) \rightarrow I_fK_f (1^+K)$ can be obtained
252: as
253: \begin{equation}
254: B(GT^\pm ) = \frac{g_A^2}{4\pi}\left[ \delta_{K,0}\left\langle
255: \omega_{K} \left| \sigma_0t^\pm \right| 0 \right\rangle ^2 +
256: 2\delta_{K,1} \left\langle \omega_{K} \left| \sigma_1t^\pm \right|
257: 0 \right\rangle ^2 \right] .
258: \label{bgt}
259: \end{equation}
260:
261: The $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay is described in second order perturbation
262: of the weak interaction as two successive Gamow-Teller transitions
263: via virtual intermediate $1^+$ states. The half-life of the
264: $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay
265: \begin{equation}
266: T^{2\nu}_{1/2}\,\left( 0^+_{\rm gs} \rightarrow 0^+_{\rm gs}
267: \right) = \left[ G^{2\nu} \left| M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT} \right| ^2
268: \right] ^{-1}
269: \label{t2nu}
270: \end{equation}
271: is given as a product of a phase space integral $G^{2\nu}$ and the
272: Gamow-Teller transition matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT} $, which
273: contains the nuclear structure effects. For a transition connecting
274: initial and final ground states, it is given by
275:
276: \begin{equation}
277: M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}=\sum_{K}\sum_{m_i,m_f}
278: \frac{\left\langle 0^+_f \left| \right| \sigma_K t^- \left| \right|
279: \omega_K^{m_f}\right\rangle
280: \left\langle \omega_K^{m_f} \left| \right. \omega_K^{m_i} \right\rangle
281: \left\langle \omega_K^{m_i} \left| \right| \sigma_K t^- \left| \right|
282: 0^+_i \right\rangle }
283: {\left( \omega_K^{m_f}+\omega_K^{m_i}\right) /2 }\, ,
284: \label{m2nu}
285: \end{equation}
286: where $K=0,\pm 1$ and $m_i,m_f$ label the number of intermediate $1^+$
287: RPA states $\omega_K^{m_i},\, \omega_K^{m_f}$ reached from the initial
288: $|0^+_i>$ and final $|0^+_f>$ nuclear ground states, respectively.
289: The overlap $<\omega_K^{m_f} | \omega_K^{m_i}>$ is needed to take into
290: account the non-orthogonality of the intermediate states reached from
291: the initial ground state to those reached from the final ground state.
292: It is given by \cite{doublege}
293:
294: \begin{equation}
295: \left\langle \omega_K^{m_f} | \omega_K^{m_i} \right\rangle =
296: \sum_{\ell_i\, \ell_f} \left[ X_{\ell_f}^{\omega_K^{m_f}}
297: X_{\ell_i}^{\omega_K^{m_i}} - Y_{\ell_f}^{\omega_K^{m_f}}
298: Y_{\ell_i}^{\omega_K^{m_i}}\right] R_{\ell_f \ell_i}
299: \left\langle BCS_f | BCS_i\right\rangle \, ,
300: \end{equation}
301: where $\ell_i\, \ell_f$ label the quasiparticle $\pi \nu$ pairs for
302: the initial and final nucleus, respectively. The factor
303: $ R_{\ell_f \ell_i}$ includes the overlap of single particle wave
304: functions of the initial and final nuclei \cite{doublege}
305:
306: \begin{equation}
307: R_{\ell \ell '} = <\pi |\pi '><\nu |\nu '> \left( u^i_\pi u^f_{\pi '}
308: +v^i_\pi v^f_{\pi '} \right) \left( u^i_\nu u^f_{\nu '}
309: +v^i_\nu v^f_{\nu '} \right) .
310: \end{equation}
311: The BCS overlap factor $<BCS_f | BCS_i>$ is derived in
312: Ref. \cite{doublege}. An approximate expression is given by
313:
314: \begin{equation}
315: \left\langle BCS_f | BCS_i\right\rangle \approx
316: \prod_{\Omega_\pi}\prod _{k=1}^{N_{\Omega_\pi}}
317: \left( u_k^f u_k^i + v_k^f v_k^i \right)
318: \prod_{\Omega_\nu}\prod _{j=1}^{N_{\Omega_\nu}}
319: \left( u_j^f u_j^i + v_j^f v_j^i \right) \, ,
320: \label{bcsif}
321: \end{equation}
322: with $N_{\Omega}$ the number of single particle states with the same
323: values of parity and projection $\Omega$ of the full angular momentum
324: on the nuclear symmetry axis.
325:
326: We note that for the case of the spherical QRPA the derivation of the
327: overlap factor of the intermediate nuclear states generated from the
328: initial and final nuclei was outlined in Ref. \cite{spf}. For the case
329: of the deformed QRPA the generalization of this derivation was presented
330: in \cite{doublege}. There, the importance of the BCS overlap factor,
331: which is an integral part of the overlap factor of the two sets of the
332: intermediate nucleus, on the evaluation of the double beta decay nuclear
333: matrix elements was maintained. Then, this procedure of the derivation
334: of the overlap factor of intermediate nuclear states was followed also
335: in Ref. \cite{radescu}, however, with a significant approximation. The
336: role of the BCS overlap factor was neglected. Of course, this can affect
337: the final results significantly, especially in the cases when
338: deformations of the initial and final nuclei are different.
339:
340: \section{Ground state properties}
341:
342: In this Section we present results for the bulk properties of the
343: nuclei under study based on the quasiparticle mean field description.
344: We consider both WS potential and Skyrme HF approaches.
345:
346: In the case of HF, the first step is to study the energy surfaces as
347: a function of deformation. For this purpose we perform constrained
348: calculations \cite{constraint}, minimizing the HF energy under the
349: constraint of keeping fixed the nuclear deformation. We can see in Fig. 1
350: the total HF energy plotted versus the quadrupole deformation parameter
351: \begin{equation}
352: \beta = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{5}} \frac{Q_p}{Zr_c^2} \, ,
353: \label{betadef}
354: \end{equation}
355: defined in terms of the microscopically calculated quadrupole moment
356: $Q_p$ and charge root mean square radius $r_c$.
357:
358: The results in Fig. 1 correspond to HF calculations with the force Sk3,
359: which are qualitatively similar to the results obtained with other
360: Skyrme forces, such as SG2 and SLy4 \cite{sly4}. We observe that the
361: HF calculation predicts in some instances (Ge, Se, Zr, Cd, Sn, Te, Xe)
362: the existence of two energy minima close in energy, giving rise to
363: possible shape isomers in these nuclei. Solid lines represent the energy
364: curves of the parent nuclei suffering the double beta decay, while dashed
365: lines represent the energy curves of the corresponding daughter nuclei.
366:
367: We can see in Table 1 the experimental and the microscopically calculated
368: charge root mean square radii $r_c$ with the forces Sk3 and SG2. We quote
369: the two, oblate-prolate, results in those cases where the energies for the
370: two shapes are very close. The values obtained for the charge radii are in
371: good agreement with the experimental values from Ref. \cite{radiiexp}. They
372: are also in good agreement with the results obtained from relativistic mean
373: field calculations \cite{ring}.
374:
375: In Table 2 we can see the theoretical and experimental quadrupole
376: deformation. Experimental values have been extracted from the measured
377: quadrupole moments from two different methods. In the first one the
378: quadrupole deformation is obtained from Eq.(\ref{betadef}), using the
379: empirical intrinsic moments derived from the laboratory moments of
380: Ref.\cite{raghavan} assuming a well defined deformation. In the second
381: case the quadrupole deformations are taken from Ref. \cite{raman}, where
382: they were derived from experimental values of $B(E2)$ strengths. In this
383: case the sign cannot be extracted.
384:
385: Our theoretical values have been derived microscopically from the forces
386: Sk3 and SG2, using the intrinsic quadrupole moments obtained as ground
387: state expectations of the $Q_{20}$ operator and the microscopic charge
388: radii quoted in Table 1. We show the results obtained for the equilibrium
389: shapes using the Skyrme forces Sk3 and SG2. In those cases where a second
390: minimum appears at close energy, we also show within square brackets the
391: corresponding deformation. We compare our results with the results from
392: relativistic mean field calculations of Ref. \cite{ring} and with results
393: from systematic calculations \cite{moeller} based on macroscopic-microscopic
394: models (finite range droplet macroscopic model and folded Yukawa single
395: particle microscopic model). The agreement between all the theoretical
396: calculations is very remarkable and in general they are within the range
397: of experimental values determined from Refs. \cite{raghavan} and \cite{raman}.
398: The experimental $\beta-$values from Refs. \cite{raghavan} and \cite{raman}
399: are represented in Fig.1 by the endpoints of the black boxes.
400:
401: There is still another important experimental information relevant to
402: double beta decay that we wish to explore here. This is the
403: $Q_{\beta\beta}$ energy of the decay. The energy released in a double
404: beta process in a transition from ground-state to ground-state is given by
405: \begin{equation}
406: Q_{\beta\beta} = \left[ M_{\rm parent} - M_{\rm daughter} -2 m_e\right] =
407: \left[ 2(m_n-m_p-m_e) + BE(Z,N) - BE(Z+2,N-2) \right] \, ,
408: \end{equation}
409: in terms of the nuclear masses $M$'s, or similarly, in terms of the binding
410: energies $BE$'s of parent $(Z,N)$ and daughter $(Z+2,N-2)$ nuclei.
411:
412: We can see in Table 3 the experimental values of $Q_{\beta\beta}$. They are
413: compared with the values calculated with the force Sk3. The agreement with
414: experiment is reasonable taking into account that we are dealing with
415: differences of energies ranging from 400 MeV in A=48 systems to 1200 MeV
416: in A=150 and a tiny percent error in the theoretical masses may induce a
417: relatively large error in $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values. From Table 3 we can see
418: that to match the experimental energies, we need to increase slightly the
419: energy difference in A=48,76,82,116,128,130,136 and to decrease it in
420: A=96,100,150.
421:
422: In this work we have used Sk3 as a representative of the Skyrme forces
423: without any attempt to optimize the agreement with the experimental
424: $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values. Even if Sk3 force may not be the best Skyrme
425: force to accurately predict the right $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values, it is very
426: interesting to see that experimental and theoretical values are in many
427: cases quite close. For the cases examined here it appears that the
428: $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values are fairly well reproduced for A=82,100,150 and
429: that deviations from experiment in the worst case is 2.25 MeV in A=96,
430: where $Q_{\beta\beta({\rm exp})}=3.35$ MeV and
431: $Q_{\beta\beta({\rm Sk3})}=5.59$ MeV. In the future it will be
432: interesting to test other Skyrme forces which may give better fits to
433: the $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values. A case of particular concern for double beta
434: decay calculations is that of A=128 for which the Sk3 force gives
435: $Q_{\beta\beta}=-0.10$ MeV. Clearly, in this case further work is
436: needed to make selfconsistent calculations that give the right
437: $Q_{\beta\beta}$ and GT strengths.
438:
439: We also notice that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, by changing slightly the
440: deformation value in the vicinity of the equilibrium deformation, one can
441: change the binding energy correspondingly and get into agreement with the
442: experimental $Q_{\beta\beta}$ value. This procedure could be justified
443: from the point of view that, in principle, in the HF method one could
444: consider several collective degrees of freedom and that the absolute
445: minimum in the multidimensional landscape could correspond to a slightly
446: different $\beta$ value. We can see in Fig. 1 the experimental value of
447: $\delta = BE_i - BE_f$ as the distance between the two horizontal lines
448: plotted in each panel. The solid horizontal line refers to the energy of
449: the parent while the dashed horizontal one refers to the daughter binding
450: energy. One of them is always a reference and signals the energy to keep
451: fixed (parent for A=96,100,150 and daughter in A=48,76,82,116,128,130,136).
452: The other line indicates the binding energy needed to reproduce the
453: experimental $\delta = BE_i - BE_f$. Therefore, the cuts of this horizontal
454: line with the corresponding energy curve indicates the deformations where
455: this condition is satisfied.
456:
457: Fig. 2 shows the results obtained with HF-Sk3 for the GT strength
458: distributions in $^{128}$Te and $^{136}$Xe, which are among the cases where
459: the calculated $Q_{\beta\beta}$ is worse and the change in $\beta$ needed
460: to fit $Q_{\beta\beta}$ is larger. We show the results obtained with the
461: equilibrium deformations $\beta=-0.088$ in $^{128}$Te and $\beta=0.001$ in
462: $^{136}$Xe as well as with the deformations that fit the $Q_{\beta\beta}$
463: values, $\beta=-0.005$ in $^{128}$Te and $\beta=0.102$ in $^{136}$Xe.
464: We can see that the strength distributions obtained with both deformations
465: are similar except for a small displacement in energies. In all the other
466: cases the effect is even smaller and the strength distributions obtained
467: with the equilibrium deformation or with the slightly changed deformation
468: are practically unchanged. In the next section we show GT strengths
469: obtained at the HF minimum.
470:
471: In the case of the Woods-Saxon potential, where the deformation is an
472: input parameter, we take the values from both Refs. \cite{raghavan} and
473: \cite{raman}. Since for each nucleus, the two references give two
474: different values of the $\beta-$parameter, we show in the next section
475: the GT distributions obtained with the two values to take into account
476: this uncertainty.
477:
478: \section{Gamow-Teller strength distributions}
479:
480: In this Section we show and discuss the Gamow-Teller strength distributions
481: obtained from different choices of the deformed mean fields and residual
482: interactions.
483:
484: We notice that the relevant strength distributions for the double beta
485: decay are the $B(GT^-)$ distribution of the parent nuclei and the
486: $B(GT^+)$ distribution of daughter nuclei.
487:
488: As a general rule, the following figures showing the GT strength
489: distributions are plotted versus the excitation energy of daughter nucleus.
490: The distributions of the GT strength have been folded with Gaussian functions
491: of 1 MeV width to facilitate the comparison among the various calculations,
492: so that the original discrete spectrum is transformed into a continuous
493: profile. These distributions are given in units of $g_A^2/4\pi$ and one
494: should keep in mind that a quenching of the $g_A$ factor, typically
495: $g_{A,{\rm eff}}=(0.7-0.8)\ g_{A,{\rm free}}$, which appears squared in the
496: GT strength, is expected on the basis of the observed quenching in charge
497: exchange reactions.
498:
499: In the case of the $B(GT^+)$ distributions, we first observe the different
500: scale, which is about one order of magnitude smaller than the $B(GT^-)$
501: scale. This is a consequence of the Pauli blocking. In the nuclei considered
502: here the number of neutrons $N$ is much larger than the number of protons
503: $Z$. The difference between total $B(GT^-)$ and $B(GT^+)$ strengths (Ikeda
504: sum rule, which is fulfilled in our calculations), is then a large number
505: given by $3(N-Z)$ and practically determined by the magnitude of the
506: $B(GT^-)$ strength.
507:
508: We start in Fig. 3 with a discussion of the dependence of the GT strength
509: distributions on the coupling strength of the particle-hole residual
510: interaction $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ for a fixed value of the particle-particle
511: coupling constant $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=0$. The results correspond to HF with
512: the force Sk3 in the A=150 case. We can see on the left panel the $B(GT^-)$
513: strength distribution of the parent nucleus $^{150}$Nd and on the right
514: panel the $B(GT^+)$ strength distribution of the daughter nucleus $^{150}$Sm.
515: The pairing gap parameters are given in Table 1 and the deformations are
516: given in Table 2. We can see in Fig. 3 how the most important effect of
517: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ on the $B(GT^-)$ strength distribution is a
518: shift of the strength toward higher excitation energies. This displacement
519: of the GT strength is accompanied by a reduction of the strength. This
520: reduction can be more clearly appreciated on the $B(GT^+)$ strength
521: distribution because the scale in this case is about two orders of magnitude
522: smaller, as it should be to fulfill the Ikeda sum rule
523: $\sum [B(GT^-)- B(GT^+)]=3(N-Z)= 90,78$ for Nd and Sm, respectively.
524: Therefore, the coupling constant $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ plays an important role
525: to reproduce the position of the $GT^-$ resonance.
526: On the other hand, the sensitivity of the GT strength distribution on the
527: particle-particle coupling constant $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ is not so
528: important as it can be seen from Fig. 4, where we can see the GT strength
529: distributions for a fixed value of $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.156$ MeV \cite{homma}
530: and for several values of $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ on the example of HF with
531: the force Sk3 in the A=150 case. As we can see, the position of the
532: resonance does not change appreciably. Therefore, other methods, such as
533: fitting the half-lives of unstable nuclei in the same mass region, have
534: to be used to get phenomenologically their values.
535:
536: In the next set of figures (Figs. 5-14) we show, for each couple of double
537: beta decay partners, the results obtained for the $B(GT^-)$ strength
538: distributions of the parent nuclei on the top panels and for the $B(GT^+)$
539: strength distributions of the daughter nuclei on the bottom panels. Also
540: shown are the experimental data whenever they are available.
541: In each figure the left panels correspond to HF+BCS+QRPA calculations with
542: the force Sk3 and the right panels to WS+BCS+QRPA calculations.
543: In the case of HF we use the equilibrium deformations. We show with dashed
544: lines the 2qp results for HF+BCS calculations where the residual interaction
545: is not considered. This serves as a reference and can be used to see the
546: necessity of the residual force to get into agreement with experiment.
547: Solid lines are the results obtained with $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.1$ MeV and
548: $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=6/A$ MeV, which produce a good fit to all the measured
549: GT resonances of double beta emitters, as well as to the two-neutrino
550: double beta decay matrix elements, as we shall see in the next section.
551: This small value of the $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ coupling constant needed to
552: reproduce the experimental GT resonances within a selfconsistent approach
553: with Skyrme forces is in agreement with the same observation reported in
554: Refs. \cite{gese,feni} and reflects the fact that one needs less residual
555: interaction when using realistic effective density-dependent forces that
556: when using phenomenological potentials to generate the single-particle
557: energies and wave functions.
558:
559: In the case of calculations with the WS potentials shown on the right hand
560: panels, we show results for the two different experimental deformations
561: as obtained from Refs. \cite{raghavan} (solid lines) and \cite{raman}
562: (dashed lines), which are given in Table 2. The calculations are done for
563: a fixed value of the $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ and $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$
564: constants as obtained from the parametrization in Ref.\cite{homma}.
565:
566: Some general common features to all figures can be established first.
567: Concerning the HF calculations, the value of $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ given by
568: the parametrization of Ref. \cite{homma} is an overestimation when dealing
569: with selfconsistent Skyrme HF calculations. Actually, a small value of
570: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.1$ MeV is already able to reproduce the experimental
571: position of the GT resonance. This is a consequence of the structure of
572: the two-body density-dependent Skyrme force that contains terms like
573: spin exchange operators leading to a spin-spin interaction in the
574: selfconsistent mean field, which is absent in the WS potential.
575: The agreement with the experimental energy of the GT resonance is in
576: this case very good as it can be seen in the cases A=76,82,100,116,128,130,
577: where this information is available. Indeed, the experimental giant GT
578: resonances shown in these figures represent the centroids of broad bumps.
579: The resonance in $^{48}$Ca reported at 10 MeV in Ref.\cite{expca48} and
580: used in the fitting procedure of Ref. \cite{homma} is also in good
581: agreement with our results.
582:
583: With respect to the calculations performed with the WS potential, we can
584: see that larger deformations produce peaks in the GT distributions
585: displaced to higher energies. This is a consequence of the larger
586: separation of the single particle energies when the deformation increases.
587: Thus, since the deformation derived from Ref. \cite{raman} is larger than
588: that of Ref. \cite{raghavan}, solid lines appear in general on the left
589: of dashed lines.
590:
591: It is also remarkable the good agreement with experiment obtained in
592: this case. This agreement is mainly determined by the fixed value of
593: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ from Ref. \cite{homma}, which is still valid when
594: describing the mean field with a WS potential. One should keep in mind
595: that the parametrization of Ref. \cite{homma} was obtained using a Nilsson
596: potential.
597:
598: In Table 4 we compare the total GT strength measured and calculated with
599: both HF and WS. When a standard quenching factor of 0.6 is included in the
600: theoretical results fair agreement is found between theory and experiment.
601:
602: \section{Two-neutrino double beta decay matrix elements}
603:
604: In this section we analyze the effects of deformation, as well as the
605: effect of the mean field and residual interactions on the
606: $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay. First, we discuss the sensitivity to deformation of
607: the nuclear structure contribution $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ to the
608: $2\nu\beta\beta$ half-lives. This is done in Fig. 15, where we show the
609: matrix elements $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ as a function of both parent and
610: daughter deformations. The figure corresponds to the decay
611: $^{96}$Zr $\rightarrow$ $^{96}$Mo calculated within a Woods-Saxon scheme
612: with residual interactions from Ref. \cite{homma}. We have changed freely
613: the deformations of both parent and daughter nuclei without any constraint
614: from experiment. In this way we can study qualitatively the effect
615: of deformation. The experimental values for $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ shown in
616: Fig. 15, as well in the next figures have been extracted from the adopted
617: experimental half-lives $T^{2\nu}_{1/2}$ given in Ref. \cite{barabash}.
618: From the experimental half-lives and the corresponding kinematical
619: factors $G^{2\nu}$, we extract two experimental nuclear matrix elements
620: from Eq. (\ref{t2nu}) by assuming values for the axial coupling constant
621: $g_A=1.25$ or $g_A=1$. These two values are plotted in Figs. 15-18 as
622: horizontal lines.
623:
624: From Fig. 15 we can see that the matrix elements $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ have
625: maximum values for equal deformations of both parent and daughter and these
626: values decrease rapidly when the difference between the deformations of
627: parent and daughter increases.
628: In particular, we observe that the $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ value obtained within
629: a spherical picture ($\beta_{\rm parent}=\beta_{\rm daughter}=0$) is about
630: the upper limit and only comparable with values obtained with same
631: deformations for parent and daughter in the deformed picture.
632: As soon as the deformations of parent and daughter change, we get a reduction
633: in the $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ matrix elements that cannot be obtained from
634: a spherical description.
635: The mechanism of this reduction due to the different deformations was studied
636: in Ref. \cite{doublege}, where it was found that the overlap factor
637: in Eqs.(\ref{m2nu}-\ref{bcsif}) is at the origin of the suppression.
638: We can see in Fig. 15 that the experimental values of $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$,
639: plotted as thick segments in each curve, are compatible with particular
640: values of parent and daughter deformations.
641:
642: We show in Fig. 16 the difference between parent and daughter nuclear
643: quadrupole deformations for the double-beta emitters.
644: The dots correspond to the results obtained from selfconsistent HF
645: calculations with the Skyrme force Sk3, while the extreme values on
646: the vertical segments indicate the maximum and minimum differences
647: compatible with the experimental values in Table 2. These are also
648: the extreme values used in WS calculations in Fig. 17.
649:
650: In the next two figures (Figs. 17-18) we show the matrix elements
651: $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ for the same double beta emitters studied in the last
652: section as a function of the particle-particle strength $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$.
653: The experimental values extracted by assuming $g_A=1.25$ or $g_A=1$ are
654: shown by the lower and upper horizontal lines, respectively.
655:
656: It is well known \cite{2bqrpa} that the $pp$ interaction introduces
657: a different mechanism of suppression of the $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$
658: matrix elements, which is also interesting to study in our case.
659: In this way we can compare the effect of the $pp$ force with the effect
660: due to deformation.
661: We first discuss in Fig. 17 the effects of deformation in the WS case
662: by taking the available experimental quadrupole deformations and then
663: we discuss the HF case by considering the selfconsistent deformations.
664:
665: In the WS case (Fig. 17) we use the same potential parameters, gaps and $ph$
666: residual interaction as those used in the single beta calculations in the
667: previous section.
668: For deformations we take all the experimental possibilities for parent and
669: daughter given in Table 2 and cross them to calculate $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$.
670: Then we show in the figure the upper and lower results obtained as a function
671: of $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ and we draw a shadow region between them.
672: We also show for comparison the results obtained in the spherical case (dashed
673: lines).
674:
675: The first thing to notice is the already mentioned reduction of
676: $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ as the magnitude of $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ increases, which
677: takes place for both spherical and deformed cases, although the effect of
678: the $pp$ force is larger in the spherical case. The spherical curves decay
679: faster than the deformed ones with $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$. This means that the
680: deformed results are more stable (more insensitive) to the particular
681: strength of the $pp$ interaction.
682:
683: Another interesting feature to mention is that, as expected from the analysis
684: in Fig. 15, deformation introduces in most cases a reduction factor with
685: respect to the spherical result. Only when the deformations of parent and
686: daughter are very similar, the results obtained in the deformed case can be
687: larger than the spherical ones. This is for instance the case of $A=82$
688: (see Table 2), where the experimental quadrupole deformations \cite{raman}
689: are $\beta=0.1944$ in the case of the parent nucleus $^{82}$Se and
690: $\beta=0.2022$ in the case of the daughter nucleus $^{82}$Kr.
691:
692: In Fig. 18 we show the results corresponding to HF calculations with the
693: force Sk3. In this case the quadrupole deformations are obtained
694: selfconsistently (see Table 2) and are the same we used in the previous
695: section to calculate the GT strength distributions in the single
696: $\beta-$decays. The coupling strength of the $ph$ residual interaction has
697: been taken $\chi=0.1$ MeV as in the previous section. Contrary to the case of
698: single $\beta-$decay, where the position of the GT resonance is determined
699: by the strength of the $ph$ force and almost independent on the
700: $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ force, we can see in Fig. 18 the sensitivity of the
701: $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay to the $pp$ force.
702: We find that the experimental values of $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ are roughly
703: reproduced with values of $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=6/A$ MeV. This is the reason
704: why we used these values also in the HF calculations of the GT distributions
705: in the previous section.
706:
707: To illustrate even further the effect of deformation on the $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$
708: matrix elements, we show in Fig. 19 the HF+BCS+QRPA results with the Skyrme
709: force SG2 for the decay
710: $^{96}$Zr $\rightarrow$ $^{96}$Mo corresponding to the decay of a prolate
711: parent to a prolate daughter or to the decay of a spherical parent into
712: a spherical or a prolate daughter. The actual deformations used in these
713: calculations are the consistently obtained with the force SG2 as can
714: be seen in Table 2, namely $\beta =0.016,\, 0.147$ for the parent
715: $^{96}$Zr and $\beta =-0.006,\, 0.119$ for the daughter $^{96}$Mo.
716: We can see that the transition from the spherical shape to the prolate
717: shape reduces considerably the matrix elements as compared to the
718: spherical/spherical or to the prolate/prolate cases, which are comparable.
719: This reduction due to the different deformations makes the results
720: compatible with the experimental values.
721:
722: \section{Concluding remarks}
723:
724: Using a deformed QRPA formalism, which includes $ph$ and $pp$ separable
725: residual interactions, we have studied the GT strength distributions for
726: the two decay branches $\beta^-$ and $\beta^+$ in double beta decay
727: processes, as well as the two-neutrino double beta decay matrix elements.
728: In the same manner in which two-neutrino double beta decay is used to
729: calibrate the nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double beta
730: decay, the single beta decay branches of parent and daughter are
731: used to test the matrix elements for two-neutrino double beta decay.
732:
733: Two different methods, a deformed Skyrme HF approach and a phenomenological
734: deformed WS potential, are used to construct the quasiparticle mean field,
735: which includes pairing correlations in BCS approximation.
736:
737: In the case of HF the deformation is determined selfconsistently and we are
738: able to reproduce the experimental charge radii and quadrupole moments. In
739: the case of WS the input deformation is taken from experiment and we use
740: two values for each nucleus, one corresponding to the measured quadrupole
741: moment of the first $2^+$ state and the other extracted from the measured
742: $B(E2)$ values. The latter can be considered as an upper limit of the
743: $\beta-$value. More experimental work would be needed to improve and
744: complete the experimental determination of the quadrupole moments based
745: on the first of these methods.
746:
747: Starting from these quasiparticle basis we perform a pnQRPA calculation
748: with separable forces to obtain the energy distributions of the $GT^-$
749: strength in the parent nucleus and the $GT^+$ strength in the daughter
750: nucleus and from them the $2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements.
751: It is well known from previous studies that the $ph$ force allows
752: a reasonable fit of the GT resonance, and that the $pp$ force also affects
753: the $B(GT^-)$ and $B(GT^+)$ distributions. This knowledge has been applied
754: in our paper to test existing parametrizations of the $ph$ and $pp$ residual
755: forces and to see how good agreement can be obtained between experiment and
756: theory with HF and WS methods. To our knowledge, we have considered for the
757: first time simultaneously all the possible two-beta emitters and their
758: corresponding daughters comparing their $B(GT)$ to experiment.
759: We find that we need different strengths of the $ph$ force to reproduce
760: the position of the GT resonance, depending on the HF or WS basis. In the
761: first case, a small value of $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.1$ MeV reproduces all the
762: measured GT resonances. In the second case the parametrization obtained
763: in Ref. \cite{homma} ($\chi ^{ph}_{GT}= 5.2 \; /A^{0.7}$ MeV), using a
764: Nilsson potential, is still valid when using a WS potential. The fact
765: that $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ is smaller in HF than in WS can be understood as
766: arising from the fact that the HF mean field already contains the average
767: effect of spin-spin interaction terms. In both cases we reproduce
768: reasonably well not only the position of the resonances but also the total
769: GT strength. It should also be mentioned that the $GT^-$ strength of the
770: parent nucleus and the $GT^+$ strength of the daughter are located at
771: different energies, a feature that is relevant for double beta decay
772: because it introduces a reduction of the double beta decay probabilities.
773: It would be very useful to improve and complete the experimental
774: information on GT strength distributions by (p,n) and (n,p) charge
775: exchange reactions on nuclei participating in double beta decay.
776:
777: We have also explored the theoretical $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values obtained
778: with the HF method. We find that with the Sk3 force used here the agreement
779: with the experimental $Q_{\beta\beta}$ is not perfect and that it will be
780: worth to look for a Skyrme force that may optimize agreement with experiment
781: on both GT strengths and $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values.
782: However, taking into account that there is no fitting parameter at
783: all, the agreement between theory and experiment is good. So far, no
784: other approach used to study double beta decay has been able to obtain
785: $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values so close to experiment. This is an important
786: advantage of the HF method that deserves further exploration.
787:
788: The effect of deformation on the $2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements
789: has been studied first by considering the deformations of both parent and
790: daughter as free parameters. It is found that the matrix elements are
791: suppressed with respect to the spherical case. More precisely, it is found
792: a sizable reduction effect that scales with the deformation difference
793: between parent and daughter. This suppression mechanism, which is ignored
794: in spherical treatments, may play an important role in approaching the
795: theoretical estimates to experiment.
796:
797: In the case of the WS potential, we have studied the $2\nu\beta\beta-$decay
798: matrix elements by considering the maximum and minimum differences between
799: the experimental deformations of parent and daughter.
800: This procedure generates a region of decaying rates
801: that would be narrowed from an improved experimental determination of the
802: quadrupole deformations.
803:
804: In the case of HF calculations we find that using the selfconsistent
805: deformations obtained from the minimization of the energy and
806: residual interactions with coupling strengths given by
807: $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.1$ MeV and $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=6/A$ MeV, we
808: are able to reproduce simultaneously the available experimental
809: information on the GT strength distributions of the single $\beta-$branches
810: and the $2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements.
811:
812:
813: \begin{center}
814: {\Large \bf Acknowledgments}
815: \end{center}
816: We would like to thank A.A. Raduta for useful discussions. This work was
817: supported by Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (Spain) under contract
818: number BFM2002-03562 and by International Graduiertenkolleg GRK683, by
819: the ``Land Baden-Wuerttemberg'' within the ``Landesforschungsschwerpunkt:
820: Low Energy Neutrinos'', by the DFG under 418SPA112/8/03, the VEGA Grant
821: agency of the Slovac Republic under contract No.~1/0249/03, and by the
822: EU ILIAS project under contract RII3-CT-2004-506222. One of us (R.A.-R.)
823: thanks Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (Spain) for financial support.
824:
825: \vfill\eject
826:
827: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
828:
829: \bibitem{bernabeu} J. Bernabeu, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 114}, 125 (2003);
830: S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, J.A. Grifols, and E. Mass\'o, Phys. Rep.
831: {\bf 379}, 69 (2003).
832:
833: \bibitem{2breview}
834: J. Suhonen and O. Civitarese, Phys. Rep. {\bf 300}, 123 (1998);
835: A. Faessler and F. \v Simkovic, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {\bf 24},
836: 2139 (1998); H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, {\it Sixty Years of Double Beta
837: Decay}, World Scientific, Singapore (2001);
838: S.R. Elliott and P. Vogel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 52}, 115
839: (2002); J.D. Vergados, Phys. Rep.{\bf 361}, 1 (2002);
840: S.R. Eliott and J. Engel, J. Phys. G {\bf 30}, R183 (2004).
841:
842: \bibitem{halb} J.A. Halbleib and R.A. Sorensen, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 98},
843: 542 (1967).
844:
845: \bibitem{2bqrpa}
846: P. Vogel and M.R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 3148 (1986);
847: D. Cha, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 27}, 2269 (1987); T. Tomoda and A. Faessler, Phys.
848: Lett. B {\bf 199}, 475 (1987); K. Muto, E. Bender and H.V. Klapdor,
849: Z. Phys. A {\bf 334}, 177 (1989).
850:
851: \bibitem{extension} J. Hirsch, E. Bauer and F. Krmpoti\'c, Nucl. Phys. A
852: {\bf 516}, 304 (1990); A.A. Raduta, A. Faessler, S. Stoica, and W.A. Kaminski,
853: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 254}, 7 (1991); J. Toivanen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. Lett.
854: {\bf 75}, 410 (1995); J. Schwieger, F. \v Simkovic, and A. Faessler, Nucl.
855: Phys. A {\bf 600}, 179 (1996); A.A. Raduta, M.C. Raduta, A. Faessler, and
856: W.A. Kaminski, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 634}, 497 (1998); A.A. Raduta, F.
857: \v Simkovic, and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G {\bf 26}, 793 (2000).
858:
859: \bibitem{kru} J. Krumlinde and P. Moeller, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 417}, 419 (1984).
860:
861: \bibitem{moll} P. Moeller and J. Randrup, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 514}, 1 (1990).
862:
863: \bibitem{homma} H. Homma, E. Bender, M. Hirsch, K. Muto, H.V.
864: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and T. Oda, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54}, 2972 (1996).
865:
866: \bibitem{sarr} P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, A. Escuderos, and A.C.
867: Carrizo, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 635}, 55 (1998); P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra,
868: and A. Escuderos, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 658}, 13 (1999); Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 691},
869: 631 (2001); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 064306 (2001).
870:
871: \bibitem{doba} J. Engel, M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and
872: R. Surnam, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60}, 014302 (1999); M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski,
873: J. Engel, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 054322 (2002).
874:
875: \bibitem{gese} P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, L. Pacearescu,
876: A. Faessler, F. \v Simkovic and A.A. Raduta, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 67},
877: 044313 (2003).
878:
879: \bibitem{doublege} F. \v Simkovic, L. Pacearescu and A. Faessler,
880: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 733}, 3231 (2004).
881:
882: \bibitem{feni} P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra and R.
883: \'Alvarez-Rodr\'{\i}guez, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 716}, 230 (2003).
884:
885: \bibitem{raduta} A.A. Raduta, A. Faessler, and D.S. Delion, Nucl. Phys. A
886: {\bf 564}, 185 (1993); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 312}, 13 (1993); Nucl. Phys. A
887: {\bf 617}, 176 (1997).
888:
889: \bibitem{radescu} A.A. Raduta, A. Escuderos, A. Faessler, E. Moya de Guerra
890: and P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69}, 064321 (2004).
891:
892: \bibitem{tanaka} Y. Tanaka, Y. Oda, F. Petrovich and R.K. Sheline, Phys. Lett.
893: B {\bf 83}, 279 (1979).
894:
895: \bibitem{m1} R. Nojarov, A. Faessler, P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra and M.
896: Grigorescu, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 563}, 349 (1993); P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra,
897: R. Nojarov and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {\bf 20}, 315 (1994);
898: J.M. Udias, R. Nojarov and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {\bf 23},
899: 1673 (1997).
900:
901: \bibitem{beiner} M. Beiner, H. Flocard, N. Van Giai, and P. Quentin, Nucl.
902: Phys. A {\bf 238}, 29 (1975).
903:
904: \bibitem{giai} N. Van Giai and H. Sagawa, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 106}, 379 (1981).
905:
906: \bibitem{hir} M. Hirsch, A. Staudt, K. Muto, and H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,
907: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 535}, 62 (1991); K. Muto, E. Bender, and H.V. Klapdor,
908: Z. Phys. A {\bf 333}, 125 (1989); K. Muto, E. Bender, T. Oda and H.V.
909: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Z. Phys. A {\bf 341}, 407 (1992).
910:
911: \bibitem{spf} F. \v Simkovic, G. Pantis, and A. Pantis,
912: Phys. At. Nucl. {\bf 61}, 1218 (1998); Prog. Part, Nucl. Phys.
913: {\bf 40}, 285 (1998).
914:
915: \bibitem{constraint} H. Flocard, P. Quentin, A.K. Kerman, and D. Vautherin,
916: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 203} (1973) 433.
917:
918: \bibitem{sly4} A. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R.
919: Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 635}, 231 (1998).
920:
921: \bibitem{radiiexp} H. de Vries, C.W. de Jager and C. de Vries, At. Data
922: Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 36}, 495 (1987); G. Fricke, C. Bernhardt, K. Heilig,
923: L.A. Schaller, L. Schellenberg, E.B. Shera, C.W. de Jager, At. Data and Nucl.
924: Data Tables {\bf 60}, 177 (1995).
925:
926: \bibitem{ring} G.A. Lalazissis, S. Raman and P. Ring, At. Data and Nucl.
927: Data Tables {\bf 71}, 1 (1999).
928:
929: \bibitem{raghavan} P. Raghavan, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 42}, 189
930: (1989); N.J. Stone, Oxford University, preprint (2001).
931:
932: \bibitem{raman} S. Raman, C.H. Malarkey, W.T. Milner, C.W. Nestor Jr. and
933: P.H. Stelson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 36}, 1 (1987).
934:
935: \bibitem{moeller} P. Moeller, J.R. Nix, W.D. Myers, W.J. Swiatecki,
936: At. Data Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 59}, 185 (1995).
937:
938: \bibitem{expca48} B.D. Anderson, T. Chittrakarn, A.R. Baldwin, C. Lebo,
939: R. Madey, P.C. Tandy, J.W. Watson, B.A. Brown and C.C. Foster, Phys. Rev.
940: C {\bf 31}, 1161 (1985).
941:
942: \bibitem{exp48ti} W.P. Alford, R.L. Helmer, R. Abegg, A. Celler, D. Frekers,
943: P. Green, O. Hausser, R. Henderson, K. Hicks, K.P. Jackson, R. Jeppesen,
944: C.A. Miller, A. Trudel, M. Vetterli, S. Yen, R. Pourang, J. Watson, B.A. Brown
945: and J. Engel, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 514}, 49 (1990).
946:
947: \bibitem{seexp} R.L. Helmer, M.A. Punyasena, R. Abegg, W.P. Alford, A. Celler,
948: S. El-Kateb, J. Engel, D. Frekers, R.S. Henderson, K.P. Jackson, S. Long,
949: C.A. Miller, W.C. Olsen, B.M. Spicer, A. Trudel and M.C. Vetterli,
950: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 55}, 2802 (1997).
951:
952: \bibitem{expmadey} R. Madey, B.S. Flanders, B.D. Anderson, A.R. Baldwin,
953: J.W. Watson, S.M. Austin, C.C. Foster, H.V. Klapdor and K. Grotz, Phys. Rev.
954: C {\bf 40}, 540 (1989).
955:
956: \bibitem{expmocd} H. Akimune, H. Ejiri, M. Fujiwara, I. Daito, T. Inomata,
957: R. Hazama, A. Tamii, H. Toyokawa, M. Yosoi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 394}, 23 (1997).
958:
959: \bibitem{barabash} A.S. Barabash, Czech. J. Phys. {\bf 52}, 567 (2002).
960:
961: \end{thebibliography}
962:
963: \newpage
964:
965: \begin{center}
966:
967: \begin{table}[t]
968: \caption{Pairing gaps for protons and neutrons $\Delta_p,\, \Delta_n$
969: (MeV) and charge radii $r_c$ (fm).}
970: \vskip 0.5cm
971: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
972: Nucleus & $\Delta_p$ & $\Delta_n$ & exp $r_c$ \cite{radiiexp} & $r_c$ Sk3
973: & $r_c$ SG2 & $r_c$ \cite{ring} \\ \\
974: \hline \\
975: $^{48}$Ca & 2.18 & 1.68 & 3.4736(8) & 3.586 & 3.549 & 3.471 \\
976: $^{48}$Ti & 1.90 & 1.56 & 3.592 & 3.628 & 3.597 & 3.571 \\ \\
977: $^{76}$Ge & 1.56 & 1.54 & 4.127(8) & 4.130 & 4.083 & 4.057 \\
978: $^{76}$Se & 1.75 & 1.71 & 4.152(9) & 4.170-4.180 & 4.113-4.143 & 4.119 \\ \\
979: $^{82}$Se & 1.41 & 1.54 & 4.122(8) & 4.204 & 4.159 & 4.131 \\
980: $^{82}$Kr & 1.72 & 1.64 & 4.1921(11) & 4.196 & 4.196 & 4.173 \\ \\
981: $^{96}$Zr & 1.53 & 0.84 & 4.3508(12) & 4.433-4.443 & 4.342-4.389 & 4.376 \\
982: $^{96}$Mo & 1.53 & 1.03 & 4.377(10) & 4.448-4.457 & 4.369-4.388 & 4.381 \\ \\
983: $^{100}$Mo &1.60 & 1.36 & 4.447(10) & 4.516 & 4.439-4.466 & 4.448 \\
984: $^{100}$Ru &1.55 & 1.30 & 4.453 & 4.516 & 4.457 & 4.449 \\ \\
985: $^{116}$Cd &1.47 & 1.37 & 4.625 & 4.703-4.715 & 4.653 & 4.643 \\
986: $^{116}$Sn &1.77 & 1.20 & 4.625 & 4.709-4.753 & 4.702 & 4.609 \\ \\
987: $^{128}$Te &1.13 & 1.28 & 4.735 & 4.803-4.805 & 4.746 & 4.732 \\
988: $^{128}$Xe &1.32 & 1.27 & 4.776 & 4.836-4.839 & 4.782-4.786 &4.778 \\ \\
989: $^{130}$Te &1.06 & 1.18 & 4.742 & 4.812-4.816 & 4.750 & 4.739 \\
990: $^{130}$Xe &1.31 & 1.25 & 4.783 & 4.845-4.846 & 4.796-4.801 & 4.784 \\ \\
991: $^{136}$Xe &0.98 & 1.44 & 4.799 & 4.878 & 4.815 & 4.804 \\
992: $^{136}$Ba &1.27 & 1.03 & 4.833 & 4.902 & 4.847 & 4.837 \\ \\
993: $^{150}$Nd &1.23 & 1.05 & 5.047 & 5.114 & 5.055 & 5.046 \\
994: $^{150}$Sm &1.44 & 1.19 & 5.047 & 5.108 & 5.046 & 5.047 \\
995: \end{tabular}
996: \end{table}
997:
998: \begin{table}[t]
999: \caption{ Theoretical and experimental $\beta$ values, see text.}
1000: \label{table.1}
1001: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\\
1002: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Exp} && \multicolumn{4}{c}{Theory} \\
1003: \cline {2-3}
1004: \cline{5-8} \\
1005: Nucleus & Ref. \cite{raghavan} & Ref. \cite{raman} && this work (Sk3) &
1006: this work (SG2) & Ref. \cite{ring} & Ref. \cite{moeller} \\ \\
1007: \hline
1008: \\
1009: $^{48}$Ca & 0.000 & 0.101(17) && -0.002 & -0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
1010: $^{48}$Ti &+0.17(10) & 0.269(7) && -0.002 & -0.003 & -0.009 & 0.000 \\ \\
1011: $^{76}$Ge &+0.095(30)& 0.2623(39)&& 0.161 & 0.157 & 0.157 & 0.143 \\
1012: $^{76}$Se &+0.163(33)& 0.3090(37)&& -0.181 [+0.157] & -0.191 [+0.049]
1013: &-0.244 & -0.241 \\ \\
1014: $^{82}$Se &+0.104(32)& 0.1944(26)&& 0.126 & 0.150 & 0.133 & 0.154 \\
1015: $^{82}$Kr & & 0.2022(45)&& 0.106 & 0.103 & 0.119 & 0.071 \\ \\
1016: $^{96}$Zr & & 0.081(16)&& 0.207 [-0.167] & 0.016 [+0.147]
1017: & 0.223 & 0.217 \\
1018: $^{96}$Mo & +0.068(27) & 0.1720(16) & & 0.147 [-0.164] & -0.006 [+0.119]
1019: & 0.167 & 0.080 \\ \\
1020: $^{100}$Mo & +0.139(30) & 0.2309(22)&& 0.236 & 0.167 [-0.191]
1021: & 0.253 & 0.244 \\
1022: $^{100}$Ru & +0.136(22) & 0.2172(22)&& 0.175 & 0.157 & 0.194 & 0.161 \\ \\
1023: $^{116}$Cd & +0.113(11) & 0.1907(34)&& 0.206 [-0.207] & 0.209
1024: & -0.258 & -0.241 \\
1025: $^{116}$Sn & +0.043(10) & 0.1118(16)&& 0.264 [-0.134] & 0.251 [-0.034]
1026: & 0.003 & 0.000 \\ \\
1027: $^{128}$Te & +0.011(10) & 0.1363(11) && -0.088 [+0.102] & 0.094 [-0.091]
1028: & -0.002 & 0.000 \\
1029: $^{128}$Xe & & 0.1837(49) && 0.148 [-0.122] & 0.150 [-0.133]
1030: & 0.160 & 0.143 \\ \\
1031: $^{130}$Te & +0.035(23) & 0.1184(14) && -0.076 [+0.051] & -0.039 [+0.066]
1032: & 0.032 & 0.000 \\
1033: $^{130}$Xe & & 0.169(6) && 0.108 [-0.098] & 0.161 [-0.132]
1034: & 0.128 & -0.113 \\ \\
1035: $^{136}$Xe & & 0.086(19)&& 0.001 & 0.016
1036: & -0.001 & 0.000 \\
1037: $^{136}$Ba & & 0.1242(8) && 0.009 & 0.070 & -0.002 & 0.000 \\ \\
1038: $^{150}$Nd & +0.367(86) & 0.2848(21) && 0.266 & 0.271 & 0.221 & 0.243 \\
1039: $^{150}$Sm & +0.230(30) & 0.1931(22) && 0.207 & 0.203 & 0.176 & 0.206 \\
1040: \end{tabular}
1041: \end{table}
1042:
1043: \newpage
1044:
1045: \begin{table}[t]
1046: \caption{ Experimental and theoretical $Q_{\beta\beta}$ (MeV) values
1047: obtained with the Skyrme force Sk3.}
1048: \begin{tabular}{crr} \\
1049: Double beta transition & ($Q_{\beta\beta})_{\rm exp}$ &
1050: ($Q_{\beta\beta})_{\rm Sk3}$ \\
1051: \hline
1052: \\
1053: $^{48}$Ca $\rightarrow$ $^{48}$Ti & 4.272 & 2.95 \\
1054: $^{76}$Ge $\rightarrow$ $^{76}$Se & 2.039 & 1.36 \\
1055: $^{82}$Se $\rightarrow$ $^{82}$Kr & 2.995 & 2.58 \\
1056: $^{96}$Zr $\rightarrow$ $^{96}$Mo & 3.350 & 5.59 \\
1057: $^{100}$Mo $\rightarrow$ $^{100}$Ru & 3.034 & 3.57 \\
1058: $^{116}$Cd $\rightarrow$ $^{116}$Sn & 2.805 & 1.88 \\
1059: $^{128}$Te $\rightarrow$ $^{128}$Xe & 0.867 & -0.10 \\
1060: $^{130}$Te $\rightarrow$ $^{130}$Xe & 2.529 & 1.20 \\
1061: $^{136}$Xe $\rightarrow$ $^{136}$Ba & 2.468 & 0.80 \\
1062: $^{150}$Nd $\rightarrow$ $^{150}$Sm & 3.367 & 3.59 \\
1063: \end{tabular}
1064: \end{table}
1065:
1066: \vskip 1cm
1067:
1068: \begin{table}[t]
1069: \caption{ Experimental and calculated (HF-Sk3 and WS) summed GT strength.
1070: A standard quenching factor 0.6 has been included in the theoretical results.}
1071: \begin{tabular}{ccccc} \\
1072: && exp & HF-Sk3 & WS \\
1073: \hline \\
1074: $\sum B(GT^+)$ & $^{48}$Ti & $1.42 \pm 0.2$ & 1.00 & 1.79 \\
1075: & $^{76}$Se & $1.45 \pm 0.07$ & 0.48 & 2.06 \\ \\
1076: $\sum B(GT^-)$ & $^{76}$Ge & 19.89 & 21.78 & 22.65 \\
1077: & $^{82}$Se & 21.91 & 25.34 & 26.09 \\
1078: & $^{100}$Mo & 26.69 & 29.14 & 29.93 \\
1079: & $^{116}$Cd & 32.70 & 34.79 & 36.41 \\
1080: & $^{128}$Te & 40.08 & 43.22 & 43.44 \\
1081: & $^{130}$Te & 45.90 & 46.85 & 46.66 \\
1082: \end{tabular}
1083: \end{table}
1084:
1085: \end{center}
1086:
1087: \newpage
1088:
1089: \begin{center}
1090:
1091: \begin{figure}[t]
1092: \psfig{file=fig1.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1093: %\vskip 1cm
1094: \caption{Binding energy [MeV] as a function of the quadrupole deformation
1095: parameter $\beta$ obtained from deformed Hartree-Fock calculations with the
1096: Skyrme force Sk3. Experimental $\beta$ values from Refs.
1097: \protect\cite{raghavan} and \protect\cite{raman} are represented as the
1098: extreme values of the black boxes. The experimental difference of binding
1099: parent and daughter binding energies are given by the distance between the
1100: two horizontal lines (see text).}
1101: \end{figure}
1102:
1103: \newpage
1104:
1105: \begin{figure}[t]
1106: \psfig{file=fig2.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1107: %\vskip 1cm
1108: \caption{HF-Sk3 $B(GT^-)$ strength distributions $[g_A^2/4\pi]$ in $^{128}$Te
1109: and $^{136}$Xe calculated with the equilibrium deformation ($\beta_{\rm equil}$)
1110: and with the deformation that fits the experimental $Q_{\beta\beta}$ values
1111: ($\beta_{\rm fit}$).}
1112: \end{figure}
1113:
1114: \newpage
1115: %\vskip 1cm
1116:
1117: \begin{figure}[t]
1118: \psfig{file=fig3.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1119: %\vskip 1cm
1120: \caption{HF-Sk3 Gamow-Teller strength distributions $[g_A^2/4\pi]$ in $^{150}$Nd
1121: and $^{150}$Sm for various values of the coupling strength $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$
1122: [MeV].}
1123: \end{figure}
1124:
1125: \newpage
1126:
1127: \begin{figure}[t]
1128: \psfig{file=fig4.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1129: %\vskip 1cm
1130: \caption{HF-Sk3 Gamow-Teller strength distributions $[g_A^2/4\pi]$ in $^{150}$Nd
1131: and $^{150}$Sm for various values of the coupling strength $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$
1132: [MeV].}
1133: \end{figure}
1134:
1135: \newpage
1136:
1137: \begin{figure}[t]
1138: \psfig{file=fig5.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1139: %\vskip 1cm
1140: \caption{Gamow-Teller $B(GT^-)$ and $B(GT^+)$ strength distributions
1141: $[g_A^2/4\pi]$ in $^{48}$Ca and $^{48}$Ti plotted as a function of the
1142: excitation energies of the corresponding daughter nuclei. Left panels
1143: show results from HF(Sk3) calculations without residual interaction
1144: (dashed lines) and with residual interactions with $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}=0.10$ MeV,
1145: $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}=6/A$ MeV (solid lines). Right panels show results using
1146: WS potentials with $\chi ^{ph}_{GT}$ and $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$ from
1147: Ref.\protect\cite{homma} and with two different values for the quadrupole
1148: deformation: $\beta_1$ from Ref. \protect\cite{raghavan} (solid line) and
1149: $\beta_2$ from Ref. \protect\cite{raman} (dashed line). Experimental data are
1150: from Ref.\protect\cite{exp48ti}. Notice that no quenching factor has been
1151: included in the calculations.}
1152: \end{figure}
1153:
1154: \newpage
1155:
1156: \begin{figure}[t]
1157: \psfig{file=fig6.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1158: %\vskip 1cm
1159: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{76}$Ge and $^{76}$Se. Data in $^{76}$Se
1160: are from \protect\cite{seexp}. Vertical lines in $^{76}$Ge are experimental
1161: data from \protect\cite{expmadey}. }
1162: \end{figure}
1163:
1164: \newpage
1165:
1166: \begin{figure}[t]
1167: \psfig{file=fig7.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1168: %\vskip 1cm
1169: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{82}$Se and $^{82}$Kr. Vertical lines in
1170: $^{82}$Se are experimental data from \protect\cite{expmadey}.}
1171: \end{figure}
1172:
1173: \newpage
1174:
1175: \begin{figure}[t]
1176: \psfig{file=fig8.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1177: %\vskip 1cm
1178: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{96}$Zr and $^{96}$Mo.}
1179: \end{figure}
1180:
1181: \newpage
1182:
1183: \begin{figure}[t]
1184: \psfig{file=fig9.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1185: %\vskip 1cm
1186: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{100}$Mo and $^{100}$Ru. Vertical lines in
1187: $^{100}$Mo are experimental data from \protect\cite{expmocd}.}
1188: \end{figure}
1189:
1190: \newpage
1191:
1192: \begin{figure}[t]
1193: \psfig{file=fig10.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1194: %\vskip 1cm
1195: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{116}$Cd and $^{116}$Sn. Vertical lines in
1196: $^{116}$Cd are experimental data from \protect\cite{expmocd}.}
1197: \end{figure}
1198:
1199: \newpage
1200:
1201: \begin{figure}[t]
1202: \psfig{file=fig11.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1203: %\vskip 1cm
1204: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{128}$Te and $^{128}$Xe. Vertical lines in
1205: $^{128}$Te are experimental data from \protect\cite{expmadey}.}
1206: \end{figure}
1207:
1208: \newpage
1209:
1210: \begin{figure}[t]
1211: \psfig{file=fig12.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1212: %\vskip 1cm
1213: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{130}$Te and $^{130}$Xe. Vertical lines in
1214: $^{130}$Te are experimental data from \protect\cite{expmadey}.}
1215: \end{figure}
1216:
1217: \newpage
1218:
1219: \begin{figure}[t]
1220: \psfig{file=fig13.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1221: \vskip 1cm
1222: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{136}$Xe and $^{136}$Ba.}
1223: \end{figure}
1224:
1225: \newpage
1226:
1227: \begin{figure}[t]
1228: \psfig{file=fig14.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1229: %\vskip 1cm
1230: \caption{Same as in Fig. 5 for $^{150}$Nd and $^{150}$Sm.}
1231: \end{figure}
1232:
1233: \newpage
1234:
1235: \begin{figure}[t]
1236: \psfig{file=fig15.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1237: %\vskip 1cm
1238: \caption{$2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements of $^{96}$Zr as a function
1239: of both parent and daughter deformations. The two dashed horizontal lines
1240: correspond to experimental $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ extracted from Ref.
1241: \protect\cite{barabash} using $g_A=1.0$ and $g_A=1.25$. The thick segments
1242: in each curve correspond to the experimental values of $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$.}
1243: \end{figure}
1244:
1245: \newpage
1246:
1247: \begin{figure}[t]
1248: \psfig{file=fig16.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1249: %\vskip 1cm
1250: \caption{Difference between parent and daughter quadrupole deformations
1251: in double-beta emitters. Dots are selfconsistent results from Skyrme Sk3
1252: calculations. Vertical lines indicate the maximum and minimum experimental
1253: differences (see Table 2), which are used in WS calculations.}
1254: \end{figure}
1255:
1256: \newpage
1257:
1258: \begin{figure}[t]
1259: \psfig{file=fig17.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1260: %\vskip 1cm
1261: \caption{$2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements calculated with
1262: Woods-Saxon potentials as a function of the
1263: particle-particle interaction strength $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$.
1264: Dashed lines correspond to the results assuming spherical nuclei.
1265: Solid lines correspond to the results obtained by using the maximum
1266: and minimum differences between the experimental deformations of parent
1267: and daughter (see Table 2). Horizontal lines are the experimental
1268: $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ extracted from Ref. \protect\cite{barabash} using
1269: $g_A=1.0$ and $g_A=1.25$.}
1270: \end{figure}
1271:
1272: \newpage
1273:
1274: \begin{figure}[t]
1275: \psfig{file=fig18.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1276: %\vskip 1cm
1277: \caption{$2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements obtained from
1278: Skyrme(Sk3) deformed Hartree-Fock calculations as a function of the
1279: particle-particle interaction strength $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$.
1280: Horizontal lines are the experimental
1281: $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ extracted from Ref. \protect\cite{barabash} using
1282: $g_A=1.0$ and $g_A=1.25$.}
1283: \end{figure}
1284:
1285: \newpage
1286:
1287: \begin{figure}[t]
1288: \psfig{file=fig19.ps,width=0.8\textwidth}
1289: %\vskip 1cm
1290: \caption{$2\nu\beta\beta-$decay matrix elements of $^{96}$Zr obtained from
1291: Skyrme(SG2) deformed Hartree-Fock calculations as a function of the
1292: particle-particle interaction strength $\kappa ^{pp}_{GT}$.
1293: The dotted curve corresponds to calculations using the prolate shapes
1294: for parent and daughter $\beta_{\rm p}=0.147,\,\beta_{\rm d}=0.119$
1295: (see Table 2). The dashed curve is for spherical shapes and the solid curve
1296: is for spherical parent and prolate daughter
1297: $\beta_{\rm p}=0.016,\,\beta_{\rm d}=0.119$ (see Table 2).
1298: Horizontal lines are the experimental
1299: $M^{2\nu}_{\rm GT}$ extracted from Ref. \protect\cite{barabash} using
1300: $g_A=1.0$ and $g_A=1.25$.}
1301: \end{figure}
1302: \end{center}
1303: \end{document}
1304:
1305:
1306: