1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Please LaTeX twice %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3:
4: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
5:
6: \def\bs{\bigskip}
7: \def\ms{\medskip}
8: \def\cl{\centerline}
9: \def\ref{\par\smallskip\hangindent=1.0cm\hangafter=1}
10:
11: \oddsidemargin -0.25cm \evensidemargin -0.25cm
12: \topmargin -1.0cm
13: \textwidth 16.3cm
14: \textheight 22.3cm
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \baselineskip=14pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
19:
20: \cl{\bf STAGGERING EFFECTS IN NUCLEAR AND MOLECULAR SPECTRA}
21:
22: \bs
23: \cl{DENNIS BONATSOS, N. KAROUSSOS}
24:
25: \cl{Institute of Nuclear Physics, N.C.S.R. ``Demokritos'',}
26:
27: \cl{GR-15310 Aghia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece}
28:
29: \cl{C. DASKALOYANNIS}
30:
31: \cl{Department of Physics, Aristotle University of
32: Thessaloniki,}
33:
34: \cl{GR-54006 Thessaloniki, Greece}
35:
36: \cl{S. B. DRENSKA, N. MINKOV, P. P. RAYCHEV, R. P. ROUSSEV}
37:
38: \cl{Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian
39: Academy of Sciences,}
40:
41: \cl{72 Tzarigrad Road, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}
42:
43: \cl{J. MARUANI}
44:
45: \cl{Laboratoire de Chimie Physique, CNRS and UPMC,}
46:
47: \cl{11, rue Pierre et Marie Curie, F-75005 Paris, France}
48:
49:
50: \bs\bs
51: \cl{\bf Abstract}
52: \ms
53:
54: It is shown that the recently observed
55: $\Delta J=2$ staggering effect (i.e. the relative displacement of the
56: levels with angular momenta $J$, $J+4$, $J+8$, \dots, relatively to the
57: levels with angular momenta $J+2$, $J+6$, $J+10$, \dots) seen in superdeformed
58: nuclear bands is also occurring in certain electronically excited rotational
59: bands of diatomic molecules (YD, CrD, CrH, CoH), in which it is attributed to
60: interband interactions (bandcrossings). In addition, the $\Delta J=1$
61: staggering effect (i.e. the relative displacement of the levels
62: with even angular momentum $J$ with respect to the levels of the same band
63: with odd $J$) is studied in molecular bands free from $\Delta J=2$ staggering
64: (i.e. free from interband interactions/bandcrossings). Bands of YD offer
65: evidence for the absence of any $\Delta J=1$ staggering effect due to the
66: disparity of nuclear masses, while bands of sextet electronic states of CrD
67: demonstrate that $\Delta J=1$ staggering is a sensitive probe of deviations
68: from rotational behaviour, due in this particular case to the
69: spin--rotation and spin--spin interactions.
70:
71: \bs\bs
72:
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: Several {\sl staggering} effects are known in nuclear spectroscopy \cite{BM}:
77:
78: 1) In rotational $\gamma$ bands of even nuclei the energy levels with
79: odd angular momentum $I$ ($I$=3, 5, 7, 9, \dots) are slightly displaced
80: relatively to the levels with even $I$ ($I$=2, 4, 6, 8, \dots), i.e.
81: the odd levels do not lie at the energies predicted by an $E(I)=A I(I+1)$ fit
82: to the even levels, but all of them lie systematically above or all of
83: them lie systematically below the predicted energies \cite{PLB200}.
84:
85: 2) In octupole bands of even nuclei the levels with odd $I$ and negative
86: parity ($I^{\pi}$=1$^-$, 3$^-$, 5$^-$, 7$^-$, \dots) are displaced relatively
87: to the levels with even $I$ and positive parity ($I^{\pi}$=0$^+$, 2$^+$,
88: 4$^+$, 6$^+$, \dots) \cite{Phill,Schuler,Ahmad,Butler}.
89:
90: 3) In odd nuclei, rotational bands (with $K=1/2$) separate into
91: signature partners, i.e. the levels with $I$=3/2, 7/2, 11/2, 15/2, \dots
92: are displaced relatively to the levels with $I$=1/2, 5/2, 9/2, 13/2, \dots
93: \cite{WuZhou}.
94:
95: In all of the above mentioned cases each level with angular momentum $I$
96: is displaced relatively to its neighbours with angular momentum $I\pm 1$.
97: The effect is then called {\sl $\Delta I=1$ staggering}. In all cases
98: the effect has been seen in several nuclei and its magnitude is clearly
99: larger than the experimental errors. In cases 1) and 3) the relative
100: displacement of the neighbours increases in general as a function of the
101: angular momentum $I$ \cite{PLB200,WuZhou},
102: while in case 2) (octupole bands), the relevant models
103: \cite{EI1126,EI61,GRR8,GRR9,GRR12}
104: predict constant displacement of the odd levels with respect
105: to the even levels as a function of $I$, i.e. all the odd levels
106: are raised (or lowered) by the same amount of energy.
107:
108: A new kind of staggering ({\sl $\Delta I=2$ staggering}) has been recently
109: observed \cite{Fli,Ced} in superdeformed nuclear bands
110: \cite{Twin,Nolan,Janssens}.
111: In the case in which $\Delta I=2$ staggering is present,
112: the levels with $I$=2, 6, 10, 14, \dots,
113: for example, are displaced
114: relatively to the levels with $I$=0, 4, 8, 12, \dots, i.e. the level with
115: angular momentum $I$ is displaced relatively to its neighbours with
116: angular momentum $I\pm 2$.
117:
118: Although $\Delta I=1$ staggering of the types mentioned above has been
119: observed in several nuclei and certainly is an effect larger than the
120: relevant experimental uncertainties, $\Delta I=2$ staggering has been seen
121: in only a few cases \cite{Fli,Ced,Semple,Kruecken}
122: and, in addition, the effect is not clearly larger
123: than the relevant experimental errors.
124:
125: There have been by now several theoretical works related to the
126: possible physical origin of the $\Delta I=2$ staggering effect
127: \cite{SZG,MQ,Mag,Kota,Liu,Pav,Wu},
128: some of them \cite{HM,Macc,PavFli,Doenau,Luo,Magi}
129: using symmetry arguments which could be of applicability
130: to other physical systems as well.
131:
132: On the other hand, rotational spectra of diatomic molecules
133: \cite{Herz} are known to
134: show great similarities to nuclear rotational spectra, having in addition
135: the advantage that observed rotational bands in several diatomic molecules
136: \cite{YD,CrD,CrH,CoH}
137: are much longer than the usual rotational nuclear bands. We have been
138: therefore motivated to make a search for $\Delta J=1$ and
139: $\Delta J =2$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules,
140: where by $J$ we denote the total angular momentum of the molecule, while $I$
141: has been used above for denoting the angular momentum of the nucleus.
142: The questions to which we have hoped
143: to provide answers are:
144:
145: 1) Is there $\Delta J=1$ and/or $\Delta J =2$ staggering in rotational bands
146: of diatomic molecules?
147:
148: 2) If there are staggering effects, what are their possible physical origins?
149:
150: In Sections 2 and 3 the $\Delta J=2$ staggering and $\Delta J=1$
151: staggering will be considered respectively, while in Section 4 the final
152: conclusions and plans for further work will be presented.
153:
154: \section{$\Delta J=2$ staggering} % 2.
155:
156: In this section the $\Delta J=2$ staggering will be considered. In subsection
157: 2.1 the $\Delta I=2$ staggering in superdeformed nuclear bands will be
158: briefly reviewed. Evidence from existing experimental data for $\Delta J=2$
159: staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules will be presented in
160: subsection 2.2 and discussed in subsection 2.3, while subsection 2.4 will
161: contain the relevant conclusions. We mention once more that by $J$ we denote
162: the total angular momentum of the molecule, while by $I$ the angular
163: momentum of the nucleus is denoted.
164:
165: \subsection{$\Delta I=2$ staggering in superdeformed nuclear bands} % 2.1
166:
167: In nuclear physics the experimentally determined quantities are the
168: $\gamma$-ray transition energies between levels differing by two units
169: of angular momentum ($\Delta I=2$). For these the symbol
170: \begin{equation}
171: E_{2,\gamma}(I) = E(I+2)-E(I)
172: \end{equation} %\eqno(1)
173: is used, where $E(I)$ denotes the energy of the level with angular momentum
174: $I$.
175: The deviation of the $\gamma$-ray transition energies from the
176: rigid rotator behavior can be measured by the quantity \cite{Ced}
177: $$ \Delta E_{2,\gamma}(I) = {1\over 16} (6E_{2,\gamma}(I) -4E_{2,\gamma} (I-2)
178: -4E_{2,\gamma}(I+2) $$
179: \begin{equation}
180: +E_{2,\gamma}(I-4) +E_{2,\gamma}(I+4)).
181: \end{equation} %\eqno(2)
182:
183: \noindent Using the rigid rotator expression
184: \begin{equation}
185: E(I)=A I(I+1),
186: \end{equation}
187: one can easily see that
188: in this case $\Delta E_{2,\gamma} (I) $ vanishes.
189: In addition the perturbed rigid rotator expression
190: \begin{equation}
191: E(I)= A I(I+1) + B (I(I+1))^2,
192: \end{equation}
193: gives vanishing $\Delta E_{2,\gamma} (I)$.
194: These properties are due to the fact that Eq. (2) is a (normalized)
195: discrete approximation of the fourth derivative of the function
196: $E_{2,\gamma}(I)$, i.e. essentially the fifth derivative of the
197: function $E(I)$.
198:
199: In superdeformed nuclear bands the angular momentum of the observed states
200: is in most cases unknown. To avoid this difficulty, the quantity
201: $\Delta E_{2,\gamma}$ is usually plotted not versus the angular momentum $I$,
202: but versus the angular frequency
203: \begin{equation}
204: \omega = {dE(I)\over dI},
205: \end{equation}
206: which for discrete states takes the approximate form
207: \begin{equation}
208: \omega = {E(I+2)-E(I)\over \sqrt{(I+2)(I+3)}-\sqrt{I(I+1)} }.
209: \end{equation}
210: For large $I$ one can take the Taylor expansions of the square roots in
211: the denominator, thus obtaining
212: \begin{equation}
213: \omega = {E(I+2)-E(I) \over 2} = {E_{2,\gamma}(I) \over 2}.
214: \end{equation}
215:
216: Examples of superdeformed nuclear bands exhibiting staggering are shown in
217: Figs 1--2 \cite{Fli,Ced}. We say that $\Delta I=2$ staggering is observed if
218: the quantity $\Delta E_2(I)$ exhibits alternating signs with increasing
219: $\omega$ (i.e. with increasing $I$, according to Eq. (7)). The following
220: observations can be made:
221:
222: 1) The magnitude of $\Delta E_2(I)$ is of the order of 10$^{-4}$--10$^{-5}$
223: times the size of the gamma transition energies.
224:
225: 2) The best example of $\Delta I=2$ staggering is given by the first
226: superdeformed band of $^{149}$Gd, shown in Fig. 1a. In this case the effect
227: is almost larger than the experimental error.
228:
229: 3) In most cases the $\Delta I=2$ staggering is smaller than the experimental
230: error (see Figs 1b, 2a, 2b), with the exception of a few points in Fig. 1b.
231:
232: \subsection{$\Delta J=2$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules}
233: %2.2
234:
235: In the case of molecules \cite{Bar} the experimentally determined
236: quantities regard the R branch ($(v_{lower},J)\rightarrow (v_{upper},J+1)$)
237: and the P branch ($(v_{lower},J)\rightarrow (v_{upper},J-1)$), where
238: $v_{lower}$ is the vibrational quantum number of the initial state,
239: while $v_{upper}$ is the vibrational quantum number of the final state.
240: They are related to transition energies through the equations \cite{Bar}
241: \begin{equation}
242: E^R(J)-E^P(J)= E_{v_{upper}} (J+1) -E_{v_{upper}} (J-1) =
243: DE_{2, v_{upper}} (J),
244: \end{equation} %\eqno(3)
245: \begin{equation}
246: E^R(J-1)-E^P(J+1) = E_{v_{lower}}(J+1)-E_{v_{lower}}(J-1)=
247: DE_{2, v_{lower}}(J),
248: \end{equation} %\eqno(4)
249: where in general
250: \begin{equation}
251: DE_{2,v} (J) = E_v(J+1)-E_v(J-1).
252: \end{equation} %\eqno(5)
253: $\Delta J=2$ staggering can then
254: be estimated by using Eq. (2), with $E_{2,\gamma}(I)$ replaced by
255: $DE_{2,v}(J)$:
256: $$ \Delta E_{2,v} (J)= {1\over 16} (6 DE_{2,v}(J)-4 DE_{2,v}(J-2)
257: -4 DE_{2,v}(J+2) $$
258: \begin{equation}
259: +DE_{2,v}(J-4) +DE_{2,v}(J+4)).
260: \end{equation} %\eqno(6)
261:
262: Results for several rotational bands in different electronic and vibrational
263: states of various diatomic molecules are shown in Figs 3--9.
264: We say that $\Delta J=2$ staggering is observed if the quantity
265: $\Delta E_2(J)$ exhibits alternating signs with increasing $J$ ($J$ is
266: increased by 2 units each time). The magnitude of $\Delta E_2(J)$ is
267: usually of the order of 10$^{-3}$--10$^{-5}$ times the size of the
268: interlevel separation energy. In Figs 7 and 8, which correspond to sextet
269: electronic states, the rotational angular momentum $N$ is used instead
270: of the total angular momentum $J$, the two quantities been connected
271: by the relation ${\bf J}= {\bf N} +{\bf S}$, where $S$ is the spin.
272: Several observations can be made:
273:
274: 1) In all cases shown, the ``upper'' bands (which happen
275: to be electronically
276: excited) exhibit (Figs 3, 4, 7-9)
277: $\Delta J=2$ staggering (or $\Delta N=2$ staggering)
278: which is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude
279: larger than the experimental error, while
280: the corresponding ``lower'' bands (which, in the cases studied, correspond to
281: the electronic ground state of each molecule), show (Figs 5, 6)
282: some effect smaller than the experimental error.
283:
284: 2) There is no uniform dependence of the $\Delta J=2$ staggering on the
285: angular momentum $J$. In some cases of long bands, though, it appears that
286: the pattern is a sequence of points exhibiting small staggering,
287: interrupted by groups of 6 points each time showing large staggering.
288: The best examples can be seen in Figs 3a, 3b, 7a, 7b. In Fig. 3a
289: (odd levels of the $v=1$ C$^1 \Sigma ^+$ band of YD))
290: the first group of points showing appreciable $\Delta J =2$
291: staggering appears at $J=13$--23, while the second group appears at
292: $J=27$--37. In Fig. 3b (even levels of the $v=1$ C$^1 \Sigma^+$ band of YD)
293: the first group appears at $J=12$--22,
294: while the second group at $J=26$--36. In Fig. 7a (odd levels of the $v=0$
295: A$^6 \Sigma ^+$ band of CrD)
296: the first group
297: appears at $N=15$--25, while the second at $N=27$--37. Similarly
298: in Fig. 7b (even levels of the $v=0$ A$^6 \Sigma ^+$ band of CrD)
299: the first group appears at $N=14$--24, while the second
300: group at $N=26$--36.
301:
302: 3) In all cases shown, the results obtained for the odd levels of a band
303: are in good agreement with the results obtained for the even levels of the
304: same band. For example, the regions showing appreciable staggering
305: are approximately the same in both cases (compare Fig. 3a with Fig. 3b
306: and Fig. 7a with Fig. 7b, already discussed in 2)~). In addition, the
307: positions of the local staggering maxima in each pair of figures are
308: closely related. In Fig. 3a, for example, maximum staggering appears at
309: $J=19$ and $J=31$, while in Fig. 3b the maxima appear at $J=18$ and
310: $J=32$.
311:
312: 4) In several cases the $\Delta J=2$ staggering of a band can be calculated
313: from two different sets of data. For example, Figs 3a, 3b show the
314: $\Delta J=2$ staggering of the $v=1$ C$^1 \Sigma^+$ band of YD calculated
315: from the data on the 1--1 C$^1 \Sigma ^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions,
316: while Figs 3c, 3d show the staggering of the same band calculated from the
317: data on the 1--2 C$^1 \Sigma ^+$--X$^1 \Sigma^+$ transition.
318: We remark that the results
319: concerning points showing staggering larger than the experimental error
320: come out completely consistently from the two calculations (region
321: with $J=13$--23 in Figs 3a, 3c; region with $J=12$--22 in Figs 3b, 3d),
322: while the results concerning points exhibiting staggering of the order
323: of the experimental error come out randomly (in Fig. 3a, for example,
324: $J=11$ corresponds to a local minimum, while in Fig. 3c it corresponds to
325: a local maximum). Similar results are seen in the pairs of figures
326: (3b, 3d), (4a, 4c), (4b, 4d), (6a, 6c), (6b, 6d), (9a, 9c), (9b, 9d).
327: The best example of disagreement
328: between staggering pictures of the
329: same band calculated from two different sets of data is offered
330: by Figs 6b, 6d, which concern the $v=2$ X$^1 \Sigma ^+$ band of YD,
331: which shows staggering of the order of the experimental error.
332:
333: 5) When considering levels of the same band, in some cases the odd levels
334: exhibit larger staggering than the even levels, while in other cases the
335: opposite is true. In the $v=1$ C$^1\Sigma^+$ band of YD, for example,
336: the odd levels (shown in Fig. 3a, corroborated by Fig. 3c) show staggering
337: larger than that of the even levels (shown in Fig. 3b, corroborated by
338: Fig. 3d), while in the $v=2$ C$^1\Sigma^+$ band of YD the odd levels
339: (shown in Fig. 4a, corroborated by Fig. 4c) exhibit staggering smaller
340: than that of the even levels (shown in Fig. 4b, corroborated by Fig. 4d).
341:
342: \subsection{Discussion} %2.3
343:
344: The observations made above can be explained by the assumption that
345: the staggering observed is due to the presence of one or more bandcrossings
346: \cite{Pavli,MRM}.
347: The following points support this assumption:
348:
349: 1) It is known \cite{VDS} that bandcrossing occurs in cases in which
350: the interband interaction is weak. In such cases only the one or two levels
351: closest to the crossing point are affected \cite{Bonbb}.
352: However, if one level is influenced
353: by the crossing, in the corresponding staggering figure six points get
354: influenced. For example, if E(16) is influenced by the crossing,
355: the quantities $DE_2(15)$ and $DE_2(17)$ are influenced (see Eq. (10)~),
356: so that in the corresponding figure the points $\Delta E_2(J)$ with
357: $J=11$, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 are influenced, as seen from Eq. (11).
358: This fact explains why points showing
359: appreciable staggering appear in groups of 6 at a time.
360:
361: 2) It is clear that if bandcrossing occurs, large staggering should appear
362: in approximately
363: the same angular momentum regions of both even levels and odd levels.
364: As we have already seen, this is indeed the case.
365:
366: 3) It is clear that when two bands cross each other, maximum staggering
367: will appear at the angular momentum for which the energies of the relevant
368: levels of each band are approximately equal \cite{Bonbb}.
369: If this angular momentum
370: value happens to be odd, then $\Delta E_2(J)$ for even values of $J$
371: in this region (the group
372: of 6 points centered at this $J$) will show larger staggering than the
373: $\Delta E_2(J)$ for odd values of $J$ in the corresponding region,
374: and vice versa. For example,
375: if the closest approach of two bands occurs for $J=31$, then $\Delta E_2(J)$
376: for even values of $J$ in the $J=26$--36 region will show larger staggering
377: than $\Delta E_2(J)$ for odd values of $J$ in the same region. This is in
378: agreement with the empirical
379: observation that in some cases the odd levels show larger staggering than
380: the even levels, while in other cases the opposite holds.
381:
382: 4) The presence of staggering in the ``upper'' (electronically excited)
383: bands and the lack of staggering in the ``lower'' (electronic ground
384: state) bands can be attributed to the fact that the electronically
385: excited bands have several neighbours with
386: which they can interact, while the bands built on the electronic
387: ground state are relatively isolated, and therefore no bandcrossings
388: occur in this case. In the case of the CrD molecule, in particular,
389: it is known \cite{CrD} that there are many strong Cr atomic lines
390: present, which frequently overlap the relatively weaker
391: (electronically excited) molecular lines. In addition, Ne atomic lines
392: are present \cite{CrD}. Similarly, in the case of the
393: YD molecule the observed spectra are influenced by Y and Ne atomic lines
394: \cite{YD}, while in the case of the CrH molecule there are Ne and Cr
395: atomic lines influencing the molecular spectra \cite{CrH}.
396:
397: 5) The fact that consistency between results for the same band calculated
398: from two different sets of data is observed only in the cases in which
399: the staggering is much larger than the experimental error, corroborates
400: the bandcrossing explanation. The fact that the results obtained in areas
401: in which the staggering is of the order of the experimantal error, or
402: even smaller, appear to be random, points towards the absence of any
403: real effect in these regions.
404:
405: It should be noticed that bandcrossing has been proposed \cite{RJR,HS,HL}
406: as a possible explanation for the appearance of $\Delta I=2$ staggering
407: effects in normally deformed nuclear bands \cite{Wu,RJR,HL} and
408: superdeformed nuclear bands \cite{HS}.
409:
410: The presence of two subsequent bandcrossings can also provide an explanation
411: for the effect of mid-band disappearance of $\Delta I=2$ staggering
412: observed in superdeformed bands of some Ce isotopes \cite{Semple}.
413: The effect seen in the Ce isotopes is very similar to the mid-band
414: disappearance of staggering seen, for example, in Fig. 3a.
415:
416: \subsection {Conclusion} %2.4
417:
418: In conclusion, we have found several examples of $\Delta J=2$ staggering
419: in electronically excited bands of diatomic molecules. The details of
420: the observed effect are in agreement with the assumption that it is due
421: to one or more bandcrossings. In these cases the magnitude of the effect
422: is clearly larger than the experimental error. In cases in which
423: an effect of the order of the experimental error appears, we have shown
424: that this is an artifact of the method used, since different sets of data
425: from the same experiment and for the same molecule lead to different
426: staggering results for the same rotational band. The present work
427: emphasizes the need to ensure in all cases (including staggering candidates
428: in nuclear physics) that the effect is larger than the experimental
429: error and, in order to make assumptions about any new symmetry,
430: that it is not due to a series of bandcrossings.
431:
432: \section{$\Delta J=1$ staggering} % 3.
433:
434: In this section the
435: $\Delta J=1$ staggering effect (i.e. the relative displacement of the levels
436: with even angular momentum $J$ with respect to the levels of the same band
437: with odd $J$) will be considered in molecular bands free from $\Delta J=2$
438: staggering (i.e. free from interband interactions/bandcrossings),
439: in order to make sure that $\Delta J=1$
440: staggering is not an effect due to the same cause as $\Delta J=2$
441: staggering.
442:
443: The formalism of the $\Delta J=1$ staggering
444: will be described in subsection 3.1 and applied to
445: experimental molecular spectra in subsection 3.2.
446: Finally, subsection 3.3 will contain a discussion of the present results
447: and plans for further work.
448:
449: \subsection{Formalism} % 3.1
450:
451: By analogy to Eq. (2), $\Delta I=1$ staggering in nuclei can be measured
452: by the quantity
453: $$\Delta E_{1,\gamma}(I)= {1\over 16} (6 E_{1,\gamma}(I)-4 E_{1,\gamma}(I-1)
454: -4 E_{1,\gamma}(I+1) $$
455: \begin{equation}
456: +E_{1,\gamma}(I-2) + E_{1,\gamma}(I+2) ),
457: \end{equation} %(3)
458: where
459: \begin{equation}
460: E_{1,\gamma}(I)= E(I+1)-E(I).
461: \end{equation} %(4)
462: The transition energies $E_{1,\gamma} (I)$ are determined directly from
463: experiment.
464:
465: In order to be able to use an expression similar to that of Eq. (12) for the
466: study of $\Delta J=1$ staggering in molecular bands we need transition
467: energies similar to those of Eq. (13), i.e. transition energies between levels
468: differing by one unit of angular momentum. However, Eqs (8) and (9)
469: can provide us only with transition energies between levels differing by
470: two units of angular momentum. In order to be able to determine the levels
471: with even $J$ from Eqs (8) or (9), one needs the bandhead energy $E(0)$.
472: Then one has
473: \begin{equation}
474: E_{v_{upper}}(2) = E_{v_{upper}}(0) + E^R(1)-E^P(1),
475: \end{equation} % (8)
476: \begin{equation}
477: E_{v_{upper}}(4) = E_{v_{upper}}(2) + E^R(3)-E^P(3), \ldots
478: \end{equation} % (9)
479: \begin{equation}
480: E_{v_{lower}}(2)= E_{v_{lower}}(0) + E^R(0)-E^P(2),
481: \end{equation} % (10)
482: \begin{equation}
483: E_{v_{lower}}(4)= E_{v_{lower}}(2) + E^R(2)-E^P(4), \ldots
484: \end{equation} % (11)
485: In order to be able to determine the levels with odd $J$ from Eqs (8) and (9)
486: in an analogous way, one needs $E(1)$. Then
487: \begin{equation}
488: E_{v_{upper}}(3)= E_{v_{upper}}(1)+E^R(2)-E^P(2),
489: \end{equation} % (12)
490: \begin{equation}
491: E_{v_{upper}}(5)= E_{v_{upper}}(3)+E^R(4)-E^P(4), \ldots
492: \end{equation} % (13)
493: \begin{equation}
494: E_{v_{lower}}(3)= E_{v_{lower}}(1)+E^R(1)-E^P(3),
495: \end{equation} % (14)
496: \begin{equation}
497: E_{v_{lower}}(5)= E_{v_{lower}}(3)+E^R(3)-E^P(5), \ldots
498: \end{equation} % (15)
499:
500: For the determination of $E(0)$ and
501: $E(1)$ one can use the overall fit of the
502: experimental data (for the R and P branches) by a Dunham expansion
503: \cite{Dunham}
504: \begin{equation}
505: E(J)= T_v + B_v J(J+1) -D_v [J(J+1)]^2 + H_v [J(J+1)]^3 + L_v [J(J+1)]^4,
506: \end{equation} % (16)
507: which is usually given in the experimental papers.
508:
509: After determining the energy levels by the procedure described above, we
510: estimate $\Delta J=1$ staggering by using the following analogue of Eq. (12),
511: $$ \Delta E_{1,v} (J)= {1\over 16} (6 DE_{1,v}(J)-4 DE_{1,v}(J-1)
512: -4 DE_{1,v}(J+1) $$
513: \begin{equation}
514: +DE_{1,v}(J-2) +DE_{1,v}(J+2)),
515: \end{equation} % (17)
516: where
517: \begin{equation}
518: DE_{1,v}(J)= E_v(J) - E_v(J-1).
519: \end{equation} % (18)
520: Using Eq. (24) one can put Eq. (23) in the sometimes more convenient form
521: $$ \Delta E_{1,v}(J)= {1\over 16} (10 E_v(J)-10 E_v(J-1) + 5 E_v(J-2)
522: -5 E_v(J+1) $$
523: \begin{equation}
524: +E_v(J+2) -E_v(J-3)).
525: \end{equation} % (19)
526:
527: In realistic cases the first few values of $E^R(J)$ and $E^P(J)$ might
528: be experimentally unknown. In this case one is forced to determine the first
529: few values of $E(J)$ using the Dunham expansion of Eq. (22) and then
530: continue by using the Eqs (14)--(21) from the appropriate point on.
531: Denoting by $J_{io}$ the ``initial'' value of odd $J$, on which we
532: are building through the series of equations starting with Eqs (18)--(21)
533: the energy levels of odd $J$, and by $J_{ie}$ the ``initial'' value of
534: even $J$, on which we are building through the series of equations starting
535: with Eqs (14)--(17) the energy levels of even $J$, we find that the error
536: for the levels with odd $J$ is
537: \begin{equation}
538: Err(E(J)) = D(J_{io})+ (J-J_{io}) \epsilon,
539: \end{equation} % (20)
540: while the error for the levels with even $J$ is
541: \begin{equation}
542: Err(E(J))= D(J_{ie})+(J-J_{ie}) \epsilon,
543: \end{equation} % (21)
544: where $D(J_{io})$ and $D(J_{ie})$ are the uncertainties of the levels
545: $E(J_{io})$ and $E(J_{ie})$ respectively, which are determined through
546: the Dunham expansion of Eq. (22), while $\epsilon$ is the error
547: accompanying each $E^R(J)$ or $E^P(J)$ level, which in most
548: experimental works has a constant value for all levels.
549:
550: Using Eqs (26) and (27) in Eq. (25) one easily sees that the uncertainty
551: of the $\Delta J=1$ staggering measure $\Delta E_{1,v}(J)$ is
552: \begin{equation}
553: Err(\Delta E_{1,v}(J)) = D(J_{io})+ D(J_{ie}) + (2J-J_{io}-J_{ie}-1) \epsilon.
554: \end{equation} % (22)
555: This equation is valid for $J\geq {\rm max}\{ J_{io}, J_{ie} \}+3$.
556: For smaller values of $J$ one has to calculate the uncertainty
557: directly from Eq. (25).
558:
559: \subsection{Analysis of experimental data} % 3.2
560:
561: \subsubsection{YD} % 3.2.1
562:
563: We have applied the formalism described above to the 0--1, 1--1, 1--2,
564: 2--2 transitions of the C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ system of YD \cite{YD}.
565: We have focused attention on the ground state X$^1\Sigma^+$, which is known
566: to be free from $\Delta J=2$ staggering effects
567: (see subsection 2.2), while the
568: C$^1\Sigma^+$ state is known to exhibit $\Delta J=2$ staggering effects,
569: which are fingerprints of interband interactions (bandcrossings),
570: as we have seen in subsection 2.2.
571: Using the formalism of subsection 3.1, we calculated the
572: $\Delta J=1$ staggering measure $\Delta E_1(J)$ of Eq. (23)
573: for the $v=1$ band of the X$^1\Sigma^+$ state (Fig. 10a, 10b) and
574: for the $v=2$ band of the X$^1\Sigma^+$ state (Fig. 10c, 10d).
575: At this point the following comments are in place:
576:
577: 1) In all cases the levels $E(0)$, $E(1)$, $E(2)$, $E(3)$ have been determined
578: using the Dunham expansion of Eq. (22) and the Dunham coefficients given
579: in Table II of Ref. \cite{YD}. This has been done because $E^R(1)$ is
580: missing in the tables of the 1--1 and 2--2 transitions \cite{YD}, so
581: that Eq. (20) cannot be used for the determination of $E(3)$. In the cases
582: of the 0--1 and 1--2 transitions, $E^R(1)$ is known, but we prefered to
583: calculate $E(3)$ from the Dunham expansion in these cases as well,
584: in order to treat the pairs of cases 0--1, 1--1 and 1--2, 2--2 on equal
585: footing, since we intend to make comparisons between them.
586:
587: 2) For the calculation of errors we have taken into account the errors
588: of the Dunham coefficients given in Table II of Ref. \cite{YD}, as well
589: as the fact that the accuracy of the members of the R- and P-branches
590: is $\epsilon=\pm 0.002$ cm$^{-1}$ \cite{YD}. It is clear that
591: the large size of the error bars is due to the accumulation
592: of errors caused by Eqs (14)--(21), as seen in Eqs (25)--(28).
593:
594: 3) In Figs 10a and 10b the $\Delta J=1$ staggering measure $\Delta E_1(J)$
595: for the $v=1$ band of the X$^1\Sigma^+$ state of YD is shown, calculated
596: from two different sources, the 0--1 and 1--1 transitions.
597: If a real $\Delta J=1$ staggering effect were
598: present, the two figures should have been identical, or at least consistent
599: with each other. However, they are completely different (even the maxima
600: and the minima appear at different values of $J$ in each figure), indicating
601: that what is seen is not a real physical effect, but random experimental
602: errors (buried in the large error bars, anyway).
603:
604: 4) Exactly the same comments as in 3) apply to Figs 10c and 10d,
605: where the $\Delta J=1$ staggering measure for the $v=2$ band of the
606: X$^1\Sigma^+$ state of YD is shown, calculated from two different sources,
607: the 1--2 and 2--2 transitions.
608:
609: We conclude therefore that no $\Delta J=1$ staggering effect appears
610: in the $v=1$ and $v=2$ bands of the X$^1\Sigma^+$ state of YD, which are
611: free from $\Delta J=2$ staggering, as proved in subsection 2.2.
612:
613: This negative result has the following physical implications. It is known
614: in nuclear spectroscopy that reflection asymmetric (pear-like) shapes
615: give rise to octupole bands, in which the positive parity states
616: ($I^\pi=0^+$, $2^+$, $4^+$, \dots) are displaced reletively to
617: the negative parity states ($I_\pi=1^-$, $3^-$, $5^-$, \dots)
618: \cite{Phill,Schuler,Ahmad,Butler,Leander,LeanderSh,Krappe}.
619: Since a diatomic molecule consisting of two different atoms possesses
620: the same reflection asymmetry, one might think that $\Delta J=1$
621: staggering might be present in the rotational bands of such molecules.
622: Then YD, because of its large mass asymmetry, is a good testing ground
623: for this effect. The negative result obtained above can, however, be readily
624: explained. Nuclei with octupole deformation are supposed to be described by
625: double well potentials, the relative displacement of the negative parity
626: levels and the positive parity levels being attributed to the tunneling
627: through the barrier separating the wells
628: \cite{Leander,LeanderSh,Krappe}. (The relative displacement
629: vanishes in the limit in which the barrier separating the two wells
630: becomes infinitely high.) In the case of diatomic molecules the relevant
631: potential is well known \cite{Herz} to consist of a single well.
632: Therefore no tunneling effect is possible and, as a result, no relative
633: displacement of the positive parity levels and the negative parity levels
634: is seen.
635:
636: \subsubsection{CrD} % 3.2.2
637:
638: The formalism of subsection 3.1 has in addition been applied to a more
639: complicated case, the one of the 0--0 and 1--0 transitions of the
640: A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ system of CrD \cite{CrD}.
641: We have focused our attention on the ground state X$^6 \Sigma^+$, which is
642: known to be free from $\Delta N=2$ staggering effects (see subsection 2.2),
643: while the A$^6 \Sigma^+$ state is known from subsection 2.2
644: to exhibit $\Delta N=2$ staggering effects, which are
645: fingerprints of interband interactions (bandcrossings).
646: The CrD system considered here has several differences from the YD system
647: considered in the previous subsection, which are briefly listed here:
648:
649: 1) The present system of CrD involves sextet electronic states. As a result,
650: each band of the A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ transition consists of
651: six R- and six P-branches, labelled as R1, R2, \dots, R6 and P1, P2, \dots, P6
652: respectively \cite{CrD}. In the present study we use the R3 and P3 branches,
653: but similar results are obtained for the other branches as well.
654:
655: 2) Because of the presence of spin--rotation interactions and spin--spin
656: interactions, the energy levels cannot be fitted by a Dunham expansion
657: in terms of the total angular momentum $J$, but by a more complicated
658: Hamiltonian, the $N^2$ Hamiltonian for a $^6\Sigma$ state \cite{Brown,Gordon}.
659: This Hamiltonian, in addition to a Dunham expansion in terms of $N$
660: (the rotational angular momentum, which in this case is different
661: from the total angular momentum ${\bf J}={\bf N}+{\bf S}$, where $S$
662: the spin), contains terms describing the spin--rotation interactions
663: (preceded by three $\gamma$ coefficients), as well as terms describing the
664: spin--spin interactions (preceded by two $\lambda$ coefficients
665: \cite{CrD,Brown}).
666:
667: In the present study we have calculated the staggering measure
668: of Eq. (23) for the $v=0$ band of the X$^6\Sigma^+$ state of CrD, using
669: the R3 and P3 branches of the 0--0 (Fig. 11a) and 1--0 (Fig. 11b)
670: transitions of the
671: A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ system. Since in this case the Dunham
672: expansion involves the rotational angular momentum $N$, and not the
673: total angular momentum $J$, the formalism of subsection 3.1 has been used
674: with $J$ replaced by $N$ everywhere. This is why the calculated
675: staggering measure of Eq. (23) is in this case denoted by $\Delta E_1(N)$
676: and not by $\Delta E_1(J)$, the relevant effect being called $\Delta N=1$
677: staggering instead of $\Delta J=1$ staggering.
678: At this point the following comments are in place:
679:
680: 1) In both cases the levels $E(0)$, $E(1)$, $E(2)$, $E(3)$, $E(4)$ have
681: been determined using the Dunham expansion of Eq. (22) (with $J$ replaced
682: by $N$) and the Dunham coefficients given in Table V of Ref. \cite{CrD}.
683: This has been done because $E^R(2)$ is missing in the tables of the 0--0
684: transitions \cite{CrD}, so that Eq. (17) cannot be used for the determination
685: of $E(4)$. In the case of the 1--0 transitions, $E^R(2)$ is known, but
686: we prefered to calculate $E(4)$ from the Dunham expansion in this
687: case as well, in order to treat the cases 0--0 and 1--0 on equal footing,
688: since we intend to make comparisons between them.
689:
690: 2) For the calculation of errors we have taken into account the errors
691: of the Dunham coefficients given in Table V of Ref. \cite{CrD}, as well
692: as the fact that the accuracy of the members of the R- and P- branches
693: is $\epsilon=\pm 0.001$ cm$^{-1}$ for the 0--0 transitions and
694: $\epsilon=\pm 0.003$ cm$^{-1}$ for the 1--0 transitions \cite{CrD}.
695: In this case it is clear,
696: as in the previous one, that the large size of the error bars is due to
697: the accumulation of errors caused by Eqs (14)--(21), as seen in Eqs
698: (25)--(28).
699:
700: 3) In Figs 11a and 11b the $\Delta N=1$ staggering measure $\Delta E_1(N)$
701: for the $v=0$ band of the X$^6\Sigma^+$ state of CrD is shown, calculated
702: from two different sources, the 0--0 and 1--0 transitions. The two
703: figures are nearly identical. The maxima and the minima appear at the
704: same values of $N$ in both figures, while even the amplitude of the effect
705: is almost the same in both figures. It should be pointed out, however,
706: that the error bars in Fig. 11b have been made smaller by a factor of three,
707: in order to the accommodated in the figure.
708:
709: We conclude therefore that in the $v=0$ band of the X$^6\Sigma^+$ state of
710: CrD the two different calculations give consistent results, despite the
711: error accumulation mentioned above. The result looks like $\Delta N=1$
712: staggering of almost constant amplitude. The reason behind the appearance
713: of this staggering is, however clear: It is due to the omission of the
714: spin-rotation and spin-spin terms of the $N^2$ Hamiltonian mentioned
715: above \cite{CrD,Brown,Gordon}.
716: As a result, we have not discovered any new physical effect.
717: What we have demonstated, is that Eq. (23) is a very sensitive probe,
718: which can uncover small deviations from the pure rotational behaviour.
719: However, special care should be taken when using it, because of the
720: accumulation of errors, which is inherent in this method. This problem
721: is avoided by producing results for the same band from two different
722: sets of data, as done above. If both sets lead to consistent results,
723: some effect is present. If the two sets give randomly different results,
724: it is clear that no effect is present.
725:
726: It should be pointed out at this point that the appearance of $\Delta J=1$
727: staggering (or $\Delta N=1$ staggering) does {\sl not} mean that an effect
728: with oscillatory behaviour is present. Indeed, suppose that the energy
729: levels of a band follow the $E(J)=A J(J+1)$ rule, but to the odd levels
730: a constant term $c$ is added. It is then clear from Eq. (25) that we are
731: going to obtain $\Delta E_1(J)= +c$ for odd values of $J$, and
732: $\Delta E_1(J)=-c$ for even values of $J$, obtaining in this way perfect
733: $\Delta J=1$ staggering of constant amplitude $c$, without the presence
734: of any oscillatory effect. This comment directly applies to the results
735: presented in Fig. 11. The presence of $\Delta N=1$ staggering of almost
736: constant amplitude is
737: essentially due to the omission of the rotation--spin and spin--spin
738: interactions in the calculation of the $E(3)$ and $E(4)$ levels.
739: The difference of the omitted terms in the $N=3$ and $N=4$ cases plays
740: the role of $c$ in Fig. 11.
741:
742: \subsection{Discussion} % 3.3
743:
744: In this section we have addressed the question of the possible
745: existence of $\Delta J=1$ staggering (i.e. of a relative displacement
746: of the odd levels with respect to the even levels)
747: in rotational bands of diatomic molecules, which are free from $\Delta J=2$
748: staggering (i.e. free from interband interactions/bandcrossings).
749: The main conclusions drawn are:
750:
751: 1) The YD bands studied indicate that there is no $\Delta J=1$ staggering,
752: which could be due to the mass asymmetry of this molecule.
753:
754: 2) The CrD bands studied indicate that there is $\Delta N=1$ staggering,
755: which is, however, due to the spin--rotation and spin--spin interactions
756: present in the relevant states.
757:
758: 3) Based on the above results, we see that $\Delta J=1$ staggering is a
759: sensitive probe of deviations from the pure rotational behaviour.
760: Since the method of its calculation from the experimental data leads,
761: however, to error accumulation, one should always calculate the $\Delta J=1$
762: staggering measure for the same band from two different sets of data
763: and check the consistency of the results, absence of consistency meaning
764: absence of any real effect.
765:
766: It is desirable to corroborate the above conclusions by studying
767: rotational bands of several additional molecules.
768:
769: \section{Conclusions}
770:
771: In this work we have examined if the effects of $\Delta J=2$ staggering
772: and $\Delta J=1$ staggering, which appear in nuclear spectroscopy,
773: appear also in rotational bands of diatomic molecules. For the $\Delta J=2$
774: staggering it has been found that it appears in certain electronically excited
775: rotational bands of diatomic molecules (YD, CrD, CrH, CoH), in which
776: it is attributed to interband interactions (bandcrossings). The
777: $\Delta J=1$ staggering has been examined in rotational bands free from
778: $\Delta J=2$ staggering, i.e. free from interband interactions
779: (bandcrossings). Bands of YD offer evidence for the absence of any $\Delta
780: J=1$ staggering effect due to the disparity of nuclear masses, while
781: bands of sextet electronic states of CrD demonstrate that $\Delta J=1$
782: staggering is a sensitive probe of deviations from rotational behaviour,
783: due in this particular case to the spin-rotation and spin-spin interactions.
784: We conclude therefore that both $\Delta J=2$ staggering and $\Delta J=1$
785: staggering are sensitive probes of perturbations in rotational bands
786: of diatomic molecules and do not constitute any new physical effect.
787:
788: The number of rotational bands of diatomic molecules examined in the case
789: of the $\Delta J=2$ staggering is satisfactory. For the case of the
790: $\Delta J=1$ staggering it is desirable to corroborate the findings of the
791: present work through the examination of rotational bands of more diatomic
792: molecules.
793:
794: \bigskip
795: {\bf Acknowledgements}
796: \medskip
797:
798: One of the authors (PPR) acknowledges support from the Bulgarian Ministry
799: of Science and Education under contract $\Phi$-547.
800: Another author (NM) has been supported by the Bulgarian National Fund
801: for Scientific Research under contract no MU-F-02/98.
802: Three authors (DB,CD,NK) have been supported by the Greek Secretariat
803: of Research and Technology under contract PENED 95/1981.
804:
805: %\newpage
806:
807: \begin{thebibliography}{}
808:
809: \bibitem{BM} A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, {\it Nuclear Structure Vol. II:
810: Nuclear Deformations} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
811:
812: \bibitem{PLB200} D. Bonatsos, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 200} (1988) 1.
813:
814: \bibitem{Phill} W. R. Phillips, I. Ahmad, H. Emling, R. Holzmann, R. V. F.
815: Janssens, T. L. Khoo and M. W. Drigert, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 57}
816: (1986) 3257.
817:
818: \bibitem{Schuler} P. Sch\"uler {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Lett. B}
819: {\bf 174} (1986) 241.
820:
821: \bibitem{Ahmad} I. Ahmad and P. A. Butler, {\it Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}
822: {\bf 43} (1993) 71.
823:
824: \bibitem{Butler} P. A. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.}
825: {\bf 68} (1996) 349.
826:
827: \bibitem{WuZhou} C. S. Wu and Z. N. Zhou, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 56}
828: (1997) 1814.
829:
830: \bibitem{EI1126} J. Engel and F. Iachello, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 54}
831: (1985) 1126.
832:
833: \bibitem{EI61} J. Engel and F. Iachello, {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 472}
834: (1987) 61.
835:
836: \bibitem{GRR8} A. Georgieva, P. Raychev and R. Roussev, {\it J. Phys. G}
837: {\bf 8} (1982) 1377.
838:
839: \bibitem{GRR9} A. Georgieva, P. Raychev and R. Roussev, {\it J. Phys. G}
840: {\bf 9} (1983) 521.
841:
842: \bibitem{GRR12} A. Georgieva, P. Raychev and R. Roussev, {\it Bulg. J. Phys.}
843: {\bf 12} (1985) 147.
844:
845: \bibitem{Fli} S. Flibotte {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 71}
846: (1993) 4299; {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 584} (1995) 373.
847:
848: \bibitem{Ced} B. Cederwall {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 72}
849: (1994) 3150.
850:
851: \bibitem{Twin} P. J. Twin {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 57}
852: (1986) 811.
853:
854: \bibitem{Nolan} P. J. Nolan and P. J. Twin, {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}
855: {\bf 38} (1988) 533.
856:
857: \bibitem{Janssens} R. V. F. Janssens and T. L. Khoo, {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl.
858: Part. Sci.} {\bf 41} (1991) 321.
859:
860: \bibitem{Semple} A. T. Semple {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 76}
861: (1996) 3671.
862:
863: \bibitem{Kruecken} R. Kr\"ucken {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 54}
864: (1996) R2109.
865:
866: \bibitem{SZG} Y. Sun, J.-Y. Zhang and M. Guidry, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
867: {\bf 75} (1995) 3398; {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 54} (1996) 2967.
868:
869: \bibitem{MQ} I. N. Mikhailov and P. Quentin, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
870: {\bf 74} (1995) 3336.
871:
872: \bibitem{Mag} P. Magierski, K. Burzy\'nski, E. Perli\'nska, J. Dobaczewski
873: and W. Nazarewicz, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 55} (1997) 1236.
874:
875: \bibitem{Kota} V. K. B. Kota, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 53} (1996) 2550.
876:
877: \bibitem{Liu} Y.-X. Liu, J.-G. Song, H.-Z. Sun and E.-G. Zhao,
878: {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 56} (1997) 1370.
879:
880: \bibitem{Pav} I. M. Pavlichenkov, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 55} (1997) 1275.
881:
882: \bibitem{Wu} H. Toki and L.-A. Wu, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997)
883: 2006; L.-A. Wu and H. Toki, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 56} (1997) 1821.
884:
885: \bibitem{HM} I. Hamamoto and B. Mottelson, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 333}
886: (1994) 294.
887:
888: \bibitem{Macc} A. O. Macchiavelli, B. Cederwall, R. M. Clark, M. A.
889: Deleplanque, R. M. Diamond, P. Fallon, I. Y. Lee, F. S. Stephens and S.
890: Asztalos, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 51} (1995) R1.
891:
892: \bibitem{PavFli} I. M. Pavlichenkov and S. Flibotte, {\it Phys. Rev. C}
893: {\bf 51} (1995) R460.
894:
895: \bibitem{Doenau} F. D\"onau, S. Frauendorf and J. Meng, {\it Phys. Lett. B}
896: {\bf 387} (1996) 667.
897:
898: \bibitem{Luo} W. D. Luo, A. Bouguettoucha, J. Dobaczewski, J. Dudek and X. Li,
899: {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 52} (1995) 2989.
900:
901: \bibitem{Magi} P. Magierski, Warsaw University of Technology preprint
902: nucl-th/9512004, to appear in {\it Acta Physica Polonica B}.
903:
904: \bibitem{Herz} G. Herzberg, {\it Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure},
905: Vol. I: {\it Spectra of Diatomic Molecules} (Van Nostrand, Toronto, 1950).
906:
907: \bibitem{YD} R. S. Ram and P. F. Bernath, {\it J. Molec. Spectr.} {\bf 171}
908: (1995) 169.
909:
910: \bibitem{CrD} R. S. Ram and P. F. Bernath, {\it J. Molec. Spectr.} {\bf 172}
911: (1995) 91.
912:
913: \bibitem{CrH} R. S. Ram, C. N. Jarman and P. F. Bernath, {\it J. Molec.
914: Spectr.} {\bf 161} (1993) 445.
915:
916: \bibitem{CoH} R. S. Ram, P. F. Bernath and S. P. Davis, {\it J. Molec.
917: Spectr.} {\bf 175} (1996) 1.
918:
919: \bibitem{Bar} G. M. Barrow, {\it Introduction to Molecular Spectroscopy}
920: (McGraw-Hill, London, 1962).
921:
922: \bibitem{Pavli} I. M. Pavlichenkov, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 53} (1974) 35.
923:
924: \bibitem{MRM} L. P. Marinova, P. P. Raychev and J. Maruani, {\it Molec. Phys.}
925: {\bf 82} (1994) 1115.
926:
927: \bibitem{VDS} M. J. A. de Voigt, J. Dudek and Z. Szymanski, {\it Rev. Mod.
928: Phys.} {\bf 55} (1983) 949.
929:
930: \bibitem{Bonbb} D. Bonatsos, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 31} (1985) 2256.
931:
932: \bibitem{RJR} W. Reviol, H.-Q. Jin and L. L. Riedinger, {\it Phys. Lett. B}
933: {\bf 371} (1996) 19.
934:
935: \bibitem{HS} K. Hara and Y. Sun, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. E} {\bf 4}
936: (1995) 637.
937:
938: \bibitem{HL} K. Hara and G. A. Lalazissis, {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 55}
939: (1997) 1789.
940:
941: \bibitem{Dunham}
942: J. L. Dunham, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 41} (1932) 721.
943:
944: \bibitem{Leander}
945: G. A. Leander, R. K. Sheline, P. M\"oller, P. Olanders, I. Ragnarsson
946: and A. J. Sierk, {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 388} (1982) 452.
947:
948: \bibitem{LeanderSh}
949: G. A. Leander and R. K. Sheline, {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 413} (1984) 375.
950:
951: \bibitem{Krappe}
952: H. J. Krappe and U. Wille, {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 124} (1969) 641.
953:
954: \bibitem{Brown}
955: J. M. Brown and D. J. Milton, {\it Molec. Phys.} {\bf 31} (1976) 409.
956:
957: \bibitem{Gordon}
958: R. M. Gordon and A. J. Merer, {\it Can. J. Phys.} {\bf 58} (1980) 642.
959:
960: \end{thebibliography}
961:
962: %\newpage
963:
964: \centerline{\bf Figure captions}
965: \ms
966:
967: \ref {\bf Fig. 1}
968: $\Delta E_2(I)$ (in keV), calculated from Eq. (2),
969: versus the angular frequency $\omega$ (in MeV), calculated from Eq. (7),
970: for various superdeformed bands in the nucleus $^{149}$Gd [13].
971: a) Band (a) of Ref. [13]. b) Band (d) of Ref. [13].
972:
973: \ref {\bf Fig. 2}
974: $\Delta E_2(I)$ (in keV), calculated from Eq. (2),
975: versus the angular frequency $\omega$ (in MeV), calculated from Eq. (7),
976: for various superdeformed bands in the nucleus $^{194}$Hg [14].
977: a) Band 1 of Ref. [14]. b) Band 2 of Ref. [14].
978:
979: \ref {\bf Fig. 3}
980: $\Delta E_2(J)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
981: for various bands of the YD molecule [34].
982: a) Odd levels of the $v=1$ C$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
983: data of the 1--1 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
984: b) Even levels of the previous band.
985: c) Odd levels of the $v=1$ C$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the 1--2
986: C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
987: d) Even levels of the previous band.
988:
989: \ref {\bf Fig. 4}
990: $\Delta E_2(J)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
991: for various bands of the YD molecule [34].
992: a) Odd levels of the $v=2$ C$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
993: data of the 2--2 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
994: b) Even levels of the previous band.
995: c) Odd levels of the $v=2$ C$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the 2--3
996: C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
997: d) Even levels of the previous band.
998: The experimental error in all cases is $\pm 0.006$ cm$^{-1}$ and therefore
999: is hardly or not seen.
1000:
1001: \ref {\bf Fig. 5}
1002: $\Delta E_2(J)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
1003: for various bands of the YD molecule [34].
1004: a) Odd levels of the $v=1$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
1005: data of the 1--1 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1006: b) Even levels of the previous band.
1007:
1008: \ref {\bf Fig. 6}
1009: $\Delta E_2(J)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
1010: for various bands of the YD molecule [34].
1011: a) Odd levels of the $v=2$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
1012: data of the 1--2 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1013: b) Even levels of the previous band.
1014: c) Odd levels of the $v=2$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the 2--2
1015: C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1016: d) Even levels of the previous band.
1017:
1018: \ref {\bf Fig. 7}
1019: $\Delta E_2(N)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
1020: for various bands of the CrD molecule [35].
1021: a) Odd levels of the $v=0$ A$^6\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
1022: data (R2, P2 branches) of the 0--0 A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1023: b) Even levels of the previous band.
1024: The experimental error in all cases is $\pm 0.006$ cm$^{-1}$
1025: and therefore is not seen.
1026:
1027: \ref {\bf Fig. 8}
1028: $\Delta E_2(N)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
1029: for various bands of the CrH molecule [36].
1030: a) Odd levels of the $v=0$ A$^6\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
1031: data (R2, P2 branches)
1032: of the 0--0 A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1033: b) Even levels of the previous band.
1034: The experimental error in all cases is $\pm 0.004$ cm$^{-1}$
1035: and therefore is not seen.
1036:
1037: \ref {\bf Fig. 9}
1038: $\Delta E_2(J)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (11),
1039: for various bands of the CoH molecule [37].
1040: a) Odd levels of the $v=0$ A$'$$^{3}\Phi_4$ band calculated from the
1041: data (Ree, Pee branches) of the 0--1 A$'$$^{3}\Phi_4$--X$^3\Phi_4$
1042: transitions.
1043: b) Even levels of the previous band.
1044: The experimental error in all cases is $\pm 0.01$ cm$^{-1}$
1045: and therefore is not seen.
1046:
1047: \ref {\bf Fig. 10}
1048: $\Delta E_1(J)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (23),
1049: for various bands of the YD molecule [34].
1050: a) Levels of the $v=1$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the
1051: data of the 0--1 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1052: b) Levels of the $v=1$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the data of the 1--1
1053: C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1054: c) Levels of the $v=2$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the data of the
1055: 1--2 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1056: d) Levels of the $v=2$ X$^1\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the data of the
1057: 2--2 C$^1\Sigma^+$--X$^1\Sigma^+$ transitions.
1058:
1059: \ref {\bf Fig. 11}
1060: $\Delta E_1(N)$ (in cm$^{-1}$), calculated from Eq. (23),
1061: for various bands of the CrD molecule [35].
1062: a) Levels of the $v=0$ X$^6\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the data of the
1063: 0--0 A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ transitions (R3, P3 branches).
1064: b) Levels of the $v=0$ X$^6\Sigma^+$ band calculated from the data of the
1065: 1--0 A$^6\Sigma^+$--X$^6\Sigma^+$ transitions (R3, P3 branches).
1066: The error bars in case (b) have been divided by a factor of 3, in order
1067: to be accommodated within the figure.
1068:
1069: \end{document}
1070:
1071: