-
Any shell-model dynamical chain of the PNSM is naturally defined via the the harmonic oscillator creation and annihilation operators
$ \begin{aligned}[b] &b^{\dagger}_{i\alpha,s}= \sqrt{\frac{M_{\alpha}\omega}{2\hbar}}\Big(x_{is}(\alpha) -\frac{i}{M_{\alpha}\omega}p_{is}(\alpha)\Big), \\ &b_{i\alpha,s}=\sqrt{\frac{M_{\alpha}\omega}{2\hbar}}\Big(x_{is}(\alpha) +\frac{i}{M_{\alpha}\omega}p_{is}(\alpha)\Big), \end{aligned} $
(1) where
$ i,j = 1,2,3 $ ;$ \alpha,\beta = p,n $ , and$s = 1,\,2,\ldots,m=A-1$ . In Eq. (1),$ x_{is}(\alpha) $ and$ p_{is}(\alpha) $ denote the coordinates and corresponding momenta of the translationally-invariant relative Jacobi vectors of the m-quasiparticle two-component nuclear system and A denotes the number of protons and neutrons. We then consider all bilinear combinations of these operators to obtain the$ S p(12,R) $ dynamical algebra generators [53]:$ F_{ij}(\alpha,\beta)=\sum\limits_{s=1}^{m}b^{\dagger}_{i\alpha,s}b^{\dagger}_{j\beta,s}, $
(2) $ G_{ij}(\alpha,\beta)=\sum\limits_{s=1}^{m}b_{i\alpha,s}b_{j\beta,s}, $
(3) $ A_{ij}(\alpha,\beta)=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{s=1}^{m} (b^{\dagger}_{i\alpha,s}b_{j\beta,s}+b_{j\beta,s}b^{\dagger}_{i\alpha,s}). $
(4) The operators (4) preserve the number of oscillator quanta, whereas those given by (2) and (3) create and annihilate, respectively, a pair of harmonic oscillator quanta.
The many-particle states in the microscopic shell-model version of the BM model are classified by the following dynamical symmetry chain [40, 41]:
$ \begin{aligned}[b] Sp(12,R) & \supset S U(1,1) \otimes S O(6) \\ \quad \langle\sigma\rangle \quad &\qquad\quad \lambda_{\upsilon} \qquad \upsilon \\ &\supset U(1) \otimes S U_{pn}(3) \otimes S O(2) \supset S O(3), \\ &\qquad p \qquad \ (\lambda,\mu) \qquad \nu \quad \ q \quad \ L \end{aligned} $
(5) where below the different subgroups are given the quantum numbers that characterize their irreducible representations. The
$S U(1,1) \supset U(1)$ quantum numbers$ \lambda_{\upsilon}=\upsilon+5/2 $ and p define the oscillator shell structure. Due to dual pair relationships [54], they are related to the$U(6) \supset S O(6)$ quantum numbers$ E=[E,0,\dots,0]_{6} $ and$ \upsilon \equiv (\upsilon)_{6} = (\upsilon,0,0) $ via the expression$ p=(E-\upsilon)/2 $ . Thus, the standard harmonic oscillator basis states$ |n \rangle $ with even (odd) values$ n=2p $ ($ n=2p+1 $ ) are related [55] to the$S U(1,1)$ basis states$ \{|\lambda_{\upsilon}, p \rangle; p = 0, 1, 2, \ldots\} $ through the expression$ |\lambda_{\upsilon}, p \rangle = |n \rangle $ with$ n=\lambda_{\upsilon} + 2p -6/2 $ . The$S U_{pn}(3)$ quantum numbers$ (\lambda,\mu) $ define the deformation of nuclear system and are related to the$S O(6)$ and$S O(2)$ quantum numbers υ and ν by the following expression [40]:$ (\upsilon )_{6}=\bigoplus\limits_{\nu =\pm\upsilon ,\pm(\upsilon-2),...,0(\pm1)}\left(\lambda=\frac{\upsilon +\nu }{2},\mu=\frac{\upsilon -\nu }{2}\right)\otimes (\nu )_{2}. $
(6) The
$S O(3)$ quantum numbers L define the corresponding angular momentum values. q denotes a multiplicity label in the reduction$S U_{pn}(3) \supset S O(3)$ and its values, defining different quasibands, are given by$q =\min(\lambda,\mu), $ $ \min(\lambda,\mu)-2,...,0\; (1) $ .Based on chain (5), the monopole-quadrupole nuclear dynamics splits into radial and orbital motions, and the wave functions of the microscopic SM version of the BM model are as follows [40]:
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} \Psi_{\lambda_{\upsilon}p;\upsilon\nu qLM}(r,\Omega_{5}) = R^{\lambda_{\upsilon}}_{p}(r)Y^{\upsilon}_{\nu qLM}(\Omega_{5}). \end{array} $
(7) For more details concerning the structure of these function we refer readers to Ref. [41].
Many Hamiltonians of interest can be expressed by means of the
$ S p(12,R) $ algebra generators (2)$ - $ (4). Here, we also use such a type of Hamiltonian:$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} H &= H_{DS} + H_{\rm res} + H_{hmix}, \end{array} $
(8) containing three parts having a clear physical meaning. The dynamical symmetry part
$ \begin{aligned}[b] H_{DS} &= H_{0} + V_{\rm coll} \\ &\equiv H_{0} + BC_{2}[S U_{pn}(3)] + CC_{3}[S U_{pn}(3)] \end{aligned} $
(9) is expressed in standard way by Casimir operators of different subgroups only along the chain (5). Particularly, it contains the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian
$ H_{0}= n \hbar\omega $ that defines the shell structure of the nucleus, and a collective potential that is expressed through the second- and third-order Casimir operators of the$S U_{pn}(3)$ group. The collective potential splits different$S U_{pn}(3)$ multiplets and the most deformed irreducible representation is lowered most in energy.Usually the residual rotor part is expressed as
$ H_{rot} = aL^{2}+bX^{a}_{3}+cX^{a}_{4} $ [56], which, in addition to the$S O(3)$ Casimir operator$ L^{2} $ , includes third- and fourth-order$S U(3)$ preserving interactions and represents a shell-model image of the triaxial rotor model Hamiltonian. In this way, we incorporate the quantum rotor dynamics into the shell-model theory and give physical significance to the high-order$S U(3)$ symmetry preserving interactions. However, in the present application, we use the residual rotor part as follows:$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} H_{\rm res} = cX^{a}_{4}, \end{array} $
(10) where
$ X^{a}_{4} = [L\times\widetilde{q}\times\widetilde{q}\times L]^{(0)} $ and the$S U_{pn}(3)$ generators are defined as [40]:$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} &\widetilde{q}^{2M}= \sqrt{3} \mathrm{i}[A^{2M}(p,n)-A^{2M}(n,p)], \end{array} $
(11) $ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} &L^{1M}=\sqrt{2}[A^{1M}(p,p)+A^{1M}(n,n)]. \end{array} $
(12) Several studies examined the effect of operators
$ X^{a}_{3} $ and$ X^{a}_{4} $ on nuclear spectra, within the broken-$S U(3)$ model [57], the shell model [58], the symplectic$S p(6,R)$ model [59, 60], and the IBM [61−65]. Recently, the role of the high-order$S U(3)$ -preserving interactions was reinforced in relation to different nuclear phenomena [66−72]. Studies indicate that the$ X^{a}_{3} $ and$ X^{a}_{4} $ operators introduce an odd-even staggering in the γ band of γ-rigid type [73]. However, Refs. [44, 45] indicate that by modifying them one is able to produce a γ-unstable odd-even staggering pattern for the states of the γ band that is a characteristic of the γ-unstable WJ model (see Fig. 1 for$ ^{106} $ Cd). Thus, we follow [44, 45] and use the following parametrization$ c\equiv c(1-(-1)^{L}/\sqrt{2}) $ for the model parameter in Eq. (10).Figure 1. (color online) Comparison of the excitation energies of the ground, γ, and β quasibands in
$ ^{106} $ Cd with experiment and predictions of the "jj45" shell-model (extracted from [21]) and the SCCM approach (extracted from [20]). Values of the model parameters (in MeV) are:$ B = -0.075 $ ,$ C = 0.00045 $ ,$ c = 0.00114 $ , and$ h = -0.187 $ .Finally, the Hamiltonian [55]
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} H_{hmix} = h(G^{2}(a,a) \cdot F^{2}(b,b) + h.c.), \end{array} $
(13) introduces a mixing of various
$S U_{pn}(3)$ multiplets within the different seniority$S O(6)$ irreps υ. The required matrix elements of (10) and (13) for performing shell-model calculations within the present approach are given in Refs. [56] and [55], respectively.We use the definitions of Eqs. (2)
$ - $ (4) to represent the Cartesian components of the mass quadrupole operators$ Q_{ij}(\alpha,\beta)=\sum\limits_{s}x_{si}(\alpha)x_{js}(\beta) $ as follows [53]:$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} Q_{ij}(\alpha,\beta) = \Big( A_{ij}(\alpha,\beta)+\frac{1}{2}[F_{ij}(\alpha,\beta)+G_{ij}[\alpha,\beta]]\Big), \end{array} $
(14) which, as can be seen from (1), are in units of
$ b^{2}_{0} $ .$ b_{0}=\sqrt{\dfrac{\hbar}{M\omega}} $ denotes the oscillator length parameter and it was also assumed that$ M_{p}=M_{n}=M $ . The spherical components of the mass quadrupole operators then become$ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} Q^{2m}(\alpha,\beta) = \sqrt{3}\Big( A^{2m}(\alpha,\beta)+\frac{1}{2}[F^{2m}(\alpha,\beta)+G^{2m}[\alpha,\beta]]\Big). \end{array} $
(15) To obtain the charge quadrupole operators, one needs to multiply the expression (15) by the standard factor
$ (eZ/(A-1)) $ . Making use of the expression for the harmonic oscillator length$b_{0}=1.010 A^{1/6} \; \; {\rm fm}$ [9], the units of charge quadrupole moments become$e{\rm fm}^{2}$ . We note that e is the bare electric charge. The restriction to a single shell leads to the (in-shell) quadrupole operators$ \widetilde{Q}^{2m}(\alpha,\beta) = \sqrt{3}A^{2m}(\alpha,\beta) $ . However, to calculate the$ B(E2) $ transition probabilities in the present application of the microscopic shell-model version of the BM model we use the$S U_{pn}(3)$ quadrupole generators (11) as excitation operators, i.e.$ T^{E2} = (eZ/(A-1)) \widetilde{q}^{2m} $ , which are a linear combination of$ \widetilde{Q}^{2m}(\alpha,\beta) $ . This implies that the quadrupole dynamics in$ ^{106} $ Cd is assumed in the present work to be of a rigid-flow type. Only the comparison of the$ B(E2) $ transition strengths with the experimental data can determine if such an assumption is physically justified or not. -
The practical application of the PNSM first requires the determination of relevant symplectic representation of its dynamical group
$S p(12,R)$ . We use the pseudo-$S U(3)$ scheme [23−25] and pairwise fill the pseudo-Nilsson levels with protons at observed quadrupole deformation$ \beta = 0.17 $ [11] to obtain completely filled$ \mathcal{\widetilde{N}}=2 $ pseudo-shell plus 8 protons in the unique-parity level$ g_{9/2} $ . Subsequently, the leading proton$S U_{p}(3)$ irrep is the scalar irrep$ (0,0) $ . Similarly, for neutrons we obtain completely filled$ \mathcal{\widetilde{N}}=2 $ pseudo-shell plus 6 (or 8) neutrons occupying the$ \mathcal{\widetilde{N}}=3 $ pseudo-shell and 2 (or 0) neutrons in the unique-parity level$ h_{11/2} $ . We use available computer codes [74, 75] to obtain the set of Pauli allowed$S U(3)$ states:$ (12,0), (9,3), (6,6), (7,4), (8,2), \ldots $ or$ (10,4), (12,0), (8,5), (9,3), (10,1), (5,8), (6,6), (7,4) $ ,$ (8,2), \ldots $ by considering 6 or 8 active neutrons, respectively. Further, the proton and neutron irreps should be coupled to obtain the combined proton-neutron$S U_{pn}(3)$ representation of the whole nuclear system. However, given that only the scalar representation for the proton subsystem$ (0,0) $ is admitted, the set of combined proton-neutron multiplets coincides with that of the neutron subsystem since$ (\lambda_{p},\mu_{p})\otimes (\lambda_{n},\mu_{n})= (0,0)\otimes (\lambda_{n},\mu_{n}) \equiv (\lambda,\mu) $ . Alternatively, we can use the pseudo-$S U(3)$ scheme [23−25], albeit filling each pseudo-Nilsson level with 4 nucleons based on the supermultiplet spin-isospin scheme. Subsequently, we readily obtain 6 nucleons that fill the last valence$ \mathcal{\widetilde{N}}=3 $ pseudo-shell. The codes [74, 75] produce the set of$S U(3)$ states:$(14,2), (12,3), (13,1), (10,4), (11,2), (12,0), (8,5), \ldots$ . We use the Nilsson model ideas [76−79] and select the$S U(3)$ irrep$ (12,0) $ , which is contained in the two alternatively obtained sets of Pauli allowed many-particle$S U(3)$ states, and thereby fix the appropriate$S p(12,R)$ irreducible representation 0p-0h$ [12]_{6} $ (or$\langle \sigma\rangle = \langle 27+ m/2, 15+m/2, \ldots, 15+m/2\rangle$ using an equivalent notation) for$ ^{106} $ Cd. The$S p(12,R)$ irreducible representation$ \langle \sigma\rangle = \langle 27+m/2, 15+m/2, \ldots, 15+m/2\rangle $ is determined by the lowest-grade$ U(6) $ irrep (or symplectic bandhead)$ \sigma\equiv[\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{6}]_{6} = [27,15,\ldots,15]_{6}\equiv[12]_{6} $ . The relevant irreducible collective space for$ ^{106} $ Cd, spanned by the$S p(12,R)$ irreducible representation 0p-0h$ [12]_{6} $ , which$S U_{pn}(3)$ basis states are classified according to the chain (5) is given in Table 1. We note that, due to the Pauli principle, only the$S O(6)$ irreducible representations with$ \upsilon \geq \upsilon_{0}=12 $ are retained in the table. If we assume a pure$S U_{pn}(3)$ structure and use the following expression [76]:N u/v $\cdots $ 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 −8 −10 −12 −14 −16 $\cdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\ddots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ $\vdots $ ${\mathinner{\mkern2mu\raise1pt\hbox{.}\mkern2mu \raise4pt\hbox{.}\mkern2mu\raise7pt\hbox{.}\mkern1mu}}$ $N_{0}+4$ 16 (16,0) (14,0) (13,1) (12,2) (11,3) (9,3) (9,5) (8,6) (7,7) (6,8) (5,9) (3,9) (3,11) (2,12) (1,13) (0,14) (0,16) 14 (14,0) (13,1) (12,2) (11,3) (9,3) (9,5) (8,6) (7,7) (6,8) (5,9) (3,9) (3,11) (2,12) (1,13) (0,14) 12 (12,0) (11,1) (10,2) (9,3) (8,4) (7,5) (6,6) (5,7) (4,8) (3,9) (2,10) (1,11) (0,12) $N_{0}+2$ 14 (14,0) (13,1) (12,2) (11,3) (9,3) (9,5) (8,6) (7,7) (6,8) (5,9) (3,9) (3,11) (2,12) (1,13) (0,14) 12 (12,0) (11,1) (10,2) (9,3) (8,4) (7,5) (6,6) (5,7) (4,8) (3,9) (2,10) (1,11) (0,12) $N_{0}$ 12 (12,0) (11,1) (10,2) (9,3) (8,4) (7,5) (6,6) (5,7) (4,8) (3,9) (2,10) (1,11) (0,12) Table 1. Relevant
$S O(6)$ and$S U_{pn}(3)$ irreducible representations which are contained in the$S p(12,R)$ irreducible collective space 0p-0h$[12]_{6}$ of$^{106}$ Cd.$ \beta = \frac{3}{2}\frac{(2\lambda+\mu)}{N_{0}}, $
(16) where
$ N_{0} = 169.5 $ is the minimal Pauli allowed number of oscillator quanta, we obtain for the quadrupole deformation of the$ (12,0) $ irreducible representation$ \beta \approx 0.21 $ , which slightly overestimates the experimental value 0.17 [11]. This suggests the use of a horizontal mixing of different shell-model configurations within the symplectic$S p(12,R)$ bandhead space and our choice for the mixing Hamiltonian (13).We note that the horizontal sets of
$S U(3)$ irreducible representations initially differ from those obtained by the plethysm operation via the reduction$U(d) \supset S U(3)$ [74, 75], where$ d =\dfrac{1}{2}(\mathcal{N}+1)(\mathcal{N}+2) $ for each nuclear shell$ \mathcal{N} $ . This is because the many-particle configurations in the PNSM are classified by basis states of the six-dimensional harmonic oscillator instead of the standard three-dimensional one. However, the$S U(3)$ states contained in the$ U(6) $ group structure can be organized in different ways because different choices for the group G in the reduction$U(6) \supset G \supset S U(3)$ are possible. Subsequently, each symplectic shell in the present approach is determined by the corresponding$ U(6) $ representation (or equivalently, by the number of oscillator quanta N), which in turn contains different seniority$S O(6)$ irreducible representations υ (see Table 1). It is further demonstrated that the horizontal set of the remaining$S U(3)$ irreps which are placed to the right from the axially-symmetric multiplet$ (\lambda,0) $ , the latter being in the most left position, at each row defined by the corresponding$S O(6)$ irrep υ actually represent many-particle-many-hole (mp-mh) excitations of the nuclear system. The excitations, for even or odd type of the$S U(3)$ representations, are generated by multiple application of the operator$G^{2}(a,a) \cdot F^{2}(b,b)= \dfrac{2}{3}\sqrt{5}[G^{2}(a,a)\times F^{2}(b,b)]^{4}_{-4100}$ of Eq. (13). The latter preserves the number of$ U(6) $ harmonic oscillator quanta N of each symplectic shell and can be considered as a 2p-2h-like operator of the core excitations that creates two oscillator quanta in the shell above and annihilates two oscillator quanta in the shell bellow, i.e., it promotes two oscillator quanta up. For example, the$S U(3)$ multiplet$ (10,2) $ within the maximal$S O(6)$ seniority irrep$ \upsilon_{0} = 12 $ of the symplectic$S p(12,R)$ bandhead, defined by$ N_{0} $ oscillator quanta, can be obtained by promoting two oscillator quanta from the pseudo-shell$ \widetilde{N}=2 $ to$ \widetilde{N}=3 $ , i.e., changing the many-particle shell-model configuration$ (\widetilde{2})^{40}(\widetilde{3})^{6} $ to$ (\widetilde{2})^{38}(\widetilde{3})^{8} $ , the latter producing the excited$S U(3)$ irrep$ (10,2) $ from$ (12,0) $ of the former configuration. Hence, the$S U(3)$ many-particle shell-model configurations are organized in different way via group$ SO(6) $ through the reduction$U(6) \supset S O(6) \supset S U(3)$ (more precisely,$S p(12,R) \supset U(6) \supset S O(6) \supset S U_{pn}(3) \otimes S O(2)$ for different$ U(6) $ shells) when compared to the standard shell-model plethysm reduction$U(d) \supset S U(3)$ , and each horizontal subset of the$S U(3)$ multiplets is characterized by the same value of the$S O(6)$ seniority irrep$ \upsilon=\lambda+\mu $ . This is a new feature of the PNSM which arises from the properties of the$S O(6)$ group. We note that the$S U(3)$ content of the symplectic shells defined by the PNSM dynamical chain$S p(12,R) \supset U(6) \supset S U_{p}(3)\otimes S U_{n}(3) \supset S U(3)$ considered, e.g., in Refs. [53, 80], will coincide precisely with that generated first by the separate reductions$ U_{\alpha}(d) \supset SU_{\alpha}(3) $ ($ \alpha=p,n $ ) with the subsequent coupling of the proton$ (\lambda_{p},\mu_{p}) $ and neutron$ (\lambda_{n},\mu_{n}) $ subsystem representations to the combined proton-neutron$S U(3)$ irreducible representation$ (\lambda,\mu) $ , given that the PNSM many-particle$S U(3)$ configurations are organized by means of the group structure$S U_{p}(3)\otimes S U_{n}(3) \supset S U(3)$ within the$ U(6) $ harmonic oscillator shell.Regarding the calculations of the properties of different Cd isotopes, the particle-hole excitations have been used within the framework of the IBM and other approaches [17, 20, 81−84]. However, we note that the present many-particle-many-hole excitations represented by the different
$S U_{pn}(3)$ irreducible representations within the$S O(6)$ irrep$ \upsilon_{0}=12 $ belong to the same$ U(6) $ shell. Their mixing is referred to as a horizontal mixing. The traditional particle-hole excitations within the standard shell-model or the IBM correspond to the vertical mixing of different$S U(3)$ irreducible representations within the PNSM and belong to the higher$ U(6) $ and$S O(6)$ excited representations. The important point in the present application is that the$S p(12,R)$ bandhead, in contrast to the Elliott$S U(3)$ and$S p(6,R)$ shell models, contains many$S U(3)$ multiplets which are appropriate for the description of different collective bands. Hence, the symplectic$S p(12,R)$ bandhead provides us with a microscopic shell-model framework for the simultaneous description of different bands in a manner similar to that of, e.g., the IBM [10]. Thus, the shell-model coupling scheme in the PNSM as defined by the chain$S p(12,R) \supset U(6) \supset S U_{p}(3)\otimes S U_{n}(3) \supset S U(3)$ will produce another$S U(3)$ content, which also can be used for the simultaneous description of different collective bands. We note one more important difference: in the conventional shell model or IBM the particle-hole excitations are associated with the intruder configurations of quite different deformation. The latter in the PNSM can be taken into account by considering the excited$S p(12,R)$ irreducible representations.We diagonalize the model Hamiltonian (8) in the irreducible collective space of maximal seniority
$ \upsilon_{0} = 12 $ , belonging to the symplectic bandhead of the$S p(12,R)$ irrep 0p-0h$ [12]_{6} $ as characterized by$ N_{0} $ . The results for the low-lying excitation energies of the ground, γ and β bands in$ ^{106} $ Cd are shown in Fig. 1, where they are compared with experiment [85] and the predictions of the "jj45" shell-model (extracted from [21]) and the SCCM approach (extracted from [20]). The values of the model parameters are obtained by fitting procedure to the energies and$ B(E2;2^{+}_{1} \rightarrow 0^{+}_{1}) $ value. Their values (in MeV) are as follows:$ B = -0.075 $ ,$ C = 0.00045 $ ,$ c = 0.00114 $ , and$ h = -0.187 $ . As shown in the figure, we observe a good description of the excitation energies for the three bands (up to the bandhead energies) including centrifugal stretching in the ground band for high angular momenta and strong odd-even staggering between the states of the γ band. The description is not perfect but rather good taking into account that the excitation energies are obtained in the microscopic version of the BM model without the use of an adjustable kinetic energy. This is an interesting result obtained for the weakly deformed nuclei. Similar results were obtained for some strongly deformed nuclei within the$S p(6,R)$ model [77, 78, 86] and for some strongly deformed [42] and transitional [43] heavy-mass even-even nuclei within the present microscopic shell-model version of the BM model. To the best of the authors' knowledge, extant studies have not reported results for weakly deformed nuclei, particularly for Cd isotopes.We effectively obtain the observed moment of inertia in the present calculations without the adjustable kinetic-energy term, and this implies that the quadrupole collective dynamics is correctly captured by the symplectic bandhead of the
$S p(12,R)$ irreducible representation 0p-0h$ [12]_{6} $ . Fig. 2 shows the results for the intraband$ B(E2) $ transition probabilities between the collective states of the ground band in$ ^{106} $ Cd compared with experiment [21, 85], the SCCM approach (SCCM) and the "jj45" shell-model calculations as obtained from Refs. [20] and [21], respectively. As shown in the figure, we observe a typical rigid-flow$S U(3)$ -rotor behavior (see Fig. 1 of Ref. [44] and the concerning discussion there). The ground state intraband$ B(E2) $ quadrupole collectivity is slightly underestimated, although the general trend is well described, including the depletion. This behavior of the transition strength$ B(E2;8^{+}_{1} \rightarrow 6^{+}_{1}) $ is also observed for$ ^{102,104,106} $ Cd isotopes due to the change in the structure of the yrast states [52]. We note that the intraband$ B(E2) $ transition probabilities between the states of the ground band can be enhanced trivially by introducing an effective charge, or, more naturally$ - $ by including also a vertical mixing term to the model Hamiltonian and performing more comprehensive shell-model calculations. Further, in Table 2 , we compare the known experimental$ B(E2) $ values [16, 20, 21, 47, 85, 87] with the theory for the nonyrast states of the γ and β bands in$ ^{106} $ Cd. As shown in the table, the observed$ B(E2) $ transition probabilities are in qualitative agreement with the theory. For the quadrupole moments of the excited$ 2^{+}_{1} $ and$ 2^{+}_{2} $ states we obtain$ Q(2^{+}_{1}) = -0.45 $ and$Q(2^{+}_{2}) = +0.35 \; \; \rm eb$ , to be compared with the experimental values$ -0.29(13) $ and$+0.61(29) \; \; \rm eb$ [21], respectively. The results indicate that the quadrupole moment for the first excited$ 2^{+} $ state is slightly overestimated by the theory. The same picture is obtained for the SCCM ($Q(2^{+}_{1}) = -0.62 \; \; \rm eb$ ) and the "jj45" shell-model ($Q(2^{+}_{1}) = -0.60 \; \; \rm eb$ ) calculations [21]. We note that the quadrupole moments in the pure HV and WJ limits of the BM model are identically zero.Figure 2. (color online) Comparison of the experimental [20, 21, 85] and theoretical intraband
$ B(E2) $ values in Weisskopf units between the states of the ground band in$ ^{106} $ Cd. Theoretical predictions of the SCCM approach (SCCM) and the "jj45" shell-model (jj45) calculations (taken from [20] and [21], respectively) are also given.i f $B(E2;L_{i}\rightarrow L_{f})_{\rm th}$ $ B(E2;L_{i}\rightarrow L_{f})_{\exp } $ $ 2_{2} $ $ 0_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2.4 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 2.6(5) $ $ 2_{2} $ $ 2_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 18.9 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 13.0(2.2)[11(3)][14(3)] $ $ 3_{1} $ $ 2_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 6.9 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 4.4(_{-1.8}^{+2.9}) $ $ 3_{1} $ $ 4_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 8.4 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 5.2(_{-1.9}^{+3.2}) $ $ 3_{1} $ $ 2_{2} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 42.7 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 83(_{-43}^{+74}) $ $ 4_{2} $ $ 4_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 15.9 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ - $ $ 4_{2} $ $ 2_{2} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 8 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ - $ $ 4_{2} $ $ 2_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0.05 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 0.4(_{-0.06}^{+0.08}) $ $ 0_{2} $ $ 2_{1} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2.9 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 10.4(2.0)[14(6)] $ $ 0_{2} $ $ 2_{2} $ $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 6.2 $ $ \ \ \ \ \ 14(4) $ Figure 3 shows the
$S U(3)$ decomposition of the wave functions for the collective states of the ground, γ, and β bands in$ ^{106} $ Cd for different angular momentum values. As shown in the figure, we observe huge mixing and thus broken$S U(3)$ symmetry. In addition, we obtain certain K-admixtures for the states of the ground and γ bands, produced by the$ X^{a}_{4} $ term. It is a common practice to label the different excited rotational bands by the quantum number$ K \; \; - $ the projection of the total angular momentum on the intrinsic symmetry axis. In the present scheme we use the orthonormal Vergados basis [88], labeled here by q, obtained by Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of the Elliott states [89]. Practically, to a given K band in the Elliott basis corresponds a$ q\simeq K $ band in the Vergados basis up to small K-admixtures due to the Elliott-Vergados transformation, which are negligible for comparatively large-dimensional$S U(3)$ irreducible representations or/and small angular momenta (the case of the experimentally observed β and γ bands). Despite the K-admixtures seen in Fig. 3 that the observed bands of collective states can still be characterized by the predominant$ q \simeq K $ character of the corresponding band, which is only slightly perturbed by the$ X^{a}_{4} $ operator. It is evident from Fig. 3, the reduction of the ground-state quadrupole collectivity at$ L = 8 $ is due to the change of the structure. The$ L = 8 $ state is obtained in the present calculations with a pure oblate shape, determined by the single$S U(3)$ multiplet$ (0,12) $ .Figure 3. (color online)
$S U(3)$ decomposition of the wave functions for the states of the ground, γ and β bands in$ ^{106} $ Cd for different angular momentum values. Used quantum numbers are$ (\lambda,\mu)q $ .Further, considering the correspondence
$ (\lambda,\mu) \leftrightarrow (\beta,\gamma) $ [76, 90, 91] between the$S U(3)$ quantum numbers and deformation parameters of the BM model, it is clear that the mixing of different$S U(3)$ multiplets$ (\lambda,\mu) $ corresponds to the mixing of different shapes, characterized by distinct$ (\beta,\gamma) $ values. Thus, within the framework of the PNSM, one naturally obtains the low-energy shape-vibrations$ - $ in contrast to the$ S p(6,R) $ model, which only exhibits high-energy shape-vibrational degrees of freedom within its irreducible collective spaces that are associated with the giant resonance degrees of freedom. We stress that the low-energy vibrations obtained within the present proton-neutron symplectic based shell-model approach are vibrations about a deformed shape that simultaneously performs rigid-flow rotation, contrasting the traditional picture of vibrations about spherical nuclear shape in the HV limit of the original BM model. The obtained results are consistent with the picture of quantum rotor, which can not be truly rigid (with non-square-integrable delta wave functions) and should admit quantal shape fluctuations. The mixing of different$S U(3)$ irreps thus soften the rigidity of the quantum rotor. If the mixing is adiabatic (i.e. highly coherent), this type of rotational motion is sometimes referred to as a "soft-$S U(3)$ rotor" [76]. In this case, despite the larger but highly coherent$S U(3)$ mixing, the quadrupole dynamics preserves its rotor model character, although in a soft-$S U(3)$ -rotor model sense in which the complete dynamics can be characterized by an average, quasi-dynamical,$S U(3)$ irrep. As shown in Fig. 3, we observe that the$S U(3)$ decomposition amplitudes are spin-dependent, i.e.$S U(3)$ is not a good quasi-dynamical symmetry [86, 92]. The latter implies that there is no adiabatic decoupling of the rotational and low-energy vibrational degrees of freedom within the PNSM for$ ^{106} $ Cd, a situation expected for transitional and weakly deformed nuclei.Additionally, considering the correspondence
$ (\lambda,\mu) \leftrightarrow (\beta,\gamma) $ [76, 90, 91], it is seen from Fig. 3 that the$S U(3)$ multiplets that maximally contribute to the structure of ground (except$ L=8 $ state) and γ bands are those with large values of the triaxial γ deformation. Using the following expression for the γ deformation parameter [76]:$ \rm{tan}\gamma=\sqrt{3}\frac{\mu}{2\lambda+\mu}, $
it can be verified that the γ deformation increases gradually from
$ \gamma = 0^{0} $ for the$S U(3)$ multiplet$ (12,0) $ (a prolate shape) to the maximal triaxiality value$ \gamma = 30^{0} $ for$ (6,6) $ and then increases further to$ \gamma = 60^{0} $ for$ (0,12) $ (an oblate shape), i.e. we obtain a dynamical γ-unstable behavior consistent with the original WJ [33] model. Thus, the results reported in the present study suggest a differen interpretation of the nature of low-energy quadrupole collectivity observed experimentally in the weakly deformed atomic nuclei. It resembles the adiabatic limit of the original BM model (see, e.g., Sec 2.4 of Ref. [33]) with$ (\beta,\gamma) $ vibrations of the deformed nuclear shape, although, in contrast to the latter, the rotational and low-energy shape vibrational degrees of freedom are strongly coupled (broken adiabatic approximation). Additionally, the rotational motion within the present approach corresponds to a rigid-flow type instead of the originally proposed BM irrotational-flow dynamics.
Proton-neutron symplectic model description of 106Cd
- Received Date: 2023-11-29
- Available Online: 2024-03-15
Abstract: In this study, a microscopic shell-model description of the low-lying collective states in the weakly deformed nucleus