I

1.D.l:
I.D.2

Nuclear Physics AI82 (1972) 33-53;

Not to be reproduced

by photoprint

@ North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam

or microfilm without written permission

from the publisher

QUADRUPLING AND PAIRING IN THE SHELL MODEL

J. EICHLER t
fiir Kernforschang Berlin, Sektor Kernphysik
and
Freie Universitiit Berlin, Fachbereich Physik, Berlin- West, i&many
Kahn-~ejt~er-I~stitut

and
M. YAMAMURA
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto Uniuersity, Kyoto, Japan
Received 5 April 1971
(Revised 8 October 1971)
Abstract: A system of Z protons and N neutrons (Z+N = even) moving in non-degenerate
j-levels is treated for an isoscalar T = 1 pairing interaction and an effective four-body force.
A classification scheme is introduced in which the basis states are explicitly classified with
respect to the number of quadruples (systems of two pairs with J = 0, T = 1 coupled to
2 = 0) and the number of T = 1 pairs in each of the levels. For the particular case of two jlevels the system has been solved exactly. The two-particle transfer, the four-particle transfer
and the four-particle scattering exhibit a phase transition between a normal and a superfluid
phase. The superfluid phase is shown to consist mainly of quadruple;, not pairs, even for a
pure isoscalar pairing force. A quadrupling seniority scheme is discussed in close analogy to the
pairing seniority scheme.

1. Introduction
In light nuclei, protons and neutrons move in the same shell-model orbits. As a
consequence, it becomes necessary to consider proton-neutron pairing in addition to
proton-proton and .neutron-neutron pairing. Furthermore, a new building stone of
nuclei is excepted to become important, namely a subunit in which two protons and
two neutrons are coupled to J = 0 and T = 0. The a-like couping of four nucleons
is by no means unique. In competition with the conventional pairing it is suggestive,
however, to consider associations of two pairs with J = 0, 7 = 1 to composite
structures with J = 0, T = 0. These specific a-like systems are usually called quadruples I).

Of course, a description of light nuclei in terms of T = 1 pairing and quadrupling

cannot be quite realistic. As is known from N = Z = odd nuclei the coupling to
J = J,,,, T = 0 is about as important as the J = 0, T = 1 pairing. Correspondingly,
it is also favourable to construct four-nucleon systems from J = J,,,,,, T = 0 pairs
to form quartets ).
t An essential part of this work was performed while the author was visitor at the Research
Institute for Fundamental Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, in the autumrr 1970.
33

34

J. EICHLER

AND

M. YAMAMURA

Various authors 3- ) have discussed the connection of quartets with the observed
deformations in light nuclei. The relation to deformations is not surprising since it is
easily seen that within a j-shell the quartet coupling scheme is equivalent to minimizing the expectation value of a simple attractive Q,,Qe force (where Q, is the zero
component of the quadrupole operator) which is known to lead to deformations. The
coupling scheme, then, will not be self-consistent unless it is used in conjunction with
a quadrupole-quadrupole
or a similar interaction.
While there is no doubt that four-particle correlations are important ) it is not
immediately clear which type of coupling will be dominant. We believe that both,
quartetting and quadrupling should be important for light nuclei since the underlying
pairs (J = J,,, T = 0 and J = 0, T = 1, respectively) are both favoured by realistic
nuclear interactions.
So far, both types of correlations have only been considered separately. Quartet
systems are treated 3, 4) b y using physical arguments to justify a drastic truncation
(at the expense of the completeness) of the configuration space in which the Hamiltonian is diagonalized. In a second step, the Pauli principle is incorporated and redundancies are eliminated ). In practice, the method is limited to a very small number of quartets and pairs.
Our aim lies in a different direction. We want to use a Hamiltonian which is simple
enough to be amenable to an exact diagonalization in a basis which is complete with
respect to this Hamiltonian. The Pauli principle is taken into account rigorously, a
point which is essential for the description of typical many-body effects.
A predecessor ) to the present calculations was motivated by the desire to explain
the observed anomaly in elastic a-scattering **) in the Ca region by studying c1type correlations and the effect of blocking by excess neutrons on such correlations.
Using isopairs lo) with T = 0, J = odd (predominantly ) J,_) as basic building
stones and introducing an effective four-body interaction on physical grounds a sharp
phase transition to cl-superfluidity for a critical strength of the four-body interaction
was found and furthermore a strong sensitivity to blocking by excess neutrons.
With the final aim of treating both T = 0 and T = 1 pairing along with the corresponding four-body structures we presently confine ourselves to T = 1 pairing and
quadrupling. Starting from the physical task of finding orthogonal basis states which
are composed of a definite number of quadruples and a definite number of pairs we
succeeded to construct a complete set which we later found + to be equivalent to the
R(5) classification scheme 11-14). In our case, however, with the seniority and the
reduced isospin both equal to zero, we can avoid the complications of group theory.
As an illustration, we applied the classification scheme to a two-level model in sect.
3. Clearly, an extension to more than two levels is just a matter of angular momentum
coupling in isospace. Numerical results are discussed in sect. 4 and conclusions drawn
in sect. 5.
t The authors are indebted to D. H. E. Gross for pointing out this connection.

QUADRUPLING

AND

PAIRING

35

2. Formulation of the theory

For a detailed treatment of quadrupling and pairing it is useful to construct all
relevant states explicitly. Thus we may gain a more direct physical insight into the
structure of the states than by a mere classification in terms of a set of quantum
numbers.
2.1. BASIC OPERATORS

The elementary building blocks of all states which we are considering in the present
paper are particle pairs coupled to J = 0 and T = 1. They are defined by
PZ, = $x(-)j-+&,
m
B,+ = 3C(-)-m(ni,pit,+pi+mnif-m),
m
PI,

= Lx(-)i-mp;mp;_m,
J2 In

(2.1)

where pi, and njn are fermion operators which create protons and neutrons with
angular momentumj and projection nz. Furthermore, we introduce the isospin operators

pi-1= -

$;

njf,Pj,,

rT, = 3 C (n_Lnjm-P_LPjm),
m

(2.2)

and finally the number operator

(2.3)
These operators together with the hermitian conjugates of the pair operators (2.1)
form a closed algebra, which can be shown to be identical with the group R(5)
of rotations in a five-dimensional space 11-14). The commutation relations can be
easily worked out and are given in appendix 1.
In the framework of a T = 1 pairing theory there is only one way to construct a
four-nucleon system with T = 0 and J = 0. This object is called a quadruple 192P1)
and is defined by the creation operator

(2.4)

J. ElCHLER

36

Trivially, 0,

AND

M. YAMAMURA

obeys the simple commutation

relations

L-G, +1, Qo+] = 0,

(2.5)

which largely simplify further calculations. Other commutation relations are given
in appendix 1.
It is our aim to construct exphcitly the basis states in terms of the operators fi,
p and &z. In the following subsection we show that this problem may be reduced
to the familiar problem of constructing the spherical harmonics.
2.2. CORRESPONDENCE

TO THE SOLID HARMONICS

If, in a single&level, we want to classify arbitrary states built from pairs with J = 0
and T = 1 an arbitrary state will have the general structure.

with iz+ +n, +n_ = N and n, --PI_ = Te. Of course, the states (2.6) will not, in
general, form an orthogonal basis.
However, it is easy to construct an orthogonal basis characterized by the number
N of pairs, by the isospin T and its projection To if we observe that the vector operators r, with

7-O =

r2

2,

(2.7)

=kil(M)krkr-kF

and the angular momentum operators &., with

L, = L,,

obey exactly the same commutation relations as the operators p:, & and $. Therefore, we have a one-to-one correspondence between the following operators
rk 2 fsk+,
2, 2 $,
r-2 2 $o*.

(2.9)

QUADRUPLING

AND

37

PAIRING

Now, it is well known that the orthogonal set of eigenstates of L2and Loconstructed from the operators rk is given by the solid harmonics

Here, the first factor is due to the specific normalization of the spherical harmonics
and the second factor arises entirely from the successive application of the operators
z*. It is now a simple step to construct the basis explicitly.
2.3. CONSTRUCTION

OF THE

BASIS

STATES

Using the operator correspondence (2.9) of the last subsection and eq. (2.10) we
can immediately write down special states charac~rized by N = T,Tand To. Furthermore, by multiplying (2.10) with some power of rz and using the last eq. (2.9) we obtain t the general orthonormal set of basis states
IN, T, +lT,I)

= $NT

1/

2r=+(T+

lTOl)!

(+-~~l)-(~~,)=(Q^,f)ff~--~~O>.

Evidently, N-T must be an even number. The factor (C&)-l

malization of the quadruple operators and is given by

c NT

T!(SZ+l)!(N-T)!!(N+T+l)!!
=

(2.11)

(2T)!(T-IT&
arises from the nor-

(2.12)

(2T+l)!!(G+l+T-N)!!(&T-N)!!

where Sz = 2j-t- 1 is the degeneracy of the level. The derivation of eq. (2.12) can be
found in appendix 2.
It is important to observe that the structure of the orthonormal set IN, TTo)clearly
exhibits the content of pairing and quadrupling. The limiting cases of pure pairing
and pure quadrupling are given by T = N and T = 0,respectively. Thus, the representation (2.11) has the advantage that quadrupling appears in a very natural and
necessary way, similarly as the pairing in the conventional seniority scheme.
The basis states (2.11) are not only eigenstates of the operators fi0, p2 and .?ebut
also of the number operator for quadruples 15), Q,&. We have

8,$,lK

TT,> = QmINt T&h

(2.13)

The eigenvalue
QNr = (~+T+l)(~-T)(~-~+T+3)(~-~-T+2),

(2.14)

may be obtained from the observation that

Q~~W+2, TT,>,
TT,) = QiG2N-2, TT,),

Q,*tK TT,> =

&IN
t

A formula related to ours has been given by Parikh 13).

(2.15)

3. EICHLER

38

with $I,,= C,,,,

appendix 3.
2.4. EXPANSION

AND

M. YAMAMURA

rJC,.,r and Q&1 = C&./C,_,,

OF GENERAL

r. Explicit

values are given in

STATES IN THE BASIS

If we want to calculate matrix elements of operators belonging to our algebra or

to expand arbitrary products of pair operators in terms of the basis states (2.11) we
may proceed in either one of two ways: (i) We may expand the states (2.6) in the basis
(2.1 I> by using the well-known expansion of arbitrary products of r+, r,, and r_ in
terms of solid harmonics and observing the correspondence (2.9) and (2.10). (ii> More
conveniently, we may use the Clebsch-Gordan series for solid harmonics

together with the identifications (2.9) and (2.10). As a particularly simple example
for the application of (2.16) we obtain

p(i)

NTL =

G+,,,

C NT

(2L--l)!!T!
(2T-l)!!L!

T
f 0

1 1;
0 ii 0

(2.18)

Similarly, we have
(-I-*~-&%

TT,> = AZ*

P;L
' '(;

:1,"+~)

IN-i,L,T,+k>, (2.19)

with
p&i

c NT
= - ___
G-,,L

(2T-I)!&!

2T+l

(I&-Q!!T!

2X+-t-1

(2.20)

The explicit form of the Goe~~ients P$$$, is given in appendix 3.

3. A two-level model
The formulation presented in sect. 2 may be used to study the competition of quadr~pl~ng and pairing in the framework of the shell model. The i~~e~a~tion appropriate
to our coupling scheme consists of an isoscalar pairing force acting between nucleon
pairs coupled to .I = 0, T = 1 and an additional effective force which partly simulates
the influence of other terms in the interaction, in particular T = 0 terms. For convenience, we consider a simple system of two levels with the degeneracies Sz, = 2j, -I-1,
Q2 = 2jz f 1 and the level distance D. The extension to more than two levels is
straightforward and only involves more cumbersome angular momentum coupling
in isospace.

QUADRUPLING
3.1. EFFECTIVE

FOUR-BODY

39

AND PAIRING

INTERACTION

If we would restrict ourselves to a T = 1 pairing force we would miss an important

effect which manifests itself in the systematics of binding energies in light nuclei. Let
us start from a nucleus with 2 = N = even and successively add T = 1 pairs in such
a way that after every second step we again have an cc-nucleus with Z = N = even.
Then, the resulting gain in binding energy clearly shows an odd-even effect in pairs.
ENERGY

SPECTRUM

OF THE

QUADRUPLING

FORCE

S-l=12
N

0
T=O
------

- 6

10

11

model value
________ shell_____-_-__-____

12
_-__

5
T:O

0
4

1
2

- 3

- 3

3
0

0
I

Fig. 1. Energy spectrum (in arbitrary units) of an attractive quadrupling force as a function of the
number N of T = 1, J = 0 pairs in a single level with the degeneracy P = 2j+ 1 = 12. Eachlevel is
labelled by the isospin quantum number T. In all cases, the level with the lowest possible isospin
T = 0 (T = 1) for even (odd) N has the lowest energy.

While the first pair (we take the average over the three isospin projections) contributes about 12 to 13.5 MeV to the total binding energy in the Ca region (between 32S
and 44Ti) the second pair completing a quadruple or cc-particle gives about 21.5
MeV. Such an odd-even effect may be accounted for by a pairing force between
pairs or effective four-body interaction in just the same way as the ordinary pairing
force accounts for the odd-even effect with respect to nucleons.
Of course, this odd-even effect is due to the T = 0 interaction which gives additional contributions to the binding energy each time when two T = 1 pairs complete
a quadruple and thus an isospin recoupling results into T = 0 pairs. The inclusion of
T = 0 pairing (isopairing), however, would break our scheme or the R(5) scheme

J. EICHLER

40

AND

M. YAMAMURA

and necessitates the introduction of the group R(6). We are forced, therefore, to simulate this force by an effective quadrupling interaction.
This force is mediated by the operator 0, Q,, which according to eq. (2.13) is
diagonal within one level and has the eigenvalue QlvTgiven by eq. (2.14). The odd-even
effect is simply a result of the selection rule that N-T has to be an even number. As a
consequence, the lowest levels for nuclei with an even number of pairs and an odd
number of pairs have T = 0 and T = 1, respectively. Thus there is a complete analogy between our scheme, the &iQe force, and the isospin quantum number T
(counting quasi-pairs) on the one hand and the seniority scheme, the ordinary
pairing force, and the seniority quantum number s (counting quasi-particles) on the
other hand.
Fig. 1 shows the energy spectrum of an attractive pure $gf& force for a single
j-level with the degeneracy D = 12 corresponding to the sd shell. The picture has a
close resemblance to the spectrum of a pure pairing force in the seniority scheme. The
odd-even effect may be seen quite clearly. Of course, it is known that also a pure isoscalar pairing force shows an odd-even effect in pairs i6). However, this effect is much
too small (if the number of pairs is larger than two) to be comparable with the observed fluctuations.
It seems, therefore, reasonable to introduce a quadrupling interaction 11r7) into
the Hamiltonian in order to simulate the effect of interactions which, in real nuclei,
produce the quadrupling effect. The strength of this force is considered as a parameter in the present paper. For more realistic calculations ) it may be taken from the
systematics of experimental binding energies.
3.2. MATRIX

ELEMENTS

OF THE HAMILTONIAN

If we adopt a T = 1 pairing force with the strength GP and a quadrupling force

with the strength Go we are able to write down the Hamiltonian of our system entirely
in terms of operators belonging to the algebra (2.4). Measuring all energies in terms
of the energy difference D between the upper level 2 and the lower level 1 and putting
the Fermi energy halfway between the shells we have
H = #e(2)-i?,(l))-+,

i
j,f=i

P,(.@&)-tGoj

J$C1a:cj,e&).

(3.1)

k=-1

This Hamiltonian is diagonalized in the complete and orthonormal basis of states

which are obtained by vector-coupling states of the structure (2.11) for each of the
levels
INI

N2

T,;

NW)

=,&

(z.

;.

j ;)

IN,

T1

T,o)IN,

r,

Go>,

N,+N2

= N.

(3.2)

The explicit form of the matrix elements is readily obtained from the formulae of

QUADRUPLING

41

AND PAIRING

subsects. 2.3 and 2.4. The diagonal matrix element is

<N, Ti N, T,; NTTePIN1

Ti Nz Tz; NTT)

= (Nz-N1)-3Gp{N,(02-N2+3)-T2(T2+1)$.N1(~~-N1+3)-T~(T~+1)}

--~GQ{QN~T,+QN~

(3.3)

Using this equation and the empirical binding energies of the relevant nuclei in the f;
shell we may immediately obtain DGp z 0.6 MeV and DG, x 0.09MeV as an estimate for the unnormalized force parameters.
The off-diagonal matrix elements are
<N; T;N;T;;NTT,(HIN,TlN,T,;NTT,>
=

-3G

L 11
=T

fl

L22
=? fl(-)

x CPIV;~ILIP~:!*L*SN,l,N1-lSN&fl
+pi&L1m
-%G~CQlv;~,Qlv:?)-1S~,1,~,-2

b,,LIST,*, L*

2 2L 2 6 N't,Nt+l

SN'z,Nz-1 ST'I,LIST'z,Lz1

SN,~,N~+~ST,T,~ST~T,~

+Q~~,Q~~~IS~11,~1+2S~,1, N~-~ST~T*~ST~T,J
(3.4)
where the coefficients PC*)and Q(*) are given in appendix 3. In the absence of a
quadrupling interaction the formulae (3.3) and (3.4) agree with the results given by
Hecht 12). By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (3.3) and (3.4) we obtain the eigenvectars in the form

INTTo,a)=

C.NT(&

7'1N2

T,)lN,

7'1 N2T2;

NW,).

(3.9

NINZTITZ

3.3. CROSS SECTIONS AND CORRELATION

FUNCTIONS

The structure of the eigenvectors and the correlations contained in them is reflected
in the behaviour of transfer cross sections. Within the framework of our model we
define a schematic two-nucleon transfer cross section (or spectroscopic factor) by
al?&)

= ( Zi

where t, = 1, 0, - 1 for two-neutron, proton-neutron,

spectively, and
&)r = I<fllCIIOlz,
with
r:k

= J&

(3.6)

and two-proton

K+(1)+ &X(2).

transfer, re-

(3.7)
(3.8)

The schematic cross section for four-nucleon transfer is given by

~7$?~= l(flF~(i>12,

(3.9)

with
(3.10)

42

J. EICHLER

AND M. YAMAMURA

The cross section may be readily calculated by using the expansion (3.5) of the eigenvectors and using the formulae (2.17) and (2.15), respectively.
It is fur~ermore of interest to calculate a matrix element which leads from the
initial channel back to the initial channel by first adding and then removing a quadruple. Neglecting shape effects which are not defined in the present model and the
energy dependence of intermediate states the square of this matrix element is proportional to the cross section for elastic quadruple scattering. Just to have a name we
denote it this way and take
t$) = I(ilY~Y~li)l,
(3.11)
as a measure for the quadrupling correlations of the target nucleus.
The correlations contained in the eigenvectors may also be expressed more directly
in terms of the expansion coefficients themselves. For a given eigenvector we may ask,
for example, how likely it is that N2 fermion pairs are in the upper level. This probability is given by
(3.12)
Furthermore,
given by

we may wish to know the distribution of the isospin in the upper level

(3.13)
xaivr(T2) =&IG&%
Tl Nz TX
2
The comparison of both quantities will be of particular interest. If, with increasing
interaction strength, the maximum of K(N2), shifts to higher Nz values and simultaneously the maximum of K(T2) shifts to higher T2 values, so that approximately
T, M IV,, we will say that the upper (and consequently also the lower) level is paired.
If, conversely, T2 has its dominant weight close to the smallest possible value even for
large N,, we will say that the levels are quadrupled off.
4. Numerical rest&s
Using the results of sect. 3 it is easy to diagonal&z the Hamiltonian on a computer
and to calculate energy eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Aside from the degeneracies
aI and Sz, of the levels, the number N of pairs, and the total isospin T, we have two
parameters, Gr and Go characterizing the strength of the pairing and quadrupling
interaction, respectively. For convenience, we introduce
x = QG,,
Y = Q2G,

(4.1)

(4.2)
where 52 = (Q, 52,)*. With this convention, the random phase approximation (RPA)
for the pure pairing case and S2, = 8, would give a phase transition ** 1) for x = 1.
Using the estimates for the force parameters from subsect. 3.2, the level distance
D m 7.6 MeV between the d, and the f+ shell and the degeneracy D = 8 we obtain
the values x M 0.63 and y m 0.76.
Our task is now to study the correlations contained in the eigenvectors as a function of x and y.

QUADRUPLING
4.1. FOUR-NUCLEON

TRANSFER

AND

43

AND PAIRING
BLOCKING

BY EXCESSS

NEUTRONS

In the case of pairing correlations it is well known 18* ) that the cross section for
two-nucleon transfer is a suitable measure for the degree of pairing. The cross section
rrc2)shows a strong increase around the phase transition point x = 1. Correspondingly, we take the cross section oc4) for quadruple transfer defined in eq. (3.9) as a measure for four-nucleon correlations.
I

,lLl
QUADRUPLE
AND

THE

INFLUENCE

TRANSFER
OF

EXCESS

NEUTRONS

I50
N.ZO,T=i

R, =R*=20
Y = 0.2

100

SO

I
0.1

I
0.2

0.3

0.L

0.5

0.6

Fig. 2. The cross section ~(0 for quadruple transfer as a function of the strength y of the
quadrupling interaction for a fixed pairing force x = 0.2. The influence of blocking due to excess
neutrons is given in broken lines. T = 1 and 7= 2 correspond to 2 and 4 excess neutrons, respectively.
The degeneracy is D, = Qz = 20.

Fig. 2 shows af4) as a function of y for a symmetric model with 8, = Q, = 20,

N = 20, T = 0 and a pairing force with the strength x = 0.2 well below the pairing
phase transition. There is clearly a phase transition to quadruple superfluidity
at a critical strength of y w 0.375. The increase in the cross section is more pronounced
and sharper than in the pairing case I). This is to be expected since a quadrupling
force, by definition, lifts four particles at a time from the lower to the upper level. It
turns out that at the same force strength y also (rc2) shows a strong increase. Furthermore, the phase transition is reflected in a minimum for the excitation energy of the
first excited state. The cross section for quadruple transfer leading to the first excited
state of the final nucleus is much smaller than to the ground state for all sets of parameters considered.
It is now an interesting question how the system behaves if the upper level is
blocked in some way. In the case of pair transfer in a pure pairing model the blocking
of the upper level by a single nucleon which is not affected by the pairing force leads )
to a slight decrease of the cross section due to the decrease of the effective degen-

J. EICHLER

44

AND M. YAMAMURA

oiel)

SCATTERING
15000

6.2

ii6

Fig. 3. The cross section for elastic quadruple scattering de&ted by eq. (3.11) as a function of the
strength y of the quadrupling force is plotted for various strength parameters x of the pairing force.

ELASTIC

QUADRUPLE

SCATTERING

3000

Fig. 4. The cross section for elastic quadruple scattering defined by eq. (3.11) as a function of the
strength y of the quadrupling force. The degeneracies sd, = 12 and Sa, = 8 are chosen to correspond
to the {sd) shell and the fs shell, respectively. For two values of x the solid lines represent a closedshell system f40Ca) while the broken lines show the influence of two excess neutrons (42Ca). [It
should be noted that for the calculation of these curves the transfer operator f14+ has been taken to
be (ja,Sa,)-~(a,+(l)+~,+(2))
instead of the definition (3.10).]

QUADRUPL~G

olel!

ELASTIC

QUADRUPLE

AND PAIRING

45

SCATTERING
_--I

1
1

Fig. 5. The cross section for quadruple scattering defined by eq. (3.11) is plotted as a function of the
strength x of the pairing force in the absence of a quadrupling force. The solid line represents the
closed-shell system N =t G, = 4 = 20, T = 0 while the broken line shows the influence of four
excess neutrons (T = 2).

eracy and thus of the collectivity which the system is able to develope. On the other
hand, in the model of ref. ) the four-nucleon transfer showed an extreme sensitivity
to blocking by two inert neutrons which are neither affected by the T = 0 pairing
force nor by the four-body force.
In the present model, blocking by two (four) neutrons is equivalent to the choice
N= Q,+landT=
l(N=
8,+2andT=
2) for the target nucleus. For these cases,
the cross section c#~) is also plotted in fig. 2 as a function of y. We notice that the CIOSS
section is not smaller but slightly larger than the unblocked one below the phase
transition point.
This result is clear from the energy spectrum of the quadrupling force given in fig. 1.
The blocked transition from Nz = 1 and N, = Q2, to Nz = 1 -t-.&V, and N1 =
51, = St1-AN, is energetically more favourable than the unblocked transition from
Nz = 0 and IV1 = 52, to Nz = AN, and Nr = 52, -AN,. Thus the pair already
present in the upper level helps to pull up quadruples, This enhancement effect is even
increased somewhat if already four neutrons are present in the upper level. We have,
in fact, a complete analogy to the seniority scheme which gives an energy gap for
seniority s = 0 but no gap for s > 0.
As to the influence of blocking by excess neutrons on alpha transfer and elastic
a-scattering *, ) we would conclude from the present calculations (see figs. 2,4 and 5)
that it is not possible to make the blocking effect responsible for a destruction of CI-

46

J. EICHLER
1

AND M. YAMAMURA
I

III

ISOSPIN
PAIR
IN

THE

DISTRIEUTION

DlSTRlBUTtON

----

UPPER

LEVEL

15

IO

6. The distribution K(T2) of the isospin (solid lines) and K(N2) of the number of pairs (broken
lines) in the upper level of a closed-shell system (T = 0, N = Q1 = Qz = 20) in its ground state are
given for various strength parameters x of the pairing force and y = 0. While the isospiu T2 tends
to be small even for large values of x the number Nz of excited pairs increases strongly with increasing
X. This discrepancy shows that the pairs arrange themselves predominantly
in quadruples.
Fig.

iilti:l , , , , , , , ,

&i to.80
I

ISOSPIN
AND
IN

PAiR

THE

DiSTRlBUTlON

DlSTRIBUTION---

UPPER

LEVEL

D,=R2=N=20
110
x.0.t

Fig. 7. The distribution K(L) of the isospin (solid lines) and K(NZ) of the number of pairs (broken
lines) in the upper level of a closed-shell system (T = 0, N = ai = Q, = 20) in its ground state
are given for pairing force x = 0.4 and the two values y = 0.3 and y = 0.5 for the strength of the
quadrupling force.

QUADRUPLING

AND PAIRING

W2)
ISOSPIN

0.6
AND

PAIR
IN

THE

DISTRIBUTION

DISTRIBUTION
UPPER

LEVEL

T-4
R,R220
N-24
y.0

E
.I

Fig. 8. The distribution K(T2) of the isospin (solid lines) and K(N2) of thenumber of pairs (broken
lines) in the upper level of a system with 8 excess neutrons (T = 4). For an increasing strength
parameter x of the pairing force the average isospin in the upper level decreases while the number
of excited pairs increases. Apparently, the formation of quadruples is maximized by dist~buting the
excess neutrons equally between the levels.

correlations and thus for the disappearance in 44Ca of the anomaly in cl-scattering
observed in 40Ca and other N = 2 = even nuclei ).
4.2. QUADRUPLE

SCATTERING

The phase transition becomes more pronounced if we consider quadruple scattering

instead of quadruple transfer. Scattering has the further advantage that only the target
nucleus itself is involved. Fig. 3 shows the cross section g() for elastic quadruple
scattering as a function of y for various values of x. It is seen that for an increasing
strength x of the pairing force the strength y of the quadrupling force needed to induce the phase transition becomes smaller and smaller. The dependence of x and y
at the phase transition point may be used to construct a phase diagram in the xy plane.
Fig. 4 shows #) for 8, = 12 and f2, = 8 ~rresponding to the degeneracies of the
(sd) and f+ shell, respectively. We have the same qualitative behaviour as before except that the phase transition is less pronounced due to the decreased degeneracy.
Again we notice that an excess neutron pair in the upper level (N = 52, + 1, T = 1)
enhances the quadruple scattering similarly as it enhances the transfer.
Even in the absence of a quadrupling force (fig. 5) we observe a phase transition in
quadruple scattering. The critical value x = 1.4 is similar to the value at which the
two-nucleon transfer exhibits an increase la* )*

48

J. EICHLER AND

4.3. CORRELATION

M. YAMAMURA

FUNCTIONS

Having considered pair transfer, quadruple transfer and quadruple scattering it

may be desirable to find a more direct measure of the pairing and quadrupling correlations. Such a measure is given by the isospin distribution K(T,) and the pair
distribution K(N,) in the upper level as defined by eqs. (3.12) and (3.13).
Fig. 6 simultaneously displays the isospin distribution and pair distribution of the
upper level - reflecting also the distribution in the lower level - for y = 0 and P, =
L?, = N = 20, T = 0. Just below the phase transition, for x = 1.0, we have predominantly the excitation of no pair or one pair and, consequently, the distributions of
isospin and pairs are the same. For x = 2.0 the maximum of K(T,) is at T2 = 1 with
T, = 0, T, = 2 being about equally important. The number of excited pairs centres
around NZ = 2. If we increase the strength of the pairing force to x = 4 this is usually
considered as a clear pairing situation lg) in which the BCS theory is valid. From
fig. 6 we see, however, that the isospin distribution does not change any more while
now about 7 pairs are excited on the average.
If the four-body interaction is different from zero (see fig. 7) we obtain the same
general pattern as in fig. 6, except for an odd-even staggering of the pair distribution
which favours even numbers for NZ.
Considering our unique representation (2.11) and the subsequent discussion the
result shown in fig. 6 clearly means that even for a pure pairing force all pairs except
for one or two arrange themselves in quadruples. Thus we do not have a phase transition to ordinary pairing superfluidity but rather to quadruple superfluidity. This
property, of course, cannot be adequately tested by just considering two-nucleon
transfer.
The discrepancy between isospin distribution and pair distribution becomes even
more apparent (see fig. 8) for the extreme case of eight excess neutrons (T = 4).
For an increasing strength x of the pairing force it becomes energetically favourable
to distribute the excess neutrons equally between the levels. In this way, the quadrupling is maximized such that for x = 5.0 in each of the levels all pairs are arranged
in quadruples except for an average of two excess neutron pairs.
It is worth mentioning that the discrepancy between isospin distribution and pair
distribution continues to exist for the first excited state of the system.
Summarizing we may state that we have not been able to find any set of parameters
{a,, Q,, T, x, y} which would have produced a typical pairing solution with NZ z
T2 >

1.

5. Discussion
The results of exact calculations lend themselves to the comparison with various
approximation methods. For the case of identical nucleons, the solutions of a solvable two-level model have been compared by Broglia et al. 18) with the results of the
RPA and BCS theory. Dussel et al. ) h ave used a model like ours with an isoscalar

QUADRUPLING

AND

PAIRING

49

pairing force between nucleon pairs with T = 1. Their discussion concentrates on

isospin properties, in particular on permanent deformations and rotations in isospace ). They show that in the case of a strong pairing force, x = 4.0, a Nilsson
like treatment ) gives an excellent approximation for the energy and satisfactory
agreement for the two-particle transfer.
On the other hand, it is known ) that for an isoscalar pairing force the BCS treatment, or more generally, the Hartree-Bogoliubov treatment leads to certain ambiguities which show up most clearly in the case of N = 2 nuclei. Here, the state vector
of the ground state may be expressed in various ways, the limiting cases being (i) a
product of two identical special Bogoliubov transformations performed separately
on neutrons and protons ). (ii) A BCS state constructed from proton-neutron pairs
[ref. 23)]. Both solutions have the same coefficients u and u in the Bogoliubov transformation 21) and h ave identical energies. However, the structure of the state vectors
(i) and (ii) is entirely different. The degeneracy of the solutions is, of course, a consequence of the charge independence of the Hamiltonian.
Our results presented in sect. 4 give a more explicit insight into the problem. We
have found, that even in the absence of a quadrupling force the ground state vector
of a system with N = Z = even consists predominantly of quadruples for a strong
isoscalar pairing interaction. In practice, there is never more than one quadruple in
one level broken up into pairs. The formation of quadruples in a system of protons
and neutrons subject to an isoscalar pairing force thus seems to play the same role as
pairing for a system of identical nucleons. In analogy, we may introduce the notion
of a quadrupling seniority w as the number of quasi-pairs which are not condensed
into quadruples. Energetically, states with lowest quadrupling seniority which can be
reconciled with the given isospin are preferred.
The condensation into quadruples is certainly a consequence of the isospin being
a good quantum number. Suppose we wanted to construct a T = 0 state which is
paired. Pairing would mean that each of the levels (e.g. in a two-level model) had a
large isospin Tiz Ni >>1. The coupling to a total T = 0 is achieved by constructing
a complicated linear combination whose extreme components would contain all protons in the upper level and all neutrons in the lower level and vice versa. It must be
conceded that such a coupling appears to be rather artificial and cannot be expected
to have a low energy. Conversely, a state which is essentially built from quadruples,
in each of the levels, minimizes the isospin coupling and hence appears to be more
natural. It is seen that the requirement of good isospin is indeed a very strong constraint.
Coming back to our discussion of the pairing approach we arrive at the conclusion
that for a system composed of protons and neutrons the pairing theory is not completely adequate. (a) The ambiguity 22*23) discussed above just arises from the various
ways in which pairs may be projected out from quadruples. (b) In a generalized pairing theory 24) for N = Z doubly even nuclei in which T = 0 and T = 1 pairing is
treated simultaneously, the mean feature of the solution is the mutual exclusion of

J. EICHLER

50

AND

M. YAMAMURA

T = 0 and T = 1 pairing. The T = 1 pairing solution gives an isospin intrinsic state

from which one has to project the various T-states. Since it is unlikely that states separated by NN9 MeV could be contained in the same intrinsic state ) the T = 1
pairing solution is disregarded and the T = 0 solutions are accepted as the physical
solutions ). Evidently, such a reasoning ) is based on the shortcomings of the
theory (namely isospin violation). It does not mean that T = 1 pairing is unimportant
altogether but only shows that BCS type pairing theories have to be considered with
some caution.
Since the pairing scheme is not entirely satisfactory it is the next task to take into
account the quadrupling structure from the outset. Attempts in this direction have
been made by various authors Zs26n). Th e p resent investigation will give a more
clear-cut starting point and a testing ground for approximate methods.
An interesting application of our method to treat quadrupling in light nuclei will
be a discussion of the nuclear Josephson effect 27) for quadruples instead of pairs.
In a sub-Coulomb collision between light nuclei one might hope to observe an enhancement of the a-transfer cross section due to quadruple correlations ).
One of the authors (J.E.) wishes to express his gratitude to Prof. H. Yukawa, Prof.
Z. Maki and Prof. R. Tamagaki for the warm hospitality extended to him during his

stay at the Research Institute for Fundamental Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto.
He also would like to thank Dr. D. H. E. Gross for fruitful discussions and helpful
comments. Thanks are due to Mrs. A. Valentien for her help in computer programming.
The financial support of the German Academic Exchange Service, DAAD, is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix 1
COMMUTATION

RELATIONS

For convenience, we give a list of the commutation relations of the operators

defined in subsect. 2.1. Using the definition Sz = 2j+ 1 we have

(Al.l)
For the isospin operators we have the usual relations

(A1.2)

QUADRUPLING

51

AND PAIRING

The mixed commutation relations are

CT*, , Gl
[cd%!
CL
m,
@*I,

= 0,
= *i%,

&I

= HT,

Cl1

= 2%

Kl]

= WI?

[Co, JTI

= 0,

[&,

= 2P5,+.

P,]

(A1.3)

Finally the following relations involving the quadruple operator 00 are useful:
[pfl,

@] = -21i:@+l-&)+4&

[b;,, &]

= 2&$2+1--&J-4&

&P,T4~,+~~,,
f+f,,+4p:

T-I.

(A1.4)

Appendix 2
CALCULATION

OF THE NORMALIZATION

COEFFICIENTS

C,,

Using the product rule for commutators and the relations (A1.4) we obtain
P,($,)+(N-T)IO) = (N- T)(B+3+

T-N)~,+(&,+)"N-T-2)~0),

(A2.1)

= (N-T)(S2+3+T-N)(S2+4+2T-2N)(&,+)*N-T-210)

E@,)+-~o)

+(N-T)(N-T-2)(8+3+T-N)(S2+5+T-N)(~,+)Z(&,+)~N-T-4)lO).

(A2.2)

Similar expressions hold, if we replace PO by P+ 1. Combining both and using the

definition (2.4) of &l we get
Qlo(Qo)*N-Tlo)
= (N-T)(N+1-T)(i2+2-T-N)(B+3+T-N)(~,+)+N-T-2)10).

(A2.3)

From this we get the result of Q0 acting on the general state

&,(~=,)T($,>f(N-T)IO)
= (N-T)(N+T+1)(S2+3+T-N)(S2+2-T-N)(B:,)T(~,+)3N-T-2)l0).
From eq. (A2.4) we may directly calculate the normalization

(A2.4)

coefficient

C;, = (Ol(&,)fN-T)(~f l)T(p; l)T(~o+)(N-T)jO>

= (0~($,)*-~-~~(f3*~)~Q~(~f~)~(~O+)~~~-~~~O>
= (N-T)(N+T+1)(52+3+T-N&2+2-T-N)C;_,,..

(A2.5)

J. EICHLER AND M. YAMAM~RA

52

Working on with this recursion formula down to N = T we get

(Nf T+l)!!(Q+

C& = (N-T)!!

l)!!(B-2T)!!

_ C2

(2T+1)!!(8+1+T-N)!!(&T-N)!!

==

(A2.6)

The remaining expression has no Ionger quadrupie operators. Then

CL = Gw*

l)V::

I)%>>

(A2.7)

is readity cabdated via another recursion farmuh to give

c;,

T!i2!!

(&2T)!!

(A2.8)

Inserting C& into the expression for C& yields the result (2.12)

EXPLICIT FORMWLAE FOR EXPANSION

COEFFICIENTS

The coefficients QN1^

() defined in eq. (2.15) are given by
QrT)

Q-
n_N,T

Q&-j= QcN

((N+T+3)(N-T+2)(52--N+T+l)(&-N-T))*,

= ((N+T+l)(N-~)~~-Nf-T+3)(9-N-T+2))f~.

(A34

f&a)d efined in eqs. (2.18) and (2.20) have the explicit form t
The coe%cients PNTL
pf+)

NT,T+l

-Pg-&-

-f Tfl =
l

P$&I - 1 = -P sY?vTT
-,.-

P& I - 1 = - PpN,
t The coefficients are
ref. 12).

I=

T, T_ 1 =

(T+l)(N+T+3)(~-N-T)

t
-

2T+3
T(N-T+2)(56-N4Tfl)
i

2T--l

T(m-Tfl)@-N-Tf2)
2T-1

(A3.2)

proportional to the R(5) Wigner coefficients given in table 3 of the second

3) V. G. Soloviev, Nucl. Phys. 18 (1960) 161

2) B. H. Flowers, Proc. Rutherford Jubilee Int. Conf. Manchester, 1961 (Academic Press, New
York) p. 207
3) M. Danos and V. Gillet, Phys. Rev. 16X (1967) 1034
4) A. Arima and V. Gillet, Ann. of Phys. 66 (1971) 117

QUADRUPLING

AND PAIRING

53

5) J. A. Shah and M. Danos, Phys. Rev. 183 (1969) 899

6) J. Eichler, Proc. Int. Conf. on nucl. react. induced by heavy ions (North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1970) p. 347
7) J. Eichler and D. H. E. Gross, unpublished report, 1970
8) J. Gaul, H. Ltidecke, R. Santo, H. Schmeing and R. Stock, Nucl. Phys. Al37 (1969) 177
9) A. Bobroska, A. Budzanowski, K. Grotowski, L. Jarczyk, S. Micek, H. Niewodniczanski,
A. Strzalkowski and Z. Wrobel, Nucl. Phys. Al26 (1969) 369
10) P. Camiz, Nuovo Cim. 50B (1967) 401
11) K. Helmers, Nucl. Phys. 23 (1961) 594
12) K. T. Hecht, Nucl. Phys. 63 (1965) 177; Phys. Rev. 139 (1965) B794; Nucl. Phys. A102 (1967) 11
13) J. C. Par&h, Nucl. Phys. 63 (1965) 214
14) M. Ichimura, Progr. Theor. Phys. 33 (1965) 215;
J. N. Ginocchio, Nucl. Phys. 74 (1964) 321
15) B. H. Flowers and S. Szpikowski, Proc. Phys. Sot. 84 (1964) 193; 86 (1965) 672
16) H. R. Kissener and L. Mtinchow, Phys. Lett. 19 (1966) 665; 2SB (1967) 493
17) P. Camiz, A. DAndrea, E. Olivieri and M. Scalia, Nuov. Cim. 2A (1971) 393
18) R. A. Broglia, C. Riedel and B. Sorensen, Nucl. Phys. A107 (1968) 1
19) G. G. Dussel, A. Maqueda and R. P. J. Perazzo, Nucl. Phys. Al53 (1970) 469
20) B. Bayman, D. R. Bbs and R. A. Broglia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 1299
21) M. Jean, Proc. Int. School of theor. nuclear phys., Predeal, Romania, 1969, p. 309
22) P. Camiz. A. Covello and J. Jean, Nuovo Cim. 35 (1965) 663; 42B (1966) 199
23) B. Banerjee and J. C. Parikh, Phys. Rev. 138 (1965) B303
24) J. Bar-Touv, A. Goswami, A. L. Goodman and G. L. Struble, Phys. Rev. 178 (1969) 1670
25) B. H. Flowers and M. Vujicic, Nucl. Phys. 49 (1963) 586
26) T. Marumori and K. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. A106 (1968) 610
27) K. Dietrich, Phys. Lett. 32B (1970) 428
28) J. Eichler, Phys. Lett. 37B (1971) 250