I 1.

C
[ Nuclear Physics 88 (1966) 609--623; (~) North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam
I
Not to be reproduced by photoprint or microfilm without written permission from the publisher

ANALYSIS OF THE BCS GROUND STATE

FOR A CHARGE-INDEPENDENT PAIRING INTERACTION
J. FLORES t
Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
and
P. A. MELLO**
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey
Received 20 May 1966

Abstract: We analyse the nature of the approximations involved in the BCS method applied to
a system of protons and neutrons in a single j-shell, interacting through a charge-independent
pairing force, by comparing the trial BCS ground state wave function with the exact solution.

1. Introduction
f

The BCS method has been recently applied to solve approximately the problem of
a system of protons and neutrons interacting through a pairing force. In this paper,
we shall consider a charge-independent pairing force and restrict the particles to move
in a single j-shell, to analyse the nature of the approximations involved in the BCS
method. Although one does not expec( this system to be a realistic model for actual
nuclei, we have chosen it since the exact solution is known.
We shall obtain an explicit expression for the overlap between the BCS vacuum
and the exact ground state of the system; this overlap will be taken as a measure of
how good a representation of the exact ground state is provided by the BCS trial
wave function.
In sect. 2 we review some of the concepts connected with the exact solution of the
problem and we calculate the amount of neutron-proton correlation present in the
ground state. Subsect. 3.1 gives a brief account of the BCS method applied to this
problem and the explicit expression for the overlap mentioned above. We next com-
pare two different criteria for obtaining the "best" BCS trial wave function: the mini-
mization of the vacuum expectation value of the interaction and the maximization
of the overlap, fixing in subsect. 3.2 the average value of the number operator N and
the z-component T~ of the total isospin and in subsect. 3.3 the expectation value of
N and T 2.
t Work supported by the Universidad National Aut6noma de Mexico, Mexico and the Comisi6n
Nacional de Energla Nuclear, Mexico.
** Research sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Office of Aerospace Research
United States Air Force, under AFOSR Nr 42-65, by the Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de
M6xico, M6xico and the Comisi6n Nacional de Energfa Nuclear, M6xico.
609
610 J. FLORES AND P. A. MELLO

2. A System of Protons and Neutrons Interacting through a Charge-Independent Pairing

Force in a Single j-Shell. Exact Solution
We consider a system of protons and neutrons moving in a single j-shell of a com-
mon potential and denote the creation and annihilation operators for these particles
as b+~ and bm', respectively, where m is the z-projection o f j (which has been sup-
pressed in the indices of these operators, since we consider a singlej-sheU) and ~ the
z-component of the isospin, taking the values Jr and -Jr for neutrons and protons,
respectively; these operators obey the usual anticommutation relations

{bm+ ' bm,,,

+ } = {bm', b m't'} -- O,
{bin+ , b m'e } = 6 m''at.,"

One should notice that the creation operator b+, transforms as a Racah tensor of
indices j, m and Jr, T with respect to the rotation group in the physical three-dimen-
sional space and in the SUt2° isospin group, respectively; but b m" is a Racah tensor of
indices j, - m and Jr, - z with respect to these groups; this is the reason for denoting
them with contravariant indices *). On the other hand, we can introduce annihilation
operators transforming in the same way as b+~, as follows:

bin, = SmS, b -m-*,

where
Sm = ( _ _ ) j - m , St = ( _ _ ) * - r .

With this convention, a scalar product of any two of these operators can be written
in the usual tensor notation.
The particle vacuum ]0) is defined by the relation
bm~10) -- 0 Vm, ~.

The interaction Hamiltonian for the system will be taken as a charge-independent

pairing force ~ , defined as 2)
= -G ~, A ~ t A M, (2.1)
M=--I,O, 1

where G is a positive constant and

A~t = x/½f2 Sm (½½*z[1M)b,., b-m,"

+ , (2.2)

A = (A;,) + ,
with
= ½ ( 2 j + 1).

We know 2) that the interaction (2.1) is diagonal with respect to a set of states
classified by seniority v, reduced isospin t, number of particles n, total isospin T and
 BCS GROUND STATE 611

its projection M; we shall designate these states by

I(vt)~TM>, (2.3)
where • is an extra quantum number needed to complete the classification. This extra
quantum number is not necessary for v = t = 0 and v = 1, t = ½. In the language 2)
of group theory this is equivalent to saying that states (2.3) are a basis for an irre-
ducible representation of the generalized quasispin group R s and its subgroup, the
direct product U1 x SU~2~). The indices for the irreducible representation of R s are
v and t and those for U1 and SU(2~) are n and T, M, respectively. The reason is that the
pairing interaction (2.1) can be expressed in terms of the Casimir operators of Rs and
its subgroups Ut and SU~2~). Using this fact, the eigenvalues E of the operator ~ can
be evaluated straightforwardly and the following expression is obtained:
E = -½G{(t2-½v)(f2-½v+3)+ t(t+ 1 ) - T(T+ 1)-¼[n2-(4f2+6)n+4fl(~2+3)]}.
(2.4)
Besides this, the explicit expression for the eigenstates (2.3) has been recently given by
Hecht 3), as well as the transformation brackets between states classified by the chain
of groups mentioned above and the chain R 5 D .t-. ~,(,)
3 ,, ~~,(v)
~ t. 3 •

This latter set of states is classified by the following set of quantum numbers:
seniority v and reduced isospin t, corresponding to the irreducible representation of
Rs, as before; v~ and n~, seniority and number of protons, related to the eigenvalues
of the Casimir operator of R(a~) and its subgroup R(2~), and similarly, vv and nv related
to the neutrons. These states can be designated by
I(vt)v,n, vvn,), (2.5)
and it is clear that states (2.5) diagonalize the charge-dependent pairing interaction
~' = ~,,+ ~,, (2.6)
where
~ = -GA+_IA -1, ~ = - G A ~ A i,
which produces no neutron-proton correlation. States (2.3) can be written as linear
combinations of states (2.5) and the expansion coefficients are the transformation
brackets mentioned above. In particular, the explicit expression for the scalar products
((O0)nTTI(O0) v , = 0 , n , , v,=0, n~), (2.7a)
<(O0)nT(T-1)I(O0) v~=l, n , , v~=l, nv) (2.7b)
is known. These matrix elements measure the lack of correlation between protons and
neutrons for the ground state I(00)nTT) of a doubly even system and for
I(O0)nT(T- 1)> of a doubly odd system, respectively.
We have plotted the overlap in fig. 1 for the case f2 = 10. We observe an interesting
feature in this graph; for the doubly even case the overlap is almost 100 ~o for T > 0,
612 J. FLORES AND P. A. MELLO

indicating the lack of neutron-proton correlation in the ground-state of the system

with ~ as residual interaction. For the m a x i m u m isospin compatible with n, i.e.,
T = ½n, the overlap is 100 ~ in all cases. This is obvious, since this is the identical-
particle case and both wave functions are therefore identical. We can also see f r o m
fig. 1 that neutron-proton correlation is much larger for the doubly odd case than for
the doubly even case.

1.0
,\Ca0

0.5 ,'~;
/
/'
,P / "
¢ .
I

~
i
/

i.,
GG'"
if
/" "* / /

, /, ~¢/0
////
/
/

O.OI
0 I
I
I
2
I
3 4
I I
5
I
6
I
7
I
8
I
9
I
10T

Fig. 1. Plot of the squares of the overlaps (2.7a) (full curves) and (2.7b) (dashed curves) as function
of n and T, for the case D = 10.

We can now use these exact results to test the validity of the BCS approximation,
frequently used to solve these kinds of problems.

3. Comparison between the Exact and Approximate Solutions

3.1. THE BCS APPROXIMATION
In this section we shall outline some of the concepts used in the BCS method and,
since our aim will be to compare the BCS ground state wave function with the exact
solution (2.3), we shall give the explicit expression for the overlap between these two
wave functions.
Following the BCS method, we define the creation and annihilation operators for
quasi-particles, by means of a generalized Bogolyubov transformation 4)

tim+ = Z (u,,b+,,,+s,,v,,b-"'),
(3.1)
fl-- = ( ~ L ) +,

where a can take two values (1 and 2, say) that distinguish between two types of
quasi-particles. The coefficients us, and v~, are supposed to be real and they must
 BCS GROUND STATE 613

fulfill the following relations:

+ v.,v.,3 = ,

" (3.2)
Z = o,

to insure that the quasi-particle operators obey Fermi anticommutation rules. The
transformation is given in terms of eight parameters subject to these four restrictions,
and we are left with only four independent parameters.
The vacuum state 10) for the quasi-particle operators is defined by the condition
flm'[0) = 0, V m, a, (3.3)
and we shall take [0) as a trial wave function for the ground state of the system. We
can take ]0) to be of the form
10) oc I-[ flm"10>, (3.4)
ml~¢

since then eq. (3.3) is automatically satisfied.

The coefficients of the transformation (3.1) have to be chosen to obtain, among all
states of the form (3.4), the "best" representation, according to some specific cri-
terion, of the exact ground state wave function.
Several criteria can be used for this purpose. The most commonly used 4) is to
require that the BCS-vacuum expectation value of ~ , designated as Hoo, be a mini-
mum. In other words, we shall vary the coefficients in (3.1) to minimize
Boo = (01~10);
Hoo can be evaluated explicitly and is given by
no 0 ~ - 2Go((~,2 - 4o2 + 1) 2 - ~42 + f2E(~42 - (~o2 + 1) - (cG2- (~oz + 1) + 2c~2]}, (3.5)
where
c~4 = vl -~ v2~-vl~ v2 -½ , (3.6)
(~0 = Ul--4xU2~--I/I~U2-~-*

Here we shall be particularly interested in a different criterion s), namely, the over-
lap of the BCS vacuum 10) with the exact ground state (2.3) with v = t = 0 and given
n, T, M; the coefficients in the transformation (3.1) can then be varied to maximize
this overlap. Using eq. (3.4), the normalized vacuum state 10) is given by 4)
10) = I-I [~4(b+-m-½b+m-½b+-m~zb~½)+(~v(smb+-m~b+~)+~(smb+-m-½b+-½)
m>O
+ (~,,,s,,,(b +,~ _~tbm*~+ b +_,,,ib~_ct) + CGo][O), (3.7)
where
(~v ~ Ul--½1)2~'--i)1~rU2--4~'

(bOn = V 1 --½U2-,l---UI4~l)2--~, (3.8)

(~nv = Vl'~-U2~--U1½/32½ "
614 J. FLORES AND P. A. MELLO

We see that in the trial ground state (3.7), n, T a n d M are not good quantum numbers
and 10) is actually a mixture of states of the type I(O0)nTM); in other words

10) = ~ d(n TM)I(OO)nTM), (3.9)

nTm

where the summation extends over all possible values of n, T and M compatible with
f2 and (vt) = (00). (See appendix.)
We now need an explicit expression for the coefficients d(nTM) in terms of the
transformation parameters. One way to obtain this would be to expand explicitly
the product indicated in eq. (3.7) and then identify the terms in the resulting expres-
sion with the known form of the kets I(O0)nTM), given by Hecht 3). However, this
way of handling the problem would be very cumbersome and we shall follow a dif-
ferent method in which we do not make use of the explicit form of the kets I(O0)nTM)
at all.
As indicated above, [0) is defined by the condition (3.3); we can therefore assume
the form (3.9) for the vacuum state and impose that condition to obtain recurrence
relations among the coefficients d(nTM). The resulting difference equations can be
solved explicitly for d(nTM). The details of the calculation are given in the appendix
and we only give here the final expression
d(n TM) = (-)t(n-2 T)
F O!(20+I)v'v'(2T+I)!!(2T)!!(T-M)!(T+M)E(T+M-1)!! 7½
X
l_(O- ¼n -½T)!(¼n- ½T)!(20 + 1-½n + T) l!(½n+ T+ 1) ! ! T ! ( 2 T - 1)?i_]
((1~ (~ yt(~a T - M - 2ot
v C~t~-¼tn+2Y)~(n-2T)(~M ~ ~--n--v/--,v , (3.10)
~o ~4 '~', 2~o:!(T_M_2o:)!(2M + 2oO!!
which holds for M => 0; for M < 0, 5~ and 5v must be interchanged in the above
expression. We notice from the previous equation that d(nTM) is expressed in terms
of the 5 defined in eqs. (3.6) and (3.8); this is not surprising, since these 5 were al-
ready present in eq. (3.7).
A s Hoo is also given as a function of the 5 [eq. (3.5)], it is convenient to take them
as the parameters in the Bogolyubov transformation, instead of the original ones ua,
and v~. We shall now show how this can be done. There are five quantities 5 o, 5 4 ,
~ , 5v and 5,~, which are not all independent; in fact, they satisfy two identities
5,~+ 5o54,
(3.11)
( 5 . + 5 0 2 + ( 5 , - 5o) 2 = 1,
which can be used to eliminate two of them, such as 5~ and 5v, and it can be shown
directly that the three remaining 5, i.e. 5o, 54 and 5,~, are independent. To com-
plete the parametrization, we need another independent quantity, which can be cho-
sen 4) as the angle ~Owhich characterizes the two-dimensional rotation affecting the
index a in fl,,a.
+ This rotation is an element of a subgroup R2 of the unitary group in
 BCS GROUND STATE 615

two dimensions U2, whose generators are given by

We can now see why Hoo and d(nTM) do not depend on this fourth parameter @.
Using eq. (3.3) it follows that

C:'lO) = O, a = 1, 2,
tr' = 1, 2
proving that 10) is an invariant with respect to U2 and its subgroup R2, and hence it
is independent of ft.
Suppose that the ground state we want to describe is [(00)~TM ), which is character-
ized by a given number of particles ~, isospin T and its projection J~. Now, the trial
ground state 10) is a mixture of states with all possible values of n, T and M compatible
with f2 and v = t --- 0. As is usually done, we restrict the values of the parameters by
imposing the condition that one or more of the expectation values (01NI0), (01T210),
(0[T=I0) coincide with ~, T(T+ 1) and M, respectively. If we fix the three expectation
values at the same time, then not all possible sets ~, T, M are compatible with the as-
sumption of reality of the parameters in the Bogolyubov transformation. So, we choose
to fix the expectation value of only two operators; in subsect. 3.2 we follow ref. 4)
and fix (01al0) and (01T=I0) and in subsect. 3.3 we fix (01NI0) and (0IT210). Both in
subsects. 3.2 and 3.3 we calculate the minimum value for the expectation value (3.5)
of the interaction and the maximum for the overlap (3.10) between the trial ground
state and the exact solution and in each section the results of the application of these
two criteria are considered.

3.2. T H E CASE IN W H I C H (0IN[0) A N D (01T~I0)A R E FIXED

In this section we analyse the application of the BCS method to the charge-in-
dependent pairing force, when the following restrictions are considered:
(0INI0) = ~, (0IT=I0)= M. (3.12)
Eq. (3.12) can be evaluated explicitly in terms of the parameters Wo, W4 and W=,,
giving
= 2~(1 + ~ , - ~ o ~ ) ,
IMI
-- -- f2[1 - 4c~., + 4 ' ~ , ( o f , - fro) z - 2(C~o2 + ~ , )2 + ( ~ , 2 - C~o)
2 2 z 2] ~• (3.13)

Then Hoo given by eq. (3.5) can be minimized, subject to the restrictions (3.13).
This has been done in ref. 4) and the interesting feature is that the value obtained for
c~v is
c~v __ 0. (3.14)

This corresponds to a BCS ground state which is a direct product of a proton wave
function times a neutron wave function.
616 J. F L O R E S A N D P. A. M E L L O

We see from eq. (3.10) that result (3.14) eliminates from the quasi-particle ground
state 10) all terms which have odd T - M (i.e. doubly odd systems). In this case, the
overlap of ]0) with an exact ground state corresponding to a doubly odd system is
zero. In other words, minimizing the energy Hoo or maximizing the overlap d Z ( ~ t +
l ~ t ) are not equivalent criteria when dealing with doubly odd systems. Therefore,
[0) with c~,v = 0 cannot be used as a trial ground state wave function for them. A
similar feature is found in the identical-particle case, in which the BCS ground state
contains only states with an even number of particles and the odd systems are de-
scribed, in their ground state, as states with one quasi-particle excitation. Lea and
Elliott 6) have chosen a similar method to describe doubly odd nuclei, by introducing
two quasi-particle excitations (one for neutrons and one for protons) on the doubly
even BCS ground state. To describe doubly odd nuclei one could think of maximizing
the overlap instead of minimizing Hoo. This is not convenient, since then the danger-
ous graphs, in the sense of Bogolyubov, are no longer eliminated 4). On the other
hand, for the doubly even case the overlap d2(n/~M) is non-zero for c~v = 0. We
show in fig. 2, its behaviour for all possible values of ~f~ compatible with (3.12), for
the particular case t2 = 4; only curves for n < 2f2 are shown, since for n > 2f2 the
behaviour is similar; the case T -- M = ½n is not shown in the graph, since it cor-
responds to identical particles and ¢ ~ can only be equal to zero. In particular, we
see that for all values of ~, T = M-- shown, the overall maximum is obtained for
~ v = 0 and that some of the curves have vanishing derivative at this point. That
there are always curves with a stationary value at this point can be shown in general,
i.e., for any value of ~, M and f2, by differentiating eq. (3.10) subject to restrictions
(3.12). Then at least for the cases shown in fig. 2, we conclude that, for doubly-even
systems, the "best" trial ground state wave function in the sense of the minimum
energy is also the "best" one achievable by the transformation, in the sense of the
maximum overlap with the exact wave function.
3.3. THE CASE IN WHICH (0IN[0) AND (0[TZ]0) ARE FIXED
We shall now follow the alternative procedure mentioned at the end of sect. 2,
namely, we shall fix the expectation values of N and T 2, by imposing the restrictions
(0[NI0) = ~, (01T210)--- T(T+ 1), (3.15)
where ~ and T denote the total number of particles and total isospin, respectively, of
the system we want to describe.
In terms of the parameters introduced in sect. 2, we obtain
= 20(1 + oK2- cg"2), (3.16)
T ( T + 1) = f2(1 + cC2- cg2)(1 - V2 + ~02) + 122(1 + ~ 42- ~ o )22 - 4 f 2 2c~4,
2 (3.17)
from which c~4 and ~'o can be evaluated. It can be seen that only states with

T ( T + 1)__> ~ ( 1 - 4n--~) (3.18)

 BCS ~ROUND STATE 617

AI

o.15~
(4001

o (800)/
o osL-

I
0
. . . . . . . L
0.05
_ ~
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Fig. 2. Behaviour o f d2(nTT) as a function o f ff~nv, for the case g2 = 4 a n d doubly even systems.

I..~//y~/ // -'-'--."

t'(/
/

0.0 I I I I I I I I I J
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0
Fig. 3. ])lot of the same overlaps as in fig. 1, but with the shaded region indicating the exact states
which cannot be described using the BCS method.

are described by real parameters. As Hoo [eq. (3.5)] is a function o f cgo and cg4 only,
its value is fixed by (3.17) and the minimization procedure is not necessary in this
case. The value for Ho o we obtain is

Hoo = - G -- + - - + +O~-¼~2-T(T+I)+fi - (3.19)

D 2D 2D ~
which should be c o m p a r e d with the exact energy given in eq. (2.4) (with v = t = 0).
I n particular, we see that

E-Hoo _ 2D (3.20)
E n(t2+ ½)-¼n 2 - T ( T + 1) '
618 9. FLORES AND P. A. MELLO

which has the limit (2f2) -1 when f2 >> 1, the same feature as in the case of identical
particles.
We are now left with two free parameters c~v and ~. As mentioned previously,
will not be determined by any property of the BCS ground state 10) and will not con-
cern us any more. To determine c~v we maximize the overlap of the BCS ground state
with the exact solution. As in the previous section, we deal with the doubly even and
doubly odd cases separately. For doubly even nuclei we see from (3.10) that d2(fiTT)
contains c~v through c~v only and if we impose the maximal condition, we get straight-
forwardly
V~v = 0. (3.21)

This is the same conclusion as in subsect. 3.2, namely, that for doubly even systems
the closest wave function to the exact one, achievable by the BCS method, has no
neutron-proton correlation. This is not so bad an approximation as one might think
at first sight, since by the BCS method we can only describe states with high values of
T [see eq. (3.18)], which in the exact solution are precisely the ones with lowest neu-
tron-proton correlation, as can be seen in fig. 1. To illustrate this fact, we show in the
shaded region of fig. 3 the exact states which cannot be described. For the particular
case I2 = 10 shown, we see that the exact wave functions in this region have a com-
ponent of uncorrelated wave function of the order of 85 ~o.
On the other hand, for doubly odd systems, the maximization of the overlap leads
to a non-zero value for c6~v. This reflects the fact shown in fig. 3, that for doubly odd
systems the exact wave function itself has stronger neutron-proton correlation than
for doubly even systems. For the lowest T-values compatible with (3.18), the un-
correlated component is of the order of 50 ~ .
We notice that for values of f2 not much larger than 1, most cases are incompatible,
according to eq. (3.18) and then the present procedure cannot be used.

4. Conclusions
We have compared the result of applying two different criteria to determine the
values of the parameters in the Bogolyubov transformation which, in each case, lead
to the best trial wave function for the ground state.
The results of this comparison differ according to whether the system is doubly
even or doubly odd. For doubly even systems and given average values of N and ~ ,
both criteria lead to the same wave function; when we fix the average values of N and
T 2, they are complementary, in the sense that both are needed to determine the whole
set of parameters. In either case, the resulting trial wave function has no neutron-
proton correlation, which reflects the fact that the uncorrelated component in the
exact ground state is always large.
On the other hand, for doubly odd systems and the first type of restriction the two
criteria lead to different results. When we fix the expectation values of N and T 2, how-
 BCS GROUND STATE 619

ever, they are complementary in the same sense as before and the resulting trial wave
function now contains neutron-proton correlation as does the exact solution.
Despite the fact that fixing the average of N and T 2 allows a unified description of
doubly even and doubly odd systems, one would be forced in many cases to use
complex parameters in the transformation, which presents several practical difficul-
ties.

We are indebted to Professor L. CastiUejo and Dr. A. Covello for interesting com-
ments and suggestions. One of us (P.A.M.) wishes to thank Professor R. Oppen-
heimer for his kind hospitality at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Appendix
E V A L U A T I O N O F T H E C O E F F I C I E N T S d(nTM)

As we have seen in eq. (3.9), we propose for the BCS trial ground state, a linear
combination of all possible seniority zero states and, to insure that it is a vacuum for
the quasiparticles, we impose the condition

flm~10) = )-'. d(nTM)ff"~l(OO)nTM) = 0 V m, tr, (g.1)

nTM
where rims is the annihilation operator for a quasi-particle, defined in (3.1). Since the
action of rims on a seniority-zero state gives rise to states with seniority one, we shall
first of all quote some properties of these two types of states a).
(i) The index ct introduced in (2.3) to complete the classification, is unnecessary
both for seniority-zero and seniority-one states.
(ii) The value which n, T, M can take, compatible with v = 0, t = 0 are the
following:
n = 0, 2 . . . . , 4 0 ,
t½n, ½ n - 2 . . . . . {0, for n -<_ 212
T = t½(4r~- n), ½(40- n)- 2 . . . . . {o, for n >_- 20,
M= -T,...,T.

We notice that the quantity p = ½ n - T is always an even number.

(iii) For the case v = 1, t = ½, both p = ½ n - T even and odd are possible.
As we shall see, we do not need the explicit expression for the states with seniority
zero and seniority one, but only the effect of a creation operator b~+~and an annihila-
tion operator bm~on a state I(O0)nTM), in terms of states with seniority one. In other
words, we can write

b~+,[(00)nT M ) = x 1[(1½)(n + 1)(T + ½)(M + z))jm + Yl l(1½)(n + 1 ) ( r - ½)(M + "c))jm,

(A.2)
b,,,I (O0)n T M ) = x 21(1½)(n - I)(T + ½)(M + z))jm + Y21(1½)(n- 1)(T - ½)(M + x))jm,
(A.3)
620 J. FLORES AND P. A. MELLO

where the coefficients xl, yl, x2, Y2 can be written as

X l = <½TzMl(T + ½)(M + ~)> jz<(1½)(n + I)(T + ½)(M + z)lEb+ I(00)n T>] r +,, M+,,
(A.4)
Yt = ( ½ T z M I ( T - ½)(M + z)) jm((1½)(n + 1 ) ( T - ½)(M + z)l [bin+ ](00)n T ) ] r - ~, M+,,
(g.5)
x2 = <½T,MI(T +½)(M + ,)> jm<(1½)(n-1)(T +½)(M + *)l[bml(OO)nT>]r+~,M+,,
(g.6)
Y2 = <½TzMI(T- ½)(M + z)> jm<(1½)(n- 1 ) ( T - ½)(M + z)l [bml(00)n T>] r-~, M+,.
(A.7}
We have used the definition

[b~l(OO)nT>]r+,,u+, = ~ (½TZlM,I(T+½)(M+Q>b+~I(OO)nTMI>.
tlMi

The matrix elements which appear in eqs. (A.4)-(A.7) can be expressed in terms o f
fractional parentage coefficients through the following relations:

j,M,j<(v't')£(n + 1)T'M'I[b +I(vt)~nT>j]j,M,j, r,M,

= (--)"a/n+ l(j"(vt)ctTJ, j;T'J' I}ff + l(v't')a'T'J'> (A.8)

j,M,~<(v't')£(n - 1) T'M'l[bl(vt)an T>j]j,M,~, r'M"

- V (2T+ 1)(2J+ 1)
= (-)"-'(-)½+r'-r(_)J+J'-sa/n t(2--~l)(2j,+ 1)

<j"- a(v' t')cd T' J', j; ZJI }j'(vt)a ZJ>. (A.9)

Fractional parentage coefficients were taken from ref. 7). In that reference, however,.
only the squares of the coefficients we need are quoted. Thus, we establish our phase
convention at this point. We write a state with seniority 1 in the following way:

1 [b+l(00)(n_l)Tp>]rM,
l(1½)nTM>jm - ~Pl (A.10),

1
[(1½)nTM>jm = - - - [bml(00)(n + I)T~>]TM, (A.11),

where dr" 1 and dV"2 are positive quantities. This phase convention is completely ar-
bitrary; but, once we have chosen it, together with one state with seniority zero, as
[(00)000> - 10>, then all other states with seniority zero and one follow automatically,
including their phases. This phase convention then defines matrix elements in eqs.
(A.4) and (A.5) as positive numbers and those in (A.6) and (A.7) as negative num-
bers; then, using relations (A.8) and (A.9) we have
 BCS GROUND STATE 621

jm((1½)(n + I)T'M'I[b +l(00)n T>JT'M' = J n + II(j"(00)TO, j; T'jI}j "+ '(1½)T'j>I,

(A.12)
jm((1½)(n-- 1)T'M'{[ b,.I(OO)nT>]T,M,
~// 2T+l
= -~/~ ( 2 T ' + I ) ( 2 j + I ) [ ( J n - I ( 1 ½ ) T T ' J ; TOI}jn(OO)TO)[. (A.13)

Substituting these results in (A.4) to (A.7) and then in (A.2) and (A.3) we obtain
straightforwardly

b+~l(00)n TM) = V (4f2- n - 2T)(T + s~M + 1) ](1½)(n + 1)(T + ½)(M +'r))j,.

4f2(2T + 1)
 622 $. F L O R E S A N D P. A. M E L L O

d(n+2, T + I , M)u~,_½V(n+2T+6)(T-M+I)
2T+3

+ d(n+2, T + 1, M + 1)u¢~r 1 / [ ( n + 2 T + 6 ) ( T + M + 2 )
2T+3

+ d(n TM)vo~ ]/,412 - n - 2 T)(T + M + 1)

V 2T+l

+ d(n, T, M + 1)vo-~ 1/t/(40- n - 2 T ) ( T - M) = 0. (A.17)

2T+l
This set of four difference equations has to be solved for the coefficients d(nTM).
By appropriate combinations one can obtain the following set of equations, which are
simpler and more convenient:

d(nTM) = - 1//. ( 2 T + l ) ( 4 f 2 - n - 2 T + 4 ) _ ( 1 )
"(n+2T+2)(T-M)(2T- 1) ~oo
x[~,~x/W-M-ld(n-2, T-1,M+l)+CK~x/~--+-Md(n-2, T-1,M)], M ~ T,

d(nTT) _ x/~TT
1 V,,
~ d(n, T, T - l ) ,

for T = 0:

d(.00) = .1/i/2(4f2-n+6) c~, d(n-2, 1, 1), (A.18)

where cg,, c¢,, c~4' C#o and cg~v were defined in eqs. (3.6) and (3.8).
Eq. (A.18) gives an iteration procedure which can be used to calculate all the
d(nTM), once one of them is known. From eq. (3.7) we see that the coefficient of the
zero-particle term should be
d(000) = Vo~,
to insure the normalization of our state 10). So, starting from d(000), one can cal-
culate all the d(nTM) for any particular problem. Working out the iteration proce-
dure for some particular cases, some properties of the d(nTM) appear explicitly. For
instance, the d(nTM) should factorize into a function of n and T, times another func-
tion of T and M; the expression for d(nTM) is invariant under the simultaneous
interchange of n and (4Y2-n) (interchange of the number of particles by the number
of holes) and of c~o and c~4; d(nTM) thus appears to be of the form
d(n TM) = f t(n, T)f z( T, rt,¢~÷(,m-,-2r)c,e_~(.- 2 T ) ~ V

f l and f2 appear so systematically in the particular examples worked out that their
dependence in n and T and T and M respectively can be readily guessed. By sub-
 BCS GROUND STATE 623

stituting the above expression into the iteration equations (A.18), a very simple dif-
ference equation is obtained, which can be solved straightforwardly for the coefficients
g,,(T, M). Finally, the complete expression for the expansion coefficients d(nTM) is
given in (3.10). One can see that the boundary conditions in n, T, M are automatically
satisfied: d(nTM) is zero if IMI > T, T > ½n, T > ½(412-n), n > 4t2.

References
1) M. Moshinsky, Physics of many-particle systems, ed. by E. Meron (Gordon and Breach,
New York, 1965)
2) K. T. Hecht, Phys. Rev. 139 (1965) B794
3) K. T. Hecht, Nuclear Physics 63 (1965) 177
4) P. Camiz, A. Covello and M. Jean, Nuovo Cim. 36 (1965) 663
5) D. H. Kobe, Phys. Rev. 140 (1965) A825
6) J. P. Elliott and D. A. Lea, Phys. Lett. 19 (1965) 291
7) A. de-Shalit and I. Talmi, Nuclear shell theory (Academic Press, New York, 1963) chapt. 35