A Viable Alternative For Shell Model For Spherical Nuclei

ANNALS OF PHYSIC 133, 154-213 (1981)
Generalized Broken Pair Approximation:

A Viable Alternative to the Shell Model for Spherical Nuclei
Y. K. GAMBHIR,**+ S. HAQ, AND J. K. SURI
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay 400 076, India

Received September 4, 1980; revised November 14, 1980
The broken pair approximation (BPA) and its generalized version, developed as a useful
approximation to the shell model and an improvement over the number projected quasi-
particle method, can be applied in practice to most of the spherical nuclei. The BPA con-
figuration space includes for an even number of identical valence nucleons all the seniority
(r) two components while it contains all configurations with Y < 4 except Y = 4 proton
components and Y = 4 neutron components for the nonidentical (even-even) valence
nucleons. Various expressions for the physical quantities like the matrix elements of the
Hamiltonian, transition rates, etc., are expressed in a simple and coherent form involving
the overlaps between the BPA states which are ideal for numerical computation. The
validity of BPA has been demonstrated for identical (IV = 50 even A nuclei) as well as for
nonidentical (even Zr-isotopes) systems through an excellent agreement obtained between
the BPA results and the corresponding shell model results. The BPA calculations have also
been carried out for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes using phenomenological as well as
realistic (Sussex) interaction matrix elements. The results reproduce well both the observed
energy systematics and the electromagnetic transition rates. The effects of the truncation
of the valence space have been examined in detail. The success of the present analysis
paves the way for the application of the BPA to many more cases.
1. INTRODUCTION
The well-known dimensionality problem of the Hamiltonian matrices in the shell

model necessitates the need to develop approximate methods which should be tractable
and at the same time should retain all the basics of the shell model. Apparently,
the development of the approximate methods has to be guided by the systematics
revealed through the analysis of the available exact shell model (ESM) results and
the phenomenology of the observed data. The analysis of the calculated shell model
wave functions for the low-lying nuclear states reveals that all the basis states of the
configuration space are never really important. It turns out that either only a few
specific configurations or a particular linear combination of a class of configurations
comprises almost the whole (390 ‘4) of a wave function. The basic step in the
*Present address: Physics Department, Technical University, Munich, 8046 Garching, West
Germany.
+ Partially supported by the BMFT (Bundesministerium fur Forschung und Technologie).
154
OOO34916/81/050154-60$05.00/0
Copyright 0 1981 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
GENERALIZED BROKEN PAIR APPROXIMATION 155
nuclear structure studies, therefore, is to search and identify the important configu-
rations and then to develop a mathematical framework for calculating the observed
nuclear properties in terms of these configurations only. Obviously, this search and
hence the basis for the approximate methods has to be guided by the observed
systematics of the nuclear properties and, therefore, may depend upon the charac-
teristics of the effective interaction. To elaborate this point further, consider a
specific example: all even-even nuclei are known to have ground state spin zero,
implying thereby that the addition of two or more (even) number of neutrons
and/or protons does not change the ground state spin angular momentum. In other
words, each pair of additional neutrons (protons) prefers to couple to a total angular
momentum (J) zero. This in fact has been mainly attributed to the well-known
strong pairing nature of the two body effective interaction. Therefore, the state
containing maximum number of pairs (a pair is defined as a system of two identical
particles coupled to total angular momentum zero) is energetically favoured and
hence corresponds to the ground (minimum energy) state. The subsequent low-
lying excited states are then expected to have not more than a few unpaired
neutrons and/or protons. This forms the basis for the well-known seniority
truncation scheme [l]; seniority (v) being defined as the number of unpaired nucleons
after all the pairs have been removed.
In this truncation scheme one usually retains only the configurations with v
0, 2, 4 for even--even and with v = 1, 3, 5 for even-odd (odd-even) nuclei. This is
expected to be a good approximation for the description of the low-lying nuclear
states specially for the cases where the two-body effective interaction contains a
dominating pairing part. Unfortunately, the seniority shall model (SSM) also suffers
from the same limitation (i.e., dimensionality problem) as encountered in the ESM.
One finds that the dimensions of the energy matrices run into hundreds or even
thousands for most of the practical cases. Therefore, the SSM calculations are again
limited only to restricted cases. Thus, one needs to look for some other tractable
approximate methods.
One of the most promising methods has been the quasi-particle (qp) method [2-51
which in its lowest approximation, neatly takes into account the strong pairing part
of the effective interaction through the BCS or the qp transformation. This leads to a
simple independent quasiparticle picture with respect to a new (qp) vacuum. The new
vacuum (BCS state) can be regarded as an approximate ground state of the system.
In the next approximation, the quasiparticle residual interaction is taken into account
and the energy matrices are diagonalized in the space containing zero, two and four qp
for ever-even, and one and three qp for even-odd (odd-even) nuclei. These qp cal-
culations, also known as quasiparticle Tamm-Dancoff approximation (QTDA), have
been extensively carried out [6-171 in the past to describe the low-lying nuclear
states of various spherical nuclei. In these calculations, the maximum dimensionality
of the Hamiltonian matrices that can occur ocrresponds to the four nucleon shell
model problem. Further, this dimensionality remains the same for all nuclei in a
given nuclear region irrespective of any specific nucleus (number of valence particles)
under consideration. This great reduction in the dimensions stems entirely from the qp
595/133/I-11
156 GAMBHIR, HAQ, AND SURI
transformation and, therefore, is solely due to the particular structure of the BCS
state or the new vacuum.
The most undesirable feature of the qp model, which has been realized in quite
early stages, is the nonconservation of nucleon number, i.e., the qp basis and therefore
the QTDA wave functions are not the exact eigenstates of the nucleon number
operator but contain a part with different nucleon numbers. As a result, QTDA does
not describe the nuclear properties of a specific nucleus, rather it describes some sort
of average properties of the neighbouring nuclei. In addition, this number non-
conservation introduces spurious states which have to be removed or projected out
before diagonalizing the energy matrices. To rectify this unpleasant feature and at
the same time to retain all the basic advantages of the qp model, the use of the number
projected qp basis has been proposed [I, 18-201. This suggestion has been based on
the observation that the number projected BCS (PBCS) state when renormalized
has 299 % overlap with the ESM ground state. Few calculations based on the number
projected 2-qp basis (PQTDA) have been reported [18-201. Though this erases the
theoretical conflict arising due to number nonconservation, the simple interpretation
of the qp method in terms of quasiparticle excitations is lost. Such number conserving
quasiparticle calculations are quite involved in practice and, further, have no cor-
respondence with the ESM or SSM.
An alternate approach known by the name of broken pair approximation (BPA)
has been proposed [21, 221 which has all the advantages and none of the drawbacks
of the quasiparticle theory and at the same time it is suitable for practical calculations.
The BPA is an improvement over QTDA and it has, at every step, a close corres-
pondence with the SSM. In fact, it turns out that the BPA is equivalent to the PQTDA
under the limit in which the exact ground state parameters are replaced by the appro-
ximate BCS (qp model) parameters.
So far the BPA has been limited to the cases involving only identical nucleons in
the valence shells and has been applied with remarkable success to Ni- and Sn-
isotopes [21, 221. Therefore, it is worthwhile to generalize the BPA to embrace the
cases where both neutrons and protons are present in the valence shells. The develop-
ment and application of this generalized version referred to as the “generalized
broken pair approximation” or simply GBPA is discussed in detail in the present
paper. Here we have considered only even-even nuclei. However, the extension to
odd-even (even-odd) nuclei is straightforward. The general expressions for the matrix
elements (m.e.) of the Hamiltonian, transition rates, static moments, and spectro-
scopic amplitudes for one and two nucleon transfer reactions are derived. These are
presented in a coherent form involving overlaps between the BPA basis states which
are ideally suited for numerical computation.
As a first step, the validity of BPA/GBPA has been demonstrated [23-251 in the
Zr-region through an excellent agreement observed between the BPA/GBPA results
and the corresponding ESM results [26, 271 using the identical phenomenological
input information. The BPA/GBPA is then applied to the description of the properties
of the low-lying nuclear states of even isotopes of Zr, MO, Ru and Pd. In these
calculations YSr has been assumed to form an inert core and a appropriately
GENERALIZED BROKEN PAIR APPROXJMATJON 157
renormalized realistic sets of Sussex interaction m.e. suitable to the two model
spaces (full and truncated) are used. The m.e. corresponding to the full space (viz..
$112 , k,,, , 24x 7 3su,, Wm 9 lg,,, and I/z,,,, single particle (sp) states for protons
and 2dsiz , 3sl12 , WI2 , k7/2 and lh~- o sp states for neutrons) include [28] in the
second order perturbation theory the core polarization effects with 3p-111 intermediate
states. The m.e. corresponding to the truncated model space (viz., 2p,,, . igg,:! sp
states for protons and/or 2dsl, , 3s,,, sp states for neutrons) are obtained by the pro-
jection method [29] (discussed briefly in Appendix E) to include the effects of the
truncation of the valence space. The agreement of the BPA!GBPA results, using
different sets of two body m.e., with the experiment is impressive. Slight departures do
exist for the nuclei having six valence neutrons and these may be attributed partially
to the 2djiz shell closure effects and partially to the higher senjority (V 2 4) configu-
rations and collective excitations not included in the present formalism.
Thus, with the addition of more valence nucleons (neutrons and/or protons) the
collective effects start becoming more and more important even for the low-lying
nuclear states. Therefore, the GBPA configuration space should now include much
higher seniorities. Such GBPA calculations obviously are just not feasible again due
to the prohibitively large dimensions of the configuration space. This clearly points
towards the limitations of the present GBPA formalism-in particular the present
formalism is not adequate for the cases where the collective excitations are quite
important even for the Tow-lying nucIear states. On the other hand, some of these
nuclei could be described in terms of weakly coupled collective excitations (Phonons
or Bosons), where the collective excitations are generated in the framework of BPA.
Alternatively, one may employ Boson Expansion methods, but these then require the
identification of the Bosons in terms of the BPA excitations. This problem and the
microscopic identification of S and D Bosons of the Interacting Boson Model (IBM).
are under investigation.
In Section 2, we briefly sketch the basic steps involved in the derivation of
BPA/GBPA formalism. The explicit expressions for the various physical quantities
are given in the Appendixes A-D. The details of the BPA calculations, results and
discussion for N =: 50 even A nuclei are presented in Section 3. Section 4 covers the
GBPA calculations, results and discussions for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes.
2. FORMALJSM
2. I. Basis States
For the sake of clarity, we first consider the case of identical valence nucleons. In
the ESM, the ground state for a system of two identical particles is a linear combina-
tion of pair operators in which the expansion coefficients are obtained by the diago-
nalization of the Hamiltonian matrix for J = 0. Let such a state be created by the
application on the particle vacuum, of an operator
f+ = C Y,$4&a), .L
a
where
and
the square bracket being the Clebsch-Gordon coefficient. Here the Greek letters
represent all the quantum numbers required to specify the single particle (sp) shell
model states while Roman letters denote the same quantum numbers except the
angular momentum projection. The BPA assumes as a first approximation that the
ground state for 2p identical nucleons is built up by the repeated application (p-times)
of the operator #+ on the particle vacuum, i.e.,
(2.3)
in which the ground state parameters or expansion coefficients (Y,) are determined
by minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the state (2.3). In practice
it is more convenient to use, instead of the coefficients Y and the operator #+ , the
quantities u(u) defined by Y, = u,/u, , ua2 + ua2 = 1; and the operator
with 52, = j, + 4.
The approximate ground state ( +& can then be represented as
I+,> = T,+lw (2.5)
The ground state parameters U(V) are to be determined by minimizing the Hamil-
tonian H, i.e., through
%<A I H I 4,XCo I 4,)) = 0. (2.6)
The structure of the approximate BPA ground state (Eq. (2.3) or Eq. (2.5)) is exactly
the same as that of the 2p-particle component of the BCS stae.The only difference is
that in the BPA the ground state parameters (U(U)) are determined by minimizing H
after the number projection rather than before. The justification of this approximate
ground state follows from the observed [l, 301 large (>99 %) overlap ‘between the
renormalised number projected BCS state and the ESM ground state. Guided by the
strong pairing nature of the two-body effective interaction and the basis for the
seniority truncation, the state vectors together with (2.5), defining the next appro-
ximation, are constructed by replacing one of the p distributed pair operators $ in

(2.4) by an arbitrary two particle creation operator A+. These states are
(2.7)
For / f 0, the states (2.7) are particular seniority two (V = 2) states in which ( p - 1)
zero coupled pairs are still dressed by our assumption of the approximate ground
state. For J = 0, these states (I +(rrOO)>) are v = 0 states; these are not orthogonal
and furthermore the approximate ground state I 4,) is just a linear combination of
these states. Therefore, an orthonormal basis set must be constructed from the states
(2.7) for setting up the Hamiltonian matrices. This requires the knowledge of the
overlaps between the states (2.7). The general expression for the overlaps is given by
Eq. (A7) of Appendix A. It is to be remarked that for the case of two (identical)
valence particles, the states (2.7) exactly coincide with the exact shell model basis.
Further, the dimensionality of the Hamiltonian matrices resulting with the basis
(2.7) remains the same as that of two particle ESM problem, irrespective of the
number of valence particles considered. It can be shown that the space spanned by
the states (2.7) is identical to that spanned by the number projected zero and two
quasi-particle states. Thus in this sense the BPA is an improvement over the projected
quasi-particle method and is an approximation to the seniority shell model.
For the successive approximations (corresponding to the number of broken pairs)
the states are constructed by replacing more $+ operators by an equal number of A
popetators. It is to be pointed out that by replacing all f+ operators with an equal
number of A ;- operators, the ESM Hilbert space is obtained. Let general BPA states
for 2p identical particles is denoted by
where b is the number of broken pairs and XT+,(d, K) is a vector coupled product of
2b creation operators for particles in the levels indicated on the whole by d: K being
the set of intermediate angular momenta. The states
will be called few particle states. The BPA states for different values of d and K are,
in general, not orthogonal even if the corresponding few particle states are. Therefore,
as stated earlier, an orthonormal basis set must be constructed for setting up the
Hamiltonian matrices. This procedure requires the knowledge of the scalar products
(overlaps) of the BPA states. We shall see later that the expressions for the matrix
elements of the Hamiltonian, transition rates, static moments, spectroscopic ampli-
tudes for one and two nucleon transfer reactions, etc., can be expressed in terms of the
scalar products between the BPA states. Therefore, the knowledge of these scalar
products (overlaps) is sufficient for carrying out the explicit calculations. The proce-
dure for evaluating these scalar products is given in Appendix A.
For a system of nonidentical valence particles having p pairs of protons and n
160 GAMBHIR, HAQ, AND SURI,
pairs of neutrons, the approximate GBPA ground state is written as a product of p

paired proton state rp+81 0) and n paired neutron state r,,+ 1 O), i.e.,
I40) = IT,’ 0 ~,+llo>, (2.10)

where T~‘~(T,+) are defined through (2.4). To distinguish between protons and neutrons
wherever necessary the symbols p1 , pz , p3 ,... were used to represent the sp states
for protons and n, , n2, n3 ,... to represent the sp states for neutrons with the quantum
numbers n, I, j. The approximate ground state (2.10) is valid especially for the cases
where the protons and the neutrons fill different major shells. However, in the
case when both occupy the same valence sp orbitals, the GBPA assumes that no
strong pairing correlations exist between nonidentical nucleons (i.e., between protons
and neutrons) in the approximate ground state (2.10). The ground state parameters
or expansion coefficients are determined by minimizing the expectation value of the
Hamiltonian as in the identical nucleon case, i.e., separately for protons and for
neutrons.
Next the GBPA basis states for a neutron-proton (n-p) system are constructed by
by coupling the states obtained by replacing one of the proton distributed pair
operator #+” by an arbitrary two proton configurations A:DM,(p1p2) and a similar
replacement for neutrons. Explicitly these basis states are written as
(2.11)
For seniority (v) zero the ground state (2.10) is the linear combination of these states
(2.11). Moreover, for J, = 0 (or J, = 0 or both) the states (2.11) are not orthogonal.
Therefore, an orthonormal set of states is to be constructed before setting up the
Hamiltonian matrices. It is sufficient to work with the states (2.11) for the construction
of the orthogonal set of states. For J, f 0 and J, # 0, the states (2.11) are orthogonal
among themselves. It is clear from (2.11) that these basis states contain all the low
seniority (V = 0,2,4) components of the shell model wave functions except u = 4
proton components and v = 4 neutron components. It is to be noted that for the
case of four valence particles (two protons and two neutrons) the states (2.11) exactly
coincide with the ESM states. Therefore, the GBPA results for this case will be
identical to the exact shall model results.
In a next (higher) approximation the GBPA basis states can be constructed by
coupling the wave functions obtained by replacing one more proton/neutron distri-
buted pair operator #+p/$+” by one more arbitrary two proton/neutron configurations
A: c,,,h~a)lA:,,~,, (n3n4). In general, the GBPA states for 2p protons and 2n neutrons
with b, proton broken pairs and b, neutron broken pairs can be written as
where (p - b,) pairs of protons and (n - bn) pairs of neutrons are still dressed by
our assumption of the approximate ground state (2.10).
We choose the states (2.11) for all the practical calculations presented here. It is
GENERALIZED BROKEN PAIR APPROXIMATIOE\I’ 161
to be remarked here again that whatever be the number of valence particles (even-
even), the basis constructed from (2. I I) always gives the number of states equal to the
shell model basis corresponding to two neutrons and two protons. This shows a great
reduction in the dimensionality of the GBPA Hamiltonian matrices (illustrated in
Section 4 through a specific example), thereby enabling one to perform GBPA calcu-
lations where exact shell model calculations are not feasible.
2.2. The Hamiltonian

The shell model Hamiltonian (H) for a neutron-proton (n-p) system consists of
three terms
H = Hu,, + H,, + H,,, . (2.13)
where the subscripts p and u refer to protons and neutrons, respectively. From here
onwards, the symbol al(q), a,(ol,), a,(o1&,... shall be used to represent the sp states for
protons with quantum numbers n, I, j (n, I, j, m) while b,@,), b&3,), b&J,... shall be
used to represent the corresponding neutron sp states. Frequently we shall also use
the symbols CQ, CY~,01:~
,... (/3r , /3Z, p3 ,...) to denote only the respective projection
quantum numbers for protons (neutrons). The second quantized version of the proton
part of the Hamiltonian H,, can now be written as
H,,,= c c+,&l + 1 c Calm2

I1)Iw4 :A dl&$,,aR:,
3 (2.14)
‘11 ~I”?%~~
where azl(a,l) creates (destroys) a singleparticle proton state cy.In Eq. (2.14), E is the
single particle energy; v being the two body interaction and the label A denotes the
matrix elements with respect to antisymmetric two particle states. The second quan-
tized version of the neutron part of the Hamiltonian H,, is identical to that of H,,,
and can be obtained by replacing a,(&, az(cyz),... by b,(&), 6&Q,... respectively in
Eq. (2.14). The term H,, of H in Eq. (2.13) stands for n-p part of the interaction and
is written as
The next step involves the evaluation of the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian
between suitable basis states(BPA/GBPA, viz., Eq. (2.8)/Eq. (2.12)). For this purpose
the conventional procedure, which starts with the Hamiltonian H in the form (2.14)
and (2.15) is analytically more involved due to the particular structure of the
BPA/GBPA basis states. Therefore, a simple procedure is adopted that requires
recasting the Hamiltonian in a form in which all the creation operators (aLI, a,‘, ,...;
b& , bz%,...) appear to the right and all the annihilation operators (a,, , a+, ,...;-bB1,
b8, ,...)to the left. This recasting of the Hamiltonian can easily be accomplished by
the anticommutation properties of the fermion (creation and annihilation) operators
and treating neutron and proton operators as independent.
In addition to (2.2), defining the following operators:
H&l) = c %,a,: , (2.16a)

ma1
(2.16b)
(2.16~)
HP, can then he rewritten in the coupled form as
H,, = ho + c h,(a,) Hdu,) + 1 hhwd4~,) MMwJ,), (2.17)

% ale2
“iSa;
I,
where the quantities h, , h1 and h, are given by
h, = 1 h12c,, + &Sl 1 B,F(u,u,u,u,0)

a1 [ a2 1 , (2.18a)
h&d
=- [~1
+@I
a2
~2m,w2~20)
I
, (2.18b)
h&q&&) = (1 + &&-l (1 + h;c# G@,a,@;~,). (2.18c)

Here, the two body m.e. G and the hole-particle m.e. Fare defined through the follow-
ing relations
(2.19)
(2.20)
The function G and F themselves are connected through Pandya’s [31] relation:
F(u,u;u;u,Z;) = - c (21, + 1) W(a,u,u;u;; I&) G(u2u&&,), (2.21)

IP
where W is Racah’s 6j symbol. It is to be noted that our G and F quantities are -2

times the corresponding ones of Baranger [Sj.
The Hnn part of the Hamiltonian has the same form as that of H,, with ~~(a,),
~~(4,. . . replaced by h(P3, h4%),..., respectively, whereas the H,, part of the Hamil-
tonian can be expressed in the following coupled form:
H,,, = 6,“’ + c hXu,) H,(a,) i- c hX6,) H,(h)

a1 b, (2.2
F(u,a;b;b,J’)U(u&‘M’) U(f@,J’M’).
-+ n1111
..bLM ’
Here the quantities hzP and h:“(c) are defined as
6,“” = 1 &F(ff,a,b,b,O), (2.23a)

%‘+
h;‘(c) = -2-l c dF(ccdd0). (2.23b)

d
Collecting zero, one and two body operators appearing in the explicit form of the
various terms of the full Hamiltonian, (2.13) after rearrangement reduces to the
following form:
H = X” + &,, + 3Eo,, + ep (2.24)
with
%n = Hn, + c h:%,) H,(b,) - A,,“, (2.27)

b,
X,, = 1 F(a,a;b;b,J’) U(a,a;J’M’) U(b;b,J’M’). (2.28)

a,a;b,b,j’M’
Similarly, the second quantized version of a one body multiple operator Q,, of
rank X and projection p
(2.29)
in the required form is

Here the reduced matrix element is defined in Edmond’s notation, viz.,
(2.3 1)
2.3 Evaluation of the Matrix Elements of One and Two Body Operators
A. Identical Particle Case

Introducing orthonormal BPA basis states I $J,M,(k)) defined as
with
Ihr9&4 K)> = &X&&4 K) IO>.
The y’s stand for the orthonormalization coefficients. The matrix elements of the
Hamiltonian (2.17) between the BPA basis states (2.32) can be expressed as
It can be observed from (2.33) that:

(i) The first term of the Hamiltonian (2.17) is free from creation and annihila-
tion operators and therefore its matrix element in the BPA basis is just h, times the
overlap between the BPA states.
(ii) The second term of the Hamiltonian (2.17) consists of one body operator
H,(a,) (defined through (2.16a)) in which the annihilation operator appears to the
left and the creation operator to the right. Explicitly this term requires the evaluation
of
(01 J’.r,M,(d’, K’) Tp-bam, 1 a&-bx,‘,,,(d, K) 10). (2.34)
The creation operator a,‘, in (2.34) can now be coupled with XI operator to form a
vector coupled product of (2b + 1) creation operators. With a similar coupling
between the annihilation operator uol and the operator X, the overlap (2.34) then
reduces to
This is nothing but an overlap between the BPA states with one additional nucleon
((2~ I) particles). Its general expression is given in Eq. (A7) of Appendix A.
Consequently the second term in the square bracket of the right-hand side of Eq.
(2.33) turns out to be h, times the above scalar product (i.e., the overlap).
(iii) The third term of the Hamiltonian which consists of a two body operator
H2 (defined through (2.16~)) with A appearing to the left and A / to the right when
coupled with 2p particles BPA states on ket and bra sides respectively, reduces this
term into the scalar product between (2~ + 2) particle BPA states. Explicitly this
scalar product is
The general expression for (2.36) is given in Appendix A. Therefore, the third term
in the square bracket of the right-hand side of (2.33) is just h, times the
overlap between the BPA states with two additional nucleons.
Similarly, the matrix elements for the electromagnetic transition rates and static
moments can also be evaluated by reducing the relevant expressions in terms of the
scalar product between BPA states. For this purpose, first the pertinent nuclear
states in BPA are defined as a linear combination of orthonormalized states (2.32),
viz..
where the amplitudes c are obtained by diagonalizing the relevant Hamiltonian

matrices. Then the matrix elements of the multipole operator QA, (defined through
(2.30)) between the state vectors (2.37) are expressedas
The etectromagnetic reduced transition probabilities and static moments are there-
fore related to the quantity
Using (2.32) for # and (2.30) for Q, (2.39) can be expressed as
- i-’
c, <allI 52, lb;>@1 X&K K’) 7+-b 11U(a,a;h)ll &x$(d,
alal
K) 10) . (2.40)
1
Here again the first term is just the constant times the overlap between the BPA
states of 2p particles. The second term consisting of a one body operator (I with
annihilation operator am1, appearing to the left and creation operator a: to the right
has an appearance similar to that of the one body part of the Hamiltonian. Therefore,
following the same procedure, this term can also be expressed in terms of the scalar
product between BPA states with one additional nucleon. The final result is given by
and can easily be evaluated by using Eq. (A7).

For the case of one broken pair (b = 1) the matrix element of the Hamiltonian
and that of multipole operator, and the expression for the scalar product between
BPA states can further be simplified. These simplified expressions are presented in a
coherent form suitable for numerical calculations in Appendix B.
B. Nonidentical Particle Case

In general, an orthonormal GBPA basis states I #.,,,.,(kpJPknJ,)) can be expressed
through the following relation
where the orthonormalization coefficients for proton and neutron spaces have been
denoted by yg;*“u and yg;.“n , respectively.
The matrix element of the Hamiltonian (2.24) between the GBPA basis states
(2.42) is symbolically represented as a sum of four terms, i.e.,
(#,,(k;J;k;J;)l H I#,,(k:,J,k,J& = <&> + (%,) + <%m> + G%,,>. (2.43)
The meaning of these terms is explained below.

(i) The first term (X0) is just the sum of h,“, h,” and hiP defined through
(2.25). It is free from all the creation and annihilation operators and therefore (So)
is a constant number.
(ii) The second term (SD,) stands for
The first term (R,,) where (HD, = H,, - h,“) in the square bracket of (2.44) is the
matrix element of the proton part of the Hamiltonian H. Its genera1 expression (for
b, == 1) is given in Appendix B(a). The second term (Hz,) in the square bracket of
(2.44) is the matrix element of the one body proton part of the operator H,(u,)
coming from the neutron-proton part of the Hamiltonian Eq. (2.22). This one body
operator H,(a,) when sandwiched between the BPA states (XtMfl(d,K,) 7jWb,!O)),
its annihilation operator ual, (appearing to the left) couples with the ket side of 2~
particle BPA state to form (2~ +- 1) particle BPA state, and coupling of the operator
a:1 with the BPA state on the bra side results in (2~ -t 1) particle BPA state. This term
then reduces to an overlap between the BPAstates with one additional proton. This pro-
cedure is identical to that followed for the evaluation of H,(Q) (second term in the
square bracket of (2.33)) in the identical nucleon case. The expression for the matrix
element <Hz,> has been derived for 6, = l (b, = 1) and is given in Appendix C(a).
The quantity (O,,) appearing in (2.44) denotes the overlap between the neutron
BPA states (Xi;Mn(d,&) T~-~,/O)) and its genera1 expression is given in Appendix A
(Eq. (A7)), which for the special case (6, = I) has a simple form presented in Appen-
dix B(c).
(iii) The third term (.%$,) has a similar structure as that of the second term
iJC,l. In fact the only difference is that all the p(n) labels are replaced by the cor-
responding n(p) labels. Therefore the expression for this term can be obtained by
replacing all p(n) labels by n(p) labels in the expression (2.44) (and consequently in
Appendices B(a) and C(a)).
(iv) The fourth term (%&J denotes the matrix element of the Znn (defined
through (2.28)) part of the Hamiltonian H. It is given by
d’K’d
P BD K 8
d; K;d,K,,J’M’
It is clear that (2.45) consists of a product of two overlaps representing a one body
proton operator U(alqJ’M’) sandwiched between the BPA states for 2p protons, and
a one body neutron operator U(b&J’M) sandwiched between the BPA states for 2n
neutrons. Each one of these two overlaps, for protons and for neutrons, in the
square bracket of (2.45) has an appearance similar to that of the multipole operator
(second term in the square bracket of (2.40)) of the identical nucleon case. Therefore,
following the same procedure these overlaps can be reduced in terms of the scalar
products between BPA states of one additional nucleon and evaluated using (A7). The
expression (2.45) can be further simplified for the special case of b, = 1 and b, = 1.
For this special case, (.z&) has been derived (presented in Appendix C(b)) in a form
suitable for numerical calculations.
The electromagnetic reduced transition probabilities and the static moments for a
neutron proton system are related to the quantity
(Ji WA(P) + QAtm Jd, (2.46)
where (JiMi and IJ,M,) are the pertinent nuclear states which in GBPA are the
linear combination of the states (2.42). Consequently the evaluation of (2.46) in
GBPA requires
where C, and C, are the coefficients of the pertinent nuclear states (J,M,I and IJfMf)
and are obtained by diagonalizing the relevant Hamiltonian matrices. The reduced
matrix element on the right-hand side of (2.47) can be written in detail as
where the genral expression for the individual reduced matrix element between the
BPA states of 2p protons/2n neutrons for the special case when b, = l/bn = 1 has
already been given in Appendix B(b). A complete expression for the GBPA reduced
transition probability in GBPA is given in Appendix D.
2.4. Spectroscopic Amplitudes for Transfer Reactions

By definition the nuclear structure factor s for one nucleon transfer reaction is just
the overlap between a state of the heavier nucleus’and the state obtained by coupling
a state of the transferred nucleon to that of the lighter nucleus. In BPA, it can be
expressed in terms of the scalar product between BPA states ((2~ + 1) particles). The
explicit expression for s is
The expression (2.49) can be calculated using Eq. (A7). It is to be noted that the
states Xjn,P(d’, K’) T~-~IO) on the ket side of (2.49) stand for the residual nucleus
corresponding to (2~ + 1) particles while the state X&(d, K) 7LJOj on the bra
side of (2.49) denotes the 2p particle state of the target nucleus. Therefore, the U’S and
U‘S appearing in these states in Eq. (2.49) correspond to different nuclei and hence
appropriate U, u should be used in the explicit calculations.
For two nucleon transfer reaction, the partial spectroscopic amplitude (S,,(,j,,.jJ))
is defined (apart from a phase and a multiplicative factor) as an overlap between the
state (QJIM,(A + 2)) of a given spin and parity of the heavier nucleus and the state
obtained by coupling the wave function (J$-( j, j,)) of the transferred pair of nucleons
to the state (@J,M,(A)) of the lighter nucleus. Explicitly
&t.lf(jo.hJ) = (@J,M,(A + 2) I C-@fJA.LJb) 0 @Jz~Ni~,:~. (2.50)
The nuclear states CJ~,~. and QJ hr in BPA are of the form (2.37). Thus, the expression
(2.50) can be reduced in terms bf’the scalar product between BPA states of (2~ -t 2)
nucleons and evaluated using Eq. (A7). Again, it is to be noted that the U’S and U’S (to
be used in Eq. (A7)) corresponding to lighter and heavier nuclei must be kept distin-
guished while using (2.50) for explicit calculations.
3. BPA CALCULATIONS,RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONSFORN = ~O,EVENANUCLEI
In this section, the details of the BPA calculations and the results which include
energy spectra, EZtransition rates and the quadrupole moments of the first 2
excited states are presented and discussed for N =: 50, even isotones (90Zr, “2Ma,
s4R~,saIV). For this purpose, two different sets of sp energies, and effective two body
m.e., namely, the empirical set and the realistic set are used. These two sets of input
m.e. were obtained by employing entirely different approaches suitable for the two
different choices of valence sp levels with respect to the same assumed inert core. Out
of the above two sets, the former set of input data has been used by Gloeckner and
Serduke [26] in a shell model calculation for N = 50 nuclei. The latter corresponds
to the microscopic set of Sussex m.e. suitable for sufficiently enlarged sp states. No
ESM calculation has yet been reported using this set of Sussex m-e. involving large
sp states for the nuclei considered perhaps due to prohibitively large dimensions
of energy matrices encountered.
The reason for using the first set of input data (sp energies and two bedy m.e.)
in BPA is to demonstrate the validity of BPA itself by comparing the calculated
results with those of ESM obtained by using identical input information. The BPA
calculation using realistic set of input data is even more meaningful. It is used to
find out the compatibility of the realistic set of Sussex m.e., derived from the free
nucleon-nucleon scattering data, with the observed nuclear properties in this region.
In addition, it is helpful to understand its capability in reproducing experimental data
particularly in comparison with the totally parametrized form of the input data
which has been used in the first set of calculations.
Finally, a renormalized set of realistic Sussex m.e. was used in the truncated space
for the spectroscopic calculations of the above-mentioned nuclei. These renormalized
m.e. were obtained to make this set suitable for the model space employed in the
first set of calculations. The projection method (given briefly in Appendix E) was
used to incorporate the effects of the truncation of the valence space through the
renormalization of the original set of Sussex m.e.
The reason for choosing the same model space as employed by Gloeckner and
Serduke [26] is to match the renormalized set of realistic m.e. with that of the empi-
rical set used in the ESM calculations. It may be recalled that the empirical set of
m.e. were obtained [26] in the shell model by directly fitting the experimental data.
Thus, by employing the same model space in BPA, a direct comparison between
the results obtained by using both these sets of m.e. was facilitated. Another reason
for truncating the enlarged sp basis into a model space in BPA calculations is tocheck
the usefulness of the renormalized set of m.e. in comparison with the original set of
m.e.
The details of the BPA calculations using (i) empirical (ii) realistic and (iii) renor-
malized realistic set of two body interaction m.e. are presented separately in this
section and the respective results are denoted by “EMP,” “REAL(F)” an
“REAL(T).”
In the last subsection, all the results are collectively presented and discussed along
with the experimental data labelled “EXPT” and the ESM results of Gloeckner and
Serduke [26] denoted by “ESM(EMP).”
The BPA calculations require the ground state parameters (v, u), the sp energies,
and the effective two body m.e. The ground state parameters used throughout in the
present investigation are determined by solving the gap and number equations of the
qp theory instead of using the BPA minimization condition (Eq. (2.6)). The reason
for this stems from the observation [22] that in the Ni and Sn regions the occupation
(nonoccupation) probabilities obtained in the qp theory are almost identical to those
obtained in BPA using minimization condition.
Now, we discuss the details of the calculation with different sets of interaction m.e.
3.1. Details of the Calcdation
3.1.1. With Empirical m.e.

In this set of calculations, all the even (Z-38) protons corresponding to Q”Zr, Q2Mo,
94R~ and 9aPd nuclei were confined, as in Ref. [26] by Gloeckner and Serduke, to
2pl12 and lg,,, sp orbitals outside the YSr inert core. The two sp energies and nine
TABLE I
Proton-Proton m.e. (Antisymmetric Normalized)
Renormalised
realistic Empirical
,CPl,? I/2 I v ! P1/2P1/2>
~PlhP112
I v I&/am,> o+ 0.9595 0.853
<&3hgd2 I V i m2g9d Of - 1.8642 -1.705

2’ --1.1378 -0.615
4f -0.3356 0.155
6.‘- -0.0547 0.437
8+ 0.0335 0.570
~PliZ&i% ~ v I PlM,h> 4- 0.0436 0.716

5- -0.3342 0.194
Single particle energy 2PllZ 0.0 0.0

J&h 1.0 0.878
TABLE II
Proton and Neutron s.p. Energies Used with
the Realistic Set of Matrix Elements
Proton 0.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.5

Ei(MeV)
Neutron 0.0 1.08 2.00 2.34 3.50

+(MeV)
effective two body m.e. (listed in Table 1) are taken from the same reference. These
authors obtained this phenomenological set of 1I parameters in a least squares fit
to 45 energy levels of N = 50 isotones with an additional constraint of seniority
conservation on the interaction m.e. We obtained the ground state parameters
(v, U) in qp theory using this set of interaction m.e. and sp energies.
All the BPA energy matrices for Ja = O+, 2+, 4+, 4-, 5-, 6-‘-,8-kstates of QOZr,Q2Mo,
“4R~ and QsPdnuclei are generated and diagonalized. It is to be noted that the dimen-
sionalities of the various Jr states calculated in BPA are same for all the four nuclei
and correspond to the independent number of two particle configurations, while
in ESM the dimensionalities of these states increase with the addition of valence
protons. The calculated energy levels are listed in Tables III, IV, V and VI for QOZr,
595/r33/r-12
TABLE III
Energy Levels (in MeV) of sOZr
P EXPT” ESM = EMP REAL(F)
Of 0 0 ‘0
1.761 1.806 1.971
2+ 2.186 2.288 1.935
4+ 3.077 3.058 2.737
4- 2.738 2.743 2.117
5- 2.319 2.221 1.739
6+ 3.448 3.340 3.018
8+ 3.588 3.473 3.107
a Experimental data taken from Ref. 1321.
TABLE IV
Energy Levels (in MeV) of 9eMo
EXPT’ EMP REAL(F) REAL(T)
o+ 0 0 0 0
2.49 rt 0.06 2.348 2.872 2.612
2+ 1.511 1.498 1.304 1.165
4+ 2.284 2.268 2.020 1.973
4- 3.005 3.015 2.590 2.437
5- 2.528 2.493 2.215 2.060
6+ 2.614 2.550 2.316 2.246
8+ 2.761 2.683 2.416 2.339
4 Experimental levels have been taken from Refs. [34,35].
TABLE V
Energy Levels (in MeV) for g4R~
EXPT” EMP REAL(F) REAL(T)
o+ 0 0 0 0
2.99 2.614 3.582 2.971
2+ 1.428 1.407 1.320 1.073
4+ 2.183 2.177 1.968 1.893
4- - 3.147 2.991 2.617
5- 2.622 2.625 2.619 2.239
6+ 2.495 2.459 2.289 2.150
8+ 2.640 2.592 2.429 2.253
a Experimental data have been taken from Ref. [36].

TABLE VI
Energy Levels (in MeV) of gePd
Jn EMP REAL(T)
0’ 0 0
2.688 3.145
2+ I .395 1.053
4’ 2.185 1.871
4- 3.182 2.704
5-- 2.663 2.326
6’ 2.446 2.130
8’ 2.588 2.232
s2Mo, “4R~ and Y”Pd, respectively, and are plotted in Figs. 1 (for 90Zr, y2Mo). 2 (for
“4R~) and 3 (for wPd).
In order to check the correctness of the BPA wave functions, we have calculated
the overlaps between the BPA and the ESM wave functions for s2Mo nucleus for
which, the ESM wave functions have practically no seniority mixing. For this purpose,
the BPA states (2.7) were written in terms of the shell model states with seniority (v)
quantum numbers using the relation (A5) of Appendix A. The calculated overlap
for Jli = 2, , 4,:, 6, .-, 81i states is -95 “,/,, while it is -100 76 for all the remaining
states. Although we did not have the ESM wave functions for g4R~and “6Pd nuclei.
a similar percentage of overlaps should also be expected in these cases.
It is known, however, that the electromagnetic moments $nd transition rates are
sensitive to the detailed structure of the wave functions and therefore these quantities
provide a more faithful test for the reliability of the BPA, formalism. With this
motivation, we have also calculated the quadrupole moments of the first 2 states
3.5. E$
t 30. -t:
=3-
~ 2.5. 1-
a -5.
z - 2’
$20 .
1%
10.
2
L .mo'-o' -0' -0' - f -0. --0' -0'
EC’1 ESM= REAL MPT ES J EMP UC;. REP’
EMP IFI IEMP)
Fit;. 1. The energy spectraof g”Zr and O*Mo. The experimental levels of g”Zr and 92M~ are taken
from Ref. [33] and Refs. [34,35], respectively. The ESM (EMP) results are of Gloeckner et nl. labelled
“SENIORITY” in Ref. [26]. The first 4- state is a seniority four state in the ESM spectra of “Amy.
174 GAMBHIR, HAQ, AND SUIU
FIG. 2. The energy spectrum of 94R~. The experimental data are taken from Ref. [36] while the
ESM results are those of Ref. [26] (labelled “SENIORITY”).
(cJ(~~+)) and mean lifetimes for various E2-transitions between the levels of the
nuclei considered. The effective charge for a proton (ei’r) was chosen to be 1.72e,
which is the same as used in the corresponding ESM calculation by Gloeckner and
Serduke [26]. This choice of the effective proton charge facilitates the comparison
between the BPA and ESM results. The oscillator size parameter b, is taken to be
96Pd
-1- +
:: w L- -0
30 2
0+ Of
d5+
-8 f- -:g- -L
-6 + -\a+
s-
-Ii+ ‘6+ -’ +
-L f- Lf -6
- 6f
2-o-
f Lf
>
; t
-2 2+
w”
l*O- ,- 2f
-0 t -0 f - Ll +
ESMIEMP) EMP REAL(T)
FIG. 3. The energy spectrum of WPd. The ESM results are those of Gloeckner et al. labelled
“TOTAL ENERGY” in Ref. [26].
&OI r: L'Z)
so1 x S'II gOI x Z’S _- - - 101 EPI -- ~9 - -1-8
AIP)
ZP OP - - - 6SZ 19z - -P-+9
411'0)
60’0 ZI'O 818 06L +z+-+P
&-01 X 8L’O)
s-01 r 8I'E E-ot .i LL’O -. - ES01 OOPI - to + tz
EOI x P'P so1 x O'S co1 x E'P EOI x (L ‘i- ZOI) EE’O fO1 EEI SPI +9 + +8
OS LS OS 01 F LO1 ~ZO’O L9Z 282 IIE +P - -r-9
ZP'O - ILL
ZP'O 8p’O 0 oz9 SSL +z - +P
-
s-01 x S9'0 s-01 x 59'0 g-01 x P9'0 0 EL01 LOP1 8ZPI +o- +z
OZE 6ff 6PZ 01 F SLZ 6Z'0 f6 EEI 8PI +9 + +8
56’2 ZI’E 6Z’Z Lo’0 T ZZ’Z LIO’O ELZ Z8Z Off +t7++9
- - OLL
EO’O PO’0 - 808 ELL +z + CP
s-01 x P9’0 E-01 y P9'0 E-01 x Z9’0 n-01 X (80’0 + 57’0) 0 s911 86PI 6051 40 - +z
ZPZ ZPZ vzz 6 f 081 ZC'O 68 EEI SIP1 +9 - +8
- -
EO'I EO’I I82 282 ILE +P-+g
- OLL
z-01 x 68'0 z-01 x 68’0 Z08 168 -z - tP
E-01 x OE'O c-01 x SE’0 g-01 x (IO.0 F PI'01 0 SE61 88ZZ 2812 lo+ tz
~~ ~-___-.
(.Lmml dWl dVl2 .LdX3 suoy!sueJ~ snapnh[
(mu) auqagl utzam
!a13nN y uag ‘OS = N ~03 auqajq ur?am
IIA 378VL
EXPT :I
ESM(EifP):o
EMP :*
REAL{ T) :+
I I I
90 Zr 92 MO 9L Ru g6 Pd
Frc. 4. The mean lifetime for 2+ -+ 0+ transitions in N = 50 even A nuclei. The experimental
data for B”Zr and 9aM~ nuclei are taken from Refs. [38, 391, respectively. The ESM(EMP) results
are those of Ref. [26].
2.124 fm. This b, value reproduces the r.m.s. radius for the nuclei (A - 90-96) in
this region. The results for transition rates are summarized in Table VII and
marked as “EMP.” The calculated total mean lifetime includes the contribution
due to the internal conversion factor listed in the same table. The variation of
the mean lifetime for the 2+ + Of transition with the addition of protons is plotted
in Fig. 4. The calculated Q(21+) for all the nuclei considered are listed in Table VIII
and are plotted in Fig. 5.
EMP : .
REAL{ T 1 : t
o-s-
04 -
o-3 -
FIG. 5. The quadrupole momenta of the first 2+ states of N = 50 even A nuclei.

TABLE VIII
Quadrupole Moments for N = 50 Even A Nuclei
Q(21+) . eb”
Nucleus EMP REAL(T)

__
90Zr 0.21 0.21
O*Mo 0.16 0.16
=4R~ 0.04 0.05
gBPd -0.09 --0.08
“b == lO-*‘cm2.
3.1.2. With Realistic Interaction

The realistic set of Sussex m.e. in the space of 2pliz , lg,,, , 2d,,, , 3s,,, , 2d,,, ,
I h,,,, sp orbitals with 88Sr inert core have been used in this set of BPA calculations
for N = 50, even A nuclei. These interaction m.e. include [28] the core contributions
corresponding to 3p-lh intermediate states. Consequently, all even (Z - 38) protons
are distributed in the above valence shells. The sp energy of the lg,,, orbit relative to
that of the 2p,,, orbit is chosen to be 1 MeV in accordance with experimental data
(quoted in Ref. [28]) of agY. Since the values of the other sp energies are not known
experimentally, the arbitrary values from Ref. [ZS] are used and are listed in Table II.
The ground state parameters (u, U) are again determined by solving the number
and gap equations of the quasiparticle theory. The energy matrices for all allowed
values of final spins and parities are generated and diagonalized. The maximum
dimensionality of the energy matrices occuring in BPA, corresponding to the sp
basis used above, is only 12 x 12 for J” = 2+ and 4+ states irrespective of the number
of valence protons considered. This gives an idea as to how the prohibitively large
dimensions resulting in the shell model are considerably reduced in BPA.
All the calculated energy levels below 3 MeV are listed in Tables III, IV, and V for
9oZr, gamy and e4Ru respectively, and also are plotted in Fig. 1 for WZr, Q2Mo and in
Fig. 2 for B4R~. However, for the case of g6Pd the calculation was performed only in
the truncated valence space (discussed below in Section 3.1.3).
3. I .3. With Renormalized Realistic Interaction

Here, the BPA calculations were repeated for N = 50 even isotones with the
renormalized realistic set of Sussex m.e. obtained by the projection method relevant
to the truncated basis involving 2pl12 and lg,,, sp states only (listed in Table I). All the
even (Z - 38) protons are now distributed among the 2pllZ and lg,,, sp orbitals as
chosen in the calculation with the empirical set of effective two body m.e. The single
particle energy difference between 2p,,, and lg,,, levels is taken to be 1 MeV. The
energy levels thus obtained are listed in the Tables III-VI and are plotted in Figs.
1-3.
The calculated quadrupole moments Q(2r+) for the first 2f excited state are listed
in Table VIII while the same have been plotted in Fig. 5 for N = 50 even isotones. The
calculated total mean lifetime which includes the contribution due to internal con-
version factor are summerized in Table VII. The variation of the mean lifetime
for the 2+---f 0+ transition with the addition of protons is plotted in Fig. 4. In
these calculations the oscillator size parameter b, and the proton effective charge
e& are chosen to be the same as those used in the first set of calculations.
All the calculated EMP, REAL(F), REAL(T) results obtained here are presented
and discussed together, along with their comparison with the EXPT as well as with
ESM (EMP) results in the next subsection.
3.2. Results and Discussion
3.2.1. Energy Spectra
Our aim is to first check the validity of the BPA formalism in this region. For this
purpose, we lay main emphasis on the detailed comparison of the ESM results with
the BPA results obtained by using identical input information. As mentioned earlier
for the two particle case, i.e., 9oZr, the BPA results are identical to those of ESM and
therefore, the results for this case are presented as ESM = EMP in Table III and
Fig. 1. The inspection of Tables IV, V, VI and Figs. 1, 2, 3 reveals an excellent agree-
ment between all the calculated BPA levels (EMP) and the corresponding ESM(EMP)
results for t@Mo, 94R~ and 9aPd nuclei; the extra levels appearing in ESM(EMP) (Figs.
1-3) correspond to the excitations not included in the BPA. This establishes the
validity of the BPA and its applicability as a good substitution to SSM in this region.
Next, we compare the results obtained by using the realistic set of Sussex m.e. in full
space (REAL(F)) with the experimental spectra. It is observed for WZr (Table III,
Fig. 1) that all the calculated positive parity states have been shifted down by about
0.3 MeV (except the first excited Of state which is up by 4.2 MeV), while the nega-
tive parity states are shifted down by No.6 MeV. As we go from 9oZr to 94R~, the
calculated results are getting closer and closer to the experimental levels. In the case
of positive parity states of 92Mo (Table IV, Fig. l), the calculated results are off only
by ~0.2 MeV, while for 94R~ (Table V, Fig. 2) this shift reduces to 4.1 MeV. The
first excited 0+ state for 9oZr, 92Mo, 94Ru appears closer to the corresponding experi-
mental 0+ state; the discrepancies increase slightly with the mass number. The negative
parity states which are off by ~0.6 MeV in 9oZr, are now off by 0.3 MeV for 92Mo
and almost coincide for 94R~. Thus, the calculated results compare well with the
experiment. This is in no way a lesser achievement considering the fact that the
entire present microscopic calculation does not use a single adjustable parameter.
From this it can be concluded that the realistic set of Sussex m.e., properly corrected
to include the core excitations, is capable of reproducing the experimental data.
Now, the results obtained with the realistic set of Sussex m.e. in full space are
compared with those obtained in the truncated basis using renormalized realistic
m.e. It is clear from Tables IV-VI and also from Figs. l-3 that the results in full space
(REAL(F)) almost coincide with the corresppnding results in truncated space
(REAL(T)). All the deviations are GO.2 MeV. This shows that the effects of the
truncation of valence space can be incorporated through the renormalizations of the
two body interaction m.e. by the projection method. This particularly helps to carry
out the calculations in the truncated space, specially for the cases where the SM
calculations are exceedingly involved because of very large dimensionalities of the
Hamiltonian matrices in the full space.
Finally, the comparison of the REAL(T) results with the EMP and the EXPT
results through Tables III to*VI and Figs. 1 to 3 indicates, in general, that the quality
of agreement observed between the REAL(T) and the EXPT is not inferior to that
obtained between the EMP and the EXPT in spite of the fact that the same highly
truncated model space was used both in REAL(T) and EMP. Further, the effective
two body m.e. used in REAL(T) was obtained purely from free nucleon-nucleon
scattering data without any adjustable parameter. On the other hand, the effective
two body m.e. along with the two sp energies in EMP were treated as free parameters
in a least-squares fit to the relevant experimental data.
3.2.2. E2 Transition Rates and Q(21+)

The calculated mean lifetimes using both the EMP and REAL(T) wave functions,
for various E2 transitions between the levels in nuclei sOZr, s2M~, s4R~ and ssPd, are
listed in Table VII whereas the calculated Q(2r~) are given in Table VIII. It is amply
clear from the tables that the EMP and the ESM (EMP) results are in excellent
agreement and both reproduce reasonably well the corresponding experimental
values (wherever available). The variation of the mean lifetimes of the 2~; -+ Oim
transition for sOZr, s2M~, s4R~ and s6Pd nuclei is plotted in Fig. 4. The figure reveals
that the calculated EMP mean lifetime is minimum for 9oZr (two protons) and is
almost same for s2Mo and s4R~ (four and six protons), while it is slightly larger for
96Pd (eight protons). Identical behavior is predicted by the ESM (EMP) also. The
corresponding experimental values are available only for sOZr and s2M~ and these
are in full conformity with the calculated values. In conclusion, we remark that the
BPA is equally successful in reproducing the observed dynamic nuclear properties like
E2 transition rates which are sensitive to the detailed structure of the wave functions.
Further, it is heartening to note from Table VII and Fig. 4, that the results REAL(T)
and EMP are almost identical for all the E2-transition rates between the levels of all
the nuclei considered. This shows that the wave functions obtained, using the realistic
set of Sussex m.e. calculated in a truncated basis, are in fact compatible with the
observed dynamic nuclear properties in this region.
The variation of the calculated quadrupole moments Q(2,+) with the addition of
protons is plotted in Fig. 5 (and are listed in Table VIII). It is clear from the figure
(and table) that an identical behaviour has been predicted by both the REAL(T) and
EMP. It is revealed that for N = 50 even A nuclei, Q(21+) decreases with the addition
of protons and finally changes its sign (i.e., becomes negative) for WPd that lies a
little beyond the half-filled shell. Such a behaviour is also expected from the ESM
analysis.
The above analysis confirms faith in the BPA and demonstrates that the BPA is a
valid, reliable and useful approximation to the ESM in this region. In addition, the
realistic set of Sussex m.e., properly renormalized to include the core effects, is
equally capable of reproducing the experimental data as that obtained with the em-
pirical set of effective two body m.e. in this region. Finally, the effects of the neglect-
ed configurations can suitably be incorporated in the renormalized set of two body
m.e. corresponding to the truncated model space by ‘the projection method.
4. GBPA CALCULATIONS,REWJLTSAND DISCUSSIONSFOREVEN Zr-,Mo-, Ru-ISOTOPES
This section deals in detail with the application of the generalized broken pair
approximation, formally developed in Section 2 for nonidentical valence nucleons.
Explicit calculations were performed for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes to obtain
energy spectra, static moments and electromagnetic transition rates. For this purpose,
two different sets of effective two body matrix elements, i.e., empirical and renor-
malized realistic (Sussex) were employed. For both the cases, the core and the model
space were taken to be the same. The details of the calculation for these cases were
presented separately in the following subsections (i.e., Sections 4.1 and 4.2). The
GBPA results thus obtained were collectively presented and discussed in the last
subsection of this section.
The labels “ESM (EMP),” “EMP,” “REAL(F),” “REAL(T)” and “EXPT” are
used in the same spirit as used in the previous section (i.e., Section 3). The ESM
results corresponding to nonidentical valence nucleons are available only for Zr- and
MO-isotopes with empirical set of input data. It is to be pointed out that the calculated
energy levels in GBPA were plotted with reference to first 2f states of ESM wherever
available. Otherwise, experimental first 2f was taken as the reference level.
4.1. Calculations Using an Empirical Set of m.e.

Recently, the ESM calculations with respect to *%r inert core for Zr- and Nb-
isotopes have been reported by Gloeckner [27]. The author has considered the valence
protons in 2p,,, and lg,,, sp orbitals and the valence neutrons in 2&, and 3~~~~sp
states. The effective interaction m.e. were determined by the least-squares fit to the
relevant experimental data. These m.e. were listed in Tables I, IX, and X (denoted by
“Empirical”).
In order to demonstrate the validity of the generalized broken pair approximation,
as a first step, the GBPA calculations for even Zr-isotopes (sz-g6Zr) have been carried
out using the same input information as that used in ESM. The distribution coefficients
(i.e., the ground state parameters v, , U, appearing in both r,+]O) and T,+]O)) are
TABLE IX
Neutron-Neutron m.e. (Antisymmetric Normalized)
Renormalized
realistic Empirical
-1.1987 --0.908
-0.3110 -0.384
-0.0886 0.146
-0.6640 -0.598
-0.5252 -0.106
-0.0875 -0.019
-0.3867 -0.291
--0.6009 - 1,097
0.0 0.0
1.08 0.832
TABLE X
Neutron-Proton m.e. (Antisymmetric Normalized)
Renormalised
realistic Empirical
----- ~.
-0.6848 -0.585
-0.7141 -0.358
-0.4330 -0.143
-0.7226 0.143
-1.4905 -0.792
-0.8035 --0.461
-0.5094 0.182
-0.2467 m-O.161
-0.1300 ---0.079
-0.7796 -0.716
-0.4385 0.550
-0.6076 -0.515
-0.4029 -0.644
--0.9514 -0.555
determined by solving the number and gap equations of the quasiparticle theory for
protons and for neutrons separately. The energy matrices are constructed in the
space spanned by the orthonormal set obtained from the basis states (2.11) and then
diagonalized. The calculated energy levels for g2-s6Zrare listed in Table XV and are
.-.-.-“
.
-2’ -2 . -2’
0.5 -
FIG. 6. The energy levels of s”Sr. The experimental data are taken from Ref. [43]. The levels in
REAL.(F) marked with an asterisk (which correspond to the number of levels in the truncated model
space) were reproduced in determining the renormalized set of realistic Sussex m.e.
plotted in Figs. 9-l 1. Next, with the same input infrmation, we have performed the
GBPA calculation for even MO-, and Ku-isotopes (94-gsMo, s6-100Ru). The ground
state parameters corresponding to the relevant proton and neutron numbers were
used. The calculated energy levels for even MO-isotopes are listed in Table XVI
and are plotted in Figs. 12, 13, 14 for g4~96J’sM~,respectively, while those of even Ru-
isotopes are presented in Table XVII and are plotted in Figs. 15 (for g6R~), 16
(for g8R~), 17 (for lWRu). Recently, the ESM calculations for MO-isotopes with
the same input information have appeared [42]. These ESM results are also included
in Figs. 12-14 for comparison.
It is to be recalled that the dimensionalities of the various Hamiltonian matrices
in GBPA remain the same as that of Q2Zr(2p+2n) in ESM, for all the nuclei con-
1.0 -2’ --2' -f -2'
0.5
I
EEiGi.iYP) -Go' FzizFY' REAL(TP
FIG. 7. The energy levels of ?Sr. The available shell model results have been taken from Ref.
[42]. The levels marked with an asterisk in ESM(EM.P) correspond to the higher seniority (i.e.,
v > 4) not included in BPA.
3.5
-
3.0
-
2.5
FIG. 8. The energy levels of Yir. The available ESM(EMP) results are from Ref. [42].
sidered. The dimensionalities of the various J* states calculated in GBPA have been
compared in Table XI with the corresponding dimensionalities appearing in ESM
[42] for gsMo nucleus. The table reveals, as expected, large reduction in the dimen-
sionalities of the Hamiltonian matrices for various JV states in GBPA.
Using the GBPA wave functions, the quadrupole moments of the first 2+ state and
the reduced EZtransition probabilities (B(E2)) for 0-m- 2 and 2 + 4~,-transitions
for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes, were also calculated. The effective charge for
proton (eErf) is chosen to be 1.765e as that used by Gloeckner [27]. In the ESM ana-
lysis [27], the effective charge for a neutron (ezff) was determined by fitting the expe-
rimental B(E2) values for Of + 2 + transitions separately for each one of the Zr-
isotopes. We chose e& = 1.2e, which is approximately the average of the ESM
FIG. 9. The energy spectrum of geZr. All the calculated states are shown upto 3.0 MeV. All
yrast levels are shown up to 5.0 MeV. The experimental data are taken from Ref. [45] (supplemented
with Refs. [46, 471) while the ESM results are those of Ref. [27].
I'84 GAMBHIR, HAQ, AND SURl
gLzr
-9’
-o- -o- -lo+
-a* -I*
I - 2' -2' -2' 7t
L 1o.o)o’ ~o.o)o, t-a19,, (0.11)

EXPT ESM EMP lmiml~’
(EMPI
FIG. 10. The energy spectrum of 94Zr. The experimental spectrum is taken from Ref. [45] supple-
mented with Ref. [46]. The ESM results are those of Gloeckner [27]. For details see caption of
Fig. 9.
values. The same effective proton and neutron charges were used in the calculation
of Q(21+) and B&2) values for all the even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes. The oscillator
size parameter b, was fixed to be the same as that used for N = 50 even isotones
(Section 3). The B(E2) values for Zr-isotopes are summarized in Table XVIII. For
-5'
---a- -
Q'-
-10' lo’= =e '-
-2- 2---
-7. -7.
-7- -7-
s- -6- 5*-
-e
1+-6. 1*
-6' -2'
- ‘-
-2
2'-
-5
- 0'
t rao,, laolo+
EXPT ‘2%
(EMPI
FIG. 11. The energy spectrum of %r. The calculated REAL(T) levels (yrast levels) are shown
upto 6.0 MeV. The experimental data are taken from Ref. (451 while the ESM results are those of
Gloeckner 1271. For details see caption of Fig. 9.
GENERALIZED BROKEN PAlR APPROXIMATION 185
TABLE Xl
Dimensionalities of Various J” States in 96M~
Dimensionality
J” GBPA ESM
OF I 32
I- 5 51
27 15 113
3+ 12 121
4' 17 158
5~' 12 148
6' 1.5 157
7. IO 133
8 '~ II 127
9+ 6 94
IOk 5 80
Il- 2 52
12-b I 39
O- I 23
1 3 64
2- 6 loo
3- 8 129
4- 10 146
5-- 10 151
6- 8 148
I- 6 134
8- 3 II5
9-- 1 94
TABLE XII
Energy Levels (in MeV) of $“Sr
J” EXPT” ESM = EMP REAL(F)
0 ‘- 0 0
(i.674)
2.958 2.951 2.951
4.646
2 I- 0.832 0.941 0.868
1.892 2.105 2.029
3.151
3, 2.210 2.319
3.334
4+ 1.656 1.543 1.238
(2.207) 2.904
3.757
t’ Experimental data have been taken from Ref. [43]

TABLE XIII
Energy Levels (in MeV) of ?3r
JR ESM(EMP) EMP REAL(F) REAL( Z-)
Of 0 0 0 0
2.871 2.068 2.118
1+ 2.105
2f 0.919 0.975 0.913 0.887
1.853 1.698 1.659
2.180 2.150 2.925
3+ 2.169 2.169 1.851 1.903
2.912
4+ 1.561 1.573 1.494 1.303
2.634
(i The ESM results are taken from Ref. [42].
13: -10
L -p
,9:
2.
38 - @-== -7
. -6- -3
3.6 - 9 - f - c
rl:zT-
-L
34 -
-5
3.2 -
,@Y
,- 1:
3.0 - F -5
1s- -4
8
2.6 -
I6f - T=
IIS
d2,- 6'
.
-1 - 3.
2.6 - .
-4
L' .
3' -2.
-0
1 2.L- -
2.2 = 2:
-0 .
- 2' -3
y 2.0- 2+-
s o+- +
ii 1.8 - f -2
1+- , -L - 1'
1.6 - L+-
l.L
1.2
1.0
2+- -2.
0.8 2+- -2'
o+Lo.ol c(O.0) I-0.07) o+ I-045) o+

01
EXPT OESM EMP REALIT)
(EMPI
FIG. 12. The energy spectrum of n4M~. All the calculated levels are plotted up to 3.0 MeV. All
yrast levels are shown up to 4.0 MeV. The experimental spectrum is taken from Kocher [45]. The
ESM results are those of Ref. [42].
TABLE XIV
Energy Levels (in MeV) of ‘%r
J” ESM(EMP) EMP REAL(F) REAL(T)
o+ 0 0 0 0
2.311 2.311 1.312 1.304
I+ 2.941
2f 1.608 1.608 1.237 0.892
2.237 2.237 2.684 1.959
2.937
3f 1.889 1.889 1.724 1.496
2.753
4+ 2.572 2.572 2.632 2.015
3.183
a The ESM results are those of Ref. [42].
I G+
3.81
i 7f
L
5'
o+' 0 0 1 o+(o.o) f-0.20 lo+ (-O-L3 I o,

EXPT ESM EMP REAL1 T)
(EMPI
FIG. 13. The energy spectrum of 06Mo. All the calculated levels are plotted upto 3.0 MeV. Ail
yrast levels are shown up to 3.8 MeV. The experimental data are that of Medsker 1451. The ESM
results are taken from Ref. [42].
595/133/I-13
l&8 GAMBWR,‘ HAQ, AND SURI
TABLE XV
Energy Levels (iwMeV) of Zr-Isotopes
OsZr g4Zr %r
J” EXPTD EMP REAL(T) EXPP EMP REAL(T) EXPT” EMP REAL(T)
o+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.383 1.489 1.545 1.300 1.543 1.551 1.594 1.576 1.230
2.838 2.468 2.465 1.741
1+ 3.180 3.141 3.494 3.711 3.435 2.953
2+ 0.934 0.878 0.850 0.919 f.072 1.042 1.758 1.927 0.814
1.847 1.886 1.652 1.671 2.109 1.655 2.414 1.783
2.066 2.338 1.946 2.151 2.582 2.047 2.672 2.186
(3.044) 2.996 2.690 2.366 2.998 2.935 3.167
(2.846)
(2.908)
3+ 2.421 2.132 2:617 2.216 2.269 1.773
2.605
4f 1.495 1.526 1.434 1.470 1.697 1.576 3.13 2.798 2.007
2.557 2.220 2.331 2.801 2.519 2.534
3.063 3.160 3.423 3.685
5+ 3.511 3.107 3.754 3.971 3.748 3.906
6+ (2.957) 3.149 2.581 3.242 3.071 3.412 3.364
,7+ 4.119 3.827 4.275 4.560 4.280 4.206
8f (3.308) 3.284 2.900 3.385 3.134 3.682 3.149
9+ 4.137 4.306 4.574 4.904 4.568 4.319
lo+ (4.296) 4.359 4.188 4.402 4.715 4.623 5.002
11+ 4.836 4.682 5.241 5.362 5.729 5.641
12+ (4.947) 4.766 5.174 5.376 6.286 5.894 6.978
O- 3.2275 4.764 4.030
l- 2.833 3.947 3.670 4.332
2- 2.415 3.755 3.788 4.493 3.561
3- 2.339 2.075 2.058 3.066 2.415 1.905 3.865 3.129
4- 2.614 1.955 2.751 2.004 2.960 1.894
5- 2.485 2.078 1.604 2.610 2.221 1.631 3.07 2.432 1.518
3.082 3.062 2.838
6- 2.948 2.866 3.275 3.019 3.544 2.498
7- (3.379) 3.331 2.744 3.096 2.860 4.028 3.149
8- (3.819) 3.566 3.197 3.760 3.519 4.791 3.712
9- (3.998) 3.676 3.430 4.144 4.062 5.657 4.822
a The experimental dati for %r,and 04Zr are taken from Brotin et al. [44] and Singh et al. [44],
respectively. Data for ssZr are taken from Ref. [45].
TABLE XV1
Energy Levels (in MeV) of Mo-Isotopes
=Mo 8eMo ‘=Mo
J” EXPT” EMP REAL(T) EXPT” EMP REAL( 7) EXPT” EMP REAL(T)

--
0’ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.742 2.224 2.254 1.148 2.337 2.761 0.735 1.641 2.332
2.945 3.673 3.139 3.864 2.795 3.087 3.754
1/ 2.732 3.012 2.894 3.513 2.831 2.798
2’ 0.871 0.909 0.821 0.778 1.116 1.211 0.788 1.309 0.733
1.864 2.128 1.714 1.498 2.013 2.056 1.432 1.934 2.368
2.067 2.290 2.288 1.626 2.678 2.609 I .759 2.002 2.688
3.097 3.240 2.997 3.599 2.207 2.729 3.659
3’ 2.335 2.062 1.978 2.700 2.775 1.961 2.352
2.978 2.642 2.746 3.175 3.091 3.374
1.574 1.776 1.669 1.628 1.972 2.294 I .510 2.209 I .976
(2.738) 2.446 2.470 1.870 2.431 2.494 2.572 2.346 2.882
3.049 3.244 3.102 3.666 2.837 2.762 3.844
5+ 3.150 3.090 2.439 3.219 3.783 3.079 3.721
6’ 2.421 2.858 2.664 2.441 2.835 3.005 2.3 2.671 3.269
(2.870) 3.412 3.357 2.754 3.120 3.669 2.974 3.878
3.490 3.765
71 3.697 3.762 (2.875) 3.720 4.274 3.607 3.964
8’ 2.953 3.002 2.927 2.979 2.966 3.076 (2.854) 2.868 3.100
3.499 4.445 3.272 3.473 4.298
9+ 3.735 4.188 3.974 4.714 3.948 4.117
IO+ (4.005) 3.986 4.127 3.829 4.510 (4.150) 4.159 4.770
11.; 4.576 4.612 4.633 5.103 4.992 5.314
12’ 4.261 5.010 4.654 5.890 5.372 6.472
0-- 4.624 5.360 5.897
I-- 4.264 4.466 5.008 4.905 5.521
2-- 3.981 4.442 4.418 4.403 5.139
3- (2.533) 3.607 3.756 4.027 2.017 3.829 4.708
4-- 3.526 3.554 3.534 3.817 3.326 4.022
5~. (2.608) 3.000 3.189 2.734 3.009 3.443 2.802 3.650
6- (2.870) 3.813 4.236 3.888 4.646 3.688 4.387
7-- 4.079 4.167 (3.473) 3.886 4.517 3.987 4.908
8-- 4.345 4.628 4.418 5.044 4.592 5.311
9- 4.610 4.780 4.773 5.432 5.141 5.963
a The experimental data for szJ’4~~Mo are that of Kocher [45], Medsker [45], and Medsker [50],
respectively.
I90 GAMBHIR,. HAQ, AND SURI
98Mo
-5
.
-3 -5-
-6
- 7*
.
-6
l
- 4- -6
-p
-2
.
1’- - s-
c -2.-
-.
6 3 l -0. 2
-4’
-4 .
=I - 4. - -4.
- 4’
2.0 2-
3-‘--- 3’ - .
- 2’
d’-
3 -2’
.-2
l-8 ,* c
t i 2’
.
-0
6-
. -T
1.2 2-
1.0
.
-2.
0.8 2’.- -
0
0.6
!
o (0.0) (0.01 f-0.15) o ltJ.05) o.

0i
EXPT ESlt.4 EMP R EAL(TI
(EMPI
FIG. 14. The energy spectrum of O*MQ. The experimental spectrum is that of Medsker [XI].
T& ESM results are taken from Ref. [42]. Fo; details seq caption of Fig. 13.
L,O-
==llg -6-
3.6. ---A81 -7.
-4-
---7(-l
32- .
-8. s+=5
l&7) -A:
2.8.
-5(-) ==;
2.4
-66’ -2’
t 2.0 : 2.
I f-
2 . z:. 2’
32;:
’ 1.6. -L*
-4’ -v
w” -r
--2. - 2’
wo. so.
EXPT EMP REAL(T) REAL(M)
FIG. 15. The energy spectrum of ~%t.i. The &xperimental data aie taken fI’oin Ref. [35] supple-
mented with that of Medsker [45].
g.mlO'
--- ,
-- 2’ 2’
‘r uo. MO. coo. !*o.

EXPT EMP REAL111 REAL(M)
FIG. 16. The energy spectrum of 98R~. The experimental data are taken from Ref. [35] sup-
plemented with Ref. 1511.
j -g+$
---‘?’
‘2.
O-S-
L ---22' -2' --2' -- -2'
0.61
1’ Eo. l-O.571 . !-0.31! . 1ko.L9)1
EXPT EMP REALiT? ;IEAlIV;
Frc;. 17. The energy spectrum of 100Ru. The experimental data are taken from Ref. [35].
MO-, and Ru-isotopes these values are listed in Table XIX while the reduced transi-
tion probabilities (JI I/ E2 j( Ji>, and (J, 1)E2 /I Ji>, (defined in Section 2) are given
in Table XX. The calculated B(E2) values for 0~ ---f 2-l. transition are plotted in
Figs. 18, 19 and 20 for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes, respectively.
The quadrupole moments Q(21i-) of the first 2~i state for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-
isotopes are given in Table 21 and are plotted in Figs. 21, 22 and 23, respectively. The
figures depict the variation of cJ(~~+)with the addition of neutrons.
192 GAT&IIR, HAQ, AND SURI
TABLE XVII
Energy Levels (in MeV) of Ru-Isotopes
@ORu =Ru looRu

-
J” EXPTa EMP REAL(T) EXPT” EMP REAL(T) EXPF EMP REAL(T)
0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.794 2.345 1.31 f 0.06 2.272 3.026 1.132 I .916 2.270
3.286 4.640 3.413 4.635 2.950 4.710
1’ 2.878 3.439 3.000 3.740 2.920 3.329
2+ 0.832 1.060 0.860 0.653 1.243 1.557 0.540 1.115 0.846
1.477 2.031 2.131 1.414 2.460 2.682 1,363 1.912 2.330
2.366 2.827 2.689 3.370 2.068 3.134
2.942 3.879
3+ 2.149 2.297 2.717 3.219 1.882 1.990 2.333
4+ 1.518 1.918 1.922 1.398 2.209 2.790 1.228 1.950 2.147
2.821 3.375 2.852 3.582 2.064 2.546 3.510
3.044 3.694 3.151 4.054 2.945 4.083
5+ 3.382 3.871 3.449 4.420 3.262 4.204
6f 2.150 3.091 3.640 2.223 3.167 3.948 2.078 2.839 3.859
7+ 3.763 4.340 3.861 4.581 3.708 4.295
8+ 2.950 3.231 3.754 3.127 3.302
9+ 3.926 4.701 4.079 4.967 3.999 4.588
10+ (3.817) 4.099 4.789 (4.001) 4.107 5.111 (4.087) 4.111 5.025
11+ 4.678 5.264 4.785 5.550 4.763 5.431
12+ (4.262) 5.508 6.122 4.949 6.064
o- 5.433 6.055 5.932
l- 5.083 4.925 5.705 4.517 5.581
2- 4.885 4.681 5.307 4.31 I 5.215
3- 4.493 4.168 4.897 (2.180) 3.758 4.809
4- 3.615 4.358 3.747 4.793 3.537 4.762
5- (2.588) 3.090 3.980 3.225 4.415 (2.529) 3.015 4.384
6- 4.004 4.789 4.1% 5.226 (2.965) 3.798 5.134
7- (3.291) 4.251 4.933 4.390 5.388 (2.954) 3.987 5.292
8- 4.643 5.451 4.803 5.786 (3.356) 4.410 5.770
9- (3.951) 5.117 5.545 (3.852) 5.158 6.167 (3.507) 4.751 6.043
a The experimental data are taken from Ref. [35] supplemented with Ref. [51] in the case of *8R~
and with Ref. 1521 in the case of looRu.
TABLE XVIII
B(2) Values for Zr-Isotopes
0
EyWeV) df II E2 II JA, <Jf I/ ~3 II Ji>n B(E2) ee fm’ x lOa Liz
_---
%
REAL(T) F
- s
Transi- ESM ESM ESM fItit eirr a
Nucleus tions EXPT (EMP) EMP REAL(T) (EMP) EMP REAL(T) EXPT” (EMP) EMP = 1.2e = l.Oe
$3
98Zr o+-2* 934 3.42 3.37 6.46 16.23 15.95 17.71 0.79 0.65 0.63 1.06 0.85 3
10.07
2’ +4’ 562 2.48 6.42 -. 18.94 21.64 -. 0.15 0.28 0.22 2
2
84Zr Of + 2f 918 1.94 2.25 4.90 17.14 17.68 20.47 0.56 0.58 0.63 1.10 0.85 &
to.06 2
2++4~ 551 .-- 1.20 0.58 9.28 6.90 -. .- 0.04 0.02 0.01 2
z
BBZr 0-1.+ 2+ 1758 2.92 2.91 6.13 17.14 16.80 19.34 0.55 0.66 0.64 1.23 0.97 5
+0.22 4
2’ --* 4’ I380 Il.55 13.59 21.71 23.51 0.43 0.54 0.45
“ The experimental data for 8z*y1Zrand ‘“Zr are taken from Refs. [48 and 491, respectively. The ESM results are those of Gloeckner [27].
TABLE XIX
B(E2) values for MO- and Ru-Isotopes
EY WV) B(E2) eW
REAL(T)
Nucleus Transitions EXPT EMP REAL( 7) EXPT EMP

___-
94Mo 0++2+ 871 821 0.196 f 0.003” 0.033 0.047 0.033
0.206 f O.Oll*
2+ -+4+ 702.7 867 848 0.120 f O.O1gb 0.012 0.019 0.014
“OMo o+ + 2f 778.2 1116 1211 0.271 5 0.004” 0.034 0.040 0.028

0.269 i 0.004b “2
2+ -+4+ 840.9 856 1083 0.189 f 0.036L 0.003 0.0009 0.014
9
P
BBM~ o+ 3 2’ 787.5 1309 733 0.267 zt 0.005” 0.032 0.061 0.044
0.265 f 0.005” i2
2’ + 4+ 722.8 900 1243 6.236 rt 0.024” u
0.026 0.031 0.023
52
=‘Ru o+ 4 2+ 832 1060 860 0.268 i 0.001” 0.028 0.040 0.026 2
2+ +4+ 686 858 1062 0.095 f 0.006” 0.008 0.011 0.007
gsR~ o+ * 2’ 653 1243 1557 0.3990 0.030 0.032 0.020

2++4+ 745 966 1233 0.002 0.0002 0.0009
loORu o+ +2+ 540 1115 846 0.51 I” 0.039 0.041 0.027

2+ + 4+ 687.6 835 1301 0.262 & 0.026” 0.015 0.011 0.008
R This experimental data are taken from Ref. [53]

b These experimental values correspond to the Ref. [54j.
c These experimental values are taken from Ref. [55].
TABLE XX
The Proton and the Neutron Contributions in B(E2) Values for
MO- and Ru-Isotopes
(Jr /I E2 II J,), ,.Jf I’ E2 IIJib
Nucleus Transitions EMP REAL(T) EMP REAL(T)
Y4M0 01 +2+ -0.46 PO.19 14.38 -- 17.78

2’ + 4’ -1.31 ~~ I .93 IS.68 m-22.64
““MO o-~ ---f27 0.47 0.20 ~~ 16.12 - 16.98

2- +4+ -0.43 -- I.56 II.09 2.87
YWM~ 0’. + 2’ 0.27 -1.19 15.31 --18.81

2’ -4’ 4.46 5.51 23.38 24.50
!‘BR” I342+ 0.86 1.80 - 15.23 ~- 19.25

2’ -4’ I.85 2.22 19.76 - 22.92
“HRU 0’ +26 I.16 2.66 -16.16 -18.75

2r -4- --I.82 m--o.90 II.14 3.76
l”ORu 0’ -21 -0.1 I I .89 ~~ 16.26 -19.68

2-+4’ 1.27 -2.28 21.28 23.43
EXPT :I
ESMtEMPI: B
EMP :.
REAL(T) :+
oLplmm~ -.. I
92 Zr 9L Lr 95 zr
FIG. 18. The B(E2: Of -+ 2 ‘) values for even Zr-isotopes. The experimental data are taken from
Refs. [48, 491 while the ESM results are those of Ref. [27].
196 GAMBHIR, HAQ,, AND SURr
TABLE XXI
Quadrupole Moments of the First 2+ State for Zr-, Mo- and Ru-Isotopes
Q(21+) e.6.
Nucleus EXPTa EMP REAL(T)
0.21 0.21
0.06 -0.03 (-0.023)
-0.07 -0.09 (-0.07)
- 0.23 0.28 (0.25)
- 0.16 0.16
-0.13 & 0.08
0.08 -0.06 (-0.04)
0.01 f 0.08
-0.20 f 0.08
*“MO -0.01 0.03 (0.04)
0.04 f 0.08
-0.20 f 0.09
0.17 0.22 (0.195)
0.16 * 0.09
- 0.04 0.05
-0.15 & 0.27 0.004 -0.14 (-0.11)
-0.03 + 0.14 -0.05 -0.07 (-0.055)
-0.40 + 0.12 0.05 0.17 (0.14)
D The experimental data for Mo-isotopes are taken from Ref. [53] while the same for ssJWRu and
PERUis from Ref. [56 and 571, respectively. The values in parenthesis in column REAL(T) corre-
spond to e& = I&.
EXPT :I
EHP :*
REAL(T) :+
%
“, 0.3 - A-
x .*
I
z .’ NC i
w 49 ---_ .
-y--- --+* /’
m o.z- I
0.1 -
0 I I 1
96 MO 96 Ma 98 MO
FIG. 19. The E(E2 : 0+ -+ 2f) values for even MO-isotopes. The experimental data are taken
from Ref. [53].
GENERALIZED BROKEN PAIR APPROXIMATION 1g7
07.
EXPT :I
EMP :*
0.6 REAL(T) : t
I
0.5 c
0.1
0
96 Ru 96 R” 100 Ru
Fic’rc;.20. The B(E2 : 0’ - 2+) values for even Ru-isotopes. The experimental data are that of
Ref. [55].
4.2. Calculations Using Renormalized Realistic Set of m.e.

In this set of calculations for Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes the renormalized sets of
realistic proton-proton, neutron-neutron and neutron-proton m.e. (listed in Tables
I, IX, and X) were used. However, before carrying out the explicit GBPA calculations,
the usefulnessof each individual (p-p, n-n and n-p) renormalized set of m.e. needs
?
1
:
EXPT: t
1,
0.5 EHP : 0
REAL t T): +
04
0.3
0.2 -
0.1 -
t o.o. +I
r
x
:- -O.l-
-0.2 4 z T
+N -0.3- 1 1”
d -o:,$-
-0.5 -
I I I
9LMo 96Mo 98Mo
FIG. 22. The Q(2,+) for even MO-isotopes. The experimental values are those of Ref. [53].
EXPT :3
EMP : .
REAL(T): +
0.5 .
I
I I I I 1
96 Ru 98Ru KM Ru
FIG. 23. The Q(21+) for even Ru-isotopes. The experimental data for ss,lOORuare taken from
Ref. [56] while for OSRuit is from Ref. [57].
to be investigated. One way of daing this is to compare the BPA results in the full and
in the truncated spaces obtained with the corresponding realistic and renormalized
realistic m.e. both for p-p and n-n systems separately. The usefulness of the renor-
malized p-p set of two body m.e. was already demonstrated in the BPA calculations
of N 7-- 50 even isotones (Section 3). A similar calculation is also performed in the
neutron subspace and the results are discussed in the first part (4.2.1) of this sub-
section. The second part (4.2.2) of the same subsection gives the details of the GBPA
calculations in the truncated (neutron and proton) space with the appropriately
renormalized m.e.
4.2.1 BPA Calculations for n-n S.vstenl

The BPA calculations were performed for 2-6 valence neutrons which correspond
to g”-g3Sr with respect to YSr inert core. Here, the valence neutrons are distributed
in the full major shell consisting of 2d,,, , 3s,,, , 2dsl, , lg,:, and l/z,,,, sp orbitals.
The corresponding sp energies (listed in Table II) and the original set of realistic
Sussex m.e. [28], relevant to these sp states, are used. Next, the calculations are
repeated in the truncated valence space containing 2d,,, and 3s,,, sp orbitals only.
In this truncated space calculations, the renormalized set of effective two body m.e.
denoted by “Renormalized Realistic” in Table IX is employed. The calculated energy
levels in the full and in the truncated spaces are given in Tables XII-XIV and are
plotted in Figs. 6-8 for g”-g%r. The BPA results obtained by using the empirical
set of effective two body m.e. in the truncated space together with the corresponding
ESM results [27, 421 are also included in the these tables and figures.
The inspection of the Tables XII-XIV and Figs. 6-8 reveals that the REAL(F)
and REAL(T) levels are in good agreement. This indicates that the projection method
adequately takes into account the effects of the truncation of the valence space through
the renormalization of the m.e. It is further observed from these tables and figures
that both REAL(F) and REAL(T) have a close correspondence with EMP as well
as with ESM(EMP). All these sets reproduce well the experimental spectra of S”Sr.
This analysis thus reveals that
(i) the BPA is a good approximation for the valence neutrons,
(ii) the Sussex interaction m.e. in the full/truncated space adequately describe
the properties of the n-n system.
Observation (ii) above helps to reduce the dimensionality of the configuration space
in order to simplify the numerical computation. Therefore, as a first step, the GBPA
calculations for 92-96Zr, g4-98M~ and 96-100R~ nuclei were carried out in the truncated
space only. The relevant renormalized n-p m.e. were appropriately calculated by the
projection method.
4.2.2. GBPA Calculations in the Truncated Space

It should be recalled that this truncated space is the same as that employed in the
GBPA calculations discussed in Subsection 4.1. The sp energies and appropriately

renormalized sets of realistic p-p, n-n and n-p m.e. listed in Tables I, IX, and X are
used. The calculated energy levels are listed in the corresponding Tables XV-XVII and
are plotted in Figs. 9-17 for all the nuclei considered.
Finally, an attempt has also been made to improve the calculated results of Ru-
isotopes by employing the empirical set of n-n and n-p m.e. while retaining the
renormalized set of realistic p-p m.e. The results corresponding to this mixed set of
effective two body m.e. were also included in the earlier figures (i.e., Figs. 15-17).
These are denoted by “REAL(M).”
The Q(21+) and B(E2) vales for 0+ -+ 2-k and 2+ -+ 4+ transitions are also cal-
culated using the wave functions obtained with the renormalized realistic set of m.e.
For this purpose, two values of neutron effective charge eirr = 1.2e (used earlier) and
etri = 1.0e were employed. The proton effective charge e& and the oscillator size
parameter b,, are chosen to be the same as used in the earlier calculations (Sub-
section 4.1). The calculated Q(21+) and B(E2) values (denoted by REAL(T)) were
included in the tables (i.e., Tables XVIII-XXI) to facilitate the comparison with the
EMP and EXPT. The calculated Q(21+) for the first 2+ states and B(E2) values for
0+ -+ 2+ transitions with the effective charges e& = 1.765e and e,“tr = 1.Oe, are
plotted in Figs. 18, 19, 20 and Figs. 21, 22, 23, respectively. These results are col-
lectively ,discussed in the next subsection.
4.3. Results and Discussion
4.3.1. Energy Spectra

.To check the validity of GBPA, we first compare the GBPA spectra, obtained by
using the empirical set of m.e. with the corresponding ESM energy levels [27]. For the
case of s2Zr (i.e., two valence protons and two valence neutrons), the EMP levels
(Fig. 9) coincide exactly with the ESM(EMP), as expected. Inspection-of Figs. 10 and
11 reveals that the EMP and ESM(EMP) results are in good agreement. Slight
discrepancies exist for the levels with high excitation energies in the case of s4Zr
nucleus. This probably is due to the fact that at such excitation energies the neutron
configurations with higher seniority, not included in the GBPA, start becoming
important. Further, this is even more so in the present calculation because of highly
truncated nature of the configuration space used. The GBPA is expected to reproduce
the ESM results even better in the enlarged space. Unfortunately such ESM. calcula-
tions in the enlarged space are not available.
The ESM spectra for s4-s8M~ obtained [42] using the same input information as
that of Gloeckner [27] are included in Figs. 12-14 along with the GBPA results. It is
clear from tehse figures that the agreement between GBPA(EMP) and ESM(EMP) in
the case of even MO-isotopes is fairly good. The slight discrepancies which existed
in the s4Zr results are a little more pronounced in the results of s6Mo. Considering
the fact that the dimensionality of the GBPA Hamiltonian matrices for various J”
states is trmendously reduced, as compared to those of ESM (shown in Table XI for
Y6M~), this quality of agreement is indeed gratifying. On the whole, one can then
conclude that the GBPA is a satisfactory and a useful practical approximation to the
shell model.
No ESM results using the empirical set of input m.e. are available for the case of
96,g*J~Ru nuclei. Hence, the GBPA results obtained with this set of input data are
compared only with the experiment. It is clear from Figs. 15-I 7 that for this case the
quality of agreement between EXPT and EMP is almost the same as that found for
the case of even MO-isotopes. From the observed agreement obtained between the
ESM(EMP) and EMP results for even Zr- and MO-isotopes, it is expected that the
GBPA(EMP) results for the case of even Ru-isotopes would compare well with the
corresponding ESM results (if obtained). From the above, it may be concluded that
the GBPA can be regarded as a fair representative of ESM in this region.
Next, we focus our attention on the detailed comparison of the GBPA results.
obtained by using the renormalized set of realistic Sussex m.e., with the experiment.
Inspection of Table XV and Figs. 9, 10 reveals the same quality of agreement between
the low-lying states of REAL(T) and EXPT as found between EXPT and EMP for
g2Zr and g4Zr nuclei. However, the 5- states are found to be lowered compared to
EXPT for both the nuciei. This discrepancy for the 5- states is also observed in the
EMP (so also in ESM(EMP)), though it is small. In the case of %Zr (Table XV and
Fig. 1I), the quality of agreement between REAL(T) and EXPT is not as good as that
found in case of EMP and EXPT. The qualitative feature of the spectra are found to
be reasonable, though the calculated excited 2’. and O+ levels in this case are shifted
up by --0.5-0.8 MeV. This may be attributed to the shell closure (&, closure due to
the six valence neutrons) effects.
For the case of g4Mo (Table XVI and Fig. 12), the low-lying levels of REAL(T) are
again in excellent agreement with EXPT. The inspection of Fig. 13 (and Table XVI)
reveals that almost the entire spectrum of gsMo in the case of REAL(T) was slightly
shifted (GO.4 MeV) upwards. On the whole, the agreement between the low-lying
states of REAL(T) and EXPT may be considered to be satisfactory. For g8M~ (Table
XVI and Fig. 14) the first 2+ state is very well reproduced. However, the quality of
agreement is not very satisfactory. This again may be attributed to the &,, shell closure
effects (corresponding to six valence neutrons.)
For WRY, the agreement between REAL(T) and EXPT (Table XVII and Fig. 15)
is better than that between EMP and EXPT. Similar behaviour is also predicted by
REAL(M). For the case of gsRu (Table XVII, Fig. 16) the quality of agreement
between REAL(T) and EXPT is of the same order as found between EMP and EXPT.
However, the whole REAL(T) as well as EMP spectrum was shifted (<0.9MeV)
upwards. The REAL(M) helps to bring the calculated results close to the experimental.
The upward shift of the spectrum was considerably reduced in this case. Figure 17
(and Table XVII) gives the level scheme for lWRu. It is clear from the figure that
REAL(T) is as good as EMP, compared to EXPT. The agreement with EXPT is
better for the case of REAL(M).
In short, we may conclude that the results, obtained by using renormalized realistic
set of interaction m.e., are in no way inferior to those obtained by using the empirical
set of input data,in spite of the fact that the realistic m.e. were obtained without
introducing a single adjustable parameter.
43.2. E2-Transition Rates and Q(21+)
Here again we start with the detailed discussion and comparison of B(E2) values
of EMP and those of ESM (EMP). It is to be noted that the shell model results for
B(E2) values are available only for 0+ --+ 2+ transition in ez-9sZr nuclei. As mentioned
earlier, the calculated EZreduced transition probabilities for even Zr-isotopes were
summarized in Table XVIII. It is heartening to find from Table XVIII an excellent
agreement between GBPA (EMP) and the corresponding SM results (ESM(EMP)).
In addition, both the GBPA and the SM reproduce, remarkably well, the experi-
mental B(E2) values. It is to be recalled that in the limit of four nonidentical particles
(i.e., two protons and two neutrons), the GBPA formalism reduces to ESM. The slight
departure between the EMP and the corresponding ESM (EMP) for 92Zr is perhaps
due to a slight difference in b, values used in the respective calculations. The calculated
EMP values for the B (E2) (O+ -+ 2f transition) for even Zr-isotopes, plotted in Fig.
18, reveal almost the same trend of variation with the addition of neutrons as that of
ESM (EMP) and EXPT. This indicates that the GBPA is equally successful in repro-
ducing not only the spectra but the dynamic nuclear properties like EZtransition rates
also. This fully demonstrates the validity of the GBPA in this region.
Having once established the validity of the GBPA, we now compare the calculated
B(E2) and Q(21+) values, using both the sets of input data (i.e., empirical and renor-
malized realistic), with the experimental results. For this purpose, the Table XVIII
is again to be examined, where the results for even Zr-isotopes are presented. As
mentioned earlier, two different values of neutron effective charge e& = 1.2e and
4ff = l.Oe were chosen for REAL(T) to reproduce the experimental data. However,
the proton effective charge e& (= 1.765e) is taken to be the same as that used in
ESM calculations. It is clear from this table that the B(E2) values in the case of
REAL(T) using e& = 1.2e are little higher than those of EMP and EXPT while the
same, with e& = l.Oe, reproduce remarkably well the experimental data. From the
same table it can also be seen that (Jf 11E2 11Ji>p values in case of REAL(T), for
almost all the transitions, are higher than those of EMP while (Jf Ij E2 II Ji), values
in both the REAL(T) and EMP are almost equal for all the transitions considered. In
other words, the proton contribution to the EZtransition is more in REAL(T) than
that in EMP. Hence, the use of the same neutron effective charge e& = 1.2e, in both
REAL(T) and EMP, yields higher B(E2) values in REAL(T). Therefore, we have
fixed the neutron effective charge (e& = l.Oe) to reproduce the experimental results
for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes. It is to be noted that in the case of REAL(T), an
effective B(E2) operator obtained with the projection method should be used (analog-
ous to the effective Hamiltonian) in the calculations. However, for simplicity we
follow the phenomenological approach and therefore assign effective charges to
neutrons and to protons. There is no obvious reason to expect these effective charges
to be the same as those assigned through ESM calculations. It is to be recalled that

e& = 1.2e, constantly used in case of EMP, is taken to be the average value from the
experimentally fitted neutron effective charges for 92,g4J’6Zr nuclei by Gloeckner [27].
Inspection of Table XIX reveals that using e,$r = 1.2e, the EMP values are smaller
by a factor of 7 for even Mo-isitopes and by a factor of 14 in the case of Ru-isotopes,
when compared with the experimental data. The same remarks hold for B(n) values
obtained in REAL(T) using ezrr = l.Oe. This is probably due to some collective
excitations like vibrational mode which may be important. An observation of the
experimental B(E2) values for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes supports this con-
clusion. The fact is that the experimental B(E2) values for even MO-, and Ru-isotopes
are larger than those for even Zr-isotopes while the calculated values remain almost
the same for all the nuclei considered. On the whole, the REAL(T) results are in good
agreement with EMP as is evident from the Tables XVIII-XX.
Figs. 18, 19 and 20 depict the variation of B(E2) values with the addition of neutrons
for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes, respectively. The calculated B(E2) values, for
both the EMP and the REAL(T), were plotted after multiplying by a factor of 7 in
the case of even MO-isotopes and by a factor of 14 in the case of even Ru-isotopes.
However, in the case of even Zr-isotopes, both the calculated B(E2) values are plotted
without multiplying by any factor. It is to be pointed out that the plotted B(E2)
values for the REAL(T) correspond to the neutron effective charge e& = l.Oe. It is
clear from Fig. 18 that for even Zr-isotopes, the trend of variation of B(E2) with the
addition of neutrons is almost the same for both the EMP and REAL(T). Moreover,
both are in full conformity with the experimental trend. For MO-isotopes, the Fig. 19
shows that the qualitative trend of variation of B(E2) with the addition of neutrons
is the same for EMP and EXPT. However, in the case of REAL(T) there exists a
minimum for ssMo which is not present in both the EXPT and EMP. The overall
agreement is good. For even Ru-isotopes, inspection of Fig. 20 reveals almost the
same qualitative trend of variation of B(E2) with the addition of neutrons for both
EMP and EXPT, whereas for the case of REAL(T), the B(E2) value of 96Ru is slightly
off from the general trend predicted by EXPT and EMP. On the whole, the calculated
B(E2) values (EMP and REAL(T)) exhibit more or less the same trend as that of
EXPT for all the isotopes.
The calculated quadrupole moments for the first 2; excited states are shown in
Table XXI along with the experimental values (Wherever available). It is clear from
the table that the calculated Q(21+) (EMP and REAL(T)) are in good agreement
and both reproduce well the experimental values. Figures 21, 22 and 23 display the
variation of Q(2,‘) with the addition of neutrons for even Zr-, MO-, and Ru-isotopes.
The calculated Q(2, ) plotted in these figures are free from any multiplicative factor.
For even Zr-isotopes, Fig. 21 exhibits almost the same trend of variation of Q(.& )
with the addition of neutrons for both the EMP and the REAL(T). In the case of
MO-isotopes, Fig. 22 shows almost identical patterns for all the three plotted curves.
Further, it is seen that all the calculated points lie within the limits of experimental
predictions. Figure 23 reveals that for gGR~ and 9sR~ nuclei, the calculated quadrupole
moments lie within the limit of errors of experimental points, while for lo@Ru the
calculated values of Q(21+) for both EMP and REAL(T) lie above the experimental
value. Thus, in short, the variation of the calculated quadrupole moments (EMP and
REAL(T)) with the addition of neutrons almost follows the experimental trend.
The above analysis of the results leads to the following observations:
(i) The GBPA is able to reproduce the energy spectra as well as the dynamic
nuclear properties like E2-reduced transition probabilities and Q(21+).
(ii) The renormalized Sussex interaction m.e., obtained by the projection
method to incorporate the effects of the truncation of the valence space, successfully
account for the experimental data in this region in the framework of GBPA.
(iii) Slight departures from the experiment in the calculated spectra do exist
and are maximum for the case of four valence neutrons (i.e., g4Zr, =Mo, @Ru). These
departures may be partially due to the high seniority components (V 3 4) and the
collective excitations not included in the GBPA.
CONCLUSIONS
The BPA/GBPA developed as a practical alternative to the shell model has been
demonstrated to be a valid and successful approximation in the Zr-region. This
induces faith in the BPA/GBPA and, therefore, this approximate formalism can be
applied with confidence to most of the nuclei, especially to the cases where the shell
model calculations are just not feasible.
The realistic set of Sussex interaction matrix elements were able to reproduce,
reasonably well, the energy spectra as well as the electromagnetic static and dynamic
nuclear properties for the even isotopes of Zr, MO and Ru, in the framework of
BPA/GBPA.
The projection method has been found to be successful in incorporating the effects
of the truncation of the valence space through the renormalization of the two body
interaction matrix elements.
In the light of the observations made above, it can be concluded that the Broken
Pair Approximation (BPA/GBPA) is indeed a viable alternative to the shell model
specially for the nuclei where the collective excitations are not very important for the
low-lying nuclear levels.
APPENDIX A
The explicit expression for the scalar products between the BPA states can be
obtained by making use of the seniority representation. First, one expands the few
particle states (X,‘,(d, K) IO}) in terms of orthonormal few particle shell model
states ~+(n, , v, , CX)IO>, with definite occupation number n, and seniorities va; 01being
an additional quantum number which may be required to specify the state uniquely.
The total seniority v is
The expansion coefficients are
and their evaluation requires the operators xi- in the second quantized form. For
I’ -==0, I and 2, x+ can be written down uniquely in terms of X-1. operators with spe-
cific values of K. The x+ operators corresponding to higher seniority states can then be
obtained by taking only those linear combinations of ,I’+ operators which are ortho-
gonal among themselves as well as to the lower seniority states. This can easily be
carried out as few particles are involved. This procedure is explicitly shown in Refs.
[I, IO]. The states
can be expressed in terms of 2p particle states in the seniority representation using

the following relations:
(A4)
for commuting operators 8. And for the seniority state In, . v,,\,
In, yv,*: = (M*, ) v,t)-“2 g A:,(aa))nuIv,,, v,,:. (AS)
with the normalization
qawa- %I!
-K7,&= e2, for qn :: (Q, - v,),
- V”- qo)!
_0
~~-- otherwise.
Finally the scalar products can be expressed as
co/T,-o~XJ,(d’,
K’) X%4 K) 7L-bIO)
C.47)
= c Cjy(d, J) C$“(d’, J) 9”--“[n,(d), n,(d’), VJ’
I)*.(I
where
. L-Q,- *(na + v,)] ! [Q, - B(n’,+ v,)l ! 1/Z

[ [Q(n a - v a)]! [&z~ - v,)]! I *
Here k is the number of valence levels and the summation runs over all integral values
of rl , r2 ,..., rk such that
(-1)1a = (-l)ya, ra an,, ra 2 4 ,
ra < (252, - vJ and T ra = 2(p - b) + C n, .

a
APPENDIX B
In this appendix, the expressions for the m.e. of the Hamiltonian, multipole
operators and the overlap between the BPA basis states for the case of one broken
pair (i.e., b = l), are presented.
. &‘A%‘&-‘WP, PIP; P;J) R,(PI P; PZP;)
where A = H - h, , and
-&4 = - [Cal + lip c ~~F(u,u,u$7,0) 3 3

a2
P(u,ulJ) = 1 - (- l)j~+‘~z-$z, +-+ a&
The various R functions are defined below:
R,(ll’m) =-= j( 1 - 2Sz,i-2)-1/2 (1 - 2S1&2)-1’2

x [9”-“(ng2m), npm), n<(m)) - s,,L9”-ynJ2m), n,(i2m), n#“m))],
R,(N’mn) = $[I + S,,,, - 2i-ys,, + S,,)“]-1’2 [l + s,, - 2P(&, + &,,)2]--1’2

x [5B(D-1+zi(12mn), n,(E2’mn), n,(mn))
- S,,,91?-1’(n,(12mn), ni(12mn), ni(12mn))],
R,,(II’mm’) = +[I + S,,(l - 4k2)]-l12 11 + S,,m~(l - 4i’-2)]-1/2

x [9tP-1+7i(Pm2), ni(1’2m’2), 0) - (1 + S&-l (S,,&,,t + S,,&,,))
x Z@n’P-1)(ni(/2m2),ni(12m2), n,(Pm2))].
The symbol q(&, bkb, ckc, ...) stands for k,S,, + k,S,, + kc&, + ...
(b) The M.E. of the Multipole Operators
($(P;P;J’)Il QA iMP,P,J))
= p(PIp,J)RP;P;J’) (-(-lY+“.f.%Jep; 1;; f izj <pa Q, Ilp,)
.I J’ h
+ 4~~$,y;-‘s,&
I p; p2 p1 I (Pell Q, lIPi> MP,P;PJ
+ 2(-U”-” PKP,P,J)(P;PY)I ~;;-‘6,5,6,,6.,,,(p;ll QA IIP;) MP,P;P;)) 3
where P[(x)(x’)] = 1 & (x - x’) according to whether
(a/ QA lla’) = j-(-l)i*-‘o’ (a’11Sz, [la),

and
J J’ h
I
Xl x2 x3 I
= (- l)J+“+zl+rz W(JJ’x,x,; hx,).
(c) Overlap between BPA Basis States
(&P;P;JM) I ~(PIPPJM))
= (1 - 6JO)(l + h,,,) L$%,,; ~(“-Y%(PIP2), ni(PIPz), ni(P,Pz))
+ %Al,D,~P;,; .+-l) MPl% ni(P;“>, 0).
APPENDIX C
(a) The M.E. of H&,lHzp between BPA Bmis States
where
1 .
Here a, b stand for the proton, neutron sp states.
where P[(p)(n)] = p tf II.
x {R~(P~P;P~) Wv;~,) + 16~;1~;-1ri,‘7i~-1R,(~g~;~1) &twh)l

N
x c (- , p-7&T’ “r2
J F(P, FGW’~)
.I’
-
+ 4P(n tt p) fl;16;-1R,(p,p;pl) R,(n,n;n,)( - I)p’-u”““+“~ c PF(Pp;P&LJj]
J’
x S,l,;S,l,;.f,&,~$,.&~ W(J,p,J’p;; p&) W(J,n,J’n;; n,J;) W(J,J’JJ;; J;J,,
- 32P(n t) p) P(ptn* 4-s pn) 1 ci,ri;‘F(a,a,n,n,0) S,,,2S,;,;

a1
x S,1122Sn;n;S~~~6~,~~~OR1(~1
P&I) R&&d
+ P(nt+ p)(l + snl,J Wz, f-) na)[16@‘Rl(n2n~nl)

- 4~;‘R3(n2nln2)l
+ 1@(p’n * pn) P(p, p,J,) P(n,n,J,,)( - l)P1-YZtJp SJ~J,~~,B,lti,lF(p,p,n,n~.~)

- 8P(n t, p)( 1 + Ssl,,) P(p’n’ e, pn) C 617i;1F(u,a,n,nlo)

a1
xs D,Q 2 D& 43 nine 6 nin’e 2 JpJ&l 6 J,J,o 1 R 2 &PIP,) ~dw;~A
where
Sabed ... =bA$Ll *.*,
P(n +-+p) = 1 + (- l)Jp+Jn+Ji+Jr; (p H n),

H(n’t,n) = 1 + (n’t,n);
P(n’p’ t) np) = 1 + (n’ +-+n)(p’ +-+p),
R,(abc) = L@-‘(n&bc), n&bc), n&bc)).
APPENDIX D
The M.E. of the Multipole Operators between GBPA States
<$~,(JyA>ll Q,(P) + sz,cn> II~J(J,J,>>

= fp[(- l)Jn+A-JvJ’ SJ,J,:W(J~JJLJ’; Jn4(4M4J3 I #mJ,)>
x <NP;P;J;)II G(P) !MP,P,J&
+ C-1) J’+A-J’-J ~J~J;W(J,JJ;J’; Jd)<+(p;p%) 1 +(P,P,J&
x <~(44J~)II f&W l14(w~Jn)>19

GENERALIZED BROKEN PAIR APPROXIMATION 21 I
where the reduced matrix element in the proton/neutron space, and the overlap
between the proton/neutron BPA basis states have been given in the Appendixes
B(b), B(c), respectively.
APPENDIX E
Projection Method
The calculations in the truncated space were performed with the elective interaction
m.e. which in&de the effect of the valence space truncation through teh projection
method 1291. In this method the effective interaction m.e. are calculated by requiring
that the m.e. of an operator (Hamiltonian) between the states in the full space is
equal to the m.e. of an effective operator (Hamiltonian) between the states in the
truncated space. Further the states in the truncated space are simply the projection
of the full states onto the truncated space. The final expression [29] for the m.e. of
the effective Hamiltonian Rerr relevant to the truncated space is given below.
(El)
In this expression V represents the two-body interaction part of the Hamiltonian H

in the full spaceand /i}$ lj>, etc., represent two nucIeon basisstates in the truncated
space d while .Y stands for two nucleon states not included in rl. The m.e. of the
correlation matrix V are determined through
(E2)
for each 19) and for all CL.The expansion coefficients X are known from the diagonali-
zation of H in full space. It is clear from (El) that
<i I Wef* I j> f <j I Beff I 0 (E3)

and therefore Rerr is no longer Hermitian. In order to use Herr in the nuclear structure
cakulations, one is required to hermitize Serf.
Here we use for hermitization
(i I Ha lj> = (<i I Eeff I i>(j I i7,fr I i>)““. (E4)

This hermitization procedure has been shown [29] to work consistantly better in the
earlier investigations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to H. J. Mang, P. Ring, V. L Narasimham, S. H. Patil, P. P. Kane

and G- Basavaraju for usesul discussions and to S. S. Ipson for providing realistic Sussex rnter-
action matrix elements. The help providing by the IIT-Bnmbay Computer Centre during numeri-
cal calculations is gratefully acknowledged. One of us (SH) is grateful to IIT Bombay and CSIR
(India) for financial support.
REFERENCES
1. M. H. MACFARLANE, in “Lectures in Theoretical Physics,” Vol. IIIC (P. D. Kunz, D. A. Lind,

and W. E. Brittin, Eds.), Univ. of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1966.
2. A. BOHR, B. R. MOTTELSON, AND D. PINES, Whys. Rev. 110 (1958), 936; A. BOHR, “Comptes
Rendus du Congres International de Physique Nucleaire, Paris, 1958,” Dunod, Paris, 1959;
B. R. MOTTELSON, in “Many Body Problem,” Wiley, New York, 1959; V. G. SOLOVIEV, Nucl.
Phys. 9 (1958), 655.
3. S. T. BALYAEV, Danske Vid. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd. 31, No. 11 (1959).
4. L. S. KISSLINGER AND R. A. SORENSEN, Danske Vid. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd. 32, No. 9 (1960);
Rev. Mod. Phys. 35 (1963), 853.
5. M. BARANGER, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960), 120.
6. R. ARVIEU, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 8 (1963), 407; R. ARVIEU, E. BARAGER, M. BARANGER, M.
VENERONI, AND V. GILLET, Phys. Lett. 4 (1963), 119; R. ARVIEU, E. SALSUTI, AND M. VENERONI,
Phys. Lett. 8 (1964), 334.
7. M. SAVOIA, J. SAWICKI, AND A. TOMASINI, Nuouo Cimento 32 (1964), 991.
8. J. B. FRENCH AND L. S. Hsu, Phys. Lett. 19 (1965), 135; L. S. Hsu, Nucl. Phys. A 96 (1967), 624.
9. P. L. O~AVIANI, M. SAVOIA, J. SAWICKI, AND A. TOMASINI, Phys. Rev. 153 (1967), 1138; P. L.
OITAVIANI, M. SAVOIA, AND J. SAWICKI, Phys. Lett. B 24 (1967), 353.
10. M. K. PAL, Y. K. GAMBHIR, AND RAM RAJ, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967), 1144.
11. M. GMITRO, A. RIMINI, J. SAWICKI, AND T. WEBER, Phys. Rev. 173 (1968), 964.
12. A. RIMINI, J. SAWICKI, AND T. WEBER, Phys. Rev. 168 (1968), 1401.
13. M. GMITRO, J. HENDEKOVIC, AND J. SAWICKI, Phys. Lett. B26 (1968), 252; Phys. Rev. 169
(1968), 983.
14. M. GMITRO AND J. SAWICKI, Phys. Lett. B26 (1968), 493.
15. A. RIMINI, J. SAWICKI, AND T. WEBER, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (1968), 676.
16. RAM RAJ, Y. K. GAMBHIR, AND M. K. PAL, Phys. Rev. 163 (1969), 1004.
17. Y. K. GAMBHIR, RAM RAT, AND M. K. PAL, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967), 1139; R. AIZETTA, A. RIMINI,
T. WEBER, M. GMITRO, AND J. SAWICKI, Phys. Rev. 185 (1969), 1233.
18. B. F. BAYMAN, Nucf. Phys. 15 (1960), 33.
19. P. L. OTTAVINI AND M. SAVOIA, Phys. Rev. 178 (1969), 1594; Phys. Rev. 187 (1969), 1306; Nuovo
Cimento Lett. 1 (1969), 766; Nuovo Cimento 67 (1970), 630.
20. K. ALLART AND E. BOEKER, Nucl. Phys. A 168 (1971), 630; Nucl. Phys. A 198 (1972), 33.
21. Y. K. GAMBHIR, A. RIMINI, AND T. WEBER, Phys. Rev. 188 (1969), 1573; Phys. Rev. C3 (1971),
1965.
22. A. RIMINI AND T. WEBER, Phys. Rev. C 2 (1970), 324.
23. S. HAQ AND Y. K. GAMBHIR, Phys. Rev. C 16 (1977), 2455.
24. Y. K. GAMBHIR, S. HAQ, AND J. K. SURI, Phys. Rev. C 20 (1979), 381; Y. K. GAMBHIR, in “Invited
Talk,” Proc. Nucl. Phys. and Solid State Phys. Symp. Vol. 21A, DAE, Bombay, 1978. S. HAQ,
“Nuclear Structure Studies of Medium Heavy Nuclei,” Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Tech-
nology, Bombay, India, February 1980.
25. Y. K. GAMBHIR, S. HAQ, AND J. K. SURI, Phys. Rev. C21 (1980), 1124.
26. D. H. GLOECKNER AND F. J. D. SERDUKE, Nucl. Phys. A 220 (1974), 477.
27. D. H. GLOECKNER, Nucl. Phys. A 253 (1975), 301.
28. S. S. IPSON, K. C. MACLEAN, W. BOOTH, AND J. G. B. HAIGH, Nucl. Phys. A 253 (1975), 189;
S. S. IPS~N, Private communication.
29. B. R. BARRET, E. C. HALBERT, AND J. B. MCGRORY, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 90 (1975), 32; Y. K.
GAMBHIR AND G. BASAVARAN, PramEna 13 (1979), 269.
GENERALIZED BROKEN PAIR APPROXIMATIOli 213
30. A. K. KEKMAN, R. D. LAWSON, AND M. H. MACFARLANE, Whys. Rev. 124 (1961), 162; Y. K.
GAMBHIR AND RAM RAJ, Phys. Rev. 161 (1967), 1125.
31. S. PANDYA, Phys. Rea. 103 (1956), 956.
32, R. P. SINGHAL, S. W. BRAIN, C. S. CURRAN, W. A. GILLESPEE, A. JOHNSTON, A. W. LEES, ANI)
A. G. SLIGHT, J. Phys. G 1 (1975), 588.
33. S. S. GLICKSTEIN, G. TESSLER, AND M. GOLDSMITH, Phys. Reo. C4 (1971), 1818.
34. D. C. KOCHER AND D. J. HOREN, Nucl. Data Sheets B7 (1972), 299; G. P. GLASGOW, J. D.
BRANDENBERGER, K. SINRAM, AND M. T. MCELLISTREM, “Report of the Experimental Nuclear
Physics Group,” p. 17, University of Kentucky, December, 1972 (quoted in Ref. [26]).
35. C. M. LEDER~R, J. M. JAKLEVIC, AND J. M. HOLLANDER, Nucl. P/IFS. A 169 (1971), 449.
36. J. M. JAKLEVI~‘. C. M. LEDERER, AND J. M. HOLLANDER, P/Q~J. Lett. B 29 (1969), 179; J. B. BALL
AND J. S. LARsEh, Whys. Rev. Lett. 29 (1972), 1014.
37. L. A. SLIV AND 1. M. BAND, “Alpha, Beta and Gamma Ray Spectroscopy” (K. Siegbahn, Ed.),
Vol. 2, p. 1639, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965.
38. F. R. METZC;ER, Nucl. Phys. A 182 (1972), 213.
39. P. H. STELSON AND L. GRODZINS, Nucl. Data Sheets 1 (1965), 21.
40. K. G. LBBNER. Nucl. Phys. 58 (1964), 49.
41. S. COCHAVI, J. M. MCDONALD, AND D. B. FOSSAN, Phys. Rer. C3 (1971). 1352.
42. A. KUMAR AhD R. K. BANSAL, J. Phys. G5 (1979), 265.
43. E. R. FLY~~;x. 0. HANSEN, J. D. SHERMAN, N. STEIN, AND J. W. SUNIER. NucI. P&s. A 264 (1976).
253.
44. B. A. BROWN, D. B. FOSSAN, P. M. S. LESSER, AND A. R. POLETTI, Phys. Rec. C 14 (1976), 602;
B. SIN<;H, H. W. TAYLOR, AND P. J. TIVIN, J. Phys. G 2 (1976), 397 (and references cited therein).
45. H. VERHEUL AKD W. B. EWBANK, Nucl. Data Sheets B8 (1972), 477; D. C. KOCHER, Nucl.
Data Sheers B 8 (1972), 527; Nucl. Data Sheets 10 (1973), 241: L. R. MEDSKER AND D. J. HOREN,
Nucl. Dam Sheets BS (1972), 29: L. R. MEDSKER, Nucl. Data Sheets B8 (1972), 599: NM-~.
Data Sheets 10 (1973), I.
46. G. P. GLASGOW, Ph.D. thesis, University of Kentucky, 1974 (quoted in Ref. [27]).
47. P. M. S. LESSER, B. A. BROWN, D. B. Fo~~AN, AND A. R. POLETTI, Bull. Amer. Phys. Sot. 19
(1974), 473.
48. Yu. P. GANGRSKII AND I. KH. LEMBERG, Yad. Fiz. 1 (1965), 1025 [Sou. J. Nucl. Phys. 1 (1965).
7311.
49. L. N. GALPERIN, A. Z. ILYASOV, I. KH. LEMBERG, AND G. A. FIR~~NOV, Yud. Fiz. 9 (1969), 225
[SOP. J. Nucl. Phys. 9 (1969), 1331.
SO. L. R. MEDSKER, Nucl. Data Sheets 11 (1974). 157.
51. H. W. FIELDING, R. E. ANDERSON, D. A. LIND, AND C. D. ZAFIRATOS, Nucl. Phys. A 269 (l976),
125.
52. M. J. A. DEVOIGT, J. F. W. JANSEN, F. BRUIMING, AND Z. SUJKOWSKI, Nucl. Phys. A 270 (1976).
141.
53. P. PARDIS, G. LAMOUREUX, R. LECOMTE, AND S. MONARO, Phys. Reu. C 14 (1974), 835.
54. J. BARETTE, M. BARRETTE, A. BOUTARD, R. HAROUTLJNIAN, G. LAMOUREUX, AND S. MONARO,
Phys. Ret>. C6 (1972), 1339.
55. F. K. MCGOWAN, R. L. ROBINSON, P. H. STELSON, AND W. T. MILNER, N~cl. Phys. 113 (1968).
529.
56. C. FAHLANDER, L. HASSELGREN, G. POSSNERT, AND J. E. THUN, Phys. Sm. 18 (1978), 47.
57. M. MAC~NARD, D. C. PALMER, J. R. CRESSWELL, P. D. FORSYTH, I. HALL, AND D. G. E. MARTIN,
J. Phys. C3 (1977), 1735.

A Viable Alternative For Shell Model For Spherical Nuclei

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Viable Alternative For Shell Model For Spherical Nuclei

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNALS OF PHYSIC 133, 154-213 (1981)

Generalized Broken Pair Approximation:

Y. K. GAMBHIR,**+ S. HAQ, AND J. K. SURI

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay 400 076, India

The well-known dimensionality problem of the Hamiltonian matrices in the shell

I+,> = T,+lw (2.5)

%<A I H I 4,XCo I 4,)) = 0. (2.6)

ximation, are constructed by replacing one of the p distributed pair operators $ in

pairs of neutrons, the approximate GBPA ground state is written as a product of p

I40) = IT,’ 0 ~,+llo>, (2.10)

2.2. The Hamiltonian

H = Hu,, + H,, + H,,, . (2.13)

H,,,= c c+,&l + 1 c Calm2

In addition to (2.2), defining the following operators:

H&l) = c %,a,: , (2.16a)

HP, can then he rewritten in the coupled form as

H,, = ho + c h,(a,) Hdu,) + 1 hhwd4~,) MMwJ,), (2.17)

h, = 1 h12c,, + &Sl 1 B,F(u,u,u,u,0)

h&q&&) = (1 + &&-l (1 + h;c# G@,a,@;~,). (2.18c)

F(u,u;u;u,Z;) = - c (21, + 1) W(a,u,u;u;; I&) G(u2u&&,), (2.21)

where W is Racah’s 6j symbol. It is to be noted that our G and F quantities are -2

H,,, = 6,“’ + c hXu,) H,(a,) i- c hX6,) H,(h)

6,“” = 1 &F(ff,a,b,b,O), (2.23a)

h;‘(c) = -2-l c dF(ccdd0). (2.23b)

%n = Hn, + c h:%,) H,(b,) - A,,“, (2.27)

X,, = 1 F(a,a;b;b,J’) U(a,a;J’M’) U(b;b,J’M’). (2.28)

in the required form is

Here the reduced matrix element is defined in Edmond’s notation, viz.,

A. Identical Particle Case

It can be observed from (2.33) that:

where the amplitudes c are obtained by diagonalizing the relevant Hamiltonian

Using (2.32) for # and (2.30) for Q, (2.39) can be expressed as

and can easily be evaluated by using Eq. (A7).

B. Nonidentical Particle Case

(#,,(k;J;k;J;)l H I#,,(k:,J,k,J& = <&> + (%,) + <%m> + G%,,>. (2.43)

The meaning of these terms is explained below.

(ii) The second term (SD,) stands for

(Ji WA(P) + QAtm Jd, (2.46)

2.4. Spectroscopic Amplitudes for Transfer Reactions

&t.lf(jo.hJ) = (@J,M,(A + 2) I C-@fJA.LJb) 0 @Jz~Ni~,:~. (2.50)

3. BPA CALCULATIONS,RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONSFORN = ~O,EVENANUCLEI

3.1. Details of the Calcdation

3.1.1. With Empirical m.e.

,CPl,? I/2 I v ! P1/2P1/2>

<&3hgd2 I V i m2g9d Of - 1.8642 -1.705

~PliZ&i% ~ v I PlM,h> 4- 0.0436 0.716

Single particle energy 2PllZ 0.0 0.0

Proton 0.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.5

Neutron 0.0 1.08 2.00 2.34 3.50

P EXPT” ESM = EMP REAL(F)

a Experimental data taken from Ref. 1321.

EXPT’ EMP REAL(F) REAL(T)

4 Experimental levels have been taken from Refs. [34,35].

EXPT” EMP REAL(F) REAL(T)

a Experimental data have been taken from Ref. [36].

FIG. 5. The quadrupole momenta of the first 2+ states of N = 50 even A nuclei.

Nucleus EMP REAL(T)

3.1.2. With Realistic Interaction

3. I .3. With Renormalized Realistic Interaction

3.2. Results and Discussion

3.2.1. Energy Spectra

3.2.2. E2 Transition Rates and Q(21+)

4. GBPA CALCULATIONS,REWJLTSAND DISCUSSIONSFOREVEN Zr-,Mo-, Ru-ISOTOPES

In, yv,: = (M, ) v,t)-“2 g A:,(aa))nuIv,,, v,,:. (AS)