The Relationship between the Bohr Collective Model and the Interacting Boson Model

  • Joseph N. Ginocchio
Part of the Ettore Majorana International Science Series book series (EMISS, volume 10)

Abstract

The Bohr-Mottelson collective model1 has been very successful in describing the quadrupole collective degrees of freedom of heavy nuclei. As we have seen from this workshop, the interacting boson model (IBM) has also been successful in describing similar data.2 At first glance these models seem very different. The former treats the nucleus as a rotating and vibrating liquid drop with quadrupole degrees of freedom. The latter describes the lowlying collective states of heavy nuclei by assuming that only the collective J = 0 (monopole) and J = 2 (quadrupole) pairs of valence fermions outside of closed shells play the dominant role in these states. The purpose of this talk is to make a connection between these two models. The important concept in making that connection is that of the intrinsic state for the IBM. Before discussing the intrinsic state, we give a short review of the Bohr-Mottelson model.

Keywords

Euler Angle Intrinsic State Interact Boson Model Quadrupole Field Valence Nucleon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, “Nuclear Structure, Vol. II,” W. A. Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts (1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Iachello, ed., “Interacting Bosons in Nuclear Physics,” Plenum Press, New York (1979).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. R. Edmonds, “Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics,” Princeton University Press, Princeton (1960).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Bohr, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 26, no. 14, 1 (1952).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Rakavy, Nucl. Phys. 4, 4 (1957).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Kumar and M. Baranger, Nucl. Phys. A92, 608 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Kumar, J. Phys. G4, 849 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. N. Ginocchio and M. W. Kirson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1744 (1980).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. N. Ginocchio and M. W. Kirson, to be published in Nuclear Physics A (1980).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Gilmore and D. H. Feng, Nucl. Phys. A301, 189 (1978).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Dieperink, O. Scholten, and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1747 (1980).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Arima and F. Iachello, Ann. Phys. 111, 201 (1976).ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Arima and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 40 (1978).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Chacbn, M. Moshinsky, and R. T. Sharp, J. Math. Phys. 17, 668 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph N. Ginocchio
    • 1
  1. 1.Theoretical Division Los Alamos Scientific LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations