1984
DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(84)90910-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A coupled rotor-vibrator model as the macroscopic limit of the microscopic symplectic model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The proof takes advantage of the well known contraction [18] of the SU(3) algebra to the [R 5 ]SO(3) algebra [19,20] of the rigid rotator [21]. Furthermore, using the contraction of O(6) to the [R 5 ]SO(5) algebra [22,23] of the γ-unstable rotator, we prove that no line related to the O(6) symmetry exists within the triangle.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The proof takes advantage of the well known contraction [18] of the SU(3) algebra to the [R 5 ]SO(3) algebra [19,20] of the rigid rotator [21]. Furthermore, using the contraction of O(6) to the [R 5 ]SO(5) algebra [22,23] of the γ-unstable rotator, we prove that no line related to the O(6) symmetry exists within the triangle.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…(19) has been derived in the special case of considering matrix elements within the ground state band only. This is similar to the condition discussed earlier in the context of Eq.…”
Section: Matrix Elementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…7. Moreover, it has been shown [18,19,20] that, in the limit of large quantum numbers, the Sp(3, R) model contracts to the coupled product of a Bohr vibrational model and a rotor model. This is the so-called coupled rotor-vibrator limit of the symplectic model.…”
Section: Irreducible Representations (Irreps) Of Sp(3 R) In a U(3) Bmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These should be chosen so as to minimize H~ ~ In other words, the interaction between the collective and non-collective subspaces (20) and (21) should be made to vanish (in some approximation) by the choice of the IBM bosons. To this end, we introduce a unitary transformation U [13] which ensures that, up to a certain order, the transformed hamiltonian ~= UH B U + (26) leaves invariant the collective subspacc (20). In this case, the operators…”
Section: N~oul=x Y; Z Wd54([b? • B~y ~ [~3 • ~4y~)mentioning
confidence: 99%