Experimental consequences ofSU(3) symmetry in ans d g Boson Model

β4systematics in rare-earth and actinide nuclei:sdginteracting boson model description

“…(2) SU,ds(3) limit provides a good description of data and it is much better than SU, d (5) limit. This is in conformity with the fact that the SU,dg(3) limit gives a good description of various properties of rotational nuclei [21,24]. (3) In actinides SU, & (3) limit shows change in sign of P4 for Cm isotopes which is consistent with data; other theoretical calculations do not produce the change in sign.…”

High-spin states in boson models with applications to actinide nuclei

“…In the sd-IBM, the cutoff occurs at L = 2N which is low enough to be experimentally accessible and, therefore, has prompted many investigations (see, for example, [2,3,4,5,6]). When the predicted falloffs did not materialize in any of the experiments this was interpreted as due to insufficient collectivity of the sd-boson system at high-spins which could be ameliorated by including g bosons [7,8,9]. Since then, evidence for g bosons from low-spin spectra have continuosly grown with concurrent developments in the sdg-IBM calculations (see [10,11] for recent reviews).…”

“…This happens because the basis space for deformed nuclei (N = 12 − 16) is too large and has to be severely truncated for diagonalization, limiting their validity to low-lying states. Although the SU(3) limit has been used in discussing some features of highspin states in the sdg-IBM [7,8,9], realistic calculations indicate that this limit is rather strongly broken [12]. Hence it can only provide a qualitative picture but otherwise is not very useful in applications to spectroscopy, or in addressing some basic questions on the shortcomings of the sd-IBM raised by Bohr and Mottelson [13], e.g.…”