Physics Letters B 767 (2017) 226–231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters B
www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

Empirical moments of inertia of axially asymmetric nuclei

J.M. Allmond a,∗ , J.L. Wood b
a
Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
b
School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Empirical moments of inertia, J1 , J2 , J3 , of atomic nuclei with E (4+ +

1 )/ E (21 ) > 2.7 are extracted
Received 18 August 2016 from experimental 2+ g ,γ energies and electric quadrupole matrix elements, determined from multi-
Received in revised form 4 November 2016 step Coulomb excitation data, and the results are compared to expectations based on rigid and irro-
Accepted 15 January 2017
tational inertial flow. Only by having the signs of the E2 matrix elements, i.e., 2+ +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g  and
Available online 6 February 2017
Editor: D.F. Geesaman 0+ + + + + +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g 2 g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ 2γ || M̂ ( E2)||0 g , can a unique solution to all three components of the
inertia tensor of an asymmetric top be obtained. While the absolute moments of inertia fall between
the rigid and irrotational values as expected, the relative moments of inertia appear to be qualitatively
consistent with the β 2 sin2 (γ ) dependence of the Bohr Hamiltonian which originates from a SO(5) in-
variance. A better understanding of inertial flow is central to improving collective models, particularly
hydrodynamic-based collective models. The results suggest that a better description of collective dynam-
ics and inertial flow for atomic nuclei is needed. The inclusion of vorticity degrees of freedom may
provide a path forward. This is the first report of empirical moments of inertia for all three axes and the
results should challenge both collective and microscopic descriptions of inertial flow.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by SCOAP3 .

Atomic nuclei are finite many-body quantum systems composed states. This approach is sufficient to demonstrate that moments
of strongly interacting fermions that share remarkable similarities of inertia of atomic nuclei fall between the rigid-body and irro-
with other systems such as molecules, atomic clusters, and ultra- tational flow values, as shown by Bohr and Mottelson in 1955 [1].
cold atomic gases. In particular, some of these quantum systems However, this approach is limited in validating microscopic calcula-
exhibit quenching of the moments of inertia from their rigid-body tions of moments of inertia and in elucidating the existence of any
values at very low temperatures. For over half a century, super- underlying symmetries. A more thorough understanding of iner-
fluidity has been studied in both fermionic, e.g., atomic nuclei [1], tial flow requires knowledge of all three components of the inertia
and bosonic, e.g., liquid 4 He [2], systems. For fermionic systems, tensor; this requires input beyond the energy of the first excited
pairing is central to superfluidity. More recently, the nature of col- 2+ state.
lective excitations and superfluidity of strongly interacting Fermi The description of low-lying excited states of deformed even–
gases has been of active interest [3–9]; nearly perfect irrotational even nuclei has been largely based on collective rotations and vi-
flow with a quadratic dependence on the deformation has been brations about the average β and γ quadrupole shape parameters
observed by Clancy et al. [6]. With these recent advances, the mo- (cf. Ref. [10] for a thorough overview). These nuclei possess rota-
ments of inertia of atomic nuclei warrant an updated investigation. tional bands built on the 0+ ground states and relatively low-lying
The standard approach to evaluating the empirical moments of excited 2+ states, which could be the result of triaxial rotations or
inertia of atomic nuclei has been to assume an axially symmet- γ vibrations; distinguishing the two is notoriously difficult but the
ric rotor with rotational energies given by E ( I ) = A I ( I + 1), where latter interpretation has been traditionally adopted. Fortunately,
A = h̄2 /(2J ) and J is the moment of inertia. For I π = 2+ , the the Kumar–Cline sum rules [11] provide an experimental means
energy reduces to E (2+ ) = 6 A and J = 3h̄2 / E (2+ ). A further as- for determining the average quadrupole deformation values and
sumption is that the first I π = 2+ state is unmixed with other variances. These sum rules have demonstrated that the average γ
deformations, < γ >, are non-zero; an axially symmetric nucleus
would give zero. Unfortunately, the variances of the quadrupole
* Corresponding author. deformations are not typically known; these are needed to differ-
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Allmond). entiate between rigid and soft deformation. The few cases where

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.072
0370-2693/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by
SCOAP3 .
 J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood / Physics Letters B 767 (2017) 226–231 227

the variances are known, e.g., the Os isotopes [12], lack precision and
but suggest that nuclei are neither rigid nor soft but somewhere 
25
in between. 2+ +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g  = − Q 0 cos(γ − 2)
We explore the implications of assuming β - and γ -rigid de- 56π
formation (i.e., an axially asymmetric top) on the extracted mo- = −2+ +
γ || M̂ ( E2)||2γ . (11)
ments of inertia. This is accomplished by using a recently formu-
lated version of the triaxial rotor model with independent electric The E2 matrix elements are described by three parameters, Q ◦
quadrupole and inertia tensors [13]; this is the simplest possible (axial deformation), γ (axial asymmetry), and  (mixing angle).
non-trivial view that allows a unique analytical solution to the Further details can be found in Refs. [13,25,27–29]. While the 2+
three moments of inertia within the spin-2 subspace. While there mixing angle,  , can be inferred from the excitation energies of
have been investigations into the moments of inertia of axially higher spins, such an approach is not particularly sensitive and,
asymmetric nuclei before, e.g., Refs. [14–18], empirical values for more importantly, it does not lead to a unique empirical value.
all three axes, to our knowledge, have never been reported. Once the Q ◦ , γ , and  deformation and mixing parameters are
In this Letter, empirical moments of inertia, J1 , J2 , J3 , of 12 determined from the experimental E2 matrix elements, the A, F ,
atomic nuclei with E (4+ +
1 )/ E (21 ) > 2.7 are extracted from exper- and G parameters of the Hamiltonian can be extracted exactly us-
imental 2+ g ,γ energies and electric quadrupole matrix elements, ing the experimental 2+ energies, viz.
and the results are compared to expectations based on rigid and
irrotational inertial flow. The E2 matrix elements used in this E (2+ +
γ ) − E (2 g )
F=  , (12)
study are from multiple-step Coulomb excitation data [12,19–26], 4 1 + tan2 (2)
most of which are from the past two decades. Only by having
the signs of the E2 matrix elements, i.e., 2+ + E (2+ +
g ) + E (2γ ) − 4F
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g  and A= , (13)
0+ + + + + +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g 2 g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ 2γ || M̂ ( E2)||0 g , can a unique so-
12
lution to all three components of the inertia tensor be obtained. F
G = √ tan 2, (14)
The Hamiltonian for rotations about three axes (i.e., an asym- 2 3
metric top) is
where the empirical moments of inertia are
H = A 1 Î 12 + A 2 Î 22 + A 3 Î 32 , (1)
1 h̄2
where the parameters A 1 , A 2 , A 3 are related to the components J1 = , (15)
of the inertia tensor by A 1 = h̄2 /(2J1 ), A 2 = h̄2 /(2J2 ), A 3 = 2 A + 2G
h̄2 /(2J3 ) and Î 1 , Î 2 , Î 3 are the angular momentum operators in 1 h̄2
the body-fixed frame with a | I K  basis. The Hamiltonian can be
J2 = , (16)
2 A − 2G
rewritten as
1 h̄2
H = A Î + 2
F Î 32 2 2
+ G ( Î + + Î − ), (2)
J3 = . (17)
2 A+F
where It is important to stress that the signs of the E2 matrix ele-
1 1 ments are required to obtain a unique solution to all three com-
A= ( A 1 + A 2 ), F = A 3 − A , G = ( A 1 − A 2 ), (3) ponents of the inertia tensor. In particular, 2+ +
2 4 g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g  de-
termines whether the electric quadrupole moment is prolate or
and oblate, and 0+ + + + + +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g 2 g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ 2γ || M̂ ( E2)||0 g  de-
Î ± = Î 1 ± i Î 2 . (4) termines whether γ > || or γ < ||.
The present results can be connected directly to results ob-
When applied to doubly-even nuclei, there is an I π = 0+ ground tained using rigid and irrotational flow moments of inertia by
state with E (0+ ) = 0, no I π = 1+ state, and two mixed I π = 2+    
states (K π = 0+ , 2+ ) with energies given by 5 2π
 √  Jrigid, k = B rigid 1 − β cos γ − k (18)
4π 3
+ 6A
√ 4 3G
H (2 ) = , (5)
4 3G 6 A + 4F and
 
which yields 2π
 Jirrot ., k = 4B irrot . β 2 sin2 γ − k , (19)
3
E (2+ ) = 6 A + 2F ± 2 F 2 + 12G 2 . (6)
where k = 1, 2, 3, B rigid = 2
M R2 = 0.0138 × A 5/3 (h̄2 /MeV),
The mixing angle is related to G and F by
3
5
2
√
√ G B irrot . = 8π
M R = 0.00412 × A
2
(h̄ /MeV), β = Q ◦
5/ 3
5π /(3Z R 2 ),
tan 2 = 2 3 (7) and R = 1.2 A 1/ 3
(fm). It is important to highlight the fact that the
F irrotational-flow component of the moment of inertia  in Eq. (19)
(note,  < 0 because G < 0) and the resulting E2 matrix elements resides in the mass parameter, B irrot . . The β 2 sin2 γ − k 23π de-
for the I π = 0+ , 2+ subspace are
pendence is not explicitly limited to irrotational flow but results

5 from the SO(5) invariance of the Bohr Hamiltonian (which hap-
0+ +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2 g  = Q 0 cos(γ + ), (8) pens to be fulfilled by irrotational flow), cf. page 121 of Ref. [10].
16π
 The mixing strength can be determined from the moments of
5 inertia by
0+ +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ  = Q 0 sin(γ + ), (9)
16π

 1 √ J2 − J1
−1
25 = tan 3 2J J , (20)
2+ +
g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ  = Q 0 sin(γ − 2), (10) 2 1 2
− J2 − J1
56π J3
228 J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood / Physics Letters B 767 (2017) 226–231

Table 1
Summary of the 2+
g ,γ energies, deformation parameters, and moments of inertia. See text for details.

Nuclei E (2+
g ) (keV)
a
E (2+
γ ) (keV)
a
Q ◦ (eb) β γ◦ ◦ J1 (h̄2 /MeV) J2 (h̄2 /MeV) J3 (h̄2 /MeV)b
110
Ru 240.7 612.9 3.41(12) 0.283(11) 29.0(48) −10.7(48) 22.0(81) 8.1(11) 3.88(18)
150
Nd 130.2 1062.1c 5.23(6) 0.283(3) 10.4(1) −0.8(1) 27.5(6) 19.8(3) 1.964d
156
Gd 89.0 1154.1c 6.67(31) 0.330(15) 7.9(4) −1.1(3) 55.0(84) 24.2(16) 1.779(1)
166
Er 80.6 785.9 7.75(3) 0.346(1) 9.2(2) −0.4(1) 42.2(15) 33.3(9) 2.635d
168
Er 79.8 821.1 7.78(22) 0.345(10) 8.4(3) −0.4(2) 42.6(26) 33.6(16) 2.517d
172
Yb 78.7 1465.9c 7.80(38) 0.331(16) 4.9(7) 0.0(4) 38.3(72) 37.9(70) 1.389d
182
W 100.1 1221.4 6.24(13) 0.241(5) 10.0(2) −0.5(2) 35.9(25) 25.7(13) 1.684d
184
W 111.2 903.3 6.10(12) 0.234(5) 11.3(3) −0.6(2) 30.6(15) 24.1(9) 2.309d
186
Os 137.2 767.5 5.58(8) 0.207(3) 20.4(7) −2.4(7) 32.4(45) 16.3(11) 2.777(5)
188
Os 155.0 633.0 5.25(3) 0.193(1) 19.9(3) −3.0(2) 26.5(6) 15.1(2) 3.451(2)
190
Os 186.7 558.0 5.05(6) 0.184(2) 22.1(5) −5.9(5) 24.1(10) 11.7(2) 4.078(11)
192
Os 205.8 489.1 4.81(3) 0.174(1) 25.2(5) −8.7(5) 21.6(7) 10.5(2) 4.857(19)
a
Precision to better than ±0.1 keV [31].
b
The precision is necessary to reconstruct F and E (2+
γ ); but is beyond any model significance.
+
c
2+
γ = 23 .
d
Precision better than given number of significant figures.

where  ≤ 0◦ for J1 ≥ J2 ≥ J3 . For irrotational flow, the mixing

reduces to
⎛ ⎞
1⎜ cos 4γ + 2 cos 2γ ⎟
irrot . = − cos−1 ⎝  ⎠, (21)
2
9 − 8 sin2 3γ

which leads to the standard Davydov–Filippov rotor model [30].

Note that the mixing strength for “irrotational flow” does not ex-
plicitly depend on the irrotational-flow mass parameter B irrot . of
Eq. (19).
A summary of the 2+g ,γ energies, deformation parameters, and
moments of inertia for the 12 nuclei with E (4+ +
1 )/ E (21 ) > 2.7, clear
γ -band candidates, and the necessary multi-step Coulex data is
given in Table 1. The experimental energies and E2 matrix ele-
Fig. 1. The experimental (black) and irrotational (red) moments of inertia relative
ments used in this study are from ENSDF [31] and multiple-step to the rigid-body value as a function of deformation, β , assuming J = J1 = J2
Coulomb excitation data [12,19–26], respectively. These data span and J3 = 0. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
A = 110 to 192 and γ = 4.9◦ to 29.0◦ , consistent with the model- reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
independent results of the Kumar–Cline sum rules [11]. It is in-
teresting to highlight the absence of any oblate nuclei in Table 1. with the 2+ g ,γ states. Further, generally speaking, shape coexistence
While prolate dominance was once considered a mystery, it is now [35] could potentially distort the extracted moments of inertia also
understood that the particle–hole symmetry, and hence prolate– through mixing.
oblate symmetry, of nuclei hold only for nuclei with a single par- Before analyzing the results of Table 1 in detail, it is impor-
tially occupied spherical harmonic oscillator shell; in multi-shell tant to note an historical point regarding the moments of inertia of
spaces there is no such symmetry [32,33]. atomic nuclei. As demonstrated before [1] and illustrated in Fig. 1,
All γ -band collectivity is described here as axially asymmet- by assuming axial symmetry, the moments of inertia are found to
ric rotations because of the restricted degrees of freedom of the be quenched to values between rigid and irrotational values. While
model; this allows a simple and unique analytical solution to this was a significant revelation, the one-dimensional perspective
the three moments of inertia within the spin-2 subspace. Within is limited in its ability to elucidate the nature of inertial flow; this
the model, only 172 Yb is near symmetric with γ = 4.9(7)◦ , J1 = will become evident upon the following 3-dimensional analysis.
38.3(72) (h̄2 /MeV), and J2 = 37.9(70) (h̄2 /MeV). It must be rec- The empirical moments of inertia for all three axes are shown
ognized that both triaxial and vibrational degrees of freedom may in Fig. 2 relative to the leading-order rigid-body values, i.e.,
be involved and small values of  may be the model “image” of Jrigid,k ∼ B rigid from Eq. (18). The irrotational values are shown
γ vibrations about axial symmetry. However, recent advances with for comparison. The moments of inertia for all three axes remain
the Algebraic Collective Model (ACM) [10,34] have demonstrated quenched to values between the rigid and irrotational expecta-
that rotational bands exhibit significant mixing effects when β - or tions. The three-dimensional view reveals that all three axes are
γ -vibrational bands occur at low excitation energies, suggesting qualitatively correlated with β 2 sin2 (γ − 2π k/3), similar to ir-
that the dominant character of the low-lying states may be triaxial rotational flow (cf. discussion in the conclusion). The empirical
with the vibrational excitations at higher energies. This viewpoint moments of inertia for all three axes are shown in Fig. 3 relative
is consistent with the fact that the triaxial rotor model has been to the irrotational-flow values. The experimental moments of in-
shown to reproduce much of the spectroscopic data (particularly ertia are on average a factor of 6.3, 7.4, and 10.0 larger than the
quadrupole moments) for low to medium spin for 110 Ru, 166 Er, and irrotational flow values for the 1-, 2-, and 3-axis, respectively. The
186–192
Os [25–27]. regularity in the three moments of inertia supports the triaxial
It is important to stress caution on some of the extracted mo- assumption of the model. Despite the 3-axis having the small-
ments of inertia in Table 1. In particular, nuclei such as 150 Nd, est moment of inertia, there is no general indication that it is
156
Gd, and 172 Yb possess low-lying 2+ +
β = 22 states that could mix significantly more coupled to the intrinsic motion than the other
 J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood / Physics Letters B 767 (2017) 226–231 229

Fig. 2. The experimental (black) and irrotational (red) moments of inertia relative Fig. 3. The experimental moments of inertia relative to the irrotational flow value
to the leading-order rigid-body value as a function of β 2 sin2 (γ − 2π k/3) for the as a function of γ for the 1-axis (a), 2-axis (b), and 3-axis (c), respectively.
1-axis (a), 2-axis (b), and 3-axis (c), respectively. (For interpretation of the refer-
ences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

axes. However, the degree to which the 3-axis does deviate from
the others, cf. the 172 Yb outlier at γ = 4.9◦ in Fig. 3(c), may in-
dicate a partial coupling to the intrinsic motion, expected for a
γ vibration. Alternatively, the 172 Yb outlier may be the result of
configuration mixing due to a relatively low-lying 0+ 2 band head;
+
note that 2+ γ = 23 .
The relative moments of inertia as a function of axial asym-
metry, γ , are shown in Fig. 4 for all three axes. The relative irro-
tational values are shown for comparison. Note the normalization
of the scale to J1 . The relative moments of inertia are qualitatively
consistent with irrotational flow (cf. clarification in the conclusion).
It is also clear J1 > J2 ∼ J3 is manifested in nuclei that approach Fig. 4. The relative moments of inertia for all three axes as a function of axial asym-
the triaxial limit of the electric quadrupole tensor, γ = 30◦ ; this is metry, γ . The experimental values (circles) have been normalized to the irrotational
values (lines) through the 1-axis.
a feature of the Bohr Hamiltonian that was pointed out by Meyer-
ter-Vehn [36] in 1975 and it is now shown for the first time to be
exhibited qualitatively by nuclei. Recent Coulomb excitation results The empirical 2+ mixing parameter,  , as a function of axial
of 110 Ru [26] establish it as the best candidate for triaxiality near asymmetry, γ , is shown in Fig. 5(a). The rigid and irrotational val-
the ground state to date. Additional Coulomb-excitation results for ues are shown for comparison. The experimental mixing strength
the neutron-rich Mo–Ru region with higher precision would be reveals qualitative agreement with the irrotational flow expecta-
valuable. The outliers, 172 Yb and 156 Gd, correspond to cases with tion; this is due to the fact that the mixing is only dependent on
low-lying excited 0+ states (with K π = 0+ , 2+ bands). the relative moments of inertia, which eliminates the explicit ir-
230 J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood / Physics Letters B 767 (2017) 226–231

ever, the variance in the shape parameters, which could equally

result from configuration mixing, remains largely unknown exper-
imentally and the present approach takes the simplest possible
non-trivial view in extracting moments of inertia. We believe this
will provide guidance to exploring, especially, γ -soft nuclei using
a model such as the ACM [34], which will involve more param-
eters with concomitant difficulty in finding global minima in the
fitting. However, it’s important to recognize that within the ACM,
low-lying β - and γ -vibrational bands result in unrealistically large
mixing effects [10,34]; this fact in combination with the regular-
ity of the 3 moments of inertia leaves one to conclude that the
low-lying states are a composite of both triaxial and vibrational de-
grees of freedom with the former being the most likely dominant
component. More precise Coulomb-excitation data, e.g., variances
of quadrupole shape invariants, are needed to test this hypothe-
sis.
A better description of inertial flow will require improving both
the absolute and relative values. The absolute values are deter-
mined by the mass parameter B, cf. Eqs. (18) and (19); B rigid
is too large and B irrot is too small. It is interesting to note that
the relative moment of inertia values are qualitatively described
by β 2 sin2 (γ − 2π k/3), cf. Fig. 2, which is a result of the SO(5)
invariance [10,34] of the Bohr model [37,38]; irrotational flow is
SO(5) invariant, but SO(5) invariance does not necessarily imply
irrotational flow. Rowe et al. [34] have pointed out that a better de-
scription of inertial flow might be given within a collective model
by the inclusion of vorticity degrees of freedom as done in su-
perfluid hydrodynamics [39]. The symplectic model, Sp(3, R) [40],
provides a promising step in this direction: it possesses vorticity
degrees of freedom in one of its submodels and, moreover, it is a
submodel of the shell model. It is also interesting to note that tri-
axial deformation naturally emerges within the symplectic model
with low-lying collectivity being the result of mixing several triax-
ial rotor-like configurations [33].
While there have been significant advances in microscopic cal-
culations [41–45], which include pairing interaction effects as sug-
gested by Bohr, Mottelson, and Pines [46], the theoretical moments
of inertia have been limited to one-dimensional comparisons with-
out definitive evidence of axial symmetry. Furthermore, micro-
Fig. 5. (a) The experimental (black), irrotational (red), and rigid (blue) 2+ mixing scopic theories of deformed nuclei are often limited to ground-
parameter,  , as a function of axial asymmetry, γ . (b) The ratio of the experimental state calculations of the β and γ shape parameters, relying on a
and irrotational 2+ mixing values. (c) The experimental (black) versus irrotational collective model to generate the excited states. A better under-
(red) sin(γ + ) values, which are proportional to 0 g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ . (For interpre-
standing of inertial flow directly impacts the manner in which
tation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.) collectivity should be generated from predicted shape parameters.
It is our hope that the new empirical moments of inertia for the
rotational dependence B irrot . in Eq. (19). This explains the limited 1-, 2-, and 3-axis of atomic nuclei further stimulate multiple-step
success (cf. Ref. [13]) of the Davydov–Filippov rotor model [30]. It Coulomb excitation experiments and algebraic and microscopic
theory in the quest to better understand the nature of inertial flow
is important to stress that, while there are some qualitative agree-
in finite many-body quantum systems composed of strongly inter-
ments in the relative moments of inertia with a β 2 sin2 (γ − 2π k/3)
acting fermions.
dependence, the quantitative moments of inertia on a case-by-case
basis show significant deviations. Fig. 5(b) reveals the extent of the
Acknowledgements
scatter of the 2+ mixing values with respect to the “irrotational”
values. These deviations can have a large impact on the calculated
We gratefully acknowledge David Rowe and Thomas Papen-
E2 matrix elements when approaching γ = 30◦ due to destruc-
brock for fruitful discussions. This material is based upon work
tive interference [29], cf. Fig. 5(c), which reveals the discrepancy
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Of-
between the fitted and irrotational 0 g || M̂ ( E2)||2γ  ∝ sin(γ + ) fice of Nuclear Physics.
values. A β 2 sin2 (γ − 2π k/3) dependence of the moments of iner- This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC un-
tia is not sufficient in quantitative calculations [13]. der Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department
We recognize that actual nuclei are believed to possess fluctu- of Energy. The United States Government retains and the pub-
ations in the β and γ shape parameters about average values. In lisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that
some of the nuclei reported (chosen based on the availability of the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up,
Coulex data, a clear γ -band candidate, and E (4+ +
1 )/ E (21 ) > 2.7), irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the pub-
the present approach will be limited. This is particularly true for lished form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United
150
Nd, 156 Gd, and 172 Yb which have low-lying 0+ 2 states. How- States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will pro-
 J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood / Physics Letters B 767 (2017) 226–231 231

vide public access to these results of federally sponsored research [19] B. Varnestig, thesis, Uppsala University, 1987.
in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/ [20] B. Kotliński, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 517 (1990) 365.
[21] C.Y. Wu, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 533 (1991) 359.
downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
[22] C. Fahlander, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 537 (1992) 183.
[23] C. Fahlander, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 541 (1992) 157.
References [24] N. Clarkson, thesis, University of Liverpool, 1992.
[25] W.D. Kulp, et al., Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 014308.
[1] A. Bohr, B.R. Mottelson, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 30 (1955) 1. [26] D. Doherty, et al., Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 334.
[2] G.B. Hess, W.M. Fairbank, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 216. [27] J.M. Allmond, R. Zaballa, A.M. Oros-Peusquens, W.D. Kulp, J.L. Wood, Phys. Rev.
[3] K.M. O’Hara, S.L. Hemmer, M.E. Gehm, S.R. Granade, J.E. Thomas, Science 298 C 78 (2008) 014302.
(2002) 2179. [28] J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood, W.D. Kulp, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 021303(R).
[4] M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J.H. Denschlag, R. [29] J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood, W.D. Kulp, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 051305(R).
Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 203201. [30] A.S. Davydov, G.F. Filippov, Nucl. Phys. 8 (1958) 237.
[5] J. Kinast, A. Turlapov, J.E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 170404. [31] Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF), http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/.
[6] B. Clancy, L. Luo, J.E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 140401. [32] B. Castel, D.J. Rowe, L. Zamick, Phys. Lett. B 236 (1990) 121.
[7] G.M. Bruun, H. Smith, Phys. Rev. A 75 (2007) 043612. [33] D.J. Rowe, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 43 (2016) 024011.
[8] S. Riedl, E.R.S. Guajardo, C. Kohstall, J.H. Denschlag, R. Grimm, New J. Phys. 13 [34] D.J. Rowe, T.A. Welsh, M.A. Caprio, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 054304.
(2011) 035003. [35] K. Heyde, J.L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 1467.
[9] H.J. Warringa, A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 023609. [36] J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Nucl. Phys. A 249 (1975) 111.
[10] D.J. Rowe, J.L. Wood, Fundamentals of Nuclear Models: Foundational Models, [37] A. Bohr, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 26 (1952) 14.
World Scientific Publishing Co., 2010. [38] A. Bohr, B.R. Mottelson, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 27 (1953) 16.
[11] K. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 (1972) 249; [39] S.J. Putterman, Superfluid Hydrodynamics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.
D. Cline, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 36 (1986) 681. [40] G. Rosensteel, D.J. Rowe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 10;
[12] C.Y. Wu, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 607 (1996) 178. G. Rosensteel, D.J. Rowe, Ann. Phys. (NY) 104 (1980) 134.
[13] J.L. Wood, A.-M. Oros-Peusquens, R. Zaballa, J.M. Allmond, W.D. Kulp, Phys. Rev. [41] A.K. Kerman, N. Onishi, Nucl. Phys. A 361 (1981) 179.
C 70 (2004) 024308. [42] L. Próchniak, P. Quentin, D. Samsoen, J. Libert, Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 59.
[14] N. Macdonald, Nucl. Phys. 14 (1960) 70. [43] J.A. Sheikh, G.H. Bhat, Y. Sun, G.B. Vakil, R. Palit, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 034313.
[15] A.S. Davydov, N.S. Rabotnov, A.A. Chaban, Nucl. Phys. 17 (1960) 169. [44] T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 519.
[16] C.A. Mallmann, Nucl. Phys. 24 (1961) 535. [45] Y. Shi, C.L. Zhang, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013)
[17] P. Banerjee, S. Sengupta, Nucl. Phys. 61 (1965) 225. 034311.
[18] P. Banerjee, S. Sengupta, Nucl. Phys. 71 (1965) 634. [46] A. Bohr, B.R. Mottelson, D. Pines, Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 936.