text:
# Heun Functions and the energy spectrum of a charged particle on a sphere under magnetic field and Coulomb force

## 1 Introduction

The motion of charged particles under constant magnetic field on a sphere has been introduced by F.M.Haldane  and several authors  to discuss the fractional quantum Hall effect, and compute several relevant quantities for a system of $`N`$ independent particles. The sphere is basically a macroscopic support for the motion of a large assembly of particles and its radius $`R`$ is usually of macroscopic order.

However in recent years, it has been possible to realize spheres of nanostructures ranging from fullerenes size to spherical nanosize objects such as $`SiO_2`$ balls in Opals . The motion of a charged particle on such spheres with constant magnetic field parallel to a given diameter of the sphere has been studied quite extensively . The energy spectrum helps to understand some interesting aspects such as orbital magnetism.

In view of future developments, it appears useful to consider the motion of charged particles on a sphere under the action of competiting forces. Besides the curvature of the configuration space and the confining effect of the radial magnetic field, it may be interesting to introduce the Coulomb electric force due to an ion positioned somewhere on the sphere. This situation may arise in the process of fabricating the actual sphere when a charged impurity may slip into the spherical surface and become a center of interaction . The point is thus to see how such a charged impurity affects the energy spectrum whether or not such effects are in practice relevant. Moreover, the choice of a magnetic monopole generating a radial magnetic field is made to obtain analytical solutions. Since a constant magnetic field parallel to a given diameter does not allow us to find an exact wave function, we replace it with a radial field which competing effects are well described. The strength and range of these effects can be described by three characteristic lengths:

* $`l_B=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{eB}}`$: magnetic confinement length.
* $`l_0=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M\kappa e^2}}`$: Bohr radius of the hydrogen atom.
* $`R`$: radius of the sphere.

Here $`M`$ and $`e`$ are respectively the mass and the charge of the particle, $`B`$ the constant radial magnetic field on the sphere and $`\kappa =\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}`$ in MKSA unit.

Problems with three characteristic lengths do occur in physics. We may cite the case of one dimensional superconductivity in the presence of twinning defects where electron pairs are moving in constant magnetic field and a finite Dirac Comb  potential. The three characteristic lengths involved are:

* $`l_c`$: coherence length of the electron pairs.
* $`l_B=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{eB}}`$: magnetic confining length.
* $`d`$: period of the Dirac Comb potential.

In the present case we look for stationary states of a charged particle on a sphere under a constant radial magnetic field and repelled by a point charge placed on the sphere. This is done by solving the time independent Schrödinger equation. The solution will turn out to be expressible in terms of a generalization of Gauss Hypergeometric Function called the Heun Function . This new function has been studied by several authors  and only one type of Heun function turns out to be relevant for our problem. In fact to fulfill the requirements of quantum mechanics it is necessary to demand that the Heun function be defined all over the sphere and also of square integrable class. This yields a condition on one of the coefficient of the Heun equation, which leads to the quantization of the energy levels.

In section $`2`$ we present the classical aspects of the dynamics showing that in particular the motion in the $`\theta `$-direction the energy should be larger than a certain limit. In section $`3`$ we introduce the quantum treatment which leads to the Heun equation. We compute in section $`4`$ the $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`S\mathrm{}`$ limit, which describes the recovery of the motion in planar geometry. In this case, the limiting problem is that of the relative motion of two equally charged particles on plane in uniform perpendicular magnetic field and under Coulomb repulsion. Results and comments are left to section $`5`$.

## 2 Classical considerations

Let $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ be the angular coordinates of a particle of mass $`M`$ and charge $`e`$ on a sphere of radius $`R`$. There exists a constant radial magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ pointing outward on the surface of the sphere. $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is described by the vector potential

$`\stackrel{}{A}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cot}\theta \stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ (1)
where $`S`$ (the half magnetic flux) is the strength of the magnetic monopole generating the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{h}{e}`$, the elementary flux unit, and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ the unit vector along the $`\varphi `$ direction on the sphere. In fact we have

$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{B}=(B_r=B,B_\theta =B_\varphi =0).`$ (2)
We assume in addition the existence of a repulsive Coulomb interaction due to a charge $`e`$, placed at the North pole of the sphere, which is given by the potential

$`V(\theta )=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}.`$ (3)
The dynamics of the particle is given by the Hamiltonian:

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{p_\theta ^2}{2MR^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_\varphi +\mathrm{}S\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}{2MR^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}+\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}},`$ (4)
where $`p_\theta `$ and $`p_\varphi `$ are the canonical conjugate momenta to $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. Motion at constant energy is defined by

$`H=E.`$ (5)
For the sake of simplicity of the discussion we shall work with dimensionless quantities: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi `$, and $`ϵ`$ defined by

$`p_\theta =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta ,p_\varphi =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi ,E={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2MR^2}}ϵ.`$ (6)
Introducing the Bohr radius

$`l_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M\kappa e^2}},`$ (7)
the equations of energy conservation becomes:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi +S\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}=ϵ.`$ (8)
We see the competing roles of geometry and Coulomb repulsion expressed by the ratio $`\frac{R}{l_0}`$.

Moreover in spherical coordinates we have:

$`B_r=(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A})_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0S}{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cot}\theta \right),`$
$`B_r=\mathrm{\Phi }_0{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2\pi R^2}}=|\stackrel{}{B}|=B.`$ (9)
we can then introduce a magnetic length $`l_B=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{eB}}`$ and express $`S`$ as:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{l_B^2}}.`$ (10)
Hence the combined interactions can be expressed through the ratios of lengths $`\frac{R}{l_B}=\sqrt{S}`$ and $`\frac{R}{l_0}`$.

Note that since $`0<\theta <\pi `$, $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}`$ is always positive and the left hand side of eq.(8) is the sum of three positive terms.

Now since $`p_\varphi `$ is a conserved quantity ($`\varphi `$ is a cyclic variable) one may set $`p_\varphi =m\mathrm{}`$, with $`m`$ fixed equal to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi `$. The orbit in the phase space ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta ,\theta `$) is a curve of equation:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\left(m+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{l_B^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}=ϵ.`$ (11)
Equation (11) can be viewed as the motion of a fictitious one dimensional particle in $`\theta `$-space. The potential function for $`0<\theta <\pi `$ has a minimum value $`ϵ_0`$ which depends on $`m`$, $`\frac{R}{l_B}`$ and $`\frac{R}{l_0}`$, thus the motion is only possible if $`ϵ>ϵ_0`$.
The action for a complete cycle is $`J_\theta `$ given by:

$`J_\theta =2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta \sqrt{ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\left(m+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{l_B^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}}.`$ (12)
Bohr Sommerfeld quantization of the $`\theta `$-motion by setting:

$`J_\theta =h(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})n`$ (13)
yields the quantized energy levels through $`ϵ=ϵ_{n,m}`$ such that:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\sqrt{ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\left(m+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{l_B^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}}𝑑\theta =\pi (n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (14)
Unfortunately the integral can not be evaluated in closed form in terms of simple functions. This aspect will not be treated here.

## 3 Quantum motion

The Hamiltonian of the motion can be suggestively reexpressed in terms of the operators $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\stackrel{}{r}\times (\stackrel{}{p}+e\stackrel{}{A})`$ as in :

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{2MR^2}}+\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}.`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ has cartesian components:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_x& & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_y& & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_z& & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_x+\mathrm{}S\mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }& & \\ M_y+\mathrm{}S\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }& & \\ M_z\mathrm{}S\mathrm{cos}\theta & & \end{array}\right),`$ (22)
with usual definition of $`\stackrel{}{M}`$:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_x& & \\ M_y& & \\ M_z& & \end{array}\right)=i\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{}{\theta }+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cot}\theta \frac{}{\varphi }& & \\ \mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{}{\theta }+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cot}\theta \frac{}{\varphi }& & \\ \frac{}{\varphi }& & \end{array}\right),`$ (29)
consequently with

$`M^2=\mathrm{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}+\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}\right),`$ (30)
one has:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=M^2+\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S^2+2iS\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{}{\varphi }}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\mathrm{}^2S^2,`$ (31)
and the Schrödinger equation for stationary states $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi )`$ reads:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}+\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}S^22iS\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{}{\varphi }\right)}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`+\left[S^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}+ϵ\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi )=0.`$ (32)
As $`\varphi `$ is a cyclic variable, $`p_\varphi `$ is conserved, thus wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi )`$ can be set of the form :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi )=e^{im\varphi }F(\theta ),`$ (33)
with $`m`$ and we get a new equation for $`F(\theta )`$:

$`F^{\prime \prime }(\theta )+\mathrm{cot}\theta F^{}(\theta )`$
$`+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+S^22mS\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}+ϵ+S^2\right\}F(\theta )=0.`$ (34)
The choice of $`m`$ as a relative integer guaranties the uniformity of the wave function under $`\varphi `$-rotation. We seek solutions $`F(\theta )`$ which vanishes at $`\theta 0`$ because of the Coulomb repulsion at the Norh pole and which is square integrable.

We now transform this equation with the change of variable $`z=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ to bring it back to a known canonical form. $`F`$ is now a function of $`z`$, satisfying:

$`(1z^2)F^{\prime \prime }(z)2zF^{}(z)`$
$`+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+S^22mSz}{1z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1z}}}+(ϵ+S^2)\right\}F(z)=0.`$ (35)
A change of unknown function through the substitution:

$`F(z)=(1z)^{\frac{a}{2}}(1+z)^{\frac{b}{2}}P(z),`$ (36)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are free parameters to be chosen later, and a last change of variable $`x=\sqrt{\frac{1z}{2}}`$ transforms equation (35) into a Heun equation under its canonical form:

$`(x1)(xa^{})P^{\prime \prime }(x)`$
$`+\left[(ϵ^{}+\delta +\gamma )x(ϵ^{}+a^{}\delta +\gamma (1+a^{}))+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}\gamma }{x}}\right]P^{}(x)`$
$`+\left[\alpha \beta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta h}{x}}\right]P(x)=0,`$ (37)
with the relation $`\alpha +\beta +1=\gamma +\delta +ϵ^{}`$.

This equation is a second-order equation with four regular singularities, located at (x= $`0`$, $`1`$, $`a^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$). $`h`$ is called “auxilliary parameter” and is significant for our problem. The solution to this Heun equation is a local Heun function admitting an expansion around $`x=0`$. Such a solution has a convergent expansion in a domain centered at $`x=0`$ and for $`|x|<1`$ and $`|x|<|a^{}|`$. The South pole which corresponds to $`x=1`$ will be a singular point since the expansion is divergent there.

To get eq.(37), the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ must fulfill the conditions:

$`a^2b^2=4Sm`$
$`a^2+b^2=S^2+m^2`$ (38)
As $`F(\theta )`$ must not have singularity as $`\theta 0`$ (or $`\theta \pi `$) and equivalently $`P(x)`$ must be regular for $`x0`$ (or $`x1`$), one must choose $`a`$ and $`b`$ positive, i.e. with $`S=\frac{R^2}{l_B^2}`$:

$`a=|Sm|b=|S+m|.`$ (39)
The parameters of the Heun equation are then related to the parameters of the problem through:

$`a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`2a+1`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{}=b+1`$
$`\alpha \beta `$ $`=`$ $`(a+b)(a+b+2)4(ϵ+S^2)`$
$`\alpha \beta h`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}`$ (40)
One possibility to make our solution valid everywhere on the sphere is to reduce the Heun functions down to a Polynomial. But this procedure imposes a condition which makes the radius of the sphere discrete. This is, in general physically not acceptable.

The other possibility is to turn to the procedure of augmented convergence  which makes use an expansion in terms of Hypergeometric functions . Following Ronveaux, we first expand our local Heun function $`P(x)`$ in terms of hypergeometric functions :

$`P(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}c_\nu y_\nu (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}c_\nu F(\nu ,\nu +\delta +\gamma 1;\gamma ;x)`$ (41)
where $`F(\nu ,\nu +\delta +\gamma 1;\gamma ;x)`$ is a local solution of a hypergeometric equation which matches Heun’s solution at the singularities $`0`$ and $`1`$ (same exponents at the singularities $`0`$ and $`1`$). As $`P(x)`$ obeys the Heun equation, the $`c_\nu `$ fulfill the three-way recursion relation :

$`K_\nu c_{\nu 1}+L_\nu c_\nu +M_\nu c_{\nu +1}=0`$ (42)
where

$`K_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{(\nu +\alpha 1)(\nu +\beta 1)(\nu +\gamma 1)(\nu +w1)}{(2\nu +w1)(2\nu +w2)}}`$
$`L_\nu =\alpha \beta h+a^{}\nu (\nu +w)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}\nu (\nu +w)(\gamma \delta )+\left[\nu (\nu +w)+\alpha \beta \right]\left[2\nu (\nu +w)+\gamma (w1)\right]}{(2\nu +w1)(2\nu +w+1)}}`$
$`M_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{(\nu +1)(\nu +w\alpha +1)(\nu +w\beta +1)(\nu +\delta )}{(2\nu +w+1)(2\nu +w+2)}}`$ (43)
with $`w=\gamma +\delta 1`$.

The behavior of $`\left\{y_\nu \right\}`$ is given by :

$`lim_\nu \mathrm{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{y_{\nu +1}}{y_\nu }}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1+X}{1X}}\right|`$ (44)
where $`X=\sqrt{1x^1}`$.

To determine this limit, we must find the asymptotic behavior of the $`\left\{c_\nu \right\}`$. For $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, the coefficients of the recursion relation become:

$`K_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\nu ^2,L_\nu ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^{})\nu ^2,M_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\nu ^2,`$ (45)
and eq.(42) tends to the critical equation $`\rho ^2+2(2a^{}1)\rho +1=0`$ (where $`c_{\nu +i}`$ has been replaced by $`\rho ^i`$) which admits the roots $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ given by:

$`|\rho _1|=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1A}{1+A}}\right||\rho _2|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\rho _1|}},`$ (46)
where $`A=\sqrt{1a^1}`$. Erdélyi  has shown that the convergence of the series occurs in a region determined by

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1+X}{1X}}\right|<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\rho _1|}}=|\rho _2|.`$ (47)
This is the so-called augmented convergence phenomena. This inequality implies that the point $`x`$ lies in the interior of the ellipse $``$ with foci at $`0`$ and $`1`$. Thus our wave function $`P(x)`$ is now well defined on each pole of the sphere.

The condition for which the solution of the Heun equation has augmented convergence at $`x=0`$ and $`x=1`$ (poles of the sphere) is that the parameter $`h`$ must be a zero of the continuous fraction  obtained from the three way recursion relation , i.e.:

$`B_0+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{B_1+\frac{A_2}{B_2+\frac{A_3}{B_3+\mathrm{}}}}}=0,`$ (48)
where

$`A_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{K_\nu }{M_\nu }}\text{and}B_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{L_\nu }{M_\nu }}.`$ (49)
Hence for $`h=h_n`$ we can construct a bona-fide wave function for a stationary state. The set of $`h_n`$ can be obtained by numerical treatment of the continuous fraction. We use the so-called modified Lentz’s method , calculating by iterations the values of the continuous fraction and stopping when a given precision is obtained.

The energy spectrum of the problem is of the form:

$`ϵ=ϵ_n={\displaystyle \frac{R}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_n}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{l_B^4}}`$ (50)
with $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Now for $`S=\frac{R^2}{l_B^2}`$ and $`m`$ given, all the parameters of the Heun equation are defined and we can find, with classical numerical methods, the solution in the form of the transcendental eq.(48). Note that since we are interested by the energy spectrum, we have replaced $`h_n`$ in eq.(48) by the following expression:

$`h_n={\displaystyle \frac{4R}{l_0\left[4(ϵ_n+\frac{R^4}{l_B^4})(a+b)(a+b+2)\right]}},`$ (51)
which allows to compute directly the energy values $`ϵ_n`$. This is done in section $`5`$.

## 4 The $`R,S\mathrm{}`$ limit

It is interesting to look at the $`R,S\mathrm{}`$ limit, since it is relevant for many problems in physics. In the fractional quantum Hall effect, a lot of calculations were made in spherical ( for simplicity) geometry  then the physical effects studied in planar geometry. For example, the computation of the energy of the neutralizing background, takes a very simple form in the spherical geometry, since it amounts to put a particle of opposite charge at the center of the sphere . In this limit, the curvature of the sphere vanishes and we expect to recover the plane. We know that $`S`$ and $`R`$ are related by equation (10), thus when $`R\mathrm{}`$, $`S`$ must go also to infinity. For physical reasons, $`S`$ must be infinite, because there is a constant perpendicular magnetic field ( i.e. a non-vanishing flux) on the infinite plane.

Starting with the Schrödinger equation on the sphere, after the substitution (36), one has:

$`(1z^2)P^{\prime \prime }(z)+\left[ba(a+b+2)z\right]P^{}(z)`$
$`+\left[ϵ+S^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}R}{l_0\sqrt{1z}}}\right]P(z)=0.`$ (52)
Thus we look for a change of variable to describe the plane. Such a variable can be $`\chi =2S(1z)`$ and transforms equation (52) into:

$`4S\left\{\chi P^{\prime \prime }(\chi )+\left(a+1{\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{4S}}\chi \right)P^{}(\chi )\right\}`$
$`+4S\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ+S^2\left(\frac{a+b}{2}\right)\left(\frac{a+b}{2}+1\right)}{4S}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2\sqrt{S}\sqrt{\chi }}}\right]P(\chi )\right\}`$
$`\left\{\chi P^{\prime \prime }(\chi )+2\chi P^{}(\chi )\right\}=0.`$ (53)
For $`S\mathrm{}`$, we can neglected the last term of this equation and obtain the asymptotic form of the equation:

$`\chi P_{as}^{\prime \prime }(\chi )+\left[a+1{\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{4S}}\chi \right]P_{as}^{}(\chi )`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ+S^2\left(\frac{a+b}{2}\right)\left(\frac{a+b}{2}+1\right)}{4S}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2\sqrt{S}\sqrt{\chi }}}\right]P_{as}(\chi )=0.`$ (54)
With the last change of variable $`\xi =\sqrt{\frac{\chi }{2}}`$ and the fact that for $`S\mathrm{}`$, $`a=|Sm|S`$, $`b=|S+m|S`$ , equation (54) reduces to a Biconfluent Heun equation in his canonical form:

$`\xi P_{as}^{\prime \prime }(\xi )+\left[1+\alpha \beta \xi 2\xi ^2\right]P_{as}^{}(\xi )`$
$`+\left[(\gamma \alpha 2)\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta +\beta (1+\alpha )}{2}}\right]P_{as}(\xi )=0,`$ (55)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are expressed in terms of $`ϵ`$, $`S`$ and $`\frac{R}{l_0}`$. As shown in , this equation describes the relative motion of two equal planar charged particles in uniform perpendicular magnetic field and under the Coulomb repulsion. So the link between problem and planar problem is established and is locally acceptable when $`R,S\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Results and Comments

We present the results by giving the two first energy levels $`n=1,2`$ as a function of $`S`$ which is basically proportional to the constant magnetic field $`B`$. The value of the ratio $`R/l_0`$ is fixed for a given radius $`R=100l_0`$ . Figures $`1`$ and $`2`$ give the behavior of the ground state energy $`ϵ_{1,m}`$ as function of the applied magnetic field for positive and negative values of $`m`$.

We see clearly that these values are always bounded below as seen from classical considerations. For negative $`m`$ values the curves exhibit a sharp discontinuity in the slope of the tangent at some values of the magnetic field ($`|m|=S`$), there is also a milder discontinuity in the derivative without change of sign for positive values of $`m`$.

In figure $`3`$, the two situations are put together to display the phenomena of level crossing with respect to the magnetic field.

The behavior of the level $`ϵ_{2,m}`$ for positive values of $`m`$ is given in figure $`4`$.

Finally crossovers between levels $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ for positive $`m`$ are displayed in figure $`5`$. Note that at $`B=0`$ we have the spectrum of the charged particle in the presence of pure repulsion centered at the North pole. For strong magnetic field, $`B\mathrm{}`$, we can neglected the Coulomb repulsion, thus the levels tends to the Landau levels as expected.

Higher levels ($`n>2`$) exhibit similar behavior for $`m>0`$ and $`m<0`$ but calculations are more involved so they will not be displayed here.

Let us examine now the limit of vanishing Coulomb repulsion ($`l_0\mathrm{}`$). The energy levels of eq.(50) become

$`ϵ=\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{l_B^4}},`$ (56)
and are no longer given by the $`h_n`$. They are to be compared with the Landau levels on the sphere given by :

$`ϵ=\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}+1\right)S^2,`$ (57)
where $`n`$ is the Landau level index. We recover then the Lowest Landau level ($`n=0`$) on the sphere as exected before. It is important to note that Haldane has considered only states with $`a=Sm`$, $`b=S+m`$ and $`0mS`$.

To our knowledge, this is the first instance where a special class of Heun function, solution of a linear differential equation with four singularities occurs in quantum mechanics. This class of function can handle physical problems which carry three characteristic lengths. The spectrum energy presents different regimes, going from the pure Coulomb problem ($`B=0`$) to the Landau problem ($`B\mathrm{}`$), passing through the well known level mixing regime. It is the main difference with the pure magnetic problem  where, for weak fields, the energy levels are equally separated (Landau levels) instead of the Coulombic behavior encountered here. Thus the impurity plays an important role in the weak field regime but not in the high field regime. So, the impurity can be ignored for strong magnetic fields, i.e. for $`S`$ beyond the sharp discontinuity at fixed $`m`$. The complete study of this wave function and its properties are left for a future work.

## 6 References


format: text

text:
# CLUSTER INTERPRETATION OF PROPERTIES OF ALTERNATING PARITY BANDS IN HEAVY NUCLEI

## I Introduction

The low-lying negative parity states observed in actinides and in heaviest known Ba, Ce, Nd and Sm isotopes are definitely related to reflection–asymmetric shapes . There are several approaches to treat collective motion leading to reflection–asymmetric deformations. One of them is based on the concept of a nuclear mean field which has a static octupole deformation or is characterized by large amplitudes of reflection–asymmetric vibrations around the equilibrium shape . In this approach the parity splitting is explained by octupole deformation. Another approach  is based on the assumption that the reflection–asymmetric shape is a consequence of alpha–clustering in nuclei . In the algebraic model  the corresponding wave functions of the ground and excited states consist of components without and with dipole bosons (in addition to the quadrupole bosons), which are related to mononucleus and alpha–cluster components, respectively. The variant of algebraic model including the octupole bosons in addition to the dipole bosons has been applied in  to the description of the low-lying negative parity states in actinides. In  a cluster configuration with a lighter cluster heavier than 4He was used in order to describe the properties of the low–lying positive and negative parity states. In both models  and  the relative distance between the centers of mass of clusters at fixed mass asymmetry is the main collective coordinate for the description of the alternating parity bands.

Nuclear cluster effects are mostly pronounced in the light even–even $`N=Z`$ nuclei with alpha–particle as the natural building block. There is a nice relationship between alpha–cluster description and deformed shell model . It is known from Nilsson–Strutinsky type calculations for light nuclei that nuclear configurations corresponding to the minima of the potential energy contain particular symmetries which are related to certain cluster structures . By using antisymmetrized molecular dynamics approach , the formation and dissolution of clusters in light nuclei, like 20Ne and 24Mg, are described. The idea of clusterization applied to heavy nuclei does not contradict the mean field approach. The coexistence of the clustering and of the mean field aspects is a unique feature of nuclear many body system. The problem of existence of a cluster structure in a ground state of heavy nuclei has attracted much attention, especially, because of the experimentally observed cluster decay . The available experimental and theoretical results provide the evidence for existence of fission modes created by the clustering of the fissioning nuclei . Indications of clusterization of highly deformed nuclei are demonstrated in .

The aim of the present paper is a development of the cluster–type model which provides not only a qualitative but also a quantitative explanation of the properties of alternating parity bands. The description of the excitation spectra, $`E\lambda `$–transition probabilities ($`\lambda `$=1,2,3) and the angular momentum dependence of the parity splitting  are the main subjects of this paper. Our model is based on the assumption that the reflection–asymmetric shapes are produced by the collective motion of the nuclear system in the mass asymmetry coordinate . The values of the odd multipolarity transitional moments (dipole and octupole) are strongly correlated with the mass asymmetry deformation of nucleus. In general, the value of the quadrupole moment is related to the degree of the quadrupole correlations (deformation) in nucleus. However, the collective motion in the mass asymmetry degree of freedom simultaneously creates a deformation with even and odd multipolarities. Therefore, the calculations of $`E\lambda `$–transition moments are of interest in the proposed model. The single particle degrees of freedom are not taken explicitly into consideration since our aim is to show that the suggested cluster model gives a good quantitative explanation of the observed properties of the low–lying negative parity states. If it is so, this model can serve as a good ground for development of an extended model with additional degrees of freedom.

It should be noted that the first results of calculations of the alternating parity spectra for a few actinides within the cluster model are already presented in the Letter . Besides Ra, Th and U isotopes, in the present paper we present the results of calculations of the energies of alternating parity bands in 240,242Pu, 144,146,148Ba, 146,148Ce, and 146,148Nd. The electromagnetic transitions are described in this paper with the cluster model for many nuclei and the spin dependence of the intrinsic quadrupole transition moment is predicted for 238U. Simple analytical expressions obtained for the parity splitting and the spectra of alternating parity bands are useful for the estimations. The dependence of alpha–clusterization in actinides on the angular momentum is shown for the first time.

## II Model

### A Hamiltonian in mass asymmetry coordinate

Dinuclear systems consisting of a heavy cluster $`A_1`$ and a light cluster $`A_2`$ were first introduced to explain data on deep inelastic and fusion reactions with heavy ions . The mass asymmetry coordinate $`\eta `$, defined as $`\eta =(A_1A_2)/(A_1+A_2)`$, ($`|\eta |`$=1 if $`A_2`$=0 and $`A_1=A`$), which describes a partition of nucleons between the nuclei forming the dinuclear system and the distance $`R`$ between the centers of clusters are used as relevant collective variables . The wave function in $`\eta `$ can be thought as a superposition of different cluster–type configurations including the mononucleus configuration with $`|\eta |`$=1, which are realized with certain probabilities. The relative contribution of each cluster component in the total wave function is determined by the collective Hamiltonian described below. Our calculations have shown that in the considered cases the dinuclear configuration with an alpha cluster ($`\eta =\eta _\alpha `$) has a potential energy which is close or even smaller than the energy of the mononucleus at $`|\eta |=1`$ . Since the energies of configurations with a light cluster heavier than an $`\alpha `$–particle increase rapidly with decreasing $`|\eta |`$, we restrict our investigations to configurations with light clusters not heavier than Li ($`\eta =\eta _{Li}`$), i.e. to cluster configurations near $`|\eta |=1`$.

The Hamiltonian describing the dynamics in $`\eta `$ has the following form

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2B_\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}}+U(\eta ,I),`$ (1)
where $`B_\eta `$ is the effective mass and $`U(\eta ,I)`$ is the potential. In order to calculate the dependence of parity splitting on the angular momentum and the electric dipole, quadrupole and octupole transition moments we search for solutions of the stationary Schrödinger equation describing the dynamics in $`\eta `$:

$`H\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\eta ,I)=E_n(I)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\eta ,I).`$ (2)
The eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of this Hamiltonian have a well defined parity with respect to the reflection $`\eta \eta `$. Before we come to the results of Eq. (2), we discuss the calculation of the potential $`U(\eta ,I)`$, the mass parameter $`B_\eta `$ and the moments of inertia $`\mathrm{}(\eta )`$ appearing in $`H`$.

### B Potential energy

The potential $`U(\eta ,I)`$ in Eq. (1) is taken as a dinuclear potential energy for $`|\eta |<1`$

$`U(R,\eta ,I)=B_1(\eta )+B_2(\eta )B+V(R=R_m,\eta ,I).`$ (3)
Here, the internuclear distance $`R=R_m`$ is the touching distance between the clusters and is set to be equal to the value corresponding to the minimum of the potential in $`R`$ for a given $`\eta `$. The quantities $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ (which are negative) are the experimental binding energies of the clusters forming the dinuclear system at a given mass asymmetry $`\eta `$, and $`B`$ is the binding energy of the mononucleus. The quantity $`V(R,\eta ,I)`$ in (3) is the nucleus-nucleus interaction potential. It is given as

$`V(R,\eta ,I)=V_{coul}(R,\eta )+V_N(R,\eta )+V_{rot}(R,\eta ,I)`$ (4)
with the Coulomb potential $`V_{coul}`$, the centrifugal potential $`V_{rot}=\mathrm{}^2I(I+1)/(2\mathrm{}(\eta ,R))`$ and the nuclear interaction $`V_N`$. In the realization of the cluster model developed in this paper, where overlap of clusters is much smaller than in the model of , the choice of the relevant cluster configuration follows the minimum of the total potential energy of the system with a cluster–cluster interaction taken additionally into consideration. As the result we describe the same nuclear properties as in  with configurations of clusters having larger mass asymmetry and a smaller overlap.

The potential $`V(R,\eta ,I)`$ and the moment of inertia $`\mathrm{}(\eta ,R)`$) are calculated for special cluster configurations only, namely for the mononucleus ($`|\eta |`$=1) and for the two cluster configurations with the $`\alpha `$– and Li - clusters as light clusters, respectively. These calculated points are used later to interpolate the potential smoothly by a polynomial. The energies of the Li-cluster configurations are about 15 MeV larger than the binding energies of the mononuclei considered. Therefore, for small excitations only oscillations in $`\eta `$ are of interest which lie in the vicinity of $`|\eta |`$=1, i.e. only cluster configurations up to Li - clusters need to be considered. The potential $`V_N`$ is obtained with a double folding procedure with the ground state nuclear densities of the clusters. Antisymmetrization between the nucleons belonging to different clusters is regarded by a density dependence of the nucleon–nucleon force which gives a repulsive core in the cluster–cluster interaction potential. Details of the calculation of $`V_N`$ are given in . The parameters of the nucleon-nucleon interaction are fixed in nuclear structure calculations . Other details are presented in .

Our calculations show that the potential energy has a minimum at $`|\eta |`$=$`\eta _\alpha `$ in 218,220,222,224,226Ra and 222,224,226Th isotopes. In order to demonstrate the dependence of the potential on the neutron number, we present in Fig. 1 calculated values of $`U(\eta _\alpha ,I=0)U(\eta _\alpha )`$ of configurations with an $`\alpha `$ \- cluster taking the long chain of Ba isotopes as an example. In the neutron deficient isotopes $`U(\eta _\alpha )`$ is smaller than zero and an $`\alpha `$-clusterization is more likely. When the neutron number approaches the magic value of 82, the nucleus becomes stiffer with respect to vibrations in $`\eta `$ and $`U(\eta _\alpha )`$ is larger than zero. The appearance of two neutrons above shell closure is in favor for an $`\alpha `$ \- clusterization. In this case $`U(\eta _\alpha )`$ drops much and again becomes smaller than zero. Further addition of neutrons increases the nuclear stiffness with respect to $`\eta `$ vibrations.

### C Moments of inertia

The calculation of the moment of inertia $`\mathrm{}(\eta )=\mathrm{}(\eta ,R_m)`$ needed to determine the potential energy at $`I0`$ has been described in . For completeness, we repeat in this subsection the most important information. As was shown in , the highly deformed states are well described as cluster systems and their moments of inertia are about 85$`\%`$ of the rigid-body limit. Following this, we assume that the moment of inertia of the cluster configurations with $`\alpha `$ and Li as light clusters can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{}(\eta )=c_1(\mathrm{}_1^r+\mathrm{}_2^r+m_0{\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{A}}R_m^2).`$ (5)
Here, $`\mathrm{}_i^r,(i=1,2)`$ are the rigid body moments of inertia for the clusters of the dinuclear system, $`c_1`$=0.85  for all considered nuclei and $`m_0`$ is the nucleon mass.

It should be noted that the angular momentum is treated in this paper as the sum of the angular momentum of the collective rotation of the heavy cluster and of the orbital momentum of the relative motion of the two clusters. Single particle effects, like alignment of the single particle angular momentum in the heavy cluster, are presently disregarded.

For $`|\eta |=1`$, the value of the moment of inertia is not known from the data because the experimental moment of inertia is a mean value between the moment of inertia of the mononucleus ($`|\eta |`$=1) and the ones of the cluster configurations arising due to the oscillations in $`\eta `$. We assume that

$`\mathrm{}(|\eta |=1)=c_2\mathrm{}^r(|\eta |=1),`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{}^r`$ is the rigid body moment of inertia of the mononucleus with $`A`$ nucleons calculated with deformation parameters from  and $`c_2`$ is a scaling parameter which is fixed by the energy of the first 2+ or other positive parity state, for example 6+. The chosen values of $`c_2`$ vary in the interval $`0.1<c_2<0.3`$. So, in our calculations there is a free parameter $`c_2`$. However, this parameter is used to describe the rotational energies averaged over the parity and not the parity splitting studied in this paper.

### D Mass parameter

The method of the calculation of the inertia coefficient $`B_\eta `$ used in this paper is given in . Our calculations show that $`B_\eta `$ is a smooth function of the mass number $`A`$. As a consequence, we take nearly the same value of $`B_\eta `$=20 $`\times 10^4m_0`$ fm2 for almost all considered actinide nuclei with a variation of 10$`\%`$. However, for 222Th and 220,222Ra we varied $`B_\eta `$ in the range $`B_\eta `$=(10-20)$`\times 10^4m_0`$ fm2 to obtain the correct value of $`E_0(I=0)`$. These variations of $`B_\eta `$ lead to better results for light Ra isotopes than those in , where the obtained values of the parity splitting at the beginning of the alternating parity band are smaller than the experimental ones. Using a smooth mass dependence of $`B_\eta `$  we get $`B_\eta `$=4.5$`\times 10^4m_0`$ fm2 in the Ba, Ce and Nd region. However, better results we obtain for $`B_\eta `$=3$`\times 10^4m_0`$ fm2.

For very asymmetric dinuclear systems, we can use simple analytical expressions to establish a connection between the relative distance and mass asymmetry coordinates on one side and the multipole expansion coefficients $`\beta _2`$ and $`\beta _3`$ on the other side

$`\beta _2=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}(1\eta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{R_0^2}},`$ (7)
$`\beta _3=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\eta (1\eta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{R^3}{R_0^3}}.`$ (8)
Here, $`R_0`$ is the spherical equivalent radius of the corresponding compound nucleus. One finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta _3}{d\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{7\pi }}{12}}\left[(1+\eta )^{1/3}+(1\eta )^{1/3}\right]^3`$ (9)
$`\times \left[(13\eta ^2)+\eta (1\eta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{(1+\eta )^{2/3}(1\eta )^{2/3}}{(1+\eta )^{1/3}+(1\eta )^{1/3}}}\right].`$ (10)
In the actinide region for an $`\alpha `$ -particle configuration, $`\eta `$0.96 and $`(d\beta _3/d\eta )^2`$11.25. Then the mass parameters for $`\beta _3`$ and $`\eta `$-variables are related as

$`B_\eta (d\beta _3/d\eta )^2B_{\beta _3}.`$ (11)
If we take the value of $`B_{\beta _3}=200\mathrm{}^2`$ MeV-1 known from the literature , then $`B_\eta `$9.3 $`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{4}m_{0}^{}`$ fm2. This value is compatible with the one used in our calculations.

## III Intrinsic electric multipole moments

Solving the eigenvalue equation (2), we obtain the wave functions of the positive and negative parity states for different values of the quantum number $`I`$ of angular momentum. These wave functions are used then to calculate transition matrix elements of the electric multipole operators by integration over $`\eta `$. The electric multipole operators for a system of a dinuclear shape have been calculated  by using the following expression

$`Q_{\lambda \mu }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{2\lambda +1}}}{\displaystyle \rho ^Z(𝐫)r^\lambda Y_{\lambda \mu }(\mathrm{\Omega })𝑑\tau }.`$ (12)
For slightly overlapping clusters when the intercluster distance $`R_m`$ is about or larger than the sum of the radii of clusters $`(R_1+R_2)`$, the nuclear charge density $`\rho ^Z`$ can be taken as a sum of the cluster charge densities

$`\rho ^Z(𝐫)=\rho _1^Z(𝐫)+\rho _2^Z(𝐫).`$ (13)
Using (13) and assuming axial symmetry of the nuclear shape, we obtain  the following expressions for the intrinsic electric multipole moments

$`Q_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`2D_{10}=e{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}(1\eta ^2)R_m({\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{A_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{A_2}}),`$ (14)
$`Q_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{A}{4}}(1\eta ^2)R_m^2((1\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{A_1}}+(1+\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{A_2}})+Q_{20}(1)+Q_{20}(2),`$ (15)
$`Q_{30}`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{A}{8}}(1\eta ^2)R_m^3((1\eta )^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{A_1}}(1+\eta )^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{A_2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}R_m((1\eta )^2Q_{20}(1)(1+\eta )^2Q_{20}(2)),`$ (16)
where the charge quadrupole moments of clusters $`Q_{20}(i)(i=1,2)`$ are calculated with respect to their centers of mass. Effective charges for electric dipole and octupole transitions are used in our calculations in order to take the coupling of the mass–asymmetry mode to the higher–lying giant dipole and octupole excitations  effectively into account, which are not present in the model.

The charge to mass ratios $`Z_1/A_1`$ and $`Z_2/A_2`$ are functions of $`\eta `$. For instance, for $`|\eta |`$=1 (mononucleus) this ratio takes the values 0.3–0.4 for the nuclei considered in the paper. For the $`\alpha `$–particle this ratio is equal to 0.5. The results for the electric dipole moment are sensitive to the dependence of $`Z`$/$`A`$ on $`\eta `$. In the calculations we parameterize the $`Z_i/A_i`$ ratio in the following way. For $`\eta _\alpha <|\eta |1`$, the ratio $`Z_2/A_2`$ for the light cluster takes the same value as for the mononucleus. For a smaller value of $`|\eta |`$, we set it equal to 0.5 as for the $`\alpha `$–cluster.

## IV Results of calculations and discussion

### A Calculation procedure

As was mentioned in Sect. II.B, our consideration can be restricted to cluster configurations near $`|\eta |`$=1. Then it is convenient to substitute the coordinate $`\eta `$ by the following variable

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\eta 1\mathrm{if}\eta >0,`$ (17)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\eta +1\mathrm{if}\eta 0,`$ (18)
and to use the following smooth parameterization

$`U(x,I)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{4}{}}}a_{2k}(I)x^{2k}`$ (19)
of the potential $`U(\eta ,I)`$ from Eq. (3). This formula contains five parameters $`a_{2k}(I)`$. If a minimum of the potential is located at $`|x|`$=$`x_\alpha `$ four parameters are determined by the experimental ground state energy, potential energies $`U(x,I)`$ for $`x=x_\alpha `$, $`x=x_{Li}`$ and by the requirement that the potential has a minimum at $`|x|=x_\alpha `$. The fifth parameter $`a_8`$ is necessary to avoid a fall-off of the potential for $`|x|x_{Li}`$ because of the negative value of $`a_6`$ needed to describe correctly $`U(x_{Li},I)`$. We take the minimal necessary positive value of $`a_8`$ to guarantee an increase of $`U`$ for $`|x|>x_{Li}`$. The ground state energy is obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation. Since the ground state wave function is distributed over $`x`$, the potential energy at $`x=0`$ is not equal to the experimental binding energy of the mononucleus. To reach the correct value of the ground state energy $`E_0(I=0)=0`$, we can vary the potential $`U(x=0,I=0)`$. In the majority of cases this procedure leads to the value of $`U(x=0,I=0)`$ close to $`E_0(I=0)`$. The variation of $`B_\eta `$ is also done in the case of light Ra isotopes to obtain $`E_0(I=0)`$=0. Besides the barrier height, which determines the stiffness of the potential well at $`x`$=$`x_\alpha `$, the ground state energy $`E_0(I=0)`$ of Eq. (2) depends also on the frequency of oscillations in $`x`$. This frequency is ruled by the value of the inertia coefficient $`B_\eta `$. If the minimum is located at $`x=0`$ ($`|\eta |`$=1), only three parameters $`a_0`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$ in Eq. (19) are necessary. Potentials with other parameterizations show almost no difference in the description of the parity splitting in the majority of considered nuclei.

### B Parity splitting

With Eq. (2) we first calculated the parity splitting for the isotopes of Ra, Th, U, Pu, Ba, Ce and Nd for different values of the angular momentum $`I`$. The results of calculations are shown in Tables 1–5. As is seen from the Tables, they agree well with the experimental data . The largest deviations of the calculated values from the experimental ones are found at low spins in some of the considered nuclei. A good description of the experimental data, especially of the variation of the parity splitting with $`A`$ at low $`I`$ and of the value of the critical angular momentum at which the parity splitting disappears, means that the dependence of the potential energy on $`\eta `$ and $`I`$ for the considered nuclei is described correctly by the proposed cluster model. The used value of the inertia coefficient $`B_\eta `$ is also important.

Of course, other effects related to degrees of freedom, which are not included in the model, like the alignment of the single particle momenta or interaction with other negative parity bands with different $`K`$ quantum number can contribute as well. However, a general agreement between the experimental data and the results of calculations shows that the simple cluster model used in this paper gives a firm ground for the consideration of the alternating parity bands.

In the considered nuclei the ground state energy level lies near the top of the barrier in $`\eta `$, if exists, and the weight of the $`\alpha `$cluster configuration (Fig. 2) estimated as that contribution to the norm of the wave function which is located at $`|\eta |\eta _\alpha `$ is about $`5\times 10^2`$ for 226Ra, which is close to the calculated spectroscopic factor . This means that our model is in qualitative agreement with the known $`\alpha `$decay widths of the nuclei considered.

The spectra of those considered nuclei whose potential energy has a minimum at the alpha cluster configuration can be well approximated by the following analytical expression

$`E(I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2J(I)}}I[I+1],\mathrm{if}I\mathrm{is}\mathrm{even},`$ (20)
$`E(I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2J(I)}}I[I+1]+\delta E(I),\mathrm{if}I\mathrm{is}\mathrm{odd}.`$ (21)
Here, the parity splitting $`\delta E(I)`$ is given as

$`\delta E(I)={\displaystyle \frac{2E_1(I^\pi =1^{})}{1+\mathrm{exp}(b_0\sqrt{B_0I[I+1]})}}`$ (22)
with

$$B_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(\eta =1)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(\eta =\eta _\alpha )}\right).$$

The quantity $`B_0`$ describes the change of the height of the barrier with spin $`I`$. The moment of inertia in Eq. (21) is given by the expression

$`J(I)=w_m(I)\mathrm{}(\eta =1)+[1w_m(I)]\mathrm{}(\eta =\eta _\alpha )`$ (23)
containing a weight function $`w_m(I)`$

$`w_m(I)={\displaystyle \frac{w_m(I=0)}{1+b_1B_0I[I+1]}},`$ (24)
which is the probability to find the mononucleus component in the wave function of the state with spin $`I`$ of the ground state band. Since $`w_m(I)`$ decreases with increasing angular momentum, $`J(I)`$ increases with $`I`$ in agreement with an experimental tendency. The quantity $`w_\alpha (I)=1w_m(I)`$ gives the corresponding probability of the $`\alpha `$-cluster component. A qualitative derivation of the above analytical formulae is given in the Appendix. The constants $`\mathrm{}(|\eta |=1)=0.3\times \mathrm{}^r(|\eta |=1)`$, $`w_m(I=0)`$=0.93, $`b_0=\pi `$ MeV-1/2 and $`b_1`$=0.2 MeV-1 were obtained by fitting the experimental spectra for the nuclei considered (see Fig. 3).

These formulae clearly demonstrate that there are two important quantities which predetermine a description of the spectra of the alternating parity bands. They are $`E_1(I^\pi =1^{})`$, which is determined by the depth of the minimum of the potential at $`I=0`$ and by the value of the mass parameter $`B_\eta `$, and $`B_0`$, which determines the angular momentum dependence of $`w_m(I)`$, i.e. of $`J(I)`$ and $`\delta E(I)`$.

### C $`E\lambda `$-transitions

With the wave functions obtained, we have calculated the reduced matrix elements of the electric multipole moments $`Q(E1)`$, $`Q(E2)`$ and $`Q(E3)`$. The effective charge for $`E1`$-transitions has been taken to be equal to $`e_1^{eff}=e(1+\chi )`$ with an average state-independent value of the $`E1`$ polarizability coefficient $`\chi `$=–0.7 . This renormalization takes into account a coupling of the mass–asymmetry mode to the giant dipole resonance in a dinuclear system. In the case of the quadrupole transitions we did not renormalized the charge $`e_2^{eff}=e`$ although an effective charge of 1.35 $`e`$ describes the data for actinides better as it is seen from the results of calculations. For octupole transitions our cluster model Hamiltonian includes the octupole mode responsible for description of the shape variation and deformation of the nuclear surface. This is the low–frequency collective octupole mode. However, high–frequency isovector as well as isoscalar octupole modes are not presented in the model Hamiltonian. For example, to simplify the consideration the charge asymmetry coordinate is not independent dynamical one but is rigidly related in our model to the mass asymmetry coordinate. The octupole transition operator is not exhausted by the term produced by the low–frequency octupole degree of freedom and includes also a contribution of the high–frequency octupole modes. For this reason for the octupole transitions the effect of the coupling of the low–frequency octupole mode to the high frequency mode should be taken into account by the octupole effective charge. The estimate of this effective charge is given in . The combined effect gives $`\delta e_3^{(pol)}(0.5+0.3\tau _z)e`$ . So, we have taken the effective charge to be equal to $`e_{3,proton}^{eff}=1.2e`$ for protons and $`e_{3,neutron}^{eff}=0.8e`$ for neutrons.

The results of these calculations are listed in Tables 6, 7 and shown in Figs. 4–10. The obtained values are in agreement with the known experimental data for $`Q_\lambda ^{exp}`$ . Only in 224Ra and 146Ba (for $`I=7`$) the calculated values of $`D_{10}`$ are larger by factor of four than the experimental $`D_{10}`$. In Th the isotopic dependence of the dipole moment is well reproduced. The higher multipole moments are in agreement with the calculations of Ref. . Taking into account the collective character of our model and the absence of the parameters to fit the data, the description of the experimental data is rather good. It should be also noted that the experimental data on the dipole moment have some uncertainties.

The angular momentum dependence of the reduced matrix elements of the electric dipole operator is presented in Figs. 4 and 7 for 226Ra and 148Nd, respectively. The calculations qualitatively reproduce the angular momentum dependence of the experimental matrix elements . The same is true for the reduced matrix elements of the electric quadrupole and octupole operators (Figs. 5,6 and 8,9).

Fig. 10 illustrates the angular momentum dependence of the calculated intrinsic transition quadrupole moment. It is interesting that the cluster model shows an increase of the quadrupole moment with angular momentum in the transitional nucleus 226Ra and a constant dependence in the well deformed isotope 238U. Staggering shown in Fig. 10 for both 226Ra and 238U nuclei is explained by the higher weight of the $`\alpha `$–cluster component in the wave functions of odd $`I`$ states (see Fig. 2). This cluster configuration has larger quadrupole and octupole deformations.

The calculated results for the E3–reduced matrix elements in 148Nd exceed the experimental data for transitions to the ground band . This can be explained as follows. The experimental E3 matrix elements connecting the negative parity states of 148Nd to the $`\beta `$ band are unexpectedly large, about 70$`\%`$ of the matrix elements within the ground band . This shows a considerable fractionation of the E3 strength among the $`K`$=0 bands. In our model the $`\beta `$ degree of freedom is absent and all the E3 strength is concentrated in the transitions to the ground band. The nucleus 148Nd is transitional in its collective properties between spherical and deformed nuclei and the $`\beta `$ anharmonicity is quite large. This explains a fractionation of the E3 strength between the ground and the $`\beta `$ bands. The summed E3 strength for 148Nd corresponds to the intrinsic transitional octupole moment of $`2000e`$ fm3 (instead of $`1500e`$ fm3 for the transitions in the ground band) which agrees with the calculated value.

## V Summary

We suggest a cluster interpretation of the properties of the alternating parity bands in heavy nuclei assuming collective oscillations in mass asymmetry degree of freedom. The existing experimental data on the angular momentum dependence of parity splitting and on multipole transition moments are quite well reproduced. This supports the idea that cluster type states exist in heavy nuclei. The characteristics of the Hamiltonian used in the calculations were determined by investigating a completely different phenomenon, namely, heavy ion reactions at low energies. Due to this fact, a predictive power of the suggested model is quite high. The proposed analytical expression (21) for $`E(I)`$ can be applied to estimate the position of the low–lying states which are not yet measured. The calculated staggering behavior of alpha–clusterization can be verified by measuring the angular momentum dependence of the width of the alpha–decay.

## VI Acknowledgment

T.M.S. and R.V.J. are grateful to BMBF and DFG (Bonn), respectively, for support. This work was supported in part by Volkswagen-Stiftung (Hannover) and RFBR (Moscow). The support of STCU(Uzb–45), SCST and UFBR (Tashkent) is acknowledged as well.

## A

Let us assume that the barrier at $`x`$=0 separates two minima of the potential (3): the minimum with reflection asymmetric deformation (minimum of the potential at $`x=x_\alpha `$) and its mirror image. The nonzero penetration through this barrier lowers the energy of the levels with even $`I`$ with respect to the energy of the levels with odd $`I`$. With increasing spin $`I`$ the barrier between two minima, which is equal to $`U_b(I)=U_b(I=0)+B_0I[I+1]`$, becomes higher and the penetration probability goes to zero. According to standard WKB-analysis (with higher order corrections) the transmission probability (per tunneling event) for the potential barrier described by the inverted oscillator with frequency $`\mathrm{}\omega _b(I)`$ for the energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _m(I)/2`$ above the potential minimum is given by

$`P(I)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \frac{U_b(I)\mathrm{}\omega _m(I)/2}{\mathrm{}\omega _b(I)})}},`$ (A1)
and $`\mathrm{}\omega _b(I)\sqrt{U_b(I)}`$ at fixed $`x_\alpha `$. Here, $`\omega _m(I)`$ is the frequency of the harmonic oscillator which approximates the potential $`U`$ around the $`\alpha `$-cluster minimum. Within the semiclassical approximation one can neglect the $`I`$ dependence of $`\omega _m`$ taking $`\omega _m(I)\omega _m(I=0)`$. This frequency then essentially determines the rate $`\omega _m/\pi `$ at which the wave packet strikes the barrier, so that the effective coherent tunneling frequency, i.e. the shift of the negative parity states with respect to the positive parity ones, is given by

$`\delta E(I)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _m}{\pi }}P(I).`$ (A2)
Assuming that $`(U_b(I=0)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _m)`$ is small compared to $`\mathrm{}\omega _b(0)`$ (this case is realized in nuclei considered in the paper), we obtain $`\mathrm{}\omega _m`$/2$`\pi `$ =$`E(I^\pi =1^{})`$. For those values of $`I`$ at which $`U_b(I=0)`$ is much smaller than $`B_0I(I+1)`$ we obtain Eq. (22) with the fitting parameter $`b_0`$. However, we found numerically that Eq. (22) works quite well also at low $`I`$.

The weight $`w_m(I)`$ of the mononucleus component in the wave function of the state with spin $`I`$ can be expressed through the ratio of characteristic times $`\tau _m(I)`$ and $`\tau _b(I)`$ which a system spends in the minima and at the barrier, respectively

$`w_m(I)={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _b(I)}{\tau _b(I)+\tau _m(I)}}.`$ (A3)
The mononucleus configuration is located at the top of the barrier. We neglect below the $`I`$ dependence of the $`\tau _m(I)`$. Denote by $`\tau _b(0)`$ the value of $`\tau _b(I)`$ at $`I`$=0. At very high angular momentum when the barrier height is mainly determined by the rotational energy and is equal to $`B_0I(I+1)`$ the value of $`\tau _b(I)`$ can be determined from the time–energy uncertainty relation

$`\tau _b(I1)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{B_0I(I+1)}}.`$ (A4)
To combine the two limits at $`I`$=0 and for $`I1`$, we use the following expression

$`\tau _b(I)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}/\tau _b(0)+U_b(I)\mathrm{}\omega _m/2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _b(0)}{1+\tau _b(0)B_0I[I+1]/\mathrm{}}}.`$ (A5)
(A6)
Substituting this result into (A3), we obtain

$`w_m(I)={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _b(0)/(\tau _b(0)+\tau _m)}{1+\frac{\tau _b(0)\tau _m}{\mathrm{}(\tau _b(0)+\tau _m)}B_0I[I+1]}}.`$ (A7)
The last expression can be rewritten as

$`w_m(I)={\displaystyle \frac{w_m(0)}{1+b_1B_0I(I+1)}},`$ (A8)
where $`w_m(0)=\tau _b(0)/(\tau _b(0)+\tau _m)`$ and $`b_1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\tau _b(0)\tau _m/(\tau _m+\tau _b(0))`$.


text:
# Multidimensional quasi-exactly solvable potentials with two known eigenstates

## 1 Introduction

The importance of exactly solvable potentials in quantum mechanics is well known. But even in one-dimensional case the number of such potentials is limited. Therefore, much attention has been given to the quasi-exactly solvable (QES) pontentials for which a finite number of energy levels and corresponding wavefunctions are known in explicit form. The first examples of such potentials were given in  and subsequently many QES potentials were established  (for review see book by Ushveridze ).

In multidimensional case many exactly solvable systems admit separation of variables and thus they are reduced to one-dimensional problems . The investigation of multidimensional and many-body systems which are not amenable to separation of variables is important from mathematical and physical points of view.

One of the most remarkable exactly solvable models in $`N`$-body quantum mechanics is the Calogero model . This model describes one-dimensional $`N`$-body problem with quadratic and inverse square interacting potential. Soon after these papers Sutherland extended Calogero model to a model where interaction takes place on a circle . The further progress was connected with Olshanetsky-Perelomov integrable systems  (see also review ). In  explicit examples of QES $`N`$-body problems on a line were introduced for the first time. Later QES $`N`$-body problems were studied in .

Recently, there has been achieved some progress in studying exact solvability of such systems. In  a new class of QES many-body Hamiltonians in arbitrary dimension was constructed. The multidimensional Darboux transformation was proposed in  and new examples of QES multidimensional matrix Schrödinger operators were presented there. The authors of  have developed a systematic procedure for constructing exactly solvable and QES many-body potentials by purely algebraic means. The method of multidimensional supersymmetric (SUSY) quantum mechanics was applied to the investigation of $`N`$-particle systems and an explicit construction of exactly solvable 3-particle as well as QES $`N`$-particle problems on a line were presented . Very recently, two new methods based on higher-order SUSY quantum mechanics for the investigation of two-dimensional quantum systems, whose Hamiltonians are not amenable to separation of variables, were presented in .

In this paper we develop a simple method for generation of QES potentials with two known eigenstates in arbitrary dimension. For one-dimensional case the problem of constructing QES potential with two known levels was solved completely in the frame of SUSY quantum mechanics  or using a simple method in which two wave functions are chosen in such a way that they lead to the same potential . Just this method will be generalized for multidimensional case.

Note that in fact the idea of the papers  is based on the inverse method. For the first time this method was used by Ushveridze  for construction QES potentials. It rests on the very simple idea: instead of looking for solution of Schrödinger equation for a given potential one should reconstruct the potential starting with appropriately chosen eigenfunctions. We would like to mention also paper  where detailed comparison of supersymmetric approach proposed in  and Turbiner-Ushveridze approach  based on finite-dimensional representations of $`sl(2,R)`$ was done.

## 2 Construction of QES multidimensional potentials

We consider the Schrödinger equation

$$H\psi =E\psi $$
(1)
in $`n`$-dimensional case with the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }+V(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathbf{},\mathbf{})=\frac{^2}{x_i^2}`$; $`\mathbf{}`$ is the nabla operator in $`n`$-dimensional space.

The wave function of the ground state with the energy $`E_0`$ has no zeros and can be written in the following form

$$\psi _0=e^F,$$
(3)
where $`F`$ is a nonsingular function of $`x_1,\mathrm{}x_n`$.

Substituting (3) into (1) we express the potential in terms of the wave function $`\psi _0`$:

$$V=E_0+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _0}{\psi _0}=E_0+\frac{1}{2}\left[(\mathbf{}F)^2\mathrm{\Delta }F\right].$$
(4)
Note that this transformation of Schrödinger equation from linear form to non-linear one is well known in literature. See, for instance, review by Turbiner, where this procedure was used for construction of convergent perturbation theory in quantum mechanics .

The wave function of the excited state with the energy $`E_1`$ we write as follows

$$\psi _1=\varphi e^F,$$
(5)
where $`\varphi =\psi _1/\psi _0`$. This eigenfunction must lead to the same potential $`V`$ and two eigenfunctions satisfy the following equation

$$E_0+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _0}{\psi _0}=E_1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1}{\psi _1}.$$
(6)
In terms of $`\varphi `$ and $`F`$ functions this equation reads

$$2(\mathbf{}F,\mathbf{}\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +2\epsilon \varphi ,$$
(7)
where

$$\epsilon =E_1E_0.$$

In one-dimensional case this equation can be easily solved with respect to $`F`$ . Then choosing different generating functions $`\varphi `$ we obtain different QES one-dimensional potentials with two known eigenstates.

In multidimensional case the solution of equation (7) is a nontrivial task. In this paper we find the solution of (7) with respect to $`F`$ for some special cases of function $`\varphi `$. Note that equation (7) is a nonuniform linear equation with respect to $`F`$. Any solution of it can be written in the following form

$$F=f+\stackrel{~}{f},$$
(8)
where $`f`$ is a particular solution of (7) and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a general solution of the uniform equation

$$(\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{f},\mathbf{}\varphi )=0.$$
(9)
Direct substitution of function (8) into equation (7) shows that $`F`$ is indeed a solution of the equation. In order to satisfy square integrability of wavefunctions (3) and (5) we have to choose such $`f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ that $`F+\mathrm{}`$ when $`|\stackrel{}{x}|+\mathrm{}`$.

Note that in one-dimensional case this equation gives only trivial solution $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\mathrm{const}`$, which does not influence the potential (4). New point of multidimensional case is that uniform equation (9) has many nontrivial solutions $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. This gives more possibilities for constructing QES potentials in multidimensional case for given $`\varphi `$ in comparison with the one-dimensional case.

Case 1. This case corresponds to the following form of $`\varphi `$

$$\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _i(x_i).$$
(10)
Then equation (7) can be rewritten as

$$2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{F}{x_i}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\varphi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+2\epsilon \varphi _i\right),$$
(11)
where $`\varphi _i^{}=\frac{d\varphi _i}{dx_i}`$ and $`\varphi _i^{\prime \prime }=\frac{d^2\varphi _i}{dx_i^2}`$.

The particular solution of equation (11) can be found in the form of the function with separated variables

$$f=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_i(x_i),$$
(12)
where

$$\frac{df_i}{dx_i}=\frac{\varphi _i^{\prime \prime }+2\epsilon \varphi _i+\lambda _i}{2\varphi _i^{}},$$
(13)
and the constants $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$ have to satisfy the following condition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i=0.$$
(14)
The solution of the uniform equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _i^{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{x_i}=0$$
(15)
reads

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\stackrel{~}{f}(\chi _1(x_1)\chi _2(x_2),\chi _1(x_1)\chi _3(x_3),\mathrm{},\chi _1(x_1)\chi _n(x_n)),$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is an arbitrary function of $`n1`$ arguments and

$$\chi _i(x)=^x\frac{dy}{\varphi _i^{}(y)}.$$
(17)
Finally, the solution of (11) reads

$$F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}^{x_i}\frac{\varphi _i^{\prime \prime }(x)+2\epsilon \varphi _i(x)+\lambda _i}{2\varphi _i^{}(x)}𝑑x+\stackrel{~}{f}(\chi _1(x_1)\chi _2(x_2),\mathrm{}).$$
(18)
Note that in the case of $`\stackrel{~}{f}=0`$ the variables of potential (4) are separated. It is the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ that is responsible for nonseparability of variables in potential $`V`$.

Case 2. Let us choose the generating function $`\varphi `$ in the following form

$$\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _i(x_i).$$
(19)
Now equation (7) reads

$$2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\varphi _i^{}}{\varphi _i}\frac{F}{x_i}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\varphi _i^{\prime \prime }}{\varphi _i}+2\epsilon .$$
(20)
The solution is similar to the solution of the previous case. We can write it as

$$F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}^{x_i}\frac{\varphi _i^{\prime \prime }(x)+(\frac{2}{n}\epsilon +\lambda _i)\varphi _i(x)}{2\varphi _i^{}(x)}𝑑x+\stackrel{~}{f}(\chi _1(x_1)\chi _2(x_2),\mathrm{}),$$
(21)
where the constants $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{}`$ also satisfy condition (14), $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is an arbitrary function of $`n1`$ arguments and

$$\chi _i(x)=^x\frac{\varphi _i(y)}{\varphi _i^{}(y)}𝑑y.$$
(22)
## 3 Examples

QES potential is given by equation (4), where the function $`F`$ is represented by expression (18) in the case 1 and by expression (21) in the case 2. For this QES potential we know two energy levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ as well as the corresponding wave functions (3), (5). Choosing various functions $`\varphi _i`$ for the case 1 or the case 2 we obtain different QES potentials. Without loss of generality we choose in all expressions $`E_0=0`$ and then $`E_1=\epsilon `$.

The functions $`\varphi _i`$ and the parameters $`\lambda _i`$ must be chosen in such a way that the function $`f`$ is a nonsingular one and $`\psi _0`$, $`\psi _1`$ are square integrable functions. Note that in multidimensional case we have also possibility to choose different $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ for this purpose.

Example 1. Let us choose

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_ix_i^2$$

which corresponds to the case 1. For this generating function we obtain

$$\frac{df_i}{dx_i}=\frac{a_i+\lambda _i+a_i\epsilon x_i^2}{2a_ix_i}.$$

To satisfy the nonsingularity of the functions $`f_i`$ we have to choose $`\lambda _i=a_i`$. Note that $`a_i`$ satisfy the same condition as $`\lambda _i`$, namely $`a_i=0`$. Then

$$f_i(x_i)=\frac{\epsilon }{4}x_i^2,\chi _i(x_i)=\frac{1}{a_i}\mathrm{ln}x_i.$$

And finally, we obtain

$$F(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})=\frac{\epsilon }{4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i^2+\stackrel{~}{f}(\frac{x_1^{1/a_1}}{x_2^{1/a_2}},\frac{x_1^{1/a_1}}{x_3^{1/a_3}}\mathrm{}),$$

here we rewrite $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\frac{1}{a_1}\mathrm{ln}x_1\frac{1}{a_2}\mathrm{ln}x_2,\frac{1}{a_1}\mathrm{ln}x_1\frac{1}{a_3}\mathrm{ln}x_3,\mathrm{})`$ as some new function

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(\frac{x_1^{1/a_1}}{x_2^{1/a_2}},\frac{x_1^{1/a_1}}{x_3^{1/a_3}},\mathrm{}).$$

Let us apply these results to the two-dimensional case. Now, $`a_1+a_2=0`$ and we may choose $`a_1=a_2=1`$. Then

$$F(x,y)=\frac{\epsilon }{4}(x^2+y^2)+\stackrel{~}{f}(xy).$$

QES potential and wave functions with zero and $`\epsilon `$ energy levels read

$$V(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\left[(\stackrel{~}{f}^{})^2\stackrel{~}{f}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\epsilon ^2}{4}\right](x^2+y^2)+\epsilon xy\stackrel{~}{f}^{}\frac{\epsilon }{2},$$

$$\psi _0(x,y)=c_0e^{\frac{\epsilon }{4}(x^2+y^2)\stackrel{~}{f}(xy)},$$

$$\psi _1(x,y)=c_1(x^2y^2)e^{\frac{\epsilon }{4}(x^2+y^2)\stackrel{~}{f}(xy)},$$

where $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are normalization constants.

Choosing $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ as some polynomial we reproduce the two-dimensional potentials studied in  as interesting examples of bottomless potentials with bound states.

For $`\stackrel{~}{f}=0`$ we obtain the isotropic harmonic oscillator. Then, in Dirac notation, $`\psi _0=|0,0`$ is the ground state eigenfunction, and $`\psi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2,0|0,2)`$ corresponds to the second excited energy level.

Note that $`\psi _0`$ corresponds to the ground state if $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a nonsingular function. For singular $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ wave function $`\psi _0`$ may correspond to an excited state. For example, let us choose $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\mathrm{ln}(xy)`$. Then

$$\psi _0(x,y)=c_0xye^{\frac{\epsilon }{4}(x^2+y^2)}$$

corresponds to the second excited energy level.

Example 2. This example illustrates the case 2. We choose

$$\varphi _i=x_i,\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i.$$

Using (21) we obtain

$$F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{2}{n}\epsilon +\lambda _i\right)\frac{x_i^2}{4}+\stackrel{~}{f}(x_1^2x_2^2,x_1^2x_3^2,\mathrm{});$$

remember that $`\lambda _i=0`$.

Let us consider a particular three-dimensional case with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\alpha (2x^2y^2z^2)^2`$. Then

$$V=\left(\frac{\epsilon ^2}{18}16\alpha \right)x^2+\left(\frac{\epsilon ^2}{18}4\alpha \right)(y^2+z^2)+$$

$$+4\alpha (2x^2y^2z^2)^2\left(2\alpha (4x^2+y^2+z^2)+\frac{\epsilon }{3}\right)\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ,$$

$$\psi _0=c_0e^{\epsilon \frac{x^2+y^2+z^2}{6}\alpha (2x^2y^2z^2)^2},$$

$$\psi _1=c_1xyze^{\epsilon \frac{x^2+y^2+z^2}{6}\alpha (2x^2y^2z^2)^2},$$

where $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are normalization constants.

For $`\alpha =0`$ we have harmonic oscillator. Then $`\psi _0=|0,0,0`$ is the ground state function, and $`\psi _1=|1,1,1`$ corresponds to the third excited energy level. For $`\alpha 0`$ we obtain nontrivial QES three-dimensional potential, the variables of which cannot be separated.

Here we would like to underline that question about separation of variables in multidimensional Schrödinger equation is an interesting and non-trivial task (see, for instance, ). We plan to discuss this problem in a part concerning our approach in a separate paper.

## 4 Conclusions

We developed a simple approach for constructing QES multidimensional potentials with two known energy levels and corresponding wave functions. The proposed method is a direct extension of the general approach proposed earlier for one-dimensional case . The central point of our approach is equation (7) and the main problem is to solve this equation with respect to the function $`F`$. In contrast to one-dimensional case, when the corresponding equation can be easily solved, there is a nontrivial task to solve it in multidimensional case. In this paper we find general solutions of equation (7) and construct new multidimensional QES potentials for some special cases of function $`\varphi `$. Finding of other solutions of equation (7) is an interesting problem for further investigations.

Let us stress the following new point which appears in multidimensional case in contrast to one-dimensional case. Namely, in one-dimensional case $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\mathrm{const}`$ and therefore the ratio of the two eigenfunctions $`\psi _1/\psi _0=\varphi `$ and distance between corresponding energy levels $`\epsilon `$ entirely determine the potential energy $`V`$ . In multidimensional case the potential energy $`V`$ is determined by $`\varphi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\epsilon `$. Equation (9) allows many nontrivial solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. As result we obtain a family of potentials $`V`$ for fixed $`\varphi `$ and fixed energy gap $`\epsilon `$ choosing different solution for $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. This feature of multidimensional case is explicitly shown in the example 1, where potential $`V(x,y)`$ for fixed $`\varphi `$ and $`\epsilon `$ depends on arbitrary function $`\stackrel{~}{f}(xy)`$. Thus, in multidimensional case there are more possibilities for constructing QES potentials for a given $`\varphi `$ in comparison with the one-dimensional case.

In one-dimensional case all eigenfunctions can be easily ordered using oscillation theorem which states that the $`n`$-th eigenfunction has $`n`$ zeros. For multidimensional case it is known that ground state eigenfunction also has no zero and the corresponding energy level is non-degenerated , but there is no theorem which connects zeros and order of excited eigenfunctions. Therefore, one cannot give an exact answer between which states the energy gap is calculated. We can only state that if an eigenfunction has no zeros then this function corresponds to the ground state.


text:
# Globular Clusters in the Central Region of Nearby Galaxy Clusters

## 1. Introduction and data

The centers of galaxy clusters are the densest regions of galaxy populations in the Universe. They are the places where the most frequent interactions between galaxies are expected to have taken place during the cluster formation epoch (and maybe also in the present). Some striking properties of galaxy cluster centers are: 1) a very rich globular cluster system (GCS) around the central galaxy (e.g. Harris 1991), 2) an extended stellar halo (cD halo) around the central galaxy (e.g. Schombert 1988), and 3) an abundant population of early-type dwarf galaxies clustered towards the center (e.g. Ferguson & Binggeli 1994). How do these findings come together? Can they be the result of a common scenario in which galaxy disruption played a major role (see Hilker et al. 1999)? Nearby galaxy clusters provide an ideal laboratory to study the different stellar components in detail.

The Hydra I Galaxy cluster is dynamically evolved, has a regular core shape and an isothermal X-ray gas halo that can be followed out to about 160 kpc. The Centaurus cluster is dynamically young with two merging sub-groups, a main cluster component (Cen30) around the cD galaxy NGC 4696 and a smaller group component (Cen45) around NGC 4709. Both galaxy clusters are located at a distance of about 45 Mpc.

Both galaxy clusters were observed at dark time and under photometric conditions in the filters $`V`$ and $`I`$ with FORS1 at the VLT (ESO, Paranal). The seeing in all fields was in the range 0.5 to 0.7 arcsec, thus providing a very homogeneous data set.

## 2. First results and future work

As one can see in Fig. 1, globular cluster candidates are spread all over the core of the two galaxy clusters, well outside the tidal radii of the central galaxies. The red GCs ($`1.0<(VI)<1.25`$) are more concentrated towards the galaxy’s bulges than the blue GCs ($`0.8<(VI)<1.0`$). The intra-cluster GCs are not uniformly distributed around the central galaxies. In the Centaurus cluster, they show a tidal tail-like structure between the two dominant giant ellipticals. In Hydra I, they occupy the same space as the abundant (newly found) dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Also there exists a population of very blue ($`0.6<(VI)<0.8`$), probably young clusters close to NGC 3311. These clusters might have been stripped from the late-type group of galaxies around NGC 3312 that is passing by the core of Hydra I. In both clusters, a population of very bright ($`11<M_V<13`$) cluster or compact dwarf galaxy candidates seems to exist.

In the near future we intend to 1) construct a density map of the intra-cluster GC population, in order to define its center and compare it to that of the X-ray gas halo, 2) model the cD halo light to study the local specific frequency all over the galaxy cluster, 3) study in detail the individual GCSs of all member galaxies down to the dwarf galaxy regime, and 4) confirm the membership of dwarf galaxies and bright compact objects by follow-up spectroscopy.

## References

Ferguson, H. C., Binggeli, B. 1994, A&AR 6, 67

Harris, W. E. 1991, ARA&A 29, 543

Hilker, M., Infante, L., Richtler, T. 1999, A&AS 138, 55

Schombert, J. M. 1988, ApJ, 328, 475