0146-6410(95)00025-9

Prog. Part. NucL Phys., Vol. 34, pp. 291-307, 1995

Copyright0 1995 ElsevierScience Ltd
Printedin &eat Britain.All rightsreserved
0146-6410/95 $29.00

Magnetic Excitations in Deformed Nuclei*

R. NOJAROV**
Insiitufjlir Theoretische Physik Vniversitllt Tiibingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14,
D-72076 Tiibingen, Germany

ABSTRACT
Cross sections for inelastic electron scattering and energy distributions of Ml and E2 strengths of
K = l+ excitations in titanium, rare-earth, and actinide nuclei are studied microscopically within
QRPA. The spin Ml strength has two peaks, isoscalar and isovector, residing between the low- and
high-energy orbital Ml strength. The latter is strongly fragmented and lies in the region of the
IVGQR, where the (e, e) cross sections are almost one order of magnitude larger for E2 than for Ml
excitations. Comparison with the quantized isovector rotor allows the interpretation of all the orbital
Ml excitations at both low and high energies as manifestation of the collective scissors mode.
KEYWORDS
Ml excitations in deformed nuclei, cross sections for inelastic electron scattering, energy distribution
of Ml (spin and orbital) and E2 strengths, quantized isovector rotor, scissors mode, isovector giant
quadrupole resonance, quasiparticle random-phase approximation.
GENERAL

FEATURES

AND

INTERPRETATION

PROBLEMS

Magnetic monopole excitations are strictly forbidden because of the nonexistence of magnetic charge.
Thus, the strongest magnetic excitations, i. e. those with lowest multipolarity, are magnetic dipole
(Ml) excitations. They have been extensively studied in the past mainly in spherical nuclei through
inelastic electron scattering at backward angles, see e. g. the review article of Raman et al. (1991).
Recent experiments use also polarized tagged photons (Laszewski et al., 1988) and polarized protons
(Lisantti et al., 1991).
Some general features of the Ml excitations can be easily understood by examining the Ml operator,
which consists of orbital and spin parts:

MI =

&

+s;s,+ &%I = &[J,

gf = 0.7gf(free),

gi(free) = 5.5855,

+ Cs;- l)S, + s$Ll,

gi(free) = -3.8263,

(1)

where gi, g: are the spin gyromagnetic factors for protons and neutrons. A particle-hole Ml excitation
involves the transition matrix element of the Ml operator (1) b etween two different single-particle
* Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
** Permanent address: Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, BG-1784, Sofia, Bulgaria. E-mail: nojarov@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de

297

R.

298
states.

In a spherical

matrix

elements

basis

they

rules

AN

matrix

= 0, An

elements

transitions,

but

peak,

= 0, Ae = 0, Aj

one should

while the much

matrix

g; - g: = 9.4 relative
In addition
mainly

Ml

are present

isovector

obeys in a spherical
2n + L. It has,

elements

Ml

of the orbital

in spherical

strength

is dominated

predominantly

by Morpurgo

spin transitions

with 1K

= l+l

are spin-flip

momentum

L are

in the very weak isoscalar

by spin contributions

to the

spin gyromagnetic

ratio

(1958).

between

become

are

non-vanishing

= 1. These

angular

nuclei

elements

basis the selection

therefore,

This is due to the large value of the isovector

excitations

J whose transition

and spin matrix

with j = e * l/2 and Aj

the matrix

to gi - gz = I, as noticed

to these

orbital

stronger

elements.

momentum

the orbital

N =

where

partners

contributions

Such orbital

Ml transition

that

angular

Thus,

The Ml operator

= 0, fl,

spin-orbit

note

of the total

symmetry.

and out-of-phase.

only between

not vanishing.
Ml

are eigenstates

vanish due to the spherical

always equal in magnitude

Nojarov

two different

possible

j-shells,

in deformed

two new kinds of

nuclei

at low and high

energy:
i) The
tations

deformation

within

ii) The
AN

splitting

orbital

= 2, giving

angular

determined
The

strength
providing

interpretation

Lo Iudice
perform

The

collective

The

(Lo Iudice

collective

Neutrons

model

model

in deformed

b) with the scissors

and protons

oscillations

of Bohr

degrees

for spherical

nuclei

isovector

1+ mode

and Palumbo,

1978,

in deformed
1979),

(1975)

of freedom

was quantized

recently

Richter

1991,

1993,

1994).

(Richter,

1994).

They

by the two-rotor
in this collective

classically

model

vibrations

1994)

to

to the nuclear

is purely

by the

were

model of

was not able to predict

(Nojarov,

were

et al., 1990;

to isovector

described

states

(1992,

where the I+ state

was extended

nuclei,

a high-

et al., 1984a),

an axis perpendicular

and Mottelson

to isoscalar

nuclei

through

is still controversial.

are assumed

around

rule.

by Kneissl

Ml strength

mode predicted

with
nuclei.

extensive

values of these

(Frekers

nuclei

Their

(Bohle

reviewed

orbital

shells

in deformed

(1988).

Ml excitations

and B(M1)

reactions

major

in spherical

excitations

in Darmstadt

fluorescence,

exci-

elements.

= 0 spin selection

et al.

orbital

Energies

with (p,p)

rotational

on l+

of Nojarov

accelerator

1994).

different

do not exist

of the AN

of low-lying

resonance

excitations

between

which

information

on the high-energy

1979).

it was restricted

quantum

(1966).

Ml

(out-of-phase)

axis.

because

(1978,

1993,

recently

et al., 1984a,

and Palumbo
isovector

symmetry
mode,

(1991,

via nuclear

was studied

elements

the introduction

particle-hole

and small spin matrix

case, because

on the linear

also information

gives rise to low-energy

excitations,

in the latter

scattering

of Richter

(Bohle

Ml

the experimental

of the orbital

initially

L has matrix

orbital

see e. g.

with high precision

1994),

identified

The

articles

j-shells

by large orbital

with the identification

electron

spin Ml

1993,
The

started

inelastic

see the review

nuclei,

in the past,

study

resolution

momentum

are negligible

to spherical

was very scarce

experimental

characterized

rise to high-energy

The spin contributions

In contrast

of the spherical

the same j-shell,

such a

spurious.

by Faessler

two-rotor

model

in canonical

relative

variables.
Microscopic

calculations

rable interactions
of isovector

rotational

1990,

Faessler,

Qz,*r,

1993;

generating

It should
acter

only after

that

or a weakly

The

residual

rotations

the orbital

restoration

(e. g. De Coster

collective

interaction
around

QRPA

of the rotational

in terms of scissors
and Heyde,

Speth

and Zawischa,

Speth

the scissors

We are going

vibrations
1992).

random-phase

of the orbital

approximation

1+ excitations
scissors

mode

is constructed

an axis perpendicular

1+ excitations
invariance

acquire

(Nojarov

(QRPA)

in deformed
(Nojarov

using

nuclei

sepa-

in terms

and Faessler,

from the quadrupole

1988,

operators

to the nuclear

symmetry

axis.

a well-pronounced

scissors

char-

and Faessler,

1988)

violated

by the

of the mean field.

The interpretation

Ml response

the quasiparticle

the interpretation

infinitesimal

be stressed

deformation

within

support

1988,

1991),
1989;

mode is supported
but rejected

Zawischa

mode is found within

of the collective
to present

motion

here

some

and Speth,

QRPA

related

by some works using microscopic

by others

(e. g. Hamamoto

1990).

at high energy,

with the isovector

of our results

related

approaches

and Aberg,

1984,

1986;

In the above

works

of Zawischa

and

Etheor. % 22-24

MeV.

It represents

the

giant quadrupole
with

resonance

the electromagnetic

(IVGQR).

excitations

of

Magnetic Excitations in Deformed

l+

states

in deformed

manifestation

nuclei

of the scissors

and supporting

Our QRPA
pairing,

results

rotational

ORBITAL

STRENGTH

symmetry-restoring

with

quadrupole

invariance,

299

of all the orbital

Ml

excitations

as

violated

EXCITATIONS

a deformed,

axially-symmetric

and spin residual

interactions

by the deformation

procedure

AND

DISTRIBUTION

are obtained

and separable

the interpretation

mode.

LOW-ENERGY
SPIN

Nuclei

(Nojarov

of the mean

and Faessler,

Woods-Saxon

(Faessler
field,

potential,

and Nojarov,

is restored

1990).

in RPA

BCS
The

using

1988).

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.0
N
-

0.5
3

0.0

15Gd

g1.0
a
0.5
0.0

lsaGd1
1.0
0.5

E(MeV)

Fig. 1.

Energy
1994).

distribution
are displayed

from Pitz et al. (1989,

(circles

and Ziegler

as bars
et al.

in rare-earth
excitations

and compared
1990),

(1993).

is compared

to

and Richter

(1991,

nuclei are dispayed

(Sarriguren

et al.,

experimental

et al. (1992),

data

Margraf

spin Ml

et

strength

(p,p) data (dots with error bars)

1993).

in Fig. 1. The theoretical

B(M1)

values of single l+

are in a good agreement with data from high-precision

(7,~)
These are predominantly
low-energy orbital Ml excitations,
with error bars).

2 and 4 MeV.

They

to (7,-y)

The predominatly

above 4 MeV (histograms)

as bars.

nuclei

below 4 MeV with B(Ml)>

Friedrichs

from Frekers et al. (1990)

are plotted

lying between

QRPA

(circles)

Results for several rare-earth

experiments

strength

0.1 p$

al. (1993),

excitations

of Ml

Single, mainly orbital,

300

R. Nojarov

The energy

distribution

and compared
5 and

10 MeV.

neutron

1994;

strong

nuclei

(Lipparini

isoscalar

from

inelastic

typical

et aI., 1993)

(Fig.

l),

some orbital
is deduced

peak

admixtures.

The latter

from the (p,p)

Fig. 2.

Ml

as noted

of almost

spectrum

(bars

are not included

data from Heil et al. (1988).

the middle
plot:
The

same

spectrum
orbital)

general

squared

features

of 238U in Fig.
B(M1)

values

2, the five strongest

altogether

40%

FORM
Transverse

Ml

transition

l+ excitations.

ward inelastic

electron

Instead

of single

overlap

different

overlaps

FACTORS
densities
They

are obtained

scattering

(Heisenberg

by the small

shows

value

of the

in the introduction.
one contains

also

since only the spin strength

with B(Ml)>

in the bottom

region

between
energy

plot

0.1 &

with

(e, e)

2 and 3 MeV from

scale in the bottom

with experiment.

Bars

in the top

deformed

nuclei,

strength

are plotted.
shown

as seen

alone,

As seen from

in more

detail

from

the

the total

Ml

(spin

the top plot

in the bottom

plot,

state.

FOR INELASTIC

ELECTRON

microscopically

are used to calculate

of spherical

spin strength

the isoscalar

excitations

for the spin

excitations,

scissors

while the higher-

state.

up to 10 MeV

orbital

with the collective

of
et

for comparison.

an enlarged

also in heavier

of histograms

excitations

low-lying

versus

the agreement

with the scissors

are manifested
2.

of Fig.

The energy

plot is displayed
to see better

QRPA

are compared

between

analysis

to the case

and mentioned
while

in the histograms,

of 23sU. Theoretical

isoscalar,

respect

damped

(1958)

The

has shown (Sarriguren

Only the isovector

whose data are plotted

in the lower two plots)

plot in order

in this

spin excitations,

resides

qualitatively.

excitations

one is strongly

by Morpurgo

purely

experiments

QRPA

et al., 1988).

the isoscalar

factor,

is reproduced

is similar

in bins of 80 keV

of the spin strength

the weaker lower peak is mainly

Laszewski

because

is given by histograms
Most

structure

spin strength

1984;

consists

strength

scattering.

of the involved

that

The

and Richter,

spin gyromagnetic

isovector

elements

is isovector.

peaks

spin Ml

proton

double-bumped

spin matrix

Nojarov

peak

up in both
The

Its

and proton

al., 1993,
lying

of the calculated

to data

from

the corresponding

and Blok,

1983).

The

SCATTERING
the QRPA

DWBA
theoretical

wave functions

form factors

of

for back-

form factors

of the

Magnetic

0.5

00

3.

Transverse
165

The

QRPA

(1.h.s.

2.0

1.5

versus

momentum

(full curves)

(dots with error bars or arrows)

published
factor

total
orbdxsl

: /
! i
,1,,..1,,,.
4,,:

and 7.2 MeV (r.h.s.

respectively.

301

---

05

of 48Ti in DWBA

the effective

form factors

plot)

Nuclei

Wl

WI

Ml form factors

0 =

in Deformed

10-e

1.0
q,,,

Fig.

Excitations

The

latter

experimental

form factor
data.

in the 1.h.s. plot and the orbital

curves:

QRPA

angle

ct al., 1991).
at 3.78 MeV

with experimental

et al. (1990)

was predicted

Dot-dashed

(Nojarov

Ml excitations

are compared

from Guhr

15

for (e, e) at scattering

transfer

of strong

plot)

I1
1

and Richter

before

the subsequently

the collective

contribution

data
(1990),

scissors

form

in the r.h.s.

plot,.

Fig.

Ml

4.

transition

QRPA
total

transition

vection

two strong

Ml

excitations

orbital

contribution

transfer.

density
current

in 48Ti,
The

(dot-dashed

of 48Ti for the scissors

at 3.78 MeV (r.h.s.

(dot-dashed)

long-dashed)

high momentum

densities

excitation

curve

(1.h.s.

curves)

and magnetization

plot)

and the

et al. (1991).

The

is the sum of the proton

con-

(neutrons:

short-dashed,

protons:

the experimental

data

contributions.

shown

state

(continuous

state

plot) from Nojarov

in Fig.

at 7.2 MeV
in the r.h.s.

3, agree

well with

is almost

purely

plot)

spin-flip

is very small.

transition,

Its QR.PA

form

even at

because

the

factor

was

302

R. Nojarov

predicted
The

before

transition

of Fig.

the corresponding
density

4 and compared

transition

densities

differences

currents

amplitudes

of the QRPA

factor

excitation.
are present

and transition

fact that
collective

the scissors
QRPA

excitations

Ml

plot,

(Nojarov

12

in view the predominantly

above similarity

should

Although

from

apart

the large

overlap

densities

density
to that

of the low-energy

orbital

orbital

in 232Th

at 3.3 MeV

nature

with the scissors

spin
form

is due to the
to the weakly

1993).

low-lying

orbital
curve

Ml

(continuous
transition

Ml

10

excitation

ob-

in the upper

plot,

curve

in the lower

densities:

continuous

curve in the lower plot.

of the scissors

also in heavier

(dot-dashed

in 54Sm

Scissors

plot and dot-dashed

be well pronounced

of 238U. Larger

more similar

et al., 1990).

will be relevant

3 and 4. This

nuclei and, therefore,

of the strongest

at 2 MeV

from some minor

is very similar

but the similarity

Figs.

plot

the two

transition

its shape

as seen from

in lighter

in the r.h.s.

It is seen that

the scissors

et al., 1993),

Faessler

plot.

to each other,

of the two plots),

be expected

3 is displayed

for r < 2 fm. Such differences

momentum.

and Faessler,

curve in the upper

Having

are very similar

scales

Fig.

in the 1.h.s.

nuclei even at low energy,

in QRPA:

Nojarov

density

is still well manifested,

transition

tained

available.

seen in the top plot of Fig. 2 on the example

mode is less collective

Fig. 5.

should

mode,

in lighter

density

became
MeV from

deep inside the nucleus

the different

This

with the scissors

contributions

transition

only at high transferred

(note

data

at 3.78

and their three components

for the (e, e) form factor

excitations

excitation

to the scissors

in the proton

has larger

experimental

of the Ml

nuclei,

mode,

one has to expect

where the low-lying

that

excitations

the
have

Magnetic
a stronger
in Fig.

orbital

contribution
have larger
excitations
Faessler,

to the corresponding
arises

from

the

amplitudes,

because

density.

convection

of the strong

of rare-earth

of the strongest

transition

proton

factors

in Fig.

but

main

of the

6. They

exhibit

nuclei,

orbital)

Ml

shown

excitation

In all the four cases in Fig. 5 the main

The

The

components

strongest

low-lying

orbital

agree with the experimental

again

contribution

in the 1.11.~. plot),

scissors

scissors

transition

densities

and the considered

in their wave functions

a similar

shape,

to the QRPA

which is typical

Ml

data,

excitations

QRPA

(Nojarov

as in the case of transition

form factor

originates

lo-@1n

and

0.5

Fig. 6.

QRPA

(e, e) form

excitations

The comparison
factors
rotational

allows
1992).

and

factors

calculated

(Bohle

et al.,

et al., 1993)

Dot-dashed

form

factor

curve:

the scissor

curves:

of the two strongest

and QRPA

the low-lying

or a weakly

the convection

collective

densities

wave functions,
Ml

current

scissors

mode

Ml transition

excitations
(Nojarov

curves:

low-lying

Ml

one in 154Sm (Faessler

contribution

in the lower plot of Fig.

orbital

for 238U

Continuous

of 23*U and the scissors form factor of 154Sm.

form factor of 238U The form factors in the r.h.s.

from the transition

scissors

for a scattering

with error bars)

1984b).

[Im-I

in DWBA
(dots

in 238U, shown in Fig. 2, and the strongest

QRPA

between

1.5

0.5

to experiment

154Sm

(Nojarov

et al., 1990).

us to interpret

vibrations

1988)

form factor

obtained

1.5

serf

Ml

et al.,

5.

curve

.\I

angle 0 = 165 and compared

(Heil

in Fig.

(dot-dashed

RlA

Pm-I

Theoretical

compared

part

are

are much

1.0

serf

densities

from the orbital

154Sm

form factors

for heavy nuclei.

Q,

0.0

in 238U and

while the scissors

Faessler,

and actinide

(low-lying

current.

collectivity.

two-quasiparticle

303

Nuclei

on the example

density

scissors

(orbital)

in Deformed

1993).

(e, e) form

larger,

the transition

have the same leading

displayed
The

This is confirmed

5. For each nucleus,

is very similar

The

character.

Excitations

and Faessler,

plot are

5.

densities,

in deformed

to the
Dashed

and (e, e) form

nuclei
1988,

as isovector
1990,

1993;

304

R.

Nojarov

Ml AND E2 (e,e) CROSS SECTIONS

ORBITAL EXCITATIONS
The

energy

distributions

are displayed
quadrupole
et al.,

of Ml

as histograms
type with a ratio

1994b).

invariance.

The

latter

It influences

well determined

and E2 strengths

in Fig.

7.

r = -2
constant

mainly

for QRPA

They

are obtained

between

its isovector

is calculated

the low-energy

OF HIGH-ENERGY
excitations

and isoscalar

microscopically

strength

with

from a symmetry-restoring
coupling

from

1+ in rsoGd
interaction

constants

the condition

(E < 12 MeV)

of

(Nojarov

of rotational

which is, therefore,

relatively

from first principles.

10

15

20

25

30

energy [MeV]
Fig. 7.

Energy

distributions

two plots)

et al., 1994b).
gle schematic

Only

the K = fl

Ml

to the E2 strength

in E2 transitions

accompanying

of Fig.

7, is peaked

B(E2)

value agrees

top

neighbouring
B(E2;0+0
with

strength

O-30

(Bohr

isovector

distribution

strength
(above

exhausts

and Mottelson,

at 11 MeV

is plotted

17 MeV)

(lower

(Nojarov

Ml strength.

plot produces

a sin-

the whole high-energy

99.5%

17-25

from
S(E2;

is almost

purely

MeV.
1994).

as shaded
orbital.

whose

data

strength

quadrupole
(Van

is peaked
This

result

The

QRPA

7, because
is shown

resonance

in

(ISGQR),

-+ 2+1) = 0.12 e2b2 in the

B(E2;0+0

the corresponding
class.)

for K = l+ excitations
separately

giant

with

(IVGQR)

in the top plot of Fig.

excitations,

with experimental

counterpart

1975),

are displayed
the Ml

on 154Sm (Richter,

data

MeV

only orbital

incorporating

of the isoscalar

2+1) = 0.15 e2b2 in the region

The Ml strength
the orbital

K = 1 component

The

experimental

in the interval
component

The

nuclei.
+

recent

plot

MeV.

and Ml

strength.

seen

9-11

plot)

= l+ in 16Gd

at 20 MeV in the bottom

(at 22 MeV),

The

in the

with K

areas in the lower two plots:

the lower two plots.

region

of E2 (top

excitations

basis cut-off

excitation

contributions

we are interested

histograms)

of QRPA

Shaded

The quasiparticle
orbital

(contour

strengths

der Woude,

between

1987,

is in a qualitative
energy-weighted

classical

1991)

22 and 23 MeV

sum-rule

on

with

agreement
E2 strength

for the K = 1

= 5.76 e* bMeV.
is shown in the lower two plots of Fig. 7, where
histograms.

It follows

It is seen that
roughly

the energy

the high-energy
distribution

Ml
of the

Magnetic
IVGQR.

The

schematic
from

two-quasiparticle

QRPA

the middle

(Richter,

plot

1994).

The

same strength

plot.

isovector

iu relative

rotor

than

of the deformed

harmonic

within

t,he same

within

the collective

the whole

non-spurious

It, was shown

(Zawischa

the exist,ence
within

1993),

Ml

carrying

strength

the predictions

experimental

20 MeV
estimates

1979)

fragmentation

was quantized

mode

splits

shells

recently

in deformed

(Nojarov,

in the schematic

1994)

two-level

corresponding

that

the scissors

This

nuclei,

results

at both

basis

to trar-

AN = 2, respectively.

with

1994)

case
in the

at high energy.

components,

(Nojarov,

region

mode

strongly

It was
exhausts
supports

low and high energies,

mode.

model

1990)

that

mode.

into account,
rotor

the collective

However,
Ml

model,

taking

model

additionally

This

result

from the definite

elasticity

as well (Zawischa

is already

scissors

does not allow

the nuclear

mode was obtained

strength.

apart

hydrodynamical

after

a low-energy

of the orbital

of the isovector

mode in t,he latter

a single,

above

from this energy

at low and high energy.

Ml excitations

scissors

most

model

strength

recent

excitation

AN = 0 and between
rotor

plot to produce

17 and 25 MeV in the more realistic

into low- and high-energy

and Speth,

of a low-energy

the same classical

Speth,

resulting

isovector

of the scissors

with

of the considerable
1978,

of all the orbital

as manifestation

between

scissors

shell with
orbital

in the bottom

all the high-energy

v al ue of a single

The

oscillator

sitions

the interpretation

B(M1)

305

Nuclei

in agreement

and Palumbo,

variables.

shown

= 3.6 pk,

0.25 p L, because

(Lo Iudice

canonical

It incorporates

is distributed

The largest

plot is smaller

in Deformed

was cut off at 20 MeV

(at 22 MeV).

and has B(M1)

The

from the middle

middle

basis

excitation

Excitations

in agreement

nature

and
with

of the low-energy

model.

I,

I,,

I,,

--

I,,

Ml

I,

I I,

I,

I,

75

50

_
\

\
I

100

incident energy [MeV]

Fig. 8.

DWBA

(e, e)

excitation
electron
Ih

cross

energy

= l+l;

(Nojarov

dotted

the sum of the Ml

The

Ml

sections

(0

165)

at 22 MeV from the bottom

and E2 (e, e) cross

sections

curve:

for the

single

schematic

plot of Fig. 7, plotted

et al., 199413).

Dashed

E2 excitation

with 1K

curve:

Ml

= 2+1;

QRPA

versus

incident

excitation

continuous

with
curve:

and E2 cross sections.

of the schematic

QRPA

state

at 22 Mev from

the bottom

plot

of Fig. 7 is plotted in Fig.

even at backward scattering

8. It is seen that the two cross sections have a very similar shape, but
(0 = 165) the E2 cross section is about one order of magnitude
larger

than

Thus,

the Ml

the IVGQR
scattering.
transfer
(Nojarov

cross

section.

and the high-energy

We have found

(0.4

that

< p < 0.6 fm-l)

et al.. 1994a;

Dir&elder

the E2 electroexcitation
orbital

Ml

substantial

strength

is dominant

could hardly

E2 contributions

are present

also in the (e, e) cross sections

et al., 1994).

in the high-energy

be seen through

at intermediate

of low-energy

orbital

region

inelastic
Ml

of

electron

momentum
excitations

R.

306

Nojarov

CONCLUSIONS
We have studied
using

theoretically

a deformed

densities,
tions

experimental
clusions

data

about

from

resides

matrix

elements

with

orbital

admixtures,

small

isovector.

However,

strength

density

nuclei,

MeV)

Ml

contain

(actinide)
22-23

small.
apart

Accompanying

is separated

The

case

The comparison
allows

rotational

between

scissors

or a weakly collective

rotor

in relative

conjugate

that

the scissors

mode

These

nuclei,

at both

results

MeV)

variables

exhausts

strongly

almost

to the

better

caused

purely

the isoscalar
known

case

by the higher

orbital

(titanium)

excitations

is almost

purely

orbital,

It is strongly

peaked

fragmented

of low-lying
region

orbital

Ml

scissors

transferred

(E > 15 MeV)

Ml transition

support

the interpretation
as fragmentation

orbital

Ml

of all the orbital

done.

as isovector

of the isovector

harmonic

oscillator

at both

Ml excitations

and manifestation

at
are

and (e, e) form

nuclei

quantization

strength

even

angle of 165.

have been

densities,

basis of the deformed

the whole non-spurious

low and high energies,

momenta,

the cross sections

in deformed

The canonical

in heavy

are expected

even at scattering

excitations

mode.

in the schematic

excitations

for which calculations

wave functions,

at
and

value.

at intermediate

orbital

(2-4

and very small in heavy

IK = 2+1 lie close to the Ml excitations

up to 150 MeV,

and QRPA

and

because

nuclei,

of the IVGQR.

In the high-energy

the low-lying

isoscalar,

wider,

The low-energy

larger for E2 than for Ml electroexcitations,

us to interpret

energy.

(17-28

E2 contributions

energies

of neutron

similar

in lighter

(e, e) cross sections

scattering.

for incident

vibrations

regions.

has a large B(M1)

with

con-

nuclei.

The analysis

peaks,

in deformed

distribution

region

to the following

splitting.

strength

to states

substantial

electron

is true at least

factors

Ml

and E2 excita-

is predominantly

is stronger,

is, therefore,

fragmentation

the energy

The experimental

in this

backward

strength

which are larger

from this energy

one order of magnitude

This

Ml

5 and 10 MeV.

shows up in both

in two energy

high-energy

E2 transitions

nuclei.

to receive
almost

spin

its stronger

and follows roughly

no single excitation

deformed

The

leads

nuclei

Transition

with numerous

in deformed

of this strength
peak

spin strength

for Ml

The agreement

scattering

between

the lower peak

and actinide
in QRPA.

strengths

of the 1+ excitations

the higher-lying

also spin contributions,

nuclei.

MeV,

and proton

levels due to deformation

strength

of transition

in heavy nuclei

while

from

of single-particle

The orbital

photon

shows that

only the isovector

is very

of spherical

electron,

rare-earth

interactions

wave functions.

and the main properties

of the spin Ml strength

residual

distributions

with the QRPA

inelastic

the nature

in titanium,

and separable

and energy

microscopically

and proton

Ml

potential

(e, e) cross sections,

are calculated

Most

the I< = 1+ excitations

Woods-Saxon

shows

low and high

in deformed

of the collective

scissors

mode.
The

results

author

presented

here have been obtained

is expressing

de Guerra,

his deep gratitude

M. Dingfelder,

with A. Richter,
gratefully

P. Sarriguren,

U. Kneissl,

acknowledged.

P. 0.

N. Lo Iudice,

Thanks

in collaboration

for their outstanding

Lipas,

A. Raduta,

with many
engagement:

F. G. Scholtz,
H.-J.

are due to J. Heisenberg

colleagues,
Amand

and M. Grigorescu.

Wortche,

to whom

Faessler,

Discussions

and P. von Neumann-Cosel

for providing

the

E. Moya

us with his DWBA

are

code.

REFERENCES
Bohle,

D.,

(1984a).
Bohle,
Bohr,

A. Richter,

W.

Steffen,

Phys. Lett., B137,

D., G. Kiichler,

A. Richter

A. and B. R. Mottelson

De Coster,
Dingfelder,
Faessler,

A. E. L. Dieperink,

C. and K. Heyde
M., R. Nojarov

and W. Steffen

(1975).
(1991).

Nuclear
Nucl.

and A. Faessler

A. (1966).

Nucl.

Phys.,

Progr.

Faessler,

A. (1992).

Faessler,

A. and R. Nojarov

Faessler,

A., R. Nojarov

N. Lo Iudice,

F. Palumbo

and 0.

Scholten

27.

85,

(1984b).

structure,

Phys. Lett., B148,

(Benjamin,

Phys.,

A529,

507.

(1994).

Progr.

Part.

Nucl.

Phys.,

653.

Part. Nucl. Phys., 28, 341.

(1990).

Phys.

and F. G. Scholtz

Rev.,
(1990).

C41,

1243.

Nucl.

Phys., A515,

260.

London).,

237.

vol. 2.

34, (these

proceedings).

Magnetic Excitations in Deformed

Frekers,

D., H. J. Wijrtche,

R. Helmer,
(1990).
Friedrichs,

Phys.
H.,

(1992).

Lett.,

B.

U. Kneissl,

B244,

Schlitt,

Phys.

Rev.,

A336,

R. Abegg,

J. D. King,

J. M argraf,

C. Wesselborg,

(1984).

Phys.

Lett.,

Phys.

Scripta,

Heil, R. D., H. H. Pitz,

B145,

J. and H. P. Blok (1983).

(1988).

Ann.

K. D. Hummel,

Nucl.

Rev.

Phys.,

Nucl.

G. Kilgus,

A476,

Part.

Part.

Nucl.

Phys.,

28, 331.

Kneissl,

U. (1994).

Progr.

Part.

Nucl.

Phys.,

34, (these proceedings).

R. M., R. Alarcon,
E. and A. Richter

D. S. Dale and S. D. Hoblit

(1984).

J., E. J. Stephenson,

Phys.

A. D. Bather,

and J. Wambach

Bl44,

Lett.,
Phys.

Rev.,

Lo Iudice,

N. and F. Palumbo

(1978).

Phys.

Rev.

N. and F. Palumbo

(1979).

Nucl.

Phys.,

J., R. D. Heil, U. Maier,

C. Wesselborg,

U. Kneissl,

P. von Brentano,

G. (1958).

Nojarov, R. (1994).

Phys.
Nucl.

R.-D.

(1988).

Phys.

Rev.

P. Schwandt,

C44,

A. Richter,

61, 1710.

Lett.,

S. P. Wells, S. W. Wissink,

R1233.

41, 1532.

Lett.,
A326,

193.

H. H. Pitz,

Herzberg

D. Bohle,

13.

P. Li, R. Sawafta,

(1991).

Lo Iudice,

H. Friedrichs,

S. Lindenstruth,

and A. Zilges (1993).

Phys.

B. Schlitt,

Rev., C47,

Phys.,

A571,

93.

R. and A. Faessler (1988).

Nucl.

Nojarov,

R. and A. Faessler (1990).

Z. Phys.,

Nojarov,

R. and A. Faessler (1993).

Mod.

Phys.

Lett.,

A8,

Nojarov,

R., A. Faessler and P. 0. Lipas (1991).

Nucl.

Phys.

Nojarov,

R., A. Faessler,

de Guerra

P. Sarriguren,

Phys.,

A484,

A336,

E. Moya

1.

151.
1171.
A533,

381.

and M. Grigorescu

(1993).

Nucl.

Nojarov,

R., A. Faessler and M. Dingfelder

(1994a).

J. Phys.

R., A. Faessler and M. Dingfelder

(1994b).

Phys.

H. H., U. E. P. Berg,
(1989).

Nucl.

Phys.,

R. D. Heil, U. Kneissl,

P. von Brentano,

G: Nucl.

Rev.,

R. Stock,

Phys.,

Part.

20, Llll.

C, (in press).

C. Wesselborg

and P. von Brentano

A492,411.

Pitz, H. H., R. D. Heil, U. Kneissl,

S. Lindenstruth,

S. D. Hoblit

S., L. W. Fagg and R. S. Hicks (1991).

Richter,

A. (1990).

Richter,
Richter,
Richter,

iVucl. Phys.

A507,

A. (1991).

NucI. Phys.

A522,

139c.

A. (1993).

Nucl.

A553,

417~.

A. (1994).

Progr.

Nucl.

Phys.,

Phys.
Part.

U. Seemann,

and A. M. Nathan

Raman,

(1990).

Internat.

Rev.

R. Stock,

Nucl.

Phys.,

Nucl.

Phys.,

C. Wesselborg,
A509,

7, 355.

99c.

34, (these proceedings).

P., E. Moya

de Guerra,

R. Nojarov

and A. Faessler (1993).

J. Phys.

G19, 291.

Sarriguren,

P., E. Moya

de Guerra,

R. Nojarov

and A. Faessler (1994).

J. Phys.

G20,

B211,

(1988).

Phys.

Speth, J. and D. Zawischa

(1989).

Phys.

Lett.,

B219,

529.

Progr.

Part.

Nucl.

Phys.,

18, 217.

A. (1987).

Lett.,

Van der Woude, A. (1991). Internat. Rev. Nucl. Phys.,

Zawischa, D. and J. Speth (1990). Z. Phys., A339, 97.
D. and J. Speth

(1993).

Nucl.

Phys.,

Ziegler, W., N. Huxel, P. von Neumann-Cosel,

and K. Heyde

(1993).

Nucl.

Phys.,

A564,

A553,

7, 99.
557~.

C. Rangacharyulu,

366.

315.

247.

J. and D. Zawischa

Van der Woude,

A. Zilges,

587.

Sarriguren,

Zawischa,

Phys.,

349.

Nojarov,

Speth,

1474.

110, 721.

Rev.,

Nojarov,

Pitz,

(1990).

Sci., 33, 569.

Progr.

A563,

Huberts

39.

U. (1992).

Morpurgo,

H. H. Pitz,

163.

Kneissl,

Margraf,

D. Heil,

34, 697.

U. E. P. B erg, U. Kneissl,

and P. von Brentano

W. Unkelbach

R.

C. W. de Jager, H. de Vries and P. K. A. de Witt

(1986).

Lisantti,

and S. Yen

159.

I. and S. Aberg

Lipparini,

T. E. Drake,

R892.

C45,

A. Richter,

I. and S. Aberg

Laszewski,

C. Chan,

M. C. Vetterli

A. Zilges, D. Hager, G. Miiller and M. Schumacher

Hamamoto,

Heisenberg,

A. Celler,

R. Schubank,

S. Lindenstruth,

R. D. Herzberg,

Hamamoto,

C. Wesselborg

R. E. Azuma,

C. A. Miller,

307

178.

P. von Brentano,

Guhr, T., H. Diesener,

Z. Phys.,

A. Richter,

K. P. Jackson,

Nuclei

A. Richter,

C. Spieler,

C. De Coster