text:
# Deformed two center shell model

## I Introduction

From more than thirty years on, two-center shell models are precious tools in the research of fusion, fission and cluster decay processes. The capability of producing transition level schemes during the splitting process from an initial parent nucleus towards two different fragments offers the opportunity of studying what are the possible microscopic changes through a certain fission or decay channel.

In 1961 a symmetric double center oscillator potential has been analyzed by Merzbacher mer . A strong link was emphasized with regard to diatomic molecules (like ammonia molecule) where the motion in the neighbourhood of an equilibrium state is close to the one generated by a harmonic potential. This problem has been solved for two identical spherical potential wells.

In the 1970’s, J. Maruhn, W. Greiner and the Frankfurt school developed the asymmetric two-center shell model mar . It was an important step for the study of mass asymmetry in binary nuclear fission. The model considered two spherical asymmetric fragments subjected to two-oscillator type potential. A remarcable feature of this model was its ability to describe two overlapping spherical nuclei fission shapes up to their separated configuration. Thus it was possible for microscopic effects to be held responsible as being specifically due to the two emerging and gradually separating level schemes. Basically it is under this form that two center shell models are widely used today in nuclear fusion, fission and cluster decay phenomena.

Two center states in light nuclei are taken into account in connection with molecular orbitals in a two-center shell model picture oer . Also, application of the two-center shell model on the study of $`{}_{}{}^{17}O+^{12}C`$ reaction has been published thi  with emphasis on nuclear Landau-Zenner effect.

Nucleus-nucleus collisions have also been considered in the framework of the two-center shell model to obtain the two-center level diagrams and single particle corrections for asymmetric systems such as $`{}_{}{}^{16,17}O+^{24,25}Mg`$ par .

The importance of an adequate description of cold fission, cluster radioactivities and alpha decay in terms of an asymmetric and deformed single particle shell model with more realistic shapes during fission and fusion processes was repeteadly stressed poe .

Recently, attempts have been made to use the two-center shell model in synthesis and decay of superheavy nuclei. It is a suitable theoretical model to study the microscopic effects on possible projectile-target combinations in their way from two different quantum systems to one. As the synthesized nucleus is heavier, increasing Coulombian repulsion lowers the macroscopic potential barrier almost to complete dissapearance. The only way a superheavy element can survive is due to the shell effects ghe . A two-center shell model is essential for the description of fusion and fission of superheavy elements. It shows that the shell structure of the two participating target-projectile nuclei is visible far beyond the barrier into the fusioning nucleus and is crucial in choosing the most favorable pair approaching each other through cold fusion valleys. Transition behaviour of the two partner shells will provide shell corrections which lower the fusion barrier to be overcome, as compared to neighbouring projectile-target combinations.

Up to now, all the variants of two-center shell models used spherical nuclei. I shall consider now the motivation of this work. In any process which implies a pass from two quantum systems to one (fusion) or the other way around (fission) there are certain situations when one or both fission fragments or fusion partners are deformed. Such a reaction could yield cold energy valleys due to deformed shell structure of the participants. Fragment deformations are properly accounted in this work. A deformed two-center shell model (DTCSM) is proposed, where the main part of the potential consists of two ellipsoidaly deformed Nilsson type oscillators for axially symmetric shapes. Any change in the nuclear surface shape is reflected in a corresponding modification of the four oscillator frequencies along the symmetry axis and perpendicular to it.

It is also well established that, especially in fission and cluster decay, a necking region builds its way between the fragments, smoothly linking the two ellipsoids one to the other. This work associates for the first time a microscopic potential to a spherically matching neck region of the nuclear shape. The neck potential is constructed in such a way that it takes the same value on the necking region surface as on the ellipsoidal region surfaces of the fragments. Equipotentiality is thus respected on the nuclear surface.

The usual spin-orbit and squared angular momentum operators are calculated with help of the potential-dependent formulae $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}=(V\times 𝐩)𝐬`$, and $`𝐥^2=(V\times 𝐩)^2`$ rij . The potential in this model follows exactly the nuclear shape, and so do the $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}`$ and $`𝐥^2`$ operators. Finally, the levels diagram with respect to the elongation, neck parameter and fragment deformations are used to calculate the shell correction by means of the Strutinsky method.

Calculations are presented as an example for different mass asymmetries, for the superheavy nucleus 306122 and for 252Cf. The dependence on various neck parameter values and on different pairs of fragments is discussed.

## II Shapes

Fig. 1 shows the main geometrical parameters defining the axially symmetric shape family DTCSM is dealing with. Two ellipsoids (the deformed fragments) with semiaxes $`a_1`$, $`b_1`$ and $`a_2`$, $`b_2`$ are, at a certain moment, separated at a distance $`R`$ between the two centers $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. A sphere centered in $`O_3`$ with radius $`R_3`$ is rolling around the symmetry axis, being tangent all the time to the two ellipsoids. The necking region, between the two tangent points, is generated in this way. Thus we have five independent parameters to design the deformation space: two fragment shape asymmetries $`\chi _1=b_1/a_1`$, $`\chi _2=b_2/a_2`$ (if $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are given as the correspondent of $`\beta _2`$ for every $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, the other semiaxes are calculated from the total volume conservation condition), mass asymmetry $`A_1/A_2`$, the neck radius $`R_3`$ and the distance between centers $`R`$. Obviously, this set is available for every parent nucleus $`A,Z`$ with its own $`\chi =b/a`$.

A few shape sequences obtained by varying two of the parameters, $`R_3`$ and $`R`$ for the same parent and the same mass asymmetry $`A_1/A_2`$ are depicted in Fig. 2. Every row starts with the same ellipsoidal parent on the left hand side of the figure. As the distance between centers increases, the two deformed fragments with fixed $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ shape asymmetries begin to separate one from the other. Variation with the neck radius $`R_3`$ is noticeable on vertical direction. Shape sequences with very small necking region are shown in the upper row (for zero neck radius, $`R_3=0`$ fm, we get compact shapes suitable for fusion reactions), passing through intermediary neck radii, comparable to the magnitude of the ellipsoids semiaxes (second and third row), down to the last row where large neck radius generates very elongated shapes.

This kind of configurations will be microscopically treated along the variation of the deformation space parameters.

## III The potential

The equations for shape surfaces described in the previous section can be written in cylindrical coordinates (due to axyal symmetry) as:

$$\rho (z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\rho _1(z)=& [b_1^2\chi _1z^2]^{1/2}& a_1zz_{c1}\\ \rho _g(z)=& \rho _3[R_3^2(zz_3)^2]^{1/2},& z_{c1}zz_{c2}\\ \rho _2(z)=& [b_2^2\chi _2(zR)^2]^{1/2},& z_{c2}zR+a_2\end{array}$$
(1)
where the origin is placed in the center of the heavy fragment $`O_1`$. Neck sphere center coordinates are $`(z_3,\rho _3)`$, and $`z_{c1}`$ and $`z_{c2}`$ are the two tangent points of the neck sphere with the two ellipsoids.

The oscillator potential correspondig to these two-center shapes must have the same value on the nuclear surface. For spheres , for example we have:

$$V_0=\frac{m_0\omega _i^2R_i^2}{2}$$
(2)
where $`R_i`$ is the radii of a nucleus with atomic mass $`A_i`$. Since $`\mathrm{}\omega _i=41A^{1/3}`$ and $`R_i=r_0A^{1/3}`$ (where $`r_0`$ 1.16) then $`V_054.5`$ MeV. If we write these simple relations for the surface of ellipsoidal shapes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_i}^2a_i^2=`$ $`V_0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _i}^2b_i^2=`$ $`V_0`$ (3)
the frequencies $`\omega _{z_i}`$, $`\omega _{\rho _i}`$ are defined along the symmetry axis and respectively perpendicular to it, as functions of the two ellipse semiaxes.

For an arbitrary origin, placed on the symmetry axis, the ellipsoids surface equations read:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{{\displaystyle \frac{2V_0}{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(z+z_1)^2}{{\displaystyle \frac{2V_0}{m_0\omega _{z_1}^2}}}}=1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{{\displaystyle \frac{2V_0}{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(zz_2)^2}{{\displaystyle \frac{2V_0}{m_0\omega _{z_2}^2}}}}=1`$ (4)
where $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are the absolute values of each of the two centers coordinates. Now the two oscillator potential expressions for deformed fragments come straightforward:

$`V_1(\rho ,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(z+z_1)^2`$
$`V_2(\rho ,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2`$ (5)
What we have left to establish is the necking region potential, $`V_g(\rho ,z)`$. The force that keeps nucleons confined within the ellipsoid is an attractive type one, radially inward ($`\stackrel{}{F}_{ellipsoid}\stackrel{}{r}`$). The same reason leads us to the hypothesis that, if nucleons are confined within the concave necking region, which is geometrically inversed to the ellipsoid convex surface with respect to the centers of the fragments, a rejective force is needed, radially outward:

$$\stackrel{}{F}(\stackrel{}{r})=\beta \stackrel{}{r}$$
(6)
hence a force oriented from outside the nuclear shape toward the surface. Then the corresponding potential is related to the expression:

$$_0^r\stackrel{}{F}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=\phi (r)\phi (0)$$
(7)
or

$$_0^r\stackrel{}{F}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=_0^r\beta \stackrel{}{r}d\stackrel{}{r}=\frac{\beta r^2}{2}$$
(8)
Consequently, $`\phi (r)=\frac{\beta r^2}{2}`$ is a potential form generating the rejective force. In this way, the rejective neck potential, defined up to a constant, must look like:

$$V_{g1}(r)=V_c+\phi (r)$$
(9)
where $`V_c`$ is a constant to be determined. On the nuclear surface $`S_g`$, we have again:

$$V_{g1}_{S_g}=V_c+\phi (r)_{S_g}=V_0$$
(10)
or

$$V_c=V_0\phi (r)_{S_g}$$
(11)
For the sake of consistency, the rejective force is also considered of oscillator type:

$$\stackrel{}{F}(\stackrel{}{r})=m_0\omega _g^2\stackrel{}{r}$$
(12)
therefore

$$\phi (r)=\frac{m_0\omega _g^2r^2}{2}$$
(13)
where the frequency $`\omega _g`$ has to be found. Since the potential must follow the geometrical shape, at the neck region the function $`\phi (r)=\phi (\rho ,z)`$ reads:

$$\phi (\rho ,z)=\frac{m_0\omega _g^2}{2}[(\rho \rho _3)^2+(zz_3)^2]$$
(14)
and is centered in the middle of the neck sphere $`O_3(\rho _3,z_3)`$. On the neck surface then, where $`(\rho ,z)S_g`$, we have:

$$\phi (\rho ,z)_{S_g}=\frac{m_0\omega _g^2}{2}R_3^2=V_{g1}_{S_g}=V_0$$
(15)
Then $`V_c=V_0\phi (r)_{S_g}=2V_0`$ and the total neck potential from outside the shape down to the surface is:

$$V_{g1}(r)=2V_0\frac{m_0\omega _g^2}{2}[(\rho \rho _3)^2+(zz_3)^2]$$
(16)
and the neck frequency is directly related to the neck radius by Eq. 15. $`V_{g1}`$ reach its maximum at the center of the neck sphere ($`\rho =\rho _3,z=z_3`$), where $`V_{g1}=2V_0`$, then is decreasing down to the surface value $`V_{g1}=V_0`$ at a distance equal to the neck radius $`(\rho \rho _3)^2+(zz_3)^2=R_3^2`$ from $`O_3`$.

To complete the neck-dependent potential, there still remains the region inside the nuclear shape between the necking surface and the interior contours of the two ellipsoids (black colored, denoted by $`V_{g2}(\rho ,z)`$ in the upper part of Fig. 3). It can be observed that on the ellipsoids surface inside the shape the deformed oscillator potential has the same value as on the fragments surface, namely $`V_0`$. But on the surface of the shape within the necking region, the value is also $`V_0`$. Then, one concludes that inside the region volume between the neck surface and the two ellipsoids surfaces - $`\rho _1(z)\rho \rho _g(z)`$ and $`\rho _2(z)\rho \rho _g(z)`$ \- the neck potential is constant.

$$V_{g2}(\rho ,z)=cst=V_0$$
(17)
Finally, the deformed oscillator potential part for the DTCSM reads:

$$V_{DTCSM}(\rho ,z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}V_1(\rho ,z)=& \frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{z1}^2(z+z_1)^2& ,v_1\\ V_g(\rho ,z)=& \{\begin{array}{ccc}V_{g1}(\rho ,z)=& 2V_0[\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _g^2(\rho \rho _3)^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3)^2]& ,v_{g1}\\ V_{g2}(\rho ,z)=& V_0& ,v_{g2}\end{array}& \\ V_2(\rho ,z)=& \frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2& ,v_2\end{array}$$
(18)
where $`v_1`$, $`v_{g1}`$, $`v_{g2}`$ and $`v_2`$ are the spatial regions where the corresponding potentials are acting. These regions are about to be revealed further on.

## IV Matching potential surfaces

One of the most important issues for the two-center shell models is that the separation plane between the two fragments is not the one where the potentials equal eachother. As an example, for compact shapes (no neck, $`R_3=0`$) the points ( $`\{\rho _s,z_s\}`$ ) on the separation line (where the two ellipsae intersect) result in different values for the potentials, $`V_1(\rho _s,z_s)V_2(\rho _s,z_s)`$. The sharp cusp between the two values makes calculation totally wrong. Attempts to solve the problem by a geometrical transition function, making the frequency $`\omega _{\rho _1}(z)`$ join $`\omega _{\rho _2}(z)`$ introduce an unpredictible approximation which is bigger as the mass asymmetry is larger; moreover, it does not reproduce the neck spherical shape and still, only the $`\rho `$part of the potential is solved.

In conclusion, one has to divide the Hilbert space such that the whole potential $`V_{DTCSM}(\rho ,z)`$ could smoothly and continuosly pass from one fragment to the neck and finally to the other fragment.

First, let us take the deformed fragment oscillators into consideration and find out what are the spatial limits of continuity between the two potentials. The equation for such a region must be complacent with the matching condition:

$$V_1(\rho ,z)=V_2(\rho ,z)$$
(19)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V_1=& \frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2& ,S_1(\rho ,z)\\ V_2=& \frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2& ,S_2(\rho ,z)\end{array}$$
(20)
or

$$\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho ^2+\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2=\omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho ^2+\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2$$
(21)
If one translates the $`z`$coordinate:

$$z=z^{}k$$
(22)
and separate the terms with respect to the powers of $`\rho `$ and $`z^{}`$, we get:

$`(\omega _{\rho _1}^2\omega _{\rho _2}^2)+(\omega _{z_1}^2\omega _{z_2}^2)z^22k(\omega _{z_1}^2\omega _{z_2}^2)z^{}+(\omega _{z_1}^2\omega _{z_2}^2)k^2`$
$`+2(\omega _{z_1}^2z_1+\omega _{z_2}^2z_2)z^{}2(\omega _{z_1}^2z_1+\omega _{z_2}^2z_2)k+\omega _{z_1}^2z_1^2\omega _{z_2}^2z_2^2=0`$ (23)
We notice that:

$$z_1+z_2=R$$
(24)
and after some simple calculations one obtains:

$$\frac{\rho ^2}{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{z_1}^2\omega _{z_2}^2R^2}{(\omega _{\rho _2}^2\omega _{\rho _1}^2)(\omega _{z_2}^2\omega _{z_1}^2)}}}+\frac{(z+k)^2}{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{z_1}^2\omega _{z_2}^2R^2}{(\omega _{z_2}^2\omega _{z_1}^2)^2}}}=1$$
(25)
which defines a so called unique center surface, here namely an ellipsoid with semiaxes:

$`a_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{z_1}\omega _{z_2}R}{\omega _{z_2}^2\omega _{z_1}^2}}`$
$`b_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{z_1}\omega _{z_2}R}{[(\omega _{\rho _2}^2\omega _{\rho _1}^2)(\omega _{z_2}^2\omega _{z_1}^2)]^{\frac{1}{2}}}}`$ (26)
Since the origin of this surface is at $`(\rho =0,z^{}=0)`$, its center with respect to the arbitrary origin (against which the potentials are expressed) is on the symmetry axis at:

$$z_{0m}=k=\frac{a_2^2z_1+a_1^2z_2}{a_1^2a_2^2}$$
(27)
What we have obtained are the coordinates $`(z_{0m},0)`$ and the semiaxes $`(a_m,b_m)`$ of a matching potential ellipsoid (MPE). On its surface $`V_1(\rho ,z)=V_2(\rho ,z)`$. The heavy deformed fragment $`O_1`$ is acting through $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ outside the MPE. The light fragment part which emerges from the parent is contained inside MPE (the shaded region in Fig. 3). Hence its action on the Hilbert space, $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$, goes all over the matching ellipsoid volume.

The same demonstration is valid for $`V_1(\rho ,z)=V_{g1}(\rho ,z)`$, and $`V_2(\rho ,z)=V_{g2}(\rho ,z)`$, as far as the neck potential shares its action space with the fragments. First condition:

$$V_1(\rho ,z)=V_{g1}(\rho ,z)$$
(28)
or

$$\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2=2V_0[\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _g^2(\rho \rho _3)^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3)^2]$$
(29)
yields:

$`(m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2+m_0\omega _g^2)\rho ^2+(m_0\omega _{z_1}^2+m_0\omega _g^2)z^22m_0\omega _g^2\rho _3\rho +`$
$`2(m_0\omega _{z_1}^2z_1m_0\omega _g^2z_3)z+m_0\omega _{z_1}^2z_1^2+m_0\omega _g^2(\rho _3^2+z_3^2)4V_0=0`$ (30)
This equation is of the type:

$$a_{11}\rho ^2+a_{22}z^2+2a_1\rho +2a_2z+a=0$$
(31)
To describe a unique center surface, the normalized determinant of the equation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta }=a\frac{a_1^2}{a_{11}}\frac{a_2^2}{a_{22}}$$

must be positive, which is the casefor our situation. Then the center of the surface has the coordinates:

$`\rho _{0m1}={\displaystyle \frac{\left|\begin{array}{cc}a_{12}& a_1\\ a_{22}& a_2\end{array}\right|}{\left|\begin{array}{cc}a_{11}& a_{12}\\ a_{21}& a_{22}\end{array}\right|}}`$ $`z_{0m1}={\displaystyle \frac{\left|\begin{array}{cc}a_{11}& a_1\\ a_{21}& a_2\end{array}\right|}{\left|\begin{array}{cc}a_{11}& a_{12}\\ a_{21}& a_{22}\end{array}\right|}}`$ (40)
After some simple calculations one obtains:

$`\rho _{0m1}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _g^2\rho _3}{\omega _{\rho _1}^2+\omega _g^2}}`$ $`z_{0m1}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _g^2z_3\omega _{z_1}^2z_1}{\omega _{z_1}^2+\omega _g^2}}`$ (41)
This surface is again an ellipsoid with semiaxes:

$`a_{m1}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{22}}}\right)^{1/2}`$ $`b_{m1}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{11}}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (42)
and represents the matching potential ellipsoid (MPE1) between $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ and $`V_{g1}(\rho ,z)`$. On its surface, the two values equal each other. Obviously, the tangent point between this first matching potential ellipsoid and the heavy fragment shape is the same as the tangent point between the neck sphere and the heavy fragment. In the interior of MPE1, the DTCSM potential is $`V_{g1}(\rho ,z)`$. Following the same arguments for:

$$V_2(\rho ,z)=V_{g1}(\rho ,z)$$
(43)
one finds:

$`\rho _{0m2}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _g^2\rho _3}{\omega _{\rho _2}^2+\omega _g^2}}`$ $`z_{0m2}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _g^2z_3\omega _{z_2}^2z_2}{\omega _{z_2}^2+\omega _g^2}}`$ (44)
for the center of the second neck matching potential ellipsoid (MPE2), and the same expressions with $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ corresponding values instead of $`V_1`$ hold for the semiaxes $`a_{m2}`$ and $`b_{m2}`$.

In the upper part of Fig. 3, the three matching ellipsoids - the large shaded one for $`V_1=V_2`$ (MPE) and the two grey ones for $`V_1=V_{g1}`$ (MPE1) and $`V_2=V_{g1}`$ (MPE2) respectively - are drawn. In this way DTCSM potential spans the whole Hilbert space as follows: within MPE it is $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ which is active; within the grey area formed by the two neck potential matching ellipsoids, MPE1 and MPE2, we have $`V_{g1}(\rho ,z)`$; in the interior of the nuclear shape, between the neck surface and the fragment ellipsoids surfaces (tiny black region) the potential is $`V_{g2}(\rho ,z)`$. The rest of the space is under $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ action.

What is achieved in this section is spanning the Hilbert space by DTCSM potential, passing continuously from the potential generated by the heavy fragment $`V_1`$ to the lighter one $`V_2`$ and allowing also for the neck to be smoothly shaped by $`V_g`$. There are no sharp cusps in the potential values. Since we work in axial symmetry, the two neck matching ellipsoids MPE1 and MPE2 are in fact rolling around the symmetry axis. Each of them shapes a thorus around the necking region, where $`V_{g1}`$ is the DTCSM potential.

On the lower part of Fig. 3 geometrical points which will be used for further calculations are marqued: $`\rho _{m1s}(z)`$ and $`\rho _{m1j}(z)`$ are MPE1 surface functions, $`\rho _{m2s}(z)`$ and $`\rho _{m2j}(z)`$ hold for MPE2, and $`\rho _m(z)`$ is the surface of MPE. Other points of interest are: $`z_{c1}`$ and $`z_{c2}`$ \- the two tangent points of the neck and MPE1 and MPE2 with the fragment ellipsoids, $`z_{im}`$ \- the intersection of MPE with the symmetry axis, $`z_{x1l}`$ and $`z_{x2r}`$ \- the left margin of MPE1 and the right margin of MPE2, $`z_s`$ \- the crossing point between the two fragment ellipsoids, $`z_{mint}`$ \- upper crossing point between the three matching ellipsoids

Fig. 4 shows how the three potentials work together. The values of $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$, $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ and $`V_{g1}(\rho ,z)`$ are taken at $`\rho =\rho _1(z_{c1})`$ (upper part of the figure), and $`\rho =\rho _2(z_{c2})`$, hence at the tangent points of the neck sphere. Evolution is shown as the distance $`R`$ (or $`z`$-variable) increases. The values are taken at a matching surface point, thus the potentials are tangent all the time. One can observe how $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ wells are separating with increasing $`R`$. The matching surfaces are composed of the whole set of tangent points at every $`\rho `$ distance from the symmetry axis.

The way two of the potentials, $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ and $`V_{g1}(\rho ,z)`$, behave along the $`O_1O_3`$ line between their two centers is given in Fig. 5. The crossing points of the curves correspond to $`z_{c1}`$ and its opposite along MPE1. Inside the neck sphere, hence inside MPE1 too, $`V_{g1}>V_1`$.

## V Diagonalization basis

This section will browse succintly the main steps to be taken in order to find a normalized functions set, since details about this issue have already been published mar ; bad .

The new feature in the DTCSM eigenvalue problem is the shape-dependency of the potentials: $`V_{DTCSM}`$, the spin-orbit term $`V_{𝛀𝐬}`$ and the $`V_{𝛀^2}`$ term ($`𝛀`$ is preferred here as a notation since the angular momentum operator, as being shape dependent, will be different from the usual $`𝐥`$). The total Hamiltonian:

$$H_{DTCSM}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}\mathrm{\Delta }+V_{DTCSM}(\rho ,z)+V_{𝛀𝐬}+V_{𝛀^2}$$
(45)
is obviously not separable. A basis is needed and diagonalization of oscillator potential differences and of angular momentum dependent operators has to be performed.

A separable Hamiltonian is obtained if one takes $`\omega _{\rho _1}=\omega _{\rho _2}=\omega _1`$, with no $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}`$ and $`𝐥^2`$ terms, hence a potential like:

$$V^{(d)}(\rho ,z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}V_1^{(d)}(\rho ,z)=& \frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _1^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2& ,z0\\ V_2^{(d)}(\rho ,z)=& \frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _1^2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2& ,z0\end{array}$$
(46)
This is an appropiate two-center potential for a sphere ($`z0`$ ) intersected with a vertical spheroid. The origin ($`z=0`$) is the intersection plane. As a result of variable separation, three known differential equations are obtained for harmonic functions, Laguerre polynomial and Hermite function dependent solutions bad .

Using continuity conditions for $`z`$-dependent functions and their derrivatives at $`z=0`$, the normalization condition and equalizing the energy on the symmetry axis $`E_z=\mathrm{}\omega _1(\nu _1+0.5)=\mathrm{}\omega _2(\nu _2+0.5)`$, $`z`$-quantum numbers and normalization constants for the $`z`$-dependent eigenfunctions are calculated. The $`\varphi `$ and $`\rho `$-dependent functions are straitforward calculated from the differential equations. The final result is:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi )`$
$`R_{n_\rho }^{|m|}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +1)\alpha _1^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +|m|+1)}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^2\rho ^2}{2}}\right)(\alpha _1^2\rho ^2)^{\frac{|m|}{2}}L_{n_\rho }^{|m|}(\alpha _1^2\rho ^2)`$ (47)
$`Z_\nu (z)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}C_{\nu _1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _1^2(z+z_1)^2}{2}\right]H_{\nu _1}[\alpha _1(z+z_1)]& ,\hfill & z<0\\ C_{\nu _2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _2^2(zz_2)^2}{2}\right]H_{\nu _2}[\alpha _2(zz_2)]& ,\hfill & z0\end{array}`$ (49)
We notice that: where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the gamma function, $`L_n^m`$is the $`m`$-order Laguerre polynomial, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ the normalization constants, $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$ the quantum numbers along the symmetry axis, and $`H_\nu `$ is the Hermite function. We now have a basis for further calculations. The eigenvalues for the diagonalized Hamiltonian with the potential $`V^{(d)}`$ are the oscillator energy levels for sphere+spheroid system:

$$E_{osc}^{(d)}=\mathrm{}\omega _1(2n_\rho +m+1)+\mathrm{}\omega _{z_1}(\nu _1+0.5)$$
(50)
At this point we have a useful basis for the calculation of $`H_{DTCSM}`$ matrix elements.

## VI $`H_{DTCSM}`$ operators

In order to obtain the DTCSM energy levels, the matrix of the non-diagonal elements should be constructed. Then, adding $`E_{osc}^{(d)}`$ as diagonal terms, after diagonalization we obtain the eigenvalues.

### VI.1 $`V_{DTCSM}(\rho ,z)`$ \- terms

This subsection is devoted to build the operators for the necked-in deformed two-center oscillator levels calculation. We start wiht the operators leading to the appropiate energies for $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$. The difference $`V_1(\rho ,z)V^{(d)}(\rho ,z)`$ on the volume $`v_1`$ and added to $`E^{(d)}(n_\rho ,\nu ,m)`$ produce the suitable matrix elements for $`V_1`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(\mathrm{},z_{im})+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_{im},0)+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(0,z_{0m}+a_m)+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_{0m}+a_m,\mathrm{})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_{x1l}÷z_{c1};\rho _{m1j}÷\rho _{m1s})\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_{c1}÷z_s;\rho _1÷\rho _{m1s})\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_s÷z_{mint};\rho _m÷\rho _{m1s})`$
The positive terms account for the influence of $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ as if $`V_1`$ would act alone everywhere but MPE. The negative terms are under $`V_g(\rho ,z)`$ action. In parenthesis are the geometrical limits for every term. Note that for those which have also $`\rho `$-dependent limits, $`\rho =\rho (z)`$. The limits can be easily tracked in Fig. 3. What is left after the subtraction is the difference from $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ to $`V^{(d)}(\rho ,z)`$ within the $`v_1`$ volume. To ease calculations, one uses as a notation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_1^{(p)}=\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(\mathrm{},z_{im})+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_{im},0)+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(0,z_{0m}+a_m)+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_{0m}+a_m,\mathrm{})$$
(52)
These pozitive potential differences are now written in terms of the Heavyside step function; this will result in determining the exact limits where $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ is acting and, consequently, where it decides the oscillator energy values :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1^{(p)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)\{[1\theta (zz_{im})]+\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}\rho ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(m_0\omega _{z_1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)(z+z_1)^2[1\theta (zz_{im})]`$
$`+[m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2m_0\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2]\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)\{[\theta (zz_{im})\theta (z)]`$
$`+[\theta (z)\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]]\}\rho ^2\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(m_0\omega _{z_1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)(z+z_1)^2[\theta (zz_{im})\theta (z)]`$
$`+[m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2m_0\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2][\theta (z)\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]]\}\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))`$
For the negative differences we have:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i(z)÷\rho _f(z))=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)]\rho ^2[\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta [\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
where $`z_i`$, $`z_f`$, $`\rho _i(z)`$ and $`\rho _f(z)`$ take the corresponding values and limit functions from Eq. VI.1.

To obtain the terms where the light emerged fragment potential $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ acts, one must subtract $`V^{(d)}(\rho ,z)`$ from $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ within the $`v_2`$ volume. The result is:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2=`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_{im}÷0;0÷\rho _m(z))+\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(0÷z_{0m}+a_m;0÷\rho _m(z))`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_s÷z_{c2};\rho _g(z)÷\rho _m(z))\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_{mint}÷z_{x2r};\rho _{m2j}(z)÷\rho _{m2s}(z))`$
Let us denote:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_2^{(p)}=\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_{im}÷0;0÷\rho _m(z))+\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(0÷z_{0m}+a_m;0÷\rho _m(z))$$
(56)
Then we have:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2^{(p)}=`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2m_0\omega _1^2)\{\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}\rho ^2[1\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{[m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2m_0\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2][\theta (zz_{im})\theta (z)]`$
$`+(m_0\omega _{z_2}^2m_0\omega _2^2)(zz_2)^2\{\theta (z)\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}\}[1\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))]`$
for the positive part; for the negative necking region which has to be subtracted from $`v_2`$, the expression for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i(z)÷\rho _f(z))`$ is:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i÷\rho _f(z))=`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)]\rho ^2[\theta (\rho \rho _i(z)\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
using the same convention for $`z_i`$, $`z_f`$, $`\rho _i`$ and $`\rho _f(z)`$ as for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$.

At this point, the neck potential $`V_g(\rho ,z)`$ is filling its volume $`v_g`$ without any subtraction:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_g=V_g$$
(60)
With the same notation as in Eq. 18 we have for the neck operators:

$$V_g=V_{g1}(v_{g1})+V_{g2}(v_{g2})$$
(61)
Now every of them will be taken separately:

$$V_{g1}=V_{g1}(z_{x1l}÷z_{c1};\rho _{m1j}÷\rho _{m1s})+V_{g1}(z_{c1}÷z_{mint};\rho _g÷\rho _{m1s})+V_{g1}(z_{mint}÷z_{x2r};\rho _{m2j}÷\rho _{m2s})$$
(62)
$$V_{g2}=V_{g2}(z_{c1}÷z_s;\rho _1(z)÷\rho _g(z))+V_{g2}(z_s÷z_{c2};\rho _2(z)÷\rho _g(z))$$
(63)
where again:

$`V_{g1}(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i÷\rho _f)=`$ (64)
$`2V_0[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _g^2[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)](\rho \rho _3)^2[\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3)^2[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]`$
and

$$V_{g2}(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i÷\rho _f)=V_0\{[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}$$
(65)
The final analytical expressions for the matrix elements corresponding to the oscillator potential of DTCSM are given in Appendix A.

### VI.2 Spin-orbit $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}`$ and $`𝐥^2`$ operators

Special care will be devoted to the treatment of $`V_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}}`$ and $`V_{𝐥^2}`$ matrix elements. Because of the dependence of the angular momentum term on different space regions ( $`V\times 𝐩`$), hence on different mass regions when asymmetry $`A_1/A_2`$ comes in, the anticommutator is used to assure hermicity for the operators:

$$V_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{01}}\kappa _1(\rho ,z),(V\times 𝐩)𝐬\}& ,A_1region\\ \{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{02}}\kappa _2(\rho ,z),(V\times 𝐩)𝐬\}& ,A_2region\end{array}$$

and

$$V_{𝐥^2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0^2\omega _{01}^3}\kappa _1\mu _1(\rho ,z),(V\times 𝐩)^2\}& ,A_1region\\ \{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0^2\omega _{02}^3}\kappa _2\mu _2(\rho ,z),(V\times 𝐩)^2\}& ,A_2region\end{array}$$

Basically the same treatment as for oscillator terms is valid in this case. The $`\kappa _1(\rho ,z)`$ and $`\mu _1(\rho ,z)`$ are the strength function parameters for the $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ region, whereas $`\kappa _2(\rho ,z)`$ and $`\mu _2(\rho ,z)`$ are active for the $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ one.

The new feature here is the use of the anticommutator for the operators containing Heavyside function combinations, to confine the action to $`v_1`$, $`v_2`$ and $`v_g`$; these function combinations are exactly the ones which have been used for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_g`$ terms.

Since the creation and anihilation angular momentum operators become shape-frequency dependent, notations will be changed as follows:

$`𝐥^+𝛀^+`$ $`𝐥^{}𝛀^{}`$ $`𝐥_z𝛀_z`$
so that

$`\mathrm{𝐥𝐬}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝛀^+𝐬^{}+𝛀^{}𝐬^+)+𝛀_z𝐬_z`$ (66)
Then for the potentials of the spin-orbit term to be diagonalized one reads:

$$V_{𝛀𝐬}=V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_1)+V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_2)+V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_g)$$
(67)
where:

$$V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_1)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{01}}\kappa _1\{𝛀𝐬,(v_1)\}$$
(68)
$$V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_2)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{02}}\kappa _2\{𝛀𝐬,(v_2)\}$$
(69)
$$V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_g)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{01}}\kappa _1\{𝛀𝐬,(v_g^{(1)})\}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{02}}\kappa _2\{𝛀𝐬,(v_g)^{(2)}\}$$
(70)
where $`v_g^{(1)}`$ and $`v_g^{(2)}`$ are the neck matching ellipsoids volumes on $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ side, respectively.

On the other hand, the operators depend on the region they exert themselves through the potentials, according to Eq. VI.2. Thus we have:

$`𝛀^+(v_1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(\rho ,z)}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(\rho ,z)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(\rho ,z)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1){\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1){\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$
$`𝛀^{}(v_1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(\rho ,z)}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(\rho ,z)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(\rho ,z)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1){\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1){\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$
$`𝛀_z(v_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`im_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}`$
with

$$𝛀𝐬(v_1)=\frac{1}{2}(𝛀^+(v_1)𝐬^{}+𝛀^{}𝐬^+)+𝛀_z(v_1)𝐬_z$$
(74)
The same aplies for $`(v_2)`$ and $`(v_g)`$ spin-orbit operators terms, and the expressions are:

$`𝛀^+(v_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2){\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2){\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$
$`𝛀^{}(v_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2){\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2){\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$
$`𝛀_z(v_2)`$ $`=`$ $`im_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}`$ (75)
and:

$`𝛀^+(v_{g1})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[m_0\omega _g^2(\rho \rho _3){\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3){\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3){\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$
$`𝛀^{}(v_{g1})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi }\left[m_0\omega _g^2(\rho \rho _3){\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3){\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}m_0\omega _g^2(zz_3){\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right]`$
$`𝛀_z(v_{g1})`$ $`=`$ $`im_0\omega _g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \rho _3}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}`$ (76)
and $`𝛀𝐬(v_{g2})=0`$, since $`V_g(v_{g2})=V_0=cst`$. With the help of these operators, what is to be calculated now for the spin-orbit shape-dependent matrix elements reads, for $`(v_1)`$:

$$V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_1)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{01}}\kappa _1\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),(v_1)\}$$
(77)
where:

$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),(v_1)\}=`$ (78)
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),[1\theta (zz_{im})]\}+\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}`$
$`+\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),[\theta (zz_{im})\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]]\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),[\theta (zz_{x1l})\theta (zz_{c1})][\theta (\rho \rho _{m1j}(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m1s}(z))]\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),[\theta (zz_{c1})\theta (zz_s)][\theta (\rho \rho _1(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m1s}(z))]\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_1),[\theta (zz_s)\theta (zz_{mint})][\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m1s}(z)]\}`$
For the $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ controlled region we have:

$$V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_2)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{02}}\kappa _2\{𝛀𝐬(v_2),(v_2)\}$$
(79)
where:

$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_2),(v_2)\}=`$ (80)
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_2),[\theta (zz_{im})\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]][1\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))]\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_2),[\theta (zz_s)\theta (zz_{c2})][\theta (\rho \rho _2(z))\theta (\rho \rho _g(z))]\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_2),[\theta (zz_{gm})\theta (zz_{mint})][\theta (\rho \rho _g(z))\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))]\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_2),[\theta (zz_{mint})\theta (zz_{x2r})][\theta (\rho \rho _{m2j}(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m2s}(z))]\}`$
Finally, the neck potential dependent spin-orbit interaction looks like:

$$V_{𝛀𝐬}(v_g)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{01}}\kappa _1\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),(v_{g1}^{(1)})\}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0\omega _{02}}\kappa _2\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),(v_{g1}^{(2)})\}$$
(81)
where:

$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),(v_{g1}^{(1)})\}=`$ (82)
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),[\theta (zz_{x1l})\theta (zz_{c1})][\theta (\rho \rho _{m1j}(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m1s}(z))]\}`$
$`+\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),[\theta (zz_{c1})\theta (zz_{mint})][\theta (\rho \rho _g(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m1s}(z))]\}`$
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),(v_{g1}^{(2)})\}=`$ (83)
$`\{𝛀𝐬(v_{g1}),[\theta (zz_{mint})\theta (zz_{x2r})][\theta (\rho \rho _{m2j}(z))\theta (\rho \rho _{m2s}(z))]\}`$
For the $`𝐥^2`$ $``$ $`𝛀^2`$ term the usual expression works:

$$𝛀^2=\frac{1}{2}(𝛀^+𝛀^{}+𝛀^{}𝛀^+)+𝛀_z^2$$
(84)
and the operator for the whole space is:

$`V_{𝛀^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0^2\omega _{0i}^3}}\kappa _i\mu _i(\rho ,z),𝛀^2\}`$ $`,i=1,2`$ (85)
Strength coefficients $`\kappa _1\mu _1(\rho ,z)`$ and $`\kappa _2\mu _2(\rho ,z)`$ are the same $`(\rho ,z)`$ \- dependent functions as $`\kappa _1(\rho ,z)`$ and $`\kappa _2(\rho ,z)`$ in the spin-orbit term. Making use of the unity operator $`I=_{^{\prime \prime }}|^{\prime \prime }^{\prime \prime }|`$, many expressions can be derived to obtain an easy workable decomposition of the lengthy matrix elements of $`V_{𝛀^2}`$. The chosen one follows, in order to make use of the already calculated expression for $`𝛀𝐬`$ term:

$`^{}|\{f(\rho ,z),𝛀^+𝛀^{}\}|=`$ (86)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{^{\prime \prime }}{}}[2^{}|\{f(\rho ,z),𝛀^+\}|^{\prime \prime }+^{}|(𝛀^+f(\rho ,z))|^{\prime \prime }]^{\prime \prime }|𝛀^{}|+^{}|𝛀^+|^{\prime \prime }^{\prime \prime }|(𝛀^{}f(\rho ,z))|`$
$`^{}|\{f(\rho ,z),𝛀^{}𝛀^+\}|=`$ (87)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{^{\prime \prime }}{}}[2^{}|\{f(\rho ,z),𝛀^{}\}|^{\prime \prime }+^{}|(𝛀^{}f(\rho ,z))|^{\prime \prime }]^{\prime \prime }|𝛀^+|+^{}|𝛀^{}|^{\prime \prime }^{\prime \prime }|(𝛀^+f(\rho ,z))|`$
The needed expressions for the $`𝛀𝐬`$ and $`𝛀^2`$ matrix elements are detailed in Appendix B.

Now the total matrix elements for DTCSM can be calculated as:

$$i|DTCSM|j=E_{osc}^{(d)}(n_\rho ,|m|,\mu )+i|\mathrm{\Delta }V_1|j+i|\mathrm{\Delta }V_2|j+i|V_g|j+i|V_{𝛀𝐬}|j+i|V_{𝛀^2}|j$$
(88)
## VII Level schemes and shell effects

A ten shell scheme matrix elements have been calculated, which means a 440 $`\times `$ 440 matrix. After proper diagonalization, the levels are obtained.

First, DTCSM spectra are computed for the superheavy fission reaction channel $`{}_{}{}^{306}122^{198}W+^{108}Cd`$, with the nuclei deformations $`\chi _{122}=0.9`$, $`\chi _W=1.`$ and $`\chi _{Cd}=0.83`$. Semiaxes $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ are calculated from corresponding deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$ for every fragment, and using the volume conservation condition ($`\beta _2^{{}_{}{}^{198}W}=`$0., $`\beta _2^{{}_{}{}^{108}Cd}=`$0.135 mol ). The reduced distance between centers is chosen to represent the elongation parameter of the shape : $`(RR_i)/(R_fR_i)`$, where $`R_i`$ is the distance between centers when the light emerging fragment is completely embeded in the parent nucleus, and $`R_f=a_1+a_2+2R_3`$ represents the final distance between centers, when the neck sphere is aligned with the fragments.

A direct consequence of the variation of the neck parameter $`R_3`$ on microscopic behaviour of a fission process is depicted in Fig. 6. Here the shell corections are drawn for the five $`R_3`$ \- parameter values, as a function of the distance between centers. They are calculated with the Strutinsky method. A shallow minimum at $`R`$ 2.5 fm suggest a small deformation of the $`{}_{}{}^{306}122`$ ground state. First bump around $`R`$ 5 - 6 fm shows up in every case. Second bump is also there, but its position changes in $`R`$-value and in height (between $`R=`$12 fm and $`R=`$20 fm). The rather deep minimum ($``$ -5 MeV) for large neck radii (apparent on the $`R_3=`$ 10 fm curve) is probably not manifested in $`{}_{}{}^{306}122`$ fission, since at this distance between centers, the system is out of the fission barrier due to strong Coulombian repulsion.

Second example takes into account the mass asymmetry parameter. Again is the fission of the superheavy $`{}_{}{}^{306}122`$ through two channels this time:

$`{}_{}{}^{306}122`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{198}W+^{108}Cd`$
$`{}_{}{}^{306}122`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{154}Gd+^{152}Ce`$
The two corresponding level schemes are on the upper side of Fig. 7 ($`\chi _{Gd}`$ =0.72 for $`\beta _2^{Gd}=`$ 0.243 and $`\chi _{Ce}=`$ 0.71 for $`\beta _2^{Ce}=`$0.261). They have been chosen because of the mass symmetry of the second reaction against an asymmetric one. Calculations in this case preserved $`R_3=`$4 fm. Shells are more clearly visible at $`(RR_i)/(R_fR_i)`$=1 in the symmetric case, since asymptotically the levels are practically coincident for the two quasi-equal fragments. The lower part of the figure represents the shell corrections calculated with the above level schemes as an input. The first bump is shifted towards smaller $`R`$ for symmetry. A second minimum as deep as almost the ground state along the symmetric channel is an indication of a possible shape isomer. Second maximum appears only for the asymmetric reaction. Asymptotically there is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$4 MeV difference in between the two channels, suggesting a possible fission path along the mass asymmetry degree of freedom.

The last studied case is the fission of $`{}_{}{}^{252}Cf`$ ($`\chi _{Cf}=`$0.73 for $`\beta _2^{Cf}=`$0.236) through two favorized channels in Fig. 8:

$`{}_{}{}^{252}Cf`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{160}Sm+^{92}Kr`$
$`{}_{}{}^{252}Cf`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{144}Ba+^{108}Mo`$
These two reactions have been chosen because they lie within the maxima of the fission fragment mass distribution of $`{}_{}{}^{252}Cf`$ wah . The fragment deformation parameters considered in calculations are $`\chi _{Sm}`$=0.68 for $`\beta _2^{Sm}`$=0.290; $`\chi _{Kr}`$=0.73 for $`\beta _2^{Kr}`$=0.228; $`\chi _{Ba}`$=0.8 for $`\beta _2^{Ba}`$=0.164; $`\chi _{Mo}`$=0.65 for $`\beta _2^{Mo}`$=0.333. Level schemes are rather likely in the first part of the splitting, a fact that can be observed from the small diferences in the shell corrections up to $`R`$7 fm. Beyond this distance between centers, the effect of the wells separation becomes more and more important, fragment individuality imposing the difference. If only for the shell corrections, $`{}_{}{}^{160}Sm+^{92}Kr`$ seem to be a more probable fission channel, but it beyond the purpose of this work to do a fission process analysis. Separation occurs around 18 fm, for approximately both of the reactions. As it is already known, lower energy shells of the fragments are the first to unveil asymptotically, whereas the higher states of the two systems still interact. This is an expected result since the potentials separate starting with the bottom of the wells, while the upper part of the potentials still overlap.

## VIII Conclusions

The deformed two-center shell model presented in this work describes the evolution of single particle levels from one parent potential well to the two fragments ones.

The introduction of fragment ellipsoidal deformation in the two-center oscillator wells and further on, in the spin-orbit and $`𝐥^2`$ operators enables a more realistic calculation of the two interacting quantum systems. This new form of spin-orbit $`𝛀𝐬`$ and $`𝛀^2`$ allows for the angular momentum dependent operators to follow the exact sequence of shapes throughout the splitting process. In such a way ellipsoidal degrees of freedom are considered within spin-orbit interaction.

The new necking-in dependent microscopic potential results in considering the neck degree of freedom into the level scheme calculation. As has been shown, the last part of the fision process is influenced by the difference in neck radii. This fact has important consequences on the potential barriers and fission paths on a potential energy surface calculated within more deformation degrees of freedom, necking included.

A new way of treating two partially overlapping nuclei has been introduced by making use of matching potential surfaces. It is only in this way that continuity between different regions of potential influence is assured. The potential pass smoothly from $`V_1`$ to $`V_g`$, to $`V_2`$ and so on without any cusp in its value and without the introduction of arbitrary geometric transition functions. For zero neck radius one obtains the fusion-like type of shapes.

All these facts make the presented model suitable for the study of fission channels and cluster decay phenomena and calculation of potential energy surfaces in fission.

Also the model provides the analysis of possible deformed target-projectile doors toward fusion processes in heavy ion reactions. In nucleus-nucleus collisions, calculations of two fusioning deformed partners yield the single particle spectra for the important (yet avoided up to now) region of overlapping shapes.

## Appendix A DTCSM oscillator matrix elements

Formulas for the two deformed oscillators with necking-in are presented to enable $`^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_1|`$, $`^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_2|`$ and $`^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_g|`$ matrix elements to be calculated. The spin-dependent part is not included, since it introduce only a $`\delta _{s^{}s}`$ factor.

We preserve the same notations as in section 6. $`i|j_\alpha ^\beta `$ stands for the integral calculated from $`\alpha `$ to $`\beta `$ limits; $`|n_z`$ is the $`Z_{\nu _{n_z}}(z)`$ wave function; $`|n_\rho mn_z`$ is the total $`\mathrm{\Phi }_mR_{n_\rho }^{|m|}Z_{\nu _{n_z}}`$ wave function of the basis.

The following notations will be available from now on:

$$I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,m^{},m,m_g^{},m_g,m_p,t)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho ^{}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho ^{}+m_g^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +m_g)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}_t^{\mathrm{}}e^xx^{m_p}L_{n_\rho ^{}}^{|m^{}|}(x)L_{n_\rho }^{|m|}(x)𝑑x$$
(89)
which is computed by Gauss-Laguerre nummerical integration procedure, and:

$$G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,m^{},m,t)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho ^{}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho ^{}+|m^{}|+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +|m|+1)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}2\alpha _1t^{m+m^{}+\frac{1}{2}}e^tL_{n_\rho ^{}}^{|m^{}|}(t)L_{n_\rho }^{|m|}(t)$$
(90)
where:

$`\alpha _{\rho _i}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _i}}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\alpha _{z_i}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{z_i}}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\alpha _1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _1}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (91)
where $`\omega _1`$ is the corresponding frequency for the sphere with the same volume. Relations between ellipsoids frequencies and the one for the sphere can easily be obtained from volume conservation $`ab^2=R_i^3`$, when $`a`$, $`b`$ are the semiaxes of the ellipse and $`R_i`$ the radius of the sphere having the same volume. So the deformation shape dependence is contained in $`\alpha _i`$ factors. Also:

$$i|f(\rho ,z)|j_a^b$$

means that the integral is performed between the limits $`a`$ and $`b`$.

$$i|f(\rho ,z)|j(z=c)$$

means the integrand is taken at the variable value $`z=c`$. This last kind of expressions intervene when the spin-orbit differentiation operators act on the Heavyside $`\theta (z)`$ function, resulting the $`\delta (z)`$ function.

We have for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_1^{(p)}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (92)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)(n_z^{}|n_z_{\mathrm{}}^{z_{im}}+n_z^{}|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}[(2n_\rho +|m|+1)\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }\sqrt{n_\rho (n_\rho +|m|)}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho 1}\sqrt{(n_\rho +1)(n_\rho +|m|+1)}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho +1}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(m_0\omega _{z_1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_{\mathrm{}}^{z_{im}}+m_0\omega _{z_1}^2n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`m_0\omega _2^2n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}}]\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)(n_z^{}|n_z_{z_{im}}^0+n_z^{}|n_z_0^{z_{0m}+a_m})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(m_0\omega _{z_1}^2m_0\omega _1^2)n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_{z_{im}}^0+m_0\omega _{z_1}^2n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_0^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`m_0\omega _2^2n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_0^{z_{0m}+a_m}]I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
For the minus  terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i÷\rho _f)|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (93)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2n_z^{}|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_1}^2n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
Matrix elements for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2`$ reads:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_2^{(p)}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (94)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2m_0\omega _1^2)(n_z^{}|n_z_{z_{im}}^0+n_z^{}|n_z_0^{z_{0m}+a_m})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}[(2n_\rho +|m|+1)\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }\sqrt{n_\rho (n_\rho +|m|)}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho 1}\sqrt{(n_\rho +1)(n_\rho +|m|+1)}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho +1}`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[m_0\omega _{z_2}^2n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_{z_{im}}^0m_0\omega _1^2n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_{z_{im}}^0`$
$`(m_0\omega _{z_2}^2m_0\omega _2^2)n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_0^{z_{0m}+a_m}]`$
$`[\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))]`$
and again for the minus terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_2`$:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }V_2(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i÷\rho _f)|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (95)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2n_z^{}|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _{z_2}^2n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
And finally for the neck potential operators, the expressions for the matrix elements are:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|V_{g1}(z_i÷z_f;\rho _i÷\rho _f)|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (96)
$`\left[\left(2V_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _g^2}{2}}\rho _3^2\right)n_z^{}|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _g^2n_z^{}|(zz_3)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}\right]`$
$`[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\omega _g^2n_z^{}|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho _3}{\alpha _1}}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]\}`$
and:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|V_{g2}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (97)
$`V_0\{n_z^{}|n_z_{z_{c1}}^{z_s}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _1^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _g^2(z))]`$
$`+n_z^{}|n_z_{z_s}^{z_{c2}}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _2^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _g^2(z))]\}`$
For the $`z`$-dependent terms of the matrix elements, the following abreviations are available bad  :

$`j_{\nu _1,\nu _2,\zeta _i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\zeta e^{(\zeta \zeta _i)^2}_{\nu _1}(\zeta \zeta _i)_{\nu _2}(\zeta \zeta _i)`$ (98)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}e^{(\zeta +\zeta _i)^2}_{\nu _1}[(\zeta +\zeta _i)]_{\nu _2}[(\zeta +\zeta _i)]𝑑\zeta `$
$$j_{\nu _1,\nu _2,\zeta _i\zeta _0}=_{\zeta _0}^{\mathrm{}}e^{(\zeta \zeta _i)^2}_{\nu _1}(\zeta \zeta _i)_{\nu _2}(\zeta \zeta _i)𝑑\zeta $$
(99)
where the general formula for computing these kind of intergals is:

$$j_{\nu _1,\nu _2,\zeta _0}=\frac{e^{\zeta _0^2}}{\nu _1\nu _2}[\nu _1_{\nu _11}(\zeta _0)_{\nu _2}(\zeta _0)\nu _2_{\nu _1}(\zeta _0)_{\nu _21}(\zeta _0)]$$
(100)
and $`_\nu (\zeta )`$ is the Hermite function.

$`n_z^{}|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}=`$ $`C_{\nu _1^{}}C_{\nu _1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1}}[j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _1,\alpha (z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}]`$ $`,z_i,z_f<0`$
$`=`$ $`C_{\nu _2^{}}C_{\nu _2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2}}[j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _2,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _2,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)}]`$ $`,z_i,z_f0`$ (101)
$`n_z^{}|(z+z_1)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$ $`=C_{\nu _1^{}}C_{\nu _1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^3}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[j_{\nu _1^{}+1,\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{}+1,\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}]`$ (102)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1^{}}{2}}[j_{\nu _1^{}+1,\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{}+1,\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1}{2}}[j_{\nu _1^{}1,\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{}1,\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}]`$
$`+\nu _1^{}\nu _1[j_{\nu _1^{}1,\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{}1,\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}]\}`$
$`n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$ $`=C_{\nu _2^{}}C_{\nu _2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2^3}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[j_{\nu _2^{}+1,\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{}+1,\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)}]`$ (103)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _2}{2}}[j_{\nu _2^{}+1,\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{}+1,\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _2^{}}{2}}[j_{\nu _2^{}1,\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{}1,\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(zz_f)}]`$
$`+\nu _2^{}\nu _2[j_{\nu _2^{}1,\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{}1,\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)}]\}`$
$`n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$ $`=C_{\nu _1^{}}C_{\nu _1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}]`$ (104)
$`+\nu _1[j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)}j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}]\}`$
$`n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$ $`=C_{\nu _2^{}}C_{\nu _2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2^2}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)}]`$ (105)
$`+\nu _2[j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)}]\}`$
For $`(zz_3)`$ dependent terms, one can use:

$$n_z^{}|(zz_3)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}=n_z^{}|(zz_2)^2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+2(z_2z_3)n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+(z_2z_3)^2n_z^{}|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}$$
(106)
$`n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}=`$
$`=C_{\nu _1^{}}C_{\nu _1}`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _1+1,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)})`$
$`+\nu _1(j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_f)}j_{\nu _1^{},\nu _11,\alpha _1(z_1+z_i)})]`$ $`z_i,z_f<0`$
$`=C_{\nu _2^{}}C_{\nu _2}`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{},\nu ^{}2+1,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)})`$ (107)
$`+\nu _2(j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_i)}j_{\nu _2^{},\nu _21,\alpha _2(z_2z_f)})]`$ $`z_i,z_f0`$
## Appendix B Spin-orbit and $`𝛀^2`$ matrix elements

The necessary expressions to calculate the matrix elements for spin-orbit and $`𝛀^2`$ terms are given in this appendix.

For the $`(v_1)`$ volume, we use the abreviation:

$`w_1(v_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{n_\rho +1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho +1}+\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho })2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1`$ (108)
$`(n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{\mathrm{}}^{z_{im}}+n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+(\sqrt{n_\rho +1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho +1}\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }){\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}{\alpha _1}}`$
$`[2(n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{\mathrm{}}^{z_{im}}+n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}})`$
$`+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})]`$
$`w_2(v_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|+1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }+\sqrt{n_\rho }\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho 1})2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1`$ (109)
$`(n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{\mathrm{}}^{z_{im}}+n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}})`$
$`+(\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|+1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }\sqrt{n_\rho }\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho 1}){\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}{\alpha _1}}`$
$`[2(n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{\mathrm{}}^{z_{im}}+n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{0m}+a_m}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})]`$
Then we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_1),[1\theta (zz_{im})\}+\{𝛀^+(v_1),[z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}|n_\rho mn_z\hfill & \\ =\delta _{m^{}m+1}w_1(v_1),m<0\hfill & \\ =\delta _{m^{}m+1}(w_2(v_1)),m0\hfill & \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^{}(v_1),[1\theta (zz_{im})\}+\{𝛀^+(v_1),[z(z_{0m}+a_m)]\}|n_\rho mn_z\hfill & \\ =\delta _{m^{}m1}w_2(v_1),m0\hfill & \\ =\delta _{m^{}m1}(w_1(v_1)),m>0\hfill & \end{array}$$

Because of the symmetry we have:

$$^{}|\{𝛀^+,f(\rho ,z)\}|(m^{},m)=|\{𝛀^{},f(\rho ,z)\}|^{}(m,m^{})$$
(110)
So, only one half of the $`𝛀𝐬`$ and $`𝛀^2`$ matrix elements must be calculated. Further on, only the $`𝛀^+`$ matrix elements are given, the $`𝛀^{}`$ part resulting from symmetry.

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_1),[\theta (zz_{im})\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]]\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (111)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m))]`$
$`+2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`[2(n_\rho +|m|)I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))]\},m<0`$
and:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_1),[\theta (zz_{im})\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]]\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (113)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m))]`$
$`2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`[2I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))]\},m0`$
$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_1),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (114)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z)`$
$`+I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f))]`$
$`+2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`[2(n_\rho +|m|)[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}[G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _1^2(z))G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]]\}`$
$`,m<0`$
and the same term for $`m0`$ :

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_1),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (115)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f))]`$
$`2m_0\omega _{z_1}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|z+z_1|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`[2(I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}(G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]\}`$
$`,m0`$
$$n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|𝛀_z(v_1)|n_\rho mn_z=m_0\omega _{\rho _1}^2m\delta _{m^{}m}$$
(116)
We now present the $`(v_2)`$ -dependent necessary terms for $`𝛀𝐬(v_2)`$ matrix elements construction:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_2),[\theta (zz_{im})\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]][1\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (117)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}(\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }+\sqrt{n_\rho +1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho +1})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}{2}}\left(2n_z^{}|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m)\right)`$
$`(\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }\sqrt{n_\rho +1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho +1})`$
$`+I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m))]`$
$`2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`[2(n_\rho +|m|)I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))]\},m<0`$
$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_2),[\theta (zz_{im})\theta [z(z_{0m}+a_m)]][1\theta (\rho \rho _m(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (118)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}(\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|+1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }+\sqrt{n_\rho }\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho 1})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}{\alpha _1}}\left(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m)\right)`$
$`(\sqrt{n_\rho +|m|+1}\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho }\sqrt{n_\rho }\delta _{n_\rho ^{}n_\rho 1})`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{im})n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_{0m}+a_m))]`$
$`+2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_{im}}^{z_{0m}+a_m}`$
$`[2I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _m^2(z))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1\rho _m^2(z))]\},m0`$
$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_2),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (119)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`+I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f))]`$
$`+2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`[2(n_\rho +|m|)(I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z)))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}(G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z)))]\}`$
$`,m<0`$
$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_2),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (120)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}\{[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`[2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2}{\alpha _1}}(2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f))]`$
$`2m_0\omega _{z_2}^2\alpha _1n_z^{}|zz_2|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}`$
$`[2(I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z)))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1}}(G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z)))]\}`$
$`,m0`$
The diagonal term generated by $`𝛀_z`$ is:

$$n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|𝛀_z(v_2)|n_\rho mn_z=m_0\omega _{\rho _2}^2m\delta _{m^{}m}$$
(121)
For the neck region elements we have:

$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_{g1}),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (122)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}m_0\omega _g^2\{\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1}}[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`\rho _3[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]\}`$
$`\left[2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f)\right]`$
$`2\{\alpha _1\{2(n_\rho +|m|)[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|1,|m|,|m|+1,|m|1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`n_z^{}|zz_3|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}\}\},m<0`$
$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀^+(v_{g1}),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (123)
$`\delta _{m^{}m+1}m_0\omega _g^2\{[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1}}[2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f)]`$
$`2\alpha _{}n_z^{}|zz_3|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}\}`$
$`\rho _3[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`\left[2n_z^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}+n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_i)n_z^{}|n_z(z=z_f)\right]`$
$`+2\{2\alpha _1[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|+2,|m|+1,|m|+1,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))G(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]\}`$
$`n_z^{}|zz_3|n_z_{z_i}^{z_f}\},m0`$
$`n_\rho ^{}m^{}n_z^{}|\{𝛀_z(v_{g1}),[\theta (zz_i)\theta (zz_f)][\theta (\rho \rho _i(z))\theta (\rho \rho _f(z))]\}|n_\rho mn_z=`$ (124)
$`m_0\omega _g^2m\delta _{m^{}m}\{[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|,\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]`$
$`\rho _3\alpha _1[I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _i^2(z))`$
$`I(n_\rho ^{},n_\rho ,|m|,|m|,|m|+1,|m|+1,|m|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _1^2\rho _f^2(z))]\}`$
## FIGURE captions

Figure 1 Nuclear shape and deformation parameters for necked-in intersected ellipsoids. $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$ and $`O_3`$ are the centers of the two deformed fragments and of the neck sphere respectively. The four geometrical parameters which vary are the two ratios of the ellipsoid semiaxes, $`b_1/a_1`$ and $`b_2/a_2`$, the neck sphere radius $`R_3`$ and the distance between the fragment centers $`R`$.

Figure 2 Sequences of shapes when geometrical parameters are varied. Neck sphere radius vary from small (upper row - close to fusion shapes) through intermediary (second and third row) up to large values for very elongated shapes. Along one row, the distance between centers is increased for the same value of the neck. Semiaxes ratios and mass asymmetry here are kept constant.

Figure 3 Matching potential ellipsoids: MPE between the two fragments (shaded area) and between the neck potential and the fragment potentials (grey area). The influence of each of the potentials is emphasized in the upper part. The same figure with the surface functions for the regions of interest (fragments: $`\rho _1(z)`$ and $`\rho _2(z)`$; neck: $`\rho _g(z)`$; MPE: $`\rho (z)`$; MPE1: $`\rho _{m1j}(z)`$, $`\rho _{m1s}(z)`$, MPE2: $`\rho _{m2s}(z)`$ and $`\rho _{m2j}(z)`$ and the $`z`$-values used in calculations are marked.

Figure 4 The evolution the two fragment potentials $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$, $`V_2(\rho ,z)`$ and the neck potential $`V_g(\rho ,z)`$ for the $`\rho `$-value at the two tangent points of the neck with the fragment ellipsoids: $`\rho (z_{c1})`$ \- upper figure and $`\rho (z_{c2})`$ when the distance between centers increases. One can observe how the three potentials are tangent all along the splitting.

Figure 5 Variation of the heavy fragment potential $`V_1(\rho ,z)`$ and neck potential $`V_g(\rho ,z)`$ along the $`O_1O_3`$ direction. One can observe that inside the neck sphere - hence inside MPE1 and MPE2, the neck potential is higher, acting as a pressure element on the nuclear shape. The two crossing points at $`2R_3`$ distance on $`O_1O_3`$ direction mark the limits of MPE1 along the $`O_1O_3`$ direction.

Figure 6 Shell corrections calculated for the levels presented in Fig. 6, as a function of the distance between centers $`R`$. The ground state is practically common. A first bump appears in all cases; then for larger $`R_3`$ there is a decrease around $`R`$=10 fm. The second bump, which usualy generates a second maximum in the fission barrier, lies around 15 fm, but is lower for small $`R_3`$.

Figure 7 Two level spectra with different mass asymmetry from the same superheavy parent $`{}_{}{}^{306}122`$ are presented on the upper part, for $`R_3`$=4 fm. The lower part of the figure shows the corresponding shell correction energy $`E_{shell}`$ as a function of $`R`$. First bump is present in both cases, eventhough a little shifted. At the end of the splitting, asymmetric channel seems more favorable from microscopic point of view, as shell correction energy is some 4 MeV lower.

Figure 8 The level schemes for two fission channels from 252Cf are displayed in the upper part of the figure. Levels are almost likely in the first part of the splitting as can be deduced from the corresponding shell corrections. When the two fragments continue to split, the individual wells influence results in a rather large difference in shell corrections, beyond $`R`$=7 fm.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8


format: text

text:
# Anomalous fluctuations of two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

We investigate the particle-number fluctuations due to the collective excitations created in a two-dimensional (2D) and a quasi-2D Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) at low temperature. We find that the fluctuations display an anomalous behavior, i. e. for the 2D BEC they are proportional to $`N^2`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of particles. For the quasi-2D BEC, the particle-number fluctuations are proportional not only to $`N^2`$ but also to the square root of the trapping frequency in the strongly-confined direction.

PACS number(s): 03.75.Fi, 05.30.Jp, 67.40.Db
E-mail: hongweixiong@hotmail.com

The remarkable experimental realization of Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) has stimulated intensive theoretical and experimental studies on weakly interacting Bose gases . Much attention has been paid to the investigations of the thermodynamic properties especially the particle number fluctuations of three-dimensional (3D) interacting Bose gases . Recently, quasi-1D and quasi-2D BECs have been realized , which with no doubt provides many new opportunities to explore the fascinating quantum statistical property of macroscopic quantum systems in low dimensions. For a 2D Bose gas, the particle number fluctuations due to the exchange of atoms between condensate and thermal atoms have been addressed recently in .

It is well known that for the temperature far below the critical temperature, the collective excitations play a dominant role for the fluctuations of BEC. The fluctuations of condensate due to collective excitations in 3D Bose gases have been discussed in . The scaling behavior of a 2D interacting condensate confined in a box was investigated in . In the present paper, we shall discuss the fluctuations originated from collective excitations for 2D and quasi-2D interacting condensates confined in a magnetic trap.

For the Bose-condensed gas confined in a magnetic trap, the total number of particles $`N`$ in the system is conserved and hence a canonical (or microcanonical) ensemble should be used. Within the canonical ensemble a fairly general method has been developed recently  for studying the thermodynamic properties of the interacting Bose-condensed gases based on the calculation of probability distribution functions. The purpose of this work is to investigate the particle number fluctuations of a 2D BEC due to the collective excitations within a canonical ensemble.

For this aim we first extend our previous theory developed in  on particle number fluctuations in BECs by including an effect of the quantum depletion. For a Bose gas confined in a trap, based on Bogoliubov theory  one can obtain that, at low temperature, the total number of particles out of the condensate due to the collective excitations is given by

$$N_T=NN_0=\underset{nl0}{}N_{nl}=\underset{nl0}{}\left[\left(u_{nl}^2𝑑V+v_{nl}^2𝑑V\right)f_{nl}+v_{nl}^2𝑑V\right],$$
(1)
where $`N_T`$ and $`N_0`$ are respectively the number of excited atoms and atoms in the condensate. $`f_{nl}=1/\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \epsilon _{nl}\right)1\right)`$ is the average number of collective excitation $`nl`$ present in the system at thermal equilibrium ($`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$, $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ is temperature) , while $`\epsilon _{nl}=\mathrm{}\omega _{nl}`$ is the energy of the collective mode characterized by the quantum numbers $`n`$ and $`l`$. In the above equation, the term $`v_{nl}^2𝑑V`$ represents the effect of the quantum depletion which does not vanish even at $`T=0`$. The quantities $`u_{nl}`$ and $`v_{nl}`$ are determined by the following coupled equations:

$`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_{ext}\left(𝐫\right)\mu +2gn\left(𝐫\right))u_{nl}+gn_0\left(𝐫\right)v_{nl}=\epsilon _{nl}u_{nl},`$ (2)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_{ext}\left(𝐫\right)\mu +2gn\left(𝐫\right))v_{nl}+gn_0\left(𝐫\right)u_{nl}=\epsilon _{nl}v_{nl},`$ (3)
where $`V_{ext}\left(𝐫\right)`$ is the trapping potential confining the Bose gas, $`\mu `$ and $`g`$ are respectively the chemical potential of the system and inter-atomic interaction constant. $`n\left(𝐫\right)`$ and $`n_0\left(𝐫\right)`$ are the density distribution of the Bose gas and the condensate, respectively. From Eq. (1) we see that $`N_{nl}`$ can be taken as the average number of the excited atoms related to the collective mode $`nl`$, while $`N_{nl}^B=f_{nl}`$ is the average number of the collective excitation $`nl`$. From the form of Eq. (1), we see that the ratio between $`N_{nl}`$ and $`N_{nl}^B`$ is given by

$$\eta _{nl}=\frac{N_{nl}}{N_{nl}^B}=\frac{\left(u_{nl}^2𝑑V+v_{nl}^2𝑑V\right)f_{nl}+v_{nl}^2𝑑V}{f_{nl}}.$$
(4)
Within the canonical ensemble, the partition function of the system with $`N`$ atoms takes the form

$$Z\left[N\right]=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \left(N_\mathrm{𝟎}\epsilon _0+\underset{nl0}{}N_{nl}^B\epsilon _{nl}\right)\right].$$
(5)
In the above equation, we have omitted the interaction between collective excitations. The prime in the summation represents the condition that the total number of atoms in the system should be conserved within the canonical ensemble, i. e., $`_{nl0}N_{nl}=_{nl0}\eta _{nl}N_{nl}^B=NN_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. One should note that in Eq. (5), $`N_{nl}^B`$ is the occupation number of the collective excitation $`nl`$ and should be integer number. For the convenience of calculations, by separating out the ground-state $`nl=0`$ from the state $`nl0`$, we have

$$Z\left[N\right]=\underset{N_\mathrm{𝟎}=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta N_\mathrm{𝟎}\epsilon _0\right]Z_0\left(N_T\right)\right\},$$
(6)
where $`Z_0\left(N_T\right)`$ stands for the partition function of a fictitious system comprising $`N_T=NN_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ excited atoms which takes the form:

$$Z_0\left(N_T\right)=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nl0}\eta _{nl}N_{nl}^B=N_T}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta N_{nl}^B\epsilon _{nl}\right].$$
(7)
The free energy of the fictitious system is $`A_0\left(N_T\right)=k_BT\mathrm{ln}Z_0\left(N_T\right)`$.

By using the developed saddle-point method proposed in , we introduce a generating function $`G_0(T,z)`$ which is given by

$$G_0(T,z)=\underset{N_T=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^{N_T}Z_0\left(N_T\right).$$
(8)
Due to the fact that there is a confinement condition $`_{nl0}\eta _{nl}N_{nl}^B=N_T`$ for $`N_T`$ in the above equation, we have

$$G_0(T,z)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{nl0}\left\{\underset{N_{nl}^B=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^{\eta _{nl}N_{nl}^B}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta N_{nl}^B\epsilon _{nl}\right]\right\}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{nl0}\frac{1}{1z^{\eta _{nl}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \epsilon _{nl}\right]}.$$
(9)
$`Z_0\left(N_T\right)`$ can be obtained by noting that it is the coefficient of $`z^{N_T}`$ in the expansion of $`G_0(T,z)`$. Thus, we have

$$Z_0\left(N_T\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑z\frac{G_0(T,z)}{z^{N_T+1}}.$$
(10)
Similar to the case of the developed saddle-point method for the ideal Bose gas , it is easy to get the following useful relations:

$$N_T=\underset{nl0}{}\frac{\eta _{nl}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \epsilon _{nl}\right]z_0^{\eta _{nl}}1},$$
(11)
and

$$\beta \frac{}{N_\mathrm{𝟎}}A_0\left(N_T\right)=\mathrm{ln}z_0,$$
(12)
where $`z_0`$ is the well-known saddle point.

By using the above relations, the probability distribution of the system with $`N_0`$ atoms in the condensate can be obtained based on the method developed in Refs.. The normalized probability distribution function is given by

$$G_n(N,N_0)=A_n\mathrm{exp}\left[_{N_0^p}^{N_0}\alpha (N,N_0)𝑑N_0\right],$$
(13)
where $`A_n`$ is a normalized constant, $`N_0^p`$ is the most probable value of the atomic number in the condensate. If taking the ground-state energy of the system as the zero point of energy, $`\alpha (N,N_0)`$ is determined by

$$N_0^pN_0=\underset{nl0}{}\left[\frac{\eta _{nl}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \epsilon _{nl}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha (N,N_0)\right]1}\frac{\eta _{nl}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \epsilon _{nl}\right]1}\right].$$
(14)
For temperature below the critical temperature of BEC and for $`\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}<<1`$ (this condition is satisfied in the present-day experiments of BECs), the above equation can be approximated to be

$$N_0^pN_0=\underset{nl0}{}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \epsilon _{nl}/\eta _{nl}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha (N,N_0)/\eta _{nl}\right]1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \epsilon _{nl}/\eta _{nl}\right]1}\right].$$
(15)
In fact, one can get the result given by Eq. (15) through a simple physical picture. Taking the ground-state energy as the zero point of energy, the total energy of the system is then

$$E=\underset{nl}{}N_{nl}^B\epsilon _{nl}=\underset{nl}{}N_{nl}\epsilon _{nl}^{eff},$$
(16)
where $`\epsilon _{nl}^{eff}`$ can be regarded as the effective energy level of a single particle characterized by the quantum numbers $`n`$ and $`l`$. From Eqs. (4) and (16), $`\epsilon _{nl}^{eff}`$ takes the form

$$\epsilon _{nl}^{eff}=\frac{\epsilon _{nl}}{u_{nl}^2𝑑V+v_{nl}^2𝑑V+v_{nl}^2𝑑V/f_{nl}}.$$
(17)
Thus at low temperature the system can be regarded as a fictitious non-interacting Bose system with the effective energy level given by $`\epsilon _{nl}^{eff}`$. The canonical partition function of the system reads

$$Z_{cp}=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \underset{nl}{}N_{nl}\epsilon _{nl}^{eff}\right],$$
(18)
where the prime in the summation represents the condition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nl0}N_{nl}=N_T`$. It is easy to confirm that one can get the result given by Eq. (15) from this canonical partition function.

From Eq. (15), after a straightforward calculation one obtains $`G_n(N,N_0)`$

$$G_n(N,N_0)=A_n\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(N_0N_0^p\right)^2}{2\mathrm{\Xi }}\right],$$
(19)
where

$`\mathrm{\Xi }={\displaystyle \underset{nl0}{}}[({\displaystyle }u_{nl}^2dV+{\displaystyle }v_{nl}^2dV)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\epsilon _{nl}}}\right)^2`$ (20)
$`+2({\displaystyle }u_{nl}^2dV+{\displaystyle }v_{nl}^2dV){\displaystyle }v_{nl}^2dV\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\epsilon _{nl}}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle }v_{nl}^2dV\right)^2].`$ (21)
Below the critical temperature, $`N_0^p>>1`$, the fluctuations of the condensate contributed from the collective excitations are given by

$$\delta ^2N_0=N_0^2N_0^2=\mathrm{\Xi }.$$
(22)
Generally speaking, Eqs. (21) and (22) can be used to investigate the fluctuations originated from the collective excitations in any dimension. Now we specify the case of 2D. For Eqs. (2) and (3), $`u_{nl}`$ and $`v_{nl}`$ are given by

$$u_{nl}v_{nl}i\sqrt{\frac{gn_0\left(𝐫\right)}{2\epsilon _{nl}}}\chi _{nl}.$$
(23)
For a Bose gas confined in a harmonic potential $`V_{ext}(𝐫)=m\omega _{}^2(x^2+y^2)/2`$, $`\chi _{nl}`$ and $`\epsilon _{nl}(=\mathrm{}\omega _{nl})`$ are determined by the eigen equation

$$\frac{\omega _{}^2}{2}\left[\left(R_{}^2r_{}^2\right)\chi _{nl}\right]=\omega _{nl}^2\chi _{nl},$$
(24)
where $`R_{}`$ is the radius of the condensate. After a straightforward calculation one obtains the excitation frequency $`\omega _{nl}=\omega _{}\sqrt{2n^2+2n|l|+2n+|l|}`$, and

$$\chi _{nl}=\frac{A_{nl}}{R_{}}e^{il\varphi }H_{nl}\left(\frac{r_{}}{R_{}}\right),$$
(25)
where $`A_{nl}`$ is a normalized constant determined by $`\left|\chi _{nl}\right|^2𝑑V=1`$. In the above equation. $`H_{nl}\left(x\right)`$ takes the form

$$H_{nl}\left(x\right)=x^{|l|}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}b_jx^{2j},$$
(26)
where $`b_0=1`$ and the coefficients $`b_j`$ satisfy the recurrence relation $`b_{j+1}/b_j=\left(4j^2+4j+4j|l|4n^24n4n|l|\right)/\left(4j^2+4j|l|+8j+4|l|+4\right)`$.

Substituting the above results into Eqs. (21) and (22), we obtain the fluctuations of particle-number in the condensate for the 2D Bose gas:

$$\delta ^2N_0=\frac{mg}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[\frac{N^2t^2\left(1t^2\right)}{\pi \zeta \left(2\right)}\gamma _1+\frac{N^{3/2}t\left(1t^2\right)}{\pi \left(\zeta \left(2\right)\right)^{1/2}}\gamma _2+\frac{N\left(1t^2\right)}{4\pi }\gamma _3\right],$$
(27)
where $`t=T/T_c^0`$ with $`T_c^0=\left(N/\zeta \left(2\right)\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}/k_B`$ the critical temperature corresponding an ideal Bose gas in 2D. The coefficients $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\gamma _3`$ are given by

$`\gamma _1={\displaystyle \underset{nl0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{nl}^2}{\left(2n^2+2n|l|+2n+|l|\right)^2}},`$

$`\gamma _2={\displaystyle \underset{nl0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{nl}^2}{\left(2n^2+2n|l|+2n+|l|\right)^{3/2}}},`$

$$\gamma _3=\underset{nl0}{}\frac{\beta _{nl}^2}{\left(2n^2+2n|l|+2n+|l|\right)}.$$
(28)
with

$$\beta _{nl}=\frac{_0^1\left(1x^2\right)x\left(H_{nl}\right)^2𝑑x}{_0^1x\left(H_{nl}\right)^2𝑑x}.$$
(29)
By a numerical calculation we obtain $`\gamma _1=0.87`$, $`\gamma _2=1.43`$, $`\gamma _3=4.37`$.

From Eq. (27) we have the following two conclusions: (i) $`\delta ^2N_0`$ is proportional to the inter-atomic interaction constant $`g`$. Therefore, for an ideal Bose gas there is no contribution to the condensate fluctuations due to the collective excitations. This is physically reasonable because the collective excitations, which are dominant at low temperature, originate from the interaction between atoms. (ii) The leading term for the fluctuations of the particle-number in the condensate are proportional to $`N^2`$. This anomalous behaviour comes from the low-dimensional property of the system. Noting that in the case of 3D Bose-condensed gas the fluctuations of the condensate due to the collective excitations are proportional to $`N^{4/3}`$. Thus the lower the dimension of the system is, the larger the condensate fluctuations are. Thus at low temperature a 2D Bose gas confined in a harmonic trapping potential, which has been realized recently by Görlitz et al, is an ideal system for the observation of anomalous behavior of the fluctuations of particle-number in condensates.

In real experiments , the Bose gases are confined in a quai-2D harmonic trap. For a quasi-2D Bose gas, the coupling constant is given by $`g2\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}^2a_s/(ml_z)`$ , which is fixed by a $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_s`$ and the oscillator length $`l_z=\left(\mathrm{}/m\omega _z\right)^{1/2}`$ in the $`z`$-direction, where $`\omega _z`$ is the trap frequency in the $`z`$-direction. In this case, we have

$$\delta ^2N_0=\frac{2\sqrt{2\pi }a_s}{l_z}\left[\frac{N^2t^2\left(1t^2\right)}{\pi \zeta \left(2\right)}\gamma _1+\frac{N^{3/2}t\left(1t^2\right)}{\pi \left(\zeta \left(2\right)\right)^{1/2}}\gamma _2+\frac{N\left(1t^2\right)}{4\pi }\gamma _3\right].$$
(30)
From the above equation we see that, on the one hand $`\delta ^2N_0`$ is proportional to $`N^2`$ (for large $`N`$), and on the other hand it is also proportional to $`\omega _z^{1/2}`$ because the factor $`1/l_z`$ appearing in (30). This shows that the trapping frequency in the $`z`$-direction plays an important role for the particle number fluctuations due to the collective excitations. Thus one can control the particle number fluctuations by adjusting the trapping frequency in the $`z`$-direction. Compared with the contribution due to the thermal atoms (see Eq. (39) in ), the particle number fluctuations due to the collective excitations are strongly dependent on the trapping frequency in the $`z`$-direction. From the relation between $`\delta ^2N_0`$ and $`\omega _z`$, we see that the confinement of the Bose-condensed gas has the effect of increasing the fluctuations due to the collective excitations. This result is consistent with the role of the dimensionality in the fluctuations of the condensate.

In conclusion, we have studied the particle-number fluctuations of a condensed 2D Bose gas confined in a harmonic trapping potential by using the probability distribution obtained through a modified saddle-point method. We have found that the condensate fluctuations are proportional to the inter-atomic interaction constant $`g`$ and the square of total particle-number of the system. This anomalous behavior of the fluctuations makes it very promising to experimentally observe the effect of the particle-number fluctuations. The theoretical method provided here is quite general and can be applied to investigate the particle-number fluctuations of quasi-1D Bose-condensed gases.

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China under grant Nos. 10205011 and 10274021.