24

Individual low-energy E1 toroidal and compression states in Mg: impact of the

magnetic nuclear current
V.O. Nesterenko1,2,3 , A. Repko4 , J. Kvasil5 , and P.-G. Reinhard6
1
Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow region, 141980, Russia
2
State University ”Dubna”, Dubna, Moscow Region, 141980, Russia
3
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Moscow region, 141701, Russia∗
4
Institute of Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 84511, Bratislava, Slovakia
5
Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics, Charles University, CZ-18000, Praha 8, Czech Republic and
6
Institut für Theoretische Physik II, Universität Erlangen, D-91058, Erlangen, Germany
(Dated: April 18, 2019)
Individual low-energy E1 toroidal and compressional states (TS and CS) produced by the convec-
arXiv:1904.08302v1 [nucl-th] 17 Apr 2019

tive nuclear current jc were recently predicted in 24 Mg in the framework of quasiparticle random-
pase-approximation (QRPA) model with Skyrme forces. In the present QRPA study with the
Skyrme parametrization SLy6, we check how much these states are affected by the magnetic nuclear
current jm . It is shown that the impact of jm is negligible in the CS which are irrotational but
strong in the TS which are vortical. The latter complicates the discrimination of convective TS in
transversal form-factors of the inelastic electron scattering (e,e’). Nevertheless, the discrimination of
the convective TS is still possible using decomposition analysis. We also demonstrate that, together
with the convective TS, there can exist TS induced by jm , i.e. toroidal modes of magnetic origin.

PACS numbers: 24.30.Cz,21.60.Jz,13.40.-f,27.80.+w

I. INTRODUCTION the 7.92-MeV TS in 24 Mg, which were not considered in

In our recent publications, individual low-energy E1
toroidal and compressional states (TS and CS) in de-
formed 24 Mg [1] and 20 Ne [2] were predicted within
the quasiparticle random-pase-approximation (QRPA)
method with Skyrme forces. In 24 Mg, the TS should ap-
pear as the lowest (E=7.92 MeV) dipole state with K=1
(K is the projection of the total angular momentum to
the symmetry z-axis). Besides, in the framework of the
approach combining the antisymmetrized molecular dy-
namics and generator coordinate method [3], individual
low-energy dipole TS were predicted in 10 Be [4, 5], 12 C
[6], and 16 O [7]. These predictions open a new promising
path in exploration of vortical toroidal excitations. Pre-
viously, the nuclear toroidal mode was mainly studied as
E1 isoscalar (T=0) toroidal giant resonance (TGR), see
e.g. [8–10, 12? –20] and references therein. However the
experimental observation and identification of the TGR
meets serious troubles. The resonance is usually masked
by other multipole modes (including dipole excitations
of the non-toroidal nature) located at the same energy
region. As a result, even the most relevant (α, α′ ) ex-
perimental data [21, 22] still do not provide direct ev-
idence for E1(T=0) TGR, see discussion in Ref. [20].
In this connection, idividual low-energy E1(T=0) TS in
light nuclei have obvious advantages in exploration of the
toroidal mode. They are well separated from the neigh-
bour dipole states and so can be easier identified and
discriminated in experiment than TGR.
In this paper, we inspect some important features of
∗ Electronic address: nester@theor.jinr.ru
the previous studies [1, 2]. The main attention is paid
to the impact of the magnetic nuclear current jm . The
toroidal flow is generated by the convective part jc of
the nuclear current [1, 2, 16]. However this flow is vorti-
cal and so can be affected by jm which is vortical as well.
Since the E1 toroidal form factor is transversal [9, 10], in-
elastic electron scattering (e, e′ ) to back angles looks to
be a natural candidate to search the toroidal mode. How-
ever, in this case, some questions can be posed: What
is the impact of jm in this reaction? Will this impact
complicate the discrimination of the convective toroidal
mode? Just these questions are addressed in the present
study. We analyze imoact of jm in terms of the transition
strengths and form-factors. Some features of TS in (e, e′ )
are discussed. Possible ways to circumvent the troubles
caused by the impact of jm are proposed.
II. CALCULATION SCHEME
Our calculations for 24 Mg are performed within the
self-consistent QRPA based on the Skyrme functional
[23]. As in Refs. [1, 2], we use the Skyrme parametriza-
tion SLy6 [24]. The QRPA code for axial nuclei [25] ex-
ploits a 2D mesh in cylindrical coordinates. The single-
particle spectrum is taken from the bottom of the poten-
tial well up to +55 MeV. The equilibrium deformation
β=0.536 is obtained by minimization of the nuclear en-
ergy. The volume monopole pairing is treated at the
BCS level [20]. The QRPA uses a large two-quasiparticle
(2qp) basis with the energies until ∼ 100 MeV. The ba-
sis includes ≈ 1900 (K = 0) and ≈ 3600 (K=1) states.
The Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule [26, 27] and isoscalar
dipole energy-weighted sum rule [28] are exhausted by
 2

4 0.4
100% and 97%, respectively. 3
a) 24
Mg, SLy6
0.3
c) j +j
c m

]
In this study, we inspect both the vortical toroidal

-3
T=0 current j
K=1 K=0 c

10
2 0.2

and irrotational compressional dipole states previously toroid toroid

4
1 0.1

fm
discussed in [1, 2]. The toroidal and compressional E1 0 0.0

2
5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10

[e
modes are known to be coupled [14–16]. They are be- 0.4
b)
0.4
d)

)
lieved to constitute the low- and high-energy parts of 0.3 0.3

B(E1K,
K=1 K=0
0.2 0.2
so called isoscalar giant dipole resonance (ISGDR) [28]. 0.1
compr
0.1
compr

The comparison of these representatives of the vortical 0.0 0.0

5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10
and irrotational flows will be instructive [16]. E [MeV] E [MeV]

The toroidal and compressional responses (reduced

transition probabilities) are FIG. 1: Toroidal (upper plots) and compressional (bottom
plots) B(E1K,α)-responses in 24 Mg, calculated with T=0 nu-
Bν (E1K, α) = (2 − δK,0 )| hν| M̂α ( E1K) |0i |2 (1) clear current. The cases with (filled triangles) and without
(empty reverse triangles) jm are compared.
where |νi is the wave function of the ν-th QRPA
dipole state. The toroidal (α = tor) and compressional
(α=com) transition operators read as [1, 16, 17] and natural (epeff = 1, eneff = 0, ḡsp = ηgsp , ḡsn = ηgsp ) nu-
−1
Z clear currents, where gsp = 5.58 and gsp = −3.82 are bare
M̂tor (E1K) = √ d3 rr[r2 + ds + daK ]Y11K · (∇×ĵ), g-factors and η =0.7 is the quenching. The T=0 current
10 2c is relevant for the comparison of the responses with data
(2) from isoscalar reactions like (α, α′ ). The natural current
−i
Z is relevant for (e, e′ ) reaction.
M̂com(E1K) = d3 rr[r2 + ds − 2daK ]Y1K (∇· ĵ), (3) The nuclear currents are used in calculations of the
10c
responses from the transition operators (2)-(3) and cur-
where ĵ(r) is operator of the isoscalar nuclear current, rent transition densities (CTD) δjqc = hν|ĵqc |0i and δjqm =
Y11K (r̂) and Y1K (r̂) are vector and ordinary spheri- hν|ĵqm |0i.
cal harmonics. ds = −5/3hr2 i0 is the center-of-mass
corrections (c.m.c.) in spherical nuclei [16]; daK =
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
p
4π/45hr2 Y20 i0 (3δK,0 − 1) is the additional c.m.c. aris-
ing in axial
R deformed nuclei [29]. The average values are
hf i0 = d3 rf ρ0 /A where ρ0 is the g.s. density. As A. Responses and current fields
was numerically checked, these c.m.c. accurately remove
spurious c.m. admixtures in 24 Mg . In Figure 1, the low-energy toroidal and compressional
It is seen that the toroidal operator (2) with the curl responses (1) in 24 Mg are shown. They are calculated
∇×ĵ is vortical while the compressional operator (3) with with T=0 nuclear current, relevant for isoscalar (α, α′ )
the divergence ∇ · ĵ is irrotational. Using the continu- reaction. The cases with and without jm , are compared.
ity equation, the current-dependent operator (3) can be Plot (a) shows that only the K=1 state at 7.92 MeV
transformed [16] to the familiar develops the large toroidal response. The toroidal na-
R density-dependent form ture of this state is additionally confirmed by the proton
′
[28, 29] M̂com (E1K) = 1/10 d3 rrρ̂[r2 + ds − 2daK ]Y1K
with ρ̂(r) being the density operator. and neutron fields of the convective current, shown in
The operator of the full nuclear current includes the the plots (a)-(b) of Fig. 2. Just this 7.92 MeV state was
convective and magnetic (spin) parts [30] proposed in [1] as the individual low-energy TS. Actu-
ally the 7.92 MeV state is not fully toroidal (vortical)
e~ X q since, following Fig. 1 (b), this state has a small com-
ĵ(r) = ĵc (r) + ĵm (r) = (ĵ (r) + ĵqm (r)) (4) pressional (irrotational) response. The plots (c)-(d) of
m q=n,p c
Fig. 1 demonstrate that, in K=0 state at 9.56 MeV, the
where compressional response significantly exceeds the toroidal
one. The convective current δjqc for this state shown in
ieqeff X Fig. 3, (a)-(b) reminds very much the octupole flow for
ĵqc (r) = − (δ(r − rk )∇k + ∇k δ(r − rk )), (5)
2 3− state in 208 Pb shown in Fig. 3 of Ref. [31]. This
kǫq
is not surprising since in nuclei with a large axial defor-
ḡsq X
mation, like 24 Mg, there is a strong coupling of dipole
ĵqm (r) = ∇ × ŝqk δ(r − rk ). (6)
2 and octupole modes. This should especially the case for
kǫq
irrotational states like 9.56-MeV one.
Here ŝq is the spin operator, µN is the nuclear magneton, Let’s now consider the impact of jm . As seen from
eqeff are effective charges, ḡsq are spin g-factors, k numer- Fig. 1 (c)-(d), the compressional responses are almost
ates the nucleons. In the present calculations, we use the the same with and without jm . This is plausible because
isoscalar T=0 (en,p eff = 0.5, ḡs
n,p
= (gsn + gsp )η/2 = 0.88η) the vortical magnetic current should not affect the irrota-
 3
24
20 0.5
24 Mg:SLy6, 1− 7.92 MeV a) Mg, SLy6 c) j +j
c m
0.4
15
4 natural current

]
j

-3
K=1 0.3 K=0 c

10
10
toroid 0.2
toroid

4
5
2

fm
0.1

0 0.0
z [fm]

2
5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10

[e
0.5 0.5
0 b) d)

)
0.4 0.4

B(E1K,
0.3 0.3
K=1 K=0
-2 0.2
compr
0.2
compr
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
-4 a) p ( jc ) b) n ( jc ) 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10

E [MeV] E [MeV]

4 FIG. 4: The same as in Fig. 1 but for the natural nuclear

current, see text for more detail
2
z [fm]

-2 TABLE I: Structure of QRPA low-energy dipole states in

24
Mg. The two-quasiparticle (2qp) components are given in
-4 c) gs
d) gs
Nilsson asymptotic quantum numbers, c+ is the forward 2qp
2 ∇×s 2 ∇×s
amplitude, [c+ ]2 gives contribution to the state norm.
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
x [fm] x [fm] E [MeV] K main 2qp components c+ [c+ ]2
7.92 1 pp[211↑-330↑] 0.73 0.54
FIG. 2: QRPA proton (left) and neutron (right) fields of the nn[211↑-330↑] 0.62 0.39
convective δjqc (upper plots) and magnetic δjqm (bottom plots) 9.56 0 pp[211↑-101↓] 0.62 0.39
currents in the toroidal 7.92-MeV K π = 1− state. In c)-d),
the bare g-factors without the quenching are used. nn[211↑-101↓] 0.56 0.31
9.79 1 nn[211↑-330↑] -0.74 0.55
pp[211↑-330↑] 0.65 0.43
24 Mg:SLy6, 0− 9.56 MeV
4

2
z [fm]

Note that, following Fig. 2 (c)-(d), the proton and neu-

0 tron magnetic current fields are not toroidal. Although
-2 jm enforces the toroidal vortical response in the 7.92 MeV
state (Fig. 1 (a)), it also contaminates the toroidal flow
-4 a) p ( jc ) b) n ( jc )
by other vortical contributions and thus complicates the
exploration of the convective toroidal mode.
4 It is remarkable that, following Fig. 3 (c)-(d), the mag-
netization current in K=0 9.56 MeV state is also toroidal.
2
So jm can also cause toroidal flow. As a result, magnetic
z [fm]

0 TS can exist.

-2 In Fig. 4, the toroidal and compressional responses are

shown for the natural nuclear current relevant for (e, e′ )
-4 c) gs
d) gs reaction. Its g-factors are much larger than in the T=0
2 ∇×s 2 ∇×s
case (see definition of currents in Sec. (II). Nevertheless,
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 the responses for jc + jm remain generally the same as in
x [fm] x [fm] Fig. 1. The main difference is for the K=1 state at 9.79
Mev whose toroidal response is significantly increased by
FIG. 3: The same as in Fig. 2 but for 9.56-MeV K π = 0−
jm .
state.
These results can be corroborated by inspecting the
structure of the toroidal states in Table I. We see that
tional compressional flow. However, following the plots the K=1 states at 7.92 and 9.79 MeV mainly consist out
(a)-(b) of Fig. 1, exclusion of jm significantly changes of two (proton and neutron) 2qp components of the same
the toroidal response: it is decreased by ∼ 30% in K=1 content. We get convective or magnetic toroidal flow de-
7.92-MeV state and increased almost by factor gtwo in pending on the relative sign of c+ in nn- and pp- configu-
the K=0 9.56-MeV state. Thus the impact of jm on the rations. This confirms the previous conclusions [1, 31, 32]
toroidal strength is quite large. that toroidal flow in nuclei is mainly a mean field effect.
 4

B. (e, e′ ) reaction 1
a) 24
Coul

trans
1
b)
Coul

trans
Mg, K=1, E=7.92 MeV
total
total
1E-4 1E-4

The large effect of jm in the toroidal responses means

Mott
1E-8 1E-8

that jm can significantly distort the manifestation of the j=j +j

c m
j=j +j
c m

convective TS in the (e, e′ ) reaction. To discriminate TS 1E-12 1E-12

from other dipole modes, we need a reaction sensitive to 1E-16 1E-16

the nuclear interior. The reaction (e, e′ ) looks suitable. 1

0 1 2 3
1
0 1 2 3

c) d) j
Since the toroidal mode is transversal [9, 10, 33] it is nat- j
c
c

j + j j + j
ural to look for it in the dipole transversal electric form c m
c m

T
factor FE1 at a backward scattering angles. However, if 1E-4 1E-4

T
jm affects FE1 , then the search of the convective TS in total total

′
(e, e ) becomes complicated. Just this important point is
inspected below. 1E-8
0 1 2 3
1E-8
0 1 2 3

In the Plane Wave Born Approximation (PWBA), the q [fm

-1
] q [fm
-1
]

(e, e′ ) cross-section for Eλ excitations reads [34]

dσ FIG. 5: Cross-sections of inelastic electron scattering on 7.92-
(θ, q, Ei ) = 4πσM (θ, Ei )frec (θ, Ei ) (7) MeV K π = 1− state, calculated for the scattering angles θ =
dΩ
    30◦ (left) and 178◦ (right). In the upper plots (a,b), the
C 2 1 2 θ T 2 Coulomb, transversal and total cross-sections are compared.
· [FEλ (q)] + + tan ( ) [FEλ (q)]
2 2 In the bottom plots (c,d), the total cross-section with and
without jm is depicted.
where σM (θ, Ei ) is the Mott cross section for the unit
charge, frec (θ, Ei ) is the recoil factor, Ei is the incident C 2

C
electron energy, θ is the scattering angle, FEλ (q) and 1E-3
a) 24
Mg
|F

|F
E1

T
|

| 1E-3
b)

T
FEλ (q) are the Coulomb and transversal electric form
E1

factors as a function of the transfer momentum q. For

|FE1|, |FE1|

1E-7 1E-7
T

the light nucleus 24 Mg, the Coulomb distortions should

c

1E-11 1E-11
be small and so PWBA is the relevant approximation. K=1: 7.92 MeV
K=0: 9.56MeV
lowest toroidal
We can also take frec (θ, Ei )=1. 1E-15 1E-15
lowest compression

dσ
In Fig. 5, the normalized cross-section dΩ /σM for the 0

c)
1 2 3 0

d)
1 2 3

24
7.92 MeV state in Mg is plotted for small θ = 30◦ and 1E-3 1E-3

large θ = 178◦ scattering angles. Plots (a)-(b) show that,

|FE1|, |FE1|
T

1E-7 1E-7
C
as expected, the total cross-section is dominated by FE1
c

T
at θ = 30◦ and by FE1 at θ = 178◦ . Further, following 1E-11 1E-11

plots (c)-(d), the inclusion of jm almost does not influence K=1: 20.6 MeV

GDR
K=1: 21.7 MeV

GDR

the cross-section at θ = 30◦ but leads to considerable 1E-15

0 1 2
1E-15
3 0 1 2 3

changes for q > 1 fm−1 at the backward angle 178◦. The q [fm
-1
] q [fm
-1
]

latter significantly complicates the search for traces of

the convective TS in transversal cross-section at large θ.
At the same time, the TS in Fig. 5 displays some sig-
natures which can be used for its discrimination. We see
that its first diffraction minimum at q ≈ 1.7 fm−1 lies
noticeably higher than the minimum obtained with the
total nuclear current. Besides, the TS contribution ob-
tained with jc alone dominates at 1 fm−1 q < 1.6 fm−1
and 2 fm−1 q < 2.7 fm−1 . In principle, the refined
toroidal contribution can be obtained from the experi-
mental data following the procedure similar to the multi-
pole decomposition analysis (MDA) which is widely used
for extraction of the desirable mode from the experimen-
tal cross-sections involving various multipole modes. In
MDA, the contributions of other multipole modes are es-
timated in the framework of some models and then sub-
tracted from the total experimental cross-section to get
finally the mode of interest. In the same manner, we
can estimate the jm -contribution and subtract it from
the total (e, e′ ) experiment cross-section to get finally
the contribution of the convective TS. Then the TS con-
tribution can be compared with contributions from other
C 2 T 2
FIG. 6: Squared Coulomb |FE1 | and tranversal |FE1 | form
factors for different QRPA states: toroidal K π = 1− at 7.92
MeV (a), compressional K π = 0− at 9.56 MeV (b), and two
GDR K π = 1− states at 20.6 and 21.7 MeV (c)-(d).
dipole states (obtained by the same way) to look for the
particular TS signatures.
In Fig. 6, the Coulomb and transversal form factors are
considered for different dipole states in 24 Mg: toroidal
K=1 at 7.92 MeV, compressional K=0 at 9.56 MeV
and two high-energy K=1 states from the isovector gi-
ant dipole resonance (GDR). It is seen that, unlike other
dipole states, the TS at 7.92 MeV has at q < 3 fm−1 two
diffraction minima in |FET |2 . At the same time, compari-
son with Fig. 5 (d) shows that this is predominantly the
effect of the jm contribution.
It is interesting, that |FEC |2 for the isoscalar toroidal
K=1 state at 7.92 MeV and both form-factors for
isoscalar compressional K=0 state at 9.56 MeV have dis-
tinctive minima at q < 0.3 fm−1 . The similar minima

were earlier found for low-energy dipole states in light
N=Z spherical doubly magic nuclei like 16 O, see [35] for
experiment and [2, 36, 37] for discussion. Following [37],
these states can also exhibit the toroidal flow. However,
the minima in the form-factors are most probably caused
not by the toroidal flow but by a competition of the dom-
inant T=0 and minor T=1 components in these states
[36, 37].
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The impact of the magnetic part jm of the nuclear
current on the responses and form factors of partic-
ular E1 low-energy states in axially deformed 24 Mg
was investigated within the quasiparticle random-pase-
approximation (QRPA) model with Skyrme force SLy6.
It was shown that the influence of jm is negligible for
the irrotational compressional states but essential for the
vortical toroidal states (TS). The latter complicates the
[1] V.O. Nesterenko, A. Repko, J. Kasil, and P.-G. Reinhard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 182501 (2018).
[2] V.O. Nesterenko, J. Kvasil, A. Repko, and P.-G. Rein-
hard, Eur. Phys. J. Web of Conf. 194, 03005 (2018).
[3] Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo and Hisashi Horiuchi, Front.
Phys. 13, 132108 (2018).
[4] Y. Kanada-Enyo and Y. Shikata, Phys. Rev. C 95,
064319 (2017).
[5] Yuki Shikata, Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo, and Hiroyuki
Morita, arXiv:1902:10962 [nucl-th].
[6] Yoshiko Kanada-Enyo, Yuki Shikata, and Horiyuki
Morita, Phys. Rev. C 97, 014303 (2018).
[7] Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo and Yuki Shikata,
arXiv:1903:01075 [nucl-th].
[8] S. F. Semenko, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 34, 356 (1981).
[9] S. I. Bastrukov, Ş. Mişicu, and A. V. Sushkov, Nucl.
Phys. A 562, 191 (1993).
[10] Ş. Mişicu, Phys. Rev. C 73, 024301 (2006).
[11] E.B.Balbutsev, I.V.Molodtsova, and A.V.Unzhakova,
Europhys. Lett. 26, 499 (1994).
[12] N. Ryezayeva, T. Hartmann, Y. Kalmykov, H. Lenske, P.
von Neumann-Cosel, V. Yu. Ponomarev, A. Richter, A.
Shevchenko, S. Volz, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 272502 (2002).
[13] G. Colo, N. Van Giai, P.F. Bortignon, and M.R. Quaglia,
Phys. Lett. B485, 362 (2000).
[14] D. Vretenar, N. Paar, P. Ring, and T. Niksšić, Phys. Rev.
C65, 021301(R) (2002).
[15] N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Kyan, G. Colo, Rep. Prog. Phys.
70, 691 (2007).
[16] J. Kvasil, V. O. Nesterenko, W. Kleinig, P.-G. Reinhard,
and P. Vesely, Phys. Rev. C84, 034303 (2011).
[17] A. Repko, P.-G. Reinhard, V. O. Nesterenko, and J.
Kvasil, Phys. Rev. C87, 024305 (2013).
[18] P.-G. Reinhard, V. O. Nesterenko, A. Repko, and J.
Kvasil, Phys. Rev. C89, 024321 (2014).
[19] V.O. Nesterenko, J. Kvasil, A. Repko, W. Kleinig, P.-G.
5
search of traces of transversal TS in reactions like inelas-
tic electron scattering (e, e′ ) to large angles. Neverthe-
less one may try to extract the TS contribution from the
experimental (e, e′ ) cross section by subtracting the es-
timated impact of jm . The jm -induced TS of magnetic
origin are predicted.
Acknowledgement
V.O.N. thanks Profs. P. von Neumann-Cosel, J.
Wambach and V.Yu. Ponomarev for valuable discus-
sions. The work was partly supported by the Heisen-
berg - Landau (Germany - BLTP JINR), and Votruba -
Blokhintsev (Czech Republic - BLTP JINR) grants. A.R.
is grateful for support from Slovak Research and Develop-
ment Agency under Contract No. APVV-15-0225. J.K.
acknowledges the grant of Czech Science Agency (Project
No. 19-14048S).
Reinhard, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 79, 842 (2016).
[20] A. Repko, J. Kvasil, V. O. Nesterenko, and P.-G. Rein-
hard, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 221 (2017).
[21] D. H. Youngblood, Y.-W. Lui, B. John, Y. Tokimoto, H.
L. Clark, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 69, 054312 (2004).
[22] M. Uchida, et al, Phys. Rev. C 69, 051301(R) (2004).
[23] M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 75, 121 (2003).
[24] E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R.
Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys. A635, 231 (1998).
[25] A. Repko, J. Kvasil, V. O. Nesterenko, and P.-G. Rein-
hard, arXiv:1510.01248[nucl-th].
[26] P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980).
[27] V. O. Nesterenko, W. Kleinig, J. Kvasil, P. Vesely, and
P.-G. Reinhard, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 17, 89 (2008).
[28] M. N. Harakeh and A. van der Woude, Giant Resonances
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001).
[29] A. Repko, J. Kvasil, and V.O. Nesterenko, Phys. Rev. C
99, 044307 (2019).
[30] A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure Vol. 1
(Benjamin, New York, 1969).
[31] D.G. Raventhall, J. Wambach, Nucl. Phys. A475, 468
(1987).
[32] V.O. Nesterenko, A. Repko, P.-G. Reinhard, and J.
Kvasil, EPJ Web of Conferences, 93, 01020 (2015).
[33] V. M. Dubovik and A. A. Cheshkov, Sov. J. Part. Nucl.
5, 318 (1975).
[34] J. Heisenberg and and H.P. Blok, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part.
Sci. 33, 569 (1983).
[35] H. Miska, H.D. Gräf, A. Richter, D. Schüll, E. Spamer
and O. Titze, Phys. Lett. B 59, 441 (1975).
[36] B. Castel, Y. Okuhara, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 42,
R1203 (1990).
[37] P. Papakonstantinou, V.Yu. Ponomarev, R. Roth, and J.
Wambach, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 14 (2011).