\section{Introduction}
\label{S:1}
The phase transition  between spherical and axially deformed quadrupole
 shape of nuclei has been the object of several theoretical and
experimental works in recent years. In particular, the properties of
nuclei close to the critical point, predicted by Iachello's model of
X(5) symmetry~\cite{iachello01}, have been actually observed in several
cases~\cite{casten01,kruecken02,bizzeti02,clark03,hutter03,tonev04},
while some other
nuclides showing the ratio $E(4+)/E(2^+)\approx 2.91$
expected for the X(5) symmetry are presently under
investigation. Moreover,
in the Ra -- Th region, it has been observed that the isotopes
$^{224}$Ra and $^{224}$Th have a positive--parity ground--state band
with a sequence of level energies very close to the X(5)
predictions~\cite{bizzetierice,bizzetirila}.
Here, however, the presence of a very low lying negative parity band,
soon merging with the positive--parity one for $J>5$, proves that
the octupole mode of deformation plays an important role and should
not be ignored in discussing the behavior of the phase transition.

In a previous paper~\cite{bizzeti04} (henceforth referred to as I)
a simple model has been introduced to describe the phase transitions
in nuclear shape involving the octupole mode\footnote{We have now the
occasion to correct a few misprints which escaped proofs revision in
paper I:\\
Eq. (23c) should read\ $q_3= \left( L_3-p_\varphi-2p_\chi
-3p_\vartheta \right) \ / \left( 4 u_0^2 \right)\ .$\\
In the Table VII, the 4th element of the 5th line should be
${\sin \theta_2 \sin \theta_3}\ / \ {\mathcal{J}_1}\ $.
We apologize for these errors.}. To this purpose, a new
parametrization of the collective coordinates describing the nuclear
quadrupole and octupole deformation has been introduced and discussed.
The nuclear shape is represented in the intrinsic frame defined by the
principal axes of the overall tensor of inertia, in situations close
to (but not necessarily coincident with) the axial--symmetry limit.
In the same paper, a specific model is developed to describe the
critical point of the phase transition in the octupole mode, between
harmonic oscillations and permanent asymmetric deformation, in nuclei
which already possess a stable quadrupole deformation. The Thorium
isotopic chain was investigated and the
experimental data concerning $^{226,228}$Th were compared with the
model predictions~\cite{bizzeti04}. The former appears to be close to
the critical point, while the latter can be interpreted as an example
of harmonic oscillations in the axial octupole mode.

In the present paper, we extend the investigation
to the cases where
the quadrupole deformation is not steady but performs oscillations
under the effect of a proper potential, and in
particular for situations close to the quadrupole critical point
described by the X(5) symmetry, in the Radium and Thorium
isotopic chain.

As we shall see, the properties of the
already mentioned nuclei $^{224}$Th and $^{224}$Ra result to be
reasonably
described by our model with a ``critical'' (flat) potential well,
extending both in the $\beta_2$ and $\beta_3$ directions.
Moreover, we observe that, as far as the level scheme is concerned,
 also the next isotope $^{226}$Ra
can be accounted for with a proper critical--point potential,
in spite of the fact that the positive--parity part of
the ground--state band does not follow the X(5) predictions.
As in the case of Thorium, heavier isotopes of Radium have a
permanent quadrupole deformation and octupole
excitations of vibrational character, while the
lighter ones are either  non collective or vibrational in the
quadrupole mode.

Some results of this work, at different phases of advancement,
have been reported at several Conferences or
Schools~\cite{bizzetirila,bizzeticamerino,bizzetipredeal,bizzetivico}.

For convenience of the reader, we report in the next
Section~\ref{S:2} some evidence of the phase transitions
in the Radium and Thorium isotopic chain, while the definition of
variables introduced in I, and a few results relevant to the present
work,  are briefly summarized in the Section~\ref{S:3a}.
In the following subsections, the model introduced in I is specialized
to a form suitable for a critical potential in two dimensions.
Finally, in the Section~\ref{S:4}
the model results are reported and compared with the existing
experimental evidence
for $^{224,226}$Ra  and $^{224}$Th

Previous models of quadrupole--octupole deformation are quoted in I.
Since then, new relevant papers have appeared.
A new ``Analytic Quadrupole--Octupole axially symmetric model''
(AQOA) has been proposed by D.Bonatsos {\it et al.} \cite{bonatsos05}
to discuss the evolution
of the quadrupole and octupole collectivity in Ra and Th isotopes.
A parameter free model starting from a similar approach has
been developed by Lenis and Bonatsos~\cite{lenis06} and compared with
the experimental results for $^{226}$Ra and $^{226}$Th.
Moreover, a variant of the AQOA model, introducing
a renormalization of the nuclear moment of inertia~\cite{minkov06},
has been used to describe the lowest quadrupole and octupole
bands of the $N=90$ isotones $^{150}$Nd,  $^{152}$Sm, $^{154}$Gd and
$^{156}$Dy. A discussion of the octupole bands of $^{150}$Nd and
$^{152}$Sm is also contained in the
Ref.s~\cite{bizzetirila,bizzetipredeal}. Finally,
an extension of the Extended Coherent State model~\cite{raduta03} has
been developed by
A.A. Raduta and coworkers~\cite{raduta06b,raduta06c,radutapredeal},
to include in the model space also the lowest $K^\pi=1^+$ and $1^-$ bands,
and the model predictions have been compared with the experimental
data for several nuclei of the  regions of the  actinides and of
the rare-earths.

\section{\label{S:2}Phase transitions in the R\lowercase{a} --
T\lowercase{h} region}

We summarize here the existing evidence for the evolution of
nuclear shapes for Radium and Thorium isotopes in the transitional
region $N=130 - 140$.

The Fig.~\ref{F:1}, taken from I, shows the behavior of some
indicators of quadrupole and octupole collectivity, as a
function of the neutron number $N$, in the isotopic chain of
Ra and Th. It has been noted in I that $^{226}$Th appears to
be close to the critical point in the octupole deformation,
while it possesses a stable quadrupole deformation $\beta_2$.
At larger values of $N$, Th isotopes maintain a stable quadrupole
deformation, while the octupole mode evolves towards
the vibrational behavior, as indicated by the large excitation
energies of all negative--parity
levels. At $N=130$ or less, the quadrupole mode has
a vibrational (or non collective) character.
It turns out, therefore, that the octupole phase transition
 proceeds in the direction opposite to the one of quadrupole.
We also observe that the phase transition only involves the
axial octupole mode.
In fact, the energy of the $J^\pi=1^-$ band
head of the $K^\pi=0^-$ octupole band shows a sharp decrease, both in
its absolute value and in the ratio to the $E(2^+)$, when the neutron
number decreases below $N=142$. Other octupole bands (with $K>0$) do
not show a similar trend (fig.~\ref{F:1}$(c)$), and one can conclude
that non-axial octupole excitations maintain a vibrational character.
 A similar trend is apparent also for Ra isotopes.

In order to describe Th and Ra isotopes with $A < 226$, we must
allow also $\beta_2$ to vary and perform (non necessarily harmonic)
oscillations. If we consider the value
$E(4^+)/E(2^+)=2.91$ as a signature of the critical point with
respect to the quadrupole deformation, this would correspond
approximately to $^{224}$Ra and $^{224}$Th.

\noindent
\begin{figure}[!th]
\includegraphics[height=8.cm,clip,angle=90,bb=79 20 517 750]
{biz_f1.ps}
\caption{\label{F:1} (Color online) Indicators of the quadrupole
collectivity (left)
and of the octupole collectivity (right), as a function of the neutron
number $N$ in the isotopic chain of Ra (circles) and Th (triangles):
$(a)$ - Excitation energy of the first $2^+$ level; $(b)$ - Energy ratio
$E(4^+)/E(2^+)$; $(c)$ - Excitation energy of the first level of the
$K^\pi=0^-$ band, $J_0^\pi=1^-$ (open symbols) and of the lowest known
level of other negative-parity bands, $J_0^\pi=2^-$ or $1^-_2$ (full
symbols); $(d)$ - Energy ratio $E(1^-)/E(2^+)$.
The horizontal line in the part $(b)$ shows the value (2.91)
expected for the X(5) symmetry (from ref.~\cite{bizzeti04}). }
\end{figure}

\section{The model for quadrupole -- octupole vibrations}
\subsection{\label{S:3a}Summary of the variable definitions}

The dynamical variables $a^{(\lambda )}_{\mu}$ ($\lambda=2,3;\ \mu
=-\lambda ... \lambda$), describing the quadrupole and octupole
deformation in the intrinsic reference frame, are parametrized as
\begin{eqnarray}
a^{(2)}_0 &=& \beta_2 \cos \gamma_2 \approx \beta_2 \nonumber\\*
a^{(2)}_1 &=& -  \frac{\sqrt{2}\ \beta_3}{\sqrt{\beta_2^2+2
\beta_3^2}}\ v\ (\sin \varphi + i \cos \varphi )\cr
a^{(2)}_2 &=& \sqrt{1/2}\ \beta_2\ \sin \gamma_2 - i
\frac{\sqrt{5}\ \beta_3}{\sqrt{\beta_2^2+2 \beta_3^2}}\ u \sin \chi  \cr
a^{(3)}_0 &=& \beta_3 \ \cos \gamma_3 \approx \beta_3\cr
a^{(3)}_1 &=&\frac{\sqrt{5}\ \beta_2}{\sqrt{\beta_2^2+2 \beta_3^2}}\ v
\  (\sin \varphi + i \sin \varphi ) \cr
a^{(3)}_2 &=& \sqrt{1/2}\ \beta_3\ \sin \gamma _3 +i
\frac{\beta_2}{\sqrt{\beta_2^2+2 \beta_3^2}}\  u \sin \chi \cr
a^{(3)}_3 &=& w \sin \vartheta \left[ \cos \gamma_3 +
(\sqrt{15}/2)\ \sin \gamma_3 \right]\cr
  &+& i\ w \cos \vartheta \left[ \cos \gamma_3 -
(\sqrt{15}/2)\ \sin \gamma_3 \right] \cr
&\approx& w\ (\sin \vartheta +i \cos \vartheta )
\label{E:2.2}
\end{eqnarray}
With this choice, valid in situations close to the axial symmetry,
the tensor of inertia turns out to be diagonal {\em up to the first order}
in the {\em small} quantities describing the non-axial deformations.

In the Eq.s~\ref{E:2.2} the variables $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ are still
employed, in order to keep some transparency with respect to the standard
expressions used to describe the quadrupole~\cite{bohr52}
 or the octupole deformation alone~\cite{wexler99}.
However, it is more convenient to substitute
them with expressions involving the variables $u, \chi$ and
a new variable $u_0$:
neglecting second-order and higher-order terms,
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_2 &=& \frac{\sqrt{10}\beta_3}{\beta_2
\sqrt{\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2}} u \cos \chi
+\frac{f(\beta_2,\beta_3)}{\sqrt{\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2}} u_0 \\*
\gamma_3&=&-\frac{\sqrt{2}\beta_2}{\beta_3
\sqrt{\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2}} u \cos \chi
+\frac{\sqrt{5} f(\beta_2,\beta_3)}{\sqrt{\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2}} u_0 \nonumber
\label{E:2.3}
\end{eqnarray}
It is possible to show that a definite value of the angular-momentum
component $K$ along the
intrinsic axis 3 and a definite parity
can be associated to the degrees of freedom corresponding to
the variables $v, \chi$ (or $u, \varphi$ or $w, \vartheta$ or $u_0$):
 $K^\pi=1^-$ (or $2^-$ or $3^-$ or $2^+$, respectively).
This result is independent of the form of the function
$f(\beta_2, \beta_3)$ of Eq.~\ref{E:2.3} (which, actually, was left
undetermined in I).

\subsection{The kinetic energy operator}
The classical expression of the kinetic energy has the form
\begin{equation}
T=\frac{1}{2}\sum \mathcal{G}_{\mu \nu}\dot{\xi}_\mu\dot{\xi}_nu
\label{E:2.6}
\end{equation}
where $\dot{\xi}\equiv (\dot{\beta}_2,\dot{\beta_3},\dot{u_0},
 \dot{v},\dot{\chi},\dot{u},\dot{\varphi},\dot{w},\dot{\vartheta},
q_1,q_2,q_3)$ and $q_1$, $q_2$, $q_3$
are the components of the angular velocity
along the three axes of the intrinsic reference frame.  As in I, we
adopt here the convention of including the inertial coefficient
$B_\lambda$ in our amplitudes $a^{(\lambda)}_\mu$, that therefore
would correspond to $\sqrt{B_\lambda}a^{(\lambda)}_\mu$ in the usual
notations of Bohr.
\begin{table}[bt]
\caption{\label{T:1}  The  matrix of inertia $\mathcal{ G}$
after the introduction of the variables
$u_0$, $v$, $u$,
$w$,  $\varphi$,  $\chi$, and $\vartheta$ (see text).
Here, $\mathcal{ J}_1 = \mathcal{ J}_2 = 3(\beta_2^2 + 2\beta_3^2)$, and
$\mathcal{ J}_3 = 4 f^2(\beta_2,\beta_3)
\ u_0^2 +
2v^2 + 8u^2 + 18w^2$.
Only the leading terms are shown. Neglected terms are small of the
first order (or smaller) in the sub-matrix involving only
 $\dot{\beta_2}$, $\dot{\beta_3}$, $\dot{u_0}$,
$\dot{v}$, $\dot{u}$, $\dot{w}$,
 $q_1$ and $q_2$; of the third order (or smaller) in the sub-matrix
involving only
$\dot{\varphi} $, $\dot{\chi}$,  $\dot{\vartheta}$ and $q_3$;
of the second order (or smaller) in the rest of the matrix.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccccccc|ccc}
& $\dot{\beta_2}$ & $\dot{\beta_3}$ & $\dot{u_0}$ &
$\dot{v}$ & $\dot{u}$ & $\dot{w}$
& $\dot{\varphi} $ & $\dot{\chi}$ &  $\dot{\vartheta}$ & $q_1$
& $q_2$  & $q_3$\\
\hline
$\dot{\beta_2}$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\dot{\beta}_3$ & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\dot{u_0}$ & 0 & 0 & $f^2(\beta_2,\beta_3)$
 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\dot{v}$    & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\dot{u}$   & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\dot{w}$       & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\dot{\varphi}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $2v ^2$   & 0 & 0
                                           & 0 & 0 &  $2v ^2$ \\
$\dot{\chi}$    & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $2u^2$ & 0
                                    & 0 & 0 &  $4u^2$ \\
$\dot{\vartheta}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $2 w^2$
                                           & 0 & 0 & $6 w^2$ \\
\hline
$q_1$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\mathcal{ J}_1$ & 0 & 0 \\
$q_2$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\mathcal{ J}_2$ & 0 \\
$q_3$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $2v^2$ & $4u^2$ & $6w^2$
                                          & 0 & 0 & $\mathcal{ J}_3$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
The matrix
elements of $\mathcal{G}$, approximated to the most relevant order,
are shown in the Table~\ref{T:1}.
The determinant of this matrix turns out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
G &\propto & (\beta_2^2 + 2 \beta_3^2)^2\ f^4(\beta_2, \beta_3)
\ u_0^2 \ v^2 u^2 w^2\nonumber \\[2pt]
&\equiv & G_0(\beta_2,\beta_3)\ u_0^2 \ v^2 u^2 w^2 .
\label{E:2.7}
\end{eqnarray}
The Pauli recipe for the quantization of the classical kinetic energy
gives the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\mu \nu} \frac{1}{g}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_\mu} \left[ g
\!\left( \mathcal{G}^{-1} \right) _{\mu \nu}
\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \xi_\nu }
\right]+ \frac{2}{\hbar^2} \left[ E\!-\!V(\xi ) \right] \Psi\! =\!0
\label{E:a1.2}
\end{equation}
where $g^2=G={\rm Det}\ \mathcal{G}$ and $\xi$ stays for the ensemble of
the variables $\xi_\kappa$.

To  our present purpose, this general treatment must be
specialized, ({\it e.g.} with a proper choice of the arbitrary
function $f(\beta_2,\beta_3)$ in the Eq.s~\ref{E:2.3}),
keeping in mind a necessary condition:  the
Schr\"odinger equation for the quadrupole amplitude, when the octupole
amplitude is constrained to small values by a proper restoring
potential, must converge to that of Bohr and therefore, at
the critical--point, to that of the X(5)
model\footnote{This choice is
different from the one adopted in I to describe the critical point in
the octupole degree of freedom with a constant quadrupole deformation:
in such a case, in fact, the proper limit for small octupole
amplitudes does not correspond to the X(5) but to the
Frankfurt model ~\cite{eisen1}, valid for small--amplitude octupole
vibrations of a well deformed nucleus.}.
As we shall see in the Section~\ref{S:4.1}, this result is obtained
with the choice
\begin{equation}
f(\beta_2,
\beta_3)=\sqrt{\frac{(\beta_2^2+\beta_3^2)(\beta_2^2+2\beta_3^2)}
{\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2}}\ ,
\label{E:2.4}
\end{equation}
from which one obtains
\begin{equation}
G_0(\beta_2,\beta_3)=
\frac{(\beta_2^2+\beta_3^2)^2(\beta_2^2+2\beta_3^2)^4}
{(\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2)^2}\ ,
\label{E:2.4b}
\end{equation}
\subsection{The critical potential in two dimensions}
Possible landscapes of axial quadrupole--octupole deformation in the
Thorium region are exemplified in Fig.~\ref{F:2}, where the
potential energy is depicted as a function of the deformation
parameters $\beta_2$ and $\beta_3$.  Reported values have been
obtained by Nazarewicz {\it et al.}~\cite{nazarew85} with a
Wood--Saxon--Bogolyubov cranking calculation. We notice
that fig~\ref{F:2}$(e)$ shows a potential minimum which is localized
around a fixed value in the  $\beta_2$ direction, while a flat minimum
extends over a sizable interval in the direction $\beta_3$. This is
just the ``critical'' potential for the shape transition between
octupole oscillation and permanent octupole deformation (combined with
a fixed quadrupole deformation), corresponding to the
fig.s~\ref{F:2}$(d)$ and \ref{F:2}$(f)$, respectively.
The fig.s~\ref{F:2}$(a), \ref{F:2}(b)$ and \ref{F:2}$(c)$,
instead, show a different
kind of shape transition, proceeding directly from a fixed,
reflection--asymmetric deformation (fig.\ref{F:2}$(c)$) to
quadrupole--octupole vibrations around a spherical shape
(fig.\ref{F:2}$(a)$).
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip,bb=14 450 537 728]
{biz_f2.ps}
\caption{(color on line) Potential--energy surfaces in the
$\beta_2$ -- $\beta_3$
plane for several Th isotopes, as given by Nazarewicz
{\it et al.}~\cite{nazarew85}.}
\label{F:2}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
The potential corresponding to the critical point is not shown.
It should be somewhere between fig.~\ref{F:2}$(a)$ and
fig.~\ref{F:2}$(b)$.
 One can try to approximate the critical
potential, as usual, with a square well,
but now the flat bottom of the well should extend
over a finite distance in $\beta_2$ and $\beta_3$,
and be symmetric in $\beta_3 $ around $\beta_3=0$.
The shape of the borders is obviously relevant to the result.
One could imagine shapes like those shown in fig.~\ref{F:3} with
dashed or dotted lines, but their description would involve at least
two or three free parameters, and the comparison with experimental
data could be not very significant. We have found, however, that
good results are obtained also
 with a simple rectangular shape
(solid line in fig.~\ref{F:3}), implying only one free parameter,
$b=\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w$ (apart from a common factor of scale).
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=5.9cm,clip,angle=90,bb=205 485 425 815]
{biz_f3.ps}
\caption{(color on line) Possible shapes for a potential well
simulating the critical--point potential. The potential--energy
surface of fig.~\ref{F:2}$(b)$ is also shown for comparison.}
\label{F:3}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{\label{S:4}Results and comparison with experimental data}
\subsection{\label{S:4.1} The Energy eigenvalues}
\noindent

Now, as a first step, we can evaluate, as a function of $b$, the
level energies in the ground--state band and deduce the best value
of the parameter from a comparison
with experimental results (fig.~\ref{F:5}).
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=\linewidth,angle=90,clip,bb=260 100 485 835]
{biz_f4.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Experimental excitation energies of the
positive
parity levels (circles) and of the negative parity ones (triangles),
in units of $E(2^+)$,
for $^{224,226}$Ra and $^{224}$Th, compared with the results of the
present model (full line) with the following values of the parameter
$b=\beta_3^\text{w}/\beta_2^\text{w}$: 0.81
 for $^{224}$Ra, 0.68 for  $^{226}$Ra, and 0.85
for  $^{224}$Th.
The predictions of the X(5) model (dotted lines) and for a rigid
reflection-asymmetric rotor (dashed-dotted)
are also shown for comparison.}
\label{F:5}
\end{figure*}
To proceed, we must do some assumptions on the behavior of axial
and non axial modes of deformation. We will assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item Our choice of variables corresponds to independent degrees of
freedom.
\item Non-axial vibrations are confined to their lowest stationary
state.
\item An approximation similar to that of the X(5) model is valid for
the differential equations of all non-axial amplitudes: {\sl i.e.},
the differential equation in $\beta_2,\ \beta_3$ can be approximately
decoupled from those concerning the other degrees of freedom.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, the complete wavefunction $\Psi$ of Eq.~\ref{E:5.0}
can be factorized in three parts, as in Eq. 30 of I:
\begin{equation}
\Psi=\Psi_0(\beta_2,\beta_3)\  \Psi_1\ Y_{JM}(\hat{\Omega})
\label{E:5.0}
\end{equation}
where the function $\Psi_1$ depends on the deformation variables
 different from $\beta_2,\ \beta_3$.

From the Eq.~\ref{E:2.7} we know that also the determinant $G$
is factorized in the same way.
Then, the differential equation for $\beta_2 ,\ \beta_3$ takes the
form\\[1mm]
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace*{-4mm}
\left\{ G_0^{-1/2}\!\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial
\beta_2}\!\left( G_0^{1/2}
\!\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta_2 }\right)\!+\!
\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta_3}\!\left( G_0^{1/2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta_3 }\right) \right] \right. \ \\
&&\hspace*{-4mm}\left. +\ \epsilon - V(\beta_2,
\beta_3) - \frac{J(J+1)}{3(\beta_2^2+2\beta_3^2)}
\right\} \Psi (\beta_2, \beta_3) = 0 \nonumber
\label{E:5.1}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation can be somewhat simplified with the substitution
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi_0(\beta_2,\beta_3) = g^{-1/2}\ \Phi (\beta_2,\beta_3)
\label{E:5.2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g\propto G_0^{1/2}$, to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg\{
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \beta_2^2}
\!&\!+\!&\!\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \beta_3^2}
+ \epsilon - V(\beta_2,\beta_3)-\frac{J(J+1)}{3(\beta_2^2+2\beta_3^2)}
\nonumber \\
&\!+\!&\! {V_\text{g}(\beta_2,\beta_3)} \bigg\}\ \Phi (\beta_2,\beta_3) =0
\label{E:5.3}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
V_\text{g}\!=\!\frac{1}{4g^2}  \bigg[ \left( \frac{\partial g
}{\partial \beta_2} \right) ^2\!+
\!\left( \frac{\partial g}{\partial \beta_3} \right) ^2 \bigg]
\!- \frac{1}{2g} \bigg[ \frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial \beta_2^2}
\!+\!\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial \beta_3^2} \bigg]
\label{E:5.4}
\end{eqnarray}

With the choice of $f(\beta_2, \beta_3)$ given in the Eq.~\ref{E:2.4},
from Eq.~\ref{E:2.4b} one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
g\propto \frac{(\beta_2^2\!+\beta_3^2)(\beta_2^2\!+\!2
\beta_3^2)^2}{(\beta_2^2+5\beta_3^2)} .
\label{E:5.5}
\end{eqnarray}
and, for  $|\beta_3| \ll \beta_2$,
$ g \propto \beta_2^4 \big[
1\!+\!4(\beta_3/\beta_2)^4\!+...\big] $.
Therefore, the first and second derivative of $g$ with respect to
$\beta_3$ tend to zero when $|\beta_3| \ll \beta_2$
and, at the limit  $\beta_3\rightarrow 0$, ${V_\text{g} = -2}$ as in the
original Bohr model.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[height=7.5cm,angle=90,clip,bb=0 45 510 790]
{biz_f5.ps}
\caption{\label{F:3.1} (Color online) Calculated energies of
excited levels of the ground and first excited band, in units of
$E(2^+_1)$, as a function of the ratio $b=\beta_3^w / \beta_2^w$.
}
\end{figure}
With the substitution $\Psi_0 =g^{-1/2}\Phi$, and assuming
$V(\beta_2,\beta_3)=0$ inside the potential well and $=+\infty$
outside, the differential
equation to be solved takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
\beta_2^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \beta_3^2}+\epsilon
+V_\text{g}(\beta_2,\beta_3) \right] \Phi (\beta_2,\beta_3) = 0
\label{E:5:6}
\end{eqnarray}
with $V_\text{g}$ given in the Eq.~\ref{E:5.4}
and $\Phi=0$ on the contour of the potential well.
The numerical integration has been performed with the finite
difference method.
Namely, the space is discretized on a rectangular
lattice and values of $\Phi$ at the lattice centers are taken as
independent variables.
In the place of second derivatives, the ratios
of finite differences are  used: {\it e.g.},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \beta_2^2}
\right)_{x,y}
& \Rightarrow &
\frac{\Phi(x+\Delta_x,y)-2\ \Phi(x,y)
+\Phi(x-\Delta_x,y)}{ \Delta_x^2}
\label{E:2.42}
\end{eqnarray*}
As
$\Phi(\beta_2,\beta_3)=(-1)^J
\Phi(\beta_2,-\beta_3)$,
 it is enough to consider only
the region $\beta_3 >0$.
The lattice centers are chosen as
$\beta_2=k_2 \Delta_x,
\phantom{m}
\beta_3=(k_3-1/2) \Delta_y$
with $k_2=1...n_2$,  $k_3=1...n_3$, and
$\Delta_x=\beta_2^w / (n_2+1)$, $\Delta_y=2\beta_3^w / (2n_3+1)$.
The integration region is the upper rectangle with
$0<\beta_2<\beta_2^w$, $0<\beta_3<\beta_3^w$. At the upper and lateral
borders of the rectangle, the value of the eigenfunction must be zero.

The boundary conditions at $\beta_3=0$ are not specified, but to
evaluate the approximate derivatives with respect to $\beta_3$ it
is enough to consider the value of $\Phi$ at the line of centers
immediately below zero, where they are either equal or opposite to the
corresponding ones at $\beta_3=\Delta_y/2$ according to the even or
odd value of $J$.

The number of centers internal to the integration region -- and
therefore the number of independent values of $\Phi$
-- is now $N=n_2 \cdot n_3$,
and we obtain a finite dimensional $N\times N$ Hamiltonian matrix.
This Hamiltonian has been diagonalized with the Implicitly Restarted
Arnoldi -- Lanczos method, using the ARPACK package~\cite{arpack}.

In the fig.~\ref{F:3.1}, calculated values of the excitation energies
(in units of $E(2^+_1$)\ ) are depicted as a function of the ratio
$b=\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w$. At the limit for $\beta_3^w\rightarrow 0$,
the curves corresponding to even $J$ and $\pi$
tend to the X(5) values, as expected. With increasing $b$,
at the beginning these curves deviate substantially from the X(5)
limit, but they come closer to the initial values for $b\approx 1$.
In this region it is possible to find a good fit of the ground--state
band of $^{224}$Ra and of $^{224}$Th, for $b=0.81$ and  for $b=0.85$,
respectively (Fig.~\ref{F:5}).

Moreover, a rather good fit of the ground--state band of $^{226}$Ra
is obtained with $b=0.68$, {\it i.e.} close to the maximum of the curves
for even parity and spin.

We can observe that, with our choice of the parameter $b$, the
calculated $1^-$ level is always somewhat lower than the experimental
one (Fig.~\ref{F:5}).
This fact can be related to the inclusion, in the potential well, of
a region where $\beta_3$ remains large while $\beta_2$ tends to zero.
Actually, the wavefunction of the first $1^-$ level extends appreciably
in this region, at variance with other levels of the ground-state band.

It would be of great interest, of course, to extend the comparison to
the lowest excited band with $K=0$
(the $s=2$ band in the X(5) model notations).
Unfortunately, in $^{224}$Th no excited $0^+$ level is known.
The non--yrast level schemes of $^{224,226}$Ra will be discussed in
the following Section~\ref{S:4.2}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[height=7.5cm,angle=90,clip,bb=15 80 400 762]
{biz_f6a.ps}
}
\hspace{5mm}
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[height=7.5cm,angle=90,clip,bb=45 80 430 762]
{biz_f6b.ps}}
\caption{\label{F:7} (Color online)
Absolute values of the ratios of reduced matrix elements of the
electromagnetic transition operators, $R($E$L,J_i)=
\mathcal{M}($E$L,J_i\rightarrow J_f))/\ \mathcal{M}($E$L,L\rightarrow 0)$,
with $J_f=J_i-L$, as a function of the parameter $b=\beta_3^w/ \beta_2^w$.
Part $(a)$: E2 transitions; solid lines: even $J_i^+ \rightarrow J_f^+$,
starting with $2^+\rightarrow 0^+$ (from the bottom);
dashed lines: odd $J_i^- \rightarrow J_f^-$,
starting with $3^-\rightarrow 1^-$.
Part $b$: E1 transitions; solid lines: odd $J_i^- \rightarrow J_f^+$,
starting with $1^-\rightarrow 0^+$ (from the bottom);
dashed lines: even $J_i^+ \rightarrow J_f^-$,
starting with $2^+\rightarrow 1^-$.
The vertical lines correspond to the adopted values of the parameter
for $^{226}$Ra, $^{224}$Ra and $^{224}$Th ($b=0.68,\ 0.81$ and $0.85$,
respectively).
}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=11.cm,clip,bb=206 440 432 763]
{biz_f7.ps}
\caption{\label{F:Th} (Color online) Level scheme of $^{224}$Th, compared
with the model predictions for $b=0.85$. Calculated and
experimental branching ratios are reported for each level.
Experimental data are taken from
the NNDC tabulation~\cite{nndc}.
Experimental branching ratios from
the $7^-$ and $9^-$ levels are not known.
Theoretical values of the level energies (in keV) are normalized to that
of the $2^+_1$ level; those of the branching ratios
are deduced from the matrix elements of Table~\ref{T:30}
with the experimental values of the transition energies.
Calculated branches lower than 1\% are not shown.
}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Electromagnetic transition probabilities}
Another important test for the model is provided by the E2 transition
probabilities. The available experimental information on $B$(E2)
values is scarce (only two transitions in $^{224}$Ra and $^{226}$Ra,
one in $^{224}$Th), but we hope our work can stimulate interest for new
experimental investigations.
The reduced matrix element of
the quadrupole transition operator ${\cal M}$(E2)
between the states $|s,K=0,J \big>$ and $|s^\prime,K=0,J^\prime \big>$
can be evaluated as
\begin{equation}
\big( s J |\!|{\cal M}{\rm(E2)} |\!|s^\prime  J^\prime \big) = C_2
\big< s J | \beta_2 | s^\prime J^\prime \big> \ (J |\!| Y_2 |\!|
J^\prime \big)\ ,
\label{E:14b}
\end{equation}
with $\big< s, J | \beta_2  |s^\prime ,  J^\prime \big> =
\int \Psi_{ s J} \beta_2 \Psi_{s^\prime ,
J^\prime}\ {\rm d}\tau$ and $C_2$ constant.
The volume element ${\rm d}\tau$, in our non-cartesian coordinates, is
the product of the differentials of the coordinate variables
{\em multiplied by} $g=G^{1/2}$, with $G$ the determinant of the matrix of
inertia $\cal G$.
In our assumptions, the integrals over all variables apart from
$\beta_2$ ad $\beta_3$ are independent from one another and from the
integral over ${\rm d}\beta_2{\rm d} \beta_3$, and their result is $1$
(if the corresponding wavefunctions are properly normalized). As the
electric dipole and quadrupole operators do not contain derivatives,
we can exploit the substitution defined in Eq.~\ref{E:5.2} to express the
remaining integral as
\begin{equation}
\int\!\Psi_{ s J} \beta_2 \Psi_{s^\prime
J^\prime}\ {\rm d}\tau
= \int_0^{\beta_2^w}\!{\rm d}\beta_2
\!\int_{-\beta_3^w}^{\beta_3^w}\!{\rm d}\beta_3
\Phi_{sJ}\beta_2\Phi_{s^\prime J^\prime}\phantom{.}
\end{equation}
This integral has been evaluated numerically, for values of
$J \leq 18$, with  $J^\prime = J-2$ (and also with $J^\prime = J-1$).
The reduced matrix element over the angular coordinates has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace*{-6mm}\big( J ||Y_L || J^\prime \big) = \\
&&\hspace*{-6mm}\phantom{m}(-1)^J (4\pi )^{-1/2}
\sqrt{(2J\!+\!1) (2L\!+\!1) (2J^\prime\!+\!1)}
\left( \!\begin{array}{lcr} J&L&J^\prime \\ 0&0&0 \end{array}\!\right)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the reduced transition probabilities from $J$ to $J^\prime$
are obtained as \\
$B({\rm E2},s J\rightarrow s^\prime J^\prime)=(2J+1)^{-1}
\big( s J ||{\cal M}{\rm(E2)} | |s^\prime  J^\prime \big) ^2$.\\
The absolute values  of the ratios of E2 reduced matrix elements,
$R_J(E2)=(J|\!|\mathcal{M}(E2)|\!|J-2) /
(2^+|\!|\mathcal{M}(E2)|\!|0^+)$, for transitions
within the positive-- and the
negative--parity part of the ground--state band, are depicted, as a
function of $b=\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w$, in the fig.~\ref{F:7}$(a)$.
Their limit at $\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w\rightarrow 0$ corresponds, as
expected, to the X(5) value.

In addition to the in--band E2 transition, we have to consider
the E1 transitions between levels of opposite parity.
How to treat E1 transitions in the frame of
the geometrical model is a big problem, as all E1 transition moments
should vanish for a homogeneous fluid of constant charge density.
In this sense, E1 transitions are outside the Bohr geometrical model.
It is usual to assume a constant {\em electric polarizability}
of the nuclear matter\cite{bohr57,bohr58}
to obtain the E1 operator in the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}{\rm (E1)}= C_1 \beta_2 \beta_3 Y_1\ .
\label{E:15}
\end{equation}
 This {\em ansatz} should be validated by proper
microscopic calculations.

Actually, such a calculation has been performed by Tsvenkov {\it et
al.}~\cite{tsvenkov02} for a number of Radium, Thorium and Uranium
isotopes, in the frame of the Skirme--Hartree--Foch model.
The electric dipole moment turns out to be almost independent of the
angular frequency in a given isotope, but can change drastically
(even in the sign) along the isotopic chain.
The small value of the electric dipole
moments in $^{224}$Ra is correctly predicted by these calculations.

Values of the ratios of the E1 matrix elements,
$R_J(E1)=(J|\!|\mathcal{M}(E1)|\!|J-1) /
(1^-|\!|\mathcal{M}(E1)|\!|0^+)$,
 obtained with the standard form (Eq.~\ref{E:15}) of the
E1 operator, are shown in the fig.~\ref{F:7}$(b)$. They reach a
maximum for $\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w$ somewhat below 1, {\it i.e.} just in
a region including the values assumed for $^{224}$Ra and $^{224}$Th
(0.81 and 0.85, respectively).
The calculated values of $(J_i|\!|\mathcal{M}(EL)|\!|J_f)$
for E2 and E1 transitions in the ground state bands  of
$^{224}$Ra ($b=0.81$), $^{226}$Ra ($b=0.68$) and $^{224}$Th ($b=0.85$)
are given in the upper part of Table~\ref{T:30}.
Values for the corresponding
intra-band transitions are very similar in the three cases,
while the
difference can be larger for the weak inter-band  transitions,
as shown in the lower part of the Table.
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0pt}
\begin{table}[b]
\caption{\label{T:30} Calculated values of the
reduced matrix elements of E1 and E2 transitions in $^{224,226}$Ra
and $^{224}$Th, normalized to those of the lowest lying transition of
the same multipolarity.
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\large $ \big( J|\!| \mathcal{M}$(E1)$|\!|J^\prime
\big)$ }&&
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\large $ \big( J|\!| \mathcal{M}$(E2)$|\!|J^\prime
\big)$ }\cr
\cline{1-4}\cline{6-9}\\[-2.5mm]
Trans.&$^{224}$Ra&$^{226}$Ra&$^{224}$Th&&Trans.&$^{224}$Ra&$^{226}$Ra&%
$^{224}$Th\cr
\hline
$1^-\!\leftrightarrow\!0^+$&100&100&100&&$2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!0^+$&%
100&100&100\cr
$2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!1^-$&149&147&150&&$3^-\!\leftrightarrow\!1^-$&%
127&129&127\cr
$3^-\!\leftrightarrow\!2^+$&187&184&187&&$4^+\!\leftrightarrow\!2^+$&%
164&166&163\cr
$4^+\!\leftrightarrow\!3^-$&238&228&241&&$5^-\!\leftrightarrow\!3^-$&%
179&182&178\cr
$5^-\!\leftrightarrow\!4^+$&273&262&276&&$6^+\!\leftrightarrow\!4^+$&%
211&217&209\cr
$6^+\!\leftrightarrow\!5^-$&333&311&338&&$7^-\!\leftrightarrow\!5^-$&%
223&230&221\cr
$7^-\!\leftrightarrow\!6^+$&371&346&376&&$8^+\!\leftrightarrow\!6^+$&%
252&264&248\cr
$8^+\!\leftrightarrow\!7^-$&435&402&439&&$9^-\!\leftrightarrow\!7^-$&%
264&274&261\cr
$9^-\!\leftrightarrow\!8^+$&476&438&480&&$10^+\!\leftrightarrow\!8^+%
\phantom{1}$&289&304&284\cr
$10^+\!\leftrightarrow\!9^-\phantom{1}$&538&500&539&&$%
11^-\!\leftrightarrow\!9^-\phantom{1}$&303&315&299\cr
$11^-\!\leftrightarrow\!10^+$&582&538&582&&$12^+\!\leftrightarrow\!10^+%
$&325&342&320\cr
$12^+\!\leftrightarrow\!11^-$&640&604&635&&$13^-\!\leftrightarrow\!11^-%
$&340&354&336\cr
$13^-\!\leftrightarrow\!12^+$&685&644&680&&$14^+\!\leftrightarrow\!12^+%
$&360&377&354\cr
$14^+\!\leftrightarrow\!13^-$&738&709&730&&$15^-\!\leftrightarrow\!13^-%
$&376&390&371\cr
$15^-\!\leftrightarrow\!14^+$&783&750&775&&$16^+\!\leftrightarrow\!14^+%
$&393&411&388\cr
$16^+\!\leftrightarrow\!15^-$&833&812&822&&$17^-\!\leftrightarrow\!15^-%
$&410&424&405\cr
$17^-\!\leftrightarrow\!16^+$&878&854&867&&$18^+\!\leftrightarrow\!16^+%
$&426&443&421\cr
$18^+\!\leftrightarrow\!17^-$&925&912&912&&$19^-\!\leftrightarrow\!17^-%
$&442&457&437\cr
\hline
$0_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!1_1^-$&\ 84&\ 42&150&&$%
0_2^-\!\leftrightarrow\!2_1^+$&$\phantom{1.}$8&\ 24&$\phantom{1.}$6\cr
$1_2^-\!\leftrightarrow\!0_1^+$&\ 31&\ 31&\ 31&&$%
1_2^-\!\leftrightarrow\!1_1^-$&\ 38&\ 37&\ 38\cr
$1_2^-\!\leftrightarrow\!2_1^+$&\ 49&\ 50&\ 47&&$%
1_2^-\!\leftrightarrow\!3_1^-$&\ 42&\ 43&\ 43\cr
$1_2^-\!\leftrightarrow\!0_2^+$&\ 22&\ 63&\ 21&&$%
2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!0_1^+$&\ 15&\ 17&\ 16\cr
$2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!1_1^-$&113&\ 86&111&&$%
2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!2_1^+$&\ 18&\ 25&\ 17\cr
$2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!3_1^-$&143&103&142&&$%
2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!4_1^+$&$\phantom{1.}$8&\ 32&$\phantom{1.}$4\cr
$2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!1_2^-$&\ 33&\ 71&\ 34&&%
$2_2^+\!\leftrightarrow\!0_2^+$&\ 91&\ 82&\ 92\cr
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
}
\subsection{Comparison with experimental transition
probabilities}
{
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{T:e1} Experimental and calculated values of the ratios of
reduced amplitudes of two E1 or two E2 transitions.
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcccrrrrrrrrrrr}
&&&&\multicolumn{11}{c}{\large $(\ J_{\rm A}\ |\!|\mathcal{M}$(EL)$|\!|\ J_{\rm A}^\prime \ )$\ /
\ $(\ J_{\rm B}\ |\!|\mathcal{M}$(EL)$|\!|\ J_{\rm B}^\prime \ )$}\\[4pt]
\cline{6-15}\\[-4mm]
&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Transitions}&&
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\large $^{224}$Ra}&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\large $^{226}$Ra}&&
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\large $^{224}$Th}\cr
\cline{2-4}\cline{6-7}\cline{9-10}\cline{12-13}
\phantom{i}&$J_{\rm A}\rightarrow J_{\rm A}^\prime$ &
&$ J_{\rm B} \rightarrow J_{\rm B}^\prime$&&Experim.&Crit.&&Experim.&Crit.&&Experim.&Crit.&&Rot.\cr
\hline
E1&$1_1^-\!\rightarrow\!2_1^+$&&$1_1^-\!\rightarrow\!0_1^+$&&
$1.52\pm 0.14$ & 1.50&&$1.36\pm0.12$&1.47&&$1.49\pm0.26$&1.50&&1.42\cr
E1&$3_1^-\!\rightarrow\!4_1^+$&&$3_1^-\!\rightarrow\!2_1^+$&&
&&&$1.11\pm0.18$&1.24&&&&&1.15\cr
E2&$4_1^+\!\rightarrow\!2_1^+$&&$2_1^+\!\rightarrow\!0_1^+$&&
$1.60\pm 0.05$ & 1.63&&$\approx 1.76\phantom{22}$&1.66&&&&&1.60\cr
\hline
E2&$1_2^-\!\rightarrow\!3_1^-$&&$1_2^-\!\rightarrow\!1_1^-$&&
$0.71\pm 0.10$& 1.10&&&&&&&&--\ \cr
E1&$1_2^-\!\rightarrow\!2_1^+$&&$1_2^-\!\rightarrow\!0_1^+$&&
$1.49\pm 0.16$ & 1.57&&$1.24\pm0.09$&1.62&&&&&--\ \cr
E1&$2_2^+\!\rightarrow\!3_1^-$&&$2_2^+\!\rightarrow\!1_1^-$&&
&&&$1.29\pm0.08$&1.20&&&&&--\ \cr
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
}
{
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{T:3} Experimental and calculated values of the ratios of
reduced amplitudes of E1 and E2 transitions from the same level (in units
of their Weisskopf estimates). The columns of calculated values are
normalized to obtain the best fit to the experimental
values for the transitions within the ground--state band.
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcccrrrrrrrr}
&&&\multicolumn{9}{c}{\large $\big[ \big( \mathcal{M}$(E1)/$\mathcal{M}_W$(E1)$ \big)
/\big( \mathcal{M}$(E2)/$\mathcal{M}_W$(E2)$\big) \big] \times 10^3$}\\[4pt]
\cline{4-12}\\[-3mm]
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\large Transitions}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{\large $^{224}$Ra}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{\large $^{226}$Ra}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\large $^{224}$Th}\cr
\cline{1-3}\cline{4-6}\cline{7-9}\cline{10-12}
&E1&E2&Experim.&Crit.&Rot.&Experim.&Crit.&Rot.&Experim.&Crit.&Rot.\cr
\hline&$3_1^-\!\rightarrow\!2_1^+$& $3_1^-\!\rightarrow\!1_1^-$&
$0.69\pm 0.14\phantom{i}$& 0.55&0.57&\cr
&$5_1^-\!\rightarrow\!4_1^+$&$5_1^-\!\rightarrow\!3_1^-$&
$0.98\pm 0.26$\footnote{from NNDC~\cite{nndc} only. The $5^-\rightarrow 3^-$ (142 keV)
 $\gamma$ ray observed in the reaction data~\cite{cocks99} appears to be
contaminated by a close-lying transition from a different reaction, as it
results from the intensity mismatch in the
$5^-\rightarrow 3^-\rightarrow 2^+ (\rightarrow 1^-)$ cascade.}
& 0.63 &0.60&$1.36\pm 0.23$\footnote{from Ref~\cite{ackermann93}. Not included in the fit.}
&2.13 &2.42\cr
&$6_1^+\!\rightarrow\!5_1^-$&$6_1^+\!\rightarrow\!4_1^+$&
&&&&&&$7.98\pm 1.17$&7.18&8.21\cr
&$7_1^-\!\rightarrow\!6_1^+$& $7_1^-\!\rightarrow\!5_1^-$&
$0.56\pm 0.09
& 0.66&0.65 &$2.51\pm 0.15$&2.23 &2.56\cr
&$8_1^+\!\rightarrow\!7_1^-$ &$8_1^+\!\rightarrow\!6_1^+$&
$<1.22\phantom{9i}$&0.68&0.66 &&&
&$7.19\pm 0.72$& 7.86&8.50\cr
&$9_1^-\!\rightarrow\!8_1^+$&$9_1^-\!\rightarrow\!7_1^-$&
$<1.71\phantom{9i} $&0.71  &0.67 &$2.82\pm 0.34$&2.38&2.67\cr
&$10_1^+\!\rightarrow\!9_1^-\phantom{0}$&$10_1^+\!\rightarrow\!8_1^+\phantom{0}$
&&&&&&&$7.78\pm 0.43$& 8.41&8.67\cr
&$11_1^-\!\rightarrow\!10_1^+$ &$11_1^-\!\rightarrow\!9_1^-\phantom{0}$&&&&$2.76\pm 0.27$
&2.53&2.67 &$9.35\pm0.62$& 8.64&8.73\cr
&$12_1^+\!\rightarrow\!11_1^-$ &$12_1^+\!\rightarrow\!10_1^+$&&&&$2.85\pm 0.25$
&2.62&2.68 &$9.06\pm0.47$&8.83&8.78\cr
&$13_1^-\!\rightarrow\!12_1^+$ &$13_1^-\!\rightarrow\!11_1^-$&&&&$2.15\pm 0.29$
&2.70&2.70 &$8.45\pm0.42$ & 9.01&8.82\cr
&$14_1^+\!\rightarrow\!13_1^-$ &$14_1^+\!\rightarrow\!12_1^+$&&&&$2.58\pm 0.17$
&2.79&2.71 &$9.84\pm 0.51$&9.15&8.86\cr
&$15_1^-\!\rightarrow\!14_1^+$ &$15_1^-\!\rightarrow\!13_1^-$&&&&$2.53\pm 0.17$
&2.94&2.73 &$9.69\pm0.65$ & 9.29&8.89\cr
&$17_1^-\!\rightarrow\!16_1^+$ &$17_1^-\!\rightarrow\!15_1^-$&&&&$2.78\pm 0.43$
&2.98&2.74 &$10.47\pm 1.34$&9.52&8.92\cr
&$18_1^+\!\rightarrow\!17_1^-$&$18_1^+\!\rightarrow\!18_1^+$ &&&&$3.22\pm 0.21$
&3.05& 2.74\cr
\hline
&\multicolumn{4}{l}{$\chi^2\ / \ n\ (with\ n\ =\ 8)$}&&&2.13&1.34&&1.17&2.03\cr
&\multicolumn{4}{l}{$Confidence\ level\ (\%)$}&&&$<$5 &18&&31&$<$5\cr
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
}
The Table~\ref{T:e1} shows a few values of the ratio of reduced
matrix elements for transitions of the same multipolarity, that can
be deduced from the available experimental information.
In the same Table, the corresponding values calculated with the
present model are also shown (columns ``Crit.''), together
with the ones expected for a reflection-asymmetric rigid rotor
(``Rot.'').

The most direct check of the model predictions would come from the
ratios of B(E2) values in the ground--state band.
This is possible only in $^{224}$Ra, and
only for the decays of the lowest $2^+$ and $4^+$ levels.
With the experimental values reported in the NNDC
tabulation~\cite{nndc}, $B($E2$,2^+\rightarrow 0^+)=97\pm 3$~W.u.
and $B($E2$,4^+\rightarrow 2^+)=138\pm 8$~W.u.,
the experimental value of the ratio is $1.42\pm 0.09$, to be compared
with the value 1.41 that is obtained from the calculated matrix
elements of Tables~\ref{T:30} and~\ref{T:e1} (for $b=0.81$).
We remind that, in the X(5) model~\cite{iachello01}, this ratio would be 1.59.
For  $^{226}$Ra, the lifetime of the $4^+$ state is known, but for
the first excited state only an approximate value (without error
estimate) is reported. Also in this case, the deduced ratio is
consistent with the theoretical estimate (see Table~\ref{T:e1}).
These results is encouraging,
but would obviously need to be validate by a more extensive check,
involving higher--lying levels, which, at the moment, is not
possible.

A comparison of the two E1 transition from the lowest level $1^-$
to the
$0^+$ and to the $2^+$ states is possible for the three isotopes, as
well as for the E1 branches from the $3^-$ in $^{226}$Ra.
All these amplitude ratios for transitions within the ground--state band,
shown in the upper part of Table~\ref{T:e1}, are in very good agreement
with the calculated values.
However, they are not significantly different from those expected for a
rigid asymmetric rotor (as shown in the last column of Table~\ref{T:e1})
and also from those reported by Lenis and Bonatsos~\cite{lenis06} on the
basis of a rather different model.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.cm,clip,bb=20 320 592 815]
{biz_f8.ps}
\caption{\label{F:e1e2} (Color online) Ratios of the absolute value of
the transition matrix elements (normalized to the Weisskopf Unit)
for E1 and E2 transitions in the g.s bands of $^{224,226}$Ra and
$^{224}$Th, from $J_i$ to $J_i\!-\!1$ and $J_i\!-\!2$, respectively:
$R_J(E1/E2)=$
$(J_i|\!|[\mathcal{M}(E1)|\!|J_i\!-\!1)/\mathcal{M}_W(E1)]
/[(J_i|\!|\mathcal{M}(E2)|\!|J_i\!-\!2)/\mathcal{M}_W(E2)]$.
The dotted lines join the calculated values of the ratio (normalized to
obtain the best fit with the ensemble of experimental values).
The dashed lines join the values expected for a rigid rotor.
The corresponding values deduced from the parameter free
model of Ref.~\cite{lenis06} are (apart for a possible
staggering between even and odd $J_i$) almost identical to the
rotational ones for large values of $J_i$ ($J_i>7$) and, for decreasing
values of $J_i$, their trend reaches a minimum around $J_i=6$ and
then increases slightly at lower values of $J_i$.
}
\end{figure}
We note that, when the transitions to be compared have the
same multipolarity, the model predictions are parameter free, or --
more exactly -- only involve the model parameter $\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w$.

Instead, when the comparison concerns
the ratios of the reduced matrix elements for E1 and E2 transitions
deexciting the same level, the model predictions
include a further normalization factor (the ratio of constants $C_1$
and $C_2$ of Eq.s~\ref{E:14b},\ref{E:15})
which needs to be determined from the experimental data.
This comparison is therefore less direct, but it is perhaps
more significant, as we shall see in the following.

Results concerning the E1/E2 branches in the ground--state band are shown
in the Table~\ref{T:3} and also depicted in Fig.~\ref{F:e1e2}.
Experimental values of E1/E2 branching ratios in $^{224,226}$Ra and
$^{224}$Th include those given in the NNDC
tabulation~\cite{nndc,ackermann93} and later results
from Ref.~\cite{cocks99}. From these branching ratios we have deduced
the absolute ratios -- given in the ``Exp.'' columns of Table~\ref{T:3}
-- of the reduced matrix elements of  E1
and E2 transitions, each of which is expressed in units of the
corresponding Weisskopf estimate,
$\mathcal{M}_W(EL)=
(4\pi)^{-1/2}[3/(L+3)]\ (1.2 A^{1/3})^L$~e~fm$^L$.
In the same table are also shown the results of the model
calculation at the critical point (Crit.), which have been normalized to
obtain the best fit with  the experimental values within the
ground--state band of each nucleus.
Values expected for a rigid asymmetric rotor (Rot.), normalized in the
same way, are also shown.
The $^{226}$Ra point at $J_i=5$ which, according to the authors
themselves~\cite{ackermann93},
could be considered as a lower limit, has not been included in the fits.

For the ground--state band of $^{224}$Th (Fig.~\ref{F:Th},\ref{F:e1e2}),
we find a satisfactory agreement between
the experimental values and the model predictions. In this case we have
enough data to perform a $\chi^2$ test of goodness of fit, and we obtain
$\chi^2/N= 1.17$ with $N=8$ degrees of freedom, corresponding to
a confidence level of 31\%. A fit with the rigid--rotor values would give
a much larger value $\chi^2/N=2.03$, and a confidence level below 5\%.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=\linewidth,clip,angle=90,bb=98 7 475 800]
{biz_f9.ps}
\caption{\label{F:6} (Color online)
Partial level schemes of $^{224}$Ra and $^{226}$Ra, with the
experimentally observed $\gamma$ transitions, compared with the
results of model calculations (with
$b=0.81$ and $=0.68$, respectively). Theoretical level energies (in keV)
are normalized to that of the first excited level.
Experimental energies for the lower levels of $^{224}$Ra  are taken
from the NNDC tabulation~\cite{nndc}, those of the $10^+$, $12^+$
and higher levels are deduced from the $\gamma$--ray energies given
by Cocks {\it et al.}~\cite{cocks99}. For $^{226}$Ra, those of levels
up to $5^-$ are taken from NNDC or ref.~\cite{ackermann93},
those of higher levels from Cocks {\it et al.}\cite{cocks99}.
Gamma branches lower than 5\%
(or reported as upper limits) are shown
as dotted lines, those between 5\% and 25\% as dashed lines. Calculated
branches lower than 1\% are not shown.
For a comparison of experimental  E1/E2 branches with the model prediction
at the critical point, see Table~\ref{T:3} and Fig.~\ref{F:e1e2}.
}
\end{figure*}
Also for the ground--state band of $^{224}$Ra, the few available
experimental values (or limits) are not far from the results
of the model, but more experimental data would be necessary for a
significant comparison.
Actually, as it was soon recognized~\cite{marten90,butler91,egido91}
the E1 transitions in $^{224}$Ra
are rather weak compared to other nuclei in this region, and in
particular their strengths are two orders of magnitude smaller than
the corresponding ones in $^{224}$Th.

Instead, experimental values for $^{226}$Ra deviate significantly from
the model predictions and approach those expected for a rigid rotor.
This fact, combined with the slight upward deviation of level energies
from the calculated curve for $J>14$, suggests that the critical
point of the phase transition in the Ra isotopic chain can be situated
somewhere below $A=226$, and probably close to $A=224$.

\subsection{\label{S:4.2}The first excited $K=0$ band}

As anticipated in Section ~\ref{S:4.1}, no experimental information is
available for non yrast levels of $^{224}$Th.
For $^{224,226}$Ra isotopes, a few non-yrast
levels are known from $\beta^-$ decay of $^{224,226}$Fr, from $\alpha$
decay of $^{228,232}$Th or from the $^{226}$Ra(t,p) reaction.
Unique assignments of the spin and parity have been reported only for
part of them.
Some of these levels, which could be considered as members of the
excited  $K=0$ band (the $s=2$ band, in~the X(5) expression)
 are reported, together with those of the yrast
band, in Fig.~\ref{F:6}, where also the main decay branches are
indicated.
In the same figure, the model predicted levels, and their
expected $\gamma$ branches, are also shown.

We can immediately observe that non yrast levels predicted by the model
are always lower than the experimental ones (but a comparably large
discrepancy is observed also in the $s=2$ band of X(5)
nuclei~\cite{casten01,kruecken02,tonev04}).
In the lower part of Table~\ref{T:e1},
the calculated amplitude ratios for transitions from the excited $K=0$
band are compared with the corresponding experimental ones, if the levels
$0^+_2$ and $1^-_2$  shown in the Fig.~\ref{F:6} are interpreted as
belonging to it.
Only the ratio of the two E1 transitions from the $1^-_2$ level of
$^{224}$Ra and from the $2^+_2$ level of $^{226}$Ra are well consistent
with the calculated value, while the corresponding ratios for the two
E1 transitions from the $1^-_2$  level of $^{224}$Ra and
for the two E2 transitions from the $1^-_2$ level of $^{224}$Ra
seem to be significantly different
from the model predictions  (although the latter is subject to
a large uncertainty, due to the presence of a competing M1 component
in the $1^-_2\rightarrow 1_1^-$ transition).

As for the E1/E2 ratios for inter-band transitions, it is not obvious
that the value of the parameter $C_1/C_2$ ought to be the same as for
transitions within the ground--state band, but if we assume to be so,
the E1/E2 ratios in the decay of the $1^-_2$ level of $^{226}$Ra
differ by a factor
of 2 from the calculated values: the ratios to the E2 amplitude
$1^-_2\rightarrow 3^-_1$, with the normalization used in the the
Table~\ref{T:3},
are $(0.75\pm0.7)10^{-3}$ for the $1^-_2\rightarrow 0^+_1$ E1 transition
and $(1.05\pm 0.07)10^{-3}$ for the $1^-_2\rightarrow 2^+_1$, to be
compared with the theoretical values $0.29\cdot  10^{-3}$ and
$0.46\cdot 10^{-3}$, respectively.

Therefore, if the first two levels of the excited $s=2$ band
are tentatively identified with the $0^+_2$
and $1^-_2$ levels of $^{224}$Ra, their properties
are not so well accounted for. For this fact, one can
hypothesize different explanations.
First, we remark that the identification of these levels
as members of the $\beta$ band can be put in discussion.
Actually, the $0_2^+$ level could result from other
(collective or non collective) modes of excitation,
as, {\it e.g.}, pairing vibration~\cite{friedman74,vanrij72},
while the $1^-_2$ could correspond to (or be mixed with) the band head of
the $K^\pi=1^-$ band. Otherwise, the observed
disagreement could indicate that our model is unable to
correctly predict states outside the ground--state band,
in particular if they are not far from
levels of the non axial modes having the same $J^\pi$.
The simultaneous investigation of axial and non axial modes,
as it has been performed, via the Extended Coherent State
model, in the ref.s~\cite{raduta03,raduta06b,raduta06c,radutapredeal},
is outside our present possibilities.
\section{Conclusions}
An extension of Iachello's X(5) model to
the axial quadrupole + octupole deformation has been developed
with the formalism introduced in our previous paper I~\cite{bizzeti04}.
Assuming that both $\beta_2$ and $\beta_3$ can
vary within a two--dimensional well with rectangular
borders, and with a proper determination of a free
function of the model, the results are found to converge to those
of X(5) when the interval available for $\beta_3$ tends to zero.
The formalism is therefore suitable to describe the
critical point of phase transitions involving at the same
time the axial quadrupole and octupole deformation.

As anticipated in I, the principal aim of this
second part of our work
was the description of the transitional nuclei
$^{224}$Ra and $^{224}$Th, which were proposed
to be close to such a critical point.

Actually, in spite of the admittedly crude schematization of the
bidimensional potential, the relative values of the
excitation energies of levels
(of positive and negative parity) in the ground--state
bands of both $^{224}$Ra and $^{224}$Th
are satisfactorily reproduced by adjusting the only
available parameter (the aspect ratio $b=\beta_3^w/\beta_2^w$
of the potential well). A good agreement is obtained with $b=0.81$
for $^{224}$Ra and with $b=0.85$ for $^{224}$Th.
Moreover, a good agreement is also obtained for the first part of
the ground--state band of $^{226}$Ra with a lower value of the parameter,
$b=0.68$: only above $J=14$ the experimental points deviate slightly from
the calculated values, in the direction of the rigid--rotor curve
(Fig.~\ref{F:5}).

The (few) known ratios of transition strengths in the ground state band,
for electromagnetic
transition of equal multipolarity (either E2 or E1)
are in agreement with the model predictions.
Unfortunately, only in a few cases the ratio of the
reduced strengths for transitions of equal multipolarity
can be deduced from the experimental data (see Table~\ref{T:e1})
and in these cases the values expected at the critical point
are not very different from those of the rotational model.

In some more cases, the relative strength of two
transitions of different multipolarity (E1 and E2),
coming from the same level, can be deduced from the measured
branching ratio. The comparison with the model requires in
this case one more parameter, which has been determined
by a best--fit procedure (see Table~\ref{T:3} and Fig.~\ref{F:e1e2}).
But, in this case, the expected trend at the critical--point is
significantly different from that of a rigid rotator.

The calculated critical--point values of the ratios E1/E2
are in a rather good agreement with the experimental results
in the case of $^{224}$Th (Fig.~\ref{F:e1e2}),
while for $^{226}$Ra the
trend of empirical values is closer to the one expected
for a rigid rotor. For $^{224}$Ra, the E1
transitions are very weak and experimental data are too scarce to permit
a significant comparison with the model predictions.

New and more
extensive measurements of the transition strengths
either in $^{224}$Ra or $^{224}$Th would be highly
desirable, for a more significant test of the model.


\section{Introduction}

After over 20 years extensive studies, it has become clear that
superconductivity in doped cuprates results when charge carriers
pair up into Cooper pairs \cite{tsuei} as in the conventional
superconductors \cite{bcs}, then these charge carrier Cooper pairs
condensation reveals the superconducting (SC) ground-state. However,
as a natural consequence of the unconventional SC mechanism that is
responsible for the high SC transition temperatures \cite{anderson},
the charge carrier Cooper pairs in cuprate superconductors have a
dominated d-wave symmetry \cite{tsuei,shen}. In particular, this
d-wave SC state remains one of the cornerstones of our understanding
of the physics in cuprate superconductors. However, in spite of the
unconventional SC mechanism, the angle-resolved photoemission
spectroscopy (ARPES) experimental results have unambiguously
established the Bogoliubov-quasiparticle nature of the sharp SC
quasiparticle peak in cuprate superconductors
\cite{matsui,campuzano1}, then the SC coherence of the low energy
quasiparticle peak is well described by the simple
Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) formalism \cite{bcs} with the d-wave
SC gap function $\Delta({\bf k})=\Delta({\rm cos}k_{x}- {\rm
cos}k_{y})/2$. In this d-wave case, the characteristic feature is
the existence of four nodal points $[\pm\pi/2,\pm\pi/2]$ (in units
of inverse lattice constant) in the Brillouin zone
\cite{tsuei,shen}, where the SC gap function vanishes, then the most
physical properties of cuprate superconductors in the SC state are
controlled by the quasiparticle excitations around the nodes
\cite{turner}. In particular, the key signature of the nodal
quasiparticle transport appears in the microwave conductivity
$\sigma(\omega,T)$ \cite{turner}, which is essentially
electromagnetic absorption by the quasiparticles excited out of the
condensation (either thermally excited quasiparticles or excitations
created by the impurity scattering).

Understanding the role of impurities in cuprate superconductors has
taken many years of great effort \cite{palee,hirschfeld}. This
follows from that the physical properties of cuprate superconductors
in the SC state are extreme sensitivity to the impurity effect than
the conventional superconductors due to the finite angular-momentum
charge carrier Cooper pairing \cite{hirschfeld1}. Experimentally, By
virtue of systematic studies using the microwave conductivity
measurements, some essential features of the evolution of the
quasiparticle transport of cuprate superconductors with energy and
temperature in the SC state have been established
\cite{turner,bonn,lee,hosseini,harris}: (1) at low temperatures, the
experimental results show the existence of the very long-live
excitation deep in the SC state, as evidenced by the sharp cusplike
energy dependent microwave conductivity spectrum, where the width of
the sharp peak is nearly temperature independent, and main behaviors
of the microwave conductivity are governed by thermally excited
quasiparticles being scattered by impurities or other defects
\cite{turner,harris}; (2) at low energies, the temperature dependent
microwave conductivity increases linearly with increasing
temperatures at low temperatures, and reaches a maximum (a large
broad peak) around intermediate temperature, then decreases with
increasing temperatures at high temperatures
\cite{bonn,hosseini,harris}. In particular, this broad peak shifts
to higher temperatures as the energy is increased. Theoretically, an
agreement has emerged that the BCS formalism with the d-wave SC gap
function is useful in the phenomenological description of the
quasiparticle transport of cuprate superconductors in the SC state
\cite{palee,hirschfeld,quinlan,hettler,durst,duffy,nunner}, although
the SC pairing mechanism is beyond the conventional electron-phonon
mechanism. In this case, the microwave conductivity of cuprate
superconductors has been phenomenologically discussed in the zero
temperature and energy by including the contributions of the vertex
corrections \cite{durst}. Recently, these discussions have been
generalized to study the temperature and energy dependence of the
quasiparticle transport of cuprate superconductors in the SC state
\cite{nunner}. To the best of our knowledge, the microwave
conductivity of cuprate superconductors has not been treated
starting from a microscopic SC theory, and no explicit calculations
of the doping dependence of the microwave conductivity has been made
so far.

In this paper, we start from the kinetic energy driven SC mechanism
\cite{feng1}, and study the effect of the extended impurity
scatterers on the microwave conductivity of cuprate superconductors.
We evaluate explicitly the microwave conductivity of cuprate
superconductors within the nodal approximation of the quasiparticle
excitations and scattering processes, and qualitatively reproduced
some main features of the microwave conductivity measurements on
cuprate superconductors in the SC state
\cite{turner,bonn,lee,hosseini,harris}. It is shown that there is a
cusplike shape of the energy dependent microwave conductivity
spectrum. At low temperatures, the microwave conductivity increases
linearly with increasing temperatures, and reaches a maximum at
intermediate temperature, then decreases with increasing
temperatures at high temperatures. In contrast with the dome shape
of the doping dependent SC gap parameter, the minimum microwave
conductivity occurs around the optimal doping, and then increases in
both underdoped and overdoped regimes.

This paper is organized as follows. We present the basic formalism
in Sec. II, and then discuss the energy, temperature, and doping
dependence of the quasiparticle transport of cuprate superconductors
in the SC state in Sec. III, where we show that the quasiparticle
transport of cuprate superconductors in the SC state can be
qualitatively understood within the framework of the kinetic energy
driven SC mechanism by considering the effect of the extended
impurity scatterers.  Finally, we give a summary in Sec. IV.

\section{Formalism}

In cuprate superconductors, the single common feature is the
presence of the two-dimensional CuO$_{2}$ plane, and it is believed
that the unconventional physical properties of cuprate
superconductors is closely related to the doped CuO$_{2}$ planes
\cite{shen,kastner}. It has been argued that the $t$-$J$ model on a
square lattice captures the essential physics of the doped CuO$_{2}$
plane \cite{anderson,shen},
\begin{equation}
H=-t\sum_{i\hat{\eta}\sigma}\hat{C}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}
\hat{C}_{i+\hat{\eta}\sigma}+\mu \sum_{i\sigma}
\hat{C}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}\hat{C}_{i\sigma}
+J\sum_{i\hat{\eta}}{\bf S}_{i} \cdot {\bf S}_{i+\hat{\eta}},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\eta}=\pm\hat{x},\pm\hat{y}$, ${\bf S}_{i}=
\hat{C}^{\dagger}_{i}{\vec\tau}\hat{C}_{i}/2$ is spin operator with
${\vec{\tau}}=(\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\tau_{3})$ as Pauli matrices, the
constrained electron operator $\hat{C}_{i\sigma}=C_{i\sigma}(1-
n_{i-\sigma})$ with $n_{i\sigma}=C^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}C_{i\sigma}$,
and $\mu$ is the chemical potential. In the constrained electron
operator, the operators $C^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}$ and $C_{i\sigma}$
are to be thought of as operating within the full Hilbert space,
while the constrained electron operator
$\hat{C}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}$ ($\hat{C}_{i\sigma}$) does not create
(destroy) any doubly occupied sites, and therefore represents
physical creation (annihilation) operator acting in the restricted
Hilbert space without double electron occupancy
\cite{rice,anderson1}. The strong electron correlation in the
$t$-$J$ model manifests itself by the restriction of the motions of
the electrons in the restricted Hilbert space without double
electron occupancy \cite{anderson}, which can be treated properly in
analytical calculations within the charge-spin separation (CSS)
fermion-spin theory \cite{feng2}, where the constrained electron
operators are decoupled as $\hat{C}_{i\uparrow}=
h^{\dagger}_{i\uparrow}S^{-}_{i}$ and $\hat{C}_{i\downarrow}=
h^{\dagger}_{i\downarrow} S^{+}_{i}$, with the spinful fermion
operator $h_{i\sigma}=e^{-i\Phi_{i\sigma}} h_{i}$ describes the
charge degree of freedom together with some effects of spin
configuration rearrangements due to the presence of the doped hole
itself (dressed holon), while the spin operator $S_{i}$ describes
the spin degree of freedom (spin), then the motions of electrons are
restricted in the restricted Hilbert space without double electron
occupancy in analytical calculations. In particular, it has been
shown that under the decoupling scheme, this CSS fermion-spin
representation is a natural representation of the constrained
electron defined in the restricted Hilbert space without double
electron occupancy \cite{feng3}. Moreover, these dressed holon and
spin are gauge invariant \cite{feng2}, and in this sense, they are
real and can be interpreted as the physical excitations
\cite{laughlin}. In this CSS fermion-spin representation, the
low-energy behavior of the $t$-$J$ model (1) can be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&t\sum_{i\hat{\eta}}(h^{\dagger}_{i+\hat{\eta}\uparrow}
h_{i\uparrow}S^{+}_{i}S^{-}_{i+\hat{\eta}}+
h^{\dagger}_{i+\hat{\eta}\downarrow}h_{i\downarrow}S^{-}_{i}
S^{+}_{i+\hat{\eta}})\nonumber \\
&-&\mu\sum_{i\sigma}h^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} h_{i\sigma}+J_{{\rm eff}}
\sum_{i\hat{\eta}}{\bf S}_{i}\cdot {\bf S}_{i+\hat{\eta}},
\end{eqnarray}
with $J_{{\rm eff}}=(1-\delta)^{2}J$, and $\delta=\langle
h^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}h_{i\sigma}\rangle=\langle h^{\dagger}_{i}
h_{i}\rangle$ is the hole doping concentration. As an important
consequence, the kinetic energy term in the $t$-$J$ model has been
transferred as the dressed holon-spin interaction, which reflects
that even the kinetic energy term in the $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian has
strong Coulombic contribution due to the restriction of the motions
of electrons in the restricted Hilbert space without double electron
occupancy.

Recently, we have developed a kinetic energy driven SC mechanism
\cite{feng1} based on the CSS fermion-spin theory \cite{feng2},
where the dressed holon-spin interaction from the kinetic energy
term in the $t$-$J$ model (2) induces the dressed holon pairing
state with the d-wave symmetry by exchanging spin excitations, then
the electron Cooper pairs originating from the dressed holon pairing
state are due to the charge-spin recombination, and their
condensation reveals the d-wave SC ground-state. Moreover, this
d-wave SC state is controlled by both SC gap function and
quasiparticle coherence, then the maximal SC transition temperature
occurs around the optimal doping, and decreases in both underdoped
and overdoped regimes. In particular, we have shown that this SC
state is the conventional BCS like with the d-wave symmetry
\cite{feng3,guo1}, so that the basic BCS formalism with the d-wave
SC gap function is still valid in quantitatively reproducing all
main low energy features of the ARPES experimental measurements on
cuprate superconductors, although the pairing mechanism is driven by
the kinetic energy by exchanging spin excitations, and other exotic
magnetic scattering \cite{dai,arai} is beyond the BCS formalism.
Following our previous discussions \cite{feng1,feng3,guo1}, the full
dressed holon Green's function in the SC state can be obtained in
the Nambu representation as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{g}({\bf k},\omega)&=&Z_{hF}{1\over\omega^{2}-E^{2}_{h{\bf k}}
} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\omega+\bar{\xi}_{{\bf k}}} & {\bar{\Delta}_{hZ}({\bf k})} \\
{\bar{\Delta}_{hZ}({\bf k})} & {\omega-\bar{\xi}_{{\bf k}}}
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&Z_{hF}{\omega\tau_{0}+\bar{\Delta}_{hZ} ({\bf k})
\tau_{1}+\bar{\xi}_{{\bf k}}\tau_{3}\over\omega^{2}- E^{2}_{h{\bf k}
}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau_{0}$ is the unit matrix, the renormalized dressed holon
excitation spectrum $\bar{\xi}_{{\bf k}}=Z_{hF}\xi_{\bf k}$, with
the mean-field (MF) dressed holon excitation spectrum $\xi_{{\bf k}}
=Zt\chi\gamma_{{\bf k}}-\mu$, the spin correlation function $\chi=
\langle S_{i}^{+}S_{i+\hat{\eta}}^{-}\rangle$, $\gamma_{{\bf k}}=
(1/Z)\sum_{\hat{\eta}}e^{i{\bf k}\cdot \hat{\eta}}$, $Z$ is the
number of the nearest neighbor sites, the renormalized dressed holon
d-wave pair gap function $\bar{\Delta}_{hZ}({\bf k})=Z_{hF}
\bar{\Delta}_{h}({\bf k})$, where the effective dressed holon d-wave
pair gap function $\bar{\Delta}_{h}({\bf k})=\bar{\Delta}_{h}
\gamma^{(d)}_{{\bf k}}$ with $\gamma^{(d)}_{{\bf k}}=({\rm cos}
k_{x}-{\rm cos}k_{y})/2$, and the dressed holon quasiparticle
spectrum $E_{h{\bf k}}=\sqrt {\bar{\xi}^{2}_{{\bf k}}+
\mid\bar{\Delta}_{hZ}({\bf k})\mid^{2}}$, while the dressed holon
quasiparticle coherent weight $Z_{hF}$ and effective dressed holon
gap parameters $\bar{\Delta}_{h}$ are determined by the following
two equations \cite{feng1,feng3,guo1},
\begin{widetext}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
1&=&{(Zt)^{2}\over N^{3}}\sum_{{\bf k,p,p'}}\gamma^{2}_{{\bf p+k}}
\gamma^{(d)}_{{\bf k-p'+p}}\gamma^{(d)}_{{\bf k}}{Z^{2}_{hF}\over
E_{h{\bf k}}}{B_{{\bf p}}B_{{\bf p'}}\over\omega_{{\bf p}}
\omega_{{\bf p'}}}\left({F^{(1)}_{1}({\bf k,p,p'})\over
(\omega_{{\bf p'}}- \omega_{{\bf p}})^{2}-E^{2}_{h{\bf k}}}-
{F^{(2)}_{1}({\bf k,p,p'}) \over (\omega_{{\bf p'}} + \omega_{{\bf
p}})^{2}-E^{2}_{h{\bf k}}}
\right ) ,\\
{1\over Z}_{hF} &=& 1+\left({Zt\over N}\right)^{2}\sum_{{\bf p,p'}}
\gamma^{2}_{{\bf p}+{\bf k}_{0}}Z_{hF}{B_{{\bf p}}B_{{\bf p'}}\over
4\omega_{{\bf p}}\omega_{{\bf p'}}}\left({F^{(1)}_{2}({\bf p,p'})
\over (\omega_{{\bf p}}-\omega_{{\bf p'}}-E_{h{\bf p-p'+k_{0}}}
)^{2}}+{F^{(2)}_{2}({\bf p,p'})\over (\omega_{{\bf p}}-\omega_{{\bf
p'}} +E_{h{\bf p-p'+k_{0}}})^{2}}\right . \nonumber \\
&+& \left . {F^{(3)}_{2}({\bf p,p'})\over (\omega_{{\bf p}}+
\omega_{{\bf p'}}-E_{h{\bf p-p'+k_{0}}})^{2}}+{F^{(4)}_{2} ({\bf p,
p'}) \over (\omega_{{\bf p}} + \omega_{{\bf p'}} + E_{h{\bf
p-p'+k_{0} }})^{2}} \right ) ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\end{widetext}
respectively, where ${\bf k}_{0}=[\pi,0]$, $B_{{\bf p}}=\lambda[(2
\epsilon\chi^{z}+\chi)\gamma_{{\bf p}}-(2\chi^{z}+\epsilon\chi)]$,
$\lambda=2ZJ_{{\rm eff}}$, $\epsilon=1+2t\phi/J_{{\rm eff}}$, the
dressed holon's particle-hole parameter $\phi=\langle
h^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}h_{i+\hat{\eta}\sigma}\rangle$, the spin
correlation function $\chi^{z}=\langle S_{i}^{z}S_{i+\hat{\eta}}^{z}
\rangle$, $F^{(1)}_{1}({\bf k,p,p'})= (\omega_{{\bf p'}}-
\omega_{{\bf p}})[n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p}})-n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p'}})]
[1-2n_{F}(E_{h{\bf k}})]+E_{h{\bf k}}[n_{B} (\omega_{{\bf p'}})
n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p}})+n_{B} (\omega_{{\bf p}})
n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p'}})]$, $F^{(2)}_{1}({\bf k, p,p'})=
(\omega_{{\bf p'}}+\omega_{{\bf p}})[n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p'}} )-
n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p}})][1-2n_{F} (E_{h{\bf k}})]+E_{h{\bf k}}[n_{B}
(\omega_{{\bf p'}})n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p}})+n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p'}})
n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p}})]$, $F^{(1)}_{2}({\bf p,p'})=n_{F}(E_{h{\bf
p-p'+k_{0}}})[n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p'}})-n_{B} (\omega_{{\bf p}})]-
n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p}})n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p'}} )$, $F^{(2)}_{2}
({\bf p,p'})=n_{F}(E_{h{\bf p-p'+k_{0}}}) [n_{B} (\omega_{{\bf p}})
-n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p'}})]-n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p'}} )n_{B}
(-\omega_{{\bf p}})$, $F^{(3)}_{2}({\bf p,p'})=n_{F}(E_{h{\bf p-p'+
k_{0}}})[n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p'}})-n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p}})]+ n_{B}
(\omega_{{\bf p}})n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p'}})$, $F^{(4)}_{2}({\bf p,p'}
)=n_{F}(E_{h{\bf p-p'+k_{0}}})[n_{B} (-\omega_{{\bf p'}})-n_{B}
(\omega_{{\bf p}})]+n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p}})n_{B}(-\omega_{{\bf p'}}
)$, $n_{B}(\omega_{{\bf p}})$ and $n_{F}(E_{h{\bf k}})$ are the
boson and fermion distribution functions, respectively, and the MF
spin excitation spectrum,
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^{2}_{{\bf p}}&=&\lambda^{2}[(A_{1}-\alpha\epsilon\chi^{z}
\gamma_{{\bf p}}-{1\over 2Z}\alpha\epsilon\chi) (1-\epsilon
\gamma_{{\bf p}})\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over 2}\epsilon(A_{2}-{1\over 2} \alpha\chi^{z}
-\alpha\chi\gamma_{{\bf p}})(\epsilon-\gamma_{{\bf p}})],
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_{1}=\alpha C^{z}+(1-\alpha)/(4Z)$, $A_{2}=\alpha C+
(1-\alpha)/(2Z)$, and the spin correlation functions $C=(1/Z^{2})
\sum_{\hat{\eta},\hat{\eta'}}\langle S_{i+\hat{\eta}}^{+}
S_{i+\hat{\eta'}}^{-}\rangle$ and $C^{z}=(1/Z^{2})
\sum_{\hat{\eta},\hat{\eta'}}\langle S_{i+\hat{\eta}}^{z}
S_{i+\hat{\eta'}}^{z}\rangle$. In order to satisfy the sum rule of
the correlation function $\langle S^{+}_{i}S^{-}_{i}\rangle=1/2$ in
the case without the antiferromagnetic long-range-order, an
important decoupling parameter $\alpha$ has been introduced in the
above MF calculation \cite{feng1,feng3,guo1}, which can be regarded
as the vertex correction. These two equations in Eqs. (4a) and (4b)
must be solved simultaneously with other self-consistent equations,
then all order parameters, decoupling parameter $\alpha$, and
chemical potential $\mu$ are determined by the self-consistent
calculation.

In the CSS fermion-spin theory \cite{feng2,feng3}, the electron
Green's function is a convolution of the spin Green's function and
dressed holon Green's function. Following our previous discussions
\cite{feng1,feng3,guo1}, we can obtain the electron diagonal and
off-diagonal Green's functions in the SC state as,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf k},\omega)&=&{1\over N}\sum_{{\bf p}}Z_{hF}{B_{{\bf p}}\over
4\omega_{{\bf p}}}\left\{{\rm coth}[{1\over 2}\beta\omega_{{\bf p}}]
\left({U^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega+E_{h{\bf p+k}}-\omega_{{\bf p}}
}+{U^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega+E_{h{\bf p+k}}+\omega_{{\bf p}}}
\right . \right .\nonumber \\
&+& \left . {V^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}+
\omega_{{\bf p}}}+{V^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}
-\omega_{{\bf p}}}\right)+{\rm tanh}[{1\over 2}\beta E_{h{\bf p+k}}]
\left({U^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega+E_{h{\bf p+k}}+\omega_{{\bf p}}
}\right . \nonumber \\
&-&{U^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega+E_{h{\bf p+k}}-\omega_{{\bf p}}}
+\left . \left . {V^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}-
\omega_{{\bf p}}}-{V^{2}_{h{\bf p+k}}\over\omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}
+\omega_{{\bf p}}} \right ) \right \} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma^{\dagger}({\bf k},\omega)&=&{1\over N}\sum_{{\bf p}}Z_{hF}
{\bar{\Delta}_{hZ}({\bf p+k})\over 2E_{h{\bf p+k}}}{B_{{\bf p }}
\over 4\omega_{{\bf p}}}\left \{{\rm coth}[{1\over 2}\beta
\omega_{{\bf p}}]\left({1\over\omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}-\omega_{{\bf p}}
}+{1\over \omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}+\omega_{{\bf p}}}
\right .\right .\nonumber \\
&-& \left . {1\over \omega +E_{h{\bf p+k}}+\omega_{{\bf p}}}-
{1\over \omega +E_{h{\bf p+k}}-\omega_{{\bf p}}} \right )+{\rm
tanh}[{1\over 2}\beta E_{h{\bf p+k}}]\left ({1\over \omega -
E_{h{\bf p+k}} -\omega_{{\bf p}}} \right .\nonumber \\
&-&\left .\left . {1\over \omega-E_{h{\bf p+k}}+\omega_{{\bf p}}}
-{1\over \omega +E_{h{\bf p+k}}+\omega_{{\bf p}}}+ {1\over \omega
+E_{h{\bf p+k}}-\omega_{{\bf p}}} \right )\right \},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\end{widetext}
respectively, where the dressed holon quasiparticle coherence
factors $U^{2}_{h{\bf k}}=(1+{\bar{\xi}_{{\bf k}}/E_{h{\bf k}}})/2$
and $V^{2}_{h{\bf k}}=(1-{\bar{\xi}_{{\bf k}}/E_{h{\bf k}}})/2$.
These convolutions of the spin Green's function and dressed holon
diagonal and off-diagonal Green's functions reflect the charge-spin
recombination \cite{anderson2}. Since the spins center around the
$[\pi,\pi]$ point in the MF level \cite{feng1,feng3,guo1}, then the
main contributions for the spins comes from the $[\pi,\pi]$ point.
In this case, the electron diagonal and off-diagonal Green's
functions in Eqs. (6a) and (6b) can be approximately reduced as the
BCS formalism with the d-wave SC gap function in terms of
$\omega_{{\bf p}=[\pi,\pi]}\sim 0$ and the equation
\cite{feng1,feng2} $1/2=\langle S_{i}^{+}S_{i}^{-}\rangle=(1/N)
\sum_{{\bf p}}B_{{\bf p}}{\rm coth}(\beta \omega_{{\bf p}}/2)
/(2\omega_{{\bf p}})$,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf k},\omega)&\approx&Z_{F}\left ({U^{2}_{{\bf k}}\over\omega-
E_{{\bf k}}}+{V^{2}_{{\bf k}}\over \omega+E_{{\bf k}}}\right ),\\
\Gamma^{\dagger}({\bf k},\omega)&\approx& Z_{F}{\bar{\Delta}_{Z}
({\bf k})\over 2E_{{\bf k}}}\left ({1\over \omega-E_{{\bf k}}}+
{1\over \omega+E_{{\bf k}}}\right ),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where the electron quasiparticle coherent weight $Z_{F}=Z_{hF}/2$,
the electron quasiparticle coherence factors $U^{2}_{{\bf k}}
\approx V^{2}_{h{\bf k+k_{A}}}=(1+{\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}/
E_{{\bf k}}})/2$ and $V^{2}_{{\bf k}}\approx U^{2}_{h{\bf k+k_{A}}}
=(1-{\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}/E_{{\bf k}}})/2$, with
${\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}=Z_{F}\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}$,
$\varepsilon_{{\bf k}}=Zt\chi\gamma_{{\bf k}}+\mu$, and ${\bf k_{A}}
=[\pi,\pi]$, $\bar{\Delta}_{Z}({\bf k})=\bar{\Delta}_{hZ}({\bf k})
/2$, and electron quasiparticle spectrum $E_{{\bf k}}\approx
E_{h{\bf k+k_{A}}}=\sqrt{\bar{\varepsilon}^{2}_{{\bf k}}+
\mid\bar{\Delta}_{Z}({\bf k })\mid^{2}}$, i.e., the hole-like
dressed holon quasiparticle coherence factors $V_{h{\bf k}}$ and
$U_{h{\bf k}}$ and hole-like dressed holon quasiparticle spectrum
$E_{h{\bf k}}$ have been transferred into the electron quasiparticle
coherence factors $U_{{\bf k}}$ and $V_{{\bf k}}$ and electron
quasiparticle spectrum $E_{{\bf k}}$, respectively, by the
convolutions of the spin Green's function and dressed holon Green's
functions due to the charge-spin recombination. This means that
within the kinetic energy driven SC mechanism, the dressed holon
pairs condense with the d-wave symmetry in a wide range of the hole
doping concentration, then the electron Cooper pairs originating
from the dressed holon pairing state are due to the charge-spin
recombination, and their condensation automatically gives the
electron quasiparticle character. For the convenience in the
following discussions, these electron Green's functions in Eq. (7)
in the SC state can be expressed in the Nambu representation as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{G}({\bf k},\omega)&=&Z_{F}{1\over\omega^{2}-E^{2}_{{\bf k}}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\omega+\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}}&{\bar{\Delta}_{Z}({\bf k})}\\
{\bar{\Delta}_{Z}({\bf k})} & {\omega-\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}}
\end{array} \right)\nonumber\\
&=&Z_{F}{\omega\tau_{0}+ \bar{\Delta}_{Z} ({\bf k})\tau_{1}+
\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}\tau_{3}\over \omega^{2}-E_{{\bf k}
}^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}

With the helps of this BCS formalism under kinetic energy driven SC
mechanism, now we can discuss the effect of the extended impurity
scatterers on the quasiparticle transport in cuprate
superconductors. In the presence of impurities, the unperturbed
electron Green's function in Eq. (8) is dressed via the impurity
scattering \cite{durst,nunner},
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},\omega)^{-1}=\tilde{G}({\bf k},\omega)^{-1}
-\tilde{\Sigma}({\bf k},\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
with the self-energy function $\tilde{\Sigma}({\bf k},\omega)=
\sum_{\alpha}\Sigma_{\alpha}({\bf k} ,\omega)\tau_{\alpha}$. It has
been shown that all but the scalar component of the self-energy
function can be neglected or absorbed into $\bar{\Delta}_{Z}({\bf k}
)$ \cite{durst,nunner}. In this case, the dressed electron Green's
function in Eq. (9) can be explicitly rewritten as,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},\omega)=Z_{F}{[\omega-\Sigma_{0}({\bf k},
\omega)]\tau_{0}+\bar{\Delta}_{Z}({\bf k})\tau_{1}+
[\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}+\Sigma_{3}({\bf k},\omega)]\tau_{3}
\over [\omega-\Sigma_{0}({\bf k},\omega)]^{2}
-\bar{\varepsilon}^{2}_{{\bf k}}-\bar{\Delta}^{2}_{Z}({\bf k})}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
Based on the phenomenological d-wave BCS-type electron Green's
function \cite{durst}, the energy and temperature dependence of the
microwave conductivity of cuprate superconductors has been fitted
\cite{nunner}, where the electron self-energy functions
$\Sigma_{0}({\bf k},\omega)$ and $\Sigma_{3}({\bf k},\omega)$ have
been treated within the framework of the T-matrix approximation.
Following their discussions \cite{durst,nunner}, the electron
self-energy function $\tilde{\Sigma}({\bf k},\omega)$ can be
obtained approximately as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Sigma}({\bf k},\omega)=\rho_{i}\tilde{T}_{{\bf k}{\bf k}}
(\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
with $\rho_{i}$ is the impurity concentration, and $\tilde{T}_{{\bf
k}{\bf k}}(\omega)$ is the diagonal element of the T-matrix,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{T}_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}(\omega)=V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}\tau_{3}+
\sum_{{\bf k}''}V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}''}\tau_{3}\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k}'',
\omega)\tilde{T}_{{\bf k}'' {\bf k}'}(\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}$ is the impurity scattering potential. As
mentioned in Sec. I, there is no gap to the quasiparticle
excitations at the four nodes for the d-wave SC state of cuprate
superconductors, therefore the quasiparticles are generated only
around these four nodes. It has been shown \cite{durst} that this
characteristic feature is very useful when considering the impurity
scattering, since the initial and final momenta of a scattering
event must always be approximately equal to the ${\bf k} $-space
location of one of the four nodes in the zero temperature and zero
energy, while the impurity scattering potential $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}
$ varies slowly over the area of a node. In this case, a general
scattering potential $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}$ need only be evaluated in
three possible case: the intranode impurity scattering $V_{{\bf k}
{\bf k}'}=V_{1}$ (${\bf k}$ and ${\bf k}'$ at the same node), the
adjacent-node impurity scattering $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}=V_{2}$ (${\bf
k}$ and ${\bf k}'$ at the adjacent nodes), and the opposite-node
impurity scattering $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}=V_{3}$ (${\bf k}$ and ${\bf
k}'$ at the opposite nodes), then the impurity scattering potential
$V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}$ in the T-matrix can be effectively reduced as
\cite{durst},
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}\rightarrow\underline{V}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
V_{1} & V_{2} & V_{3} & V_{2} \\
V_{2} & V_{1} & V_{2} & V_{3} \\
V_{3} & V_{2} & V_{1} & V_{2} \\
V_{2} & V_{3} & V_{2} & V_{1}
\end{array} \right) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
At the zero temperature and zero energy, these nodes reduce to
points. In this case, this nodal approximation for the impurity
potential can reproduce any impurity potential. However, at finite
temperatures and energies, there is a limitation on the forward
scattering character of the impurity potential because this nodal
approximation assumes the Brillouin zone quadrant around a
particular node \cite{durst}. It has been shown \cite{nunner} that
although the strict forward scattering limit can therefore not be
reached at finite temperatures and energies, this nodal
approximation is still appropriate to treat the intermediate range
scatters. Therefore in the following discussions, we employ the
simplified impurity scattering potential in Eq. (13) to study the
impurity scattering effect on the quasiparticle transport of cuprate
superconductors. Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (12), the T-matrix
can be obtained as a $4\times4$-matrix around the nodal points,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{T}_{jj'}(\omega)=V_{jj'}\tau_{3}+ \tilde{I}_{G}(\omega)
\tau_{3}\sum_{j''}V_{jj''} \tilde{T}_{j''j'}(\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{I}_{G}(\omega)$ is the integral of the electron
Green's function, and can be obtained as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{I}_{G}(\omega)={1\over N}\sum_{{\bf k}}\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},
\omega)\approx\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)\tau_{0}+
\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)\tau_{3},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)$ and $\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)$ are given
by,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)&=& {1\over N}\sum_{{\bf k}}Z_{F}{\omega
-\Sigma_{0}(\omega)\over \omega^{2}-E^{2}_{{\bf k}}},\\
\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)&=&{1\over N}\sum_{{\bf k}}Z_{F}
{\bar{\varepsilon}_{{\bf k}}+\Sigma_{3}(\omega)\over \omega^{2}
-E^{2}_{{\bf k}}},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
and the self-energy functions $\Sigma_{0}(\omega)$ and
$\Sigma_{0}(\omega)$ are evaluated as,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma_{0}(\omega)&=&{\rho_{i}\over 4}\left({2\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)
V_{13}^{2}\over [1-\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)V_{13}]^{2}-
[\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)V_{13}]^{2}}+{\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)
(V^{-}_{123})^{2}\over [1-\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)V^{-}_{123}]^{2}-
[\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)V^{-}_{123}]^{2}}\right . \nonumber \\
&+&\left . {\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)(V^{+}_{123})^{2}\over [1-
\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)V^{+}_{123}]^{2}-[\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)
V^{+}_{123}]^{2}}\right ), \\
\Sigma_{3}(\omega)&=&{\rho_{i}\over 4}\left ( {2V_{13}[1-
\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega) V_{13}]\over [1-
\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)V_{13}]^{2}- [\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)
V_{13}]^{2}}+{V^{-}_{123}[1-\tilde{G}_{I3} (\omega)V^{-}_{123}]\over
[1-\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)V^{-}_{123}]^{2}-
[\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)V^{-}_{123}]^{2}}\right . \nonumber\\
&+& \left . {V^{+}_{123}[1-\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)V^{+}_{123}]\over
[1-\tilde{G}_{I3}(\omega)V^{+}_{123}]^{2}- [\tilde{G}_{I0}(\omega)
V^{+}_{123}]^{2}} \right ),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\end{widetext}
where $V_{13}=V_{1}-V_{3}$, $V^{-}_{123}=V_{1}-2V_{2}+V_{3}$, and
$V^{+}_{123}=V_{1}+2V_{2}+V_{3}$.

In the framework of the linear response theory, the microwave
conductivity of cuprate superconductors can be calculated by means
of the Kubo formula as \cite{mahan},
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(\omega,T)=-{{\rm Im}\Pi(\omega,T)\over\omega},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Pi(\omega,T)$ is the electron current-current correlation
function in the SC state, and can be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(\tau-\tau')=-<T_{\tau}{\bf J}(\tau)\cdot{\bf J}(\tau')>.
\end{eqnarray}
In the CSS fermion-spin representation \cite{feng2,feng3}, the
electron polarization operator can be evaluated as,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf P}=\sum_{i}{\bf R}_{i}\hat{n}_{i}=\sum_{i,\sigma}{\bf R}_{i}
\hat{C}^{\dag}_{i,\sigma}\hat{C}_{i,\sigma}={1\over 2}
\sum_{i,\sigma}{\bf R}_{i}h_{i,\sigma}h^{\dag}_{i,\sigma},~~~
\end{eqnarray}
then within the $t$-$J$ model (2), the current density of electrons
is obtained by the time derivation of this polarization operator
using the Heisenberg's equation of motion as,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf J}=ie[H,{\bf P}]=i{1\over 2}et\sum_{i\hat{\eta}}\hat{\eta}
(h^{\dagger}_{i+\hat{\eta}\uparrow} h_{i\uparrow}S_{i}^{+}
S^{-}_{i+\hat{\eta}}+ h^{\dagger}_{i+\hat{\eta}\downarrow}
h_{i\downarrow}S^{\dagger}_{i}S^{-}_{i+\eta})=-i{1\over 2}et
\sum_{i\eta\sigma}\hat{\eta} \hat{C}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}
\hat{C}_{i+\hat{\eta}\sigma}\approx {ev_{f}\over \sqrt{2}}
\sum_{{\bf k}\sigma}{\bf k} \hat{C}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}\sigma}
\hat{C}_{{\bf k}\sigma},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
with $v_{f}=\sqrt{2}t$ is the electron velocity at the nodal points.
According to this current density (21), the current-current
correlation function in Eq. (19) can be obtained as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(i\omega_{n},T)&=&{e^{2}v_{f}^{2}\over 2}{1\over N}\sum_{{\bf k}}
{1\over\beta}\sum_{i\omega_{n}'}{\rm Tr}[\tilde{G}({\bf k},
i\omega_{n}')\nonumber\\
&\times& \tilde{G}({\bf k},i\omega_{n}'+ i\omega_{n})
\tilde{\Gamma}({\bf k},i\omega_{n}',i\omega_{n})],
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde{\Gamma}({\bf k},\omega',\omega)$ is the vertex
function, and can be evaluated explicitly as the sum of ladder
diagrams,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(i\omega_{n})=e^{2}v^{2}_{f}{1\over\beta}\sum_{i\omega_{n}'}
J(i\omega_{n},i\omega_{n}'),
\end{eqnarray}
where the kernel function $J(\omega,\omega')$ is expressed as,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
J(\omega,\omega')={I^{(0)}_{0}+L_{A}[I^{(0)}_{0}I_{3}^{(3)}
+I_{0}^{(3)}I_{3}^{(0)}]\over [1-(L_{A}I_{0}^{(0)}+L_{B}
I^{(0)}_{3})][1-(L_{A}I_{3}^{(3)}+L_{B}I^{(3)}_{0})]-[L_{A}
I_{0}^{(3)}+L_{B}I^{(3)}_{3}][L_{A}I_{3}^{(0)}+L_{B}I^{(0)}_{0}]},
\end{eqnarray}
with the functions,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{A}(\omega,\omega')&=&[T_{11}^{(0)}(\omega)T_{11}^{(0)}(\omega+
\omega')+T_{11}^{(3)}(\omega)T_{11}^{(3)}(\omega+\omega') -
T_{13}^{(0)}(\omega)T_{13}^{(0)}(\omega+\omega')
-T_{13}^{(3)}(\omega)T_{13}^{(3)}(\omega+\omega')],\\
L_{B}(\omega,\omega')&=&[T_{11}^{(0)}(\omega)T_{11}^{(3)}(\omega+
\omega')+T_{11}^{(3)}(\omega)T_{11}^{(0)}(\omega+\omega')
-T_{13}^{(0)}(\omega)T_{13}^{(3)}(\omega+\omega')
-T_{13}^{(3)}(\omega)T_{13}^{(0)}(\omega+\omega')],
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
while the functions $I^{(0)}_{0}(\omega,\omega')$ and
$I^{(0)}_{3}(\omega,\omega')$ are give by,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{(0)}_{0}(\omega,\omega')\tau_{0}&+&I^{(3)}_{0}(\omega,\omega')
\tau_{3} ={1\over N}\sum_{{\bf k}}\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},\omega)
\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},\omega+\omega'), \\
I^{(0)}_{3}(\omega,\omega')\tau_{0}&+&I^{(3)}_{3}(\omega,\omega')
\tau_{3}={1\over N}\sum_{{\bf k}}\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},\omega)
\tilde{\tau}_{3}\tilde{G}_{I}({\bf k},\omega+\omega').
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Substituting Eq. (23) into Eq. (18), the microwave conductivity of
cuprate superconductors is obtained explicitly as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(\omega,T)&=&e^{2}v^{2}_{f}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}{d\omega'
\over2\pi}{n_{F}(\omega')-n_{F}(\omega' + \omega) \over \omega'}
[{\rm Re}J(\omega'-i\delta,\omega'+\omega+i\delta)-{\rm Re}
J(\omega'+i\delta,\omega'+\omega+i\delta)].
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
We emphasize that based on the nodal approximation of the
quasiparticle excitations and scattering processes
\cite{durst,nunner}, this microwave conductivity of cuprate
superconductors in Eq. (27) is obtained within the kinetic energy
driven SC mechanism, although its expression is similar to that
obtained within the phenomenological BCS formalism with the d-wave
SC gap function \cite{durst,nunner}.

\section{Microwave conductivity of cuprate superconductors}

In cuprate superconductors, although the values of $J$ and $t$ is
believed to vary somewhat from compound to compound, however, as a
qualitative discussion, the commonly used parameters in this paper
are chosen as $t/J=2.5$, with an reasonably estimative value of
$J\sim 1000$K. We are now ready to discuss the doping, energy, and
temperature dependence of the quasiparticle transport of cuprate
superconductors in the SC state with extended impurities. We have
performed a calculation for the microwave conductivity
$\sigma(\omega,T)$ in Eq. (27), and the results of
$\sigma(\omega,T)$ as a function of energy with temperature
$T=0.002J=2$K (solid line), $T=0.004J=4$K (dashed line),
$T=0.008J=8$K (dash-dotted line), and $T=0.01J=10$K (dotted line)
under the slightly strong impurity scattering potential with
$V_{1}=58J$, $V_{2}=49.32J$, and $V_{3}=40.6J$ at the impurity
concentration $\rho=0.000014$ for the doping concentration
$\delta=0.15$ are plotted in Fig. 1 in comparison with the
corresponding experimental results of cuprate superconductors in the
SC state \cite{harris} (inset). Obviously, the energy evolution of
the microwave conductivity of cuprate superconductor \cite{harris}
is qualitatively reproduced. In particular, a low temperature
cusplike shape of the microwave conductivity is obtained for cuprate
superconductors in the presence of the impurity scattering. At the
low energy regime ($\omega<0.0002J$), this low temperature microwave
conductivity $\sigma(\omega,T)$ rises rapidly from the universal
zero-temperature limit to a much larger microwave conductivity.
However, this low temperature microwave conductivity
$\sigma(\omega,T)$ becomes smaller and varies from weakly energy
dependence at the intermediate energy regime
($0.0002J<\omega<0.0008J$), to the almost energy independence at the
high energy regime ($\omega>0.0008J$).

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig1.eps}
\caption{The microwave conductivity as a function of energy with
$T=0.002J=2$K (solid line), $T=0.004J=4$K (dashed line), $T=0.008J
=8$K (dash-dotted line), and $T=0.01J=10$K (dotted line) at
$\rho=0.000014$ for $t/J=2.5$, $V_{1}=58J$, $V_{2}=49.32J$, and
$V_{3}=40.6J$ in $\delta=0.15$. Inset: the corresponding
experimental result of cuprate superconductors in the SC state taken
from Ref. [14].}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{fig2.eps}
\caption{The microwave conductivity as a function of doping with
$T=0.002J=$K and $\omega=0.000087J\approx 1.81$GHz at
$\rho=0.000014$ for $t/J=2.5$, $V_{1}=58J$, $V_{2}=49.32J$, and
$V_{3}=40.6J$. The dashed line is the corresponding result of the
superconducting gap parameter.}
\end{figure}

For a better understanding of the physical properties of the
microwave conductivity $\sigma(\omega,T)$ in cuprate
superconductors, we have studied the doping evolution of the
microwave conductivity, and the result of $\sigma(\omega,T)$ as a
function of doping with temperature $T=0.002J=2$K and energy
$\omega=0.000087J\approx 1.81$GHz under the slightly strong impurity
scattering potential with $V_{1}=58J$, $V_{2}=49.32J$, and
$V_{3}=40.6J$ at the impurity concentration $\rho=0.000014$ is
plotted in Fig. 2 (solid line). For comparison, the corresponding
result of the SC gap parameter of cuprate superconductors is also
shown in the same figure (dashed line). Our result shows that in
contrast to the dome shape of the doping dependent SC gap parameter
\cite{huefner,feng1,feng3,guo1}, the microwave conductivity
$\sigma(\omega,T)$ decreases with increasing doping in the
underdoped regime, and reaches a minimum in the optimal doping, then
increases in the overdoped regime. This doping dependent behavior of
the low energy microwave conductivity $\sigma(\omega,T)$ at low
temperatures is also qualitatively consistent with the universal
microwave conductivity limit \cite{palee} $\sigma\propto 1/\Delta$
at low energy as temperature $T\rightarrow 0$, if this SC gap
parameter $\Delta$ in the phenomenological BCS formalism
\cite{palee} has the similar dome shape doping dependence.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig3.eps}
\caption{The microwave conductivity as a function of temperature
with energy $\omega\approx 1.14$GHz (solid line), $\omega\approx
2.28$GHz (long dashed line), $\omega\approx 13.4$GHz (dash-dotted
line), $\omega\approx 22.8$GHz (dotted line), and $\omega\approx
75.3$GHz (short dashed line) at $\rho=0.000014$ for $t/J=2.5$,
$V_{1}=58J$, $V_{2}=49.32J$, and $V_{3}=40.6J$ in $\delta=0.15$.
Inset: the corresponding experimental result of cuprate
superconductors in the SC state taken from Ref. [14].}
\end{figure}

In the above discussions, we mainly study the effect of the extended
impurity scatterers on the quasiparticle transport at low
temperatures ($T\ll T_{c}$) and low energies ($\omega\ll\Delta$).
Now we discuss the temperature dependence of the quasiparticle
transport of cuprate superconductors, where $T$ may approach to
$T_{c}$ from low temperature side. In this case, it has been shown
\cite{nunner} that the inelastic scattering process should be
considered at higher temperatures, such as the
quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering. This is followed from the
fact that the inelastic quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering
process is suppressed at low temperatures due to the large SC gap
parameter in the quasiparticle excitation spectrum. However, the
contribution from this inelastic quasiparticle-quasiparticle
scattering process is increased rapidly when $T$ approaches to
$T_{c}$ from low temperature side, since there is a small SC gap
parameter near $T_{c}$. In particular, it has been pointed out
\cite{walker} that the contribution from the
quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering process to the transport
lifetime is exponentially suppressed at low temperatures, and
therefore the effect of this inelastic quasiparticle-quasiparticle
scattering can be considered by adding the inverse transport
lifetime \cite{duffy} $\tau^{-1}_{{\rm inel}}(T)$ to the imaginary
part of the self-energy function $\Sigma_{0}(\omega)$ in Eq. (17a),
then the total self-energy function $\Sigma^{{\rm tot}}_{0}(\omega)$
can be expressed as \cite{walker,nunner},
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma^{{\rm tot}}_{0}(\omega)=\Sigma_{0}(\omega)-i[2\tau_{{\rm
inel}}(T)]^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tau_{{\rm inel}}(T)$ has been chosen as $[2\tau_{{\rm inel}}
(T)]^{-1}=91.35(T-0.005)^{4}J$. Using this total self-energy
function $\Sigma^{{\rm tot}}_{0} (\omega)$ to replace
$\Sigma_{0}(\omega)$ in Eq. (27), we have performed a calculation
for the microwave conductivity $\sigma(\omega,T)$, and the results
of $\sigma(\omega,T)$ as a function of temperature $T$ with energy
$\omega=0.0000547J\approx 1.14$GHz (solid line), $\omega=0.0001094J
\approx 2.28$GHz (long dashed line), $\omega=0.0006564J\approx
13.4$GHz (dash-dotted line), $\omega=0.001094J\approx 22.8$GHz
(dotted line), and $\omega=0.0036102J\approx 75.3$GHz (short dashed
line) under the slightly strong impurity scattering potential with
$V_{1}=58J$, $V_{2}=49.32J$, and $V_{3}=40.6J$ at the impurity
concentration $\rho=0.000014$ for the doping concentration
$\delta=0.15$ are plotted in Fig. 3 in comparison with the
corresponding experimental results of cuprate superconductors in the
SC state \cite{harris} (inset). Our results show that the
temperature dependent microwave conductivity $\sigma(\omega,T)$
increases rapidly with increasing temperatures to a large broad peak
around temperature $T\approx 0.25J\approx 25$K for energy
$\omega=0.0000547J\approx 1.14$GHz, and then falls roughly linearly.
However, this broad peak in the microwave conductivity spectrum
resulting from the temperature dependent impurity scattering rate in
Eq. (28) is energy dependent, and moves to higher temperatures with
increasing energies, in qualitative agreement with the experimental
data \cite{harris}.

Within the framework of the kinetic energy driven d-wave cuprate
superconductivity \cite{feng1}, our present results of the energy
and temperature dependence of the microwave conductivity by
considering the effect of the extended impurity scatterers are
qualitatively similar to the earlier attempts to fit the
experimental data by using a phenomenological d-wave BCS formalism
\cite{palee,hirschfeld,quinlan,hettler,durst,duffy,nunner}.
Establishing this agreement is important to confirming the nature of
the SC phase of cuprate superconductors as the d-wave BCS-like SC
state within the kinetic energy driven SC mechanism. It has been
shown \cite{turner,bonn,lee,hosseini,harris} that there are some
subtle differences for different families of cuprate
superconductors, and these subtle differences may be induced by the
other effects except the impurity scattering. However, we in this
paper are primarily interested in exploring the general notion of
the effect of the extended impurity scatterers on the kinetic energy
driven cuprate superconductors in the SC state. The qualitative
agreement between the present theoretical results and experimental
data also show that the presence of impurities has a crucial effect
on the microwave conductivity of cuprate superconductors.

\section{Summary}

In conclusion we have shown very clearly in this paper that if the
effect of the extended impurity scatterers is taken into account in
the framework of the kinetic energy driven d-wave superconductivity,
the microwave conductivity of the $t$-$J$ model calculated based on
the nodal approximation of the quasiparticle excitations and
scattering processes per se can correctly reproduce some main
features found in the microwave conductivity measurements on cuprate
superconductor in the SC state
\cite{turner,bonn,lee,hosseini,harris}, including the energy and
temperature dependence of the microwave conductivity spectrum. The
theory also predicts a V-shaped doping dependent microwave
conductivity, which is in contrast with the dome shape of the doping
dependent SC gap parameter, and therefore should be verified by
further experiments.

\acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant No. 10774015, and the funds from the Ministry
of Science and Technology of China under Grant Nos. 2006CB601002 and
2006CB921300.