A New Parameterization for the Lagrangian Density of Relativistic Mean Field Theory

arXiv:nucl-th/9607039v1 19 Jul 1996
G.A. Lalazissis1,2, J. K¨ onig1 and P. Ring1 1 Physik Department, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen D-85747 Garching, Germany 2 Department of Theoretical Physics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki GR-54006 Thessaloniki, Greece February 9, 2008
Abstract A new parameterization for an effective non-linear Lagrangian density of relativistic mean field (RMF) theory is proposed, which is able to provide an excellent description not only for the properties of stable nuclei but also for those far from the valley of beta-stability. In addition recently measured superdeformed mimima in the Hg-region are reproduced with high accuracy.

Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) [1] theory has recently gained considerable success in describing various facets of nuclear structure properties. With a very limited number of parameters, RMF theory is able to give a quantitative description of ground state properties of spherical and deformed nuclei [2, 3] at and away from the stability line. Recently it has been shown that RMF theory is successful in reproducing the anomalous kink in the isotope shifts of Pb nuclei [4] and a first-ever microscopic description of anomalous isotopic shifts in Sr and Kr chains [5] has been provided. Such an anomalous behavior is a generic feature of deformed nuclei which include almost all isotopic chains in the rare-earth region [6] where RMF theory has been shown to have a remarkable success. Moreover good agreement with experimental data has been found recently for collective excitations such as giant resonances [7] and for twin bands in rotating superdeformed nuclei [8]. It is also noted that cranked RMF theory provides an excellent description of of superdeformed rotational bands in the A=140-150 region [9], in the Sr region [10] and in the Hg region [11] The starting point of RMF theory is a standard Lagrangian density [2] ¯ (γ (i∂ − gω ω − gρ ρτ − eA) − m − gσ σ ) ψ L = ψ 1

The aim of the present investigation is to provide a new improved set of Lagrangian parameters. NL-SH [14] and the parameter set PL-40 [15]. The Lagrangian parameters are the meson masses mσ . The NL1 parameterization underestimates the empirical data by about 2 MeV while NL-SH overestimates it by about 2 MeV. In addition the calculated neutron skin thickness shows systematic deviations from the experimental values for the set NL1 [16]. However. NL1 and NL-SH sets give good results in most of the cases. σ -. 11]. which to some extend cures the deficiencies of the existing parameterizations. which has been proved to provide reasonable fission barriers. Both forces fail to reproduce the experimental values for the isoscalar giant monopole resonances for Pb and Zr nuclei. ρ-mesons. In the parameter set NL-SH this problem was treated in a better way and improved isovector properties have been obtained with an asymmetry energy of J ≃ 36 MeV. gρ and the parameters g2 . gω . in going away from the stability line the results are less satisfactory. U (σ ) = 1 2 2 1 1 mσ σ + g2 σ 3 + g3 σ 4 . 2 3 4 (2) The Lagrangian parameters are usually obtained by a fitting procedure to some bulk properties of a set of spherical nuclei [12]. For this reason a multi-parameter fit was performed in the the same way as with the other parameterizations [12. This can be partly attributed to the large asymmetry energy J ≃44 MeV predicted by this force. However. ω -. The nuclear properties fitted 2 . mω . the electromagnetic field and non-linear self-interactions of the σ -field. NL1 predicts a small value (K=212 MeV) while with NL-SH a very large value (K=355 MeV) is obtained. 14]. Among the existing parameterizations the most frequently used are NL1 [13]. the NL-SH parameterization produces a slight over-binding along the line of beta-stability and in addition it fails to reproduce successfully the superdeformed minima in Hg-isotopes in constraint calculations for the energy landscape. A remarkable difference between the two parameterizations are the quite different values predicted for the nuclear matter incompressibility. Moreover NLSH seems to describe the deformation properties in a better way than NL1. Along the beta stability line NL1 gives excellent results for binding energies and charge radii. g3 of the non-linear potential U(σ ).1 1 1 ω2 + (∂σ )2 − U (σ ) − Ωµν Ωµν + m2 2 4 2 ω 1 1 1 2 µν − Rµν Rµν + m2 ρ ρ − Fµν F 4 2 4 (1) which contains nucleons ψ with mass m. The nucleon mass was fixed to 939 MeV. the corresponding coupling constants gσ . Apart from the mass of the ρ meson which was fixed to the empirical value (763 MeV) all the others were taken as free parameters. in addition it provides an excellent description of the superdeformed bands [9. mρ .

2% respectively. We performed detailed calculations for the chain of Sn isotopes with the spherical Relativistic 3 . 13.32 MeV respectively and finally for 214 P b ∆n =0. the charge radii from Ref. The available neutron radii are from Ref. We recall that for the determination of NL-SH parameters six nuclei were used in the fit.12 MeV.8 MeV. The values in parentheses correspond to the error-bars used in the fit. For NL-SH charge radii and neutron radii were used instead of the diffraction radii and the surface thickness. It is closer to that of NL-SH and much smaller than that of NL1. for 58 Ni. In the case of open shell nuclei pairing was considered in the BCS formalism. The gap parameters ∆n(p) were determined from the observed odd-even mass differences [17]. 116 Sn.4 MeV. In the present work the number of nuclei used in the fit was increased to ten. 40 Ca.124) the ∆n values are 1. namely 16 O . for the two Sn isotopes (A=116. ρ = 0. Specifically. 15] for the non-linear parameterizations the set is named NL3. and the available neutron radii of several spherical nuclei. It is therefore somewhere in the middle between the values predicted by NL1 and NL-SH. In Table 2 we show the values for the new parameter set. The saturation density ρ has the value 0. It is seen that they are in very good agreement with the empirical values. In the same table we give nuclear matter properties calculated with NL3. in addition to the eight nuclei used for NL1 the doubly closed shell nucleus 132 Sn as well as the heavier lead isotope 214 Pb were also included in the fit. The effective mass m∗ /m was found 0.4 MeV. In order to take into account a larger variation in isospin.1483 fm−3 . For the neutron radii. In addition in the fitting procedure some nuclear matter properties were also considered. the diffraction radii and the surface thickness.1% and 0. The binding energies and charge radii were taken within an accuracy of 0.0 MeV (5%).-G. In Table 1 we list the predictions of NL3 for the ground state properties of the nuclei used in the fit. 90 Zr . the binding energies.7 MeV. The nuclear matter incompressibility has the value K =271. however. due to existing uncertainties the experimental error taken into account was 2%. The experimental input for finite nuclei used in the fitting procedure is shown in Table 1 in parentheses. 124 Sn and 208 P b while for NL1 48 Ca and 58 Ni were also taken into account. In the following we present some applications of the new parameter set NL3 using the various RMF codes of the Munich group. K = 250 (MeV) (10%) J = 33 MeV (10%). Finally the asymmetry energy J is 37.6. ∆n =1. [18]. As “experimental input” the following values were used: E/A= -16. It is noted that for NL1 the experimental information used was the total binding energies.are the charge radii. Adopting the convention introduced by P.153 (fm−3 (10%). for 90 Zr ∆p = 1. [19]. It is the same as for NL-SH and slightly higher than for NL1. Reinhard [12. The experimental values for the total binding energies were taken from the experimental mass tables [17].17 and 1.

[21] The experimental data for the hexadecupole moments of rare-earth nuclei are from a very recent compilation by L¨ obner [22]. [2]. reducing rms deviation of the masses.Hartree Bogoliubov (RHB) code discussed in Ref. The charge radii are in very good agreement with the experiment [18]. This is an indication that NL3 has a correct value for the nuclear incompressibility. In Table 4 we show results of calculations using the new parameter set NL3 and compare it with experimental results and calculations obtained from the sets NL-SH and NL1. The experimental masses [17] are reproduced within an accuracy of a few hundreths of keV. [20]. The theoretical results were obtained using the parameter sets NL1. It is seen that all parameterizations give a very good description of the experimental masses. [2].. Extrapolating to zero angular momentum the superdeformed minimum was found to be 6 MeV above the ground state. Finally the experimental data for the proton quadrupole moments were taken from tables XII and XIV or Ref. In Table 2 we give the results of our calculations together with the experimental information whenever available. A detailed study will be published elsewhere [25]. It is in excellent agree4 . Here the pairing correlations are taken into account using the BCS formalism. It is also seen. Recently. the excitation energy between the ground state band and the superdeformed band in 194 Hg was measured for the first time [24]. In Fig.997 MeV above the ground state. It is seen that NL3 gives excellent results for the ground state properties of rare-earth and actinide nuclei. however. Axially symmetric calculations have been performed for some well deformed rare-earth and actinide nuclei using the new Lagrangian parameterization NL3. that the new force NL3 is able to provide improved results over the NL1 and NL-SH. Next we report some preliminary results for the Giant monopole breathing energies of 208 P b and 90 Zr nuclei obtained from generator coordinate calculations based on constrained RMF wave functions. Performing RMF calculations with the parameter set NL3 and mapping the energy surface by a quadratic constraint we found the superdeformed minimum at an excitation energy of 5. In conclusion our calculations with the new RMF parameterization NL3 give very good results in all cases considered so far. The pairing parameters ∆n(p) were taken from tables XI and XIII of Ref. either underestimating (NL1) or overestimating (NL-SH) the experiment by almost 2 MeV. It is seen that NL3 is able to reproduce nicely the experimental values while the other two forces fail. The absolute values of the empirical β2 were obtained from the compilation of Raman et al. The deformation properties are also in excellent agreement with the empirical values. A detailed study including in addition dynamic RMF calculations will appear in a forthcoming publication [23]. 1 we show the isotopic dependence of the deviation of the theoretical mass calculated in RMF theory from the experimental values [17] for Sn nuclei. NL-SH and NL3.

and P. and J. Sharma. preprint Technical University Munich. Phys. Z. and P.-G. and P. Reinhard.) 198 (1990) 132 [3] P. H. Lett. W. Ring. 1996 [12] P. 37 (1996) 193 [4] M. Part. A586 (1995) 201 [6] G. B312 (1993) 377 [15] P. Reinhard. Prog. Ring. A597 (1996) 35 [7] D. Gambhir. Friedrich. and P. One of the authors (G. Vretenar. Phys.G. Thimet. Walecka. A (submitted) [10] A. This work is also supported in part by the Bundesministerium f¨ ur Bildung und Forschung under the project 06 TM 743 (6). Ring. Sharma. Phys. and P. Phys. Prog. L¨ obner for supplying us with his compilation on hexadecupole moments prior to its publication. Nucl.L) acknowledges support by the European Union under the contract TMR-EU/ERB FMBCICT-950216. Lett. Phys. A329 (1988) 257 5 .D. Ring.ment with experimental nuclear masses.M. M. (N. 52 (1989) 439 [13] P.V. Afanasjev. Phys. Ring. Ring. Nagarajan. Phys. Lalazissis and M. Phys. Phys. Rufa. Afanasjev. References [1] B.V. 71 (1993) 3079 [9] A.A. M. Nucl.M. Phys. J.A. Nucl.-G. Rep.A.Y. Lalazissis. Phys. Lett. Phys. Ring. G. This gives us confidence that NL3 can be used successfully in future investigations together with the other parameterizations. Sharma. Z. A581 (1994) 679 [8] J. Ann. B367 (1996) 11 [11] J. P. B317 (1993) 9 [5] G. Rev. Ring. For the first time a RMF parameterization reproduces the isoscalar monopole energies of Pb and Zr nuclei. Nucl.G. Lett.E. Serot and J. J. Ring. We thank Prof. K¨ onig and P. Ring. and A. Adv. Sharma. and P. J. Berghammer.D.A. K¨ onig and P. Phys. A323 (1986) 13 [14] M. as well as the deformation properties. K¨ onig. Reinhard.K. Greiner. M.M. K. K¨ onig. Lalazissis. Maruhn. Nucl. 16 (1986) 1 [2] Y.M. Phys. Nucl.

W.H.W. Nucl. A350 (1992) 283 [17] G. Nucl. Nestor. Friedman. Phys. 76 (1996) 1583 [25] G. Audi and A. Lalazissis. Gils. H. and H. Rebel. Data Nucl. Reinhard.G. Batty. C. C. and P. C. de Jager. B379 (1996) 13 [21] S. Ring. 19 (1989) 1 [20] T. Rev. Data Tables 36 (1987) 495 [19] C. Milner.L.A.T. private communication [23] D. Data Tables 36 (1987) 1 [22] K.W.L. de Vries.E. Lett. Egido.A. Schmid and P. Lalazissis et al. J. Khoo et al.J. and C. L¨ obner. Stelson. Vretenar et al to be published [24] T. de Vries. Adv. A565 (1993) 1 [18] H. Phys.J.W. E. G. to be published 6 . At.[16] K. Phys. Lett. Nucl. Phys.-G. Raman. and P. Gonzalez-Llarena.H. Data and Nucl. Wapstra.H. At. Phys. Malarkey.

306 (4.740 (3.194 (MeV) mω = 782.63 (-783.692) 4.06) -415.730 (2. charge radii and neutron radii used in the fit (values in parentheses) together with the NL3 predictions.000 (MeV) g2 = -10.287 (4.469 (3.593) 5.Table 1: The total binding energies.4 MeV 0.677) 4.730) 3.370) 3. Nucleus 16 O 40 Ca 48 Ca 58 Ni 90 Zr 116 Sn 124 Sn 132 Sn 208 Pb 214 Pb B.50) -782.868 gρ = 4.558) rn (fm) 2.18 (-1049.E (MeV) -128.90) -1639.851) 4.740 (3.885 7 .735 (4.700) 4.580 3.451) 3.431 (fm−1 ) Nuclear matter properties ρ0 (E/A)∞ K J m∗ /m 0.54 (-1636.60 gσ = 10.97) -1105.47) -1661.741 (5.474 g3 = -28.44 (-1102.661 (4. M = 939 (MeV) mσ = 508.450) 3.581 (5.503) 5.328 (3.76 MeV 37.289) 4.1483 fm−3 16.00) -503.501 (MeV) mρ = 763.90) -987.299 MeV 271.520 (5.02 (-342.62 (-1663.69) -1050.611 (4.470 (3.625) 3.15 (-416.15 (-506.62) -342.603 (3.985 5.217 gω = 12.627) 4.855 Table 2: Parameters of the effective interaction NL3 in the RMF theory together with the nuclear matter properties obtained with this effective force.900 (4.83 (-127.709 5.769) 4.67 (-988.30) rch (fm) 2.258) 4.

The values in parentheses correspond to the empirical data.63 (-1294.328 7.306) (5. quadrupole deformation parameters β2 .36) 166 Er -1351.E Sm rc β2 Qp Hp 0.172) (0.825 0.272 0.05) (5. NL-SH along with the empirical values.39 5.23 (-1766.227 0.15 5.36) 162 Dy -1324.11) (5.60) (5.348) (7.347 7.54 (-1324.30) 238 U -1801.09 5.38) Table 4: Isoscalar giant monopole energies calculated with the effective interactions NL3. NL1.0 15.70) 174 Yb -1406.87 (-1351.22+0 −0.349 7.14 (0.303) (0.22) -1294.14 (-1295.099) (0.29 5.790) (0.48 (0.E (in MeV) .5 208 A NL3 13. P b 13.283 10.69) (5.8 ±0.286) (11.873 0.177 0.325) (7.1 19.342 7.12) (1.5 90 Zr 16.336 0.5 8 .46(2)) 0.176 0.341) (7.07 (-1801.9 NL1 NL-SH 11.342) (7.282) (10.39(9)) 0. charge radii rc (in fm).2 ±0.42) 5.251 9.854) (0.49 5.06 (1.Table 3: Total binding energies B.04 .57) (5.410) (0. For details see text A 152 B.77 (-1406.301 5.36 (0.27(10)) 0.18 ) 1.0 16.06 5.67 (-1790.78) 158 Gd -1296.80) (1.45 (0.892 0.32(16)) 0.275 10. proton quadrupole moments qp (in barns) and proton hexadecupole (hp ) moments (in barns2 ) for some deformed rare-earth and actinide nuclei with the parameterization NL3.210) (0.40 5.69) (5.261) (9.58) 232 Th -1766.90) (5.62) 236 U -1790.93 1.16 (0.60 1. expt.0 14.48 (0.

0 -2.0 100 110 120 130 140 NL3 NL-SH NL1 A .0 RHB Calculations Sn M .0 -6.10.0 6.0 8.0 -10.0 2.0 -4.0 0.Mexp (MeV) 4.0 -8.