9 views

Uploaded by Aashu984

relativistic nuclear theory

- modul kimia tingkatan 4
- Atomic and Nuclear Physics
- How It Works World of Tomorrow 2017
- . CYCLOTRON
- Ch02 Lecture
- RWQFexam2008
- Libro_Electricity Demystified 2005.pdf
- Structure of ATOM
- Physics Syllabus for GATE 2015
- Final Exam Study Guide.docx
- 5054_s17_ms_22.pdf
- Set_A
- Compton - What Are Things Made Of
- Assignment
- Electricity
- A Brief History of Physics
- ES EL CONAS
- BITSAT Sample Paper 11
- 582-chapter8
- A Comparison of LOPES Lateral Distributions of the Air-Shower Radio Signal

You are on page 1of 32

., 2015.

Original Russian Text L.N. Savushkin, 2015, published in Fizika Elementarnykh Chastits i Atomnogo Yadra, 2015, Vol. 46, No. 6.

Origin, Current Status, and Trends

L. N. Savushkin

St. Petersburg State University of Telecommunications, St. Petersburg, Russia

email: lev_savushkin39@mail.ru

AbstractThe nuclear shell model (NSM) is a fundamental model of nuclear theory. At the initial stage, the

NSM was developed on the basis of the Schrdinger equation, in particular because it was not clear which

Dirac matrices should be associated with various components of the (relativistic) shell model potential. In the

early 1970s, the relativistic version of the NSM with meson fields as its main components was developed on

the basis of the Dirac equation. The relativistic nuclear shell model (RNSM) includes meson fields with dif

ferent spacetime transformation properties (scalar, fourvector, etc.) that determine the behavior of the

(corresponding) meson fields under Lorentz transformations. This fact directly indicates that nuclear theory

should be relativistic and based on the Dirac equation.

DOI: 10.1134/S1063779615060039

1. BASIC CONCEPTS

Relativistic nuclear theory is an elegant and power

ful tool for describing nuclear properties, and in this

approach it is defined as a relativistic and essentially

nonlinear Fermi system with a pronounced isovector

structure [15].

A relativistic description of nuclei was developed in

line with successes of meson theory, in particular the

meson theory of the NN interaction.

Now lowenergy nuclear physics is completely rel

ativized, and the relativistic formalism reproduces a

wide range of physical phenomena (see below).

According to Yukawas idea, the atomic nucleus

should be treated as a set of nucleons affected by

meson fields of different nature, i.e., meson fields with

different spacetime transformation properties [14].

The fields to be considered are scalar S, vector V, pseu

doscalar P, and other meson fields including both isos

calar and isovector fields (meaning the properties of

fields under Lorentz transformations). For this reason

1

The initial nuclear theory was nonrelativistic because

at that stage it was not clear which Dirac matrices

should be associated with the nuclear potential com

2

ponents, namely,

, , ,

= i [ , ], 5, 5 ,.

2

(1)

the nucleon mass in a medium, which naturally arises in the rel

ativistic theory.

2 In electrodynamics the situation was quite clear from the very

beginning, and the electromagnetic field potential, which was a

fourvector A = (A0, A), could be associated only with the

matrix so that the quantity A was a relativistic scalar.

These are 4 4 noncommuting matrices, 16 in number

[16] (see Appendix A). Construction of the NN

potential on the basis of meson exchange is very

important from the theoretical point of view because

this approach eliminates phenomenology at the level

of the NN interaction by translating it to the field of

elementary particles and their interactions.

Let us consider some properties of the NN potential

generated by the meson exchange (oneboson exchange

potential, OBEP). The longrange part of this potential

is formed by the onepion exchange. This potential

involves a tensor force and a spinspin component, and

it also depends on the isospin [1, 4, 5].

Attraction of nucleons at intermediate distances is

due to either the exchange of the correlated pion pairs

with I = 0, J = 0 (J is the spin and I is the isospin) or

the scalarisoscalar meson exchange.

The further experimental situation was favorable

for development of Yukawas ideas on the nature and

mechanisms of the NN interaction. In particular, vec

tor ( and ) mesons were experimentally observed in

the early 1960s. The OBE scheme was beginning to be

developed at that time, and to date it has been the most

economical quantitative description of the NN inter

action and nuclear systems [18].

1. Modern oneboson exchange potentials usually

comprise three isoscalar mesons (with isospin I = 0):

a scalar (J = 0, P = +1), a vector (J = 1, P = 1),

and a pseudoscalar (J = 0, P = 1) (see Table 1),

where JP is spin and parity, and IG is isospin and Gpar

ity (see also [4, 5] for more detail). Note that each par

tial OBEP component (corresponding to a particular

meson) includes a static part and relativistic correc

tions of order v2/c2 (the pion does not have a static

859

860

SAVUSHKIN

Meson

JG, JP

Meson field

designation

pseudoscalarisovector

139

1, 0+

scalarisoscalar

4001200

0+, 0+

Nucleon

coupling constant

g ps*

f pv

g**

vectorisoscalar

782

vectorisovecto

770

a0 scalarisovector

980

pseudoscalarisoscalar

548

a1 axialisovector

0, 1

1+, 1

1260

g***

= 0, 1, 2, 3

g***

= 0, 1, 2, 3

1, 0+

g a0

0+, 0

ga

,1

* Interaction of the pion and nucleon fields can be presented either in the pseudoscalar form (with the coupling constant g) or in the

pseudovector form (with the coupling constant f), see below.

** OBEP models involve a phenomenological element. The problem in this approach is the scalarisoscalar boson ( or ), an impor

tant component of the models. Empirical evidence for this meson with the required parameter is contradictory so far.

*** The vector fields and interact with the nucleon field either via the direct coupling (with the coupling constants

g and g, respectively) or via the tensor coupling (with the coupling constants f and f, respectively).

not interact via pion exchange).

2. Expressions for I = 1 mesons (isovector mesons)

are obtained from the expressions for I = 0 mesons by

replacing the corresponding boson fields with ,

where is the isospin operator for the nucleon and is

the isovector field (vector in isospin space). The corre

sponding OBEPs are obtained for I = 0 OBEPs by

multiplying it by 1 2, where the subscripts correspond

to two interacting nucleons. In the OBEP models of the

NN potential there are usually three isovector mesons:

pseudoscalarisovector (), vectorisovector (), and

scalarisovector a0 () (See Table 1).

Light mesons included in the OBEP scheme and

their properties are presented in Table 1 (boldface let

ters denote vectors in isotopic space). Numerical val

ues of the coupling constants are given below.

(The coupling constants g and f are usually adjustable

parameters. It is for this reason that their numerical

values are not given in this table.)

We can use, for example, the following regularized

Yukawa function:

Yc(r ) =

g

2

2

4 m

2

(2)

e mr e r 2 m2

r ,

1 +

r

2

r

and is the regularization parameter. The Yukawa

type function cannot be used as the static part of the

phenomenological possibilities for regularizing the

Yukawa potential by cutting off the potential at dis

tances ~0.5 fm.

At the beginning of the 1970s, the reason why the

early relativism manifested itself in lowenergy

nuclear physics was discovered [111]. In [11], for

example, a general form was proposed for the Dirac

equation (including only local potentials for the use in

the context of nuclear structure and compatible with

the requirement of invariance under rotations and

reflections in the fourdimensional space)

i = p + M + S(r ) 3 N Z S (r )

A

t

+ V (r ) 3 N Z V (r )

f

+ i 1 3 N Z V (r ) ,

g 2M

A

(3)

nucleon momentum, M is the nucleon mass, 3 = 1

(the plus corresponds to protons and the minus to

neutrons); S(r), V(r), S (r), and V (r) are the scalar,

vector, scalarisovector, and vectorisovector compo

nents of the nuclear potential (we use the system of

units = c = 1)). In the simplest case of the relativistic

Hartree approximation (RHA), these potentials are

local and independent of the state. In the given

scheme, the pseudoscalar field does not appear

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

861

Table 2. Mesons and fields involved in Eqs. (3) and (4) and their parameters: coupling constants (their numerical values are

given below) and masses (in MeV)

g

(4001200)

g a0

g

g

(782)

V(r) 0+, 1isovectorisoscalar potential (repulsive)

V (r) 1 , 1 vectorisovector potential (contributes to isovector structure of nuclear potential) (770)

(with respect to the ground state) of the pseudoscalar

field, is = 0. In Eq. (3), A = N + Z, where N is the

number of neutrons and Z is the number of protons in

the nucleus.

Note that in (3) the free nucleon mass M appears

with the same Dirac matrix (see Eq. (1)) as the

potential components S(r) and S (r). Thus, in the rel

ativistic formalism the effective nucleon mass has the

following isovector structure (another definition of the

effective nucleon mass is also possible, see below):

M *(r ) = M + S(r ) 3 N Z S (r ),

A

(4)

determined by the scalarisovector meson a0(980).

For N = Z nuclei the isovector components S (r) and

V (r) do not contribute to the isovector components in

Eqs. (1), (3), and (4).

Note that all components in (3) and (4) correspond

to the mesons known from experiment and listed in

Table 2. A more formal point of view is also acceptable.

It considers fields with different (Lorentz) transforma

tion properties (scalar, vector, tensor, axialvector,

etc.) without going deep into the nature of these fields

and leaving the solution of the problem for the future

(in the Hartree approximation these are only short

range mesons). The vectorisovector meson makes

two contributions to Eq. (3) with the potential V(r)

and V (r), where g is the direct coupling constant of

the meson with nucleons (Dirac coupling) and f is

the tensor coupling constant (Pauli coupling).

Note that Eqs. (3) and (4) involve only uncharged

components of the isovector meson fields S (r) and

V (r) (charged components of these fields turn to

zero); the Coulomb potential of the nucleus is pro

duced by protons alone; this potential is automatically

included in V(r). The effective nucleon mass (r) can

be found using the relationship between the large

and small components of the singlenucleon wave

function , which yields

2(r ) = 2M + S 3 N Z S (r )

A

1 + 3

N

Z

V + 3

V (r )

C + ,

2

A

(5)

Vol. 46

the equation

(6)

H D = , = ,

where HD is given by Eq. (3). The notion of (r) is dis

cussed at length in the Section 3.

The order of magnitude of M*(r) can be estimated

as follows:

Write Eq. (3) for N = Z, which results in an equa

tion involving only S and V.

Take into consideration that the combination

S + V determines the depth of the nuclear potential and

S V determines the spinorbit potential; both are

known from experiment.

On this basis, it is possible to obtain the fields

S ~ 420 MeV and V ~ +330 MeV of the effective

mass 0.6M. The calculation is detailed below.

Here we only note that due to large values of the fields

S and V in comparison with M, the relativistic formu

lation of nuclear theory has to be used. The correct

magnitude and sign of the singleparticle spinorbit

potential in the nucleus was the first and most impor

tant result of this approach obtained in [911], which

resolved the problem that had remained unsolved

since the development of the shell model until 1973.

2. LINEAR VERSION

OF RELATIVISTIC NUCLEAR THEORY

Let us introduce the notations

g (r ) = S(r ), g a0 a0(r ) = S (r ),

= (i , 0 ), = 0,1,2,3 i = 0,

i = 1, 2, 3 (spatial components),

(7)

= ( , ) = 0,

i

where boldface symbols denote vectors in isospace,

e.g., the field represents a fourvector in space

time and an isovector, i.e., a vector in isospace, and

here only the neutral (uncharged) component survives

(there are no charged components).

No. 6

2015

862

SAVUSHKIN

ativistic theory contains two components: 0, the

Lagrangian of free fields (nucleon field , various

meson fields, electromagnetic field A) and int, the

interaction Lagrangian of nucleons with mesons [4]

and a photon

= 0(, S, (V ), , A )

+ int (linear in boson fields).

(8)

fields for the linear version of relativistic theory has the

form [4, 5] (boldface symbols denote isovectors, is

the isospin)

int = g

+ g a0

a0

scalar isovector

density

+ g

+ g

vector

density

scalar

density

vector isovector

density

(9)

2M tensor isovector

density

or i

g

.

5

5

m pseudovector

pseudoscalar isovector

isovector

density

density

the expression of int in the form (9):

(1) Interaction of the vectorisovector meson

with nucleons contains two constants, g and f (Dirac

coupling and Pauli coupling).

(2) Interaction of the pseudoscalarisovector pion

with nucleons can be written either in the pseudovec

tor form (coupling constant f) or in the pseudoscalar

form (coupling constant g) (a superposition of these

two types of interaction can also be used).

In (9), gi (i = , a0, , ) denote the coupling con

stants of the corresponding mesons with nucleons.

Interaction of protons with the electromagnetic field

A has a standard form and is not therefore given in (9).

Lagrangian (9) was used to describe phase shifts of

the NN scattering in a wide energy range and proper

ties of the deuteron, nuclear matter, and nuclei within

the relativistic Hartree and HartreeFock

approaches.

The NN scattering was described using OBEPs in

(i) the configuration (coordinate) representation [1, 2, 4,

5] and (ii) the momentum representation [1, 2, 4, 5, 8].

The Lagrangian defined by Eqs. (8) and (9) was

used, and the contribution from the , , , and

mesons was taken into consideration.

OBEPs in the configuration space can be obtained

using, for example, the traditional Fock functional

potential with the following structure for all mesons:

Vtot = Vc (r ) + V(r ) 1 2 + V LS (r ) S

+ VT (r )S12 + V (r ) 2 + V (r )(r ).

(10)

It contains the static part Vc(r) (see (2) and Appendix B),

and its last five terms are relativistic corrections of

order v2/c2 with respect to Vc(r) (see Appendix B). In

Eq. (10), only Vc(r) is parameterized, and all relativis

tic corrections are a uniquely defined structure of

those relativistic equations which were used to obtain

those corrections. The relativistic corrections do not

involve any additional adjustable parameters. Only

Vc(r) is parameterized, and the adjustable parameters

are the coupling constants (g2, f) of some mesons with

nucleons, masses (m) of some mesons, and regulariza

tion parameters (). It is for this reason that the num

ber of adjustable parameters used in the OBEP scheme

is as few as 5 to 10. Note that the twoparticle spin

orbit LS and tensor forces are the relativistic correc

tions (together with V, V, V) of order v2/c2 (where

v is the velocity of nucleons in a nucleus, and c is the

speed of light) in the OBEP scheme and also the com

ponents of theory that do not contain additional

adjustable parameters.

Note the contributions from different mesons to

the particular components of the nucleonnucleon

OBEP (10) (see Appendix C). It is also worth noting

that (i) the scalarisoscalar meson provides (strong)

is responsible for strong repulsion in the NN system

contributions from the and mesons to the two

particle spinorbit potential have identical signs

(which automatically arises from the structure of the

twoparticle relativistic equations, within which both

the static parts Vc(r) and relativistic corrections (10)

are obtained). As to the isovector mesons ( and a0),

their role is much less important than the role of the

isoscalar mesons ( and ), as it is reduced to deter

mining the isovector structure of the shell potential.

Points (i) and (ii) above are of decisive importance for

formation of the entire structure of relativistic nuclear

theory (see Appendix C).

Scalar mesons ()

Vector mesons (, )

Vc V LS V V ,

Vc V LS V V ,

V = 0 VT = 0

V VT

Pseudoscalar mesons ()

(11)

Vc = 0 V LS = 0 V = 0 V = 0.

V

VT

In the OBEP scheme, the contribution to the two

particle spinorbit forces comes from the , , and

mesons while the tensor forces are determined by the

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

contributors to the tensor forces (VT) in the OBEP

scheme are pions due to their large coupling constant

and smaller mass as compared with m and m). This

point is illustrated by the following scheme:

V LS , VT .

(12)

First, we consider the relativistic model that

involves singlenucleon scalar and vector fields (both

isoscalar and isovector); these fields can be obtained

using void OBEPs [12]. We begin with this model

3

doscalar mesons will also be comprehensively consid

ered later). In this case, the singleparticle potential of

the nuclear mean field can be calculated as follows:

A

where potentials S(r), V(r), S (r), and V (r) are calcu

lated, for example, within the perturbation theory on

the basis of the static components of the correspond

ing OBEP. The singleparticle spinorbit potential of

the nucleus is obtained using the Foldy transformation

in Eq. (3)

H

U S 0 = 1 2 1 d [V (r ) S(r )] + 3 N Z

A

4M r dr

(14)

f

S (r ) 1 + 2 V (r ) .

g

S(r) and vector V(r) fields, both isoscalar and isovector,

enter into (13) (for the mean field potential) with iden

tical signs and into (14) (for spinorbit potential) with

4

mine both the value and the sign of the spinorbit poten

1

tial (in nuclear singleparticle spectra the j = level

2

1

should always be higher than the j = + level).

2

Reproduction of the spinorbit potential value and

sign without adjustable parameters is one of the most

important achievements of relativistic nuclear theory

[9, 10].

can also be obtained by starting with twoparticle

spinorbit forces (OBEP) and further proceeding to

the singleparticle spinorbit potential using the stan

dard procedure [15].

The singleparticle spinorbit operator calculated

within the scheme under consideration can be written

as [9]

d

(15)

U SH0 = C H 1 ,

r dr

where CH is the constant calculated within this proce

dure from the Hartree approximation OBEPs, is the

nuclear density, is the angular momentum operator,

and is the spin operator; this constant depends only

on the parameters (g2, f, ) of the OBEP used for the

calculation [9, 10].

H

ultimate spinorbit splitting of the singleparticle state

caused by operator (15). The subscript LS indicates that

only twoparticle spinorbit forces are used to obtain

H

U S0 . The quantity ELS(H) can be presented as a sum

(i)

type of meson responsible for the partial contribution

under consideration, i = , , , a0 (S, V, S, V), and

(H) corresponds to the Hartree approximation

that within the Hartree approximation pions do not contribute

to the formation of the nuclear ground state at all.

4 Some properties of the Dirac equation with two potentials (sca

lar and vector) S(r) and V(r) were discussed in [13, 14]. It can be

said that this work was in advance of its time for it was done

when no mesons were known, except pions.

Vol. 46

(S )

E LS (H ) = E LS

(H )

(16)

(V )

S

(V )

(H ) + E LS

(H ) + E LS

(H ).

+ E LS

In [10], the effect of Fock (exchange) matrix ele

ments on the spinorbit splitting was taken into

account. In this section we consider the results of

those calculations without applying selfconsistency

(the complete selfconsistent problem is discussed in

the next sections). In [10], important relations were

established for doubly magic (and doubly magic a

nucleon) nuclei (in the approximation of shortrange

twoparticle spinorbit forces)

3 PVS

863

No. 6

( ) E (H ) for proton state, (18)

( ) E (H ) for neutron state, (19)

( ) E (H ) for proton state, (20)

E S (HF ) = 1 2 + N

2

A

E S (HF ) = 1 2 + Z

2

A

E V (HF ) = 1 + 3 N

2A

E V (HF ) = 1 + 3 Z

2A

(21)

2N Z

N Z

S

E (HF ) = 3 Z E S (H ) for proton state,(22)

2N Z

S

2015

864

SAVUSHKIN

Table 3. Spinorbit splittings obtained within the HartreeFock (HF) approximation for different OBEPs. Spinorbit

splittings in the Hartree approximation for the same OBEPs are given in parentheses [10]. All values are in MeV; results a

d correspond to different OBEP models. Note that H and HF results in each column of the table are compared for the same

set of OBEP parameters (used in the corresponding column)

a [16]

b [16, 17]

Model II

c [16, 17]

Model III

7.65

9.45

13.8

d [16, 17]

10.1

E1sof ( 41Ca)

6.50

(9.32)

3.30

(4.25)

1.82

(5.56)

2.25

(5.98)

2.37

E 2sop ( 41Ca)

2.00

(2.22)

3.53

(1.01)

2.62

(1.32)

2.88

(1.41)

2.94

2.47

(2.22)

11.2

(1.16)

8.33

(1.43)

9.22

(1.52)

9.37

(7.08)

2.03

(3.70)

1.49

(4.59)

1.66

(4.82)

1.69

(1.28)

(0.667)

(0.830)

(0.874)

E1(iso)(209 Pb)

(so) 209

E3d (

4.57

0.98

Pb)

(23)

2

N =Z

(24)

E S (HF ) = 3 E pS (H ) for proton state.

2

In this section, calculating the spinorbit splitting,

we consider only the exchange (Fock) terms but do not

perform the selfconsistent procedure. However, the

results that we discuss are referred to as HartreeFock

results.

f

f

5+8 N + 4+4 Z

g

g

V

1

E (HF ) =

(25)

2 (1 + 2 f g)(N Z )

S

) (

f

f

5+8 Z + 4+4 N

g

g

V

1

E (HF ) =

2 (1 + 2 f g)(Z N )

) (

(9 + 12 f g )

E V (HF ) =

(2 + 4 f g )

E nV (H )

(26)

(27)

E V (HF ) =

Exp

E Vp (H )

(9 + 12 f g )

(2 + 4 f g )

(28)

orbit splitting produced by all neutron (proton) states

alone, and f/g is the ratio of the tensor and vector cou

pling constants for the vectorisovector meson (with a

nucleon); for the calculations presented in Table 3

f/g = 3.7 (as in the corresponding OBEP models).

Tensor Forces as a Relativistic Correction:

SpinUnsaturated Nuclei

Spinsaturated nuclei are those nuclei for which all

spinorbit doublets are either completely filled or

empty. In spinunsaturated nuclei some of the spin

orbit doublets are partially filled. The HartreeFock

approximation results for spinunsaturated nuclei can

substantially differ from the Hartree approximation

results [1, 18].

For spinunsaturated nuclei (SUNs), in addition to

the abovementioned factors (effective nucleon mass,

inclusion of exchange (Fock) matrix elements, con

structive interference of contributions from scalar and

vector mesons in spinorbit splitting calculations),

other factors that appreciably affect spinorbit split

ting arise in the HartreeFock method. The point is

that for spinunsaturated nuclei twoparticle forces of

any nature (except C(r), where C is an arbitrary con

stant), in particular tensor forces (see Appendix C),

also contribute to the spinorbit splittings, and the

corresponding singleparticle spinorbit operator

(generated by the contribution from spinunsaturated

shells) is governed by the spinorbit density J(r) enter

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

865

Table 4. Contributions from different OBEP components to the spinorbit splittings (in MeV) for the 208Pb nucleus,

Model II [1, 18] and Model III [1, 18]

Splittings (in MeV)

E (1i)

Forces

Model II

E (2 g )

Model III

Model II

E (3d )

Model III

Model II

Model III

3.02

2.54

1.23

1.02

0.548

0.456

2

2

1 2 ( p Yc + Yc p )

2M

0.546

0.571

0.226

0.232

0.100

0.103

1.18

1.17

0.501

0.493

0.22

0.217

1.42

1.45

0.568

0.576

0.253

0.258

3.55

3.62

1.42

1.44

0.633

0.646

Spinorbit forces

8.33

9.22

2.62

2.88

1.49

1.66

Total splitting

3.81

5.11

0.813

1.26

0.682

0.93

2

1 2 ( Y c )

4M

1 ( 2Y )

c 1

2

12M 2

Tensor forces

Experiment

4.57

2.47

ing into the operator that has the following form (this

result is obtained in the shortrange tensor force

approximation):

(29)

U soT ,n = 1 ( J n + J p ) ,

r

(30)

U soT , p = 1 ( J p + J n ) ,

r

where the superscripts/subscripts n and p correspond

to neutrons and protons respectively, while the spin

orbit densities are defined as

J (r ) = 1 3

4r

(2 j

+ 1)

(31)

2

3

j( j + 1) ( + 1) R(r ),

4

where summation is taken over the occupied proton

states and (or) occupied neutron states; note that for

spinsaturated nuclei J(r) = 0 (on the assumption that

the nucleus features spin symmetry, i.e., that the wave

functions R for two states of the spinorbit doublet

are identical), and in (29) and (30) are constants

that are calculated via parameters (of OBEP tensor

forces, for example).

In the HF method, J(r) for spinsaturated nuclei is

zero (accurate to the equality of the radial wave func

tions for the spinorbit doublet Rj = 1/2 Rj = + 1/2

(spin symmetry); it is known that this symmetry works

well for finite nuclei). In [1, 18], contributions to the

spinorbit splittings (of singleparticle states) from

twoparticle forces (associated with the OBEP) of any

6

butions of all componentsexcept LS components of

OBEP (e.g., central forces) to the singleparticle

spinorbit potentialare determined by the operator

of the form (29) and (30). These contributions

depend, among other things, on the number of the

spinunsaturated shells in the nucleus under consider

ation; the results of the corresponding calculations are

presented in Table 4 for spherical nuclei and in Table 5

for deformed nuclei.

In the general case, the singleparticle spinorbit

operator has the following structure for spherical

nuclei:

6 In

for detail).

Vol. 46

d

(32)

1 + 1 J (r) ,

r dr r

where (r) is the nuclear density, and J(r) is the spin

orbit density defined by (31). It should be stressed that

in the mean field (Hartree) approximation the compo

nent J(r) does not appear, at least in the v2/c2 limit.

Note that the role of the Fock (exchange) matrix ele

ments in calculations of spinorbit splittings is very

important (and different for spinsaturated and spin

unsaturated nuclei). This procedure allowed us to use

the potential radius technique for calculating matrix

elements of various OBEP components. In [1, 18],

considering matrix elements of different OBEP com

ponents, we used the following shortrange approxi

mation: matrix elements of different OBEP compo

U

5 Here

0.98

No. 6

LS

matrix elements without performing the selfconsistent proce

dure. We nevertheless refer to these calculations as the Hartree

Fock calculations.

2015

866

SAVUSHKIN

|202 in the 25Mg and 27Si nuclei, in MeV (Model II [1, 18]

and Model III [1, 18] are Ueda and Greens models [16])

25

27

Mg

NNforce

Si

Total

be presented in the form

E so (nn )

i

Spinorbit

Tensor

11.4

7.6

10.7

14.5

12.3

7.7

11.1

15.7

10.9

2.4

3.8

12.3

11.8

2.4

4.0

13.4

quadratic in relative momenta k and k' of two interact

ing nucleons were retained.

We performed similar calculations for deformed

nuclei as well [18]. In that case it was more convenient

to use the expansion of the OBEP in powers of the rel

ative momentum, which is slightly different from the

expansion used for spherical nuclei. We considered

axially symmetric nuclei and the eveneven core

invariant under time reversal. Later, Nilssons asymp

totic representation (Hermite and Laguerre polyno

mials) was used. By virtue of using zero radius approx

imation of the OBEP operator, the individual compo

nents of which are defined as

V i (r, p; 1, 2; 1, 2 ); (c i = LS;T , ),

the spinorbit splitting of the odd nucleon state with

the quantum numbers

(these quantum numbers are discussed in detail in [18]

for an axially symmetric nucleus; note that the quan

tum number n is related to the Hermite polynomial Hn

(33)

i

i

= E (nn = 1) E (nn = + 1),

where Ei is the contribution from the potential V i to

the singleparticle energy of the nucleon. The calcula

tions were performed analytically with the wave func

tions of proper symmetry.

The role of the tensor forces is effectively demon

strated in Tables 4 and 5. In particular, Table 5 presents

the spinorbit splitting of the neutron level |Nn =

|202 in the 25Mg and 27Si nuclei (in the spherical

basis the spinorbit splitting of this level can be com

pared with the splitting of the 1d1/21d3/2 neutron state

in the WoodsSaxon potential with A ~ 27). As is evi

dent from Table 5, the tensor force contributions are

appreciably higher for 25Mg (compared to 27Si)

because this nucleus is spin unsaturated in both neu

trons and protons while 27Si is spin unsaturated only in

neutrons. The tensor force contribution to the spin

orbit splitting emerges through the Fock matrix ele

ments and spinunsaturated shells, considerably

depending on the number of these shells. Twoparticle

spinorbit forces are a specialized component of the

OBEP (and any other nucleonnucleon potentials):

in spinsaturated (SS) nuclei the total spinorbit split

ting is completely determined by the twoparticle

spinorbit force (this statement strictly holds under

spin symmetry, when radial wave functions of two

states of any spinorbit doublet are identical, which is

valid to a high degree of accuracy for real nuclei).

Note that two spinorbit coupling operators (see

(31)) depend on A (in spherical basis) as follows:

(1 r )(d dr ) A 2 / 3,

spinorbit splitting

1 r J (r ) depends on the number of spinunsaturated nuclear shells.

in the perturbation theory framework (but not the self

consistent theory). We discussed a few important

points related to the scalarvector enhancement of

the spinorbit coupling operator ~(V' S'), the role

of the exchange (Fock) matrix elements in the spin

orbit splitting calculations for spherical and deformed

nuclei, isovector structure (components) of the

nuclear potential, and the role of tensor forces in the

structure of atomic nuclei, and also considered impor

tant questions that had remained unanswered until the

abovementioned works appeared.

Note that parameters of mesons in nuclear prob

lems (g, f, m) (they were very few in number) were bor

rowed from problems unrelated to the nuclear struc

ture (e.g., meson parameters) or from nucleon

(34)

was known from experiment and g was taken from the

NN scattering fit; for the meson the mass and the

coupling constant were taken from the NN scattering,

see Table 1).

Because of a lack of space, we only briefly mention a

few other works on the problems under consideration.

In [19, 20], the problem of antiprotonnucleus interac

tion is considered. In this problem the scalar potential

S p 420 MeV retains its sign and value identical to

those in the nucleonnucleus problem, while the vector

potential is V p = 330 MeV; therefore, the depth of the

interaction potential of the antiproton p with the

nucleus becomes S p + V p ~ 800 MeV. In [20], the

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

867

nucleus scattering was considered. Note also the work

[21] on effects of the Coulombnuclear interference in

the nucleonnucleus scattering.

under time reversal, the spatial components of the

fourcomponent field disappear and only the time

component 0 remains.

The Dirac bispinor is presented as

3. WALECKA MODEL,

RELATIVISTIC SATURATION MECHANISM,

AND PARAMETERS OF THE SKYRME

HARTREEFOCK METHOD

Saturation [22, 23] is an important feature of mod

ern relativistic approaches resulting from consider

ation of the small component of the nucleon wave

function (which leads to a decrease in the mathemati

cal expectation of the singleparticle operator for

kinetic energy).

In 1974, Walecka [24, 25] proposed an elegant

method for constructing a theory using the Lagrangian

W that involved nucleons and two meson fields, sca

lar and vector

(44)

= ,

where is the large component of the bispinor, is

its small component, and comprises a complete set

of the quantum numbers of the state under consider

ation; S and V can thus be presented as

W = (i M g g )

2 2

+ 1 1 m 1 + 1 m ,

2

2

4

2

where for we have

= .

(35)

(36)

see that Lagrangian (35) is a particular case of Eq. (8),

and Eq. (35) contains only two meson fields: scalar

(attractive) and vector (repulsive). Equations of

motion for Lagrangian (35) have the form

(i M g g ) = 0,

(37)

( + m2 ) = g ,

(38)

(39)

( + m2 ) = g .

In the static case, terms with a time derivative disap

pear; if there is invariance under time reversal, the spa

tial components of the meson field vanish, = 0. In

this case we have

( m2 ) = g ,

(

m2 )0

(40)

= g ,

0

(41)

0

the vector density (the time component of the baryon

current). In (40) and (41) both densities are written in

a symbolical form. In the expanded form we obtain

S =

S =

V =

V =

(43)

(45)

+ .

(46)

baryon density; it is normalized to the total number of

particles and defined as a sum of the moduli squared of

the large and small components of the relativistic

nucleon wave function. The scalar density S com

prises the difference of the same quantities; it can

decrease when the small component becomes impor

tant, e.g., in the case of a possible collapse.

As is evident from (40), the scalar density S in the

source of the attractive potential S is a starting point of

the possible collapse. It means that there is a relativis

tic mechanism that stabilizes the system.

Below in this section we will not make any assump

tions as to the nature of the scalar S(r) and vector V(r)

fields in the nucleus.

Dirac equation (37) for stationary states (E = M + )

can be presented as two coupled equations for the large

and small components of the relativistic nucleon

wave function

(47)

= p + [V (r ) + S(r )],

(48)

= p [2M + S(r ) V (r )].

It is convenient to examine an N = Z (spherically sym

metric) nucleus with the Coulomb potential ignored

for a time (it can be easily taken into consideration

because V and VCoul have identical transformation

properties). It follows from Eq. (48) that the effective

nucleon mass (r) can be determined as [26]

2(r ) = 2M + S (r ) V (r ),

(49)

while bearing in mind that M ( is a nonrelativistic

eigenvalue. Thus, from (48) we have

1 p .

2(r )

(50)

wave functions of these states are obtained by solving

Vol. 46

(42)

No. 6

1 p = p 1 p + 1 d 1 , (51)

2(r )

2(r )

r dr 2(r )

2015

868

SAVUSHKIN

= p 1 p + V (r )

2(r )

(52)

1

1

d

+ S(r ) +

.

r dr 2(r )

particle with an effective mass (r) moving in the cen

tral and spinorbit potentials. A similar equation is

derived within the HartreeFock approximation with

Skyrme forces (HFS) [28]. It should be stressed that in

the HFS the spinorbit potential is introduced phe

nomenologically, while in the relativistic theory it is

expressed as a derivative of the inverse of the double

effective nucleon mass. A number of estimations can

be made on the basis of this fact. Let us compare the

spinorbit potential in (52) and the empirical spin

orbit potential

LS d V

(53)

, LS = 85 . 5 MeV fm5,

r dr

where V is the nuclear density. The comparison yields

U LS (r ) =

d 1 = d V ,

LS

dr 2(r )

dr

(54)

and

1 = 1 + (r ).

(55)

LS V

2(r ) 2

Integrating (54), we used the boundary conditions

(r) = M and (r) = 0 for r , which are quite obvi

ous: the nuclear density becomes zero outside the

nucleus while the effective mass becomes equal to the

free nucleon mass. The HFS also leads to (55), but it is

an exact equation within the HFS, while in the relativ

istic case a more accurate result can be obtained (see

[4] and references therein). From Eqs. (54) and (55)

we can obtain

= 2M + S V = 0. 6.

(56)

V S = 0 . 8M = 750 MeV,

(57)

M

2M

Using this result, we obtain

inside the nucleus. To estimate the quantity V + S, we

will make use of the fact that the potential well power

is determined by the quantity 2(V + S)R2, where R is

the nuclear radius. Comparing this quantity with the

power of the nonrelativistic shell potential well and

considering that = M (in this case), we obtain

2(S + V ) = 2MU sh.

Setting Ush 50 MeV, we easily obtain

V + S = M U sh 90 MeV.

(58)

(59)

obtained using the intranuclear density 0.17 fm3,

shell potential depth Ush 50 MeV, and spinorbit

potential LS 85 MeV fm5 without any assumptions

as to the nature of the scalar and vector fields. For this

reason the above estimate can be treated as model

independent.

Using numerical values for LS from (55) and (50),

we arrive at the following expression for small compo

nents of wave functions for singleparticle nucleon

states in a nucleus:

= i (1 + 4 . 123(r )) p .

2M

(60)

functions are appreciably enhanced in the nucleus,

and this fact should be taken into account to consider

the behavior of the nucleus in the external fields acting

between the large and small components of the wave

functions. Electromagnetic fields of the magnetic type

and the pion field [26] are examples of this type of

fields (e.g., interaction with the pion field involves a

5 matrix, which is nondiagonal and thus the matrix

elements simultaneously contain and ).

Now let us take into consideration the fact that the

fields V and S are selfconsistent, i.e., they depend on

the nuclear density V(r). To this end, in accordance

with the relativistic nuclear shell model, we identify

the field V(r) with the meson field and the field S(r)

with the scalar meson field, which obey the corre

sponding KleinGordon equations.

It is known that the saturation property is achieved

in nuclear matter if the central potential (as a function

of density) has a minimum at a particular density

(consideration of kinetic energy only shifts this mini

mum to lower densities). Let us discuss how this prop

erty is implemented in relativistic theory. To make the

estimate, we make use of the fact that the density in the

central core is almost a constant. We can use equations

(valid for nuclear matter)

S g =

g 2

,

2 S

m

(61)

g 2

V ,

m2

(62)

V = g 0 = +

that is, the fact that meson fields are directly expressed

in terms of the corresponding densities. The density V

is expressed in terms of the Fermi momentum in a

conventional way

V =

2 pF

.

3 2

Vol. 46

(63)

No. 6

2015

/M V, fm3

1.0

0.5

0.8

0.4

869

U, UII, MeV

196

U

/M

98

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

UII

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

S, fm3

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

V, fm3

98

the scalar density S.

sity V.

plicated form

responsible for the nuclear saturation phenomenon

(see Fig. 2).

In nonrelativistic theory small components of wave

functions are ignored, and thus S = V (it is obvious

from Eqs. (45) and (46)); in this case the depth of the

central potential is given by an equation of the form

( denotes nonrelativistic nuclear density)

S =

p F

4M * d 3p

(2)

p +M

2

= M2*

p + pF2 + M *2

pF pF2 + M *2 M *2 ln F

, (64)

M*

2

g

M * = M + S = M 2 S .

m

Considering (63), Eq. (64) is a transcendental equa

tion that determines dependence of S on V and can

be solved analytically for V 0 and V . We

obtain

V 0,

V ,

S =

2

2

(Mm ) (g ), V .

2

(65)

sponds to the ultrarelativistic limit. The dependence of

S on V is shown in Fig. 1 together with the depen

dence of /M on the scalar density. An important

conclusion can be drawn from this figure and Eq. (65):

the scalar density coincides with V at low densities,

but it is quickly saturated as the baryon density V

increases. By virtue of Eq. (61), the nuclear scalar

potential depends on the density in a similar way, and

for this reason the nuclear central potential

U =V +S =

g 2

g 2

2 V

2 S

m

m

g2 g2

(67)

U I = 2 2 ,

m m

i.e., it has no minimum (as a function of density) at all

and infinitely increases, which gives rise to a collapse

in accordance with Wigners wellknown result [29]

(see also references therein). Thus, in the relativistic

nuclear shell model the saturation property has a pure

relativistic nature. This property occurs only because

in the nucleus there are two fields (S and V) with the

transformation properties of the relativistic scalar and

the relativistic vector and also because the nucleon

wave function has a small component. In the Har

treeFock nonrelativistic theory with Skyrme forces

(HFS), the saturation property is ensured by the para

bolic dependence of the nuclear central potential on

the density of the following form (it is also presented in

Fig. 2):

(68)

U II = a + b 2.

Requiring that the function UII have the minimum at

the same point as the relativistic nuclear central

potential (66) calculated with the parameters of the

Walecka model

(66)

Vol. 46

No. 6

2

2

CV2 = M2 g 2 = 195 . 7, C S2 = M2 g S2 = 266 . 9,

m

mS

2015

(69)

870

SAVUSHKIN

Table 6. Comparison of the relativistic Hartree approximation [26] parameters with the Skyrme II set of parameters [28]

(MeV fm5)

a (MeV fm3)

b (MeV fm6)

c (MeV fm5)

e (MeV fm5)

85.5

101

816

783

1889

1750

200

169

125

101

Skyrme II [28]

we obtain

ally in nonrelativistic theory.

3

(70)

the nucleus. Equations (38) and (39) for the stationary

states can be written as

V (r ) =

g 2

(r ) + 12 V (r ),

2 V

m

m

(71)

g2

S(r ) = 2 S (r ) + 12 S(r ),

m

m

approaches can be found in [3, 30, 31].

Relativistic selfconsistent calculation of the Har

tree type for the Walecka model was performed in [32]

(see also [33, 34], where three types of relativistic cor

rections to the Dirac equation were established in the

Foldy approximation).

(72)

istic selfconsistent theory (0+) was investigated for

stability against excitations (0) with the spin and par

ity of the meson field, i.e., different from the ground

state symmetry. It was shown that superposition of two

types of coupling of pions to nucleons could be the

mechanism which ensures stability of a ground state

against pion condensation in relativistic theory (a pos

sibility of isobar excitations was taken into account

in the work).

the nuclear central potential has a correction

the relativistic Hartree method on the bases of the

Sakurai vector dominance model [37].

tion procedure. Making the first iteration while ignor

ing the difference between and S, we obtain the cor

rection for the finite size of the nucleus in the form

1U = c(r ),

c=

g 2

4

m

g 2

4

m

2U = e(r ), (r ) =

(73)

2

g 2 g 2

5

1

e=

+ = 125 MeV fm ,

2 m2 m2

where (r) is the kinetic energy density. Thus we have

obtained HFS results both for the effective nucleon

mass (formula (55)) and for the nuclear potential

( )

LS d

, (74)

r dr

and calculated all HFS parameters for N = Z nuclei,

beginning with the parameters of the relativistic shell

model. In Table 6 these parameters are compared with

the Skyrme II set of parameters [28], one of the most

often used in HFS calculations. From the table and

Eq. (74) it is evident that the HFS method is actually

an imitation of the nuclear relativistic method in non

relativistic terms.

Note that the relativistic mean field approximation

RMFA and the HFS method have much in common

but are different in some detail.

As to the general differences of the two approaches,

it should be borne in mind that, for example, the spin

orbit interaction operator arises quite naturally in the

U HFS = a + b2 c + e(r ) +

4. ROLE OF NONLINEARITY

IN THE RELATIVISTIC MEAN

FIELD APPROXIMATION

In its initial form, the relativistic mean field approx

imation involves only isoscalar mesons ( and ) and

one vectorisovector meson (the latter is introduced

to describe properties of isotopes and asymmetric

nuclear matter). However, this model only qualita

tively describes ground states of atomic nuclei and

nuclear matter. The compression modulus of nuclear

matter and properties of nuclear surface cannot be

reproduced within this simple version ([15] and ref

erences therein). In [38, 39], the authors investigated

the role of the selfinteraction of the scalar meson field

in a nuclear medium like (3 + 4). Selfinteraction of

meson fields is associated with multiparticle forces.

The compression modulus and surface properties of

nuclei are well reproduced in the model with the scalar

field selfinteraction, but binding energies and radii of

nuclei cannot be simultaneously well reproduced

without these components (see [5] and references

therein). Inclusion of the 4 selfinteraction was the

next step made by Boguta and Bodmer [38, 40] (cubic

selfinteraction in the Lagrangian ~3 cannot be used

for the reason of parity).

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

form of the functional that involves and meson

fields was introduced in [40, 41]. This functional

involves mesonmeson interactions, particularly of

the type

1 g 4 1 g 5 2

2

2

(which are substantiated by chiral symmetry). In

[4042] this type of Lagrangian was used together with

the (3 + 4) terms for investigating properties of finite

nuclei and nuclear matter. The investigation showed

that the model with the interaction described

binding energies and charge radii of nuclei in a wide

range of A. In addition to K = 265 MeV (where K is the

compression modulus of nuclear matter), the model

successfully reproduces resonance energies of the

breathing mode of the monopole isoscalar giant reso

nance. The behavior of the equation of state of nuclear

and neutron matter at high densities is appreciably

softer than in the case of only the scalar nonlinear

model (with nonlinearities of only the scalar field).

Similar calculations were performed for deformed

nuclei.

At present, nonlinear terms are phenomenologi

cally introduced in the mean field approximation

scheme, and their role is similar to that of density

dependent forces in the nonrelativistic formalism.

Properties of nuclei were extensively investigated

within this approach with different types of nonlinear

ity, and it was demonstrated that an atomic nucleus

was a pure nonlinear relativistic system [15].

An alternative possibility of introducing nonlinear

ity in relativistic theory of the nuclear structure is

through the density dependence of mesonnucleon

coupling constants. This was first done in [43] and

later in [4446]. This method is now referred to as the

relativistic densitydependent Hartree method

(RDDH), later extended to be used in the framework

of the relativistic HartreeFock method (see below).

The relativistic Hartree method involves the fol

lowing equations that are solved using the selfconsis

tent procedure:

1. The Dirac equation for nucleon wave functions

(r).

2. The KleinGordon equation for meson fields:

scalarisoscalar field S(r),

vectorisoscalar field V(r),

vectorisovector field V (r).

3. The KleinGordon equation for the Coulomb

field A0(r).

The sources of the meson fields are

(a) Scalar density S(r).

(b) Vector (baryon) isoscalar density V(r).

(c) Vectorisovector density 3(r).

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

871

sity p(r). These densities are defined in terms of the

nucleon wave function as

v ,

(75a)

v ,

(75b)

S =

V =

3 =

v

2

0 3 ,

(75c)

p =

v

2

1 + 3

.

2

(75d)

are 1 for occupied states and 0 for unoccupied states.

2

For nuclei with open shells, partial v filling probabil

ities are introduced for each nucleon state denoted by

. In what follows we only briefly discuss the problem

of pairing correlation in the BCS (BardeenCooper

Schrieffer) form (a comprehensive discussion of this

problem in the context of relativistic theory can be

found, for example, in [47, 48]).

In this scheme the filling probability becomes (we

give the schematic paring model with a constant gap)

E E F

(76)

v 2 = 1 1

,

2

(E E F )2 + 2

for the quantum state with singleparticle energy E.

2

2

11.2 MeV A1/2. The quantity EF is obtained from the

condition

(77)

,

2

2

E

E

(

)

F

where N is the number of protons or neutrons. BCS

calculations allow considering singleparticle states up

to one more shell above the Fermi energy [49]. For

most nuclei not very close to the drip line this method

presents no problems. However, when approaching

the drip line the singleparticle states above the Fermi

level become unbound. In this case, for mere practical

reasons, contributions only from bound states are

taken into account in (76). Also, the pairing energy

=N =1

2

E E F

E pair =

u v

(78)

Finally, corrections to the total energy and the

charge radius for the centerofmass motion should be

made. In the relativistic formalism it is difficult to sep

No. 6

2015

872

SAVUSHKIN

for this reason the nonrelativistic ansatz

E ZPE =

2

F Ptotal

F

2M total

(79)

is used, where

2

M total = AM , Ptotal

=

p .

2

i

(80)

chosen. In the first case, |F is the wave function of the

harmonic oscillator, and we therefore can determine

EZPE analytically

E ZPE =

2

F Ptotal

F

(81)

, MeV.

2M total

This simple form is used in some sets of parameters

for heavy nuclei because the nuclear binding energy is

high while the correction for the centerofmass

motion is small. For light nuclei, the corrections

become appreciably large, and the more appropriate

choice is |F = |FH (relativistic Hartree method). Pair

ing correlations play a very important role in nuclear

physics, in particular in relativistic nuclear theory.

This topic is discussed at greater length within the rel

ativistic approach in [4, 5, 5052].

5. SPIN AND PSEUDOSPIN SYMMETRY

IN FINITE NUCLEI

The condition S + V S V is one of the main fea

tures of all reasonable modern relativistic models that

ensure, among other things, the correct value and sign

of the spinorbit force in the nucleus. At the same

time, inadequate use of this very condition in some of

the recent publications has led to inadequate treat

ment of pseudospin symmetry (PSS) in finite nuclei

an interesting phenomenon in nuclear physics closely

related to spin symmetry. The notion of PSS was intro

duced in nuclear physics about 50 years ago [5361],

and it is still one of the central topics in the nuclear

structure research. A lot of interesting results have

been obtained in the past 20 years [6280].

In the central potential the singlenucleon wave

functions have the form [4, 5]

iG(r) jem

(82)

= 1

= ,

r F(r)( n) jem

where G(r) and F(r) are the large and small radial

components of the wave function, jem is the spin

r

angular function, n = ,

and is a quantum number

r

1

of relativistic theory defined as = j + for j =

2

1/2. Apart from the eigenvalue (see (47), (48)),

metry (82), the spinor is characterized by the angular

momentum quantum number, parity, and isospin. For

spherical nuclei, equations (82), (47), and (48) are

reduced to two differential equation of the second

order in the large G(r) and small F(r) components of

the (nucleon) wave function.

In [53, 54], quasidegeneracy of the singlenucleon

states of the a and b doublets with the quantum numbers

r

(83)

and total angular momentum quantum numbers

respectively, was observed in heavy nuclei. In the

abovementioned works, the pseudoorbital angular

formalism, the pseudospin quantum number s = 1/2

doublets (PSDs). Based on the rule n r = nr, two PSD

pairs of pseudodoublets (4s1/2, 3d3/2) and (3d5/2, 2g7/2)

can be presented as pseudodoublets ( 4p 1/2, 4p 3/2 ) and

( 3f 5/2, 3f 7/2 ) respectively. Within the shell model, the

amount of the pseudospinorbit splitting is usually

much smaller than that of the spinorbit splitting.

the natural order of levels; if inverted, the order of lev

els is referred to as unnatural. This terminology

comes from dealing with normal spinorbit splittings,

when the natural order corresponds to the only possi

ble situation. We will say that the pseudodoublet

(PSD) manifests pseudospin symmetry (PSS) if its

constituent pseudopartners have identical energy.

Similarly, we will say that there is spin symmetry (SS)

if two levels of the spin doublet (SD) have identical

energy.

Now it is well established that PSS manifests itself

in nuclei as slightly broken symmetry. The PSS for

malism was initially limited by a change of labels,

which led to almost degenerate pseudodoublets that

were observed empirically. However, the nature of

7

7

than spinorbit splitting over the entire shell scheme. Note also

an interesting fact related to the energy spectrum of the three

dimensional nonrelativistic harmonic oscillator potential without

spinorbit force. In this case shells (2s, 1d), (2p, 2f), (3s, 2d, 1g),

etc. turn out to be degenerate. It is an example of dynamic

degeneracy.

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

singleparticle Hamiltonian H = H0 l s k 2,

where H0 is the oscillator potential, established within

relativistic theory that exact PSS could be obtained if

the spinorbit potential and the orbitorbit

potential obeyed the condition /k = 1/4. This rela

tion approximately holds for medium and heavy

nuclei. In [55, 56], using nonrelativistic reduction, the

authors established a similar ratio of the spinorbit

and orbitorbit coefficients within different mean

field approximation models (the dynamic character of

PSS agrees with these results). PSS is widely used to

explain various features of deformed nuclei, e.g., iden

tical rotational bands [5660].

Recently it has been found that the nature of PSS

can be adequately treated within the relativistic for

malism [6164]. J.N. Ginocchio was the first to relate

the nature of PSS to the properties of the Dirac

Hamiltonian and indicate that

= ',

(84)

tum number introduced above is identical to the angu

lar momentum quantum number ' of the small com

ponent F of the Dirac spinor. It is an important obser

vation indicating that the nature of PSS in nuclei can

be essentially related to the relativistic character of the

motion of nucleons in nuclei.

We introduce the following notations

(85)

A(r ) S(r ) + V (r ) ,

B(r ) 2M + + S (r ) V (r ).

(86)

Considering (85) and (86), the Dirac equation in

spherical coordinates can be written as

d G(r ) = G(r ) + BF (r ),

(87)

dr

r

d F (r ) = AG(r ) + F (r ),

(88)

dr

r

where G(r) and F(r) are the large and small compo

nents of the Dirac spinor, and = E M is the single

particle energy of the nucleon with mass M and rela

tivistic energy E. From Eq. (88) we easily obtain

(89)

G(r ) = 1 d F (r ) + F (r ) .

A(r ) dr

r

The solutions G(r) and F(r) can be found as solutions

of the equations

( + 1) + AB G = 0,

(90)

G" + B' G' + +

B G r

r2

'(' + 1) + AB F = 0,

(91)

F " + A' F ' +

A F r

r2

where A(r) and B(r) are represented by Eqs. (85) and

(86) while the quantity

( )

( )

AB = 2MA + 2 V + (S 2 V 2 ) 2,

(92)

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

873

they are different in some points.

1. The centrifugal barrier ( + 1)/r 2 entering into

(90) is determined by the orbital angular momentum

quantum number , whereas the pseudocentrifugal

barrier '(' + 1)/r 2 in (91) is determined by the pseu

doorbital angular momentum quantum number '.

Note also that

(93)

( + 1) = ( + 1), ( 1) = '(' + 1).

2. The term in (90) (which will be referred to as

the G term) is determined by the factor B'/B,

which will be referred to as the spinorbit potential

(SOP)

1

d(S V ) .

(94)

+ 2M + S V r dr

The term in (91) (which will be referred to as the

F term) is determined by the factor A'/A, which

will be referred to as the pseudospinorbit potential

(PSOP)

d(S + V ) ;

1

(95)

S V r

dr

the latter operator is often treated as the spinorbit

potential of the small component.

The solution of Eq. (90) with the same number of

nodes nr of the large component G(r) and the same

value of forms a spin doublet (SD) while the solution

of Eq. (91) with the same number of nodes n r of the

a pseudospin doublet (PSD).

Since depends on j, the terms in (90) and (91)

are responsible for the splitting of the spin and pseu

dospin doublets respectively, i.e., the corresponding

terms break SS and PSS. However, if B'/B = 0 (in this

case there is no spinorbit force), spin symmetry is

restored. Similarly, if A = const, then A'/A = 0, and

pseudospin symmetry is restored.

3. The main difference between (90) and (91) is

that A(r) becomes zero at a particular point r0 at the

nuclear surface (see [5, 76]). In this case, we have

A'/A ~ (r r0)1 as r r0, and the F ) term

(A'/A /r) in (91) turns out to be singular at r = r0

(note that A'/A only slightly depends on A through r0).

Adequate treatment of the PSOP singularity [5, 76]

responsible for the PSS breaking becomes an impor

tant point of our consideration. Note that each of four

terms in (91) is a continuous function. In particular,

the term A'/A(F '/F /r) makes an integrally contin

uous contribution. However, we are only interested in

the component (k/r)(A'/A) as the component that

breaks PSS, and it really has a singularity. Since we are

interested in PSSbreaking potentials, we have to deal

with the singular potential. Note that it is the singular

ity which does not allow, among other things, elimi

No. 6

2015

874

SAVUSHKIN

the standard Schrdinger equation.

4. Finally, note the fact concerning the nonrelativ

istic limit in (90) and (91). The spinorbit term, (90)

and (94), in the equation for the large component G

has a relativistic nature, and the quantity 2M (in the

denominator of operator (94)) stresses the relativistic

origin of spinorbit force operator (94). On the other

hand, the pseudospinorbit potential, though appear

ing in the equation for the small component F, has a

nonrelativistic nature (operator (95) cannot have the

factor 2M in the denominator).

Different authors obtained different conditions for

occurrence of PSS in finite nuclei:

(i) S + V 0 [6164, 67, 68].

decrease, and the G functions of two spinorbit dou

blet states become more and more similar, i.e., both SS

and SS* improve. It all means that the relation of SS

and SS* to |S V| is substantially different from the

relation of PSS or PSS* to |S + V| due to different

behavior of the (G ) and (F ) terms in (90) and

(91), respectively.

PSS and the F term. As was explained above,

the F term in (91) breaks PSS. Since A(r0) = 0, the

F term is large in the vicinity of r0, and thus Fa and

Fb are most different in the vicinity of r0, where a and

b are two pseudodoublet states, and r0 is the singular

point of the function A(r) (see (85)). Actually, the F

term together with the pseudocentrifugal barrier

( + 1)

A'

(ii) The F terms is small

2

Ar

r

[67, 68].

(iii) Various contributions to energy (91) partially

compensate for one another [69, 70].

PSS and S + V. As is shown in [64], in the limit

S + V = 0 two pseudospin partners a and b have iden

tical energies, and the functions Fa and Fb are identical

up to a phase

nuclear surface, and both terms are essential. It means

that the F term cannot be regarded as considerably

smaller than the pseudocentrifugal barrier (compare

with [67, 68]). However, the F term is close in

behavior to the odd function in the vicinity of r0. This

allows a small pseudospin splitting when Fa and Fb are

very different. Actually, within the realistic description

of the DiracHartree type the condition a = b

(96)

a = b and Fa = Fb.

Let us designate this particular type of pseudospin

symmetry as PSS* (actually, it is this particular type of

pseudospin symmetry that is considered in the above

mentioned works of Jinocchio). Note that what we

designate as PSS is the case where a b (without the

requirement that Fa Fb). The condition S + V = 0

allows no bound states (except for models with too

unrealistic S V values). In real nuclei, (S + V) is

small (+50 MeV) (but not zero). On this basis, it is

stated in [62, 63] that we can expect approximate

PSS* (i.e., a b and Fa Fb). In [74] it is shown that

neither PSS nor PSS* necessarily improve as |S + V|

decreases. On the other hand, all pseudospin doublets

that become degenerate (a = b) for a given S + V

value are split if S + V varies, in particular if it

decreases. Also, Fa becomes appreciably different

from Fb as S + V decreases, when a or b become close

to the continuum. These arguments allow stating that

neither PSS nor PSS* can be based on the assumption

of smallness of S + V.

SS and S V. In the limit S V = 0, two states of

the spin doublet (SD) have identical energy (i.e., there

is exact spin symmetry); moreover, the corresponding

two functions G are identical (we designate this special

type of SS as SS*). In real nuclei |S V| is large, and

therefore neither SS nor SS* could be expected.

Indeed, nuclei have large spinorbit splittings, but the

G functions of the spin partners are very similar (actu

ally, much more similar than the small components F

for the pseudospin partners) [7376]. Furthermore, if

case). Then we can say that quasidegenerate pseudo

doublets arise not because the F term is small but

rather by virtue of the compensation of the contribu

tions from the terms of Eq. (91) that are different from

the F term (including this term as well); the details

of this compensation depend on S and V [69, 79]. For

this reason, PSS can be treated as dynamic symmetry.

There are indications of this property in [69, 79]. In

particular, with the aid of the scalar meson mass (while

the basis quantities of the selfconsistent calculation of

nuclear ground states are retained) it is possible to

change the sign of the pseudospin splitting while the

small absolute value of the splitting is kept unchanged.

This calculation is performed, for example, for the

40Ca nucleus that has one pseudodoublet. Note also

that the F term contribution to the splitting of the

pseudospin doublet need not be very large in particular

cases. Surprisingly, in some of these cases this contri

bution is of opposite sign relative to the ultimate spin

orbit splitting [8082]. In [82], very important impact

of the spinorbit force on the pseudospinorbit split

tings was demonstrated.

term in Eq. (90) breaks spin symmetry. Since B '/B

(S ' V ')/2M, the G term can be treated as a rela

tivistic correction. Actually, for the spinorbit doublet

states Ga Gb, though the spinorbit splittings are

8 It

ber of zeros (due to the corresponding boundary conditions).

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

with perturbation theory. We can conclude that the

G term, which breaks SS and is considered to be

large, turns out to be less essential than the F term,

which breaks PSS but is considered as less essential in

a number of publications (see above).

In [82] it is shown that for two states, a and b of the

pseudospin doublet, the degree of likelihood of two

functions Fa and Fb quickly enhances with increasing

number of nodes ( n r ) in each of them.

For spinorbit doublets the degree of likelihood of

two components G (in any spinorbit doublet) quickly

increases with increasing number of nodes (nr) in both

components, as does the degree of degeneracy of the

corresponding energy levels. However, for pseu

dospinorbit doublets the latter correlation (between

the number of nodes in F and the degree of degeneracy

of the pseudoorbital doublet) does not take place.

6. RELATIVISTIC ORIGIN

OF THE KINK EFFECT

IN THE ISOTOPE CHAIN

Charge radii (rc) of Pb isotopes have recently been

measured with a high accuracy [83], and the most sig

nificant feature of the measurements is their anoma

lous kink behavior. The kink effect means that the

experimental data on rc as a function of A the isotope

9

as the number neutron number gradually increases.

This phenomenon has been a subject for thorough dis

cussions of various theoretical groups in the past years

(see [8498]).

At the first stage it was shown that a nonrelativistic

model (HF) with densitydependent forces and the

standard Skyrme parameterization [84], as well as with

the Gogny forces [87], was unable to reproduce exper

imentally observable (empirical) charge isotope shifts

in the lead isotope chain.

On the other hand, in [4, 5, 8589] the anomalous

behavior of the charge radii of those isotopes was

investigated in the relativistic Hartree approximation

(RHA). As follows from these works, the kink effect

data are well reproduced by the relativistic theory of

this type without using additional parameters. In [86]

it was assumed that the successful description of the

kink effect within the RHA was due to the weak isovec

tor dependence of the spinorbit force, which was

associated with the RHA.

In [86] the problem of isotope shifts was exhaus

tively investigated within both the SkyrmeHartree

Fock approximation and the RPA, and the authors

more general structure of the spinorbit force than in

the standard Skyrme functional. Using it, they also

reproduced the kink effect, but their energy potential

contained an additional parameter while the corre

sponding component could not be obtained from the

twoparticle operator of the HF approximation.

The experimental charge radii for 208Pb demon

strate two remarkable properties. One is the above

mentioned kink, and the other is the oddeven stag

gering effect [83, 84]. However, the Pb isotope chain is

of particular interest.

In [88] the goal of the authors was to investigate the

kink effect within the RHA, with an emphasis on the

role of the isovectorvector meson. In the RHA

[4, 5] the relativistic Dirac spinor (r) for the nucleon

with rest mass M satisfies the Dirac Eqs. (37), (47),

and (48) with the scalar S(r) and vector V(r) potentials

defined by equations

S(r ) = g (r),

1 + 3

(98)

A0(r),

2

where the contributions from the vectorisovector

3

0 ( r ) and Coulomb A0 components are taken into

account. In this section we do not consider the contri

bution from the tensor coupling of the meson field

with the nucleon field (this coupling was introduced

by Pauli in electrodynamics to reproduce the anoma

lous part of the electron magnetic moment). The cor

responding interaction appears in Eq. (3) (term

~f/g). Its role in the kink effect will be considered

below.

Note also that the pion field and the spatial compo

nents of the vector meson fields ( and ) become zero

in the problem under consideration.

3

Gordon equation. Designating the upper (larger)

component of the Dirac spinor (r) as (r) and intro

ducing the normalized wave function ( r ) [4, 5]

(r)

(r) =

B

12

12

(99)

equation in ( r ) to the Schrdingertype equation that

does not involve the first derivative of the function (r).

For spherically symmetric nuclei it has the form

cent

S0

2M

= 1 + (r),

2M

the effect in the Pb chain (within the Hartree approximation).

Vol. 46

(97)

V (r ) = g 0(r) + 3 g 30(r) + e

9 A kink in the behavior of charge radii was also observed in Kr, Rb,

875

No. 6

2015

(100)

876

SAVUSHKIN

rc, fm

5.53

NL3

NLSH

L

EXP

5.52

5.51

5.50

5.49

208

206

210

SH [95], and NL3 [96] models normalized to the experi

mental value for the 208Pb nucleus. Experimental values

EXP are taken from [97].

potential VS0 are presented by the equations

Vcent = S + V + S V + V + Vcent ,

M

2M

(101)

2

V cent = 1 1 W + 1 W + 1 W ' ,

r

2M 4

2

(102)

S' V '

(103)

,

2M + + S V

(104)

VS 0(r) = 1 2W S.

2M r

The potential Vcent(r) depends on energy, and we con

sequently can introduce effective mass M defined by

W =

10

the equation

M = 1 dVcent 1 V .

(105)

M

d

M

Writing the Dirac equation in this form (100), we can

separately investigate the influence of different com

ponents in this equation on the kink effect (e.g., we

can investigate whether particular components of this

form are of relativistic origin or not).

In [88] the kink effect calculations were performed

for the Pb isotope chain within the standard relativistic

Hartree method using a linear model (L) [94] and two

nonlinear models with the scalar field selfinteraction

[95, 96].

10

mass M* = M + S defined above.

models are presented in Fig. 3 (charge radii rc in the

figure are normalized to the experimental values for

the 208Pb nucleus). The kink effect manifests itself in

all three models, most distinctly in the models with a

smaller compression modulus K.

To understand how the kink effect (KE) is gener

ated in relativistic theory, the authors of [88] began

their study by investigating the influence of various

mesons on the KE and calculated rootmeansquare

radii of different singleparticle potential components

S, V, and V (treating them as distributions of the cor

responding functions) as a function of A. It was estab

lished [88] that only r, i.e., the rms radius of the

meson potential V, shows quite a noticeable kink,

which is not observed in other components. Since is

an isovector meson, it can be expected to be of consid

erable importance in the behavior of protons when

neutrons are added to the nucleus. Thus, the above

mentioned result confirms the importance of the

meson for the generation of the kink.

It should be stressed that the meson contribution

manifests itself in (100) in various terms (Vcent() + VS0)

related to the vector V component of the potential.

Since the coupling constant g for the vector potential

is relatively small, the most appreciable contribution

from the meson to the final potential is related to the

terms (S + V) and (S 2 V 2)/2M, in which the role of

the and mesons is considerably suppressed.

For better investigation into the effect of various

meson field components on nuclear charge radii, it

is helpful to make [88] the following replacements in

the components corresponding to Vcent(r) and VS0(r) in

(101)(104): g x1g in (S + V), g x2g in (S 2

V 2)/2M, g x3g in V/M, g x4g in Vcent, and

g x5g in VS0. After that the parameters x15 can be

continuously and independently varied within the

interval [01].

In [88] the authors considered four different com

binations of parameters xi:

(a) x15 = 1 (standard relativistic Hartree approxi

mation [88, 96]).

(b) x1 1, x25 = 1.

(c) x1, 35 = 1, x2 = 0.

(d) x15 = 0 (equivalent to g =0).

In all cases the calculations were performed self

consistently. The results of the calculations are shown

in Figs. 3 (case (a)) and 4 (cases (a)(d)). Case (a)

contains the complete meson contribution and dem

onstrates the KE in good agreement with what is

observed experimentally. In case (b), from which the

meson contribution to S + V is almost entirely

excluded, the kink completely changed its structure in

comparison with case (a) and it is to a certain extent a

mirror image of the kink in case (a). This makes it

obvious that the meson plays a decisive role in the

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

(S + V) term.

As to case (c) in Fig. 4, it demonstrates the effect

opposite to that in case (b) and much smaller in mag

nitude. This results from the opposite role of the

meson field in the terms (S + V) and (S 2 V 2)/2M

of the central potential.

Finally, in case (d), i.e., in the case without the

meson contribution, the behavior of rc is intermedi

ate between cases (a) and (b), as is confirmed in Fig. 4

(see [88] for detail).

It is shown that the meson contribution only

slightly affects the kink through the components Vcent

and VS0. As we explained above, this small effect is

expected because potential contributions from the

meson to the (S V) term entering into Vcent and VS0

are very small.

A conclusion can be drawn that though the

meson contribution to the total energy is quite small

in comparison with the contributions from the and

mesons in the RH method, the meson plays a sub

stantially important role in the formation of the kink

structure. The effect turns out to be larger for A < 208

than for A > 208, in contrast to the difference of charge

radii obtained within different models, which is

smaller for A < 208 than for A > 208.

The conclusions drawn in [88] can be summarized

as follows:

1. The kink effect in the Pb isotope chain turns out

to be a general feature of the RHA. It is observed in

both linear and nonlinear (with selfinteraction) mod

els, and manifests itself to a greater extent in models

with small K. In [88] it is established that the meson

plays an important role in the formation of the kink. In

calculations without the meson, a small kink still

occurs, which can be due to both relativistic and self

consistent causes.

2. The kink effect (KE) mainly stems from the

(partially) destructive interference of the meson

contributions to the (S + V) and (S2 V 2)/2M compo

nents of the singleparticle potential. The (S + V) com

ponent is positive in the KE effect, whereas (S2 V 2)/2M

component generates the KE of the opposite sign. The

ultimate effect has a positive sign and follows the

experimentally observed trend (see cases (b) and (c) in

Fig. 4).

3. Excluding the meson contributions from the

two components of Vcent mentioned in item 2, i.e., put

ting a1 = x2 = 0, we obtain appreciable weakening of

the KE. The situation is much like the one where the

meson contribution is completely excluded (g = 0,

case (d) in Fig. 4). The residual KE observed in this

case arises from the use of the selfconsistent proce

dure. It completely disappears if instead of performing

the selfconsistent procedure, the WoodsSaxon

potential is used in the Dirac equation.

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

877

rc, fm

NLSH

5.52

5.51

5.50

c

a

5.49

5.48

d

b

206

208

210

(a) x15 = 1 (exact model); (b) x1 = 0.1, x25 = 1; (c) x1, 35 =

1, x2 = 0; (d) x15 = 0 (without meson contribution).

the KE.

7. ATOMIC NUCLEUS

AS A NONLINEAR RELATIVISTIC

FERMI SYSTEM

The spinorbit interaction is an important compo

nent of the nuclear shell model; note that apart from

the abovementioned works, some of the spinorbit

interaction problems were also discussed in [98103].

The relativistic Hartree approximation with the

terms nonlinear in the scalar and vector meson fields

was very successful in qualitatively reproducing many

experimental nuclear data. As long as the use of the

RHA is limited to spinsaturated nuclei or spinsym

metric nuclear matter, the model works very well (see

also [4, 5]).

For spinunsaturated nuclei or nuclei far from the

valley of stability, the tensor forces in the effective

nuclear potential begin playing a crucial role [1, 18].

This role can be fully investigated using the RHF

method since in the RHA the tensor forces become

zero. Massive efforts have recently been made to fully

understand this role. Tensor forces produce a specific

effect on energies of singleparticle nuclear states; in

particular, they can systematically change spinorbit

splitting, which in extreme cases results in the break

ing of the standard sequence of magic numbers or in

appearance of new magic numbers.

In spinunsaturated nuclei, pions strongly affect

spinorbit splittings, modifying the structure of sin

gleparticle spinorbit potentials [1, 18]. This effect is

attributed to the tensor force generated by pions.

However, with the chosen experimental value of the

No. 6

2015

878

SAVUSHKIN

2

the N vertex in the RHF, spinobit splittings in iso

tope families can demonstrate very strong dependence

on A [99]. One of the corollaries of this behavior is

unrealistic gaps appearing in heavy nuclei within the

nuclear shell model, which limits the use of the RHF

in the standard form [39].

In this section we will consider in more detail the

role of the meson in particular (and isovector mesons

in general) in the formation of the nuclear spinorbit

potential, e.g., the role of tensor forces largely related

to the pion. It is necessary to stress that this problem

should be considered within the relativistic (selfcon

sistent) method (HartreeFock), as the Hartree

method does not provide a possibility of studying this

problem.

0(, , , , , A )

= (i M ) 1 m22 + 1 ( )

2

2

(107)

2

1

1

1

+ m F F + m2

2

4

2

2 2

1

1

G G + ( m ) 1 H H ,

4

2

4

where

F ,

(108)

G , H A A.

nuclei were first performed in [10, 18, 102]. In [10], a

scheme of approximate relativistic theory (ART) was

proposed on the basis of meson (NN) potentials. In

[18], the extremely important role of mesons and

tensor forces in the spinorbit interaction problem

was pointed out. In [104], calculations were carried

out using the scalarvector model of the nucleon

nucleon interaction, the selfconsistent procedure was

performed within this model, and consideration of the

pionnucleon interaction in the pseudoscalar form

was shown to result in too high intrinsic nucleon ener

gies. Important results are obtained in [103106], and

a complete list of works on the RHF method can be

found in [4, 5].

nucleons and , , , and mesons, respectively, and

, , , , and are the corresponding field opera

tors (note that and are vectors in isospin space).

Finally, A is the electromagnetic field including the

Coulomb interaction of nucleons.

developed in [107118].

(109)

f

+ x ig 5

2M

f

+ (1 x ) 5 e 1 (1 + 3 ) A.

m

2

and (9), the same as used in the scheme of oneboson

exchange potentials.

RHF has the form

int (mesonnucleon) = g g

g

2M

the form of three terms: the free Lagrangian 0, the

interaction Lagrangian int responsible for the inter

action of nucleons with various meson fields, and the

nonlinear potential energy functional UNL to allow for

selfinteraction of meson fields and mesonmeson

interactions between the and meson fields, on the

one hand, and between and meson fields, on the

are three standard Pauli matrices [4]. For pions we

use the mixed pseudoscalarpseudovector model

[35, 118120], where x is the mixing parameter, and

f is the bare pionnucleon coupling constant

other hand

mesons with nucleons because the corresponding

components of the Lagrangian make a contribution to

the tensor forces (together with mesons); see Appen

dix C. However, |f/2g| |f/2g| [4, 35]. For this rea

son, we assume below that |f/2g| = 0, where f and f

are the tensor coupling constants of the and

mesons with nucleons, and g and g are the corre

sponding vector coupling constants [1, 4].

11

= 0(, , , , , A )

+ int (mesonnucleon) U NL(mesonmeson).

11 Consideration

(106)

interactions between various fields) within the RHF leads to

renormalization of the mass of the corresponding mesons, i.e., to

renormalization of the corresponding meson propagators in the

medium. The method for including these processes in the RHF

selfconsistent procedure is described at length in [109, 120].

discuss stability of relativistic nuclear matter against

pion condensation.

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

where

2

m*2 = m2 + bg 2 M ( g ) + cg 2 ( g )

U NL = 1 bM (g )3 + 1 c (g )4

3

4

+ dMg g 2 1 e (g )2 g 2

4

2

2

1

f (g ) + 1 m2() 2,

4

2

(110)

formed with allowance for the BardeenCooper

Schrieffer pairing. Note that in [122] and [123, 124]

two other RHF methods were considered.

The LagrangeEuler equations for nucleons and

meson fields can be derived in a standard way on the

basis of the introduced Lagrangian. For nucleons we

obtain the Dirac equation

i + M + g + g + g

(111)

x ig 5 (1 x ) 5 + = 0 .

m

(112)

* depends on the and fields and is

meson m

defined by the equation

U NL

*2 = m2 +

m

.

(114)

Vol. 46

( g 0 ) 2 1 2

2

eg ( g 0 ) .

g

(115)

sities and significantly different from m inside the

nucleus. Equations similar to (114) can be written for

the components as well [41] (this developed system

of nonlinearities can be used to describe observed sin

gleparticle operators).

The field equation for pions can be written in

the form

( + m*2 ) = x ig 5

f

(1 x ) ( 5 ),

m

(116)

m*2 = m2 (1 + ) .

(117)

function involves various powers of the field ,

e.g., ~22 (see [4]). In addition, polarization effects

induced by pions in the medium include the density

dependent contribution to m * that can appreciably

increase its value [4, 35] in comparison with the free

pion mass m. In [113] the quantity () is treated as a

phenomenological function. The results obtained in

[98, 123, 124] show that the effective NN interaction

generated by pions is weaker in the interior of the

nucleus than in free space, otherwise variations in

spinorbit splittings calculated for different A in any

family of isotopes can be too strong, bringing about

inadequate closure of shells [115].

In [112, 113] the function () is chosen in

the form

() = p1 1 e

(113)

the field following the approximation introduced in

*2 we replace the , , and

[41]. In the operator m

fields with the mathematical expectation with respect

to the ground state, , 0, i = 0 (i = 1, 2, 3),

respectively, and = 0 (note that the sensitivity of the

first five terms in UNL allows in principle the phenom

enological part of the contribution proportional to 2

to be taken into account). Then equation (112) can be

approximated by the equation

( + m* ) = g ,

+ dg M

2

(see [14] for comprehensive consideration), and ()

is the phenomenological function of determined

such as to meet the requirements of the model. Practi

cal calculations in [110, 111, 115] took into account

the components UNL in (110) (with d = e = f = 0 up

to now). For the calculations which considered tensor

forces of pions, the last term in (110) is important.

*2 ) = g ,

( + m

879

p2 ( g ) mc

(118)

symbol denotes the average over the ground state; it

should also be borne in mind that g is negative.

One of the most important achievements in the

study of atomic nuclei was the discovery of nuclear

magic numbers. Despite the great success of the spin

orbit potential in the explanation of closed shells and

subshells in the valley of nuclear stability, there still

exists a contradiction in its adequacy near the drip line.

In [107110, 112115] the evolution of the

nuclear shell structure is thoroughly investigated

within the densitydependent relativistic RHF theory

(dependence on density is realized either through the

No. 6

2015

880

SAVUSHKIN

Table 7. Adjustable parameters (m, g , g , g, b , c ), used in our models. For the pion, the value used in the calculation was

2

2

f 4 0 . 076, which corresponds to the N pseudoscalar coupling constant g 4 = 14. The PVa model fully takes into

account the tensor force contribution. In the PVe and PVe' models the tensor force contribution is entirely eliminated using the

method developed in [113, 123, 124]. The PBc' model retains about 1/3 of the pion tensor force (PTF) [113, 123, 124]

Model

PVa

PVe

PVe'

PVc'

m, MeV

g 2 4

g 2 4

g 2 4

b 10 3

c 10 3

443.28

441.57

441.72

441.85

5.3215

4.9822

5.0154

5.0898

10.393

9.3441

9.5096

9.7595

0.72

0.62

0.67

0.69

4.361

5.497

5.260

4.970

7.257

9.308

8.948

8.366

pion mass [107, 109114, 116, 123]).

In the past 15 years the RH theory has provided

great advances in studies of both stable nuclei and

exotic fields. Of particular interest is that the relativis

tic mean field theory managed to explain spinorbit

splittings of singleparticle levels through the above

mentioned natural mechanism. This feature of the RH

theory becomes especially important in connection

with experimental observation of shell structure

changes in nuclei near drip lines, when the spinorbit

potential should be of particular importance.

However, the RH theory is not an adequate scheme

for investigating pionrelated processes because in this

theory, due to the character of the RH approximation,

the Fock (exchange) contributions are taken out of

play while Hartree (direct) matrix elements (related to

pions) vanish by virtue of parity conservation in spher

ical and axially deformed nuclei. The recent RHF

method (dependent on density) for description of the

nuclear structure has made it possible to consider this

problem [107, 109114, 116, 123].

Calculations within the relativistic mean field

approximation yield highly accurate binding energies

of stable nuclei. The binding energies (and also sepa

ration energies and charge radii) are reproduced for all

nuclei with an accuracy higher than one percent, and

the calculations involve a minimum number of adjust

able parameters with a clear physical meaning (masses

of some mesons, coupling constants and nonlinearity

parameters used in the theory) [4]. At the current stage

the calculations for stable nuclei are a thing of the past.

Now of particular interest are calculations of physical

properties of various isotope chains [109114, 117].

Here are several results obtained in [109] using physi

cal values of the masses M = 939 MeV, m = 783 MeV,

and m = 770 MeV. The calculations were performed

within the RHF formalism with tensor forces and

effective pions (by effective we mean pions with the

densitydependent mass or coupling constant). The

value g was chosen such as to obtain correct symmetry

energy. The values of the parameters for different

models are presented in Table 7, where simpler desig

nations of models are used than in [113, 114]. PV

adopted for the N vertex.

In the calculations the nuclei were assumed to be

spherically symmetric. Pairing correlations were con

sidered in [112114, 124] in the BCS approximation.

Pairing intensities for neutrons and protons were cho

sen such as to ensure simultaneously the appropriate

approximation for the gap and the binding energy for

the nuclei under consideration. The BCS equations

were solved selfconsistently within the RHF method

so that the pairing gap and the binding energy are

obtained in the calculations.

Neutron singleparticle energy levels for the

56Ni nucleus that is spin unsaturated in neutrons and

protons are shown in Fig. 5 for the parameterizations

presented in Table 7. The behavior of the proton and

neutron spectra are similar. Note that the weakening

of the tensor force affects the ultimate spinorbit

splittings in an expected way [113, 123, 124]. The PVc'

model that features 1/3 of the PTF yields a better

result for heavy nuclei [110] than for 56Ni, which

requires a slightly higher PTF to obtain the experi

mental 1f SO splitting and gap at N = 28. The effect

of the PTF on the 1p and 1d spinorbit splittings

turns out to be strong, but there are no experimental

data for comparison. The results of the PVe and PBe'

models show that both methods for decreasing the

tensor contribution yield similar results.

The shellmodel analysis of the data (see [110,

113]) allows an insight into the effect produced by the

PTF contribution to the evolution of the 1d SO split

ting, as one goes from the 34Si nucleus to the

42Si nucleus by adding 1f

7/2 neutrons. The spherically

symmetric description of even a few of the nuclei con

sidered is of course a strong assumption, but it allows

us to understand in an easier way the role of the tensor

force, as such, within the RHF theory. More detailed

discussions of these issues can be found in [110, 113].

In conclusion, we note that in [110, 112114, 117,

124] a lot of investigations have been carried out to

study nuclear properties using the RHF method. The

KE was well reproduced; methods were given for elim

inating nonrealistic effects of pion tensor forces in

problems related to singleparticle spectra and spin

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

(a)

Ni: neutrons

881

(b)

56

0 1g9/2

2p1/2

2p3/2

1f5/2

1f7/2

[28]

7.78

Exp.

[20]

2s1/2

E/A, MeV

Ei , MeV

20

2p1/2

1f5/2

2p3/2

1f7/2

1d3/2

1d5/2

40

PVe

PVe'

PVc'

PVa

7.82

[8]

7.86

1p1/2

1p3/2

Pb

60 1s1/2

7.90

PVa PVe PVe' PVc'

192

Exp.

198

204

210

Fig. 5. (a) Spectrum of Ei levels for the 56Ni nucleus; (b) binding energy per particle E/A of the 208Pb isotope chain.

shells (eliminating artificial magic numbers). To cal

culate binding energies, separation energies, and

charge radii, relativistic theory requires few adjustable

parameters that have a clear physical meaning. How

ever, a more sophisticated theory is needed for repro

ducing singleparticle spectra and obtaining correct

magic shells over the entire periodic table.

Note that similar effects also manifest themselves

when the tensor component is added to the Skyrme

functional [125]. However, the pion problem in the

context of studying the nature of the tensor force in the

nuclear structure was pointed out and investigated in

the relativistic approach much earlier [18] than in the

approach with the Skyrme energy functional [125].

MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS,

12

TRENDS, CONCLUSIONS

the development of relativistic nuclear theory over the

past 50 years.

Found and studied

1. The spinorbit interaction mechanism (correct

value and sign). The role of the exchange (Fock)

matrix elements. The role of the tensor forces in the

nuclear shell model [911, 18, 26, 33].

2. The relativistic saturation mechanism (see

results of Section 3 in this review and [4, 26, 126161]).

12 For

references are given in this section. A more detailed list of refer

ences is available in the body of the review.

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

equation of state [7].

4. The problem of nuclear singleparticle magnetic

moments (in the theory with a small effective nucleon

mass) [4, 148150].

5. The pseudospin symmetry phenomenon [63, 70,

72, 7476]. The role of the tensor forces in PSS is dis

cussed [130].

6. Energy dependence of the real part of the optical

potential [4, 90].

7. Polarization phenomena at intermediate ener

gies in the relativistic momentum approximation ([4]

and references therein).

8. The kink in the rootmeansquare radii for dif

ferent isotope chains (kink effect) [89, 9698, 107,

112, 113].

9. Stability of relativistic nuclear matter with

respect to pion condensation [35].

10. The relativistic formalism yields a unified

description of the interaction with nuclei for nucleons,

antiprotons, pions, hyperons, and kaons [4, 19, 20].

11. Description of nuclear ground states in a wide

range of A, including relativistic interpretation of pair

ing (BCS and HFB methods), on the basis of the rela

tivistic Hartree and HartreeFock approaches [4, 5,

9, 10, 18, 32, 39, 41, 95, 105110, 112114, 116, 117,

131, 132].

12. Successful description of nuclear ground states

within relativistic selfconsistent theory provides an

appropriate basis for description of nuclear excited

states (of normal parity, longitudinal and transverse, of

anomalous parity within the relativistic version of the

random phase approximation or the timedependent

No. 6

2015

882

SAVUSHKIN

therein, and [135137]).

13. In relativistic theory it is important to consider

correlations, i.e., to go beyond the singleparticle

approximation. The relativistic version of the Brck

nerHartreeFock theory is discussed at length in

[4], which also offers a great deal of references for

this field.

14. Significant features of the pionnucleon inter

action in the nuclear medium (density dependence of

pion mass, pionnucleon coupling constant, pseudo

scalar and pseudovector couplings of pions with nucle

ons, etc.) are investigated in the scope of the relativis

tic selfconsistent HartreeFock theory (see Section 7

of this review). The pion mass increase in the medium

was first pointed out in [35] in connection with the

problem of nuclear matter stability against pion con

densation.

15. Important results are obtained within relativis

tic nuclear theory, including numerous properties of

nuclei in various regions (from stable nuclei [130134]

to unstable nuclei [139141], from the very light 11Li

halo nucleus [131] to the superheavy 288115 nuclei

[142], from neutron (proton) skins [143] to proton

emitters [144]) and many other successful applications

in other areas of nuclear physics, including identical

bands in superdeformed nuclei [145], collective multi

pole excitations [146], hypernuclei [147], and also

neutron stars and supernovae [151161].

16. Investigations of QCD traces and symmetries in

the structure of atomic nuclei:

(a) chiral symmetry [4, 139, 140];

(b) vector dominance [3, 36, 37];

(c) vector nuclear fields (vectorisoscalar, vector

isovector, axialvector, electromagnetic) as gauge

ones [142144].

The main conclusion is that the atomic nucleus is a

nonlinear relativistic Fermi system, and relativistic

theory is a powerful, elegant, and adequate tool for

describing its properties.

17. As to the extrapolation of the mean field models

(well adapted to medium and heavy nuclei) to super

heavy elements (SHEs), it can be said that due to high

level density in SHEs, small variations in the single

particle level density (arising from difference in pre

dictions of spinorbit splittings by different models)

can ultimately strongly affect magicity predictions.

The spinorbit force is the critical ingredient of the

nuclear structure models (in the mean field approxi

mation), especially during the transition to extrapola

tions to superheavy nuclei. If we compare the results of

the relativistic and nonrelativistic models in the mean

field approximation, the nonrelativistic models sys

tematically produce large deviations in the results.

Consequently, there is more motivation to use relativ

istically substantiated models for theoretical predic

tions. A common disadvantage of the mean field

closed shells largely arising from small effective rela

* nucleon masses

tivistic M* and nonrelativistic M HP

(which also leads to a larger than necessary degree of

degeneracy of pseudospin partners [156158]).

During past years development of the radioactive

ion beam (RIB) method has resulted in emergence of

a new nuclearphysics research areaexotic nuclei

which has appreciably changed both the theoretical

and the experimental point of view on the nature of the

nucleus. For these nuclear systems with the extreme

N/Z ratio the shell structure evolution is of particular

importance, not only for stability as such, but also for

correct and acceptable description of its exotic modes

like halo nuclei [159161].

In [161] nuclear halo phenomena occurring in Ce

isotopes, associated PSS conservation, and the role of

exchange (Fock) terms were investigated within the

relativistic HartreeFockBogolyubov theory with

densitydependent mesonnucleon constants. Apart

from traditional halos, giant halos were also observed

in drip line Ce isotopes. It was also found that stability

of neutron halo structures was inseparably connected

with PSS conservation in the proton system. Fock

terms (in particular those related to meson tensor

forces) make an appreciable contribution to the T = 0

channel, which supports the idea of the relation

between neutron halo structures and PSS conservation

in the proton system.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. FOURDIMENSIONAL

NOTATIONS AND DIRAC MATRICES

Fourdimensional tensor indices are denoted by

Greek letters , , , , which can have the values of

0, 1, 2, 3. The spacetime metric is defined by the

metric tensor g (g00 = 1, g11 = g22 = g33 = 1). Coor

dinates of the fourvector have the following order:

A = (A0, A1, A2, A3). Coordinates of the threevector

are denoted by Latin letters, e.g.,

A = ( A1, A 2, A 3) = { A i }, i = 1,2,3.

(A.1)

dinates A of the fourvector are connected by the rela

tion

A = g A ,

(A.2)

the righthand side, and g is the fourdimensional

metric tensor [4]. The fourdimensional scalar prod

uct is defined as

A B = A0 B0 A B,

(A.3)

x 2 = x x = t 2 x 2.

(A.4)

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

to fourdimensional coordinates are given by the

expressions

,

x

.

x x

5 + 5 = 0, ( 5)2 = 1,

(A.18)

(A.5)

5 5 = 0, 5 + 5 = 0,

(A.19)

(A.6)

( 5)+ = 5, [ 5, ] = 0.

(A.20)

Dirac matrices:

0

{ i } = =

, i = 1,2,3,

0

I 0

= 0 = 0 =

,

0 I

883

(A.7)

A, including

I ; 5, , 5 , .

(A.21)

of those matrices

(A.8)

16

X =

A,

(A.22)

0

(A.9)

= 0 =

.

0

Since the Dirac Hamiltonian must be Hermitian, we

have + = , + = , and

where

0 1

(A.10)

5 = = i = .

1 0

It should be stressed that some authors use (A.10) mul

tiplied by i as the matrix 5. Next,

expression

x A = 1 Tr(X A ),

4

0 1 2 3

= i [ , ], = , , = 0,1,2,3, (A.11)

2

where 1 is the 2 2 unit matrix, and is the Pauli

2 2 spin matrix, so that

0 1

x = 1 = ,

1 0

(A.12)

0 i

1 0

2

3

y = =

, z = = 0 1 .

i 0

mined by commutation relations. Some of them,

helpful in practical calculations, are given below. All

pairs of different matrices anticommute

+ = 2 g ,

while the square of each of them is given by

(1)2 = ( 2 )2 = ( 3)2 = 1, ( 0 )2 = 1.

(A.13)

(A.14)

are antiHermitian matrices

0+

0

+

= , = .

(A.15)

holds. Note that all matrices and anticommute

i + i = 2i,

(A.16)

+ = 0.

They all are Hermitian matrices.

(A.17)

Vol. 46

A =1

P = 0PNR,

(A.23)

(A.24)

The relativistic time reversal operator has the form

y 0

T = i

K,

0 y

(A.25)

APPENDIX B. STRUCTURE OF OBEPs

IN THE v2/c2 APPROXIMATION

The procedure of obtaining an OBEP in the coor

dinate representation includes two approximations:

(i) adiabatic approximation is used and (ii) delay

effects are ignored. Within these approximations we

obtain Eq. (10) with an accuracy of about v2/c2 (where

v is the nucleon velocity and c is the speed of light). In

(10) r = r12 = r1 r2 is the radius vector connecting two

nucleons, p = p12 = 1 ( p 1 p 2 ) is the relative momen

2

tum of two nucleons, = r p is the relative angular

momentum, S = 1 ( 1 + 2 ) is the total spin operator

2

of two nucleons, and S12 = [(3/r2)(1 r)(2 r) 1 2]

is the tensor operator of two nucleons. The structure of

the functions Vc(r), V(r), VLS(r), VT(r), V(r), and V(r)

is determined by the spacetime transformation prop

erties of exchange mesons [4].

No. 6

2015

884

SAVUSHKIN

Scalar mesons:

a ( Y c (r ))

,

4

V(r ) = 0, VT (r ) = 0,

2

V c (r ) = Y c (r ) +

(B.1)

(B.2)

s

2 1 dY c

V LS (r ) = 1 a

,

2 r dr

(B.3)

V(r ) = a 2Ycs (r ),

(B.4)

V(r ) = a 2 1 d Ycs (r ).

r dr

Vector mesons:

(B.5)

(B.6)

f

2 V

Yc (r ) ,

g

(B.7)

f dY (r )

V LS (r ) = 3 a 2 1 + 4 1 c

,

2 3 g r dr

(B.8)

f

Vc (r ) = YcV (r ) 1 a 2 2YcV (r ) ,

2 g

2

V(r ) = 1 a 2 1 +

6

dY V (r )

f

VT (r ) = 1 a 2 1 + r d 1 c ,

2

g dr r dr

V(r ) = a

V (r ) = a

YcV (r ),

V

2 1 dY c (r )

dr

(B.9)

(B.12)

(B.13)

(B.11)

Pseudoscalar mesons:

V(r ) = 1 a 2 2YcPS (r ) ,

12

1 dY cPS (r )

2 2

VT (r ) = 1 a r 1 d

12

r dr r

AS A RELATIVISTIC CORRECTION

The tensor potential is a noncentral component of

the NN interaction. The OBEPs introduced above

involve a static component (independent of v/c) and

relativistic corrections (of order v2/c2). Tensor forces

are one of the relativistic corrections. In the general

form, this potential can be presented as follows:

(C.1)

where S12 = 32 ( 1 r)( 2 r) 1 2,

r

r = r12 = r1 r2.

As is pointed out in Appendix B, we have for scalar

0

mesons Vtens(r) = 0, for mesons V T = 0 and V T 0,

(B.10)

.

parameters for using this operator in nucleon

nucleon scattering calculations or for a multinucleon

problem.

All PVS models (i.e., models with exchange of

pseudoscalar, vector, and scalar mesons) involve com

binations of the scalar and vector potentials with con

siderable compensation for the very strong attractive

potential (generated by the scalar meson) and slightly

less strong repulsive static terms (generated by the

vector meson) so that the resulting (attractive) static

potential is relatively weak. This combination also

leads to an important increase in the role of relativistic

effects in the nucleonnucleon interaction, even at

low energies.

(B.14)

.

brackets {} denote that 2 acts only on the functions in

these brackets. If the exchange is via an isovector

meson, each of the operators Vi (i = , LS, , , T) is

multiplied by 1 2. Note that the general structure of

the NN interaction operator is determined by

Eqs. (10) and (11).

It is also worth noting that in the static limit (v/c 0)

the interaction potential of two nucleons is reduced to

a very simple form

dr

(B.15)

VS = YcS (r ), VV = YcV (r ), VPS = 0,

and the operator Vtot (see (10)) is presented as a sum of

the static part of (B.15) (independent of velocity) and

the relativistic corrections of order v2/c2. Operator (10)

has a structure such that for each type of meson and for

the given g, f, m, and all relativistic corrections (in

particular, spinorbit and tensor forces) are uniquely

determined by the static part of the corresponding

to considering tensor forces generated only by the pion

because it has the largest coupling constant and the

lowest mass. For this reason, in this paper we denoted

for brevity the radial part of the tensor forces for the

pion as VT(r).

Tensor forces do not affect properties of nuclear

matter. On the other hand, it is long and well known

that the role of tensor forces is of major importance for

description of the NN scattering and deuteron proper

ties. Much later it was discovered that tensor forces

played an important role in the description of spin

orbit splittings by the HartreeFock method and in

performance of the selfconsistent HartreeFock pro

cedure. (In the Hartree method tensor forces do not

make any contribution within nuclear structure prob

lems.) In the shortrange approximation the corre

sponding operator can be presented in the form

(r)

(C.2)

S12.

r2

The central part of the NN coupling via the meson is

always attractive. As a result, it leads to simple mono

Vtens = [vT0 + vT 1 2]

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

glance, the tensor component of the meson has a

more complex form, but the following regular features

can be observed:

The isospin dependence of the matrix elements

is determined by the probabilities for the filling of the

proton valence orbits.

The tensor coupling is attractive for (j<, j>) con

figurations and repulsive for (j>, j>) and (j<, j<) config

urations.

The matrix element of the tensor interaction is

proportional to the degeneracy multiplicity (2j + 1) of

the orbit under consideration.

Note that tensor forces are generated by and

mesons; they are isovector tensor forces. For

mesons, the contribution from the tensor coupling

(f/g) is particularly significant. Tensor forces generated

by and mesons differ by the sign. Tensor forces are

also generated by mesons (isoscalar tensor forces).

This component of the tensor forces is less significant

in the nuclear structure.

APPENDIX D

There are three methods for taking account of non

linearities in relativistic selfconsistent theories (both

RH and RHF) that are used in calculations of spheri

cal and deformed nuclei (and nuclear matter as well):

Introduction of selfinteraction of different

meson fields (3, 4, 4, ) and/or interaction among

different boson fields (2, 22, 22, ). Histori

cally, it was the first example of including nonlineari

ties in the selfconsistent Hartree theory. Later this

procedure was extended to the relativistic Hartree

Fock method. This method of considering nonlinear

ities is equivalent to introduction of the effective

meson mass (i.e., modification of the meson propaga

tor in a medium [162, 163]).

Introduction of densitydependent coupling

constants gi (i = , , , ). The procedure of per

forming the RH method with densitydependent cou

pling constants was first done in [164] and later it was

realized within the RHF theory in [165] (and many

other works).

The nonlinear Lagrangian of Boguta and Bod

mer

in

the

zero

range

approximation

2

( = g /m ) has the form (see Appendix F)

2

885

selfconsistent theory (of the Fermi system).

APPENDIX E. EFFECTIVE MESON MASS,

FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS

If one adds nonlinear terms to linear Lagrangian

W (35)

3

4

U = U + U + U () = 1 g 2 + 1 g 3

3

4

2

2

1

1

c3( ) d3( ) ,

4

4

(E.1)

3

following terms for the effective meson masses

2

2

2

(instead of m , m , and m ):

2

2

2

m* (r ) = m + g 2 + g 3 ,

(E.2)

2

2

2

m* (r ) = m + c30,

(E.3)

(E.4)

tion of meson fields leads in the mean field approxi

mation to renormalization of meson masses in a

3

medium (in (E.4) 0 is the third (uncharged) isotopic

constituent of the left component of the meson field

of nucleons in a medium. In terms of Feynman dia

grams, consideration of the selfinteraction of the sca

lar field ~3 corresponds to allowance for diagrams of

the form as in Figs. 6a and 6b. In this review, the fol

lowing types of meson field selfinteraction are further

considered: 3, 4, 4, 2, 22, 22, and 22. This

procedure is realized within the scheme considered in

this Appendix.

g

g

= 1 g 2 2 ()3 + 1 g 3 2 ()4 . (D.1)

3 m

4 m

The exchange (Fock) matrix elements were taken

into account for this operator in an exact form using

the Fierz transformation in [110].

Consideration of nonlinearities in the RH and RHF

theories appears to be a very important element of the

selfconsistent description. It is for this reason that the

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

No. 6

(b) propagator in the medium with allowance for self

interaction (~3).

2015

886

SAVUSHKIN

MASS METHOD

Let us consider a nonlinear Lagrangian with the

scalar field selfinteraction [119]

)

(NL

= 1 g 23 + 1 g 34 .

(F.1)

3

4

To this Lagrangian there corresponds the effective

mass of the scalar meson

2

2

2

(F.2)

m* = m + g 2 + g 3 ,

where m is the mass of the free scalar meson. In this

case the scalarisoscalar field is found as a solution

of the equation

2

2

( m* ) = g S

with S denoting the scalar density and

(F.3)

I = g 2 1 3 g 3 1 4 .

(F.4)

6

4

Thus, the equation for the scalar meson field is linear

ized with respect to the field operator , which can be

presented as

= S (x, y)(y)(y)d 4 y,

S (r, r ') =

(F.7)

(i)(r< )(i)(r> )

,

W

(F.8)

(i )

These formulas are used for performing the selfcon

sistent RHF procedure.

The total energy in the model with NL() 0 can

be obtained by adding to the corresponding part of 0

the nonlinear contribution that arises from the energy

density 1. We can write the energy density as

E =1

2

(T + E

i

M ) + 1()d 3r,

(F.12)

Appendix E is approximate. Now we consider an exact

method for interpretation of the Lagrangian NL

within the RHF formalism based on the zero range

approximation (ZAR) for standard nonlinearities. In

this case, the exchange (Fock) matrix elements (corre

sponding to UNL) that appear in the theory can be

expressed analytically in terms of the Hartree matrix

elements using the Fierz transformation [5]. As to the

linear part of the Lagrangian lin, it is interpreted in a

standard way (considering only finiterange interac

tions).

Our Lagrangian consists of two parts

= lin + NL,

In the zero range approximation we have

(F.9)

(G.1)

NL is determined by nonlinearities that are included

where

W = ()'(r)(i)(r) ()(r)(i)'(r).

=0 m=

S (r, r ') =

(F.11)

APPENDIX G.

ZERORANGE SELFINTERACTION METHOD

2 1

(r )

(r )

, K

r mW

r mW

(F.6)

S(q) = (m* + q ) ,

where q is the fourmomentum of the meson pre

sented in the same form as in the case of nonlinearities

with m replaced by m * , and m * do not depend on

the momentum. However, they are calculated in a self

consistent way.

For finite nuclei, S(r, r') is presented as

I (m r )

turbation: it does not affect the state of the system and

contributes to its energy. The Dirac equation for

nucleons retains its form, and Eq. (F.3) for also for

mally retains its form, and only the meson propaga

tor changes, being determined from (F.5) and (F.6).

For nuclear matter it is more convenient to use the

momentum representation, in which case the meson

propagator has the form

2

(F.10)

"(r)

r2

that are regular at the beginning and in the infinity

respectively. Replacement of the Yukawa operator for

the meson with the function S(r, r') leads to the

replacements

(F.5)

2

( + m* )S (x, y) = (x y).

()

(i)

tial equation

g

,

m2

(G.2)

2

g

g

()3 + 1 g 3 2 ()4, (G.3)

2

4 m

m

1

ZRL

NL = g 2

3

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

3

4

pling constants b = g 2 / ( g 0 M ) and c = g 3 /g can also

be used.

Note that NL (G.3) coincides with the standard

nonlinear selfinteraction (NLSI) in the zero range

approximation for the scalar field, i.e., when the term

2

m in the equation of motion for the scalar field dom

inates in comparison with the Laplacian and nonlinear

terms (see [4, 5] and references therein to the method of

zerorange potentials [50, 51, 111]). This is what occurs

in nuclear lowdensity systems and diffuseedge sys

tems. Therefore, though, strictly speaking, real nuclei

do not meet this condition, this approximation can be

considered acceptable for m 500 MeV.

Note that we have considered (G.3) corresponding

to the scalarisoscalar component of selfinteraction.

However, all types of selfinteraction can be reduced

to interactions like (G.3).

Note also that NLSI represented by equation (G.3)

have the structure of the same type as the Lagrangian

components that manifest themselves in the point

coupling model [50, 51] and involve fermion fields of

higher orders [4, 5]. Inclusion of terms like that in the

Lagrangian can also be justified by the necessity to

introduce additional density dependence in the

DiracBrcknerHartreeFock calculations [1, 5, 6]

for simultaneously fitting the NN phase shifts and

obtaining the correct equilibrium position for nuclear

matter (correct equation of state).

ZRL

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to V. N. Fomenko, B.L. Birbrair,

and S. Marcos for the collaboration and to the referee

for very helpful comments.

REFERENCES

1. L. N. Savushkin and V. N. Fomenko, Sov. J. Part.

Nucl. 8, 371 (1977).

2. L. N. Savushkin and V. N. Fomenko, Lectures for

young scientists: introduction in the meson theory of

nuclear interactions and nuclear systems, Preprint

OIYaI R483369 (Joint Institute for Nuclear

Research, Dubna, 1983) [in Russian].

3. N. V. Giai and L. N. Savushkin, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 23,

373 (1992).

4. L. N. Savushkin and H. Toki, The Atomic Nucleus as a

Relativistic System (Springer Verlag, 2004).

5. L. N. Savushkin, Relativistic Nuclear Shell Model

(St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, 2011).

6. R. J. Furnstahl, New generation relativistic models,

Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 129 (2004); B. D. Serot,

Covariant effective field theory for nuclear structure

and nuclear currents, Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 3163

(2004); D. Vretenar and W. Weise, Exploring the

nucleus in the context of low energy QCD, Lect.

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

No. 6

887

ativistic DiracBrckner approach to nuclear mat

ter, Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 119146 (2004); H. Len

ske, Density dependent relativistic field theory,

Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 147 (2004); P. Ring, Covariant

density functional theory and applications to finite

nuclei, Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 175 (2004);

J. N. Ginocchio, Symmetry in the relativistic mean

field approximation, Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 219

(2004); W. Greiner, Vacuum, matter, and antimat

ter, Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 239248 (2004);

P.G. Reinhard and M. Bender, Mean field relativis

tic versus nonrelativistic, Lect. Notes Phys. 641, 249

(2004).

7. J. D. Walecka, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear

Physics, 2nd ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2004).

8. R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19, 189 (1989).

9. V. A. Krutov and L. N. Savushkin, J. Phys. A 6, 93

(1973).

10. V. A. Krutov, V. N. Fomenko, and L. N. Savushkin,

J. Phys. A 7, 372 (1974).

11. L. N. Savushkin, Vest. Leningrad State Univ. 16, 41

(1975).

12. A. E. S. Green and T. Sawada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 594

(1967).

13. R. J. BlinStoyle, Philos. Mag. 46, 973 (1955).

14. H. P. Duerr and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 101, 494 (1956).

15. H. P. Duerr, Phys. Rev. 103, 469 (1956).

16. T. Ueda and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. 174, 1304

(1968).

17. K. Tominaga, T. Ueda, M. Yamaguchi, N. Kijima,

D. Okamoto, K. Miyagawa, and T. Yamada, Nucl.

Phys. A 642, 483 (1998).

18. L. N. Savushkin and V. N. Fomenko, Sov. J. Nucl.

Phys. 28, 29 (1978).

19. L. N. Savushkin, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 39,

167 (1975).

20. M. B. Zhalov and L. N. Savushkin, Pisma Zh. Eksp.

Teor. Fiz. 35, 441 (1982).

21. N. V. Giai, J. van de Wiele, and L. N. Savushkin, Phys.

Rev. C 52, 2266 (1995).

22. L. D. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 14, 706 (1976).

23. L. D. Miller and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. C 5, 241

(1972).

24. J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N. Y., NY, U. S.) 83, 491

(1974).

25. B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6,

515 (1977).

26. B. L. Birbrair, L. N. Savushkin, and V. N. Fomenko,

Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 35, 664 (1982).

27. A. Bouyssy and S. Marcos, Phys. Lett. B 127, 157

(1983).

28. D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626

(1972).

29. E. P. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections (Indiana

Univ. Press, Bloomington, 1967).

30. A. Sulaksono, T. Buervenich, J. A. Maruhn,

P.G. Reinhard, and W. Greiner, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.,

NY, U. S.) 306, 354 (2003).

2015

888

SAVUSHKIN

034312 (2005).

32. L. N. Savushkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30, 349 (1979).

33. L. N. Savushkin, Bull. Leningrad State Univ. 16, 41

(1975).

34. A. T. Raikov and L. N. Savushkin, Bull. Leningrad

State Univ. 4, 148 (1976).

35. B. L. Birbrair, V. N. Fomenko, and L. N. Savushkin,

J. Phys. G 8, 1517 (1982).

36. B. L. Birbrair, L. N. Savushkin, and V. N. Fomenko,

Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 38, 25 (1983).

37. J. Sakurai, Currents and Mesons (Univ. of Chicago

Press, Chicago, 1969).

38. J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl. Phys. A 292, 413

(1977).

39. A. Bouyssy, S. Marcos, and Pham Van Thieu, Nucl.

Phys. A 422, 541 (1984).

40. L. N. Savushkin, S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, P. Ber

nardos, V. N. Fomenko, and R. Niembro, Phys. Rev. C

55, 167 (1997).

41. M. M. Haidari and M. M. Sharma, arXiv:nucl

th/0702001.

42. R. Brockmann and H. Toki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3408

(1992).

43. H. Lenske and G. Fuchs, Phys. Lett. B 345, 355

(1995).

44. S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A 656, 331

(1999).

45. T. Nikic, D. Vretenar, P. Finelli, and P. Ring, Phys.

Rev. C 66, 024306 (2002).

46. J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang,

W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.

57, 470 (2005).

47. D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and

P. Ring, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005).

48. Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A 579, 557

(1994).

49. M. Bender, P.H. Heenen, and P.G. Reinhard, Rev.

Mod. Phys. 75, 607 (2003).

50. T. J. Brvenich, D. G. Madland, and P.G. Reinhard,

Nucl. Phys. A 744, 92 (2004).

51. O. Sorlin and M.G. Porquet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.

61, 602 (2008).

52. D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and

P. Ring, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005).

53. A. Arima, M. Harvey, and K. Shimizu, Phys. Lett. B

30, 517 (1969).

54. K. T. Hecht and A. Adler, Nucl. Phys. A 137, 129

(1969).

55. C. Bahri, J. P. Draayer, and S. A. Moszkovski, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 68, 2133 (1994).

56. A. Bohr, I. Hamamoto, and B. R. Mottelson, Phys.

Scr. 26, 267 (1982).

57. B. R. Mottelson, Nucl. Phys. A 522, 1 (1991).

58. O. Castanos, M. Moshinski, and C. Quesne, Phys.

Lett. B 277, 238 (1992).

59. A. L. Blokhin, C. Bahri, and J. P. Draayer, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 74, 4149 (1995).

29, 2039 (1996).

61. J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 436 (1997).

62. J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rep. 414, 165 (2005).

63. J. N. Ginocchio and D. G. Madland, Phys. Rev. C 57,

1167 (1998).

64. J. N. Ginocchio and A. Leviatan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,

072502 (2001).

65. J. S. Bell and H. Ruegg, Nucl. Phys. B 98, 151 (1975).

66. B. Smith and L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. (N. Y., NY, U. S.)

65, 352 (1971).

67. J. Meng, K. SugawaraTanabe, S. Yamaji, P. Ring, and

A. Arima, Phys. Rev. C 58, R628 (1998).

68. K. SuagawaraTanabe, J. Meng, S. Yamaji, and

A. Arima, J. Phys. G. Nucl. Part. Phys. 25, 811 (1999).

69. S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, M. LpezQuelle, and

P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C F62, 054309 (2000).

70. P. Alberto, M. Fiolhais, M. Malheiro, A. Delfino, and

M. Chiapparini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5015 (2001).

71. R. Lisboa, M. Malheiro, A. S. de Castro, and M. Fiolhais,

Phys. Rev. C 69, 024319 (2004).

72. M. LpezQuelle, L. N. Savushkin, S. Marcos, P. Ber

nardos, and R. Niembro, Nucl. Phys. A 727, 269

(2003).

73. S. Marcos, V. N. Fomenko, M. LpezQuelle,

R. Niembro, and L. N. Savushkin, Eur. Phys. J. A 26,

253 (2005).

74. L. N. Savushkin, S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, and

R. Niembro, Phys. At. Nucl. 69 (7), 1263 (2006).

75. M. LpezQuelle, S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, and

R. Niembro, Recent Res. Dev. Phys. 6, 29 (2005).

76. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro, and

L. N. Savushkin, Eur. Phys. J. A 37, 251 (2008).

77. H. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and N. V. Giai, Eur.

Phys. J. A 44, 119 (2010).

78. R. V. Jolos, N. Y. Shirikova, and A. V. Sushkov, Phys.

Rev. C 86, 044320 (2012).

79. R. V. Jolos and V. V. Voronov, Phys. At. Nucl 70, 812

(2007).

80. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro,

L. N. Savushkin, and P. Bernardos, Phys. Lett. B 513,

30 (2001).

81. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro,

L. N. Savushkin, and P. Bernardos, Eur. Phys. J. A 17,

173 (2003).

82. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro, and

L. N. Savushkin, Eur. Phys. J. A 20, 443 (2006).

83. E. W. Otten, Nuclear radii and moments of unstable

nuclei, in Treaties on HeavyIon Science, Ed. by

D. A. Bromley (Plenum Press, New York, 1988),

Vol. 7, p. 515.

84. N. Tajima, P. H. Bonche, H. Flocard, P.H. Heenen,

and M. S. Weiss, Nucl. Phys. A 551, 434 (1993).

85. M. M. Sharma, G. A. Lalazissis, J. Knig, and P. Ring,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3744 (1995).

86. P. G. Reinhard and H. Flocard, Nucl. Phys. A 584,

467 (1995).

87. T. GonzalezLlarena, J. L. Egido, G. A. Lalazissis, and

P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 379, 13 (1996).

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

88. S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, M. LpezQuelle,

R. Niembro, and P. Bernardos, Phys. Lett. B 507, 135

(2001).

89. M. Jaminon, C. Mahaux, and P. Rochus, Phys. Rev. C

22, 2027 (1980).

90. S. Marcos, N. V. Giai, and L. N. Savushkin, Nucl.

Phys. A 549, 143 (1992).

91. A. Bouyssy and S. Marcos, Phys. Lett. B 127, 157

(1983).

92. J. Dobaczewski and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.

73, 1869 (1994).

93. M. M. Sharma, G. A. Lalazissis, W. Hillebrandt, and

P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1870 (1994).

94. C. J. Horowitz and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A 399, 529

(1983).

95. M. M. Sharma, M. A. Nagarajan, and P. Ring, Phys.

Lett. B 312, 377 (1993).

96. G. A. Lalazissis, J. Knig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C

55, 540 (1997).

97. M. M. Sharma, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Phys.

Lett. B 317, 9 (1993).

98. M. LpezQuelle, N. V. Giai, S. Marcos, and

L. N. Savushkin, Phys. Rev. C 61, 064321 (2000).

99. M. LpezQuelle, L. N. Savushkin, S. Marcos, and

R. Niembro, Phys. Rev. C 36, 045105 (2009).

100. A. Bouyssy, J.F. Mathiot, N. V. Giai, and S. Marcos,

Phys. Rev. C 36, 380 (1987).

101. L. D. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 9, 537 (1974).

102. R. Brockmann, Phys. Rev. C 18, 1510 (1978).

103. R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Lect. Notes Phys.

243, 459 (1985).

104. A. Bouyssy, J.F. Mathiot, N. V. Giai, and S. Marcos,

Phys. Rev. C 36, 380 (1987).

105. H. F. Boersma and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rev. C 49, 1495

(1994).

106. W. H. Long, N. V. Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B

640, 150 (2006).

107. W. H. Long, Relativistic HartreeFock approach with

density dependent mesonnucleon couplings, Ph. D.

Thesis, Universit ParisSud, 2005, unpublished.

108. W. H. Long, H. Sugawa, N. V. Giai, and J. Meng,

Phys. Rev. C 76, 034314 (2007).

109. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro, and

L. N. Savushkin, EPJ Web of Conferences 66, 02067

(2014).

110. S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, V. N. Fomenko,

M. LpezQuelle, and R. Niembro, J. Phys. G: Nucl.

Part. Phys. 30, 703 (2014).

111. R. Niembro, S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, and

L. N. Savushkin, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 75 (3), 269 (2012).

112. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro, and

L. N. Savushkin, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 76 (5), 562 (2013).

113. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro, and

L. N. Savushkin, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 77 (3), 299

(2014).

114. L. S. Geng, J. Meng, H. Toki, W. H. Long, and

G. Shen, Chin. Phys. Lett. 23, 1139 (2006).

115. L. S. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Prog. Theor. Phys.

113, 785 (2005).

PHYSICS OF PARTICLES AND NUCLEI

Vol. 46

889

L. N. Savushkin, Phys. At. Nucl. 75 (12), 1486 (2012).

117. F. Gross, K. M. Maung, and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C

40, R10 (1989).

118. F. Gross, J. W. van Orden, and K. Holinde, Phys. Rev.

C 41, R1909 (1990).

119. P. F. A. Goudsmit, H. J. Leisi, and E. Matsinos, Phys.

Lett. B 271, 290 (1991).

120. P. Bernardos, V. N. Fomenko, N. V. Giai, R. Niembro,

and L. N. Savushkin, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2665 (1993).

121. G. A. Lalazissis, S. Karatzikos, R. Fossion, and

P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 671, 36 (2009).

122. W. H. Long, J. Meng, N. Van Giai, and S. G. Zhou,

Phys. Rev. C 69, 034319 (2004).

123. S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, R. Niembro, and

L. N. Savushkin, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 76, 562 (2013).

124. V. N. Fomenko, L. N. Savushkin, S. Marcos,

M. LpezQuelle, and R. Niembro, J. Phys. G. 21, 53

(1995).

125. M. Bender, K. Bennaceur, and T. Duguet, Phys. Rev. C

80, 064302 (2009).

126. V. N. Fomenko, L. N. Savushkin, and H. Toki, Rela

tivistic RPA equations for finite nuclei. I. States of nor

mal parity. Longitudinal mode. PNPI2011, 2872.

127. V. N. Fomenko, L. N. Savushkin, and H. Toki, Rela

tivistic RPA equations for finite nuclei. II. States of

abnormal parity. PNPI2012, 2908.

128. Y. K. Gambhir, P. Ring, and A. Thimet, Ann. Phys.

(N. Y., NY, U. S.) 198, 132 (1990).

129. D. Hirata, H. Toki, I. Tanihata, and B. S. Carlson,

Phys. Rev. C 44, 1467 (1991).

130. J. Meng and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3963 (1996).

131. J. Meng and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 460 (1998).

132. L. S. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 68,

061303(R) (2003).

133. L. S. Geng, H. Toki, A. Ozawa, and J. Meng, Nucl.

Phys. A 730, 80 (2004).

134. L. S. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Prog. Theor. Phys.

112, 603 (2004).

135. J. Knig and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3079 (1993).

136. Z.Y. Ma, A. Wandelt, N. V. Giai, D. Vretenar, P. Ring,

and L.G. Gao, Nucl. Phys. A 703, 222 (2002).

137. H. F. L, J. Meng, S. Q. Zhang, and S.G. Zhou,

J. Eur. Phys. A 17, 19 (2003).

138. H. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 65, 035802 (2002).

139. V. N. Fomenko, S. Marcos, and L. N. Savushkin,

J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 19, 545 (1993).

140. V. N. Fomenko, M. LpezQuelle, S. Marcos, and

L. N. Savushkin, G. Nucl. Part. Phys. 21, 53 (2005).

141. P. Bernardos, V. N. Fomenko, S. Marcos, R. Niembro,

M. LpezQuelle, and L. N. Savushkin, J. Phys. G 27,

147 (2001).

142. V. N. Fomenko, P. Ring, and L. N. Savushkin,

Nucl. Phys. A 579, 438 (1994).

143. V. N. Fomenko, P. Ring, and L. N. Savushkin,

Phys. At. Nucl. 58, 2156 (1995).

144. V. N. Fomenko, S. Marcos, P. Ring, and L. N. Savushkin,

Phys. At. Nucl. 60, 2149 (1997).

No. 6

2015

890

SAVUSHKIN

the context of low energy QCD, Lect. Notes Phys.

641, 65117 (2004).

146. B. D. Serot, Covariant effective field theory for

nuclear structure and nuclear currents, Lect. Notes

Phys. 641, 31 (2004).

147. L. S. Celenza and C. M. Shakin, Lect. Notes Phys. 2,

26 (1986).

148. U. Hoffmann and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 214, 307

(1988).

149. V. V. Burov and V. N. Dostavalov, Z. Phys. A 236, 254

(1987).

150. V. V. Burov and V. N. Dostavalov, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 23,

317 (1992).

151. J. M. Dong, J. Z. Gu, Y. Z. Wang, L. G. Cao, and

X. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014303 (2011).

152. E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Phys. Rev. C 75,

064308 (2007).

153. E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Phys. Rev. C 78,

014312 (2008).

105, 022502 (2010).

155. A. V. Afanasjev, G. Lalazissis, P. Ring, and D. Vretenar,

Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005).

156. J. J. Li, W. H. Long, J. Margeron, and N. Van Giai,

Phys. Lett. B 372, 169173 (2014).

157. I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y. Shida,

N. Noshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi,

and N. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2676 (1985).

158. J. Meng and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3963 (1996).

159. W. H. Long, P. Ring, J. Meng, N. Van Giai, and

C. A. Bertulani, Phys. Rev. C 81, 031302 (2010).

160. L. N. Savushkin, S. Marcos, M. LpezQuelle, P. Ber

nardos, V. N. Fomenko, and R. Niembro, Phys. Rev. C

55, 167 (1997).

161. W. H. Long, P. Ring, N. V. Giai, and J. Meng,

arXiv:nuclth/0812.1103.

Translated by M. Potapov

Vol. 46

No. 6

2015

- modul kimia tingkatan 4Uploaded bydaisy
- Atomic and Nuclear PhysicsUploaded byArjun Saraf
- How It Works World of Tomorrow 2017Uploaded bypablo
- . CYCLOTRONUploaded byashish_swaroop01
- Ch02 LectureUploaded byBurcu Gözde Bilol
- RWQFexam2008Uploaded byRoy Vesey
- Libro_Electricity Demystified 2005.pdfUploaded byFernando Hernandez
- Structure of ATOMUploaded bySudhanshu Sakhare
- Physics Syllabus for GATE 2015Uploaded bySumit Kumar
- Final Exam Study Guide.docxUploaded bykramark808
- 5054_s17_ms_22.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Tauseef
- Set_AUploaded byAashray Kotha
- Compton - What Are Things Made OfUploaded byChii Cha
- AssignmentUploaded byAboubakr Soultan
- ElectricityUploaded byAdil Khan
- A Brief History of PhysicsUploaded byAl-Tifani Rizky Hayyu
- ES EL CONASUploaded byVictoria Pinto Muños
- BITSAT Sample Paper 11Uploaded byApoorva Panchal
- 582-chapter8Uploaded bylili
- A Comparison of LOPES Lateral Distributions of the Air-Shower Radio SignalUploaded byRenan Daniel Domingos
- Matter and EnergyUploaded byKamla Kumari
- Science NoteUploaded byThe Little Sailboat
- m256Uploaded byEpic Win
- aniiihilationUploaded byHedwin Aaron Encinas Acosta
- 321_MT1_2003Uploaded byNemish Prakash
- Document (8)Uploaded byHazen Hazel
- A Level Physics 11 June2012Uploaded byAhmad Haikal
- Atomic theory.docxUploaded byOliviaMoneda
- AbcUploaded byArunava Pandit
- Atomic StructureUploaded bySarah Wong

- Upsc SyllabusUploaded byMishGolechha
- AMU_AnthemUploaded byAashu984
- Logistic Regression & TsUploaded byAashu984
- Food Engineering ProjectsUploaded byAashu984
- Hurdle TechnologyUploaded byAashu984
- EnzymesUploaded byakshaymoga
- processed meatUploaded byAashu984
- Mtechapfe IIIUploaded byAashu984
- Psychrometric ChartUploaded byAashu984
- GATE 2015.pdfUploaded byAashu984
- AssignmentUploaded byAashu984
- cca14Uploaded byroselathika
- Lecture16.pdfUploaded byAashu984
- EntropyUploaded bynantha74
- 780292.pdfUploaded byAashu984
- 2518-rUploaded byAashu984

- A Case Study of Assessment on ReposiUploaded byVaskar Jung Karki
- NSR Result LetterUploaded byDilpreet Singh
- Youth Job Developer Job DescriptionUploaded byvaleriefleonard
- German Submarine UUploaded bygertschone
- RigelUploaded byIntergalactic Shamanic Mystic Angel
- edu-2016-05-mlc-examUploaded bykhayrinjamila
- Tunnel Diode TutorialUploaded byvenkateshpandu11
- Bg z Distance CompanionUploaded byFabio Cassio
- D71 - High speed communication networksUploaded byvasukaruppiah
- 1717261 Project Management ChecklistUploaded bynndiep2610
- CARES. DV5700 DICOM.pdfUploaded byLuis Fernando Garcia S
- Bahgdad BatteryUploaded bystummel6636
- AutoIt QuickrefUploaded byLuis Ernesto Marin Bustillo
- MKT 537/536 APRIL 2007Uploaded bymyra
- Nsic Detailed Guidelines Including AnnexureUploaded byAnudeep Chittluri
- UNIDO Agribusiness DevelopmentUploaded byavinashmunnu
- Class 7 Holidays Homework AssignmentUploaded bydeep_72
- Trial Lawyer Petition for InjunctionUploaded byyallpolitics
- Sexual Dimorphism in Aremia Urmiana Günther, 1899 From The Lake Urmia, West AzerbaijanUploaded byUmud Urmulu
- A Developers Guide to Arcgis Server Ds09Uploaded bymadhva_madhu
- DeconstructionUploaded byklamas
- Ornate Pictorial Calligraphy Instructions and Over 150 ExamplesUploaded byKranthi
- PSpice - Advanced Analysis - Library List.pdfUploaded bytio2903
- Vol 2+3 K98MEUploaded byVladimir Savchuk
- BeamUploaded byكرم عمرو
- Jackel, Kawai - The Future is Convex - Wilmott Magazine - Feb 2005Uploaded bylevine_simon
- lion huntingUploaded byapi-260648606
- Status Kalazion - Yoga 1161050136Uploaded byYoga Witular
- 0620_s11_ms_61Uploaded byMohamed Al Sharkawy
- IMIDA_EVjjbUploaded byKarla Massiel