You are on page 1of 32

ISSN 10637796, Physics of Particles and Nuclei, 2015, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 859890. Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.

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

Relativistic Nuclear TheoryNucleons and Mesons:

Origin, Current Status, and Trends
L. N. Savushkin
St. Petersburg State University of Telecommunications, St. Petersburg, Russia
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

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

alone an adequate nuclear theory must be relativistic.

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

ponents, namely,

, , ,

= i [ , ], 5, 5 ,.


1 The old kinematic estimation of the role of relativism in nuclear

theory is too nave because it ignores the effective character of

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.

Equation (1) presents examples of Dirac matrices.

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




Table 1. Light mesons included in the OBEP scheme


Meson mass, MeV


Meson field



1, 0+



0+, 0+

coupling constant
g ps*
f pv





a0 scalarisovector




a1 axialisovector

0, 1
1+, 1



= 0, 1, 2, 3


= 0, 1, 2, 3

1, 0+

g a0

0+, 0



* 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).

interaction part, which means that nucleons at rest do

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 ) =

4 m

e mr e r 2 m2

r ,
1 +

where g is the coupling constant, m is the meson mass,

and is the regularization parameter. The Yukawa
type function cannot be used as the static part of the

OBEP because it is singular at r = 0. There are various

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 )


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

+ i 1 3 N Z V (r ) ,
g 2M


where and are the Dirac matrices [4, 5], p is the

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




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)


S(r) 0+, 0+scalarisoscalar potential (attractive)

g a0

S (r) 1 , 0 scalarisovector potential (contributes to isovector structure of nuclear potential) a0 (980)


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

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

because in the RPA the mathematical expectation

(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 ),


= p, n, and the isovector part M * ( r ) in the RHA is

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 )
1 + 3

V + 3
V (r )
C + ,



Vol. 46

where C is the Coulomb potential, and is defined by

the equation

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.
Let us introduce the notations

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

g 0(r ) = V (r ), g (r ) = V (r ), [ = 1,0, +1],

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


= ( , ) = 0,

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

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




The system Lagrangian for the linear version of rel

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).


The interaction Lagrangian of nucleons and meson

fields for the linear version of relativistic theory has the
form [4, 5] (boldface symbols denote isovectors, is
the isospin)

 int = g
 + g a0


scalar isovector

+ g
+ g



vector isovector


2M tensor isovector

or i


m pseudovector 
pseudoscalar isovector


Two points are worth mentioning in connection with

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
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

method [1]. This standard procedure yields the NN

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 ).


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)

attraction to V c , while the vectorisoscalar meson

is responsible for strong repulsion in the NN system

V c (slightly weaker than attraction V c ) and (ii) the

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
Pseudoscalar mesons ()


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



contribution from the , , and mesons (the main

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 .


SpinOrbit Potential of a Nucleus

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

because of its simplicity (PVS models involving pseu

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:

U avH = [S(r ) + V (r )] 3 N Z [S (r ) + V (r )], (13)

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)

U S 0 = 1 2 1 d [V (r ) S(r )] + 3 N Z
4M r dr


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

Comparing (13) and (14) we stress that the scalar

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

opposite signs. Equations (13) and (14) uniquely deter

mine both the value and the sign of the spinorbit poten
tial (in nuclear singleparticle spectra the j =   level
should always be higher than the j =  +  level).
Reproduction of the spinorbit potential value and
sign without adjustable parameters is one of the most
important achievements of relativistic nuclear theory
[9, 10].

Note that operator (14) (its correct value and sign)

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]

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].

Let us introduce the notation E LS , which is the

ultimate spinorbit splitting of the singleparticle state
caused by operator (15). The subscript LS indicates that
only twoparticle spinorbit forces are used to obtain
U S0 . The quantity ELS(H) can be presented as a sum

of partial components E LS ( H ), where i defines the

type of meson responsible for the partial contribution
under consideration, i = , , , a0 (S, V, S, V), and
(H) corresponds to the Hartree approximation

is the acronym for pseudoscalar, vector, and scalar. Note

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 )

(V )
(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)




No. 6

( ) E (H ) for neutron state, (17)

( ) E (H ) for proton state, (18)
( ) E (H ) for neutron state, (19)
( ) E (H ) for proton state, (20)

E S (HF ) = 1 2 + N
E S (HF ) = 1 2 + Z
E V (HF ) = 1 + 3 N
E V (HF ) = 1 + 3 Z

E (HF ) = 3 N E (H ) for neutron state,

2N Z
E (HF ) = 3 Z E S (H ) for proton state,(22)
2N Z




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




d [16, 17]

E1sof ( 41Ca)





E 2sop ( 41Ca)





E 2sog (209 Pb)













E1(iso)(209 Pb)

(so) 209

E3d (




E (HF ) = 3 E n (H ) for neutron state,

N =Z
E S (HF ) = 3 E pS (H ) for proton state.
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
5+8 N + 4+4 Z
E (HF ) =
2 (1 + 2 f g)(N Z )

) (

E V (H ) for neutron state, N Z

5+8 Z + 4+4 N
E (HF ) =
2 (1 + 2 f g)(Z N )

) (

E V (H ) for proton state,

(9 + 12 f g )
E V (HF ) =
(2 + 4 f g )

E nV (H )



for neutron state, N = Z

E V (HF ) =


E Vp (H )

(9 + 12 f g )
(2 + 4 f g )

for proton state.


In the relevant formulas above, En(p) is the spin

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




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)


Model II

E (2 g )

Model III

Model II

E (3d )

Model III

Model II

Model III

Finite radius of static part of OBEP







1 2 ( p Yc + Yc p )

























Spinorbit forces







Total splitting







1 2 ( Y c )

1 ( 2Y )
c 1
12M 2
Tensor forces




ing into the operator that has the following form (this
result is obtained in the shortrange tensor force
U soT ,n = 1 ( J n + J p ) ,
U soT , p = 1 ( J p + J n ) ,
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

(2 j

+ 1)


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

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

nature and from twoparticle spinorbit forces were


calculated using the HartreeFock method. Contri

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

6 In

we give the gross structure of the operator (see [1, 4, 5, 18]

for detail).
Vol. 46

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

5 Here



No. 6


this section we consider only the role of the exchange (Fock)

matrix elements without performing the selfconsistent proce
dure. We nevertheless refer to these calculations as the Hartree
Fock calculations.



Table 5. Spinorbit splittings of the neutron level |Nn =

|202 in the 25Mg and 27Si nuclei, in MeV (Model II [1, 18]
and Model III [1, 18] are Ueda and Greens models [16])






Laguerre polynomial  n , see references in [18]) can

be presented in the form
E so (nn )

Model II Model III Model II Model III


and the quantum numbers n and are related to the





nents were expanded in a Taylor series, and only terms

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

n, n, , ( nn Nn , where N = n + 2n + ) ,

(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

= 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 previous sections, the results were obtained

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


nucleon scattering (for the and mesons the mass

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




problem of potential resonances in the antiproton

nucleus scattering was considered. Note also the work
[21] on effects of the Coulombnuclear interference in
the nucleonnucleus scattering.

Dirac equation (37). Note that if there is invariance

under time reversal, the spatial components of the
fourcomponent field disappear and only the time
component 0 remains.
The Dirac bispinor is presented as

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

= ,

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 ,
where for we have

= .



If we compare Eqs. (35), (36) and (8), (9), we clearly

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,


( + m2 ) = g ,


( + 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


= g ,


where S is the scalar density, and V is

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 =



+ .


The vector density V corresponds to the standard

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

while bearing in mind that  M ( is a nonrelativistic
eigenvalue. Thus, from (48) we have

1 p .
2(r )


Using the identity

where summation is taken over occupied states, and

wave functions of these states are obtained by solving
Vol. 46



No. 6

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

2(r )
2(r )
r dr 2(r )




we obtain from (46)

= p 1 p + V (r )
2(r )

+ S(r ) +

r dr 2(r )

Equation (52) is a Schrdingertype equation for a

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
, LS = 85 . 5 MeV fm5,
r dr
where V is the nuclear density. The comparison yields
U LS (r ) =

d 1 = d V ,

dr 2(r )



1 = 1 + (r ).
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.


V S = 0 . 8M = 750 MeV,


Using this result, we obtain

where V and S are the vector and scalar potentials

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.



It is important that in [26] relation (59) was

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
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 .


It is evident from (60) that small components of wave

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


g 2
V ,


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

No. 6



/M V, fm3


















S, fm3




V, fm3


Fig. 1. Dependence of the ratio /M and density V on

the scalar density S.

Fig. 2. Dependence of the potentials U and UII on the den

sity V.

The expression for the scalar density has a more com

plicated form

has a minimum at a particular density; this fact is

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

p +M

= M2*

p + pF2 + M *2
pF pF2 + M *2 M *2 ln F
, (64)

M * = M + S = M 2 S .
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

V 0,
V ,
S =
(Mm ) (g ), V .


The quantity S = ( Mm )/g = 0.4025 fm3 corre

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


g2 g2
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):

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

Vol. 46

No. 6

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





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)






Relativistic method [26]

Skyrme II [28]

we obtain

relativistic formalism but has to be introduced manu

ally in nonrelativistic theory.

a = 816 MeV fm , b = 1889 MeV fm .



Now let us take into account the finite dimension of

the nucleus. Equations (38) and (39) for the stationary
states can be written as

V (r ) =

g 2
(r ) + 12 V (r ),
2 V


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

More details of the comparative analysis of the two

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).


In [35], the nuclear ground state formed in relativ

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).

Ultimately, we find from (50), (55), (66), and (46) that

the nuclear central potential has a correction

In [36], the nuclear ground state was formed within

the relativistic Hartree method on the bases of the
Sakurai vector dominance model [37].

which allows the problem to be solved using the itera

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 ),

g 2

g 2

= 200 MeV fm 5 (m = 550 MeV ).

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

g 2 g 2
+ = 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 ) +

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



Note that the simplest and most general nonlinear

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
(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
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
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).

Vol. 46


The source of the Coulomb field is the charge den

sity p(r). These densities are defined in terms of the
nucleon wave function as

v ,


v ,


S =

V =

3 =


0 3 ,


p =


1 + 3


For magic nuclei, the v state filling probabilities

are 1 for occupied states and 0 for unoccupied states.
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)

v 2 = 1 1
(E E F )2 + 2
for the quantum state with singleparticle energy E.

Then the nonfilling probability is defined as u =


1 v . We assume the gap width to be =

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




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


E pair =

u v


should be added as part of the total energy.

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




arate corrections for the centerofmass motion, and

for this reason the nonrelativistic ansatz


F Ptotal

2M total


is used, where
M total = AM , Ptotal

p .


For the ground state, one possibility (of two) can be

chosen. In the first case, |F is the wave function of the
harmonic oscillator, and we therefore can determine
EZPE analytically


F Ptotal

, 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].
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
= 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
angular function, n = ,
and is a quantum number
of relativistic theory defined as =  j +  for j =
 1/2. Apart from the eigenvalue (see (47), (48)),

E = M + is also used. In the case of spherical sym

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

(n , , j =  + 12) and (n 1,  + 2, j =  + 32) ,



where nr, , and j are the singleparticle radial, orbital,

and total angular momentum quantum numbers
respectively, was observed in heavy nuclei. In the
abovementioned works, the pseudoorbital angular

momentum quantum number (  ) was introduced in

accordance with the rule  =  + 1. In the pseudospin

formalism, the pseudospin quantum number s = 1/2

was also introduced so that j =  s for pseudospin

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

states can be designated as ( n r, , j ) . For example,

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.

If the level with j =  1/2 is situated higher than

the level with j =  + 1/2, the doublet is said to have

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
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

PSS has never been understood within the nonrela


It is well known that pseudospinorbit splitting is much smaller

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


Vol. 46

No. 6



tivistic approach. Bahri et al. [55], using the Nilssontype

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

 =  ',


i.e., that the pseudoorbital angular momentum quan

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

Considering (85) and (86), the Dirac equation in
spherical coordinates can be written as
d G(r ) = G(r ) + BF (r ),
d F (r ) = AG(r ) + F (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
G(r ) = 1 d F (r ) + F (r ) .

A(r ) dr
The solutions G(r) and F(r) can be found as solutions
of the equations
( + 1) + AB G = 0,
G" + B' G' + +
B G r

'(' + 1) + AB F = 0,
F " + A' F ' +
A F r

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,


is the statedependent effective potential.


Vol. 46


Equations (90) and (91) are symmetric. However,

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
( + 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

d(S V ) .
+ 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

d(S + V ) ;
S V r
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

small component F(r) and the same value of  forms

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




nating the term with F ' in (91), i.e., reducing (91) to

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].

|S V| decreases, the spinorbit splittings also

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)

(ii) The F terms is small    
[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

[  (  + 1 ) ] /r control the behavior of F(r) near the

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

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

requires that Fa Fb (exact PSS* is forbidden in this

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.

Spin symmetry and the G term. The G

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

should be remembered that Fa and Fb have an identical num

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


Vol. 46

No. 6



large, and the behavior of the G term complies

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.
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

chain features a change (kink) in the slope at N = 126

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

proposed a new version of the SkI4 functional with a

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
where the contributions from the vectorisovector
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
Note also that the pion field and the spatial compo
nents of the vector meson fields ( and ) become zero
in the problem under consideration.

All meson fields , 0, and 0 satisfy the Klein

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) =




where B(r) is given by (86), we can reduce [88] the

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

1 2 + V (r) + V (r) (r)


= 1 + (r),

Sr, and Zr isotope chains. In this section we will mainly discuss

the effect in the Pb chain (within the Hartree approximation).
Vol. 46


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,



No. 6




rc, fm







Fig. 3. Charge radii of Pb isotopes within the L [94], NL

SH [95], and NL3 [96] models normalized to the experi
mental value for the 208Pb nucleus. Experimental values
EXP are taken from [97].

where the central potential Vcent and the spinorbit

potential VS0 are presented by the equations

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


V cent = 1 1 W + 1 W + 1 W ' ,
2M 4


S' V '
2M + + S V
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 =


the equation

M = 1 dVcent  1 V .
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].

Note that M is quantitatively slightly different from effective

mass M* = M + S defined above.

Selfconsistent results corresponding to the exact

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



structure of the kink through the contribution from the

(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.

Vol. 46


rc, fm








Fig. 4. Same as in Fig. 3 for the NLSH [95] model:

(a) x15 = 1 (exact model); (b) x1 = 0.1, x25 = 1; (c) x1, 35 =
1, x2 = 0; (d) x15 = 0 (without meson contribution).

4. The meson contribution to VS0 does not affect

the KE.
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




pseudovector coupling constant ( f /4 ) = 0.08 for

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

The density of the free Lagrangian is given in the form

 0(, , , , , A )
= (i M ) 1 m22 + 1 ( )

+ m F F + m2

2 2
G G + ( m ) 1 H H ,

F ,


G , H A A.

Relativistic HartreeFock calculations for finite

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].

Here M, m, m, m, and m are the masses of free

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.

The nonlinear version of the RHF method was fully

developed in [107118].


+ x ig 5

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

The linear RHF theory is based on Lagrangian (8)

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

The mesonnucleon interaction Lagrangian in the

RHF has the form

 int (mesonnucleon) = g g


The effective Lagrangian  in the RHF is given in

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

Components of the vector in the isospin space

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

Equation (109) involves tensor coupling of and

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].


 =  0(, , , , , A )
+ int (mesonnucleon) U NL(mesonmeson).
11 Consideration


of the selfinteraction of meson fields (and also

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].

( f / 4 0.08 ) . This model was first used in [35] to

discuss stability of relativistic nuclear matter against
pion condensation.


Vol. 46

No. 6



The nonlinear functional has the form

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

U NL = 1 bM (g )3 + 1 c (g )4
+ dMg g 2 1 e (g )2 g 2
f (g ) + 1 m2() 2,


Calculations within the RHF method were per

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


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

The equation for the field has the form


where the operator for the effective mass of the scalar

* depends on the and fields and is
meson m
defined by the equation

*2 = m2 +


Vol. 46

( g 0 ) 2 1 2
eg ( g 0 ) .


m * can be only slightly different from m for low den

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
(1 x ) ( 5 ),


where the effective pion mass m * can be obtained from

m*2 = m2 (1 + ) .


In chiral models [4, 124] of the N interaction, the

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


To simplify our model, we linearize equation (112) for

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

where b, c, d, e, and f are dimensionless parameters

(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


p2 ( g ) mc


where p 1 and p 2 are the adjustable parameters, and the

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




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


m, MeV

g 2 4

g 2 4

g 2 4

b 10 3

c 10 3







coupling constant f, as in [106108], or through the

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

denotes the pure pseudovector coupling that we

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



Ni: neutrons




0 1g9/2




E/A, MeV

Ei , MeV









60 1s1/2

PVa PVe PVe' PVc'






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

orbit splittings and in calculations of observed magic

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].


To sum up, we point out the following milestones in

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

the convenience of the readers, only the most significant

references are given in this section. A more detailed list of refer
ences is available in the body of the review.

Vol. 46

3. Zeldovichs ultrarelativistic mechanism for the

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




Hartree method) (see [4, 133, 134], references

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
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

approximation models is the socalled artificially

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.
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.


Contravariant coordinates A and covariant coor

dinates A of the fourvector are connected by the rela

A = g A ,


where summation over repeated indices is assumed on

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,


x 2 = x x = t 2 x 2.



Vol. 46

No. 6



Operators for calculation of derivatives with respect

to fourdimensional coordinates are given by the


x x

It is also easily seen that

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



5 5 = 0, 5 + 5 = 0,



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


We use the following standard representation of the

Dirac matrices:

{ i } = =
, i = 1,2,3,
I 0
= 0 = 0 =
0 I



Note that there are 16 linearly independent matrices

A, including

I ; 5, , 5 , .


Any 4 4 matrix X can be presented as a combination

of those matrices



X =



= 0 =
Since the Dirac Hamiltonian must be Hermitian, we
have + = , + = , and


0 1
5 = = i = .
1 0
It should be stressed that some authors use (A.10) mul
tiplied by i as the matrix 5. Next,

and the relativistic parity operator is defined by the


x A = 1 Tr(X A ),

0 1 2 3

= i [ , ], = , , = 0,1,2,3, (A.11)
where 1 is the 2 2 unit matrix, and is the Pauli
2 2 spin matrix, so that

0 1
x = 1 = ,
1 0
0 i
1 0
y = =
, z = = 0 1 .
i 0

Operation rules for Dirac matrices are fully deter

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.


The matrix 0 is a Hermitian matrix while all matrices

are antiHermitian matrices
= , = .


For the matrix the property ()+ = 0 0 also

holds. Note that all matrices and anticommute

i + i = 2i,


+ = 0.
They all are Hermitian matrices.



Vol. 46

A =1

P = 0PNR,



where PNR is the nonrelativistic parity operator [4, 7].

The relativistic time reversal operator has the form

y 0
T = i
0 y


where K is the complex conjugation operator.

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
tum of two nucleons,  = r p is the relative angular
momentum, S = 1 ( 1 + 2 ) is the total spin operator
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




Scalar mesons:
a ( Y c (r ))
V(r ) = 0, VT (r ) = 0,

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


2 1 dY c

V LS (r ) = 1 a
2 r dr


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


V(r ) = a 2 1 d Ycs (r ).
r dr
Vector mesons:



2 V
Yc (r ) ,


f dY (r )
V LS (r ) = 3 a 2 1 + 4 1 c
2 3 g r dr


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

V(r ) = 1 a 2 1 +

dY V (r )

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

YcV (r ),

2 1 dY c (r )




for mesons V T = 0 and V T 0, and for mesons


Pseudoscalar mesons:

Vc (r ) = VLS (r ) = V(r ) = V(r ) = 0,

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

1 dY cPS (r )

2 2
VT (r ) = 1 a r 1 d
r dr r


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:

Vtens (r ) = [VT0(r ) + VT(r ) 1 2]S12,

where S12 = 32 ( 1 r)( 2 r) 1 2,
r = r12 = r1 r2.
As is pointed out in Appendix B, we have for scalar

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


OBEP and do not require additional adjustable

parameters for using this operator in nucleon
nucleon scattering calculations or for a multinucleon
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.


In the above equations, a2 = 1/M 2, and the curly

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

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

V T = 0 and V T 0. In this work we confined ourselves

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

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



tonic behavior and weak isospin dependence. At first

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


nuclear theory presented in this review is a nonlinear

selfconsistent theory (of the Fermi system).
If one adds nonlinear terms to linear Lagrangian

W (35)

U = U + U + U () = 1 g 2 + 1 g 3
c3( ) d3( ) ,


(where g2, g3, c3, and d3 are constants), the Klein


Gordon equations for , 0, and 0 will involve the

following terms for the effective meson masses
(instead of m , m , and m ):
m* (r ) = m + g 2 + g 3 ,


m* (r ) = m + c30,


m*2(r ) = m2 + d3(30 )2,


from which it follows that allowance for selfinterac

tion of meson fields leads in the mean field approxi
mation to renormalization of meson masses in a
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.

 = 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

Vol. 46

No. 6

Fig. 6. (a) Yukawatype propagator in the vacuum;

(b) propagator in the medium with allowance for self
interaction (~3).




Let us consider a nonlinear Lagrangian with the
scalar field selfinteraction [119]
= 1 g 23 + 1 g 34 .

To this Lagrangian there corresponds the effective
mass of the scalar meson
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
( m* ) = g S
with S denoting the scalar density and


 I = g 2 1 3 g 3 1 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 ') =

S(r, r')Y ()Y* (),


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


(i )

in the equation for the case without selfinteraction.

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

(T + E

M ) +  1()d 3r,


The method for interpretation of UNL considered in

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
Our Lagrangian consists of two parts

 =  lin +  NL,

in the consideration (see, for example, (G.1)).

In the zero range approximation we have



where lin is the linear part of the Lagrangian, and

NL is determined by nonlinearities that are included


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

=0 m=

S (r, r ') =



2 1

 (r )
 (r )
, K 
r mW
r mW


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 )

where Ti is the kinetic energy in state i [4].

In this method the operator I plays the role of a per

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

( + 1) (r) m*2(r) (r) = 0,


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


where the propagator S satisfies the equation

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



Functions  and  are solutions of the differen

tial equation



and for NL we have (in the above approximation)


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

NL = g 2


Vol. 46

No. 6



where is the fermion operator; dimensionless cou

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
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).

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.
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.

Vol. 46

No. 6


Notes Phys. 641, 65117 (2004); C. Fuchs, The rel

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
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
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
12. A. E. S. Green and T. Sawada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 594
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
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
24. J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N. Y., NY, U. S.) 83, 491
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
28. D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626
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).



31. A. Sulaksono, T. Mart, and C. Bahri, Phys. Rev. C 71,

034312 (2005).
32. L. N. Savushkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30, 349 (1979).
33. L. N. Savushkin, Bull. Leningrad State Univ. 16, 41
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
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
42. R. Brockmann and H. Toki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3408
43. H. Lenske and G. Fuchs, Phys. Lett. B 345, 355
44. S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A 656, 331
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
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
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).

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

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
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
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



88. S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, M. LpezQuelle,
R. Niembro, and P. Bernardos, Phys. Lett. B 507, 135
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
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
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
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
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
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).

Vol. 46


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

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
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




145. D. Vretenar and W. Weise, Exploring the nucleus in

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
149. V. V. Burov and V. N. Dostavalov, Z. Phys. A 236, 254
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).

154. E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Phys. Rev. Lett.

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,


Translated by M. Potapov

Vol. 46

No. 6