A Shell Model Study of Li

Pei-Luan Tai, Joe Belarge

Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

The states of 6 Li limited in the closed p-shell are discussed, including the symmetry of the states by j-j coupling and LS couping. The energy of the states of 6 Li in the closed p-shell are computed analytically by using the parameters from CKI interaction[1]. The energy of the states of 6 Li are computed via CoSMo code[2] and compared to experimental results collected from NNDC[3] and TUNL[4]. In addition we modied the single state energy within the CKIPN interaction and compare the modied result with our hand calculations while discussing the breaking isospin symmetry[7].
I. INTRODUCTION

Many experiments have shown the nucleus possesses the shell structure. One of the main indications can be seen from studying neutron and proton separation energy. It has been observed that when neutron and/or proton numbers equal to 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and 126 (called magic numbers), the separation energy is large compared to the nearest isotope. In other words, a nucleus with a proton or neutron number equal to a magic number corresponds to a fully occupied shell. In 1949 Mayer, Haxel, Suess and Jensen showed that the inclusion of a spin-orbit potential could give the proper separation of the subshell and reproduce the magic numbers[5]. The Hamiltonian of a single particle is
H0 = p2 + V1 (r) + V2 (r) l 2m

of 6 Li3 as two valence nucleons surrounding a 3 4 2 He2 inert closed shell core. We assume that the valence nucleons are conned to the p3/2 and p1/2 single particle states. Using these assumptions we can use LS and jj coupling schemes to analyze the states of 6 Li3 . 3
II. LS COUPLING OF

LI

(I.1)

The V1 (r) term is given by the Woods-Saxon potential; it has the form
V1 (r) = V0 1 + exp((r R)/a)
1

(I.2)

Where R = 1.25A 3 and a=0.524 fm, V0 is the order of 50MeV [6]. V 2 potential is written as
V2 = Vls d V1 (r) dr

We begin by investigating the number of ways to get the total angular momentum I. For a twonucleon system we dene l1 and l2 as the orbital angular momentum, and s1 and s2 are the intrinsic spin angular momentum for the two particles. Applying the LS coupling scheme we couple l1 with l2 to L, and couple s1 with s2 to S . Finally, we couple L and S to I . For 6 Li the two valence nucleons are nonidentical; there is one neutron and one proton. We limit that both of them reside in the pshell which has angular momentum 1 and each nucleon has intrinsic spin = 1/2, therefore we see:l1 = l2 = 1 and s1 =s2 = 1 . So L=2, 1, 0 2 and S =1, 0. We can introduce another degree of freedom and then view the neutron and proton as the same particle, nucleon, in dierent isospin states. Using the LS coupling scheme we nd that there are 10 levels, T=0 I =3, 2, 13 and T=1 I =22 , 1, 02 ,displayed in Table 1.
III. JJ COUPLING OF

(I.3)

LI

where Vls is a strength factor. The shell model can be eectively used to study the energy levels of nuclei. We can think

In the jj coupling scheme we couple l1 and s1 to j1 , and then couple l2 ands2 to j2 separately.

2
Table I. The LS coupling result. L 2 1 0 2 1 0 S 1 1 1 0 0 0 I 3, 2, 1 2, 1, 0 1 2 1 0 T 0 1 0 1 0 1 Table II. The JJ coupling result.
1 1 jp = 2 jn = 2 I I 3 3 jp = 2 jn = 2 I I I I 1 jp = 2 jn = 3 I 2 I

=0 =1 =3 =2 =1 =0 =2 =1

T=1 T=0 T=0 T=1 T=0 T=1 T = 1 and 0 T = 1 and 0

Finally, we couple j1 and j2 to I . Since we limit Li to the p-shell, the only two states for the particles to occupy are p3/2 and p1/2 , leading to :
6

J-J and LS coupling that we have agreement, namely T=0 I =3, 2, 13 and T=1 I =22 , 1, 02 .

j1 ,j1 =

1 3 or 2 2

IV.

HAMILTONIAN

For the simplest case, we look at the I = 3 state because it can only be formed from the 3 coupling of 2 3 . More specically, both par2 ticles 1 and 2 have to be in the p3/2 state and couple to the maximum I =3. Therefore, these two single particle angular momenta j1 ,j2 need to be parallel to each other, so the space-spin part of the wavefunction is symmetric for every |I = 3, M state. Therefore, the isospin part of the wave function must be antisymmetric: T=0. After constructing I =3, the I =2 state 3 from 3 2 can be deduced. From consider2 ing that the space-spin part of |I = 2,M = 2 has to be orthogonal to |I = 3,M = 2 and |I = 3,M = 2 is antisymmetric in space-spin, isospin must thus T=1. We conclude that for two particles occupied at the same single particle state ( 3 3 and 1 1 ) , the angular mo2 2 2 2 mentum I follows the rule: T=0 for odd I , and T=1 for even I . When using isospin, states formed via 1 3 2 2 1 3 and 2 2 are indistinguishable and hence are treated as one case. For 1 3 to formI =2 or 2 2 I =1 the space-spin wavefunction has no symmetry. Therefore, the assignment of T for them is without restriction and can be both 1 and 0. The jj-coupling result is summarized in Table 2. We can see from comparing our values from

In the presence of two-body interaction, our Hamiltonian is

H=
n

(H0 )n +
i<j

Vij

(IV.1)

where H0 is the single particle Hamiltonian from I.1,Vij is the residual two-body interaction, and the index n is for the nth valence nucleon. It is convenient to express the Hamiltonian in the language of second quantization using creation and annihilation operators. (H0 )n can be expressed as H0 = 3 a 3 a 3 + 2 2
n
3 a 3 a 3 2 2
2

1 a 1 a 1 2 2
2

1 a 1 a 1 2 2
2

in the case

of 6 Li. We dene the operator PIT j1 j2 as the 3 creation operator of a pair of particles in the j1 andj2 state with coupling to total angular momentum I and isospin T: [j1 j2 ]IT . Similarly we dene PIT j1 j2 as the corresponding annihilation operator. Now we can express Vij i<j

as

IT j1 <j2 j3 <j4

j1 VIT j2 j3 j4 P(IT );j1 j2 P(IT );j3 j4 .

In the case of 6 Li we see: 3

3
Table III. The CKI interaction value. T I j1 j2 j3 j4 (MeV) 1 2 2 2 2 2 -0.64898 1 2 2 2 2 1 -2.20551 1 2 2 1 2 1 -1.14076 1 1 2 1 2 1 0.86295 1 0 2 2 2 2 -2.73516 1 0 2 2 1 1 -5.32294 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.33974 0 3 2 2 2 2 -6.67786 0 2 2 1 2 1 -4.22458 0 1 2 2 2 2 -3.13984 0 1 2 2 2 1 4.02378 0 1 2 2 1 1 1.08932 0 1 2 1 2 1 -6.53649 0 1 2 1 1 1 1.39200 0 1 1 1 1 1 -4.25675 Table IV. The Single state energy. neutron proton Mev Mev 0.890 2.160 1.965 3.455

P3/2 P1/2

BE(5 Li2 ) BE(4 He2 ) = 1965keV, and we add 3 2

Vij =
i<j

V01

3 3 3 3 2 2;2 2 3 3 1 1 ;2 2

2 3 P 3 3 P 2 3 + V01 2 2
2 2

1 1 1 1 ;2 2

1 P1 1 P2 1 + 2
2 2 2 2

2 V01 2 2 V21 2 2 V21 2 2 V10 2 2 V10 2

2 1 P 3 3 P 2 1 +V11 2 2
2 2 2 2

1 3 1 3 ;2 2

P1 3 P1 3 + 2 2 3 P3 3 P2 3 + 2
2 2 2 2

1 3 1 3 ;2 2 3 3 1 3 ;2 2

2 1 P 1 3 P 2 3 + V21 2 2 2 1 P 3 3 P 2 3 +V10 2 2
2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 ;2 2

3 3 3 3 ;2 2

P3 3 P3 3 + 2 2 1 P1 1 P2 1 + 2
2 2

the rst excited state energy for getting the p1/2 states: 1 = 2160keV, 1 = 3455keV[3, 4]. 2 2 However, we should note 5 He and 5 Li are unbound and unstable nuclei. Their excitation energy of the rst excited states, and the ground states are known with limited accuracy. To calculate the meaningful quantities we must diagonalize the Hamiltoniain; we use T=1, I=2 as an example. We have two states that can couple to T=1 I=2, namely 3 3 2 and 3 1 . In 2 2 2 I=2,T =1 I=2,T =1 the absence of two-body residual interaction, these two states are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian matrix. However, in the presence of interaction the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian become linear combinations of these two states. 3 3 1 We set =| 2 3 +| 2 2 and we solve the 2 eigenvalue problem for T=1, I=2 case. Here we use the neutron single state energy:
2 V21 2 3 3 3 3 ;2 2 2 V21 2

3 1 3 1 ;2 2 3 3 3 1 ;2 2

2 3 P 3 1 P 2 1 + V10 2 2 2 3 P 3 3 P 2 1 + V10 2 2
2 2

1 1 1 1 ;2 2 1 1 3 1 ;2 2

3 P1 1 P2 1 + 2
2 2 2 2

+2

V10

3 3 1 1 2 2;2 2

1 P 3 3 P 2 1 +V20 2
2 2

3 1 3 1 2 2;2 2

3 1 3 3 ;2 2

3 2

2 V21 2 2 V21 2 3 1 3 1 ;2 2

3 3 3 1 ;2 2

P3 1 P3 1 + 2 2

3 2

1 2

=E

2 V30 2

3 3 3 3 ;2 2

3 P3 3 P2 3 2
2 2

j1 Because the potential is real VIT j2 ;j3 j4 = j3 VIT j4 ;j1 j2 . We have 15 independent terms in the two-body residual interaction. Here we use the CKI interaction[1] to parameterize these 15 interaction terms, see Table 3. For single particle state energy, we can utilize the binding energy measured from experiment. The single particle states for neutron () and proton () can be found by 5 4 3 = BE(2 He3 )BE(2 He2 ) = 890keV, 3 = 2 2

We can also use proton single state energy instead of that of the neutron in the equation above, but the whole energy is simply shifted by constant amount. This constant shift phenomena is known as the Coulomb shift and results in no change in energy level separations. We know that 2 and 2 are the probability of nding the 1 3 states of 3 3 and 2 2 respec2 2 2,1 2,1 tively, and can use this information to calculate the occupation number for energy level p3/2 and p1/2 .

4
V. OCCUPATION NUMBER AND BREAKING ISOSPIN SYMMETRY

Table V. The result of diagonalizing Hamiltonian with CKI interaction Using 3 and 2 Using 1 2 Eigenvalue Excitation energy Eigenvalue -6.615 0 -4.324 -4.898 1.718 -2.748 -4.165 2.450 -1.901 -1.175 5.441 1.196 -0.981 5.635 1.493 1.520 -0.719 5.896 2.813 9.428 5.159 3.759 10.374 6.041 3.91 10.525 6.280 10.346 7.877 14.492
3 2

Using the above T=1, I=2 case to demonstrate, we obtain an eigenvalue of 3.76 corre3 3 1 sponding to =0.64| 2 2 +0.77| 3 2 . In 2 other words, we have a probability 0.41 to nd both particles in p3/2 level; conversely there is a probability of 0.59 to nd one particle in p3/2 level and one particle in p1/2 level at the same time. Hence the occupation number for p3/2 is 2 (0.41) + 1 (0.59) = 1.41 , and for p1/2 is 1 (0.59) . We note that 1.41+0.59=2, as expected. The results of the occupation number calculations are summarized in Table 6. In the CKI interaction, we treat both proton and neutron as having the same single state energy. Although this assumption gives us a fairly good prediction, we can often have a better estimation by breaking isospin and treating the proton and neutron as dierent particles. Therefore, we choose CKIPN interaction which allows us to have dierent single state energy for proton and neutron. Moreover, we change the default values in the ckipn.int le when we run CoSMo to our calculated single particle energies. The results of hand calculation, CoSMo with cki, and CoSMo with modied ckipn.int are summarized in Table 6.
VI. COMPARISON

and 1 2 Relative Energy 0 1.577 2.424 5.520 5.812 5.844 9.484 10.366 10.605 14.671

Table VI. The result of occupation number calculations I 1 3 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 T 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Hand calculation

p3/2 p1/2

CoSMo
p3/2 p1/2

CosMo modied
p3/2 p1/2

Figure 1 shows the resulting energy levels from diagonalizing the Hamiltonian matrix, and includes the comparison of experimental data, and the result from using CosMo code. We can see the CoSMo calculations give reasonable predictions for low-lying states under 6 MeV, but there are limitations. In both calculated cases we nd the 3+ and 0+ levels below where they are expected form experiment, and the two 2+ states are higher than expected. The reason we do not observe states above 6 MeV in the experimental data is that when we perform the calculation, we limit our model space strictly to the p-shell, and in reality once valance nucleons get higher energies they are

1.35 2.00 1.47 1.00 0.50 1.59 1.15 1.41 1.00 0.53

0.65 0.00 0.53 1.00 1.50 0.41 0.85 0.59 1.00 1.47

1.31 2.00 1.38 1.00 0.36 1.52 1.33 1.48 1.00 0.62

0.69 0.00 0.62 1.00 1.64 0.48 0.67 0.52 1.00 1.38

1.36 2.00 1.48 1.01 0.53 1.58 1.11 1.40 1.00 0.52

0.64 0.00 0.52 0.99 1.47 0.42 0.89 0.60 1.00 1.48

able to go to higher shells, and hence in the experiment we do not observe a pure closed pshell spectrum.
VII. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the low lying states in 6 Li can be well described by the Shell Model. It

5 is an interesting result that when isospin symmetry is broken, the Shell Model ts 6 Li less well. We believe that there is a specic reason for this discrepancy, and it is due to the nature of 5 He and 5 Li. Since they are unbound and we used experimental data where we anticipate errors, and they are manifested in the isospin breaking study. Overall, we can conclude that the study provided valuable insight into the low lying structure of 6 Li. We are thankful to A. Volya, S.L. Tabor, J. VonMoss for their helpful discussions.

FIGURE I. Comparison of theoretic prediction and experimental data. From the left to right are the results from CKI interaction, the experimenta data, and the result form CoSMo code in keV.

[1] S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Spectroscopic Factors [6] for the 1p Shell, Nucl. Phys. A101, 1 (1967). [2] http://www.volya.net/ [7] [3] http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ [4] http://www.tunl.duke.edu/nucldata/chain/05.shtml [5] P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many Body Problem, 43,(2004)

Kenneth S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, 122, (1988) S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Eective Interactions for the 1p Shell, Nucl. Phys. A 73, 1 (1965)