Effects of Self-Consistence Violations in HF Based RPA Calculations For Giant Resonances
Effects of Self-Consistence Violations in HF Based RPA Calculations For Giant Resonances
Effects of Self-Consistence Violations in HF Based RPA Calculations For Giant Resonances
Shalom Shlomo
Texas A&M University
Outline
1. Introduction
Definitions: nuclear matter incompressibility coefficient K
Background: isoscalar giant monopole resonance,
isoscalar giant dipole resonance
E/A [MeV]
ρ = 0.16 fm-3
ρ [fm-3]
E/A = -16 MeV
Hartree-Fock (HF)
Within the HF approximation: the ground state wave function
1 (r1 , 1 , 1 ) 2 (r1 , 1 , 1 ) ... A (r1 , 1 , 1 )
1 1 (r2 , 2 , 2 ) 2 (r2 , 2 , 2 ) ... A (r2 , 2 , 2 )
A!
1 (rA , A , A ) 2 (rA , A , A ) ... A (rA , A , A )
In spherical case
R (r )
i (r , , ) i Y jlm ( r , ) m ( )
r
e2 A ij2 ij
VijCoul , ij i j
4 i , j 1 ri r j
1
2 2
Vij t0 (1 x0 Pij ) (ri rj ) t1 (1 x1Pij )[kij (ri rj ) (ri rj )kij ]
NN
2
ri rj
1
t2 (1 x2 Pij )kij (ri rj )kij t3 (1 x3 Pij ) (ri rj )
6 2
iW0 kij (ri rj )( i j )kij ,
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
1 1 1
H Skyrme(r ) t0 1 x0 2 (r ) t0 1 x0 p2 (r ) n2 (r ) t1 1 x1 t 2 1 x2 (r ) (r )
4 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
t1 1 x1 t 2 1 x2 p (r ) p (r ) n (r ) n (r ) 3t1 1 x1 t 2 1 x2 (r ) 2 (r )
4 2 2 16 2 2
1 1 1
3t 1 x
16 2 2
1 1 t 2 1 x 2
p (
2
r ) p ( r ) n (
2
r
) n (r )
1
2 2
1 2 1
t1 t 2 J p (r ) J n (r ) t1 x1 t 2 x2 J (r ) W0 (r )J (r ) p (r )J p (r ) n (r )J n (r ))
16 16 2
1 1
1
t3 2 (r )1 x3 (r ) p2 (r ) n2 (r ) x3
12 2 2
A
(r ) (r ) (r ) i (r , , ) i (r , , )
i 1
A 2
(r ) (r ) (r ) i (r , , )
i 1
A '
J (r ) J (r ) *
J (r ) i i (r , , ) i (r , , ) '
i 1 , '
* 1 ' ' 1
ch (r , r ' )
i , , '
i ( r , ,
2
)i ( r , , )
2
2
E * (r ) U (r ) (r ) W (r )J (r ) dr
,
2 m ( r )
i (r , ' , ) i* (r , ' , )
i , '
*
(r ) i (r , ' , )i (r , ' , )
i , '
J (r ) i (
r , ' ,
i
*
)
i ( r , ' ' , ) '
"
i , ', ''
Carry out the minimization of energy, we obtain the HF equations:
* R (r ) 2
R (r ) * R (r )
2m (r ) r dr 2m (r )
3
j (
j 1) l (l 1)
1 d 2 4
U (r ) * W (r ) R (r )
r dr 2m (r ) r
R (r )
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
*
t 1 (1 x1 ) t 2 (1 x )
2 ( r ) t 1 ( x1 ) t 2 ( x )
2 ( r )
2m (r ) 2m 4 2 2 4 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
U (r ) t 0 (1 x0 ) (r ) t 0 ( x0 ) (r ) t1 (1 x1 ) t 2 (1 x 2 ) (r )
2 2 4 2 2
1 1 1 2 1 1
t 1 ( x1 ) t 2 ( x )
2 ( r ) t 3 (1 x 3 ) (r )
4 2 2 12 2
1
1 1
t 3 ( x3 ) 1 (r ) 2 (r ) 2 (r ) t 3 ( x3 ) (r )
12 2 6 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
3t1 (1 x1 ) t 2 (1 x 2 ) 2 (r ) 3t1 ( x1 ) t 2 ( x 2 ) 2 (r )
8 2 2 8 2 2
1
(r ' )
W0 J (r ) J (r ) 1 e 2 dr ' ch. ,
2 , r r'
2
1 1 1
W (r ) W0 (r ) (r ) (t1 t 2 ) J (r ) [t1 x1 t 2 x 2 ]J (r )
2 8 8
Hartree-Fock (HF) - Random Phase Approximation (RPA)
2. Carry out HF calculations for ground states and determine the Skyrme
parameters by a fit to binding energies and radii.
2 E
3. Determine the residual p-h interaction V php 'h '
ph p 'h '
In the Green’s Function formulation of RPA, one starts with the RPA-
Green’s function which is given by
G Go (1 V phGo ) 1
1 1
Go (r, r ' , E ) i * (r ) i (r ' )
i ho i E ho i E
2 1
S (E) 0 F n ( E E n ) Im[Tr ( f G f )]
n
and the transition density.
E 1
RPA t (r, E ) f (r ' ) [ Im G (r, r ' , E )]d 3r '
S ( E ) E
2
S ( E ) RPA
(r , E ) f (r )dr E
Are mean-field RPA calculations fully self-consistent ?
NO ! In practice, one makes approximations.
3. uses limited upper energy for s.p. states (e.g.: Eph(max) = 60 MeV);
E K
Main effects:
change in the moments of S(E), of the order of 0.5-1 MeV; note:
spurious state mixing in the ISGDR;
inaccuracy of transition densities.
Commonly used scattering operators:
• for ISGMR
• for ISGDR
In fully self-consistent HF-RPA calculations the (T=0, L=1) spurious state (associated
with the center-of-mass motion) appears at E=0 and no mixing (SSM) in the ISGDR
occurs.
In practice SSM takes place and we have to correct for it.
Replace the ISGDR operator with
(prescriptions for η: discussion in the literature)
NUMERICS:
Rmax = 90 fm Δr = 0.1 fm (continuum RPA)
Ephmax ~ 500 MeV
ω1 – ω2 ≡ Experimental range
Self-consistent calculation within constrained HF
Relativistic Mean Field + Random Phase Approximation
The steps involved in the relativistic mean field based RPA calculations are analogous to
those for the non-relativistic HF-RPA approach. The nucleon-nucleon interaction is
generated through the exchange of various effective mesons. An effective Lagrangian
which represents a system of interacting nucleons looks like
It contains nucleons (ψ) with mass M; σ, ω, ρ mesons; the electromagnetic field; non
linear self-interactions for the σ (and possibly ω) field.
Values of the parameters for the most widely used NL3 interaction are m σ=508.194 MeV,
mω=782.501 MeV, mρ=763.000 MeV, gσ=10.217, gω=12.868, gρ=4.474, g2=-10.431 fm-1
and g3=-28.885 (in this case there is no self-interaction for the ω meson).
NL3: K∞=271.76 MeV, G.A.Lalazissis et al., PRC 55 (1997) 540.
Dependence of the energy Ess of the spurious state (T=0, L=1) and the centroid
energies EL of the isoscalar multipole giant resonances (L=0, 1, and 2), in MeV, on
the value of Ephmax (in MeV) adopted in HF-discretized RPA calculation for 80Zr
using a Skyrme interaction. The corresponding HF-Continuum RPA results are
placed in the last row
Ephmax Ess E0 E1 E2
5
f r 3 r 2 r Y1M
3
5 d
coll 10r 3r 2 r 2 0 0 (r )
3 dr
Fully self-consistent HF-RPA results for ISGDR centroid energy (in MeV) with the
Skyrme interaction SGII and KDE0 and compared with the RRPA results using the NL3
interaction. Note the coressponding values of the nuclear matter incompressibility, K,
and the symmetry energy , J, coefficients. ω1-ω2 is the range of excitation energy. The
experimental data are from TAMU, RCNP Osaka.