nucleus
potential parameters
In theoretical estimates of nuclear masses of experimentally unknown isotopes, one has used two different kinds of methods. The first consists in deducing these masses from some known neighbouring ones with the help of a convenient extrapolation formula. This has been extensively discussed for instance in Ref.[1]. One of the problems of such an approach is that one cannot predict any sudden change (e.g. in deformation) in the unknown region if it has not shown up for any known nuclei in the vicinity. The other methods, on which we will concentrate here, are based on a detailed description of total binding energies within a given model. In the last two or three years, one has been able to parametrize phenomenological effective interactions and to give a very satisfactory systematic reproduction of nuclear masses on the whole chart of nuclides, using both the Hartree-Fock approximation[2–3] and the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov approximation [4]. But the oldest and still rather successful approach to nuclear masses is the liquid drop model[5]. For the description of fine details connected to the existence of magic nuclei one has been obliged to introduce some shell corrections as done in Ref.[6]. Strutinsky has given a consistent description of the nuclear binding energy in terms of a sum of a liquid drop energy plus first and higher order shell corrections[7]. Such an expansion relying on the validity of the Hartree-Fock description of the nuclear ground state is referred to as the Strutinsky energy theorem [8]. The energy averaging method widely used to extract the shell correction has been shown to be equivalent to many other possible prescriptions (such as the so-called temperature method or various semi-classical expansions) [9]. A consistent fit of the parameters of both the liquid drop model and the single particle potential needed in the Strutinsky method has been done by Seeger and co-workers (see e.g. Ref. [10] ) for nuclei with A ≥ 40. Such approaches to nuclear masses are met with two kinds of difficulties: i) how reliable is the extrapolation of single particle potential parameters? ii) What is the accuracy of the Strutinsky method itself?
formula
accuracy
Hartree-Fock description
liquid drop energy
shell corrections
unknown region
problem
Seeger
higher-order shells
ground state
The Validity of the Strutinsky Method for the Determination of Nuclear Masses
method
potential
approach
changes
energy
help
detail
validity
difficulties
state
liquid drops
nuclear masses
region
Strutinsky
fit
2022-11-24T21:14
existence
isotopes
systematic reproduction
extrapolation formula
estimates
Strutinsky method
vicinity
theoretical estimates
true
extrapolation
Bogolyubov approximation
phenomenological effective interactions
drop model
description
expansion
different kinds
possible prescriptions
sum
correction
mass
particle potential
Ref
kinds of difficulties
reproduction
neighbouring ones
prescription
consistent fit
detailed description
charts
single-particle potential
binding energies
drop energy
chapter
energy theorem
averaging method
terms
years
model
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2682-3_37
257-263
kind
one
nuclear ground state
unknown isotopes
chapters
sudden change
shell
liquid drop model
1976
fine details
parameters
interaction
approximation
whole chart
nuclides
1976-01-01
nuclei one
total binding energy
determination
such approaches
drop
theorem
effective interaction
successful approach
instances
consistent description
https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
Hartree-Fock
P.
Quentin
Brack
M.
doi
10.1007/978-1-4684-2682-3_37
Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
Sanders
J. H.
Other Physical Sciences
978-1-4684-2682-3
978-1-4684-2684-7
Atomic Masses and Fundamental Constants 5
dimensions_id
pub.1010393199
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Physical Sciences
A. H.
Wapstra
Springer Nature