arxiv:nucl-th/0605009v1 3 May 2006 Deficiency of Spin Orbit Interaction in Relativistic Mean Field Theory A. Bhagwat a, R. Wyss a, W. Satu la ab, J. Meng c and Y. K. Gambhir d a Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Department of Nuclear Physics, AlbaNova University Center, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden b Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Warsaw, ul. Hoza 69, PL-00 681 Warsaw, Poland c School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China d Department of Physics, I.I.T. Powai, Bombay 400076, India The spin-orbit interaction, emerging naturally from the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) theory is examined critically in the light of the recently measured excitation energy differences between the terminating states built on two different configurations for the nuclei belonging to the lower pf shell. The calculations are carried out using the cranked RMF framework. To further probe the iso vector dependence of the spin-orbit potential, the splitting between the h 11/2 and g 7/2 in the Sb-chain is compared to experiment. It is found that the calculation at the quantitative level do deviate considerably from the experiment. In particular the balance of iso-scalar and iso-vector strength of the spin-orbit interaction indicates that additional terms are needed to account for the experimental data. Low energy excitations and global properties in atomic nuclei are rather well described by modern effective forces. Different realizations of the short range nuclear interaction have been developed, like the Skyrme and Gogny for non relativistic Hartree Fock potentia and the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) Lagrangian, based on meson couplings. These effective theories employ a set of parameters that are adjusted to selected experimental observables in order to account for basic nuclear structure properties. Since there exist a multitude of observables and no real consensus about which of these are to be selected in a unique manner, there exist a multitude of different force parametrizations. One of the basic problems in adjusting the force parameters is related to the fact that the correct single particle states, that are so crucial for high accuracy calculations, are in general coupled to collective motion and therefore difficult to determine. However, in recent work in Ref. [1,2,3], it was shown that a set of terminating states in the mass A=40-50 region may provide a unique tool to de- A. B. acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Institute (SI). termine the strength of the spin-orbit potential. The long experience in the studies of terminating states within the Nison model have clearly shown, that these belong to the purest single particle states available in nuclear structure [4,5] and hence provide an excellent laboratory for the adjustment of effective forces. Indeed, in Ref. [1,2,3] it was demonstrated that for some of the Skyrme force parametrizations, the spin-orbit interaction can be adjusted in such a way, that it agrees with the experimental splitting, whereas some other force parametrizations can be ruled out as irreparable. The robustness of terminating states in determining properties of the nuclear energy density functional was further supported by the recent comparative study between the fully correlated shell model and the Skyrme Hartree - Fock [6]. Since the spin-orbit potential emerges naturally within the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) [7], it becomes highly interesting and important to carry out a critical survey of the spin-orbit interaction within the RMF framework, in the light of the recently measured terminating states in the lower pf shell. In addition, there is a long standing debate on 1
2 A. Bhagwat, R. Wyss, W. Satu la, J. Meng and Y. K. Gambhir the iso-vector strength of spin-orbit potential for different Skyrme parametrizations, exemplified in the recent extension [8] of the Skyrme spin-orbit potential inspired by RMF, which needs to be confronted to experiment. Similarly, in RMF, there is an open question to what extend the Hartree potential that generates the spin-orbit field is sufficient to account for the experimental data or whether additional terms / constraints, e.g. a Fock term, involving π meson exchange, need to be included into the theoretical framework [9]. In this work, we carry out a systematic investigation of the spin-orbit interaction by comparison to the recent data from the lower pf shell within the framework of the cranked RMF (c- RMF) [10,11]. To further address the iso-vector dependence of the spin-orbit interaction, we employ the recently studied g 7/2 h 11/2 splitting in the chain of Sb isotopes [12]. Recently, experimental data on the terminating states in the lower pf shell has been reported in the literature [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. The terminating states considered here involve the f7/2 n as well as the d 1 configurations where n denotes the number of valence particles outside the 40 Ca core and the particle hole excitation across the magic gap 20 is of proton type. The experimental results are summarized in Table 1. Following the discussion in Ref. [1,2,3], we extract the difference, E, between the excitation energies of states terminating within the d 1 and f n 7/2 configurations. This energy gap depends on the size of the magic gap 20, which in turn directly relates to the strength of the -potential. Starting from the the spherical Nison Hamiltonian [21], Ĥ Nison 3 2 hω o = hω o { N κ [ 2 + µ(l 2 l 2 N ) ]}. (1) one derives from the magnitude of the f 7/2 d 3/2 splitting: e 20 = hω o (1 6κ 2κµ). (2) Clearly, the magic gap 20 depends on three major factors: i) the bulk properties of the potential characterized by hω o, ii) the strength of the spin-orbit term κ and iii) the flat-bottom and surface properties entering through the orbit-orbit term, µ. All three terms influence the magic gap 20 with a well defined hierarchy. For light nuclei one can disregard the flat-bottom effect (µ 0). The global energy scale in low energy nuclear physics is determined by hω o which has been well adjusted to binding energies and mean square radii in the RMF model. Hence, even small variations of the hω o related terms for light nuclei will endanger the good agreement already achieved between theory and experiment. Therefore, the difference in excitation energies ( E), provides a unique testing ground for the nucleon nucleon spin-orbit interaction usually employed in the mean field calculations. In the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) theory, the point nucleons are assumed to be interacting only via the c-number electromagnetic (e.m.) and the σ, ω and ρ meson fields. In this work, the standard nonlinear (σ, ω, ρ) interaction Lagrangian [22,23] is used. We omit here all the technical detai of the RMF theory. However, we briefly present and discuss the potentia, particularly, the spin-orbit potential that emerges naturally from the RMF framework. This is achieved through the non-relativistic reduction of the Dirac equation. By eliminating the lower component of the Dirac spinor, one ends up with the Schrödinger equivalent equation. The effective nuclear potentia appearing in the Schrödinger equivalent equation for protons and neutrons (U p N and Un N ) are given by: N = g σ σ(r) + g ω ω o (r) ± g ρ R3 o (r) (3) where, g σ, g ω and g ρ are coupling constants and σ(r), ω o (r) and R o 3 are the fields for the σ, ω and ρ mesons, respectively. Here, + (-) sign arises for proton (neutron). It should be noted that all the coupling constants appearing here are positive quantities. The σ (ω) field turns out to be large and attractive (repuive). The depth of nuclear potential (-50 MeV), is the result of the delicate cancellation of these two big numbers. The ρ field is small in magnitude and attractive in character. Thus, it can be seen that the effect the of ρ field (R o 3) on the total nuclear potential is significant, despite the fact that its magnitude is small. On the other hand, the effective spin-orbit potentia
Deficiency of Spin Orbit Interaction in Relativistic Mean Field Theory 3 Table 1 Summary of experimental results on terminating states in lower pf shell. f n 7/2 d 1 Nucleus I max E max (MeV) Ref. I max E max (MeV) Ref. E (MeV) 42 Ca 6 + 3.189 [13] 11 8.297 [13] 5.108 44 Ca 8 + 5.088 [14] 13 10.568 [14] 5.480 44 Sc 11 + 3.567 [15] 15 9.141 [15] 5.574 45 Sc 23/2 5.417 [16] 31/2 + 11.010 [16] 5.593 45 Ti 27/2 7.144 [17] 33/2 + 12.991 [18] 5.847 46 Ti 14 + 10.040 [19] 17 15.550 [19] 5.510 47 V 31/2 10.004 [20] 35/2 + 15.259 [20] 5.255 for protons and neutrons are given by, ( U p 1 = rm 2 g σ r σ(r) + g ω r ωo (r) U n = +g ρ r Ro 3 (r) + e r Ao (r) ( 1 rm 2 g σ r σ(r) + g ω r ωo (r) g ρ r Ro 3 (r) ) ) (4) (5) Where, 2M = 2m + S V ; S (V ) is the scalar (vector) potential, and m is the nucleon mass. Again, by using arguments similar to those following the nuclear potentia, it can be seen that in the case of the spin-orbit potentia, the influence of ρ field is rather weak. This can be substantiated further, by re-writing the spin-orbit potential as: ( r) = U (1) rρ p(n) ( r) + U (2) rρ n(p) ( r) (6) in analogy with the corresponding term used in the usual Skyrme - Hartree - Fock approach. In this expression, ρ stands for fermion density. In the present case, using further approximations, (elimination of the fields in terms of densities using the Klein - Gordon equations and V S) it can be shown that the spin-orbit potentia for protons and neutrons (U p and Un ) can be expressed as [24]: 1 ( ( r) = C 2 rm 2 m 2 σ + Cω 2 + ) C2 ρ r ρ p(n) ( r) 1 ( + C 2 rm 2 m 2 σ + Cω 2 Cρ 2 ) r ρ n(p) ( r) (7) Here, m (m ) is the nucleon (effective) mass. The constants C i (i = σ, ω, ρ) are defined as C i = mg i /m i, m i being the meson masses. Equation (7) can be recast in terms of iso-scalar and iso-vector contributions as follows: ( r) = 1 rm 2 m 2 [( C 2 σ + C 2 ω ) r ρ( r) ±C 2 ρ r ρ pn ( r) ]. (8) In this equation, ρ( r) is the total nucleon density (sum of neutron and proton densities) and ρ pn ( r) is the difference between proton and neutron densities. As before, + (-) sign arises for protons (neutrons). Clearly, the iso-scalar term of the spin-orbit interaction is dominant in comparison with the iso-vector term. This can be substantiated further by examining the ratio of iso-scalar to iso-vector strengths of the spin-orbit potential. For [25] and [26] Lagrangian parameter sets, this ratio turns out to be 16.54 and 19.62, respectively. For Lagrangian parameter sets with density dependent couplings, DD-ME1 [27] and DD-ME2 [28], this ratio is typically around 20 or even larger. Further insight into the properties of spin-orbit potential can be gained by assuming that proton and neutron densities have the same shape. In this case, Equation (8) reduces to: = (C2 σ + C 2 ω)a rm 2 m 2 [ 1 λ N Z A ] g(r) (9) Here, g(r) is the derivative of the density, and is negative definite; and λ = C 2 ρ/(c 2 σ + C 2 ω). As expected, the spin orbit potential decreases (increases) for protons (neutrons) as N Z increases.
4 A. Bhagwat, R. Wyss, W. Satu la, J. Meng and Y. K. Gambhir ( E th. - E expt. ) (MeV) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0-0.5 Terminating States 47 45 46 44 42 45 44 V Ti Ti Sc Ca Sc Ca δbe (MeV) 15 10 5 0-5 -10 Sb - Isotopes DD-ME2 110 115 120 125 130 135 Mass Number Figure 1. The difference between theoretical and the corresponding experimental values of the excitation energy differences ( E) for the terminating states within the d 1 and f7/2 n configurations. However, in contrast to non-relativistic mode, the iso-vector strength, λ, is at least an order of magnitude smaller. In this work, we solve the c-rmf equations using the basis expansion technique [22]. The upper and lower components of Dirac spinor as well as the meson and e.m. fields are expanded in terms of three dimensional harmonic oscillator basis. We use 8 fermionic and 10 bosonic shel. Since primary focus of this paper is E, inclusion of a larger number of shel does not alter the conclusions drawn. Further, the pairing correlations are ignored. This is justified, since it is expected that the pairing correlations are quenched for the states considered here [11]. For the static case, time reversal symmetry is imposed, which results in disappearance of the space like part of the source terms [22]. However, in the present case of c-rmf, the currents are non - vanishing. Thus, we carry out the calculation with the currents taken into account appropriately. For further technical detai of the model, see [10,11]. Figure 2. The difference between the calculated and the corresponding experimental [34] binding energies for Sb isotopes. The practical calculations require the explicit values of the Lagrangian parameters. A number of such Lagrangian parameter sets exist in literature (see, for example, [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]). Here, since our aim is to examine the spin-orbit content of the RMF theory from a general point of view, we employ two frequently used different parameter sets, [25] and [26]. The calculated energy difference between 1d 3/2 and 1f 7/2 states for the solutions obtained for zero cranking frequency, and for those obtained for terminating states involving the d 1 and f7/2 n configurations is found to remain nearly a constant within 0.5 MeV for the individual nuclei considered here. This indicates that the core polarization effects are indeed small, justifying the assumed purity of configurations. Note that the smaller the energy splitting between 1d 3/2 and 1f 7/2, the larger the effective spin-orbit potential. The difference between the calculated and the corresponding experimental values of E is plotted in Figure (1). It is clear that E values obtained using the parameter sets, and,
Deficiency of Spin Orbit Interaction in Relativistic Mean Field Theory 5 5.0 Sb - Isotopes 4.5 4.0 Sb - Isotopes E gh (MeV) 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 DD-ME2 Expt. E gh th. - Egh expt. (MeV) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 DD-ME2 0.0 110 115 120 125 130 135 Mass Number 0.5 110 115 120 125 130 135 Mass Number Figure 3. The calculated and the corresponding experimental [12] E gh values for Sb isotopes. Figure 4. The difference between the calculated and the corresponding experimental [12] E gh values for Sb isotopes. though qualitatively in agreement with the experiment, differ from each other and from the experiment. Both over-estimate the experiment. The agreement is in general worse than the Skyrme calculations. Both and values exhibit similar systematics and differ from each other roughly by 0.5 MeV on the average. Further, the values are found to be closer to the experiment than those obtained by using set, with mean squared deviations 0.59 and 1.31 respectively. Apparently, the magnitude of the isoscalar spin orbit potential is at variance with experiment. It should be noted that the nuclei in the above figure are arranged in the sequence of increasing (N-Z)/A. Hence, a slope in E is related to inadequacy of the iso-vector strength. An inspection of Figure (1) revea that for both parameter sets, the discrepancy between experiment and theory is maximum for 47 V and minimum for 44 Ca. Thus, the discrepancy decreases with (N- Z)/A. This analysis points towards deficiency of the spin-orbit interaction, especially, in two ways: i) the iso-scalar term is obviously too weak ii) the iso-vector term requires a substantial increase. To further investigate the iso-vector part of the spin-orbit potential, we study the chain of Sb isotopes in the RMF framework. This chain gives an important clue to the iso-vector dependence of the spin-orbit potential from the spacing between single proton 2g 7/2 and 1h 11/2 states (E gh ), revealing that the spacing E gh increases with neutron number, i.e the effective spin-orbit interaction for protons decreases with neutron number. This is akin to the case of the spacing between the 1d 3/2 and 1f 7/2 states discussed earlier. We expect the single particle states 2g 7/2 and 1h 11/2 to be less pure than the terminating states discussed above and therefore, not to allow an adjustment at the same level of accuracy. Still, following the discussion in Ref. [12], the spectroscopic factors show that these states are of dominant single particle character, implying that they indeed can serve to give an estimate on both iso-scalar and iso-vector strength. In these calculations, we ao include in the discussion, the results obtained for the more recent Lagrangian parameter set, DD-ME2 [28]. The RMF mode with density dependent couplings differ from the conventional RMF model in es-
6 A. Bhagwat, R. Wyss, W. Satu la, J. Meng and Y. K. Gambhir sentially two respects. Unlike the conventional RMF, there are no self interaction terms and secondly, the meson - nucleon couplings are assumed to be density dependent [27,28,32,33]. The difference between the calculated and the corresponding experimental [34] binding energies is plotted in Figure (2) for the Sb chain. The figure revea that the binding energies calculated by using the, and DD-ME2 sets are in overall agreement with experiment in the rms sense. Comparatively, in this case, yields slightly better agreement than the other two sets. The calculated and the corresponding experimental [12] values of E gh are presented in Figure (3) for the all the Lagrangian parameter sets considered here. The figure revea that all the calculations deviate by large amounts from the experiment. The experimental E gh varies between 0.5 MeV to around 3 MeV, whereas the corresponding calculated values ( and ) vary within 1 MeV only. DD-ME2, on the other hand, yields almost a constant spacing. Note, that the larger the calculated splitting, the smaller the effective spin-orbit potential. The difference between the theoretical and the corresponding experimental values of E gh is presented in Figure (4). This figure highlights the large deviation obtained between theory and experiment. Interestingly, it is found that the difference decreases with increasing mass number (hence with increasing (N-Z)/A), for all the three parameter sets. This is similar to the case of E (see Figure (1)). It is known ([35]) that the effect of time reversal breaking which exists in the case of odd A systems seems to cancel while taking the differences between single particle energies. Therefore, the conclusions drawn here will not change, even if the currents are explicitly taken into account. We notice again, that the effective iso-scalar spin-orbit potential in the RMF theory is too weak, yielding a much too large splitting between the 2g 7/2 and 1h 11/2 states. Since the iso-vector dependence of the spin-orbit is almost negligible in the RMF theory, with increasing N-Z/A, the experimental values approach the calculated ones. By increasing the coupling constants of the σ and ω meson, one may increase the effective spin orbit potential, and at the same time keep the central potential unchanged. This, however, will only further reduce the relative iso-vector strength of the spin-orbit interaction, see Eq.9. Since the coupling strength of the ρ meson is rather well adjusted to reproduce the strength of the iso-vector central field[37], it appears that the presently used parameter set of the RMF Lagrangian does not allow to simultaneously adjust the iso-vector strength, i.e. increase its value in agreement to the observed experimental values, and at the same time increase the spin-orbit potential. Thus, it can be concluded that the present versions of the Lagrangian used, do not give enough freedom to achieve the desired correct iso-vector dependence in the spin-orbit interaction. This may point to the need to extend the RMF model either by including new meson couplings or to extend the scheme towards Hartree- Fock, including π-mesons [36]. To summarize, a systematic study of the energy splitting of the terminating states between f7/2 n and d 1 configurations using the cranked Relativistic Mean Field theory is carried out. The principal aim of this work is to critically examine the spin-orbit interaction, which emerges naturally from the RMF framework. Calculations have been carried out for and parameter sets. It is found that the spin-orbit interaction that emerges naturally from RMF is essentially too weak and at the same time the experimentally observed iso-vector dependence much stronger than what is found in theory. However, the analysis of the energy spacing between the 2g 7/2 and 1h 11/2 states in Sb isotopes together with the systematics of binding energies reveal that the iso-scalar part of the spin-orbit interaction is so dominant, that there is very limited freedom to improve the iso-vector spin-orbit potential generated by the ρ meson. Even the inclusion of density dependence of the meson - nucleon coupling strengths does not seem to cure this problem. This points towards a basic limitation of present RMF mode and clearly indicates the need of extensions either by considering new coupling terms like the tensor interaction or to go beyond the Hartree approximation. This work has been supported by the Swedish
Deficiency of Spin Orbit Interaction in Relativistic Mean Field Theory 7 Science Research Council (VR), the Swedish Institute and the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) under contract 1 P03B 059 27. The authors are thankful to P. Ring for his interest in this work. REFERENCES 1. H. Zduńczuk, W. Satu la, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 024305. 2. W. Satu la, H. Zduńczuk and R. Wyss, Eur. Phys. J. A 25 (2005) 551. 3. H. Zduńczuk, W. Satu la and R. Wyss, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 14 (2005) 451. 4. A. V. Afanasjev et al., Phys. Reports 322 (1999) 1. 5. W. Satu la and R. Wyss, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 131. 6. G. Stoitcheva, W. Satula, W. Nazarewicz, D.J. Dean, M. Zalewski, and H. Zdunczuk, nucl-th/0509059. 7. J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. 83 (1974) 491. 8. P.-G. Reinhard and H. Flocard, Nucl. Phys. A 584 (1995) 467. 9. A. Bouyssy et al., Phys. Rev. C 36 (1987) 380. 10. W. Koepf and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. A 493 (1989) 61. 11. A. V. Afanasjev, J. König and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. A 608 (1996) 107. 12. J. P. Schriffer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 162501. 13. M. Lach et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 16 (2003) 309. 14. M. Lach et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 12 (2001) 381. 15. M. Lach et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 25 (2005) 1. 16. P. Bednarczyk et al., Acta Phys. Pol. B 32 (2001) 747. 17. P. Bednarczyk et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 2 (1998) 157. 18. P. Bednarczyk et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 20 (2004) 45. 19. F. Brandolini et al., Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 034302. 20. F. Brandolini et al., Nucl. Phys. A 693 (2001) 517. 21. S.G. Nison, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Sek. 29 (1955) 1. 22. Y. K. Gambhir, P. Ring and A. Thimet, Ann. Phys. (NY) 198 (1990) 132. 23. P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37 (1996) 193 and references cited therein. 24. M. M. Sharma et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3744. 25. P. -G. Reinhard et al., Z. Phys. A 323 (1986) 13. 26. G. A. Lalazissis, J. König and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 540. 27. T. Nik sić et al., Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 024306. 28. G. A. Lalazissis et al., Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 024312. 29. M. Rufa et al., Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 390. 30. M. M. Sharma, M. A. Nagarajan and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 312 (1993) 377. 31. M. Bender et al., Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 034304. 32. W. H. Long et al., Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 034319. 33. S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A 656 (1999) 331. 34. G. Audi et al., Nucl. Phys. A 565 (2003) 337. 35. L. S. Warrier and Y. K. Gambhir, Phys. Rev. C 49 (1994) 871. 36. W. H. Long et al., nucl-th/0512086. 37. S. Ban, J. Meng, W. Satu la, and R. Wyss, Phys. Lett. B633 (2006) 231.