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

2. Theoretical approaches for giant resonances

Hartree-Fock plus Random Phase Approximation (RPA)
Comments: self-consistency ?
Relativistic mean field (RMF) plus RPA
 The nuclear matter equation of state (EOS)

The EOS is an important ingredient in the study of properties of nuclei, heavy-

ion collisions, and in astrophysics (neutron stars, supernova).

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

HF equations: minimize E   Hˆ total 

 Skyrme interaction
 
For the nucleon-nucleon interaction V (ri , rj )  VijNN  VijCoul .

e2 A  ij2   ij
VijCoul     ,  ij   i   j
4 i , j 1 ri  r j

VijNN we adopt the standard Skyrme type interaction

   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 ,

ti , xi ,  , W0 are 10 Skyrme parameters.

 E   Hˆ total    T  VijCoul  VijNN 
The total energy
     
H Kinetic (r )  H Coul (r )  H Skyrme (r ) dr 
Where
   2
 2  2   e2   ch (r ' )   ch (r , r ' )  
H Kinetic (r )   p (r )   n (r ), H Coul (r )    ch (r )    dr '     dr '
2m p 2mn 2  r r' r r' 

 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

Now we apply the variation principle to derive the Hartree-Fock equations.

We minimize
E   Hˆ total 
 
   i   , dr 
   E .  i  0
 , 

E    i    , dr 
 


 ,
(*)
i  ,
where

 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:

2  " l (l  1)  d    '

2

*   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)

In fully self-consistent calculations:

1. Assume a form for the Skyrme parametrization (δ-type).

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 '

4. Carry out RPA calculations of strength function, transition density etc.

 Giant Resonance

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

where Vph is the particle-hole interaction and the free particle-hole

Green’s function is defined as

 1 1 
Go (r, r ' , E )   i * (r )   i (r ' )
i  ho   i  E ho   i  E 

where φi is the single-particle wave function, єi is the single-particle

energy, and ho is the single-particle Hamiltonian.
 A
We use the scattering operator F F   f (ri )
i 1

obtain the strength function

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 

 RPA is consistent with the strength in E  E / 2

2
S ( E )    RPA
(r , E ) f (r )dr E
Are mean-field RPA calculations fully self-consistent ?
NO ! In practice, one makes approximations.

A. Mean field and Vph determined independently → no information on K∞.

B. In HF-RPA one
1. neglects the Coulomb part in Vph;
2. neglects the two-body spin-orbit;

3. uses limited upper energy for s.p. states (e.g.: Eph(max) = 60 MeV);

4. introduces smearing parameters.

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

50 4.7 23.92 35.34 16.11

75 3.3 23.51 35.76 15.51

100 2.9 23.25 35.66 15.14

200 1.5 23.09 35.55 14.82

400 1.0 23.02 35.51 14.73

600 0.9 23.02 35.51 14.72

∞ 0.7 23.01 35.46 14.70

Strength function for the spurious state and ISGDR calculated using a smearing
parameter Г/2 = 1 MeV in CRPA. The transition strength S1, S3 and Sη correspond
to the scattering operators f1, f3 and f η, respectively. The SSM caused due to long
tail of spurious state is projected out using the operator f η
Isoscalar strength functions of 208Pb for L=0-3 multi-polarities are displayed. SC (full
line) corresponds to the fully self-consistent calculation where LS (dashed line) and
CO (dotted line) represent the calculations without the ph spin-orbit and the
Coulomb interactions in the RPA, respectively. The Skyrme interaction SGII was
used.
Isovector strength functions of 208Pb for L=0-3 multi-polarities are displayed. SC (full
line) corresponds to the fully self-consistent calculation where LS (dashed line) and
CO (dotted line) represent the calculations without the ph spin-orbit and the
Coulomb interactions in the RPA, respectively. The Skyrme interaction SGII was
used.
S. Shlomo and A.I. Sanzhur, Phys. Rev.
C 65, 044310 (2002) ISGDR

 5 
f   r 3  r 2 r Y1M
 3 

SL1 interaction, K∞=230 MeV

Eα = 240 MeV

  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.

Nucleus ω1-ω2 Expt. NL3 SGII KDE0

90
Zr 18-50 25.7±0.7 32. 28.8 29.1
26.7±0.5
26.9±0.7
116
Sn 18-45 23.0±0.6 29. 27.4 28.0
25.5±0.6
25.4±0.5
Sm
144
18-45 26.5 26.4 27.3
24.5±0.4
25.0±0.3
208
Pb 16-40 19.9±0.7 26. 24.1 24.7
22.2±0.5
22.7±0.2
K (MeV) 272 215 229
J (MeV) 37.4 26.8 33.0
Fully self-consistent HF-RPA results for ISGMR centroid energy (in MeV) with the
Skyrme interaction SK255, 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.

Nucleus ω1-ω2 Expt. NL3 SK255 SGII KDE0

90
Zr 0-60 18.7 18.9 17.9 18.0
10-35 17.81±0.30 18.9 17.9 18.0
116
Sn 0-60 17.1 17.3 16.4 16.6
10-35 15.85±0.20 17.3 16.4 16.6
144
Sm 0-60 16.1 16.2 15.3 15.5
10-35 15.40±0.40 16.2 15.2 15.5
208
Pb 0-60 14.2 14.3 13.6 13.8
10-35 13.96±0.30 14.4 13.6 13.8
K (MeV) 272 255 215 229
J (MeV) 37.4 37.4 26.8 33.0
 CONCLUSION
Fully self-consistent calculations of the ISGMR using
Skyrme forces lead to K∞~ 230-240 MeV.
ISGDR: At high excitation energy, the maximum cross
section for the ISGDR drops below the experimental
sensitivity. There remain some problems in the
experimental analysis.
It is possible to build bona fide Skyrme forces so that the
incompressibility is close to the relativistic value.
Recent relativistic mean field (RMF) plus RPA: lower limit
for K∞ equal to 250 MeV.
→ K∞ = 240 ± 20 MeV.
sensitivity to symmetry energy.