1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prc,showpacs,preprintnumbers,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[preprint,prc,showpacs,preprintnumbers,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[prc,aps,showpacs,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
4: \iffalse
5:
6: \addtolength{\textwidth}{1.0cm}
7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.50cm}%页面宽度
8: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-1.0cm}
9:
10: \addtolength{\textheight}{2.cm}
11: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}%页面高度
12: \setlength{\headheight}{0.8cm}
13:
14: \setlength{\headsep}{0.5cm} \setlength{\jot}{0.2cm} \fi
15: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig,latexsym,amssymb}
16: \usepackage{multirow,amsmath,array,booktabs}
17: \usepackage[section]{placeins}
18: %\usepackage{CJK}
19: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.jpg,.jpeg,.pdf,.png,.mps,.eps,.ps}
20: %\usepackage{CJKvert}
21:
22: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}%每页移动对象的最大数目
23:
24: \linespread{1.3}
25: \begin{document}
26: \title{Challenge on the Astrophysical R-process Calculation with Nuclear Mass Models
27: \footnote{Partly supported by Major State Basic Research
28: Developing Program 2007CB815000, the National Natural Science
29: Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 10435010, 10775004 and
30: 10221003.}}
31:
32: \author{SUN Baohua$^{1}$\footnote{010-62767013(O), 13810098634}, Meng Jie $^{1,2,3,4}$
33: \footnote{mengj@pku.edu.cn, 010-62765620(O)}}
34: \affiliation{ $^{1}$School of Physics and SK Lab. of Nucl. Phys.
35: \textsc{\&}
36: Tech., Peking University, Beijing 100871, China \\
37: $^{2}$ Department of Physics, University of Stellenbosch,
38: Stellenbosch, South Africa \\
39: $^{3}$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
40: Beijing, China \\
41: $^{4}$Center of Theoretical Nuclear Physics, National Laboratory of
42: Heavy Ion Accelerator, 730000 Lanzhou, China}
43: \date{\today}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: Our understanding of the rapid neutron capture nucleosynthesis process
47: in universe depends on the reliability of nuclear mass predictions.
48: Initiated by the newly developed mass table in the relativistic mean field theory (RMF),
49: in this paper the influence of mass models on the $r$-process calculations is investigated
50: assuming the same astrophysical conditions. The different model predictions on the
51: so far unreachable nuclei lead to significant deviations in the calculated $r$-process abundances.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \pacs{21.10.-k, 21.10.Dr, 21.60.-n, 21.60.Jz, 23.40.-s, 26.30.Hj}
55: \maketitle
56:
57: The rapid neutron capture ($r$-) process is introduced more than 50 years ago to explain the solar
58: abundances not creating from the slow-neutron capture ($s$-) process
59: and the proton-capture ($p$-) process~\cite{BBFH}. It is responsible for
60: the synthesis of about half of the nuclei beyond the iron group.
61: The recent observations~\cite{Cowan-nature06} of extremely
62: metal-poor ([Fe/H] $\approx$ -3) $r$-process enriched ([Ba/Eu] $<$ 0)
63: stars, show a consistent elemental abundances from Ba to the third $r$-process peak
64: with the scaled solar system $r$-process abundance distribution.
65: This consistency may indicate that the $r$-process abundance patterns are most possibly produced
66: only by a single or at most a few $r$-process events for the heavier elements with $Z \geq 56$,
67: i.e., there may be only one or a few $r$-process sites in the early Galaxy.
68:
69: However, the exact astrophysical site where the $r$-process proceeds has
70: not been unambiguously identified, despite decades of work.
71: This research is complicated by the required knowledge of both the astrophysical
72: environments and the nuclear properties of very neutron-rich nuclei.
73: Previous phenomenological studies indicate that the $r$-process occurs at
74: temperatures around T $\sim 10^9$ K and at extreme neutron fluxes
75: with neutron number densities $n_n > 10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$~\cite{Cowan-PR91,Kartz-APJ93,SMG07}.
76: Moreover, the $r$-process should be a dynamical process with changing conditions and
77: paths~\cite{Kartz-APJ93}.
78:
79: On the other hand, the determined astrophysical condition for the
80: $r$-process site relies on the extrapolation of theoretical nuclear models
81: for the ``terra incognita".
82: Among the required nuclear properties, the key one is the nuclear mass,
83: from which one can directly determine the one-neutron
84: separation energy, shell gap and also the beta-decay energy.
85: As discussed in Ref.~\cite{SMG07},
86: though various nuclear mass models agree quite well with the known data, they disagree among
87: each other towards the very neutron-rich side, where the $r$-process runs along.
88: As a result, the required astrophysical condition for
89: the $r$-process nucleosynthesis can vary for different model predictions~\cite{SMG07}.
90:
91: In order to investigate the impact of nuclear mass models on the $r$-process nucleosynthesis,
92: one should distinguish the astrophysical
93: uncertainty from the nuclear physics uncertainty.
94: In this letter, adopting the newly constructed mass
95: table~\cite{RMFBCS} in the relativistic mean field (RMF) theory,
96: and assuming the same astrophysical conditions, the impact
97: of different mass models on the $r$-process calculation will be
98: investigated. Other mass models used include the finite-range droplet model
99: (FRDM)~\cite{FRDM}, extended Thomas-Fermi plus Strutinsky integral with
100: quenched shell (ETFSI-Q)~\cite{ETFSIQ} and the
101: recent Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov (HFB-13) model~\cite{HFB-13}.
102:
103: The RMF approach has made lots of successes in describing
104: the nuclear properties far away from the $\beta$-stability line as
105: reviewed, for example in Ref.~\cite{Meng06}. The first systematic calculation of the
106: nuclear ground state properties including nuclear masses, radii and
107: deformations has been done recently for all the nuclei lying between the
108: proton drip line and the neutron drip line~\cite{RMFBCS}.
109: A good agreement with the available data is found. The detailed analysis shows that
110: the predictions of nuclear masses in the RMF are generally underestimated
111: with respect to the experimental data.
112: However, considering the factor that with less than 10 parameters
113: obtained from fitting several doubly magic nuclei,
114: the RMF Lagrangian achieves almost
115: the same prediction power ($\sim$ 0.65 MeV) for
116: one neutron separation energy $S_n$~\cite{AME03} as
117: those highly parameterized mass models~\cite{FRDM,ETFSIQ,HFB-13},
118: thus it is very interesting to see to what extent the solar $r$-abundances can be reproduced
119: using this new table.
120:
121: We adopt a site-independent $r$-process calculation as in
122: Ref.~\cite{SMG07}, where a
123: configuration of 16 $r$-process
124: components is chosen as a reasonable approximation to the real $r$-process
125: site. The seed-nuclei iron are irradiated by neutron
126: sources of high and continuous neutron densities $n_n$ ranging
127: from $10^{20}$ to $10^{28}$ cm$^{-3}$ over a timescale $\tau$ at
128: a high temperature ($T\sim 10^9$ K). The neutron
129: captures proceed in (n, $\gamma$)$\leftrightarrow$($\gamma$, n)
130: equilibrium, and the abundance flow from one isotopic chain to the
131: next is governed by $\beta$-decays. Roughly, the $r$-process runs
132: along the contour lines between 2 and 5 MeV of one neutron separation energies as illustrated in
133: Fig.~\ref{fig1}. Similar to the classical $s$-process~\cite{kappeler89},
134: these different $r$-process components are assumed to satisfy a simply exponential
135: formula, i.e.,
136: $\omega(n_n)=n_n^a , \tau(n_n)=b\times n_n^c$, where
137: $\omega(n_n)$ and $\tau(n_n)$ are the corresponding weighting factor
138: and neutron irradiation time for the component with a neutron density $n_n$. The parameters a, b and c
139: are determined from the least-square fit to the solar $r$-process abundances.
140:
141: The best simulation using the new RMF mass table is presented in
142: Fig.~\ref{fig1}. In this simulation, the $\beta$-decay properties are taken from the
143: recent calculation~\cite{Moller03}. Furthermore, the available
144: experimental results~\cite{AME03,NNDC} have been included.
145: The corresponding $r$-process path is indicated by the dark grey
146: squares. The $r$-process abundance distribution,
147: in general, can be well reproduced. However, the
148: predicted large shell towards the neutron drip line in the RMF model leads to a
149: large gap before the second and third abundance peaks. Previous
150: investigations~\cite{Kartz-APJ93,pfeiffer-ZPA97} showed that a quenched shell
151: could avoid the jump in the $r$-process path and thus result in a better simulation to the
152: observation. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether there is a shell quenching effect
153: or to what extent it is towards the neutron drip line, since
154: the present experimental results are still in debate.
155: One example is the shell gap at the critical waiting point $^{130}$Cd.
156: It is firstly suggested to be a quenched shell in Ref.~\cite{dillmann03}.
157: However, a recent experiment result~\cite{rising07},
158: interpreted by the state-of-the-art nuclear shell-model
159: calculations, shows no evidence of shell quenching.
160:
161: In order to disentangle the nuclear physics uncertainty from the
162: astrophysical environment uncertainty, we have done the $r$-process
163: calculations using respectively FRDM~\cite{FRDM},
164: ETFSI-Q~\cite{ETFSIQ} and HFB-13~\cite{HFB-13} mass inputs while
165: keeping the same $\beta$-decay properties. All the calculations have
166: used the same astrophysical condition, i.e., the best case obtained
167: using the RMF masses. Along with the observation~\cite{kappeler89},
168: the abundance distributions around the third peak are compared with
169: the RMF result in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. It shows that the abundances
170: around the neutron shells $N=126$ strongly depends on the mass
171: models applied. Before the abundance peak, the RMF simulation shows
172: a broad dip around $A=170$, while the ETFSI-Q and HFB-13 simulations
173: have a dip towards a large mass number ($\sim$180). Differences also
174: exist after the abundance peak.
175:
176: The different deficiencies in reproducing the solar r-process
177: abundances can be mainly traced back to two aspects. First,
178: different nuclear mass models predict quite different shell
179: evolution towards the neutron drip line. The shell gap energy at
180: $N=126$ in the RMF model is about 2 MeV larger than that in other
181: models. A stronger shell structure will result in more nuclear
182: matter accumulated in nuclides with a neutron magic number and less
183: in nuclides around, which is reflected by dips on both sides of the
184: abundance peak in the calculated r-process abundance. Second,
185: different models assign different locations of the shape transition
186: before the shell closures. The predicted r-process paths pass
187: through the shape-transition ranges before going to the magic
188: numbers $N=82$ and 126. The first oblate nuclides for $Z=60$-63 are
189: in the mass number of 172-177 for the RMF predictions, while in the
190: HFB-13 model the corresponding mass numbers are 178-179. One neutron
191: separation energies for these nuclides at the shape-transition point
192: will deviate from the approximately linear dependence of the mass
193: number as predicted by a classical liquid droplet mass model, and
194: eventually affect the r-process path. Together, both aspects result
195: in a direct jump in the r-process path from $^{169}$Pr to $^{185}$Pr
196: (15 mass units) in the RMF simulation (see Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
197: Different from the RMF simulation, abundances calculated in the
198: HFB-13 simulation are also accumulated in the nuclides with the mass
199: number 170-177, therefore a better reproduction of the solar
200: r-process abundances at A$\sim$170, however a worse reproduction at
201: A$\sim$180. The gap around the $N=126$ shell also exist in other
202: simulations though varying in magnitude and mass number. In the same
203: astrophysical environment, the $r$-process path in the RMF
204: simulation runs about 1-2 mass units towards the neutron drip line
205: than those of other simulations.
206:
207: In the present investigation, it is shown that the nature of the
208: $r$-process is complicated due to the interplay between the nuclear
209: physics and the astrophysical environment. Since it is still not
210: accessible to measure most of the nuclei masses along the r-process
211: path in the near future, further theoretical development aiming at
212: the description of the know and unknown masses simultaneously is
213: badly needed. If the astrophysical conditions for the $r$-process
214: are identified precisely, this may serve as a constraint for the
215: nuclear mass models. Equivalently, if nuclear masses are known in a
216: good precision, it can be used to constraint the potential site for
217: the $r$-process as well.
218:
219: In the present letter, we have shown that the $r$-process
220: calculation is quit sensitive to the nuclear mass inputs. Precise
221: mass measurement of neutron-rich nuclides with an accuracy less than
222: 100 keV are needed to decisively determine the shell evolution at
223: $N=82$ and 126 towards the neutron drip line, as well as the
224: locations of the shape transition before these shell closures. These
225: experimental results will offer a primary constraint to the existing
226: mass models and a strong motivation for further exploration of
227: theoretical mass models, and furthermore, a better understanding the
228: nature of the r-process nucleosynthesis.. Meanwhile, as there is no
229: clear evidence to accept or reject any mass model mentioned above,
230: it is necessary to take different mass models into account in the
231: $r$-process study.
232:
233: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
234: \bibitem{BBFH} Burbidge E M, Burbidge G R, Fowler W A and Hoyle F 1957
235: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 29} 547
236: \bibitem{Cowan-nature06} Cowan J J and Snden C 2006 {\it Nature} {\bf 440}
237: 1151
238: \bibitem{Cowan-PR91} Cowan J J, Thieleman F K and Truran J W 1991
239: {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 208} 267
240: \bibitem{Kartz-APJ93} Kratz K L, Bitouzet J P, Thielemann F K, M\"{o}ller P and Pfeiffer B 1993
241: {\it ASTROPHYS. J.} {\bf 403} 216
242: \bibitem{SMG07} Sun B, Montes F, Geng L S, Gessel H, Litvinov Yu A and Meng J, {\it submitted to Phys. Rev. C}
243: \bibitem{RMFBCS} Geng L S, Toki H and Meng J 2005 {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 113} 785
244: \bibitem{FRDM} M\"{o}ller P, Nix J R, Myers W D and Swiatecki W J 1995
245: {\it At. Data Nucl. Data Tables} {\bf 59} 185
246: \bibitem{ETFSIQ} Pearson J M, Nayak R C and Goriely S 1996
247: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 387} 455
248: \bibitem{HFB-13} Goriely S, Samyn M and Pearson J M 2006 {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 773} 279
249: \bibitem{Meng06} Meng J, Toki H, Zhou S G, Zhang S Q, Long W H and Geng L S 2006
250: {\it Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 57} 470
251: \bibitem{AME03} Audi G, Wapstra A H and Thibault C 2003 {\it Nucl. Phys. A} {\bf 729} 337
252: \bibitem{kappeler89} K\"{a}ppeler F, Berr H and Wisshak K 1989 {\it Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 52} 945
253: \bibitem{Moller03} M\"{o}ller P, Nix J R and Kratz K L 1997 {\it At. Data Nucl. Data Tables} {\bf 66} 131;
254: M\"{o}ller P, Pfeiffer B and Kratz K L 2003 {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 67} 055802
255: \bibitem{NNDC} National Nuclear Data Center, {\it http://www.nndc.bnl.gov}
256: \bibitem{pfeiffer-ZPA97} Pfeiffer B, Kratz K L and Thielemann F K 1997
257: {\it Z. Phys. A} {\bf 357} 235
258: \bibitem{dillmann03} Dillmann I et al 2003 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 91} 162503
259: \bibitem{rising07} Jungclaus A et al 2007 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 99} 132501
260: \end{thebibliography}
261:
262: %\end{CJK*}
263:
264:
265: \begin{figure*}[th]
266: \centering
267: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig1.EPS}
268: \vspace{-10pt} \caption{Features of the $r$-process calculated using
269: the new RMF mass table. Black squares denote $\beta$-stable nuclei,
270: and magic proton and neutron numbers are indicated by pairs of
271: parallel lines. The region in the main graph shows the calculated
272: average one neutron separation energy ($S_{2n}/2$). The solid line
273: denotes the border of nuclides with known masses in the neutron-rich
274: side. The dark grey squares show the $r$-process path when using the
275: RMF mass predictions and the FRDM half-lives. The observed and
276: calculated solar $r$-process abundance curves are plotted versus the
277: mass number A in the inset, whose x-axis is curved slightly to
278: follow the $r$-process path. } \label{fig1}
279: \end{figure*}
280:
281:
282:
283: \begin{figure}[th]
284: \centering \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig2.EPS} \vspace{-10pt}
285: \caption{Comparison of observed solar $r$-process abundances (filled
286: circles) with theoretical abundance after $\beta$-decays calculated
287: using RMF, FRDM, ETFSI-Q and HFB-13 mass models. The calculated
288: abundances have been scaled to the solar $r$-process abundance at
289: $A=130$.} \label{fig2}
290: \end{figure}
291:
292:
293: \begin{figure}[th]
294: \centering \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig3.EPS} \vspace{-10pt}
295: \caption{The corresponding $r$-process pathes of Fig.~\ref{fig2} for
296: the RMF and HFB-13 mass models. Shown are those isotopes with more
297: than 10\% population of each isotopic chain. For comparison the
298: stable nuclei are labeled by black squares.} \label{fig3}
299: \end{figure}
300:
301:
302:
303: \end{document}
304: