1: \documentstyle[multicol,epsf,epsfig,aps,amssymb]{revtex}
2: \def\hw{$\hbar\omega\,$}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title{Coulomb displacement energies, energy differences and neutron skins.}
6: \author{ A. P. ~Zuker$^a$, J. Duflo$^b$, S. M. ~Lenzi$^c$,
7: G.~Mart\'{\i}nez-Pinedo$^{d,e}$,
8: A.~Poves$^f$, J.~S\'anchez-Solano$^f$}
9: \address{
10: (a) IReS, B\^at27, IN2P3-CNRS/Universit\'e Louis
11: Pasteur BP 28, F-67037 Strasbourg Cedex 2, France\\
12: (b) Centre de Spectrom\'etrie Nucl\'eaire et de Spectrom\'etrie
13: de Masse (IN2P3-CNRS) 91405 Orsay Campus, France\\
14: (c) Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, Via F. Marzolo 8, I-35131
15: Padova, Italy\\
16: (d) Institut for Fysik og Astronomi, {\AA}rhus Universitet, DK-8000
17: {\AA}rhus C, Denmark\\
18: (e) Department f\"ur Physik und Astronomie, Universit\"at Basel, CH-4056
19: Basel, Switzerland\\
20: (f) Departamento de Fisica Te\'orica C-XI Universidad Aut\'onoma
21: de Madrid, E-28049, Madrid, Spain}
22: \date{\today}
23: \maketitle
24: \begin{abstract}
25: A Fock space representation of the monopole part of the Coulomb
26: potential is presented. Quantum effects show through a small orbital
27: term in $l(l+1)$. Once it is averaged out, the classical
28: electrostatic energy emerges as an essentially exact expression,
29: which makes it possible to eliminate the Nolen-Schiffer anomaly, and
30: to estimate neutron skins and the evolution of radii along yrast
31: states of mirror nuclei. The energy differences of the latter are
32: quantitatively reproduced by the monopole term and a schematic
33: multipole one.
34: \end{abstract}
35: \pacs{PACS numbers: 21.10.Sf, 21.10.Ft, 21.10.Gv, 21.60.Cs, 27.40.+z}
36: %\vspace{-.4cm}
37: \begin{multicols}{2}
38: The electrostatic energy of a sphere of radius $R$ and charge $Ze$
39: is easily calculated to be $E_{Cs}=3e^2Z^2/5R$ ($E_{Cs}$
40: stands for ``simple Coulomb energy''). It is under this guise that
41: the Coulomb field enters the Bethe-Weiz\"acker mass formula, and
42: becomes a basic quantity in nuclear structure. Direct evidence of
43: entirely Coulomb effects has long been available from displacement
44: energies between mirror (or in general, analog) ground states
45: (CDE)~\cite{BM69,NS69}, and more recently from differences in yrast
46: excitation energies in mirror $pf$-shell nuclei
47: (CED)~\cite{cameron,49,47-49,51,50}.
48:
49: The CDE range from few to tens of MeV. They should be given mainly
50: by $E_{Cs}$, but are underestimated by mean-field calculations: the
51: Nolen-Schiffer (NS) anomaly~\cite{NS69}, still an open problem.
52:
53: The CED are very small (of the order of 10-100 keV). They
54: have been semiquantitatively explained by shell model calculations
55: using Coulomb matrix elements but there is some room for
56: improvement.
57:
58: The present letter intends to give a unified microscopic description
59: of CDE and CED, by separating the Coulomb field into monopole and
60: multipole components $V_C=e^2(M\omega/\hbar)^{1/2}/r=V_{Cm}+V_{CM}$
61: following ref.~\cite{dz96}(DZ). The monopole $V_{Cm}$ contains all
62: terms quadratic in scalar products of Fermion operators
63: $a_i^{\dagger}\cdot a_j$. Its diagonal part involves only proton
64: number operators, and should be responsible for $E_{Cs}$, and hence
65: for the observed CDE. The non diagonal part will not be considered
66: here: it leads to isospin mixing, but energetically its effect is
67: small. The multipole $V_{CM}$ contains all non-monopole matrix
68: elements and accounts for much of the CED.
69:
70: As an introduction we examine the origin of the NS
71: anomaly, by calculating $E_{Cs}$ with proton radii of the form
72: \begin{equation}
73: \label{eq:R}
74: R_{\pi}=r_0\, A^{1/3}\left(1-\upsilon(\frac{t}{A})^2-\zeta
75: \frac{t}{A^{4/3}}\right)e^{(1.75/A)}+{\cal D}.
76: \end{equation}
77: ($A=N+Z$, $t=N-Z$, $\pi,\, \nu\equiv$ protons, neutrons.)
78:
79: Isospin conservation is assumed, which implies that $R_{\nu}$ is the
80: same as $R_{\pi}$ {\em for the mirror nucleus}, obtained by
81: interchanging $N$ and $Z$. Therefore, in Eq.~(\ref{eq:R}), for $N>Z$,
82: $\upsilon>0$ represents a uniform contraction of the two fluids, while
83: $\zeta>0$ represents a $\pi$-contraction and a $\nu$-dilation. Hence, a
84: (fractional) neutron skin can be defined as
85: \begin{equation}
86: \label{eq:skin}
87: \Delta(\zeta)=\frac{R_{\nu}-R_{\pi}}{r_0\, A^{1/3}\,
88: e^{1.75/A}}=\frac{2|t|\zeta}{A^{4/3}}, \quad N>Z.
89: \end{equation}
90:
91: The exponential factor takes care of the increase in $R_{\pi}$
92: observed in the light nuclei.
93:
94: ${\cal D}$ is a phenomenological term that accounts for shell and
95: deformation effects. It is a sum of two quartic forms $\lambda
96: S_{\pi}S_{\nu}+\mu Q_{\pi}Q_{\nu}$ that vanish at the spin-orbit (or EI:
97: extruder-intruder) closures at $N$ or $Z=6,\, 14,\, 28,\, 50,\, 82,\,
98: 126$. Defining $D_{\pi}=(p_{\pi}+1)(p_{\pi}+2)+2$, the degeneracy of
99: the EI$_{\pi}$ shell (e. g., $p_{\pi}=3$ for $Z=28$ to 50),
100: $D_{r\pi}=p_{\pi}(p_{\pi}+1)$, the degeneracy of the non-intruder
101: subshells; the factors are $S_{\pi}=z(D_{\pi}-z)/D_{\pi}^2$ and
102: $Q_{\pi}=z(D_{r\pi}-z)/D_{\pi}^2$ ($z$= number of valence protons).
103: The parametrization is a variant of the
104: ones in~\cite{d94,dz99}.
105:
106:
107:
108:
109: Fits to $R_{\pi}=\sqrt{5\langle r_{\pi}^2\rangle/3}$---where $\langle
110: r_{\pi}^2\rangle$ is the measured mean square radius---for 634 nuclei
111: (with $N\ge Z$ except two cases!) yield ($r_0$ and rmsd in fm)
112:
113: \noindent
114: $r_0$=1.236 \ \ $\upsilon$=0.00\ \ $\zeta$=0.94\ \ $\lambda$=6.2
115: \ \ $\mu$=14.6 \ \ rmsd=0.018:
116:
117: \noindent
118: A good fit with a Huge Skin (HS hereafter).
119:
120: \noindent
121: $r_0$=1.220 \ \ $\upsilon$=0.61\ \ $\zeta$=0.00\ \ $\lambda$=5.7
122: \ \ $\mu$=27.0 \ \ rmsd=0.012:
123:
124: \noindent
125: A much better fit with Zero Skin (ZS hereafter).
126:
127: \noindent
128: $r_0$=1.226 \ \ $\upsilon$=0.45\ \ $\zeta$=0.29\ \ $\lambda$=5.7
129: \ \ $\mu$=24.0\ \ rmsd=0.011:
130:
131: \noindent
132: An even better fit with a Minute Skin (MS hereafter).
133:
134: Adding an exchange term to $E_{Cs}$, replacing $Z^2$ by $Z(Z-1)$
135: (conceptually better, as $V_C$ is two-body), the main contribution to
136: the monopole energy takes the form
137: \begin{equation}
138: \label{eq:vc}
139: E_{Cm}=\frac{d\, Z(Z-1)(1-c\,Z^{-h})}{\rho},\quad
140: d=\frac{3e^2}{5r_0}=\frac{0.864}{r_0},
141: % .
142: \end{equation}
143: $d$ in MeV and $\rho=(R_{\pi}-{\cal D})/{r_0}$: The $\cal D$
144: correction can be left out for simplicity as it does not affect what
145: follows; the high quality fits become average ones (rmsd trebled), but
146: still sufficient for our purpose. For the exchange term the usual
147: choice is $h=2/3$, while $c$ varies appreciably~\cite{NS69}. Here we
148: set $h=1$ (explained in and after Eq.~(\ref{eq:vcapp})). The overall
149: factor $d$ is fixed. {\em Nevertheless}, it will be allowed to vary,
150: under the name $d_f$, together with $c$, in a fit to the 183 available
151: CDE from reference~\cite{aw95}. The $\chi^2$ values are calculated by
152: adding 200 keV to the experimental errors, to account for
153: uncertainties in the calculations. Obviously, consistency between
154: $R_{\pi}$ and $E_{Cm}$ demands $d_f=d$. The three fits to $R_{\pi}$
155: lead to:
156:
157: \vspace{3pt}
158:
159: \noindent
160: $d$=0.699\ \ $d_f$={\bf 0.77}\ \ $c=-0.5$\ \ $\upsilon$=0.00\ \
161: $\zeta$=0.94\ $\chi^2$=0.91:
162:
163: \noindent
164: HS leads to a large overestimate of $d$. In other words:
165: keeping the correct $d$ leads to a large {\em underestimate} of the
166: CDE: the NS anomaly~\cite{NS69,a83}, unresolved to this day (see
167: however~\cite{fayans}).
168:
169: \vspace{3pt}
170:
171: \noindent
172: $d$=0.708\ \ $d_f$=0.69\ \ $\, c$=\ 1.3\ \ $\upsilon$=0.61\ \
173: $\zeta$=0.00\ $\chi^2$=1.46:
174:
175: \noindent
176: ZS leads to a small underestimate of $d$.
177:
178: \vspace{3pt}
179:
180: \noindent
181: $d$=0.705\ \ $d_f$=0.71\ \ $\; c$=\ 0.9\ \ $\, \upsilon$=0.45\ \
182: $\zeta$=0.29\ $\chi^2$=1.20:
183:
184: \noindent
185: MS leads to $d_f\approx d$. {\em The NS anomaly disappears}.
186: Clearly, $\zeta\lessapprox 0.3$ is a good guess in
187: Eq.~(\ref{eq:skin}).
188:
189: \vspace{3pt}
190:
191:
192: The NS anomaly occurs because mean field calculations {\em that yield
193: good} $R_{\pi}$ systematically overestimate $R_{\nu}$:
194: Ref.\cite{bartel} contains a nice illustration of the problem. It is
195: ironical to note that a small neutron skin was recognized as a
196: possible solution of the anomaly---but rejected---by Nolen and
197: Schiffer~\cite{NS69}. Many reasons explain why this rejection held for
198: so long. We retain only two: neglect of the $\upsilon (t/A)^2$ term in
199: Eq.~(\ref{eq:R}), and lack of confidence in the validity of $E_{Cm}$.
200: As we show next, $E_{Cm}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vc}) must be trusted, as
201: it is basically an exact form of $V_{Cm}$.
202:
203:
204: \vspace{3pt}
205:
206: By definition, the diagonal monopole part of $V_C$ is ($[J]=2J+1$):
207: \begin{equation}
208: \label{eq:mono}
209: V_{Cm}=\sum_{i\leq k}\frac{z_i(z_k-\delta_{ik})}{1+\delta_{ik}}V_{ik}, \quad
210: V_{ik}=\frac {\sum_{J}V_{Cikik}^J[J]}{\sum_{J}[J]}.
211: \end{equation}
212: The label $k\equiv plj$ stands for the quantum numbers specifying a
213: given harmonic oscillator (ho) orbit ($p$ is the principal quantum
214: number). Restricting the sum to the first $\kappa$ major shells
215: containing $\tau$ orbits, $V_{Cm}$ is brought to a sum of factorable
216: terms by diagonalizing the matrix $\frac{1}{2}\{V_{ik}\}$ through the
217: unitary transformation $\cal U$:
218: \begin{equation}
219: \label{eq:vcfac}
220: V_{Cm}=e^2\sqrt{\frac{M\omega}{\hbar}}\sum_n \left[{\cal E}_n\left(\sum_k
221: z_k {\cal U}_{kn}\right)^2-{\cal C}\right],
222: \end{equation}
223: where ${\cal C}=\sum_n z_n\, V_{nn}/2$ is the one-body counterterm in
224: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mono}) left out of the diagonalization. By rescaling
225: ${\cal E}_n=\tau E_n$, ${\cal U}_{kn}=(\tau)^{-1/2}U_{kn}$, the results
226: become independent of $\tau$. To fix ideas choose $\kappa=8$, i. e.,
227: $\tau=36$. We expect to extract something close to the $Z^2$ {\em
228: operator}, in which case only the highest eigenvalue ($E_{36}$)
229: should be non vanishing, with $U_{k\,36}=1$. The diagonalization
230: produces indeed an $E_{36}=0.192$ that is 30 times larger than the
231: next and over 100 times larger than the second next. (Increasing the
232: number of shells would only increase the number of negligible terms:
233: Eq~(\ref{eq:vcfac}) is an {\em exact} representation in Fock space.)
234: Fig.~\ref{fig:dz} shows that ($U_k\equiv U_{k\,36}$ ) is very well
235: approximated by the form $U_p-0.01\, L^2$,
236: \begin{figure}[h]
237: \begin{center}
238: \leavevmode
239: \epsfig{file=Cdz.eps,width=7cm}
240: \caption{Dominant factor in the DZ decomposition of $V_{Cm}$}
241: \label{fig:dz}
242: \end{center}
243: \end{figure}
244: \noindent
245: where $U_p=\sum_{j}(2j+1)U_k$ is the average of $U_k$ over $j$-values,
246: and $L^2=l(l+1)-p(p+3)/2$ is an $l(l+1)$ term referred to its
247: centroid. This result is still {\em almost exact}. The presence of
248: $L^2$ is interesting, but here we average it out, to transform the
249: {\em operator} $\sum_p z_p\, U_p$ into a {\em c-number} by taking
250: expectation values in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vcfac}) over ho closed shells.
251: Introducing $b=(\hbar/M\omega)^{1/2}$, we find
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: \label{eq:vcapp}
254: \langle V_{Cm}\rangle&\approx&\frac{e^2}{b}
255: \left[ E_{36}\langle\sum_p z_p U_p\rangle^2-\langle {\cal
256: C}\rangle\right] \\
257: &\approx&\frac{e^2}{b}\left[
258: E_{36}\left(\sum_p (p+1)(p+2)U_p\right)^2-\langle {\cal
259: C}\rangle\right]
260: \nonumber\\
261: &\approx&\frac{e^2}{b} 0.445\,
262: (Z(Z-1))^{(1-1/12)}(1-0.96/Z).\nonumber
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: The last line is a numerical fit to the previous one.
265: $\langle\sum_p z_p U_p\rangle\approx 1.522Z^{1-1/12}(1-0.48/Z)$, so
266: $0.445=0.192\times (1.522)^2$). In the exchange term: $Z^{-1}$ is
267: better than $Z^{-2/3}$; 0.96 is close to $c$ in ZS and MS CDE fits.
268: The apparently awkward 1-1/12 exponent comes out of the fit It will be
269: seen to be natural once we extract $b$ from $\hbar\omega_{\pi}$
270: calculated as in \cite[Eq.~(2-157)]{BM69}, but treating separately
271: neutrons and protons:
272: \begin{equation}
273: \label{eq:hwz}
274: \hbar\omega_{\pi}=\frac{35.59(2Z)^{1/3}}{\langle r_{\pi}^2\rangle}\,
275: \Longrightarrow\, \frac{e^2}{b}\, 0.445=
276: \frac{0.860Z^{1/6}}{r_0\, \rho},
277: \end{equation}
278: where we have used $\langle r_{\pi}^2\rangle=3r_0^2\rho^2/5$ to bring
279: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vcapp}) to the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:vc}). The factor in
280: $Z^{1/6}=(Z^2)^{1/12}\approx (Z(Z-1))^{1/12}$ in $(\hbar\omega)^{1/2}$
281: conveniently corrects the ``awkward exponent'' and both equations
282: become identical to within a 0.5\% discrepancy in the $d$ coefficient:
283: $0.860/r_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vcapp}) {\it vs.} $0.864/r_0$ in
284: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vc}). Therefore, $E_{Cm}$ is essentially exact to within
285: the averaging of $L^2$. A full treatment of this term is of obvious
286: interest.
287:
288: Let us turn to the CED in the $pf$ shell. They are differences in
289: expectation values of $V_C$ for excitation energies;
290: CED$_J=E_C^x(Z,N,J)-E_C^x(N,Z,J)$ ($Z>N$). The wavefunctions are
291: obtained through standard shell model
292: calculations~\cite{ANTOINE,47-49,51,50} (they depend {\em very} little
293: on the interaction: KB3, KB3G or FPD6). First we separate monopole and
294: multipole pieces:
295: \begin{equation}
296: \label{eq:cedj0}
297: {\rm CED}_J=\Delta\langle V_{Cm}\rangle_J+\Delta\langle
298: V_{CM}\rangle_J
299: \end{equation}
300: $\langle V_{Cm}\rangle_J$ is proportional to the difference of
301: (inverse) radii between a $J$ yrast and the ground state:
302: $R_J^{-1}-R_0^{-1}\approx (R_J-R_0)/R_0^2)$. Since $R_J$ is very
303: nearly the same for both members of the mirror pair (remember: the
304: neutron skin is small), it will be proportional to the {\em average
305: neutron plus proton} occupancies for the individual orbits, which we
306: denote by $\langle m_{k}\rangle_J/2$, with $m_k=z_k+n_k$ ($n_k$ is the
307: number of neutrons). Now: to good approximation, the $R_0^2$
308: denominator is a constant over the region of interest ($A=47$-51) ,
309: furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that radii of the $pf$ orbits
310: depend only on $l$, and, finally, the $p_{1/2}$ occupancy is always
311: negligible. Therefore, $\langle V_{Cm}\rangle_J$ can be taken to
312: depend only on $\langle m_{p_{3/2}}\rangle_J/2$.
313:
314: The multipole contribution $\Delta\langle V_{CM}\rangle_J$ is given by
315: the expectation values of the effective Coulomb potential in the $pf$
316: shell. Then
317: \begin{equation}
318: \label{eq:cedj1}
319: {\rm CED}_J=a_m\langle m_{p_{3/2}}\rangle_J+\Delta\langle
320: V_{Cpf}^{eff}\rangle_J
321: \end{equation}
322: The value of $a_m$ can be estimated by noting that the single particle
323: $p_{3/2}$ state in $^{41}$Sc is 200 keV below its analogue in
324: $^{41}$Ca. This number comes from two effects: a larger radius that
325: depresses the $p_{3/2}$ orbit, and the single particle $L^2$ term in
326: Fig.~\ref{fig:dz} that depresses the $f_{7/2}$ ground state orbit. The
327: latter effect is readily found to be $\approx$ 150 keV by expanding
328: $(\sum_k U_p+.01L^2)^2$ around the $A=40$ closed shell and using the
329: numbers in, and after Eq.~(\ref{eq:vcapp}). Then, $a_m\approx
330: (.200+.150)/2=0.175$ MeV. Note that the single particle contribution
331: in $L^2$ is proportional to the {\em difference} of proton and neutron
332: occupancies. It is important in $A=41$, but typically ten times
333: smaller than the radial effect in $A=$47-51, so we have neglected it.
334:
335: The available information on $\Delta\langle V_{Cpf}^{eff}\rangle_J$
336: involves only the $f_{7/2}$ matrix elements extracted from the
337: $^{42}$Ti-$^{42}$Ca pair, which yields ($7\equiv f_{7/2}$) $V_{CM\,
338: 7777}^J\equiv V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{eff}=$ (86.9, 116.9, 10.9, -59.1) keV,
339: for $J$= 0, 2, 4, 6 respectively, to be compared with the ho values
340: $V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{ho}$= (81.6, 24.6, -6.4, -11.4) keV. Since we are
341: dealing with $V_{CM}$, the centroids $V_{77}$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:mono}))
342: have been removed. They are very close (304 keV for $A$=42, 308 keV
343: for ho) {\em because} $E_{Cm}$ {\em depends on conserved quantities
344: that cannot be renormalized}. The multipole matrix elements are very
345: different, and the data unequivocally prefer the $A=42$
346: set~\cite{47-49,51}. The strategy adopted in these references was to
347: use a $V_{Cpf}^{eff}$ with $V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{eff}$, keeping
348: $V_{Cpf}^{ho}$ for the other matrix elements, which turned out to be
349: almost irrelevant: the $V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{eff}$ set by itself accounts for
350: the full $V_{Cpf}^{eff}$ chosen in this way. The results alternated
351: between agreement and distorsion of the observed patterns.
352:
353: As there is no justification in accepting an enormous renormalization
354: for the $f_{7/2}$ orbits and leave the rest of the interaction
355: unchanged, we shall attempt a more general treatment, by exploring the
356: possibility of writing an effective interaction solely in terms of
357: $V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{eff}$---properly renormalized to give a plausible
358: account of the full $V_{Cpf}^{eff}$. First we check that the program
359: can be enacted for the ho set. We try
360: \begin{equation}
361: \label{eq:horen}
362: \Delta\langle V_{Cpf}^{ho}\rangle_J=b\, \Delta\langle
363: V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{ho}\rangle_J+a\, \langle m_{p_{3/2}}\rangle_J:
364: \end{equation}
365: \begin{figure}[h]
366: \begin{center}
367: \leavevmode \epsfig{file=C47_r.eps,width=7cm}
368: % \epsfig{file=C49_r.eps,width=7cm}
369: \epsfig{file=C50_r.eps,width=7cm}
370: % \epsfig{file=C51_r.eps,width=7cm}
371: \caption{Calculated CED normalizations}
372: \label{fig:tuttir}
373: \end{center}
374: \end{figure}
375: Eq.~(\ref{eq:horen}) is only a {\em numerical recipe}, but it works
376: well, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:tuttir}, representative of the quality
377: of the adjustment in the four cases (parameters in
378: Tab~\ref{tab:param}). Next, assume that the prescription applies to
379: the renormalized case and try to {\em invent} an effective interaction
380: consistent with the data and {\em respecting the condition that the $a_m$
381: parameter in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cedj1}) be a constant that should be
382: determined carefully}: There is no room for invention here.
383: \begin{table}[h]
384: \caption{Adopted parameters in Eq.~(\ref{eq:horen}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:cedj2})}
385: \begin{center}
386: \begin{tabular}{cccclcc}
387: $A$& $b$ & $a$ && $b_M$ &$a_M$ & $a_m$ \\
388: \hline
389: 47 & 1.5 &-0.045 && 0.75 &-0.080 & 0.150 \\
390: 49 & 1.5 &\ 0.000 && 0.75 &\ 0.000& 0.150 \\
391: 50 & 1.2 &\ 0.000 && 0.60 &\ 0.000& 0.150 \\
392: 51 & 1.6 &-0.030 && 0.80 &-0.054 & 0.150
393: \end{tabular}
394: \label{tab:param}
395: \end{center}
396: \end{table}
397:
398: \vspace{-.75cm}
399: \begin{figure}[h]
400: \begin{center}
401: \leavevmode
402: \epsfig{file=C47_1.eps,width=7cm}
403: \epsfig{file=C49_1.eps,width=7cm}
404: \epsfig{file=C50_1.eps,width=7cm}
405: \epsfig{file=C51_1.eps,width=7cm}
406: \caption {Experimental~\protect\cite{49,47-49,51,50} and
407: calculated CED for the pairs $^{47}$Cr-$^{47}$V,
408: $^{49}$Mn-$^{49}$Cr, $^{50}$Fe-$^{50}$Cr, and
409: $^{51}$Fe-$^{51}$Mn.}
410: \label{fig:tutti1}
411: \end{center}
412: \end{figure}
413: \vspace{-.3cm}
414: \noindent
415: Let us write
416: \begin{eqnarray}
417: \label{eq:cedj2}
418: \text{CED}_J&\equiv&V_{Cm}+V_{CM}\\
419: &=&a_m\langle m_{p_{3/2}}\rangle_J+b_M\, \Delta\langle
420: V_{Cf_{7/2}}^{eff}\rangle_J+a_M\langle m_{p_{3/2}}\rangle_J
421: \nonumber
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: For $A\approx 50$, $a_m$---estimated at $A=41$---must be reduced by a
424: factor $(41/50)^{2/3}\approx 0.88$ to account for the $R_0^2$
425: denominator (after Eq.~(\ref{eq:cedj1})). Therefore, we set
426: $a_m=0.15$. Now choose $b_M=b/2$, $a_M=1.8\, a$. Eq.~(\ref{eq:cedj2})
427: with these parameters (Tab~\ref{tab:param}) yields CED that in
428: Fig.~\ref{fig:tutti1} are seen too agree well, even very well, with
429: experiment. The mild exception is $A=50$, discussed in detail in
430: Ref.~\cite{50}, which contains a heuristic introduction to our CED
431: results .
432:
433:
434: The monopole $V_{Cm}$ and multipole $V_{CM}$ contributions, shown
435: separately in Fig.\ref{fig:tutti1}, indicate that the latter
436: reproduces only roughly the experimental patterns: The addition of
437: $V_{Cm}$ is indispensable to bring quantitative agreement. It is
438: especially worth noting that the strong signature effect in the $A=49$
439: band is erased in the CED by the out-of-phase $V_{Cm}$ and $V_{CM}$.
440: Conversely, the signature staggering is enhanced in $A=51$.
441:
442: The monopole contribution provides valuable information about the
443: evolution of yrast radii. As a consequence, the use---and even the
444: validity---of the schematic multipole term (the ``invention'') must be
445: assessed by the focus it brings to the monopole one, which {\em must}
446: be present in a form very close to that in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cedj1}).
447:
448: \vspace{.2cm}
449:
450: To conclude: once the NS anomaly is resolved, the Coulomb field
451: fulfills the---long held---hope of providing information about radii
452: not directly measured. The $L^2$ terms offers intriguing prospects. A
453: complete analysis of $V_{Cm}$, including non-diagonal contributions,
454: is in order to estimate isospin impurities. The renormalization of
455: $V_{CM}$ remains an open problem.
456:
457: \vspace{.4cm}
458: This work owes much to a stay of AZ at the UAM, made possible by a
459: scholarship of the BBVA foundation.
460:
461: \begin{thebibliography}{70}
462: %\vspace{-2cm}
463: \bibitem{BM69} A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, {\em Nuclear Structure} vol~I
464: (Benjamin, Reading, 1964).
465:
466: \bibitem{NS69} J. A. Nolen and J. P. Schiffer, Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci. 19,
467: 471 (1969)
468:
469: \bibitem{cameron} J.A. Sheikh, P. Van Isacker, D.D. Warner and
470: J.A.Cameron, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 252}, 314 (1990).
471:
472: \bibitem{49} C. O'Leary {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4349
473: (1997).
474:
475: \bibitem{47-49} M.A. Bentley {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 437},
476: 243 (1998).
477: \bibitem{51} M.A. Bentley {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62},
478: 051303(R) (2000).
479: \bibitem{50} S. M. Lenzi {\it et al.}, submitted to PRL.
480:
481: \bibitem{dz96} M. Dufour and A.\,P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54}, 1641
482: (1996).
483:
484: \bibitem{d94} J. Duflo, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A576}, 29 (1994).
485: \bibitem{dz99} J. Duflo and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 59},
486: R2347 (1999).
487: \bibitem{aw95} G. Audi and A.H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A595},
488: 409 (1995).
489: \bibitem{a83} N. Auerbach, Phys. Rep. {\bf 98}, 273 (1983).
490: \bibitem{fayans} A. Bulgac and R. Shaginyan, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 469}, 1
491: (1999), S. A. Fayans and D. Sawischa, nucl-th/0009034.
492:
493: \bibitem{bartel} J. Bartel, M. B. Johnson, M. K. Singham and W. Stocker,
494: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 296}, 5 (1992).
495:
496: \bibitem{ANTOINE} E. Caurier, ANTOINE code, Strasbourg (1989-2001).
497: \end{thebibliography}
498: \end{multicols}
499: \end{document}
500:
501: C47_1.eps C47_r.eps C49_1.eps C50_1.eps C50_r.eps C51_1.eps Cdz.eps
502:
503:
504: To all intents and purposes
505: these fits are equivalent to those of Pape and Antony~\cite{pape}.
506:
507: It is worth noting that the exponential term ($g$
508: parameter) reflects the increase in radius for light nuclei and has
509: an effect very similar to that of the exchange term. In the three
510: cases the $d$ parameter is 1.5-4\% larger than the one expected from
511: the observed radii, $d=0.719$ (a very old problem~\cite[p.
512: 145]{BM69}). Nonetheless, the agreement with experiment is always
513: better than 200 keV. This is to be compared with the Nolen-Schiffer
514: estimate where the error goes in the opposite direction and is as
515: large as 600 keV for $A=41$.
516: \begin{eqnarray}
517: \label{eq:uk}
518: u_k&=&u_p+u_l\\
519: &=&1.53(p+1.38)^{-1/4}-.31(p+1.38)^{-2-1/4}\nonumber\\
520: &-&0.1[l(l+1)-p(p+3)/2](p+3/2)^{-1},
521: \nonumber
522: \end{eqnarray}
523:
524:
525: {\em However}, a fit using $|t|/A$ (instead of
526: $(t/A)^2$) can also give excellent results. Since all measured
527: radii---with one exception---involve nuclei with $N\ge Z$ it is
528: impossible to make the difference between $|t|$ and $t$ (theoretically
529: unsound, but not ruled out by the data). Therefore, it is very likely
530: that neutron and proton radii should be {\em approximately} equal, but
531: extra evidence is needed. It will be shown that CDE provide it.
532:
533:
534: $\hbar\omega_{(^{\pi}_{\nu})}=\hbar\omega/ (1\pm \alpha)$. Calling
535: $p_{xF}$ the Fermi shell for fluid $x$, we have
536: \begin{eqnarray}
537: \label{eq:r2}
538: A\langle r^2\rangle&=& Z\langle
539: r^2_{\pi}\rangle+N\langle
540: r^2_{\nu}\rangle \\
541: &\approx&\frac{\hbar}{4M\omega}\left[(1+\alpha)(p_{\pi
542: F}+2)^4+(1-\alpha)(p_{\nu F}+2)^4\right]\nonumber\\
543: &\approx&\frac{3^{4/3}\hbar}{4M\omega}\left[(1+\alpha)Z^{1/3}Z+(1-\alpha)N^{1/3}N\right].\label{eq:r2l}
544: \end{eqnarray}
545: To calculate $\alpha$ we impose
546: $\langle r^2_{\pi}\rangle=\langle r^2_{\nu}\rangle$.
547: Comparing Eqns~(\ref{eq:r2},\ref{eq:r2l}), it follows that
548: \begin{equation}
549: \label{eq:alpha}
550: \frac{(1+\alpha)Z^{1/3}}{(1-\alpha)N^{1/3}}=1\Longrightarrow
551: 1\pm\alpha=(1\pm t/A)^{1/3}.
552: \end{equation}
553: Then, from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:R},\ref{eq:alpha}) and a little algebra,
554: \begin{eqnarray}
555: \label{eq:hw}
556: \hbar\omega&=&\frac{40A^{1/3}}{A^{2/3}(1-(t/A)^2)^{2/3}\exp{(3.5/A)}},\\
557: \label{eq:hwz}
558: \hbar\omega_{\pi}=\frac{\hbar \omega}{1+\alpha}&=&
559: \frac{40(2Z)^{1/3}}{A^{2/3}(1-(t/A)^2)\exp{(3.5/A)}}.
560: \end{eqnarray}
561:
562: \begin{equation}
563: \label{eq:cde}
564: {\rm CDE}= \alpha
565: \frac{Z}{R}\left[(Z+1)(1-\frac{\delta}{2})-Z+1)(1+\frac{\delta}{2})\right]=\frac\alpha {2Z}{R}(1-\frac {Z\delta}{2}
566: \end{equation}