1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % This file uses the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
4: % Version 4 beta 5 of REVTeX, December, 2000
5: %
6: % Copyright (c) 2000 The American Physical Society.
7: %
8: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: %
11: % for preprints
12: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prc,preprint,showpacs,tightenlines,floatfix]{revtex4}
13: %\documentclass[prc,preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
14: \documentclass[preprint,tightenlines,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
15: \usepackage{graphicx,bm,amssymb}
16: \def\pmbf#1{{\mbox{\boldmath${#1}$}}}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{The long journey from the giant-monopole
21: resonance to the nuclear-matter incompressibility}
22: \author{J. Piekarewicz}
23: \email{jorgep@csit.fsu.edu}
24: \affiliation{Department of Physics,
25: Florida State University,
26: Tallahassee, FL 32306}
27: \date{\today}
28: %
29: \begin{abstract}
30: Differences in the density dependence of the symmetry energy predicted
31: by nonrelativistic and relativistic models are suggested, at least in
32: part, as the culprit for the discrepancy in the values of the
33: compression modulus of symmetric nuclear matter extracted from the
34: energy of the giant monopole resonance in ${}^{208}$Pb. ``Best-fit''
35: relativistic models, with stiffer symmetry energies than Skyrme
36: interactions, consistently predict higher compression moduli than
37: nonrelativistic approaches. Relativistic models with compression
38: moduli in the physically acceptable range of $K\!=200\!-\!300$~MeV are
39: used to compute the distribution of isoscalar monopole strength in
40: ${}^{208}$Pb. When the symmetry energy is artificially softened in
41: one of these models, in an attempt to simulate the symmetry energy of
42: Skyrme interactions, a lower value for the compression modulus is
43: indeed obtained. It is concluded that the proposed measurement of the
44: neutron skin in ${}^{208}$Pb, aimed at constraining the density
45: dependence of the symmetry energy and recently correlated to the
46: structure of neutron stars, will also become instrumental in the
47: determination of the compression modulus of nuclear matter.
48: \end{abstract}
49: %
50: \smallskip
51: \pacs{24.10.Jv, 21.10Re, 21.60.Jz}
52: \maketitle
53:
54: The compression modulus of symmetric nuclear matter is a fundamental
55: property of the equation of state. While some of the existent claims
56: in the literature may be overstated---indeed, there is little evidence
57: in support of a correlation between the compression modulus and the
58: physics of neutron stars~\cite{Mu96}---the compression modulus impacts
59: on a diverse set of phenomena ranging from nuclear structure to
60: supernova explosions. In particular, the compression modulus controls
61: the energetics around the nuclear-matter saturation point. This is
62: because the first derivative of the energy-per-nucleon with respect to
63: the density ({\it i.e.,} the pressure) vanishes at saturation, so
64: the dynamics of small density fluctuations around the equilibrium
65: position becomes solely determined by the compression modulus.
66:
67: To date, most efforts devoted to the study of the compression modulus
68: have relied on the excitation of the isoscalar giant-monopole
69: resonance (GMR). While the first set of measurements of the GMR date
70: back to the late seventies and early eighties~\cite{Yo77,Yo81}, a
71: recently improved $\alpha$-scattering experiment finds the position of
72: the giant monopole resonance in ${}^{208}$Pb at $E_{\rm
73: GMR}\!=\!14.17\!\pm\!0.28$~MeV~\cite{Yo99}. While the experimental
74: story on the GMR in ${}^{208}$Pb seems to be coming to an end, the
75: theoretical picture remains unclear. On the one hand nonrelativistic
76: calculations that reproduce the distribution of isoscalar-monopole
77: strength using Hartree-Fock plus random-phase approximation (RPA)
78: approaches with state-of-the-art Skyrme~\cite{Co92,Ha97} and
79: Gogny~\cite{Bl95} interactions, predict a nuclear compression modulus
80: in the range of $K\!=\!210\!-\!220$~MeV~. On the other hand,
81: relativistic models that succeed in reproducing a large body of
82: observables, including the excitation energy of the GMR, predict a
83: larger value for the nuclear incompressibility
84: ($K\!\simeq\!275$~MeV)~\cite{La97,Vr00}. It is the aim of this paper
85: to elucidate the origin of this apparent discrepancy. It is proposed
86: that this discrepancy, at least in part, is due to the density
87: dependence of the symmetry energy; a poorly known quantity that
88: affects physics ranging from the neutron radius of heavy nuclei to the
89: structure of neutron stars~\cite{Ho01}. It should be noted that while
90: knowledge of the symmetry energy is at present incomplete, the
91: proposed measurement of the neutron radius of ${}^{208}$Pb at the
92: Jefferson Laboratory~\cite{PREX} should provide stringent constraints
93: on this fundamental component of the equation of state.
94:
95: In this paper we follow closely the philosophy of Blaizot and
96: collaborators who advocate a purely microscopic approach for the
97: extraction of the compression modulus of nuclear matter from the
98: energy of the giant-monopole resonance~\cite{Bl95,Bl99}. While the
99: merit of macroscopic (semi-empirical) formulas for obtaining
100: qualitative information on the compression modulus is
101: unquestionable~\cite{Ch97,St98}, the field has attained a level of
102: maturity that demands stricter standards: it is now expected that
103: microscopic models predict simultaneously the compression modulus
104: of nuclear matter as well as the distribution of isoscalar monopole
105: strength. Moreover, theoretical studies based solely on macroscopic
106: approaches have been proven inadequate~\cite{Pe91,Sh93}.
107:
108: The starting point for the calculations is an interacting Lagrangian
109: density of the following form:
110: %%%
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: {\mathcal L}_{\rm int} = \bar{\psi}\left[
113: g_{\rm s}\phi-\left(g_{\rm v}V_{\mu}+\frac{g_{\rho}}{2}
114: {\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}} \cdot {\bf b_{\mu}}+
115: \frac{e}{2}(1+\tau_{3})A_{\mu}\right)\gamma^\mu\right]\psi
116: - \frac{\kappa}{3!}(g_{\rm s}\phi)^{3}
117: - \frac{\lambda}{4!}(g_{\rm s}\phi)^{4}\;.
118: \label{Lint}
119: \end{eqnarray}
120: %%%
121: This Lagrangian includes an isodoublet nucleon field ($\psi$)
122: interacting via the exchange of scalar ($\phi$) and vector ($V^{\mu}$,
123: ${\bf b}^{\mu}$, and $A^{\mu}$) fields. It also incorporates
124: scalar-meson self-interactions ($\kappa$ and $\lambda$) that are
125: instrumental in reducing the unreasonably large value of the
126: compression modulus predicted in the original (linear) Walecka
127: model~\cite{Wa74,Se86}. The Lagrangian density depends on five unknown
128: coupling constants that may be determined from a fit to ground-state
129: observables. Four of these constants ($g_{\rm s}$, $g_{\rm v}$,
130: $\kappa$, and $\lambda$) are sensitive to isoscalar observables so
131: they are determined from a fit to symmetric nuclear matter. The four
132: nuclear bulk properties selected for the fit are as follows: {\it i)}
133: the saturation density, {\it ii)} the binding energy per nucleon at
134: saturation, {\it iii)} the nucleon effective mass at saturation, and
135: {\it iv)} the compression modulus (see Table~\ref{table1}). It is
136: noteworthy, yet little known, that the above four coupling constants
137: can be determined algebraically and uniquely from these four empirical
138: quantities~\cite{Gl96}. It is also possible for the various meson
139: masses to enter as undetermined parameters. However, here the standard
140: procedure of fixing the masses of the $\omega$ and $\rho$ mesons at
141: their physical value is adopted; that is, $m_{\rm v}\!=\!783$~MeV and
142: $m_{\rho}\!=\!763$~MeV. As infinite nuclear matter is only sensitive
143: to the ratio $g_{\rm s}^{2}/m_{\rm s}^{2}$, the mass of the
144: $\sigma$-meson must be determined from finite-nuclei properties;
145: the $\sigma$-meson mass has been adjusted to reproduce the
146: experimental root-mean-square (rms) charge radius of ${}^{208}$Pb
147: ($r_{\rm ch}\!=\!5.50\!\pm\!0.01$~fm.)
148:
149: The symmetry energy of nuclear matter is a poorly known quantity
150: with an uncontrolled density dependence in nonrelativistic models
151: (for a recent discussion of the symmetry energy in Skyrme models
152: see Refs.~\cite{Br00} and~\cite{Oy02}). In contrast, the symmetry
153: energy displays a weak model dependence in relativistic approaches.
154: It is given by the following simple form:
155: %%%
156: \begin{equation}
157: S(k_{\rm F}) = \frac{k_{F}^{2}}{6E_{F}^{*}}
158: + \frac{g_{\rho}^{2}}{12\pi^{2}}
159: \frac{k_{F}^{3}}{m_{\rho}^{2}} \;,
160: \label{SymmE}
161: \end{equation}
162: %%%
163: where $E_{F}^{*}\!=\!\sqrt{k_{\rm F}^{2}+M^{*2}}$. The symmetry
164: energy, together with its density dependence, is constrained in
165: relativistic approaches because the only ``free'' parameter in
166: Eq.~(\ref{SymmE}) is the $NN\rho$ coupling constant. As the effective
167: nucleon mass $M^{*}$ has been fixed in symmetric nuclear matter
168: (and spin-orbit phenomenology demands a value in the range of
169: $M^{*}/M\!=\!0.6\!-\!0.7$) reproducing the empirical value of the
170: symmetry energy at saturation ($J\!\simeq\!37$~MeV) constrains the
171: $NN\rho$ coupling constant to a relatively small range. Note that
172: relativistically, the density dependence of the symmetry energy can
173: also be modified through the inclusion of isoscalar-isovector
174: couplings terms~\cite{Ho01}, density-dependent coupling
175: constants~\cite{Ty99}, and isovector-scalar mesons~\cite{Li02}. For
176: simplicity, however, none of these contributions will be considered
177: here. In reality, the symmetry energy at saturation is not well
178: constrained experimentally. Rather, it is an average of the symmetry
179: energy near saturation density and the surface symmetry energy that is
180: constrained by the binding energy of nuclei. Thus, a prescription
181: first outlined in Ref.~\cite{Ho01} is adopted here: the value of the
182: $NN\rho$ coupling constant is adjusted, unless otherwise noted, so
183: that the symmetry energy at $k_F\!=\!1.15$~fm$^{-1}$
184: ({\it i.e.,} $\rho\!=\!0.10$~fm$^{-3}$) be equal to $26$~MeV (see
185: Table~\ref{table1}).
186:
187: The nuclear observables used as input for the determination of the
188: model parameters are listed in Table~\ref{table1}. In all cases the
189: saturation density, binding-energy-per-nucleon, and rms charge radius
190: in ${}^{208}$Pb have been fixed at their empirical values. Thus, the
191: only discriminating factors among the three ``families'' are the
192: effective nucleon mass and the symmetry energy. While best-fit
193: relativistic models suggest values for the symmetry energy and its
194: slope at saturation density satisfying $J\geq 35$~MeV and $L\geq
195: 100$~MeV, respectively~\cite{Ch97}, family~C is defined with an
196: artificially small value for $J$ (and correspondingly for $L$) in a
197: ``poor-man's'' attempt at simulating nonrelativistic Skyrme
198: forces~\cite{Oy02}. That nonrelativistic Skyrme models have a softer
199: symmetry energy is revealed by the behavior of one of the most
200: sensitive probes of the density dependence of symmetry energy: the
201: neutron skin of ${}^{208}$Pb. Indeed, the neutron skin of ${}^{208}$Pb
202: is predicted to be equal to $R_{n}\!-\!R_{p}\!=\!0.16$~fm for the
203: recent SkX parametrization and falls below $0.22$~fm for all eighteen
204: Skyrme parameter sets considered in Ref.~\cite{Br00}. In contrast,
205: best-fit relativistic models consistently predict larger values. For
206: example, the NL3 model of Ref.~\cite{La97}, the TM1 model of Sugahara
207: and Toki~\cite{Su94}, and the NLC model of Serot and
208: Walecka~\cite{Se97}, predict $R_{n}\!-\!R_{p}\!=\!0.28, 0.27,$ and
209: $0.26$~fm, respectively (see also Table~\ref{table2}).
210:
211: Within each family defined in Table~\ref{table1}, calculations of the
212: isoscalar monopole response have been performed using a compression
213: modulus in the physically acceptable range of $K\!=\!200\!-\!300$~MeV.
214: To illustrate the similarities and differences between these three
215: families, the equation of state for symmetric nuclear matter (left
216: panel) and the symmetry energy (right panel) are displayed in
217: Fig.~\ref{figure1} at $K\!=\!250$~MeV. Clearly, the properties of
218: symmetric nuclear matter at saturation density are identical in all
219: three models. Further, having fixed the value of the effective nucleon
220: mass in symmetric nuclear matter, the full density dependence of the
221: symmetry energy is determined by one sole number: its value at
222: $k_F\!=\!1.15$~fm$^{-1}$.
223:
224: Results for the peak energy of the giant-monopole-resonance in
225: ${}^{208}$Pb as a function of the nuclear incompressibility are
226: listed in Table~\ref{table2} and displayed in Fig~\ref{figure2}.
227: All calculations were performed using the nonspectral, relativistic
228: random-phase-approximation (RPA) approach of Ref.~\cite{Pi00}. For
229: each family, there is a clear correlation between the compression
230: modulus and the energy of the GMR. Indeed, all of the results are well
231: represented (in this limited range of $K$) by a linear relation with a
232: ``universal'' slope:
233: %%%
234: \begin{equation}
235: E_{\rm GMR} = E_{200} + 0.026(K-200) \;,
236: \label{EGMRvsK}
237: \end{equation}
238: %%%
239: where $E_{\rm GMR}$, $E_{200}$, and $K$ are all given in MeV. The
240: intercept is non-universal and given by:
241: $E_{200}\!=\!12.22$~MeV, $E_{200}\!=\!12.71$~MeV, and
242: $E_{200}\!=\!13.14$~MeV, for families A, B, and C, respectively.
243:
244: A few comments are now in order. First, the value of the slope
245: ($0.026$) is obviously small. This suggests that even without
246: theoretical uncertainties, it would not be possible to determine the
247: compression modulus from the ${}^{208}$Pb measurement alone to better
248: than $\Delta E_{\rm GMR}/0.026$~MeV ($\Delta E_{\rm GMR}$ is
249: the experimental uncertainty). At present, the best determination of
250: the peak position of the GMR is $E_{\rm
251: GMR}\!=\!14.17\!\pm\!0.28$~MeV~\cite{Yo99}, thereby resulting in an
252: uncertainty in the compression modulus of about $20$~MeV. Second, and
253: more importantly, the journey from the GMR to the compression modulus
254: is plagued by uncertainties unrelated to the physics of symmetric
255: nuclear matter. To illustrate this point we invoke, although never use
256: in any of the calculations, a semi-empirical formula based on a
257: leptodermous expansion of the nuclear incompressibility:
258: \begin{equation}
259: K(A,I) = K + K_{\rm surf}/A^{1/3}
260: + K_{\rm sym}I^{2}
261: + K_{\rm Coul}Z^{2}/A^{4/3}
262: + \ldots \;,
263: \label{LeptoDermous}
264: \end{equation}
265: where $K_{\rm surf}$, $K_{\rm sym}$, and $K_{\rm Coul}$ are empirical
266: surface, symmetry, and Coulomb coefficients and $I\!=\!(N\!-\!Z)/A$ is
267: the neutron-proton asymmetry. The sizable contribution from the surface
268: term to $K(A,I)$ has been discussed recently by Patra, Vi\~nas,
269: Centelles, and Del Estal~\cite{Pa02} in the context of a relativistic
270: Thomas-Fermi theory so we limit ourselves to only a few comments. A
271: surface dependence is modeled here through a change in the value of
272: the effective nucleon mass (surface properties are also sensitive to
273: the $\sigma$-meson mass but this value has been chosen to reproduce
274: the rms charge radius of ${}^{208}$Pb). As shown in
275: Table~\ref{table1}, family~A uses an effective nucleon mass of
276: $M^{*}/M\!=\!0.6$ while family~B uses $M^{*}/M\!=\!0.7$; all other
277: input observables are identical. A larger $M^{*}$ generates a slightly
278: compressed single-particle spectrum and a correspondingly smaller
279: spin-orbit splitting. Consequences of this change in $M^{*}$ result in
280: a larger intercept, as displayed in Fig.~\ref{figure2}. Thus,
281: compression moduli of approximately $K\!=\!275$~MeV (for family~A) and
282: $K\!=\!250$~MeV (for family~B) are required to reproduce the
283: experimental energy of the GMR. Further, if one incorporates the
284: experimental error into this analysis, one concludes that ``best-fit''
285: relativistic mean-field models are consistent with a compression
286: modulus in the range $K\!=\!245\!-\!285$~MeV.
287:
288: We now turn to the central idea behind this work, namely, how our
289: incomplete knowledge of the symmetry energy impacts on the the
290: extraction of the compression modulus. Let us then start by
291: considering two identical models, but with vastly different
292: symmetry energies, that predict a compression modulus of
293: $K\!=\!250$~MeV. Further, for simplicity we assume that these two
294: models have identical surface and Coulomb properties so only the
295: first and third term in Eq.~(\ref{LeptoDermous}) are relevant to this
296: discussion. Both models attempt to reproduce the ``experimentally''
297: accessible quantity:
298: \begin{equation}
299: K_{208}\equiv\lim_{A\rightarrow\infty} K(A,I\!=\!0.212)
300: = K + K_{\rm sym}(0.212)^{2} + \ldots\;,
301: \label{K208}
302: \end{equation}
303: defined as the compressibility of infinite nuclear matter at a
304: neutron-proton asymmetry identical to that of ${}^{208}$Pb (see
305: Table~\ref{table2}). The first model, having a very stiff symmetry
306: energy (that is, $K_{\rm sym}$ large and negative) reduces $K(A,I)$
307: from its $I\!=\!0$ value of $250$~MeV all the way down to, let us say,
308: $200$~MeV at $I\!=\!0.212$. Comparing this prediction to the assumed
309: experimental value of $K_{208}\!=\!225$~MeV, it is concluded that
310: the compression modulus of symmetric nuclear matter must be increased
311: to $K\!\simeq\!275$~MeV. The second model predicts a very soft symmetry
312: energy. So unrealistically soft, let us assume, that it generates no
313: shift in going from $I\!=\!0$ to $I\!=\!0.212$ ({\it i.e.,} $K_{\rm
314: sym}\!=\!0$). In this case, the compression modulus must then be
315: reduced to $K\!=\!225$~MeV to reproduce the experimentally determined
316: value. Thus two models, originally identical as far as symmetric
317: nuclear matter is concerned, disagree in their final values of the
318: compression modulus due to an incomplete knowledge of the symmetry
319: energy. While the situation depicted in Fig.~\ref{figure2} might not
320: be as extreme, it does follow the trends suggested by the above
321: discussion. Indeed, family~C, with the softest symmetry energy,
322: generates the largest intercept and consequently predicts the smallest
323: compression modulus of the three families.
324:
325: In summary, the impact of the poorly known density dependence of the
326: symmetry energy on the extraction of the compression modulus of
327: nuclear matter from the energy of the giant-monopole resonance in
328: ${}^{208}$Pb was addressed. The nuclear matter equation of state and
329: the distribution of isoscalar monopole strength in ${}^{208}$Pb were
330: computed using three different families of relativistic models
331: constrained to reproduce a variety of ground-state observables. For
332: each family the compression modulus was allowed to vary within the
333: physically acceptable range of $K\!=\!200\!-\!300$~MeV. The first
334: family (A), with an effective nucleon mass fixed at $M^{*}/M\!=\!0.6$
335: is, at least for $K\!=\!275$~MeV, practically indistinguishable from
336: the successful NL3 model of Ref.~\cite{La97}. The second family (B)
337: differs from the first in that the effective nucleon mass is increased
338: to $M^{*}/M\!=\!0.7$, thereby generating a slightly compressed
339: single-particle spectrum but still a robust phenomenology. Finally,
340: the third family (C) is obtained from the second one by artificially
341: softening the symmetry energy in a ``poor-man's'' attempt at
342: simulating nonrelativistic Skyrme models. When the peak energy of the
343: GMR is plotted against the compression modulus, a linear relation with
344: a universal slope is obtained. In contrast, the intercept is family
345: dependent and it is largest for the model with the softest symmetry
346: energy. Demanding agreement with the experimental value for the peak
347: energy fixes the compression modulus at: $K\!=\!275, 255,$ and
348: $240$~MeV, for families A, B, and, C, respectively. It is therefore
349: suggested that the discrepancy between relativistic and
350: nonrelativistic models in the prediction of the compression modulus of
351: nuclear matter may, at least in part, be due to our incomplete
352: knowledge of the symmetry energy. At present, this issue can not be
353: resolved. Yet the proposed Parity Radius Experiment (PREX) at the
354: Jefferson Laboratory should provide a unique constraint on the density
355: dependence of the symmetry energy through a measurement of the neutron
356: skin of $^{208}$Pb. Such a measurement could have far-reaching
357: implications: from the determination of a fundamental parameter of the
358: equation of state ($K$) to the structure of neutron stars~\cite{Ho01}.
359:
360: \begin{acknowledgments}
361: \vspace{-0.15in}
362: The author is grateful to the ECT* in Trento for their support
363: and hospitality during the initial phase of this research. It
364: is a pleasure to thank Profs. M. Centelles and X. Vi\~nas for
365: many enlightening conversations. This work was supported in part
366: by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No.DE-FG05-92ER40750.
367: \end{acknowledgments}
368:
369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BEGIN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
372: \vspace{-0.10in}
373: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
374: \bibitem{Mu96} H.M. M\"uller and B.D. Serot,
375: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A606}, 508 (1996).
376: \bibitem{Yo77} D.H. Youngblood, C.M. Rozsa, J.M. Moss,
377: D.R. Brown, and J.D. Bronson,
378: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 39}, 1188 (1977).
379: \bibitem{Yo81} D. H. Youngblood, P. Bogucki, J. D. Bronson,
380: U. Garg, Y.-W. Lui, and C. M. Rozsa,
381: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 23}, 1997 (1981).
382: \bibitem{Yo99} D.H. Youngblood, H.L. Clark, and Y.-W. Lui,
383: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 691 (1999);
384: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A649}, 49c (1999).
385: \bibitem{Co92} G. Col\`o, P.F. Bortignon, N. Van Gai,
386: A. Bracco, R.A. Broglia,
387: Phys. Lett. {\bf B276}, 279 (1992).
388: \bibitem{Ha97} I. Hamamoto, H. Sagawa, and X. Z. Zhang,
389: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 56}, 3121 (1997).
390: \bibitem{Bl95} J.P. Blaizot, J.F. Berger, J. Decharg\'e, and
391: M. Girod, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A591}, 435 (1995).
392: \bibitem{La97} G.A. Lalazissis, J. K\"onig, and P. Ring,
393: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 55}, 540 (1997).
394: \bibitem{Vr00} D. Vretenar, A. Wandelt, and P. Ring,
395: Phys. Lett. {\bf B487}, 334 (2000).
396: \bibitem{Ho01} C.J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz,
397: Phys. Rev. Lett.~{\bf 86}, 5647 (2001);
398: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 64}, 062802(R) (2001).
399: \bibitem{PREX} Jefferson Laboratory Experiment E-00-003,
400: Spokespersons R. Michaels, P. A. Souder
401: and G. M. Urciuoli.
402: \bibitem{Bl99} J.-P. Blaizot,
403: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A649}, 61c (1999).
404: \bibitem{Ch97} T.v. Chossy and W. Stocker,
405: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 56}, 2518 (1997).
406: \bibitem{St98} W. Stocker and T.v. Chossy,
407: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 58}, 2777 (1998).
408: \bibitem{Pe91} J.M. Pearson,
409: Phys. Lett. {\bf B271}, 12 (1991).
410: \bibitem{Sh93} S. Shlomo and D.H. Youngblood,
411: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 47}, 529 (1993).
412: \bibitem{Wa74} J.D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)
413: {\bf 83}, 491 (1974).
414: \bibitem{Se86} B.D. Serot and J.D. Walecka, Adv. in Nucl. Phys.
415: {\bf 16}, J.W. Negele and E. Vogt, eds.
416: (Plenum, N.Y. 1986).
417: \bibitem{Gl96} Norman K. Glendenning, {\it ``Compact Stars''}
418: (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997).
419: \bibitem{Br00} B. Alex Brown,
420: Phys Rev. Lett.~{\bf 85}, 5296 (2000).
421: \bibitem{Oy02} Kazuhiro Oyamatsu and Kei Iida,
422: {\tt nucl-th/0204033}.
423: \bibitem{Ty99} S. Typel and H.H. Wolter,
424: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A656}, 331 (1999).
425: \bibitem{Li02} B. Liu, V. Greco, V. Baran, M. Colonna,
426: and M. Di Toro,
427: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 65}, 045201 (2002).
428: \bibitem{Su94} Y. Sugahara and H. Toki,
429: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A579}, 557 (1994).
430: \bibitem{Se97} B.D. Serot and J.D. Walecka,
431: Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. {\bf E6}, 515 (1997).
432: \bibitem{Pi00} J. Piekarewicz,
433: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 62}, 051304(R) (2000);
434: Phys. Rev. C~{\bf 64}, 024307 (2001).
435: \bibitem{Pa02} S.K. Patra, X. Vi\~nas, M. Centelles, and
436: M. Del Estal,
437: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A703}, 240 (2002).
438: \end{thebibliography}
439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
440: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BEGIN THE TABLES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
442: \begin{table}
443: \caption{Empirical bulk observables used in the
444: determination of the coupling constants
445: and the scalar mass. The symmetry energy $J$
446: has been fixed at $k_F\!=\!1.15$~fm$^{-1}$
447: but the quantities in parenthesis represent
448: its value at saturation density.}
449: \label{table1}
450: \begin{ruledtabular}
451: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
452: Family & $k_{\rm F}^{0}$~(fm$^{-1}$)
453: & $\epsilon_{0}$~(MeV) & $M^{*}/M$
454: & $K$~(MeV) & $J$~(MeV)
455: & $r_{\rm ch}$~(fm) \\
456: \hline
457: A & $1.30$ & $-16$ & $0.6$ & $200\!-\!300$ &
458: $26(38)$ & $5.50\!\pm\!0.01$ \\
459: B & $1.30$ & $-16$ & $0.7$ & $200\!-\!300$ &
460: $26(37)$ & $5.50\!\pm\!0.01$ \\
461: C & $1.30$ & $-16$ & $0.7$ & $200\!-\!300$ &
462: $20(28)$ & $5.50\!\pm\!0.01$ \\
463: \end{tabular}
464: \end{ruledtabular}
465: \end{table}
466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
468: \begin{table}
469: \caption{The compression modulus of symmetric nuclear matter,
470: the slope of the symmetry energy at saturation
471: density, the compression modulus for asymmetric
472: ($I=0.212$) nuclear matter, the neutron skin of
473: ${}^{208}$Pb, and the energy of the GMR in
474: ${}^{208}$Pb for the three families discussed
475: in the text.}
476: \label{table2}
477: \begin{ruledtabular}
478: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
479: Family & $K$~(MeV) & $L$~(MeV)
480: & $K_{208}$~(MeV)
481: & $R_{n}\!-\!R_{p}$~(fm)
482: & $E_{\rm GMR}$~(MeV) \\
483: \hline
484: A & 200 & 120 & 184 & 0.28 & 12.27 \\
485: & 225 & 120 & 203 & 0.28 & 12.88 \\
486: & 250 & 119 & 224 & 0.28 & 13.58 \\
487: & 275 & 119 & 246 & 0.28 & 14.14 \\
488: & 300 & 119 & 268 & 0.28 & 14.81 \\
489: \hline
490: B & 200 & 108 & 187 & 0.25 & 12.65 \\
491: & 225 & 108 & 208 & 0.25 & 13.35 \\
492: & 250 & 108 & 230 & 0.26 & 14.03 \\
493: & 275 & 108 & 252 & 0.26 & 14.75 \\
494: & 300 & 107 & 276 & 0.26 & 15.36 \\
495: \hline
496: C & 200 & 82 & 190 & 0.19 & 13.13 \\
497: & 225 & 82 & 212 & 0.19 & 13.80 \\
498: & 250 & 82 & 235 & 0.19 & 14.45 \\
499: & 275 & 82 & 258 & 0.19 & 15.09 \\
500: & 300 & 82 & 282 & 0.19 & 15.81 \\
501: \end{tabular}
502: \end{ruledtabular}
503: \end{table}
504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BEGIN THE FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
507: \begin{figure}[h]
508: \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig1}
509: \caption{Equation of state for symmetric nuclear matter (left
510: panel) and the symmetry energy (right panel) as a
511: function of the Fermi momentum for the three families
512: discussed in the text. In all the cases presented here
513: the compression modulus was fixed at $K\!=\!250$~MeV.}
514: \label{figure1}
515: \end{figure}
516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
518: \begin{figure}
519: \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig2}
520: \caption{Energy of the isoscalar giant-monopole resonance
521: as a function of the nuclear matter compression modulus
522: for the three families discussed in the text. The box
523: displays the experimentally allowed range of
524: $E_{\rm GMR}\!=\!14.17\!\pm\!0.28$~MeV
525: \protect{\cite{Yo99}}.}
526: \label{figure2}
527: \end{figure}
528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
529: \end{document}
530: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
531:
532:
533:
534:
535:
536:
537:
538: