1: \documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{dcolumn}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5: \begin{document}
6: %\preprint{IOPB}
7: \title{On the stability and the similarity of $N=82$ isotones}
8: \author{P. Arumugam} %\email{aru@iopb.res.in}
9: \author{S.K. Patra} %\email{patra@iopb.res.in}
10: \author{A. Abbas}
11: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar -
12: 751 005, India.}
13: %\date{August 19 2003}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: Here we study the stability and the similarity of all even $58\leq Z\leq
17: 70$, $N=82$ isotones. We confirm the two decades old study of one
18: of the authors (AA) regarding the extra-ordinary stability and
19: the similarity of these nuclei. We present here a new evidence which
20: shows very strongly the said magicity of those nuclei and as such
21: there exists a new ``plateau'' of magicity. Three well studied
22: theoretical models which have been successfully applied in nuclear
23: physics are used here to study the above phenomena. None of these
24: model is able to reproduce the similarity and the doubly magic
25: character of these nuclei. Therefore this hints at ``new
26: physics'' in these $N=82$ isotones.
27:
28:
29: \end{abstract}
30:
31: \pacs{21.10.Dr, 21.10.Tg, 21.60.-n, 21.60.Fw} \maketitle
32:
33:
34: The $N=82$ isotones display a high level of regularity and thus
35: have been of great interest to both the experimentalists and the theorists
36: \cite{Aba84,Ham90,And90,Hol97,Mat00}. Though there have been
37: claims that $Z=64$ Gd isotone was something special, through
38: systematic study of diverse empirical data, it was argued by one of
39: the authors (AA) that there was a whole ``plateau'' of stability
40: for all even $58\leq Z\leq 70$, $N=82$ isotones and that as such
41: all these be treated as doubly magic nuclei \cite{Aba84}. Also
42: all these nuclei were found to be strikingly similar to each other
43: \cite{Aba84}. The idea of ``changing magicities'' was rather novel
44: then. However today, one does speak of changing magicity for low
45: mass nuclei, for example new magic numbers at $N=$ 6, 14, 34 etc
46: \cite{Tan01,Thi00,Dlo03}. In this letter we would like to
47: reexamine this two decades old idea of Abbas \cite{Aba84}
48: regarding the ``plateau of doubly magic $N=82$ isotones and their
49: similarity. In particular we shall study a new ``smoking gun''
50: kind of evidence to confirm Abbas' plateau of stability
51: \cite{Aba84}. We shall also study this ``plateau'' of stability
52: using theoretical models like Skyrme--Hartree--Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB),
53: relativistic mean field (RMF) theory etc. We find that
54: all these models fail to reproduce the new magicities.
55:
56: Abbas has studied even $58\leq Z\leq 70$, $N=82$ isotones through
57: empirical evidence available then (i.e. 1983) \cite{Aba84}. We
58: have reexamined the same in the light of more accurate and recent
59: experimentally available data. We reconfirm the analysis as per
60: the empirical data. We would not like to repeat the same here and
61: refer the reader to Ref. \cite{Aba84} as to the similarity and the magicity of
62: these nuclei. However for the sake of
63: completeness we would like to summarize and tabulate a few of the
64: arguments therein \cite{Aba84}.
65: \begin{enumerate}
66: \item[(a)] In $Z=$ 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, $N=82$ isotones the
67: lowest first excited state (level $2^+$ or $3^-$) is very high
68: and steady at about 1.6 MeV for all the nuclei
69: \item[(b)] A study of low lying states in $N=81$, 80, 79 and 78
70: isotones with $Z=$ 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70 indicates amazing
71: similarity and stability
72: \item[(c)] The ratio $E_1(4^+)/E_1(2^+)$ for all these nuclei is
73: $\sim$ 1.3. This puts all these nuclei in the category of
74: ``doubly-magic'' as per standard interpretation.
75: \item[(d)] The rms radii change very slowly as mass number changes over this
76: whole region. Plus many other arguments in support of the said statement regarding
77: the similarity and the stability of these nuclei. Here
78: we discuss a further ``smoking gun'' kind of evidence in support
79: of the above idea.
80: \end{enumerate}
81:
82:
83: To discuss magicity one normally plots separation energies
84: $S_{1n}$ and $S_{2n}$ as a function of neutron number $N$ for a
85: particular proton number $Z$ or plot $S_{1p}$ and $S_{2p}$ as a
86: function of proton number $Z$ for a particular $N$. If we do so
87: for $N=82$ isotones then we would like to point out here that the evidences
88: for magicity continue to be there but that it is not very
89: prominent\cite{Aba84}. It is very common to plot $S_{2p}$ and look for kinks
90: as evidence for magicity \cite{Thi00,Dlo03,Tho03}. However it
91: should be pointed out that this one in itself should not be taken as
92: very conclusive evidence in favour or against magicity \cite{Aba84,Plo81}.
93:
94: We therefore plot separation energies differently. We plot
95: $S_{1n}$ as a function of proton number $Z$ for a particular $N$.
96: We show this in Fig. 1 for the magic numbers $N=28$ and $N=50$ isotones. We
97: immediately note that in $N=28$ case the magic number $Z=20$ and
98: $Z=28$ show up very prominently. For $N=50$ case though the
99: $Z$-number does not pass through any standard magic number it does
100: indicate extra stability at $Z=34$, 36 and 38. We know that the $Z=38$ case $^{88}$Sr
101: anyway is known to form a stable structure, enabling good shell
102: model description of $^{90}$Zr excited states \cite{Aba84}. These
103: $N=50$ isotones actually are precursors of a more interesting
104: effect to be discussed below.
105:
106:
107:
108: \begin{figure}
109: \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth, clip=true]{graph1.eps}
110: \caption{Experimental single-neutron separation energies for
111: $N=28$ and $N=50$ isotones.}
112: \end{figure}
113:
114:
115: \begin{figure}
116: \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth, clip=true]{graph2.eps}
117: \caption{Experimental single-neutron separation energies for
118: $N=82,\ 80$ and 78 isotones.}
119: \end{figure}
120:
121:
122: We plot $S_{1n}$ as a function of $Z$ for $N=82$ in Fig. 2. The
123: magicity at $Z=50$ is very clearly demonstrated here. But
124: amazingly exactly the same magicity is indicated, very prominently
125: at $Z=62$, 64, 68 and 70. The magnitude of $S_{1n}$ at all these
126: neighbouring even $Z$-numbers is comparable to the magnitude of
127: $S_{1n}$ at $Z=50$. We know $Z=50$ (Sn nucleus) is one of the ``best
128: '' magic number in nuclear physics. As per Fig. 2 if we can call
129: $Z=50$ magic there is no reason why we should not do the same for
130: all the even $Z$ number discussed above. This ``smoking gun''
131: evidence supplemented with those already provided by Abbas
132: \cite{Aba84} should convince one that all these nuclei are indeed
133: ``doubly magic''.
134:
135: \begin{figure}[t]
136: \includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth, clip=true]{graph3.eps}
137: \caption{Experimental single-neutron separation energies for
138: $N=82$ isotones compared with various theoretical model
139: calculations.}
140: \end{figure}
141:
142:
143: Does this magicity persist when two or even four neutrons are pulled out ? The
144: corresponding $N=80$ plot (inset, Fig. 2) shows that indeed it is
145: so. We also plot the same for $N=78$ (inset, Fig. 2) which also
146: continues to show stability. All this
147: should be treated as strong evidence for double magicity
148: of all these even $Z$ nuclei. We would like to point out that we
149: do see similar effect for $N=50$, $N=48$ case but some other
150: evidences of double magicity and similarity are missing in these
151: nuclei (as discussed in ref. \cite{Aba84}) and hence these should
152: be actually treated as precursor of the amazing phenomenon pointed
153: out in this paper.
154:
155: Today we do have elaborate theoretical framework of
156: various kind which are being successfully applied to study nuclear
157: phenomena. We pick up three of these very successful models which are used
158: in nuclear physics.
159:
160: We have carried out extensive study
161: microscopically in the nonlinear relativistic mean field theory of
162: Boguta and Bodmer \cite{12},
163: is an extended version of Walecka \cite{4} theory. We have adopted the NL3 \cite{14}
164: interactions in our study. The NL3 interaction has been widely used in recent
165: years in the calculation of varieties of nuclear properties like
166: binding energy, rms radii and giant resonances etc. and have been
167: accepted to be very successful. In the present study, we expanded
168: the fields in harmonic oscillator basis and studied the
169: stability of the result for each nucleus by varying the number of harmonic oscillator
170: shells between $N_F=N_B=12$ to 14.
171: We did the same exercise taking quadrupole deformation in our calculation, where the
172: basis deformation parameter $\beta_0$, was varied between $-0.4$ to 0.4
173: in the step of 0.1.
174: We used a constant gap BCS pairing calculation to
175: take into account the pairing correlation. The pairing constant
176: gap is taken for the drip-line nuclei following the prescription
177: of Medland and Nix \cite{16}. The formalism and calculation are quite
178: standard and have been widely used in the literature, the details
179: of which can be seen in Refs. \cite{17,18}. It is to be noted that
180: in the present study, we have performed three different calculations as to
181: pairing, i.e. (a) taking pairing in both even and odd
182: nucleon, (b) without pairing and (c) pairing correlation
183: is considered for even nucleons and neglected for the odd case (mixed pairing).
184: We found almost similar results for the without and the mixed pairing cases (cases (b) and
185: (c)). However, we noticed only a smooth increasing in $S_{1n}$ value for the case (a).
186: In this case, the sudden rise of $S_{1n}$ value at Z=50 could not be
187: reproduced (not shown in Fig. 3), which anyway is experimentally observed. On the other
188: hand for the other two
189: cases ((a) and (b)), the characteristic jump at Z=50 is clearly visible (here we
190: have plotted
191: case (c) only in Fig. 3).
192:
193: To see the other theoretical behaviour we have also displayed the calculated data of
194: HFB \cite{Sam01} and the
195: infinite nuclear mass (INM) model
196: \cite{Sat01} calculations in
197: Fig. 3. From the figure it is clear that the HFB and INM
198: models are not even able to reproduce the magic jump at Z=50
199: for the N=82 isotonic series. A further inspection of the figure, makes
200: it clear that the RMF formalism is somewhat able to reproduce the
201: known jump of Z=50, whereas it fails to reproduce the odd-even type
202: of staggering for $Z=$ 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, $N=82$ which are
203: experimentally observed. However this model produces some spurious
204: tendency like a sudden jump
205: at $Z=56$ for the N=82 nucleus, which is experimentally ruled out and
206: some odd-even type of staggering in the heavier region of the N=82
207: isotonic series.
208:
209: For new magicities at $N=$ 6, 14, 16, 34 etc, all kind of new
210: ideas are being proposed \cite{Thi00,Dlo03,Tho03}. We also feel
211: that the new magicities at $Z=58$, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70 are also
212: indicative of new physics. From our present investigation, it
213: may be seen that the HFB and INM models are missing some important
214: physics to incorporate the experimental strggering for the
215: considered region. On the other hand, the RMF explains the characteristic
216: jump at Z=50, but fails to reproduce other odd-even effects. The reproduction
217: of odd-even trends for heavier mass nuclei of the N=82 isotonic series in
218: the frame work of RMF model, gives some hints that the progress of
219: relativistic mean field formalism may be in the proper direction. However,
220: it is still missing some important ingredients. As it has been argued
221: by several authors, the inclusion of self-coupling of scalar fields simulate
222: the effect of three-body forces. But still the absence of many-body correlations is
223: very much there in this theory. A possible improvement of the RMF theory may be to
224: include the higher order couplings as it is
225: suggested in Ref. \cite{aru03}. The other possible feature, which is
226: not taken either in the RMF or in the HFB or the INM models is the possibility
227: of $A=3, 4 $ clustering \cite{abbas01}. Once these two effects are taken into
228: account, we hope that the theories may be compartible with the experimental
229: data. Work in this direction is in progress \cite{aru04}.
230:
231:
232: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
233: \bibitem{Aba84} A. Abbas, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C 29}, 1033 (1984).
234: \bibitem{Ham90} J. H. Hamilton, Treatise on Heavy Ion Science, Vol 8
235: (Ed. D. A. Bromley), Plenum Press, (1988) p. 1.
236:
237: \bibitem{And90} F. Andreozzi, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and A. Porrino, Phys. Rev.
238: \textbf{C 41}, 250 (1990).
239:
240: \bibitem{Hol97} A. Holt, T. Engeland, E. Osnes, M. Hjorth-Jensen and J. Suhonen,
241: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A618}, 107 (1997).
242:
243: \bibitem{Mat00} T. Matsuzawa, H. Nakada, K. Ogawa, and G. Momoki, Phys. Rev.
244: \textbf{C 62}, 054304 (2000).
245:
246: \bibitem{Tan01} I. Tanihata, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A685}, 80c (2001).
247:
248: \bibitem{Thi00} P. G. Thirolf, B. V. Pritychenko, B. A. Brown, P. D. Cottle, M. Chromik,
249: T. Glasmacher, G. Hackman, R. W. Ibbotson, K. W. Kemper, T.
250: Otsuka, L. A. Riley and H. Scheib, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B485}, 16
251: (2000).
252:
253: \bibitem{Dlo03} Z. Dlouhy, D. Baiborodin, J. Mrdzek and G.
254: Thiamova, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A722}, 36c (2003).
255:
256: \bibitem{Tho03} M. Thoennessen, T. Baumann, J. Enders, N. H.
257: Frank, P. Heckman, J. P. Seitz and E. Tryggestad, Nucl. Phys.
258: \textbf{A722}, 61c (2003).
259:
260: \bibitem{Plo81} M. Ploszajezak and M. Faber, Phys. Scr.
261: \textbf{24}, 243 (1981).
262:
263:
264: \bibitem{12} J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{A292},
265: 413 (1977).
266: \bibitem{4} J.D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{83}, 491 (1974).
267: \bibitem{14} G. A. Lalazissis, J. K\"onig and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C55} (1997) 540; M.M. Sharma, A.R.
268: Farhan and S. Mythili Phys. Rev. \textbf{C61} (2000) 054306.
269: \bibitem{16} D.G. Madland and J.R. Nix, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A476} (1988) 1.
270: \bibitem{17} Y.K. Gambhir, P. Ring and A. Thimet, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{198} (1990) 132.
271: \bibitem{18} S. K. Patra and C.R. Praharaj, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C44} (1991) 2552.
272:
273: \bibitem{Sam01} M. Samyn, S. Goriely, P.-H. Heenen, J. M. Pearson and F. Tondeur,
274: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A700}, 142 (2001).
275:
276: \bibitem{Sat01}R.C. Nayak and L. Satpathy, At.Data and Nucl. Data
277: Table, \textbf{73}, 213 (1999).
278:
279: \bibitem{aru03} P. Arumugam, B.K. Sharma, P.K. Sahu, S.K. Patra, Submitted to
280: Phys. Rev. Lett. (nucl-th/0308050).
281: \bibitem{abbas01} A. Abbas, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A16}, 755 (2001).
282: \bibitem{aru04} P. Arumugam, S.K. Patra and A. Abbas (Work in progress)
283:
284: \end{thebibliography}
285:
286: \end{document}
287: