1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \usepackage{iopams,graphicx}
3:
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\vlk}{V_{{\rm low}\,k}}
7: \newcommand{\vlkh}{\overline{V}_{{\rm low}\,k}}
8: \newcommand{\vnn}{V_{\rm NN}}
9: \newcommand{\la}{\Lambda}
10: \newcommand{\fmi}{\, {\rm fm}^{-1}}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Low-momentum interactions for nuclei}
15:
16: \author{Achim Schwenk}
17:
18: \address{Nuclear Theory Center,
19: Indiana University,
20: Bloomington, IN 47408}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: We show how the renormalization group is used to construct a low-momentum
24: nucleon-nucleon interaction $\vlk$, which unifies all potential
25: models used in nuclear structure calculations. $\vlk$ can be directly
26: applied to the nuclear shell model or to nucleonic matter without
27: a $G$ matrix resummation. It is argued that $\vlk$ parameterizes
28: a high-order chiral effective field theory two-nucleon force. We
29: use cutoff dependence as a tool to assess the error in the truncation
30: of nuclear forces to two-nucleon interactions and introduce a
31: low-momentum three-nucleon force, which regulates $A=3,4$ binding
32: energies. The adjusted three-nucleon interaction
33: is perturbative for small cutoffs.
34: In contrast to other precision interactions, the error due to
35: missing many-body forces can be estimated, when $\vlk$ and the
36: corresponding three-nucleon force are used in nuclear structure
37: calculations and the cutoff is varied.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: %\pacs{21.30.-x, 11.10.Hi, 21.45+v, 24.10Cn}
41:
42: %\maketitle
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: There has been much progress over the last five years on improving
47: many-body methods applicable to nuclei and nucleonic matter. These
48: improvements are most successful in different regions of the nuclear
49: chart: the Bloch-Horowitz approach for few-body systems, the
50: No-Core Shell Model for light nuclei, the Coupled Cluster
51: Method for the intermediate mass region, Density Functional
52: Theory and effective actions for heavy nuclei, and the
53: Renormalization Group approach for nucleonic matter. Although
54: these microscopic many-body approaches are in principle different
55: methods to diagonalize an $A$-nucleon Hamiltonian, an error
56: is always introduced since it is not possible to include up
57: to $A$-body forces. Thus, it is important to understand the
58: error of the truncation, e.g., to two-nucleon (NN), or two- and
59: three-nucleon (3N) interactions, and to explore different choices
60: in the nuclear force starting point.
61:
62: When systems are probed at low energies, it is convenient to use
63: low-momentum degrees-of-freedom and replace the unresolved
64: short-distance details by something simpler, without distorting
65: low-energy observables. As a result, there are an infinite number of
66: low-energy potentials corresponding to different resolutions,
67: and one can use this freedom constructively to pick a convenient
68: one. In nuclear physics, many issues depend on the
69: resolution, e.g., the strength of 3N relative to NN forces, the
70: spin-orbit splitting obtained from NN only, or
71: the size of exchange correlations. The change of the resolution
72: scale corresponds to changing the cutoff in nuclear forces, and
73: thus this freedom is lost if one uses the cutoff as a fit parameter,
74: or cannot vary it substantially.
75:
76: In this Talk, we review results for a ``universal'' low-momentum
77: NN interaction, called $\vlk$. This unifies all potential models
78: used in nuclear structure calculations. We present Faddeev results
79: for few-body systems and show that the cutoff variation of $A=3,4$
80: binding energies is of the same size as results for different
81: precision NN interactions, but low-momentum cutoffs are closer
82: to experiment. This demonstrates that cutoff independence, and
83: thus model independence, in nuclear physics requires consistent
84: 3N forces. After augmenting $\vlk$ by chiral 3N forces, we find
85: that 3N contributions are perturbative for small cutoffs. The set of
86: low-momentum two- and three-nucleon interactions can be used in
87: calculations of nuclear structure and reactions
88: and we discuss promising directions. Finally, we show that $\vlk$ and
89: $G$ matrix elements are quantitatively similar, but $\vlk$ as a
90: potential has a solid theoretical foundation with corresponding
91: 3N forces, whereas a $G$ matrix introduces uncontrolled approximations.
92:
93: \section{Low-momentum nucleon-nucleon interaction}
94:
95: Conventional precision NN interactions are well-constrained by two-nucleon
96: scattering data only for laboratory energies $E_{\rm lab} \lesssim 350 \,
97: {\rm MeV}$. As a consequence, details of nuclear forces are not constrained
98: for relative momenta $k > 2.0 \fmi$ or distances $r < 0.5 \, {\rm fm}$.
99: However, all these potentials have strong high-momentum components as
100: illustrated by the different lines in Fig.~\ref{vlowk}. This leads to
101: model dependences and technical difficulties in many-body applications.
102: Starting from a given potential model $\vnn$, we have integrated out the
103: high-momentum modes above a cutoff $\la$ in the sense of the renormalization
104: group (RG)~\cite{Vlowk1,Vlowk2}. The resulting low-momentum interaction
105: $\vlk$ only has momentum components below the cutoff and evolves with
106: $\la$ so that the low-momentum scattering amplitude $T(k',k;k^2)$ (in
107: particular phase shifts and deuteron binding energy) are invariant.
108: Thus, in every scattering channel we have
109: \begin{eqnarray}
110: T(k',k;k^{2}) &=& \vnn(k',k) + \frac{2}{\pi} \, \mathcal{P} \int_{0}^{\infty}
111: \frac{\vnn(k',p) \, T(p,k;k^{2})}{k^{2}-p^{2}} \, p^{2} dp , \\[1mm]
112: T(k',k;k^{2}) &=& \vlk^\la(k',k) + \frac{2}{\pi} \, \mathcal{P}
113: \int_{0}^{\la} \frac{\vlk^\la(k',p) \, T(p,k;k^{2})}{k^{2}-p^{2}} \,
114: p^{2} dp .
115: \end{eqnarray}
116: In order to reproduce the low-momentum $T$ matrix for a given cutoff,
117: $\vlk$ is renormalized for scattering to intermediate states with
118: $p>\la$. This is achieved be resumming high-momentum ladders in an
119: energy-dependent effective interaction, which is the solution to
120: the two-body Bloch-Horowitz equation in momentum space with projector
121: $Q=\theta(p-\la)$. The energy dependence can then be recast as
122: momentum dependence by using the equations of motion. Both steps
123: are equivalent to the basis transformation of Lee-Suzuki.\footnote{Note
124: that the RG approach differs from Lee-Suzuki, as we set the $Q$ space
125: block of the effective Hamiltonian (which includes all model dependences)
126: to zero.}
127: \begin{figure}[t]
128: \vspace*{-1mm}
129: \begin{center}
130: \includegraphics[scale=0.4,clip=]{vlowk_1s0.eps}
131: \\[2mm]
132: \includegraphics[scale=0.4,clip=]{vlowk_3s1.eps}
133: \end{center}
134: \vspace*{-3mm}
135: \caption{\label{vlowk} Diagonal (left) and off-diagonal (right)
136: momentum-space matrix element for $\vlk$ (symbols) versus relative
137: momentum derived from different high-precision potential models
138: for $\la = 2.1 \fmi$. The various bare interactions are given
139: as lines, with thick sold or thick dashed lines for the N2LO (Idaho A)
140: or N3LO interactions respectively. Results are shown for the $^1$S$_0$
141: (upper) and $^3$S$_1$ partial wave (lower figures).}
142: \end{figure}
143: We note that
144: the largest effect of the renormalization is due to the first
145: step of integrating out the high-momentum modes (for laboratory energies
146: $E_{\rm lab} \lesssim 150 \, {\rm MeV}$ the zero-energy Bloch-Horowitz
147: potential describes the phase shifts accurately). Both steps are
148: equivalent to integrating an RG equation~\cite{Vlowk1}
149: \be
150: \frac{d}{d \la} \vlk^\la(k',k) = \frac{2}{\pi} \frac{\vlk^\la(k',\la) \,
151: T^\la(\la,k;\la^{2})}{1-(k / \la)^{2}} .
152: \ee
153: For every cutoff $\vlk$ defines a new NN potential and a new low-momentum
154: Hamiltonian
155: \be
156: H^\la_{{\rm low}\,k} = T + \vlkh^\la ,
157: \ee
158: where the cutoff acts only on the interaction and $\vlkh$ denotes a
159: (Okubo-) Hermitized $\vlk$ (from now on all $\vlk$ results are for
160: the Hermitian $\vlkh$ and we drop the over-line). In many-body
161: applications, $H^\la_{{\rm low}\,k}$ will lead to different results
162: from $T + \vnn$ (since unresolved interactions between any high-momentum
163: nucleons are excluded).
164:
165: \begin{figure}[t]
166: \vspace*{-1mm}
167: \begin{center}
168: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,clip=]{vlowk_3s1collapse.eps}
169: \end{center}
170: \vspace*{-3mm}
171: \caption{\label{3s1collapse} Evolution of the diagonal $\vlk$ matrix
172: elements obtained from different potentials for cutoffs $\la =
173: 2.0 \ldots 4.0 \fmi$ versus relative momentum in the $^3$S$_1$ channel.}
174: \end{figure}
175:
176: Our main results are shown in Fig.~\ref{vlowk}. By performing
177: an RG decimation to $\la \lesssim 2.1 \fmi$, we find that all
178: NN potentials that fit the scattering data and include the
179: same long-distance pion physics lead to a ``universal'' low-momentum
180: interaction $\vlk$~\cite{Vlowk1,Vlowk2}. This holds for all channels
181: and low-momentum off-diagonal matrix elements. Note also that in
182: the $^1$S$_0$ channel, where there is a significant change of $\vnn$
183: from N2LO to N3LO, the $\vlk$ moves towards the ``universal'' curve from
184: N2LO to N3LO. Finally, we illustrate the collapse in
185: Fig.~\ref{3s1collapse}, where we show the evolution of diagonal
186: $\vlk$ matrix elements from $\la = 2.0 \ldots 4.0 \fmi$. Further
187: results and details can be found in~\cite{Vlowk2}.
188:
189: We emphasize that the renormalization of high-momentum modes is
190: theoretically and in practice easier in free space, before
191: going to a many-body system.\footnote{We also note that the RG evolution
192: is very useful for chiral effective field theory (EFT) interactions.
193: This is because for lower cutoffs, the phase space for intermediate
194: states is smaller in nuclear structure applications. We can start
195: from a chiral EFT interaction with cutoff range, e.g., $\la_\chi \sim 500
196: - 700 \, {\rm MeV}$ to include the maximum known long-distance physics,
197: and then run the cutoff down lower. Observables are preserved under
198: the RG and higher-order operators are induced automatically, which is
199: more accurate and faster than fitting a chiral EFT truncation at the
200: lower cutoff.} $\vlk$ does not require a $G$ matrix resummation, which
201: was introduced because of (model-dependent) high-momentum modes in
202: nuclear forces. Finally, $\vlk$ is energy-independent and the cutoff
203: is not a parameter (no ``magic'' value). As we demonstrate
204: in the next Section, the cutoff can be used to assess the error of
205: a Hamiltonian truncated to two-body forces.
206:
207: \section{Cutoff dependence as a tool to assess missing many-body forces}
208:
209: All NN interactions have a cutoff (``P-space of QCD'') and therefore
210: have corresponding three- and higher-body forces. Consequently, if
211: one omits the many-body forces, 3N, 4N,... observables will be
212: cutoff-dependent. Using $\vlk$ all low-energy NN observables are
213: cutoff-independent, and therefore, we can assess the effects of the
214: omitted 3N, 4N,... forces by varying the cutoff in many-body calculations.
215: \begin{figure}[t]
216: \vspace*{-2mm}
217: \begin{center}
218: \includegraphics[scale=0.3,clip=]{tjon-line.eps}
219: \hspace*{2mm}
220: \includegraphics[scale=0.3,clip=]{tjon-line-bare.eps}
221: \end{center}
222: \vspace*{-4mm}
223: \caption{\label{Tjon} Correlation of the triton and alpha particle
224: binding energies. We contrast the $\vlk$ results (left figure) to
225: results for several modern potential models (right figure, taken
226: from~\cite{Nogga}, where plusses denote NN only and diamonds NN
227: with adjusted 3N forces). Results are given for the $\vlk$ derived
228: from the Argonne $v_{18}$ or the CD Bonn potential. The Tjon line
229: is shown as a linear fit to the NN-only results. The thick solid lines
230: in the left figure are interpolations from the Argonne $v_{18}$/CD
231: Bonn results to the respective $\vlk$ for the largest cutoff studied.}
232: \end{figure}
233: In Fig.~\ref{Tjon}, we present results for the $^3$H and $^4$He binding
234: energies for a wide range of cutoffs~\cite{Vlowk3NF}. We find that the
235: cutoff variations for all $\la \geqslant 1.0 \fmi$ are approximately $1 \,
236: {\rm MeV}$ and $5 \, {\rm MeV}$ for the $A=3$ and $A=4$ binding
237: energies respectively. The variation should be compared to the potential
238: energy, which is $\langle \vlk^\la \rangle > 30 \, {\rm MeV}$ and $> 60
239: \, {\rm MeV}$ in the two systems. The variation gives an estimate of
240: the contribution from many-body forces and shows that, while retaining
241: a $\chi^2/{\rm datum} \approx 1$, the truncation to a NN potential
242: alone will have associated errors of $1 \, {\rm MeV}$ and $5 \,
243: {\rm MeV}$ for $^3$H and $^4$He. We also find that the cutoff dependence
244: predicts the linear correlation between binding energies known as the
245: Tjon line. Results for reasonable
246: low-momentum cutoffs $\la \sim 2.0 \fmi$ are closer
247: to experiment and we observe a slight breaking off the Tjon line. Our
248: results demonstrate that 3N forces are inevitable for renormalization
249: and are similar to results obtained in the pionless EFT (see proceedings
250: by H.-W. Hammer). Two reference results for the $\vlk$ obtained
251: from the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential and $\la=1.9 \fmi$ are
252: $E(^3{\rm H}) = 8.47 \, {\rm MeV}$ and $E(^4{\rm He}) = 29.19 \,
253: {\rm MeV}$ (for the $\vlk$ derived from the CD Bonn potential and
254: $\la=2.1 \fmi$, we have $E(^3{\rm H}) = 8.49 \, {\rm MeV}$ and
255: $E(^4{\rm He}) = 29.20 \, {\rm MeV}$).
256:
257: In the right part of Fig.~\ref{Tjon}, we also give the
258: potential model dependence in $A=3,4$ systems. This model dependence
259: is due to the probing of the unconstrained high-momentum modes. The
260: high-momentum modes induce three-body correlations, which are
261: of short-range. Therefore, at low energies these effects are inseparable
262: from the effects due to omitted 3N interactions. Finally, we note
263: that Fujii {\it et al.} have reported similar results for $\vlk$~\cite{Fujii},
264: but conclude that large cutoffs should be used. However, this conclusion
265: is misguided, because it relies on reproducing the few-body binding energies
266: of a specific $\vnn$-only model with $\vlk$ (both without the corresponding
267: 3N forces). Since for every cutoff, $\vlk^\la$ is a new potential, the
268: few-body binding energies will be different, as expected from the right
269: part of Fig.~\ref{Tjon}.
270:
271: \section{Perturbative low-momentum three-nucleon interaction}
272:
273: It would be extremely nice to use the RG and calculate a low-momentum
274: NN and 3N interaction from different potential models. This however
275: has two problems. First, it requires accurate calculations of high-energy
276: 3N scattering wave functions. Second, and more severe, with the exception
277: of chiral EFT interactions there is no consistency between the NN
278: potential models and their fitted 3N forces. As a consequence, we have
279: decided to adjust the leading-order chiral 3N forces to $\vlk$
280: for various cutoffs.
281: \begin{table}[t]
282: \resizebox{6.25in}{!}{
283: \begin{tabular}{l|rrrrr|rrrrr|c|c}
284: & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{$^3$H} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{$^4$He} & $\max$ & $^4$He \\
285: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\la$} &
286: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$T$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\vlk$} &
287: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$c$-terms} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$D$-term} &
288: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E$-term} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$T$} &
289: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\vlk$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$c$-terms} &
290: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$D$-term} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E$-term} &
291: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$|V_{\rm 3N}/\vlk|$} &
292: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$k_{\rm rms}$} \\ \hline
293: $1.0$ & $21.06$ & $-28.62$ & $0.02$ & $0.11$ & $-1.06$ &
294: $38.11$ & $-62.18$ & $0.10$ & $0.54$ & $-4.87$ & $0.08$ & $0.55$ \\
295: $1.3$ & $25.71$ & $-34.14$ & $0.01$ & $1.39$ & $-1.46$ &
296: $50.14$ & $-78.86$ & $0.19$ & $8.08$ & $-7.83$ & $0.10$ & $0.63$ \\
297: $1.6$ & $28.45$ & $-37.04$ & $-0.11$ & $0.55$ & $-0.32$ &
298: $57.01$ & $-86.82$ & $-0.14$ & $3.61$ & $-1.94$ & $0.04$ & $0.67$ \\
299: $1.9$ & $30.25$ & $-38.66$ & $-0.48$ & $-0.50$ & $0.90$ &
300: $60.84$ & $-89.50$ & $-1.83$ & $-3.48$ & $5.68$ & $0.06$ & $0.70$ \\
301: $2.5(a)$ & $33.30$ & $-40.94$ & $-2.22$ & $-0.11$ & $1.49$ &
302: $67.56$ & $-90.97$ & $-11.06$ & $-0.41$ & $6.62$ & $0.12$ & $0.74$ \\
303: $2.5(b)$ & $33.51$ & $-41.29$ & $-2.26$ & $-1.42$ & $2.97$ &
304: $68.03$ & $-92.86$ & $-11.22$ & $-8.67$ & $16.45$ & $0.18$ & $0.74$ \\
305: $3.0(*)$ & $36.98$ & $-43.91$ & $-4.49$ & $-0.73$ & $3.67$ &
306: $78.77$ & $-99.03$ & $-22.82$ & $-2.63$ & $16.95$ & $0.23$ & $0.80$
307: \end{tabular}}
308: \caption{\label{3Nparts} Expectation values of the kinetic energy ($T$),
309: $\vlk$ and the different 3N contributions (long-range $2 \pi$-exchange
310: ($c$-terms), $1 \pi$-exchange part ($D$-term) and contact interaction
311: ($E$-term)) for $^3$H and $^4$He. All energies are in MeV and momenta
312: are in fm$^{-1}$. $(a)$ and $(b)$ denote two possible solutions for
313: $\la = 2.5 \, {\rm fm}^{-1}$ and $(*)$ indicates that the $^4$He fit is
314: approximate, for details see~\cite{Vlowk3NF}.
315: In addition, we give the ratio of maximum 3N to $\vlk$ contribution and
316: an average relative momentum $k_{\rm rms}$.}
317: \end{table}
318: The motivation for this is that at low energies, all phenomenological 3N
319: forces due to meson exchanges and high-momentum N, $\Delta$,... intermediate
320: states collapse to this operator form. Therefore, it is reasonable to
321: use the operator form constrained by chiral EFT and adjust the coupling
322: constants to $\vlk$. Moreover, cutoffs in $\vlk$ and chiral potentials
323: are very similar. Both are low-momentum interactions, where only
324: pion exchanges are explicitly resolved. When we start from chiral
325: interactions and run the cutoff down lower, we find that they also collapse
326: to the ``universal'' $\vlk$, which indicates that $\vlk$ parameterizes
327: a higher-order EFT interaction with sharp-cutoff regularization.
328:
329: In chiral EFT, the leading-order 3N interaction enters at N2LO and
330: consists of a long-range $2 \pi$-exchange, an intermediate-range
331: $1 \pi$-exchange part and a short-range contact
332: interaction~\cite{chiral3NF1,chiral3NF2}. There are five coupling constants:
333: three low-energy $c$ constants in the
334: $2\pi$ part, as well as $D$- and $E$-term couplings in the $1 \pi$
335: and contact term respectively. A possible determination of the
336: $c$ constants is through a NN partial wave analysis, which includes
337: the long-distance $1 \pi$ and $2 \pi$ physics in the interaction.
338: This has been carried out by the Nijmegen group, and we take their
339: values for the $c$ constants~\cite{const}, which is most in keeping
340: with our results that $\vlk$ is strongly constrained by the scattering
341: data. Since the $c$ constants parameterize low-energy $\pi N$ physics,
342: their values are independent of the cutoff used to regularize nuclear
343: forces.
344:
345: We then adjust the two $D$- and $E$-term couplings to the $^3$H and
346: $^4$He binding energies for different cutoffs (We note that it may
347: be better to adjust the 3N force to $^3$H and a heavier system, say
348: $^{16}$O, when the latter can be calculated more accurately in the
349: future). For cutoffs $\la
350: \lesssim 2.0 \fmi$ we find linear dependences in the fitting,
351: which are consistent with a perturbative $D$- and $E$-term
352: contribution $E(^3{\rm H}) = E(\vlk + c{\rm-terms}) + c_D \langle
353: D{\rm-term} \rangle + c_E \langle E{\rm-term} \rangle$ ($c_D$ and
354: $c_E$ are the coupling constants and $\langle \ldots \rangle$
355: denote the matrix elements of the operators). This has been
356: checked explicitly and also for the $c$-terms. For $\vlk$ and
357: all studied cutoffs $\la \lesssim 2.0 \fmi$, we find that the adjusted
358: 3N forces are perturbative~\cite{Vlowk3NF}, by which we
359: mean $\langle \Psi^{(3)} | V_{\rm 3N} | \Psi^{(3)} \rangle \approx
360: \langle \Psi^{(2)} | V_{\rm 3N} | \Psi^{(2)} \rangle$, where $| \Psi^{(n)}
361: \rangle$ are exact solutions including up to $n$-body forces.
362: We use the operator form of the chiral 3N force given in Eq.~(2)
363: and Eq.~(10) in~\cite{chiral3NF2}, multiplied by an exponential
364: regulator $\exp[-((p^2+3q^2/4)/\la^2)^4]$ with the same cutoff value
365: as in $\vlk$ ($p$ and $q$ are Jacobi momenta). The high power
366: in the exponent yields a behavior similar to a sharp cutoff.
367: The two parameters of the 3N force fit to $\vlk$ are tabulated
368: for a wide range of cutoffs in~\cite{Vlowk3NF}. We note that
369: it is non-trivial that a fit solution of the leading-order
370: chiral 3N form with realistic $c$ constants exists.
371:
372: Next, we present the different contributions to the triton and
373: alpha particle binding energies in Table~\ref{3Nparts}. Assuming
374: that the kinetic energy is due to independent particle pairs,
375: we can use this to obtain an average relative momentum $k_{\rm rms}
376: = \sqrt{\langle k^2 \rangle} \approx m T /(A-1)$, when $\vlk$ is
377: used in these systems. Over the range of cutoffs in Table~\ref{3Nparts},
378: we find $k_{\rm rms} \approx 0.55 \ldots 0.80 \fmi$ for $^4$He
379: ($0.50 \ldots 0.67 \fmi$ for $^3$H). Although not observable, it
380: is reassuring that $k_{\rm rms} \ll \la$ and also intriguing that for
381: all low-momentum cutoffs $k_{\rm rms} \sim m_\pi$, as expected in
382: chiral EFT. We also find that the non-linearities in the fitting
383: for larger cutoffs $\la \gtrsim 2.5 \fmi$ lead to a ratio
384: of the maximum 3N to $\vlk$ contribution $\approx 0.2$. In the
385: chiral counting, 3N contributions are on the order of $(Q/\la)^3$
386: relative to the NN force, where $Q$ is a typical momentum in the
387: system. With $Q \sim k_{\rm rms} \sim m_\pi$, we find $(Q/\la)^3 \approx
388: 0.05$ for $\la \sim 2.0 \fmi$ and
389: thus the $0.2$ ratio at larger cutoffs is beyond this
390: expectation. We take this as an indication that the leading-order
391: chiral 3N force is insufficient for larger cutoffs, where more
392: physics is resolved, or that one enters the non-linear regime
393: of a limit cycle (see proceedings by A. Nogga). We also observe
394: that the $c$-terms and the $E$-term increase with increasing cutoff and cancel.
395: This is expected since the $E$-term renormalizes all divergences
396: in the 3N system.
397:
398: It is important to note that the 3N contributions, while perturbative
399: for all cutoffs $\la \lesssim 2.0 \fmi$, increase by a factor
400: $\sim 5$ from $A=3$ to $A=4$. This density dependence
401: leads to saturation in nuclear
402: matter~\cite{nuclmat}. Finally, for further details on $\vlk$ in
403: few-nucleon systems and the low-momentum 3N force see~\cite{Vlowk3NF}
404: and proceedings by A. Nogga.
405:
406: \section{Harmonic-oscillator matrix elements and $G$ matrix comparison}
407:
408: \begin{figure}[t]
409: \vspace*{-1mm}
410: \begin{center}
411: \includegraphics[scale=0.4,clip=]{vlowk_relho_0np_14.eps}
412: \end{center}
413: \vspace*{-3mm}
414: \caption{\label{relho} Relative harmonic-oscillator matrix elements
415: $\langle n'=0 \, l' | \vlk | n \, l \, S \, J \rangle$ versus
416: radial quantum number $n$ for a low-momentum cutoff $\la = 2.0
417: \, {\rm fm}^{-1}$ and a $1.0 \, {\rm GeV}$
418: cutoff $\la = 5.0 \, {\rm fm}^{-1}$.
419: Results are shown for the S-wave matrix elements. In both cases, $\vlk$ is
420: obtained from the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential and $\hbar \, \omega =
421: 14 \, {\rm MeV}$.}
422: \end{figure}
423:
424: The advantage of using low-momentum interactions in many-body applications
425: is that $\vlk$ is a soft interaction, without a strong core at short
426: distances. Therefore, $\vlk$ does not couple strongly to high-lying states
427: and can be used in small model spaces. This makes it for the first time
428: possible to start directly from a precision NN interaction for applications
429: in nuclear structure or reactions.
430:
431: The benefit of a lower cutoff in shell model applications is shown
432: in Fig~\ref{relho}, where we compare S-wave relative harmonic-oscillator
433: matrix elements for a low-momentum cutoff $\la = 2.0 \fmi$ and a
434: $1.0 \, {\rm GeV}$ cutoff $\la = 5.0 \fmi$. We find that for low-momentum
435: interactions the matrix elements decrease quite rapidly and become
436: small for $|n - n'| \sim 10$. This is not the case for interactions
437: with high-momentum components, which require basis states up to $\sim
438: 50$ shells for convergence. Fig.~\ref{relho} clearly shows that strong
439: high-momentum modes are only poorly represented in a shell model basis.
440:
441: In conventional approaches to shell-model effective interactions, the
442: cores are tamed by performing a ladder resummation of a $\vnn$ model
443: to obtain a $G$ matrix. However, the $G$ matrix resummation introduces
444: an uncontrolled starting-energy dependence and requires further
445: approximations in practice. Moreover, there is no theory for the
446: starting energy, since the Bloch-Horowitz energy self-consistency
447: is lost when one restricts the effective interaction to two-body
448: in an $A$-body system. In Fig.~\ref{corrplot}, we compare $\vlk$ to
449: $G$ matrix elements in four major shells.
450: \begin{figure}[t]
451: \vspace*{-1mm}
452: \begin{center}
453: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,clip=]{gmatrix_vlowk_T0.eps}
454: \hspace*{2mm}
455: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,clip=]{gmatrix_vlowk_T1.eps}
456: \end{center}
457: \vspace*{-3mm}
458: \caption{\label{corrplot}Correlation plots between
459: $\vlk$ and $G$ matrix elements in 4 major shells. The matrix
460: elements $\langle a \, b \, | \ldots | \, c \, d \, J \, T \rangle$ are in
461: ${\rm MeV}$ for $\hbar \, \omega = 14 \, {\rm MeV}$. We also distinguish
462: the diagonal elements related to the monopole interaction and thus
463: nuclear binding. $\vlk$ is derived from the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential
464: and the $G$ matrix is for Idaho A computed with a rectangular
465: Pauli operator for 4 major shells and starting energy $- 80 \,
466: {\rm MeV}$~\cite{David} (for other correlation plots see proceedings
467: by B.A. Brown).}
468: \end{figure}
469: We find that in both $T=0,1$ channels the matrix elements are very similar.
470: The biggest differences are on the diagonal $T=0$ matrix elements. This
471: comes as no surprise since the diagonal matrix elements are related
472: to the monopole interaction, responsible for
473: most of the nuclear binding. Here, we
474: expect the largest effect of the low-momentum 3N force. A detailed
475: and more quantitative comparison will be presented in~\cite{pheno},
476: where we also study the phenomenology of low-momentum interactions and
477: point out where calculations including 3N forces are most needed.
478: We note that similar correlations between $\vlk$ and a $G$ matrix
479: hold for different cutoffs and different $\hbar \omega$ (up to a simple
480: scaling)~\cite{pheno}. Here, we only want
481: to show that $\vlk$ can be used directly
482: in nuclear structure applications, and emphasize that $\vlk$ has a
483: well-defined theoretical basis with perturbative, low-momentum 3N forces.
484:
485: \section{Summary and outlook}
486:
487: In this Talk, we have reviewed advances in constructing low-momentum
488: interactions, which can be used directly in many-body applications.
489: Our results show that, for low-momentum cutoffs, nuclear forces are
490: well constrained and that difficult-to-handle cores are not needed
491: to reproduce the NN scattering data. We have shown how the RG can be
492: used to construct a model-independent low-momentum interaction, which
493: unifies all precision potential models used in nuclear structure
494: calculations. We believe that $\vlk$ is a very useful for nuclear
495: many-body problems for the following reasons:
496: \begin{enumerate}
497: \item It is possible to vary the cutoff in $\vlk$ (or $\vlk$ and
498: adjusted 3N interactions) over a wide range. This enables one to
499: estimate an error due to omitted many-body forces (or omitted higher-order
500: 3N, 4N,... interactions). In this way, it is possible to vary the
501: cutoff for interactions with singular pion exchanges and obtain
502: an error control in many-body calculations as in the pionless EFT.
503: \item We have shown that 3N forces are required by renormalization
504: and that adjusted low-momentum 3N interactions are perturbative
505: for cutoffs $\la \lesssim 2.0 \fmi$. This should considerably
506: simplify including 3N forces in nuclear structure applications,
507: e.g., shell model interactions, coupled cluster theory or nucleonic
508: matter.
509: \item Low-momentum interactions bind nuclei
510: in Hartree-Fock~\cite{pertnuclei}, in
511: contrast to all other microscopic NN interactions. Consequently,
512: exchange correlations are smaller starting from low-momentum
513: forces, and a quantitative derivation of a nuclear density functional
514: seems possible~\cite{DFT}. Moreover, preliminary results indicate that nuclear
515: matter with $\vlk$ and 3N forces is perturbative~\cite{nuclmat}, for
516: neutron matter the Hartree-Fock equation of state is very
517: reasonable~\cite{indint}.
518: \item $\vlk$ as a potential provides a well-defined starting
519: point for microscopic calculations of effective interactions
520: for heavier nuclei in small model spaces.
521: \end{enumerate}
522:
523: \noindent
524: Applications of $\vlk$ that were not discussed in this Talk range from
525: valence particle nuclei~\cite{O18} to quasiparticle interactions and
526: pairing in neutron matter~\cite{RGnm,tensor}.
527:
528: We close with a recommendation of how to start using $\vlk$ and
529: some priorities for future research. If one wants to use
530: $\vlk$ as a new potential without varying the cutoff, we suggest to
531: use cutoffs near $\la = 2.0 \fmi$ (for the $\vlk$ derived
532: from the Argonne $v_{18}$ (CD Bonn) potential the triton binding
533: energy is accidentally reproduced for $\la = 1.9 \fmi$ ($\la
534: = 2.1 \fmi$)). We would take these as first cutoff values but
535: stress that the 3N force never vanishes. For future investigation,
536: it would be extremely promising to study the cutoff variation of
537: nuclear spectra and convergence properties using $\vlk$ with 3N forces in
538: the No-Core Shell Model or Coupled Cluster Theory. Varying the cutoff
539: will be a powerful tool to provide theoretical error estimates for
540: extrapolations towards the drip lines, where one cannot compare to
541: experiment. A chart for the spectra of light nuclei with theoretical
542: error bars would be wonderful. Finally, more insight on the effects
543: of 3N forces will come from shell model calculations using $\vlk$
544: with perturbative 3N forces, especially where a two-body $G$ matrix fails.
545:
546: \vspace*{2mm}
547: \noindent
548: It is a pleasure to thank my collaborators Scott Bogner, Gerry Brown,
549: Bengt Friman, Dick Furnstahl, Chuck Horowitz, Tom Kuo, Andreas Nogga,
550: Janos Polonyi and Andres Zuker for many discussions.
551: This work is supported by the DOE under grant No. DEFG 0287ER40365 and
552: the NSF under grant No. NSF--PHY 0244822.
553:
554: \section*{References}
555: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
556: \bibitem{Vlowk1} S.K. Bogner {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B576}
557: (2003) 265, for details on the RG see nucl-th/0111042.
558: \bibitem{Vlowk2} S.K. Bogner, T.T.S. Kuo and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rep.
559: \textbf{386} (2003) 1.
560: \bibitem{Nogga} A. Nogga, H. Kamada and W. Gl\"ockle, Phys. Rev. Lett.
561: \textbf{85} (2000) 944.
562: \bibitem{Vlowk3NF} A. Nogga, S.K. Bogner and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev.
563: \textbf{C} (R) in press, nucl-th/0405016.
564: \bibitem{Fujii} S. Fujii {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C70} (2004) 024003.
565: \bibitem{chiral3NF1} U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C49} (1999) 2932.
566: \bibitem{chiral3NF2} E. Epelbaum {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C66}
567: (2002) 064001.
568: \bibitem{const} M.C.M. Rentmeester, R.G.E. Timmermans and J.J. de Swart,
569: Phys. Rev. \textbf{C67} (2003) 044001.
570: \bibitem{nuclmat} S.K. Bogner, A. Schwenk, R.J. Furnstahl and A. Nogga,
571: in prep.
572: \bibitem{David} D.J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, private communication.
573: \bibitem{pheno} A. Schwenk and A. Zuker, in prep.
574: \bibitem{pertnuclei} L. Coraggio {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C68}
575: (2003) 034320 and nucl-th/0407003.
576: \bibitem{DFT} A. Schwenk and J. Polonyi, nucl-th/0403011 and in prep.
577: \bibitem{indint} A. Schwenk, G.E. Brown and B. Friman, Nucl. Phys.
578: \textbf{A703} (2002) 745, see also nucl-th/0411070.
579: \bibitem{O18} S.K. Bogner {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C65}
580: (2002) 051301(R).
581: \bibitem{RGnm} A. Schwenk, B. Friman and G.E. Brown, Nucl. Phys.
582: \textbf{A713} (2003) 191, see also nucl-th/0302081.
583: \bibitem{tensor} A. Schwenk and B. Friman, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{92}
584: (2004) 082501.
585: \end{thebibliography}
586: \end{document}
587: