1: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \title{ Generalized mass formula for non-strange and hyper nuclei with SU(6) symmetry breaking }
4:
5: \author{C. Samanta$^{1,2}$ \thanks{E-mail:chhanda.samanta@saha.ac.in; csamanta@vcu.edu}, P. Roy Chowdhury$^1$}
6: \address{ $^1$ Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700 064, India }
7: \address{ $^2$ Physics Department, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2000, U.S.A. }
8:
9: \author { D.N. Basu}
10: \address {Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700 064, India}
11: \date{\today }
12: \maketitle
13: \begin{abstract}
14:
15: A simultaneous description of non-strange nuclei and hypernuclei is provided by a
16: single mass formula inspired
17: by the spin-flavour SU(6) symmetry breaking. This formula is used to estimate the hyperon
18: binding energies of Lambda, double Lambda, Sigma, Cascade and Theta hypernuclei.
19: The results are found to be in good agreement with the available
20: experimental data on 'bound' nuclei and relativistic as well as quark mean field calculations. This mass formula is useful
21: to estimate binding energies over a wide range of masses including the light mass nuclei. It is not applicable for repulsive potential.
22:
23: \vskip 0.2cm
24: \noindent
25: Keywords : Hypernuclei, Hyperon binding energy, Exotic nuclei, Mass formula, Separation Energy.
26:
27: \noindent
28: PACS numbers:21.80.+a, 25.80.-e, 21.10.Dr, 32.10.Bi, 12.90.+b
29: \end{abstract}
30: \vskip 0.2cm
31:
32: The hypernuclear physics is of great importance in many branches of physics. Of particular interest is the
33: understanding of strange particles in baryonic matter, since many questions in heavy-ion physics, particle physics
34: and astrophysics are related to the effect of strangeness (S) in nuclear matter. Moreover, the contribution of the
35: hyperons strongly influences the mass of neutron stars as well. In the past decade considerable amount of spectroscopic
36: informations were accumulated experimentally on the $\Lambda^0$ (S=-1)hypernuclei. The $\Lambda$ separation energies were
37: determined for the ground states of about 40 $\Lambda$ hypernuclei including several double-$\Lambda$
38: hypernuclei \cite{Ba90}, \cite{Ta01}.
39: Doubly strange hypernuclei also arise in a form of $\Xi^-$(S=-2) hypernuclei and were studied both
40: theoretically \cite{Do93} and experimentally \cite{Ba90}, \cite{Fu98}, \cite{Kh00} in a limited number of nuclei.
41: Sigma hyperons exhibit interesting property in its interaction with nuclei. Several studies suggest that due to
42: strongly repulsive $\Sigma$-nucleus potential Sigmas are unbound in nuclei, except for the very special case of
43: nuclei with mass number A=4 \cite{Saha04}. Existance of a T= 1/2, S= 0 bound state in $^4_\Sigma He$ was first
44: predicted by Harada et al. \cite{Hara90} and has been found
45: experimentally \cite{Naga98}, \cite{Outa94}, \cite{Haya92}, \cite{Sa98}. The $1/A$ dependence of the Lane term
46: present in the isospin-dependent $\Sigma$-nucleus potential \cite{Hara90} reduces the possibility of finding
47: bound $\Sigma$-hypernuclei with large A.
48:
49: In this scenario, an exotic hyperon $\Theta^+$ (S=+1, mass $\sim$1530 MeV,
50: width $<$15 MeV ) with exotic pentaquark structure was predicted in 1997 \cite{Di97}.
51: Announcement of its discovery at Spring-8, Japan \cite{Na03} sparked an avalanche
52: of activities in the field of hyperons and hypernuclei \cite{ZC05}. Now a question has arisen
53: whether the $\Theta^+$ hyperon really exists \cite{Cl05} and if so, whether it will be bound
54: in a nucleus \cite{Mi04}, \cite{Ca05}.
55: Calculations in a relativistic mean-field formalism (RMF) suggest that
56: as there is an attractive $\Theta^+$-nucleus interaction, the $\Theta^+$ particle can be
57: bound in nuclei and, the $\Theta^+$ hypernuclei would be bound more strongly than $\Lambda$
58: hypernuclei \cite{Zh05}. Recent calculations in quark mean-field (QMF) model also support
59: existence of bound $\Theta^+$ hypernuclei and predict that in comparison to $\Lambda$
60: hypernuclei more bound states are there in $\Theta^+$ hypernuclei \cite{Sh05}.
61: While a search for bound Theta hypernuclei is on, for a large number of
62: hypernuclei, including double Lambdas, Cascade and Sigmas, more experimental data are needed. One also needs
63: to have an apriori estimation of their possible binding energies in a wide mass range for planning of the experiment
64: and to locate the peaks in the experimental missing mass spectra.
65:
66:
67: Although the $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$ and $\Theta$ hyperons are all baryons, no single
68: mass formula exists which can predict
69: the binding energies of all of them on the same footing as the non-strange nuclei. In this work
70: we present a generalized mass formula
71: for both the strange and non-strange nuclei which does not disregard the normal nuclear matter
72: properties.
73: It is a straight forward equation and binding energy of non-strange as well as bound hypernuclei
74: can be estimated by using this
75: single equation. Its predictions compare well with the available experimental data. However it is not applicable
76: for repulsive potential.
77:
78:
79: Earlier, Dover et al \cite{Do93} prescribed two separate mass formulae for $\Lambda$ and
80: $\Xi$ hypernuclei by introducing several volume and symmetry terms in Bethe-Weizs\"acker mass
81: formula (BW).
82: The BW formulae given in Ref. \cite{Do93} were developed for a much broader context (multi-Lambda systems or strange
83: hadronic matter) with parameters inspired on the strengths of the YN and YY interactions. In this respect,
84: the single-Lambda BW equation given in \cite{Do93} is a limit of a more general formula. The BW equation proposed in
85: Ref. \cite{Le98} is inspired by the spin-flavour SU(6) symmetry and the pairing term is replaced by the expectation
86: value of the space-exchange or, Majorana operator. The Majorana operator in the ground state configurations of
87: single- and double-Lambda hypernuclei were expressed in terms of N, Z, and Lambda number. A strangeness dependent
88: symmetry breaking term was also incorporated. This prescription gave reasonable description of the experimental data
89: on single-and double-Lambda hypernuclei separation energies.
90: As none of these formulations had explicit hyperon mass consideration, they can not be used for binding
91: energy calculation of other hypernuclei. Both the formulae have some other limitations which
92: will be discussed later.
93:
94: The Wigner's $SU(4)$ symmetry arises as a result of the combined invariance in spin (I)
95: and isospin (T). In order to incorporate the strangeness degree of isospin, $SU_T(2)$ is
96: replaced by $SU_F(3)$ and the combined spin(I)-flavour(F) invariance gives rise to the
97: $SU(6)$ classification of Gursey and Radicati \cite{Gu64}. The $SU_F(3)$ symmetry breaks by
98: explicit consideration of a mass dependent term in a mass formula. The $SU(6)$ symmetry
99: breaking is related to different strengths of the
100: nucleon-nucleus and hyperon-nuclear interactions and has important
101: consequences. For example, although small, the $\Sigma-\Lambda$ mass
102: difference figures prominently in the smallness of the $\Lambda$-nuclear spin-orbit
103: interaction \cite{Ka05}.
104:
105: In this work the non-strange normal nuclei and strange hypernuclei are treated on the same
106: footing with due consideration to SU(6) symmetry breaking.
107: The generalization of the mass formula is pursued starting from the modified-Bethe-Weizs\"acker
108: mass formula (BWM) preserving the normal nuclear matter properties. The BWM is basically the
109: Bethe-Weizs\"acker mass
110: formula extended for light nuclei \cite{Sa02}, \cite{Ad04}, \cite{Cs04}, \cite{SA04} which can
111: explain the gross properties
112: of binding energy versus nucleon number curves of all non- strange normal nuclei from Z=3 to
113: Z=83. In BWM, the binding energy of a nucleus of mass number A and
114: %======================
115: total charge Z is defined as
116:
117: \begin{equation}
118: B(A,Z) = a_vA-a_sA^{2/3}-a_cZ(Z-1)/A^{1/3}-a_{sym}(N-Z)^2/[(1+e^{-A/k})A]+\delta_{new},
119: \label{seqn1}
120: \end{equation}
121: \noindent
122: where for normal nuclei $N$ and $Z$ are the number of neutrons and protons respectively and
123: %============
124: \begin{equation}
125: a_v=15.777~MeV,~a_s=18.34~MeV,~a_c=0.71~MeV,~a_{sym}=23.21~MeV~and~k=17,
126: \label{seqn2}
127: \end{equation}
128: \noindent
129: and the pairing term,
130:
131: \begin{equation}
132: \delta_{new}=(1-e^{-A/c})\delta,~~where~~c=30,
133: \label{seqn3}
134: \end{equation}
135: \noindent
136: and
137:
138: \begin{eqnarray}
139: \delta=&&12A^{-1/2}~for~even~neutron-even~proton~number,~=-12A^{-1/2}~for~ odd~neutron-odd~proton~number, \nonumber\\
140: &&~=0~ when~ total~ neutron~ plus~ proton~ number~ is~ odd.\nonumber\\
141: \label{seqn4}
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: \noindent
144:
145: Hypernuclei are found to be more bound than normal nuclei.
146: A systematic search of experimental data of hyperon separation energy ($S_Y$) for $\Lambda$,
147: $\Lambda \Lambda$, $\Sigma^0$ and $\Xi^-$ hypernuclei
148: leads to a generalised mass formula for hyper and non-strange nuclei which will be, henceforth, called the BWMH.
149: The experimental $S_Y$ of the $\Lambda$-hypernuclei (for which experimental data are available over a wide
150: mass range) is found to follow a relation $S_Y \propto A^{-2/3}$ \cite{Ch88}. The available data for Cascade
151: hypernuclei also follow a similar $S_Y \propto A^{-2/3}$ trend but with different slope.
152: Unlike Levai et al. \cite{Le98}, the SU(6) symmetry breaking term represented by the
153: strangeness is taken here to be inversely proportional to $A^{2/3}$.
154: Explicit inclusion of the pairing term partly accounts for the Majorana term while
155: still preserving the nuclear
156: saturation properties. An additional mass dependent term breaks the $SU_F(3)$ symmetry.
157:
158:
159: In BWMH the hypernucleus is considered as a core of normal nucleus plus
160: the hyperon(s) and the binding energy is defined as
161:
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: B(A,Z) = &&a_vA-a_sA^{2/3}-a_cZ(Z-1)/A^{1/3}-a_{sym}(N-Z_c)^2/[(1+e^{-A/k})A]+\delta_{new} \nonumber\\
164: && + n_Y [c_0 . (m_Y) - c_1 - c_2 \mid S \mid / A^{2/3}], \nonumber\\
165: \label{seqn5}
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: \noindent
168: where $n_Y$ = number of hyperons in a nucleus, $m_Y$ = mass of the hyperon in
169: $MeV$, $S$ = strangeness of the hyperon and mass number $A = N + Z_c + n_Y$ is equal to the
170: total number of baryons. $N$ and $Z_c$ are the number of neutrons and protons respectively
171: %==============
172: while the $Z$ in eqn.(5) is given by
173: %=======================================
174: \begin{equation}
175: Z = Z_c + n_Y q
176: \label{seqn6}
177: \end{equation}
178: \noindent
179: where $q$ is the charge number (with proper sign) of hyperon(s) constituting the hypernucleus.
180: For non-strange (S=0) normal nuclei, $Z_c = Z$ as $n_Y$ =0.
181: The choice of $\delta_{new}$ value depends on the number of neutrons and protons in both normal
182: and hypernuclei.
183: For example, in case of $^{9}_{\Lambda}Li$ the neutron number N=5(odd), proton number $Z_c$=3(odd),
184: and $n_Y$=1. Therefore, $\delta=-12A^{-1/2}$ as the (N, $Z_c$) combination is odd-odd,
185: although the total baryon number A= $A = N + Z_c + n_Y$ =9(odd). Whereas, for non-strange normal $^{9}Li$ nucleus
186: $\delta=0$ for A=9(odd).
187:
188: In eqn.(5), the constants $c_0, c_1$ and $c_2$ have been fixed from an empirical fit to the experimental values of $S_Y$ for thirty-five $\Lambda$,
189: three $\Lambda-\Lambda$ and six $\Xi^-$ hypernuclei (Table 1).
190:
191: \begin{table}
192: \caption{Experimental data on hyperon separation energies ($S_Y$) of hypernuclei with experimental errors ($\Delta S_Y)$,
193: number of hyperons ($n_Y$) and $NS$= $n_Y . S$ where S is the strangeness.}
194:
195: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
196: Hypernuclei &$S_Y$ &$\Delta S_Y$& $n_Y$ & $NS$ & Ref. \\
197: &MeV&MeV&&\\ \hline
198: &&&&& \\
199: $^{4}_{\Lambda}H$& 2.04& 0.04& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
200: &&&& \\
201: $^{4}_{\Lambda}He$& 2.39& 0.03& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
202: &&&& \\
203: $^{5}_{\Lambda}He$& 3.12& 0.02& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
204: &&&& \\
205: $^{6}_{\Lambda}He$& 4.18& 0.10& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
206: &&&& \\
207: $^{7}_{\Lambda}He$& 5.23& 0.00& 1& -1& \cite{Maj95} \\
208: &&&& \\
209: $^{8}_{\Lambda}He$& 7.16& 0.70& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
210: &&&& \\
211: $^{6}_{\Lambda}Li$& 4.50& 0.00& 1&-1& \cite{Ba90} \\
212: &&&& \\
213: $^{7}_{\Lambda}Li$& 5.58& 0.03& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
214: &&&& \\
215: $^{8}_{\Lambda}Li$& 6.80& 0.03& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
216: &&&& \\
217: $^{9}_{\Lambda}Li$& 8.50& 0.12& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
218: &&&& \\
219: $^{7}_{\Lambda}Be$& 5.16& 0.08& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
220: &&&& \\
221: $^{8}_{\Lambda}Be$& 6.84& 0.05& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
222: &&&& \\
223: $^{9}_{\Lambda}Be$& 6.71& 0.04& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
224: &&&& \\
225: $^{10}_{\Lambda}Be$& 9.11& 0.22& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
226: &&&& \\
227: $^{9}_{\Lambda}B$& 8.29& 0.18& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
228: &&&& \\
229: $^{10}_{\Lambda}B$& 8.89& 0.12& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
230: &&&& \\
231: $^{11}_{\Lambda}B$&10.24&0.05& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
232: &&&& \\
233: $^{12}_{\Lambda}B$&11.37&0.06& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
234: &&&& \\
235: $^{12}_{\Lambda}C$&10.76&0.19& 1&-1& \cite{Ba90} \\
236: &&&& \\
237: $^{13}_{\Lambda}C$&11.69&0.12& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
238: &&&& \\
239: $^{14}_{\Lambda}C$&12.17&0.33& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
240: &&&& \\
241: $^{14}_{\Lambda}N$&12.17&0.00& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
242: &&&& \\
243: $^{15}_{\Lambda}N$&13.59&0.15& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
244: &&&& \\
245: $^{16}_{\Lambda}O$&12.50&0.35& 1& -1& \cite{Pile91} \\
246: &&&& \\
247: $^{17}_{\Lambda}O$&13.59,&0.0& 1& -1& \cite{Lala88} \\
248: &&&& \\
249: $^{28}_{\Lambda}Si$&16.00&0.29& 1& -1& \cite{Pile91} \\
250: &&&& \\
251: $^{32}_{\Lambda}S$&17.50&0.50& 1& -1& \cite{Ba90} \\
252: &&&& \\
253: $^{33}_{\Lambda}S$&17.96&0.00& 1& -1& \cite{Lala88} \\
254: &&&& \\
255: $^{40}_{\Lambda}Ca$&18.70&1.10& 1& -1& \cite{Pile91} \\
256: &&&& \\
257: $^{41}_{\Lambda}Ca$&19.24&0.00& 1& -1& \cite{Lala88} \\
258: &&&& \\
259: $^{51}_{\Lambda}V$&19.90&1.00& 1& -1& \cite{Lala94} \\
260: &&&& \\
261: $^{56}_{\Lambda}Fe$&21.00&1.50& 1& -1& \cite{Lala94} \\
262: &&&& \\
263: $^{89}_{\Lambda}Y$&22.10&1.60& 1& -1& \cite{Lala94} \\
264: &&&& \\
265: $^{139}_{\Lambda}La$&23.8&1.00& 1& -1& \cite{Hase96} \\
266: &&&& \\
267: $^{208}_{\Lambda}Pb$&26.5& 0.5& 1& -1& \cite{Hase96} \\
268: &&&& \\
269: $^{6}_{\Lambda \Lambda}He$& 7.25&0.19& 2& -2& \cite{Ta01} \\
270: &&&& \\
271: $^{10}_{\Lambda \Lambda}Be$& 17.7& 0.4& 2& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
272: &&&& \\
273: $^{13}_{\Lambda \Lambda}B$& 27.5& 0.7& 2& -2& \cite{Aoki91,Dov91} \\
274: &&&& \\
275: $^{8}_{\Xi^-}He$& 5.90& 1.2& 1& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
276: &&&& \\
277: $^{11}_{\Xi^-}B$& 9.2& 2.2& 1& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
278: &&&& \\
279: $^{13}_{\Xi^-}C$& 18.1& 3.2& 1& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
280: &&&& \\
281: $^{15}_{\Xi^-}C$& 16.0& 4.7& 1& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
282: &&&& \\
283: $^{17}_{\Xi^-}O$& 16.0& 5.5& 1& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
284: &&&& \\
285: $^{28}_{\Xi^-}Al$& 23.2& 6.8& 1& -2& \cite{Ba90} \\
286: &&&& \\
287: \end{tabular}
288:
289: %=======================
290: The convention used in Table 1 (as well as in the text) is $^A_{Y^q}Z$ where Z is the net charge, Y is the hyperon type with charge q and, A is the total number of baryons \cite{Ba90,Hara90}. There exists another convention in the literature in which one uses $^A_{Y^q}Z_c$ for denoting the hypernuclei, where $Z_c$ is the number of protons. Therefore, according to this other convention, the hypernucleus $^4_{\Sigma^+} He$ of the present manuscript will be $^4_{\Sigma^+} H$. Also, $^{10}_{\Theta^+} Li $ would be $^{10}_{\Theta^+ }He$, and $^{11}_{\Theta^+} Be$ would be $^{11}_{\Theta^+} Li$.
291: %=====================
292: \end{table}
293:
294:
295: Here we calculate the root mean square deviation i.e., r.m.s. $(\sigma)$ for the hyperon separation energies where, $\sigma^2 ~=~ (1/N)\Sigma~[(S_Y)_{Th.}-(S_Y)_{Ex.}]^2$. Due to small number of data, simultaneous 3 parameter search does
296: not yield any meaningful result. After many trial searches we fixed the value of $c_0=0.0335$ and made two parameter
297: search using 35 $\Lambda$ hypernuclei data which yielded $c_1$=27.59 (45) and $c_2$= 48.6 (21) with r.m.s.=1.416 MeV.
298: For better results from actual plotting of the graphs, $c_1$=26.7 was chosen and, keeping it fixed, a two parameter search
299: with 35 $\Lambda$ hypernuclei data lead to $c_0$=0.0327 (4) and $c_2$=48.6 (21) with r.m.s. deviation 1.416 MeV.
300: Finally we fixed $c_1$=26.7 and $c_2$=48.7
301: and performed a one parameter search with 35 $\Lambda$ hypernuclei data. This leads to $c_0$=0.0327 (2) with
302: r.m.s.=1.375 MeV. We fixed $c_0$=0.0335 which yielded best results for the two parameter fit. Finally, from the overall best
303: fit to all the data (r.m.s $\sim$ 1.4 MeV), we choose $c_0$=0.0335; $c_1$=26.7 and $c_2$=48.7 in eqn.(5).
304:
305: \begin{eqnarray}
306: B(A,Z) = &&a_vA-a_sA^{2/3}-a_cZ(Z-1)/A^{1/3}-a_{sym}(N-Z_c)^2/[(1+e^{-A/k})A]+\delta_{new} \nonumber\\
307: && + n_Y [0.0335 m_Y - 26.7 - 48.7 \mid S \mid / A^{2/3}], \nonumber\\
308: \label{seqn7}
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: \noindent
311:
312: The hyperon separation energy $S_Y$ defined as
313:
314: \begin{equation}
315: S_Y = B(A,Z)_{hyper} - B(A-n_Y, Z_c)_{core},
316: \label{seqn8}
317: \end{equation}
318: \noindent
319: is the difference between the binding energy of a hypernucleus and the binding energy of
320: its non-strange core nucleus.
321:
322: It is interesting to note
323: that this single equation yields the values of $S_Y$ in reasonable agreement with the available
324: experimental data of all known bound hypernuclei.
325: Fig.[1] shows plots of $S_Y$ versus A for $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda \Lambda$ hypernuclei
326: which are in good agreement with the experimental data \cite{Ba90}, \cite{Ta01}.
327: The recent discovery of the $^{10}_{\Lambda}Li$ nucleus points to a value of
328: $S_Y \cong 10-12 MeV$ \cite{Saha05} where the
329: BWMH predicts $S_{\Lambda} [^{10}_{\Lambda}Li] = 11.4 MeV$. The BWMH prediction of $S_Y$ for
330: the $_{\Lambda\Lambda}^6He$ also agrees well [Fig.1(b)] with the recent experimental
331: value $7.3 \pm 0.2 MeV$ of Takahashi et al. \cite{Ta01}.
332:
333: Harada et al. investigated the structure of $^4_\Sigma He$ by the coupled-channel calculation between the $^3H + \Sigma^+$ and the
334: $^3He + \Sigma^0$ channels and predicted the $\Sigma^+$ binding energy in $^4_\Sigma He$ to be $3.7$ to $4.6 MeV$ \cite{Hara90}.
335: Available experimental binding energy values are $4.4 \pm 0.3 \pm 1 MeV$ \cite{Naga98}, $2.8 \pm 0.7 MeV$ \cite{Outa94}, $4 \pm 1 MeV$ \cite{Haya92}. The BWMH predicts
336: binding energy of $\Sigma^0$ ($m_Y = 1192.55 MeV$) and $\Sigma^+$ ($m_Y = 1189.37 MeV$) in $^4_{\Sigma^0}He$
337: (=$\Sigma^0$ + $^3_2 He$) as $2.69 MeV$ and $^4_{\Sigma^+}He$ (=$\Sigma^+$ + $^3_1 H$) as $1.6 MeV$ respectively.
338: Search for heavier $\Sigma$ hypernuclei has been carried out by several authors \cite{Saha04}, \cite{Naga98},
339: \cite{Outa94}, \cite{Haya92}, \cite{Sa98}, \cite{Bart99} without success.
340: P. K. Saha et al. studied inclusive ($\pi^-$, $K^+$) spectra on
341: C, Si, Ni, In and Bi targets and concluded that a $\Sigma$-nucleus potential is strongly repulsive in such relatively heavy nuclei \cite{Saha04}.
342: It has been suggested that the binding of the Sigma in the light hypernuclear species like $^4_\Sigma He$ is mainly due to a strong isovector term of the Sigma-nucleus potential which emphasizes the differences of the Sigma-N interaction in the isospin T=1/2 and the T=3/2 channels. This term is not present in the BWMH formula. Nevertheless, without changing any parameter, this single general equation (BWMH) reproduces the binding energy of the 'bound' $^4_\Sigma He$ hypernucleus.
343: %=========
344: As mentioned before, the theoretical formulation suggests that
345: the binding energy of the light Sigma hypernuclear species is provided by the isospin dependent Lane term (associated to the isospin asymmetry of the core) not included in the BWMH formula. Thus the binding energy of BWMH obtained for light hypernuclei comes from the isospin-averaged (i.e. isospin independent) term which provides attraction, while recent analysis on heavier Sigma hypernuclei (dominated by this isospin independent term of the Sigma-nucleus potential) suggest repulsion. For $\Sigma^{0} + ^2H$, $\Sigma^{+} + ^2H$, and $\Sigma^{-} + ^2H$ hypernuclei the separation energies predicted by BWMH are -3.53 MeV, -4.62 MeV and -3.37 MeV respectively indicating that these light Sigma hypernuclei would be unbound,
346: %============
347: even if the potential is attractive.
348: %========
349: In fact, so far no bound state of these hypernuclei could be found in the experiment. Indeed, further data on Sigma hypernuclei are necessary to determine more conclusively whether the Sigma feels attraction or repulsion.
350: %=========
351:
352: Recent experimental data for $\Xi^-$ + $^{12} C$ and
353: $\Xi^-$ + $^{11} B$ are not conclusive and predict values in the range of 3 to 10 MeV depending on the $\Xi^-$ well
354: depth \cite{Fu98} while, Khaustov et al. suggests potential depth to be less than 20 MeV \cite{Kh00}.
355: In absence of any new conclusive data, we used the available data tabulated in Ref.~\cite{Ba90}.
356: BWMH estimations for the $\Xi^-$ separation energies compare well with the
357: experimental values (Fig. 2a). As no experimental data exists so far on the bound Theta hypernuclei,
358: the $\Theta^+$ separation energies are compared with the recent theoretical predictions and the $S_Y$ of
359: $\Theta^+$ are found to be close to the quark mean field (QMF) calculations \cite{Sh05}.
360:
361:
362: Analysis of each term of eqn.(8) reveals that the $\delta$ term has very little
363: contribution (positive) in $S_Y$. The $a_{sym}$ term difference also contributes positive but, quite
364: small except at very high $\mid (N-Z_c) \mid$. The $a_s$ term difference (asd) is always negative and being more
365: so at small A (Fig.3). For q=0, the Coulomb term difference (acd) contributes positive but very small for all A.
366: For q=-1 it is positive and increases rapidly with $A$ while for q=+1, the acd is negative and decreases
367: rapidly with $A$. In the $\Theta^+$ plot [Fig. 2(b)] a maximum at low A and decrease in $S_Y$
368: values at large $A$ arise mainly due to increasing contribution from the
369: "strangeness term" (i.e., sterm1= $-48.7 \mid S \mid / A^{2/3}$), surface term (asd) and decreasing (negative) contribution
370: from the Coulomb term (fig.3c). For $q=0$ and $-1$ such maxima in Lambda plot
371: [Fig. 1(a),1(b)] and $\Xi^-$ plot [Fig. 2(a)] are absent as asd, acd and sterm1 terms make increasing
372: contributions with A (fig.3a, 3b).
373:
374:
375: Interestingly, the large masses of hyperons make some strongly bound
376: hypernuclei whose non-strange core nuclei might be unbound. For example, BWMH shows that the prediction for
377: the hyperon separation energy $S_Y$ for the $^{10}_{\Theta+}Li$ hypernucleus is 26.4
378: $MeV$ and that for the $^{11}_{\Theta+}Be$ hypernucleus is 25.1 $MeV$, the cores of which
379: (i.e., $^{9}He$ and $^{10}Li$ respectively) are known to be unbound. BWMH predicts
380: the $\Theta^{+} +^{12}C$
381: binding energy to be 23.24 MeV where as, the same for the
382: $\Lambda +^{12}C$ binding energy is 12.65 MeV. This shows that compared to the
383: $\Lambda$ hyperons, the $\Theta^{+}$ hyperons will be more
384: strongly bound in a nucleus. This finding is in consonance with the prediction of
385: Zhong et al. \cite{Zh05} and QMF calculation \cite{Sh05}.
386:
387:
388: It is pertinent to note that unlike the previous two mass formulae \cite{Do93}, \cite{Le98}
389: the BWMH mass formula does not jeopardize the normal nuclear matter properties. Fig.4 shows that the BWMH predicts the
390: line of stability quite well while the mass formula of Dover et al. \cite{Do93} shows mismatch
391: for medium and heavy nuclei. The mass formula of Levai et al. \cite{Le98}
392: although reproduces the line of stability, it does not reproduce the binding energy
393: versus mass number ($A$) plot (Fig. 5a) of non-strange light nuclei such as, $^6 Li$ \cite{Au03}.
394: Mass formula of Dover et al. also shows marked deviations for isotopes with larger neutron
395: numbers. The sharp oscillations in the experimental neutron separation
396: energy ($S_n$) versus $A$ plots (Fig. 5b) are reproduced by BWMH but, not by the other two as
397: the pairing term is altogether absent in the mass formula of
398: Dover et al. \cite{Do93} and, in case of the mass formula of Levai et al. \cite{Le98} it is too
399: small. The incompressibility of infinite nuclear matter \cite{Ba04} obtained using the energy
400: co-efficient $a_v$ of the volume term is about 300 MeV \cite{Bc04} for BWM (and BWMH) which is
401: within the limits of
402: experimental values while the mass formula of Levai et al. \cite{Le98} predicts values in the
403: range of 400-480 MeV which
404: are too high to be realistic. The presence of Majorana term in the mass formula of Levai et al.
405: (eqns. (6) and (8) of \cite{Le98}) also poses a serious problem
406: that the binding energy per nucleon diverges as mass number $A$ goes to infinity.
407: This violates the nuclear saturation properties. As BWMH
408: is not plagued with such divergence problems and nuclear saturation properties are well
409: preserved for large $A$, this mass formula will be useful for extension to astrophysics
410: related problems, like equation of state of a neutron star.
411:
412: In summary, a single mass formula (BWMH) valid for both non-strange normal
413: nuclei and strange hypernuclei is prescribed by introducing hyperon mass
414: and strangeness dependent SU(6) symmetry breaking terms in the
415: modified-Bethe-Weizs\"acker mass formula (BWM). The BWMH preserves the
416: normal nuclear matter properties. Due to delicate balance amongst the
417: surface, strangeness and Coulomb contributions, a maximum in $q=+1$
418: hyperon separation energies is found near lower A values along with a
419: decreasing trend at larger A. This feature is absent in hypernuclei with
420: $q=0$ and $q=-1$ hyperon(s). Hyperon separation energies calculated by
421: BWMH are in good agreement with the available experimental data on 'bound'
422: nuclei, including $^4_\Sigma He$. Heavier Sigma-hypernuclei were predicted
423: to be unbound for repulsive Sigma-nucleus potential \cite{Saha04}. As BWMH
424: does not account for the repulsive potential, it predicts high binding
425: energies for the heavy Sigma hypernuclei which contradicts the present
426: wisdom. On the other hand, several authors have predicted that
427: Theta-hypernuclei would be bound more strongly than Lambda hypernuclei.
428: Quark mean field estimates for the Theta-separation energies are now
429: available for medium to heavy-mass Theta-hypernuclei \cite{Sh05} and those
430: predictions are in close agreement with the BWMH predictions. It is
431: noteworthy that BWMH can predict separation energies of both light and
432: heavy hyper-nuclei.
433: In view of the proposed search of the elusive $\Theta^+$ hypernuclei and
434: for many other hypernuclei which are predicted to be 'bound' (but their binding energies are unknown)
435: the present mass formula is expected to provide a useful guideline.
436:
437: We gratefully acknowledge G. Levi for sending us an useful compilation of some experimental data on hypernuclei.
438:
439: \begin{references}
440:
441: \bibitem{Ba90} H. Bando, T. Motoba and J. Zofka 1990 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 4021; see references therein.
442:
443: \bibitem{Ta01} H.Takahashi et al. 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 212502 .
444:
445: \bibitem{Do93} Carl B. Dover and A.Gal 1993 Nucl. Phys. A 560, 559 .
446:
447: \bibitem{Fu98} T. Fukuda et al. 1998 Phys. Rev. C 58, 1306 .
448:
449: \bibitem{Kh00} P. Khaustov et al. 2000 Phys. Rev. C 61, 054603 .
450:
451: \bibitem {Saha04} P.K. Saha et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. C 70, 044613 .
452:
453: \bibitem{Hara90} T. Harada et al. 1990 Nucl. Phys. A 507, 715 .
454:
455: \bibitem{Naga98} T. Nagae et al. 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1605 .
456:
457: \bibitem{Outa94} H. Outa et al. 1994 Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 117, 177 ; H. Outa (1996) Hyperfine Interact. 103, 227.
458:
459: \bibitem{Haya92} R. S. Hayano 1992 Nucl. Phys. A547, 151c.
460:
461: \bibitem{Sa98} R.I. Sawafta 1998 Nucl. Phys. A 639, 103c .
462:
463: \bibitem{Di97} D. Diakonov, V. Petrov, M. Polyakov 1997 Z. Phys. A359, 305.
464:
465: \bibitem{Na03} T.Nakano et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012002 .
466:
467: \bibitem{ZC05} Q. Zhao and F. Close 2005 J. Phys. G31, L1 ; see references there in.
468:
469: \bibitem{Cl05} F. Close 2005 Nature, 435, 287 .
470:
471: \bibitem{Mi04} G. A. Miller 2004 Phys. Rev. C 70, 022202 .
472:
473: \bibitem{Ca05} D.Cabrera, Q.B. Li, V.K. Magas, E. Oset and M.J. Vicente Vacas 2005 Phys. Lett. B 608, 231.
474:
475: \bibitem{Zh05} X. H. Zhong et al. 2005 Phys. Rev. C71 015206 .
476:
477: \bibitem{Sh05} H.Shen and H.Toki 2005 Phys. Rev C71, 065208
478:
479: \bibitem{Le98} G. Levai, J. Cseh, P. Van Isacker and O. Juillet 1998 Phys. Lett. B 433, 250 .
480:
481: \bibitem{Gu64} F. Gursey and L.A. Radicati 1964 Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 173.
482:
483: \bibitem{Ka05} N. Kaiser and W. Weise 2005 Phys. Rev. C 71, 015203.
484:
485: \bibitem{Sa02} C. Samanta and S. Adhikari 2002 Phys. Rev. C 65, 037301.
486:
487: \bibitem{Ad04} S. Adhikari and C. Samanta 2004 IJMPE 13, 987 .
488:
489: \bibitem{Cs04} C. Samanta and S. Adhikari 2004 Phys. Rev. C 69, 049804 .
490:
491: \bibitem{SA04} C. Samanta and S. Adhikari 2004 Nucl. Phys. A 738, 491.
492:
493: \bibitem{Ch88} Robert E.Chrien 1988 Nucl. Phys. A 478, 705c .
494: \bibitem{Maj95} L. Majling 1995 Nucl. Phys. A 585, 211c.
495: \bibitem{Pile91} P. H. Pile et al 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2585.
496: \bibitem{Lala88} G. A. Lalazissis, M. E. Grypeos and S. E. Massen 1988 Phys. Rev. C 37, 2098.
497: \bibitem{Lala94} G. A. Lalazissis 1994 Phys. Rev. C 49, 1412.
498: \bibitem{Hase96} T. Hasegawa et al 1996 Phys. Rev. C 53, 1210.
499: \bibitem{Aoki91} S. Aoki et al 1991 Prog. Theo. Phys. 85, 1287.
500: \bibitem{Dov91} C. B. Dover, D. J. Millener, A. Gal and D. H. Davis 1991 Phys. Rev. C 44, 1905.
501:
502: \bibitem{Saha05} P.K.Saha et al. 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 052502 .
503:
504: \bibitem{Bart99} S. Bart et al. 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5238 .
505:
506: \bibitem{Au03} G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra and C. Thibault 2003 Nucl. Phys. A 729, 337.
507:
508: \bibitem{Ba04} D.N. Basu 2004 Jour. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 30, B7 .
509:
510: \bibitem{Bc04} D.N. Basu and P. Roy Chowdhury, arXiv:nucl-th/0408013.
511:
512:
513:
514:
515: \end{references}
516:
517: \begin{figure}[h]
518: \eject\centerline{\epsfig{file=Plot-Lambdas.eps,height=20cm,width=15cm, angle=0}}
519: \vskip 1.0cm
520: \caption
521: { Hyperon separation energy $S_{Y}$ versus mass number $A$ for (a) single $\Lambda$
522: ($m_Y$=1115.63 $MeV$) predicted by BWMH (solid),
523: Dover et al. [3] (top most, dashed-line) and Levai et al. [20] (dotted) and experimental
524: values [1,~2] (rombus with error bars) and,
525: (b) double $\Lambda$ predicted by BWMH (solid), and Levai et al. [20] (dotted) and experimental
526: values [1,~2] (rombus with error bars). In the inset the three
527: data points of double $\Lambda$ are shown with predictions of BWMH.
528: In all the figures, lines are added only as guides to the eyes. }
529: \label{fig1}
530: \end{figure}
531:
532: \begin{figure}[h]
533: \eject\centerline{\epsfig{file=Plot-Cascade-Theta.eps,height=20cm,width=15cm, angle=0}}
534: \vskip 1.0cm
535: \caption
536: { Hyperon separation energy $S_{Y}$ versus mass number $A$ for
537: (a) single $\Xi^-$ ($m_Y$=1321.32 $MeV$) and experimental
538: values [1] and, (b) single
539: $\Theta^+$ ($m_Y$=1540 $MeV$)
540: separation and quark mean field calculations of Shen and Toki [19].}
541: \label{fig2}
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: \begin{figure}[h]
545: \eject\centerline{\epsfig{file=termdiff.eps,height=15cm,width=10cm, angle=0}}
546: \caption
547: {Contribution from Surface (asd), Coulomb (acd) and Strangeness (sterm1) term differences
548: to the hyperon separation energies (eqn.8) for
549: (a) $\Lambda^0$,
550: (b) $\Xi^-$ and (c) $\Theta^+$.}
551: \label{fig3}
552: \end{figure}
553:
554: \begin{figure}[h]
555: \eject\centerline{\epsfig{file=Plot-zs.eps,height=16cm,width=12cm, angle=-90}}
556: \vskip 1.0cm
557: \caption
558: { The BWMH, Dover et al. [3] and Levai et al. [20] predictions for line of
559: stability and experimentally observed stable nuclei [37]. Predictions of BWMH and Levai et al
560: are almost identical and those of Dover et al. deviate from the experimental values in heavier nuclei. }
561: \label{fig4}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: \begin{figure}[h]
565: \eject\centerline{\epsfig{file=Plot-LiBe-SrSn.eps,height=20cm,width=15cm, angle=0}}
566: \vskip 1.0cm
567: \caption
568: { Predictions of BWMH, Dover et al. [3] and Levai et al. [20]
569: and the experimental data [37] for (a) binding energy versus mass number $A$ for Z=3 and
570: (b) the one neutron separation energy versus A for Z=38. }
571: \label{fig5}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: \end{document}
575:
576:
577:
578: