1: %\documentclass[final]{iopart}
2: \documentclass[12pt,final]{iopart}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
5: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\f}[1]{\frac{#1}{2}}
9: \def\be{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \def\ee{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \def\bd{\begin{displaymath}}
12: \def\ed{\end{displaymath}}
13: \def\nn{\nonumber}
14: \def\ga{\gamma}
15: \def\sl{^-\!\!\!\!}
16: \newcounter{saveeqn}
17: \begin{document}
18: \title[RMF study of neutron rich C and Be isotopes]
19: {Relativistic mean field study of neutron rich even-even C and Be isotopes}
20: \author{G. Gangopadhyay\dag
21: \footnote[3]{Corresponding author (gautam@cucc.ernet.in)}
22: and Subinit Roy\ddag}
23:
24: \address{\dag Department of Physics, University of Calcutta,
25: 92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata-700 009, India\\
26: \ddag Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Block AF, Sector 1,
27: Kolkata- 700 064, India}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: Ground state properties of neutron rich even-even Be and C nuclei have been
31: investigated using Relativistic Mean Field
32: approach in co-ordinate space. The positions of the neutron drip line are
33: correctly predicted for both the elements. The nucleus $^{14}$Be shows
34: a two neutron halo but, contrary to expectation, $^{22}$C does not exhibit
35: any halo structure. In carbon nuclei, N=16 comes out as a new
36: magic number. The single particle
37: level ordering observed in stable
38: nuclei is found to be modified in neutron rich Be isotopes.
39: Elastic partial scattering cross sections for proton scattering in inverse
40: kinematics have been calculated using the theoretically obtained densities
41: for some of the nuclei and compared with available experimental data.
42: The total cross cross sections for elastic scattering have also
43: been calculated for all the nuclei studied showing a large increase
44: for the halo nucleus $^{14}$Be. The nuclei have also been
45: investigated for deformation. The nuclei $^{10}$Be and $^{16,18,20}$C
46: are observed to be deformed in their ground state.
47:
48:
49: \end{abstract}
50: \pacs{21.60.Jz, 21.10.Gv, 17.20.+n, 27.30.+t}
51:
52: \maketitle
53: \clearpage
54: \section{Introduction}
55: The last fifteen years have been an exciting time for nuclear physics.
56: With the giant leaps in detection systems and accelerator technologies,
57: particularly with the availability of radioactive ion beams, the old
58: theories have been severely tested as never before. The limits of nuclear
59: stability are now being probed and yielding surprising results.
60: Major surprises in low energy nuclear structure include the
61: disappearance of the normal shell closures
62: observed near the stability valley along with the
63: emergence of new magic numbers
64: and neutron halo in nuclei very close to the
65: drip line\cite{exotic}. The effect of the halo may be observed in different
66: reactions involving these nuclei. In particular, though electron scattering
67: is the most direct probe of nuclear density,
68: it is difficult to apply in nuclei far away from the valley of
69: stability. Elastic proton scattering in inverse kinematics
70: provides a test for the calculated densities\cite{EP}.
71: In the present work, we study the structure of exotic even-even Be and
72: C nuclei and calculate the elastic proton scattering cross sections
73: using the theoretical densities.
74:
75: Beryllium and carbon isotopes show a number of interesting features.
76: The neutron drip line in beryllium is at
77: $^{14}$Be which is known to be a two-neutron halo nucleus.
78: The drip line nucleus for carbon isotopes is $^{22}$C which
79: may also have a similar halo.
80: It has also been suggested that N=16 is a new spherical magic number
81: \cite{PRL}.
82: Our aim is to see how well Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) calculations
83: can explain these different observed features in these nuclei.
84:
85: There has been a number of nonrelativistic mean field calculations for the
86: binding energy and radius in these nuclei\cite{Sag}.
87: Patra\cite{Pat} has studied a number of light nuclei including Be and C
88: isotopes using RMF approach. Ren \etal have studied Be nuclei
89: using density dependent RMF \cite{Ren1} and C \cite{Ren2} nuclei with RMF.
90: The radius and binding energy of $^{14}$Be have been reproduced in their
91: calculation. Gmuca have studied various Be isotopes using the relativistic
92: mean field approach\cite{Gmuca}.
93: Sharma \etal\cite{Sh} have studied the exotic carbon isotopes in
94: a relativistic theory.
95: Sugahara \etal \cite{Su} have also studied these nuclei using
96: relativistic and non-relativistic theories.
97: Recently, deformed relativistic Hartree Bogoliubov (RHB) calculation employing
98: the force NL3\cite{NL3}
99: in oscillator basis has also been
100: performed to describe $^{11-14}$Be and $^{14-22}$C nuclei\cite{Lal} among
101: others.
102: Most of the available calculations in this region use
103: the harmonic oscillator basis.
104: Spherical RHB approach has also been used \cite{Po} to study C nuclei.
105:
106: Though there has been a number of calculations in the RMF approximation for
107: Be and C nuclei, most of them use the harmonic oscillator basis. However,
108: the basis expansion method may not be able to describe loosely bound states
109: in halo nuclei. Calculations in RHB approach in r-space are also available.
110: However, they are very involved and time consuming. We
111: have used the co-ordinate space RMF+BCS approach to study these nuclei
112: and to compare the results with thaose of RHB calculation
113: in co-ordinate space.
114:
115: \section{Theory}
116:
117: RMF\cite{RMF} calculation is now a standard tool to investigate the
118: structure of the nucleus. It has been able to explain different features
119: of stable and exotic nuclei like ground state binding energy, deformation,
120: radius, excited states, spin-orbit splitting, neutron halo, etc\cite{RMF1}.
121: Relativistic calculations have been known to give good description of
122: nuclei near the drip line. For example, it has been possible to describe the
123: halo in even the very light nuclei $^{11}$Li\cite{Meng}. This could be done
124: without any artificial adjustment of the potential as required in the previous
125: nonrelativistic calculations. Our aim is to see whether relativistic mean field
126: calculations can also correctly describe the different features in Be and C
127: nuclei. It is worthwhile
128: to note that in $^{14}$Be, the binding energy and radius could be reproduced
129: in an RMF calculation\cite{Ren1}.
130: The starting point is the relativistic Lagrangian for point nucleons
131: interacting via exchange of the
132: scalar-isoscalar meson $\sigma$, the vector-isoscalar meson $\omega$, the
133: vector-isovector meson $\rho$ and the photon. RMF is known to give a good
134: description of spin orbit splitting and is thus ideally suited for
135: investigating the magic numbers in nuclei away from the stability valley.
136: In recent years, efforts have been made to develop a energy
137: density functional which will be applicable to all nuclei in their ground as
138: well as excited states and to nuclear matter. Within the relativistic
139: framework, effective interactions have been constructed
140: with density dependent meson nucleon couplings\cite{dd} for this purpose.
141: These recent developments are motivated by the fact that the success of the
142: RMF approach is now explained from the point of view
143: of effective field theory and the density functional theory. For example,
144: the nonlinear terms in the Lagrangian are now considered to introduce
145: additional density dependence in the energy functional. The parameters
146: of the Lagrangian have been obtained by fitting different experimental
147: observations and may be interpreted in this approach to already contain the
148: vacuum contributions.
149: In
150: quantum hadrodynamics effective field theoretical Lagrangians explicitly
151: include the basic symmetries of QCD and thus may be considered as
152: its true representation in the low energy nuclear physics.
153: The readers are referred to recent literature
154: \cite{Serot} for additional details.
155:
156: In the conventional RMF+BCS approach for even-even nuclei, the Euler-Lagrange
157: equations obtained are solved under the assumptions of classical meson
158: fields, time reversal symmetry, no-sea contribution, etc. Pairing is introduced
159: under the BCS approximation. Both constant gap and constant strength methods
160: as well as other approaches in pairing have been used in different works. Very
161: often the resulting equations are solved\cite{Gam} in a harmonic oscillator
162: basis. However, in exotic nuclei, the basis expansion method using
163: harmonic oscillator, because of its incorrect asymptotic properties, faces
164: problems in describing the loosely bound halo states. A solution of the
165: Dirac and Klein Gordon
166: equations in co-ordinate space may be preferable to describe the weakly bound
167: states. Because these nuclei studied are very close to the drip line, one has
168: to consider the effect of the positive energy states also. In this work, we
169: have calculated the resonant state by studying localization of the scattering
170: wave function except for the $\nu s_{1/2}$ state. This method has been
171: applied in the nonrelativistic Hartree Fock \cite{conpair} as well as
172: relativistic mean field formalism\cite{con}.
173: The $\nu s_{1/2}$ state could
174: not be localized because there is no Coulomb or centrifugal barrier for this
175: state. Thus we have to use the box normalization condition for the positive
176: energy $\nu s_{1/2}$ state which occurs only in $^{10}$Be among the nuclei
177: studied in the present work.
178: These positive energy levels are of finite width whose effect in pairing can be
179: incorporated following Ref. \cite{conpair}. However, because the contribution
180: of these levels are expected to be small, we have assumed these levels to be
181: of zero width at the resonance energy.
182: In the very light mass region, where we are interested, pairing energy is very
183: small. We have followed two procedures in pairing, both in
184: constant gap approximation. In one
185: we have taken the pairing gaps as $\Delta_p=\Delta_n=0.2$. This prescription
186: has been followed by Ren \etal\cite{Ren2}. In the other
187: we have adjusted the gap parameters so as to reproduce
188: the pairing energy obtained in the spherical RHB calculation described below.
189: This method has been successfully followed in many works\cite{Bh}.
190: We call these two procedures RMF-I and RMF-II, respectively. We find
191: that there is very little difference between the two approaches.
192:
193: A more accurate treatment of the drip line nuclei involves RHB approximation
194: which has been studied in a number of previous works. We have compared the
195: results of our RMF+BCS calculation with that of RHB approach
196: using the same force NLSH. The RMF+BCS
197: calculation is much simpler and less time consuming compared to a full RHB
198: calculation. We want to compare the results of the two approaches, particularly
199: for the density distribution.
200: For the RHB calculation, we have used the code spnRHBfem\cite{cpc}.
201: For the finite range interaction, the $J=0$ part of
202: nonrelativistic Gogny interaction D1S\cite{D1S} has been chosen.
203:
204: The RMF+BCS approach in co-ordinate space was modified to study deformed nuclei also\cite{GG}. We have adopted this method to study the deformation of these
205: nuclei. The quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta_2$ is calculated from the
206: total quadrupole moment using the relation
207:
208: \bea Q_{n,p}= \sqrt{\frac{16\pi}{5}}\frac{3}{4\pi}(N,Z)R_0^2\beta_{2n,p}\eea
209: with $R_0$=1.2A$^{1/3}$fm.
210:
211:
212: We have applied the force NLSH\cite{NLSH} in the co-ordinate space RMF approach
213: to calculate the ground state properties in neutron rich Be and C nuclei.
214: We have also checked our results with the force NL3. However,
215: as discussed later, we find that
216: the agreement in binding energy, particularly for the drip line nuclei,
217: is better in the case of the NLSH force.
218:
219: Although electron scattering is the most direct method for measuring the
220: density in stable nuclei\cite{ES}, it is difficult to apply in regions far
221: away from the valley of stability. Elastic proton scattering in inverse
222: kinematics, alternatively, also
223: provides a test for the calculated densities\cite{EP}. We have calculated
224: the elastic
225: scattering cross section for scattering of the nuclei from proton target at
226: 55$A$ MeV energy with the optical model potential (OMP) generated in a
227: semi-microscopic approach. The OMP is obtained using the effective interaction
228: derived from the nuclear matter calculation of Jeukenne, Lejeune, and Mahaux
229: (JLM)\cite{JLM74} in
230: the local density approximation (LDA) by substituting the nuclear matter density
231: with the calculated density distribution of the finite nucleus. Further
232: improvement is incorporated in terms of the finite range of the effective
233: interaction by including a Gaussian form factor. The calculation has been
234: performed with the computer codes MOMCS\cite{MOMCS} and ECIS95\cite{ECIS}
235: assuming spherical symmetry. We have used the global parameters for the
236: effective interaction and the respective default normalizations for the
237: potential components from Refs. \cite{MOMCS} and \cite{MOM} with Gaussian
238: range values of $t_{real}=t_{imag}=1.2$ fm. No search has been performed on
239: any of these parameters. It has been shown previously that JLM calculation
240: can reproduce the proton plus unstable nucleus elastic scattering, when a
241: realistic nuclear matter density distribution is used \cite{EP}.
242:
243: \section{Results}
244:
245:
246: We have studied the structure of $^{10,12,14}$Be and $^{14,16,18,20,22}$C.
247: In Table \ref{tab1} our results for binding energy and radius values
248: in the spherical limit are given and compared with experimental measurements
249: wherever available. All the theoretical values in this table have been
250: calculated using the force NLSH.
251: The calculated results for binding energy are in reasonable
252: agreement with experimental measurements. Later we will show that this agreement
253: improves with the inclusion of deformation degree of freedom. The results for
254: different type of
255: radii are in excellent agreement with experimental values in most of the cases.
256: One can also see that the results of RMF-I calculation do not significantly
257: differ from that of RHB calculation except for the radius of $^{14}$Be where
258: the latter is closer to the experimental value.
259: Sandulescu \etal\cite{con} have pointed out that this difference is
260: generally common near the drip line and can be attributed to the different ways
261: of pairing calculation in the two methods. The occupancies of narrow resonances
262: with high angular momenta is higher in RHB calculation. This is a consequence of
263: the large energy cut off employed in the RHB (or HFB) approach which makes the
264: Fermi sea more diffuse, thus increasing the scattering to loosely bound narrow
265: resonances with high angular momenta. The RMF calculations, on the other hand,
266: predict higher occupancy of broader low angular momentum resonances. The radius
267: near the drip line is very sensitively dependent on the occupancy of the
268: localized orbits. The high spin states are more localized due to
269: larger centrifugal barrier. Increased occupancy for them translates into
270: smaller radius for RHB calculation.
271:
272: As expected, the RMF-II calculation gives a better agreement with the RHB
273: calculation. In all the other features studied in the present approach in the
274: spherical limit the three methods agree very well among themselves and we
275: present the results of RMF-I only for them unless otherwise mentioned.
276:
277: The single particle neutron levels in Be are given in Fig. 1. A level
278: inversion occurs with the $2s_{1/2}$ state coming down below the $1d_{5/2}$
279: state. The former becomes weakly bound in $^{12,14}$Be. This inversion is
280: essential for the nucleus $^{14}$Be to be bound. However, neither the
281: RMF+BCS scheme, nor the RHB approach can predict the
282: parity inversion in neutron rich Be nuclei, which has been observed in
283: $^{11}$Be. This inversion also could not be explained by a full scale
284: shell model calculation\cite{SM} and the authors of that work have suggested
285: that the effect of three body forces should be included to explain the
286: phenomenon. Although the RMF forces contain contributions from higher
287: body forces, both the presently used parameterizations, {\em i.e.} NLSH and
288: NL3 fail in this regard.
289:
290: In Fig. 2, we plot the nucleon densities in
291: $^{12,14}$Be for a spherical calculation in co-ordinate space as well as
292: the RHB result. The RMF+BCS densities are indicated by the solid lines,
293: and the RHB densities, by the dashed lines. The proton densities are
294: very similar in both the nuclei. The neutron halo in
295: $^{14}$Be is clearly seen in both the calculations.
296:
297: The calculated single particle levels in $^{18,20,22}$C are shown in Fig. 3.
298: The RMF-I results are compared with those of RHB calculation. One can see
299: that for the negative energy levels, the RMF+BCS calculation agrees very well with the
300: more involved RHB approach.
301: A difference
302: between the single particle neutron structures of Be and C isotopes is
303: readily seen.
304: In C isotopes, the level
305: inversion between the $1d_{5/2}$ and the $2s_{1/2}$ single neutron levels
306: does not
307: occur though the latter comes very close to the former. Another
308: important difference is the binding energy of the last filled level. The
309: $2s_{1/2}$ state is bound by more than 3 MeV. Hence, the wave function of
310: this state does not extend to a very large value unlike the results
311: of calculation in $^{14}$Be and the predicted neutron radius is actually
312: smaller than that expected for a halo nucleus.
313:
314: The nucleon densities in $^{16,18,20,22}$C have been shown in Fig. 4.
315: Once again, the results of the RMF+BCS and the RHB calculations
316: agree very well. Both the calculations
317: indicate that the neutron density distribution
318: of $^{20}$C and $^{22}$C are not substantially different. This is
319: another aspect of the fact that according to our calculation, the nucleus
320: $^{22}$C does not have a two neutron halo. It has been suggested
321: that the neutron number N=16 is the new magic number in neutron rich nuclei.
322: In the present work, the gap between the $2s_{1/2}$ and the $1d_{3/2}$ level
323: comes out to be nearly 5 MeV in accordance with the above prediction.
324:
325:
326: To check whether the results in the present calculation depend on the
327: particular force chosen, we have compared the results of the NLSH force with
328: those of another similar nonlinear force, NL3.
329: We have followed the procedure of RMF-I, {\em i.e.}
330: performed a constant gap calculation with $\Delta_n=\Delta_p=0.2$.
331: As mentioned earlier, the agreement in the case of binding energy
332: obtained with the NL3 force is poorer, particularly as the neutron
333: number increases. Thus, in the case of $^{12}$Be, the predictions
334: from NLSH and NL3 forces are 4.992 MeV and 5.086 MeV, respectively.
335: Similarly, for $^{22}$C, the corresponding values are 5.568 MeV and
336: 5.662 MeV, respectively. However, the general pattern of the ground state
337: properties, including the level inversion mentioned above, and the density are
338: the same for both the forces.
339:
340:
341: In Fig. 5, the results of the model calculation for angular distribution of
342: elastic scattering of $^{12,14}$Be and $^{20,22}$C from proton target in
343: inverse kinematics with density distributions taken from the RMF calculation
344: have been plotted.
345: We have come across only one experimental result for elastic scattering
346: among all the nuclei, {\em viz.} for $^{12}$Be at an energy of 55A MeV\cite{EL}.
347: For all the results above the energy is taken to be 55A MeV.
348: The theoretical results are compared with the
349: experimental data taken from \cite{EL}. As is apparent from the above
350: discussion, the density patterns obtained from RMF and RHB calculation are
351: very similar. Hence, we find that the scattering cross sections obtained
352: using those density profiles are nearly identical in the two cases and
353: have shown the scattering cross section in the
354: RMF approach only. One can see that the trend of the
355: scattering angular distribution can be satisfactorily explained by the present
356: calculation without any further adjustment of the parameters of the effective
357: interaction. No other experimental
358: data is available for elastic proton scattering for the nuclei studied in the
359: present work. In Fig. 6, we have
360: plotted the total cross sections for elastic proton scattering in inverse
361: kinematics. The beam energy in each case is $55A$ MeV. The smooth lines
362: show the $A^{2/3}$ behaviour. Although in both the chains, the calculated
363: values show an increase over the $A^{2/3}$ behaviour, one can see that for
364: $^{14}$Be, there is a large increase in the total cross section over the
365: corresponding value for $^{12}$Be. In the case of C nuclei, the rise is more
366: gradual, even for $^{20}$C-$^{22}$C. This smooth rise in the cross section
367: is due to the fact that our calculation does not predict a two neutron halo in
368: $^{22}$C. Thus an experimental measurement of total elastic scattering
369: cross section can verify the presence or absence of two neutron halo in
370: the dripline Be and C isotopes.
371:
372: We have also studied the nuclei for deformation in RMF-I and RMF-II formalism.
373: The nuclei $^{12}$Be and $^{14,22}$C are found to be spherical
374: in agreement with the fact that the neutron number N=8 and N=16 are
375: magic numbers. In this regard, our calculation agrees with the RHB
376: results of Lalazissis \etal\cite{Lal}. We also have observed $^{14}$Be to
377: be spherical.
378: All the other nuclei show varying degree of deformation.
379: The results of our calculation for binding energy and quadrupole deformation
380: after the inclusion of deformation are
381: presented in Table 2. For deformed nuclei, the calculation selfconsistently
382: converges to
383: the two coexistent minima, prolate and oblate, according as one starts
384: with a positive or a negative initial deformation.
385: One can see that in all these nuclei, the agreement
386: between the calculated binding energy and experimental measurements
387: improve for deformed solutions. Also, in most cases the proton and neutron
388: deformation are substantially different from each other.
389: In all the deformed nuclei studied, solutions for prolate
390: and oblate deformation are very close in energy.
391: We find that our results agree with that of the deformed RHB calculation
392: of \cite{Lal} except in a few cases as discussed.
393: The nucleus $^{10}$Be, which has not been studied in Ref. \cite{Lal}, comes
394: out
395: to be strongly deformed. Here, the proton deformation is much larger than
396: the corresponding neutron one.
397: In $^{14}$Be, because
398: of the level inversion, the last two neutrons occupy the $2s_{1/2}$ level
399: instead of the deformation driving $\Omega$=5/2 orbital of the $1d_{5/2}$
400: level as expected from level ordering observed near stability valley.
401: Hence its ground state comes out to be spherical in contrast to Ref. \cite{Lal},
402: where the ground state is obtained as strongly deformed. In $^{16}$C, the
403: prolate and the oblate solutions come out to be nearly degenerate.
404: This was observed in Ref. \cite{Lal} also. Similarly, in $^{18}$C, although the
405: ground state comes out to be prolate, the binding energy of the oblate solution
406: is only about 150 keV less. The nucleus $^{20}$C is again observed to be oblate.
407: In contrast, the deformed RHB calculation \cite{Lal} suggests that both
408: $^{18,20}$C are oblate in their ground states. Lalazissis \etal have
409: noted that because of the close lying self-consistent minima, it is not always
410: possible for the mean field theories to accurately predict the sign of the
411: deformation.
412: In all the deformed C isotopes, proton distribution is very weakly deformed while
413: the neutron distribution, except for the case of the prolate solution in
414: $^{20}$C, show moderate to large deformation. For comparison with
415: the density obtained in the spherical solution, we plot in Fig. 7, the
416: monopole (L=0) and the quadrupole (L=2) components of the neutron and proton
417: densities in $^{16}$C from the deformed calculation as well as the densities
418: obtained in the spherical approach, both using RMF-I.
419: One can see that the monopole components of the deformed distribution is
420: similar to the spherical results
421: except at the core where the latter is slightly depressed for neutrons. At
422: larger distances the neutron distribution has a substantial contribution coming from the quadrupole component.
423:
424: To check whether the disagreement in the ground state shape in
425: $^{14}$Be between the present calculation and \cite{Lal} is due to
426: the different force used or the essentially different methods adopted,
427: we have employed the NL3 force in our calculation. In the resultant
428: prolate solution, the proton distribution is nearly spherical. On the other
429: hand, the neutron distribution shows a prolate deformation with
430: $\beta_{2n}=0.16$
431: which corresponds to a small mass deformation $\beta_2=0.11$. In
432: comparison, the RHB calculation of Lalazissis \etal \cite{Lal}, have
433: predicted a very large mass deformation (nearly 0.4). One of the reasons
434: of this large difference may be the fact that the RHB calculation, as
435: mentioned earlier, involves a large number of positive energy levels
436: while the RMF+BCS calculation includes only a few levels around the
437: Fermi energy.
438:
439: Overall, we find that our results for binding energy and radii in all
440: the C isotopes studied in the present calculation are in better agreement
441: with experimental or empirical values than the oscillator basis calculation\cite{Sh} which uses the forces NLSH or TM1. In $^{22}$C, because of the new magic
442: number N=16, our calculations predict a spherical ground state. It is also
443: better than or comparable to other relativistic calculations\cite{Pat,Ren2,Lal}
444: in oscillator basis in the Be isotopes using various forces in this regard.
445: For example, the deformation values obtained in Carbon isotopes in the present
446: approach are more in agreement with the RHB results than the oscillator basis
447: calculations.
448: Thus we may conclude that near the drip line co-ordinate space calculation in
449: many cases is better than basis expansion approach and is comparable to the
450: more involved RHB approach.
451:
452:
453: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
454:
455: The structure of neutron-rich C and Be nuclei have been studied in
456: co-ordinate space RMF calculation and compared with results of RHB
457: approach. The position of the neutron drip
458: line is correctly predicted in both the elements. In Be isotopes, the
459: $\nu 2s_{1/2}$ level comes below the $\nu 1d_{5/2}$ level, providing the
460: drip line nucleus $^{14}$Be with a two neutron halo. On the other hand,
461: in $^{22}$C, this inversion does not occur. Moreover, in $^{22}$C the
462: last filled level
463: is bound by about more than 3 MeV and there is no two-neutron halo.
464: The much simpler RMF+BCS approach agrees very well with the RHB results.
465: The
466: densities calculated have been used to construct optical model
467: potentials for proton scattering. The calculated differential cross section
468: for elastic proton scattering in inverse kinematics compares favourably
469: with experiment. The total elastic scattering cross section values for
470: different nuclei have also been calculated. It
471: shows a sudden increase at the neutron halo nucleus $^{14}$Be.
472: We have also studied the effect of including the deformation degree of freedom.
473: The nuclei $^{10}$Be and $^{16,18,20}$C come out to be deformed. The agreement
474: of the prediction for ground state binding energy with experimental
475: measurement improves substantially with the inclusion of deformation.
476: Here again, the agreement with
477: deformed RHB calculation is noteworthy. In many cases, the co-ordinate space
478: calculations are seen to be better than basis expansion approach.
479:
480: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgment}
481:
482: A part of the calculation was done using the computer facilities provided
483: under the DSA Programme by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
484:
485: \clearpage
486: \section*{References}
487:
488: \begin{thebibliography}{}
489: \bibitem{exotic} See {\em e.g.} Jonson B 2004 {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 389} 1 and
490: references therein.
491: \bibitem{EP} Alamanos N and Roussel-Chomaz P 1996 {\em Ann. Phys. Fr.} {\bf 21} 601%\APP
492: \bibitem{PRL} Ozawa, A, Kobayashi T, Suzuki T, Yoshida K, Tanihata I 2000
493: \PRL {\bf 84} 5493
494: \bibitem{Sag} See {\em e.g.} Sagawa H and Toki H 1987 \jpg {\bf 13} 453 \\
495: Li X and Heenen P -H 1996 \PR C {\bf 54} 1617 \\
496: Shen Y -S and Ren Z 1996 \PR C {\bf 54} 1158 \\
497: Bai X and Hu J 1997 \PR C {\bf 56} 1410\\
498: Bai X and Hu J 1997 \PL {\bf 395B} 151
499: \bibitem{Pat} Patra S K 1993 \NP {\bf A559} 173 (1993)
500: \bibitem{Ren1}Ren Z, Xu G, Chen B, Ma Z and Mittig X 1995, \PL
501: {\bf 351B}, 11\\
502: Ren Z, Mittig W, Chen B, Ma Z, Auger G and Xu G 1995
503: \PR C {\bf52}, R1764
504: \bibitem{Ren2} Ren Z, Zhu Z Y, Cai Y H and Xu G 1996 \NP {\bf A605}
505: 75
506: \bibitem{Gmuca} Gmuca S 1997 {\em Acta. Phys. Hung. N.S.} {\bf 6} 99
507: \bibitem{Sh} Sharma M M, Mythili S, and Farhan A R 1999 \PR C {\bf 59}
508: 1379
509: \bibitem{Su} Sugahara Y, Sumiyoshi K, Toki H, Ozawa A and Tanihata I 1996
510: {\em Prog. Theor. Phys. (Kyoto)} {\bf 96}, 1165
511: \bibitem{NL3} Lalazissis G A, K\"{o}nig J and Ring P 1997 \PR C{\bf 55}
512: 540
513: \bibitem{Lal} Lalazissis G A, Vretenar D and Ring P 2004 {\em Eur. Phys. J. } A
514: {\bf22} 37
515: \bibitem{Po} Poschl W, Vretenar D, Lalazissis G A, and Ring P 1997 , \PRL {\bf 79}, 3841 \\
516: Meng J, Zhou S -G and Tanihata I 2002
517: \PL {\bf 532B}, 209
518: \bibitem{RMF} Duerr H -P 1955 \PR {\bf 103} 469 \\
519: Boguta J and Bodmer A R 1977 \NP {\bf A292} 413 \\
520: Serot B D and Walecka J D 1979 \PL {\bf 87B} 172
521: \bibitem{RMF1} See {\em e.g.} Ring P 1996 {\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 37}
522: 193
523: \bibitem{Meng} Meng J and Ring P 1996 \PRL {\bf 77} 3963
524: Meng J, P\"{o}schl W and Ring P 1997 \ZP {\bf A 358} 123
525: \bibitem{dd} Niksi\'{c} T, Vretenar D and Ring P 2002 \PR C {\bf 66}
526: 064302\\
527: Lalazissis G A, Niksi\'{c} T, Vretenar D and Ring P 2005 \PR C {\bf 71}
528: 024312
529: \bibitem{Serot} See {\em e.g.}
530: Furnstahl R J and Serot B D 2000 \NP {\bf A 663\&664} 513c\\
531: Furnstahl R J and Serot B D 2000 \NP {\bf A671} 447\\
532: Furnstahl RJ 2004 {\em Lect. Notes Phys.} {\bf 641}, 1
533: \bibitem{Gam} Gambhir Y K, Ring P and Thimet A 1990 \APNY {\bf 198}
534: 132
535: \bibitem{conpair}Sandulescu N, Van Giai N, Liotta R J 2000 \PR C {\bf 61} 061301
536: \bibitem{Bh} See {\em e.g.} Hemlatha M, Bhagwat A, Shrivastava A,
537: Kailas S and Gambhir Y.K. 2004 \PR C {\bf 70} 044320
538: \bibitem{con}Sandulescu N, Geng L S, Toki H and Hillhouse G 2003 \PR C {\bf 68}
539: 054323
540: \bibitem{cpc} P\"{o}schl W, Vretenar D and Ring P 1997 {\em Comp. Phys. Comm.}
541: {\bf 103} 217
542: \bibitem{D1S}Berger J F, Girod M and Gogny D, \NP {\bf A428}, 32 (1984)
543: \bibitem{GG} Gangopadhyay G 1999 \PR C. {\bf 59}, 2541
544: \bibitem{NLSH} Sharma M M, Nagarajan M A, and Ring P 2003 \PL
545: {\bf 312B}, 377
546: \bibitem{ES}Frois B and Papanicolas C N 1987 {\em Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}
547: {\bf 37} 133
548: \bibitem{JLM74} Jeukenne J P, Lejeune A and Mahaux C 1974 \PR C {\bf 14}1391
549: \bibitem{MOMCS} Baugei E, Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, Bruyeres-Le-Chatel,
550: France, v 1.01.
551: \bibitem{ECIS} Raynal J 1994 CEA report no. CEA-N-2772
552: \bibitem{MOM}Bauge E, Delaroche J P and Girod M 2001 \PR C {\bf 63}, 024607
553: \bibitem{AWT}Audi G, Wapstra A H and Thibault C 2003 \NP {\bf A729} 337
554: \bibitem{OST}Osawa A, Suzuki T and Tanihata I 2002 \NP {\bf A 693} 32
555: \bibitem{rn}Liatard E \etal 1990 {\em Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 13} 401
556: \bibitem{SM}Fross\'{e}n C, Navr\'{a}til P, Ormand W E and Caurier E 2004
557: Arxiv Nuc. Th. 0412049.
558: \bibitem{EL}Korsheninnikov A A \etal 1995 \PL {\bf 343B}, 53
559: \end{thebibliography}
560: \clearpage
561: \begin{table}
562: \caption{Binding energy and radius in Be and C isotopes in the spherical
563: approach for NLSH force. Experimental binding energy values are from the compilation
564: \cite{AWT}. Experimental r.m.s. radii values are from \cite{OST} and are
565: results of Glauber model analysis in the optical limit. Experimental neutron
566: radii for C isotopes are from \cite{rn}.\label{tab1}}
567: \center
568: \begin{tabular}{ccclll}\cline{1-6}
569: $^AZ$& &B.E./A(MeV)&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Radius(fm)}\\
570: &&&r$_p$&r$_n$&r$_{rms}$\\\hline
571: $^{10}$Be &Expt.& 6.498 && & 2.30(2)\\
572: &RMF-I& 6.192 &2.19 & 2.42 & 2.33\\
573: &RMF-II& 6.192 &2.19 & 2.42 & 2.33\\
574: &RHB& 6.188 & 2.19&2.42&2.33\\
575: $^{12}$Be &Expt.& 5.721& &&2.59(6)\\
576: &RMF-I& 5.855&2.26 & 2.73 & 2.58 \\
577: &RMF-II& 5.847&2.26 & 2.72 & 2.58 \\
578: &RHB&5.845&2.26&2.72&2.58\\
579: $^{14}$Be &Expt.& 4.994 && &3.16(38)\\
580: &RMF-I& 4.992&2.27&4.04 & 3.62\\
581: &RMF-II& 4.985&2.27&4.05 & 3.63\\
582: &RHB& 4.955 &2.27&3.69&3.35\\
583: $^{14}$C &Expt.& 7.520&&2.70(10)&2.30(7)\\
584: &RMF-I& 7.616& 2.37 & 2.56 & 2.48\\
585: &RMF-II& 7.616& 2.38 & 2.56 & 2.48\\
586: &RHB&7.612&2.38&2.56&2.48\\
587: $^{16}$C &Expt.& 6.922&&2.89(9)&2.70(3)\\
588: &RMF-I& 6.780& 2.39 & 2.93 & 2.74\\
589: &RMF-II& 6.765& 2.39 & 2.88& 2.71\\
590: &RHB&6.765&2.39&2.85&2.69\\
591: $^{18}$C &Expt.& 6.426&& 3.06(29)&2.82(4)\\
592: &RMF-I& 6.220&2.41 & 3.04 & 2.84\\
593: &RMF-II& 6.211&2.41 & 3.02 & 2.82\\
594: &RHB&6.206&2.41&3.01&2.82 \\
595: $^{20}$C &Expt.& 5.959 && &2.98(5)\\
596: &RMF-I& 5.843&2.43 & 3.16 & 2.96\\
597: &RMF-II& 5.844&2.43 & 3.12 & 2.93\\
598: &RHB&5.843&2.43&3.12&2.93\\
599: $^{22}$C &Expt.& 5.440$^1$\\
600: &RMF-I& 5.568& 2.45 & 3.38 & 3.15\\
601: &RMF-II& 5.568& 2.45 & 3.38 & 3.15\\
602: &RHB&5.565&2.45&3.36&3.14\\\hline
603: \end{tabular}
604:
605: $^1$ Estimated value
606: \end{table}
607:
608: \begin{table}
609: \caption{Calculated binding energy and deformation($\beta)$ in Be and C
610: isotopes. NLSH force has been used.
611: \label{tab12}}
612: \center
613: \begin{tabular}{crrrrrrrr}\hline
614: Nucleus & \multicolumn{4}{c}{RMF-I}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{RMF-II}\\
615: &$\beta_{2p}$&$\beta_{2n}$&$\beta_2$& B.E./A
616: &$\beta_{2p}$&$\beta_{2p}$& $\beta_2$& B.E./A \\
617: &&&& MeV &&& & MeV \\\hline
618: $^{10}$Be & 0.36 &0.14 & 0.23 &6.398& 0.37 & 0.14&0.23&6.415\\
619: &-0.24&-0.16&-0.19& 6.365 & -0.25 &-0.17 & -0.20&6.372\\
620: $^{16}$C &0.08 & 0.46 &0.32 & 6.888 & -0.11&-0.24 &-0.19&6.904\\
621: &-0.11 & -0.24 &-0.19 & 6.879 & 0.08 & 0.47 &0.32 &6.902\\
622: $^{18}$C &0.09 & 0.40 & 0.30 & 6.387 & 0.09 & 0.39& 0.29&6.375\\
623: &-0.12 & -0.39 & -0.30& 6.381 & -0.11& -0.37&-0.28 &6.365\\
624: $^{20}$C &-0.11 & -0.30 & -0.25& 5.968 & -0.12 & -0.31 & -0.25 & 5.983\\
625: & 0.04 & 0.14 & 0.11 & 5.865 & 0.03 & 0.12 &0.09&5.865\\
626: \hline
627: \end{tabular}
628: \end{table}
629: \clearpage
630:
631: \centerline{\bf List of Figure captions}
632:
633: \vskip 1cm
634:
635: \parindent 0.0cm
636: Fig. 1 : Calculated single particle neutron states in
637: $^{10,12,14}$Be in the spherical approximation. See text for details.
638:
639: Fig. 2 : Calculated proton and neutron densities in $^{12,14}$Be in the
640: spherical approximation. Neutron and proton densities are indicated by N and P,
641: respectively. The solid (dashed) line represents results of RMF+BCS(RHB)
642: calculations.
643:
644: Fig. 3 : Calculated single particle neutron states in
645: $^{18,20,22}$C in the
646: spherical approximation.
647:
648: Fig. 4 : Calculated proton and neutron densities in $^{16,18,20,22}$C in the
649: spherical approximation. See caption of Fig. 2 for details.
650:
651: Fig 5. : Partial cross section for the elastic proton scattering
652: in inverse kinematics. Energy of the projectile is 55A MeV.
653: Theoretical results are connected by the solid line. Experimental values
654: are from \cite{EL}.
655:
656: Fig 6 : Total cross section for elastic proton scattering of different
657: C and Be nuclei in inverse kinematics studied in the present work.
658:
659: Fig. 7 : Neutron and proton densities obtained in deformed and spherical
660: calculation in $^{16}$C. Neutron and proton densities are indicated by
661: N and P, respectively. See text for details.
662: \end{document}
663:
664: \begin{figure}[b]
665: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig1.eps}}
666: \caption{Calculated single particle neutron states in
667: $^{10,12,14}$Be in the spherical approximation. See text for details.}
668: \end{figure}
669:
670: \begin{figure}[b]
671: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig2.eps}}
672: \caption{Calculated proton and neutron densities in $^{12,14}$Be in the
673: spherical approximation. Neutron and proton densities are indicated by N and P,
674: respectively. The solid (dashed) line represents results of RMF+BCS(RHB)
675: calculations.}
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: \begin{figure}[b]
679: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig3.eps}}
680: \caption{Calculated single particle neutron states in
681: $^{18,20,22}$C in the
682: spherical approximation.}
683: \end{figure}
684:
685: \begin{figure}[b]
686: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig4.eps}}
687: \caption{Calculated proton and neutron densities in $^{16,18,20,22}$C in the
688: spherical approximation. See caption of Fig. 2 for details.}
689: \end{figure}
690:
691:
692:
693: \begin{figure}[b]
694: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig5.eps}}
695: \caption{Partial cross section for the elastic proton scattering
696: in inverse kinematics. Energy of the projectile is 55A MeV.
697: Theoretical results are connected by the solid line. Experimental values
698: are from \cite{EL}.}
699: \end{figure}
700:
701: \begin{figure}[b]
702: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig6.eps}}
703: \caption{Total cross section for elastic proton scattering of different
704: C and Be nuclei in inverse kinematics studied in the present work.}
705: \end{figure}
706:
707: \begin{figure}[b]
708: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{CBefig7.eps}}
709: \caption{Neutron and proton densities obtained in deformed and spherical
710: calculation in $^{16}$C. Neutron and proton densities are indicated by
711: N and P, respectively. See text for details.}
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: \end{document}
715:
716: