1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
5:
6: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
7: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
8: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Central depression in nuclear density and its consequences
13: for the shell structure of superheavy nuclei.}
14:
15: \author{A.\ V.\ Afanasjev$^{(1,2)}$, S.\ Frauendorf$^{(1,3)}$}
16:
17: %\author{A.\ V.\ Afanasjev}
18: %\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame,
19: %Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA}
20: %\affiliation{Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Institute of Solid State
21: %Physics, University of Latvia, LV 2169 Salaspils, Miera str. 31, Latvia}
22: %\author{S.\ Frauendorf}
23: %\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame,
24: %Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA}
25: %\affiliation{IKH, Research Center Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany}
26:
27:
28: \address{$^{1}$Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame,
29: Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA}
30: \address{$^{2}$Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Institute of Solid State
31: Physics, University of Latvia, LV 2169 Salaspils, Miera str. 31, Latvia}
32: \address{$^{3}$IKH, Research Center Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany}
33:
34: \date{\today}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37:
38: The influence of the central depression in the density distribution of
39: spherical superheavy nuclei on the shell structure is studied within the
40: relativistic mean field theory. Large depression leads to the shell gaps at
41: the proton $Z=120$ and neutron $N=172$ numbers, while flatter density distribution
42: favors $N=184$ for neutrons and leads to the appearance of a $Z=126$ shell gap
43: and to the decrease of the size of the $Z=120$ shell gap. The correlations
44: between the magic shell gaps and the magnitude of central depression are
45: discussed for relativistic and non-relativistic mean field theories.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \pacs{PACS: 21.10.Ft, 21.10.Gv, 21.60.Jz, 27.90.+b}
49: \maketitle
50:
51: The question of the possible existence of shell-stabilized superheavy
52: nuclei and the precise location of the magic spherical superheavy nuclei
53: has been in the focus of the nuclear physics community for more than three
54: decades \cite{HM.00}. Unfortunately, the various theoretical models do not agree
55: with respect to the magic shell gaps in superheavy nuclei.
56: The proton numbers $Z=114, 120$ and 126 and the neutron numbers $N=172$
57: and 184 are predicted by different models and parametrizations
58: \cite{RBM.02}.
59: The same models reproduce the known magic numbers
60: in lighter systems. The predicted magic numbers are of decisive importance for
61: the experimental search of superheavy nuclei.
62: In such a situation it is necessary to understand what
63: makes the predictions of the models so different in the region
64: of superheavy nuclei. One of the reasons is the appearance of a
65: central depression in the nuclear density \cite{BRRMG.99,DBDW.99},
66: which is studied in this paper.
67:
68:
69: The first predictions of superheavy nuclei were based on the
70: shell correction method, which assumes a single-particle potential
71: with a flat bottom. Nowadays, these
72: calculations predict $Z=114$ and N=184. The microscopic self-consistent
73: models start either from effective nucleon-nucleon interaction (models
74: based on the Skyrme and Gogny forces) or effective exchange of mesons
75: by nucleons (relativistic mean field (RMF) theory).
76: Although based on more fundamental principles,
77: these models do not agree among each other in predicting
78: the magic shell gaps of superheavy nuclei. In part, this is related
79: to the fact that the reliability of different parameterizations of
80: these models is verified only by comparing theoretical and experimental
81: binding energies and its derivatives (separation energies, the
82: $\delta_{2n,2p}(Z,N)$ quantities) and deformation properties \cite{AKFLA.03}.
83: These observables are not very sensitive to the energies of the
84: single-particle states. For example, it was shown in Ref.\ \cite{AKFLA.03}
85: that the NLSH and NL-RA1 parameterizations of the RMF theory provide a
86: reasonable description of these quantities in deformed actinide region
87: despite the fact that the single-particle energies are poorly reproduced.
88: Accurate single-particle energies
89: are crucial for predicting the shell gaps in superheavy nuclei. However,
90: the accuracy of the description of the single-particle states
91: in deformed region of the heaviest actinides has been tested only for
92: few parameterizations of the RMF theory \cite{AKFLA.03} and Skyrme SLy4
93: functional \cite{BBDH.03}. The shell correction approach is based on
94: phenomenological potentials which reproduce the single particle levels
95: of the actinides best. However, the assumption of a flat bottom
96: radial profile is a severe source of error when extrapolating
97: to spherical superheavy nuclei.
98:
99: Self-consistent microscopic calculations find a central depression in the
100: nuclear density distribution \cite{BRRMG.99,DBDW.99}, which generates
101: a wine-bottle nucleonic potential. Its magic numbers differ
102: from the ones of the phenomenological flat-bottom potentials. The present
103: manuscript studies the influence of this depression on
104: the shell structure of spherical superheavy nuclei. As a theoretical tool
105: we use the RMF theory for spherical nuclei without pairing \cite{R.96} and
106: the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) theory \cite{ARK.00}.
107:
108:
109: %------------------------------------------------------------
110: \begin{figure}
111: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=8.5cm]{fig-1}
112: \caption{\label{z120n172-sp}Single-particle spectra of ground state
113: (indicated as 'g-s') and excited (indicated as 'exc-s') configurations
114: in $^{292}120_{172}$ system obtained in the RMF calculations with the
115: NL3 force. Solid and dashed lines are used for positive and negative
116: parity, respectively. Solid and open circles indicate the occupied and
117: empty orbitals, respectively. In the ground state, all subshells below
118: $Z=120$ and $N=184$ are fully occupied. For the g-s configuration,
119: the spin-orbit partners $3p_{1/2}, 3p_{3/2}$ and $3d_{3/2}, 3d_{5/2}$
120: show up at very close energy. In the excited configuration, only 12
121: particles are excited from
122: the subshell $\nu 1j_{15/2}$: 4 particles still reside in this
123: subshell. The spherical shell gaps of interest are indicated.}
124: \end{figure}
125: %-------------------------------------------------------------
126:
127: Fig.\ \ref{z120n172-sp} compares the single-particle spectrum of a
128: wine-bottle potential (g-s) with the one of a flat-bottom
129: potential (exc-s). The details of the potentials will be discussed later.
130: The differences are easy to understand. The high-$j$ orbitals are
131: localized mostly near the surface, whereas the low-$j$ orbitals have a
132: more central localization. As compared to a flat-bottom potential,
133: in general the high-$j$ orbitals are more and the low-$j$ orbitals are
134: less bound in an attractive wine-bottle potential. In the following
135: it is useful to distinguish between the groups of low-$j$
136: and high-$j$ single-particle states. Filling up a low-$j$ group with
137: nucleons increases the density near the center, whereas filling a high-$j$
138: group increases the density near the surface. As we shall demonstrate,
139: the occupation of these groups determines the radial profile of the
140: neutron and proton densities and potentials.
141:
142: %------------------------------------------------------------
143: \begin{figure*}
144: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=13.5cm]{fig-2}
145: \caption{\label{dens-sys} The evolution of proton and neutron densities
146: with the changes of proton and neutron numbers. Arrows indicate the group
147: of single-particle subshells which become occupied with the change
148: of the nucleon number. The figure is based on the results of spherical
149: RMF calculations without pairing employing the NL3 parametrization. The
150: shaded background is used for nuclei located beyond the
151: proton-drip line. If the indicated configuration is not lowest in energy,
152: its excitation energy (in MeV) is given by E*.}
153: \end{figure*}
154: %-------------------------------------------------------------
155:
156: We start with $^{208}$Pb. The RMF theory provides a good description of
157: the experimental charge density distribution of
158: this nucleus \cite{GRT.90,NL1}. With
159: increasing neutron and proton numbers the corresponding densities
160: are modified in the way shown in Fig.\ \ref{dens-sys}.
161: Between $Z=82$ and $Z=106$ the protons fill the high-$j$ group
162: $\pi 1i_{13/2}$, $\pi 2h_{9/2}$, between $Z=106$ and $Z=120$ they fill the
163: medium-$j$ group $\pi 2f_{7/2}, \pi 2f_{5/2}$, and between $Z=120$ and $Z=126$
164: they fill the low-$j$ group $\pi 3p_{1/2}, \pi 3p_{3/2}$. The variations of
165: the proton density are seen in the $N=172$ isotones. The filling of the
166: high-$j$ group $\pi 1i_{13/2}, \pi 2h_{9/2}$ increases the density at the
167: surface (compare $Z=82$ and $Z=106$ in Fig.\ \ref{dens-sys}). The
168: filling of medium-$j$ group $\pi 2f_{7/2}, \pi 2f_{5/2}$ adds to
169: the density between central and surface areas (see
170: $Z=120$). Finally, the filling of the low-$j$ group $\pi 3p_{1/2},
171: \pi 3p_{3/2}$ adds to the density in the near-central
172: region of nucleus (see $Z=126$).
173:
174: The analogous grouping into low-$j$ and high-$j$ subshells in the neutron
175: subsystem is illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{dens-sys}. The variation of the neutron
176: density generated by filling these groups is seen most clearly in the $Z=106$
177: isotopes. Filling the high-$j$ group $\nu 1i_{11/2}, \nu 1j_{15/2}, \nu 2g_{9/2}$
178: increases the density near the surface. Filling the low-$j$ group
179: $\nu 3d_{5/2}, \nu 3d_{3/2}, \nu 4s_{1/2}$ increases the central density
180: and filling the high-$j$ group $\nu 1j_{13/2}, \nu 2h_{11/2}, \nu 1k_{17/2}$
181: adds to the surface region again. Analyzing the published results, we found that
182: the grouping into high/medium/low-$j$ subshells shown in Fig.\ \ref{dens-sys}
183: appears in all models/parametrizations (cf. Fig.\ \ref{z120n172-sp} in the
184: present manuscript and Figs.\ 4, 9, 13, and 15 in Ref.\ \cite{BRRMG.99}).
185:
186: As seen in Fig.\ \ref{dens-sys}, the combined occupation of the high-$j$
187: neutron subshells $2g_{9/2}$, $1j_{15/2}$, $1i_{11/2}$ [and medium-$j$ $2g_{7/2}$]
188: and proton $1h_{9/2}$ and $1i_{13/2}$ [and medium-$j$ $2f_{7/2}$] subshells
189: leads to a central depression in the nuclear density
190: between $Z=106$ and $Z=120$ and $N=164$ and $N=172$, which is especially
191: pronounced in the $Z=120,N=172$ system. As seen from the density
192: variations in Fig.\ \ref{dens-sys},
193: the proton subsystem plays a larger role in the creation of the central depression.
194: This result differs from the results of the Skyrme calculations with the SkI3
195: parametrization \cite{BRRMG.99}, the authors of which claim that the
196: central depression is mainly due to the occupation
197: of neutron subshells. The appearance of the central depression is a consequence
198: of the different density distributions of the single-particle states: high-$j$
199: orbits are located near the surface and low-$j$ orbits near the center.
200: This generic feature is dictated by the nodal structure of the wave
201: functions in a leptodermic potential. Hence, the high-$j$ proton and neutron
202: orbitals will modify the radial profile in a comparable way. However, the high-$j$
203: proton orbitals should be more efficient, because the Coulomb interaction pushes
204: them to larger radii.
205:
206:
207:
208: %------------------------------------------------------------
209: \begin{figure}
210: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=8cm]{exc-z120n172}
211: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=8cm]{fig-3}
212: \caption{\label{dens-pot-z120n172} Density distributions (upper row),
213: nucleonic ($V+S$, middle row) and $V-S$ (bottom row) potentials
214: in the ground (g-s) and excited (exc-s) configurations of $^{292}120_{172}$.
215: $S$ and $V$ are attractive scalar and repulsive vector potentials,
216: respectively. The left column shows
217: the proton system and the right the neutron system. The proton and neutron
218: density distributions of $^{208}$Pb are shown in upper panels for comparison.}
219: \end{figure}
220: %-------------------------------------------------------------
221:
222: %------------------------------------------------------------
223: \begin{figure}
224: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=7cm]{dens-model-fig}
225: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=7cm]{fig-4}
226: \caption{\label{dens-oth-mod}
227: Neutron and proton densities of $^{292}120_{172}$ obtained
228: in different models/parametrizations. The densities obtained with Skyrme
229: and Gogny forces are taken from Refs.\ \protect\cite{BRRMG.99,BBDGD.01}.}
230: \end{figure}
231: %-------------------------------------------------------------
232:
233: Let us study the interplay between the geometry of the single-particle orbitals,
234: the appearance of the central depression in the density and the shell structure
235: in more detail. One possibility is to generate a flatter density distribution
236: in the central part of nucleus by exciting particles
237: from high-$j$ subshells to low-$j$ subshells.
238: Fig.\ \ref{z120n172-sp} shows an example of such an excitation in the
239: $^{292}120_{172}$ system. Here 12 neutrons are excited from the
240: $1j_{15/2}$ subshell into $3d_{5/2}$, $3d_{3/2}$ and $4s_{1/2}$ subshells.
241: In this excited (called 'exc-s') configuration the neutron density distribution
242: in the central part of nucleus is much flatter than in the ground state (called
243: 'g-s') configuration, and its profile is very similar to the one in $^{208}$Pb
244: (Fig.\ \ref{dens-pot-z120n172}b). The changes in neutron density are fed back
245: to proton density, because the isovector interaction tries
246: to keep them alike. As a consequence, the proton density distribution becomes
247: also flatter (Fig.\ \ref{dens-pot-z120n172}a) but density fluctuations due to
248: shell effects remain visible. The nucleonic $V+S$ (Fig.\ \ref{dens-pot-z120n172}c,d)
249: potential and the $(V-S)$ (Fig.\ \ref{dens-pot-z120n172}e,f) potential,
250: which in first approximation is related to the spin-orbit potential
251: via $V_{ls}({\bf r})=\frac{m}{m^*({\bf r})}(V({\bf r})-S({\bf r}))$ \cite{Vls},
252: reflect the density change: they becomes flatter in the central part of nucleus.
253: This effect is especially pronounced in the proton nucleonic potential: the
254: 'wine-bottle' radial shape is replaced by a 'flat-bottom' one. Another consequence
255: of this excitation is an increase of the surface diffuseness both in the densities
256: and in the potentials.
257:
258:
259: The various RMF forces are characterized by different compression moduli $K_{\infty}$
260: (NL-Z [$K_{\infty}=173$ MeV], NL3 [$K_{\infty}=272$ MeV] and NLSH
261: [$K_{\infty}=355$ MeV]). As expected, the magnitude of central depression in densities
262: and potentials increases with the decrease of compression modulus. However,
263: the changes in the energies of single-particle states, densities and potentials induced
264: by our probing particle-hole excitation do not depend sensitively on the compressibility.
265:
266: As a result of the flattening of the nucleonic potential the energies of the
267: single-particle states are changed as described above (see Fig.\ \ref{z120n172-sp}).
268: The shifts are larger in the proton subsystem because the proton central potential
269: is more flattened than the neutron one. We see the $Z=126$ proton gap emerging
270: and the size of the $Z=120$ gap decreasing. To a lesser extend, the $N=172$
271: neutron gap decreases and the $N=184$ gap increases. The flattening of the $(V-S)$
272: potential increases the splitting of the spin-orbit pairs [$\pi 3p_{1/2}$,
273: $\pi 3p_{3/2}$],
274: [$\nu 3d_{3/2}$, $\nu 3d_{5/2}$], and
275: [$\pi 2f_{5/2}$ and $\pi 2f_{7/2}$]. The spin-orbit splitting of the
276: last pair of orbitals generates the $Z=114$ shell gap predicted
277: by a number of models. The present results clearly show that a flatter
278: density distribution leads to a larger splitting between these orbitals.
279:
280: We have studied further excitations that induce a flatter density
281: distribution. In all cases we found the above-mentioned dependence
282: of the size of the $Z=120,126$ and $N=172,184$ shell gaps on the magnitude
283: of the central density depression. Our results are consistent with the HFB
284: studies with the Gogny D1S force, which employ an external potential in order
285: to induce the central depression \cite{DBDW.99}: large $N=184$ and $Z=126$
286: shell gaps were found for the values of the external potential that generate
287: a flat density distribution and large $Z=120$
288: and $N=172$ shell gaps for the values that generate a central depression (see
289: Fig.\ 2 in Ref.\ \cite{DBDW.99}).
290:
291: Due to the isovector force, which tries to keep the neutron and
292: proton density profiles alike, there is a mutual enhancement of the
293: $Z=120$ and $N=172$ gaps, both being favored by the wine-bottle potential,
294: and of the $Z=126$ and $N=184$ gaps, both favoured by the flat bottom
295: potential. For the same reason the gaps are smaller for the combination
296: $Z=126$ and $N=172$, and the $Z=120$ gap does not develop for $N=184$.
297: This behavior is not expected to depend much on the
298: density functional chosen. Indeed, a number of Skyrme calculations
299: (SkI3, SkI4, SkI1, SLy6), which show a large $Z=120$ gap in the $^{292}120_{172}$
300: system, do not show double shell closure at $Z=120,N=184$ \cite{RBBSRMG.97}.
301: These generic features are also seen in the calculations with Gogny D1S force
302: (Fig.\ 2 of Ref.\ \cite{BBDGD.01}), with the SkI1 (Fig.\ 2 in Ref.\ \cite{RBBSRMG.97}),
303: and SkI3, SkI4, SkP (Figs.\ 6, 7, and 8 in Ref.\ \cite{BRRMG.99}) Skyrme
304: forces, and with the RMF NL3 and NL-Z2 forces (Fig.\ 2 in Ref.\ \cite{KBNRVC.00}).
305:
306: Let us consider the $^{292}120_{172}$ system, which is a doubly magic superheavy
307: nucleus in RMF theory. Both relativistic and non-relativistic (Gogny D1S, Skyrme
308: parametrizations with low isoscalar effective mass $m^*/m$ such as SkI3,
309: SLy6 \cite{BRRMG.99}) show a pronounced central depression (see Fig.\
310: \ref{dens-oth-mod}). These density functionals are characterized by similar
311: values of $m^*/m$ (Gogny D1S [$m^*/m=0.67$], Skyrme SkI3 [$m^*/m=0.57$] and SLy6
312: [$m^*/m=0.69$] \cite{BRRMG.99}. These values should be compared with RMF Lorentz
313: effective mass of the nucleon at the Fermi surface $m^*(k_F)/m\approx 0.66$
314: \cite{BRRMG.99}, since effective mass is momentum-dependent in the RMF theory
315: \cite{JM.89}. The central depression is much smaller in the Skyrme calculations
316: with SkP (Fig.\ \ref{dens-oth-mod}) and SkM* forces (Ref.\ \cite{BRRMG.99}) which
317: have high values of isoscalar effective mass $m^*/m=1$ and $m^*/m=0.789$, respectively.
318: The development of a more pronounced central depression for the density functionals with
319: low effective mass may be understood as follows. In the surface region, the ratio
320: $m^*/m$ changes from its value $<1$ in the interior to 1 in the exterior. Classically,
321: nucleons with given kinetic energy are more likely to be found in regions with high
322: effective mass than
323: in the regions with low one because they travel with lower speed. This is reflected by the
324: Thomas-Fermi expression for the nucleonic density
325: $\rho \propto [2 m^*(\epsilon_F-V)]^{3/2}$.
326: The increase of the effective mass in the surface
327: region favours the transfer of mass from the center there, which makes the above discussed
328: polarization mechanism of the high-$j$ orbitals more effective for functionals
329: with low effective mass.
330: Based on this argument we suggest that a flatter radial profile is a generic feature of
331: the density functionals with an effective mass close to one.
332: It would be interesting to investigate if the Skyrme functionals of this type
333: systematically give flatter density distributions than the ones with a
334: low effective mass.
335:
336: All experimentally known nuclei with $Z\geq 100$ are expected to be deformed
337: \cite{HM.00,O.01}. The deformation leads to a more equal distribution of the
338: single-particle states emerging from the high-$j$ and low-$j$ spherical subshells
339: (see, for example, the Nilsson diagrams in Figs.\ 3-4 in Ref.\ \cite{CAFE.77})
340: than for spherical shape. Thus, the density profile of deformed nuclei is relatively
341: flat \cite{AF.lim04}, strongly resembling the one used in phenomenological potentials.
342: This together with a careful fit of the single-particle energies to the deformed
343: nuclei in heavy actinide region explains the success of the shell correction method
344: \cite{MN.94,PS.91}. However, this method neglects the self-consistent rearrangement
345: of single-particle levels due to the appearance of a central depression in spherical
346: superheavy nuclei. Thus predictions of magic numbers for superheavy nuclei within
347: the shell correction method should be considered with caution.
348:
349: We have deliberately excluded from our study the forces NLSH and NL-RA1 [RMF]
350: and SkI4 [Skyrme], which give a $Z=114$ shell gap in self-consistent calculations.
351: This is because they provide a poor description of either the energies of single-particle
352: states in deformed actinide $A\sim 250$ nuclei \cite{AKFLA.03,B.03} or of the
353: spin-orbit splitting \cite{BRRMG.99}. The energy splitting between deformed states
354: emerging from the $2f_{7/2}$ and $2f_{5/2}$
355: subshells is well described by the RMF NL1 and NL3 \cite{AKFLA.03} and Skyrme SLy4
356: \cite{BBDH.03} forces, which give a small $Z=114$ shell gap.
357: In our opinion, these results make the predicted shell gaps at $Z=120,126$ and
358: $N=172,184$ most likely. As discussed above, their
359: appearance and combination depends on the magnitude of the central depression.
360: The RMF theory gives a pronounced double shell closure at $Z=120,N=172$.
361: The non-relativistic theories (Gogny \cite{BBDGD.01}, Skyrme \cite{RBBSRMG.97,KBNRVC.00})
362: give a large shell gap at $N=184$ and less pronounced gaps at $Z=120$ and 126,
363: the size of which strongly depends on neutron number. For example,
364: the Skyrme forces with high effective mass (SkM*, SkP) tend to predict a double
365: shell closure at $Z=126,N=184$, while those with low effective mass
366: (SkI1, SkI3, SkI4, SLy6) show a large gap at $Z=120$ for $N=172$, which becomes
367: smaller or disappears when approaching $N=184$.
368:
369: In RMF theory, the $N=172$ gap lies between the subshells $\nu 3d_{5/2}$ and
370: $\nu 2g_{7/2}$, which form a pseudospin doublet \cite{KBNRVC.00}. The
371: analysis of their deformed counterparts in the $A\sim 250$ region shows that the
372: experimental energy distance between the pseudospin partners $\nu 1/2[620]$ and
373: $\nu 3/2[622]$ is well reproduced, which supports the predicted existence of a
374: gap at $N=172$ (see Fig.\ 28 in Ref.\ \cite{AKFLA.03}). However, taking into account
375: the typical uncertainty of the description of the single-particle states in
376: best-tested RMF parametrizations, one cannot exclude a large gap at
377: $N=184$ \cite{AKFLA.03}. For this to take place, the energy of $\nu 4s_{1/2}$
378: state has to be overestimated by approximately 1 MeV.
379:
380: In summary, the influence of the filling of the spherical subshells on
381: the radial density profile and shell structure of superheavy nuclei has
382: been studied. The occupation of high-$j$ subshells decreases the density
383: in the central part of the nucleus, the occupation of low-$j$ subshells
384: increases it. The polarization due to high-$j$ orbitals generates a
385: central depression of the density for nuclei with $Z\approx 120$ and/or
386: $N\approx 172$, which is particularly pronounced for the combination
387: $Z=120,N=172$, because both the proton and the neutron subsystems induce
388: a central depression. This large central depression produces large shell gaps
389: at $Z=120$ and $N=172$. The occupation of low-$j$ orbitals by means of either
390: multi-particle-hole excitations or of the increase of $Z,N$ beyond $Z=120,N=172$
391: removes the central depression and reduces these
392: shell gaps. The shell gaps at $Z=126$ and $N=184$ are favored
393: by a flat density distribution in the central part of nucleus. The magnitude
394: of central density depression correlates also with the effective mass of
395: nucleons: low effective mass favors the large central depression.
396: The similarties and differences between non-relativistic and relativistic
397: mean field models in the predictions of magic shell gaps in spherical
398: superheavy nuclei were discussed.
399:
400: \begin{acknowledgements}
401: The work was supported by the
402: DoE grant DE-F05-96ER-40983.
403: \end{acknowledgements}
404:
405:
406: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
407:
408: \bibitem{HM.00} S.\ Hofmann and G.\ M{\"u}nzenberg, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.
409: 72, 733 (2000).
410:
411: \bibitem{RBM.02} P.-G.\ Reinhard, M.\ Bender and J.\ A.\ Maruhn, Comments
412: Mod.\ Phys., Part C 2, A177 (2002).
413:
414: \bibitem{BRRMG.99} M.\ Bender, K.\ Rutz, P.-G.\ Reinhard,
415: J.\ A.\ Maruhn, W.\ Greiner, Phys.\ Rev. 60 (1999) 034304
416:
417: \bibitem{DBDW.99} J.\ Decharge, J.-F.\ Berger, K.\ Dietrich, and
418: M.\ S.\ Weiss, Phys.\ Lett. B 451, 275 (1999).
419:
420: \bibitem{AKFLA.03} A.\ V.\ Afanasjev, T.\ L.\ Khoo, S.\ Frauendorf,
421: G.\ A.\ Lalazissis, and I.\ Ahmad, Phys.\ Rev. C 67, 024309 (2003).
422:
423: \bibitem{BBDH.03} M.\ Bender, P.\ Bonche, T.\ Duguet and P.-H.\ Heenen,
424: Nucl.\ Phys. A 723, 354 (2003).
425:
426: \bibitem{R.96} P.\ Ring, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf 37}, 193 (1996)
427:
428: \bibitem{ARK.00} A.\ V.\ Afanasjev, P.\ Ring and J.\ K{\"o'}nig,
429: Nucl.\ Phys. A676, 196 (2000).
430:
431: \bibitem{GRT.90} Y.\ K.\ Gambhir, P.\ Ring and A.\ Thimet,
432: Ann. of Phys. (1990)
433:
434: \bibitem{NL1} P.-G.\ Reinhard, M.\ Rufa, J.\ Maruhn, W.\ Greiner
435: and J.\ Friedrich, Z.\ Phys. {\bf A323}, 13 (1986).
436:
437: \bibitem{BBDGD.01} J.-F.\ Berger, L.\ Bitaud, J.\ Decharge,
438: M.\ Girod, and K.\ Dietrich, Nucl.\ Phys. A 685 (2001) 1c
439:
440: \bibitem{Vls} W.\ Koepf and P.\ Ring, Z.\ Phys. A 339, 81 (1991).
441:
442: \bibitem{RBBSRMG.97} K.\ Rutz, M.\ Bender, T.\ B{\"u}rvenich, T.\ Schilling,
443: P.-G.\ Reinhard, J.\ A.\ Maruhn, and W.\ Greiner, Phys.\ Rev. C56, 238
444: (1997).
445:
446:
447: \bibitem{KBNRVC.00} A.\ T.\ Kruppa, M.\ Bender, W.\ Nazarewicz,
448: P.-G.\ Reinhardt, T.\ Vertse and S.\ Cwiok, Phys.\ Rev. C 61,
449: 034313 (2000).
450:
451: \bibitem{JM.89} M.\ Jaminon and C.\ Mahaux, Phys.\ Rev. C 40,
452: 354 (1989).
453:
454: \bibitem{O.01} Yu.\ Ts.\ Oganessian, Nucl.\ Phys. A685, 17c (2001).
455:
456: \bibitem{CAFE.77} R.\ R.\ Chasman, I.\ Ahmad, A.\ M.\ Friedman, and
457: J.\ R.\ Erskine, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys. 49, 833 (1977).
458:
459: \bibitem{AF.lim04} A.\ V.\ Afanasjev and S.\ Frauendorf,
460: to be published in AIP Conference Proceeding series
461:
462: \bibitem{MN.94} P.\ M{\"o}ller and J.\ R.\ Nix, J.\ Phys. G20, 1681
463: (1994)
464:
465: \bibitem{PS.91} Z.\ Patyk, and A.\ Sobiczewski, Nucl.\ Phys. A533, 132
466: (1991)
467:
468: \bibitem{B.03} M.\ Bender, Phys.\ Rev. C 67, 019801 (2003).
469:
470:
471:
472:
473:
474: \end{thebibliography}
475:
476: \end{document}
477:
478: