1: %% LyX 1.3 created this file. For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
3: \documentclass[twocolumn,american,aps,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
5: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7:
8: \makeatletter
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.
11: %% Bold symbol macro for standard LaTeX users
12: \newcommand{\boldsymbol}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
13:
14:
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17:
18: \usepackage{babel}
19: \makeatother
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \title{The relation between nuclear charge radii and other parameters characterizing
23: the nuclear drops.}
24:
25:
26: \author{Zbigniew Sosin}
27:
28:
29: \email{ufsosin@cyf-kr.edu.pl}
30:
31:
32: \affiliation{Jagellonian University, M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Reymonta
33: 4, PL-30059 Krak\'{o}w, Poland }
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: Correlation between the rms nucleus charge radius and their deformation,
37: isospin asymmetry, mass and charge numbers are presented. Four parameters
38: radius parametrization formula is proposed. Ratio of experimental
39: to theoretical value distribution exhibit variation equal to 0.0044,
40: i.e. it corresponds to the value of experimental errors. Observed
41: correlations can impose interesting constraints on the form of the
42: nuclear equation of state.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \pacs{21.10.Ft 21.60. -n 21.65.+f}
46:
47: \maketitle
48: In the laboratory framework the nuclear matter is available only as
49: the atomic nuclei, which can be viewed as the liquid drops of nuclear
50: matter. Because the dimension and shape of nuclei reflect complicated
51: interactions inside nuclear matter it is of great importance to find
52: correlations between the parameters describing the nuclear drops.
53: In this letter we demonstrate new simple relation between these parameters,
54: based on extensive data for 574 heavy nuclei. In particular, we choose
55: the relation between nuclear charge radii and their deformation, isospin
56: $I$, mass $A$ and charge numbers $Z$. In order to describe the
57: nucleus deformation one can introduce different kinds of the shape
58: parametrization~\cite{Moller_95}. In our approach description of
59: deformations is limited to axially symmetric quadruply deformed shapes
60: and therefore for every nuclei the respective $\beta$ parameters
61: are attributed. Thess $\beta$ parameters are assumed to be taken
62: from model calculations presented in \cite{Moller_95}.
63:
64: The reduced nuclear charged radius can be defined as\begin{equation}
65: r(Z,I,\beta)=\frac{\left\langle R^{2}\left(\beta Z,I\right)\right\rangle ^{1/2}}{A^{1/3}}\label{r_red}\end{equation}
66:
67:
68: \noindent where $\left\langle R^{2}\left(\beta Z,I\right)\right\rangle ^{1/2}$
69: is the root mean square (hereafter rms) nuclear charge radius. The
70: distribution of these reduced radii (normalized by a constant $r_{0}$,
71: as explained in the further part), based on experimental data \cite{Angeli_04}
72: for $N=574$ nuclei with $A$>100 is presented in fig. \ref{r1.epsi}
73: as a dashed line and exhibits variations about of 3\%.%
74: \begin{figure}[h]
75: \includegraphics[%
76: width=8.5cm]{r1.epsi}
77:
78:
79: \caption{\label{r1.epsi} The distribution $F_{\alpha_{\beta}\alpha_{Z}\alpha_{I}r_{0}}(\tilde{r})$.
80: The solid lines represents the distribution of $\tilde{r}$ for parameters
81: $\alpha_{\beta}$, $\alpha_{Z}$ ,$\alpha_{I}$, $r_{0}$ given by
82: (\ref{fit}). Dashed line represents this some distribution for parameters
83: $\alpha_{\beta}=0$, $\alpha_{Z}=0$, $\alpha_{I}=0$ and $r_{0}=0.945$
84: what for such case is the distribution of $r^{exp}/r_{0}$.}
85: \end{figure}
86:
87:
88: \noindent Correlations between radius $r$ and $\beta$,$Z$, $A$
89: and $I$ parameters are presented on fig. (\ref{r2.epsi}).%
90: \begin{figure}[h]
91: \includegraphics[%
92: width=8.5cm]{r2.epsi}
93:
94:
95: \caption{\label{r2.epsi} Correlation between reduced radii and respectively
96: $\beta$, $Z$, $A$ and $I$. }
97: \end{figure}
98:
99:
100: Looking at this figure, we cannot see clearly any systematical behavior.
101: This fact is related to confounded dependence on all parameters. Main
102: result of this letter is the procedure allowing us to unmask this
103: dependence and unravel generic correlations.
104:
105: \noindent Since deviations in the rms distribution are small, it is
106: natural to adopt the form of an expansion, using simple parametric
107: form\begin{equation}
108: r=r_{0}\left(1+\alpha_{\beta}\cdot\beta^{2}\right)\left(1+\alpha_{Z}\cdot\left(Z-50\right)\right)\left(1+\alpha_{I}\cdot I\right)\label{r_fit}\end{equation}
109: in which $\alpha_{\beta}$, $\alpha_{Z}$, $\alpha_{I}$ and $r_{0}$
110: are free coefficients. The dependence on $\beta^{2}$ results from
111: the dependence of rms radius on $\beta^{2}$ for quadruply deformed
112: shape. The form of the dependence on $I$ is justified by the results
113: obtained in the recent papers \cite{Sosin_06} where an important
114: observation was made, that for heavy nuclei, their nuclear rms charge
115: radii exhibit a systematic variation as a function of neutron-proton
116: asymmetry.
117:
118: We can find coefficients $\alpha_{\beta}$, $\alpha_{Z}$, $\alpha_{I}$
119: and $r_{0}$ by considering distribution of value $\tilde{r}$ defined
120: as \begin{equation}
121: \tilde{r}=\frac{r^{exp}}{r_{0}\left(1+\alpha_{\beta}\cdot\beta^{2}\right)\left(1+\alpha_{Z}\cdot\left(Z-50\right)\right)\left(1+\alpha_{I}\cdot I\right)}\label{r_tyl}\end{equation}
122: where the $r^{exp}$ is the experimental value of the reduced nuclear
123: charged radius. Now the distribution $F_{\alpha_{\beta}\alpha_{Z}\alpha_{I}r_{0}}\left(\tilde{r}\right)$
124: can be treated as a function of $\alpha_{\beta}$, $\alpha_{Z}$,
125: $\alpha_{I}$ and $r_{0}$. If the parametrization (\ref{r_fit})
126: is correct, the distribution of $\tilde{r}$ should tend to the Dirac
127: delta function $\delta(\tilde{r}-1)$ for some specific values of
128: $\alpha_{\beta}$, $\alpha_{Z}$, $\alpha_{I}$ and $r_{0}$. By minimizing
129: the variance of the distribution $F_{\alpha_{\beta}\alpha_{Z}\alpha_{I}r_{0}}\left(\tilde{r}\right)$
130: under the condition that its average value is equal to 1 the following
131: set of parameters was obtained:\begin{equation}
132: \alpha_{\beta}=0.225\;\;\alpha_{Z}=-0.00021\;\;\alpha_{I}=0.16\;\; r_{0}=0.9681\,\mathrm{fm}\label{fit}\end{equation}
133:
134:
135: To verify the equation (\ref{r_fit}), we plot on fig\emph{.} \ref{r2.epsi}
136: respective correlation and curves obtained from fit (\ref{r_fit}).
137: We notice the systematic and consistent behavior for almost all charge
138: radii, confirming the soundness of chosen parametrization.%
139: \begin{figure}[h]
140: \includegraphics[%
141: width=8.5cm]{r3.epsi}
142:
143:
144: \caption{\label{r3.epsi} Correlation between reduced radii with {}``switch-off''
145: dependence from value other than correlated one, and correlated values
146: are respectively $\beta$, $Z$, $A$ and $I$. Solid lines represents
147: for consider correlation fit given by (\ref{r_fit})}
148: \end{figure}
149:
150:
151: As we can see, for the majority of considered nuclei the chosen form
152: of parametrization works quite well. However, there are still some
153: groups of points on the plot which do not match the major trends.
154:
155: To see the structure of these particular data better, for correlation
156: $\tilde{r}\left(1+\alpha_{I}\cdot I\right)\: vs.\: I$ we separate
157: this group by dashed lines given respectively by equation $0.988+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$
158: , $0.995+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$ and $1.005+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$. The points
159: located on the main branch are marked by green color whereas the points
160: above line $1.005+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$ and between lines $0.988+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$
161: and $0.995+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$ are marked by colors blue and yellow,
162: respectively. Eleven terbium points which are located below the line
163: $0.988+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$ were marked separately by red color. As
164: one can see green points match perfectly all correlations announced
165: by us. Other points follow also similar trends, but he corresponding
166: curves are slightly shifted comparing to the trends exhibited by green
167: points. Two reasons can be responsible for such behavior. First, the
168: systematics of the discrepancies can be associated with experimental
169: and systematical errors. Second, the effect may be the consequence
170: of some special properties of these nuclei. We should point out that
171: radii of terbium isotops (red points) are measured within total (experimental
172: + systematical) error about 3\% what is quite a large uncertainty
173: whereas the relative error of measured terbium radii with respect
174: to the radius of the reference isotope is much smaller and reads 0.04\%
175: \cite{Angeli_04}. It is therefore possible that that observed radii
176: deviations can origin from the total experimental error.
177:
178: %
179: \begin{figure}[h]
180: \includegraphics[%
181: width=8.5cm]{r4.epsi}
182:
183:
184: \caption{\label{r4.epsi} Further analysis of correlations as presented in
185: Fig 3. Color of the points is determined by positions on correlations
186: between the isospin $I$ and $\tilde{r}\left(1+\alpha_{I}\cdot I\right)$.
187: The points from the main branch are marked by green color and are
188: located between dashed lines with respect to the equation $0.995+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$
189: and $1.005+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$. Points located above line $1.005+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$
190: are plotted in blue color whereas points below line $0.995+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$
191: and above line $0.988+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$ are plotted in yellow color.
192: Eleven points, located below line $0.988+\alpha_{I}\cdot I$ corresponding
193: to the terbium isotopes are plotted in red color.}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196:
197: We summarize our conclusions:
198:
199: \begin{enumerate}
200: \item Correlation observed by us proves that the functional form of radius
201: parametrization is correct for majority of consider nuclei. Ratio
202: of experimental to theoretical value for radii is presented on fig.
203: \ref{r1.epsi} as a solid line. The variation of this distribution
204: is equal to 0.0044, i.e. it corresponds to the value of experimental
205: errors.
206: \item The correlation between radius and the coefficient of deformation
207: clearly fits a parabolic shape and shows that in nuclear ground state
208: the dominating deformation is the quadrupole one. However it should
209: be stresses that value of $\alpha_{\beta}=0.225$ is more than two
210: times higher from the value expected for uniform quadruply deformed
211: matter. This is an interesting result which may point at strong correlations
212: between non-uniformity of the density of protons and quadrupole deformation.
213: Correlation between radii and isospin asymmetry is in agreement with
214: the earlier observations {[}submitted to \cite{Sosin_06} .
215: \item Effects of the surface can be easily taken into account, by adding
216: another functional parametric dependence with additional parameter
217: multiplying the $A^{-1/3}$ term. We have found that these effects
218: are negligible. This observation is consistent with our choice of
219: considering only heavy nuclei, where surface effects are not expected
220: to play the major role.
221: \item Correlation between radii $r$ and $Z$ shows, that at value of deformation
222: and neutron-proton asymmetry fixed, protons become on average closer,
223: as the number of protons increases. This observation probably suggests
224: the possibility of the creation of the neutron skin. This correlation
225: accompanied by the correlation between radii and the isospin can impose
226: interesting constraints on the form of the nuclear equation of state.
227: This possibility would be addressed in the forthcoming publication.
228: \item Taken into account the systematics of deviations for the terbium isotopes,
229: it would be interesting to obtained and compare experimental data
230: corresponding to smaller errors. In the \emph{}future the shift from
231: systematical behavior \emph{}also \emph{}for isotopes represented
232: by blue \emph{}and yellow points should be considered and explained.
233: \end{enumerate}
234: \begin{acknowledgments}
235: The author is indebted to E. Nowak, M. A. Nowak and P. Pawlowski for
236: careful reading of manuscript and helpful discussions. This work was
237: supported the Polish Ministry of Science, research project no. PB
238: 1 P03B 020 30.
239: \end{acknowledgments}
240: \begin{thebibliography}{1}
241: \bibitem{Moller_95}P. M\"{o}ller, J.R. Nix W.D. Myers and W.J. \'{S}wi\c{a}tecki,
242: Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tbl. \textbf{59}, 185 (1995)
243: \bibitem{Angeli_04}I. Angeli, Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tbl, \textbf{87}, 185 (2004)
244: \bibitem{Sosin_06}Z. Sosin, submitted to PRC\end{thebibliography}
245:
246: \end{document}
247: