4.5 Article

Microscopic self-energy calculations and dispersive optical-model potentials

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
Volume 84, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034616

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation [PHY-0652900, PHY-0968941]
  2. Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEXT) [21740213]
  3. United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) [ST/I003363]
  4. JUSTIPEN (Japan-US Theory Institute for Physics with Exotic Nuclei) [DEFG02-06ER41407]
  5. STFC [ST/I003363/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Division Of Physics
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [968941] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21740213] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nucleon self-energies for Ca-40,Ca-48,Ca-60 isotopes are generated with the microscopic Faddeev-random-phase approximation (FRPA). These self-energies are compared with potentials from the dispersive optical model (DOM) that were obtained from fitting elastic-scattering and bound-state data for Ca-40,Ca-48. The ab initio FRPA is capable of explaining many features of the empirical DOM potentials including their nucleon asymmetry dependence. The comparison furthermore provides several suggestions to improve the functional form of the DOM potentials, including among others the exploration of parity and angular momentum dependence. The nonlocality of the FRPA imaginary self-energy, illustrated by a substantial orbital angular momentum dependence, suggests that future DOM fits should consider this feature explicitly. The roles of the nucleon-nucleon tensor force and charge-exchange component in generating the asymmetry dependence of the FRPA self-energies are explored. The global features of the FRPA self-energies are not strongly dependent on the choice of realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available