4.8 Article

Four-Body Scale in Universal Few-Boson Systems

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
Volume 122, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.143001

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. NSF [PHY15-15738, PHY-1614460]
  2. U.S. DOE, NUCLEI SciDAC Collaboration Award [DE-SC0008533]
  3. Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics [DE-FG02-04ER41338]
  4. ERC [307986 STRONGINT]
  5. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) [279384907-SFB 1245]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11522539, 11735003]
  7. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  8. Thousand Talents Plan for Young Professionals
  9. Israel Science Foundation [1308/16]
  10. European Union Research and Innovation program Horizon 2020 [654002]
  11. STFC [ST/P004423/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of an intrinsic four-body scale in universal few-boson systems is the subject of active debate. We study these systems within the framework of effective field theory. For systems of up to six bosons we establish that no four-body scale appears at leading order (LO). However, we find that at next-to-leading order (NLO) a four-body force is needed to obtain renormalized results for binding energies. With the associated parameter fixed to the binding energy of the four-boson system, this force is shown to renormalize the five- and six-body systems as well. We present an original ansatz for the short-distance limit of the bosonic A-body wave function from which we conjecture that new A-body scales appear at NA-3 LO. As a specific example, calculations are presented for clusters of helium atoms. Our results apply more generally to other few-body systems governed by a large scattering length, such as light nuclei and halo states, the low-energy properties of which are independent of the detailed internal structure of the constituents.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available