4.8 Article

Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations of Neutron Matter in Chiral Effective Field Theory

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 113, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.182503

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. DOE [DE-FG02-97ER-41014]
  2. Polish National Science Center (NCN) [UMO-2013/08/A/ST3/00708, UMO-2012/07/B/ST2/03907]
  3. NSF MRI [PHY-0922770]
  4. Center for Advanced Studies at Warsaw University of Technology [58/2013]
  5. European Union from the European Social Funds [CAS/32/POKL]
  6. DOE Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research Software Effectiveness Metrics [58202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present variational Monte Carlo calculations of the neutron matter equation of state using chiral nuclear forces. The ground-state wave function of neutron matter, containing nonperturbative many-body correlations, is obtained from auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo simulations of up to about 340 neutrons interacting on a 103 discretized lattice. The evolution Hamiltonian is chosen to be attractive and spin independent in order to avoid the fermion sign problem and is constructed to best reproduce broad features of the chiral nuclear force. This is facilitated by choosing a lattice spacing of 1.5 fm, corresponding to a momentum-space cutoff of Lambda = 414 MeV/c, a resolution scale at which strongly repulsive features of nuclear two-body forces are suppressed. Differences between the evolution potential and the full chiral nuclear interaction (Entem and Machleidt Lambda = 414 MeV [L. Coraggio et al., Phys. Rev. C 87, 014322 (2013)]) are then treated perturbatively. Our results for the equation of state are compared to previous quantum Monte Carlo simulations that employed chiral two-body forces at next-to-next-to-leading order (N2LO). In addition, we include the effects of three-body forces at N2LO, which provide important repulsion at densities higher than 0.02 fm(-3) as well as two-body forces at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据