Isobaric multiplet yrast energies and isospin nonconserving forces

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 89, Issue 14, 2002, Pages

  Zuker, A P ^a   Lenzi, S M ^a   Martinez Pinedo G ^a   Poves, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FERMIONS; GROUND STATE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NEUTRONS; PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES; PROTONS; QUANTUM THEORY; SPECTROSCOPY;

COULOMB POTENTIAL; EXCITATION ENERGY; ISOBARIC MULTIPLET YRAST ENERGY; ISOSPIN NONCONSERVING FORCES;

NUCLEAR PHYSICS;

EID: 0037201713     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. J. A. Sheikh, P. Van Isacker, D. D. Warner, and J. A. Cameron, Phys. Lett. B 252, 314 (1990).
2. C. O'Leary et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4349 (1997).
3. M. A. Bentley et al., Phys. Lett. B 437, 243 (1998).
4. M. A. Bentley et al., Phys. Rev. C 62, 051303(R) (2000).
5. S. M. Lenzi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 122501 (2001).
6. As isospin nonconserving nuclear forces play an important role, we propose to replace the traditional acronym for Coulomb displacement energies-CDE-by MDE, where M stands for mirror. Similarly CED becomes MED.
7. J. A. Nolen and J. P. Schiffer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 19, 471 (1969).
8. R. Machleidt and H. Müther, Phys. Rev. C 63, 034005 (2001).
9. B. A. Brown, W. A. Richter, and R. Lindsay, Phys. Lett. B 483, 49 (2000).
10. J. Duflo and A. P. Zuker, nucl-th/0201081.
11. C. D. O'Leary et al. Phys. Lett. B 525, 49 (2002).
12. P. E. Garrett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 132502 (2001).
13. A. P. Zuker et al., nucl-th/0104048.
14. R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 63, 024001 (2001).
15. P. M. Endt and C. van der Leun, Nucl. Phys. A521, 1 (1990).
16. J/∑(2J + 1)- have been subtracted so as to exhibit more clearly the effects of interest.
17. E. Caurier, Antoine code, Strasbourg, 1989-2001.
18. A. Poves, J. Sánchez-Solano, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Nucl. Phys. A694, 157 (2001).
19. Diagonalizing instead of taking expectation values makes very little difference.
20. The use of Woods-Saxon orbits makes very little difference in the calculations, with one exception: to account for the radial effect discussed above an l dependence on the radii is indispensable.
21. J [13].
22. W. E. Ormand, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2407 (1997).
23. G. Martínez, A. P. Zuker, A. Poves, and E. Caurier, Phys. Rev. C 55, 187 (1997).
24. A. Poves and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rep. 70, 235 (1981).