[Jpac_lectures] Review meeting
Alessandro Pilloni
pillaus at jlab.org
Wed Oct 20 19:11:34 EDT 2021
Dear all,
this is a reminder for tomorrow's meeting a 11am JLab time,
to keep discussing the review.
I attach the reminder by Faessler
Best,
Alessandro
-------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Oggetto: [EXTERNAL] Your review article for "Progress in Particle and
Nuclear Physics" is due on December first 2021.
Data: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:11:58 +0200
Mittente: Amand Faessler <faessler at uni-tuebingen.de>
Organizzazione: Universitaet Tuebingen, Tuebingen/ GERMANY
A: Jiangming Yao <yaoj at frib.msu.edu>, Aleksi Vuorinen
<aleksi.vuorinen at helsinki.fi>, Carlos Hoyos
<carlos.hoyos.badajoz at gmail.com>, Niko Jokela <niko.jokela at gmail.com>,
Schunck, Nicolas F. <schunck1 at llnl.gov>, Dolores Cortinal-Gil
<d.cortina at usc.es>, Qun Wang <qunwang at ustc.edu.cn>, Gregor Kasieczka
<gregor.kasieczka at cern.ch>, Karl Jansen <Karl.Jansen at desy.de>, Xiaofei
Yang <xiaofei.yang at pku.edu.cn>, Ayse Kizilerzu
<Ayse.kizilersu at adelaide.edu.au>, Jon-Ivar Skullerud
<jonivar at thphys.nuim.ie>, Luca Buoninfante
<luca.buoninfante92 at gmail.com>, Gaetano Lambiase <lambiase at sa.infn.it>,
Angela Bracco <Angela.Bracco at mi.infn.it>, Silvia Leoni
<silvia.leoni at mi.infn.it>, Takaharu Otsuka
<otsuka at phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, 'Bogdan Fornal'
<Bogdan.Fornal at ifj.edu.pl>, Christophe Royon <christophe.royon at cern.ch>,
Cristian Xavier Baldenegro <crisx.baldenegro at gmail.com>, Sylvain Fichet
<sylvain.fichet at gmail.com>, von Gersdorff <gersdorff at gmail.com>, Andrea
Bellora <andrea.bellora at cern.ch>, Michael Pitt <Michael.Pitt at cern.ch>,
lanza at ct.infn.it <lanza at ct.infn.it>, Andrea Vitturi
<andrea.vitturi at pd.infn.it>, m-v-andres Andres <m-v-andres at us.es>,
DUGUET Thomas <thomas.duguet at cea.fr>, Alexander Tichai
<alexander.tichai at physik.tu-darmstadt.de>, Vittorio Soma
<vittorio.soma at cea.fr>, Yen-Jie Lee <Yenjie at mit.edu>, Carlos Munoz
Camacho <munoz at jlab.org>, Michal Spalinski
<michal.spalinski at ncbj.gov.pl>, Jakub Jankowski
<jakub.jankowski at uwr.edu.pl>, Ralf Tripolt <ralf.tripolt at uni-graz.at>,
Frank Geurts <geurts at rice.edu>, M. Albaladejo <albalade at jlab.org>,
Lukasz Bibrzycki <lukasz.bibrzycki at ifj.edu.pl>, Cesar Fernandez
<cesar.fernandez at nuclears.unam.pl>, A. Hiller-Blin <ahblin at jlab.org>, A.
Jackura <ajackura at iu.edu>, V. Mathieu <vmathieu at ucm.es>, Mikhail
Mikhasenko <mikhail.mikasenko at gmail.com>, A. Pilloni <pillaus at jlab.org>,
Adam Szczepaniak <aszczepa at indiana.edu>, A. Rodas <arodas at jlab.org>,
Catalina Oana Curceanu <Catalina.Curceanu at lnf.infn.it>, Diana Sirghi*
<sirghi at LNF.INFN.IT>, Carlo Guaraldo <carlo.guaraldo at lnf.infn.it>,
Jennifer Rittenhouse West <jennifer at lbl.gov>, Guy F. de Teramond
<gdt at asterix.crnet.cr>, Alfred Goldhaber
<goldhab at max2.physics.sunysb.edu>, Ivan Schmidt <ischmidt at fis.utfsm.cl>,
Roland Diehl <rod at mpe.mpg.de>, ZHAO Qiang <zhaoq at ihep.ac.cn>, Karoline
Schaeffner <kschaeff at mpp.mpg.de>, Florian Reindl
<Florian.Reindl at oeaw.ac.at>, Vivek Singh <singhv at berkeley.edu>, Y.
Utsono <utsuno.yutaka at gmail.com>, Takashi Abe <takashi.abe at riken.jp>, N.
Shimizu <shimizu at cns.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, Y. Tsunoda
<ytsunoda at cns.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, Prof. Dr. Stanley Brodsky
<sjbth at SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, leonardo di giustino
<leonardo.digiustino at gmail.com>, Kathrin Wimmer <k.wimmer at csic.es>,
Pieter Doornenbal <pieter at ribf.riken.jp>, Lie-Wen Chen
<lwchen at sjtu.edu.cn>, Bao-Jun Cai <bjcai87 at gmail.com>, Bao-An Li
<bao-an_li at tamuc.edu>, Zhen Zhang <zhangzh275 at mail.sysu.edu.cn>, Michael
Kreshchuk <michael.kreshchuk at tufts.edu>, Taku Izubuchi
<izubuchi at gmail.com>, James P. Vary <jvary at iastate.edu>, Peter J. Love
<peterjlove at gmail.com>, Kazuo Fujikawa <k-fujikawa at riken.jp>, Koichiro
Umetsu <umetsu.koichiro at nihon-u.ac.jp>, Ackermann Dieter
<Dieter.Ackermann at ganil.fr>, Angela Gargano <gargano at na.infn.it>, Oliver
Kiseom <oliver.kisebom at gmail.com>, Shane G. <wilkinss at mit.edu>, Ronald
Fernado Garcia Ruiz <ronald.fernando.garcia.ruiz at cern.ch>, Shuing Wang
<1801110106 at pku.edu.cn>
Dear authors of a commissioned review article for "Progress in Particle
and Nuclear Physics" with deadline December first 2021 (see the list
after my signature),
Do not forget to send me before or on December first 2021 your review
manuscript as pdf file with the figures included in the text for the
referees.
I add again the template (style file ), with which you have to write the
LaTeX manuscript.
The template ppnp-LaTeX.sty is for writing the LateX file of your
review. Copy the template and store the original, in case that you
damage the file later. Replace in the copy step by step the text of the
template by your text and then erase the the corresponding text of the
template.
Start with the title. Then replace the authors, then the Institutions,
the abstract, the first chapter, ... and finally the references.
Translate to pdf in each step to be sure, that you made no error. I use
TeXnicCenter - free download - for translating LaTeX to pdf. The figures
have to be prepared as eps files. For the translations to eps from any
other convention I use ZAMZAR, which can be downloaded free and allows
for two free transformation per day. So if I have more than two figures,
I use it on several days for translating free two figures on one day. )
There are many examples for formulas, for figures, for tables, for the
acknowledgement and finally for the references in the template. Use the
conventions and replace the changing parts by your text. After you have
replaced the references the many error msg's (due to the missing
references and formula numbers) should have disappeared, if you made no
error.
After my signature you find the list of authors and tiles. Please,
check, if the part of the list concerning your review is correct and
inform me about possible corrections and send me you pdf manuscript with
the figures included in the text before December first 2021 for the
referees. I shall then ask the referees to send me their referee reports
till the middle of January 2022.
With best wishes for your health in these Corona times,
Amand Faessler.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prof. Emeritus Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Amand Faessler
Institut fuer Theoretische Physik
Universitaet Tuebingen
D-72076 TUEBINGEN/Germany
Auf der Morgenstelle 14
Tel. 0049/7071/29/76370
Secretary Tel.: 0049/7071/29/76375
e-mail: faessler at uni-tuebingen.de
Editor of "Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics" 1984-2021
2020 Impact Parameter 16.281. The journal ranks according to the
internet ( use your browser with "journals ranking") first among all 19
journals in Nuclear Physics and also first among all 50 journals in
combined "Particle and Nuclear Physics".
Director of the "Erice School on Nuclear Physics" 1984-2021.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Volume 119 of PPNP
(Deadline: December 1st. 2021)
1. Constantia Alexandrou, Karl Jansen, Martha Constantinou and
Giannis Koutsou*: Lattice QCD and nucleon structure.
2. Gregor Kasieczka* et al.: “Deep Learning in Particle Physics”
3. Qun Wang: "Foundations and Applications of the Chiral Kinetic
Theory".
4. Nicolas Schunk, David Regnie: “Theoretical description of
nuclear fission. “
5. Aleksi Vuorinen, Carlos Hoyos, Nico Jokela: "Holographic
approach to the description of compact stars and their binary
mergers"
6. Juan Jose Gomez Cadenas: "The Future of Neutrino
Physics." (Preliminary title.) Cancelled
7. Xiaofei Yang *, Shujing Wang, Shane G. Wilkins*, Ronald Fernando
Garcia Ruiz* :
"Laser spectroscopy of exotic nuclei”
8. Jon Ivar Skullerud and Ayse Kizilersu: "Review of the Quark-Gluon
derivative Vertex and its Properties".
9. Luca Buoninfante, Gaetano Lambiase: “Local and nonlocal
theories of gravity – Conceptual and
phenomenologicalConcepts.”
10. Angela Bracco (University of Milan and INFN Milan, Italy)
Bogdan Fornal (Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Krakow,
Poland), Silvia Leoni * (University of Milan and INFN Milan,
Italy), Takaharu Otsuka (University of Tokyo, Tokyo Japan):
“The onset of nuclear deformations in the nuclear chart.”
11. Christophe Royon, Cristian Baldenegro, Sylvain Fichet,
Gero von Gersdorf, Andres Belora, Michael Pitt:
"Large Hadron Collider: A Photon Photon collider to
explore Beyond Standard Model Physics.";
12. Edoardo Lanza, Andrea Vitturi, Vitoria Andres, Luna
Pellegri: “Pygmy Resonances.”
13. Thomas Duguet*, Alexander Tichai, Vittorio Somà:
“Ab initio theories for nuclei.”
14. Gilberto Ramalho and Maria Teresa Pena: Electromagnetic
Formfactors of Baryon resonances.
15. Peter Capel: “Description of breakup reactions involving exotic
nuclei.”
16. Yen-Jie Lee, "Jets, parton energy loss and parton medium
interactions.";
17. Carlos Munoz Camacho: “Deep virtual Compton scattering.”
18. Gomez Cardenas at Passeo Manuel de Ladizabal: “Future Neutrino
Physics.” Cancelled
19. Jakub Jankowski and Michal Spalinski: "Far-from-
equilibrium attractors in heavy-ion collisions."
20. Ralf-Arno Tripolt*, Frank Geurts: "Electromagnetic Probes:
Experiment and Theory.”
21. M. Albaladejo, L. Bibrzycki, C. Fernandez-Ramirez , A.
Hiller-Blin, A. Jackura , V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A.
Pilloni*, A. Rodas, A. Szczepaniak: JPAC Collaboration: Novel
Approaches in Hadron Spectroscopy.
22. Catalina Oana Curceanu, Diana Sirghi* and Carlo Guaraldo:
" Strong Interaction measured at threshold with kaonic hydrogen
and deuterium" or
"Lightest kaonic atoms as probes for strong interaction at
threshold in strange systems.".(very preliminary title)
Shifted on Feb. 14th. 2021.
23. Jennifer Rittenhouse West:
"A novel QCD hadron: the Hexadiquark"
jennifer at lbl.gov
24. Dr. Roland Diehl and co-authors:
"Cosmic Nucleosynthesis - a Multi-messenger Challenge"
25. *Takaharu Otsuka, Takashi Abe, Noritaka Shimizu, Yusuke Tsunoda
and Yutaka Utsuno:
"Monte Carlo Shell Model, major outcome from the second
generation". Open access.
26. Florian Reindl, Karoline Schaeffner*, Vivek Singh: “Low
temperature detectors for the direct search of dark matter and
fundamental neutrino physics.”
27. Leonardo di Giustino, Stanley Brodsky:
"High precision tests of QCD without scale or scheme
ambiguities." Shifted on July 9th. 2021 from October 15th.
to December first 2021.
28. Pieter Doornenbal, K. Wimmer*
Evolution of collectivity in exotic nuclei
Shifted on Dec. 7th. 2019 from Dec. first 2019 to Dec. first
2020. Shifted again on Nov. 24th. 2020 to April 15th. 2021 and
again on Sept. 3rd. 2021 to Dec. first 2021.
30. Lie-Wen Chen*, Bao-Jun Cai, Bao-An Li and Zhen Zhang:
"Nuclear matter under extreme isospin conditions." Shifted
on October 13th. 2019 to the new deadline December 15th.
2019. Shited to April 15th. 2020, Shifted to April 15th. 2021
on January 2nd. 2021. Shifted again on September 3rd.
2021 to December first 2021.
31. Michael Kreshchuk, Stephan Jordan, Taku Izubuchi,
James P. Vary, Peter J. love: “Solving QCD using Quanten
-Computing.”
32. Dieter Ackermann: “Decay spectroscopy of heavy and Super-
heavy nnuclei”.
33. Kazuo Fujikawa, Koichiro Umetsu: “Berry’s phase
and quantum anomalies.” Shifted from June 2021
on June 5th. to October 15th. 2021. Shifted to the
end of December 2021.
34. Angela Gargano: “The role of three nucleon potentials within the
shell model, past and present.”
35. Oliver Kirsebom: “Strong electron capture transitions and their
influence on intermediate mass stars.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/jpac_lectures/attachments/20211021/10054f37/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
%stylefile for "Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics" from 20. March 2003
\documentclass[twoside,12pt]{article}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {#2} (#4) #3 }
\def\NCA{{\em Nuovo Cimento} A}
\def\PHYS{{\em Physica}}
\def\NPA{{\em Nucl. Phys.} A}
\def\MATH{{\em J. Math. Phys.}}
\def\PRO{{\em Prog. Theor. Phys.}}
\def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
\def\PLA{{\em Phys. Lett.} A}
\def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
\def\PLD{{\em Phys. Lett.} D}
\def\PL{{\em Phys. Lett.}}
\def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\def\PREV{\em Phys. Rev.}
\def\PREP{\em Phys. Rep.}
\def\PRA{{\em Phys. Rev.} A}
\def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
\def\PRC{{\em Phys. Rev.} C}
\def\PRB{{\em Phys. Rev.} B}
\def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
\def\ZPA{{\em Z. Phys.} A}
\def\ANNP{\em Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)}
\def\RMP{{\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}}
\def\CHEM{{\em J. Chem. Phys.}}
\def\INT{{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} E}
\def\r{\vec r}
\def\R{\vec R}
\def\p{\vec p}
\def\P{\vec P}
\def\q{\vec q}
\def\ss{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
\topmargin-2.8cm
\oddsidemargin-1cm
\evensidemargin-1cm
\textwidth18.5cm
\textheight25.0cm
\begin{document}
\title{ \vspace{1cm} New Nuclei around the N = Z in the A = 80-90 region}
\author{N.\ Marginean,$^{1,2}$ C.\ Rossi Alvarez,$^3$ D.\ Bucurescu,$^2$ C. A.\
Ur,$^{3,2}$\\
A.\ Gadea,$^4$ S.\ Lunardi,$^3$ D.\ Bazzacco,$^3$ G.\ de Angelis,$^1$
M.\ Axiotis,$^1$\\
M.\ De Poli,$^1$ E.\ Farnea,$^{1,3}$ M.\ Ionescu-Bujor,$^2$
A.\ Iordachescu,$^2$ S. M.\ Lenzi,$^3$\\
Th.\ Kr\"oll,$^{1,3}$ T.\
Martinez,$^1$ R.\ Menegazzo,$^3$ D. R.\ Napoli,$^1$\\
G.\ Nardelli,$^5$ P.\
Pavan,$^3$ B.\ Quintana,$^{3,6}$ P.\ Spolaore$^1$\\
\\
$^1$INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, Italy\\
$^2$H. Hulubei National Inst. for Phys. and Nucl. Eng., Bucharest,
Romania\\
$^3$Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a and INFN, Sez. di Padova,
Italy\\
$^4$Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular, Valencia, Spain\\
$^5$Dip. di Chi. Fis. dell'Universit\`a di Venezia and INFN, Sez. di Padova,
Italy\\
$^6$ Grupo de Fisica Nuclear, Universidad de Salamanca, Spain}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract} Correlations in the nuclear wave-function beyond the mean-field
or Hartree-Fock approximation are very important to describe basic properties of
nuclear structure. Various approaches to account for such correlations are
described and compared to each other. This includes the hole-line expansion, the
coupled cluster or ``exponential S'' approach, the self-consistent evaluation of
Greens functions, variational approaches using correlated basis functions and
recent developments employing quantum Monte-Carlo techniques. Details of these
correlations are explored and their sensitivity to the underlying
nucleon-nucleon interaction. Special
attention is paid to the attempts to investigate these correlations in
exclusive nucleon knock-out experiments induced by electron scattering.
Another important issue of nuclear structure physics is the role of relativistic
effects as contained in phenomenological mean field models. The sensitivity of
various nuclear structure observables on these
relativistic features are investigated. The report includes the discussion of
nuclear matter as well as finite nuclei.
\end{abstract}
%\eject
%\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
One of the central challenges of theoretical nuclear physics is the attempt to
describe the basic properties of nuclear systems in terms of a realistic
nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction. Such an attempt typically contains two major
steps. In the first step one has to consider a specific model for the NN
interaction. This could be a model which is inspired by the
quantum-chromo-dynamics\cite{faes0}, a meson-exchange or One-Boson-Exchange
model\cite{rupr0,nijm0} or a purely phenomenological ansatz in terms of
two-body spin-isospin operators multiplied
by local potential
functions\cite{argo0,urbv14}. Such models are considered as a realistic
description of the NN interaction, if the adjustment of parameters within the
model yields a good fit to the NN scattering data at energies below the
threshold for pion production as well as energy and other observables of the
deuteron.
After the definition of the nuclear hamiltonian,
the second
step implies the solution of the many-body problem of $A$ nucleons interacting
in terms of such a realistic two-body NN interaction. The simplest approach to
this many-body problem of interacting fermions one could think of would be the
mean field or Hartree-Fock approximation. This procedure yields very good
results for the bulk properties of nuclei, binding energies and radii,
if one employs simple phenomenological NN forces like e.g.~the Skyrme forces,
which are adjusted to describe such nuclear structure data\cite{skyrme}.
However, employing realistic NN interactions the Hartree-Fock approximation
fails very badly: it leads to unbound nuclei\cite{art99}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
%\epsfysize=9.0cm
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[t]{8 cm}
\epsfig{file=emblem.ps,scale=0.5}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{16.5 cm}
\caption{Cartoon of a nucleus, displaying the size of the nucleons as compared
to the typical distance to nearest neighbors. Also indicated are the internal
structure of nucleons and mesons.\label{fig1}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The calculation scheme discussed so far, determine the interaction of two
nucleons in the vacuum in a first step and then solve the many-body problem of
nucleons interacting by such realistic potentials in a second step, is of course
based on the picture that nucleons are elementary particles with properties,
which are not affected by the presence of other nucleons in the nuclear medium.
One knows, of course, that this is a rather simplified picture: nucleons are
built out of quarks and their properties might very well be influenced by the
surrounding medium. A cartoon of this feature is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
\section{Many-Body Approaches}
\subsection{\it Hole - Line Expansion \label{sec:holeline}}
As it has been discussed already above one problem of nuclear structure
calculations based on realistic NN interactions is to deal with the strong
short-range components contained in all such interactions. This problem is
evident in particular when
so-called hard-core potentials are employed, which are infinite for relative
distances smaller than the radius of the hard core $r_c$. The matrix elements
of such a potential $V$ evaluated for an uncorrelated two-body wave function
$\Phi (r)$ diverges since $\Phi (r)$ is different from zero also for relative
distances $r$ smaller than the hard-core radius $r_c$ (see the schematic picture
in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. A way out of this problem is to account for the two-body
correlations induced by the NN interaction in the correlated wave function
$\Psi (r)$ or by defining an effective operator, which acting on the
uncorrelated wave function $\Phi (r)$ yields the same result as the bare
interaction $V$ acting on $\Psi (r)$. This concept is well known for example in
dealing with the scattering matrix $T$, which is defined by
\be
<\Phi \vert T \vert \Phi > = <\Phi \vert V \vert \Psi > \; . \label{eq:tmat}
\ee
As it is indicated in the schematic Fig.~\ref{fig3}, the correlations tend to
enhance the amplitude
of the correlated wave function $\Psi$ relative to the uncorrelated one
at distances $r$ for which the interaction is attractive. A reduction of
the amplitude is to be expected for small distances for which $V(r)$ is
repulsive. From this discussion we see that the
correlation effects tend to make the matrix elements of $T$ more attractive
than those of the bare potential $V$. For two nucleons in the vacuum the $T$
matrix can be determined by solving a Lippmann-Schwinger equation
\bea
T \vert \Phi > &= &V \left\{ \vert \Phi > + \frac{1}{\omega - H_0 +
i\epsilon } V \vert \Psi >\right\}\nonumber \\
& = & \left\{ V + V \frac{1 }{\omega - H_0 +i\epsilon } T\right\} \vert
\Phi >\, . \label{eq:lipschw}
\eea
\begin{figure}[tb]
%\epsfysize=9.0cm
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[t]{8 cm}
\epsfig{file=fig3.eps,scale=0.7}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{16.5 cm}
\caption{Schematic picture of a NN interaction with hard core and its effect on
the correlated NN wave function $\Psi(r)$. \label{fig3}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Therefore it seems quite natural to define the single-particle potential $U$ in
analogy to the Hartree-Fock definition with the bare interaction $V$ replaced
by the corresponding $G$-matrix. To be more precise, the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock
(BHF) definition of $U$ is given by
\be
<\alpha \vert U \vert \beta> = \cases{ \sum_{\nu \le F} <\alpha \nu \vert
\frac{1} {2} \left( G(\omega_{\alpha \nu}) + G(\omega_{\beta \nu}) \right)
\vert \beta \nu >, & if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ $\le F$ \cr \sum_{\nu \le F}
<\alpha \nu \vert G(\omega_{\alpha \nu}) \vert \beta \nu >, & if $\alpha\le F$
and $\beta > F$ \cr 0 & if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ $>F$, \cr}\, . \label{eq:ubhf}
\ee
\subsection{\it Many-Body Theory in Terms of Green's Functions
\label{subsec:green}}
The two-body approaches discussed so far, the hole-line expansion as well as the
CCM, are essentially restricted to the evaluation of ground-state properties.
The Green's function approach, which will
shortly be introduced in this section
also yields results for dynamic properties like e.g.~the single-particle
spectral function which is closely related to the cross section of particle
knock-out and pick-up reactions. It is based on the time-dependent
perturbation expansion and also assumes a separation of the total hamiltonian
into an single-particle part $H_0$ and a perturbation $H_1$.
A more detailed description can be found e.g.~in the textbook
of Fetter and Walecka\cite{fetwal}.
\section{Effects of Correlations derived from Realistic Interactions}
\subsection{\it Models for the NN Interaction\label{sec:nninter}}
In our days there is a general agreement between physicists working on this
field, that quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) provides the basic theory of
the strong
interaction. Therefore also the roots of the strong interaction between two
nucleons must be hidden in QCD. For nuclear structure calculations, however, one
needs to determine the NN interaction at low energies and momenta, a region in
which one cannot treat QCD by means of perturbation theory. On the other hand,
the
system of two interacting nucleons is by far too complicate to be treated by
means of lattice QCD calculations. Therefore one has to consider
phenomenological models for the NN interaction.
With the OBE ansatz one can now solve the Blankenbecler--Sugar or a
corresponding scattering equation and adjust the parameter of the OBE model to
reproduce the empirical NN scattering phase shifts as well as binding energy and
other observables for the deuteron. Typical sets of parameters resulting from
such fits are listed in table~\ref{tab:obe}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[t]{16.5 cm}
\caption{Parameters of the realistic OBE potentials Bonn $A$, $B$ and $C$ (see
table A.1 of \protect{\cite{rupr0}}).
The second column displays the type of
meson: pseudoscalar (ps), vector (v) and scalar (s) and the third its
isospin $T_{\rm iso}$.}
\label{tab:obe}
\end{minipage}
\begin{tabular}{rrrr|rr|rr|rr}
\hline
&&&&&&&&&\\[-2mm]
&&&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bonn A}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bonn
B}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bonn C}\\
Meson &&$T_{\rm iso}$&$m_{\alpha}$&$g^2_{\alpha}/4\pi$&$\Lambda_{\alpha}$
&$g^2_{\alpha}/4\pi$&$\Lambda_{\alpha}$&$g^2_{\alpha}/4\pi$&$\Lambda_{\alpha}$\\
&&&[MeV]&&[MeV]&[MeV]&[MeV]\\
&&&&&&&&&\\[-2mm]
\hline
&&&&&&&&&\\[-2mm]
$\pi$ & ps & 1 & 138.03 & 14.7 & 1300 & 14.4 & 1700 & 14.2 & 3000\\[2mm]
$\eta$ & ps & 0 & 548.8 & 4 & 1500 & 3 & 1500 & 0 & -\\[2mm]
$\rho$ & v & 1 & 769 & 0.86$^{\rm a}$ & 1950 & 0.9$^{\rm a}$ & 1850 &
1.0$^{\rm a}$ & 1700 \\[2mm]
$\omega$ & v & 0 & 782.6 & 25$^{\rm a}$ & 1350 & 24.5$^{\rm a}$ & 1850 &
24$^{\rm a}$ & 1400\\[2mm]
$\delta$ & s & 1 & 983 & 1.3 & 2000 & 2.488 & 2000 & 4.722 & 2000\\[2mm]
$\sigma^{\rm b}$ & s & 0 & 550$^{\rm b}$ & 8.8 & 2200 & 8.9437 & 1900 & 8.6289 &
1700\\
&&&(710-720)$^{\rm b}$ & 17.194 & 2000 & 18.3773 & 2000 & 17.5667 & 2000\\
&&&&&&&&&\\[-2mm]\hline
\end{tabular}
%noalign{\smallskip\hrule}\cr}
\begin{minipage}[t]{16.5 cm}
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent
$^{\rm a}$ The tensor coupling constants are $f_{\rho}$=6.1 $g_{\rho}$
and $f_{\omega}$ = 0. \\
$^{\rm b}$ The $\sigma$ parameters in the first line apply for NN channels
with isospin 1, while those in the second line refer to isospin 0 channels. In
this case the masses for the $\sigma$ meson of 710 (Bonn A) and 720 MeV (Bonn B
and C) were considered.
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{\it Ground state Properties of Nuclear Matter and Finite Nuclei}
In the first part of this section we would like to discuss the convergence of
the many-body approaches and compare results for nuclear matter as obtained from
various calculation schemes presented in section 2.
The convergence of the hole-line expansion for nuclear matter has been
investigated during the last few years in particular by the group in
Catania\cite{song1,song2}. Continuing the earlier work of Day\cite{day81} they
investigated the effects of the three-hole-line contributions for various
choices of the auxiliary potential $U$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:ubhf}). In particular
they considered the standard or conventional choice, which assumes a
single-particle potential $U=0$ for single-particle states above the Fermi level,
and the so-called ``continuous choice''. This continuous choice supplements the definition of the
auxiliary potential of the hole states in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ubhf}) with a
corresponding definition (real part of the BHF self-energy) also for the
particle states with momenta above the Fermi momentum, $k >k_F$. In this way
one does not have any gap in the single-particle spectrum at $k=k_F$.
\section{Conclusion}
The main aim of this review has been to demonstrate that nuclear systems
are very intriguing many-body systems. They are non-trivial
systems in the sense that they require the treatment of correlations beyond the
mean field or Hartree-Fock approximation. Therefore, from the point of view of
many-body
theory, they can be compared to other quantum many-body systems like liquid He,
electron gas, clusters of atoms etc. A huge amount of experimental data is
available for real nuclei with finite number of particles as well as for the
infinite limit of nuclear matter or the matter of a neutron star.
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\itemsep -2pt
\bibitem{faes0} A. Valcarce, A. Buchmann, F. Fern\'andez, and Amand Faessler,
\Journal{\PRC} {51}{1480} {1995}
\bibitem{rupr0} R. Machleidt, \Journal{\em Adv. Nucl. Phys.}{19}{189}{1989}
\bibitem{nijm0} M.M. Nagels, T.A. Rijken, and J.J. de Swart, \Journal{\PRD}
{17} {768} {1978}
\bibitem{argo0} R.B. Wiringa, R.A. Smith, and T.L. Ainsworth, \Journal{\PRC}
{29} {1207} {1984}
\bibitem{urbv14} I.E. Lagaris and V.R. Pandharipande, \Journal{\NPA}{359}
{331} {1981}
\bibitem{skyrme} M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B, Hakansson, \Journal {\PREP}{123}
{275}{1985}
\bibitem{art99} H. M\"uther and A. Polls, \Journal{\PRC} {}{in press}{1999},
preprint nucl-th/9908002.
\bibitem{fetwal} A.L. Fetter and J.D. Walecka, {\it Quantum Theory of Many
Particle Systems} (McGraw-Hill New York, 1971)
\bibitem{song1} H.Q. Song, M. Baldo, U. Lombardo, and G. Giansiracusa,
\Journal{\PLB} {411}{237}{1997}
\bibitem{song2} H.Q. Song, M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, annd U. Lombardo,
\Journal{\PRL} {81} {1584}{1998}
\bibitem{day81} B.D. Day, \Journal{\PRC} {24}{1203}{1981}
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
More information about the JPAC_Lectures
mailing list