Bandheads of Rotational Bands and Time-Odd Fields UTK-ORNL DFT group
Bandheads of Rotational Bands and Time-Odd Fields UTK-ORNL DFT group
Outline
Work:
Large-scale HFB calculations with various Skyrme functionals
All time-odd terms included
Mixed pairing in the p.p. channel (with two flavors: fit on 120Sn average pairing gap and local fit on 162Dy)
Triaxiality effects included -1319.991 -1319.992 [ 5, 1, 4]9/2- -1320.474 -1320.473 [ 5, 3, 0]1/2- -1322.539 -1322.540 [ 5, 3, 2]5/2- -1322.387 -1322.388 [ 5, 2, 3]7/2- -1321.839 -1321.841 [ 5, 4, 1]1/2- (-1321.150) -1321.145 [ 5, 4, 1]3/2- -1319.655 -1319.656 [ 4, 0, 4]9/2+ -1321.725 -1321.728 [ 4, 0, 4]7/2+ -1322.320 -1322.321 [ 4, 1, 1]1/2+ -1323.526 -1323.527 [ 4, 1, 1]3/2+ -1322.096 -1322.096 [ 4, 1, 3]5/2+ -1319.935 -1319.937 [ 4, 2, 0]1/2+ -1318.815 -1318.813 [ 4, 2, 2]3/2+ Exact (HFODD) EFA (HFBTHO) Blocked State Test of the quality of the EFA approximation (163Tb, SIII interaction, 14 deformed shells) Playground:
Well-deformed rare-earth nuclei
Experimental data is rotational bandheads excitation energy Motivations:
Effects of time-odd fields
Benchmarking of EFA
Results
Triaxiality Impact of time-odd fields on q.p. energies
(systematics) Impact of time-odd fields on q.p. energies
(different schemes) Impact of time-odd fields on (3)
Conclusions – Future Plans
Time-odd fields negligible for most g.s. properties (including masses, q.p. excitation spectrum, (3), …)
BUT… known to play a role in cranking, TDHF, GT resonance, etc. Comparison with experiment:
Most Skyrme interaction have “wrong” level density q.p. spectrum good qualitatively but insufficient quantitatively
Performing a SVD on odd-even g.s. could be very useful to probe sensitivity of time-odd coupling constants
Treatment of pairing is crucial: why not begin with including Coulomb and CM pairing (which are always there irrespective of the p-p functional) ? How to constrain these terms effectively ???
Comments