HOME    |    BROWSE    |    SEARCH    |    SUBSCRIPTION   |    SUBMISSION    |    REGISTRATION

Quick Search:
Author: Title/Abstract: Vol./No: Page:
PTP Online Top > Volume 32 (1964) > Number 4
| Next Article >

Prog. Theor. Phys. Vol. 32 No. 4 (1964) pp. 565-597

[ Full Text PDF : FREE ACCESS (1663K) ]

Self-Consistent Field in Self-Bound Finite Nucleus

Tatuya Sasakawa

Department of Nuclear Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto

(Received May 11, 1964)

Abstract:

Starting from the antisymmetrized product of plane waves, we derive the shell model wave function A[∏Ai=1uαi(i)] in the nucleon system which is self-bound. Each wave function uαi(i) has the tail being exponentially small at large distances from the origin. In the final result, the self-consistent field is given by Ui=∑Aj≠i (uαj(j)|tij|uαj(j)). Here the t-matrix has just the same meaning as the Brueckner's but with a difference in the boundary condition of Green's function in the t-matrix. Ours is so defined that it vanishes at large distances from the origin. Therefore, it is suited for treating the finite system. It has further advantage that the Neumann series converges for nuclear potentials. Three points are essential in derivation: (1) The Pauli principle. (2) The nuclear force is “weak”, having only one bound state in free space. (3) The number of constituent particles is very large, so 1/A≪1. The extension of the present method to the independent pair model is made. In the limit of infinite matter, the precise equivalence of the present method and the Brueckner's method is shown for a weak interaction.


URL : http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTP/32/565/
DOI : 10.1143/PTP.32.565

[ Full Text PDF : FREE ACCESS (1663K) ] Citation:

References:

  1. D. R. Hartree, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 24 (1928), 89.
  2. J. Slater, Phys. Rev. 35 (1930), 210[APS].
  3. V. Fock, Z. Physik 61 (1930), 126.
  4. About the earlier history of development of research in atomic structure, refer for example to J. Slater, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35 (1963), 485[APS].
  5. M. G. Mayer, Phys. Rev. 74 (1948), 235[APS].
  6. Haxel, Jensen and Suess, Phys. Rev. 75 (1949), 1766[APS].
  7. K. A. Brueckner, C. A. Levinson and H. M. Mahmoud, Phys. Rev. 95 (1954), 217[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner, Phys. Rev. 96 (1954), 508[APS]; ibid. 97 (1955), 1353[APS]; ibid. 100 (1955), 36[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner and C. A. Levinson, Phys. Rev. 97 (1955), 1344[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner and W. W. Wada, Phys. Rev. 103 (1956), 1008[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner, R. J. Eden and N. C. Francis, Phys. Rev. 98 (1955), 1445[APS]; ibid. 99 (1955), 76[APS]; ibid. 100 (1955), 891[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner and J. L. Gammel, Phys. Rev. 109 (1958), 1023[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner, J. L. Gammel and H. Weitzner, Phys. Rev. 110 (1958), 431[APS].
    K. A. Brueckner, A. M. Lockett and M. Rotenberg, Phys. Rev. 121 (1961), 255[APS].
    Also, see K. A. Brueckner, The Many Body Problem, edited by C. Dewitt (Dunod, Paris, 1958), p. 47.
  8. R. J. Eden and N. C. Francis, Phys. Rev. 100 (1955), 891[APS].
  9. R. J. Eden, Phys. Rev. 99 (1955), 1418[APS]; Proc. R. Soc. A 235 (1956), 408.
  10. L. Van Hove, Physica 21 (1955), 901[CrossRef]; ibid. 22 (1956), 343[CrossRef].
  11. H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 103 (1956), 1353[APS].
  12. H. A. Bethe and J. Goldstone, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A 238, (1957), 531.
  13. J. Goldstone, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A 239 (1957), 627.
  14. N. M. Hugenholtz and L. Van Hove, Physica 24 (1958), 363[CrossRef].
  15. C. Bloch, Nucl. Phys. 7 (1958), 451[CrossRef].
  16. C. Bloch and J. Horowits, Nucl. Phys. 8 (1958), 91[CrossRef].
  17. L. C. Gomes, J. O. Walecka and V. F. Weisskopf, Ann. of Phys. 3 (1958), 241[CrossRef].
  18. A. de Shalit and V. F. Weisskopf, Ann. of Phys. 5 (1958), 282[CrossRef].
  19. S. A. Moszkowski and B. L. Scott, Ann. of Phys. 11 (1960), 65[CrossRef].
  20. H. A. Bethe, B. H. Brandow and A. G. Petshek, Phys. Rev. 129 (1963), 225[APS].
  21. T. Sasakawa, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. No. 27 (1963), 1[PTP].
  22. T. Sasakawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 31 (1964), 787[PTP].
  23. Weisskopf, Helv. Phys. Acta 23 (1950), 187; Science 113 (1951), 110
  24. B. A. Lippmann and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 79 (1950), 469[APS].
  25. Soemtimes, we write uαi(i) as u(αi, i).
  26. For each pair of particles 1 and j, the matrix element is proportional to Ω-1, the probability Ω-2, the number of final states Ω, so the probability of exciting the pair 1 and j is proportional to Ω-1, which itself is very small. However, by the interaction ½∑j≠1V1j, only the particle 1 makes (A-1) such collisions, so the total probability of collision for the particle 1 is AΩ-1, a finite quantity (We have neglected the quantity of the order of 1/A compared with the magnitude 1).
  27. Although the interaction in the t-matrix differs by the factor 2, the first order energy becomes seemingly equal, except the difference due to the boundary condition of Green's function.
    On this account, see §5.
  28. K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 89 (1953), 575[APS].
  29. K. A. Brueckner, The Many Body Problem, edited by C. Dewitt (Dunod, Paris, 1959), p. 58.

Citing Article(s) :

  1. Progress of Theoretical Physics Vol. 34 No. 3 (1965) pp. 442-454 :
    Symmetry Property of the S Matrix on the Basis of the Jost Function Method
    Tatuya Sasakawa and Tatsuo Tsukamoto

[PTP HOME] [BROWSE] [SEARCH] [SUBSCRIPTION] [SUBMISSION] [REGISTRATION]

Copyright © Progress of Theoretical Physics 2013 All rights reserved.