Description of heavy nuclei masses by macro-micro models

1. Coworkers: Yu. Litvinov, A. Parkhomenko

2. Introduction

3. Considered models

4. Accuracy of the models and their predictive power

5. Differences in their predictions outside the known region

6. Conclusions

18th Nuclear Physics Workshop Kazimierz Dolny, Sept. 28-Oct. 2, 2011

A. Sobiczewski

National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw

Considered models:

Global models: LSD, FRDM, TF, FRLDM – macro-micro;

Sk-HFB21; G-HFB, RMF – purely micro

Local models: LMZ – semi-empirical, HN (Warsaw) – macro-micro

LSD: K. Pomorski and J. Dudek, PRC 67 (2003) 044316

FRDM: P. Möller et al., ADNDT 59 (1995) 185

TF: W.D. Myers and W.J. Świątecki, Nucl. Phys. A 601 (1996) 141

Sk-HFB21: S. Goriely et al., PRC 82 (2010) 035804

G-HFB: S. Goriely et al., PRL 102 (2009) 242501

RMF: L. Geng et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 113 (2005) 785

LMZ: S. Liran et al., PRC 62 (2000) 47301

HN (Warsaw): I. Muntian et al., Acta Phys. Pol. B 32 (2001) 691

Conclusions

1. Global m-m models are comparable in their accuracy (ms about 600 keV). Also their predictive power is comparable. The worst is FRLDM.

2. Among purely micr models, last version of Sk-HFB is the best. However, it is comparable with m-m models, while much more complicated and time consuming in the calculations.

3. Present version of RMF is rather bad. One can expect, however, thatmodification discussed by P. Ring (and being used in going on calculations) will lead to much better results.

4. For heavy nuclei, the rms is smaller and comparable between the m-m and also Sk-HFB21 models. The G-HFB and RMF models are much worse. The semi-empirical model is exceptionally good. However, its predictive power is not so good.

5. When going outside of the exp. region, the models show differences, but not so sudden. This suggests that a continuing interaction between experiment and theory, the models may be reasonably fast developed. In this development, the considerations discussed by J. Dudek may appear to be helpful.