Physics Letters B 672 (2009) 182–185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters B

www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

Correction to Relativistic Mean Field binding energy and N p N n scheme

Madhubrata Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay ∗
Department of Physics, University of Calcutta, 92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata-700 009, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The differences between the experimental and Relativistic Mean Field binding energies have been
Received 15 December 2008 calculated for a large number of even–even nuclei from A = 50 to 220. Excluding certain mass regions,
Received in revised form 12 January 2009 the differences, after suitable corrections for particular isotope chains, are found to be proportional to the
Accepted 12 January 2009
Casten factor P , chosen as a measure of n–p interaction strength in a nucleus. Results for even-Z odd-N
Available online 15 January 2009
Editor: W. Haxton
nuclei are also seen to follow the same relation, if the odd–even mass difference is taken into account
following the semiempirical formula. This indicates that the n–p interaction is the major contributor to
PACS: the difference between the calculated and the experimental binding energies.
21.10.Dr © 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.
21.60.Jz

Keywords:
Binding energy
Relativistic Mean Field
n–p interaction

It is well known that simplified parametrization of various nu- However, not all the difference between the experimental and
clear quantities are obtained as functions of N p N n , the product the theoretical binding energies can be ascribed to the effect of
of effective number of valance particles (or holes) [1]. Essentially n–p interaction. To extract this effect, we have selected the iso-
this simple product is seen to represent integrated n–p interaction tope for each Z with magic neutron number, i.e. isotopes with no
strength and to bear smooth relationships with the observables. valence n–p pairs. In these nuclei, we expect the effect of n–p in-
The correlations beyond mean field results are due principally to teraction to be small and the difference between the experimental
residual two body interaction. In a mean field calculation, the and calculated binding energies to be due to all the other effects
residual interaction between similar nucleons is described by the combined. The difference between theory and experiment in the
pairing force. However, the calculations usually ignore the residual change in the binding energy from the isotope with N n = 0 for a
n–p interaction. For a chain of isotopes, the difference between the particular Z is taken as a measure of the contribution of N p N n
experimental and the calculated binding energies may be a mea- interaction and expressed as Δνπ . Thus we write
sure of the integrated strength of n–p interaction in a particular  
Δνπ ( Z , N ) = A B th ( Z , N ) − B ex ( Z , N ) + B corr ( Z ) (1)
nucleus and vary smoothly with certain simple functions of N p
and N n . where B th and B ex are respectively the theoretically calculated and
Various quantities such as deformation and B (E2) values [2–4], experimentally measured binding energies per nucleon and, A =
rotational moments of inertia in low spin states in the rare earth Z + N, the mass number. We have defined B corr ( Z ) = B ex ( Z , N 0 ) −
region [5], ground band energy systematics [6], core cluster de- B th ( Z , N 0 ), N 0 being a magic number. Depending on the neutron
composition in the rare earth region [7], and properties of excited core, the quantity B corr ( Z ) may have more than one value. For
states [8,9] have been found to follow certain simple trends when example, for Cd isotopes with N  66, one has to use the ex-
expressed as a function of the product of N p and N n or certain perimental and theoretical binding energy values for the isotope
simple functions of the above two quantities. In the present work, with N = 82 while for the lighter isotopes, one uses the values for
we attempt to show that binding energy corrections to Relativistic N = 50. Obviously Δνπ ( Z , N ) vanishes for magic N. The experi-
Mean Field (RMF) calculations can also be expressed in a similar mental binding energy values are from Ref. [10].
fashion. There exist different variations of the Lagrangian density as well
as a number of different parametrization in RMF. The Lagrangian
density FSU Gold [11], which involves self-coupling of the vector–
isoscalar meson as well as coupling between the vector–isoscalar
* Corresponding author. meson and the vector–isovector meson, was earlier employed in
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Gangopadhyay). our study of proton radioactivity [12], alpha radioactivity in heavy

0370-2693/$ – see front matter © 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.021
 M. Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay / Physics Letters B 672 (2009) 182–185 183

Fig. 1. Δνπ as a function of N–N core (left-hand plot) and P = N p N n /( N p + N n ) (right-hand plot). Symbols used for nuclei in different mass regions are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1 P = N p N n /( N p + N n ) which has been widely used as a measure of

Symbols used in Fig. 1 for nuclei in different mass regions and the magic proton the integrated n–p interaction strength. In fact the quantity may
and neutron numbers used to calculate N p and N n for them.
be expressed as simply proportional to P . One can fit a straight
Symbol Z -range N-range Core ( Z , N) line
A 22–24 26–34 20, 28
B 26–36 30–40 38, 40 Δνπ = a P (2)
C 34, 36 42–50 38, 50
D 42 46–64 38, 50 with a = −2.148 ± 0.029 with rms deviation 1.15 MeV. The fitting
E 44 50–64 40, 50 does not include the values for nuclei with P = 0 which are de-
F 46–48 50–64 50, 50 fined to be zero. The fitted line has been shown in the right panel
G 48, 52–62 66–98 50, 82
of Fig. 1. In a few cases, to improve the results, certain shell clo-
H 80, 84–86 106–136 82, 126
sures, which are not apparent, are chosen. For example, in lower Z
nuclei among those represented by ‘C’, proton shell closure is 38,
and not 20 or 28. However, in most situations, the choice of the
and superheavy nuclei [13,14], and cluster radioactivity [15]. In magic number is self-evident.
Ref. [14], spectroscopic factors and Δνπ values in actinides were The theoretical values may be corrected using the fitted straight
seen to follow a certain pattern. In that region the only appro- line in Eq. (2) enormously improving the agreement between the
priate major doubly closed shell nucleus is 208 Pb and it was nec- calculated and experimental binding energy values. It is worth
essary to employ subshell closures. In the present work we look noting that the present mean field calculation does not take defor-
for a more robust systematics in Δνπ , valid in a large mass re- mation into account and is expected to underpredict the binding
gion and dependent only on the known major shells. The FSU Gold energy far away from the closed shell. However, with this correc-
Lagrangian density seems very appropriate for a large mass re- tion from Eq. (2), it is possible to obtain an agreement comparable
gion viz. medium mass to superheavy nuclei. We have solved the to or even better than the values calculated using a deformed
equations in co-ordinate space. The strength of the zero range pair- mean field approach.
ing force is taken as 300 MeV fm for both protons and neutrons. It is possible to extend our calculation to situation where the
We have also checked our conclusions using the density NL3 [16] experimental binding energy for the isotope with magic neutron
which gives very similar results. Unless otherwise mentioned, the number is not known. The nuclei, with the proton and neu-
results refer to the calculations with FSU Gold. tron magic numbers chosen to calculate N p and N n given in
In Fig. 1, we plot the results of a large number of even–even parentheses, 112−120 Pd(50, 82), 110−116 Te(50, 50), 112−118 Xe(50, 50),
114−120
nuclei, lying between mass 50 and mass 220 as shown in Table 1. Ba(50, 50) have been studied. We also include all the nu-
The results have been plotted only for the nuclei whose experi- clei with N  106 and Z = 70–78, all with the same magic core
mental binding energies are available. Certain isotope chains, e.g. (82, 126), whose experimental binding energies are known, i.e.
the chains of isotopes for Z = 64–70 and 88  Z  92, do not fol- 176,178
Yb, 178−184 Hf, 180−190 W, 182−196 Os, and 184−200 Pt.
low the pattern that we have observed in the nuclei of Table 1 The B corr values for the above chains may be estimated in two
and have been discussed later. Values of Δνπ could not be cal- ways. It may be taken from a different shell closure where the
culated for certain nuclei as experimental binding energies for the experimental data is available. For example,the binding energies
isotopes with N n = 0 are not available and have been treated sepa- for Te, Xe and Ba nuclei with N = 50 are obviously not available
rately. In the left-hand plot of Fig. 1, we have plotted the quantity as they lie beyond the proton drip line. However, the B corr val-
Δνπ as a function of number of N–N core , where N is the num- ues for these nuclei with N = 82 have already been calculated in
ber of neutrons and N core is the nearest closed neutron shell. It is the present work and we use the same values for the nuclei men-
difficult to see a pattern for the different mass regions, or even, tioned above. In Pd nuclei, the value obtained from N = 50 cannot
within a mass region. However, we find that the points lie very be used for the N = 82 shell closure and is actually calculated in
close to a straight line if plotted as a function of the Casten factor, the following approach. In nuclei with Z = 70–78, the experimen-
184 M. Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay / Physics Letters B 672 (2009) 182–185

Fig. 2. B corr values for Z = 70–80. See text for details.

Fig. 4. Δνπ as a function of P for the nuclei of Fig. 1 for the density NL3.

Fig. 3. Δνπ as a function of P for the isotopes Z = 46, N  66; Z = 52–56, N  64;
and Z = 70–78, N  106 as described in the text.

Fig. 5. Δνπ as a function of P for odd–even isotopes as described in the text.

tal binding energy is not available for N = 126. The binding energy
for 152 Yb is known, but the Yb isotopes in its vicinity do not share aration energies using the present approach is comparable to or
the simple trend of Eq. (2). In nuclei with Z = 46 and 74–78 we better than that observed in the deformed calculation.
have estimated B corr from the differences between the theoreti- The excellent results for even–even isotopes have prompted us
cal and experimental binding energies in isotopes with N n = 0 by to study even- Z odd-N isotopes. This has the added advantage that
using Eq. (2) with the fitted value for a. For Z = 70 and 72, the the B corr ( Z ) values are already known from the study of the even–
number of available Δνπ values are rather small to extract B corr even chains. We have studied the odd N even Z isotopes within
meaningfully. However, we find that the values of B corr obtained the ranges given in Table 1. Additionally, we calculate Δνπ values
for Z = 74–78 along with that obtained from the theoretical and for the ranges of isotopes discussed earlier where the binding en-
experimental binding energy values of 206 80 Hg lie on a straight line. ergy values for the isotope with magic neutron number are not
We have obtained the values for Z = 70 and Z = 72 from the fit- known and B corr ( Z ) values have been estimated. In no case we
ted line. The values of B corr used for Z = 70–80 have been shown have modified the B corr ( Z ) values for odd isotopes. In our cal-
in Fig. 2. The Δνπ values for the above nuclei have been plotted culation, we neglect the fact that, the unpaired neutron actually
against P in Fig. 3. Once again, one can see the excellent agree- occupies a particular single particle state, and breaks the sym-
ment between the extracted values of Δνπ and the straight line of metry. However, it is known that the effect of this correction to
Eq. (2) also shown in the figure, plotted with the previously fitted the binding energy is small. The results, plotted in Fig. 5, again
value of a. show a similar trend for even–odd isotopes. Keeping the odd–
To check whether this remarkable correlation is a property even mass difference term in the semiempirical mass formula in
of the particular Lagrangian density alone, we have chosen an- mind, we try to fit the results using a simple function of the form
other Lagrangian density, NL3 and studied the nuclei for which a P + d/ A, where A is the mass number of the isotope. A least
results have been plotted in Fig. 1. The results, shown in Fig. 4, square fitting procedure gives the values as a = −2.129 ± 0.042
show a very similar trend though with slightly different slope (a = and d = 145.7 ± 14.3 with a standard deviation of 1.09 MeV for
−2.609 ± 0.044) and a slightly higher rms deviation of 1.68 MeV. 209 nuclei. There are two points of interest here. The coefficients
We have also compared our results with those of a deformed RMF for the Casten factor P for even–even and even–odd isotopes are
calculation by Lalazissis et al. [17] for Nd and Sm isotopes. We identical within errors. Secondly, the value for d is nearly the same
find that the agreement in binding energies and two nucleon sep- as the corresponding coefficient in semi-empirical mass formula,
 M. Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay / Physics Letters B 672 (2009) 182–185 185

ticularly the rare earth nuclei Z = 64–74, N = 78–104 and actinide

nuclei Z = 88–92, N = 114–148. The Δνπ values for even–even nu-
clei in these regions follow a different trend as shown in Fig. 7.
First of all, the dispersion in the values is larger that the case
of lighter nuclei. More importantly, clearly there are two differ-
ent trends in the values with the points beyond P = 5 showing a
sharp downward tendency.
Subshell closures, such as Z = 38 or 64, often become impor-
tant in the systematics of certain observables [1,18]. As mentioned
earlier, we also invoked a number of different subshell closures
in our work on systematics of spectroscopic factors [14]. In the
present work, we have already used Z = 38 as a closure. We note
that among the nuclei mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the
subshell closure Z = 64 brings the Δνπ values for nuclei with
Z = 66, 68, 82  N  92, very close to the straight line in Fig. 6.
However, a more detailed analysis is required to bring out the role
of subshell closures in the binding energy corrections.
The differences between the experimental and the theoretically
Fig. 6. Δνπ as a function of P for even–even and odd–even isotopes as described in calculated binding energies in RMF approach have been calculated
the text. for a large number of even–even nuclei from A = 50 to 220. As the
n–p interaction is the major contributor to the difference between
the theoretical and the experimental binding energies in RMF, we
have taken the Casten factor P as a measure of n–p interaction and
found that excluding certain mass regions, the differences, after
suitable corrections for particular isotope chains, are proportional
to P . Results for even- Z odd-N nuclei are also seen to follow the
same relation, if the odd–even mass difference is taken into ac-
count.

Acknowledgements

This work is carried out with financial assistance of the Board of

Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy (Sanc-
tion No. 2005/37/7/BRNS).

References

[1] R.F. Casten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1991.

[2] R.F. Casten, N.V. Zamfir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 402.
Fig. 7. Δνπ as function of P for the nuclei as indicated with the closed core given in
[3] B.D. Foy, R.F. Casten, N.V. Zamfir, D.S. Brenner, Phys. Rev. C 49 (1994) 1224.
parentheses. A: Z = 30, 32, 42  N  50 (38, 50); B: Z = 64, 78  N  98 (50, 82);
[4] Y.M. Zhao, A. Arima, R.F. Casten, Phys. Rev. 63 (2001) 067302.
C: Z = 66–74, 82  N  104 (82, 82); D: 88  Z  92, 114  N  148 (82, 126).
[5] M. Saha, S. Sen, Phys. Rev. C 46 (1992) R1587.
[6] M. Saha, S. Sen, Phys. Rev. C 49 (1994) 2460.
i.e. 140 MeV. In Fig. 6, the results for all the isotopes described [7] B. Buck, A.C. Merchant, S.M. Perez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 202501.
so far, except the ones with P = 0, have been plotted. The re- [8] R.F. Casten, Phys. Rev. C 33 (1986) 1819.
[9] J.H. Yoon, E. Ha, D. Cha, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 34 (2007) 2545.
sults for the even–odd isotopes have been shifted by the amount [10] G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra, C. Thibault, Nucl. Phys. A 729 (2003) 337.
−145.7/ A. A least square fit of the points using Eq. (2) leads to a [11] B.G. Todd-Rutel, J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 122501.
value, a = −2.139 ± 0.017, with rms deviation of 1.09 MeV for 443 [12] M. Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay, Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 263.
nuclei and have also been shown. Fig. 6 clearly demonstrates that [13] M. Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 047302.
[14] M. Bhattacharya, S. Roy, G. Gangopadhyay, Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008) 182.
the n–p interaction is the dominating factor in the correction to
[15] M. Bhattacharya, G. Gangopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 027603.
the RMF binding energy. [16] G.A. Lalazissis, J. König, P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 540.
Finally we would like to make a brief comment on the nuclei [17] G.A. Lalazissis, M.M. Sharma, P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. A 597 (1996) 35.
in various mass regions not included in the above discussion, par- [18] R.F. Casten, N.V. Zamfir, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 22 (1996) 1521.