Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/BasicLatin.js

Evolution of N = 20, 28, 50 shell closures in the 20 ≤ Z ≤ 30 region in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum

  • Magicity, or shell closure, plays an important role in our understanding of complex nuclear phenomena. In this work, we employ one of the state-of-the-art density functional theories, the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum (DRHBc) with the density functional PC-PK1, to investigate the evolution of the N=20,28,50 shell closures in the 20Z30 region. We show how these three conventional shell closures evolve from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line by studying the charge radii, two-neutron separation energies, two-neutron gaps, quadrupole deformations, and single-particle levels. In particular, we find that in the 21Z27 region, the N=50 shell closure disappears or becomes quenched, mainly due to the deformation effects. Similarly, both experimental data and theoretical predictions indicate that the N=28 shell closure disappears in the Mn isotopic chain, mainly due to the deformation effects. The DRHBc theory predicts the existence of the N=20 shell closure in the Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopic chains, but the existing data for the Ti isotopes suggest the contrary, and therefore further research is needed.
  • The European Muon Collaboration (EMC) effect, a type of nuclear medium modification in the valence quark regime of 0.3x0.75, refers to the noticeable deviation from unity of the structure-function ratio between the heavy nucleus (A>2) and the deuteron [19]. The deuteron is considered here as the reference nucleus, which is approximately regarded as a system of a free proton plus a free neutron. The EMC effect was first discovered in the muon-induced deep inelastic scattering (DIS) off the iron nucleus [1, 2]. Soon after this discovery, the EMC effect was confirmed by the electron-nucleus DIS data at SLAC [3, 4]. To date, many experimental measurements of the EMC effect have been reported on various nuclear targets.

    The EMC effect is surprising and attracts a signifiant amount of interest from theorists. The nuclear structure function is measured with the hard probe of momentum above GeV, while the per-nucleon binding energy inside the nucleus is approximately in the MeV scale. At the fundamental level of quarks and gluons, it is not clear how the relatively long-range nuclear force modifies the short-distance structure inside the nucleon. In the quark-parton model, the structure function is the incoherent summation of the quark distributions inside the nucleon. The discovery of the EMC effect implies that the quark distribution is evidently modified by the nuclear medium. If the quarks are completely confined inside the nucleon and do not play a role in the emergence of nuclear force, then the quark distribution should not be modified with the presence of surrounding nucleons. After decades of studies, many models have been constructed that properly describe the EMC effect, such as the off-shell correction [10, 11], x-rescaling model [12, 13], nucleon swelling and dynamical rescaling model [1419], cluster model [2027], point-like configuration suppression model [28, 29], and statistical model [30]. To differentiate the various models, more experiments and new observables beyond the F2 ratio are expected.

    It is speculated that the strength of the EMC effect depends on the local density instead of the global average density of the nucleus, according to the measurements of the very light nuclei 3He and 9Be [31]. This interesting finding stimulates the physicists to imagine that the nuclear EMC effect emerges mainly from the local cluster structures inside the nucleus. The other hypothesis is that the EMC effect primarily results from the high-virtuality nucleons, which belong to the short-distance configurations of nucleons. This is supported by the unexpected linear correlation between the EMC effect and nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations (N-N SRC) [32, 33].

    The N-N SRC pairs are the temporary close-proximity fluctuations of two strongly interacting nucleons [3437]. Experimentally, the N-N SRC pairs are identified as the nucleon pairs of high relative momentum between nucleons and small center-of-mass momentum of the pair [3842]. The nucleons in SRC exhibit a much higher momenta than the nuclear Fermi momentum kF. The abundance of N-N SRC pairs can be simply characterized by the probability of finding high-momentum nucleons [4345]. These nucleons can form a close-proximity configuration and are also sensitive to the repulsive core of nucleon-nucleon interaction [46]. It is widely accepted that the intermediate-distance tensor force is the primary source of the formation of N-N SRC [4649].

    Inspired by the observed linear correlation between the EMC effect and N-N SRC [32, 33], some nuclear physicists suggest that SRC pairs may be the underlying source of the EMC effect. This assumption is close to the traditional cluster model for the EMC effect [2027]. The difference is that the cluster model is at the parton level with the six-quark bag picture, whereas the SRC explanation is based on the nucleon degrees of freedom, from which the properties of SRC nucleon are greatly modified. In a recent theoretical work, it was argued that the linear correlation between the EMC effect and N-N SRC is the natural result of the scale separation of the nucleon structure part (Λ-independent) and twist-four part (nuclear modification, Λ-dependent) of nuclear matrix elements [50]. It was demonstrated that the linear correlation between the EMC effect and N-N SRC can be derived in the effective field theory.

    One key and intriguing question is whether there is causality between the EMC effect and SRC. Recently, the CLAS collaboration tested the SRC-driven EMC model with the simultaneous measurements of DIS and quasi-elastic inclusive process on the deuteron and heavier nuclei [45]. They extracted the modification function of the nucleon structure in SRC pairs and found that this modification function is nucleus-independent [45]. They showed that the EMC effect in all measured nuclei is consistent with the universal modification function of SRC pairs, and that the magnitude of the EMC effect in the nucleus can be described by the number of SRC pairs. In their view, the EMC effect is not the traditional static modification on all the independent nucleons but a strong dynamical effect for short time intervals of two strongly interacting nucleons fluctuating into a temporary high-local-density SRC pair [45]. The universal modification function of SRC was also carefully studied by J. Arrington and N. Fomin [51]. They found that there is almost no A-dependence of the universal modification function extracted with the Local-Density model, while there is weak A-dependence with the High-Virtuality model. The universal modification function resulting from data of various nuclei is consistent with a truly universal function, and the Local-Density hypothesis is favored [51].

    A different approach has also been investigated and reported. Recently, in Ref. [52], the relationship between SRC and the EMC effect was further examined by incorporating the nuclear binding and nucleon off-shell effects. The authors argued that their analysis does not support the hypothesis that there is a causal connection between nucleons residing in SRCs and the EMC effect [52]. The EMC effect of the low-momentum and high-momentum nuclei are separately studied. The authors found that the Fermi motion effect is much stronger than the off-shell effect for SRC nucleons, with three different models for the off-shell effect [52]. Hence, they concluded that the SRC nucleons do not cause the dominant EMC effect [52]. This conclusion is contrary to what one expected in the past. It is worth further examining the relationship between the EMC effect and SRC from different viewpoints or theoretical models.

    Currently, the approaches for describing the EMC effect can be classified into the following three categories: (i) all the nucleons are slightly modified when embedded in the nuclear medium; (ii) nucleons are unmodified most of the time but greatly modified when they fluctuate into N-N SRC; (iii) mean-field uncorrelated nucleons are slightly modified, and the nucleons are substantially modified for a short-time interval in the temporary SRC state. It is a prominent research topic to study whether the nuclear EMC effect entirely comes from the N-N SRC. Hence, in this work, we focus on the last two approaches to explain the EMC effect. In Sec. II, we illustrate the models we use to calculate the nuclear EMC effect. In Sec. III, we present the results of the EMC effect from SRC and mean-field nucleons. Finally, a short summary is provided in Sec. IV.

    It is known that the traditional nuclear structure is almost irrelevant to the nuclear EMC effect. The nucleon momentum distribution leads to the Fermi motion effect around x=1. The per-nucleon nuclear binding energy is much smaller than the high-momentum virtual photon probe or nucleon mass. Nevertheless, the identity of nucleons inside nucleus is well established and it is the core of the traditional nuclear physics. The nucleon structure should be connected to the properties of the nucleon.

    In this study, we applied the x-rescaling model to evaluate the EMC effect, which is analyzed on the view that the nucleus is a sum of quasi-particles (bound nucleons). The mass is a fundamental property of the nucleon, and the change in the nucleon mass inside the nucleus should be taken into account for the nuclear medium effect. The nucleon effective mass in nucleus has been successfully used to describe the nuclear EMC effect [12, 13]. The Bjorken scaling variable is defined in terms of the free nucleon mass m as x=Q2/(2mν). However, the struck nucleon in lepton-nucleus DIS could be far off-shell. The true scaling variable for nuclear DIS should be assumed to be x=Q2/(2mν)=xm/m=xη, where m is the effective mass of the bound nucleon. Here, η=m/m is the rescaling factor of x, and the per-nucleon nuclear structure function FA2 is given by

    FA2(x,Q2)=FN2(xη,Q2),

    (1)

    where FN2 is the free nucleon structure function. The rescaling of x is taken into account for the off-shell correction of the bound nucleon [12, 13, 53]. It was also pointed out that the exchanged virtual meson would take away a fraction of the nucleon momentum, thus resulting in the x-rescaling of the nuclear structure function [54].

    The nucleon effective mass in the x-scaling model is used to describe the off-shellness of the nucleon, with E2=p2+m2 [12, 13, 53]. The nucleon effective mass was also defined by Brueckner in 1950s within a non-relativistic many-body theory to account for the momentum-dependence of potential energy of a single particle, with E(k)=k2/2m+V(0)+bk2=k2/2m+V(0), V(k)=V(0)+bk2+..., and m=m/(1+2bm) [55]. Therefore, the effective mass of the SRC nucleon in this study was different from Brueckner's definition. Brueckner's nucleon effective mass reflects leading effects of the space-time non-locality of the underlying nuclear interactions [56, 57], while the effective mass of SRC nucleon arises from the local interactions at short distance. The relations between these two effective masses should be investigated in the future.

    The intriguing question we aimed to answer through the present study is whether the N-N SRCs are totally responsible for the nuclear EMC effect. Therefore, we consider the first model, referred as model-A, for the convenience of discussion, in which only the short-range correlated nucleons are substantially modified while the uncorrelated nucleons are nearly unmodified. This model strongly relies on the causality between the SRC and the EMC effect, i.e., the N-N SRC is the primary source of the EMC effect. For model-A, the nuclear structure function FA2 is decomposed as

    FA2=[nASRCFpinSRC2+nASRCFninSRC2+(ZnASRC)Fp2+(AZnASRC)Fn2]/A,

    (2)

    where nASRC is the number of proton-neutron SRC pairs in nucleus A, FpinSRC2 and FninSRC2 are the modified nucleon structure functions in the SRC pair, and Fp2 and Fn2 are free nucleon structure functions. In Eq. (2), Z, N, and A are respectively the proton number, neutron number, and mass number. Here, the number of SRC pairs should be viewed as the time-averaged value for the dynamical system. Given that the deuteron is in the SRC configuration occasionally, the time-averaged number of SRC pairs in the deuteron is less than one, that is, ndSRC<1.

    The SRC universality and isophobic property of N-N SRC pairs are the other two foundations of model-A. The universality of SRC can be described by a similar form of nuclear wave function at high nucleon momentum, which is confirmed by the experimental observations of the x-independence and the weak Q2-dependence of the cross section ratio between two different nuclei in the region of 1.4x2 [4345]. Different experiments have revealed that most of the SRC pairs are the proton-neutron pairs [37, 39, 40, 42, 58, 59]. This isophobic property supports the point that the immediate tensor force is the primary source for the formation of N-N SRC pairs [4649].

    For model-A, the number of SRC pairs in nucleus A and modified nucleon structure functions in SRC pair are key inputs. The number of SRC pairs in nucleus A is closely related to the measured SRC scaling ratio a2(nucleus A over the deuteron) and number of SRC pairs in the deuteron, which is written as

    nASRC=[A×a2(A)×ndSRC]/2.

    (3)

    Note that the above relation (Eq. (3)) is a simplified assumption. The SRC scaling ratio a2 is measured using the high-energy electron inclusive scattering process off the nuclear targets [4345], and the number of SRC pairs in the deuteron was determined in a previous analysis [60]. The free nucleon structure functions can be calculated with the parton distribution functions fi(x,Q2), as FN2(x,Q2)=ie2ixfi(x,Q2). In this study, the proton parton distribution functions were extracted from global analyses such as CT14 [61] and CJ15 [62]. The parton distributions of the free neutron are easily given by the parton distributions of the proton under the assumption of isospin symmetry, i.e., un=dp and dn=up. By using the x-rescaling model, the structure function of the SRC nucleon is connected with the free nucleon structure function, which is expressed as

    FpinSRC2(x,Q2)=Fp2(xηSRC,Q2),FninSRC2(x,Q2)=Fn2(xηSRC,Q2),

    (4)

    in which ηSRCis the rescaling factor for the SRC nucleon; ηSRC is directly connected with the effective mass of SRC nucleon as ηSRC=m/mSRC, which is a universal factor among different nuclei. Given that the effective mass of SRC nucleon mSRC was extracted from a correlation analysis between the nuclear mass and SRC scaling ratio a2, the rescaling factor for SRC nucleon was computed to be ηSRC=1.10 [60].

    According to the nuclear shell model, the nucleons move independently in the mutual potential created by all the nucleons, which is usually approximated with the mean field. These mean-field nucleons are mainly governed by the long-range nuclear force. As revealed by a high energy electron probe, we know that nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations exist and they constitute an important microscopic structure of the nucleus. Although short-range correlated nucleons interact intensively, they are minorities in a temporary state. A more general hypothesis is that the structure function of mean-field nucleons is slightly modified, whereas the structure function of SRC nucleons is strongly modified. In other words, the N-N SRC may not generate the enough EMC effect.

    For the second model, referred as model-B for the convenience of discussion, we propose that both the mean-field nucleons and SRC nucleons are modified by the nuclear medium or correlated partner nucleon. The nuclear structure function in model-B is decomposed as

    FA2=[nASRCFpinSRC2+nASRCFninSRC2+(ZnASRC)Fp2+(AZnASRC)Fn2]/A,

    (5)

    where FpinSRC2 and FninSRC2 denote the structure functions of SRC nucleons, and Fp2 and Fn2 denote the structure functions of mean-field nucleons. Here, the number of SRC pairs nASRC and structure functions of SRC nucleons are assumed to be the same as those of model-A. In model-B, the structure functions of mean-field nucleons are also calculated with the x-rescaling model, which is expressed as

    Fp2(x,Q2)=Fp2(xηMF,Q2),Fn2(x,Q2)=Fn2(xηMF,Q2).

    (6)

    Different from the situation for SRC nucleons, we assume that the rescaling factor ηMF for the mean-field nucleon is nucleus-dependent, given that the effective mass of the mean-field nucleon depends on the nucleus. The nucleon densities of different nuclei are different. In this analysis, we let ηMF be a free parameter for each nucleus. Note that the rescaling factor ηMF for mean-field nucleons should be smaller than the rescaling factor ηSRC for SRC nucleons.

    Figures 1 and 2 depict recent experimental measurements of the nuclear EMC effects in light and heavy nuclei, respectively. The predictions of model-A and model-B are also shown in the figures for the sake of comparison. The experimental data are extracted from the recent high-precision measurements by CLAS at JLab [45]. Note that the experimental data points are distributed in the valence quark region of x smaller than 0.6. Given that the data are far from the Fermi motion region near x1, the Fermi motion correction was neglected in this work.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) The predicted EMC ratios from the x-rescaling models are shown along with the experimental data (light nuclei). See the main text for details of the models. The experimental data are extracted from JLab Hall C [31]. Q2 was set as 5.3 GeV2 in the model calculations to be consistent with the experiment.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) The predicted EMC ratios from the x-rescaling models are shown with the experimental data (heavy nuclei). See the main text for details of the models. The experimental data are extracted from CLAS at JLab [45]. Q2 was set to 2 GeV2 in the model calculations to be consistent with the experiment.

    We found that the EMC effect from model-A is much weaker than the experimental observations. For the calculations of structure function ratios in model-A, we used the parton distribution functions of CT14 and CJ15. Note that the dependence on the data set of parton distribution functions is weak. In conclusion, based on the x-rescaling model, only the nuclear modifications from short-range correlated nucleons are not enough to reproduce the nuclear EMC effect in experiments. We speculate that the valence distribution of mean-field nucleons is also modified, the modification of valence distribution in N-N SRC is not universal in different nuclei, or some other short-distance structures beyond N-N SRC exist with strong modifications on the inner nucleon structure, such as 3N-SRC and α clusters.

    Note also that the number of proton-neutron SRC pairs in the deuteron is estimated to be ndSRC=0.041 by K. S. Egiyan et al. [43]; this value is much larger than the value from a previous analysis of ours [60]. In their analysis, the number of nucleons in N-N SRC pairs was defined as the number of nucleons of high momenta k>kF275 MeV/c [39, 43]. With this definition, a small fraction of mean-field nucleons may be misidentified as SRC nucleons, resulting in more SRC pairs than in our previous analysis. Nevertheless, Fig. 3 shows the predicted EMC ratios from model-A, taking the SRC a2 data averaged from experiments [33, 45] and ndSRC=0.041 [43]. The predicted EMC slopes are still smaller than the data by CLAS collaboration. Therefore, based on either our estimation on SRC numbers or the estimation by K. S. Egiyan et al., only the modifications on SRC nucleons are not enough to interpret the nuclear EMC effect. Then, we let the number of SRC pairs inside the deuteron be a free parameter. We found that, as the number of SRC pairs inside the deuteron increases by approximately 10%, the EMC effect can be explained only with the SRC nucleons. However, this high number of SRC pairs inside the deuteron is contradictory (much higher) with respect to the analysis based on the experimental data.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) The predicted EMC ratios from a x-rescaling model (model-A) are shown along with the experimental data (heavy nuclei), with different input values for the parameter ndSRC. See the main text for details of the model. The experimental data are extracted from CLAS at JLab [45]. Q2 was set to 2 GeV2 in the model calculations to be consistent with the experiment.

    In model-B, the mean-field nucleons are also modified, in addition to the SRC nucleons. We also assume in model-B that the rescaling factor ηMF is a free parameter and it depends on the nuclear medium. Thus, we performed the least square fit of model-B to the EMC ratio data in the range of 0.35<xB<0.65 to find the optimal parameter ηMF for each measured nucleus. The resulting values of ηMF are listed in Table 1. In model-B, ηMF of the deuteron is simply one; ηMF of 208Pb was determined to be 1.022 ± 0.002, which is a much smaller value than the rescaling factor for the SRC nucleon. Nevertheless, the mean-field nucleons in 208Pb are evidently modified, judged by the obtained rescaling factor ηMF. By introducing the EMC effect of the mean-field nucleon, the model-B successfully explains the nuclear EMC effect.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  The values of the fitted rescaling factor ηMF for the mean-field nucleon are listed under the framework of model-B. In this model, modifications on both the SRC and mean-field nucleons lead to the observed nuclear EMC effect. The errors come only from the fits to the EMC effect data. The uncertainties of the parameters ndSRC and a2 are not included.
    nucleus ηMF nucleus ηMF
    4He1.008 ± 0.001 9Be1.005 ± 0.002
    12C1.016 ± 0.00227Al1.021 ± 0.002
    56Fe1.027 ± 0.001208Pb1.022 ± 0.002
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Furthermore, let us analyze the nuclear dependence of the rescaling factor ηMF for the mean-field nucleon in model-B. The correlations between ηMF and ln(A), ηMF and the nucleon density, and ηMF and the proton density are shown in Fig. 4. The nucleon density and proton density are calculated using A/(43πR3) and Z/(43πR3), respectively, in which R is the charge radius of a nucleus. The data of nuclear charge radii are extracted from Ref. [63]. Given that the radius of the neutron distribution in the nucleus may not be the same as the charge radius, we also plot the correlation between ηMF and the proton density of the nucleus. Although the linear correlation is not perfect, the rescaling factor ηMF of the mean-field nucleon is more or less correlated with the nucleon density. The obtained rescaling factor of the mean-field nucleon is proportional to the average nuclear density.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Correlations among the rescaling factor ηMF of mean-field nucleon, ln(A), the average nucleon density, and the average proton density. See the main text for how these densities are calculated.

    In the x-rescaling model, we tested the idea that N-N SRC is the dominant source for the nuclear EMC effect. The nuclear EMC effects of some nuclei were calculated within the x-re scaling model under the assumptions that the SRC nucleon is universal among different nuclei and that only the inner structure of short-range correlated nucleons are modified. The input mass of the N-N SRC pair and number of SRC pairs inside the deuteron are extracted from a previous analysis of the a2 data and nuclear mass [60]. We found that the nuclear medium correction on N-N SRC is not enough to explain the EMC effect observed in experiments, if the model applied in this study is correct. This conclusion is consistent with results analyzed with the off-shellness correction [52].

    If we assume that the rescaling factor ηSRC is A-dependent, Model-A can effectively describe the experimental data. However, this assumption breaks the universality of N-N SRC, which is basically supported by experimental observations [4345] and some theoretical predictions [64, 65]. For Model-B, we found that the rescaling factor for uncorrelated nucleon is approximately linearly correlated with the nuclear density. This linear relation can be tested with further experimental measurements on more nuclear targets of different densities.

    We speculate that more origins of nucleon structure modifications beyond the short-distance configurations are needed, such as 3N SRC and α clusters. Other possible interpretations are that either the mean-field nucleon is significantly modified, or the N-N SRC pairs in different nuclei have different nuclear medium modifications. For a preliminary exploration, we show that the EMC effect can be explained if we just assume that the mean-field nucleon is also modified. Moreover, the nuclear modification on the mean-field nucleon scales with the density of the nucleus. In summary, we conclude that the SRC universality is wrong, the mean-field nucleon is also slightly modified, there are other sources beyond N-N SRC for the EMC effect such as the α cluster, or the applied x-rescaling model needs improvement.

    Strong evidence of 3N SRC has not been found in the inclusive4He/3He cross section ratio at JLab, and it is shown that isolating 3N SRC is much more challenging compared to isolating 2N SRC [66]. However, the theorists suggest that the scaling phenomenon from inclusive scattering on 3N SRC requires a high Q23 GeV2 and the current experimental situation should be improved [67]. Within Model-A, ndSRC needs to increase from 0.021 to 0.1 to explain the experimental data of the EMC effect. Considering that the 3N SRC and α cluster also contribute to the EMC effect, the numbers of 3N SRC pairs and α clusters should be of the same order as N-N SRC if the structure-function modifications of N-N SRC, 3N SRC and α are similar. Given that there is no 3N SRC and α cluster in the deuteron and that the nuclear modifications inside 3N SRC and α could be stronger than that inside N-N SRC, the numbers of 3N SRC pairs and α clusters in heavy nuclei could be smaller than that of N-N SRC pairs, inferred from the current data of the EMC effect. More experimental measurements are needed for searching other short-distance structures beyond N-N SRC.

    [1] T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015002 (2020) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002
    [2] O. Kamigaito et al., in 22nd International Conference on Cyclotrons and their Applications (CYC2019) (2020) p. MOB01.
    [3] C. Davide, Nature 605, (2022) doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-00711-5
    [4] X. Zhou and J.-C. Yang, AAPPS Bulletin 32 , 35 (2022)
    [5] C. Sturm, B. Sharkov, and H. Stöcker, Nucl. Phys. A 834, 682c (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.01.124
    [6] Y. Sohn, T. Ki, Y. Kim et al., JACoW SRF2021 , MOOFAV02 (2022)
    [7] A. Gade et al, Phys. Rev. C 74, 021302 (2006) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.021302
    [8] F. Wienholtz et al, Nature 498, 346 (2013) doi: 10.1038/nature12226
    [9] D. C. Dinca et al, Phys. Rev. C 71, 041302 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.041302
    [10] A. Bürger et al. (RISING), Phys. Lett. B 622, 29 (2005) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.07.004
    [11] D. Steppenbeck et al, Nature 502, 207 (2013) doi: 10.1038/nature12522
    [12] S. Iimura et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 012501 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.012501
    [13] S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022502 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.022502
    [14] R. P. de Groote et al, Nature Phys. 16, 620 (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0868-y
    [15] C. Babcock et al, Phys. Lett. B 760, 387 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.016
    [16] M. L. Bissell et al, Phys. Rev. C 93, 064318 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.064318
    [17] M. Mougeot et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 232501 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.232501
    [18] R. Taniuchi et al, Nature 569, 53 (2019) doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1155-x
    [19] F. Nowacki, A. Poves, E. Caurier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 272501 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.272501
    [20] F. Sommer et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 132501 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.132501
    [21] J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.06.001
    [22] H. Liang, J. Meng, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rept. 570, 1 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.005
    [23] J. Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (World Scientific, 2016)
    [24] S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 109, 103713 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103713
    [25] J. Yang and J. Piekarewicz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 21 (2020) doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023608
    [26] J. Meng, H. Toki, J. Y. Zeng et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 041302 (2002) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.041302
    [27] X. Xia, Y. Lim, P. Zhao et al., Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 121-122 , 1 (2018)
    [28] S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.011301
    [29] L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring et al., Phys. Rev. C 85, 024312 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024312
    [30] L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 042101 (2012) doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/29/4/042101
    [31] X.-X. Sun, J. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 785, 530 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.071
    [32] K. Zhang, D. Wang, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034312 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.034312
    [33] X.-X. Sun, J. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. A 1003, 122011 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.122011
    [34] Z. H. Yang et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 082501 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.082501
    [35] X.-X. Sun, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054315 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.054315
    [36] S.-Y. Zhong, S.-S. Zhang, X.-X. Sun et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 262011 (2022) doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1894-6
    [37] K. Y. Zhang, P. Papakonstantinou, M. H. Mun et al., Phys. Rev. C 107, L041303 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.L041303
    [38] K. Y. Zhang, S. Q. Yang, J. L. An et al., Phys. Lett. B 844, 138112 (2023) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138112
    [39] K. Zhang et al, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024314 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.024314
    [40] K. Zhang et al, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 144, 101488 (2022) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101488
    [41] C. Pan et al, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014316 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014316
    [42] E. J. In, Y. Kim, P. Papakonstantinou et al, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 30, 2150009 (2021) doi: 10.1142/S0218301321500099
    [43] W. Sun, K.-Y. Zhang, C. Pan et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 064103 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac53fa
    [44] C. Pan, K. Zhang, and S. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 28, 1950082 (2019) doi: 10.1142/S0218301319500824
    [45] X.-X. Sun and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064319 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064319
    [46] X.-X. Sun and S.-G. Zhou, Sci. Bull. 66, 2072 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.07.005
    [47] Y.-B. CHOI, C.-H. LEE, and Y. KIM, New Phys. Sae Mulli 72, 113 (2022) doi: 10.3938/NPSM.72.113
    [48] S. Kim, M.-H. Mun, M.-K. Cheoun et al., Phys. Rev. C 105, 034340 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034340
    [49] K. Zhang, X. He, J. Meng et al., Phys. Rev. C 104, 021301 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.L021301
    [50] C. Pan et al, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024331 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024331
    [51] X.-T. He, C. Wang, K.-Y. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 101001 (2021) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac1b99
    [52] K. Y. Zhang, C. Pan, and S. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 106, 024302 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024302
    [53] M.-H. Mun, S. Kim, W. Y. So et al., (2023), arXiv: 2305.09205
    [54] P. Guo, C. Pan, Y. C. Zhao et al., Phys. Rev. C 108, 014319 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014319
    [55] X. Y. Zhang, Z. M. Niu, W. Sun et al., Phys. Rev. C 108, 024310 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.024310
    [56] Y. Xiao, S.-Z. Xu, R.-Y. Zheng et al., Phys. Lett. B 845, 138160 (2023) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138160
    [57] P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, 1980)
    [58] L.-S. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113, 785 (2005) doi: 10.1143/PTP.113.785
    [59] S. Perez-Martin and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 78, 014304 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014304
    [60] S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034323 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034323
    [61] X.-Q. Wang, X.-X. Sun, and S.-G. Zhou, Chin. Phys. C 46, 024107 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3904
    [62] W. Nortershauser et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 062503 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.062503
    [63] W. Geithner et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 252502 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.252502
    [64] I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99, 69 (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2011.12.006
    [65] T. Li, Y. Luo, and N. Wang, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 140, 101440 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2021.101440
    [66] L. Xie et al, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134805 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134805
    [67] K. König, S. Fritzsche, G. Hagen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 102501 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.102501
    [68] R. An, L.-S. Geng, and S.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024307 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.024307
    [69] R. An, S.-s. Zhang, L.-s. Geng et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 054101 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac4b5c
    [70] P. G. Reinhard and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 95, 064328 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.064328
    [71] S. Michimasa et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022506 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.022506
    [72] M. Kortelainen, Z. Sun, G. Hagen et al., Phys. Rev. C 105, L021303 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L021303
    [73] R. F. Garcia Ruiz et al, Nature Phys. 12, 594 (2016) doi: 10.1038/nphys3645
    [74] A. Koszorús et al, Nature Phys. 17, 439 (2021) doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-01136-5
    [75] M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf
    [76] K. Sato, N. Hinohara, K. Yoshida et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 024316 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.024316
    [77] S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, A. Poves et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 054301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054301
    [78] N. Sandulescu, D. Negrea, and D. Gambacurta, Phys. Lett. B 751, 348 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.063
    [79] S. Frauendorf and A. O. Macchiavelli, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 78, 24 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.07.001
    [80] T. Otsuka, MDPI Physics 4, 258 (2022) doi: 10.3390/physics4010018
    [81] Q. Zhao, Z. Ren, P. Zhao et al., Phys. Rev. C 106, 034315 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.034315
    [82] J. Liu, Y. F. Niu, and W. H. Long, Phys. Lett. B 806, 135524 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135524
    [83] W. H. Long, H. Sagawa, N. Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 034314 (2007) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.034314
    [84] O. Sorlin et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 092501 (2002) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.092501
    [85] P.-G. Reinhard and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014303 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014303
    [86] B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh et al., Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 107, 1 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.001
    [87] Y. El Bassem and M. Oulne, Nucl. Phys. A 987, 16 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.04.003
    [88] P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3
    [89] I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064329 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064329
  • [1] T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015002 (2020) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002
    [2] O. Kamigaito et al., in 22nd International Conference on Cyclotrons and their Applications (CYC2019) (2020) p. MOB01.
    [3] C. Davide, Nature 605, (2022) doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-00711-5
    [4] X. Zhou and J.-C. Yang, AAPPS Bulletin 32 , 35 (2022)
    [5] C. Sturm, B. Sharkov, and H. Stöcker, Nucl. Phys. A 834, 682c (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.01.124
    [6] Y. Sohn, T. Ki, Y. Kim et al., JACoW SRF2021 , MOOFAV02 (2022)
    [7] A. Gade et al, Phys. Rev. C 74, 021302 (2006) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.021302
    [8] F. Wienholtz et al, Nature 498, 346 (2013) doi: 10.1038/nature12226
    [9] D. C. Dinca et al, Phys. Rev. C 71, 041302 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.041302
    [10] A. Bürger et al. (RISING), Phys. Lett. B 622, 29 (2005) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.07.004
    [11] D. Steppenbeck et al, Nature 502, 207 (2013) doi: 10.1038/nature12522
    [12] S. Iimura et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 012501 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.012501
    [13] S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022502 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.022502
    [14] R. P. de Groote et al, Nature Phys. 16, 620 (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0868-y
    [15] C. Babcock et al, Phys. Lett. B 760, 387 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.016
    [16] M. L. Bissell et al, Phys. Rev. C 93, 064318 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.064318
    [17] M. Mougeot et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 232501 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.232501
    [18] R. Taniuchi et al, Nature 569, 53 (2019) doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1155-x
    [19] F. Nowacki, A. Poves, E. Caurier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 272501 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.272501
    [20] F. Sommer et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 132501 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.132501
    [21] J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.06.001
    [22] H. Liang, J. Meng, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rept. 570, 1 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.005
    [23] J. Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (World Scientific, 2016)
    [24] S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 109, 103713 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103713
    [25] J. Yang and J. Piekarewicz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 21 (2020) doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023608
    [26] J. Meng, H. Toki, J. Y. Zeng et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 041302 (2002) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.041302
    [27] X. Xia, Y. Lim, P. Zhao et al., Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 121-122 , 1 (2018)
    [28] S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.011301
    [29] L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring et al., Phys. Rev. C 85, 024312 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024312
    [30] L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 042101 (2012) doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/29/4/042101
    [31] X.-X. Sun, J. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 785, 530 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.071
    [32] K. Zhang, D. Wang, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034312 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.034312
    [33] X.-X. Sun, J. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. A 1003, 122011 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.122011
    [34] Z. H. Yang et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 082501 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.082501
    [35] X.-X. Sun, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054315 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.054315
    [36] S.-Y. Zhong, S.-S. Zhang, X.-X. Sun et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 262011 (2022) doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1894-6
    [37] K. Y. Zhang, P. Papakonstantinou, M. H. Mun et al., Phys. Rev. C 107, L041303 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.L041303
    [38] K. Y. Zhang, S. Q. Yang, J. L. An et al., Phys. Lett. B 844, 138112 (2023) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138112
    [39] K. Zhang et al, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024314 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.024314
    [40] K. Zhang et al, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 144, 101488 (2022) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101488
    [41] C. Pan et al, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014316 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014316
    [42] E. J. In, Y. Kim, P. Papakonstantinou et al, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 30, 2150009 (2021) doi: 10.1142/S0218301321500099
    [43] W. Sun, K.-Y. Zhang, C. Pan et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 064103 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac53fa
    [44] C. Pan, K. Zhang, and S. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 28, 1950082 (2019) doi: 10.1142/S0218301319500824
    [45] X.-X. Sun and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064319 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064319
    [46] X.-X. Sun and S.-G. Zhou, Sci. Bull. 66, 2072 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.07.005
    [47] Y.-B. CHOI, C.-H. LEE, and Y. KIM, New Phys. Sae Mulli 72, 113 (2022) doi: 10.3938/NPSM.72.113
    [48] S. Kim, M.-H. Mun, M.-K. Cheoun et al., Phys. Rev. C 105, 034340 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034340
    [49] K. Zhang, X. He, J. Meng et al., Phys. Rev. C 104, 021301 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.L021301
    [50] C. Pan et al, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024331 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024331
    [51] X.-T. He, C. Wang, K.-Y. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 101001 (2021) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac1b99
    [52] K. Y. Zhang, C. Pan, and S. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 106, 024302 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024302
    [53] M.-H. Mun, S. Kim, W. Y. So et al., (2023), arXiv: 2305.09205
    [54] P. Guo, C. Pan, Y. C. Zhao et al., Phys. Rev. C 108, 014319 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014319
    [55] X. Y. Zhang, Z. M. Niu, W. Sun et al., Phys. Rev. C 108, 024310 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.024310
    [56] Y. Xiao, S.-Z. Xu, R.-Y. Zheng et al., Phys. Lett. B 845, 138160 (2023) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138160
    [57] P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, 1980)
    [58] L.-S. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113, 785 (2005) doi: 10.1143/PTP.113.785
    [59] S. Perez-Martin and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 78, 014304 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014304
    [60] S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034323 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034323
    [61] X.-Q. Wang, X.-X. Sun, and S.-G. Zhou, Chin. Phys. C 46, 024107 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3904
    [62] W. Nortershauser et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 062503 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.062503
    [63] W. Geithner et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 252502 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.252502
    [64] I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99, 69 (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2011.12.006
    [65] T. Li, Y. Luo, and N. Wang, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 140, 101440 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2021.101440
    [66] L. Xie et al, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134805 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134805
    [67] K. König, S. Fritzsche, G. Hagen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 102501 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.102501
    [68] R. An, L.-S. Geng, and S.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024307 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.024307
    [69] R. An, S.-s. Zhang, L.-s. Geng et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 054101 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac4b5c
    [70] P. G. Reinhard and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 95, 064328 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.064328
    [71] S. Michimasa et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022506 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.022506
    [72] M. Kortelainen, Z. Sun, G. Hagen et al., Phys. Rev. C 105, L021303 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L021303
    [73] R. F. Garcia Ruiz et al, Nature Phys. 12, 594 (2016) doi: 10.1038/nphys3645
    [74] A. Koszorús et al, Nature Phys. 17, 439 (2021) doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-01136-5
    [75] M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf
    [76] K. Sato, N. Hinohara, K. Yoshida et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 024316 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.024316
    [77] S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, A. Poves et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 054301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054301
    [78] N. Sandulescu, D. Negrea, and D. Gambacurta, Phys. Lett. B 751, 348 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.063
    [79] S. Frauendorf and A. O. Macchiavelli, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 78, 24 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.07.001
    [80] T. Otsuka, MDPI Physics 4, 258 (2022) doi: 10.3390/physics4010018
    [81] Q. Zhao, Z. Ren, P. Zhao et al., Phys. Rev. C 106, 034315 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.034315
    [82] J. Liu, Y. F. Niu, and W. H. Long, Phys. Lett. B 806, 135524 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135524
    [83] W. H. Long, H. Sagawa, N. Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 034314 (2007) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.034314
    [84] O. Sorlin et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 092501 (2002) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.092501
    [85] P.-G. Reinhard and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014303 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014303
    [86] B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh et al., Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 107, 1 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.001
    [87] Y. El Bassem and M. Oulne, Nucl. Phys. A 987, 16 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.04.003
    [88] P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3
    [89] I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064329 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064329
  • 加载中

Figures(9)

Get Citation
Ru-You Zheng, Xiang-Xiang Sun, Guo-fang Shen and Li-Sheng Geng. Evolution of N = 20, 28, 50 shell closures in the 20 ≤ Z ≤ 30 region in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad0bf2
Ru-You Zheng, Xiang-Xiang Sun, Guo-fang Shen and Li-Sheng Geng. Evolution of N = 20, 28, 50 shell closures in the 20 ≤ Z ≤ 30 region in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad0bf2 shu
Milestone
Received: 2023-10-14
Article Metric

Article Views(1412)
PDF Downloads(50)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Evolution of N = 20, 28, 50 shell closures in the 20 ≤ Z ≤ 30 region in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum

    Corresponding author: Li-Sheng Geng, lisheng.geng@buaa.edu.cn
  • 1. School of Physics, Beihang University, Beijing, 102206, China
  • 2. School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 3. Institut für Kernphysik, Institute for Advanced Simulation and Jülich Center for Hadron Physics, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany
  • 4. CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
  • 5. Peng Huanwu Collaborative Center for Research and Education, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
  • 6. Beijing Key Laboratory of Advanced Nuclear Materials and Physics, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China
  • 7. Southern Center for Nuclear-Science Theory (SCNT), Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Huizhou 516000, China

Abstract: Magicity, or shell closure, plays an important role in our understanding of complex nuclear phenomena. In this work, we employ one of the state-of-the-art density functional theories, the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum (DRHBc) with the density functional PC-PK1, to investigate the evolution of the N=20,28,50 shell closures in the 20Z30 region. We show how these three conventional shell closures evolve from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line by studying the charge radii, two-neutron separation energies, two-neutron gaps, quadrupole deformations, and single-particle levels. In particular, we find that in the 21Z27 region, the N=50 shell closure disappears or becomes quenched, mainly due to the deformation effects. Similarly, both experimental data and theoretical predictions indicate that the N=28 shell closure disappears in the Mn isotopic chain, mainly due to the deformation effects. The DRHBc theory predicts the existence of the N=20 shell closure in the Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopic chains, but the existing data for the Ti isotopes suggest the contrary, and therefore further research is needed.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • The shell structure of atomic nuclei, in particular, the shell closure or magicity, plays an important role in nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics [1]. Globally, many radioactive ion beam (RIB) facilities have been built or are under construction, which enable us to study the shell structure of atomic nuclei and to explore the limits of their existence. These facilities are, among others, the RIB Factory (RIBF) at RIKEN in Japan [2], the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) in the United States of America [3], the High Intensity Heavy-ion Accelerator Facility (HIAF) in China [4], the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) in Germany [5], and the Rare Isotope Accelerator Complex for ON-line Experiments (RAON) in Korea [6]. The operation of these large scientific installations will certainly advance our understanding of the strong nuclear force and the atomic nuclei from which the visible universe is formed.

      These RIB facilities have made many exciting discoveries, such as the occurrence of new shell gaps, which results in new magic numbers. For example, the studies of 52Ca [7, 8], 54Ti [9], and 56Cr [10] provide substantial evidence for the onset of a shell closure at N=32. In Ref. [11], direct experimental evidence for a new magic number of N=34 was found in the neutron-rich calcium isotopes, and the shell closures at N=32 and N=34 were shown to be driven by the tensor force. However, the signature of the N=34 shell closure was not confirmed by the two-neutron shell gaps of Ti and V isotopes [12]. In recent years, extensive studies have been conducted on whether the N=40 subshell closure is a local phenomenon that only exists in the magic nickel chain [1315]. It was found that the charge radii of copper isotopes only reveal a weak N=40 subshell closure effect [16], and the chromium isotopes form a new island of inversion at N=40 [17]. For the traditional magic numbers of 28 and 50, Ref. [18] provided the first direct experimental evidence for the doubly magic nature of 78Ni, and this experiment also confirmed the existence of a deformed second low-energy 2+ state, supporting the prediction of shape coexistence in 78Ni [19]. The first measurement of the charge radius of 56Ni provides direct support for its doubly magic nature [20].

      Meanwhile, tremendous theoretical efforts have been made to understand the shell evolution. Among them, covariant density functional theories (CDFTs) have received significant attention owing to their successful descriptions of various nuclear phenomena throughout the nuclear chart [2125]. To accurately describe exotic nuclei close to the drip line, it is essential to consider the pairing correlations and couplings to the continuum [26, 27]. Additionally, it should be noted that most open-shell nuclei are deformed. Therefore, in Refs. [28, 29], the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum (DRHBc) was developed and it can self-consistently treat the deformation and continuum effects. Lately, this theory has been applied to describe or predict the ground state properties of deformed halo nuclei [28, 3038]. In Ref. [39], the DRHBc theory with the point-coupling density functionals was developed for even-even nuclei. It has recently been applied to construct a mass table for even-even nuclei [40], and the mass table for odd-A and odd-odd nuclei is under construction [41]. In addition, many interesting studies have been performed, such as the impact of deformation effects on the location of the neutron drip line [42], the dynamical correlation energy with a two-dimensional collective Hamiltonian [43], the multipole expansion of densities [44], the rotational mode of deformed halo nuclei [45, 46], the bubble structure and shape coexistence [47, 48], the peninsulas of stability beyond the two-neutron drip line [4951], the optimization of the Dirac Woods-Saxon (WS) basis [52], the shell closure at N=82 in the neodymium isotopic chain [39, 41], the collapse of the N=28 shell closure in the newly discovered 39Na [37], the odd-even staggering and kink structures of charge radii of Hg isotopes [53], the prolate-shape dominance in atomic nuclei [54], the nuclear charge radii and shape evolution of Kr and Sr isotopes [55], and the one-proton emission of 148151Lu using the DRHBc+WKB approach [56]. In this work, we apply the DRHBc theory to study the 20Z30 isotopes. In particular, we focus on the evolution of the N=20,28,50 shell closures in this region.

      This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly introduce the DRHBc theory. Results and discussions are presented in Sec. III, followed by a short summary in Sec. IV.

    II.   DEFORMED RELATIVISTIC HARTREE-BOGOLIUBOV THEORY IN CONTINUUM
    • Detailed accounts of the DRHBc theory can be found in Refs. [29, 30, 39, 41]. Here, we briefly introduce the formalism for the convenience of discussions. In the DRHBc theory, the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) equation reads

      (hDλτΔΔhD+λτ)(UkVk)=Ek(UkVk),

      (1)

      where hD is the Dirac Hamiltonian, Δ is the pairing potential, λτ is the Fermi energy for neutrons or protons (τ=n,p), Ek is the quasiparticle energy, and Uk and Vk are the quasiparticle wave functions. The Dirac Hamiltonian in the coordinate space is

      hD(r)=αp+V(r)+β[M+S(r)],

      (2)

      where M is the nucleon mass, and S(r) and V(r) are the scalar and vector potentials, respectively. The pairing potential reads

      Δ(r1,r2)=Vpp(r1,r2)κ(r1,r2),

      (3)

      where κ is the pairing tensor [57] and Vpp is the pairing force of a density-dependent zero-range type,

      Vpp(r1,r2)=V012(1Pσ)δ(r1r2)(1ρ(r1)ρsat).

      (4)

      For an axially deformed nucleus with spatial reflection symmetry, the potentials and densities can be expanded in terms of Legendre polynomials:

      f(r)=λfλ(r)Pλ(cosθ),λ=0,2,4,.

      (5)

      For an odd-A or odd-odd nucleus, one needs to further take into account the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon(s) [30, 41, 58, 59]. Further details about the treatment of blocking effects in the DRHBc theory can be found in Refs. [30, 41].

      The RHB equations are solved using the basis expansion method with the Dirac WS basis [28, 52, 60], which can properly describe the large spatial extension of weakly bound nuclei. In the numerical calculation, the angular momentum cutoff for the Dirac WS basis is chosen to be Jmax. The maximum expansion order in Eq. (5) is \lambda_{\text{max}} = 6, which is sufficient for our study [40, 61]. The size of the box to obtain the WS basis is taken to be 20 fm, and the energy cutoff for the Dirac WS basis in the Fermi sea is E_{\text {cut }}^{+}=300 \; \mathrm{MeV} . For the particle-particle channel we use the zero-range pairing force with a saturation density \rho_{\mathrm{sat}}=0.152 \; \mathrm{fm}^{-3} and a pairing strength V_0=-325\ \mathrm{MeV} \cdot \mathrm{fm}^3 [39, 41]. All the numerical details are the same as those adopted in constructing the DRHBc mass tables [39, 41].

    III.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
    • To understand the evolution of the N= 20, 28, and 50 shell closures, we study the charge radii, two-neutron separation energies, two-neutron gaps, quadrupole deformations, and single-particle levels of 20\le Z \le 30 isotopes in detail. In the following sections, based on the systematic calculations using the DRHBc theory, we show these bulk properties of all the isotopes of 20\le Z \le 30 from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line. Here, we consider a nucleus as bound only if both the one- and two-nucleon separation energies of this nucleus are positive, which is the same strategy as that adopted in Ref. [27]. The resulting neutron drip line can reach up to ^{80}{\rm{Ca}} , ^{83}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{84}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{87}{\rm{V}} , ^{90}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{95}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{96}{\rm{Fe}} , ^{97}{\rm{Co}} , ^{98}{\rm{Ni}} , ^{107}{\rm{Cu}} , and ^{110}{\rm{Zn}} , and the positions of the proton drip line are ^{34}{\rm{Ca}} , ^{40}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{40}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{43}{\rm{V}} , ^{43}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{46}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{47}{\rm{Fe}} , ^{49}{\rm{Co}} , ^{50}{\rm{Ni}} , ^{55}{\rm{Cu}} , and ^{56}{\rm{Zn}} for each isotopic chain.

    • A.   Charge Radii

    • The charge radius of a nucleus is a key observable that can directly reflect important features of the nuclear structure, such as the emergence of neutron halos [62, 63], occurrence of new magic numbers, or disappearance of traditional magic numbers [64, 65]. In Fig. 1, the charge radii of Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes as a function of the neutron number predicted by the DRHBc theory are compared with available data [20, 6467]. Overall, the predicted charge radii are consistent with the available data. We note that the apparent kinks at N=28 manifest this traditional shell closure in the Ca, Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni isotopic chains, and the theoretical results agree well with the available data. Clearly, there is reason to believe that for the other six isotopic chains, the predicted N=28 shell closure should persist and we encourage experimental measurements of charge radii of the relevant nuclei.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Theoretical charge radii as a function of the neutron number for Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes (open circles), where the results for the even-even nuclei are taken from Ref. [40]. The available data from Refs. [20, 6467] are also shown for comparison (solid points). To visualize the shell closures, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, and 0.50 fm are added to the original results of each isotopic chain, respectively. The three vertical gray lines denote N=20, 28, 50 .

      Close to the proton drip line, no obvious kinks at N=20 can be observed from our calculations, but the data for the Sc isotopes show a pronounced kink signaling the existence of a shell closure. We note that in the DRHBc calculations, there exists a second minimum with a large prolate deformation, resulting in a much larger charge radius. Therefore, such a kink might be due to deformation effects. However, that minimum is not the ground state in the DRHBc with several density functionals, and therefore, beyond-mean-field effects need to be investigated. We stress that such a kink cannot be observed in the neighboring Ca isotopes, and therefore, further research is needed to understand this puzzling phenomenon. In addition, around N=20 , there are some discrepancies between theory and experiment for Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopes, especially for the odd-even staggerings. We note that the description of the evolution along the Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopic chains and the odd-even staggerings of charge radii have always been challenging for density functional theories. Such odd-even staggerings can be related to the neutron-proton pairing correlation, but the DRHBc theory does not explicitly take it into account. In Refs. [68, 69], a phenomenological correction term was introduced to consider the neutron-proton pairing correlation. It successfully reproduced the odd-even effects in the Ca isotopic chain, and then was applied to study ten more isotopic chains, that is, O, Ne, Mg, Cr, Ni, Ge, Zr, Cd, Sn, and Pb. In Ref. [70], it was shown that the pairing gradient term controlled by the coupling constant h_{\nabla}^{\xi} plays a crucial role in the Fayans energy density functional. If this term is included, it would be possible to reproduce the observed odd-even staggerings of charge radii of Ca isotopes. One can study the charge radii of all the nuclei throughout the nuclear chart in the DRHBc theory taking into account various corrections, which we shall leave for future works.

      For the neutron number N = 32 , the DRHBc theory reproduces well the relevant data. We note that the neutron numbers N = 32 and 34 have been predicted to be magic in some works. For instance, the precise measurements of masses of ^{49-57} Ca established prominent shell closures at N=32,34 [71], and the energy of the 2_1^{+} state of ^{54} Ca confirmed the existence of the N=34 shell closure [11]. Nonetheless, the charge radii studied here show no indications of a shell closure, which is consistent with the conclusions presented in Refs. [72, 73]. We further note that the experimental charge radii of potassium isotopes do not show signs of shell closure at N=32 [74] either.

      As can be observed in Fig. 1, the DRHBc results agree well with the available data for Zn and Cu isotopes around the N=50 shell closure, and the kinks at N=50 indicate the appearance of this shell closure. As Z decreases, the kinks at N=50 gradually disappear, indicating that the N=50 shell closure becomes weaker and eventually disappears. Nonetheless, owing to the limited experimental data, further investigation is required to confirm the presence or disappearance of the N=50 shell closure in these isotopic chains from the perspective of charge radii.

    • B.   Two-neutron separation energies

    • In addition to charge radii, two-neutron separation energies are also important observables that provide detailed information about shell evolution and shape transitions. The two-neutron separation energies S_{2 n} are defined in Eq. (6):

      \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} S_{2n}(Z,N)=E_{B}(Z,N)-E_{B}(Z,N-2), \end{array}

      (6)

      where E_{B}(Z,N) is the binding energy of a given nucleus with Z protons and N neutrons. Fig. 2 shows the two-neutron separation energies S_{2n} as a function of the neutron number N for the eleven isotopic chains studied, along with the available experimental data taken from Ref. [75]. In general, for a given isotopic chain, S_{2n} decreases smoothly with increasing neutron number N, except at a magic number where S_{2n} drops significantly. From Fig. 2, one can clearly see the N=28 shell closure from both the theoretical results and experimental data. As can be observed, the sudden decreases of S_{2n} for the Mn and Fe isotopic chains are not so obvious compared with those for other isotopic chains.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Theoretical two-neutron separation energies S_{2n} as a function of the neutron number for Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes, where the results for the even-even nuclei are taken from Ref. [40]. The available data from Ref. [75] are shown for comparison. For clarity, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 MeV are added to the original results of each isotopic chain, respectively. The solid points denote the experimental data and the hollow ones are the DRHBc results. The three vertical gray lines denote N= 20, 28, 50.

      Moreover, near N=50 , the theoretical two-neutron separation energies are in good agreement with the experimental data [75] for Cu and Zn isotopes, which is similar to the case of charge radii shown in Fig. 1. This demonstrates that the N=50 shell closure in Cu and Zn is well reproduced in the DRHBc theory. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the disappearance of the N=50 shell closure for Z=20\sim 27 is consistent with the conclusion drawn from the charge radii studied in Sec. III.A. In addition, we found that the DRHBc calculations support the appearance of the subshell closures at N=40 at the mean-field level for most of the isotopic chains in question but the available data do not. This is related to the island of inversion of N=40 [17, 19, 76, 77]. A proper theoretical description of this mass region needs to consider beyond-mean-field effects.

      In Sec. III.A, we note that the N=20 shell closure is not evident for Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopes in our calculations. From the calculated two-neutron separation energies, one can still notice the sharp decreases at N=20 for these three isotopic chains, suggesting that this shell closure is still prominent. However, the existing data for the Ti isotopes suggest the contrary. As a result, further research is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn.

    • C.   Two-neutron gaps

    • Compared to two-neutron separation energies, the two-neutron gaps, defined as \delta_{2 n}=S_{2 n}(Z, N)- S_{2 n}(Z, N+2) , are more sensitive to shell effects because they exhibit a sharp peak when crossing a magic number (shell closure). The two-neutron gaps are shown in Fig. 3 as a function of the neutron number N and compared with the available data [75], where the sharp peaks indicate the appearance of shell closures. Clearly, the theoretical and experimental results for the N=28 shell closure agree well with each other, both show a sharp peak at the traditional magic number N=28 . For the Mn isotopic chain, there is no peak at N=28 , indicating that the N=28 shell closure is quenched due to deformation effects, which drive this nucleus prolate in the ground state as shown in Fig. 4. In the theoretical results for the Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopic chains, the N=20 shell closure is evident. We note that there is a significant discrepancy in the Ti isotopic chain between theory and experiment. The theoretical results peak at N=20 but the data [75] peak at N(=Z)=22 . This discrepancy can be attributed to the relatively strong neutron-proton pairing contributing to this particular nucleus (and the adjacent ones) [78, 79], which can distort the relation between two-neutron gaps and shell closures. Indeed, as exhibited in Fig. 5, the neutron single-particle levels of ^{42} Ti show that the N=20 shell closure is still prominent.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Theoretical two-neutron shell gaps as a function of the neutron number for Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes, where the results for the even-even nuclei are taken from [40]. The available data from Ref. [75] are shown for comparison. The four vertical gray lines denote N=20, 28, 40, 50 .

      Figure 4.  (color online) Theoretical quadrupole deformations as a function of the neutron number for eleven isotopic chains. The available \beta_2 extracted from Ref. [86] are also shown for comparison. The four vertical gray lines denote N= 20, 28, 40, 50.

      Regarding the N=32 shell closure, the experimental data show a sharp peak in the Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopic chains, whereas the DRHBc results only exhibit small fluctuations. In Refs. [11, 80], it was found that the N=32 subshell closure is a direct consequence of the weakening of the attractive nucleon-nucleon interaction between protons (\pi) and neutrons (v) in the \pi f_{7 / 2} and v f_{5 / 2} single-particle orbitals (SPOs) as the number of protons in the \pi f_{7 / 2} SPOs decreases and the magnitude of the \pi f_{7 / 2}-v f_{5 / 2} energy gap increases. Therefore, for the N=32 shell closure, the deviation of the DRHBc results from the available data can be attributed to the missing tensor force. We note that the localized exchange terms in the PCF-PK1 density functional theory can describe well the binding energies of Ca isotopes, and the discrepancies between the theoretical results and experimental data are less than 2 MeV [81]. Recently, the new magic numbers N=32 and 34 in the Ca isotopes have been studied in Ref. [82] using the relativistic Hartree-Fock theory [83] in which the tensor force is included, and it was shown that the strong couplings of the Dirac inversion partners (DIPs) of the (\pi,\nu) {s}_{1/2} and v2 p_{1 / 2} states play an important role in forming the subshell closures at N = 32,~34 .

      As for the N=40 shell closure, the high-lying 2^{+} state observed in { }^{68} \mathrm{Ni} and its low B\left(E 2; 2^{+} \rightarrow 0^{+}\right) value are attributed to the relatively large energy gap separating the p f and g_{9 / 2} orbitals [84]. Except for the Ni isotopic chain, there is no clear shell−closure evidence from the available experimental data on the two-neutron separation energies S_{2n} and two-neutron gaps \delta_{2 n} . As for the theoretical results, similarly to the conclusions drawn from the two-neutron separation energies, the two-neutron gaps also suggest the existence of this subshell closure.

      Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 3, except for the Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes, the DRHBc results do not indicate any clear shell closure at N=50 , which is consistent with the charge radii and two-neutron separation energies shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. These results suggest that the N=50 shell closure disappears in the 20 \leqslant Z \leqslant 27 isotopic chains, which should be verified by future experiments.

    • D.   Quadrupole deformations

    • Intrinsic deformation, a basic property of atomic nuclei, is also influenced by the nuclear shell closure [85]. In Fig. 4, the ground-state quadrupole deformations of Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes are shown as a function of the neutron number N obtained using the DRHBc theory, and the available data taken from Ref. [86] are also presented.

      For Ca isotopes, the deformation remains small from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line, suggesting a predominantly spherical shape throughout. The Sc isotopes exhibit a particularly notable behavior characterized by sharp peaks at N=23 , N=25 , and N=27 , indicating an odd-even staggering on the deformations. As shown in Fig. 1, the large deformation of ^{44} Sc and ^{46} Sc can partially explain their enhanced charge radii. Most Ti isotopes are spherical except for those between N=22 and N=28 and those with 44< N < 56 , which are prolately deformed. For V isotopes, the predicted deformations clearly reflect the possible (sub-) shell closures at N=20, 28 , and 40 while most other nuclei have prolate shapes in their ground states. Similar conclusions might also be drawn for Cr, Mn, Fe, and Co isotopes. It is worth noting that the ground state of ^{53} Mn is prolate. For Ni isotopes, except for those with N=25 and 31 < N < 38 , the deformation remains small from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line. It should be noted that the experimental data of \beta_2 are extracted from the observed B\left(E 2,0^{+} \rightarrow 2^{+}\right) values such that all the values are positive.

      The Ni, Cu, and Zn isotopes with N=28, 40 , and 50 are predicted to be spherical, indicating shell closures at these neutron numbers. The \beta_2 values extracted from the B\left(E 2,0^{+} \rightarrow 2^{+}\right) indicate large deformation for ^{62-80} Zn, which is consistent with our results except for those isotopes with 36\leq N \leq 42 and N=50 . We note that the extracted B\left(E 2,0^{+} \rightarrow 2^{+}\right) values are based on the assumption that the nucleus can be viewed as a rigid rotor, which might not be true for all the nuclei, in particular for (nearly) spherical nuclei [87].

    • E.   Single-particle levels

    • Besides the bulk properties, the mean-field single-particle levels are also good or even more transparent indicators of shell closures. In the following sections, to better understand the results observed in charge radii, two-neutron separation energies, two-neutron gaps, and quadrupole deformations, we study in detail the relevant single-particle levels obtained from the DRHBc theory with the PC-PK1 density functional.

    • 1.   N=20 shell closure
    • To shed more light on the neutron shell closure at N=20 , we display in Fig. 5 the single-neutron levels as a function of the proton number Z for 20 \leq Z \leq 22 . In Fig. 4, the DRHBc theory predicts that ^{40}{\rm{Ca}} and ^{42}{\rm{Ti}} are spherical, while ^{41}{\rm{Sc}} is nearly spherical with \beta_2=-0.03 . Fig. 5 shows that the N=20 shell closure originates from the large energy gap between the 1d_{3/2} and 1f_{7/2} orbitals, which is consistent with the Nilsson diagram [88]. We further note that the energy gap between the 1d_{5/2} and 2s_{1/2} orbitals is also considerably large, which might result in a subshell closure at N=14 .

    • 2.   N=28 shell closure
    • Here, we focus on the single-neutron levels of the 1f_{7/2} and 2p_{3/2} orbitals, which are relevant to the neutron shell gap at N=28 . In Fig. 4, one can see that almost all of the N=28 isotopes are spherical or nearly spherical. This is consistent with the large shell gaps at N=28 shown in Fig. 6. We note that for ^{53} Mn, whose ground state shows a prolate shape, because of deformation effects, the shell gap between the 1f_{7/2} and 2p_{3/2} orbitals forming the N=28 shell closure in the spherical case is quenched.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Theoretical single-neutron levels around the Fermi levels in the canonical basis for N=28 isotopes. The blue lines denote 2p_{3/2} or those levels split from 2p_{3/2} for \beta_2\ne 0 . Similarly, the purple lines are for 1f_{7/2} .

      To better understand the reduction in the ^{53}{\rm{Mn}} shell gap, we show in Fig. 7 its potential energy curve (PEC) obtained from the constrained DRHBc calculations. We note that the PEC is relatively flat between \beta_{2}= -0.1 and \beta_2=0.2 . There are two local minima: one is prolate and the other one is oblate. However, the energy difference between them is less than 0.5 MeV. The ground state has a prolate shape such that the shell closure at N=28 in ^{53} Mn is quenched due to the deformation effects. The flat PEC highlights the need for a more careful beyond-mean-field study of this particular nucleus.

      Figure 5.  (color online) Theoretical single-neutron levels around the Fermi energy in the canonical basis for the ground states of ^{40}{\rm{Ca}} , ^{41}{\rm{Sc}} , and ^{42}{\rm{Ti}} . The neutron Fermi energies {\lambda}_{n} are denoted by the dotted lines, the blue lines correspond to parity \pi=- , and the red lines correspond to \pi=+ .

      Figure 7.  (color online) Potential energy curve (PEC) of ^{53}{\rm{Mn}} from the constrained DRHBc calculation. The ground state is denoted by the red solid circle. The gray lines indicate the global minimum and the energy higher by 1 MeV.

    • 3.   N=50 shell closure
    • We now study the evolution of the N=50 shell closure. Fig. 8 shows the single-neutron levels as a function of the proton number Z. For ^{78}{\rm{Ni}} , ^{79}{\rm{Cu}} , and ^{80}{\rm{Zn}} , there is a large gap between the 1g_{9/2} and 2d_{5/2} orbitals, corresponding to the N=50 shell closure. Meanwhile, in Fig. 4, the DRHBc theory predicts ^{71}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{72}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{73}{\rm{V}} , ^{74}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{76}{\rm{Fe}} , and ^{77}{\rm{Co}} to be well-deformed, and their deformation parameters \beta_2 are also presented in Fig. 8. The large prolate deformations of ^{71}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{72}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{73}{\rm{V}} , ^{74}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{76}{\rm{Fe}} , and ^{77}{\rm{Co}} imply the quenching of the N=50 shell closure. To better understand this, taking ^{75} Mn as an example, the evolution of the single-neutron levels around the Fermi energy with the quadrupole deformation obtained from constrained calculations is shown in Fig. 9. The ground-state deformation of ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} is indicated by the grey vertical line. In the spherical limit, there is a large energy gap between 1g_{9/2} and 2d_{5/2} , forming the N=50 shell closure. However, strong quadrupole correlations from the mixing of sd and dg orbitals drive ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} prolate with \beta_{2}=0.279 in the ground state and increase the level density around the Fermi surface, leading to the disappearance of the N=50 shell closure. Therefore, one can conclude that deformation effects play an important role in the description of ^{71}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{72}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{73}{\rm{V}} , ^{74}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{76}{\rm{Fe}} , and ^{77}{\rm{Co}} , which lead to the disappearance of certain conventional shell closures [89].

      Figure 8.  (color online) Theoretical single-neutron levels around the Fermi levels in the canonical basis for ^{70}{\rm{Ca}} , ^{71}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{72}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{73}{\rm{V}} , ^{74}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{76}{\rm{Fe}} , ^{77}{\rm{Co}} , ^{78}{\rm{Ni}} , ^{79}{\rm{Cu}} , and ^{80}{\rm{Zn}} . The neutron Fermi energy levels {\lambda}_{n} are denoted by the dotted lines, where all the single-neutron levels shown have parity \pi=+ . The predicted quadrupole deformations are indicated below each nucleus.

      Figure 9.  (color online) Theoretical single-neutron levels around the Fermi energy \lambda_n (dashed line) of ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} in the canonical basis from constrained calculations. The grey vertical line denotes the ground state (g.s.) of ^{75}{\rm{Mn}} .

    IV.   SUMMARY
    • In summary, we have performed systematic studies of nuclei with 20 \leqslant Z \leqslant 30 ranging from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line in the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum (DRHBc) with the PC-PK1 functional. We have examined the evolution of the N=20,28,50 shell closures in this region and analyzed the charge radii, two-neutron separation energies S_{2n} , two-neutron shell gaps \delta_{2n} , quadrupole deformations \beta_2 , and single-particle levels. Our results show that the traditional neutron shell closures at N=20 persist in the DRHBc theory, which is consistent with existing data. However, the existing data for the Ti isotopes suggest the contrary, and therefore, further research is needed. It is interesting to note that the deformation effects play an important role in the description of (21 \leq Z \leq 27) nuclei, which may lead to the disappearance of the N=50 shell closure. Similarly, both experiments and theory indicate that the N=28 shell closure disappears in the Mn isotopes, predominantly due to the influence of deformation effects. We encourage further investigations to verify these findings.

      As a byproduct of our study of shell closures, we predicted the neutron and proton drip line nuclei of 20\le Z\le30 for the first time with pairing, deformation, continuum, and blocking effects properly taken into account. The neutron drip line nuclei are ^{80}{\rm{Ca}} , ^{83}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{84}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{87}{\rm{V}} , ^{90}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{95}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{96}{\rm{Fe}} , ^{97}{\rm{Co}} , ^{98}{\rm{Ni}} , ^{107}{\rm{Cu}} , and ^{110}{\rm{Zn}} , and the proton drip line nuclei are ^{34}{\rm{Ca}} , ^{40}{\rm{Sc}} , ^{40}{\rm{Ti}} , ^{43}{\rm{V}} , ^{43}{\rm{Cr}} , ^{46}{\rm{Mn}} , ^{47}{\rm{Fe}} , ^{49}{\rm{Co}} , ^{50}{\rm{Ni}} , ^{55}{\rm{Cu}} , and ^{56}{\rm{Zn}} .

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • Ru-You Zheng thanks Dr. Cong Pan and Dr. Kai-Yuan Zhang for many useful discussions. Helpful discussions with members of the DRHBc Mass Table Collaboration are highly appreciated.

Reference (89)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return