Processing math: 100%

Unified mechanism behind the even-parity ground state and neutron halo of 11Be

  • Using the axially deformed relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (D-RHFB) model, we explore the mechanism behind the parity inversion and halo occurrence in 11Be, which are well reproduced by the RHF Lagrangian PKA1. It is illustrated that evidently enhanced deformation effects by the π-pseudo-vector and ρ-tensor couplings in PKA1 are crucial for correctly describing both the even-parity ground state (GS) and the neutron halo of 11Be. Coupling with the deformation, the intrude 1d5/2 component largely enhances the couplings between the even-parity orbit 1/2+2 and the nuclear core to ensure an even-parity GS, whereas the 2s1/2 component therein dominates the halo formation in 11Be. Moreover, the deformed halo in 11Be is found to be stabilized by the attractive inherent correlations between the 1d5/2 and 2s1/2 components of the halo orbit 1/2+2, instead of pairing correlations, which paves a new way for understanding the halo pictures in deformed unstable nuclei.
      PCAS:
    • 21.60.Jz(Nuclear Density Functional Theory and extensions (includes Hartree-Fock and random-phase approximations))
  • Unstable nuclei far from the stability line in nuclear charts exhibit numerous novel phenomena, for instance, the emergence of new magic shells and the disappearance of conventional ones [17], the island of inversion [810], and dilute matter distributions – halo structures [1113], which are attracting the interest of many researchers in the fields of nuclear physics and related disciplines. While enriching the knowledge of nuclear physics, the emergence of novelties in unstable nuclei has also subverted our traditional understanding of atomic nuclei.

    Beryllium (Be) isotopes are perfect candidates for exploring the novelty appearing in unstable nuclei. The novel parity inversion of 11Be is one of the significant issues. As deduced from the conventional shell model, the ground state (GS) of 11Be must have odd-parity because the odd neutron should populate the lower p1/2 orbit. However, an early experiment with the reaction 11B(n,p) 11Be indicated that Jπ=1/2 is not the GS [14], which was further proved to be even-parity1/2+ by later experiments [1517]. At a rather early stage, it was suggested that the even- and odd-parity states 1/2± of 11Be should be very close [18]. After a long time of silence, there were a number of attempts to interpret the GS parity of 11Be under the particle-core coupling picture [1924], indicating that quadruple core excitation and pairing blocking can be essential [20, 21]. Besides, the deformation [2527], the continuum [28] and effects beyond the mean field [22, 29] might also be significant for correctly giving the even-parity GS of 11Be.

    Despite the ingenious GS, special interests were also devoted to the halo occurrence in 11Be. Experimentally, 11Be has been confirmed to be of the one-neutron halo structure [3032]. Theoretically, the energy density functional (EDF) theory presents dilute matter distribution for 11Be, while it fails to reproduce the even-parity GS [26, 27, 33]. Based on the variational shell model, it was indicated that the weak couplings between the core and odd neutron can be responsible for the one-neutron halo in 11Be [19]. Recently, the halo effects of 11Be on the one-neutron knockout reactions were studied using the halo effective field theory [34, 35]. As a consensus, nuclear halo structures are contributed to by neutrons or protons populating the weakly bound low-l states, and the neighboring high-l orbits do not contribute to the halo but stabilize the dilute nucleons via pairing correlations [36].

    However, up to now both novelties in 11Be, i.e., the parity inversion and neutron halo, still cannot be interpreted in a unified framework, and the halo occurrence may essentially rely on the even-parity GS. The EDF theory, such as that adopted by the widely used Skyrme Hartree-Fock models, cannot uniformly describe the even-parity GS and halo occurrence in 11Be, as aforementioned. The relativistic mean field (RMF) theory [3641], that stands on the microscopic meson exchange picture of the nuclear force, succeeds in describing the halo structures of spherical and deformed nuclei [36, 42], but fails to reproduce the parity inversion of 11Be. Implemented with Fock diagrams, the relativistic Hartree-Fock (RHF) theory [4347] and an extension – the relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (RHFB) theory [48, 49] have achieved many successes in describing various nuclear phenomena [50], including those of unstable nuclei [5154] and superheavy ones [55].

    In particular, the degrees of freedom associated with the π-pseudo-vector (π-PV) and ρ-tensor (ρ-T) couplings, important ingredients of the effective nuclear force, play significant roles in providing self-consistent descriptions of nuclear shell evolution [5658], the pseudo-spin symmetry restoration [47, 59] and the emergences of new magicity [60, 61]. Recently, considering nuclear deformation that may be significant for 11Be, the axially deformed RHF [62] and RHFB [63] models, respectively called the D-RHF and D-RHFB models, have been established by utilizing an expansion of the spherical Dirac Woods-Saxon (DWS) base [64]. It was revealed that the π-PV and ρ-T couplings, which contribute mainly via the Fock diagrams, evidently enhance the deformation effects of nuclei [62, 63].

    In particular, the D-RHFB model has the advantage of a unified treatment of spin-orbit coupling, tensor force, deformation, pairing correlations and the continuum [63], the significant mechanisms which are essential for unstable nuclei. This encourages us to explore the underlying mechanism related to the even-parity GS and halo occurrence in 11Be. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the decomposition of the canonical single-particle energy and its physical significance are introduced. Afterwards, the parity inversion and the halo phenomenon are discussed in Sec. III. Finally, we give a summary in Sec. IV.

    To understand the microscopic picture of 11Be, the language of the basis expansion is rather helpful. In the D-RHFB model, the spherical DWS base is used to expand the quasi-particle wave functions ψV and ψU [63],

    ψVνπm=aCVνπm,aψam,ψUνπm=aCUνπm,aψam,

    (1)

    where m and π denote the angular momentum projection and parity, ν stands for the index of the orbits in the πm block. Imposing axial symmetry and reflection symmetry, m and π remain as good quantum numbers. For a spherical DWS base, ψam represents the wave function and the index a = (nκ) carries the principle number n and κ-quantity, namely κ=±(j+1/2) with j=l1/2, where l is the orbital angular momentum. In the following, the index i=(νπm)is used to denote deformed orbits, while the index a specifies the states in the spherical DWS base. It is worth noting that the DWS base has the advantage of providing appropriate asymptotic behaviors for the wave functions due to the nature of the Woods-Saxon type potential [65]. For unstable nuclei, e.g., 11Be with a halo structure, this advantage is essential to provide a reliable description.

    For the convenience of analysis, the canonical transformation from the quasi-particle space is performed in general to get canonical s.p. states by diagonalizing the density matrix. In practice, the canonical s.p. space is taken to be similar to the Hartree-Fock space, for both of which the density matrices are diagonal. Utilizing the orthogonality of the DWS base, there is a straightforward way to build the density matrix, which reads as

    ρπmaa=νCVνπm,aCVνπm,a.

    (2)

    Notice that for the contributions from the odd-nucleon in the blocked orbit, the expansion coefficient CV shall be replaced by the CU one in Eq. (1). The diagonalization of the above density matrix ρπmaa gives the eigenvalues v2i, namely the occupation probability of orbit i=mπν, and the eigenvectors ˆDπmν, the set of the expansion coefficients Di,nκ of the canonical wave functions in the spherical DWS base.

    Thus, in terms of the spherical DWS base, the canonical s.p. energy εi and wave function ψi for orbit i can be expressed as:

    εi=aaDi,ahπmaaDi,a,ψνπm=nκDi,nκψnκm,

    (3)

    where haa is the s.p. Hamiltonian in the spherical DWS base, the index a is for spherical DWS basis states. Following the deformation of a nucleus, orbits which originally had the same spherical nκ quantities cannot degenerate any more, leading to a mixture of spherical nκ-components in deformed s.p. orbits. As seen from Eq. (3), the couplings between various spherical DWS components a and a' give the canonical s.p. energy. Thus, after summing the principle numbers n and n, they can be decomposed into the diagonal terms Eκd,i and off-diagonal ones Eκκc,i as:

    εi=κκEκκi=κp2iκEκd,i+κκpiκpiκEκκc,i,

    (4)

    where p2iκ describes the sum proportion of the κ-component of the orbit mπν, and Eκκi corresponds to the coupling effects between the spherical κ and κ components,

    pik=nD2i,nκ,Eκκi=nnDi,nκhπmaaDi,nκ.

    (5)

    Using the above conventions, the diagonal term Eκd,i and the off-diagonal one Eκκc,i can be defined as

    Eκd,iEκκi/p2iκ,Eκκc,iEκκi/(piκpiκ).

    (6)

    Further, considering the sum over κ components, the diagonal contribution Ed,i and the off-diagonal one Ec,i to the canonical s.p. energy εi read as

    Ed,i=κEκκi,Ec,i=κκEκκi.

    (7)

    As aforementioned, more spreading of the proportion p2iκ over different κ-components is in general due to enhanced deformation effects. Thus, using the language of the spherical DWS basis expansion, the Eκd,i-term can be taken as the centroid energy of the κ-component of the deformed orbit i, or taken as the single-particle-like energy of the spherical κ-fragment of orbit i. In contrast, the Eκκc,i-term describes the inherent correlations between the κ- and κ-components, which in fact reflects the shape evolution of orbit i. Following deformation, it is not hard to deduce that orbit i becomes more bound with the negative Ec,i value, and vice versa.

    Aiming at a unified mechanism behind the even-parity GS and neutron halo of 11Be, we focus on the D-RHFB calculations with PKA1 [47], one of the most complete RHF Lagrangians which contains the π-PV and ρ-T couplings. For comparison, the RHF Lagrangians PKO3 [56] containing π-PV coupling and PKO2 [56], and the RMF one DD-LZ1 [66] are considered as well. In the pairing channel, the finite-range Gogny force D1S [67] is utilized as the pairing force, due to the advantage of a finite range, i.e., natural convergence with the configuration space. The details of the calculations can be found in Ref. [63].

    To find the global minimum for an odd-A nucleus using the D-RHFB model, the blocking effects shall be treated carefully [68]. Similar to a popular treatment in the RMF calculations, the equal filling approximation is adopted [69, 70]. Within the Bogoliubov scheme, we attempted to block the first quasi-particle level for various πm-blocks to determine the ground state. According to the mapping relation between the canonical single-particle and the Bogoliubov quasi-particle states, the blocked quasi-particle orbits are mapped in general with the s.p. ones closest to the Fermi level. For 11Be, we tried to block the states mπ= 1/2, 1/2+, 3/2+ and 5/2+, and only show the results of mπ=1/2 and 1/2+, from which the ground state can be determined by selected models.

    We first performed the shape constrained calculations for 11Be using PKA1, PKO2, PKO3 and DD-LZ1. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show the binding energy EB(MeV) of 11Be as a function of the quadruple deformation β, which corresponds to the blocking of even- and odd-parity states mπ=1/2±, respectively. It is shown that only PKA1 results in the same even-parity GS as the experiments [1416]. Moreover, a rather large prolate deformation (β1.2) is obtained by PKA1 for the GS, while the others give an odd-parity GS with spherical or near spherical shapes. Compared with the experimental value, which reads as –65.478 MeV [71], the binding energy given by PKA1 is overestimated by roughly 3 MeV. In fact, the calculations of nearby nuclei show that the binding energies for light nuclei are overestimated by PKA1in general.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Binding energies EB (MeV) as functions of the quadruple deformation β for 11Be with even [plot (a)] and odd [plot (b)] parity. The results are calculated by PKA1, PKO2, PKO3 and DD-LZ1. Referring to β=0, plots (c) and (d) show the PKA1 contributions of EB respectively with even and odd parity, including the total, the π-PV and ρ-T ones, and the sum of the other channels.

    As an example, Table 1 shows the calculated binding energies EB of 10,11,12Be, as well as the one-neutron separation energy Sn for 11Be and the two-neutron one S2nfor 12Be, in comparison with the experimental data [72]. It can be found that the systematics of the binding energies, here from 10Be to 12Be, are different between PKA1 and the other selected models. Specifically, all EB values given by PKA1 are larger than the experimental ones by 1.43.5MeV. While the binding energy of 10Be is underestimated by all other selected Lagrangians, the one of 12Be is overestimated by different extents. However, for the Sn and S2n values, all selected models provide a similarly accurate result as the experimental values. Thus, deviations in the binding energy of a few MeV do not influence the conclusions made in this work substantially.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Binding energies EB (MeV) of 10,11,12Be, along with the one-neutron separation energy (MeV) Sn for 11Be and two-neutron one S2n for 12Be calculated by PKA1, PKO2, PKO3, and DD-ME2, as compared with the experimental (Exp.) data [72].
    EB Sn S2n
    10Be 11Be 12Be 11Be 12Be
    Exp. −64.98 −65.48 −68.65 0.50 3.67
    PKA1 −66.40 −68.50 −72.21 2.10 5.81
    PKO3 −63.63 −65.82 −70.13 2.19 6.50
    PKO2 −63.50 −65.73 −69.00 2.23 5.50
    DD-LZ1 −63.61 −66.09 −69.67 2.47 6.06
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    In order to clarify the mechanism behind the GS of 11Be, Figs. 1 (c) and 1 (d) show the contributions of EB referring to β=0 given by PKA1 for even- and odd-parity cases, respectively, namely the total, the π-PV one that is enclosed in both PKA1 and PKO3, the ρ-T one which is uniquely considered by PKA1, and the sum from other channels, which corresponds to all degrees of freedom adopted in PKO2 and DD-LZ1. It is interesting to see that both the π-PV and ρ-T contributions are evidently enhanced following the enlarged deformation. Compared with the odd-parity one [plot (d)], more remarkable enhancements are presented by the π-PV and ρ-T couplings for the even-parity case [plot (c)], which are seen to be crucial for reproducing the even-parity GS of 11Be.

    In fact, referring to other selected models that fail to reproduce the GS of 11Be, it is also helpful to understand the role played by the π-PV and ρ-T couplings. In Figs. 1 (a) and 1(b), both PKO2 and DD-LZ1, which do not contain either π-PV or ρ-T couplings, present the odd-parity GS with a fairly stable spherical shape and even-parity local minima with a rather soft prolate shape. For PKO3, which contains the π-PV coupling, an odd-parity GS with a rather soft near-spherical shape and an even-parity local minimum with a solid prolate shape are obtained, and the energy difference between the even- and odd-parity minima are significantly reduced, as compared with PKO2 and DD-LZ1. Thus, combined with the PKA1 results, it can be concluded that both π-PV and ρ-T couplings, which evidently enhance the deformation effects, play a key role in determining the even-parity GS of 11Be.

    To understand why the even-parity GS of 11Be can be correctly reproduced at large deformation in terms of the spherical DWS base, the expansion proportions of the even-parity orbit 1/2+2 occupied by the odd neutron are shown as functions of the deformation β in Fig. 2 (a). Figure 2 (b) shows the canonical s.p. energies Ei (MeV) with occupation probabilities (in thick bars) for spherical 11Be and the GS, and the Eκd,i values deduced from Eq. (6) with the expansion proportions (in thick bars) of the dominant κ fragments of the orbits 1/2±2 for the GS. The results are extracted from the PKA1 calculations by blocking the state mπ=1/2+. As shown in Fig. 2 (a), the 1d5/2 component in the orbit 1/2+2 increases gradually with a simultaneously reduced 2s1/2 component when 11Be becomes prolately deformed. Meanwhile, the inversion of the even- and odd-parity orbits 1/2±2 from the spherical 11Be to the GS is found in Fig. 2(b) and is consistent with an even-parity GS.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Expansion proportions of neutron orbit 1/2+2 with respect to the deformation β [plot(a)], and the canonical s.p. energies Ei (MeV) and occupation probabilities (in thick bars) of spherical (Sph.) 11Be and the GS [plot (b)]. The results are extracted from the PKA1 calculations by blocking the state mπ=1/2+, and the Eκd,i values (MeV) and expansion proportions (in thick bars) of the neutron orbits 1/2±2 of the GS are also shown in plot (b).

    Moreover, as deduced from the high-lying κ fragments of the 1/2+2 orbit in Fig. 2 (b), the Ec,ivalue given by Eq. (7) shall be negative and large, indicating strong attractive inherent correlations between the κ fragments of the 1/2+2 orbit. In contrast, the κ fragments of the odd-parity orbit 1/22 are deeply bound, and the deduced large, positiveEc,i value reveals strong repulsive inherent correlations between the κ fragments of the 1/22 orbit. Thus, from the opposite effects carried by the correlation terms Ec,i, it is not hard to understand the inversion of the even- and odd-parity orbits 1/2±2 from spherical 11Be to the deformed GS, in which the enhancements due to the ρ-T and π-PV couplings are very important as deduced from the nature of the channels [63].

    In fact, the PKA1 results are consistent with the indication by Bohr and Mottelson that for a p-shell nucleus 11Be the even-parity GS can be a consequence of a strong preference for the orbit [220,1/2] with prolate deformation [73]. Supplementary, it should be emphasized that the expansion proportions in the theoretical calculation are different from the spectroscopic factor, which is a basic quantity characterizing the single-particle nature of nuclear excitations in both experiments and theories. In this work, the calculations of 11Be are performed by restrictions on the mean-field level. Thus, one cannot take the expansion proportions in Fig. 2 (a) as some equivalent concept of the spectroscopic factor, or even compare it directly with the measured data of the transfer reaction (see Ref. [32] and references therein).

    To enhance the understanding of the largely deformed GS and the role played by the π-PV and ρ-T couplings, Fig. 3 shows the interaction matrix elements (IMEs) between selected neutron states and core orbits of 11Be, including the total (upper plots) and the sum of the ρ-T and π-PV couplings (lower plots). The results are given by the spherical RHFB calculations [48] with PKA1 by blocking the even-parity state s1/2. In fact, the selected even-parity states ν1s1/2, ν2s1/2 , and ν1d5/2 are the dominant orbital components of the deformed orbit 1/2+2, as seen from Fig. 2 (a).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Interaction matrix elements (MeV) between a selected neutron (ν) and the core orbits of 11Be. The left and right plots correspond to the couplings with proton (π) and neutron (ν) cores, respectively, including the total (upper plots) and the sum of the ρ-T and π-PV couplings (lower plots). The results are obtained from spherical RHFB calculations with PKA1 by blocking the neutron s state.

    As the general feature of the IMEs in Fig. 3, the proton (π) core (left plots) shows stronger couplings with selected neutron orbits than the neutron (ν) core (right plots). This can be explained by the effects of the Fock terms [74]. Specifically, the Fock terms arising from the isoscalar σ- and ω-couplings do not contribute to neutron-proton (np) interactions but present net repulsive neutron-neutron (nn) and proton-proton (pp) ones, thus partly canceling their net attractive Hartree terms in the nn and pp channels. In contrast, as shown in the lower plots of Fig. 3, the isovector ρ-T and π-PV couplings present rather strong attractive contributions mainly through the Fock terms, particularly for the np interactions (left-lower plot). Compared with other RHF and RMF models, the np interactions are evidently enhanced due to the strong ρ-T coupling in PKA1 [51, 59].

    Combined with Fig. 2, the IMEs in Fig. 3 can help us understand the evident deformation effects given by PKA1 in Fig. 1. As seen from Fig. 3, the neutron state ν2s1/2, namely the 1/2+2 orbit at β=0, shows rather weak couplings with both neutron and proton cores due to the nodal differences, and thus a loosely bound 2s1/2 orbit is found in Fig. 2(b), which indicates an unfavorable even-parity configuration for spherical 11Be. Compared with ν2s1/2, the ν1d5/2 state shows much stronger couplings with the cores. Combined with the gradually enlarged 1d5/2 proportion and the simultaneously reduced 2s1/2 one in Fig. 2 (a), the couplings between the 1/2+2 orbit and the cores are then notably enhanced following the enlarged deformation, which eventually leads to a fairly deep bound 1/2+2 orbit in the GS of 11Be. In addition, as shown in Fig. 2 (a), the 1s1/2 component is also enfolded slightly into the orbit 1/2+2 in the GS, which also plays some role in deepening the orbit 1/2+2, due to its rather strong couplings with the core orbits in Fig. 3.

    In contrast, for odd-parity 11Be, which is not shown in detail, the mixing of the 1p1/2- and 1p3/2-components also happens in the populated odd-parity orbits 1/21 and 1/22 following an increase in the deformation. However, the mixing of high-lying odd-parity components such as 2p and 1f are hindered by the sd-shell between the p- and pf-shells. This indicates that the sum of the 1p3/2 and 1p1/2 proportions in these orbits will not change much, which is confirmed by the D-RHFB calculations. As a result, the enhancement of the binding energy from spherical 11Be to the prolate minimum with odd parity is not so remarkable; see Fig. 1 (b). In contrast, the nearby 1d5/2 component can be easily enfolded into the even-parity orbit 1/2+2, following the deformation from spherical 11Be to the GS. Thus, due to strong couplings of the orbitals 1d5/2 and 1s1/2 with the core orbits, more evident enhancement following the deformation is found in even-parity 11Be than that in the odd-parity case, which is crucial for correctly determining the even-parity GS of 11Be.

    On the basis of correctly reproducing the parity of the GS, we further explore the halo phenomenon in 11Be. Figure 4 shows the neutron (N) and proton (P) density profiles of the GS of 11Be given by PKA1, including the logarithm ones along the symmetric z-axis (left plot) and the contour maps (right plot), in which the dashed ellipsoid defined by the deformation β and radius r is shown as a reference for the size and shape of 11Be. As shown in Fig. 4, the neutrons in 11Be are distributed rather extensively along the z-axis. Different from the decoupling picture [42, 75], the neutron dispersion in 11Be shows a consistent shape with the whole nucleus. Moreover, it can be seen from the left plot of Fig. 4 that the neutron dispersion is almost fully a result of the even-parity orbit 1/2+2 (in pattern of horizontal lines), as referred to in the proton density profiles. It is worth noting that such results are consistent with the experimental indication of a one-neutron halo [11, 3032].

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Neutron (N) and proton (P) densities (fm-3) of 11Be given by PKA1, including logarithm ones (left plot) along the z-axis and contour maps (right plot) in which the dashed ellipsoid is defined by the deformation β and radius r.

    However, the orbit 1/2+2 in Fig. 2 (b) is somewhat deeply bound for the GS of 11Be, which seems to conflict with the extensive neutron distributions in Fig. 4. Combined with the results in Fig. 2, a picture becomes apparent. As shown in Fig. 2 (b), the neutron orbit 2s1/2 is loosely bound for spherical 11Be because of the nodal difference, and for the same reason, the s1/2 fragment (mainly the 2s1/2 one) remains loosely bound in the largely deformed GS. Due to the vanishing centrifugal barrier, this leads to the halo occurrence in the GS of 11Be. In contrast, as hindered by the centrifugal barrier, the neighboring d5/2 fragment does not contribute to the halo, but plays an essential role in stabilizing the halo via the attractive inherent correlations with the s1/2 fragment, as indicated by the negative Ec,i value of the halo orbit 1/2+2 aforementioned.

    In fact, the enhancements due to the ρ-T and π-PV couplings are not only crucial for the parity inversion but also significant for the formation and stabilization of the halo in 11Be. Following the deformation from spherical 11Be to the GS, the spherical fragment2s1/2 remains weakly bound to form the halo, and the intruding fragment 1d5/2 in the orbit 1/2+2 enhances the couplings with the core orbits of 11Be, resulting in an even-parity GS, in which the ρ-T and π-PV couplings play an important role. This also stabilizes the halo via an attractive inherent correlation with the 2s1/2 fragment. Moreover, due to the nodal difference between the 2s1/2 and 1d5/2 components, such an inherent correlation is not strong enough to hinder halo formation. It is worth noting that this stability mechanism is different from that of halos in spherical unstable nuclei, which are stabilized in general via enhanced pairing correlations by neighboring high-l orbits [36].

    In summary, employing the D-RHFB model, we explored the mechanism behind the parity inversion and neutron halo of 11Be, which is uniformly interpreted by the RHF Lagrangian PKA1. Using the language of the spherical DWS basis expansion, it is illustrated that evidently enhanced deformation effects by the ρ-T and π-PV couplings are crucial for describing the even-parity ground state and the neutron halo of 11Be correctly. Moreover, a new microscopic picture of the halo formation and stability is revealed in this work, which paves a way to understanding the halo in deformed unstable nuclei. For light nuclei, the effects of the rotation and vibration corrections might be important. In the future, further implementations of the D-RHFB model are expected by considering the angular momentum projection, the number projection, and other beyond mean field effects.

    The authors want to thank Prof. S.-G. Zhou, Prof. F. Q. Chen, and Dr. X. X. Sun for fruitful discussions and the Supercomputing Center of Lanzhou University and the Southern Nuclear Science Computing Center for the computing resources provided.

    [1] C. R. Hoffman, T. Baumann, D. Bazin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 152502 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.152502
    [2] H. Simon, D. Aleksandrov, T. Aumann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 496-499 (1999) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.496
    [3] T. Motobayashi, Y. Ikeda, Y. Ando et al., Phys. Lett. B. 346, 9 (1995) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00012-A
    [4] K. Tshoo, Y. Satou, H. Bhang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 022501 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.022501
    [5] A. Ozawa, T. Kobayashi, T. Suzuki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5493 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5493
    [6] R. Kanungo, C. Nociforo, A. Prochazka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 152501 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.152501
    [7] D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi et al., Nature 502, 207 (2013) doi: 10.1038/nature12522
    [8] S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, A. Poves et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 054301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054301
    [9] H. L. Crawford, P. Fallon, A. O. Macchiavelli et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 052501 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.052501
    [10] D. S. Ahn, N. Fukuda, H. Geissel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 212501 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.212501
    [11] Isao Tanihata, Herve Savajols, and Rituparna Kanungo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68, 215-313 (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.07.001
    [12] T. Minamisono, T. Ohtsubo, I. Minami et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2058-2061 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2058
    [13] I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2676-2679 (1985) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.2676
    [14] D. H. Wilkinson and D. E. Alburger, Phys. Rev. 113, 563-571 (1959) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.113.563
    [15] P. F. Donovan, J. V. Kane, R. E. Pixley et al., Phys. Rev. 123, 589-597 (1961) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.123.589
    [16] D. E. Alburger, C. Chasman, K. W. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. 136, B916 (1964) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B916
    [17] J. P. Deutsch, L. Grenacs, J. Lehmann et al., Phys. Lett. B 28, 178-181 (1968) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(68)90010-5
    [18] I. Talmi and I. Unna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 469-470 (1960) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.469
    [19] Takaharu Otsuka, Nobuhisa Fukunishi, and Hiroyuki Sagawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1385-1388 (1993) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1385
    [20] H. Sagawa, B.A. Brown, and H. Esbensen, Phys. Lett. B 309(1), 1-4 (1993) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91493-7
    [21] H. Esbensen, B. A. Brown, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 51, 1274-1279 (1995) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.51.1274
    [22] N. Vinh Mau, Nucl. Phys. A 592, 33-44 (1995) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(95)00298-F
    [23] F.M. Nunes, I.J. Thompson, and R.C. Johnson, Nucl. Phys. A 596, 171-186 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(95)00398-3
    [24] G. Gori, F. Barranco, E. Vigezzi et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 041302 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.041302
    [25] I. Ragnarsson, S. Åberg, H.-B. Håkansson et al., Nucl. Phys. A 361, 1-22 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(81)90468-1
    [26] X. Li and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C. 54, 1617 (1996) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.1617
    [27] J.C. Pei, F.R. Xu, and P.D. Stevenson, Nucl. Rhys. A 765, 29 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.10.004
    [28] Angelo Calci, Petr Navrátil, Robert Roth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 242501 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.242501
    [29] R. Bhattacharya and K. Krishan, Phys. Rev. C 56, 212-215 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.212
    [30] M. Fukuda, T. Ichihara, N. Inabe et al., Phys. Lett. B 268, 339-344 (1991) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(91)91587-L
    [31] T. Aumann, A. Navin, D. P. Balamuth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 35-38 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.35
    [32] K. T. Schmitt, K. L. Jones, A. Bey et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 192701 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.192701
    [33] Z.Y. Zhu, W.Q. Shen, Y.H. Cai et al., Phys. Lett. B 328, 1-4 (1994) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90418-9
    [34] C. Hebborn and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054607 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054607
    [35] C. Hebborn and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024616 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024616
    [36] Jie Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470-563 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.06.001
    [37] Brian D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1-327 (1986)
    [38] P-G. Reinhard, Rep. Prog. Phys. 52, 439-514 (1989) doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/52/4/002
    [39] Peter Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 193-263 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3
    [40] Michael Bender, Paul-Henri Heenen, and Paul-Gerhard Reinhard, Revs. Mod. Phys. 75, 121-180 (2003) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.121
    [41] T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.055
    [42] Shan-Gui Zhou, Jie Meng, P. Ring et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.011301
    [43] A. Bouyssy, J. F. Mathiot, N. Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 36, 380-401 (1987) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.36.380
    [44] P. Bernardos, V. N. Fomenko, Nguyen Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 48, 2665-2672 (1993) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2665
    [45] S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, V. N. Fomenko et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 30, 703 (2004) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/30/6/002
    [46] Wen Hui Long, Nguyen Van Giai, and Jie Meng, Phys. Lett. B 640, 150-154 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.064
    [47] Wen Hui Long, Hiroyuki Sagawa, Nguyen Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 034314 (2007) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.034314
    [48] Wen Hui Long, Peter Ring, Nguyen Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 024308 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024308
    [49] J.-P. Ebran, E. Khan, D. Peña Arteaga et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 064323 (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.064323
    [50] W. H. Long, J. Geng, J. Liu et al., Commun. Theor. Phys. 74, 097301 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/ac70ae
    [51] Wen Hui Long, Peter Ring, Jie Meng et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 031302 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.031302
    [52] Xiao Li Lu, Bao Yuan Sun, and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034311 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034311
    [53] Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long, Jun Ling Song et al., Phys. Rev. C 93, 054312 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054312
    [54] Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long, Jérôme Margueron et al., Phys. Lett. B 788, 192 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.034
    [55] Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long, Jérôme Margueron Margueron et al., Phys. Lett. B 732, 169-173 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.031
    [56] Wen Hui Long, Hiroyuki Sagawa, Jie Meng et al., Europhys. Lett. 82, 12001 (2008) doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/82/12001
    [57] Wen Hui Long, Takashi Nakatsukasa, Hiroyuki Sagawa et al., Phys. Lett. B 680, 428-431 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.09.034
    [58] Long Jun Wang, Jian Min Dong, and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Rev. C 87, 047301 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.047301
    [59] Jing Geng, Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long et al., Phys. Rev. C 100, 051301(R) (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.051301
    [60] Jia Jie Li, Jerome Margueron, Wen Hui Long et al., Phys. Lett. B 753, 97-102 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.004
    [61] Jia Liu, Yi Fei Niu, and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Lett. B. 806, 135524 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135524
    [62] Jing Geng, Jian Xiang, Bao Yuan Sun et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 064302 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.064302
    [63] Jing Geng and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034329 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034329
    [64] Shan-Gui Zhou, Jie Meng, and Peter Ring, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034323 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034323
    [65] Roger D. Woods and David S. Saxon, Phys. Rev. 95, 577-578 (1954) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.95.577
    [66] Bin Wei, Qiang Zhao, Zhi-Heng Wang et al., Chin. Rhys. C 44, 074107 (2020) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/7/074107
    [67] J. F. Berger, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Nucl. Phys. A 428, 23-36 (1984) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(84)90240-9
    [68] P. Ring and P. Schuck. The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980)
    [69] Lu Lu Li, Jie Meng, P Ring et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 042101 (2012) doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/29/4/042101
    [70] Sara Perez-Martin and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 78, 014304 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014304
    [71] M. Wang, G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra et al., Chin. Phys. C 36, 1603-2014 (2012) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/36/12/003
    [72] M. Wang, G. Audi, F. G. Kondev et al., Chin. Phys. C 41(3), 030003 (2017) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003
    [73] A. Bohr and B. Mottelson. Nuclear Structure, Volume II: Nuclear Deformations, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998)
    [74] A. Bouyssy, S. Marcos, J. F. Mathiot et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1731-1733 (1985) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.1731
    [75] Xiang-Xiang Sun, Jie Zhao, and Shan-Gui Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 785, 530-535 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.071
  • [1] C. R. Hoffman, T. Baumann, D. Bazin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 152502 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.152502
    [2] H. Simon, D. Aleksandrov, T. Aumann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 496-499 (1999) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.496
    [3] T. Motobayashi, Y. Ikeda, Y. Ando et al., Phys. Lett. B. 346, 9 (1995) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00012-A
    [4] K. Tshoo, Y. Satou, H. Bhang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 022501 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.022501
    [5] A. Ozawa, T. Kobayashi, T. Suzuki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5493 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5493
    [6] R. Kanungo, C. Nociforo, A. Prochazka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 152501 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.152501
    [7] D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi et al., Nature 502, 207 (2013) doi: 10.1038/nature12522
    [8] S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, A. Poves et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 054301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054301
    [9] H. L. Crawford, P. Fallon, A. O. Macchiavelli et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 052501 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.052501
    [10] D. S. Ahn, N. Fukuda, H. Geissel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 212501 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.212501
    [11] Isao Tanihata, Herve Savajols, and Rituparna Kanungo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68, 215-313 (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.07.001
    [12] T. Minamisono, T. Ohtsubo, I. Minami et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2058-2061 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2058
    [13] I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2676-2679 (1985) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.2676
    [14] D. H. Wilkinson and D. E. Alburger, Phys. Rev. 113, 563-571 (1959) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.113.563
    [15] P. F. Donovan, J. V. Kane, R. E. Pixley et al., Phys. Rev. 123, 589-597 (1961) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.123.589
    [16] D. E. Alburger, C. Chasman, K. W. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. 136, B916 (1964) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B916
    [17] J. P. Deutsch, L. Grenacs, J. Lehmann et al., Phys. Lett. B 28, 178-181 (1968) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(68)90010-5
    [18] I. Talmi and I. Unna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 469-470 (1960) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.469
    [19] Takaharu Otsuka, Nobuhisa Fukunishi, and Hiroyuki Sagawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1385-1388 (1993) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1385
    [20] H. Sagawa, B.A. Brown, and H. Esbensen, Phys. Lett. B 309(1), 1-4 (1993) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91493-7
    [21] H. Esbensen, B. A. Brown, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 51, 1274-1279 (1995) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.51.1274
    [22] N. Vinh Mau, Nucl. Phys. A 592, 33-44 (1995) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(95)00298-F
    [23] F.M. Nunes, I.J. Thompson, and R.C. Johnson, Nucl. Phys. A 596, 171-186 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(95)00398-3
    [24] G. Gori, F. Barranco, E. Vigezzi et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 041302 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.041302
    [25] I. Ragnarsson, S. Åberg, H.-B. Håkansson et al., Nucl. Phys. A 361, 1-22 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(81)90468-1
    [26] X. Li and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C. 54, 1617 (1996) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.1617
    [27] J.C. Pei, F.R. Xu, and P.D. Stevenson, Nucl. Rhys. A 765, 29 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.10.004
    [28] Angelo Calci, Petr Navrátil, Robert Roth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 242501 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.242501
    [29] R. Bhattacharya and K. Krishan, Phys. Rev. C 56, 212-215 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.212
    [30] M. Fukuda, T. Ichihara, N. Inabe et al., Phys. Lett. B 268, 339-344 (1991) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(91)91587-L
    [31] T. Aumann, A. Navin, D. P. Balamuth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 35-38 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.35
    [32] K. T. Schmitt, K. L. Jones, A. Bey et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 192701 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.192701
    [33] Z.Y. Zhu, W.Q. Shen, Y.H. Cai et al., Phys. Lett. B 328, 1-4 (1994) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90418-9
    [34] C. Hebborn and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054607 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054607
    [35] C. Hebborn and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024616 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024616
    [36] Jie Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470-563 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.06.001
    [37] Brian D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1-327 (1986)
    [38] P-G. Reinhard, Rep. Prog. Phys. 52, 439-514 (1989) doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/52/4/002
    [39] Peter Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 193-263 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3
    [40] Michael Bender, Paul-Henri Heenen, and Paul-Gerhard Reinhard, Revs. Mod. Phys. 75, 121-180 (2003) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.121
    [41] T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.055
    [42] Shan-Gui Zhou, Jie Meng, P. Ring et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.011301
    [43] A. Bouyssy, J. F. Mathiot, N. Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 36, 380-401 (1987) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.36.380
    [44] P. Bernardos, V. N. Fomenko, Nguyen Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 48, 2665-2672 (1993) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2665
    [45] S. Marcos, L. N. Savushkin, V. N. Fomenko et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 30, 703 (2004) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/30/6/002
    [46] Wen Hui Long, Nguyen Van Giai, and Jie Meng, Phys. Lett. B 640, 150-154 (2006) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.064
    [47] Wen Hui Long, Hiroyuki Sagawa, Nguyen Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 034314 (2007) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.034314
    [48] Wen Hui Long, Peter Ring, Nguyen Van Giai et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 024308 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024308
    [49] J.-P. Ebran, E. Khan, D. Peña Arteaga et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 064323 (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.064323
    [50] W. H. Long, J. Geng, J. Liu et al., Commun. Theor. Phys. 74, 097301 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/ac70ae
    [51] Wen Hui Long, Peter Ring, Jie Meng et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 031302 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.031302
    [52] Xiao Li Lu, Bao Yuan Sun, and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034311 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034311
    [53] Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long, Jun Ling Song et al., Phys. Rev. C 93, 054312 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054312
    [54] Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long, Jérôme Margueron et al., Phys. Lett. B 788, 192 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.034
    [55] Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long, Jérôme Margueron Margueron et al., Phys. Lett. B 732, 169-173 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.031
    [56] Wen Hui Long, Hiroyuki Sagawa, Jie Meng et al., Europhys. Lett. 82, 12001 (2008) doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/82/12001
    [57] Wen Hui Long, Takashi Nakatsukasa, Hiroyuki Sagawa et al., Phys. Lett. B 680, 428-431 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.09.034
    [58] Long Jun Wang, Jian Min Dong, and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Rev. C 87, 047301 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.047301
    [59] Jing Geng, Jia Jie Li, Wen Hui Long et al., Phys. Rev. C 100, 051301(R) (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.051301
    [60] Jia Jie Li, Jerome Margueron, Wen Hui Long et al., Phys. Lett. B 753, 97-102 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.004
    [61] Jia Liu, Yi Fei Niu, and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Lett. B. 806, 135524 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135524
    [62] Jing Geng, Jian Xiang, Bao Yuan Sun et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 064302 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.064302
    [63] Jing Geng and Wen Hui Long, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034329 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034329
    [64] Shan-Gui Zhou, Jie Meng, and Peter Ring, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034323 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034323
    [65] Roger D. Woods and David S. Saxon, Phys. Rev. 95, 577-578 (1954) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.95.577
    [66] Bin Wei, Qiang Zhao, Zhi-Heng Wang et al., Chin. Rhys. C 44, 074107 (2020) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/7/074107
    [67] J. F. Berger, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Nucl. Phys. A 428, 23-36 (1984) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(84)90240-9
    [68] P. Ring and P. Schuck. The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980)
    [69] Lu Lu Li, Jie Meng, P Ring et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 042101 (2012) doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/29/4/042101
    [70] Sara Perez-Martin and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 78, 014304 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014304
    [71] M. Wang, G. Audi, A.H. Wapstra et al., Chin. Phys. C 36, 1603-2014 (2012) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/36/12/003
    [72] M. Wang, G. Audi, F. G. Kondev et al., Chin. Phys. C 41(3), 030003 (2017) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003
    [73] A. Bohr and B. Mottelson. Nuclear Structure, Volume II: Nuclear Deformations, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998)
    [74] A. Bouyssy, S. Marcos, J. F. Mathiot et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1731-1733 (1985) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.1731
    [75] Xiang-Xiang Sun, Jie Zhao, and Shan-Gui Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 785, 530-535 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.071
  • 加载中

Figures(4) / Tables(1)

Get Citation
Jing Geng, Yi Fei Niu and Wen Hui Long. Unified mechanism behind the even-parity ground state and neutron halo of 11Be[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acb7cd
Jing Geng, Yi Fei Niu and Wen Hui Long. Unified mechanism behind the even-parity ground state and neutron halo of 11Be[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acb7cd shu
Milestone
Received: 2022-12-01
Article Metric

Article Views(1804)
PDF Downloads(37)
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:

Unified mechanism behind the even-parity ground state and neutron halo of 11Be

  • 1. Frontier Science Center for Rare isotope, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
  • 2. School of Nuclear Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
  • 3. Joint Department for Nuclear Physics, Lanzhou University and Institute of Modern Physics, CAS, Lanzhou 730000, China

Abstract: Using the axially deformed relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (D-RHFB) model, we explore the mechanism behind the parity inversion and halo occurrence in 11Be, which are well reproduced by the RHF Lagrangian PKA1. It is illustrated that evidently enhanced deformation effects by the π-pseudo-vector and ρ-tensor couplings in PKA1 are crucial for correctly describing both the even-parity ground state (GS) and the neutron halo of 11Be. Coupling with the deformation, the intrude 1d5/2 component largely enhances the couplings between the even-parity orbit 1/2+2 and the nuclear core to ensure an even-parity GS, whereas the 2s1/2 component therein dominates the halo formation in 11Be. Moreover, the deformed halo in 11Be is found to be stabilized by the attractive inherent correlations between the 1d5/2 and 2s1/2 components of the halo orbit 1/2+2, instead of pairing correlations, which paves a new way for understanding the halo pictures in deformed unstable nuclei.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Unstable nuclei far from the stability line in nuclear charts exhibit numerous novel phenomena, for instance, the emergence of new magic shells and the disappearance of conventional ones [17], the island of inversion [810], and dilute matter distributions – halo structures [1113], which are attracting the interest of many researchers in the fields of nuclear physics and related disciplines. While enriching the knowledge of nuclear physics, the emergence of novelties in unstable nuclei has also subverted our traditional understanding of atomic nuclei.

      Beryllium (Be) isotopes are perfect candidates for exploring the novelty appearing in unstable nuclei. The novel parity inversion of 11Be is one of the significant issues. As deduced from the conventional shell model, the ground state (GS) of 11Be must have odd-parity because the odd neutron should populate the lower p1/2 orbit. However, an early experiment with the reaction 11B(n,p) 11Be indicated that Jπ=1/2 is not the GS [14], which was further proved to be even-parity1/2+ by later experiments [1517]. At a rather early stage, it was suggested that the even- and odd-parity states 1/2± of 11Be should be very close [18]. After a long time of silence, there were a number of attempts to interpret the GS parity of 11Be under the particle-core coupling picture [1924], indicating that quadruple core excitation and pairing blocking can be essential [20, 21]. Besides, the deformation [2527], the continuum [28] and effects beyond the mean field [22, 29] might also be significant for correctly giving the even-parity GS of 11Be.

      Despite the ingenious GS, special interests were also devoted to the halo occurrence in 11Be. Experimentally, 11Be has been confirmed to be of the one-neutron halo structure [3032]. Theoretically, the energy density functional (EDF) theory presents dilute matter distribution for 11Be, while it fails to reproduce the even-parity GS [26, 27, 33]. Based on the variational shell model, it was indicated that the weak couplings between the core and odd neutron can be responsible for the one-neutron halo in 11Be [19]. Recently, the halo effects of 11Be on the one-neutron knockout reactions were studied using the halo effective field theory [34, 35]. As a consensus, nuclear halo structures are contributed to by neutrons or protons populating the weakly bound low-l states, and the neighboring high-l orbits do not contribute to the halo but stabilize the dilute nucleons via pairing correlations [36].

      However, up to now both novelties in 11Be, i.e., the parity inversion and neutron halo, still cannot be interpreted in a unified framework, and the halo occurrence may essentially rely on the even-parity GS. The EDF theory, such as that adopted by the widely used Skyrme Hartree-Fock models, cannot uniformly describe the even-parity GS and halo occurrence in 11Be, as aforementioned. The relativistic mean field (RMF) theory [3641], that stands on the microscopic meson exchange picture of the nuclear force, succeeds in describing the halo structures of spherical and deformed nuclei [36, 42], but fails to reproduce the parity inversion of 11Be. Implemented with Fock diagrams, the relativistic Hartree-Fock (RHF) theory [4347] and an extension – the relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (RHFB) theory [48, 49] have achieved many successes in describing various nuclear phenomena [50], including those of unstable nuclei [5154] and superheavy ones [55].

      In particular, the degrees of freedom associated with the π-pseudo-vector (π-PV) and ρ-tensor (ρ-T) couplings, important ingredients of the effective nuclear force, play significant roles in providing self-consistent descriptions of nuclear shell evolution [5658], the pseudo-spin symmetry restoration [47, 59] and the emergences of new magicity [60, 61]. Recently, considering nuclear deformation that may be significant for 11Be, the axially deformed RHF [62] and RHFB [63] models, respectively called the D-RHF and D-RHFB models, have been established by utilizing an expansion of the spherical Dirac Woods-Saxon (DWS) base [64]. It was revealed that the π-PV and ρ-T couplings, which contribute mainly via the Fock diagrams, evidently enhance the deformation effects of nuclei [62, 63].

      In particular, the D-RHFB model has the advantage of a unified treatment of spin-orbit coupling, tensor force, deformation, pairing correlations and the continuum [63], the significant mechanisms which are essential for unstable nuclei. This encourages us to explore the underlying mechanism related to the even-parity GS and halo occurrence in 11Be. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the decomposition of the canonical single-particle energy and its physical significance are introduced. Afterwards, the parity inversion and the halo phenomenon are discussed in Sec. III. Finally, we give a summary in Sec. IV.

    II.   CANONICAL s.p. ENERGY AND THE DECOMPOSITION
    • To understand the microscopic picture of 11Be, the language of the basis expansion is rather helpful. In the D-RHFB model, the spherical DWS base is used to expand the quasi-particle wave functions ψV and ψU [63],

      ψVνπm=aCVνπm,aψam,ψUνπm=aCUνπm,aψam,

      (1)

      where m and π denote the angular momentum projection and parity, ν stands for the index of the orbits in the πm block. Imposing axial symmetry and reflection symmetry, m and π remain as good quantum numbers. For a spherical DWS base, ψam represents the wave function and the index a = (nκ) carries the principle number n and κ-quantity, namely κ=±(j+1/2) with j=l1/2, where l is the orbital angular momentum. In the following, the index i=(νπm)is used to denote deformed orbits, while the index a specifies the states in the spherical DWS base. It is worth noting that the DWS base has the advantage of providing appropriate asymptotic behaviors for the wave functions due to the nature of the Woods-Saxon type potential [65]. For unstable nuclei, e.g., 11Be with a halo structure, this advantage is essential to provide a reliable description.

      For the convenience of analysis, the canonical transformation from the quasi-particle space is performed in general to get canonical s.p. states by diagonalizing the density matrix. In practice, the canonical s.p. space is taken to be similar to the Hartree-Fock space, for both of which the density matrices are diagonal. Utilizing the orthogonality of the DWS base, there is a straightforward way to build the density matrix, which reads as

      ρπmaa=νCVνπm,aCVνπm,a.

      (2)

      Notice that for the contributions from the odd-nucleon in the blocked orbit, the expansion coefficient CV shall be replaced by the CU one in Eq. (1). The diagonalization of the above density matrix ρπmaa gives the eigenvalues v2i, namely the occupation probability of orbit i=mπν, and the eigenvectors ˆDπmν, the set of the expansion coefficients Di,nκ of the canonical wave functions in the spherical DWS base.

      Thus, in terms of the spherical DWS base, the canonical s.p. energy εi and wave function ψi for orbit i can be expressed as:

      εi=aaDi,ahπmaaDi,a,ψνπm=nκDi,nκψnκm,

      (3)

      where haa is the s.p. Hamiltonian in the spherical DWS base, the index a is for spherical DWS basis states. Following the deformation of a nucleus, orbits which originally had the same spherical nκ quantities cannot degenerate any more, leading to a mixture of spherical nκ-components in deformed s.p. orbits. As seen from Eq. (3), the couplings between various spherical DWS components a and a' give the canonical s.p. energy. Thus, after summing the principle numbers n and n, they can be decomposed into the diagonal terms Eκd,i and off-diagonal ones Eκκc,i as:

      εi=κκEκκi=κp2iκEκd,i+κκpiκpiκEκκc,i,

      (4)

      where p2iκ describes the sum proportion of the κ-component of the orbit mπν, and Eκκi corresponds to the coupling effects between the spherical κ and κ components,

      pik=nD2i,nκ,Eκκi=nnDi,nκhπmaaDi,nκ.

      (5)

      Using the above conventions, the diagonal term Eκd,i and the off-diagonal one Eκκc,i can be defined as

      Eκd,iEκκi/p2iκ,Eκκc,iEκκi/(piκpiκ).

      (6)

      Further, considering the sum over κ components, the diagonal contribution Ed,i and the off-diagonal one Ec,i to the canonical s.p. energy εi read as

      Ed,i=κEκκi,Ec,i=κκEκκi.

      (7)

      As aforementioned, more spreading of the proportion p2iκ over different κ-components is in general due to enhanced deformation effects. Thus, using the language of the spherical DWS basis expansion, the Eκd,i-term can be taken as the centroid energy of the κ-component of the deformed orbit i, or taken as the single-particle-like energy of the spherical κ-fragment of orbit i. In contrast, the Eκκc,i-term describes the inherent correlations between the κ- and κ-components, which in fact reflects the shape evolution of orbit i. Following deformation, it is not hard to deduce that orbit i becomes more bound with the negative Ec,i value, and vice versa.

    III.   UNIFIED MECHANISM FOR PARITY INVERSION AND NEUTRON HALO IN 11Be
    • Aiming at a unified mechanism behind the even-parity GS and neutron halo of 11Be, we focus on the D-RHFB calculations with PKA1 [47], one of the most complete RHF Lagrangians which contains the π-PV and ρ-T couplings. For comparison, the RHF Lagrangians PKO3 [56] containing π-PV coupling and PKO2 [56], and the RMF one DD-LZ1 [66] are considered as well. In the pairing channel, the finite-range Gogny force D1S [67] is utilized as the pairing force, due to the advantage of a finite range, i.e., natural convergence with the configuration space. The details of the calculations can be found in Ref. [63].

      To find the global minimum for an odd-A nucleus using the D-RHFB model, the blocking effects shall be treated carefully [68]. Similar to a popular treatment in the RMF calculations, the equal filling approximation is adopted [69, 70]. Within the Bogoliubov scheme, we attempted to block the first quasi-particle level for various πm-blocks to determine the ground state. According to the mapping relation between the canonical single-particle and the Bogoliubov quasi-particle states, the blocked quasi-particle orbits are mapped in general with the s.p. ones closest to the Fermi level. For 11Be, we tried to block the states mπ= 1/2, 1/2+, 3/2+ and 5/2+, and only show the results of mπ=1/2 and 1/2+, from which the ground state can be determined by selected models.

    • A.   Parity inversion of 11Be

    • We first performed the shape constrained calculations for 11Be using PKA1, PKO2, PKO3 and DD-LZ1. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show the binding energy EB(MeV) of 11Be as a function of the quadruple deformation β, which corresponds to the blocking of even- and odd-parity states mπ=1/2±, respectively. It is shown that only PKA1 results in the same even-parity GS as the experiments [1416]. Moreover, a rather large prolate deformation (β1.2) is obtained by PKA1 for the GS, while the others give an odd-parity GS with spherical or near spherical shapes. Compared with the experimental value, which reads as –65.478 MeV [71], the binding energy given by PKA1 is overestimated by roughly 3 MeV. In fact, the calculations of nearby nuclei show that the binding energies for light nuclei are overestimated by PKA1in general.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Binding energies EB (MeV) as functions of the quadruple deformation β for 11Be with even [plot (a)] and odd [plot (b)] parity. The results are calculated by PKA1, PKO2, PKO3 and DD-LZ1. Referring to β=0, plots (c) and (d) show the PKA1 contributions of EB respectively with even and odd parity, including the total, the π-PV and ρ-T ones, and the sum of the other channels.

      As an example, Table 1 shows the calculated binding energies EB of 10,11,12Be, as well as the one-neutron separation energy Sn for 11Be and the two-neutron one S2nfor 12Be, in comparison with the experimental data [72]. It can be found that the systematics of the binding energies, here from 10Be to 12Be, are different between PKA1 and the other selected models. Specifically, all EB values given by PKA1 are larger than the experimental ones by 1.43.5MeV. While the binding energy of 10Be is underestimated by all other selected Lagrangians, the one of 12Be is overestimated by different extents. However, for the Sn and S2n values, all selected models provide a similarly accurate result as the experimental values. Thus, deviations in the binding energy of a few MeV do not influence the conclusions made in this work substantially.

      EB Sn S2n
      10Be 11Be 12Be 11Be 12Be
      Exp. −64.98 −65.48 −68.65 0.50 3.67
      PKA1 −66.40 −68.50 −72.21 2.10 5.81
      PKO3 −63.63 −65.82 −70.13 2.19 6.50
      PKO2 −63.50 −65.73 −69.00 2.23 5.50
      DD-LZ1 −63.61 −66.09 −69.67 2.47 6.06

      Table 1.  Binding energies EB (MeV) of 10,11,12Be, along with the one-neutron separation energy (MeV) Sn for 11Be and two-neutron one S2n for 12Be calculated by PKA1, PKO2, PKO3, and DD-ME2, as compared with the experimental (Exp.) data [72].

      In order to clarify the mechanism behind the GS of 11Be, Figs. 1 (c) and 1 (d) show the contributions of EB referring to β=0 given by PKA1 for even- and odd-parity cases, respectively, namely the total, the π-PV one that is enclosed in both PKA1 and PKO3, the ρ-T one which is uniquely considered by PKA1, and the sum from other channels, which corresponds to all degrees of freedom adopted in PKO2 and DD-LZ1. It is interesting to see that both the π-PV and ρ-T contributions are evidently enhanced following the enlarged deformation. Compared with the odd-parity one [plot (d)], more remarkable enhancements are presented by the π-PV and ρ-T couplings for the even-parity case [plot (c)], which are seen to be crucial for reproducing the even-parity GS of 11Be.

      In fact, referring to other selected models that fail to reproduce the GS of 11Be, it is also helpful to understand the role played by the π-PV and ρ-T couplings. In Figs. 1 (a) and 1(b), both PKO2 and DD-LZ1, which do not contain either π-PV or ρ-T couplings, present the odd-parity GS with a fairly stable spherical shape and even-parity local minima with a rather soft prolate shape. For PKO3, which contains the π-PV coupling, an odd-parity GS with a rather soft near-spherical shape and an even-parity local minimum with a solid prolate shape are obtained, and the energy difference between the even- and odd-parity minima are significantly reduced, as compared with PKO2 and DD-LZ1. Thus, combined with the PKA1 results, it can be concluded that both π-PV and ρ-T couplings, which evidently enhance the deformation effects, play a key role in determining the even-parity GS of 11Be.

      To understand why the even-parity GS of 11Be can be correctly reproduced at large deformation in terms of the spherical DWS base, the expansion proportions of the even-parity orbit 1/2+2 occupied by the odd neutron are shown as functions of the deformation β in Fig. 2 (a). Figure 2 (b) shows the canonical s.p. energies Ei (MeV) with occupation probabilities (in thick bars) for spherical 11Be and the GS, and the Eκd,i values deduced from Eq. (6) with the expansion proportions (in thick bars) of the dominant κ fragments of the orbits 1/2±2 for the GS. The results are extracted from the PKA1 calculations by blocking the state mπ=1/2+. As shown in Fig. 2 (a), the 1d5/2 component in the orbit 1/2+2 increases gradually with a simultaneously reduced 2s1/2 component when 11Be becomes prolately deformed. Meanwhile, the inversion of the even- and odd-parity orbits 1/2±2 from the spherical 11Be to the GS is found in Fig. 2(b) and is consistent with an even-parity GS.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Expansion proportions of neutron orbit 1/2+2 with respect to the deformation β [plot(a)], and the canonical s.p. energies Ei (MeV) and occupation probabilities (in thick bars) of spherical (Sph.) 11Be and the GS [plot (b)]. The results are extracted from the PKA1 calculations by blocking the state mπ=1/2+, and the Eκd,i values (MeV) and expansion proportions (in thick bars) of the neutron orbits 1/2±2 of the GS are also shown in plot (b).

      Moreover, as deduced from the high-lying κ fragments of the 1/2+2 orbit in Fig. 2 (b), the Ec,ivalue given by Eq. (7) shall be negative and large, indicating strong attractive inherent correlations between the κ fragments of the 1/2+2 orbit. In contrast, the κ fragments of the odd-parity orbit 1/22 are deeply bound, and the deduced large, positiveEc,i value reveals strong repulsive inherent correlations between the κ fragments of the 1/22 orbit. Thus, from the opposite effects carried by the correlation terms Ec,i, it is not hard to understand the inversion of the even- and odd-parity orbits 1/2±2 from spherical 11Be to the deformed GS, in which the enhancements due to the ρ-T and π-PV couplings are very important as deduced from the nature of the channels [63].

      In fact, the PKA1 results are consistent with the indication by Bohr and Mottelson that for a p-shell nucleus 11Be the even-parity GS can be a consequence of a strong preference for the orbit [220,1/2] with prolate deformation [73]. Supplementary, it should be emphasized that the expansion proportions in the theoretical calculation are different from the spectroscopic factor, which is a basic quantity characterizing the single-particle nature of nuclear excitations in both experiments and theories. In this work, the calculations of 11Be are performed by restrictions on the mean-field level. Thus, one cannot take the expansion proportions in Fig. 2 (a) as some equivalent concept of the spectroscopic factor, or even compare it directly with the measured data of the transfer reaction (see Ref. [32] and references therein).

      To enhance the understanding of the largely deformed GS and the role played by the π-PV and ρ-T couplings, Fig. 3 shows the interaction matrix elements (IMEs) between selected neutron states and core orbits of 11Be, including the total (upper plots) and the sum of the ρ-T and π-PV couplings (lower plots). The results are given by the spherical RHFB calculations [48] with PKA1 by blocking the even-parity state s1/2. In fact, the selected even-parity states ν1s1/2, ν2s1/2 , and ν1d5/2 are the dominant orbital components of the deformed orbit 1/2+2, as seen from Fig. 2 (a).

      Figure 3.  (color online) Interaction matrix elements (MeV) between a selected neutron (ν) and the core orbits of 11Be. The left and right plots correspond to the couplings with proton (π) and neutron (ν) cores, respectively, including the total (upper plots) and the sum of the ρ-T and π-PV couplings (lower plots). The results are obtained from spherical RHFB calculations with PKA1 by blocking the neutron s state.

      As the general feature of the IMEs in Fig. 3, the proton (π) core (left plots) shows stronger couplings with selected neutron orbits than the neutron (ν) core (right plots). This can be explained by the effects of the Fock terms [74]. Specifically, the Fock terms arising from the isoscalar σ- and ω-couplings do not contribute to neutron-proton (np) interactions but present net repulsive neutron-neutron (nn) and proton-proton (pp) ones, thus partly canceling their net attractive Hartree terms in the nn and pp channels. In contrast, as shown in the lower plots of Fig. 3, the isovector ρ-T and π-PV couplings present rather strong attractive contributions mainly through the Fock terms, particularly for the np interactions (left-lower plot). Compared with other RHF and RMF models, the np interactions are evidently enhanced due to the strong ρ-T coupling in PKA1 [51, 59].

      Combined with Fig. 2, the IMEs in Fig. 3 can help us understand the evident deformation effects given by PKA1 in Fig. 1. As seen from Fig. 3, the neutron state ν2s1/2, namely the 1/2+2 orbit at β=0, shows rather weak couplings with both neutron and proton cores due to the nodal differences, and thus a loosely bound 2s1/2 orbit is found in Fig. 2(b), which indicates an unfavorable even-parity configuration for spherical 11Be. Compared with ν2s1/2, the ν1d5/2 state shows much stronger couplings with the cores. Combined with the gradually enlarged 1d5/2 proportion and the simultaneously reduced 2s1/2 one in Fig. 2 (a), the couplings between the 1/2+2 orbit and the cores are then notably enhanced following the enlarged deformation, which eventually leads to a fairly deep bound 1/2+2 orbit in the GS of 11Be. In addition, as shown in Fig. 2 (a), the 1s1/2 component is also enfolded slightly into the orbit 1/2+2 in the GS, which also plays some role in deepening the orbit 1/2+2, due to its rather strong couplings with the core orbits in Fig. 3.

      In contrast, for odd-parity 11Be, which is not shown in detail, the mixing of the 1p1/2- and 1p3/2-components also happens in the populated odd-parity orbits 1/21 and 1/22 following an increase in the deformation. However, the mixing of high-lying odd-parity components such as 2p and 1f are hindered by the sd-shell between the p- and pf-shells. This indicates that the sum of the 1p3/2 and 1p1/2 proportions in these orbits will not change much, which is confirmed by the D-RHFB calculations. As a result, the enhancement of the binding energy from spherical 11Be to the prolate minimum with odd parity is not so remarkable; see Fig. 1 (b). In contrast, the nearby 1d5/2 component can be easily enfolded into the even-parity orbit 1/2+2, following the deformation from spherical 11Be to the GS. Thus, due to strong couplings of the orbitals 1d5/2 and 1s1/2 with the core orbits, more evident enhancement following the deformation is found in even-parity 11Be than that in the odd-parity case, which is crucial for correctly determining the even-parity GS of 11Be.

    • B.   The halo structure of 11Be

    • On the basis of correctly reproducing the parity of the GS, we further explore the halo phenomenon in 11Be. Figure 4 shows the neutron (N) and proton (P) density profiles of the GS of 11Be given by PKA1, including the logarithm ones along the symmetric z-axis (left plot) and the contour maps (right plot), in which the dashed ellipsoid defined by the deformation β and radius r is shown as a reference for the size and shape of 11Be. As shown in Fig. 4, the neutrons in 11Be are distributed rather extensively along the z-axis. Different from the decoupling picture [42, 75], the neutron dispersion in 11Be shows a consistent shape with the whole nucleus. Moreover, it can be seen from the left plot of Fig. 4 that the neutron dispersion is almost fully a result of the even-parity orbit 1/2+2 (in pattern of horizontal lines), as referred to in the proton density profiles. It is worth noting that such results are consistent with the experimental indication of a one-neutron halo [11, 3032].

      Figure 4.  (color online) Neutron (N) and proton (P) densities (fm-3) of 11Be given by PKA1, including logarithm ones (left plot) along the z-axis and contour maps (right plot) in which the dashed ellipsoid is defined by the deformation β and radius r.

      However, the orbit 1/2+2 in Fig. 2 (b) is somewhat deeply bound for the GS of 11Be, which seems to conflict with the extensive neutron distributions in Fig. 4. Combined with the results in Fig. 2, a picture becomes apparent. As shown in Fig. 2 (b), the neutron orbit 2s1/2 is loosely bound for spherical 11Be because of the nodal difference, and for the same reason, the s1/2 fragment (mainly the 2s1/2 one) remains loosely bound in the largely deformed GS. Due to the vanishing centrifugal barrier, this leads to the halo occurrence in the GS of 11Be. In contrast, as hindered by the centrifugal barrier, the neighboring d5/2 fragment does not contribute to the halo, but plays an essential role in stabilizing the halo via the attractive inherent correlations with the s1/2 fragment, as indicated by the negative Ec,i value of the halo orbit 1/2+2 aforementioned.

      In fact, the enhancements due to the ρ-T and π-PV couplings are not only crucial for the parity inversion but also significant for the formation and stabilization of the halo in 11Be. Following the deformation from spherical 11Be to the GS, the spherical fragment2s1/2 remains weakly bound to form the halo, and the intruding fragment 1d5/2 in the orbit 1/2+2 enhances the couplings with the core orbits of 11Be, resulting in an even-parity GS, in which the ρ-T and π-PV couplings play an important role. This also stabilizes the halo via an attractive inherent correlation with the 2s1/2 fragment. Moreover, due to the nodal difference between the 2s1/2 and 1d5/2 components, such an inherent correlation is not strong enough to hinder halo formation. It is worth noting that this stability mechanism is different from that of halos in spherical unstable nuclei, which are stabilized in general via enhanced pairing correlations by neighboring high-l orbits [36].

    IV.   SUMMARY
    • In summary, employing the D-RHFB model, we explored the mechanism behind the parity inversion and neutron halo of 11Be, which is uniformly interpreted by the RHF Lagrangian PKA1. Using the language of the spherical DWS basis expansion, it is illustrated that evidently enhanced deformation effects by the ρ-T and π-PV couplings are crucial for describing the even-parity ground state and the neutron halo of 11Be correctly. Moreover, a new microscopic picture of the halo formation and stability is revealed in this work, which paves a way to understanding the halo in deformed unstable nuclei. For light nuclei, the effects of the rotation and vibration corrections might be important. In the future, further implementations of the D-RHFB model are expected by considering the angular momentum projection, the number projection, and other beyond mean field effects.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • The authors want to thank Prof. S.-G. Zhou, Prof. F. Q. Chen, and Dr. X. X. Sun for fruitful discussions and the Supercomputing Center of Lanzhou University and the Southern Nuclear Science Computing Center for the computing resources provided.

Reference (75)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return