\begin{document}$\tilde{\rho}(e)$\end{document}. The pairing matrix elements within the UGM approach are deduced from microscopically calculated values of \begin{document}$\tilde{\rho}(e)$\end{document} and gaps obtained from analytical formulae of a semi-classical nature. Two effects generally ignored in similar fits are addressed: (a) a correction for a systematic bias introduced by fitting pairing gaps corresponding to equilibrium deformation solutions, as discussed by Möller and Nix [Nucl. Phys. A 476, 1 (1992)], and (b) a correction for a systematic spurious enhancement of \begin{document}$\tilde{\rho}(e)$\end{document} for protons in the vicinity of λ, caused by the local Slater approximation commonly employed in treating Coulomb exchange terms (e.g., [Phys. Rev. C 84, 014310 (2011)]). This approach has demonstrated significant efficiency when applied to Hartree-Fock + Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) calculations (including the seniority force and self-consistent blocking for odd nuclei) of a large sample of well and rigidly deformed even-even rare-earth nuclei. The experimental moments of inertia for these nuclei were reproduced with an accuracy comparable to that achieved through direct fitting of the data [Phys. Rev. C 99, 064306 (2019)]. In this study, we extended the evaluation of our method to the reproduction of three-point odd-even mass differences centered on odd-N or odd-Z nuclei in the same region. The agreement with experimental data was found to be comparable to that obtained through direct fitting, as reported in [Phys. Rev. C 99, 064306 (2019)]."> Odd-even mass differences of well and rigidly deformed nuclei in the rare earth region: Test of a newly proposed fit for average pairing matrix elements -
  • [1]

    M.-H. Koh and P. Quentin, Phys. Rev. C110, 024311 (2024)

  • [2]

    A. S. Jensen and P. G. Hansen, Nucl. Phys. A431, 393 (1984)

  • [3]

    D. Madland and J. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A476, 1 (1988)

  • [4]

    P. Möller and J. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A536, 20 (1992)

  • [5]

    A. Bohr, B. R. Mottelson, and D. Pines, Phys. Rev.110, 936 (1958)

  • [6]

    N. M. Nor, N.-A. Rezle, K.-W. Kelvin-Leeet al., Phys. Rev. C99, 064306 (2019)

  • [7]

    M. Brack, J. Damgaard, and A. J.et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.44, 320 (1972)

  • [8]

    M. Brack and H. Pauli, Nucl. Phys. A207, 401 (1973)

  • [9]

    S. A. Moszkowski, Handbuch der Physik XXXIX 469 (1957)

  • [10]

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-body Problem(Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980), p. 240.

  • [11]

    J. Slater, Phys. Rev.81, 385 (1951)

  • [12]

    C. Titin-Schnaider and P. Quentin, Phys. Lett. B49, 397 (1974)

  • [13]

    J. Skalski, Phys. Rev. C63, 024312 (2001)

  • [14]

    J. L. Bloas, M.-H. Koh, P. Quentinet al., Phys. Rev. C84, 0143310 (2011)

  • [15]

    P. Bonche, H. Flocard, P. Heenenet al., Nucl. Phys. A443, 39 (1985)

  • [16]

    M. Beiner, H. Flocard, N. V. Giaiet al., Nucl. Phys. A238, 29 (1975)

  • [17]

    N. Minkov, L. Bonneau, P. Quentinet al., Phys. Rev. C105, 044329 (2022)

  • [18]

    H. Flocard, P. Quentin, A. Kermanet al., Nucl. Phys. A203, 433 (1973)

  • [19]

    J. Dobaczewski, P. Magierski, W. Nazarewiczet al., Phys. Rev. C63, 024308 (2001)

  • [20]

    T. Duguet, P. Bonche, P.-H. Heenenet al., Phys. Rev. C65, 014310 (2001)

  • [21]

    L. Bonneau, N. Minkov, D. D. Ducet al., Phys. Rev. C91, 054307 (2015)

  • [22]

    Å Bohr and B. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure Vol. II(Singapore: World Scientific, 1998), p. 32.

  • [23]

    M. Koh, D. Duc, T. N. Haoet al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 3 (2016)

  • [24]

    NNDC, https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/.

  • [25]

    NUMOR, https://magneticmoments.info/numor/in_search.php (cut-off date 2019.03.31) and references quoted therein.

  • [26]

    S. Raman, C. N. Jr., and P. Tikkanen, At. Data Nucl. Tables78, 1 (2001)

  • [27]

    H. Flocard, P. Quentin, and D. Vautherin, Phys. Lett. B46, 304 (1973)

Baidu
map