2013
DOI: 10.1103/physrevc.88.024319
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Giant monopole energies from a constrained relativistic mean-field approach

Abstract: Background: Average energies of nuclear collective modes may be efficiently and accurately computed using a nonrelativistic constrained approach without reliance on a random phase approximation (RPA). Purpose: To extend the constrained approach to the relativistic domain and to establish its impact on the calibration of energy density functionals. Methods: Relativistic RPA calculations of the giant monopole resonance (GMR) are compared against the predictions of the corresponding constrained approach using two… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(107 reference statements)
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, if we select C = 70 − 80 for lighter mass isotopes and C = 80 − 86 for the super heavy region, then that fits well with our results, which are slightly different than C=80 obtained by fitting the data for stable nuclei [70][71][72]. In table 4, we have shown the results obtained in the RETF formalism with the FSUGold parameter set and compared with other predictions like the random phase approximation (RPA) and CRMF [75]. The experimental data are also given, where available, for comparison.…”
Section: Isoscalar Giant Monopole Resonancesupporting
confidence: 74%
“…However, if we select C = 70 − 80 for lighter mass isotopes and C = 80 − 86 for the super heavy region, then that fits well with our results, which are slightly different than C=80 obtained by fitting the data for stable nuclei [70][71][72]. In table 4, we have shown the results obtained in the RETF formalism with the FSUGold parameter set and compared with other predictions like the random phase approximation (RPA) and CRMF [75]. The experimental data are also given, where available, for comparison.…”
Section: Isoscalar Giant Monopole Resonancesupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The theoretical results listed on the table were obtained by following the constrained RMF formalism developed in Ref. [67]. The same information has been displayed in graphical form in Fig.…”
Section: Giant Monopole Resonancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theoretical results were obtained by following the constrained RMF formalism developed in Ref. [67].…”
Section: Giant Monopole Resonancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…50,51 Since first identified, many explanations have been offered, including invoking the superfluid character of tin, to no avail. 4,8,[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] Note that the "softness of Tin" persists in the nearby (Z = 48) isotopic chain in Cadmium. 63 To underscore the challenge facing theoretical models we display in Fig.…”
Section: Isoscalar Giant Monopole Resonancementioning
confidence: 99%