论文标题
$^{48} $ ca的中子皮肤与皮肤的实验数据一致
Neutron skin of $^{48}$Ca consistent with experimental data on skins
论文作者
论文摘要
[Background]: In our previous paper, we predicted $r_{\rm skin}$, $r_{\rm p}$, $r_{\rm n}$, $r_{\rm m}$ for $^{40-60,62,64}$Ca after determining the neutron dripline, using the Gogny-D1S HFB with and without the angular动量投影（AMP）。我们发现放大器的影响很小。最近，Tanaka {\ it等}测量的相互作用交叉部分$σ_{\ rm i} $ for $^{42-51} $ ca，确定$ r _ {\ rm m} $从$ = _ {\ rm i} $} $ rm i} $ _ { $ r _ {\ rm m} $和$ r _ {\ rm p}（\ rm {exp}）$从电子散射中评估的n} $。将我们的结果与数据进行比较，我们发现$^{42-48} $ ca ghfb和ghfb+amp在$ r _ {\ rm skin} $上重现数据，$ r _ {\ rm n} $，$ r _ {\ rm mm} $，但不是$ r r _ { [AIM]：我们的目的是通过使用GHFB+AMP和约束的GHFB（CGHFB）来确定$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48} $的值，其中计算值适用于$ r _ {\ rm p}（\ rm p}（\ rm p}（\ rm {exp}））$。 [结果]：对于$^{42,44,446,48} $ ca，CGHFB几乎不会更改$ r _ {\ rm skin} $，$ r _ {\ rm m} $，$ r _ {\ r _ {\ rm n} $用GHFB+AMP计算出$ R _ {对于$ r _ {\ rm Skin}^{48} $，CGHFB结果为$ r _ {\ rm Skin}^{48} = 0.190 $ fm，而$ r _ {\ rm Skin}^{48} = 0.159 = 0.159 = 0.159 $ fm for GHFB+amp+amp+amp+amp。我们应该采用GHFB+AMP和CGHFB的上限和下限。结果$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48} = 0.159-0.190 $ fm与$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48} {48}（σ__{\ rm i i}）和数据$ r _ r _ {\ rm rm skin} $ 1 $ pe $ pe $ pe {\ rm i i}（\ rm i i}） $ E1 $极化实验（$ E1 $ PE）。使用$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48} $ - $ r _ {\ rm skin}^{208} $与Ref的密切相关[3]，我们将数据$ r _ {\ rm}^{208} $由prex和$ e1 $ pe to the contrance condement。 skin}^{48}（\ rm tprex）$和$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48}（\ rm t $ e1 $ pe）$。对于$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48}（\ rm tprex）$和$ r _ {\ rm skin}^{48}（\ rm t $ e1 $ pe）$，我们的结果也一致。
[Background]: In our previous paper, we predicted $r_{\rm skin}$, $r_{\rm p}$, $r_{\rm n}$, $r_{\rm m}$ for $^{40-60,62,64}$Ca after determining the neutron dripline, using the Gogny-D1S HFB with and without the angular momentum projection (AMP). We found that effects of the AMP are small. Very lately, Tanaka {\it et al.} measured interaction cross sections $σ_{\rm I}$ for $^{42-51}$Ca, determined $r_{\rm m}$ from the $σ_{\rm I}$, and deduced skin $r_{\rm skin}$ and $r_{\rm n}$ from the $r_{\rm m}$ and the $r_{\rm p}(\rm {exp})$ evaluated from the electron scattering. Comparing our results with the data, we find for $^{42-48}$Ca that GHFB and GHFB+AMP reproduce the data on $r_{\rm skin}$, $r_{\rm n}$, $r_{\rm m}$, but not for $r_{\rm p}(\rm {exp})$. [Aim]: Our purpose is to determine a value of $r_{\rm skin}^{48}$ by using GHFB+AMP and the constrained GHFB (cGHFB) in which the calculated value is fitted to $r_{\rm p}(\rm {exp})$. [Results]: For $^{42,44,46,48}$Ca, cGHFB hardly changes $r_{\rm skin}$, $r_{\rm m}$, $r_{\rm n}$ calculated with GHFB+AMP, except for $r_{\rm skin}^{48}$. For $r_{\rm skin}^{48}$, the cGHFB result is $r_{\rm skin}^{48}=0.190$fm, while $r_{\rm skin}^{48}=0.159$fm for GHFB+AMP. We should take the upper and the lower bound of GHFB+AMP and cGHFB. The result $r_{\rm skin}^{48}=0.159-0.190$fm consists with the $r_{\rm skin}^{48}(σ_{\rm I})$ and the data $r_{\rm skin}^{48}(\rm $E1$pE)$ obtained from high-resolution $E1$ polarizability experiment ($E1$pE). Using the $r_{\rm skin}^{48}$-$r_{\rm skin}^{208}$ relation with strong correlation of Ref.[3], we transform the data $r_{\rm skin}^{208}$ determined by PREX and $E1$pE to the corresponding values, $r_{\rm skin}^{48}(\rm tPREX)$ and $r_{\rm skin}^{48}(\rm t$E1$pE)$. Our result is consistent also for $r_{\rm skin}^{48}(\rm tPREX)$ and $r_{\rm skin}^{48}(\rm t$E1$pE)$.
