Shell and Pairing Effects in Spherical Nuclei Close to the Nucleon Drip Lines

  • M. Beiner
  • R. J. Lombard


Until recently, the ground state binding energy of nuclei was most frequently calculated by using mass formulae of different types or by integrating finite difference equations derived from local mass relations. Typical approaches belonging to the first class are based on liquid drop model expressions with shell and pairing corrections [1–3]. The second methods [4–6] have been made possible by the considerable improvement of the experimental knowledge of the atomic masses during the two last decades [7–9]. Apart from least squares fits occuring at some stage, the above treatments are numerically rather simple accurate and rapid. Unfortunately, the reliability of their predictions for nuclei situated away from the valley of β-stability is questionable. This is connected to their high degree of phenomenology which does not allow to predict structural changes. On the other hand, as pointed out many times, several parameters of the liquid drop model cannot be determined with a sufficient accuracy (or even depend on the sample chosen for their adjustement) and consequently mass extrapolations are rather delicate.


Drip Line Spherical Nucleus Magic Nucleus Liquid Drop Model Total Binding Energy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    W.D. Myers and W.J. Swiatecki, Nucl.Phys. 81 (1966) 1Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    V.M. Strutinsky, Nucl. Phys. A95 (1967) 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P.A. Seeger and W.H. Hovard,LA5750 UC-34c (Oct.74)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G.T. Garvey et al, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41 (1969) S1ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Sorenson, preprint (1971)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Jänecke and H. Behrens, Phys.Rev. C9 (1974) 1276Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L.A. König, J.H.E. Mattauch, and A.H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. 31 (1962) 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.H.E. Mattauch, W. Thiele and A.H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. 67 (1965) 1, 32, 73Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A.H. Wapstra and N.B. Gove, Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 9 (1971) 265ADSGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J.W. Negele, Phys. Rev. C1 (1970) 1260Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    X. Campi and D.W. Sprung, Nucl. Phys. A194 (1972) 401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Phys.Rev. C5 (1972) 1472ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    K.A. Brueckner, J.R. Buchler, R.C. Clark, and R.J. Lombard, Phys.Rev. 181 (1969) 1543;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. R.J. Lombard, Ann. of Phys. (NY) 77 (1973) 380ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [14]
    M. Beiner and R.J. Lombard, Ann. of Phys. (NY) 86 (1974) 262ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [15]
    J.R. Buchler and L. Ingber, Nucl. Phys. A170 (1970) 1Google Scholar
  17. [16]
    S.A. Moskowski and B.L. Scott, Ann. of Phys. (NY) 11 (1960) 65ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [17]
    K. Bleuler et al., Nuovo Cimento B52 (1967) 45, 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [18]
    N. Zeldes, M. Gronau and A. LeV, Nucl.Phys. 63 (1965) 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [19]
    M. Beiner, IPNO/TH- Aussois 1971Google Scholar
  21. [20]
    M. Beiner, R.J. Lombard, and D. Mas, Nucl. Phys. (in Press); IPNO/TH 75–4Google Scholar
  22. [21]
    K.A. Brueckner et al., Phys. Rev. C4 (1971) 732ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Beiner
    • 1
  • R. J. Lombard
    • 1
  1. 1.Division de Physique ThéoriqueInstitut de Physique NucléaireOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations