Paper detail

Comparison of different relativistic models applied to dense nuclear matter

We explore three different classes of relativistic approaches applied to the description of dense nuclear matter: a Walecka-type relativistic mean field model (RMF), an extension including an effective chiral potential (RMF-C) and a further extension with a chiral potential and confinement effects (RMF-CC). The parameters of the latter are controlled by fundamental properties such as the chiral potential, Lattice-QCD predictions, the quark sub-structure, as well as empirical properties at nuclear matter saturation. While these models are calibrated to the same properties at saturation density, they differ in their predictions as the density increases. We take care of parameter uncertainties and propagate them to our predictions for symmetric nuclear matter by employing Bayesian statistics. We show that RMF and RMF-C share common features as the density increases, while RMF-CC behaves differently. For instance, the scalar field at $6n_\textrm{sat}$ reaches $\sim 20$ MeV for RMF-CC while it is larger than $\sim 70$ MeV for RMF and RMF-C. Interestingly, we also show that, by fixing the $ρ$ coupling constant from the quark structure of the nucleon, these three models reproduce only half of the empirical symmetry energy.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.