Paper detail

Generic Constraints on the Relativistic Mean-Field and Skyrme-Hartree-Fock Models from the Pure Neutron Matter Equation of State

We study the nuclear symmetry energy S(rho) and related quantities of nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics predicted generically by relativistic mean-field (RMF) and Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF) models. We establish a simple prescription for preparing equivalent RMF and SHF parametrizations starting from a minimal set of empirical constraints on symmetric nuclear matter, nuclear binding energy and charge radii, enforcing equivalence of their Lorenz effective masses, and then using the pure neutron matter (PNM) equation of state (EoS) obtained from ab-initio calculations to optimize the pure isovector parameters in the RMF and SHF models. We find the resulting RMF and SHF parametrizations give broadly consistent predictions of the symmetry energy J and its slope parameter L at saturation density within a tight range of <~2 MeV and <~6 MeV respectively, but that clear model dependence shows up in the predictions of higher-order symmetry energy parameters, leading to important differences in (a) the slope of the correlation between J and L from the confidence ellipse, (b) the isospin-dependent part of the incompressibility of nuclear matter K_tau, (c) the symmetry energy at supra-saturation densities, and (d) the predicted neutron star radii. The model dependence can lead to about 1-2 km difference in predictions of the neutron star radius given identical predicted values of J, L and symmetric nuclear matter (SNM) saturation properties. Allowing the full freedom in the effective masses in both models leads to constraints of 30<~J<~31.5 MeV, 35<~L<~60 MeV, -330<~K_tau<~-216 MeV for the RMF model as a whole and 30<~J<~33 MeV, 28<~L<~65 MeV, -420<~K_tau<~-325 MeV for the SHF model as a whole. Notably, given PNM constraints, these results place RMF and SHF models as a whole at odds with some constraints on K_tau inferred from giant monopole resonance and neutron skin experimental results.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

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 map preview

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.