2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.10.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Erratum to: “On the impact of large amplitude pairing fluctuations on nuclear spectra” [Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 520]

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We find that this is not the case in the PNP approaches where the minima correspond to δ ≈ 2.5. The energy difference corresponding to the different δ values amounts to a difference in pairing energies of a few MeV [65]. The equipotential surfaces of panels (e) and (f) look very similar though in detail they are different, c.f.…”
Section: The β and Pairing Degrees Of Freedommentioning
confidence: 93%
“…We find that this is not the case in the PNP approaches where the minima correspond to δ ≈ 2.5. The energy difference corresponding to the different δ values amounts to a difference in pairing energies of a few MeV [65]. The equipotential surfaces of panels (e) and (f) look very similar though in detail they are different, c.f.…”
Section: The β and Pairing Degrees Of Freedommentioning
confidence: 93%
“…LSSM calculations have shown that this state is very sensitive to a subtle mixing of spherical 0p-0h and superdeformed 4p-4h configurations [25]. In the present framework, the inclusion of pairing fluctuations [9] and/or explicit quasiparticle excitations could help to solve this problem since the excited 0 + states are mainly affected by such a degree of freedom, lowering the excitation energies of those states.…”
mentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The finite range of the interaction used in the calculations (Gogny [32]), with a common source for the long and short range parts of the force, guarantees a self-consistent interplay of the shape and pairing fluctuations. In this framework, following the generator coordinate method (GCM) [33,34], the many body nuclear states are described as a linear combination (mixing) of particle number and angular momentum projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) wave functions with different shapes and pairing content [35]:where I is the angular momentum, σ labels the different states for a given angular momentum, β 2 and δ are the intrinsic axial quadrupole and pairing degrees of freedom respectively, g Iσ i/f (β 2 , δ) are the coefficients found by solving the Hill-Wheeler-Griffin (HWG) equations [33,35] and the projected wave functions are defined as:|Ψ I i/f (β 2 , δ) = P N i/f P Z i/f P I |φ(β 2 , δ)with P N (Z) and P I being the neutron (proton) number and angular momentum projection operators respec-arXiv:1401.0650v1 [nucl-th]…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The finite range of the interaction used in the calculations (Gogny [32]), with a common source for the long and short range parts of the force, guarantees a self-consistent interplay of the shape and pairing fluctuations. In this framework, following the generator coordinate method (GCM) [33,34], the many body nuclear states are described as a linear combination (mixing) of particle number and angular momentum projected Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) wave functions with different shapes and pairing content [35]:…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation