The LOCV method versus the fermion (hypernetted) chain approximations using the Bethe homework problem

Folding model analysis of $ ^{12}C- ^{12}C $ and $ ^{16}O- ^{16}O $ elastic scattering using the density-dependent LOCV averaged effective interaction

“…Recently [60], it was shown that the neutron (nuclear) matter LOCV calculations with the various two-body interactions, e.g. the Bethe homework potential and the Argonne Av In the table A.1 we compare the LOCV results on the saturation properties of SN M by using different interactions with other many body techniques (The BB, BHF , CBF and BHF −ESC stand for the Brueckner, Bethe, Brueckner, Hartree, F ock, correlated-basis-function and BHF using extended-soft-core interactions, see the references [22] and [14], and the references therein, for detail, respectively).…”

The LOCV averaged two-nucleon interactions versus the density-dependent M3Y potential for the heavy-ion collisions

“…[24][25][26][27]. The shapes of the above density-dependent effective interactions as well as the corresponding state-dependent versions can be found in the various works of Modarres et al [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. By using the above definition for AEI, we can obtain the two-body energy term within the Hartree-Fock (HF) frame (i.e.…”

“…The validity of LOCV method, as well as its applications to the nuclear matter and the finite nuclei, have been fully discussed in the works of Owens et al [19,20] and Modarres et al [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. The LOCV effective two-body interactions have been tested by calculating the properties of the light and the heavy closed shell nuclei [25][26][27], and recently it was used to calculate the in-medium nn cross section and the transport properties of neutron matter [29,30].…”

Equation of state of asymmetric nuclear matter using re-projected nucleon–nucleon potentials

“…We have also investigated the dependence of nuclear symmetry energy on density and spin polarization with the LOCV method using the AV18 potential [41]. Recently, Tafrihi and Modarres have compared the LOCV, the extended LOCV and FHNC approaches for nuclear matter problems [42][43][44]. They showed that the LOCV computations reasonably agree with those of FHNC, because the formalism of FHNC is developed with the LOCV correlation functions.…”

“…The normalization constraint plays an important role in the minimization of the many-body terms Therefore LOCV and the FHNC approaches give results close to each other when the normalization constraint is imposed in its correct form [44]. The LOCV correlation functions, which satisfy the normalization constraint, have several advantages over the FHNC [42][43][44]. The LOCV correlation functions could be more optimal than those of FHNC since the LOCV correlation functions are statedependent, while the FHNC correlation functions are state-independent [42][43][44].…”