This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Microscopic cluster study of the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nuclei

Pierre Descouvemont [email protected] Physique Nucléaire Théorique et Physique Mathématique, C.P. 229, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), B 1050 Brussels, Belgium Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan    Naoyuki Itagaki2
Abstract

We use a microscopic multicluster model to investigate the structure of Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. These nuclei are described by α+α+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n and α+α+n+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n+n configurations, respectively, within the Generator Coordinate Method (GCM). The 4- and 5-body models raise the problem of a large number of generator coordinates (6 for Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and 9 for Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}), which requires specific treatment. We address this issue by using the Stochastic Variational Method (SVM), which is based on an optimal choice of the basis functions, generated randomly. The model provides good energy spectra for low-lying states of both nuclei. We also compute rms radii and densities, as well as electromagnetic transition probabilities. We analyze the structure of Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} by considering energy curves, where one of the generator coordinates is fixed during the minimization procedure.

I Introduction

Nuclear clustering is a well-established phenomenon. In particular, the α\alpha particle, due to its large binding energy, is a typical cluster in light nuclei. About 50 years ago, the seminal paper of Ikeda and his collaborators ITH68 showed that α\alpha-clustering is expected near the α\alpha threshold of 4N4N nuclei. This conjecture leads to the famous Ikeda diagram and was remarkably confirmed by theory and by experiment. It was even extended to NZN\neq Z nuclei (see recent reviews in Refs. HIK12 ; DD12 ; KSK16 ; KH18 . For example, α+14\alpha+^{14}C cluster states are known in 18O for a long time DB85 .

Neutron-rich nuclei, in particular in the low-mass region of the nuclear chart, require specific attention. If α\alpha clustering is expected, the role of the external neutrons should be addressed by specific methods. A typical example is 6He, which requires three-body models to accurately describe the halo neutrons. Beryllium isotopes are particularly interesting: 8Be is the archetype of α\alpha-cluster nuclei. Although unstable, the ground state is well known to have a marked α+α\alpha+\alpha cluster structure. Going to heavier Be isotopes require multicluster approaches, where the α+α\alpha+\alpha structure persists, but where the additional neutrons play a role. Multicluster descriptions have been proposed in the past within the Generator Coordinate Method De02 , the Antisymmetrized Molecular Dynamics KH01 ; Ka02 , the molecular model IO00 ; IOI00 ; IHO02 ; It06 ; IIM08 ; IIS08 or the Resonating Group Method Ar04 ; OAS00 . An experimental review of Z=24Z=2-4 neutron-rich isotopes can be found in Ref. Fo18 .

In the present work, we aim to investigate the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} isotopes within the α+α+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n and α+α+n+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n+n Generator Coordinate Method (GCM). A previous study on 9Be DI18 within this microscopic approach shows that the α+α+n\alpha+\alpha+n model is able to reproduce many 9Be properties. The main issue in Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} is a large number of independent coordinates. In other words, accurate bases require large numbers of functions. This problem can be efficiently addressed by the Stochastic Variational Method (SVM), where a random choice of the basis sets is performed, which permits optimizing the basis KK77 ; VS95 . A recent application of the SVM to 6Li, considered as a six-body system, has been performed in Ref. SH19 .

The paper is organized as follows. In sect. II, we briefly present the microscopic model, and provide some detail about our use of the SVM. Sections III and IV are devoted to the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nuclei, respectively. Concluding remarks and outlook are presented in sect. V.

II The microscopic multicluster model

II.1 Wave functions

The Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} isotopes are described in a multicluster model, involving two α\alpha particles and two or three external neutrons (see Fig. 1). The Hamiltonian of the system is given by

H=i=1AtiTc.m.+i<j=1Avij,\displaystyle H=\sum_{i=1}^{A}t_{i}-T_{c.m.}+\sum_{i<j=1}^{A}v_{ij}, (1)

where tit_{i} is the kinetic energy of nucleon ii, and vijv_{ij} a nucleon-nucleon interaction (A=10A=10 or 11). The c.m. motion is treated by removing the c.m. kinetic energy Tc.m.T_{c.m.}. We adopt the Minnesota interaction TLT77 as central force, complemented by a short-range spin-orbit term DI18 . The Minnesota force contains one parameter, the admixture parameter uu, whose standard value is u=1u=1, but which can be slightly modified to reproduce important properties of the system. In our work, uu is adjusted on the binding energies of Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} or Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. The Coulomb force is treated exactly.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} configurations with the definitions of the various generator coordinates.

The wave functions are defined within the GCM Ho77 ; Ta81 ; DD12 . In this microscopic multicluster model, the 10,11Be isotopes are described by various parameters, referred to as the generator coordinates DD12 ; Ho77 , which are illustrated in Fig. 1. As a general statement, the number of generator coordinates increases with the number of clusters NCN_{C}. For 9Be DI18 , we have NC=3N_{C}=3. For Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be}, this number increases to NC=6N_{C}=6. These parameters are: RααR_{\alpha\alpha} is the distance between the α\alpha particles, RαnR_{\alpha n} is the distance between the neutron and αα\alpha-\alpha center-of-mass, RnnR_{nn} is the distance between the external neutrons; three angles (θαn,θnn,φnn\theta_{\alpha n},\theta_{nn},\varphi_{nn}) complement the list. For the Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nucleus, the additional neutron introduces three new generator coordinates (θαn2,θnn2,φnn2\theta_{\alpha n2},\theta_{nn2},\varphi_{nn2} - see Fig. 1).

For the sake of clarity, we denote as [R][R] the set of generator coordinates. In other words, [R]=(Rαα,Rαn,θαn,Rnn,θnn,φnn)[R]=(R_{\alpha\alpha},R_{\alpha n},\theta_{\alpha n},R_{nn},\theta_{nn},\varphi_{nn}) for Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and [R]=(Rαα,Rαn,θαn,Rnn,θnn,φnn,θαn2,θnn2,φnn2)[R]=(R_{\alpha\alpha},R_{\alpha n},\theta_{\alpha n},R_{nn},\theta_{nn},\varphi_{nn},\theta_{\alpha n2},\theta_{nn2},\varphi_{nn2}) for Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. Of course these large numbers of generator coordinates raise the problem of the basis selection. This is addressed by the Stochastic Variational Method (SVM) KK77 ; VS95 which will be briefly presented in the next subsection.

We first discuss the GCM matrix elements. Let us consider a multicluster wave function as

Φ[k]([R],Ω)\displaystyle\Phi^{[k]}([R],\Omega) =𝒜ϕα(𝑺1)ϕα(𝑺2)ϕnk1(𝑺3)ϕnk2(𝑺4)\displaystyle={\mathcal{A}}\phi_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{S}_{1})\phi_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{S}_{2})\phi_{n}^{k_{1}}(\boldsymbol{S}_{3})\phi_{n}^{k_{2}}(\boldsymbol{S}_{4})
(forBe10),\displaystyle{\rm\ (for\ \mbox{${}^{10}{\rm Be}$})},
=𝒜ϕα(𝑺1)ϕα(𝑺2)ϕnk1(𝑺3)ϕnk2(𝑺4)ϕnk3(𝑺5)\displaystyle={\mathcal{A}}\phi_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{S}_{1})\phi_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{S}_{2})\phi_{n}^{k_{1}}(\boldsymbol{S}_{3})\phi_{n}^{k_{2}}(\boldsymbol{S}_{4})\phi_{n}^{k_{3}}(\boldsymbol{S}_{5})
(forBe11),\displaystyle{\rm\ (for\ \mbox{${}^{11}{\rm Be}$})}, (2)

where 𝑺i\boldsymbol{S}_{i} are the locations of the clusters, defined from the generator coordinates [R][R] and from the Euler angles Ω\Omega. In this definition, ϕα(𝑺)\phi_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{S}) is an α\alpha cluster wave function defined as a (0s)4(0s)^{4} Slater determinant, and ϕnk(𝑺)\phi_{n}^{k}(\boldsymbol{S}) is a neutron spinor with spin projection kk. The AA-body antisymmetrization is taken into account through the operator 𝒜{\mathcal{A}}. In Eq. (2), [k][k] stands for the set of spin projections, i.e. [k]=(k1,k2)[k]=(k_{1},k_{2}) for Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and [k]=(k1,k2,k3)[k]=(k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}) for Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. To simplify the calculations we assume k1=k2=1/2k_{1}=-k_{2}=1/2 which represents the dominant component.

In a second step, the basis function (2) is projected an angular momentum and on parity. A projected basis function is therefore given by

ΦKJM([R])=18π2𝒟MKJ(Ω)(Ω)Φ[k]([R],Ω)𝑑Ω,\displaystyle\Phi^{JM}_{K}([R])=\frac{1}{8\pi^{2}}\int{\mathcal{D}}^{J\star}_{MK}(\Omega){\mathcal{R}}(\Omega)\Phi^{[k]}([R],\Omega)d\Omega, (3)

where 𝒟MKJ(Ω){\mathcal{D}}^{J}_{MK}(\Omega) is a Wigner function, (Ω){\mathcal{R}}(\Omega) the rotation operator, and KK is the projection on the intrinsic axis. The parity projection is performed by superposing another function where the center locations are inverted; in a schematic notation, we have

ΦKJMπ([R])=12(ΦKJM([R])+πΦKJM([R])).\displaystyle\Phi^{JM\pi}_{K}([R])=\frac{1}{2}\bigl{(}\Phi^{JM}_{K}([R])+\pi\Phi^{JM}_{K}(-[R])\bigr{)}. (4)

Finally, the total wave function of the system is given by superposition of many projected basis functions (4), as

ΨJMπ=nKfKJπ([Rn])ΦKJMπ([Rn]),\displaystyle\Psi^{JM\pi}=\sum_{nK}f^{J\pi}_{K}([R_{n}])\Phi^{JM\pi}_{K}([R_{n}]), (5)

where fKJπ([Rn])f^{J\pi}_{K}([R_{n}]) is the generator function, and is obtained from the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian and overlap kernels

HKn,KnJπ\displaystyle H^{J\pi}_{Kn,K^{\prime}n^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= ΦKJMπ([Rn])|H|ΦkJMπ([Rn]),\displaystyle\langle\Phi^{JM\pi}_{K}([R_{n}])|H|\Phi^{JM\pi}_{k^{\prime}}([R_{n^{\prime}}])\rangle,
NKn,KnJπ\displaystyle N^{J\pi}_{Kn,K^{\prime}n^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= ΦKJMπ([Rn])|ΦkJMπ([Rn]).\displaystyle\langle\Phi^{JM\pi}_{K}([R_{n}])|\Phi^{JM\pi}_{k^{\prime}}([R_{n^{\prime}}])\rangle. (6)

These matrix elements, as well as those of other operators (rms radii, densities, electromagnetic operators) are obtained from three-dimensional integrals over the Euler angles. As a large number of matrix elements (6) is necessary, in particular when we optimize the basis with the SVM, a special attention must be paid to the efficiency and to the parallelization of the codes.

II.2 Brief description of the SVM

The main issue in the present model is to find an optimal set of basis functions, keeping the total number within reasonable limits. The Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nuclei are described by 6 and 9 generator coordinates, respectively. Obviously, using a standard mesh over each coordinate is not feasible. This problem can be efficiently addressed by using the SVM, widely used in problems dealing with large bases (see, for example, Ref. SH19 for a recent application).

The SVM has been described in previous references KK77 ; VS95 , and we only give here a brief overview. The SVM is based on a random selection of the basis set. A first set is determined by generating randomly NSN_{S} sets and by choosing the minimum energy. The second basis set is obtained in the same way but is coupled to the first set. The process is then repeated until the energy remains nearly constant. Of course, the computer times rapidly increase when the size of the basis increases. In practice, we found that NS2530N_{S}\approx 25-30 gives a fair convergence. The calculations can be tested by repeating the process with another initial set of basis functions. Obtaining close results is a reliable indication that the energy is converged. This method allows to significantly reduce the computer times and memory requirements.

III The Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} nucleus

The energy convergence is illustrated in Fig. 2 for several JπJ\pi values. We use the Minnesota parameter u=0.973u=0.973 which reproduces the experimental binding energy with respect to the α+α+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n threshold (8.64-8.64 MeV). Experimental states are shown on the right part of the figure. The calculation predicts a 2+2^{+} excitation energy in excellent agreement with the experiment, although a 22+2^{+}_{2} state is found below the experimental energy. The convergence is reasonable with about 400 basis functions. We find 02+0^{+}_{2} and 11^{-} states whose energies differ by 121-2 MeV from the experiment. The 02+0^{+}_{2} state is known to have an α+6\alpha+^{6}He cluster structure FBD99 , and its theoretical energy might be slightly improved by constraining the random selection to such configurations. For the negative-parity states, a different uu value would permit to reproduce more precisely the experimental energy.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Convergence of Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} energies with respect to the number of basis functions NN. The energies are defined from the α+α+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n threshold. Experimental energies of low-lying states are shown on the right of the figure.

The ground-state proton and neutron densities of the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} ground state are presented in Fig. 3. The transition density between an initial state ii and a final state ff is defined as

ρpni,f(𝒓)=ΨJfMfπf|i=1A(12±tiz)δ(𝒓𝒓i)|ΨJiMiπi,\rho_{pn}^{i,f}(\boldsymbol{r})=\langle\Psi^{J_{f}M_{f}\pi_{f}}|\sum_{i=1}^{A}\bigl{(}\frac{1}{2}\pm t_{iz}\bigr{)}\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_{i})|\Psi^{J_{i}M_{i}\pi_{i}}\rangle, (7)

where 𝒕i\boldsymbol{t}_{i} is the isposin of nucleon ii, and the signs ”+” and ”-” correspond to the neutron and proton densities, respectively. These densities are expanded in multipoles Ka81 as

ρpni,f(𝒓)=λJfMfλMfMi|JiMiρpn,λJjJi(r)YλMfMi(Ωr),\rho_{pn}^{i,f}(\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{\lambda}\langle J_{f}M_{f}\lambda M_{f}-M_{i}|J_{i}M_{i}\rangle\rho^{J_{j}J_{i}}_{pn,\lambda}(r)Y_{\lambda M_{f}-M_{i}}^{*}(\Omega_{r}), (8)

and are computed as explained in Ref. DI18 . The monopole (λ=0\lambda=0) densities of the ground state are normalized such that

4πρp(r)r2𝑑r=Z\displaystyle\sqrt{4\pi}\int\rho_{p}(r)r^{2}dr=Z
4πρn(r)r2𝑑r=N,\displaystyle\sqrt{4\pi}\int\rho_{n}(r)r^{2}dr=N, (9)

where Z=4Z=4 and N=6N=6 for the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} nucleus.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Proton (solid lines) and neutron (dashed lines) monopole densities of the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} ground state. The inset shows the same densities plotted in a logarithmic scale.

As expected, the neutron density extends to larger distances, owing to the presence of the external neutrons. From these densities, we obtain the rms radii presented in Table 1, and compared with the experimental data of Ref. THH85 . The proton radius <r2>p\sqrt{<r^{2}>_{p}} is an excellent agreement with experiment, but the matter radius <r2>\sqrt{<r^{2}>} is slightly larger. Notice that the experimental values are partly model dependent.

With the GCM wave functions, we can also compute the E2 transition probability. Our value is lower than experiment, which suggests that an effective charge is necessary. This is not surprising in neutron-rich nuclei, where polarization effects usually require an effective charge which simulates neutron effects.

Table 1: Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} properties.
GCM Exp. Ref.
<r2>p\sqrt{<r^{2}>_{p}} (fm) 2.27 2.357±0.0182.357\pm 0.018 NTZ09
<r2>n\sqrt{<r^{2}>_{n}} (fm) 2.67
<r2>\sqrt{<r^{2}>} (fm) 2.52 2.30±0.022.30\pm 0.02 THH85
B(E2,0+2+)B(E2,0^{+}\rightarrow 2^{+}) (e2e^{2}.fm4) 28.3 52±652\pm 6 TKG04

To have a deeper insight on the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} structure, we have investigated energy curves, where one of the generator coordinate is fixed. The energy curves are presented in Fig. 4 for Rαα,RαnR_{\alpha\alpha},R_{\alpha n} and RnnR_{nn}. Figure 4(a) shows that the minimum of the energy is obtained for Rαα3R_{\alpha\alpha}\approx 3 fm, which is lower than in 9Be (4\approx 4 fm) but still significant. The α\alpha-cluster structure is stronger for J=1J=1^{-}, in agreement with the α+6\alpha+^{6}He configuration suggested in Ref. FBD99 . For RαnR_{\alpha n}, the minimum is found near Rαn2R_{\alpha n}\approx 2 fm. For RnnR_{nn}, however, the energy is minimum near Rnn3R_{nn}\approx 3 fm. This result stresses the importance of a 4-body model for Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be}. A simple dineutron approximation for the external neutrons would not provide accurate wave functions.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Energy of the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} system (with respect to the α+α+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n threshold) as a function of RααR_{\alpha\alpha} (a), RαnR_{\alpha n} (b) and RnnR_{nn} (c).

IV The Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nucleus

The Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nucleus has attracted much interest over the last decades, owing to the well-known parity inversion TU60 and to the low binding energy of the ground state. This property makes Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} an ideal example of a one-neutron halo nucleus. Many microscopic studies have been devoted to Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}: the GCM De97 ; De02 , the AMD KHD01 and, more recently the No Core Shell Model CNR16 where it is shown an explicit treatment of the Be10+n{}^{10}{\rm Be}+n cluster structure is necessary to reproduce the large B(E1)B(E1) transition probability between the 1/2+1/2^{+} ground state and the 1/21/2^{-} first excited state. In most models, however, the parity inversion cannot be reproduced with a common interaction. A parity-dependent interaction must be adopted.

In the present work, we aim to investigate the Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} structure in the framework of a multicluster approach. An improvement with respect to Ref. De02 is the use of a more efficient method to select the optimal basis, and therefore to get more precise properties of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. As mentioned in the introduction, the GCM description of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} involves 9 generator coordinates, and the use of the SVM turns out to be quite useful to keep the basis within reasonable sizes.

We first illustrate the energy convergence of various states in Fig. 5. The admixture parameter uu has been adjusted to the experimental neutron separation energy. With u=1.066u=1.066 for positive parity and u=0.893u=0.893 for negative parity, we reproduce the energy of the 1/2+1/2^{+} and 1/21/2^{-} states (0.50-0.50 MeV and 0.18-0.18 MeV, respectively, with respect to the Be10+n{}^{10}{\rm Be}+n threshold). Reproducing the experimental binding energies is crucial for the asymptotic part of the wave functions. Figure 5 shows that a fair convergence can be achieved with about 600700600-700 basis functions. A similar number of basis functions has been employed for the 6-nucleon description of 6Li SH19 . The model not only provides the ground state and the first excited state, but a realistic description of low-lying resonances is also obtained. For these resonances, the energies are in reasonable agreement with the experiment.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Convergence of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} energies with respect to the number of basis functions NN. The energies are defined from the α+α+n+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n+n threshold. Experimental energies of low-lying states are shown on the right side of the figure.

Figure 6 presents the Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} proton and neutron densities for the 1/2+1/2^{+} and 1/21/2^{-} states. For both states, the proton density is rather peaked near the origin. In contrast, the neutron densities extend to large distances. This is a well-known effect, due to the weak binding energy of the last neutron. The rms radii, obtained from the densities, are displayed in Table 2. The proton and matter radii of the ground state are smaller than the experimental values, a result consistent with the previous study of Ref. De02 . Most likely, other configurations are necessary to improve the comparison with experiment. The B(E1)B(E1) value is also underestimated by the GCM. This was already observed in previous multicluster calculations KHD01 ; De02 , and in the NCSM CNR16 . The authors of Ref. CNR16 suggest that an explicit account of Be10+n{}^{10}{\rm Be}+n configurations is necessary to reproduce the large experimental value.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Proton and neutron densities of the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} ground state (solid lines) and of the 1/21/2^{-} state(dashed lines). The inset shows the same densities plotted in a logarithmic scale.
Table 2: Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} properties.
GCM Exp. Ref.
<r2>p\sqrt{<r^{2}>_{p}} (fm) 1.94 2.463±0.0152.463\pm 0.015 NTZ09
<r2>n\sqrt{<r^{2}>_{n}} (fm) 2.56
<r2>\sqrt{<r^{2}>} (fm) 2.36 2.73±0.052.73\pm 0.05 TKY88
B(E1,1/2+1/2)B(E1,1/2^{+}\rightarrow 1/2^{-}) (W.u.) 6.3×1036.3\times 10^{-3} 0.360±0.0330.360\pm 0.033 KKP12

In Fig. 7, we analyse various energy curves of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. In each case, a generator coordinate is kept fixed, and the SVM is applied to the eight remaining generator coordinates. Although these curves cannot be strictly considered as potentials, they provide a valuable insight into the structure of Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. The minimum for RααR_{\alpha\alpha} is found near Rαα2R_{\alpha\alpha}\approx 2 fm, i.e. a value smaller than in Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be}. This result confirms that the α+α\alpha+\alpha distance decreases when the number of external nucleon increases De02 . For RαnR_{\alpha n}, the minimum is rather flat up to Rαn2R_{\alpha n}\approx 2 fm. Large values are therefore unlikely. The RnnR_{nn} dependence is quite interesting: it shows a weak variation of the total energy. Consequently, it is important to include several configurations covering a wide interval. This conclusion holds for all considered states. The dependence on Rαn2R_{\alpha n2}, i.e. on the distance between the α+α\alpha+\alpha c.m. and the third neutron, presents a flat minimum around RαnR_{\alpha n}\approx 2 fm.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Energy of the Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} system (with respect to the α+α+n+n\alpha+\alpha+n+n threshold) as a function of RααR_{\alpha\alpha} (a), RαnR_{\alpha n} (b), Rαn2R_{\alpha n2} (c) and RnnR_{nn} (d).

V Conclusion

The main goal of this paper is to investigate the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} nuclei within a microscopic multicluster model. The only adjustable parameter is the admixture parameter uu, involved in the Minnesota interaction, and fitted on the binding energy of the ground states. A challenge with many-body approaches is to cope with a large number of generator coordinates or, in other words, with a large number of degrees of freedom. We have confirmed that the SVM provides an excellent framework to address this issue. Although computer times are still quite long, they remain within reasonable limits on modern computers.

The multicluster model is based on two α\alpha clusters, and 2 or 3 surrounding neutrons. It provides an excellent description of the low-energy spectrum of both nuclei. In particular, Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} is nicely reproduced, not only for bound states but also for resonances. The stability of the energies with the number of basis functions (see Fig. 5) shows that we also have a fair description of the continuum.

We have used the GCM wave functions to compute various properties. In particular, the Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} densities could be used to determine folding potentials. In Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be}, the rms radii are in good agreement with the experiment. A small effective charge should be introduced to improve the agreement for the B(E2)B(E2) value. The rms radii in Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}, however, are somewhat underestimated, and the B(E1)B(E1) value is much smaller than the experiment. This is not surprising in a multicluster model De02 ; KHD01 , and even in the NCSM CNR16 . As suggested in Ref. CNR16 , couplings to Be10+n{}^{10}{\rm Be}+n configurations should be introduced explicitly.

Finally, we have analysed the structure of Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} and Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be} with the energy curves, where one of the generator coordinates is fixed. This approach provides a qualitative overview of the nucleus. The α+α\alpha+\alpha clustering decreases from Be10{}^{10}{\rm Be} to Be11{}^{11}{\rm Be}. It should likely disappear for heavier Be isotopes, such as 14Be.

Acknowledgement

P. D. acknowledges the hospitality of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, where most of this work was performed. This work was supported by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique - FNRS under Grant Numbers 4.45.10.08 and J.0049.19. Computational resources have been provided by the Consortium des Équipements de Calcul Intensif (CÉCI), funded by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique de Belgique (F.R.S.-FNRS) under Grant No. 2.5020.11 and by the Walloon Region. P. D. is Directeur de Recherches of F.R.S.-FNRS, Belgium.

References

  • (1) K. Ikeda, N. Takigawa, and H. Horiuchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., E68, 464 (1968).
  • (2) H. Horiuchi, K. Ikeda, and K. Katō, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 192, 1 (2012).
  • (3) P. Descouvemont and M. Dufour, Clusters in Nuclei, Vol.2, volume 848 of Lecture Notes in Physics, (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012).
  • (4) M. Kimura, T. Suhara, and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Eur. Phys. J., A52, 373 (2016).
  • (5) Y. Kanada-En’yo and H. Horiuchi, Frontiers of Physics, 13, 132108 (2018).
  • (6) P. Descouvemont and D. Baye, Phys. Rev. C, 31, 2274 (1985).
  • (7) P. Descouvemont, Nucl. Phys. A, 699, 463 (2002).
  • (8) Y. Kanada-En’yo and H. Horiuchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp., 142, 205 (2001).
  • (9) Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C, 66, 011303 (2002).
  • (10) N. Itagaki and S. Okabe, Phys. Rev. C, 61, 044306 (2000).
  • (11) N. Itagaki, S. Okabe, and K. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. C, 62, 034301 (2000).
  • (12) N. Itagaki, S. Hirose, T. Otsuka, S. Okabe, and K. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. C, 65, 044302 (2002).
  • (13) M. Ito, Phys. Lett. B, 636, 293 (2006).
  • (14) N. Itagaki, M. Ito, M. Milin, T. Hashimoto, H. Ishiyama, and H. Miyatake, Phys. Rev. C, 77, 067301 (2008).
  • (15) M. Ito, N. Itagaki, H. Sakurai, and K. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 182502 (2008).
  • (16) K. Arai, Phys. Rev. C, 69, 014309 (2004).
  • (17) Y. Ogawa, K. Arai, Y. Suzuki, and K. Varga, Nucl. Phys. A, 673, 122 (2000).
  • (18) H. T. Fortune, Eur Phys. J., A54, 51 (2018).
  • (19) P. Descouvemont and N. Itagaki, Phys. Rev. C, 97, 014612 (2018).
  • (20) V. I. Kukulin and V. M. Krasnopol’sky, J. Phys. G, 3, 795 (1977).
  • (21) K. Varga and Y. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C, 52, 2885 (1995).
  • (22) S. Satsuka and W. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. C, 100, 024334 (2019).
  • (23) D. R. Thompson, M. LeMere, and Y. C. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A, 286, 53 (1977).
  • (24) H. Horiuchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 62, 90 (1977).
  • (25) Y. C. Tang, in Topics in Nuclear Physics II, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin,, 145, 572 (1981).
  • (26) K. Fujimura, D. Baye, P. Descouvemont, Y. Suzuki, and K. Varga, Phys. Rev. C, 59, 817 (1999).
  • (27) M. Kamimura, Nucl. Phys. A, 351, 456 (1981).
  • (28) I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y. Shida, N. Yoshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett., 55, 2676 (1985).
  • (29) W. Nörtershäuser, D. Tiedemann, M. Žáková, Z. Andjelkovic, K. Blaum, M. L. Bissell, R. Cazan, G. W. F. Drake, Ch. Geppert, M. Kowalska, J. Krämer, A. Krieger, R. Neugart, R. Sánchez, F. Schmidt-Kaler, Z.-C. Yan, D. T. Yordanov, and C. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 062503 (2009).
  • (30) D. R. Tilley, J. H. Kelley, J. L. Godwin, D. J. Millener, J. E. Purcell, C. G. Sheu, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A, 745, 155 (2004).
  • (31) I. Talmi and I. Unna, Phys. Rev. Lett., 4, 469 (1960).
  • (32) P. Descouvemont, Nucl. Phys. A, 615, 261 (1997).
  • (33) Y. Kanada-Enyo, H. Horiuchi, and A. Dote, Nucl. Phys. A, 687, 146c (2001).
  • (34) A. Calci, P. Navrátil, R. Roth, J. Dohet-Eraly, S. Quaglioni, and G. Hupin, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 242501 (2016).
  • (35) I. Tanihata, T. Kobayashi, O. Yamakawa, S. Shimoura, K. Ekuni, K. Sugimoto, N. Takahashi, T. Shimoda, and H. Sato, Phys. Lett. B, 206, 592 (1988).
  • (36) J. H. Kelley, E. Kwan, J. E. Purcell, C. G. Sheu, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A, 880, 88 (2012).