format: text

text:
# COMPACT AND LOOSELY BOUND STRUCTURES IN LIGHT NUCLEI

## I Introduction.

Theoretical consideration of strongly interacting many-particle systems, such as the atomic nuclei, has a number of difficulties, one of which is constructing of trial wave function. The wave function used should be characterized by proper set of the definite quantum numbers and corresponding symmetries, taking into account the most important physical modes of nucleon motion. It is usually assumed that structure of the constructed wave function is well known in the limitsd cases, i.e. in the case where a distance between fragments is very large or when we have a compact one-centre system. Hence, the main attention is paid to determination of correct interpolation expression for the wave function in the intermediate region.

Many authors have worked at simultaneous description of both ”compact” and ”friable” structures (see, for example, Ref.). Several decades ago due to activity of Yu.A.Simonov, great attention was paid to the hyperspherical function  method (the K-harmonic method) which was considered as a general solution method for the nuclear many-particle problem. But it was shown that its practical application is limited effectively to compact systems; moreover, the results obtained  hardly differ from the results calculated using the simplest functions of the oscillator shell model with one variation parameter.

Recently quite effective stochastic variational methods  for semirealistic nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials using a number of multicluster model basic functions have been developed for the case of the lightest ($`A10`$) nuclei. They allow to find almost exact numerical solutions of many particle problems for some variants of NN-forces which are most frequently used in calculations of the light nuclei structure. Unfortunately, only numerical estimations of energies and radii are usually obtained due to complication of the calculations. Thus, results of such microscopic computations rarely can be used for estimation of other nuclear characteristics. Therefore, it is desirable to have many-particle wave function in evident form for real efficiency of the method. Moreover, if we have the wave function in the explicit form, we will be able to use it in calculations of different nuclear processes within the nuclear system.

To construct simple and quite flexible microscopic trial wave function of the nucleus which correctly describes both compact and weakly bound states, it is of prime importance at studing of exotic nuclei with anomalous ratio N/Z.

It is known that deformation effects are significant in nuclei with $`A>4`$. But concrete calculations are usually performed on the basis of spherical symmetry for cluster wave functions and detailed function for cluster-cluster motion. Recently, we have tried  to take into consideration the deformation effects in the framework of the many-particle oscillator shell model by using the variation principle (without taking into account the cluster modes). In the present paper we describe microscopic model which employs orbital ”polarization” as well as cluster degrees of the nucleon motion and exact angular projection. The model can be used for description of both compact and weakly bound states in the light and medium light atomic nuclei.

Below we briefly outline the construction of the trial wave function (section II) and give all matrix elements (m.e.) of the basic physical operators needed for our computation (section III). The variational calculation results for the nuclei 8Be, 6He are given in section IV.

## II Many-particle Hamiltonian and trial wave functions.

Let us split considered A-nucleon system in two subsystems ($`A=A_1+A_2`$) in such way that nucleon-nucleon interaction inside of each subsystem is a priori stronger then that between the two nucleons in the different fragments. We introduce the two fragments in order to simplify the account. In case if there are more fragments, the generalization can be written in a similar way. Note that nucleon motion mode defined by interaction between subsystems will be the ”softest”. Analysis of the experimental data for the considered nucleus allows to choose correct splitting of A-nucleon system into fragments. As a rule, the most interesting ”physics” at low energies is caused by the soft mode which should be the most detailed in the framework of the chosen model. For example, description of the A-nucleus weak-bound state will be sufficient if we were able to obtain the basic nuclear characteristics as well as the decay $`A=A_1+A_2`$ threshold on the assumption that separated fragments $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are known compact nuclei.

In general, every microscopic model is associated with its own effective NN-potential. The most known effective NN-potentials have been constructed in the framework of the models based on the shell model wave function with one variation parameter. It is clear that using such NN-potentials in the more advanced models can be uneffective. However, this usage can be quite correct if NN-potential was built on the basis of the compact nuclei properties (e.g., ones of the magic nuclei 4He, 16O or 40Ca). The results of calculations  for the magic nuclei 4He, 16O are rather similar for both simple and advanced model, therefore is valid to use mentioned above NN-potentials for the ”polarized” orbitals model. Let us further consider the standard microscopic nuclear model  based on the many-nucleon Hamiltonian with two-particle central exchange interaction

$$\widehat{V}_{ij}(r)=\underset{S,T=0,1}{}V_{2S+1,2T+1}(r)\widehat{P}_{ST}(ij),r|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|,$$
(1)
where the radius dependence of the potential components can be represented by Gaussian superposition, i.e.

$$V_{2S+1,2T+1}(r)=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\nu _{pot}}{}}V_{2S+1,2T+1}^{[\nu ]}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r^2}{\mu _\nu ^2}\right);$$
(2)
projection operator $`\widehat{P}`$ in eq.(1) cut out the state of nucleon pair ($`ij`$) with defined spin $`S`$ and isospin $`T`$.

When fragments are separated enough, the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_A`$ should turn into the sum of separated subsystem Hamiltonians plus Coulomb repulsion between them due to the short-ranged nature of the nuclear forces

$$\widehat{H}_A\widehat{H}_{A_1}+\widehat{H}_{A_2}+\frac{Z_1Z_2e^2}{|\stackrel{}{R}_1\stackrel{}{R}_2|},\stackrel{}{R}_l=\frac{1}{A_l}\underset{i=1}{\overset{A_l}{}}\stackrel{}{r}_i;l=1,2,$$
(3)
i.e., the limiting cases are known.

The behaviour of the system in the intermediate range where altitude of vector $`\stackrel{}{S}=\stackrel{}{R}_1\stackrel{}{R}_2`$ significantly differs from zero, but is not large enough to neglect the nuclear interaction between particles in the different clusters, is open question. Hence, it is necessary to define dependency of the center-of-mass kinetic energy operator $`\widehat{T}_{c.m.}`$ on the stage of separation of the A-nucleus into fragments. We simulate $`\widehat{T}_{c.m.}`$ in this range by expression

$$\widehat{T}_{c.m.}(\alpha _S)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Am}\left[1+\alpha _S\left(\frac{A}{A_1}1\right)\right]\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{A_1}{}}\stackrel{}{}_i\right)^2$$
(4)
$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Am}\left[1+\alpha _S\left(\frac{A}{A_2}1\right)\right]\left(\underset{j=A_1+1}{\overset{A}{}}\stackrel{}{}_j\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{Am}\left(1\alpha _S\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{A_1}{}}\underset{j=A_1+1}{\overset{A}{}}\stackrel{}{}_i\stackrel{}{}_j.$$

In our calculations the value of the parameter $`\alpha _S`$ $`([0\alpha _S1])`$ in eq.(4) was defined by the degree of importance of the Pauli principle in the A-nucleon system. Thus, $`\alpha _S=0`$ if antisymmetrization acts on the variables of all A nucleons and $`\alpha _S=1`$ in the other limiting case when the Pauli principle acts only on the nucleons inside the clusters.

A total trial wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ is represented by superposition of a small number of determinant functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A(1,2,\mathrm{},A)=\underset{\nu }{}w_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$-components (normalized, but generally not orthogonal) are well known Slater determinants

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =\frac{f_\nu }{\sqrt{A!}}det\left[\varphi _i^{[\nu ]}(j)\right],f_\nu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{det\left[<\varphi _i^{[\nu ]}|\varphi _j^{[\nu ]}>\right]}},$$
(6)
filled by one-particle orbitals which have unificated form:

$$\varphi _i(j)=\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}(\stackrel{}{r}_j;\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i)\chi _{\sigma \tau }(j);\underset{\sigma \tau }{}|\varphi _i|^2𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=1,$$

$$\psi _\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{R})=\psi _{n^x}(x;a,R^x)\psi _{n^y}(y;b,R^y)\psi _{n^z}(z;c,R^z),$$
(7)
$$\psi _n(x;a,R)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a\sqrt{\pi }}N(n;R/a)}\left(\frac{x}{a}\right)^n\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(xR)^2}{2a^2}\right\},$$

$$N(n;R/a)=\sqrt{\left(\frac{R}{a}\right)^{2n}F(n,n+\frac{1}{2};0;\frac{a^2}{R^2})},$$

where $`\chi _{\sigma \tau }`$ is the spin-isospin function and $`F(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)`$ is the Gauss hyperspherical function .

Every component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ in eq.(5) represents some characteristic structure or configuration of the considered system and is associated to some type of nuclear motion. We hope that the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ constructed in such way will be flexible enough at the reasonable number of the variation parameters $`\{\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i\}`$.

## III Overlap integrals.

In order to perform the variational calculations it is necessary to obtain the matrix elements of some physical operators. Needed overlap integrals can be expressed in terms of ”partial” m.e. on the basis of the function set (7) using known determinant function technique .

At the beginning, we consider overlap integral of the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ with unity, i.e.

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=f_\nu f_\mu det\left[<\varphi _i^{[\nu ]}|\varphi _j^{[\mu ]}>\right]f_\nu f_\mu det\left[(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]})_{ij}\right],$$
(8)
where the matrix $`B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}`$ is defined by

$$(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]})_{ij}=<\chi _{\sigma _i\tau _i}|\chi _{\sigma _j\tau _j}>\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_j,\stackrel{}{R}_j)𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=$$
(9)
$$=<\chi _{\sigma _i\tau _i}|\chi _{\sigma _j\tau _j}>g_{n_i^xn_j^x}(a_iR_i^x;a_jR_j^x)g_{n_i^yn_j^y}(b_iR_i^y;b_jR_j^y)g_{n_i^zn_j^z}(c_iR_i^z;c_jR_j^z).$$

Evident expression of the partial m.e.

$$g_{n_1n_2}(a_1R_1;a_2R_2)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _{n_1}(x;a_1,R_1)\psi _{n_2}(x;a_2,R_2)𝑑x$$
(10)
is given in the Appendix (see eq.(42)).

The general expression  for one-particle operator matrix elements

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{A}{}}<\varphi _i^{[\nu ]}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1|\varphi _j^{[\mu ]}>\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij}$$
(11)
allows to obtain:
1) m.e. for nuclear matter distribution $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{A}{}}\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_j,\stackrel{}{R}_j)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij};$$
(12)
2) m.e. for kinetic energy operator

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\stackrel{}{}_i^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{A}{}}<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu ]}|\widehat{t}_x+\widehat{t}_y+\widehat{t}_z|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}>\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij},$$
(13)
where

$$<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}|\widehat{t}_x|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}><\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i)|\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x^2}|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_j,\stackrel{}{R}_j)>=$$
(14)
$$=g_{n_i^yn_j^y}(b_iR_i^y;b_jR_j^y)g_{n_i^zn_j^z}(c_iR_i^z;c_jR_j^z)t_{n_i^xn_j^x}(a_iR_i^x;a_jR_j^x).$$

The analogous expressions can be written for $`<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}|\widehat{t}_y|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}>`$ (substitution $`xy`$; $`ab`$) and for $`<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}|\widehat{t}_z|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}>`$ (substitution $`xz`$; $`ac`$). The matrix elements $`t_{n^{}n}(a^{},R^{};a,R)`$ employed in eq.(14) are given in the Appendix (see eq.(43)). In eqs.(11)–(13) and below the inverse matrix

$$B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1=\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij}.$$

is used.

Further, let us use the general formula  for two-particle operators $`_{i,j=1}^A\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{ij}`$

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{A}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=\underset{k^{},l^{},k,l=1}{\overset{A}{}}<\varphi _k^{}^{[\nu ]}\varphi _l^{}^{[\nu ]}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{12}|\varphi _k^{[\mu ]}\varphi _l^{[\mu ]}>\times $$

$$\times \left\{\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{kk^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ll^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{kl^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{lk^{}}\right\}.$$
(15)
In the case of the central exchange NN-potential (1), (2) we can write for even-even nuclei after summing up on the spin-isospin variables

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{A}{}}\widehat{V}_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=$$

$$=\underset{i^{},i=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\underset{j^{},j=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{l_{pot}}{}}<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}}^{[\nu ]}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j^{}}^{[\nu ]}(2)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|^2}{\mu _l^2}\right\}|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\mu ]}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(2)>\times $$

$$\times \left\{X_d(l)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ii^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{jj^{}}X_{ex}(l)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ji^{}}\right\}+$$

$$+\underset{i^{},i=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\underset{j^{},j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{l_{pot}}{}}<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}}^{[\nu ]}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j^{}}^{[\nu ]}(2)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|^2}{\mu _l^2}\right\}|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\mu ]}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(2)>\times $$
(16)
$$\times \left\{Y_d(l)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ii^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{jj^{}}Y_{ex}(l)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ji^{}}\right\}+$$

$$+\underset{i^{},i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j^{},j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{l_{pot}}{}}<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}}^{[\nu ]}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j^{}}^{[\nu ]}(2)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|^2}{\mu _l^2}\right\}|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\mu ]}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(2)>\times $$

$$\times \left\{X_d(l)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ii^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{jj^{}}X_{ex}(l)\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ji^{}}\right\},$$

where

$$X_d(l)=\frac{3V_{33}^{(l)}+V_{13}^{(l)}}{2},X_{ex}(l)=\frac{3V_{33}^{(l)}V_{13}^{(l)}}{2},$$
(17)
$$Y_d(l)=\frac{3V_{33}^{(l)}+3V_{31}^{(l)}+V_{13}^{(l)}+V_{11}^{(l)}}{2},Y_{ex}(l)=\frac{3V_{33}^{(l)}3V_{31}^{(l)}V_{13}^{(l)}+V_{11}^{(l)}}{2}.$$

Due to the Gaussian dependence of the considered potential the partial matrix elements between the basis functions (7) are factorized on three terms, i.e.

$$<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j^{}}(2)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|^2}{\mu ^2}\right\}|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}(2)>=$$

$$=j_{12}(n_i^{}^xa_i^{}R_i^{}^x,n_j^{}^xa_j^{}R_j^{}^x;\mu ;n_i^xa_iR_i^x,n_j^xa_jR_j^x)\times $$
(18)
$$\times j_{12}(n_i^{}^yb_i^{}R_i^{}^y,n_j^{}^yb_j^{}R_j^{}^y;\mu ;n_i^yb_iR_i^y,n_j^yb_jR_j^y)j_{12}(n_i^{}^zc_i^{}R_i^{}^z,n_j^{}^zc_j^{}R_j^{}^z;\mu ;n_i^zc_iR_i^z,n_j^zc_jR_j^z).$$

The evident expression for integral

$$j_{12}(n^{}a_1^{}R_1^{},m^{}a_2^{}R_2^{};\mu ;na_1R_1,ma_2R_2)=$$

$$=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _n^{}(x_1;a_1^{}R_1^{})\psi _m^{}(x_2;a_2^{}R_2^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(x_1x_2)^2}{\mu ^2}\right\}\psi _n(x_1;a_1R_1)\psi _m(x_2;a_2R_2)𝑑x_1𝑑x_2$$
(19)
is given in the Appendix (see eq.(45)).

In the context of described above calculations it is suitable to use the relation

$$\frac{e^2}{r}=\frac{2e^2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r^2}{\mu _o^2}\right)\frac{d\tau }{(1\tau ^2)^{3/2}};\mu _o\frac{1}{\tau }\sqrt{1\tau ^2}.$$
(20)
for evaluation of the Coulomb repulsion between protons. Thus,

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i>j=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\frac{e^2}{|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=\frac{2e^2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{i^{}>j^{}=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\underset{i>j=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{d\tau }{(1\tau ^2)^{3/2}}\times $$
(21)
$$\times <\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j^{}}(2)|\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|^2}{\mu _o^2}\}|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}(1)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}(2)>\times $$

$$\times \left\{2\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ii^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{jj^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ji^{}}\right\},$$

i.e., in general, only integration over $`\tau `$ remains in the equation (21) for the Coulomb energy (all two-particle integrals for Gaussian potential are expressed in terms of regular functions).

The expression for center-of-mass kinetic energy has the form

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\widehat{T}_{c.m.}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Am}\left(<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\stackrel{}{}_i^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >+<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{ij=1}{\overset{A}{}}\stackrel{}{}_i\stackrel{}{}_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >\right),$$
(22)
where the first term in the brackets is described by eqs.(13), (14); the other can be evaluated using general eq.(15) for two-particle operators, i.e.

$$\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\underset{ij=1}{\overset{A}{}}\stackrel{}{}_i\stackrel{}{}_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >=$$

$$=\underset{i^{}j^{}=1}{\overset{A}{}}\underset{ij=1}{\overset{A}{}}<\varphi _i^{}^{[\nu ]}|\stackrel{}{}|\varphi _i^{[\mu ]}><\varphi _j^{}^{[\nu ]}|\stackrel{}{}|\varphi _j^{[\mu ]}>\times $$
(23)
$$\times \left\{\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ii^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{jj^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ij^{}}\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1\right)_{ji^{}}\right\};$$

the explicit expressions for m.e. $`<\varphi _1|\stackrel{}{}|\varphi _2>`$ are given in the Appendix (see eq.(44)).

Next, we briefly consider projection of the determinant function on the state with defined angular momentum (the rotation effect in phenomenological models). It is obvious that considered above determinant functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ are superpositions of the states $`|JM>`$. In order to obtain the state with defined angular momentum $`J`$ and its projection $`M`$, we should define the projector $`\widehat{P}_{MK}^J`$ to operate on the total wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$. It is suitable to write the projector $`\widehat{P}_{MK}^J`$ in the Hill-Wheeler’s integral form

$$\widehat{P}_{MK}^J=\frac{2J+1}{8\pi ^2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }D_{MK}^J^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(24)
i.e. overlap integrals

$$\frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }D_{MM}^J^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\widehat{O}|\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Psi }_A>}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }D_{MM}^J^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Psi }_A>}=\frac{_{\nu \mu }w_\nu w_\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }D_{MM}^J^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\widehat{O}|\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >}{_{\nu \mu }w_\nu w_\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }D_{MM}^J^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu |\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu >},$$
(25)
should be evaluated to obtain eigenvalue of some physical operator $`\widehat{O}`$. Transformation of the spatial and spin-isospin functions at rotation of the reference frames on Euler angles is performed by usual way . A matrix $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ can be defined analogously to eq.(9):

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{B}_{[\nu ,\mu ]}\right)_{ij}\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i)\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega })\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}^{[\mu ]}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a}_j,\stackrel{}{R}_j)𝑑\stackrel{}{r}$$

$$dxdydz\left(\frac{x}{a_i}\right)^{n_i^x}\left(\frac{y}{b_i}\right)^{n_i^y}\left(\frac{z}{c_i}\right)^{n_i^z}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}}{a_j}\right)^{n_j^x}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}}{b_j}\right)^{n_j^y}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{z}}{c_j}\right)^{n_j^z}\times $$
(26)
$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(xR_i^x)^2}{2a_i^2}\frac{(yR_i^y)^2}{2b_i^2}\frac{(zR_i^z)^2}{2c_i^2}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{x}R_j^x)^2}{2a_j^2}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{y}R_j^y)^2}{2b_j^2}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{z}R_j^z)^2}{2c_j^2}\right\},$$

$`\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\stackrel{~}{x}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\stackrel{~}{x}_3`$ are the Cartesian coordinates in the rotated frame of reference that can be written using the rotation  matrix $`R_{m^{}m}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_m=\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{3}{}}R_{m^{}m}(\mathrm{\Omega })x_m^{},m=1,2,3.$$
(27)
Integration in eq.(27) can be performed completely by transforming quadratic form from the exponent to diagonal one.

Note that two-particle matrix elements containing four different orbitals can also be evaluated this way. Thus, in the case of m.e.

$$<\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}(\stackrel{}{r}_1;\stackrel{}{a}_i,\stackrel{}{R}_i)\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j}(\stackrel{}{r}_2;\stackrel{}{a}_j,\stackrel{}{R}_j)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2)^2}{\mu ^2}\right\}\widehat{R}(\mathrm{\Omega })|\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}}(\stackrel{}{r}_1;\stackrel{}{a}_i^{},\stackrel{}{R}_i^{})\psi _{\stackrel{}{n}_j^{}}(\stackrel{}{r}_2;\stackrel{}{a}_j^{},\stackrel{}{R}_j^{})>$$
(28)
the quadratic form is constructed using 6-dimension vector $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_6)`$ , where $`\stackrel{}{r}_1=\stackrel{}{r}_1(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}_2=\stackrel{}{r}_2(x_4,x_5,x_6)`$.

Hence, all integrations over particle coordinates can be performed completely. Unfortunately, resulting expressions in the case of the angular projection are too complicated to be written here. Integration over Euler angles $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ have been carried out numerically, although it is possible that further investigations will allow to do it exactly.

## IV Numerical results.

There are few extremely significant systems in nuclear physics. One of them is nucleus 8Be which have unique properties and is critical for the theory. Thus, 8Be is 8-nucleon weak-bound system whose ground state is very narrow resonance near the decay threshold. Therefore, calculation of the 8Be basic spectroscopic characteristics will be serious test for the considered microscopic model.

Due to the known symmetry of the nucleus 8Be we choose its wave function in form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A(1,2,\mathrm{},8)=w_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1+w_2(\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\mathrm{\Psi }_3),$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ is Slater determinant (6) filled with simple orbitals:

a) $`\nu =1`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu =1]}(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x_j;\stackrel{~}{a}_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;\stackrel{~}{a}_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;\stackrel{~}{c}_1,0),\hfill & i=1,2,3,4;\hfill \\ \psi _0(x_j;\stackrel{~}{a}_2,0)\psi _0(y_j;\stackrel{~}{a}_2,0)\psi _1(z_j;\stackrel{~}{c}_2,0),\hfill & i=5,6,7,8;\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
b) $`\nu =2,3`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu =2]}(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;c_1,sR),\hfill & i=1,2,3,4;\hfill \\ \psi _0(x_j;a_2,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_2,0)\psi _1(z_j;c_2,R),\hfill & i=5,6,7,8;\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu =3]}(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;c_1,sR),\hfill & i=1,2,3,4;\hfill \\ \psi _0(x_j;a_2,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_2,0)\psi _1(z_j;c_2,R),\hfill & i=5,6,7,8;\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
The values $`\{\stackrel{~}{a}_1,\stackrel{~}{c}_1,\stackrel{~}{a}_2,\stackrel{~}{c}_2;a_1,c_1,a_2,c_2,R,s\}`$ in these expressions are variation parameters defined by minimization of the total nuclear energy functional.

Let us consider our system at different values of the parameter $`R`$ in order to examine the system dependence on the distance between the fragments. The variation parameters were optimized for every value of $`R`$; when $`RR_0`$ the orbitals in the determinant functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu =2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu =3}`$ are continuously transformed in order to obtain wave functions of two independent $`\alpha `$-particles at the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu =2]}(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;c_1,sR),\hfill & i=1,2,3,4;\hfill \\ & \\ \alpha (\xi )\psi _0(x_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;c_1,sR)+\hfill & \\ +\beta (\xi )\psi _0(x_j;a_2,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_2,0)\psi _1(z_j;c_2,R),\hfill & i=5,6,7,8;\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^{[\nu =3]}(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;c_1,sR),\hfill & i=1,2,3,4;\hfill \\ & \\ \alpha (\xi )\psi _0(x_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_1,0)\psi _0(z_j;c_1,sR)+\hfill & \\ +\beta (\xi )\psi _0(x_j;a_2,0)\psi _0(y_j;a_2,0)\psi _1(z_j;c_2,R),\hfill & i=5,6,7,8;\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
The functions $`\alpha (\xi )`$, $`\beta (\xi )`$ are defined by

$$\alpha (\xi )=\frac{\xi }{\sqrt{1+2\xi \sqrt{1\xi ^2}}},\beta (\xi )=\frac{\sqrt{1\xi ^2}}{\sqrt{1+2\xi \sqrt{1\xi ^2}}},\xi \frac{RR_0}{\eta _0R_0},0\xi 1.$$
(35)
Choice of $`R_0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ in eq.(36) accords to choice of interval $`[R_0,(\eta _0+1)R_0]`$ where one of the $`\alpha `$-clusters ”loses” its excitation. Next we define the antisymmetrization of the wave function, if $`RR_0`$ then the Pauli principle acts on all A nucleons in the nucleus. In the range $`[R_0,(\eta _0+1)R_0]`$ the antisymmetrization between particles in the different clusters is gradually ”switched off”. Moreover, both ”losing” of the excitation and ”switching off” of the Pauli principle action are simulated by the same functions $`\alpha (\xi )`$, $`\beta (\xi )`$.

The total wave function of the system in the considered range $`[R_0,(\eta _0+1)R_0]`$ is presented by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A(1,2,\mathrm{},8)\beta (\xi )w_1^0\mathrm{\Psi }_1+[1+\alpha (\xi )]w_2^0(\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\mathrm{\Psi }_2),$$
(36)
where $`w_1^0`$, $`w_2^0`$ are weights of the according determinant functions at $`R=R_0`$. The parameter $`\alpha _S`$ in the microscopic Hamiltonian (see eq.(4)) can be defined by

$$\alpha _S=\alpha _S(R)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & R<R_0,\hfill \\ \alpha (\xi ),\hfill & R_0R(\eta _0+1)R_0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & R>(\eta _0+1)R_0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
In order to evaluate the overlap integrals corresponding to some physical quantity it is necessary to calculate the matrix $`B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}`$ and the inverse matrix $`B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1`$. In the case of nucleus 8Be these matrices are in general

$$B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}=\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }\\ \delta _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \delta _{\nu \mu }& 0& 0& 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }\end{array};det\left(B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}\right)_{ij}=\zeta _0^4;$$
(38)
$$\zeta _0\alpha _{\nu \mu }\beta _{\nu \mu }\gamma _{\nu \mu }\delta _{\nu \mu };$$

$$B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}^1=\begin{array}{cccccccc}\beta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \beta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0\\ \delta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \delta _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha _{\nu \mu }/\zeta _0\end{array}.$$
(39)
Evident expressions for $`\alpha _{\nu \mu }`$, $`\beta _{\nu \mu }`$, $`\gamma _{\nu \mu }`$, $`\delta _{\nu \mu }`$ can be obtained by using the definitions (30)–(34) (see eqs.(47) in the Appendix).

Concrete calculations on the basis of the above considered equations have been performed for the case of some well known variants of the central exchange NN-potentials. Thus, the results for Volkov’s NN-potential  (the 1st variant case) are accurate. Some of the results are given in Table I. There are energy $`E_{0^+}`$ of the 8Be ground $`0^+`$-state, energy $`U_{Coul}`$ of the Coulomb repulsion between protons, r.m.s. matter radii $`<r^2>^{1/2}`$ as well as optimized values of the variation parameters $`\{a_i,b_i,c_i,\stackrel{~}{a}_i,\stackrel{~}{b}_i,\stackrel{~}{c}_i,R,s\}`$ in the determinant functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ and its non-normalized weights $`\{w_i\}`$. In the case of N1 the wave function (30) contains 10 nonlinear variation parameters and describes both orbitals ”polarization” and cluster structure of the nucleus 8Be. In the case of N2, the superposition of two determinant functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A=(1,2,\mathrm{},A)=w_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\{\stackrel{}{r}_i\};\stackrel{~}{a}_1=\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{c}_1;\stackrel{~}{a}_2=\stackrel{~}{b}_2,\stackrel{~}{c}_2)+$$
(40)
$$+w_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4(\{\stackrel{}{r}_i\};\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{a}}_1=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{b}}_1,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{c}}_1;\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{a}}_2=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{b}}_2,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{c}}_2).$$

taking into account only orbitals ”polarization” has been used. Column N3 corresponds to the previous case with neglecting of the deformation, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A=(1,2,\mathrm{},A)=w_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\{\stackrel{}{r}_i\};\stackrel{~}{a})+w_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4(\{\stackrel{}{r}_i\};\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{a}}).$$
(41)
The values of column N4 are calculated on the basis of one determinant function with different degree of ”polarization” for s- and p-orbitals (4 variation parameters: $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1=\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_2=\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_2`$). In the case of N5 we have used one determinant function with the same deformation for s- and p-orbitals (2 parameters: $`\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{b}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$). The simplest approach is microscopic SU(3)-model with one variation parameter $`\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{b}=\stackrel{~}{c}`$ that corresponds to column N6. The data in column N7 have been calculated using the most complicated wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$. It differs from one of the case N1 by additional shell-type determinant function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu =4}`$ filled by one-particle states containing independent variation parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{a}}_1=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{b}}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{c}}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{a}}_2=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{b}}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{c}}_2`$. This approach employs 14 nonlinear variation parameters. And, finally, data in the column N8 have been evaluated using the previous function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$, but without angular projection.

First we consider numerical results obtained with one-center functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ (models N2–N6). The data in Table I show that the most binding energy growth is caused by taking into account the oscillator field deformation (compare models N6 and N5). Independent orbital ”polarization” is also significant (compare models N5 and N4). If the nonlinear variation parameters $`\{a_i,b_i,c_i\}`$ are the same (i.e. deformation is neglected) than expanding of the basis from 1 to 2 determinant functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ does not practically change the nuclear energy E (comp. models N3 and N6). Moreover, our estimations show that the employment of two, three and more determinant functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ with the same SU(3)-symmetry does not allow to reach significant advance even if all considered s- and p-orbital deformations are taken into account (comp. models N2 and N4). Hence, the deformation effects can be considered using only one one-center Slater determinant. More effective is expansion of the variation basis by cluster wave function. It enhances the 8Be nuclear energy by approximately 3 MeV (comp. models N1, N4, N2).

Fig. 1 shows 8Be mass distribution $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ evaluated by using the wave function (30). The optimum variation parameters correspond to model N1 (see Table I). The calculations are carried out in the nuclear center-of-mass reference frames. Surface $`(x,y=0,z)`$ is displayed in Fig. 1 due to axial symmetry of the distribution $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$. We can see from Fig. 1 that distance between density maximums (centers of mass for two $`\alpha `$-particles) is $`D4.2`$ fm. Density of junction between $`\alpha `$-particles is approximately 0.7$`\rho _{max}`$. The distribution $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ obtained in the framework of the other considered models is rather similar to Fig. 1, although distance $`D`$ and width of junction can be essentially different.

Evaluated parameter $`R`$ dependence of the 8Be total energy functional $`f_E(R,\{a_i,b_i,c_i\})`$ is plotted in Fig. 2. The shown dependence have been calculated under condition that for every value $`R`$ functional $`f_E`$ is optimized to the other variation parameters. Such computations can be useful for estimations of the nucleus-nucleus potentials. Note that in a range where clusters overlap each other, the distance $`D`$ between density maximums can essentially differ from its asymptotic value which is equal to $`D_{as}=R(1+s)`$ in our case. Fig. 3 shows dependence $`D=f(R)`$ obtained for model N1. We can see that the distance $`D`$ can slightly decrease at $`0R1.5`$ fm and only at $`R>2`$ fm the $`R`$ dependence of $`D`$ is almost linear.

Table II contains characteristics of the 6He ground $`0^+`$-state calculated using three variants of NN-potentials: V1 from Ref. , BB1 from Ref.  and G5 from Ref. . Computations are carried out in the framework of two models. Wave function of model I is a Slater determinant for 6 nucleons filled by orbitals (31), and contains four variation parameters: $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1=\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$ for first four orbitals and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_2=\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_2`$ for the last two orbitals. Wave function of the second model is superposition of a few Slater determinants, similarly to the 8Be: one-center determinant (model I) and two-center determinants with centers in points $`\stackrel{}{R}_1=(0,0,\pm R)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}_2=(0,0,sR)`$. This model contains 10 nonlinear variation parameters whose optimum values for the considered variants of NN-forces are given in Table II.

It should be remembered, that a core in 6He is nucleus 4He. Its energy calculated using simple SU(3)-model function is equal for three variants of NN-forces: $`E_\alpha (\text{V1})=27.09`$ MeV, $`E_\alpha (\text{BB1})=27.37`$ MeV, $`E_\alpha (\text{G5})=28.29`$ MeV. Comparison of these values with 6He ground state energies in Table II shows that two neutrons are bound only in the case of model II and NN-potentials V1 and G5. Therefore, we can conclude that wave function of model II describes the real systems more accurate than one-center function of model I.

Note that authors don’t claim superexact description of the considered here nuclear systems which has been already studied profoundly by many authors (see, for example, Refs. ). The purpose of this study is to clarify the question about significance of ”compact” and ”loosely bound” structures at consideration of nuclear states using simple trial wave functions.

Performed analysis allows to draw up some general scheme for the construction of the simplest and quite flexible trial wave function of weakly bound state as well as a strategy for concrete computation. First, possible significance of the deformation in formation of considered nucleus state is roughly estimated in the framework of the one-center determinant function model. Next, cluster degrees of freedom are taken into account. Hierarchy of the nucleon motion modes can be determined using non-projected wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ that significantly reduces computations. Moreover, such reduced evaluations give approximate optimum values for almost all variation parameters (for example, compare corresponding parameters of models N7 and N8 in Table I). It is obvious that this fact is especially significant in order to find the global minimum of the total nuclear energy functional by employing projected functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A^{JM}(1,2,\mathrm{},A)`$.

##

The evident expression (7) allows to calculate:

1) partial m.e. (10)

$$g_{n_1n_2}(a_1,R_1;a_2,R_2)=\frac{g_0}{N(n_1;\frac{R_1}{a_1})N(n_2;\frac{R_2}{a_2})}\left(\frac{Z_0}{X_0Y_0}\right)^{n_1+n_2}\times $$
(42)
$$\times F(\frac{n_1+n_2}{2},\frac{n_1+n_2}{2}+\frac{1}{2};0;\frac{1}{Z_0^2}),$$

$$g_0\sqrt{X_0Y_0}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(R_1R_2)^2}{2(a_1^2+a_2^2)}\right\};X_0=\sqrt{\frac{2a_2^2}{a_1^2+a_2^2}};Y_0=\sqrt{\frac{2a_1^2}{a_1^2+a_2^2}};$$

$$Z_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{R_1}{a_1}X_0+\frac{R_2}{a_2}Y_0\right);$$

2) m.e. (14) used for evaluation of the kinetic energy

$$t_{n^{}n}(a^{},R^{};a,R)<\psi _n^{}(x;a^{},R^{})|\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x^2}|\psi _n(x;a,R)>=$$

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}\frac{1}{N(n;\frac{R}{a})}\{.n(n1)N(n2,\frac{R}{a})g_{n^{},n2}(a^{},R^{};a,R)+$$
(43)
$$+2n\frac{R}{a}N(n1,\frac{R}{a})g_{n^{},n1}(a^{},R^{};a,R)+\left(\frac{R^2}{a^2}2n1\right)N(n,\frac{R}{a})g_{n^{},n}(a^{},R^{};a,R)$$

$$2\frac{R}{a}N(n+1,\frac{R}{a})g_{n^{},n+1}(a^{},R^{};a,R)+N(n+2,\frac{R}{a})g_{n^{},n+2}(a^{},R^{};a,R).\};$$

$$<\varphi _1|\stackrel{}{}|\varphi _2>=<\varphi _1|\frac{}{x}\varphi _2>\stackrel{}{e}_x+<\varphi _1|\frac{}{y}\varphi _2>\stackrel{}{e}_y+<\varphi _1|\frac{}{z}\varphi _2>\stackrel{}{e}_z,$$
(44)
$$<\varphi _1|\frac{}{x}\varphi _2><\psi _{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{n}}}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{a}},\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{R}})|\frac{}{x}\psi _\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{R})>=g_{\stackrel{~}{n}_yn_y}(\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{R}^y;bR^y)g_{\stackrel{~}{n}_zn_z}(\stackrel{~}{c},\stackrel{~}{R}^z;cR^z)\times $$
(45)
$$\times [n^x\frac{N(n^x;R^x/a)}{N(n^x1;R^x/a)}g_{\stackrel{~}{n}^x,n^x1}(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{R}^x;aR^x)+\frac{R^x}{a}g_{\stackrel{~}{n}^x,n^x}(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{R}^x;aR^x)$$

$$\frac{N(n^x;R^x/a)}{N(n^x+1;R^x/a)}g_{\stackrel{~}{n}^x,n^x+1}(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{R}^x;aR^x)],$$

equations for $`<\varphi _1|\frac{}{y}\varphi _2>`$ and $`<\varphi _1|\frac{}{z}\varphi _2>`$ can be obtained from (44) after obvious substitution $`ab`$, $`R^xR^y`$ and $`ac`$, $`R^xR^z`$;

3) 2-dimension integral (19) determining the potential energy of NN-interaction

$$j_{12}(\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{R}_1,\stackrel{~}{m}\stackrel{~}{a}_2\stackrel{~}{R}_2;\mu ;na_1R_1,ma_2R_2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_2a_1a_2}}\frac{\mu ^2}{\eta _0}\times $$
(46)
$$\times \left(\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{n}}N(\stackrel{~}{n};\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1})\left(\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_2}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{m}}N(\stackrel{~}{m};\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2})\left(\frac{1}{2a_1}\right)^nN(n;\frac{R_1}{a_1})\left(\frac{1}{2a_2}\right)^mN(m;\frac{R_2}{a_2})\times $$

$$\times \left(\frac{\mu }{\xi _0\eta _0}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{n}+n}\left(\eta \frac{\xi _0}{\eta _0}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{m}+m}\mathrm{exp}\{+arg\}\underset{l0}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{n}+n}{}}\frac{\eta _0^l(\stackrel{~}{n}+n)!}{l!(\stackrel{~}{n}+nl)!}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{l}{2}\right]}{}}\frac{l!}{k!(l2k)!}\times $$

$$\times \left[\frac{\mu }{\xi _0}(\frac{R_1}{a_1^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2})\right]^{l2k}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}+n+\stackrel{~}{m}+ml}{2}\right]}{}}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{n}+n+\stackrel{~}{m}+ml)!}{i!(\stackrel{~}{n}+n+\stackrel{~}{m}+ml2i)!}\times $$

$$\times \left[\frac{\mu }{\xi _0\eta _0}\left(\frac{R_1}{a_1^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}\right)+\frac{\mu \xi _0}{\eta _0}\left(\frac{R_2}{a_2^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}\right)\right]^{\stackrel{~}{n}+n+\stackrel{~}{m}+ml2i};$$

where

$$\xi _0=\left[1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_2^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(47)
$$\eta _0=\left[\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_2^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_2^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$

$$arg=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_1^2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{R_1^2}{a_1^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_2^2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\frac{R_2^2}{a_2^2}\right)+$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}\frac{\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_2^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mu \stackrel{~}{R}_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{\mu R_1}{a_1^2}\right)^2+\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_1^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mu \stackrel{~}{R}_2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\frac{\mu R_2}{a_2^2}\right)^2}{\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_1^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_2^2}\right)1}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left(\frac{\mu \stackrel{~}{R}_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{\mu R_1}{a_1^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mu \stackrel{~}{R}_2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\frac{\mu R_2}{a_2^2}\right)}{\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_1^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_2^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2a_2^2}\right)1}.$$

Due to definitions (28)–(32) the $`B_{[\nu ,\mu ]}`$ matrix elements (see eq.(36)) can be expressed in terms of functions $`g_{nm}`$ from eq.(42):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{11}=\alpha _{22}=1,& \alpha _{12}=\alpha _{21}=g_{00}^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_1,0;\stackrel{~}{a}_{11},0)g_{00}(\stackrel{~}{c}_1,0;\stackrel{~}{c}_{11},0),\\ \beta _{11}=\beta _{22}=1,& \beta _{12}=\beta _{21}=g_{00}^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_2,0;\stackrel{~}{a}_{22},0)g_{11}(\stackrel{~}{c}_2,0;\stackrel{~}{c}_{22},0),\\ \gamma _{11}=\gamma _{22}=0,& \gamma _{12}=\gamma _{21}=g_{00}^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_1,0;\stackrel{~}{a}_{22},0)g_{01}(\stackrel{~}{c}_1,0;\stackrel{~}{c}_{22},0),\\ \delta _{11}=\delta _{22}=0,& \delta _{12}=\delta _{21}=g_{00}^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_2,0;\stackrel{~}{a}_{11},0)g_{10}(\stackrel{~}{c}_2,0;\stackrel{~}{c}_{11},0).\end{array}$$
(48)


text:
# References

KCL-TH-00-48

hep-th/0008047

Chiral Superfields in IIB Supergravity

P. Heslop and P.S. Howe
Department of Mathematics
King’s College, London

Abstract

The field strength superfield of IIB supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is expanded in harmonics on $`S^5`$ with coefficients which are $`D=5,N=8`$ chiral superfields. On the boundary of $`AdS_5`$ these superfields map to $`D=4,N=4`$ chiral superfields and both sets of superfields obey additional fourth-order constraints. The constraints on the $`D=4,N=4`$ chiral fields are solved using harmonic superspace in terms of prepotential superfields which couple in a natural way to composite operator multiplets of the boundary $`N=4,D=4`$ superconformal field theory.

A key feature of the AdS/CFT correspondence  is the simple fact that the symmetry group of $`AdS`$ spacetime is the same as the conformal group of the boundary Minkowski space, a feature which extends to supersymmetric theories in a natural way when they are formulated in superspace. Perhaps the clearest and best-established example of the correspondence is between IIB supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`D=4,N=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N_c)`$ Yang-Mills theory (in the large $`N_c`$ limit) on the boundary of $`AdS_5`$. The Kaluza-Klein spectrum of this supergravity theory was found some time ago , and in  a natural family of gauge-invariant composite operators in N=4 SYM was written down using a formulation of the theory in a certain harmonic superspace . It was later shown in  that these two sets of supermultiplets are in one-one correspondence. In this note we shall look at the relation between these two sets of supermultiplets in a very explicit fashion by tracing what happens to the linearised IIB field strength supermultiplet on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ as one first expands it in terms of $`S^5`$ harmonics and then passes to the boundary to obtain a set of $`D=4,N=4`$ chiral superfields. We show that the constraints satisfied by this set of field strength superfields can easily be solved in harmonic superspace in terms of a family of Grassmann-analytic prepotential superfields (one for each chiral field) and the picture is completed by coupling the prepotentials to generalised current multiplets. The constraints on the latter, arising from the gauge invariances of the prepotentials, are precisely those that are obeyed by the family of $`N=4`$ SYM composite operators mentioned above.

The basic geometrical set-up is summarised by the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}AdS^{5,5|32}& & M^{4|16}\times S^5\\ & & \\ & & \\ & & \\ AdS^{5|32}& & M^{4|16}\end{array}$$
(1)
where the squiggly arrows denote passing to the boundary. Each of these superspaces is a coset space of the supergroup $`PSU(2,2|4)`$, with the notation indicating the (even$`|`$odd) dimensions. Thus $`AdS^{5,5|32}`$ denotes the superspace whose body is $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and which has 32 odd dimensions while $`AdS^{5|32}`$ is the $`D=5,N=8`$ superspace which has $`AdS_5`$ for its body and which has 32 odd dimensions. The boundary space on the bottom row is $`D=4,N=4`$ Minkowski superspace. The isotropy group of $`AdS^{5,5|32}`$ is $`Spin(1,4)\times USp(4)`$ while that of $`AdS^{5|32}`$ is $`Spin(1,4)\times SU(4)`$ and the former fibres over the latter with fibre $`S^5`$. The boundary superspaces are most easily described by viewing $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ as the $`D=4,N=4`$ superconformal group. The generators of the corresponding Lie superalgebra are $`\{D,P,K,M,N|Q,S\}`$ standing for dilations ($`D`$), translations ($`P`$), Lorentz transformations ($`M`$), internal $`SU(4)`$ transformations ($`N`$), and $`Q`$ and $`S`$-supersymmetry transformations, all in four dimensional spacetime. The istropy group of $`M^{4|16}`$ is generated by $`\{D,K,M,N|S\}`$ while the isotropy group of $`M^{4|16}\times S^5`$ is generated by $`\{D,K,M,N^{}|S\}`$, where $`N^{}`$ denotes the generators of the $`USp(4)`$ subgroup of $`SU(4)`$.

We recall that IIB supergravity has the following bosonic component fields: the graviton, a complex scalar, a complex two-form potential, and a real four-form potential whose five-form field-strength is self-dual. The fermions are a complex Weyl gravitino and a complex Weyl spinor. In the linearised theory these fields can be put together in a chiral superfield 𝔸 satisfying a fourth-order constraint which is schematically of the form $`D^4\text{𝔸}\overline{D^4}\overline{\text{𝔸}}`$ . In fact, the $`D^4`$ component of 𝔸 can be decomposed into two fields which are irreducible tensors of $`SO(1,9)`$ with 770 and 1050 components. The former is the Weyl tensor and is real while the latter is purely imaginary.111This fact was observed by N. Berkovits (private communication); it can also be derived from the full theory. The five-form field strength only enters into the chiral superfield at $`\theta ^4`$ level via its derivative and the resulting six-index tensor, antisymmetric and self-dual on five of the indices, but not antisymmetric on all six, transforms under the 1050 representation of $`SO(1,9)`$. In the full theory, there is still a complex scalar superfield but it takes its values in the coset space $`U(1)\backslash SL(2,\text{})`$. The geometrical field strength tensors, the torsion and curvature and three-form and five-form field strengths, constructed from the supervielbein, the connection and the superspace two- and four-form potentials, are described in terms of a spinor superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ whose leading component is the spinor field of the supergravity multiplet and a five-index antisymmetric tensor superfield $`G_{abcde}`$ whose leading component is the covariantised spacetime five-form field strength. These superfields are of course not independent since together they describe the supergravity multiplet.

The homogeneous superspace $`AdS^{5,5|32}`$ has been described in references . Since it is a coset one can use standard homogeneous space techniques to construct the components of the torsion and curvature tensors. In fact, it turns out that for this superspace the spinor superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vanishes while the superfield $`G_{abcde}`$ has constant components which are non-vanishing only if all of the indices are in the range 0 to 4 or in the range 5 to 9, the non-vanishing components being proportional to five-dimensional epsilon tensors. If one expands about this background, then to first order, the theory is still described by a chiral scalar superfield. Moreover, since the anticommutator of two fermionic covariant derivatives has the same form as in flat space (with the difference that the spacetime derivative must be amended), it follows that $`D^4\text{𝔸}`$ still falls into the same two representations of the Lorentz group as before, and it is not difficult to show that the same fourth-order constraint holds.

As we remarked above $`AdS^{5,5|32}`$ can be regard as a fibre bundle over $`AdS^{5|32}`$ with fibre $`S^5`$. This means that we can expand out the IIB chiral superfield 𝔸 in harmonics on the five-sphere. The expansion has the form

$$\text{𝔸}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^{R_1}\mathrm{}n^{R_k}𝒜_{R_1\mathrm{}R_k}^{(k)}$$
(2)
Here $`n^R,R=1,\mathrm{}6`$, is a unit vector on the sphere and each of the tensors $`𝒜^{(k)}`$ is symmetric and traceless on its $`SO(6)`$ indices.

The component superfields $`𝒜^{(k)}`$ are all chiral superfields on $`AdS^{5|32}`$ and satisfy fourth-order reality conditions. However, for the components with indices the spinorial covariant derivative is altered by a term involving the $`SO(6)`$ connection of the fibred superspace. Clearly this term depends on the representation the component is in. The lowest component superfield $`𝒜^{(0)}`$ is the field strength superfield of linearised $`N=8,D=5`$ gauged supergravity.

We can pass to the boundary in the following way (see  for related work). For $`AdS^{5|32}`$ we may choose the coset representative $`s(r,\phi ,x,\theta )`$ to be of the form

$$s=e^{\phi S}e^{\mathrm{ln}rD}g(x,\theta ).$$
(3)
Here $`g(x,\theta )`$ is the standard coset representative for $`D=4,N=4`$ Minkowski superspace, $`\phi `$ denotes the odd coordinates associated with $`S`$-supersymmetry, and $`(r,x)`$ are coordinates for $`AdS_5`$. In these coordinates the metric of $`AdS_5`$ itself is

$$ds^2=r^2\left(dr^2+dx^2\right)$$
(4)
where $`dx^2`$ denotes the flat $`D=4`$ Minkowski space metric. We will take the boundary to be at $`\phi =0`$, $`r0`$.

$`AdS^{5|32}`$ has isotropy group $`Spin(1,4)\times SU(4)`$, with Lie algebra generated by $`\{\frac{1}{2}(KP),M,N\}`$ The remaining coset generators are given by $`\{\frac{1}{2}(K+P),D|Q,S\}`$. When $`\phi =0`$

$$dss^1=\frac{1}{r}e^aP_a+\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}(e^{\alpha _q}Q_{\alpha _q})+(d\phi ^{\alpha _s}S_{\alpha _s})+\frac{dr}{r}D$$
(5)
where $`e^A=(e^a,e^{\alpha _q})`$ is the standard one form basis in flat $`𝒩=4`$ superspace, given by:

$$dgg^1=e^aP_a+(e^{\alpha _q}Q_{\alpha _q}).$$
(6)
From (5) we see that the one form basis of $`AdS^{5|32}`$ when $`\phi =0`$ is

$$E^a=\frac{1}{r}e^aE^4=\frac{dr}{r}E^{\alpha _q}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}e^{\alpha _q}E^{\alpha _s}=d\phi ^{\alpha _s}.$$
(7)
We wish to compare the bulk superisometries of $`AdS^{5|32}`$ with superconformal transformations of $`𝒩=4`$ Minkowski space on the boundary. Here we introduce the following indices: $`M=(m,\mu _q)`$, $`M^{}=(m,4,\mu _q,\mu _s)`$, and similarly for the flat indices $`A`$, $`A^{}`$. Superconformal transformations act on the coordinates $`z=(x,\theta )`$ by $`\delta _{sc}z^M=\xi ^M`$, where

$$g𝐓g^1=\xi ^aP_a+(\xi ^{\alpha _q}Q_{\alpha _q})+(\omega ^{\alpha _s}S_{\alpha _s})+\lambda D+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
Here $`𝐓`$ is an arbitrary infinitesimal element of the Lie algebra, and $`\xi ^M=\xi ^Ae_A^M`$. The dots represent other elements of the isotropy Lie algebra. The isometries of $`AdS^{5|32}`$ act on the coordinates $`Z^{}=(x,r,\theta ,\phi )`$ of $`AdS^{5|32}`$ by $`\delta _{ads}Z^M^{}=\mathrm{\Xi }^M^{}=\mathrm{\Xi }^A^{}E_A^{}^M^{}`$ where

$$s𝐓s^1=\mathrm{\Xi }^A^{}𝐓_A^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^r𝐓_r.$$
(9)
On the right hand side we have split the Lie algebra up into a coset part and an isotropy group part for $`AdS^{5|32}`$. Using (3) and (8) we find that at $`\phi =0`$

$$s𝐓s^1=\frac{1}{r}\xi ^aP_a+\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}(\xi ^{\alpha _q}Q_{\alpha _q})+\sqrt{r}(\omega ^{\alpha _s}S_{\alpha _s})+\lambda D+\mathrm{}$$
(10)
This gives us the following at $`\phi =0`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta _{ads}x& =& \delta _{sc}x+O(r^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _{ads}\theta & =& \delta _{sc}\theta \hfill \\ \hfill \delta _{ads}\phi & =& \sqrt{r}\omega \hfill \\ \hfill \delta _{ads}r& =& r\lambda .\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The $`O(r^2)`$ term appears from changing from the superconformal basis to the AdS basis of the Lie algebra. We see that the action of the isometries of the bulk space on the coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ is equivalent to superconformal transformations on $`N=4`$ super Minkowski space. Also the action of the isometries transverse to this boundary disappears, and so setting $`\phi =0`$ is a consistent thing to do. (Note that this is not the case if we instead choose the coset representative $`s=e^{\mathrm{ln}rD}e^{\phi S}g(x,\theta )`$. In this case one has to argue that the dependence on $`\phi `$ of the bulk fields tends to zero.)

A similar construction holds for $`AdS^{5,5|32}`$ except that we also have to include coordinates for $`S^5`$. In the boundary limit $`r0`$, $`\phi =0`$ the dependence of the chiral superfields on half of the odd coordinates disappears and we thus end up with a family of $`D=4,N=4`$ chiral superfields $`\{A_{R_1\mathrm{}R_k}^{(k)}\},k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. These superfields obey the chirality constraint

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^iA^{(k)}=0$$
(12)
where we have adopted two-component spinor notation for four-dimensional spacetime and where the index $`i`$ runs from 1 to 4. The fourth-order constraints become

$$D_{\{R_1R_2}^4A_{R_3\mathrm{}R_{k+2}\}}^{(k)}=\overline{D_{\{R_1R_2}^4A_{R_3\mathrm{}R_{k+2}\}}^{(k)}}$$
(13)
where the curly brackets denote traceless symmetrisation. The derivative $`D_{RS}^4`$ is formed from $`(D_{\alpha i})^4`$ by taking the component which is a Lorentz scalar and which transforms under the real 20-dimensional representation of $`SU(4)`$; in $`SO(6)`$ notation this projection corresponds to a second-rank symmetric traceless tensor. The lowest superfield in this set, $`A^{(0)}`$, is the field strength superfield of $`D=4,N=4`$ conformal supergravity. Note that while the $`N=8,D=5`$ superfields $`𝒜^{(k)}`$ are on-shell fields the $`N=4,D=4`$ superfields $`A^{(k)}`$ are off-shell.

In order to complete the picture we now need to translate the fourth-order constraint (13) into harmonic superspace language . The harmonic superspace we shall use is $`M\times S(U(2)\times U(2))\backslash SU(4)`$ where $`M`$ denotes $`N=4`$ super Minkowski space. We shall employ the standard GIKOS trick of working on $`M\times SU(4)`$ and demanding that the behaviour of the fields with respect to the isotropy group is fixed. We write $`uSU(4)`$ as $`u_I{}_{}{}^{i}=(u_r{}_{}{}^{i},u_r^{}{}_{}{}^{i})`$ in index notation, and denote the inverse of $`u`$ by $`u_i{}_{}{}^{I}=(u_i{}_{}{}^{r},u_i{}_{}{}^{r^{}})`$. The capital $`I`$ index is understood to be acted on by the isotropy group and thus splits naturally into $`r=1,2`$ and $`r^{}=3,4`$. With the aid of $`u`$ and its inverse we can convert $`SU(4)i`$ indices into isotropy group $`I`$ indices and vice versa. Differentiation on the group itself is done using the right-invariant derivatives $`D_I^J`$, with $`D_I{}_{}{}^{I}=0`$. From the fact that these derivatives generate the left action of the group on itself we find

$$D_I{}_{}{}^{J}u_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}=\delta _K{}_{}{}^{J}u_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\frac{1}{4}\delta _I{}_{}{}^{J}u_{K}^{}^k$$
(14)
The set of right-invariant derivatives splits into the isotropy group derivatives $`\{D_r{}_{}{}^{s},D_r^{}{}_{}{}^{s^{}},D_o\}`$ and coset derivatives $`\{D_r{}_{}{}^{s^{}},D_r^{}{}_{}{}^{s}\}`$. The isotropy derivatives have been written in $`\text{s}\text{u}(2)\text{s}\text{u}(2)\text{u}(1)`$ notation (so that $`D_r{}_{}{}^{r}=D_r^{}{}_{}{}^{r^{}}=0`$), and our normalisation is such that

$$D_ou_r{}_{}{}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}u_r{}_{}{}^{i}D_ou_r^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}u_r^{}^i$$
(15)
The coset space $`S(U(2)\times U(2))\backslash SU(4)`$ is a compact complex manifold with complex dimension four (it is the Grassmannian of two-planes in $`\text{}^4`$), and the derivatives $`D_r^s^{}`$ can be thought of as the components of the $`\overline{}`$ operator on this space while the derivatives $`D_r^{}^s`$ are the complex conjugates. The introduction of harmonics allows the possibility of having superfields which satisfy generalised chirality constraints; in the present case, the derivatives $`D_{\alpha r}=u_r{}_{}{}^{i}D_{\alpha i}^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^r^{}=\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{i}u_{i}^{}^r^{}`$ anticommute with each other and commute with $`D_r^s^{}`$. A field $`F`$ on harmonic superspace which satisfies

$$D_{\alpha r}F=\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^r^{}F=0$$
(16)
is called Grassmann analytic, or G-analytic, while a field which satisfies $`D_r{}_{}{}^{s^{}}F=0`$ is called harmonic analytic, or H-analytic. A field which is both G- and H-analytic will be called an analytic superfield.

For the following discussion it will be useful to define the object $`u^{ij}=u^{ji}`$ by

$$u^{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{rs}u_r{}_{}{}^{i}u_{s}^{}^j$$
(17)
The fact that $`uSU(4)`$ then implies that

$`u_{ij}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijkl}u^{kl}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{r^{}s^{}}u_i{}_{}{}^{r^{}}u_{j}^{}^s^{}`$
We shall also employ the following abbreviations for fourth-order Grassmann derivatives which are Lorentz scalars,

$`D^4`$ $`:=`$ $`(D_{\alpha r})^4D^4:=(D_{\alpha r^{}})^4`$
$`\overline{D}^4`$ $`:=`$ $`(\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{r})^4\overline{D}^4:=(\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^r^{})^4`$ (19)
The final technicality we shall need is the notion of harmonic conjugation  which combines a generalisation of the antipodal map for $`\text{}P^1`$ to the coset $`S(U(2)\times U(2))\backslash SU(4)`$ with complex conjugation. We shall denote this operation by a tilde. For the $`u`$’s we have

$`\stackrel{~}{(u_r{}_{}{}^{i})}`$ $`=`$ $`u_i^r^{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{(u_r^{}{}_{}{}^{i})}`$ $`=`$ $`u_i^r`$ (20)
while for any $`u`$-independent object we use ordinary complex conjugation. It follows that G-analyticity and H-analyticity are both preserved by harmonic conjugation and that

$`\stackrel{~}{(u^{ij})}=u_{ij}`$ (21)
Returning to the boundary chiral field strength superfields, we can define the following family of objects

$`C^{(k)}:`$ $`=`$ $`u^{i_1j_1}\mathrm{}u^{i_{k+2}j_{k+2}}D_{i_1j_1,i_2j_2}^4A_{i_3j_3,\mathrm{}i_{k+2}j_{k+2}}^{(k)}`$ (22)
$``$ $`u^{i_1j_1}\mathrm{}u^{i_kj_k}D^4A_{i_1j_1,\mathrm{}i_kj_k}^{(k)}`$
where we have converted the $`SO(6)`$ indices $`R`$ into antisymmetric self-dual pairs of $`SU(4)`$ indices and then contracted all these pairs with $`u^{ij}`$’s. We claim that each $`C^{(k)}`$ is analytic. H-analyticity is immediate, since $`u^{ij}`$ is annihilated by $`D_r^s^{}`$. G-analyticity follows because the presence of the $`u`$’s implies that the projection of $`D^4`$ involves only the derivatives $`D_{\alpha r}`$. Since the product of five such derivatives vanishes identically, we see that $`D_{\alpha r}C^{(k)}=0`$, while $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^r^{}`$ can be anti-commuted past the $`D`$’s to act on the chiral field $`A`$ whereupon it gives zero. The fourth-order constraint on the field $`A^{(k)}`$ (with $`k`$ $`SO(6)`$ indices) can therefore be written in the form

$$C^{(k)}=\stackrel{~}{C}^{(k)}.$$
(23)
Since this constraint is non-dynamical it can be imposed by a Lagrange multiplier superfield, $`V^{(k)}`$, say, which may be taken to be G-analytic. The free action for $`A^{(k)}`$ can therefore be written222Similar methods can be used to find prepotentials in Minkowski superspace, as in

$$S^{(k)}=\left(d^4xd^8\theta \frac{1}{2}(A^{(k)})^2\right)+c.c.+𝑑\mu V^{(k)}(C^{(k)}\stackrel{~}{C}^{(k)})$$
(24)
In this formula, the first integral is an $`N=4`$ chiral integral while the second one is a harmonic superspace integral. The harmonic superspace measure $`d\mu `$ is defined by

$$d\mu :=d^4xduD^4\overline{D}^4$$
(25)
where $`du`$ denotes the standard measure on the coset space. If we vary the above action with respect to $`A^{(k)}`$, which is here regarded as an otherwise unconstrained chiral superfield, we get an expression for $`A^{(k)}`$ in terms of the prepotential $`V^{(k)}`$. It is

$$A_{i_1j_1,\mathrm{}i_kj_k}^{(k)}=𝑑uu_{i_1j_1}\mathrm{}u_{i_kj_k}\overline{D}^4V^{(k)}$$
(26)
This formula generalises in a natural way the expression for the chiral $`N=2`$ Maxwell field strength multiplet in terms of a G-analytic charge two potential .

We note that $`u^{ij}`$ has $`U(1)`$ charge 1 so that $`C^{(k)}`$ has $`U(1)`$ charge $`k+2`$. Since the charges of $`D^4,D^4,\overline{D}^4,\overline{D}^4`$ are $`2,2,2`$ and $`2`$ respectively the charge of the harmonic measure is $`4`$, so that $`V^{(k)}`$ has charge $`k+2`$. We note further that, since $`C^{(k)}`$ is both G- and H-analytic, the action $`S^{(k)}`$ has an abelian gauge invariance of the form

$$V^{(k)}V^{(k)}+D_r{}_{}{}^{s^{}}X_{s^{}}^{(k)}^r$$
(27)
where the parameter superfield $`X^{(k)}`$ is G-analytic.

The prepotentials $`V^{(k)}`$ couple naturally to generalised currents $`𝒪_{k+2}`$ via the Noether coupling

$$S_{\mathrm{Noeth}}^{(k)}=𝑑\mu V^{(k)}𝒪_{k+2}$$
(28)
Clearly the current $`𝒪_{k+2}`$ has the same properties as the corresponding constraint $`C^{(k)}`$, in particular $`𝒪_k`$ has $`U(1)`$ charge $`k`$.

The currents can be realised explicitly as composite operators in $`N=4`$ $`SU(N_c)`$ Yang-Mills theory. We recall that the $`N=4`$ Maxwell field strength supermultiplet is described in $`N=4`$ super Minkowski space by the Sohnius superfield $`W_{ij}`$  which is antisymmetric and self-dual and which satisfies

$`D_{\alpha i}W_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{[\alpha i}W_{jk]}`$
$`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^iW_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{[j}^i\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^lW_{k]l}`$ (29)
These constraints can be translated into harmonic superspace by introducing the field $`W:=u^{ij}W_{ij}`$ . This is an analytic superfield which has $`U(1)`$ charge 1 ($`D_oW=W`$) and which is real with respect to harmonic conjugation, $`W=\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Conversely one can show that that such an analytic superfield is equivalent to the Sohnius superfield. In the non-Abelian theory the field strength superfield $`W`$ is H-analytic, but the G-analyticity condition has to be made covariant with respect to the gauge group. However, the gauge-covariant operators $`𝒪_k:=\mathrm{tr}(W^k)`$ are analytic in the usual sense, and so provide the desired family of generalised currents which couple to the prepotentials $`V^{(k)}`$.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported in part by PPARC SPG grant 613.