text:
# Untitled Document

Phenomenological Lambda-Nuclear Interactions

Rita Sinha

Department of Physics, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E., Malaysia.

On leave from Department of Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, 110025 India. Q. N. Usmani

Department of Physics, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E., Malaysia.

and Theoretical Studies Laboratory, Institute of Advanced Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400

Serdang, Selangor D.E., Malaysia.

B. M. Taib

Institute of Multimedia and Software, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E., Malaysia.

\[ABSTRACT\]

Variational Monte Carlo calculations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ (ground and excited states) and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ are performed to decipher information on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear interactions. Appropriate operatorial nuclear and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear correlations have been incorporated to minimize the expectation values of the energies. We use the Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ two-body NN along with the Urbana $`IX`$ three-body NNN interactions. The study demonstrates that a large part of the splitting energy in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ ($`0^+1^+`$) is due to the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces. $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ hypernucleus is analyzed using the s-shell results. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter is calculated within the variational framework using the Fermi-Hypernetted-Chain technique. There is a need to correctly incorporate the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter.

PACS number(s): 21.80.+a, 21.10.Dr, 13.75.Ev, 24.10.Lx, 21.65.+f

§1. Introduction

The study of the response of a many-body system to a hyperon gives insight into the structure of baryon-baryon interactions. The binding energy data of light s-shell hypernuclei provide a unique opportunity to know more about the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear interactions, particularly on their spin-dependence. In the past, basically two approaches have been followed. The first one involves Brueckner-Hartree calculations using Nijmegen YN potential with and without higher order correction to single-particle energies. This method uses the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`N`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$$`N`$ coupling which gives considerably lower binding energy for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$. Any attempt to correct this leads to poor agreement with the scattering data. The second method is primarily based on reliable variational techniques, mostly using simplified NN interactions. We follow this approach but use realistic Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ NN interaction along with Urbana IX three-body NNN interaction. The phenomenological approach we follow is consistent with meson-theoretic models as well as available low energy scattering data. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`N`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$$`N`$ coupling is effectively taken care of by inclusion of the phenomenological $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potential. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potential consists of both the dispersive and two-pion-exchange (TPE) kind as employed in previous studies. The hypernuclei considered in this work are $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H_{}^{}`$ ( * on $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ refers to the excited 1+ state), and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$.

The interaction parameters which we find based on our s-shell results are later used to make estimates of the binding energy of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$. We also study the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter by using the Fermi-Hypernetted-Chain (FHNC) technique. This study gives an indication of the implications of our s-shell results on heavier hypernuclear systems.

In section 2 we describe the Hamiltonian used in this work. Section 3 gives the wave function and approach. In section 4 we discuss the results and finally in section 5 we give the conclusion and comments.

§2. The Hamiltonian

The complete hypernuclear Hamiltonian consists of the nuclear Hamiltonian $`H_N^{A1}`$ and the lambda Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The nuclear Hamiltonian $`H_N^{A1}`$ is given by

$$H_N^{A1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A1}{}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}_i^2+\underset{i<j}{\overset{A1}{}}V_{ij}+\underset{i<j<k}{\overset{A1}{}}V_{ijk},$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`V_{ij}`$ and $`V_{ijk}`$ are the two-nucleon NN and three-nucleon NNN potentials, respectively, and $`m_i`$ is the mass of the nucleon.

The two-body NN interaction employed here is the Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ interaction. The first fourteen operator components of this model are charge- independent and are an updated version of the Argonne $`\upsilon _{14}`$ potential. Three additional charge-dependent and one charge-asymmetric operators are added along with a complete electromagnetic interaction, containing the Coulomb, Darwin-Foldy, vacuum polarization, and magnetic moment terms with finite-size effects. The potential has been fit directly to the Nijmegen pp and np scattering data base, low-energy nn scattering parameters, and deuteron binding energy. For the three-body NNN potential we use the Urbana model consisting of the two-pion-exchange (TPE) part of Fujita and Miyazawa and a repulsive phenomenological spin-isospin independent term. We have used the Urbana $`IX`$ model of the interaction where the values of the strength parameters are used in conjunction with the Argonne  $`\upsilon _{18}`$ interaction.

The lambda Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$$H_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{A1}{}}V_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\underset{i<j}{\overset{A1}{}}V_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`V_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`V_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are the two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N and three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potentials, respectively, and $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle. The first terms of Eqs.(2.1) and (2.2) pertain to the total kinetic energy of the nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, respectively.

The two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ includes a central potential of the same form for the singlet and triplet spin states. These have a theoretically reasonable attractive tail due to the TPE in accord with Urbana type potentials  with spin- and space-exchange terms.

$$V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}=\left[(V_c(r)\overline{V})(1ϵ+ϵP_x)+\frac{1}{4}V_\sigma \stackrel{}{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_N\right]T_\pi ^2(r),$$
$`(2.3)`$
where $`\overline{V}`$ and $`V_\sigma `$ are the spin-average and spin-dependent strengths, respectively. $`P_x`$ is the Majorana space-exchange operator, $`ϵ`$ is the corresponding exchange parameter, $`V_c`$ is the Woods-Saxon repulsive core, and $`T_\pi `$ is the one-pion-exchange (OPE) tensor potential shape modified with a cutoff. Further details can be found in Ref. .

In this study we consider potential parameters that are consistent with low energy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ scattering data that essentially determine the value of spin-average strength $`\overline{V}=6.15\pm 0.05`$ MeV .

For hypernuclei with zero-spin core nuclei, such as $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$, the major contribution arises from the spin-average strength $`\overline{V}`$ while the spin component contributes very little. The spin dependence $`V_\sigma `$ is assumed to be positive, which is consistent with hypernuclear spins of mass 4 systems. We find that for the s-shell hypernuclei $`(A5)`$ the s-state interaction is dominant but the higher partial wave interactions, in particular, the p-state, also make a small but significant contribution contrary to earlier studies. The importance of the p-state contribution becomes significant due to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear correlations.

Studies on hypernuclei have shown that it is necessary to include a three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction in the Hamiltonian. We consider phenomenological $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces of the dispersive (spin-dependent and spin-independent) as well as the TPE kind15), which arise from the suppression of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ degrees of freedom by the medium, that is, the second nucleon.

The dispersive kind has a spin dependence that is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{DS}(r_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }})=W_oT_\pi ^2(r_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})T_\pi ^2(r_{j\mathrm{\Lambda }})[1+\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j)].$$
$`(2.4)`$
The TPE part of the interaction is given by

$$W_p=\frac{1}{6}C_p(\stackrel{}{\tau }_i\stackrel{}{\tau }_j)\{X_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }},X_{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}\}Y(r_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})Y(r_{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}),$$
$`(2.5)`$
where X is the OPE operator given by

$$X_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\stackrel{}{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda })+S_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})T_\pi (r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})$$
$`(2.6)`$
with

$$S_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})=\frac{3(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_kr_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})}{r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\stackrel{}{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
$`(2.7)`$
In Eq.(2.5) $`\{\}`$ represents the anticommutator term. Y$`{}_{\pi }{}^{}(r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ and T$`{}_{\pi }{}^{}(r_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ are the usual Yukawa and tensor functions, respectively, with pion mass $`\mu =0.7`$ fm-1.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear interaction parameters, $`\overline{V}`$, $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ are considered as unknown. These are then fitted as a function of the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values that have been calculated using the s-shell results. Taking these values of $`\overline{V}`$, $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ we again perform variational calculations that give us the final results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H_{}^{}`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$. These results are later used to analyze $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter.

§3. Wave Function and Approach

The trial variational wave function we adopt is of the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_v=\left[1+\underset{i<j<k}{}U_{ijk}+\underset{i<j}{}U_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\underset{i<j}{}U_{ij}^{LS}+\underset{i<j<k}{}U_{ijk}^{Tni}\right]\left[\underset{i<j<k}{}f_{ijk}^c\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_p.$$
$`(3.1)`$
The pair wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_p`$ is a symmetrized product of two-body $`(1+U_{ij})`$ and $`(1+U_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ correlation operators acting on a Jastrow trial function. This is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_p=\left[S\underset{i<j}{\overset{A1}{}}(1+U_{ij})\right]\left[S\underset{i=1}{\overset{A1}{}}(1+U_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_J.$$
$`(3.2)`$
$`U_{ij}`$ in Eq.(3.2) is defined as

$$U_{ij}=\underset{p=2,6}{}\left[\underset{ki,j}{}f_{ijk}^p(r_{ik},r_{jk})\right]u_p(r_{ij})O_{ij}^P$$
$`(3.3)`$
with $`O_{ij}^P=[1,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j,S_{ij}][1,\stackrel{}{\tau }_i,\stackrel{}{\tau }_j]`$. $`S_{ij}`$ is the tensor operator. $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ are the spin and isospin operators, respectively. The factor $`f_{ijk}^p`$ suppresses spin-isospin correlations between two nucleons in the presence of a third one.

In principle, the $`U_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ correlation will consist of a spin and a Majorana space-exchange operator :

$$U_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\alpha _\sigma u_\sigma (r_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})\stackrel{}{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i+\alpha _{px}u_{px}(r_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})P_x,$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\alpha _{px}`$ are variational parameters and $`P_x`$ is the space-exchange operator. In our calculations we have not included the space-exchange correlations since the calculations become complicated and time consuming. In any case the effect of these correlations is expected to be small for s-shell hypernuclei.

The spin dependent correlation $`u_\sigma `$ given in Eq.(3.4) is defined as

$$u_\sigma =\frac{(f_s^\mathrm{\Lambda }f_t^\mathrm{\Lambda })}{f_c^\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
$`(3.5)`$
where $`f_c^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the spin-average correlation function. $`f_s^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`f_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the solutions of the quenched $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential in singlet and triplet states, respectively, which are given by the following relation:

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}^2+\stackrel{~}{V}_{s/t}(r_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N})+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^a\right]f_{s/t}^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$
$`(3.6)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{s/t}`$ is the quenched $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential in singlet/triplet state. $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ is the reduced mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-N pair, while $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^a`$ is an auxiliary potential.

The Jastrow wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_J`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_J=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{A1}{}}f_c^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{i\mathrm{\Lambda }})\underset{i<j}{\overset{A1}{}}f_c(r_{ij})\right]\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
$`(3.7)`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an antisymmetric product of single particle wave function with the desired (J,T). The initial uncorrelated state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has no coordinate dependence and is real. For example, consider the following $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ states for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ expressed in the spin-isospin basis with the appropriate (J,T) states,

$`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ (J$`=0`$, T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$) $`=`$ C $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0)^3`$H$`{}_{j=\frac{1}{2}}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ +

C $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0)^3`$H$`{}_{j=\frac{1}{2}}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (3.8)

and

$`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ (J$`=1`$, T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$) $`=`$ C $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1)^3`$H$`{}_{j=\frac{1}{2}}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ , (3.9)

where C represents the Clebsch Gordon coefficients. 3H$`{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}{}_{j=\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}`$ and 3H$`{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}{}_{j=\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}`$ are the uncorrelated $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$s for triton, whereas $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are the spin-down and spin-up states, respectively of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle.

The spin-orbit correlation $`U_{ij}^{LS}`$ is given by

$$U_{ij}^{LS}=\left[u_{ls}(r_{ij})+u_{ls\tau }(r_{ij})\stackrel{}{\tau }_i\stackrel{}{\tau }_j\right](𝐋𝐒)_{ij}.$$
$`(3.10)`$
The eight radial functions, $`f_c(r_{ij})`$, $`u_{p=2,6}(r_{ij})`$, $`u_{ls}(r_{ij})`$, and $`u_{ls\tau }(r_{ij})`$ are obtained from approximate two-body Euler-Lagrange equations with variational parameters.

$`U_{ijk}^{Tni}`$ is a three-body correlation induced by the three-nucleon interaction, $`V_{ijk}`$. The other correlations incorporated in the wave function are a spatial three-body NNN correlation $`f_{ijk}^c`$, along with $`U_{ijk}`$ that consists of a spin-orbit and an isospin three-body correlation. Further details can be found in Ref. .

The three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlation $`U_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ has the following form:

$$U_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\stackrel{~}{V}_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\widehat{\delta }_1,\widehat{\delta }_2),$$
$`(3.11)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ differs from $`V_{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ through the cutoff factor $`c`$ of the usual Yukawa and tensor functions. $`\widehat{\delta }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\delta }_2`$ are variational parameters which multiply the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction parameters, $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$, respectively.

No attempt has been made to vary the two-body NN and three-body NNN correlation parameters as their effect has been found to be small and only the variational parameters of the wave function pertaining to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been varied to obtain a minimum in the energy. The optimum values of these parameters which are used in our final calculations are given in Tables and .

We calculate energy expectation values using Monte Carlo (MC) integration. The expectation values are sampled both in configuration space and in the order of operators in the wave function by following a Metropolis random walk. The mathematical expressions used to evaluate the energy expectation values are given below.

The energy expectation value for the pure nucleus is given by

$$E_N^{A1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_N^{A1}H_N^{A1}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^{A1}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_N^{A1}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^{A1}},$$
$`(3.12)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N^{A1}`$ is the wave function of the mass (A-1) nucleus and $`H_N^{A1}`$ is the nuclear Hamiltonian.

The energy expectation value for the hypernucleus is given by

$$E_H^A=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_H^AH_H^A\mathrm{\Psi }_H^A}{\mathrm{\Psi }_H^A\mathrm{\Psi }_H^A},$$
$`(3.13)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_H^A`$ is the wave function of the mass ‘A’ hypernucleus and $`H_H^A`$ is the hypernuclear Hamiltonian.

Therefore, binding energy of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the hypernucleus is given by

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }=E_H^AE_N^{A1}.$$
$`(3.14)`$
The nuclear and hypernuclear wave functions, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N^{A1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_H^A`$ are optimized with respect to the variational parameters to obtain the minimum in the energies.

The $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ value for each hypernuclei is calculated from the variational results using Eq.(3.14). The $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ value is thus written as a function of the adjustable parameters in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and is used to determine the set of parameters which are consistent with the experimental $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values.

§4. Results and Discussion

Table gives the variational results for the nuclei, namely, $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ calculated using the two-body NN Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ interaction and three-body NNN Urbana $`IX`$ interaction with relevant correlations. The numbers appearing in parentheses in all the tables in this work indicate the statistical error in the last digit. These calculations have been performed on similar lines as those by Wiringa $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$ and the results conform to theirs. These results also check very well with the recent calculations of Forest $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$, who use a truncated version of the Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ interaction.

Next we calculate the energy expectation values for the s-shell hypernuclei, namely $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ using the two-body NN Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ and three-body NNN Urbana $`IX`$ interactions along with the two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N and three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interactions with appropriate correlations incorporated in the wave function. Variational calculations have been performed for different values of spin-average potential strength, $`\overline{V}`$ (6.10, 6.15, and 6.20 MeV). The different values of the space-exchange parameter $`ϵ`$ used in this work are 0.24 ($`\overline{V}`$=6.20 MeV), 0.19 ($`\overline{V}`$=6.15 MeV), and 0.14 ($`\overline{V}`$=6.10 MeV) .

The bulk calculations consist of the energy expectation values for each $`\overline{V}`$ as a function of the interaction parameters, $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$. In Table we illustrate one such set of results for the ground state of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$. Our results demonstrate that the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ show similar trends with the spin-average potential strength $`\overline{V}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction parameters, $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$. As expected, $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases with $`\overline{V}`$. $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ also increases significantly with the increase in $`C_p`$, while it decreases with $`W_o`$. As expected, the dependence on $`\overline{V}`$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ is more pronounced for $`A=5`$ than for $`A=4`$ systems. This result is in accord with the earlier calculations where only simplified NN interactions have been used.

An important goal of the present study is to learn about the role of $`V_\sigma `$ , $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ through the $`0^+1^+`$ energy splitting in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$. We place limits on the values of these parameters, consistent with the following experimental $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values:

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H)=2.22\pm 0.04MeV,$$

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H_{}^{})=1.12\pm 0.06MeV,$$

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He)=3.12\pm 0.02MeV.$$
$`(4.1)`$
Values of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$) and $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$) are averages for those of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}He`$. Limits on the parameters $`V_\sigma `$ , $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ are determined by the uncertainties in the experimental $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values.

For a given value of $`\overline{V}`$ we did a $`\chi ^2`$ fit for the calculated energy expectation values according to the relation

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }(V_\sigma ,W_o,C_p)=y_1V_\sigma +y_2W_o+y_3C_p+y_4W_o^2+y_5C_p^2+y_6W_oC_p+B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^o,$$
$`(4.2)`$
where $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^o`$ is the corresponding value of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`V_\sigma =C_p=W_o=0`$ for each hypernuclear species. The coefficients $`y_{16}`$ are varied to give a minimum in the $`\chi ^2`$ that is defined as

$$\chi ^2=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{B_\mathrm{\Lambda }(V_\sigma ,C_p,W_o)B_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }B_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right]_i^2,$$
$`(4.3)`$
Here $`N`$ is the total number of energy calculations for a particular hypernucleus with different values of $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$. $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the calculated value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ separation energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the corresponding Monte Carlo statistical error. The values of the coefficients $`y_{16}`$, as determined from this procedure, are displayed in Table. In all the cases considered the $`\chi ^2`$ values are $``$ 1 which demonstrates the goodness of the fit. There shall be correlated error bars on the coefficients $`y_{16}`$ which would be reflected in the uncertainties in determining $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$. We find it more convenient to consider the uncertainties in the experimental values while placing limits on $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$. We hope to compensate some of the uncertainties associated with the $`y`$’s by giving a generous allowance to the experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values as well as by taking into account the Monte Carlo statistical errors in the calculation of the energies.

We use the coefficients $`y_{16}`$ of Table to obtain a fit with respect to the experimental $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values, treating $`V_\sigma `$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ as parameters to determine the best fit. We again construct a $`\chi ^2`$ fit using Eq.(4.3) but now “$`N`$” refers to the factor “3” for the three hypernuclear species and $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ refers to the experimental $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values. The $`\chi ^2`$ fit is minimized with respect to $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$ for a given value of $`V_\sigma `$. In Fig. 1 we plot $`\chi ^2`$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ as a function of $`V_\sigma `$ for $`\overline{V}`$ = 6.15 MeV. It is seen that both $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$ decrease with increase in $`V_\sigma `$, the effect being more pronounced for $`C_p`$. Fig. 2 displays the calculated values of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a function of $`V_\sigma `$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$. Within the accuracy of the graphs the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ do not show any dependence on $`V_\sigma `$ in the range 0.09$``$0.26 MeV. As one may expect, the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ depend sensitively on $`V_\sigma `$, and thus in turn on the spin dependence of $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$.

The $`\chi ^2`$ stays very close to zero (which corresponds to almost an exact fit to $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(exp) values) for $`V_\sigma `$ = 0.176$`\pm `$0.015 MeV, $`C_p`$ = 1.64$``$.03 MeV and $`W_o`$ = 0.026$``$0.001 MeV. Most of the deviation from zero of the $`\chi ^2`$ values in Fig. 1 arise from $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$. The dotted horizontal lines of Fig. 2 display the limits on the experimental $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ value of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, consistent with the experimental error bar of $`\pm `$ 0.06 MeV. This places limits on the values of $`V_\sigma `$, thus, in turn on $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$. However, the actual error bars on these parameters would be larger due to Monte Carlo statistical errors. To take this into account, we made a number of energy calculations for $`V_\sigma `$ in the range 0.10 to 0.24 MeV. The corresponding values of $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$ have been taken from the calculations of Fig. 1. We could obtain acceptable fits to the energies for $`V_\sigma `$ in the range 0.12$``$0.23 MeV. This gives for $`\overline{V}`$=6.15 MeV:

$$V_\sigma =0.176\pm 0.05,C_p=1.640.15,W_o=0.0260.003.$$
$`(4.4)`$
A similar study for $`\overline{V}`$=6.20 MeV gives

$$V_\sigma =0.125\pm 0.05,C_p=1.520.15,W_o=0.0250.003.$$
$`(4.5)`$
We have been able to obtain good fits only for $`\overline{V}`$ = 6.15 and 6.20 MeV. The value of $`\overline{V}`$ = 6.10 MeV does not reproduce the correct binding energies of s-shell hypernuclei. Therefore, we have not carried out any error analysis for $`\overline{V}`$=6.10 MeV. For the sake of completeness we mention the best parameter values for $`\overline{V}`$=6.10 MeV:

$$V_\sigma =0.193,C_p=1.84,W_o=0.027.$$
$`(4.6)`$
We can note from Table\[6(A)\] that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin potential has a non zero contribution even in a closed-shell system such as $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$. This arises because of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-spin correlations incorporated in the wave function.

Comparing the results for the core nuclei (Table) with the results for the hypernuclei (Tables\[6(A-C)\]) we note, in general, a shrinking of the core nuclei by about $`20\%`$ in all the hypernuclei due to the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle. This decrease in radii of the core nuclei would imply that the lambda wave functions are closer for larger $`A`$. This also contributes to the fact that the dependence of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`\overline{V}`$, $`C_p`$, and $`W_o`$ is more pronounced for the mass 5 than for the mass 4 hypernuclei. The change in the $`d`$-state probability is found to be small in all cases.

Table gives the breakup of the $`0^+1^+`$ splitting contributions in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ arising from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-dependent strength $`V_\sigma `$ and the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}`$ for different values of spin-average strength $`\overline{V}`$. It can be noted from this table that the energy difference between $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ is consistent with the total contribution from $`V_\sigma `$ and $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}`$ within the error bars of the MC calculations. It can be seen that a large part ($`\frac{2}{3}`$) of the splitting comes from the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potential. The two-body contribution arising from $`V_\sigma `$ is around $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of the total splitting. This is in contrast to the earlier studies  wherein the $`0^+1^+`$ splitting has been thought to have arisen mainly from the spin dependence of the two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential. The present study clearly demonstrates that $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}`$ plays a significant role in explaining the splitting. This also results in a reduced $`V_\sigma `$ as compared to the value of 0.23$`\pm `$0.02 found in Ref. , though in our case the error bar on $`V_\sigma `$ is much larger due to reasons discussed earlier. In the present study for $`V_\sigma `$=0.23, half of the splitting arises because of $`V_\sigma `$ and the remaining half from the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NN`$ forces. For the extreme case, in particular, for $`V_\sigma `$=0.12, the three-body forces contribute nearly $`\frac{3}{4}`$ of the total splitting. It would be desirable to have an independent fix on $`V_\sigma `$, for example, from a more refined $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ scattering data. This can enlighten us further on the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces.

The Majorana space-exchange contribution for the various hypernuclei have been found to be small but significant in all s-shell hypernuclei. It is in the range $`0.10.7`$ MeV for $`ϵ`$ in the range $`0.140.24`$ and as expected has a linear dependence with the Majorana exchange parameter $`ϵ`$.

A few variational calculations have been carried out with only the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potentials and no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations. We find that without the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ is not bound. We also notice that the contributions from $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{2\pi }`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{DS}`$ become more repulsive without the correlations and the total contribution from the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potentials become positive thereby decreasing $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have performed a few energy calculations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ but with the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN part of the Hamiltonian completely switched off . We find in this case that $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ is overbound by about 2.34 MeV for $`\overline{V}=6.20`$ MeV and by about 1.39 MeV for $`\overline{V}=6.15`$ MeV. In general, the results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ show that it is underbound while $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ is overbound without the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interactions for all values of $`\overline{V}`$. Both these studies show the importance of the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potentials and correlations in obtaining a consistent fit to the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values for all the s-shell hypernuclei considered here. In particular, we notice the importance of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{2\pi }`$ on the effect of TPE $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{2\pi }`$. These correlations reduce reasonably the repulsive three-body contribution to an attractive contribution implying a strong non-linear dependence on $`C_p`$.

Implications of s-shell results on $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$: We now examine the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ hypernucleus in relation to the two- and three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear potential parameters that we find from our analysis of s-shell hypernuclei as described earlier. Usmani, Pieper, and Usmani16) (referred to as UPU) have carried out MC calculations for the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ hypernucleus using the $`\upsilon _6`$ part of the older Argonne $`\upsilon _14`$ potential . For the three-nucleon potential they use the same form (Urbana model) as in the present study but with different strength parameters ($`A_o`$=$``$0.0333 and $`U_o`$=0.0038). Their trial wave function consists of pair and triplet operators acting on a single-particle determinant. In many respects, these calculations are similar to our present calculations. The difference lies in the treatment of non-central correlations for which they use the Cluster Monte Carlo method with up to four-baryon clusters. The central correlations are treated exactly. We carry out this study in the hope of analyzing further our estimated s-shell $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear parameters. UPU have given the following empirical relation for $`C_p`$ in the range 0-1 MeV and $`W_o`$ in the range 0-0.02 MeV:

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }=27.38.9C_p+11.2C_p^2+870.0W_o.$$
$`(4.7)`$
This equation relates the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ with $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$. In order to test the consistency of our results with $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$($`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$), we assume that relation (4.7) holds for our values of $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$. UPU have done calculations for spin-average strength $`\overline{V}`$=6.16 MeV with space-exchange parameter $`ϵ`$= 0.3. Our values of $`\overline{V}`$=6.15 MeV with $`ϵ`$=0.17 are closest to theirs. We thus need to modify (4.7) for our values of $`\overline{V}`$ and $`ϵ`$. Unfortunately, there is no simple method to scale relation (4.7) for $`\overline{V}`$=6.15 MeV, as the scaling can be considerably non-linear. However, since the two values of $`\overline{V}`$ are very close, we assume that this will not affect the results much. The correction for $`ϵ`$ is simple, since in the absence of space-exchange correlation the space-exchange energies are expected to be linear with $`ϵ`$. Thus, relation (4.7) can be modified as:

$$B_\mathrm{\Lambda }=27.3+(ϵϵ_o)(1P_x)V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}8.9C_p+11.2C_p^2+870.0W_o,$$
$`(4.8)`$
where $`ϵ_o`$=0.3 as taken by UPU, $`P_x`$ is the space-exchange operator and $``$$`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ is the energy expectation value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential.

Using the entries for $`\upsilon _o(r)(1ϵ)`$ and $`\upsilon _o(r)ϵP_x`$ from Table II of Ref.  and using our values of $`C_p=1.6407`$ and $`W_o=0.0255`$ for $`\overline{V}=6.15`$ MeV we obtain

BΛ = 23.3 $`\pm `$ 1.6 MeV .

This is considerably larger than the empirical estimate16) $``$ 13.0 $`\pm `$ 0.4 MeV. Thus the results of the present study are incompatible with those of Ref. . The reason for this incompatibility may largely lie in the use of $`\upsilon _6`$ part of the $`\upsilon _{18}`$ hamiltonian for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$. Another reason can be attributed to the use of relations (4.7) and (4.8) for large values of $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$ for which these relations may not be adequate. This discrepancy can probably be resolved by carrying out calculations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ with Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ Hamiltonian, which, at the moment is an extremely challenging task.

Implications of s-shell results on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter: The presence of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle inside nuclear matter can reveal information on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear interactions. The well depth D is identified with the separation energy for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in nuclear matter. It is an important parameter which can help to distinguish between different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potentials and also throw light on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter can put further constraints on the potential parameters, namely $`\overline{V}`$, $`V_\sigma `$, $`W_o`$, and $`C_p`$. With this aim in mind we have performed calculations for D using the Fermi-Hypernetted-Chain (FHNC) technique to calculate the energy expectation values.

We have calculated the well depth D variationally using the same underlying principle as for our s-shell hypernuclei. Our discussion on D is based on the results given in Table. The empirical value of D is now fairly well established at 29 $`\pm `$ 1 MeV  at the normal nuclear matter density of $`\rho _o0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$. These results clearly indicate that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is underbound at the normal nuclear matter density, $`\rho _o0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$. This indeed is a disturbing feature. Bodmer and Usmani have found that it is possible to obtain a consistent phenomenology with hypernuclear interactions which include the s-shell and the medium and heavy hypernuclei as well as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding to nuclear matter. Our results indicate that with the present available techniques of treating the nuclear matter this is not possible. The resolution of this paradox perhaps lies in the proper handling of the three-body correlations, particularly the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations for nuclear matter. It may be noted that the contribution from the TPE $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{2\pi }`$ for nuclear matter is always positive. On the other hand, $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{2\pi }`$ for s-shell hypernuclei and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ is always negative and substantial. The three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations that are taken in nuclear matter calculations always pertain to the sshell4). The reason for adopting this correlation lies in its simplicity. At present the techniques for incorporating the realistic three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations for nuclear matter are not sufficiently developed as compared to those for the s-shell hypernuclei incorporated in this work. These affect the contribution from $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}^{2\pi }`$ quite substantially, even to the extent of reversing its sign in the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations as can be seen in the present as well as in the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ studies. The correct incorporation of the three-body correlations in nuclear matter may affect the results to quite an extent, particularly those at high densities. The incorporation of these correlations is indeed a challenging task and is very much needed for the present work as well as for other related studies.

§5. Conclusion and Comments

From the results discussed in the previous section we note that the values of the spin-average strength $`\overline{V}`$= 6.20 and 6.15 MeV give a reasonable description of the s-shell hypernuclei. We have been able to provide a consistent account of the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ using the realistic Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ NN interaction and Urbana IX NNN interaction alongwith $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear interactions with appropriate correlations. Our results for $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ show very similar trends with the spin-average strength $`\overline{V}`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction, and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction parameters, $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$ for all the s-shell hypernuclei considered.

An important conclusion of our study is that about 25% to 50% of the $`0^+1^+`$ splitting energy between the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ comes from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-dependent strength $`V_\sigma `$. The earlier studies  attribute a larger part of the splitting to the spin dependence of the two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interactions. In contrast, our study indicates that the major part ($``$ 50% to 75%) of the splitting is generated by the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces.

Our study on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-binding to nuclear matter shows that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is underbound. This indicates the fact that there is a need to include the three-body correlations while treating nuclear matter. This would require a different technique altogether and is a challenging problem in itself. Our analysis on $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ also indicate the importance of the non-central correlations. It is possible that the inconsistency between the results of Ref.  and our s-shell results is due to their neglecting terms with higher than four-baryon clusters and thereby neglecting the contributions from the non-central clusters. Moreover, our values of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction parameters, $`C_p`$ and $`W_o`$ are higher than those of Ref.  and which, in turn, would induce stronger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN correlations.

Contrary to the findings by Bando $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$  and Shinmura $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$  regarding the effect of tensor forces on the overbinding problem, we find that the tensor forces do not play a significant role. Further, separate studies by Carlson and Hiyama $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$  and on four- and five-body hypernuclei have shown that the binding energies and the splitting energies are not reproduced correctly using the Nijmegen interactions which have strong tensor terms. However, the small suppression effects expected from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N tensor forces are already implicitly included in our phenomenological dispersive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN force. Moreover, the Argonne $`\upsilon _{18}`$ potential used in our study has a weak tensor part and this in fact, provides a much better binding to nuclei5).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. R. B. Wiringa for providing his computer routines for the mass 3 and mass 4 nuclei. We gratefully acknowledge Professor A. R. Bodmer for fruitful discussions and suggestions during the course of this work.

REFERENCES

 Dean Halderson, Phys. Rev. C61, 034001(2000)

 Y. Yamamoto and H. Bando, Prog. Theo. Phys. Supp. 81, 9 (1985)

 A. R. Bodmer, Q. N. Usmani, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C29, 684 (1984)

 A. R. Bodmer and Q. N. Usmani, Nucl. Phys. A477, 621 (1988)

 R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51, 38

(1995)

 J. Carlson, V. R. Pandharipande, and R. B. Wiringa, Nucl. Phys. A401,

59 (1983)

 B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, and R. B. Wiringa,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4396 (1995)

 Q. N. Usmani, Nucl. Phys. A340, 397 (1980)

 R. B. Wiringa, R. A. Smith, and T. L. Ainsworth, Phys. Rev. C29, 1207

(1984)

 J. R. Bergervoet, P. C. van Campen, R. A. M. Klomp, J. L. de Kok, T.

A. Rijken, V. G. J. Stoks, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C41, 1435

(1990)

 V. G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de

Swart, Phys. Rev. C48, 792 (1993)

 J. Fujita and H. Miyazawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 17, 360 (1957)

 I. E. Lagaris and V. R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A359, 331 (1981)

 Thomas Schimert, D. J. Stubeda, M. Lemere, and Y. C. Tang, Nucl.

Phys. $`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟒𝟑}`$, 429 (1980); Wang Xi-chang, H. Takaki, and H. Bando,

Prog. Theor. Phys. $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟔}`$, 865 (1986)

 R. K. Bhaduri, B. A. Loiseau, and Y. Nogami, Annals of Phys. 44, 57

(1967)

 A. A. Usmani, S. C. Pieper, and Q. N. Usmani, Phys. Rev. C51, 2347

(1995)

 M. K. Pal, Theory of Nuclear Structure (Affiliated

East-West, New Delhi) Appendix A, pg 606

 R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C43, 1585 (1991)

 A. Arriaga, V. R. Pandharipande, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C52,

2362 (1995)

 S. Murali, Ph.D. Thesis, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India (1995)

 J. Lomnitz-Adler, V. R. Pandharipande, and R. A. Smith, Nucl. Phys.

A361, 399 (1981)

 J. Carlson and R. B. Wiringa, in Computational Nuclear Physics, ed. by

S. E. Koonin, K. Langanke, J. A. Maruhn, and M. R. Zirnbauer (Springer-

Verlag, Berlin, 1991)

 N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and

E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953)

 J. L. Forest, V. R. Pandharipande, and A. Arriaga, Phys. Rev. C60,

014002 (1999)

 Q. N. Usmani and A. R. Bodmer (private communication)

 J. Pniewski and D. Zieminska, in Proceedings of the Conference on Kaon-

nuclear interactions and Hypernuclei, Zvenigorod, pg 33 (1977)

 M. Bedjidian, E. Descroix, J. Y. Grossiord, A. Guichard, M. Gusakow,

M. Jacquin, M. J. Kudla, H. Piekarz, J. Piekarz, J. R. Pizzi, and J.

Pniewski, Phys. Lett. 83B, 252 (1979), and references therein.

 J. Carlson, in LAMPF Workshop on ($`\pi `$, K) Physics, ed. B. F. Gibson,

W. R. Gibbs, and M. B. Johnson, AIP Conf. Proc. No.224 (AIP, New

York, 1991)

 E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, T. Motoba, T. Yamada, and Y. Yamamoto,

Nucl. Phys. A639, 169c (1998)

 Q. N. Usmani and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl. Phys A639, 147c (1998)

 Q. N. Usmani and A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. C60 055215 (1999)

 A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58 1804

(1998) and references therein.

 H. Bando and I. Shimodaya, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63, 1812 (1986)

 S. Shinmura, Y. Akaishi, and H. Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 1290

(1981)

| TABLE 1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ Correlations Parameters | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{A}Z`$ |  | $`\overline{V}`$ |  | $`\kappa _{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ |  | $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ |  | $`C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ |  | $`R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ |  | $`\alpha _s`$ |  | $`\alpha _\sigma `$ |  |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ |  | 6.20 |  | 0.117 |  | 0.50 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.965 |  | 0.80 |  |
|  |  | 6.15 |  | 0.110 |  | 0.50 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.970 |  | 0.95 |  |
|  |  | 6.10 |  | 0.095 |  | 0.50 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.940 |  | 0.95 |  |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ |  | 6.20 |  | 0.12 |  | 0.70 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.95 |  | 0.70 |  |
|  |  | 6.15 |  | 0.10 |  | 0.70 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.95 |  | 1.20 |  |
|  |  | 6.10 |  | 0.08 |  | 0.70 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.95 |  | 0.70 |  |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ |  | 6.20 |  | 0.095 |  | 0.70 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.70 |  |
|  |  | 6.15 |  | 0.065 |  | 0.70 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.70 |  |
|  |  | 6.10 |  | 0.050 |  | 0.70 |  | 2.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 1.0 |  | 0.70 |  |
| $``$ Eq.(3.8); For all other correlation parameters refer to 16) |

| TABLE 2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN Correlation Parameters for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ | | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Parameters |  | $`\overline{V}`$=6.20 MeV |  | $`\overline{V}`$=6.15 MeV |  | $`\overline{V}`$=6.10 MeV |  |
| $`\widehat{\delta }_1`$ |  | 0.364104 |  | 0.311733 |  | 0.257894 |  |
| $`\widehat{\delta }_2`$ |  | 0.006096 |  | 0.004845 |  | 0.003766 |  |
| $``$ Eq.(3.11) |

| TABLE 3. Variational results for $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Components |  | $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ |  | $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ |  |
| Kinetic energy |  | 50.76(4) |  | 106.85(6) |  |
| NN Potential energy |  | -57.95(4) |  | -129.30(6) |  |
| NNN Potential energy |  | -1.13(3) |  | -5.27(7) |  |
| Total energy |  | -8.32(2) |  | -27.71(6) |  |
| r.m.s.(proton) |  | 1.585(3) |  | 1.478(2) |  |
| r.m.s.(neutron) |  | 1.731(4) |  | 1.478(2) |  |
| d-state probability |  | 0.0933(1) |  | 0.1512(2) |  |
| All Energies are in MeV and Radii in fm |

| TABLE 4. Energy expectation values (calculated and fitted) | | | | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$(Ground State) with $`\overline{V}`$=6.20 MeV | | | | | | |  |
| $`V_\sigma `$ |  | $`W_o`$ |  | $`C_p`$ |  | $`<E_{cal}>`$ |  | $`<E_{fit}>`$ |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0 |  | 0 |  | 10.58(05) |  | 10.60 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.61(07) |  | 11.63 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.01 |  | 0 |  | 9.97(05) |  | 9.97 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.01 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.96(05) |  | 10.90 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.02 |  | 0 |  | 9.25(04) |  | 9.31 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.02 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.21(05) |  | 10.13 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.02 |  | 2.0 |  | 12.28(07) |  | 12.31 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.005 |  | 0 |  | 10.23(05) |  | 10.29 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.005 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.25(05) |  | 11.27 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.005 |  | 2.0 |  | 13.58(08) |  | 13.60 |  |
| 0.17 |  | 0.015 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.50(05) |  | 10.52 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0 |  | 0 |  | 10.82(05) |  | 10.71 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.66(05) |  | 11.74 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.01 |  | 0 |  | 10.02(05) |  | 10.09 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.01 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.90(05) |  | 11.01 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.01 |  | 2.0 |  | 13.36(08) |  | 13.30 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.02 |  | 0 |  | 9.43(05) |  | 9.43 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.02 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.21(05) |  | 10.25 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.02 |  | 2.0 |  | 12.35(06) |  | 12.43 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.005 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.47(05) |  | 11.38 |  |
| 0.22 |  | 0.015 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.68(05) |  | 10.63 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0 |  | 0 |  | 10.79(05) |  | 10.83 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.79(06) |  | 11.86 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0 |  | 2.0 |  | 14.32(08) |  | 14.24 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.01 |  | 0 |  | 10.26(05) |  | 10.20 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.01 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.13(05) |  | 11.12 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.01 |  | 2.0 |  | 13.41(08) |  | 13.41 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.02 |  | 0 |  | 9.60(05) |  | 9.55 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.02 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.39(05) |  | 10.36 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.02 |  | 2.0 |  | 12.56(06) |  | 12.54 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.005 |  | 0 |  | 10.50(05) |  | 10.52 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.005 |  | 1.0 |  | 11.46(05) |  | 11.49 |  |
| 0.27 |  | 0.015 |  | 1.0 |  | 10.81(05) |  | 10.75 |  |
| $`ϵ=`$0.24, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}=`$0.12, $`\alpha _s=`$0.95, $`\alpha _\sigma =`$0.7 |

| TABLE 5. $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a function of coefficients $`y_{16}^{}`$ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{A}Z`$ |  | $`\overline{V}`$ |  | $`y_1`$ |  | $`y_2`$ |  | $`y_3`$ |  | $`y_4`$ |  | $`y_5`$ |  | $`y_6`$ |  |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ |  | 6.20 |  | -0.92 |  | -285.51 |  | 1.28 |  | 1701.78 |  | 1.50 |  | -37.62 |  |
|  |  | 6.15 |  | 1.19 |  | -280.03 |  | 0.99 |  | 1134.41 |  | 1.35 |  | -7.44 |  |
|  |  | 6.10 |  | -0.20 |  | -210.02 |  | 0.88 |  | 2997.79 |  | 1.19 |  | -44.03 |  |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ |  | 6.20 |  | 2.27 |  | -61.23 |  | 0.35 |  | -141.55 |  | 0.68 |  | -10.53 |  |
|  |  | 6.15 |  | 2.21 |  | -59.03 |  | 0.32 |  | 453.47 |  | 0.52 |  | -8.14 |  |
|  |  | 6.10 |  | 1.55 |  | -43.48 |  | 0.23 |  | 298.23 |  | 0.37 |  | -4.96 |  |
| $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ |  | 6.20 |  | -0.89 |  | -112.62 |  | 0.37 |  | 639.67 |  | 0.68 |  | -8.51 |  |
|  |  | 6.15 |  | -0.98 |  | -65.63 |  | 0.27 |  | 208.58 |  | 0.45 |  | -6.68 |  |
|  |  | 6.10 |  | -0.81 |  | -53.21 |  | 0.12 |  | 334.70 |  | 0.36 |  | -5.69 |  |
| $``$ Includes contribution due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear correlations |

| TABLE 6(A).  Variational Results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}He`$ | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Components |  | $`\overline{V}=6.20`$ |  | $`\overline{V}=6.15`$ |  | $`\overline{V}=6.10`$ |  |
| Nuclear Kinetic energy |  | 128.38(74) |  | 128.16(71) |  | 125.35(69) |  |
| NN Potential energy |  | -139.97(73) |  | -140.27(69) |  | -139.31(67) |  |
| NNN Potential energy |  | -5.97(8) |  | -5.91(8) |  | -5.73(8) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Kinetic energy |  | 11.64(15) |  | 11.11(15) |  | 9.13(13) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`N`$ P.E (central) |  | -23.65(32) |  | -21.69(30) |  | -17.55(27) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N P.E (spin) |  | -0.0138(1) |  | -0.0311(3) |  | -0.0281(3) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N Space exch. contribution |  | 0.763(13) |  | 0.578(10) |  | 0.395(7) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (Total) |  | -1.91(9) |  | -2.67(10) |  | -3.53(10) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (T.P.E.) |  | -8.43(16) |  | -8.77(17) |  | -8.20(17) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (dispersive) |  | 6.52(11) |  | 6.10(11) |  | 4.67(10) |  |
| Total Energy |  | -30.75(14) |  | -30.76(18) |  | -31.27(12) |  |
| BΛ |  | 3.03(15) |  | 3.05(19) |  | 3.56(13) |  |
| r.m.s. radius (proton) |  | 1.376(2) |  | 1.379(2) |  | 1.389(2) |  |
| r.m.s. radius (neutron) |  | 1.377(2) |  | 1.379(2) |  | 1.389(2) |  |
| d-state probability |  | 0.1568(2) |  | 0.1568(2) |  | 0.1557(2) |  |
| $``$ Includes contribution due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear correlations |

| TABLE 6(B).  Variational results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Components |  | $`\overline{V}=6.20`$ |  | $`\overline{V}=6.15`$ |  | $`\overline{V}=6.10`$ |  |
| Nuclear Kinetic energy |  | 65.76(47) |  | 62.82(47) |  | 60.34(46) |  |
| NN Potential energy |  | -66.91(47) |  | -65.10(46) |  | -63.60(46) |  |
| NNN Potential energy |  | -1.33(3) |  | -1.25(3) |  | -1.19(3) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Kinetic energy |  | 7.17(11) |  | 5.99(9) |  | 4.77(9) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N P.E (central) |  | -14.00(22) |  | -11.55(20) |  | -8.84(18) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N P.E (spin) |  | -0.291(3) |  | -0.363(4) |  | -0.300(4) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N Space exch. contribution |  | 0.333(9) |  | 0.221(6) |  | 0.143(4) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (Total) |  | -1.33(6) |  | -1.36(6) |  | -1.48(6) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (T.P.E.) |  | -2.87(8) |  | -2.63(9) |  | -2.47(9) |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (dispersive) |  | 1.54(4) |  | 1.27(4) |  | 0.99(3) |  |
| Total Energy |  | -10.61(6) |  | -10.59(5) |  | -10.16(5) |  |
| BΛ |  | 2.28(6) |  | 2.27(6) |  | 1.83(6) |  |
| r.m.s. radius (proton) |  | 1.408(2) |  | 1.435(3) |  | 1.460(3) |  |
| r.m.s. radius (neutron) |  | 1.516(3) |  | 1.547(3) |  | 1.577(3) |  |
| d-state probability |  | 0.0984(1) |  | 0.0960(1) |  | 0.0962(1) |  |
| $``$ Includes contribution due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear correlations |

TABLE 6(C).  Variational results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$    Components   $`\overline{V}=6.20`$   $`\overline{V}=6.15`$   $`\overline{V}=6.10`$   Nuclear Kinetic energy   63.78(49)   60.58(47)   57.96(46)   NN Potential energy   -65.71(48)   -63.64(46)   -62.36(45)   NNN Potential energy   -1.34(3)   -1.27(3)   -1.20(3)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Kinetic energy   6.40(12)   4.78(9)   3.4516(8)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N P.E (central)   -12.35(25)   -9.42(19)   -6.56(17)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (spin)   0.086(1)   0.083(1)   0.065(1)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N Space exch. contribution   0.311(8)   0.202(6)   0.110(4)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (Total)   -0.57(6)   -0.62(5)   -0.73(5)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (T.P.E.)   -3.11(9)   -2.32(8)   -1.98(8)   $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN P.E (dispersive)   2.54(7)   1.70(5)   1.24(5)   Total Energy   -9.40(7)   -9.31(5)   -9.26(5)   BΛ   1.08(7)   0.99(5)   0.94(5)   r.m.s. radius (proton)   1.431(3)   1.467(3)   1.494(3)   r.m.s. radius (neutron)   1.542(3)   1.585(3)   1.618(3)   d-state probability   0.0995(1)   0.0980(1)   0.0969(1)   $``$ Includes contribution due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear correlations
| TABLE 7. Breakup of the $`0^+1^+`$ splitting contributions | | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Contribution |  | $`\overline{V}=6.20`$ |  | $`\overline{V}=6.15`$ |  | $`\overline{V}=6.10`$ |  |
| $`V_\sigma `$ |  | 0.377(3) |  | 0.446(4) |  | 0.365(4) |  |
| $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}`$ |  | 0.76(8) |  | 0.74(8) |  | 0.75(8) |  |
| Total |  | 1.137(80) |  | 1.186(80) |  | 1.115(89) |  |
| Energy differences |  | 1.21(9) |  | 1.28(7) |  | 0.90(7) |  |
| The first row gives the contribution to splitting from Vσ. The second row gives the |
| contribution arising from VΛNN. The third row gives the total of Vσ and VΛNN. |
| The last row gives the actual calculated energy difference between $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}H`$. |

TABLE 8. Results for Nuclear Matter calculations    $`\overline{V}`$  $`\rho _o`$  -$`D`$  $`<T_\mathrm{\Lambda }+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}>`$  Spc. exch.  $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}`$   6.20  0.162  -21.525  -77.617  8.561  47.530   6.15  0.162  -17.819  -72.628  6.644  48.164   6.10  0.162  -11.727  -67.729  4.798  51.205   All energies are in MeV. $`\rho _o`$ is the normal nuclear matter density in fm-3.  The third column gives the well depth D. The fourth column gives the value  of D without the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces and the space-exchange contribution, i.e. for  $`ϵ=0`$. The fifth column gives the reduction in the contribution to D due to  the space-exchange part (Spc. exch.) of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential. The last column  gives the contribution due to the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN forces.


format: text

text:
# Velocity distribution of fluidized granular gases in presence of gravity

## I Introduction

Steady states of granular fluids require that energy be continuously supplied to the system, in order to compensate the energy loss in collisions. In many experimental situations, this is done by means of a vibrating wall. If the vibration is strong enough, the steady state will correspond to a completely fluidized situation. The velocity distribution function (VDF) of a granular fluid in such a steady state has attracted a lot of attention in recent years. It has been studied theoretically, numerically, and by means of experiments, using very different drivings of the system. It seems clear at this stage that the results are strongly dependent on the characteristics of the driving mechanism, and also on the granular fluid itself. In this paper, we will be dealing with the VDF of a fluidized low density granular system in the presence of gravity, and in a situation when the number of wall-particle collisions is much smaller than the number of particle-particle collisions. In these conditions, one can expect that the VDF will be dominated by the intrinsic dynamics of the granular gas, and not by the peculiarities of the energy injection.

One of the first experimental studies of the VDF of a granular fluid in the situation described above was carried out by Warr et al . They considered a vertical two-dimensional system of steel balls under vertical sinusoidal vibration, and found that the width of the VDF for the vertical ($`v_y`$) and horizontal ($`v_x`$) components of the velocity decreased as height increased, showing that the granular temperature was a decreasing function of height. Besides, the distribution for $`v_x`$ seemed to be quite well fitted by a gaussian distribution. A similar result was found by Helal et al , who performed Molecular Dynamics simulations of a two dimensional system of hard disks, concluding again that the distribution function for $`v_x`$ was gaussian, at least in the thermal velocity region. A few years later, Kudrolli and Henry  studied experimentally a system very similar to the one in Ref. , but now the plane of the system formed a certain angle $`\theta `$ with the horizontal direction. By varying $`\theta `$, the external (gravitational) field was modified, allowing to study the effect of varying the particle-particle and particle-wall number of collisions ratio. As the steady state exhibited gradients in the vertical direction, they studied the VDF in a region chosen so that density varied weakly inside it. They found that the width of the distribution for $`v_x`$ increased with $`\theta `$, and that for the larger values of $`\theta `$ studied, the distribution was approximately gaussian. The authors claimed that this happened because increasing $`\theta `$ increases the frequency of particle-wall collisions, resulting in broader distributions.

Rouyer and Menon  have reported the results of another experimental study of a two dimensional system of steel balls in the presence of gravity. To avoid the effects of the inhomogeneities in the VDF, they placed the system between two identical vibrating walls, one located at the top and the other at the bottom of the system. For fast enough shaking, a symmetrical around the center of mass state was generated, with small gradients in the central region. The VDF was measured in that central region, and it was found that the distribution for the horizontal component of the velocity, when scaled with its width $`\sigma _x`$, showed an universal behavior. Moreover, it could be fitted in the whole velocity range by means of a stretched exponential type of distribution,

$$R(c_x)=C^1exp\{A|c_x|^{1.5}\},$$
(1)
where $`c_x=v_x/\sigma _x`$, while $`A`$ and $`C`$ are constants that can be determined from the normalization condition and the fact that the second moment must be unity, resulting $`A0.797`$, $`C2.101`$. It must be noticed that, although the same type of behavior had been previously justified theoretically , it appeared in the context of uniformly heated systems, and was only displayed by the high energy tails of the velocity distribution. In this sense, it is remarkable that, for all the values of the parameters considered by Rouyer and Menon, and in the whole velocity range analyzed, the gaussian distribution provided always a worse fit to the experimental data than $`R(c_x)`$. On the other hand, previous studies had found a gaussian behavior, at least for some range of the parameters , as mentioned above.

One of the most important results reported in  is the universality of $`R(c_x)`$, which was verified by the authors for quite a wide range of shaking intensities (temperatures) and number of particles (densities) of the system. They present this as a robust property and, in fact, it has been used as a guide to develop a model for vibrated granular systems . Nevertheless, recent experiments by Blair and Kudrolli  suggest that the scaled horizontal VDF of a vibrated granular system depends on the number of particles, and only when this number is small enough it can be well fitted by $`R(c_x)`$. It can be argued that the reason for this apparent contradiction is that the experimental setup was different in both cases and, in fact, inhomogeneities were stronger in the experiment by Blair and Kudrolli than in the one by Rouyer and Menon. Whether these inhomogeneities are enough to destroy the universal behavior found by Rouyer and Menon is not clear at the moment.

In this paper, we will study the distribution function of the horizontal component of the velocity of a vibrated granular fluid in the presence of gravity by using Molecular Dynamics simulations. Computer simulations are a very useful tool to study the velocity distribution of a system, as they provide detailed information about positions and velocities of all particles of the system at any moment. The construction of the corresponding distributions is straightforward, and averages over different times and initial conditions provide the statistical accuracy needed to compute the tails of the distributions. The goal of this study is to clarify the behavior of the velocity distribution of a fluidized low density granular system in the presence of gravity, and, in particular, to investigate the existence of a universal scaling behavior, independently of the parameters of the system.

## II Molecular Dynamics Simulations

We consider a two dimensional system of $`N`$ inelastic hard disks of diameter $`\sigma `$ and mass $`m`$, whose collisions are characterized by a constant coefficient of normal restitution $`\alpha `$. There is a gravity field $`𝐠=\mathrm{𝐠𝐮}_𝐲`$, acting in the negative direction of the $`Y`$ axis, and a vibrating wall located at the bottom of the system ($`y=0`$). The system size in the $`X`$ direction is $`S`$, and periodic boundary conditions are employed in that direction. Besides, and unless otherwise indicated, the system is opened at the top. The vibrating wall is elastic, and moves in a sawtooth manner, i.e., all particles colliding with the wall find it moving upwards with velocity $`v_w`$. Moreover, the amplitude of the wall vibration will be considered so small as compared with the mean free path of the particles, that the position of the wall can be taken accurately as fixed at $`y=0`$. Although this is clearly an ideal approximation to the movement of a real vibrating wall, we will be studying the VDF in regions not too close to the wall, so the details of its movement are expected to be unimportant.

The described system exhibits a steady state with gradients only in the direction of gravity which has been well characterized in the low density limit by using a hydrodynamic description. This steady state depends both on $`\alpha `$ and $`N_y=N/S`$, which is proportional to the number of monolayers in the direction of gravity at rest. It must be pointed out that this state is not always stable, and inhomogeneities appear in the transversal direction if the system is wide enough, both with and without gravity . In this work, we are interested in the VDF of the transversally homogeneous state, so the parameters will be chosen to ensure that inhomogeneities do not show up in the $`X`$-direction.

The evolution of the system was followed by using standard event driven Molecular Dynamics simulations , for several values of the parameters. In particular, the coefficient of normal restitution was always in the range $`\alpha 0.9`$, which contains the value $`\alpha =0.92`$ characteristic of steel balls used in most of the mentioned experiments. The system width $`S`$ was given a value $`S=50\sigma `$, which was small enough as to ensure homogeneity in the direction perpendicular to gravity for the values of $`\alpha `$ considered. The gravity field was set to $`g=1`$, while $`m`$ defines the unit of mass and $`\sigma `$ the unit of length. The velocity of the vibrating wall was chosen in each case such that the number density, $`n`$, was always bellow a small enough value, $`n0.15`$, even in the denser regions of the system. Finally, for every value of $`\alpha `$, several different values of the number of particles were considered, in order to study its possible influence on the VDF. Let us notice that, as the system width $`S`$ is fixed, changing the number of particles is equivalent to changing the number of monolayers $`N_y`$, which is the relevant parameter.

The simulations started from an arbitrary initial situation that was left to evolve until the system reached a steady state. Typical density and temperature profiles in the steady state are shown in Fig. 1. Although the details of the profiles depend on the particular values of the parameters of the system, in all the cases reported here the density goes through a maximum at a certain height, while the temperature reaches a minimum, increasing from there on. It is important to notice that the temperature minimum does not coincide with the density maximum, and that the condition of small density gradient in a given region of the system does not imply small temperature gradient in it at all. In order to avoid the effect of inhomogeneities in the VDF, we have considered narrow layers perpendicular to the direction of the gradients at different positions throughout the system. The height of the cells $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_c`$ was chosen so that the variation of density and temperature within them were negligible. For instance, in the case displayed in Fig. 1, the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_c=5`$ was used. Cells at different positions will be considered to get information about the velocity distribution throughout the whole system. The distribution function for $`v_x`$, $`P_x(v_x;y)`$ in each cell is constructed by sampling the velocities of particles inside it at different times, once the system was in the steady state. Besides, also different trajectories starting from different initial conditions were considered in the average process, in order to improve the statistics.

As the system is inhomogeneous in the $`Y`$ direction, $`P_x(v_x;y)`$ is expected to depend on height, $`y`$. Previous studies suggest that this dependence occurs only through the second moment of the distribution, but this is a result that has not been proved up to now for vibrated granular systems in presence of gravity. We then define a scaled velocity by

$$c_x=\frac{v_x}{v_x^2^{1/2}},$$
(2)
and a scaled velocity distribution,

$$\varphi _x(c_x;y)=v_x^2^{1/2}P_x(v_x;y).$$
(3)
If all the dependence of the distribution on height occurs through the second moment (i.e. the temperature), $`\varphi _x`$ must be independent on height. This is one of the points to be checked in the simulations.

## III Scaled velocity distribution

In Figs. 2 and 3 the scaled velocity distribution $`\varphi _x`$ for $`\alpha =0.95`$ and two different values of the number of particles, $`N=300`$ ($`N_y=6`$) and $`N=600`$ ($`N_y=12`$), is plotted. The different symbols correspond to different heights in the system, as indicated in the figures. The solid line is the gaussian distribution, while the dotted-dashed line is the stretched exponential $`R(c_x)`$ defined in Eq. (1). The layers whose distribution is displayed in the figures are located before the density maximum, at the maximum, and after it. The position of the density maximum is $`y100`$ for both number of particles. The reason to display both $`\varphi _x`$ and its logarithm is that the former provides visual information about the distribution for thermal velocities, while the latter is more convenient to identifying the behavior of the tails of the distribution.

The first point we want to investigate is whether the spatial dependence of the velocity distribution can be scaled out with its (local) second moment. If we consider the natural plot of $`\varphi _x`$, the answer to this question may seem affirmative, at least in very good approximation. For given values of the parameters of the system, the symbols corresponding to different heights fall onto the same curve. Nevertheless, if we pay attention to the tails of the distribution, the answer is not so clear. Closer inspection of the logarithmic plots of $`\varphi _x`$ shows that the scaling is not exact, and, in particular, the distribution corresponding to the layer located at the density maximum has always the most populated tail and, therefore, is the narrowest distribution. This implies that the height dependence of the distribution has not been completely scaled out. Besides, the differences in shape of $`\varphi _x`$ at different heights cannot be a consequence of averaging in space an inhomogeneous distribution, since the height of the layers is very small, as indicated above. Still, it could happen that the deviations from the scaling behavior were only relevant in a narrow region around the density maximum. To investigate whether this is the case, and also to provide a more quantitative measurement of the departure from the scaling, we have computed the scaled fourth moment of the distribution, $`\gamma _4`$, defined as

$$\gamma _4=\frac{v_x^4}{v_x^2^2}.$$
(4)
If the velocity distribution depended on height only through its second moment, $`\gamma _4`$ would be constant through the system. If, in addition, the velocity distribution were a gaussian, $`\gamma _4=3`$, while if it were given by the stretched exponential $`R(c_x)`$, $`\gamma _43.756`$.

In Figs. 4 and 5 $`\gamma _4`$ has been plotted as a function of height for $`\alpha =0.95`$ and $`\alpha =0.9`$, respectively. In each case, several values of the number of particles in the system have been considered. The range of $`y`$ plotted corresponds to the relevant region in the system, i.e., before the density decays to a very low value. In all cases, $`\gamma _4`$ exhibits a clear dependence on height. For given $`\alpha `$, the failure of the scaling is more evident the larger the number of particles in the system. In fact, it is the number of particles and not the density the parameter governing the behavior of the VDF, as far as the system is fluidized. This has been checked by changing $`v_w`$ for fixed $`\alpha `$ and $`N`$, which implies modifying the density of the system, since it is opened at the top. The curves obtained for $`\gamma _4`$ were identical if the height was properly scaled with the vibrating velocity being used. The quantity $`\gamma _4`$ always follows the same trend: it takes a value very close to the gaussian one in the vicinity of the vibrating wall, then passes trough a maximum, and decays to a more or less constant value that depends on both $`\alpha `$ and $`N`$. Comparison of the behavior of $`\gamma _4`$ with the density and temperature profiles in each case shows that the position of the maximum of $`\gamma _4`$ is close to the density maximum, while the region with a roughly constant value of the scaled fourth moment occurs beyond the temperature minimum. It must be noticed as well that, for the largest number of monolayers considered, $`\gamma _4`$ seems to increase for large heights. Although it is true that the statistical noise there is large, increasing the statistics does not change the observed behavior.

The first conclusion emerging from the simulations is that the dependence on height of the transversal VDF of a vibrated granular gas in the presence of gravity cannot be scaled out with its width, i.e., with the local transversal granular temperature of the system. This might appear as rather surprising, especially taking into account what happens in other states of a granular gas. For instance, in the homogeneous cooling state, the VDF depends on time, but this dependence can be completely scaled out with the temperature, and the scaled fourth velocity moment reaches a plateau after a transient period . On the other hand, it is true that, for the cases reported here, the scaling can be taken as an accurate approximation in the thermal velocity region, at least for a not too large number of particles in the system. Besides, the more inelastic the system, the smaller the number of monolayers for which deviations from scaling begin to be significant.

Figures 2-5 also indicate that, even if we neglect the height dependence, the shape of the distribution still depends both on the inelasticity and the number of monolayers. For instance, in the case of Fig. 2, the VDF is very well approximated by a gaussian distribution for velocities up to $`|c_x|4`$. Some deviations from the gaussian appear for large velocities, but they are not very significant. As the number of particles is increased, keeping $`\alpha `$ fixed, the deviations from the gaussian shape become large, and the distribution gets narrower. This is the case of Fig. 3, where $`\varphi _x`$ lies between the gaussian distribution and $`R(c_x)`$ for thermal velocities, but the tail of the distribution is better approximated by the latter. If the number of particles is further increased, the distribution becomes narrower, in fact, narrower than $`R(c_x)`$. Again, as it happened with the scaling, the smaller $`\alpha `$, the smaller the number of particles for which deviations from the gaussian distribution appear, as it follows from Figs. 4 and 5.

Some authors have argued that, in a vibrated granular system, collisions with the wall tend to randomize the VDF, rendering it wide, while collisions between particles act as the ordering factor, because particle velocities are more parallel after collisions than before . To check if this argument is consistent with our simulation results, we have computed $`R_{pp/pw}`$, the ratio between the number of particle-particle and particle-wall collisions. We found that, as expected, it is an increasing function of the number of monolayers in the system. For instance, for $`\alpha =0.95`$ we found $`R_{pp/pw}41.1`$ for $`N=300`$, $`R_{pp/pw}67.5`$ for $`N=400`$, and $`R_{pp/pw}154.2`$ for $`N=600`$. Since, as indicated above, the width of the distribution decreases as the number of particles increases, we conclude that the larger $`R_{pp/pw}`$, the narrower the VDF. Moreover, the more inelastic the system, the more parallel the velocities after collisions, and the “ordering” mechanism is expected to be more efficient. This explains why, although for $`\alpha =0.9`$ and $`N=410`$ it is $`R_{pp/pw}103.3`$, the distribution is in this case narrower than the narrowest reported here for $`\alpha =0.95`$, which corresponds to larger values of the ratio $`R_{pp/pw}`$.

Finally, the fact that the accuracy of the fit of the VDF to both $`R(c_x)`$ and the gaussian distribution depends in most of the cases on the velocity interval considered, implies that $`\varphi _x`$ cannot be fitted by a stretched exponential function $`\varphi _x\mathrm{exp}\{C|c_x|^\beta \}`$, with a single value of the exponent $`\beta `$, in the whole velocity range.

All the above discussion suggests, in our opinion, that the role played by the gaussian distribution and $`R(c_x)`$ in the context of vibrated granular gases is very different. The gaussian distribution is a limiting behavior for small enough number of particles and not too inelastic systems. As the number of particles in the system increases, the scaled velocity distribution becomes narrower. In this range of parameters, $`R(c_x)`$ is just a good fit valid in some cases, but it does not represent a universal behavior, not even a limiting behavior of the VDF for some well-defined conditions.

## IV Symmetric boundary conditions

Given that the conclusions reached up to now in this work are so different from those emerging from the experiments reported by Rouyer and Menon , it seems worth to simulate the same kind of boundary conditions they use, in order to discard that the discrepancies are due to peculiarities of the boundaries. Therefore, instead of considering just one vibrating wall at $`y=0`$, we have added another vibrating wall at $`y=L=50\sigma `$. The choice of the maximum height, $`L`$, of the system, was made as to obtain very similar system dimensions as those in Ref. . The two vibrating walls are identical, and the vibrating velocity is chosen to generate symmetric around the center of the system stationary density and temperature profiles. The total number of particles was varied in the range $`300N500`$. In each case, we started from a homogeneous state, that was left to evolve until a stationary situation was reached. Then, the transversal VDF was computed in a layer located in the the center of the system, namely between $`0.4L`$ and $`0.6L`$. Care was taken that the system remained in a fluidized state in that central region. Note that, in this way and as it was done in Ref. , the VDF is measured now in a quite wide region of the system, and not in a narrow layer as we did in the previous study of the open system. Even if the gradients in that central region are expected to be small, they will be non vanishing, and the nonuniformity might influence the shape of the VDF.

In Fig. 6 we have plotted the scaled distribution $`\varphi _x`$ for $`\alpha =0.92`$, which is roughly the value of the coefficient of restitution for the steel balls used in , and three different values of the number of particles. As it was the case for the open system, the scaled VDF is seen to depend on the number of particles, becoming narrower as $`N`$ increases. This can be interpreted again in terms of the role of the particle-particle versus particles-wall number of collisions, as also in this case the ratio $`R_{pp/pw}`$ is an increasing function of the number of monolayers. More specifically, we found from the simulation data that $`R_{pp/pw}42`$ for $`N=300`$, $`R_{pp/pw}68`$ for $`N=400`$, and $`R_{pp/pw}103`$ for $`N=500`$.

The relevant role of the stretched exponential $`R(c_x)`$ is also questioned by Fig. 6. In all the cases displayed, the distribution for thermal velocities lies between the gaussian and $`R(c_x)`$. The tail of the distribution gets closer to $`R(c_x)`$ the larger $`N`$, and in fact only in the case $`N=500`$ is well fitted by the stretched exponential. Therefore, again the distribution cannot be fitted by a single stretched exponential in the whole velocity range. This is more clearly realized in Fig. 7, where $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(\varphi _x/\varphi _x(0))`$ has been plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}c_x`$. Let us notice that, if the distribution were some general stretched exponential, $`\varphi _x\mathrm{exp}\{C|c_x|^\beta \}`$, this plot would give a straight line whose slope would provide the exponent $`\beta `$. The symbols in the figure are from the simulations. Also plotted are two straight lines, one corresponding to $`\beta =2`$ (gaussian behavior) and the other one to $`\beta =1.5`$ ($`R(c_x)`$) as a guide to the eye. A transition from gaussian behavior for thermal velocities to a distribution with a smaller exponent $`\beta `$ for larger velocities is observed in all cases.

The results discussed up to now correspond to the VDF in the central region of the system. Nevertheless, we expect the transversal scaled VDF to depend also on $`y`$ in this case. In Fig. 8, $`\gamma _4`$ has been plotted as a function of height for the same values of the parameters as in Figs. 6 and 7. Again, we find that the dependence on height and the deviations from the gaussian are larger the larger the number of monolayers. As expected, $`\gamma _4`$ is symmetric around the center of mass. The exhibited double peak clearly indicated that the maximum of $`\gamma _4`$ does not happen either at the density maximum or at the temperature minimum, since they are both located at the center of the system.

## V Conclusions

The transversal velocity distribution of a vibrated granular gas in the presence of gravity has been studied by using Molecular Dynamics simulations. It has been found that the shape of the distribution depends both on the inelasticity of the system and the number of monolayers in the direction of gravity. Besides, it depends on height, and this dependence cannot be fully scaled out with its width, i.e., with the local transversal granular temperature of the system. This contrasts with some previous reported results for granular gases under similar conditions. On the other hand, it is true that the scaling provides a quite accurate approximation valid for not too inelastic systems and for not too large number of monolayers at rest.

For a given value of the coefficient of restitution $`\alpha `$, the transversal velocity distribution becomes narrower as the number of monolayers in the system is increased. This can be understood by taking into account that increasing the number of monolayers increases the ratio of number of particle-particle collisions against particle-wall collisions. In a granular system, the particle-particle collisions tend to suppress “noise” in the velocity distribution, as the velocities after the collision are more parallel than before it. Then, it is sensible to expect that, the larger the relative number of particle-particle collisions, the narrower the velocity distribution. On the other hand, the more inelastic the system the more effective each collision in narrowing the velocity distribution.

The role played by the gaussian distribution and the stretched exponential $`R(c_x)`$ has also been clarified. While the gaussian is a limiting behavior shown in the quasi-elastic and small number of monolayers limit, $`R(c_x)`$ appears just as a good fit for the velocity distribution for some range of values of the parameters characterizing the system.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge support from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) through Grant No. BFM2002-00303 (partially financed by FEDER founds).