Advertisement

The Onset of Binding for ΛΛ and ΛΞ Hypernuclei

Part of the Few-Body Systems book series (FEWBODY, volume 14)

Abstract

Faddeev calculations suggest that: (i)B ΛΛ (Λ Λ 6 He for the recent KEK emulsion event is compatible with fairly weak ΛΛ potentials V ΛΛ such as due to the Nijmegen soft-core NSC97 model; (ii) the isodoublet Λ Λ 5 H - Λ Λ 5 He hypernuclei are particle-stable even in the limit V ΛΛ → 0; and (iii) Λ Λ 4 H considered as a ΛΛd system is particle-stable over a wide range of strengths V ΛΛ However, four-body ΛΛpn Faddeev-Yakubovsky calculations do not produce a bound state for Λ Λ 4 H even for V ΛΛ considerably stronger than required to reproduce B ΛΛ ( Λ 6 He). This is in contrast to the normal situation (e.g. Λ Λ 10 Be) where a four-body Faddeev-Yakubovsky calculation yields stronger binding than that due to a suitably defined three-body Faddeev calculation.

For stranger systems, Faddeev calculations using ΛΞ interactions which simulate model NSC97 suggest that Λ Ξ 6 He marks the onset of nuclear stability for Ξ hyperons.

Keywords

Faddeev Calculation Nuclear Stability Rearrangement Channel Identical Nucleon Hypernuclear System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Schaffner-Bielich and A. Gal: Phys. Rev. C62, 034311 (2000); J. Schaffner-Bielich et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 171101 (2002)ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Takahashi et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 212502 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I.N. Filikhin and A. Gal: Nucl. Phys. A707, 491 (2002)ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Th.A. Rijken, V.G.J. Stoks, Y. Yamamoto: Phys. Rev. C59, 21 (1999)ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y.C. Tang and R.C. Herndon: Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 991 (1965)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    I.N. Filikhin and A. Gal: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 172502 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    I.N. Filikhin and A. Gal: Phys. Rev. C65, 041001(R) (2002)ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Hiyama et al.: Prog. Theor. Phys. 97, 881 (1997); Phys. Rev. C66, 024007 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.A. Malfliet and J.A. Tjon: Nucl. Phys. A127, 161 (1969)ADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V.G.J. Stoks and Th.A. Rijken: Phys. Rev. C59, 3009 (1999)ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.-L. Basdevant: private communication by J.-M. Richard (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Fukuda et al.: Phys. Rev. C58, 1306 (1998); P. Khaustov et al.: Phys. Rev. C61, 054603 (2000)ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.K. Ahn et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 132504 (2001); see, however, I. Kumagai-Fuse and S. Okabe: Phys. Rev. C66, 014003 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Schaffner et al.: Ann. Phys. [NY] 235, 35 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Toker, A. Gal, J.M. Eisenberg: Phys. Lett. B88, 235 (1979); Nucl. Phys. A362, 405 (1981)ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Gal
    • 1
  1. 1.Racah Institute of PhysicsThe Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations