The present status of the nuclear shell model

JUN 01, 1973

Useful though the shell model undoubtedly is for providing a correlation of the structure and properties of nuclei, theorists are still wondering why it works.

DOI: 10.1063/1.3128095

Elizabeth Urey Baranger

The nuclear shell model is the central idea of nuclear structure. Theorists work either backwards from it (by this I mean they try to justify and derive its properties by stating a basic many‐body Hamiltonian) or they work forward from it (they assume it is true and try to derive and justify the wide variety and complexity of nuclear properties including the well known phenomenon of nuclear collective motion). The shell model lurks somewhere in every paper on nuclear structure. The intense interest in the shell model among experimentalists for the last fifteen years has been due to the kinds of experiments that became possible during this time. It has been an era of direct reactions that characteristically excite simple degrees of freedom of the nucleus—just those most easily explained by the shell model. Without the possibility of these experiments and their analysis, the shell model might have been left mainly to the theorists, and they would have found it a very dry subject, without the wealth of experimental data they now have.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. G. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. 90, 587 (1953) and private communication.https://doi.org/PHRVAO
2. M. G. Mayer, J. H. D. Jensen, Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell Structure, Wiley, New York (1955).
3. H. A. Bethe, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 21, 93 (1971).https://doi.org/ARNUA8
4. B. D. Day, F. Coester, A. Goodman, Phys. Rev. 6, 1992 (1972).
5. J. W. Negele, Phys. Rev. C 1, 1260 (1970).https://doi.org/PRVCAN
6. K. T. R. Davies, R. J. McCarthy, P. U. Sauer, Phys. Rev. 6, 1461 (1972).
7. B. H. Brandow, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 771 (1967).https://doi.org/RMPHAT
8. A. P. Zucker, B. Buck, J. B. McGrory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 39 (1968).https://doi.org/PRLTAO
9. K. T. R. Davies, R. J. McCarthy, Phys. Rev. 4, 81 (1971).
10. M. Johnson, M. Baranger, Annals of Phys. 62, 172 (1971).https://doi.org/ANPYA2
11. T. T. S. Kuo, G. E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. 85, 40 (1966).https://doi.org/NUPHA7
12. M. W. Kirson, Annals of Phys. 66, 624 (1971); https://doi.org/ANPYA2
B. R. Barrett, M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys. A 148, 145 (1970).https://doi.org/NUPABL
13. J. Schiffer, in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Two‐Body Force in Nuclei, Gull Lake, Michigan, 1971, Plenum, New York (1972).
14. J. B. McGrory, B. H. Wildenthal, Phys. Rev. C7, 974 (1973).https://doi.org/PRVCAN
15. A. Bohr, B. Mottelson, preprint.
16. Nuclear Data Sheets; C. M. Lederer, J. M. Hollander, I. Perlman, Table of Isotopes, Wiley, New York (1968).
17. D. Larson, S. M. Austin, B. H. Wildenthal, Annual Report 1971–2, Cyclotron Lab. Michigan State University.
18. Nuclear Data Sheets, B5 (1971); https://doi.org/NDSBAL
Nuclear Data Tables 9 (1971).https://doi.org/NTXAAJ

More about the Authors

Elizabeth Urey Baranger. Sciences, University of Pittsburgh.