Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
Meeting EoS - Femto
→
Europe/Berlin
Description
1) Updates from Isaac:
- Calculations made in β-stable matter comparing
- Meson-exchange Jülich vs NLO19(600): in chiral we have repulsive core, hence the production of Σ and Λ is pushed to higher densities
- NLO13 vs NLO19: here NLO19, as already shown in Johann´s paper, is more attractive than NLO13 due to the weaker coupling ΛΝ-ΣΝ hence hyperon production appearing at lower densities
- NLO19 vs NLO19 refitted deliver very similar results as expected since only the contact terms in the chiral potentials were constrained to the femto+scatt data.
- these β-stable matter calculations using chiral potentials represent already a novel result since in the Weise, Gerstung paper it was not done.
- For the project to be finalised in June-July, we will keep these refitted NLO19, add the S=-2 YN potentials from lattice and propagate the uncertainties.
- After finishing this project, we might be able to tackle the refitting of the LECs also involving the ΛΝ-ΣΝ transition that can be done since Isaac has already the potentials. We will have to ask for permission to Johann.
- Next week: Isaac will show us the first results on the fractions and M vs R (if computing time allows ;))
2) Updates from Raffa on 3-body
- three-body CF ppΛ using gaussian potentials
- discrepancy between Aljeandro and Raffa
- they use different values for the parameter M, which affects the hyper-radius and hyper momentum Q. The difference between his and our calc. may be related to that, probably x-axis (Q vs Q3) is not the same. To be checked running the same value as Alejandro .
Raffa will talk with alejandro to make the arb. mass use consistent, and understand what are the axes. - Using Usmani potential the differences become larger.
- alejandro uses Coulomb screened potential, checked that this is consistent with exact coulomb
- antisymmetrization: consistent, so this is not an issue
- This is probably due to coupling of L=0 and L=1, and non-trivial terms in the potential matrix, which need to be diagonalized. The diagonalization is not trivial at all.
- Maybe ask Alejandro to switch off the coupling and les gauge the effect of these terms.
- they use different values for the parameter M, which affects the hyper-radius and hyper momentum Q. The difference between his and our calc. may be related to that, probably x-axis (Q vs Q3) is not the same. To be checked running the same value as Alejandro .
- discrepancy between Aljeandro and Raffa
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
