format: text

text:
# A correlated model for Λ–hypernuclei

## I Introduction

The microscopic study of atomic nuclei has gained in the recent years a noticeable level of reliability, following the improved knowledge of the interaction between the nucleons and the development of new and more sophisticated many–body theories. It is now possible to exactly solve the Schrödinger equation for nuclei containing up to $`A=8`$ nucleons, while the structure of medium and heavy nuclei can be to a large extent understood by means either of variational techniques or of highly refined perturbative expansions. These relatively recent developments have clearly stressed several inadequacies of the independent particle model (IPM), on which the time honoured shell model is based. For instance, the IPM completely fails in describing the large energy behaviour of the one nucleon momentum distribution and the quenching of the spectroscopic factors.

The scenario is not equally bright for hypernuclei, or bound systems of nucleons and one or more strange baryons, as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons. The many–body techniques developed for the nuclei can be, in most of the cases, straightforwardly extended to the hypernuclei, at least from a formal point of view. However, the weak point of a consistent microscopic approach now lies in the poorer understanding of the hyperon–nucleon (YN) and hyperon–hyperon (YY) interactions with respect to the nuclear case. The limited amount of information on the YN scattering data is a consequence of the experimental difficulties due to the short lifetime of the hyperons and to the low intensity of the beam fluxes. For this reason phenomenological models and effective YN interactions have been often used in the study of hypernuclei. Approaches based upon Skyrme interactions  and Woods–Saxon  potentials as well as relativistic mean field theories  have been used. However, also microscopic YN potentials have been recently produced  and adopted to study the structure of hypernuclei from $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O to $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{208}`$Pb . The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single–particle properties have been investigated in details in Ref. , making use of the nuclear matter Fermi hypernetted chain results in a local density approximation.

In this paper we present a microscopic study of the structure of various hypernuclei containing a single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon. This study has been done by extending the correlated basis functions theory and the Fermi hypernetted chain (FHNC) equations technique  to describe nucleonic systems containing one hyperonic impurity. The nucleon–nucleon (NN) interaction we have chosen is the semi-realistic two–nucleon S3 potential of Afnan and Tang , as modified in Ref.. In the present work we neglect the three–nucleon potential. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–nucleon ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N) potential we have chosen that proposed by Bodmer and Usmani . We have investigated the effects of many-body forces involving the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by explicitly considering a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NN`$ interaction or, alternatively, by including a density dependence in the bare $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ force.

The interactions generate strong NN and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N correlations, beyond those described by a mean field approach. In our work the correlation effects are accounted for by a Jastrow correlated wave function, where the two–body correlations depend on the interparticle distances only. More realistic hamiltonians demand for a strong spin and isospin dependence in the correlation factor. However, we consider the simple Jastrow ansatz as a first step towards a more complete description of the hypernuclei. The same strategy has been followed for doubly closed shell nuclei, where the accuracy of the variational method has now reached the same level as in nuclear matter.

The FHNC equations for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ embedded in infinite nuclear matter were developed in Ref.. In Ref., doubly closed shell nuclei in $`ls`$–coupling were studied by FHNC and Jastrow–type correlations, while the $`jj`$–coupling was introduced in such a scheme in Ref.. It was so possible to study nuclei ranging from 12C to 208Pb within the correlated basis function theory, using cluster expansion at all orders and avoiding such shortcuts as low order cluster truncations and local density approximations. The results obtained in those papers are the basis of the present FHNC study of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–hypernuclei.

The plan of the paper is as follows: section II is devoted to a brief description of the hamiltonian and of the correlated wave function; section III gives an outline of the FHNC theory for the hypernucleus; in section IV the expressions for the variational energy are presented and discussed; the results are given in section V and the conclusions are drawn in section VI.

## II Hamiltonian and trial wavefunctions.

The system under study is a hypernucleus composed by $`A`$ nucleons and one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon. The formalism we have developed is however general enough to describe any nuclear systems containing a non-nucleonic particle, treated as an impurity in the nucleonic fluid.

We write the hamiltonian of the system as:

$`H_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`H_N+H_\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}}_i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j>i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}V^{NN}(i,j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}V^{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}(\mathrm{\Lambda },i)+{\displaystyle \underset{j>i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}V_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }NN}(\mathrm{\Lambda },i,j),`$
where we have considered two– and three–body interactions between the hyperon and the nucleons and only two–body ones between the nucleons. In the hamiltonian (3) the purely nucleonic part, $`H_N`$, has been separated from that involving the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The separation will be useful in the remainder of the paper.

As already stated in the introduction, we use the modified NN S3 potential, which is fixed to reproduce the $`s`$ wave scattering nucleon-nucleon phase shifts at low energies, gives reasonable results both for light nuclei and nuclear matter and allows for utilizing only central two–body correlations between the nucleons. The operatorial structure of S3 is:

$$V^{NN}(i,j)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}V^p(r_{ij})O_{ij}^p,$$
(4)
where $`O_{i,j}^{p=14}=1`$, $`𝝈_i𝝈_j`$, $`𝝉_i𝝉_j`$, $`𝝈_i𝝈_j𝝉_i𝝉_j`$. Modern nucleon-nucleon potentials are more complicated and contain the essential tensor terms, absent in S3. On the other hand, we are mainly interested in presenting and testing the formalism. Adopting the S3 potential is sufficient for this purpose and has the advantage of avoiding the technical complications deriving from the use of more realistic potentials.

Within the same philosophy, we have chosen the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–nucleon potential proposed by Bodmer and Usmani . This potential has central, spin and space–exchange components:

$$V^{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}(1,2)=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^1(r_{12})+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^2(r_{12})𝝈_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝝈_N+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^x(r_{12})P_x,$$
(5)
with

$`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`v_0(r)\left(1ϵ\right),`$ (6)
$`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(v_sv_t)T_\pi ^2(r),`$ (7)
$`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^x(r)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵv_0(r),`$ (8)
where $`P_x`$ is the spatial exchange operator and $`v_0`$ is defined as:

$$v_0(r)=\frac{W_c}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{rR}{a})}\frac{1}{4}(v_s+3v_t)T_\pi ^2(r).$$
(9)
The one-pion exchange term is

$$T_\pi (r)=\left(1+\frac{3}{\mu r}+\frac{3}{(\mu r)^2}\right)\frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}\left(1e^{cr^2}\right)^2,$$
(10)
with the pion mass $`\mu `$=0.7 fm-1 and the cutoff parameter $`c`$=2.0 fm-2. The values of the various parameters $`v_s,v_t,ϵ,W_c,R,a`$ are given in Ref. . In this reference, a three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nucleon-nucleon interaction was added to the just described $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nucleon one in order to fit the hypernucleus $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{17}O`$ empirical $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by the variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NN`$ interaction has an important, attractive two-pion exchange part, which is the source of a tensor term. The tensor contribution, however, results to be zero if simple central correlations are adopted. As a consequence, such a semi-microscopic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NN`$ interaction is too repulsive in a Jastrow correlated model, as we shall discuss later. For this reason, we simulate the effects of three– and more–body potentials by using an approach similar to that developed by Friedman and Pandharipande for pure nucleonic matter . We multiply $`V^{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}(1,2)`$ by a density dependent function

$$F_\rho (1,2)=\mathrm{exp}\{\gamma [\rho (r_1)+\rho (r_2)]/2\},$$
(11)
where $`\rho (r)`$ is the nucleonic density. The value of the parameter $`\gamma `$ is fixed to reproduce the empirical value of a single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy in nuclear matter, $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{NM}=30`$ MeV.

The binding energy of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle is defined as minus the difference between the energies of the nuclear systems with and without the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ :

$`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}<H_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}<H_N>_A`$ (13)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}<T_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{cm}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}<T_N^{cm}>_A\right),`$
where we have used the notation:

$$<X>_Y=\frac{1}{<\mathrm{\Psi }_Y|\mathrm{\Psi }_Y>}𝑑𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_Y^{}X\mathrm{\Psi }_Y,$$
(14)
with $`Y=A+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`A`$. In the previous equations we have averaged on the third component of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ total angular momentum and we have explicitly singled out the difference between the center of mass energies of the two systems.

Our approach is based upon the variational principle, therefore the energy functionals given in eq.(13), $`<H_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`<H_N>_A`$, should be independently minimized with respect to variations of the many-body wavefunctions, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Y`$. The hypernucleus wavefunction is chosen as:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{\mathrm{\Lambda }i})\right)\varphi _{nljm}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫_\mathrm{\Lambda })|\mathrm{\Psi }_A>,$$
(15)
where $`\varphi _{nljm}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the mean-field single particle wavefunction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`jj`$–coupling, $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{\mathrm{\Lambda }i})`$ is a two-body scalar (Jastrow) correlation between the hyperon and a single nucleon and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_A>`$ is the correlated wave function describing the remaining $`A`$ nucleons. In our calculation this function is defined as:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_A>=\left(\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{A}{}}f_N(r_{ij})\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{N,Z}(1,\mathrm{},A),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N,Z}`$ is the Slater determinant of a set of single particle wave functions of $`N`$ neutrons and $`Z`$ protons. Obviously, $`A=Z+N`$.

## III Densities and FHNC equations

The energy expectation values are evaluated by means of the Fermi hypernetted chain cluster diagrams resummation technique. As already mentioned, our approach consists in considering the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as an impurity in the nucleonic fluid. The FHNC equations for an impurity in homogeneous matter were derived in Ref.  for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon in symmetric nuclear matter and in Refs.  for a 4He atomic impurity in liquid 3He.

Our aim is the evaluation the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy in finite nuclear systems. To this purpose, we extend the FHNC equations developed in Ref. for doubly closed shell nuclei in the $`jj`$–coupling scheme with a Jastrow correlated wave functions.

The basic quantities to be analyzed are the one- and two-body densities (OBD and TBD). It is convenient to define densities for each type of particle, protons $`p`$, neutrons $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$`\rho _{1,A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{A}{}}}\delta (𝐫𝐫_k)P_k^\alpha _{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (17)
$`\rho _1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝐫𝐫_\mathrm{\Lambda })_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (18)
where $`\alpha =p,n`$, $`P^\alpha `$ is the projector operator over the particle of $`\alpha `$ type. An averaged sum on the third components of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle angular momentum is understood. As in Refs. the densities are evaluated by using cluster expansion techniques. The nucleonic OBD are divided in two parts:

$$\rho _{1,A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫)=\rho _{1,A}^\alpha (𝐫)+\rho _{1,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫).$$
(19)
The first part is given by the sum of the cluster diagrams containing only nucleons, and represents the nuclear bulk contribution to the OBD. One of the diagrams contributing to this part is the $`A`$ diagram of Fig.1. The second part of eq. 19, called rearrangement term, is obtained by summing all the diagrams containing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as an internal particle, like the diagram $`B`$ of Fig.1, and provides the modification of the nucleon OBD due to the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ impurity. A mean-field description of the hypernucleus does not provide any rearrangement term. Finally, the diagrams where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an external particle, like the $`C`$ diagram of Fig.1, are summed in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-OBD, $`\rho _1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)`$. The separation of the one-body densities in bulk, rearrangement and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms will be very useful for the calculation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy in the nucleus and it will be exploited also for the calculation of other quantities occurring in the FHNC scheme.

In analogy with the one–body densities, we define the two–body densities as:

$`\rho _{2,q,A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kl=1}{\overset{A}{}}}\delta (𝐫𝐫_k)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_l)O_{kl}^qP_k^\alpha P_l^\beta _{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\rho _{2,q,A}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫,𝐫^{})+\rho _{2,q,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫,𝐫^{}),`$ (21)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =p,n`$ and $`O_{kl}^q`$ is one of the operators defined in eq.(4). The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N two–body densities are defined as:

$`\rho _{2,q}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝐫𝐫_\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{A}{}}}\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_k)O_{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}^qP_k^\alpha _{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ (22)
$`\rho _{2,x}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝐫𝐫_\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{A}{}}}\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_k)P_xP_k^\alpha _{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ (23)
where $`O_{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}^q=1,𝝈_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝝈_k`$ are the operators of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction (5), and $`P_x`$ is the space exchange operator between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the k-nucleon.

In the FHNC approach the TBD are described in terms of two-body correlation functions $`f_N(r_{kl})`$ and $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{\mathrm{\Lambda }k})`$, and of uncorrelated densities. The latter are built from a single particle basis, defined in the present paper as a set of $`jj`$ coupled wave functions of the type:

$$\varphi _k^t(x)\varphi _{nljm}^t(𝐫)=R_{nlj}^t(r)\underset{\mu ,s}{}<l\mu \frac{1}{2}s|jm>Y_{l,\mu }(\widehat{r})\chi _s,$$
(24)
where $`t=p,n,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`Y_{l,\mu }`$ are the spherical harmonics, $`<l\mu \frac{1}{2}s|jm>`$ are the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients and $`\chi _s`$ the two-component Pauli spinors.

In the nucleonic case, the uncorrelated two–body densities are:

$`\rho _0^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _k^\alpha (𝐫_1)\varphi _k^\alpha (𝐫_2)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,s^{}}{}}\rho _0^{s,s^{},\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\chi _s^{}(1)\chi _s^{}(2).`$ (26)
The explicit expressions of the parallel, $`s=s^{}`$, and antiparallel $`s=s^{}`$ densities are given in Ref.  together with the other purely nucleonic FHNC quantities.

We briefly discuss here the quantities involving the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The uncorrelated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one–body density is given by:

$$\rho _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2j+1}\underset{m}{}\varphi _{nljm}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)\varphi _{nljm}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(R_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)\right)^2.$$
(27)
The one-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ uncorrelated density matrix is needed to calculate diagrams where the spatial coordinates between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and one nucleon are exchanged. Its expression is:

$$\rho _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\frac{1}{4\pi }R_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)R_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_2)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}),$$
(28)
where we have indicated with $`P_l`$ the Legendre polynomial of $`l`$th degree and $`\theta _{12}`$ the angle between the two vectors.

A detailed description of the FHNC equations in the nucleonic matter, in a $`jj`$ coupled single particle basis computational scheme, has been done in Ref. . We do not give here the equations for this case, but we rather present and discuss the changes related to the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The FHNC $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–densities are:

$`\rho _1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=\xi _e^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)\rho _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r),`$ (29)
$`\xi _e^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{exp}[U_d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)],`$ (30)
$`C_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\rho _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)\mathrm{exp}[U_d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)]},`$ (31)
$`\rho _{2,1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)\left(\xi _d^\beta (r_2)g_{dd}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+\xi _e^\beta (r_2)g_{de}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right),`$ (32)
$`\rho _{2,2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (33)
The functions $`\xi _{d,e}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$, $`U_d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ and $`g_{xy}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ are analogous to their nucleonic partners whose expressions are given in the Appendices A and B of Ref. , and they are obtained with the substitution $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In extending the expressions given in the reference, we should remember that there is no sum on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, since it is just a single external impurity, and that we consider the same correlation function between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and any type of nucleon: $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(r_{12})=f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{12})`$ with $`\beta =p,n`$.

Eq.(33) shows that, in our case, the spin component of the two-body density, $`\rho _{2,2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }`$, is zero. The reason lies in the fact that only diagrams corresponding to exchanges between identical particles contribute to the spin component of the two–body density for Jastrow correlated wave functions. As a consequence they do not affect the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N–TBD. Direct diagrams, where the particles are not exchanged, may contribute to $`\rho _{2,2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }`$ only if the correlation contains spin dependent components (which is not our case). Moreover, this type of contribution has been found to be generally small .

The evaluation of the diagrams containing the space exchange $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential requires the introduction of a space exchange density, given by:

$$\rho _{2,x}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{2}{C_\mathrm{\Lambda }}f_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\rho _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫,𝐫^{})\rho ^{ss\alpha }(𝐫,𝐫^{}),$$
(34)
where $`\rho ^{ss\alpha }(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is defined as in Appendix B of , with the substitutions $`f_{\alpha \beta }(r_{12})f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{12})f_N(r_{12})`$ in the construction of the $`g_{\omega d}`$ functions.

The expressions of the rearrangement terms are quite lengthy since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be present in any of the elements involved in the densities. We give below the expression of the contributions to the one–body density:

$`\rho _{1,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(U_{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)\left[\rho _0^\alpha (r)+U_e^\alpha (r)\right]+U_{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)\right)\mathrm{exp}[U_d^\alpha (r)]`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`\xi _d^\alpha (r)U_{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)+\xi _e^\alpha (r)U_{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)=\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r),`$ (36)
$`\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)`$ $`=`$ $`U_{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r)\mathrm{exp}[U_d^\alpha (r)].`$ (37)
The $`U_{X=d,e}^\alpha `$ functions are given in Ref., while the $`U_{X,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha `$ and the rearrangement parts of the two–body densities are given in the Appendix.

## IV The variational energy

In this section we discuss the evaluation of the variational energy of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernucleus in the framework of the FHNC approach. The potential energy is separated into its nucleonic and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pieces:

$$<V_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}=<V_N>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}+<V_\mathrm{\Lambda }>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(38)
The expectation values can be expressed in terms of the two–body distribution functions as:

$`<\overline{V}_N>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2V^q(r_{12})\rho _{2,q,A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)}`$ (39)
$`=<V_N>_A`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2V^q(r_{12})\rho _{2,q,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)},`$ (40)
$`<\overline{V}_\mathrm{\Lambda }>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^q(r_{12})\rho _{2,q}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)}+`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^x(r_{12})\rho _{2,x}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)},`$
where $`<\overline{V}>`$ indicates the average on the third components of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ angular momentum and $`<V_N>_A`$ is the bulk nucleonic potential energy.

Because the minimizations of $`<H_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`<H_N>_A`$ must be, in principle, carried on independently, the nucleon–nucleon Jastrow correlation, $`f_N(r)`$, might be different in the two cases, as well as the nucleon single particle wave functions, $`\varphi _k(𝐫)`$. However, we found that in our cases $`f_N(r)`$ and $`\varphi _k(𝐫)`$ do not practically change in going from the $`A`$ to the $`A+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system. As a consequence, in our approach the nucleonic part of the hypernucleus wave function has been kept the same as in nucleus. This fact allows for obtaining the potential energy contribution to the binding energy of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by subtracting the pure nucleus $`<V_N>_A`$ from $`<\overline{V}_N>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The remaining part is separated in two contributions: the potential energy due to the interaction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–nucleon, or interaction energy, and the modifications of the nucleon–nucleon potential energy due to the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or rearrangement energy. We put in evidence these contributions by rewriting:

$$V_\mathrm{\Lambda }=<\overline{V}_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}<V_N>_A=V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^I+V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^R,$$
(43)
with

$$V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^I=\underset{\alpha =p,n}{}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\left(\underset{q=1}{\overset{2}{}}V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^q(r_{12})\rho _{2,q}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^x(r_{12})\rho _{2,x}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right),$$
(44)
and

$$V_\mathrm{\Lambda }^R=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =p,n}{}\underset{q=1}{\overset{4}{}}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2V^q(r_{12})\rho _{2,q,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2).$$
(45)
The separation in interaction and rearrangement terms can also be done for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ kinetic energy, evaluated here by means of the Jackson–Feenberg expression . Following an analysis similar to that done for the potential energy, we obtain:

$$T_\mathrm{\Lambda }=<\overline{T}_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}<T_N>_A=T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^I+T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^R.$$
(46)
The interaction kinetic energy is given by:

$`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑\rho _{T1}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)\xi _e^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫)}`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2t[f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_{12})]\rho _{2,1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)},`$
with

$$\rho _{T1}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[R_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)\left(D_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)\frac{l(l+1)}{r_1^2}R_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)\right)\left(R_{nlj}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)\right)^2\right].$$
(49)
The expressions of $`t[f_\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`D_{nlj}^\alpha `$ can be obtained from Ref. (Eq.(16) and Appendix C).

The rearrangement part of the kinetic energy is:

$`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2t[f_N(r_{12})]\rho _{2,1,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)}`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1\rho _{T1}^\alpha (𝐫_1)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle }d𝐫_1d𝐫_2\rho _{T2}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)[\xi _e^\alpha (𝐫_1)\xi _e^\alpha (𝐫_2)g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+`$
$`(\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1)\xi _e^\alpha (𝐫_2)+\xi _e^\alpha (𝐫_1)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_2))g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle }d𝐫_1d𝐫_2[\rho _{T3,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)H_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`+\rho _{T3,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)H_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)],`$
where

$`H_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_1)[\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)((g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)N_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2))+N_{cc,D}^{(x)\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`(\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)1)N_{cc,D}^{(\rho )\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)]`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`\xi _e^\alpha (r_1)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_2)g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\left(N_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+E_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right)`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`\xi _e^\alpha (r_1)[\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)((g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)N_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)N_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+N_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(x)\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$ (60)
$`+`$ $`\left(\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)1\right)N_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(\rho )\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)(g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2))].`$ (62)
Again the expressions of $`\rho _{Tk}^\alpha `$ for $`k=1,2,3`$ can be found in the appendix C of .

The difference of the center of mass kinetic energies is given by:

$$T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{cm}=\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{Am+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}<T_N^{cm}>_A\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4(Am+m_\mathrm{\Lambda })}𝑑𝐫_1\rho _{T1}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐫_1),$$
(63)
and the expression of $`<T_N^{cm}>_A`$ is given in eq. (23) of Ref..

## V Results

We have studied the ground state structure of those $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–hypernuclei having $`N`$ and $`Z`$ values corresponding to doubly closed shell nuclei in $`jj`$–coupling, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{41}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{49}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{91}`$Zr and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{209}`$Pb. The same set of nuclei where the neutron in the highest neutron single particle level has been substituted by a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon ($`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{40}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{48}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{90}`$Zr and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{208}`$Pb) have been also considered. In order to deal in FHNC with the partially occupied neutronic level, we adopt the following procedure: the degeneracy factor $`2j+1`$, multiplying the partially occupied state contribution to the uncorrelated nucleonic OBD, has been replaced by the factor $`2j`$. In this way, the OBD results normalized to $`A1`$. Moreover, in the spin parallel part of the uncorrelated nucleonic TBD, $`\rho ^P`$, the $`2j+1`$ factor has been substituted by $`2\sqrt{(2l+1)(2l+1/2)}4l+2j1`$, while the (much smaller) antiparallel part, $`\rho ^A`$, remains unchanged. This choice ensures a correct normalization of the TBD.

Two different mean field potentials have been used to build the single–particle nuclear wave functions. The first potential is a harmonic oscillator (HO) well with the same constant, $`b_N`$, for protons and neutrons; the second choice is the Woods–Saxon (WS) potential used in the calculations of Ref.. The parameters of the WS potential are different for protons and neutrons. We have always used a harmonic oscillator potential for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single–particle potential.

The correlation functions have a gaussian form:

$$f_{X=\mathrm{\Lambda },N}(r)=1\alpha _X\mathrm{exp}(\beta _Xr^2).$$
(64)
In order to calculate $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we first minimize the bulk energy of the nucleus, $`<H_N>_A`$. The minimization has been performed for each nucleus in two ways, depending on the nucleonic single–particle used. In the case of the HO potential, the nuclear correlation, $`f_N(r)`$, has been taken from nuclear matter and the nucleus energy has been obtained by varying only the values of the oscillator constant of the HO mean field. For the Woods–Saxon case, the mean field potential has been kept fixed as in Ref.  and the parameters of the correlation have been varied. We consider the WS model as the most realistic one, since its parameters have been determined to reproduce at best the nuclear densities. It must be noticed that, in the region of the variational space corresponding to the energy minimum, the energy itself is rather insensitive to small changes of the WS parameters. Therefore it is possible to reproduce the densities and the radii without excessively spoiling the quality of the minimum.

For the description of the nucleonic part of the hypernucleus we take the same $`f_N(r)`$ and mean field potential as in the corresponding nucleus. Then, $`<H_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is minimized by changing only the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–HO constant and the parameters of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–nucleon correlation function, $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$.

The parameters of the nuclear correlation (64) with the HO mean field are $`\alpha _N=0.7`$ and $`\beta _N=2.0`$ fm-2. The nuclear matter binding energy per nucleon with this correlation and the S3 potential, at saturation density ($`\rho _{NM}=0.16`$ fm-3), is $`B_{NM}`$=14.43 MeV, close enough to the empirical value, $`B_{NM,\mathrm{emp}}`$=16 MeV, and comparable with the best, more sophisticated potentials on the market. For each nucleus the value of the oscillator constant, $`b_N`$, has been fixed to get the energy minimum. In Table I we compare our HO and WS binding energies and rms charge radii with their experimental values. A general reasonable agreement is found, considering the relative simplicity of both wave functions and interactions. In particular, the WS radii are close the experimental ones. The 12C nucleus represents somehow an anomaly, having a good estimate of the radius but a very small binding energy. The origin of this disagreement is still under investigation. It may be related to the inadequacy of a spherical model description of this nucleus.

The parameter $`\gamma `$ of the density dependent potential (DDP), described in Section II, has been chosen to reproduce the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy in nuclear matter, $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda },NM}`$. We find $`\gamma =2.2`$ fm3 and $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda },NM}=30.26`$ MeV and this value of the parameter $`\gamma `$ has been used in the remaining finite systems calculations. The parameters of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–HO mean fields and of the $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ correlations at the $`<H_{N+\mathrm{\Lambda }}>_{A+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ minimum are shown in Table II.

In Table III we compare the contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy in the doubly closed shell hypernuclei calculated with the HO nucleonic mean field with those evaluated in nuclear matter We have also separated the interaction (I) and rearrangement (R) terms in the kinetic and potential energies. The upper part of the table gives the results with the two–body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction only and the related $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy, $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}`$. In the lower part of the table the contribution of the three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction of Ref. and the corresponding binding energy $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}`$ are shown. Finally we present the results obtained with the DDP potential.

Since the empirical value of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O is estimated to be about 13 MeV , the result obtained with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N force only is too attractive. The VMC calculation of Ref.  gives $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{VMC}}^{(2)}(_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{17}\mathrm{O})`$=27.5$`\pm `$2.0 MeV, in qualitative agreement with our value. The empirical binding energy was reproduced in the VMC approach by the inclusion of an explicit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN force. Using the same three–body potential, we obtain $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{17}\mathrm{O})`$=6.81 MeV. We have already pointed out that central, Jastrow, correlations underestimate the attractive contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction, as clearly appears from the $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}`$ value. This potential, when used in conjunction with Jastrow correlated wave functions, does not even bind the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in heavy nuclei. Tensor–like correlations are needed in order to effectively use potentials induced by one– and more–pion exchanges in spherically symmetric systems. The introduction of a DDP, fitted to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding in nuclear matter, brings $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reasonably close to the empirical estimate, even with a relatively simple correlation. All the results presented hereafter have been obtained with the DDP.

In Table IV we give the binding energies of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in its $`1s`$ ground state, calculated with the HO single particle potential for several hypernuclei and nuclear matter. We explicitly show the overall interaction and rearrangement contributions. The difference of the center of mass kinetic energies has been included in the rearrangement part. The increase of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy along A is mostly produced by the interaction energy and, specifically, by its potential energy part. In contrast, the dependence of the rearrangement energy on $`A`$ is much weaker. We found an analogous behavior the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ energies in the $`1p`$ and $`1d`$ states. To complete the information we give in Table V, the results for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ energies in the $`1p`$ and $`1d`$ states with the nucleonic HO mean field. In Table VI we compare the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energies obtained with a Woods–Saxon nucleonic mean field with the experimental energies. For the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{90}`$Zr the comparison is done with the energies measured in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{89}`$Y.

The results for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energies are summarized in Fig.2, where they are presented as a function of $`A^{2/3}`$ and compared with the experimental energies of Refs.  (dots),  (triangles) and  for the 13C. The figure gives the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ energies in the $`1s`$, $`1p`$ and $`1d`$ states. The quality of the agreement with the experiment is rather good, in spite of the simplicity of the model. By inspecting the figure in more details, we find that all the calculations underbind the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Carbon by $`30\%`$, and provide a steeper variation of $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with respect to the experiments. This behavior resembles that already described in Carbon nucleus. It is also worth noticing that, as expected, the heavier nuclei, Zr and Pb, are better described by the Woods-Saxon well than by the HO one.

The effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N correlations on the one–body densities are shown in Fig.3, where the proton densities in four nuclei are compared. The dotted lines are the IPM densities, the dashed lines are the densities obtained in a purely nucleonic FHNC calculations, and, finally, the full curves represent the proton densities obtained when a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon is added in the $`s`$ wave to the doubly magic nucleonic core. In general, correlation effects are more important in Oxygen and Calcium than in the other two nuclei. Moreover, the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not heavily modify the nucleonic densities. This is better shown in Fig.4, where the differences between proton (panel $`a`$) and neutron (panel $`b`$) densities with and without the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are given. The differences shown in the figure have been amplified by a factor 1000. The heavier nuclei seem to be much more stable against deformations produced by the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

This picture might change when the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is inserted in the nucleonic core by substituting the last bound neutron. The differences, multiplied by 1000, between the nucleonic densities of the isotopic hypernuclei with A+1 and A hadrons are given in Fig.5. The panels show the differences between the protons (upper) and neutron (lower) densities. The conservation of the charge and mass numbers for each hypernucleus implies that the curves in the upper panel are normalized to zero, while those in the lower panel are normalized to one.

The analysis of this figure indicates that the nucleonic part is more perturbed if the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ substitutes a neutron having a low angular momentum, like in O, Ca, and Pb. In Zr the neutron modified into a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is lying on the $`1g_{9/2}`$ level ($`l`$=5), and its wave function is peaked at the surface of the nucleus, as shown in panel $`(b)`$ of Fig.5. In any case, heavy nuclei have again densities more rigid against deformations induced by the hyperon.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ densities in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{41}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{91}`$Zr and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{209}`$Pb for $`s`$ and $`p`$ waves are shown in Fig.6. The dashed lines are the IPM densities and the full ones those obtained in the full calculations. Results very similar have been obtained for the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{40}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{90}`$Zr and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{208}`$Pb hypernuclei. Again, the differences between the IPM and FHNC approaches are smaller for the heavier systems.

## VI Conclusions

In this work we have studied some properties of hypernuclei containing one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon in the framework of the correlated basis functions theory. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energies in the $`s`$, $`p`$ and $`d`$ states, its density and the rearrangement part of the one–nucleon densities have been computed for hypernuclei whose nucleonic core has a doubly closed shell structure in $`jj`$ coupling. The hyperon has been either added to the core ($`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{41}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{49}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{91}`$Zr and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{209}`$Pb) or substituted to a neutron in its highest shell ($`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{40}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{48}`$Ca, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{90}`$Zr and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{208}`$Pb).

The correlated wave function contains gaussian, Jastrow correlations for the NN and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N pairs. The correlations act on a hypernuclear shell model wave function generated $`i)`$ by a harmonic oscillator or Woods–Saxon mean field for the nucleonic part and $`ii)`$ by a harmonic oscillator well for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle potential. Cluster expansion and Fermi hypernetted chain resummation technique have been used. The energy of the system has been minimized with respect to variations on the parameters of the wave function. We have employed semirealistic hamiltonians with the S3 two–nucleon potential of Afnan and Tang, the Bodmer and Usmani $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential and either a model of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN three–particle interaction, still proposed by Bodmer and Usmani, or a density dependent modification of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N force, in order to take into account many–hadron interactions.

Using the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN potential with Jastrow correlations severely underestimates the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy, since the important, attractive tensor component of the two–pion exchange potential does not contribute in this model. In contrast, the density dependent modification of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N potential, fitted to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding in nuclear matter, provides results for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy in nuclei in encouraging agreement with the experimental data. In fact, the disagreement is less than 10$`\%`$ in all hypernuclei, for both $`s`$ and $`p`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states. The only exception is provided by the carbon hypernuclei, showing a discrepancy with the experiments of $``$30$`\%`$ that could be ascribed to the inefficiency of a spherically symmetric description of these systems. Moreover, our analysis stresses the importance of adopting a good independent particle wave function as a starting point. In fact, the Woods–Saxon nucleonic mean field, fitted to the experimental one–nucleon densities, gives a better description of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding than the harmonic oscillator model, especially in the heavy hypernuclei.

The nucleonic core polarization effects due to the presence of the hyperon are more important in the lighter hypernuclei than in the heavier ones, both for the energy and for the one–nucleon densities. The rearrangement contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energy go from $`20\%`$ in C to $`5\%`$ in Pb and nuclear matter. As far as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–density is concerned, the influence of the correlations is much more visible in O and Ca than in the heavier Zr and Pb.

The results shown in this paper have been obtained by means of relatively simple hamiltonians, which entitle to use equally simple wave functions. However, hyperon–nucleon interactions may now be built on more microscopic grounds. It is to be expected that an effective use of these hamiltonians will ask for a more sophisticated correlation, with a strong dependence on the relative state of the correlated pair. The situation closely resembles that in doubly closed shell nuclei and in nuclear matter, where the introduction of modern potentials has prompted the extension of the correlated basis functions and FHNC theories in that direction. Another interesting field of application of this technology is the study of hypernuclei with two or more hyperons, especially in view of a better determination of the hyperon–hyperon interaction.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by MURST through the Progetto di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale: Fisica teorica del nucleo atomico e dei sistemi a molticorpi and by the Spanish Dirección General de Ciencia y Tecnología under project PB98-1318.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we collect the different contributions to the rearrangement part of the one– and two–body densities, where one of the internal particles must be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon. Following this rule, we obtain:

$`U_{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d𝐫_2\{\xi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_2)(X_{dd}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{dd}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{dd}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1))`$ (65)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(\xi _d^\beta (r_2)(X_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$ (73)
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$`+\xi _e^\beta (r_2)(X_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$
$`S_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$`+\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2)\left(X_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)\right)`$
$`+\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2)(X_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)))\},`$
$`U_{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d𝐫_2\{\xi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)(X_{ed}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{ed}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{ed}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$ (75)
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(\xi _d^\beta (r_2)(X_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$ (88)
$`S_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$`+\xi _e^\beta (r_2)(X_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$
$`S_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`S_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`S_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$`+\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2)(X_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$`+\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2)(X_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)E_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)1)`$
$`S_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)S_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$
$`S_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)))`$
$`+`$ $`4\xi _e^\alpha (r_2)(S_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+S_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+`$ (90)
$`S_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+S_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2))`$
$``$ $`2\left(\rho _{0,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)N_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+\rho _{0,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)N_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right)`$ (91)
$`+`$ $`4\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_2)(S_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+S_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)g_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2))\}.`$ (92)
The rearrangement parts of the two–body distribution functions are:

$`\rho _{2,1,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _d^\alpha (r_1)(g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _d^\beta (r_2)+g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2)+`$ (94)
$`g_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _e^\beta (r_2)+g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2))`$
$`+`$ $`\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_1)\left(g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _d^\beta (r_2)+g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _e^\beta (r_2)\right)`$ (95)
$`+`$ $`\xi _e^\alpha (r_1)(g_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _d^\beta (r_2)+g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2)+`$ (97)
$`g_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _e^\beta (r_2)+g_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\beta (r_2))`$
$`+`$ $`\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_1)\left(g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _d^\beta (r_2)+g_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\xi _e^\beta (r_2)\right),`$ (98)
$`B_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+E_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2),`$ (99)
$`g_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+X_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2),`$ (100)
$`g_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2),`$ (101)
$`g_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2),`$ (102)
$`g_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{dd}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+g_{de}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{ed,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ (103)
$`+`$ $`g_{ed}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{de,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+g_{ee}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ (104)
$``$ $`2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\left(g_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+g_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right),`$ (105)
$`g_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{dd}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+g_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)B_{dd,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2).`$ (106)
The equations for the nodal diagrams are:

$`N_{mn,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(X_{md}^{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_3)|X_{dn}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)+N_{dn}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$ (107)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =p,n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,l^{}}{}}[`$ $`\left(X_{ml,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\alpha \gamma }(𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{ll^{}}^\gamma (r_3)|X_{l^{}n}^{\gamma \beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)+N_{l^{}n}^{\gamma \beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$ (110)
$`\left(X_{ml}^{\alpha \gamma }(𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{ll^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\gamma (r_3)|X_{l^{}n}^{\gamma \beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)+N_{l^{}n}^{\gamma \beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`(X_{ml}^{\alpha \gamma }(𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{ll^{}}^\gamma (r_3)|X_{l^{}n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\gamma \beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)+N_{l^{}n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\gamma \beta }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2))],`$
with $`m,n=d,e`$ and

$`\xi _{ll^{}}^\gamma (r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{dd,ll^{}}\xi _d^\gamma (r_3)+(1\delta _{dd,ll^{}})\xi _e^\gamma (r_3),`$ (111)
$`\xi _{ll^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\gamma (r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{dd,ll^{}}\xi _{d,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\gamma (r_3)+(1\delta _{dd,ll^{}})\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\gamma (r_3).`$ (112)
Finally, the equations for the $`cc`$ nodal are:

$`N_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(x)\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(X_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$ (115)
$`\left(X_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`\left(X_{cc,D}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`s_D[`$ $`\left(X_{cc,E,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$ (118)
$`\left(X_{cc,E}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`(X_{cc,E}^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2))]`$
$`N_{cc,D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(\rho )\alpha }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\rho _D^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,P}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$ (121)
$`\left(\rho _D^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)|X_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)+N_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(x)\alpha }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`\left(\rho _D^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)(\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)1)|N_{cc,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(\rho )\alpha }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`s_D[`$ $`\left(\rho _E^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _{e,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (r_3)|g_{cc,A}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$ (124)
$`\left(\rho _E^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)|X_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)+N_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(x)\alpha }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\right)+`$
$`(\rho _E^\alpha (𝐫_1,𝐫_3)(\xi _e^\alpha (r_3)1)|N_{cc,A,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(\rho )\alpha }(𝐫_3,𝐫_2))],`$
where $`D=P,A`$. If $`D=P`$, then $`E=A`$ and $`s_P=1`$; if $`D=A`$, then $`E=P`$ and $`s_A=1`$.


text:
# Quantum mechanics vs. local realism, is that the question?

## Abstract

The conjecture is made that quantum mechanics is compatible with local hidden variables (or local realism). The conjecture seems to be ruled out by the theoretical argument of Bell, but it is supported by the empirical fact that nobody has been able to perform a loophole-free test of local realism in spite of renewed effort during almost 40 years.

During the last three decades many experiments have been performed aimed at ruling out any local hidden variables (LHV) theory. In spite of the effort some deficiencies in the proof remain, the most important being described by locality and detector efficiency loopholes. According to recent reports the two loopholes have been closed . However, each loophole has been closed in a different experiment. That this is not enough to refute all LHV theories has been pointed out by Vaidman . I agree with that paper except for a point which will be commented below. Therefore I shall not spent time in repeating the arguments, which may be summarized as follows: The existence of a loophole means that quantum mechanics and LHV are actually compatible for the experiment and, therefore, the experiment is unable to discriminate between quantum mechanics and LHV theories. The fact that quantum predictions are verified, certainly reinforces our belief in the correctness of quantum theory. But the experiment says nothing against LHV theories.

The opinion of Vaidman, and many other people, with which I disagree is expressed in his sentence: ”there is no real question what will be the outcome of this type of (loophole-free) experiments: the predictions of quantum theory or results conforming with the Bell inequalities. …only a minute minority of physicists believe that quantum mechanics might fail in this type of experiments.” I would not disagree with the sentence if I were willing to accept the alternative ”either quantum mechanics or LHV theories ”, but I do not accept it, as explained below.

After the discovery of the steam engine in the XVIII Century, many people attempted to construct a ”perpetuum mobile”, that is a machine able to work for ever either without energy supply or extracting energy by just cooling the environment. They failed, and this lead physicists to postulate that the ”perpetuum mobile” is impossible, which on turn is the basis for the principles of thermodynamics. Now, for almost 40 years, many people have tried to perform a loophole-free Bell test, and they have failed. (By way of comparison we may recall that after the proposal by Lee and Yang that parity is not always conserved, this was proved in an uncontroversial (loophole-free) experiment by Wu et al. in less than one year). Consequently it is not so absurd if I conjecture that loophole-free Bell tests are impossible.

If we leave outside theoretical arguments, we have two empirical facts: 1) The predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified in many experiments with unprecedent precision, 2) No loophole-free Bell test has yet been performed. Therefore there is a real open question, namely to confirm or disprove the conjecture above stated. A single loophole-free experiment violating a Bell inequality would show that the conjecture is false. But after every attempt at performing such an experiment fails the conjecture becomes reinforced. This is similar to the reinforcement of quantum theory after every experiment that verifies its predictions.

The compatibility between quantum mechanics and LHV theories, not yet disproved empirically, contradicts the theoretical argument known as Bell´s theorem. Therefore, might be the case that Bell´s theorem is false? In order to answer this question we firstly remember that any theorem is a mathematical statement whose relation with empirical facts is not straightforward in general. In quantum mechanics there are two quite different ingredients, namely the formalism (that is the equations) and the (”semantical”) rules for the conection with experiments (for instance, the assumption that all states which may be actually prepared in the laboratory can be represented by density operators on Hilbert space). I do believe that the equations of quantum theory are correct, but I think that the standard semantical rules may be questioned. It is the case that the most spectacular verifications of quantum theory (e.g. the value of the Lamb shift or the magnetic moment of the electron) depend strongly on the equations but very weakly on the semantical rules. In sharp contrast, the proof of Bell’s theorem depends strongly on the semantical rules. I explain the point in more detail in the following.

The standard proof of Bell’s theorem requires assuming the existence of the singlet state of two spin-1/2 particles. Quantum theory predicts a violation of the Bell inequality if the spin projections of the particles in this state are measured at spacelike separation. But, without changing in any way the quantum formalism, we might assume that the singlet pure state cannot be prepared in the laboratory. For instance we may suppose that only those states of two spin-1/2 particles (in a 4-dimensional Hilbert space) whose density matrix fulfils Tr$`\left(\rho ^2\right)`$ $`<1/2`$ may be actually prepared. It is not difficult to show that such states never violate a Bell inequality. That assumption is too strong and probably false, but it might be the case that, even if the pure singlet state can be prepared, it evolves in such a way that the spin correlation decreases with time, e.g. due to the fact that in Dirac’s theory the spin and the orbital angular momentum are not separately conserved. (The situation is different with light, where the polarization correlation is not lost with time ,). Or it might be that the combination of spin correlation and position correlation decreases in such a way that the Bell inequality can never be violated. The reader is probably convinced that all these possibilities are rather unlikely, but then I put him/her the challenge of explaining why it is so extremely difficult to perform a loophole-free Bell experiment. I do not have an explanation for the case of the spin-1/2 particles, but I have one for the most common kind of experiments used to test Bell’s inequalities, namely those using correlated photon pairs produced in parametric down conversion (PDC) . It is the case that most of the ”violations of a Bell inequality” reported in the last 20 years have used PDC (and suffer from the efficiency loophole).

In summary, I do not think that the question to be answered by future experiments is whether quantum mechanics or local realism is true, but whether there is a real contradiction between them or not.


text:
# Higher dimensional flat embeddings of black strings in (2+1) dimensions

## Abstract

We obtain (3+1) and (3+2) dimensional global flat embeddings of (2+1) uncharged and charged black strings, respectively. In particular, the charged black string, which is the dual solution of the Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli black holes, is shown to be embedded in the same global embedding Minkowski space structure as that of the (2+1) charged de Sitter black hole solution.

preprint: SOGANG-HEP 278/00

PACS number(s): 04.70.Dy, 04.62.+v, 04.20.Jb

It has been well-known that a thermal Hawking effect on a curved manifold  can be looked at as an Unruh effect  in a higher flat dimensional space time. Recently, the isometric embeddings of the Reissner-Nordström (RN) black hole  and M2-, D3-, M5-branes  into flat manifolds with two times have been studied to yield some insight into the global aspects of the space-time geometries in the context of brane physics. Following the global embedding Minkowski space (GEMS) approach , several authors  recently have shown that this approach could yield a unified derivation of temperature for various curved manifolds such as rotating Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) , Schwarzschild  together with its anti-de Sitter (AdS) extension, RN  and RN-AdS . Historically, the higher dimensional global flat embeddings of the black hole solutions are subjects of great interest to mathematicians as well as physicists. In differential geometry, it has been well-known that the four dimensional Schwarzschild metric is not embedded in $`R^5`$ . Very recently, Deser and Levin firstly obtained (5+1) dimensional global flat embeddings of (3+1) Schwarzschild black hole solution . Moreover, the (3+1) dimensional RN-AdS, RN and Schwarzschild-AdS black holes are shown to be embedded in (5+2) dimensional GEMS manifolds .

On the other hand, the static, rotating and charged (2+1) dimensional BTZ AdS black holes are shown to have (2+2), (2+2) and (3+3) GEMS structures , while the static, rotating and charged (2+1) dimensional de Sitter (dS) black holes are shown to have (3+1), (3+1) and (3+2) GEMS structures, respectively . Recently, the (2+1) dimensional BTZ black hole  has attracted much attention as a useful model for realistic black hole physics  in spite of the fact that the space-time curvature is constant. Moreover, it has been discovered the novel aspects that the thermodynamics of higher dimensional black holes can often be interpreted in terms of the BTZ solution , and a slightly modified solution of the BTZ black hole yields an solution to the string theory, so-called the black string . Here one notes that this black string solution is in fact only a solution to the lowest order $`\beta `$-function equation to receive quantum corrections . It is now interesting to study the geometry of (2+1) dimensional black strings, which are the dual solutions of the BTZ black holes, and their thermodynamics through further investigation, together with those of the BTZ solutions.

In this Brief Report we will analyze Hawking and Unruh effects of the (2+1) dimensional black strings in terms of the GEMS approach. First, we briefly recapitulate the known rotating (2+1) BTZ black hole and the corresponding charged black string. Next, we will treat the global higher dimensional flat embeddings of the (2+1) uncharged and charged black strings. In particular, we will show that the charged black string is embedded in (3+2) GEMS structure.

Now we briefly summarize the duality properties of the black strings given in Ref. . These black string solutions are dual ones for the well known (2+1) dimensional rotating BTZ black holes which are described by the 3-metric, antisymmetric tensor and dilaton as follows

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`N^2dt^2+N^2dr^2+r^2(d\varphi +N^\varphi dt)^2,`$ (1)
$`B_{\varphi t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l}},`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3)
Here the lapse and shift functions are given as

$$N^2=M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4r^2},N^\varphi =\frac{J}{2r^2},$$
(4)
respectively. Note that for the nonextremal case there exist two horizons $`r_\pm (J)`$ satisfying the following equations,

$$0=M+\frac{r_\pm ^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4r_\pm ^2},$$
(5)
respectively. Without solving these equations explicitly, one can then rewrite the mass $`M`$ and angular momentum $`J`$ in terms of these outer and inner horizons as follows

$$M=\frac{r_+^2+r_{}^2}{l^2},J=\frac{2r_+r_{}}{l}.$$
(6)
Furthermore these relations can be used to yield the lapse and shift functions of the forms

$$N^2=\frac{(r^2r_+^2)(r^2r_{}^2)}{r^2l^2},N^\varphi =\frac{r_+r_{}}{r^2l},$$
(7)
respectively. Here one notes that this BTZ space originates from AdS one via the geodesic identification $`\varphi =\varphi +2\pi `$.

On the other hand, one can obtain dual solution  through the transformation

$`g_{\varphi \varphi }^d`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\varphi \varphi }^1,g_{\varphi \alpha }^d=B_{\varphi \alpha }g_{\varphi \varphi }^1,g_{\alpha \beta }^d=g_{\alpha \beta }(g_{\varphi \alpha }g_{\varphi \beta }B_{\varphi \alpha }B_{\varphi \beta })g_{\varphi \varphi }^1,`$ (8)
$`B_{\varphi \alpha }^d`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\varphi \alpha }g_{\varphi \varphi }^1,B_{\alpha \beta }^d=B_{\alpha \beta }2g_{\varphi [\alpha }B_{\beta ]\varphi }g_{\varphi \varphi }^1,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^d`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}g_{\varphi \varphi },`$ (10)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ run over all directions except $`\varphi `$, and $`B_{\varphi t}=r^2/l`$. The corresponding dual solution is then given as

$$ds_d^2=N^2dt^2+N^2dr^2+\frac{1}{r^2}(d\varphi _d+N_d^\varphi dt)^2,$$
(11)
where the shift function, antisymmetric tensor and dilaton are defined as

$`N_d^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`B_{\varphi t}={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l}},`$ (12)
$`B_{\varphi t}^d`$ $`=`$ $`N^\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{J}{2r^2}},`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^d`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}r,`$ (14)
respectively. Here one notes that $`\varphi _d/r^2`$ is periodic such that $`\varphi _d/r^2=\varphi _d/r^2+2\pi `$ and, as expected, the Hawking temperature  and entropy are dual invariant

$`T_H^d`$ $`=`$ $`T_H={\displaystyle \frac{r(r_+^2r_{}^2)}{2\pi r_+l(r^2r_+^2)^{1/2}(r^2r_{}^2)^{1/2}}},`$ (15)
$`S_{BH}^d`$ $`=`$ $`S_{BH}=2\pi r_+.`$ (16)
Now one can diagonalize the above dual metric with the coordinate transformation

$$t=\frac{l(\widehat{x}\widehat{t})}{(r_+^2r_{}^2)^{1/2}},\varphi _d=\frac{r_+^2\widehat{t}r_{}^2\widehat{x}}{(r_+^2r_{}^2)^{1/2}},r^2=l\widehat{r}.$$
(17)
The (2+1) dimensional charged black string solution  is then given by the 3-metric, antisymmetric tensor and non-vanishing dilaton as follows

$`d\widehat{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{r}}}\right)d\widehat{t}^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2/}{\widehat{r}}}\right)d\widehat{x}^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2/}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{l^2d\widehat{r}^2}{4\widehat{r}^2}},`$ (18)
$`\widehat{B}_{\widehat{x}\widehat{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬}{\widehat{r}}},`$ (19)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{r}l,`$ (20)
where $`=r_+^2/l`$ and $`𝒬=J/2`$. Here note that the charge of the black string is linearly proportional to the angular momentum of the rotating BTZ black hole.

Next, in order to construct the GEMS structures of the black strings, we consider the uncharged black string 3-metric

$$d\widehat{s}^2=\left(1\frac{}{\widehat{r}}\right)d\widehat{t}^2+d\widehat{x}^2+\left(1\frac{}{\widehat{r}}\right)^1\frac{l^2d\widehat{r}^2}{4\widehat{r}^2}.$$
(21)
After algebraic manipulation, we obtain the (3+1) dimensional GEMS $`d\widehat{s}^2=(dz^0)^2+(dz^1)^2+(dz^2)^2+(dz^3)^2`$ given by the coordinate transformations with only one additional space-like dimension $`z^3`$,

$`z^0`$ $`=`$ $`ł\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}}{l}},`$ (22)
$`z^1`$ $`=`$ $`ł\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}}{l}},`$ (23)
$`z^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{x},`$ (24)
$`z^3`$ $`=`$ $`l\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}+l\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{r}^{1/2}+(\widehat{r}+\widehat{r}_H)^{1/2}\right),`$ (25)
where $`\widehat{r}_H=`$. We will later show how to construct the GEMS structure of the more general case of charged black string, which can yield the above result (25) in the uncharged limit. Here note that the embedding dimension of this solution is the same as that of the (2+1) uncharged dS case , dual version of BTZ black hole. For the trajectories, which follow the Killing vector $`\xi =_{\widehat{t}}`$ on the uncharged black string manifold described by $`(\widehat{t},\widehat{r},\widehat{x})`$, one can obtain constant 3-acceleration

$$\widehat{a}=\frac{\widehat{r}_H}{l\widehat{r}\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}\right)^{1/2}}.$$
(26)
We see how the uncharged black string solution yields a finite Unruh area due to the periodic identification of $`\varphi _d/(l\widehat{r})`$ mod $`2\pi `$. The Rindler horizon condition $`(z^1)^2(z^0)^2=0`$ implies $`\widehat{r}=\widehat{r}_H`$ and the remaining embedding constraints yield $`z^2=\widehat{x}`$ and $`z^3=f(r)`$ where $`f(r)`$ can be read off from Eq. (25). The area of the Rindler horizon  yields the entropy of the uncharged black string

$`\widehat{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\pi (l\widehat{r}_H)^{1/2}}^{\pi (l\widehat{r}_H)^{1/2}}}dz^2dz^3\delta (z^3f(r))`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\pi (l\widehat{r}_H)^{1/2}}^{\pi (l\widehat{r}_H)^{1/2}}}dz^2=2\pi \widehat{r}_H.`$ (28)
Now we construct the GEMS structure of the charged black string. In order to obtain the $`d\widehat{t}^2`$ term in Eq. (20) we make an ansatz of two coordinates $`(z^0,z^1)`$ in Eq. (38) to yield

$$(dz^0)^2+(dz^1)^2=\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}\right)d\widehat{t}^2+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{l^2\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}^2}\right)^2\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}\right)^1d\widehat{r}^2$$
(29)
where $`\widehat{r}_H=`$, and $`\widehat{r}_{}=𝒬^2/`$. Similarly, the $`d\widehat{x}^2`$ term in Eq. (20) can be constructed by exploiting an ansatz of two coordinates $`(z^2,z^3)`$ in Eq. (38) as follows

$$(dz^2)^2+(dz^3)^2=\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}\right)d\widehat{x}^2\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{l^2\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}^2}\right)^2\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}\right)^1d\widehat{r}^2.$$
(30)
Since the combination of Eqs. (29) and (30) yields

$`(dz^0)^2+(dz^1)^2(dz^2)^2+(dz^3)^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)d\widehat{t}^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}}\right)d\widehat{x}^2`$ (31)
$`+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{l^2d\widehat{r}^2}{4\widehat{r}^4}}\left[\widehat{r}_H^2+\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}+\widehat{r}_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}(\widehat{r}_H+\widehat{r}_{})}{\widehat{r}}}\right]`$ (32)
$`=d\widehat{s}^2{\displaystyle \frac{l^2d\widehat{r}^2}{4\widehat{r}^3}}(\widehat{r}+\widehat{r}_H+\widehat{r}_{})d\widehat{s}^2(dz^4)^2,`$ (33)
we obtain the desired (3+2) GEMS $`d\widehat{s}^2=(dz^0)^2+(dz^1)^2(dz^2)^2+(dz^3)^2+(dz^4)^2`$ for the charged black string  given by the coordinate transformations,

$`z^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{l^2\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}{l^2\widehat{r}_H}}\right)\widehat{t},`$ (34)
$`z^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{l^2\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}{l^2\widehat{r}_H}}\right)\widehat{t},`$ (35)
$`z^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{l^2\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}{l^2\widehat{r}_{}}}\right)\widehat{x},`$ (36)
$`z^3`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{l^2\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H\widehat{r}_{}}{l^2\widehat{r}_{}}}\right)\widehat{x},`$ (37)
$`z^4`$ $`=`$ $`l\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_H+\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}}\right)^{1/2}+l\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{r}^{1/2}+\left(\widehat{r}+\widehat{r}_H+\widehat{r}_{}\right)^{1/2}\right).`$ (38)
This equivalence between the (3+2) GEMS metric associated with Eq. (38) and the original curved space metric in Eq. (20) is the very definition of isometric embedding, mathematically developed by several authors . Here one can also easily check that, in the uncharged limit $`𝒬0`$ (or $`\widehat{r}_{}0`$), the above coordinate transformations $`(z^0,z^1,z^4)`$ for the case of $`𝒬0`$ are exactly reduced to $`(z^0,z^1,z^3)`$ for the case of $`𝒬=0`$ in the previous ones (25), while $`(z^2,z^3)`$ with $`𝒬0`$ merge into one positive definite coordinate $`z^2(=\widehat{x})`$ with $`𝒬=0`$ since in this uncharged limit $`(dz^2)^2+(dz^3)^2d\widehat{x}^2`$ in Eq. (30). Note that this isometric embedding (38) is equivalent to the charged dS case , which is the dual version of charged BTZ black hole. For the trajectories, which follow the Killing vector $`\xi =_{\widehat{t}}`$ on the charged black string manifold described by $`(\widehat{t},\widehat{r},\widehat{x})`$, one can obtain constant 3-acceleration

$$\widehat{a}=\frac{\widehat{r}_H\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_{}}{\widehat{r}}\right)^{1/2}}{l\widehat{r}\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}_H}{\widehat{r}}\right)^{1/2}}.$$
(39)
Now we see how the charged black string solution yields a finite Unruh area due to the periodic identification of $`\varphi _d/(l\widehat{r})`$ mod $`2\pi `$. The Rindler horizon condition $`(z^1)^2(z^0)^2=0`$ implies $`\widehat{r}=\widehat{r}_H`$ and the remaining embedding constraints yield

$`z^4`$ $`=`$ $`f(r),`$ (40)
$`(z^2)^2(z^3)^2`$ $`=`$ $`(l𝒬/)^2,`$ (41)
where $`f(r)`$ can be read off from Eq. (38). Here one notes that such local and isometric embedding spaces have the global topology that cover only the area outside the horizon $`\widehat{r}_H`$ with the above embedding constraints (41) and cannot be extended to the entire solution .

With this global topology of the isometric embedding in mind, we can obtain the area of the Rindler horizon described as

$`{\displaystyle dz^2dz^3dz^4\delta (z^4f(r))\delta \left([(z^2)^2(z^3)^2]^{1/2}\frac{l𝒬}{}\right)}`$

which, after performing trivial integrations over $`z^4`$, yields the desired entropy of the charged black string

$`\widehat{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(l𝒬/)\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \widehat{r}_H/(l𝒬^2/)^{1/2})}^{(l𝒬/)\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \widehat{r}_H/(l𝒬^2/)^{1/2})}}dz^3{\displaystyle _0^{[(z^3)^2+(l𝒬/)^2]^{1/2}}}dz^2\delta \left([(z^2)^2(z^3)^2]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{l𝒬}{}}\right)`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(l𝒬/)\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \widehat{r}_H/(l𝒬^2/)^{1/2})}^{(l𝒬/)\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \widehat{r}_H/(l𝒬^2/)^{1/2})}}dz^3{\displaystyle \frac{l𝒬/}{[(l𝒬/)^2+(z^3)^2]^{1/2}}}=2\pi \widehat{r}_H.`$ (43)
In conclusion, we have investigated the higher dimensional global flat embeddings of (2+1) uncharged and charged black strings. These black strings are shown to be embedded in the (3+1) and (3+2)-dimensions for the uncharged and charged black strings, respectively. Here it is worthwhile noting that both the uncharged and charged black strings have the same GEMS structures as those of uncharged and charged de Sitter black holes, which are dual solutions of the corresponding BTZ anti-de Sitter black holes. Moreover, through further investigation, it will be interesting to study the topology of boundary surface of black holes associated with the nontrivial higher genus and the corresponding Yamabe invariant , in the framework of the GEMS structure.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Y.-W. Kim, J.S. Park and M.-I. Park for helpful discussions. We acknowledge financial support from the Ministry of Education, BK21 Project No. D-1099 and the Korea Research Foundation, Project No. KRF-2000-015-DP0070.