Elucidating the role of the surface energy in density functional theory

TL;DR

This paper investigates how surface energy influences the predictions of relativistic and nonrelativistic energy density functionals in nuclear matter, revealing a compensating behavior that explains differences in saturation density predictions.

Contribution

It demonstrates the correlation between surface and volume energies in different EDF models, clarifying the origin of saturation density disparities.

Findings

Skyrme models have softer, more diffuse surfaces with lower surface energy.

Relativistic EDFs produce sharper, less diffuse surfaces with higher surface energy.

Both models can reproduce nuclear radii despite different saturation properties.

Abstract

The saturation of symmetric nuclear matter -- reflected in the nearly constant interior density of heavy nuclei -- is a defining property of nuclear matter. Modern relativistic energy density functionals (EDFs) calibrated exclusively to the properties of finite nuclei, make robust predictions with quantified uncertainties about the bulk properties of symmetric nuclear matter in the vicinity of the saturation density. Following the same fitting protocol, nonrelativistic Skyrme EDFs systematically predict higher saturation densities than their relativistic counterparts. To investigate this tension in the bulk limit, we study the ground-state properties of hypothetical symmetric macroscopic nuclei containing thousands of nucleons. Using both relativistic and non-relativistic EDF frameworks, we extract the corresponding liquid-drop parameters. We find a clear correlation between the volume and surface energy coefficients: Skyrme models, which saturate at higher densities, develop softer and more diffuse surfaces with lower surface energies, whereas relativistic EDFs, which saturate at lower densities, produce more defined and less diffuse surfaces with higher surface energies. This compensating behavior allows both classes of models to reproduce empirical nuclear radii despite their distinct saturation properties. Our analysis suggests that the apparent disparity in saturation densities arises from the intrinsic balance among saturation density, bulk binding energy, and surface tension, rather than from the fitting protocol.