1. Bandheads of Rotational Bands and Time-Odd Fields UTK-ORNL DFT group

2. Outline Work:  Large-scale HFB calculations with various Skyrme functionals  All time-odd terms included  Mixed pairing in the p.p. channel (with two flavors: fit on 120 Sn average pairing gap and local fit on 162 Dy)  Triaxiality effects included Blocked StateEFA (HFBTHO)Exact (HFODD) [ 4, 2, 2]3/2+-1318.813-1318.815 [ 4, 2, 0]1/2+-1319.937-1319.935 [ 4, 1, 3]5/2+-1322.096 [ 4, 1, 1]3/2+-1323.527-1323.526 [ 4, 1, 1]1/2+-1322.321-1322.320 [ 4, 0, 4]7/2+-1321.728-1321.725 [ 4, 0, 4]9/2+-1319.656-1319.655 [ 5, 4, 1]3/2--1321.145(-1321.150) [ 5, 4, 1]1/2--1321.841-1321.839 [ 5, 2, 3]7/2--1322.388-1322.387 [ 5, 3, 2]5/2--1322.540-1322.539 [ 5, 3, 0]1/2--1320.473-1320.474 [ 5, 1, 4]9/2--1319.992-1319.991 Test of the quality of the EFA approximation ( 163 Tb, SIII interaction, 14 deformed shells) Playground:  Well-deformed rare-earth nuclei  Experimental data is rotational bandheads excitation energy Motivations:  Effects of time-odd fields  Benchmarking of EFA

3. Results Triaxiality Impact of time-odd fields on q.p. energies (systematics) Impact of time-odd fields on q.p. energies (different schemes) Impact of time-odd fields on  (3)

4. Conclusions – Future Plans  Time-odd fields negligible for most g.s. properties (including masses, q.p. excitation spectrum,  (3), …)  BUT… known to play a role in cranking, TDHF, GT resonance, etc. Comparison with experiment:  Most Skyrme interaction have “wrong” level density  q.p. spectrum good qualitatively but insufficient quantitatively  Performing a SVD on odd-even g.s. could be very useful to probe sensitivity of time-odd coupling constants  Treatment of pairing is crucial: why not begin with including Coulomb and CM pairing (which are always there irrespective of the p-p functional) ? How to constrain these terms effectively ???