1: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs,showkeys,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[aps,12pt,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}

3: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}

4: \pagestyle{plain}

5: %

6: \usepackage{dcolumn}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: \usepackage{textcomp}

9: %

10: \begin {document}

11:   \newcommand {\nc} {\newcommand}

12:   \nc {\beq} {\begin{eqnarray}}

13:   \nc {\eeq} {\nonumber \end{eqnarray}}

14:   \nc {\eeqn}[1] {\label {#1} \end{eqnarray}}

15:   \nc {\eol} {\nonumber \\}

16:   \nc {\eoln}[1] {\label {#1} \\}

17:   \nc {\ve} [1] {\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

18:   \nc {\mrm} [1] {\mathrm{#1}}

19:   \nc {\half} {\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}

20:   \nc {\thal} {\mbox{$\frac{3}{2}$}}

21:   \nc {\fial} {\mbox{$\frac{5}{2}$}}

22:   \nc {\la} {\mbox{$\langle$}}

23:   \nc {\ra} {\mbox{$\rangle$}}

24:   \nc {\etal} {\emph{et al.\ }}

25:   \nc {\eq} [1] {(\ref{#1})}

26:   \nc {\Eq} [1] {Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

27:   \nc {\Ref} [1] {Ref.~\cite{#1}}

28:   \nc {\Refc} [2] {Refs.~\cite[#1]{#2}}

29:   \nc {\Sec} [1] {Sec.~\ref{#1}}

30:   \nc {\chap} [1] {Chapter~\ref{#1}}

31:   \nc {\anx} [1] {Appendix~\ref{#1}}

32:   \nc {\tbl} [1] {Table~\ref{#1}}

33:   \nc {\fig} [1] {Fig.~\ref{#1}}

34:   \nc {\ex} [1] {$^{#1}$}

35:   \nc {\Sch} {Schr\"odinger }

36:   \nc {\flim} [2] {\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{{#1}\rightarrow{#2}}}

37:   \nc {\textdegr}{$^{\circ}$}

38: %

39: \title{Coulomb corrected eikonal description of the breakup of halo nuclei}

40: \author{P.~Capel}

41: \email{pierre.capel@centraliens.net}

42: \author{D.~Baye}

43: \email{dbaye@ulb.ac.be}

44: \affiliation{Physique Quantique, C.P. 165/82 and 

45: Physique Nucl\'eaire Th\'eorique et Physique Math\'ematique, C.P. 229,

46: Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, B 1050 Brussels, Belgium}

47: \author{Y.~Suzuki}

48: \email{suzuki@nt.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp}

49: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Niigata University, Niigata 950-2181, Japan}

50: %

51: \date{\today}

52: \begin{abstract}

53: The eikonal description of breakup reactions diverges because of the

54: Coulomb interaction between the projectile and the target.

55: This divergence is due to the adiabatic, or sudden, approximation usually

56: made, which is incompatible with the infinite range of the Coulomb interaction.

57: A correction for this divergence is analysed by comparison with the

58: Dynamical Eikonal Approximation, which is derived without

59: the adiabatic approximation.

60: The correction consists in replacing the first-order term

61: of the eikonal Coulomb phase

62: by the first-order of the perturbation theory.

63: This allows taking into account both nuclear and Coulomb

64: interactions on the same footing within the

65: computationally efficient eikonal model.

66: Excellent results are found for the dissociation of $^{11}$Be on lead at

67: 69~MeV/nucleon.

68: This Coulomb Corrected Eikonal approximation provides a competitive

69: alternative to more elaborate reaction models for investigating

70: breakup of three-body projectiles at intermediate and high energies.

71: \end{abstract}

72: \pacs{24.10.-i, 25.60.Gc, 03.65.Nk, 27.20.+n}

73: \keywords{Halo nuclei, Dissociation, eikonal approximation, Coulomb interaction,$^{11}$Be}

74: %

75: \maketitle

76: %

77: \section{Introduction}

78: Halo nuclei are among the most peculiar quantum structures

79: \cite{HJJ95,Tan96,Jon04}.

80: These light neutron-rich nuclei exhibit a very large matter radius

81: when compared to their isobars. This extended matter distribution

82: is due to the weak binding of one or two valence neutrons.

83: Thanks to their low separation energy, these neutrons

84: tunnel far inside the classically forbidden region, and

85: have a high probability of presence at a large

86: distance from the other nucleons.

87: In a simple point of view, they can be seen as very clusterized

88: systems: a core that contains most of the nucleons,

89: and that resembles a usual nucleus,

90: to which one or two neutrons are loosely bound, and form a sort

91: of halo around the core \cite{HJ87}.

92: The \ex{11}Be, \ex{15}C, and \ex{19}C isotopes are examples

93: of one-neutron halo nuclei.

94: Examples of two-neutron halo nuclei are \ex{6}He, \ex{11}Li, and \ex{14}Be.

95: In addition to their two-neutron halo, these nuclei

96: also exhibit the Borromean property: the three-body system is bound although

97: none of the two-body subsystems is \cite{Zhu93}.

98: 

99: Since their discovery in the mid 80s \cite{Tan85b},

100: these nuclei have thus

101: been the focus of many experimental \cite{HJJ95,Tan96,Jon04}

102: and theoretical \cite{TS01a,AN03,BHT03} studies.

103: Due to their short lifetime, halo nuclei cannot be studied

104: with usual spectroscopic techniques, and one must resort

105: to indirect methods to infer information about their structure.

106: Breakup reactions are among the most used methods to study

107: halo nuclei \cite{Kob89,Nak94,Fuk04}.

108: In such reactions, the halo dissociates

109: from the core through interaction with a target.

110: In order to extract valuable information from experimental data

111: one needs an accurate reaction model coupled to a realistic

112: description of the projectile.

113: Various techniques have been developed with this aim: perturbation

114: expansion \cite{TB94,EB96},

115: adiabatic approximation \cite{TRJ98},

116: eikonal model \cite{Glauber,SLY03,BD04},

117: coupled channel with a discretized continuum

118: (CDCC) \cite{Kam86,Aus87,TNT01},

119: numerical resolution of a three-dimensional time-dependent

120: \Sch equation (TDSE) \cite{KYS94,KYS96,EBB95,TW99,MB99,CBM03c},

121: and more recently, dynamical eikonal approximation

122: (DEA) \cite{BCG05,GBC06,GCB07}.

123: 

124: Some of these techniques

125: (perturbation expansion, adiabatic approximation, and eikonal model)

126: are based on approximations that lead to easy-to-handle models.

127: Their main advantage is their relative simplicity in use and interpretation.

128: However, the approximations on which they are built usually

129: restrain their validity domain.

130: For example, perturbative and adiabatic models are restricted

131: to the sole Coulomb interaction between the projectile and the target.

132: The eikonal method on the contrary diverges for that interaction

133: and can be used only for reactions on light targets.

134: The adiabatic, or sudden, approximation made in the usual eikonal model

135: is responsible for that divergence.

136: It indeed assumes a very brief collision time, that

137: is incompatible with the infinite range of the Coulomb interaction.

138: 

139: The more elaborate models (CDCC, TDSE, and DEA) are not restricted

140: in the choice of the projectile-target interaction.

141: However, they lead to complex and time-consuming implementations.

142: First calculations were therefore limited to

143: simple descriptions of the projectile

144: (i.e.\ two-body projectiles with local core-halo interactions).

145: Recently, several attempts have been made to improve the description

146: of the projectile. For example Summers, Nunes, and Thompson have developed

147: an extended version of the CDCC technique, baptized XCDCC,

148: in which the description of the halo nucleus includes

149: excitation of the core \cite{SNT06}.

150: Other groups are developing four-body CDCC codes, i.e.\ a description

151: of the breakup of three-body projectiles, with the aim of

152: modeling the dissociation of Borromean nuclei \cite{Mat04,RG07a}.

153: These techniques albeit promising, require large computational

154: facilities, and are very time-consuming.

155: 

156: Alternatively one could try to extend the range of simpler

157: descriptions of breakup reactions.

158: Among these descriptions, the eikonal model is of particular interest.

159: It indeed allows taking into account, at all orders and on the same footing,

160: both nuclear and Coulomb

161: interactions between the projectile and the target.

162: Moreover it gives excellent results for

163: nuclear-dominated dissociations \cite{SLY03,GBC06}.

164: Its only flaw is the erroneous treatment of the Coulomb interaction.

165: A correction to that treatment

166: has been proposed by Margueron, Bonaccorso, and Brink \cite{MBB03}

167: and developed by Abu-Ibrahim and Suzuki \cite{AS04}.

168: The basic idea of this Coulomb corrected eikonal model (CCE)

169: is to replace the diverging Coulomb eikonal phase at first-order

170: by the corresponding first-order of the perturbation theory

171: \cite{AW75}. The latter, being obtained without adiabatic

172: approximation, does not diverge.

173: The CCE is much more economical than more elaborate techniques

174: (a gain of a factor 100 in computational time can be achieved

175: between this CCE and the DEA).

176: It could therefore constitute a competitive alternative for

177: simulating the breakup of Borromean nuclei at intermediate and high energies.

178: However efficient it seems, this correction has never been

179: compared to any other reaction model.

180: 

181: In this work, we aim at evaluating the validity and analyzing

182: the strengths and weaknesses of this correction by comparing it

183: with the DEA.

184: The chosen test cases are the breakup of \ex{11}Be on Pb and C

185: so as to see the significance of the correction for both heavy

186: and light targets. The considered energy is around 70~MeV/nucleon.

187: This corresponds to RIKEN experiments \cite{Nak94,Fuk04},

188: with which the DEA is in excellent agreement \cite{BCG05,GBC06}.

189: 

190: Our paper is organized as follows.

191: In \Sec{th}, we recall the basics of the eikonal

192: description of reactions, and detail the Coulomb correction

193: proposed in Refs.~\cite{MBB03,AS04}.

194: The numerical aspects of our

195: calculations are summarized in \Sec{num}.

196: The results for \ex{11}Be on Pb

197: are detailed in \Sec{Pb}, while those corresponding

198: to a carbon target are given in \Sec{C}.

199: The final section contains our conclusions about this model.

200: 

201: \section{Theoretical framework}\label{th}

202: \subsection{Eikonal description of breakup reactions}\label{eik}

203: To describe the breakup of a halo nucleus,

204: we consider the following three-body model.

205: The projectile $P$ is made up of a

206: fragment $f$ of mass $m_f$ and charge $Z_fe$,

207: initially bound to a core $c$ of mass $m_c$ and charge $Z_ce$.

208: This two-body projectile is impinging on a target $T$ of mass $m_T$

209: and charge $Z_Te$.

210: The fragment has spin $I$, while both core and target

211: are assumed to be of spin zero.

212: These three bodies are seen as structureless particles.

213: 

214: The structure of the projectile is

215: described by the internal Hamiltonian

216: \beq

217: H_0=\frac{p^2}{2\mu_{cf}}+V_{cf}(\ve{r}),

218: \eeqn{e1}

219: where $\ve{r}$ is the relative coordinate of the fragment to the core,

220: $\ve{p}$ is the corresponding momentum,

221: $\mu_{cf}=m_cm_f/m_P$ is the reduced mass of the core-fragment pair

222: (with $m_P=m_c+m_f$),

223: and $V_{cf}$ is the potential describing the core-fragment interaction.

224: This potential includes a central part,

225: and a spin-orbit coupling term (see \Sec{num}).

226: 

227: In partial wave $lj$, the eigenstates of $H_0$ are defined by

228: \beq

229: H_0 \phi_{ljm}(E,\ve{r})=E \phi_{ljm}(E,\ve{r}),

230: \eeqn{e2}

231: where $E$ is the energy of the $c$-$f$ relative motion,

232: and $j$ is the total angular momentum resulting from the

233: coupling of the orbital momentum $l$ with the fragment spin $I$.

234: The negative-energy solutions of \Eq{e2} correspond to the

235: bound states of the projectile. They are normed to unity.

236: The positive-energy states describe the broken-up projectile.

237: Their radial part $u_{klj}$ are normalized according to

238: \beq

239: u_{klj}(r)\flim{r}{\infty}\cos\delta_{lj}F_l(kr)+\sin\delta_{lj}G_l(kr),

240: \eeqn{e3}

241: where $k=\sqrt{2\mu_{cf} E/\hbar^2}$ is the wave number,

242: $\delta_{lj}$ is the phase shift at energy $E$,

243: and $F_l$ and $G_l$ are respectively the regular and irregular

244: Coulomb functions \cite{AS70}.

245: 

246: \begin{figure}

247: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{MEfig1.ps}

248: \caption{Jacobi set of coordinates:

249: $\ve{r}$ is the projectile internal coordinate, and

250: $\ve{R}=\ve{b}+Z\ve{\widehat Z}$ is the target-projectile coordinate.}

251: \label{f0}

252: \end{figure}

253: 

254: The interactions between the projectile constituents and the target

255: are simulated by optical potentials chosen in the literature (see \Sec{num}).

256: Within this framework the description of the reaction reduces to the

257: resolution of a three-body \Sch equation that reads,

258: in the Jacobi set of coordinates illustrated in \fig{f0},

259: \beq

260: \left[ \frac{P^2}{2\mu}+H_0

261: +V_{PT}(\ve{R},\ve{r})

262: \right]\Psi(\ve{R},\ve{r})

263: =E_T\Psi(\ve{R},\ve{r}),

264: \eeqn{e4}

265: where $\ve{R}$ is the coordinate of the projectile center of mass

266: relative to the target, $\ve{P}$ is the corresponding momentum,

267: $\mu=m_Pm_T/(m_P+m_T)$ is the projectile-target reduced mass,

268: and $E_T$ is the total energy. The projectile-target interaction

269: \beq

270: V_{PT}(\ve{R},\ve{r})&=&

271: V_{cT}\left(\ve{R}-\frac{m_f}{m_P}\ve{r}\right)

272: +V_{fT}\left(\ve{R}+\frac{m_c}{m_P}\ve{r}\right),

273: \eeqn{e4a}

274: is the sum of the optical potentials $V_{cT}$ and $V_{fT}$

275: (including Coulomb) that

276: simulate the core-target and fragment-target interactions, respectively.

277: The projectile impinging on the target is initially bound in the

278: state $\phi_{l_0j_0m_0}$ of energy $E_0$.

279: We are therefore interested in solutions of \Eq{e4} that behave

280: asymptotically as

281: \beq

282: \Psi(\ve{R},\ve{r})\flim{Z}{-\infty}e^{i\{KZ+\eta \ln[K(R-Z)]\}}

283: \phi_{l_0j_0m_0}(E_0,\ve{r}),

284: \eeqn{e5}

285: where $Z$ is the component of $\ve{R}$ in the incident-beam direction

286: and $\eta=Z_TZ_Pe^2/(4\pi\epsilon_0\hbar v)$ is the $P$-$T$ Sommerfeld

287: parameter (with $Z_P=Z_c+Z_f$).

288: 

289: In the eikonal description of reactions, the three-body wave function $\Psi$

290: is factorized as the product of a plane wave

291: by a new function $\widehat{\Psi}$ \cite{Glauber,SLY03,BD04},

292: \beq

293: \Psi(\ve{R},\ve{r})=e^{iKZ}\widehat\Psi(\ve{R},\ve{r}),

294: \eeqn{e6}

295: where $K$ is the wavenumber of the projectile-target relative motion

296: related to the total energy $E_T$ by

297: \beq

298: E_T=\frac{\hbar^2 K^2}{2\mu}+E_0.

299: \eeqn{e7}

300: With factorization \eq{e6}, the \Sch equation \eq{e4} reads

301: \beq

302: \left[ \frac{P^2}{2\mu}+v P_Z+H_0-E_0+V_{PT}(\ve{R},\ve{r})\right]

303: \widehat{\Psi}(\ve{R},\ve{r})

304: =0,

305: \eeqn{e8}

306: where $v=\hbar K/\mu$ is the initial projectile-target relative velocity.

307: The first step in the eikonal approximation is to assume the

308: second-order derivative $P^2/2\mu$

309: negligible with respect to the first-order derivative $vP_Z$.

310: The function $\widehat\Psi$ is indeed expected to vary weakly in $\ve{R}$

311: when the collision occurs at sufficiently high energy \cite{Glauber,SLY03,BD04}.

312: This leads to the DEA \Sch equation \cite{BCG05,GBC06}

313: \beq

314: i\hbar v \frac{\partial}{\partial Z}\widehat\Psi(\ve{b},Z,\ve{r})=

315: \left[(H_0-E_0)+V_{PT}(\ve{R},\ve{r})\right]

316: \widehat{\Psi}(\ve{b},Z,\ve{r}),

317: \eeqn{e8a}

318: where the dependence of the wave function on the

319: longitudinal $Z$ and transverse $\ve{b}$ parts of the projectile-target

320: coordinate $\ve{R}$ has been made explicit (see \fig{f0}).

321: This equation is mathematically equivalent to a time-dependent

322: \Sch equation with straight-line trajectories, and

323: can be solved using any algorithm valid for the time-dependent \Sch equation

324: (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{KYS94,KYS96,EBB95,TW99,MB99,CBM03c}).

325: However, contrary to time-dependent models, it is obtained

326: without semiclassical approximation:

327: the projectile-target coordinate components $\ve{b}$ and $Z$ are

328: quantal variables in DEA.

329: This advantage over time-dependent techniques allows taking

330: into account interferences between solutions obtained at different $b$s.

331: The DEA reproduces various breakup observables quite accurately

332: for collisions of loosely-bound projectiles

333: on both light and heavy targets \cite{GBC06,GCB07}.

334: 

335: The second step in the usual eikonal model is to assume the collision

336: to occur during a very brief time and to consider the internal coordinates

337: of the projectile to be frozen while the reaction takes place \cite{SLY03}.

338: This second assumption, known as the adiabatic, or sudden, approximation

339: leads to neglect the term $H_0-E_0$ in \Eq{e8a} which then reads

340: \beq

341: i\hbar v \frac{\partial}{\partial Z}\widehat\Psi(\ve{b},Z,\ve{r})=

342: V_{PT}(\ve{R},\ve{r})\widehat{\Psi}(\ve{b},Z,\ve{r}).

343: \eeqn{e9}

344: In these notations, the asymptotic condition \eq{e5} becomes

345: \beq

346: \widehat\Psi(\ve{b},Z,\ve{r})\flim{Z}{-\infty}e^{i\eta \ln[K(R-Z)]}

347: \phi_{l_0j_0m_0}(E_0,\ve{r}).

348: \eeqn{e10}

349: The solution of \Eq{e9} exhibits the well-known

350: eikonal expression \cite{Glauber}

351: \beq

352: \widehat\Psi(\ve{b},Z,\ve{r})=

353: \exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar v}\int_{-\infty}^Z V_{PT}(\ve{b},Z',\ve{r})dZ'\right]

354: \phi_{l_0j_0m_0}(E_0,\ve{r}).

355: \eeqn{e11}

356: This expression is only valid for short-range potentials.

357: The Coulomb interaction requires a special treatment that is

358: detailed in the next section.

359: Let us point out that this treatment allows taking properly account

360: of the projectile-target Rutherford scattering. The Coulomb distortion

361: in \Eq{e10} is therefore simulated in the phase of \Eq{e11}.

362: After the collision, the whole information about the change in the

363: projectile wave function

364: is thus contained in the phase shift $\chi$ that reads

365: \beq

366: \chi(\ve{b},\ve{s})=-\frac{1}{\hbar v}\int_{-\infty}^\infty

367: V_{PT}(\ve{R},\ve{r})dZ.

368: \eeqn{e12}

369: Due to translation invariance, this eikonal phase depends only on

370: the transverse components $\ve{b}$ of the projectile-target coordinate $\ve{R}$

371: and $\ve{s}$ of the core-fragment coordinate $\ve{r}$.

372: 

373: \subsection{Coulomb correction to the eikonal model}\label{CCE}

374: The eikonal model gives excellent results for nuclear-dominated

375: reactions \cite{SLY03,GBC06}.

376: However, it suffers from 

377: two divergence problems

378: when the Coulomb interaction becomes significant.

379: The first is the well-known logarithmic divergence of the

380: eikonal phase describing the Coulomb elastic scattering

381: \cite{Glauber,SLY03,BD04}.

382: The second is caused by the adiabatic approximation used

383: in the eikonal treatment of the Coulomb breakup \cite{SLY03}.

384: To explain this, let us divide the eikonal phase \eq{e12}

385: into its nuclear, and Coulomb contributions

386: \beq

387: \chi(\ve{b},\ve{s})=\chi^N(\ve{b},\ve{s})+\chi^C(\ve{b},\ve{s})

388: +\chi_{PT}^C(b).

389: \eeqn{e12a}

390: The Coulomb term $\chi^C$ for a one-neutron

391: halo nucleus reads (the extension to the case of a charged fragment

392: is immediate)

393: \cite{AS04,GBC06}

394: \beq

395: \chi^C(\ve{b},\ve{s})&=&-\eta

396: \int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(

397: \frac{1}{|\ve{R}-\frac{m_f}{m_P}\ve{r}|}-\frac{1}{R}\right) dZ\label{e13a}\\

398: &=&\eta

399: \ln\left(1-2\frac{m_f}{m_P}\frac{\ve{\widehat b}\cdot\ve{s}}{b}

400: +\frac{m_f^2}{m_P^2}\frac{s^2}{b^2}\right),

401: \eeqn{e13}

402: $\ve{\widehat b}$ denotes a unit vector along the transverse

403: coordinate $\ve{b}$.

404: In \Eq{e13a}, we subtract the term $1/R$ corresponding

405: to a Coulomb interaction between the projectile center of mass

406: and the target.

407: The phase $\chi^C$ therefore corresponds to the Coulomb tidal

408: force that contributes to the breakup.

409: Moreover, this subtraction leads to a faster decrease

410: of the potential at large distances,

411: which enables us to obtain the analytic expression \eq{e13}.

412: This is compensated by the addition of the elastic Coulomb phase $\chi_{PT}^C$

413: \beq

414: \chi_{PT}^C(b)&=&-\eta

415: \int_{-Z_{\rm max}}^{Z_{\rm max}}\frac{dZ}{R}.

416: \eeqn{e13b}

417: This phase describes the Rutherford scattering between the

418: projectile and the target.

419: The integral is truncated, for it otherwise diverges

420: (note that the integral in \Eq{e13} does not diverge

421: and therefore does not require the same treatment).

422: This truncation basically corresponds to Glauber's screened

423: Coulomb potential \cite{Glauber}.

424: Other truncation techniques \cite{Glauber} and other ways to deal

425: with this divergence \cite{BD04} exist.

426: All lead to the same expression of the elastic Coulomb phase

427: but for an additional constant phase that does not affect

428: the cross sections \cite{Glauber}. The truncation considered in \Eq{e13b}

429: leads to

430: \beq

431: \chi_{PT}^C(b)&\approx& 2\eta\ln\frac{b}{2Z_{\rm max}}.

432: \eeqn{e13c}

433: This elastic Coulomb phase correctly reproduces Rutherford scattering,

434: indicating that the first of the two aforementioned divergences can be

435: easily corrected \cite{Glauber,SLY03,BD04}.

436: The nuclear term $\chi^N$ is then by definition

437: the difference between the eikonal phase

438: \eq{e12} and the Coulomb contributions \eq{e13} and \eq{e13c}.

439: 

440: In addition to the divergence in elastic scattering,

441: the Coulomb interaction is responsible for a divergence in breakup.

442: The aim of the present paper is to analyse a way to correct this divergence.

443: It is due to the slow decrease of $\chi^C$ in $b$.

444: Indeed, when expanded in powers of $\chi^C$, the exponential

445: of the Coulomb eikonal phase reads

446: \beq

447: e^{i\chi^C}=1+i\chi^C-\frac{1}{2}(\chi^C)^2+\cdots,

448: \eeqn{e14}

449: where the explicit dependence on the coordinates

450: has been omitted for clarity.

451: When integrated over $b$ in the calculation of the

452: cross sections (see \Sec{xs}),

453: the $1/b$ asymptotic behavior of the first-order term $i\chi^C$

454: will lead to divergence.

455: 

456: This divergence problem arises from the incompatibility between

457: the infinite range of the Coulomb interaction and

458: the adiabatic, or sudden, approximation:

459: no short collision time can be assumed

460: if the Coulomb interaction dominates.

461: Renouncing the use of the adiabatic approximation solves this divergence:

462: the DEA, which corresponds to the eikonal model without

463: this approximation [see \Eq{e8a} and Refs.~\cite{BCG05,GBC06}],

464: does not diverge.

465: The excellent results obtained within the DEA for

466: collisions of loosely-bound projectiles

467: on both light and heavy targets \cite{GBC06,GCB07}

468: confirm that, when dynamical effects are considered,

469: both nuclear and Coulomb interactions can be

470: properly taken into account on the same footing.

471: 

472: To avoid this divergence, a cutoff at large $b$ could be made.

473: In \Ref{AS00}, Abu-Ibrahim and Suzuki proposed

474: to limit the values of $b$ to

475: be considered in the cross-section calculations at

476: \beq

477: b_{\rm max}=\frac{\hbar v}{2|E_0|}.

478: \eeqn{e15a}

479: This cutoff is obtained by requiring the characteristic time

480: of internal excitation $\hbar/|E_0|$ to be shorter than the collision time

481: $b/v$. The factor of two is proposed as a qualitative guide.

482: However this treatment is rather artificial

483: and not very satisfactory \cite{AS04}.

484: 

485: Alternatively, it has been proposed by

486: Margueron, Bonaccorso, and Brink \cite{MBB03},

487: and developed by Abu-Ibrahim and Suzuki \cite{AS04},

488: to replace the first-order term $i\chi^C$ in \Eq{e14},

489: which leads to the divergence,

490: by the first-order term of the perturbation theory $i\chi^{FO}$ \cite{AW75}

491: \beq

492: \chi^{FO}(\ve{b},\ve{r})=-\eta

493: \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{i\omega Z/v}

494: \left(\frac{1}{|\ve{R}-\frac{m_f}{m_P}\ve{r}|}-\frac{1}{R}\right)dZ,

495: \eeqn{e15}

496: where $\omega=(E-E_0)/\hbar$, with $E$ the $c$-$f$ relative energy after

497: dissociation.

498: Since no adiabatic approximation is made

499: in perturbation theory, this term does not diverge.

500: When the adiabatic approximation is applied to \Eq{e15},

501: i.e.\ when $\omega$ is set to 0, one recovers exactly the Coulomb eikonal phase

502: \eq{e13a}.

503: This suggests that without adiabatic approximation the

504: first-order term in \Eq{e14} would be $i\chi^{FO}$ \eq{e15}.

505: Furthermore, a simple analytic expression is available for each of the Coulomb

506: multipoles in the far-field approximation, i.e.\ for $m_f r/m_P<R$ \cite{EB02}.

507: The idea of the correction is therefore to replace the

508: exponential of the eikonal phase according to

509: \beq

510: e^{i\chi}\rightarrow e^{i\chi^N}\left(e^{i\chi^C}-i\chi^C+i\chi^{FO}\right)

511: e^{i\chi_{PT}^C}.

512: \eeqn{e16}

513: 

514: With this Coulomb correction, the breakup of halo-nuclei can

515: be described within the eikonal model

516: taking on (nearly) the same footing both Coulomb and nuclear

517: interactions at all orders.

518: This correction can also be seen as an inexpensive way

519: to introduce higher-order effects and nuclear interactions in

520: the first-order perturbation theory.

521: 

522: In this work, we analyse the validity of this CCE model 

523: by comparing results obtained with the correction \eq{e16}

524: to results of the DEA.

525: The latter is chosen as reference calculation,

526: since it does not make use of the adiabatic approximation

527: that leads to the divergence

528: in the eikonal description of breakup.

529: It is also in good agreement with experiments \cite{GBC06,GCB07}.

530: Calculations performed in the usual eikonal model, and at

531: the first-order of the perturbation theory will also

532: be presented to emphasize the effects of the correction.

533: We focus on the case of \ex{11}Be breakup.

534: In that case, only the dipole term of the Coulomb interaction

535: is significant \cite{CB05}.

536: We thus restrict the correction to that multipole.

537: The perturbative correction then reads \cite{AS04}

538: \beq

539: \chi^{FO}(\ve{b},\ve{r})=-\eta

540: \frac{m_f}{m_P}\frac{2\omega}{v}

541: \left[K_1\left(\frac{\omega b}{v}\right)\ve{\widehat b}\cdot\ve{s}

542: +i K_0\left(\frac{\omega b}{v}\right)z\right],

543: \eeqn{e17}

544: where $K_n$ are modified Bessel functions \cite{AS70}.

545: Of course, in other cases, like in \ex{8}B Coulomb breakup,

546: the quadrupole term may no longer be negligible \cite{EB96,GCB07},

547: it should then be included in the correction.

548: 

549: \subsection{Breakup cross sections}\label{xs}

550: To evaluate breakup cross sections within the CCE

551: we proceed as explained in \Ref{GBC06},

552: replacing the DEA breakup amplitude by

553: \beq

554: S_{kljm}^{(m_0)}(b)=e^{i\left(\sigma_l+\delta_{lj}-l\pi/2+\chi_{PT}^C\right)}

555: \left\langle\phi_{ljm}(E)\left|

556: e^{i\chi^N}\left(e^{i\chi^C}-i\chi^C+i\chi^{FO}\right)

557: \right|\phi_{l_0j_0m_0}(E_0)\right\rangle,

558: \eeqn{e20}

559: where $\sigma_l$ is the Coulomb phase shift \cite{AS70}.

560: The breakup amplitudes for the usual eikonal model are

561: obtained in the same way but without the correction.

562: 

563: In the following, we consider two breakup observables.

564: The first is the breakup cross section as a function of the

565: $c$-$f$ relative energy $E$ after dissociation

566: [see Eq.~(52) of \Ref{GBC06}]

567: \beq

568: \frac{d\sigma_{\rm bu}}{dE}=\frac{4\mu_{cf}}{\hbar^2k}\frac{1}{2j_0+1}

569: \sum_{m_0}\sum_{ljm}\int_0^\infty b db |S_{kljm}^{(m_0)}(b)|^2.

570: \eeqn{e21}

571: This energy distribution is the observable usually measured

572: in breakup experiments \cite{Nak94,Fuk04}.

573: It corresponds to an incoherent sum of breakup probabilities

574: computed at each $b$

575: \beq

576: \frac{dP_{\rm bu}}{dE}(E,b)=\frac{4\mu_{cf}}{\hbar^2k}\frac{1}{2j_0+1}

577: \sum_{m_0}\sum_{ljm}|S_{kljm}^{(m_0)}(b)|^2.

578: \eeqn{e22}

579: 

580: The second breakup observable is the parallel-momentum distribution

581: [see Eq.~(53) of \Ref{GBC06}]

582: \beq

583: \frac{d\sigma_{\rm bu}}{dk_\parallel}=\frac{8\pi}{2j_0+1}

584: \sum_{m_0}\int_0^\infty b db \int_{|k_\parallel|}^\infty\frac{dk}{k}

585: \sum_{\nu m}\left|\sum_{lj}(lI m-\nu \nu|jm)

586: Y_l^{m-\nu}(\theta_k,0)S_{kljm}^{(m_0)}(b)\right|^2,

587: \eeqn{e23}

588: where $\theta_k=\arccos (k/k_\parallel)$ is the colatitude of the

589: $c$-$f$ relative wavevector $\ve{k}$ after breakup.

590: Contrary to the energy distribution, the parallel-momentum

591: distribution corresponds to a coherent sum of breakup amplitudes.

592: This observable is therefore sensitive to interferences

593: between different partial waves.

594: Consequently, it constitutes a particularly severe test for

595: reaction models.

596: 

597: \section{Numerical aspects}\label{num}

598: For these calculations, we use the same description of \ex{11}Be as in

599: \Ref{CGB04}. The halo nucleus is seen as a neutron loosely bound

600: to a \ex{10}Be core in its $0^+$ ground state.

601: The \ex{10}Be-n interaction is simulated by a Woods-Saxon potential

602: %with a parity-dependent depth

603: plus a spin-orbit coupling term

604: (see Sec.~IV A of \Ref{CGB04}).

605: The potential is adjusted to reproduce the first three

606: levels of the \ex{11}Be spectrum. The $\half^+$ ground state

607: is seen as a $1s1/2$ state, while the $\half^-$ excited state

608: is described by a $0p1/2$ state. This well-known shell inversion

609: is obtained by considering a parity-dependent depth of the central term

610: of the potential.

611: The $\fial^+$ resonance at 1.274~MeV above the one-neutron separation

612: threshold is simulated in the $d5/2$ partial wave.

613: 

614: The interaction between the projectile components and the

615: target are simulated by optical potentials chosen in the literature.

616: In our calculations, we use the same potentials as in

617: Refs.~\cite{CBM03c,CGB04}.

618: As suggested in \Ref{TS01r}, the \ex{10}Be-Pb potential is scaled from a

619: parametrisation of Bonin \etal \cite{Bon85} that describes elastic

620: scattering of 699~MeV $\alpha$ particles on lead

621: [potential (1) in Table~III of \Ref{CBM03c}].

622: For the \ex{10}Be-C interaction, we use the potential developed

623: by Al-Khalili, Tostevin, and Brooke, which reproduces the elastic scattering

624: of \ex{10}Be on C at 59.4~MeV/nucleon \cite{ATB97}

625: (potential ATB in Table~III of \Ref{CGB04}).

626: In both cases, we neglect the possible energy dependence of the potential.

627: We model the neutron-target interaction with the Becchetti and

628: Greenlees parametrisation \cite{BG69}.

629: 

630: To evaluate the breakup amplitude \eq{e20} within the

631: CCE or the usual eikonal model, we need to compute the eikonal phase \eq{e12a}.

632: The nuclear part is evaluated numerically, while the Coulomb

633: part is obtained from its analytic expression \eq{e13}.

634: The numerical integral over $Z$ is performed on a uniform mesh

635: from $Z_{\rm min}=-20$~fm up to $Z_{\rm max}=20$~fm with step $\Delta Z=1$~fm.

636: The corrected phase \eq{e16} is then numerically expanded into multipoles

637: of rank $\lambda$.

638: We use a Gauss quadrature on the unit sphere similar to the one

639: considered to solve the time-dependent \Sch equation in \Ref{CBM03c}.

640: The number of points along the colatitude is set to

641: $N_\theta=12$, and the number of points along the azimuthal angle

642: is $N_\varphi=30$.

643: Unless otherwise stated, we perform all calculations with

644: multipoles up to $\lambda_{\rm max}=12$.

645: 

646: The eigenfunctions of the projectile Hamiltonian $H_0$ \eq{e1}

647: are computed numerically with the Numerov method using

648: 1000 radial points equally spaced from $r=0$ up to $r=100$~fm.

649: The same grid is used to compute the radial integral in \Eq{e20}.

650: For Coulomb (nuclear) breakup,

651: the integrals over $b$ appearing in Eqs.~\eq{e21} and \eq{e23}

652: are performed numerically from $b=0$ up to $b=300$~(100)~fm

653: with a step $\Delta b=0.5$~(0.25)~fm.

654: 

655: %The time-dependent \Sch equation obtained from the

656: %DEA \eq{e8a} is solved

657: The DEA \Sch equation \eq{e8a} is solved

658: using the numerical technique detailed in \Ref{CBM03c}.

659: In this technique, the projectile internal wave function

660: is expanded upon a three-dimensional spherical mesh.

661: The size of the mesh required for the calculation varies

662: with the projectile-target interaction.

663: For Coulomb (nuclear)-dominated reactions,

664: the angular grid contains up to $N_\theta=8$~(12) points along

665: the colatitude $\theta$, and $N_\varphi=15$~(23) points along the

666: azimuthal angle $\varphi$. This corresponds to an angular basis

667: that includes all possible spherical harmonics up to $l=7$~(11).

668: The radial variable $r$ is discretized on a quasiuniform mesh that

669: contains $N_r=800$~(600) points and extends up to $r_{N_r}=800$~(600)~fm.

670: The time propagation is performed with a second-order

671: approximation of the evolution operator.

672: It is started at $t_{\rm in}=-20~(10)~\hbar/$MeV with the projectile

673: in its initial bound state, and is stopped at $t_{\rm out}=20~(10)~\hbar/$MeV

674: ($t=0$ corresponds to the time of closest approach).

675: The time step is set to $\Delta t=0.02~\hbar/$MeV

676: in both Coulomb and nuclear cases.

677: 

678: The evolution calculations are performed for different values of $b$.

679: These values range from 0 up to 300~(100)~fm with a

680: step $\Delta b$ varying from 0.5~(0.25)~fm to 5.0~(2.0)~fm, depending on $b$.

681: The integrals over $b$ are performed numerically.

682: 

683: \section{Breakup of \ex{11}Be on Pb at 69~MeV/nucleon}\label{Pb}

684: We first consider the breakup of \ex{11}Be on lead at 69~MeV/nucleon,

685: which corresponds to the experiment of Fukuda \etal

686: at RIKEN \cite{Fuk04}.

687: These data are fairly well reproduced by the DEA \cite{GBC06},

688: that we use as reference calculation.

689: Since we focus on the comparison of models,

690: we do not display Fukuda's measurements.

691: A comparison with experiment would indeed require a

692: convolution of our results, which would hinder the comparison between theories.

693: 

694: %Pbu

695: In \fig{f1}, we compare the breakup probability \eq{e22} obtained with

696: the DEA (full lines), the CCE (dotted lines), the usual eikonal model

697: (Eik., dashed lines),

698: and the first-order perturbation theory (FO, dash-dotted line).

699: They are depicted as a function of the transverse coordinate $b$

700: for three \ex{10}Be-n relative energies: $E=0.5$~MeV,

701: 1.274~MeV (i.e.\ the $\fial^+$ resonance energy),

702: and 3.0~MeV.

703: The upper part of \fig{f1} displays the values at small $b$,

704: while the lower part, in a semilogarithmic scale, focuses on

705: the asymptotic region.

706: 

707: \begin{figure}

708: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig2.ps}

709: \caption{Breakup probabilities as a function of transverse coordinate $b$

710: for \ex{11}Be impinging on \ex{208}Pb at 69~MeV/nucleon.

711: Three energies $E$ are shown: 0.5~MeV, 1.274~MeV, and 3.0~MeV.

712: The results are obtained within DEA (full lines), CCE (dotted lines),

713: usual eikonal approximation (dashed lines),

714: and first-order perturbation theory (dash-dotted lines).

715: The upper part displays the values at small $b$, while

716: the lower part focuses on the asymptotic region.

717: }\label{f1}

718: \end{figure}

719: 

720: Over the whole range in $b$, the CCE results are close to

721: the DEA ones, and this at all energies. This good agreement

722: suggests the Coulomb correction to be valid for simulating the

723: breakup of loosely-bound nuclei on heavy targets.

724: In particular, the CCE is superimposed to the DEA results in the

725: asymptotic region.

726: Obviously, the first-order perturbation theory

727: efficiently corrects the erroneous $1/b$ asymptotic behavior

728: of the usual eikonal model. 

729: 

730: At small $b$,

731: the agreement between the CCE and DEA seems slightly less good.

732: In particular, at small energy, the corrected eikonal model

733: overestimates the reference calculation.

734: This is due to the far-field approximation used in the

735: first-order perturbation correction.

736: This approximation provides a convenient analytical

737: expression  \eq{e17} of the phase $\chi^{FO}$.

738: However, it is incorrect at small $b$: it diverges at $b=0$.

739: Nevertheless, in spite of that divergence, the CCE

740: remains close to the DEA.

741: This illustrates that the CCE can also be seen as a way to

742: include nuclear interactions within the first-order perturbation theory,

743: and correct its ill-behavior at small $b$.

744: 

745: %sdE

746: The breakup cross section \eq{e21} computed with the four approximations

747: is displayed in \fig{f2}(a) as a function of the \ex{10}Be-n relative

748: energy $E$ after dissociation.

749: Contributions of the $s$, $p$, and $d$ partial waves are shown separately

750: in \fig{f2}(b).

751: The small bump at about 1.25~MeV is due to the

752: resonance in the $d5/2$ partial wave.

753: The CCE cross section (dotted line) is nearly superimposed

754: on the DEA one (full line).

755: Only at low energy is the CCE

756: slightly larger than the reference calculation.

757: As mentioned earlier this effect is due

758: to the use of the far-field approximation to derive

759: the perturbative correction $\chi^{FO}$.

760: 

761: \begin{figure}

762: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig3.ps}

763: \caption{(a) Breakup cross sections for \ex{11}Be impinging on \ex{208}Pb

764: at 69~MeV/nucleon

765: as a function of the \ex{10}Be-n relative energy $E$.

766: The results are obtained within the DEA,

767: the CCE, the usual eikonal approximation with upper cutoff

768: $b_{\rm max}=71$~fm,

769: and the first-order perturbation theory with lower cutoff

770: $b_{\rm min}=15$~fm.

771: (b) Contributions of the $s$, $p$, and $d$ partial waves.

772: }\label{f2}

773: \end{figure}

774: 

775: Interestingly, the agreement between CCE and DEA is better for the total

776: cross section than for each partial-wave contribution:

777: The CCE $p$ contribution is larger than the DEA one,

778: while the CCE $s$ and $d$ contributions are smaller than the DEA ones.

779: We interpret this as a lack of couplings in the continuum in the CCE.

780: In the DEA, these couplings depopulate the $p$ waves towards

781: the $s$ and $d$ ones without modifying the total cross section \cite{CB05}.

782: The differences between CCE and DEA partial-wave contributions

783: suggest that this mechanism is hindered in the former.

784: 

785: The wrong asymptotic behavior of

786: the Coulomb eikonal phase \eq{e13} leads to a divergence in the

787: calculation of the breakup cross sections.

788: To evaluate the energy distribution within the usual eikonal model

789: one needs to resort to a cutoff at large $b$.

790: The cutoff proposed in \Ref{AS00} [see also \Eq{e15a}] gives here

791: $b_{\rm max}=71$~fm.

792: The corresponding cross section

793: is displayed in \fig{f2}(a) with a dashed line.

794: Its energy dependence is strongly different from that of the

795: reference calculation: it is too small at low energy and too

796: large at high energy.

797: The $p$ contribution, which includes the diverging term of the

798: Coulomb eikonal phase \eq{e13}, is responsible for that ill-behavior.

799: Contrarily, the $s$ and $d$ contributions are superimposed on

800: those of the CCE.

801: The use of the Coulomb correction therefore significantly

802: improves the eikonal model when considering collisions

803: with heavy targets.

804: 

805: The cross section obtained within the first-order perturbation

806: theory is shown in dot-dashed line.

807: The nuclear interactions between the projectile

808: and the target are described by a mere cutoff at $b_{\rm min}=15$~fm.

809: This value has been chosen to fit the DEA energy distribution in the

810: region of the maximum.

811: Here again, the shape of the cross section is very different

812: from that of the reference calculation.

813: However, contrary to the usual eikonal model, it decreases

814: too quickly with the energy.

815: Moreover, since only the dipole term of the Coulomb interaction

816: is considered, only the $p$ wave is reached from the $s$ ground state,

817: whereas $s$ and $d$ waves are significantly

818: populated through nuclear interactions and higher-order effects.

819: Note that a smaller cutoff $b_{\rm min}$, in better agreement with

820: the usual choice that corresponds to the sum of the projectile and target

821: radii, does not improve the agreement.

822: 

823: We now consider the parallel-momentum distribution [see \Eq{e23}].

824: This breakup observable is more sensitive to interferences

825: and therefore constitutes a more severe test than the energy distribution.

826: The parallel-momentum distribution computed within the

827: four models is displayed in \fig{f3}.

828: 

829: \begin{figure}

830: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig4.ps}

831: \caption{Breakup cross sections for \ex{11}Be impinging on \ex{208}Pb

832: at 69~MeV/nucleon

833: as a function of the \ex{10}Be-n relative parallel momentum $k_\parallel$.

834: The figure displays the results obtained within the DEA,

835: the CCE, the usual eikonal approximation with an upper cutoff

836: $b_{\rm max}=71$~fm,

837: and the first-order perturbation theory with a lower cutoff

838: $b_{\rm min}=15$~fm.}\label{f3}

839: \end{figure}

840: 

841: As in the previous cases, the CCE is in excellent agreement with

842: the DEA in both magnitude and shape.

843: We simply note that the former is slightly less asymmetric

844: than the latter, which is probably a signature of the

845: lack of couplings in the continuum mentioned earlier.

846: On the contrary, both the usual eikonal model and the

847: first-order perturbation theory lead to rather poor estimates

848: of the momentum distribution.

849: First, they lead to an erroneous magnitude of the cross section.

850: The usual eikonal model gives too large a parallel-momentum

851: distribution. This is related to the too slow decrease

852: obtained for the energy distribution.

853: On the contrary, the first-order perturbation gives too low

854: a cross section; a defect due to the quick decrease in the

855: energy distribution.

856: Lowering the cutoff $b_{\rm min}$ to cure this problem would

857: then lead to too large an energy distribution in the peak region.

858: Second, none of these models exhibits the asymmetry observed in the DEA.

859: This absence of asymmetry in parallel-momentum distributions

860: of the breakup of loosely-bound projectiles

861: is a well-known problem of the eikonal model \cite{Tos02}.

862: It is fortunate that the Coulomb correction,

863: combining two approximations that lead to perfectly symmetric

864: momentum distributions, restores the asymmetry observed experimentally

865: and in dynamical calculations.

866: 

867: \fig{f4} illustrates the convergence of the CCE with regard

868: to the number of multipoles considered in the breakup computation.

869: The parallel-momentum distributions obtained with maximum multipolarities

870: $\lambda_{\rm max}=4$, 8, and 12 are displayed.

871: Although all three calculations are close to one another,

872: $\lambda_{\rm max}=4$ has not yet converged:

873: there remains some 4\% difference with the other two at the maximum.

874: On the contrary, the difference between $\lambda_{\rm max}=8$

875: and 12 is insignificant (about 0.5\%).

876: This shows the necessity to include a large number

877: of partial waves in dynamical calculations.

878: Note that other breakup observables converge

879: with a lower number of multipoles.

880: In particular, the energy distribution requires only

881: $\lambda_{\rm max}=4$ to reach satisfactory convergence.

882: 

883: \begin{figure}

884: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig5.ps}

885: \caption{Convergence of the multipole expansion in $\lambda_{\rm max}$

886: of the CCE illustrated

887: on the parallel-momentum distribution computed for 

888: \ex{11}Be impinging on \ex{208}Pb at 69~MeV/nucleon.

889: }\label{f4}

890: \end{figure}

891: 

892: These results confirm the ability of the Coulomb correction to

893: reliably reproduce breakup observables for collisions

894: of loosely-bound projectiles on heavy targets.

895: It reproduces dynamical calculations with an accuracy

896: that is unreachable within the usual eikonal model

897: or the first-order perturbation theory, on which it is based.

898: 

899: \section{Breakup of \ex{11}Be on C at 67~MeV/nucleon}\label{C}

900: To complete this analysis of the Coulomb correction, we

901: investigate its effect in nuclear induced breakup.

902: The usual eikonal description of such reactions is known

903: to give excellent results \cite{SLY03,GBC06}.

904: The Coulomb interaction between the projectile and the target plays then

905: a minor role and we expect the correction \eq{e16} to have much

906: less influence than in the Coulomb breakup case.

907: 

908: For this analysis, we consider the breakup of \ex{11}Be on a carbon

909: target at 67~MeV/nucleon, which corresponds to the experiment

910: of Fukuda \etal \cite{Fuk04}.

911: The DEA is in excellent agreement with Fukuda's data \cite{GBC06},

912: and therefore constitutes our reference calculation.

913: For the same reasons as in the previous section, we do not compare

914: directly our calculations with experiment.

915: 

916: \fig{f5} displays the breakup probability \eq{e22} obtained at three

917: energies $E=0.5$, 1.274, and 3.0~MeV within the DEA (full lines),

918: the CCE (dotted lines), and the usual eikonal model (dashed lines).

919: Since this reaction is nuclear dominated, we no longer

920: display the result of the first-order perturbation theory.

921: The upper part of \fig{f5} displays the breakup probability at

922: small $b$, while the lower part emphasizes

923: the asymptotic behavior of $P_{\rm bu}$ in a

924: semilogarithmic plot.

925: 

926: \begin{figure}

927: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig6.ps}

928: \caption{Breakup probabilities as a function of transverse coordinate $b$

929: for \ex{11}Be impinging on \ex{12}C at 67~MeV/nucleon.

930: Three energies $E$ are shown: 0.5~MeV, 1.274~MeV, and 3.0~MeV.

931: The results are obtained within the DEA (full lines), CCE (dotted lines),

932: and usual eikonal (dashed lines) models.

933: The upper part displays the values at small $b$, while

934: the lower part emphasizes the behavior

935: in the asymptotic region.

936: }\label{f5}

937: \end{figure}

938: 

939: In this case, all three reaction models lead to similar results.

940: This confirms the validity of the adiabatic approximation

941: in the eikonal description of nuclear-dominated reactions.

942: The difference between the DEA and the other two models is indeed

943: rather small. Only at $E=1.274$~MeV, the energy of the $\fial^+$ resonance,

944: does it become significant

945: (up to 10\% difference in the vicinity of the peak at $b\sim6$~fm).

946: This larger difference suggests stronger dynamical effects at the resonance.

947: This is not very surprising since the presence of that resonance

948: strongly increases the breakup process \cite{CGB04}.

949: 

950: Up to $b=20$~fm, the usual eikonal model and the CCE remain very close

951: to one another, confirming the small role played by the Coulomb interaction

952: in the dissociation.

953: At larger $b$, where only Coulomb is significant, we observe

954: the $1/b$ behavior of the usual eikonal model.

955: This ill-behavior is corrected using the CCE,

956: whose breakup probabilities are nearly superimposed on the DEA ones

957: in the asymptotic region.

958: However, since this correction affects breakup probabilities at

959: two or three orders of magnitude below the maximum, we do not expect it

960: to significantly influence breakup observables.

961: 

962: The breakup cross sections computed within the three models

963: are plotted as functions of the energy $E$ in \fig{f6}.

964: The contributions to the total cross section of the partial waves

965: $s$, $p$, and $d$ are shown as well.

966: The large peak at about 1.25~MeV is the signature of the significant

967: enhancement of the breakup process by the $d5/2$ resonance.

968: As suggested by the previous result,

969: all three models lead to very similar cross sections.

970: This similarity is also observed in the partial-wave contributions.

971: The couplings in the continuum that depopulate one partial wave

972: toward others, as observed in Coulomb breakup (see \fig{f2} and \Ref{CB05}),

973: are thus much smaller in nuclear-induced breakup.

974: 

975: \begin{figure}

976: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig7.ps}

977: \caption{Breakup cross sections for \ex{11}Be impinging on

978: \ex{12}C at 67~MeV/nucleon

979: as a function of the \ex{10}Be-n relative energy $E$.

980: Results are obtained within the DEA,

981: the CCE, and the usual eikonal model with an upper cutoff

982: $b_{\rm max}=70$~fm.

983: Contributions of the $s$, $p$, and $d$ partial waves are shown as well.

984: }\label{f6}

985: \end{figure}

986: 

987: As in \fig{f5}, the difference between the DEA

988: and the other two models is rather small.

989: The DEA is about 6\% in average larger than the eikonal model.

990: Note that this difference reaches 8\% at the resonance energy,

991: which is consistent with the difference observed in \fig{f5}(a).

992: The usual eikonal and the CCE lie even closer to one another.

993: The relative difference between them in the total cross section

994: does not exceed 3\%.

995: Even in the $p$ partial wave, where the Coulomb correction

996: is performed, no significant difference is observed.

997: This confirms that the correction of the eikonal model is not

998: necessary for nuclear-dominated reactions due to the small role played

999: by the Coulomb interaction.

1000: The cutoff in $b$ proposed in \Ref{AS00} is therefore sufficient.

1001: 

1002: The parallel-momentum distributions obtained with the three models

1003: are displayed in \fig{f7}.

1004: As already mentioned, this observable is a more severe test for reaction

1005: models than the energy distribution.

1006: We observe significant differences between the DEA and the other two models.

1007: As in the case of Coulomb breakup,

1008: the DEA leads to an asymmetric parallel-momentum distribution:

1009: The DEA distribution is shifted toward negative $k_\parallel$ and

1010: presents a more developed tail on the

1011: negative $k_\parallel$ side, as observed in \Ref{Tos02}.

1012: 

1013: As for the previous observable, the CCE and usual eikonal models

1014: lead to very similar parallel-momentum distributions.

1015: These distributions are symmetric.

1016: As mentioned earlier, this symmetry is due to the lack of dynamical effects

1017: in the eikonal description of reactions.

1018: Contrary to the Coulomb case, the correction \eq{e16}

1019: is not able to restore this asymmetry.

1020: It indicates that these dynamical effects result from

1021: the nuclear interactions between the projectile and the target.

1022: 

1023: \begin{figure}

1024: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig8.ps}

1025: \caption{Breakup cross sections for \ex{11}Be impinging

1026: on \ex{12}C at 67~MeV/nucleon

1027: as a function of the \ex{10}Be-n relative parallel momentum $k_\parallel$.

1028: Results are obtained within the DEA,

1029: the CCE, and the usual eikonal approximation with an upper cutoff

1030: $b_{\rm max}=70$~fm.

1031: }\label{f7}

1032: \end{figure}

1033: 

1034: The convergence of the CCE model with the number of multipoles

1035: is illustrated in \fig{f8} for the parallel-momentum distribution.

1036: The CCE distributions computed with $\lambda_{\rm max}=4$--12 are displayed.

1037: The convergence is much slower than for

1038: Coulomb-dominated breakup (see \fig{f4}).

1039: The relative difference between $\lambda_{\rm max}=10$ and

1040: $\lambda_{\rm max}=12$ is indeed about 3\% at the maximum.

1041: This is due to the rapid variation of the

1042: nuclear potential with the projectile-target coordinates.

1043: It confirms the need of a larger number of partial waves in the

1044: dynamical calculation of nuclear-dominated dissociation.

1045: Note that the convergence is faster for the energy distribution.

1046: For that observable, an acceptable convergence is

1047: reached at $\lambda_{\rm max}=6$.

1048: 

1049: \begin{figure}

1050: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{MEfig9.ps}

1051: \caption{Convergence in $\lambda_{\rm max}$ of the CCE illustrated

1052: on the parallel-momentum distribution for the

1053: breakup of \ex{11}Be on \ex{12}C at 67~MeV/nucleon.}\label{f8}

1054: \end{figure}

1055: 

1056: \section{Conclusion}

1057: The eikonal description of reactions is a useful tool to

1058: simulate breakup and stripping reactions on light targets

1059: at intermediate and high energies \cite{Glauber,SLY03,GBC06}.

1060: This model is interesting because of its relative simplicity

1061: in implementation and interpretation with respect to other elaborate

1062: models, like CDCC or DEA.

1063: Unfortunately, it suffers from a divergence

1064: problem associated with the treatment of the Coulomb interaction

1065: between the projectile and the target.

1066: This divergence is due to the incompatibility of the adiabatic,

1067: or sudden, approximation which is made in the usual eikonal model,

1068: and the infinite range of the Coulomb interaction.

1069: One way to cure this problem is not to make this adiabatic

1070: approximation. This leads to the DEA \cite{BCG05,GBC06}.

1071: However, like other elaborate models, the DEA is computationally expensive.

1072: Another way to solve this problem is to substitute the diverging

1073: Coulomb phase at the first-order of the eikonal model by

1074: the corresponding first-order of the perturbation theory \cite{MBB03,AS04}.

1075: 

1076: In this work, we study the validity of this Coulomb correction

1077: by comparing it to the DEA, which does not present the divergence problem

1078: of the usual eikonal model.

1079: The chosen test cases are the dissociation of \ex{11}Be on Pb and

1080: C at about 70~MeV/nucleon.

1081: These correspond to RIKEN experiments \cite{Nak94,Fuk04}

1082: that are well reproduced by the DEA \cite{GBC06}.

1083: 

1084: In the case of the Coulomb breakup, the CCE gives results in

1085: excellent agreement with the DEA. The combination of the

1086: eikonal model with the first-order perturbation theory

1087: indeed solves the divergence problem due to the Coulomb

1088: interaction. Moreover, it correctly takes into account the

1089: nuclear interaction between the projectile and target.

1090: The breakup observables

1091: (energy and parallel-momentum distributions)

1092: obtained within the DEA are accurately reproduced using the CCE.

1093: This agreement is obtained while both CCE ingredients---usual eikonal

1094: and first-order perturbation---fail to describe the reaction.

1095: First they both require a rather arbitrary upper or lower

1096: cutoff in $b$ in order not to diverge.

1097: Second they do not reproduce the shape of the breakup cross sections.

1098: In particular the CCE gives an asymmetric parallel-momentum

1099: distribution, in agreement with the dynamical calculation.

1100: Contrarily, both the usual eikonal and the perturbative models

1101: lead to perfectly symmetric distributions.

1102: This suggests that CCE restores dynamical effects that are missing

1103: in its ingredients.

1104: 

1105: The Coulomb correction has much less effect on the nuclear-dominated

1106: breakup. This was expected because of the much smaller influence

1107: of the Coulomb interaction in reactions involving light targets.

1108: This result indicates that in this case the correction is not essential.

1109: It also implies that the CCE suffers the same lack of dynamical

1110: effects as the usual eikonal model in nuclear dominated reactions.

1111: 

1112: The CCE successfully combines the positive aspects of both the eikonal model

1113: and the first-order perturbation theory.

1114: It allows describing accurately the nuclear interaction

1115: while correctly reproducing Coulomb-induced effects.

1116: Moreover the CCE restores some of the dynamical effects,

1117: which are totally absent in other simple models.

1118: It therefore provides a reliable description of the

1119: breakup of loosely-bound projectiles at intermediate and high energies.

1120: Its simplicity in use and interpretation suggests it as a

1121: competitive alternative

1122: to more elaborate models to describe the breakup of Borromean nuclei.

1123: 

1124: \begin{acknowledgments}

1125: This work has been done in the framework of the agreement between the

1126: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)

1127: and the Fund for Scientific Research of Belgium (F. R. S.-FNRS).

1128: Y.~S. acknowledges the support of the Grant for the Promotion of

1129: Niigata University Research Projects (2005--2007).

1130: P.~C. acknowledges travel support of the

1131: Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique Collective (FRSC) and

1132: the support of the F. R. S.-FNRS.

1133: This text presents research results of the Belgian program P6/23 on

1134: interuniversity attraction poles initiated by the Belgian-state

1135: Federal Services for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs (FSTC).

1136: \end{acknowledgments}

1137: 

1138: %\bibliography{abbrev,mybiblio,biblio,misc}

1139: 

1140: \begin{thebibliography}{46}

1141: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1142: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1143:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1144: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1145:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1146: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1147:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1148: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1149:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1150: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1151: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1152: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1153: 

1154: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hansen et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Hansen, Jensen, and

1155:   Jonson}}]{HJJ95}

1156: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~G.} \bibnamefont{Hansen}},

1157:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~S.} \bibnamefont{Jensen}},

1158:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Jonson}},

1159:   \bibinfo{journal}{Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}},

1160:   \bibinfo{pages}{591} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1161: 

1162: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tanihata}(1996)}]{Tan96}

1163: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Tanihata}},

1164:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. G} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{22}},

1165:   \bibinfo{pages}{157} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jonson}(2004)}]{Jon04}

1168: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Jonson}},

1169:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{389}},

1170:   \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1171: 

1172: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hansen and Jonson}(1987)}]{HJ87}

1173: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~G.} \bibnamefont{Hansen}} \bibnamefont{and}

1174:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Jonson}},

1175:   \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{4}},

1176:   \bibinfo{pages}{409} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

1177: 

1178: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zhukov et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Zhukov, Danilin,

1179:   Fedorov, Bang, Thompson, and Vaagen}}]{Zhu93}

1180: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~V.} \bibnamefont{Zhukov}},

1181:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~V.} \bibnamefont{Danilin}},

1182:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~V.} \bibnamefont{Fedorov}},

1183:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Bang}},

1184:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~J.} \bibnamefont{Thompson}},

1185:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~S.}

1186:   \bibnamefont{Vaagen}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.}

1187:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{231}}, \bibinfo{pages}{151} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

1188: 

1189: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tanihata et~al.}(1985)\citenamefont{Tanihata, Hamagaki,

1190:   Hashimoto, Nagamiya, Shida, Yoshikawa, Yamakawa, Sugimoto, Kobayashi, Greiner

1191:   et~al.}}]{Tan85b}

1192: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Tanihata}},

1193:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Hamagaki}},

1194:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Hashimoto}},

1195:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Nagamiya}},

1196:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Shida}},

1197:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Yoshikawa}},

1198:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Yamakawa}},

1199:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Sugimoto}},

1200:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},

1201:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Greiner}},

1202:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}

1203:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{160}}, \bibinfo{pages}{380} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

1204: 

1205: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Thompson and Suzuki}(2001)}]{TS01a}

1206: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~J.} \bibnamefont{Thompson}} \bibnamefont{and}

1207:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},

1208:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. {\textbf{A}}} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{693}},

1209:   \bibinfo{pages}{424} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1210: 

1211: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Al-Khalili and Nunes}(2003)}]{AN03}

1212: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Al-Khalili}} \bibnamefont{and}

1213:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~M.} \bibnamefont{Nunes}},

1214:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. G} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{29}},

1215:   \bibinfo{pages}{R89} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1216: 

1217: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baur et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Baur, Hencken, and

1218:   Trautmann}}]{BHT03}

1219: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Baur}},

1220:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Hencken}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1221:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Trautmann}},

1222:   \bibinfo{journal}{Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}},

1223:   \bibinfo{pages}{487} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Kobayashi,

1226:   Shimoura, Tanihata, Katori, Matsuta, Minamisono, Sugimoto, M\"uller, Olson,

1227:   Symon et~al.}}]{Kob89}

1228: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},

1229:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Shimoura}},

1230:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Tanihata}},

1231:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Katori}},

1232:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Matsuta}},

1233:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Minamisono}},

1234:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Sugimoto}},

1235:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{M\"uller}},

1236:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~L.} \bibnamefont{Olson}},

1237:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~L.~M.} \bibnamefont{Symon}},

1238:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}

1239:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{232}}, \bibinfo{pages}{51} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1240: 

1241: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nakamura et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Nakamura, Shimoura,

1242:   Kobayashi, Teranishi, Abe, Aoi, Doki, Fujimaki, Inabe, Iwasa et~al.}}]{Nak94}

1243: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Nakamura}},

1244:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Shimoura}},

1245:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},

1246:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Teranishi}},

1247:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Abe}},

1248:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Aoi}},

1249:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Doki}},

1250:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fujimaki}},

1251:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Inabe}},

1252:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Iwasa}},

1253:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}

1254:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{331}}, \bibinfo{pages}{296} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1255: 

1256: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fukuda et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Fukuda, Nakamura,

1257:   Aoi, Imai, Ishihara, Kobayashi, Iwasaki, Kubo, Mengoni, Notani

1258:   et~al.}}]{Fuk04}

1259: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Fukuda}},

1260:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Nakamura}},

1261:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Aoi}},

1262:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Imai}},

1263:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ishihara}},

1264:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},

1265:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Iwasaki}},

1266:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kubo}},

1267:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Mengoni}},

1268:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Notani}},

1269:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C}

1270:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{054606}

1271:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1272: 

1273: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Typel and Baur}(1994)}]{TB94}

1274: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Typel}} \bibnamefont{and}

1275:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Baur}},

1276:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{50}},

1277:   \bibinfo{pages}{2104} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Esbensen and Bertsch}(1996)}]{EB96}

1280: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Esbensen}} \bibnamefont{and}

1281:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~F.} \bibnamefont{Bertsch}},

1282:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. {\textbf{A}}} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{600}},

1283:   \bibinfo{pages}{37} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tostevin et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Tostevin, Rugmai,

1286:   and Johnson}}]{TRJ98}

1287: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Tostevin}},

1288:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Rugmai}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1289:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~C.} \bibnamefont{Johnson}},

1290:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}},

1291:   \bibinfo{pages}{3225} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Glauber}(1959)}]{Glauber}

1294: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Glauber}}, in

1295:   \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Lecture in Theoretical Physics}}, edited by

1296:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{W.~E.} \bibnamefont{Brittin}}

1297:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{L.~G.} \bibnamefont{Dunham}}

1298:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Interscience}, \bibinfo{address}{New York},

1299:   \bibinfo{year}{1959}), vol.~\bibinfo{volume}{1}, p. \bibinfo{pages}{315}.

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Suzuki et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Suzuki, Lovas,

1302:   Yabana, and Varga}}]{SLY03}

1303: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},

1304:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~G.} \bibnamefont{Lovas}},

1305:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yabana}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1306:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Varga}},

1307:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Structure and Reactions of Light Exotic Nuclei}}

1308:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Taylor and Francis}, \bibinfo{address}{London},

1309:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1310: 

1311: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bertulani and Danielewicz}(2004)}]{BD04}

1312: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~A.} \bibnamefont{Bertulani}}

1313:   \bibnamefont{and}

1314:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Danielewicz}},

1315:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Introduction to Nuclear Reactions}}

1316:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Institute of Physics Publishing},

1317:   \bibinfo{address}{Bristol}, \bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kamimura et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Kamimura, Yahiro,

1320:   Iseri, Kameyama, Sakuragi, and Kawai}}]{Kam86}

1321: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kamimura}},

1322:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Yahiro}},

1323:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Iseri}},

1324:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Kameyama}},

1325:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sakuragi}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1326:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kawai}},

1327:   \bibinfo{journal}{Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},

1328:   \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Austern et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Austern, Iseri,

1331:   Kamimura, Kawai, Rawitscher, and Yahiro}}]{Aus87}

1332: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Austern}},

1333:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Iseri}},

1334:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kamimura}},

1335:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kawai}},

1336:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Rawitscher}},

1337:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Yahiro}},

1338:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{154}},

1339:   \bibinfo{pages}{125} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

1340: 

1341: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tostevin et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Tostevin, Nunes,

1342:   and Thompson}}]{TNT01}

1343: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Tostevin}},

1344:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~M.} \bibnamefont{Nunes}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1345:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~J.} \bibnamefont{Thompson}},

1346:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}},

1347:   \bibinfo{pages}{024617} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kido et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Kido, Yabana, and

1350:   Suzuki}}]{KYS94}

1351: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kido}},

1352:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yabana}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1353:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},

1354:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{50}},

1355:   \bibinfo{pages}{R1276} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kido et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Kido, Yabana, and

1358:   Suzuki}}]{KYS96}

1359: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kido}},

1360:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yabana}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1361:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},

1362:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{53}},

1363:   \bibinfo{pages}{2296} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Esbensen et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Esbensen, Bertsch,

1366:   and Bertulani}}]{EBB95}

1367: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Esbensen}},

1368:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~F.} \bibnamefont{Bertsch}},

1369:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~A.}

1370:   \bibnamefont{Bertulani}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. {\textbf{A}}}

1371:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{581}}, \bibinfo{pages}{107} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1372: 

1373: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Typel and Wolter}(1999)}]{TW99}

1374: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Typel}} \bibnamefont{and}

1375:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~H.} \bibnamefont{Wolter}},

1376:   \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Naturforsch. Teil A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{54}},

1377:   \bibinfo{pages}{63} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Melezhik and Baye}(1999)}]{MB99}

1380: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~S.} \bibnamefont{Melezhik}} \bibnamefont{and}

1381:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}},

1382:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

1383:   \bibinfo{pages}{3232} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Capel et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Capel, Baye, and

1386:   Melezhik}}]{CBM03c}

1387: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Capel}},

1388:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1389:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~S.} \bibnamefont{Melezhik}},

1390:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},

1391:   \bibinfo{pages}{014612} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baye et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Baye, Capel, and

1394:   Goldstein}}]{BCG05}

1395: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}},

1396:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Capel}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1397:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Goldstein}},

1398:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{95}},

1399:   \bibinfo{pages}{082502} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

1400: 

1401: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goldstein et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Goldstein, Baye,

1402:   and Capel}}]{GBC06}

1403: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Goldstein}},

1404:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1405:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Capel}},

1406:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}},

1407:   \bibinfo{pages}{024602} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).

1408: 

1409: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goldstein et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Goldstein, Capel,

1410:   and Baye}}]{GCB07}

1411: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Goldstein}},

1412:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Capel}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1413:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}},

1414:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},

1415:   \bibinfo{pages}{024608} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).

1416: 

1417: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Summers et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Summers, Nunes, and

1418:   Thompson}}]{SNT06}

1419: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~C.} \bibnamefont{Summers}},

1420:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~M.} \bibnamefont{Nunes}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1421:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~J.} \bibnamefont{Thompson}},

1422:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}},

1423:   \bibinfo{eid}{014606} (pages~\bibinfo{numpages}{12}) (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).

1424: 

1425: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Matsumoto et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Matsumoto, Hiyama,

1426:   Ogata, Iseri, Kamimura, Chiba, and Yahiro}}]{Mat04}

1427: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Matsumoto}},

1428:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Hiyama}},

1429:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Ogata}},

1430:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Iseri}},

1431:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kamimura}},

1432:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Chiba}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1433:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Yahiro}},

1434:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},

1435:   \bibinfo{eid}{061601(R)} (pages~\bibinfo{numpages}{5})

1436:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rodriguez-Gallardo

1439:   et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Rodriguez-Gallardo, Arias, Gomez-Camacho, Johnson,

1440:   Moro, Thompson, and Tostevin}}]{RG07a}

1441: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Rodriguez-Gallardo}},

1442:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Arias}},

1443:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Gomez-Camacho}},

1444:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~C.} \bibnamefont{Johnson}},

1445:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Moro}},

1446:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~J.} \bibnamefont{Thompson}},

1447:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tostevin}},

1448:   \bibinfo{howpublished}{arXiv:0710.0769} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).

1449: 

1450: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Margueron et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Margueron,

1451:   Bonaccorso, and Brink}}]{MBB03}

1452: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Margueron}},

1453:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Bonaccorso}},

1454:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~M.} \bibnamefont{Brink}},

1455:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. {\textbf{A}}} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{720}},

1456:   \bibinfo{pages}{337} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1457: 

1458: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abu-Ibrahim and Suzuki}(2004)}]{AS04}

1459: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Abu-Ibrahim}} \bibnamefont{and}

1460:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},

1461:   \bibinfo{journal}{Prog. Theor. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{112}},

1462:   \bibinfo{pages}{1013} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}); {\it ibid.}, \textbf{114}, 901

1463: (2005).

1464: 

1465: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Alder and Winther}(1975)}]{AW75}

1466: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Alder}} \bibnamefont{and}

1467:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Winther}},

1468:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Electromagnetic Excitation}}

1469:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{North-Holland}, \bibinfo{address}{Amsterdam},

1470:   \bibinfo{year}{1975}).

1471: 

1472: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abramowitz and Stegun}(1970)}]{AS70}

1473: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Abramowitz}} \bibnamefont{and}

1474:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~A.} \bibnamefont{Stegun}},

1475:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Handbook of Mathematical Functions}}

1476:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Dover}, \bibinfo{address}{New-York},

1477:   \bibinfo{year}{1970}).

1478: 

1479: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abu-Ibrahim and Suzuki}(2000)}]{AS00}

1480: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Abu-Ibrahim}} \bibnamefont{and}

1481:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}},

1482:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},

1483:   \bibinfo{pages}{034608} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1484: 

1485: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Esbensen and Bertulani}(2002)}]{EB02}

1486: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Esbensen}} \bibnamefont{and}

1487:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~A.} \bibnamefont{Bertulani}},

1488:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

1489:   \bibinfo{pages}{024605} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1490: 

1491: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Capel and Baye}(2005)}]{CB05}

1492: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Capel}} \bibnamefont{and}

1493:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}},

1494:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}},

1495:   \bibinfo{pages}{044609} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

1496: 

1497: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Capel et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Capel, Goldstein, and

1498:   Baye}}]{CGB04}

1499: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Capel}},

1500:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Goldstein}},

1501:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baye}},

1502:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},

1503:   \bibinfo{pages}{064605} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1504: 

1505: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Typel and Shyam}(2001)}]{TS01r}

1506: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Typel}} \bibnamefont{and}

1507:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Shyam}},

1508:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},

1509:   \bibinfo{pages}{024605} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1510: 

1511: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bonin et~al.}(1985)\citenamefont{Bonin, Alamanos,

1512:   Berthier, Bruge, Faraggi, Lugol, Mittig, Papineau, Yavin, Arvieux

1513:   et~al.}}]{Bon85}

1514: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Bonin}},

1515:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Alamanos}},

1516:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Berthier}},

1517:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Bruge}},

1518:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Faraggi}},

1519:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Lugol}},

1520:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Mittig}},

1521:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Papineau}},

1522:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~I.} \bibnamefont{Yavin}},

1523:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Arvieux}},

1524:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. {\textbf{A}}}

1525:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{445}}, \bibinfo{pages}{381} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

1526: 

1527: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Al-Khalili et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Al-Khalili,

1528:   Tostevin, and Brooke}}]{ATB97}

1529: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~S.} \bibnamefont{Al-Khalili}},

1530:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Tostevin}},

1531:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.}

1532:   \bibnamefont{Brooke}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C}

1533:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{55}}, \bibinfo{pages}{R1018} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1534: 

1535: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Becchetti and Greenlees}(1969)}]{BG69}

1536: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~D.} \bibnamefont{Becchetti},

1537:   \bibfnamefont{Jr.}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~W.}

1538:   \bibnamefont{Greenlees}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.}

1539:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{182}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1190} (\bibinfo{year}{1969}).

1540: 

1541: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tostevin et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Tostevin, Bazin,

1542:   Brown, Glasmacher, Hansen, Maddalena, Navin, and Sherrill}}]{Tos02}

1543: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Tostevin}},

1544:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bazin}},

1545:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~A.} \bibnamefont{Brown}},

1546:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Glasmacher}},

1547:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~G.} \bibnamefont{Hansen}},

1548:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Maddalena}},

1549:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Navin}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1550:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~M.} \bibnamefont{Sherrill}},

1551:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},

1552:   \bibinfo{pages}{024607} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1553: 

1554: \end{thebibliography}

1555: 

1556: \end{document}

1557: