1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}

2: \begin{document}

3: \title{Neutrons transition densities for the $2^+-8^+$ multiplet of states

4: in $^{90}$Zr }

5: \author{ M S Onegin\dag~and A V Plavko\ddag }

6: 

7: \address{\dag\

8: 

9: Theory Division, PNPI, Gatchina, Leningrad district, Russia

10: 188350}

11: 

12: \address{\ddag\ St Petersburg State Polytechnic University, St

13: Petersburg, Russia 195251}

14: \ead{onegin@thd.pnpi.spb.ru}

15: 

16: 

17: \begin{abstract}

18: 

19: The neutron transition densities of the $2^+-8^+$ levels in $^{90}$Zr

20: were extracted in the process of analysing ({\bf p},p') scattering at

21: 400 Mev. Its comparison with the proton transition densities for

22: these levels was undertaken. The radial shapes of the experimental

23: neutron and proton transition densities for each state were found

24: to be different.

25: 

26: \end{abstract}

27: 

28: NUCLEAR REACTIONS $^{90}$Zr (polarized p,p'), E = 400 MeV;

29: calculated $\sigma$ ($\theta$) and A$_y(\theta)$. Experimental Neutron

30: transition densities for low-lying positive-parity

31: excitations.

32: 

33: 

34: \submitto{\JPG}

35: \pacno{24.10.Eq;24.10.Ht;25.40.Ep;21.10.-k}

36: 

37: % \maketitle

38: 

39: \nosections

40: 

41: The Nuclear structure of $^{90}$Zr has been analysed in proton

42: inelastic scattering in various publications

43: (see~\cite{Gazally,Baker,Lee} and references there for earlier

44: papers). In these works, the authors tried to describe

45: experimental data by the shell-model procedure with a limited

46: basis size or by the collective model of inelastic excitation. The

47: lack of the necessary transition strength in the microscopic

48: calculations made them introduce enhancement factors needed to

49: adjust the calculated cross-sections to experiment.

50: 

51: In the present paper, we employ a semi-microscopic approach

52: in which only  the matter component of transition densities is

53: used to describe the cross-section and analysing power of

54: inelastic scattering. Earlier ~\cite{Plavko,Kelly3,Plavko2} it was

55: demonstrated that this approach was adequate for the description

56: of inelastic scattering at medium and intermediate energies for

57: low-lying states with a large admixture of a core-polarisation

58: component in their nuclear wave functions. Since the proton

59: transition density can be determined independently in an electron

60: scattering experiment, proton scattering can be used to obtain the

61: second component of the matter density - the experimental neutron

62: transition density. In this letter, we use the experimental data

63: of ~\cite{Lee} to deduce these important characteristics of

64: nuclear excitation  for the whole multiplet of the

65: $2_1^+,4_1^+,6_1^+,8_1^+$   levels in $^{90}Zr$. Earlier a

66: slightly similar procedure was undertaken to deduce the model-

67: dependent neutron transition density. It was done for the first

68: member of this multiplet only ($2^+$). The result will be examined in

69: our letter further on.

70: In our study of proton scattering, we have  used the

71: calculation scheme provided by the linear expansion analysis (LEA)

72: code from Kelly~\cite{Kelly}. Our calculations have been performed

73: in the DWBA framework.  The same density-dependent nucleon-nucleon

74: interaction ~\cite{Geramb} is used in the calculations of the

75: optical potential and transition potential for inelastic

76: scattering in the folding-model formalism.  These potentials are

77: folded with the nucleon densities of the ground state ~\cite{Ray}

78: and the transition densities of the excited states, respectively.

79: We employ a zero-range approximation for exchange and use the

80: local density approximation based upon the density at the

81: projectile position in the analysis of a 400 MeV proton scattering

82: experiment. The comparison of the calculated elastic cross-

83: sections with the experimental data is presented in

84: Fig.~\ref{Fsel}. The overall agreement is satisfactory. Therefore,

85: we can be confident of the adequate use of the  nucleon-nucleon g-

86: matrix interaction and folding procedure at the given energy. For

87: the description of inelastic excitations only matter transition

88: densities are used in the folding procedure to obtain scattering

89: potentials. The proton transition densities have been obtained by

90: unfolding the proton charge densities from the charge transition

91: densities extracted in inelastic electron scattering

92: ~\cite{Heisenberg}.

93: According to~\cite{Kelly}, neutron transition densities $\rho ^n_{tr}$ for

94: a transition of multipolarity L have been parametrised using the

95: Laguerre-Gaussian expansion (LGE)

96: $$\rho ^n_{tr,L}(r)=\sum_{\nu} a_{\nu} x^L e^{-x^2} L_{\nu}^k (2

97: x^2),$$

98: where $k=L+\frac{1}{2}$ and $x=r/b$. The fitting procedure is

99: similar to that employed in ~\cite{Kelly2} for the $^{88}Sr$

100: nucleus. The oscillator parameter $b$ has been set to 2.2 fm. $L_{\nu}^k$

101: is a generalised Laguerre polynomial of order $\nu$. The unknown

102: coefficients $a_{\nu}$ have been obtained by fitting the calculated

103: differential cross-sections for the nuclear levels in question to the

104: experimental data of ~\cite{Lee,Lee2}. The analysis includes a high-$q$

105: bias and an estimate of the incompleteness error that results from

106: limitation of the data to finite momentum transfer. A tail bias is used to

107: damp unphysical oscillations of the density for $r\ge r_m$, where it is

108: assumed that $\rho \propto e^{-dr}$ is beyond the match radius $r_m=6.5\,

109: fm$.  The parameter $d$ is adjusted to the fitted density at the match

110: radius $r_m$.  The fits to the cross-section data are displayed in

111: Fig.~\ref{Sin}.  The LGE expansion coefficients for the neutron transition

112: densities in question are tabulated in Table~\ref{ntd}. The fitted neutron

113: transition densities presented in Fig.3 are compared with proton transition

114: densities for the same levels.  In Fig.~\ref{Sin} the dash curve also

115: represents the calculated cross-sections in the approximation of a pure

116: isoscalar character of the excitations. It can be seen there from the

117: comparison with experiment that this approximation is unacceptable.

118: The transition strength is customarily characterised by the moment

119: $$ M_\lambda = \int dr r^{L+2} \rho ^\lambda _L (r), $$

120: where $\lambda$ =\,p\,or\,n for

121: protons and neutrons, respectively, and $\rho ^\lambda _L (r)$ is the

122: radial dependence of the corresponding transition density. The $M_\lambda$

123: value is highly sensitive to the tail bias of the radial density

124: distribution.  The latter, in its turn, is determined by small momentum

125: transfer experimental data for the transition analysed. Unfortunately, we

126: have a lack of such data for the $6^+$ and especially for the

127: $8^+$ states~\cite{Lee,Lee2}. Therefore, the extracted neutron transition

128: densities may be inaccurate for high multipolarities. The obtained

129: results $M_n /M_p $ for multipolarity L are presented in

130: Table~\ref{ntd}.

131: In Fig.4 we also present comparisons between the calculated

132: analysing powers and the corresponding experimental data for the

133: considered transitions. It can be seen that the use of the fitted

134: neutron transition densities improves the phase structure of the

135: analysing powers for the $2^+$ and $4^+$ states at large

136: scattering angles, though it slightly reduces the calculated

137: values in the region of 30 degrees in comparison with the

138: calculations using isoscalar transition densities for these

139: states. The overall agreement with experiment is nearly the same

140: for the both options of the transition densities. As a result, the

141: radial dependence of the neutron transition density has a small

142: influence upon the analysing powers; consequently, the analysing

143: power data have not been included in the fitting procedure in our

144: paper as well as in~\cite{Bartlett}.

145: The surface lobes in the  extracted neutron transition

146: densities for the $2^+-6^+$ states are greater in absolute value

147: than those in the proton densities; however, they are shifted to

148: the interior of the nucleus. That is why the ratio of the

149: transition strengths $M_n/M_p$ is smaller than a value of 1.0 (see

150: Table~\ref{ntd}). A comparable shifting of the surface lobes is

151: also observed for the $8^+$ level. However, the ratio between the

152: peaks of the two transition densities is reverse here, as compared

153: with the above mentioned states.  The application of our

154: transition densities, including that for the $8^+$, will be reported

155: in a separate paper.

156: Earlier the model-dependent neutron transition density for

157: the $2_1^+$ level was extracted ~\cite{Bartlett} in the

158: description of inelastic proton scattering at 500 Mev. Besides,

159: inelastic scattering of $^6$Li ions was used ~\cite{Sachler} to

160: extract the ratio $M_n /M_p$ and to test the transition densities

161: of this level, obtained from open-shell random phase approximation

162: (RPA) calculations. The value of $M_n /M_p$ obtained in

163: ~\cite{Sachler} is $0.85\pm 0.10$ and in a special fit there is

164: $0.72\pm 0.10$, which agrees with our value $0.77\pm 0.03$.

165: However, the value obtained in ~\cite{Bartlett} ($M_n /M_p =1.47$)

166: considerably  deviates from ours. The radial dependence of the

167: neutron transition density from ~\cite{Bartlett}  for this state

168: is also presented in Fig.3 in comparison with that extracted in

169: the present paper. Their fitted result is slightly shifted to the

170: exterior of the nucleus, as compared with our experimental neutron

171: transition density, and it does not have any inner structure. When

172: we used the transition density of ~\cite{Bartlett} in our

173: calculations, we overestimated the differential cross-section for

174: this level (see Fig.~\ref{Sin}).

175: The deficiency exhibited by the transition densities of the

176: microscopic shell-model calculation (valence protons) is often

177: remedied by the coherent addition of a phenomenological core

178: vibration amplitude (see~\cite{Gazally,Lee} e.g.). However, our

179: results (Fig.  3) clearly demonstrate that such assumptions present too

180: naive a picture of $^{90}$Zr. Furthermore, our radial densities provide much

181: more insight into the structure of a transition than other predictions,

182: especially into the interior of the nucleus.  The proton transition

183: densities for the $2^+$ to $8^+$ multiplet arise from the same dominant

184: configuration  , and thus the shape of all these densities is determined

185: likewise by the shape of the   radial wave function. The neutron shell is

186: closed in $^{90}$Zr, but, as is seen from Fig. 3, the contributions of

187: neutron excitations are not weak and mostly outmeasure the proton

188: contributions.  Although the shapes of both contributions are different

189: across-the-board and, consequently, all the analysed excitations are far

190: from isoscalar, contrary to many common assumptions.  We have also used the

191: obtained transition densities for inelastic proton scattering at 61.2 MeV

192: and 800 MeV. The description appears to be rather good. Our demonstration

193: of the energy independence of the extracted neutron densities confirms the

194: accuracy of the analysis procedures.

195: 

196: \ack

197: 

198: \begin{table}

199: \caption{\label{ntd} Neutron transition densities expansion

200: coefficients

201: $a_\nu$ for $^{90}Zr$ expressed in units $fm^{-3}$.}

202: \lineup

203: \begin{indented}

204: \item[]\begin{tabular}{@{}lll}

205: \br

206: $\nu$ & $2_1^+$ & $4_1^+$  \\

207: \mr

208: 1 &$(\m 7.96\pm 3.73)\times 10^{-3}$ &$(\m 5.52\pm 0.84)\times

209: 10^{-3}$ \\

210: 2 &$(-1.13\pm 0.15)\times 10^{-2}$ &$(-2.41\pm 0.18)\times 10^{-

211: 3}$ \\

212: 3 &$(\m 1.03\pm 0.06)\times 10^{-2}$ &$(\m 2.29\pm 0.77)\times

213: 10^{-4}$ \\

214: 4 &$(\m 2.88\pm 0.32)\times 10^{-3}$ &$(\m 1.86\pm 0.25)\times

215: 10^{-4}$ \\

216: 5 &$(-0.40\pm 1.53)\times 10^{-4}$ &$(\m 1.64\pm 0.14)\times 10^{-

217: 4}$ \\

218: 6 &$(-4.79\pm 0.33)\times 10^{-4}$ &$(\m 2.43\pm 0.79)\times 10^{-

219: 5}$ \\

220: $M_n /M_p$ & $0.77\pm 0.03$ & $0.89\pm 0.05$ \\

221: \mr

222: $\nu$ & $6_1^+$ & $8_1^+$ \\

223: \mr

224: 1 & $(\m 1.21\pm 0.07)\times 10^{-3}$ &$(\m 1.08\pm 0.08)\times

225: 10^{-4}$ \\

226: 2 & $(-4.42\pm 2.11)\times 10^{-5}$ &$(\m 1.21\pm 0.34)\times

227: 10^{-5}$ \\

228: 3 & $(-2.18\pm 0.59)\times 10^{-5}$ &$(\m 5.63\pm 1.10)\times

229: 10^{-6}$ \\

230: 4 & $(-1.47\pm 0.28)\times 10^{-5}$ &$(\m 5.84\pm 2.03)\times

231: 10^{-7}$ \\

232: 5 & $(-9.62\pm 8.46)\times 10^{-7}$ &$(\m 1.70\pm 0.72)\times

233: 10^{-7}$ \\

234: 6 & $(-1.17\pm 0.26)\times 10^{-6}$ &$(-1.89\pm 0.27)\times 10^{-

235: 7}$ \\

236: $M_n /M_p$ & $0.71\pm 0.05$ & $1.43\pm 0.15$ \\

237: \br

238: \end{tabular}

239: \end{indented}

240: \end{table}

241: 

242: 

243: {\bf References}

244: 

245: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

246: \bibitem{Gazally} Gazally M M, Hintz N M, Franey M A et al 1983

247: \PR C {\bf 28} 294

248: \bibitem{Baker} Baker F T, Scott A, Grimm M A et al 1983 \NP A

249: {\bf 393}

250: 283

251: \bibitem{Lee} Lee L, Drake T E, Wong S S M et al 1989 \jpg

252: {\bf 15} L91

253: \bibitem{Plavko} Plavko A V,  Onegin M S and Ponkratenko O A 1986 {\it

254: Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Physics Series} {\bf 50}

255: No.~5 117

256: 

257: \bibitem{Kelly3} Khandaker M A, Kelly J J, Boberg P et al 1991 \PR C {\bf

258: 44} 1978

259: 

260: \bibitem{Plavko2} Plavko A, Onegin M, Kudriashov V et al 1995 {\it

261: AIP Conf. Proc.} {\bf 339} ed E J Stephenson and S E Vigdor (New

262: York; AIP)

263: p 581

264: 

265: \bibitem{Kelly} Kelly J J Computer program LEA (unpublished,private

266: communication)

267: 

268: \bibitem{Geramb} von Geramb H V 1983 {\it AIP Conf. Proc.} {\bf

269: 97} ed H O

270: Meyer (New York; AIP) p 44

271: \bibitem{Ray} Ray L, Coker W R and Hoffman G W

272: 1978 \PR C {\bf 18} 2641

273: \bibitem{Heisenberg} Heisenberg J, Dawson J,

274: Milliman T et al 1984 \PR C {\bf 29} 97

275: \bibitem{Lee2} Lee L {\it PhD thesis Univercity of Toronto}

276: \bibitem{Kelly2} Kelly J J,

277: Flanders B S, Hersman F W et al 1993 \PR  C {\bf 47} 2146

278: \bibitem{Bartlett} Bartlett M L, Hoffman G W and Ray L 1987 \PR C

279: {\bf

280: 35} 2185

281: \bibitem{Sachler} Horen D J, Auble J, Gomes del Campo J, Sachler G

282: R et al

283: 1993 \PR C {\bf 47} 629

284: 

285: \end{thebibliography}

286: 

287: \input epsf

288: \newpage

289: \begin{figure}

290: \begin{center}

291: \epsfxsize=14.8cm

292: \epsfysize=10.3cm

293: \epsfbox{fig1.eps}

294: \caption{\label{Fsel}Elastic cross section for proton scattering

295: from $^{90}$Zr at 400 MeV. The circles are the data

296: from Ref.~\cite{Lee}. The curve is a

297: microscopical folding model calculations.}

298: 

299: \end{center}

300: \end{figure}

301: 

302: \begin{figure}

303: \begin{center}

304: \epsfxsize=10.3cm

305: \epsfysize=14.8cm

306: \epsfbox{fig2.eps}

307: \caption{\label{Sin}Inelastic cross sections for proton scattering

308: from

309: $^{90}$Zr at 400 MeV. The circles are the data from Refs.~\cite{Lee,Lee2}.

310: The differential cross sections are scaled by factors of $10^{11}, 10^8,

311: 10^4$ for $2^+, 4^+, 6^+$ states, respectively, while $8^+$ results are

312: unscaled. The curves is a microscopical folding model calculations. The

313: dash curves - isoscalar option for transition densities; the full curves -

314: empirical fitted neutron transition densities; the dot curves - neutron

315: transition density from~\cite{Bartlett} }

316: \end{center}

317: \end{figure}

318: 

319: \clearpage

320: \newpage

321: \begin{center}

322: \begin{picture}(500,400)

323: \put(0,200) {

324: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

325: \epsfysize=6.9cm

326: \epsfbox{fig3a.eps}}

327: \put(250,200) {

328: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

329: \epsfysize=6.9cm

330: \epsfbox{fig3b.eps}}

331: \put(0,0) {

332: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

333: \epsfysize=6.9cm

334: \epsfbox{fig3c.eps}}

335: \put(250,0) {

336: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

337: \epsfysize=6.9cm

338: \epsfbox{fig3d.eps}}

339: \end{picture}

340: 

341: Fig.3. The experimental neutron transition densities for $2_1^+$

342: (a); $4_1^+$ (b); $6_1^+$ (c); $8_1^+$ (d) (bands) are

343: compared with

344: point-proton transition densities (solid curve) unfolded from the

345: (e,e')

346: results~\cite{Heisenberg}. In part (a) of the figure

347: neutron transition density from~\cite{Bartlett} for $2_1^+$ state

348: is

349: present (dash curve).

350: \end{center}

351: 

352: \newpage

353: \begin{center}

354: \begin{picture}(500,400)

355: \put(0,200) {

356: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

357: \epsfysize=6.9cm

358: \epsfbox{fig4a.eps}}

359: \put(250,200) {

360: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

361: \epsfysize=6.9cm

362: \epsfbox{fig4b.eps}}

363: \put(0,0) {

364: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

365: \epsfysize=6.9cm

366: \epsfbox{fig4c.eps}}

367: \put(250,0) {

368: \epsfxsize=9.9cm

369: \epsfysize=6.9cm

370: \epsfbox{fig4d.eps}}

371: \end{picture}

372: 

373: Fig.4. Inelastic analysing powers for $2^+$ (a), $4^+$ (b), $6^+$

374: (c),

375: $8^+$ (d) states~\cite{Lee,Lee2} in comparison with DWBA microscopic

376: folding model calculations  with isoscalar (dash curves) and model

377: transition densities (full curves).

378: \end{center}

379: 

380: \end{document}

381: 

382: 

383: 

384: