1: \documentstyle[12pt,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: %\setcounter{page}{}
4: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
5: \newcommand{\bm}{\boldmath}
6: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
7: \textwidth 17cm
8: \textheight 23.cm
9: \parskip=.2cm
10: \oddsidemargin 0.25cm
11:
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{On the polarization effects in $(p,n)$ reactions \\ between
16: the $A=48$ isobarical states}
17: \author{V. I. Isakov}
18: \address{Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute\\
19: Gatchina, 188300 St. Petersburg, Russia}
20: %\date{today}
21: \maketitle
22:
23: \vspace{1cm}
24: \begin{center} \bf A b s t r a c t \end{center}
25:
26: {\small
27: Isotopical dependence of spin-orbit splitting discovered by us in
28: spectra of heavy nuclei close to doubly magic ones is checked in
29: polarization effects arising in charge exchange $(p,n)$ reaction
30: between the $A=48$ isobarical states.}
31:
32: \vspace{1cm}
33:
34: Basing on the analysis of existing experimental data in nuclei close
35: to doubly magic nuclides $^{208}$Pb and $^{132}$Sn and on different
36: theoretical approaches it was shown in \cite{isa20} that
37: for similar orbitals the neutron
38: spin-orbit splitting in $N>Z$ nuclei is larger than the corresponding
39: proton splitting. It was also demonstrated in \cite{isa20} that
40: different theoretical approaches lead to a larger neutron as compared
41: to proton splittings of $1d$ and $1p$ orbits in $^{48}$Ca, where the
42: corresponding experimental data on energies of single particle levels
43: are incomplete due to strong fragmentation effects. It was shown
44: in particular in \cite{isa20}, that in terms of
45: phenomenological potential the spectra of single
46: particle states, including the spin-orbit splittings, may be reproduced
47: by the average potential of the form
48: \begin{eqnarray}
49: && \hat U\left(r,\hat\sigma,\tau_3\right)=V_0\left(1+\frac12\beta
50: \frac{N-Z}A\tau_3\right) f(r) +V_{ls}\left(1+\frac12\beta_{ls}
51: \frac{N-Z}A\tau_3\right)\frac1{r}\frac{df}{dr}\hat{\bf l}\hat{\bf s}
52: +\frac{(1+\tau_3)}2 U_{Coul}\ , \nonumber\\
53: && f(r)=\left[1+\exp\left(\frac{r-R}a\right)\right]^{-1},
54: \quad R=r_0A^{1/3}
55: \end{eqnarray}
56: with $V_0=-51.5$ MeV, $r_0=1.27$ fm, $V_{ls}=33.2\,\rm MeV\cdot fm^2$,
57: $a\approx0.6\,$fm, $\beta=1.39$ and $\beta_{ls}\sim-0.6$; $\tau_3=-1$ for
58: neutrons and $\tau_3=+1$ for protons. Introducing the quantities
59: $t_3=-\tau_3/2$, $T_3=(N-Z)/2$ and making in the spirit of \cite{lane62}
60: the substitution $T_3\cdot t_3\to \hat{\bf T}\cdot\hat{\bf t}$, where
61: $\hat{\bf T}$ and $\hat{\bf t}$ are isospin vector operators for the core and
62: nucleon, we obtain the nuclear part of potential (1) in the isotopic-invariant
63: form (Lane potential), suitable for description of both the diagonal in
64: $t_3$ (single particle spectra and elastic scattering) and non-diagonal
65: (($pn)$-reactions leading to isobaric analogue states) processes:
66: \begin{eqnarray}
67: \hat U = V_0\left(1-2\beta\frac{\hat{\bf T}\cdot\hat{\bf t}}A\right)
68: f(r)+V_{ls}\left(1-2\beta_{ls}\frac{\hat{\bf T}\cdot\hat{\bf t}}A\right)
69: \frac1{r} \frac{df}{dr} \hat{\bf l}\hat{\bf s} .
70: \end{eqnarray}
71: A spin-orbit term in a potential
72: leads to polarization effects in scattering.
73: We see from (2) that while the polarization in elastic scattering depends
74: on the parameter combination of the form $V_{ls}\left(1-\beta_{ls}
75: \frac{(N-Z)}A t_3\right)\approx V_{ls}$, similar effects
76: in charge-exchange
77: reactions with excitation of isoanalogue states are proportional
78: to $\beta_{ls}\cdot V_{ls}$, and are thus defined by the
79: isovector mean spin-orbit field parameter $\beta_{ls}$,
80: as the $V_{ls}$ parameter is well known. Thus we can check the
81: conclusions of Ref. \cite{isa20} concerning the $\beta_{ls}$
82: value and based on nuclear spectra using the
83: data from $(p,n)$ quasielastic scattering. One can find corresponding
84: information about the polarization effects in the $^{48}$Ca region
85: in Ref. \cite{and86}, where the $^{48}$Ca$(p,n)$ $^{48}$Sc
86: reaction with polarized protons leading to the
87: 0$^+$ (6.67 MeV) isoanalogue state was studied, but with
88: theoretical analysis based on microscopical approach for description of
89: nuclear structure and in terms of nucleon-nucleon amplitudes (DWIA). Here
90: we proceed in terms of the Lane model basing on spin-orbit parameters
91: defined in \cite{isa20} and using the Born approximation
92: for the description of scattering. Similar problems for other target
93: nuclei were also studied in this approach in \cite{gos76}.
94:
95: It is well known that in the Born approximation polarization effects
96: arising from the spin-orbit potential
97: disappear \cite{land}. Thus to describe these effects one needs to
98: introduce an imaginary part (absorption) into the optical potential, that
99: really means the account of effects beyond the Born approach. We
100: must also include in the real and imaginary parts of the potential the
101: dependence on the incident energy, which was rather high ($E=134\,$MeV)
102: in \cite{and86}. In \cite{site}, \cite{bohr} the following
103: proposition in the case of volume absorption is presented for the
104: $V_0$ parameter: $V_0=V_0'(1-0.0058\cdot E)$ with
105: $V'_0=-52\,$MeV, that is rather close to the value of $-51.5\,$MeV
106: obtained by us in \cite{isa20}. In this case the
107: corresponding absorption term in the optical potential was proposed in
108: \cite{site} in the form of \, $i\cdot W_Vf(r)$ with
109: $W_V$(MeV)$=-3.3 \cdot (1+0.03\cdot E)$. Surface absorption is usually
110: given as \, $i \cdot W_S(df/dr)$. For small values of transferred
111: momentum (small angles) both variants of absorption must result in
112: similar descriptions of the scattering process. In the case of \,
113: $a \ll R$ this leads to $W_S\approx-(R/3)W_V$. So, as an absorption term we use
114: the combination of the form
115: \begin{eqnarray}
116: i\cdot W_V[\alpha - (1-\alpha) \frac{R}{3} \frac{d}{dr}]f(r)
117: \end{eqnarray}
118: with $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, that leads to polarization effects,
119: independent on $\alpha$ at small scattering angles, but strongly
120: dependent on $\alpha$ at large values of transferred momentum. Thus,
121: for the description of polarization effects we use the optical potential
122: of the form (2), but with
123: \begin{eqnarray}
124: V_o \rightarrow -51.5 \cdot (1-0.0058 \cdot E) - i \cdot 3.3 \cdot
125: (1 + 0.03 \cdot E)[\alpha -
126: (1-\alpha) \frac{R}{3} \frac{d}{dr}],
127: \end{eqnarray}
128: adopting similar energy dependences for isoscalar and isovector terms
129: of the central nuclear potential.
130:
131: In Fig.1 one can see the results of our calculations for the analyzing
132: power $A$ in the case of $(p,n)$ reaction on $^{48}$Ca leading to the
133: isoanalogue state
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: A_{th} = \frac{{d\sigma_{\uparrow \uparrow}}/{d\omega}-
136: {d\sigma_{\uparrow \downarrow}}/{d\omega}}
137: {{d\sigma_{\uparrow \uparrow}}/{d\omega}+
138: {d\sigma_{\uparrow \downarrow}}/{d\omega}}\,\,; |A| \leq 1
139: \end{eqnarray}
140: together with experimental data and results of microscopical
141: calculations from \cite{and86}. Here $\sigma_{\uparrow \uparrow}$
142: and $\sigma_{\uparrow \downarrow}$ are cross sections with the polarization
143: vector $\vec {\varepsilon}$ of protons parallel or antiparallel to
144: $[\vec {k}_i \times \vec {k}_f]$.
145: We see that in the case of surface
146: absorption $(\alpha=0)$
147: our calculations that use the corresponding spin-orbit parameters from
148: \cite{isa20} demonstrate good agreement with the experiment up
149: to high values of the scattering angle. At the same time, introduction
150: of the energy dependence into the spin-orbit parameter $V_{ls}$,
151: analogous to that for the central nuclear field, leads to poor
152: agreement with the experiment on the analyzing power.
153:
154: Our calculations with $\alpha=0$ give the magnitude of differential cross
155: section for the $^{48}$Ca$(p,n)$ $^{48}$Sc$^*$ (I.A.S.) reaction on
156: unpolarized protons at zero angle equal to $\approx 7.7\,$mb/sr,
157: very weakly increasing with increase of
158: the parameter "$\alpha$", this cross section
159: sharply diminishes with the increase of the scattering angle and has some
160: structure at $\Theta_{c.m.} \sim 20^0$. The value presented above
161: may be compared with the magnitude of cross section at zero angle
162: measured in \cite{and85} ($\sim 7$ mb/sr), as
163: well as with the theoretical prediction \cite{and85} based on microscopical
164: theory ($\sim$ 7.5 mb/sr).
165:
166: The following conclusions should be made:
167: \begin{itemize}
168: \item Experimental data on the isotopical dependence of spin-orbit
169: splitting in nuclei are consistent with the data on polarization effects
170: in $(p,n)$ quasielastic scattering. The mean field parameters defined
171: in \cite{isa20} that describe the proton and neutron spin-orbit splittings in
172: nuclei close to $^{132}$Sn and $^{208}$Pb, in particular the $\beta_{ls}$ one,
173: well reproduce experimental data for $(p,n)$
174: quasielastic scattering on $^{48}$Ca.
175: \item Good description of analyzing power at high energy of incident
176: protons with the spin-orbit parameters borrowed from low energy spectroscopy
177: is consistent with supposition about the weak energy dependence of the
178: mentioned optical model parameters.
179: \item Satisfactory description of cross section for the $(p,n)$
180: reaction leading to isoanalogue state points to the correct
181: parameterization of the energy dependence of isovector terms in the
182: central nuclear potential used by us.
183: \item The obtained results unambiguously demonstrate a considerable
184: contribution of the surface absorption $((1-\alpha) \geq \,\sim 0.5)$ in
185: nuclei.
186: \end{itemize}
187:
188: The author is grateful to B. Fogelberg, H. Mach, V.E. Bunakov and
189: K.A. Mezilev for numerous and
190: useful discussions on the problems of spin-orbit splitting in nuclei.
191:
192: This work was supported by the Russian Foundation of Fundamental Research
193: (grant No.00-15-96610).
194:
195: %\newpage
196: \begin{figure}[h]
197: \centerline{\epsfig{file=2f.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}}
198: \caption{\footnotesize
199: Experimental data on analyzing power [3] together with
200: results of different calculations:
201: a)~DWIA microscopical calculation [3].
202: b)~Our calculation with $\alpha=1$ (volume absorption),
203: $V_{ls}=33.2 \,\,MeV \cdot fm^2$, $\beta_{ls}=-0.6$.
204: c)~Our calculation with $\alpha = 0$ (surface absorption),
205: $V_{ls}=33.2 \,\,MeV \cdot fm^2$, $\beta_{ls}=-0.6$.
206: d)~Our calculation with $\alpha=0$, $\beta_{ls}=-0.6$,
207: and energy-dependent parameter $V_{ls}$.
208: e)~The same as "b", "c", but with $\alpha = 0.5$.
209: }
210: \end{figure}
211:
212: %\newpage
213:
214:
215: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
216: %\vspace{-1cm}
217:
218: \bibitem{isa20}V.I. Isakov, K.I. Erokhina, H. Mach, M.~Sanchez-Vega,
219: B.~Fogelberg, Preprint PNPI, Gatchina, No.2375 (2000); nucl-th/0202044.
220:
221: \bibitem{lane62} A.M. Lane, Nucl. Phys. {\bf35}, 676 (1962).
222:
223: \bibitem{and86}
224: B.D. Anderson, T. Chittrakarn, A.R.~Baldwin, A.~Fazely,
225: C.~Lebo, R.~Madey, J.W.~Watson, C.C.~Foster, Phys. Rev. C{\bf34}, 422
226: (1986).
227:
228: \bibitem{gos76} J. Gosset, B. Mayer, J.L.~Escudie, Phys. Rev. C{\bf18},
229: 878 (1976).
230:
231: \bibitem{land} L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshits, {\em Quantum mechanics},
232: Moscow, 1963.
233:
234: \bibitem{site}A.G. Sitenko, {\em Theory of Nuclear Reactions},
235: Moscow, 1983.
236:
237: \bibitem{bohr}A. Bohr, B. Mottelson, {\em Nuclear Structure, vol. 1},
238: New York--Amsterdam, 1969.
239:
240: \bibitem{and85} B.D. Anderson, T. Chittrakarn, A.R.~Baldwin,
241: C.~Lebo, R.~Madey, R.J.~McCarthy, J.W.~Watson, B.A.~Brown, C.C.~Foster,
242: Phys. Rev. C{\bf31}, 1147 (1985).
243:
244: \end{thebibliography}
245:
246:
247: \end{document}
248: