1: % REVTEX V4.0
2: %
3: %\documentclass[aps,prc,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
4: \documentclass[aps,prc,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
8: %\documentclass[aps,prc,twocolumn,groupedaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
9:
10: %\documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
11: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
12: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
13: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
14: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig,psfig,graphicx]{revtex}
15:
16: \newcommand{\ling}{{$^{8}$Li($n$,$\gamma$)$^{9}$Li}}
17: \newcommand{\bpg}{{$^{8}$B($p$,$\gamma$)$^{9}$C}}
18: \newcommand{\lbo}{$\lambda_{\rm{bound}}$}
19: \newcommand{\lsc}{$\lambda_{\rm{scatt}}$}
20: \newcommand{\lbocent}{$\lambda_{\rm{bound}}^{\rm{central}}$}
21: \newcommand{\lbols}{$\lambda_{\rm{bound}}^{\rm{LS}}$}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{
26: Low-Energy Direct Capture in the
27: $^{8}$Li($\bm n$,$\bm\gamma$)$^{9}$Li
28: and
29: $^{8}$B($\bm p$,$\bm\gamma$)$^{9}$C
30: Reactions
31: }
32:
33:
34: \author{P.\ Mohr}
35: \email[E-mail: ]{mohr@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de}
36: \affiliation{
37: Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Technische Universit\"at Darmstadt,
38: Schlossgartenstra{\ss}e 9, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
39: }
40:
41: \date{\today}
42:
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45: %
46: The cross sections of the \ling\ and \bpg\ capture reactions have been
47: analyzed using the direct capture model. At low energies which is the
48: astrophysically relevant region the capture process is dominated by
49: $E1$ transitions from incoming $s$-waves to bound $p$-states. The
50: cross sections of both mirror reactions can be described
51: simultaneously with consistent potential parameters, whereas previous
52: calculations have overestimated the capture cross sections
53: significantly. However, the parameters of the potential have to be
54: chosen very carefully because the calculated cross section of the
55: \ling\ reaction depends sensitively on the potential strength.
56: %
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \pacs{26.30.+k, 26.35.+c, 25.40.-h, 25.40.Lw}
60: % 26.30.+k Nucleosynthesis in novae, supernovae and other explosive
61: % environments
62: % 26.35.+c Big Bang nucleosynthesis
63: % (see also 98.80.F Origin and formation of the elements)
64: % 25.40.-h Nucleon-induced reactions
65: % 25.40.Lw Radiative capture
66:
67:
68:
69: \maketitle
70:
71:
72: \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
73: %
74: Nucleon capture in the \ling\ and \bpg\ mirror reactions has attracted
75: much attention in the recent years. The low-energy behavior of both
76: reactions is of astrophysical relevance. Nucleosynthesis of light
77: nuclei is hindered by the gaps at $A = 5$ and $A = 8$ where no stable
78: nuclei exist. However, these gaps may be bridged by reactions involving
79: the unstable $A = 8$ nuclei $^8$Li ($T_{1/2} = 840$\,ms) and $^8$B
80: ($T_{1/2} = 770$\,ms).
81:
82: The \ling\ reaction is important in inhomogeneous big bang models.
83: Here the \ling\ reaction \cite{Koba03} is in competition with the
84: $^8$Li($\alpha$,n)$^{11}$B reaction where much effort has been spent
85: recently \cite{Para91,Boyd92,Gu95,Miz00}.
86: Typical temperatures are around $T_9 \approx 1$
87: \cite{Miz00,Rau94,Boyd01} with $T_9$ being the
88: temperature in billion degrees. The role of light
89: neutron-rich nuclei in the $r$-process, e.g.\ in type II supernovae,
90: was analyzed in \cite{Tera01}; here a temperature range of $0.5
91: \lesssim T_9 \lesssim 4$ is relevant. Because of the missing Coulomb
92: barrier for neutron-induced reactions, astrophysically relevant
93: energies for the \ling\ reaction are around $E \approx kT$. Hence, for
94: both scenarios the cross section has to be determined for energies
95: below $E \lesssim 500$\,keV. In this paper all energies are given in the
96: center-of-mass system.
97:
98: The \bpg\ reaction leads to a hot part of the $pp$-chain as soon as
99: the proton capture of $^8$B is faster than the competing $\beta^+$
100: decay \cite{Wie89}. Then a breakout to the hot CNO cyle and to the
101: $rp$-process is possible with the $^9$C($\alpha$,p)$^{12}$N reaction
102: \cite{Wie89}. The \bpg\ reaction is especially relevant in
103: low-metallicity stars with high masses where such a proton-rich
104: reaction chain can be faster than the
105: triple-$\alpha$ process \cite{Wie89,Ful86}, and furthermore the
106: reaction may become important under nova conditions
107: \cite{Boff93}. The typical temperature range in both astrophysical
108: scenarios is around several times $10^8$\,K which corresponds to
109: energies of the Gamow window around 50\,keV $\lesssim E \lesssim$
110: 300\,keV.
111:
112: There are many common properties of the \ling\ and \bpg\ mirror
113: reactions in both experimental and theoretical point of view. Because
114: of the unstable $^8$Li and $^8$B nuclei, direct experiments are
115: extremely difficult at astrophysically relevant energies below
116: 500\,keV. However, indirect experiments have been performed
117: successfully. A stringent limit for the \ling\ capture cross section
118: has been derived from the Coulomb breakup reaction
119: $^{208}$Pb($^9$Li,$^8$Li+$n$)$^{208}$Pb at MSU \cite{Zech98,Koba03}.
120: The astrophysical $S$-factor at zero energy for the \bpg\ reaction
121: (usually referred to as $S_{18}$) has been derived from the asymptotic
122: normalization coefficient (ANC) method using transfer reactions. The
123: $^2$H($^8$B,$^9$C)n reaction was measured at RIKEN \cite{Beau01}, and
124: one-proton removal reactions on carbon, aluminum, tin, and lead
125: targets were used at Texas A\&M university \cite{Tra02}.
126:
127: From theoretical point of view, the astrophysical reaction rate of
128: both reactions is dominated by direct (non-resonant) $E1$ transitions
129: from incoming $s$-waves to bound $p$-waves. However, because of the
130: larger Q-value of the \ling\ reaction ($Q = 4064$\,keV) and
131: because of the missing Coulomb repulsion the \ling\ reaction is not
132: purely peripheral as expected for the \bpg\ reaction with its small $Q
133: = 1296$\,keV.
134:
135: This paper is restricted to an analysis of the $s$-wave capture
136: to the ground states of $^9$Li and $^9$C. The total reaction rate for
137: both reactions is slightly enhanced by resonant contributions, by
138: $p$-wave and $d$-wave capture, and by the transition to the first
139: excited state in $^9$Li in the case of the \ling\ reaction. The level
140: scheme of the mirror nuclei $^9$Li and $^9$C (combined from
141: \cite{Ajz88,NNDC,Til01}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:a9level}.
142: %
143: \begin{figure}[hbt]
144: \includegraphics[ bb = 115 75 425 305, width = 75 mm, clip]{a9fig1.ps}
145: %\includegraphics[ bb = 115 75 425 305, width = 110 mm, clip]{a9fig1.ps}
146: \caption{
147: \label{fig:a9level}
148: Level scheme of the mirror nuclei $^9$Li and $^9$C
149: \cite{Ajz88,NNDC,Til01}. Spin and parity of the ($5/2^-$) state at $E
150: = 4296$\,keV in $^9$Li are taken from theory \cite{Hees84,Rau94}.
151: The widths of broad levels are indicated by gray shadings.
152: }
153: \end{figure}
154:
155: Various models have been used to predict the \ling\ and \bpg\ reaction
156: cross sections. However, practically all predictions overestimated the
157: experimentally determined values for both reactions
158: \cite{Rau94,Bert99,Desc99,Mal89,Mao91}. Especially for the \ling\
159: reaction, the predictions vary between a factor of 3 and up to a
160: factor of 50 higher than the present upper limit
161: \cite{Rau94,Bert99,Desc99,Mal89,Mao91} (see also Table I in
162: \cite{Koba03}). It is the aim of the present work to analyze the
163: peculiarities of the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions at low energies.
164:
165:
166: \section{\label{sec:model}Direct Capture Model and Results}
167: %
168: The cross section for direct capture $\sigma^{\rm{DC}}$ is
169: proportional to the spectroscopic factor $C^2\,S$ and to the square of
170: the overlap integral of the scattering wave function
171: $\chi_{\rm{scatt}}$, the electric dipole operator $O^{\rm{E1}}$, and
172: the bound state wave function $u_{\rm{bound}}$:
173: %
174: \begin{equation}
175: \sigma^{\rm{DC}} \sim C^2\,S \,\,
176: \left| \int \chi_{\rm{scatt}}(r) \, O^{E1} \, u_{\rm{bound}}(r) \, dr \right|^2
177: \label{eq:dc}
178: \end{equation}
179: %
180: The full formalism can be found e.g.\ in \cite{Mohr94}. The relation
181: between this simple two-body model and microscopic models has been
182: recently studied in \cite{Esch01,Esch02}.
183:
184: The essential ingredients are the potentials which are needed to
185: calculate the wave functions $\chi_{\rm{scatt}}$ and
186: $u_{\rm{bound}}$. In the following a real folding potential $V_F(r)$
187: is used
188: which is calculated from an approximate density for the $A = 8$ nuclei
189: (taken as the weighted average of the measured charge density
190: distributions of $^7$Li and $^9$Be \cite{Vri87}) and an effective
191: nucleon-nucleon interaction of $M3Y$ type \cite{Kob84}. The imaginary
192: part of the potential can be neglected at low energies. The resulting
193: potential is adjusted by a strength parameter $\lambda$ which has been
194: found close to unity in many cases:
195: %
196: \begin{equation}
197: V(r) = \lambda \, V_F(r) \quad .
198: \label{eq:lambda}
199: \end{equation}
200: %
201: For mirror reactions, it is usually accepted that the potentials
202: $V(r)$ and the spectroscopic factors $C^2\,S$ are very similar.
203: The folding potential (with $\lambda = 1$) is shown in
204: Fig.~\ref{fig:potential}. The volume integral per interacting nucleon
205: pair is $J = -616.57$\,MeV\,fm$^3$, and the root-mean-square radius
206: is $r_{\rm{rms}} = 3.0114$\,fm.
207: %
208: \begin{figure}[hbt]
209: \includegraphics[ bb = 150 60 490 310, width = 75 mm, clip]{a9fig2.ps}
210: %\includegraphics[ bb = 150 60 490 310, width = 110 mm, clip]{a9fig2.ps}
211: \caption{
212: \label{fig:potential}
213: Folding potential for the interaction $^8$Li$-n$ and $^8$B$-p$ (with
214: $\lambda = 1$).
215: }
216: \end{figure}
217:
218: As usual, the parameter $\lambda$ for the bound state wave function is
219: adjusted to the binding energies of a
220: $1p_{3/2}$ neutron (proton) in the $^9$Li ($^9$C) residual nuclei. The
221: resulting values are \lbo\ $ = 1.065$ (1.045) for $^9$Li
222: ($^9$C). The deviation between both values for
223: \lbo\ is very small; thus the above assumption of similar
224: parameters for mirror nuclei is confirmed.
225:
226: For scattering waves, the potential strength parameter $\lambda$ can
227: be adjusted to reproduce experimental phase shifts. For $s$-waves,
228: which are relevant
229: for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions, an adjustment to thermal neutron
230: scattering lengths is also possible (and should be preferred because
231: of the dominance of $s$-waves at thermal energies). Successful
232: examples of this procedure can be found in \cite{Beer96,Mohr98}.
233: Unfortunately, for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions phase shifts or
234: neutron scattering lengths are not available from experiment, and
235: therefore no experimental restriction from experimental scattering
236: data exists for \lsc .
237:
238: As soon as the potential parameters \lbo\ and \lsc\ are fixed, the
239: capture cross sections can be calculated from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dc}); the
240: model contains no further adjustable parameters.
241: A Saxon-Woods potential can also be used, and similar results will be
242: obtained. But because of the larger number of adjustable parameters
243: the conclusions cannot be drawn as clearly as in the case of the
244: folding potential with the only adjustable parameter $\lambda$.
245:
246: For the spectroscopic factors of the ground states of $^9$Li = $^8$Li
247: $\otimes\ n$ and $^9$C = $^8$B $\otimes\ p$ I use $C^2\,S = 1.0$ close
248: to the calculated values of $C^2\,S = 0.81 - 0.97$
249: \cite{Beau01,Bert99}. But also larger values up to $C^2\,S = 2.5$ have
250: been obtained \cite{Wie89}; this large value was not used in the
251: present work. It has been shown further \cite{Beau01} that the
252: dominating contribution to $C^2\,S$ comes from the nucleon transfer to
253: the $1p_{3/2}$ orbit whereas the contribution of the $1p_{1/2}$
254: orbit remains below 5\,\%.
255:
256: To fix the potential strength parameter \lsc , and to see whether it
257: is possible to reproduce the experimental values of both reactions
258: simultaneously within this simple model, the theoretical capture cross
259: sections of both reactions were calculated in the energy range $E \le
260: 1$\,MeV. A spectroscopic factor
261: $C^2\,S = 1.0$ was used in all calculations. In Fig.~\ref{fig:li8n}
262: the capture cross section $\sigma(E)$ for the \ling\ reaction is shown
263: as a function of energy with \lsc\ $= 0.55$ and 1.20 as parameters. In
264: the case of the \bpg\ reaction the energy dependence of the
265: astrophysical $S$-factor $S_{18}(E)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:b8p}
266: with \lsc\ $= 0.55$, 1.50, and 1.55 as parameters. As can be seen,
267: for both reactions the results depend sensitively on the choice of the
268: potential strength parameter \lsc\,. Therefore for both reactions the
269: cross section dependence on the potential strength parameter \lsc\ has
270: been calculated at a fixed energy $E = 25$\,keV. The interesting
271: result of the cross section dependence on the potential strength
272: parameter \lsc\ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda}. Note that the range
273: of the values for \lsc\ has to be restricted to realistic values with
274: the Pauli-forbidden $1s$ state below the respective threshold
275: ($\lambda_{\rm{scatt}} \gtrsim 0.5$) and the Pauli-allowed $2s$ state
276: far above threshold ($\lambda_{\rm{scatt}} \lesssim
277: 1.2$). Additionally, the ratio $r =
278: \sigma(25\,{\rm{keV}})/S_{18}(25\,{\rm{keV}})$ is plotted in
279: Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda}. If one makes the usual assumption that the
280: spectroscopic factors are equal in mirror reactions, this ratio does
281: not depend on the chosen spectroscopic factor.
282: %
283: \begin{figure}[hbt]
284: \includegraphics[ bb = 150 60 490 310, width = 75 mm, clip]{a9fig3.ps}
285: %\includegraphics[ bb = 150 60 490 310, width = 110 mm, clip]{a9fig3.ps}
286: \caption{
287: \label{fig:li8n}
288: Direct capture cross section $\sigma^{\rm{DC}}(E)$ for the \ling\
289: reaction with $C^2\,S = 1.0$. The full line is obtained using \lsc\ $=
290: 0.55$; it shows the usual $1/v$ behavior. Significant differences from
291: the $1/v$ behavior are found for \lsc\ $=1.20$ (dashed line). The
292: arrow shows the experimental upper limit from \protect\cite{Koba03}.
293: Discussion see Sect.~\ref{sec:disc}.
294: }
295: \end{figure}
296: %
297: \begin{figure}[hbt]
298: \includegraphics[ bb = 150 60 490 310, width = 75 mm, clip]{a9fig4.ps}
299: %\includegraphics[ bb = 150 60 490 310, width = 110 mm, clip]{a9fig4.ps}
300: \caption{
301: \label{fig:b8p}
302: Astrophysical $S$-factor $S_{18}(E)$ for the \bpg\ reaction, derived from the
303: direct capture cross section with $C^2\,S = 1.0$. The experimental
304: point at $E = 0$ is taken from \protect\cite{Beau01,Tra02}. The full line is
305: obtained using \lsc\ $= 0.55$; as expected, the $S$-factor is almost
306: constant. However, resonances are obtained for \lsc\ $=1.50$ (dashed
307: line) and \lsc\ $= 1.55$ (dotted line). Further discussion see
308: Sect.~\ref{sec:disc}.
309: }
310: \end{figure}
311: %
312: \begin{figure}[hbt]
313: \includegraphics[ bb = 145 60 490 530, width = 75 mm, clip]{a9fig5.ps}
314: %\includegraphics[ bb = 145 60 490 530, width = 110 mm, clip]{a9fig5.ps}
315: \caption{
316: \label{fig:lambda}
317: Direct capture cross section $\sigma^{\rm{DC}}$ for the \ling\
318: reaction (upper diagram), $S_{18}$ for the \bpg\ reaction (middle),
319: and the ratio $r = \sigma/S_{18}$ (lower), in dependence on the
320: potential strength parameter \lsc . All values have been
321: calculated at $E = 25$\,keV using $C^2\,S = 1.0$. The horizontal lines show the
322: experimental results: $\sigma \le 5.88$\,$\mu$b for \ling\
323: \cite{Koba03}, $S_{18} = 45.5 \pm 5.5$\,eV\,b for \bpg\
324: \cite{Beau01,Tra02}, and the ratio $r \le 0.129$\,MeV$^{-1}$.
325: Discussion see text.
326: }
327: \end{figure}
328:
329: The results shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:li8n}, \ref{fig:b8p}, and
330: \ref{fig:lambda} have quite surprising features. It is difficult to
331: fit the experimental results $\sigma(25\,{\rm{keV}}) \le 5.88\,\mu$b
332: for the \ling\ reaction (derived from \cite{Koba03} using a standard
333: $1/v$ energy dependence) and $S_{18}(25\,{\rm{keV}}) \approx S_{18}(0)
334: = 45.5 \pm 5.5$\,eV\,b for the \bpg\ reaction (weighted average from
335: \cite{Beau01,Tra02}). Only in a narrow range of
336: $\lambda_{\rm{scatt}} \approx 0.55$ both experimental results are
337: reproduced simultaneously. Higher values of $\lambda$ (closer to the
338: expected $\lambda \approx 1$) lead to a significant overestimation of
339: both cross sections. From the calculated ratio $r$ in
340: Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda}, again the allowed range of \lsc\ is very narrow
341: and around \lsc\ $\approx 0.55$. Larger values of \lsc\ do not
342: reproduce the ratio $r$ because of the different sensitivities of the
343: \ling\ and \bpg\ reaction cross sections on the potential
344: strength. Hence it is possible to determine \lsc\ from experimental
345: capture data for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions.
346:
347: A more detailed view on both \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions follows. In
348: Figs.~\ref{fig:li8n} and \ref{fig:b8p} the full line represents \lsc\
349: $= 0.55$ which was derived from the ratio of both
350: reactions. Additionally, the dashed lines show calculations with \lsc\
351: values which lead to extreme cross sections (see
352: Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda}).
353:
354: In the case of the \ling\ reaction, the cross
355: section is very sensitive to the chosen value of $\lambda$. Increasing
356: \lsc\ from 0.55 to 0.75 leads to an increase of the cross section by
357: more than a factor of two, and decreasing \lsc\ from 0.55 to 0.50
358: reduces the cross section by about 30\,\%. With \lsc\ $= 0.55$ an
359: energy dependence of the cross section proportional to $1/v$ is
360: observed, whereas with \lsc\ $= 1.20$ a clear deviation from the usual
361: $1/v$ behavior can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:li8n}.
362:
363: The \bpg\ reaction is
364: mainly peripheral and does not depend sensitively on the chosen
365: potential strength. Changing \lsc\ from 0.55 to 0.75 (0.50) increases
366: (decreases) the $S$-factor by 28\,\% (17\,\%). The relatively weak
367: dependence on
368: the potential strength parameter \lsc\ can also be seen from
369: Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda} where $S_{18}$ changes only by roughly a factor
370: of two from \lsc\ $= 0.60$ to \lsc\ $= 1.4$. Furthermore, the
371: $S$-factor of this
372: reaction depends only weakly on the chosen energy; for \lsc\ $=
373: 0.55$ one finds that $S_{18}(E=0)$ is roughly 2\,\% larger than the
374: quoted $S_{18}(25\,{\rm{keV}})$.
375:
376: When \lsc\, is increased, in both reactions resonances are observed (see
377: Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda}). In the case of the \ling\ reaction the
378: parameter \lsc\ $= 1.25$ leads to a resonance at $E = 25$\,keV. In the
379: \bpg\ reaction a resonance appears at $E = 360$\,keV with a width of
380: $\Gamma = 50$\,keV using \lsc\ $= 1.50$; for \lsc\ $= 1.55$ this
381: resonance is shifted to lower energies, and the width is much smaller
382: (dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:b8p}). These resonances will be
383: interpreted in the following Sect.~\ref{sec:disc}.
384:
385:
386: \section{Discussion}
387: \label{sec:disc}
388: %
389: The results of the calculations now can be summarized:
390: \\%
391: ($i$) There is a possibility to fit the experimental data of both
392: \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions within this simple model simultaneously when a
393: potential strength parameter \lsc\ $\approx 0.55$ and a spectroscopic
394: factor $C^2\,S \approx 1$ are used. Any other combinations lead to
395: discrepancies with the experimental results. \lsc\ is determined from
396: the ratio $r$ without ambiguity (independent of the spectroscopic
397: factors). And for much smaller or much larger values of $C^2\,S$ a
398: simultaneous description of both reactions is not possible.
399: \\%
400: ($ii$) A surprisingly large difference for the potential parameters
401: \lbo\ $\approx 1$ and \lsc\ $\approx 0.55$ is
402: found. This might be an indication that the simple $M3Y$ interaction
403: fails to describe systems with extreme neutron-to-proton ratio $N/Z$;
404: here $N/Z = 2.0$ for $^9$Li and $N/Z = 0.5$ for $^9$C. It is
405: interesting to note that a calculation using a variant of the $M3Y$
406: interaction including a spin-orbit and a tensor part is able to
407: predict $S_{18}(0) = 53$\,eV\,b for the \bpg\ reaction \cite{Timo93}
408: which is close to the experimental results
409: \cite{Beau01,Tra02}. Unfortunately, there is no prediction for the
410: \ling\ reaction in \cite{Timo93}.
411: \\%
412: ($iii$) Using \lsc\ $\gtrsim 1$ leads to a so-called ``potential
413: resonance''. This phenomenon has been discussed in detail in
414: \cite{Mohr98}, and resonances have been described successfully within
415: a potential model e.g.\ in \cite{Mohr94,Mohr97}.
416: For $^9$Li and $^9$C the $2s$ orbit is shifted to lower energies by an
417: increased \lsc , and the low-energy tail of this resonance influences
418: the cross sections at 25\,keV significantly. For \lsc\ $\approx 1.25$
419: (\lsc\ $\approx 1.55$) the $2s$ resonance appears at energies around
420: 25\,keV in the
421: \ling\ (\bpg ) reaction (see Figs.~\ref{fig:li8n}, \ref{fig:b8p}, and
422: \ref{fig:lambda}). Probably this resonant behavior is the reason
423: why most of the previous calculations using standard potentials failed
424: to predict the experimental data for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions
425: correctly.
426:
427: Many nuclei in the $1p$ shell with $N \approx Z$ show such
428: low-lying $s$-wave resonances with a large reduced width corresponding
429: to the $2s$ level. One example is the $1/2^+$ state at $E_x =
430: 2365$\,keV in $^{13}$N which appears as a resonance in the
431: $^{12}$C($p$,$\gamma$)$^{13}$N reaction at $E = 421$\,keV \cite{Rol73}. This
432: resonance (and its mirror state in $^{13}$C which is located below the
433: $^{12}$C$-n$ threshold; this state plays an important role in the
434: $^{12}$C($n$,$\gamma$)$^{13}$C reaction \cite{Men95,Kik98}) can be
435: described within the present model using $\lambda \approx 1$
436: \cite{Mohr97}. Another example is the $1^-$ resonance at $E_x =
437: 5173$\,keV in $^{14}$O which appears as a resonance in the
438: $^{13}$N($p$,$\gamma$)$^{14}$O reaction at $E = 545$\,keV \cite{Dec91}.
439:
440: The experimental data \cite{Koba03,Beau01,Tra02} indicate for the \ling\
441: and \bpg\ reactions that there are no low-lying $s$-wave
442: resonances close above the threshold.
443: What is the difference between the non-resonant \ling\ and
444: \bpg\ reactions and the resonant $^{12}$C($p$,$\gamma$)$^{13}$N and
445: $^{13}$N($p$,$\gamma$)$^{14}$O reactions? As discussed in the
446: following, the non-resonant behavior of \ling\ and \bpg\ can be understood from
447: basic shell model considerations. For simplicity, the following paragraph
448: discusses the \bpg\ reaction and properties of $^9$C. Similar
449: conclusions are reached for \ling\ and $^9$Li by exchanging protons
450: and neutrons.
451:
452: For light nuclei with extreme neutron-to-proton ratio $N/Z$ one has to
453: distinguish between neutron and proton orbits. The $J^\pi = 3/2^-$
454: ground state of $^9$C corresponds to a neutron $1p_{3/2}$ orbit.
455: Two neutrons and two protons in the $1s_{1/2}$ orbits couple to an
456: inert $\alpha$ core with $J^\pi = 0^+$, and four protons fill the the
457: $1p_{3/2}$ subshell and couple to $J^\pi = 0^+$.
458: Excited states with $J^\pi =
459: 1/2^-$ ($1/2^+$) correspond to neutron $1p_{1/2}$ ($2s_{1/2}$)
460: orbits. The $1/2^-$ state is probably the first excited state (see
461: Fig.~\ref{fig:a9level}). The $1/2^+$ state (not known experimentally)
462: is expected at low energies (as usual for $1p$ shell nuclei) with a
463: large reduced neutron width. But the proton $2s_{1/2}$ orbit in $^9$C
464: must be located at much higher energies because a proton pair must be
465: broken for a $^9$C = $^8$B$_{\rm{g.s.}}$ $\otimes$ $p$ configuration. Spin and
466: parity of such a proton $2s_{1/2}$ orbit in $^9$C are $J^{\pi} = 3/2^+$ and
467: $5/2^+$ because $J^{\pi}(^8{\rm{B_{\rm{g.s.}}}}) = 2^+$.
468:
469: Only shallow potentials with \lsc\ $\approx 0.55$ can describe such a
470: high-lying proton $2s_{1/2}$ orbit in a correct way. A standard
471: potential (with \lsc\ $\approx 1$) would shift this proton $2s_{1/2}$
472: orbit to lower energies leading to a $s$-wave resonance relatively
473: close above the threshold. Because of the low-energy tail of this
474: resonance, the cross sections are strongly overestimated in this case.
475:
476: The low-lying $1/2^+$ state from the neutron $2s_{1/2}$ orbit cannot
477: contribute to the \bpg\ reaction as $s$-wave resonance because the
478: excitation of a
479: $J^\pi = 1/2^+$ resonance in the \bpg\ reaction requires a
480: $d$-wave. Additionally, only a small reduced proton width is expected
481: for such a neutron single-particle state.
482:
483: The derivation of the equation for the overlap integral (\ref{eq:dc})
484: makes use of Siegert's theorem \cite{Sie37}. Therefore,
485: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dc}) is exactly valid only if the same Hamiltonians,
486: i.e.\ the same potentials, are used for the calculation of the bound
487: state and scattering wave functions. Otherwise, the non-orthogonality
488: of the bound state and scattering wave functions may lead to
489: considerable theoretical uncertainties \cite{Laf82}.
490:
491: At first view, the huge discrepancy between the bound state potential
492: (\lbo\ $\approx 1.05$) and the scattering potential (\lsc\ $\approx
493: 0.55$) seems to indicate a strong violation of Siegert's theorem.
494: However, this is not the case for the considered $E1$ transitions from
495: incoming $s$-waves in the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions. Practically
496: identical wave functions for the $p_{3/2}$ bound state are derived
497: from ($i$) a central potential with the strength parameter \lbo , and
498: ($ii$) a combination of central and spin-orbit potential with strength
499: parameters \lbocent\ and \lbols . The shape of the spin-orbit
500: potential $V_{\rm{LS}}(r) = $ \lbols\ $1/r \, dV_F/dr \, \vec{L} \cdot
501: \vec{S}$ is practically identical to the central folding potential
502: $V_F(r)$ because $V_F(r)$ has an almost Gaussian shape. Hence, an
503: increased \lbocent\ can be compensated by a decreased \lbols\ and vice
504: versa, leading to the same total potential and bound state wave
505: function. A proper combination of \lbocent\ and \lbols\ has to be
506: chosen to repoduce the binding energies. The quoted \lbo\ $\approx
507: 1.05$ were obtained without spin-orbit potential (\lbols\ $= 0$).
508: Alternatively, using \lbocent\ $=$ \lsc\ $= 0.55$ leads to \lbols\ $=
509: -3.89$\,fm$^2$ for the $^9$Li ground state (\lbols\ $= -3.71$\,fm$^2$ for
510: $^9$C). The potential for the incoming $s$-wave is not affected by the
511: additional spin-orbit potential. The bound state and scattering wave
512: functions are now orthogonal because they are calculated from the same
513: potential. Therefore, the overlap integral Eq.~(\ref{eq:dc}) is exact
514: for the $E1$ transitions from incoming $s$-waves to bound $p$-waves if
515: one uses the above combination of central and spin-orbit potentials in
516: the entrance and exit channels. Eq.~(\ref{eq:dc}) remains a good
517: aproximation if one uses only the central potential with the different
518: \lsc\ and \lbo\ because there are only minor deviations of the order
519: of 10\,\% between the different bound state wave functions; hence, the
520: orthogonality of the wave functions remains approximately fulfilled.
521: For simplicity the calculations in this work were performed without
522: spin-orbit potentials.
523:
524: A possible core polarization (sometimes also called semi-direct
525: capture) may lead to asymmetries in the \ling\ and \bpg\ mirror
526: reactions. The core polarization can be taken into account by
527: modifications of the $E1$ operator in the nuclear interior. Following
528: the formalism of \cite{Die77} one finds that the modification of the
529: $E1$ operator leads to a negligible change of the cross section in the
530: case of the \bpg\ reaction because of its extremely peripheral
531: character. But also in the case of the \ling\ reaction the modified
532: $E1$ operator changes the cross section by significantly less than
533: 10\,\%. Therefore, the modification of the $E1$ operator by
534: semi-direct capture was neglected in this work.
535:
536:
537: \section{Conclusions}
538: \label{sec:conc}
539: %
540: A consistent description of the capture cross sections of the \ling\
541: and \bpg\ reactions has been obtained using the direct capture
542: model. However, a surprisingly strong difference between the potential
543: parameters \lsc\ for the scattering wave function and \lbo\ for the
544: bound state wave function was found. The small value of \lsc\ $\approx
545: 0.55$ is well-defined from the ratio of the cross sections of both
546: reactions and leads to a shallow potential. The value of \lbo\
547: $\approx 1.05$ is derived from the
548: binding energies of the $^9$Li and $^9$C ground states and is close to
549: the usual values $\lambda \approx 1$. The strong
550: difference between \lsc\ and \lbo\ indicates limitations
551: of the simple $M3Y$ interaction for nuclei with extreme
552: neutron-to-proton ratios $N/Z$. On the other hand, the parameters
553: \lsc\ and \lbo\ are practically equal for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions,
554: as is expected for mirror reactions. The sensitivity of the \ling\
555: cross section and, to less extent, the \bpg\ $S$-factor to the
556: potential strength
557: parameter \lsc\ is strong which can be explained by resonances in the
558: potential model. Consequently, the choice of potential parameters for
559: direct capture calculations has to be done very carefully. This
560: problem is not particular for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions, but has
561: to be taken into account in any direct capture calculation. The big
562: discrepancies between previous predictions and recently obtained
563: experimental results for the \ling\ and \bpg\ reactions are probably a
564: consequence of the neglect of these potential resonances.
565:
566:
567: \begin{acknowledgments}
568: %
569: I thank J.\ Escher, H.\ Oberhummer, G.\ Staudt, N.\ Timofeyuk, and A.\
570: Zilges for encouraging discussions.
571: %
572: \end{acknowledgments}
573:
574:
575: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
576: %
577: \bibitem{Koba03}
578: H.\ Kobayashi, K.\ Ieki, {\'A}.\ Horv{\'a}th, A.\ Galonsky, N.\ Carlin, F.\
579: De{\'a}k, T.\ Gomi, V.\ Guimaraes, Y.\ Higurashi, Y.\ Iwata, {\'A}.\ Kiss, J.\
580: J.\ Kolata, T.\ Rauscher, H.\ Schelin, Z.\ Seres, and R.\ Warner,
581: \prc {\bf 67}, 015806 (2003).
582: %
583: \bibitem{Para91}
584: T.\ Paradellis, S.\ Kossionides, G.\ Doukellis, X.\ Aslanoglou,
585: P.\ Assimakopoulos, A.\ Pakou, C.\ Rolfs, and K.\ Langanke,
586: Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 337}, 211 (1990).
587: %
588: \bibitem{Boyd92}
589: R.\ N.\ Boyd, I.\ Tanihata, N.\ Inabe, T.\ Kubo, T.\ Nakagawa, T.\
590: Suzuki, M.\ Yonokura, X.\ X.\ Bai, K.\ Kimura, S.\ Kubono, S.\
591: Shimoura, H.\ S.\ Xu, and D.\ Hirata,
592: \prl {\bf 68}, 1283 (1992).
593: %
594: \bibitem{Gu95}
595: X.\ Gu, R.\ N.\ Boyd, M.\ M.\ Farrell, J.\ D.\ Kalen, C.\ A.\
596: Mitchell, J.\ J.\ Kolata, M.\ Belbot, K.\ Lamkin,
597: K.\ Ashktorab, F.\ D.\ Becchetti, J.\ Brown, D.\ Roberts, K.\ Kimura,
598: I.\ Tanihata, K.\ Yoshida, and M.\ S.\ Islam,
599: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 343}, 31 (1995).
600: %
601: \bibitem{Miz00}
602: Y.\ Mizoi, T.\ Fukuda, Y.\ Matsuyama, T.\ Miyachi, H.\ Miyatake,
603: N.\ Aoi, N.\ Fukuda, M.\ Notani, Y.\ X.\ Watanabe, K.\ Yoneda,
604: M.\ Ishihara, H.\ Sakurai, Y.\ Watanabe, and A.\ Yoshida,
605: \prc {\bf 62}, 065801 (2000).
606: %
607: \bibitem{Rau94}
608: T.\ Rauscher, J.\ H.\ Applegate, J.\ J.\ Cowan, F.-K.\ Thielemann, and
609: M.\ Wiescher,
610: \apj {\bf 429}, 499 (1994).
611: %
612: \bibitem{Boyd01}
613: R.\ N.\ Boyd,
614: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A693}, 249 (2001).
615: %
616: \bibitem{Tera01}
617: M.\ Terasawa, K.\ Sumiyoshi, T.\ Kajino, G.\ J.\ Mathews, and I.\
618: Tanihata,
619: \apj {\bf 562}, 470 (2001).
620: %
621: \bibitem{Wie89} M.\ Wiescher, J.\ G\"orres, S.\ Graff, L.\ Buchmann,
622: and F.-K.\ Thielemann,
623: \apj {\bf 343}, 352 (1989).
624: %
625: \bibitem{Ful86}
626: G.\ M.\ Fuller, S.\ E.\ Woosley, and T.\ A.\ Weaver,
627: \apj {\bf 307}, 675 (1986).
628: %
629: \bibitem{Boff93}
630: H.\ M.\ J.\ Boffin, G.\ Paulus, M.\ Arnould, and N.\ Mowlavi,
631: Astron.\ Astroph.\ {\bf 279}, 173 (1993).
632: %
633: \bibitem{Zech98}
634: P.\ D.\ Zecher, A.\ Galonsky, S.\ J.\ Gaff, J.\ J.\ Kruse, G.\ Kunde,
635: E.\ Tryggestad, J.\ Wang, R.\ E.\ Warner, D.\ J.\ Morrissey, K.\ Ieki, Y.\
636: Iwata, F.\ De{\'a}k, {\'A}.\ Horv{\'a}th, {\'A}.\ Kiss, Z.\ Seres,
637: J.\ J.\ Kolata, J.\ von Schwarzenberg, and H.\ Schelin,
638: \prc, {\bf 57}, 959 (1998).
639: %
640: \bibitem{Beau01}
641: D.\ Beaumel, T.\ Kubo, T.\ Teranishi, H.\ Sakurai, S.\ Fortier, A.\
642: Mengoni, N.\ Aoi, N.\ Fukuda, M.\ Hirai, N.\ Imai, H.\ Iwasaki, H.\
643: Kumagai, H.\ Laurent, S.\ M.\ Lukyanov, J.\ M.\ Maison, T.\
644: Motobayashi, T.\ Nakamura, H.\ Ohnuma, S.\ Pita, K.\ Yoneda, and M.\
645: Ishihara,
646: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 226 (2001).
647: %
648: \bibitem{Tra02}
649: L.\ Trache, F.\ Carstoiu, A.\ M.\ Mukhamedzhanov, and R.\ E.\ Tribble,
650: \prc {\bf 66}, 035801 (2002).
651: %
652: \bibitem{Ajz88}
653: F.\ Ajzenberg-Selove,
654: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A490}, 1 (1988).
655: %
656: \bibitem{NNDC}
657: Online Data Basis ENSDF, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
658: {\it{http://www.nndc.bnl.gov}}, last update: 08-JAN-2003.
659: %
660: \bibitem{Til01}
661: D.\ R.\ Tilley, J.\ L.\ Godwin, J.\ H.\ Kelley,
662: C.\ D.\ Nesaraja, J.\ Purcell, C.\ G.\ Sheu, and H.\ R.\ Weller,
663: TUNL Nuclear Data Evaluation Group, Preliminary Version \#1, June 12,
664: 2001.
665: %
666: \bibitem{Hees84}
667: A.\ G.\ M.\ van Hees and P.\ W.\ M.\ Glaudemans,
668: Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 315}, 223 (1984).
669: %
670: \bibitem{Bert99}
671: C.\ A.\ Bertulani,
672: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 25}, 1959 (1999).
673: %
674: \bibitem{Desc99}
675: P.\ Descouvemont,
676: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A646}, 261 (1999).
677: %
678: \bibitem{Mal89}
679: R.\ A.\ Malaney and W.\ A.\ Fowler,
680: \apj {\bf 345}, L5 (1989).
681: %
682: \bibitem{Mao91}
683: Z.\ Q.\ Mao and A.\ E.\ Champagne,
684: Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf A522}, 568 (1991).
685: %
686: \bibitem{Mohr94}
687: P.\ Mohr, V.\ K\"olle, S.\ Wilmes, U.\ Atzrott, G.\ Staudt, J.\ W.\ Hammer,
688: H.\ Krauss, and H.\ Oberhummer,
689: \prc {\bf 50}, 1543 (1994).
690: %
691: \bibitem{Esch01}
692: J.\ Escher, B.\ K.\ Jennings, and H.\ S.\ Sherif,
693: \prc {\bf 64}, 065801 (2001).
694: %
695: \bibitem{Esch02}
696: J.\ Escher and B.\ K.\ Jennings,
697: \prc {\bf 66}, 034313 (2002).
698: %
699: \bibitem{Vri87}
700: H.\ de Vries, C.\ W.\ de Jager, and C.\ de Vries,
701: At.\ Data Nucl.\ Data Tables {\bf 36}, 495 (1987).
702: %
703: \bibitem{Kob84}
704: A.~M.~Kobos, B.~A.~Brown, R.~Lindsay, and R.~Satchler,
705: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A425}, 205 (1984).
706: %
707: \bibitem{Beer96}
708: H.~Beer, C.~Coceva, P.~V.~Sedyshev, Yu.~P.~Popov, H.~Herndl,
709: R.~Hofinger, P.~Mohr, and H.\ Oberhummer,
710: \prc {\bf 54}, 2014 (1996).
711: %
712: \bibitem{Mohr98}
713: P.\ Mohr, H.\ Beer, H.\ Oberhummer, and G.\ Staudt,
714: \prc {\bf 58}, 932 (1998).
715: %
716: \bibitem{Timo93}
717: N.\ Timofeyuk, Proc.\ {\it{International School-Seminar on Heavy Ion
718: Physics}}, ed.\ Yu.\ Ts.\ Oganessian {\it et al.}, Dubna, Russia,
719: 1993, vol.\ 2, p.\ 534.
720: %
721: \bibitem{Mohr97}
722: P.\ Mohr, H.\ Herndl, H.\ Oberhummer, and G.\ Staudt,
723: \prc {\bf 56}, 3425 (1997).
724: %
725: \bibitem{Rol73}
726: C.\ Rolfs and R.\ E.\ Azuma,
727: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A227}, 291 (1974).
728: %
729: \bibitem{Men95}
730: A.\ Mengoni, T.\ Otsuka, and M.\ Ishihara,
731: \prc {\bf 52}, R2334 (1995).
732: %
733: \bibitem{Kik98}
734: T.\ Kikuchi, Y.\ Nagai, T.\ S.\ Suzuki, T.\ Shima, T.\ Kii, M.\
735: Igashira, A.\ Mengoni, and T.\ Otsuka,
736: \prc {\bf 57}, 2724 (1998).
737: %
738: \bibitem{Dec91}
739: P.\ Decrock, Th.\ Delbar, P.\ Duhamel, W.\ Galster, M.\ Huyse, P.\ Leleux,
740: I.\ Licot, E.\ Lienard, P.\ Lipnik, M.\ Loiselet, C.\ Michotte, G.\ Ryckewaert,
741: P.\ Van Duppen, J.\ Vanhorenbeeck, and J.\ Vervier,
742: \prl {\bf 67}, 808 (1991).
743: %
744: \bibitem{Sie37}
745: A.\ J.\ F.\ Siegert,
746: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 52}, 787 (1937).
747: %
748: \bibitem{Laf82}
749: J.\ M.\ Lafferty, jr.\ and S.\ R.\ Cotanch,
750: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A373}, 363 (1982).
751: %
752: \bibitem{Die77}
753: F.\ S.\ Dietrich, D.\ W.\ Heikkinen, K.\ A.\ Snover, and K.\ Ebisawa,
754: \prl {\bf 38}, 156 (1977).
755: %
756: \end{thebibliography}
757:
758:
759: \end{document}
760: