1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: %\usepackage{epsfig}

4: %\usepackage{psfig}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: %\usepackage{graphics}

7: \usepackage{xspace}

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: \usepackage{amsmath}

10: \usepackage{latexsym}

11: %\usepackage{natbib}

12: \usepackage{mathrsfs}

13: %

14: \newcommand{\ove}{\overline}

15: \newcommand{\sla}{\mskip 1.mu /\mskip-9mu}

16: \newcommand{\diff}{{\rm\,d}}

17: \newcommand{\bint}{\mskip .5mu \int \mskip-18mu}

18: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

19: %

20: \def\ll{\mbox{\boldmath $\lambda$}}

21: \def\l{\mbox{\boldmath $l$}}

22: \def\x{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}

23: \def\z{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}

24: \def\s{\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}

25: \def\h{\mbox{\boldmath $h$}}

26: \def\S{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}

27: \def\N{\mbox{\boldmath $N$}}

28: \def\L{\mbox{\boldmath $L$}}

29: %\def\r{\mbox{{\bf r}}}

30: \def\R{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}

31: \def\p{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}

32: \def\P{\mbox{\boldmath $P$}}

33: \def\q{\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}

34: \def\v{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}

35: \def\k{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}

36: \def\T{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}

37: \def\e{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}

38: \def\N{\mbox{\boldmath $N$}}

39: \def\J{\mbox{\boldmath $J$}}

40: \def\A{\mbox{\boldmath $A$}}

41: \def\B{\mbox{\boldmath $B$}}

42: \def\ss{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

43: \def\ta{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

44: \def\dd{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

45: \def\ga{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

46: \def\Ps{\mbox{\boldmath $\Psi$}}

47: \def\Fi{\mbox{\boldmath $\Phi$}}

48: \def\al{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

49: \def\r{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}

50: \def\rf{\mbox{\boldmath $r^{ \prime}$}}

51: \def\pf{\mbox{\boldmath $p^{ \prime}$}}

52: \def\sf{\mbox{\boldmath $s^{ \prime}$}}

53: %\def\pm{\mbox{\boldmath $p_{\mathrm m}$}}

54: \def\j{\mbox{$\jmath$}}

55: \def\ep{\mbox{$e^{\prime}$}}

56: \def\mcg{\mbox{$\mathcal{G}$}}

57: \def\mcv{\mbox{$\mathcal{V}$}}

58: \def\mcs{\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}

59: \def\mct{\mbox{$\mathcal{T}$}}

60: \def\mcm{\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}

61: \def\mch{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}

62: \def\mcu{\mbox{$\mathcal{U}$}}

63: \def\mcd{\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}

64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

66: \begin{document}

67: \begin{frontmatter}

68: \title{Antisymmetrized Green's function approach to $(e,e')$ reactions

69: with a realistic nuclear density}

70: 

71: \author[pv]{F.~Capuzzi},

72: \author[pv]{C.~Giusti},

73: \author[pv]{F.~D.~Pacati}

74: \address[pv]{Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica,

75: Universit\`{a} di Pavia and \\

76: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pavia, I-27100

77: Pavia, Italy}

78: \author[so]{D.~N.~Kadrev}

79: \address[so]{Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy,

80: Sofia 1784, Bulgaria}

81: 

82: \date{\today}

83: 

84: \begin{abstract}

85: A completely antisymmetrized Green's function approach to the

86: inclusive quasielastic $(e,e')$ scattering, including a realistic

87: one-body density, is presented. The single particle Green's function

88: is expanded in terms of the eigenfunctions of the nonhermitian

89: optical potential. This allows one to treat final state interactions

90: consistently in the inclusive and in the exclusive reactions.

91: Nuclear correlations are included in the one-body density. Numerical

92: results for the response functions of $^{16}$O and

93: $^{40}$Ca are presented and discussed.

94: \end{abstract}

95: 

96: \begin{keyword}

97: Electron scattering \sep Many-body theory

98: 

99: \PACS 25.30.Fj \sep 24.10.Cn

100: \end{keyword}

101: 

102: \end{frontmatter}

103: 

104: \section{Introduction \label{sec.intro}}

105: 

106: The one-body mechanism gives a natural interpretation of the

107: inclusive electron scattering in the quasielastic region. However,

108: in order to explain the experimental data of the separated

109: longitudinal and transverse responses more complicated mechanisms

110: are needed. A review of the experimental data and their possible

111: explanations can be found in Ref. \cite{book}. Thereafter, only a few

112: experimental papers were published \cite{batesca,csfrascati}, while

113: new experiments with high resolution are planned at JLab

114: \cite{jlabpro}.

115: 

116: Many papers were published in order to explain the problems raised by

117: the separation, i.e., the apparent lack of strength in the

118: longitudinal response and the apparent excess of strength in the

119: transverse one. Among them, the more recent ones are concerned with

120: the contribution to the inclusive cross section of meson exchange

121: currents and isobar excitations \cite{Sluys,Cenni,Amaro,Amaro2}, with

122: the effect of correlations \cite{Fabrocini,Co}, and the use of a

123: relativistic framework in the calculations \cite{Amaro,meucci}.

124: 

125: At present, however, a consistent and simultaneous description of the

126: longitudinal and transverse response functions is not available. A

127: possible solution could be the combined effect of two-body currents

128: and tensor correlations \cite{Leidemann,Fabrocini,Sick}.

129: 

130: A peculiar problem of inclusive electron scattering is the treatment

131: of final state interactions (FSI), since they are essential to

132: explain the exclusive reaction with one-nucleon emission, which is

133: the dominant process contributing to the inclusive reaction in the

134: quasielastic region. The large absorption due, e.g., to the

135: imaginary part of the optical potential, produces a loss of flux

136: that is appropriate for the exclusive process, but inconsistent for

137: the inclusive one, where the total flux must be conserved. This

138: conservation is preserved in the Green's function approach considered

139: here. This result was originally derived by arguments based on the

140: multiple scattering theory \cite{hori} and then by means of the

141: Feshbach projection operator formalism

142: \cite{chinn,bouch,capuzzi,capma,meucci}.

143: 

144: The spectral representation of the single-particle (s.p.) Green's

145: function, based on a biorthogonal expansion in terms of the

146: eigenfunctions of the nonhermitian optical potential, allows one to

147: perform explicit calculations and to treat FSI consistently in the

148: inclusive and in the exclusive reactions. In previous papers

149: \cite{capuzzi,meucci} the Green's function approach was used both in

150: a nonrelativistic and in a relativistic framework to perform explicit

151: calculations of the inclusive response functions.

152: 

153: Two issues are the main goal of this paper: a completely

154: antisymmetrized presentation of the Green's function approach, and

155: the effect of nuclear correlations, which are included in the model

156: through the use of a realistic one-body density matrix (ODM). In

157: the previous application of the method \cite{capuzzi,meucci}

158: correlations were neglected. The response functions were given by a

159: sum over the residual nucleus states restricted to be s.p. one-hole

160: states in the target. A pure shell model was assumed for the nuclear

161: structure and therefore the overlap functions between the target and

162: the residual nucleus were given by phenomenological s.p. wave

163: functions with a shell-model spectroscopic factor. In the present

164: work we are able to include partial occupation numbers, and

165: therefore correlations, through the natural expansion of the ODM.

166: 

167: The definitions and the main properties of the quantities involved in

168: the model are given in Section~\ref{sec.def}. In Sec.~\ref{sec.green}

169: the antisymmetrized Green's function approach is developed and the

170: inclusive cross section is expressed in terms of the ODM. In

171: Sec.~\ref{sec.spectral} the Green's function is calculated in terms of

172: the spectral representation related to the optical potential. 

173: In Sec.~\ref{sec.density} some models describing the ODM including 

174: correlations are briefly reviewed.

175: In Sec.~\ref{sec.results} the results of calculations for $^{16}$O and

176: $^{40}$Ca are reported and compared with some experimental data.

177: Summary and conclusions are drawn in Sec.~\ref{conc}.

178: 

179: 

180: \section{Definitions and main properties \label{sec.def}}

181: 

182: In this Section we collect most of the definitions which will be

183: useful in the treatment of the inclusive $(e,e')$ reaction, using the

184: Green's functions approach along the lines of

185: Refs.~\cite{capuzzi,capma,meucci}.

186: 

187: 

188: \subsection{One-body density, Green's functions and related

189: quantities \label{ssec:2.1}}

190: 

191: We deal in this paper with three different systems: the $Z$--proton

192: residual nucleus, the ($Z+1$)--proton target nucleus, and the

193: ($Z-1$)--proton system obtained removing a proton from the residual

194: nucleus. 

195: The contribution of the neutrons, here disregarded in order to simplify 

196: the formalism, can be introduced in an obvious way.

197: Let $T$ and $H$ be the kinetic energy and the Hamiltonian

198: operators acting in the Hilbert spaces

199: $\mathcal{H}^{Z},\mathcal{H}^{Z+1}$, and $\mathcal{H}^{Z-1}$,

200: corresponding to the three given systems and written in the Fock's

201: formalism. Here we are interested only in the following eigenvectors

202: of $H$: i) the eigenvectors $|n\rangle$, representing the bound

203: states of the residual nucleus with energy $\epsilon_n$, ii) the

204: eigenvector $|\psi_0\rangle$, representing the initial state, which

205: is the ground state of the target nucleus with energy $E_0$, and

206: iii) the eigenvectors $|\psi_f\rangle$, representing all the final

207: (bound or unbound) states of the target nucleus, including

208: $|\psi_0\rangle$. These eigenvectors are properly orthonormalized.

209: Relatedly, we define the hole overlaps, referred to $|\psi_0\rangle$,

210: \begin{equation} \label{eq:2.1}

211: \langle\r |\phi_n \rangle \equiv \langle n |a_{\mathbf {r}} |\psi_0

212: \rangle,

213: \end{equation}

214: and the particle overlaps, referred to $|n\rangle$,

215: \begin{equation}

216: \langle\r |\chi_{f,n} \rangle \equiv \langle n |a_{\mathbf {r}}

217: |\psi_f \rangle, \label{eq:2.2}

218: \end{equation}

219: where $a_{\mathbf {r}}$ annihilates a proton at the point $\r$. The

220: corresponding annihilation operator of a proton of momentum $\p$ is

221: \begin{equation}

222: a_{\mathbf{p}} \equiv (2\pi)^{-3/2} \int\diff\r \exp(-i\p \cdot \r) \

223: a_{\mathbf{r}}. \label{eq:2.3}

224: \end{equation}

225: For sake of simplicity, we consider spinless protons, we assume that

226: $|\psi_0 \rangle$ and $|n\rangle$ are not degenerate, and we omit any

227: degeneracy index in the unbound states $|\psi_f \rangle$. When

228: referring to quantities related to $n = 0$, the index 0 will be

229: usually suppressed in the following Sections.

230: 

231: \subsubsection{The one-body density matrix}

232: 

233: The one-body density matrix related to $|\psi_0 \rangle$ is defined

234: as

235: \begin{equation}

236: \langle\r|K|\rf\rangle = \langle\psi_0| a_{\mathbf {r'}}^{\dagger}

237: a_{\mathbf {r}}|\psi_0 \rangle . \label{eq:2.4}

238: \end{equation}

239: It is real and symmetric by the exchange $\r \longleftrightarrow

240: \rf$, since $|\psi_0 \rangle$ is not degenerate. The corresponding

241: operator $K$ in $L^2({\bf R}^3)$ is nonnegative, self-adjoint, and

242: has a finite trace equal to $Z$+1. The eigenvalue equation

243: \begin{equation}

244: K|u_\nu\rangle = n_\nu|u_\nu\rangle \label{eq:2.5}

245: \end{equation}

246: defines the natural orbitals $u_\nu(\r) = \langle\r|u_\nu\rangle$ and

247: the related occupation numbers $n_\nu$, which satisfy the relations

248: \begin{equation}

249: 0 \leq n_\nu \leq 1 \, ,\, \, \sum_\nu n_\nu = Z + 1. \label{eq:2.6}

250: \end{equation}

251: The operator $K$ is invertible in the subspace of $L^2({\bf R}^3)$

252: spanned by the orbitals $u_\nu$, with $n_\nu \neq 0$. If $n_\nu = 0$

253: is not an eigenvalue of $K$, it is necessarily an accumulation point

254: of eigenvalues. Thus $K$ is fully invertible, but $K^{-1}$ is a

255: rather complicate operator.

256: 

257: 

258: \subsubsection{The one-body Green's function}

259: 

260: At complex energies $z$, the one-body Green's function related to

261: $|n\rangle$ is the sum of the particle and hole Green's functions:

262: \begin{equation}

263: \langle \r |\mcg_n(z)|\rf\rangle = \langle \r

264: |\mcg_n^{(p)}(z)|\rf\rangle + \langle \r |\mcg_n^{(h)}(z)|\rf\rangle

265: \label{eq:2.7}

266: \end{equation}

267: with

268: \begin{equation}

269: \langle \r |\mcg_n^{(p)}(z)|\rf\rangle = \langle n |a_{\r} (z - H +

270: \epsilon_n)^{-1} a_{\rf}^{\dagger} |n\rangle , \label{eq:2.8}

271: \end{equation}

272: \begin{equation}

273: \langle \r |\mcg_n^{(h)}(z)|\rf\rangle = \langle n |a_{\rf}^{\dagger}

274: (z + H - \epsilon_n)^{-1} a_{\r} |n\rangle . \label{eq:2.9}

275: \end{equation}

276: These Green's functions are symmetric by the exchange $\r

277: \longleftrightarrow \rf$, since $|n\rangle$ is not degenerate.

278: 

279: At real energies $E$, we consider the retarded Green's function

280: instead of the time-ordered one, since it is more convenient in the

281: formalism developed below. It is defined as

282: \begin{equation}

283: \mcg_n(E) = \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} \mcg_n(E+i\eta).

284: \label{eq:2.10}

285: \end{equation}

286: In this equation, as well as in all the next equations involving

287: $\eta$, the limit is understood in the weak sense, i.e., it must be

288: performed after inclusion into a scalar product between normalizable

289: vectors. Henceforth, the symbol of limit will be usually understood.

290: 

291: 

292: \subsubsection{The spectral function}

293: 

294: The Green's function $\mcg_n(z)$ is analytic in the complex plane

295: except for cuts and poles on the real axis. Hence, it can be written

296: as

297: \begin{equation}

298: \mcg_n(z) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff E' \, \frac {\mcs_n(E')}

299: {z-E'}, \label{eq:2.11}

300: \end{equation}

301: where

302: \begin{equation}

303: \mcs_n(E) = \frac {1} {2\pi i} [\mcg_n(E-i\eta) - \mcg_n(E+i\eta)] =

304: \frac {1} {2\pi i} [\mcg_n^{\dagger}(E) - \mcg_n(E)] \label{eq:2.12}

305: \end{equation}

306: is the spectral function, which satisfies the sum rule

307: \begin{equation}

308: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff E \, \mcs_n(E) = 1. \label{eq:2.13}

309: \end{equation}

310: Since $\mcs_n(E)$ is nonnegative, Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.11}) and

311: (\ref{eq:2.13}) show that

312: \begin{equation}

313: \mcg_n(z)|\phi \rangle = 0 \, \, \Longrightarrow \, |\phi\rangle = 0

314: \end{equation}

315: for $z$ complex. Hence, $\mcg_n(z)$ is fully invertible.

316: 

317: \subsubsection{The self-energy}

318: 

319: At complex energies $z$, the Green's function can be written as

320: \begin{equation}

321: \mcg_n(z) = \frac {1} {z - \mct -\mcm_n(z)} , \label{eq:2.15}

322: \end{equation}

323: where $\mct$ is the one-body kinetic energy and $\mcm_n$ the one-body

324: self-energy. The related Hamiltonian $h_n(z)$ is defined as

325: \begin{equation}

326: h_n(z) \equiv \mct + \mcm_n(z) = z - [\mcg_n(z)]^{-1}.

327: \label{eq:2.14}

328: \end{equation}

329: Note that $\mcg_n(z)$ is fully invertible, so that $\mcm_n(z)$ has no

330: mathematical drawbacks related to undue restrictions of its domain.

331: In contrast, $\mcg_n^{(p)}(z)$ is only partially invertible if 1 is

332: an eigenvalue of the density matrix associated with $|n\rangle$. This

333: produces a restriction of the domain of the related self-energy

334: $\mcm_n^{(p)}(z)$ which may lead, e.g., to an incorrect Dyson

335: equation. The same drawback affects $\mcm_n^{(h)}(z)$ if 0 is an

336: eigenvalue of the density matrix.

337: 

338: The analyticity of $\mcg_n(z)$ induces similar analyticity properties

339: into $h_n(z)$ and $\mcm_n(z)$. They are analytic in the complex plane

340: except for cuts and poles on the real axis, which are different from

341: those of $\mcg_n(z)$.

342: 

343: The one-body self-energy at real energies $\mcm_n(E)$ is defined as

344: \begin{equation}

345: \mcm_n(E) = \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} \mcm_n(E+i\eta)

346: \label{eq:2.16}

347: \end{equation}

348: In the Appendix B of \cite{capma3} it is proved that $\mcg_n(E)$ is

349: fully invertible, except for the values of $E$ corresponding to the

350: poles of $\mcm_n(E)$, and that holds the relation

351: \begin{equation}

352: \mcg_n(E) = \frac {1} {E - \mct - \mcm_n(E) + i \eta} .

353: \label{eq:2.17}

354: \end{equation}

355: The related Hamiltonian $h_n(E)$ is defined as

356: \begin{equation}

357: h_n(E) \equiv \mct + \mcm_n(E) = E - [\mcg_n(E)]^{-1} .

358: \label{eq:2.17a}

359: \end{equation}

360: 

361: \subsection{Self-energy and extended projection operators

362: \label{ssec:2.2}}

363: 

364: In his pioneering papers~\cite{fesh,fesh2} Feshbach introduced a

365: projection operator formalism to obtain a closed expression for the

366: theoretical optical-model potential. Here, we use an analogous

367: procedure for the self-energy, based on different projection

368: operators. More details can be found in Ref.~\cite{capma3}.

369: 

370: Let us introduce the vectors $\alpha_{\mathbf {r}}|n \rangle$, where

371: \begin{equation}

372: \alpha_{\mathbf {r}} \equiv a_{\mathbf {r}} + a_{\mathbf

373: {r}}^{\dagger} \, . \label{eq:2.18}

374: \end{equation}

375: They belong to the Hilbert space $\mch^{(Z+1)} \oplus \mch^{(Z-1)}$

376: and form an orthonormal set. In fact one has

377: \begin{equation}

378: \langle n|\alpha_{\mathbf {r}} \alpha_{\mathbf {r'}}|n \rangle =

379: \langle n|a_{\mathbf {r}} a_{\mathbf {r'}}^{\dagger} + a_{\mathbf

380: {r'}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {r}} |n \rangle = \delta (\r - \rf),

381: \label{eq:2.19}

382: \end{equation}

383: where we have used the property that $\langle n| a_{\mathbf{r}

384: }^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {r'}}|n \rangle$ is symmetric since $|n

385: \rangle$ is not degenerate. Therefore the operators

386: \begin{equation}

387: P_n = \int \diff \r \, \alpha_{\mathbf {r}}|n \rangle \langle n|

388: \alpha_{\mathbf {r}} = \int \diff \p \, \alpha_{\mathbf {p}} |n

389: \rangle \langle n| \alpha_{\mathbf {p}} \ , \, \, Q_n = 1 - P_n

390: \label{eq:2.20}

391: \end{equation}

392: are projection operators in $\mch^{(Z+1)} \oplus \mch^{(Z-1)}$. Such

393: operators, which will have an important role in Sec.~\ref{sec.green},

394: are called {\lq\lq extended projection operators\rq\rq} in order to

395: distinguish them from the Feshbach's ones. For sake of simplicity, we

396: define here $P_n$ in the simpler case of spinless particles. The

397: necessary changes to include spin and isospin variables can be found

398: in the Appendix A of Ref.~\cite{capma3}.

399: 

400: One can easily check that the correspondence

401: \begin{equation}

402: P_n |\phi \rangle \longleftrightarrow \langle n| \alpha_{\mathbf {r}}

403: |\phi \rangle , \label{eq:2.22}

404: \end{equation}

405: \begin{equation}

406: P_n O P_n \longleftrightarrow \langle n| \alpha_{\mathbf {r}} O

407: \alpha_{\mathbf {r'}}|n \rangle , \label{eq:2.23}

408: \end{equation}

409: where $|\phi \rangle$ and $O$ are vectors and operators in

410: $\mch^{(Z+1)} \oplus \mch^{(Z-1)}$, defines an isomorphism between

411: the Hilbert space of the vectors $P_n |\phi \rangle$

412: and $L^2({\bf R}^3)$. This means that every property

413: involving vectors and operators of one space implies that the same

414: property holds in the other space.

415: 

416: The above defined isomorphism is useful to develop a more synthetic

417: formalism for the quantities defined in Sec.~\ref{ssec:2.1}. To this

418: extent, we introduce the Hamiltonian-type operator $\hat H_n$, defined

419: by the relations

420: \begin{equation}

421: \hat H_n = H - \epsilon_n \quad \mathrm{in} \quad \mch^{(Z+1)} \quad

422: , \quad \hat H_n = \epsilon_n - H \quad \mathrm{in} \quad

423: \mch^{(Z-1)} , \label{eq:2.24}

424: \end{equation}

425: and extended to the whole space $\mch^{(Z+1)} \oplus \mch^{(Z-1)}$ by

426: linearity. Moreover, we introduce the related quantities

427: \begin{eqnarray}

428: \hat G_n(z) & = & \frac {1} {z - \hat H_n} \quad , \quad \hat G_n(E)

429: =

430: \hat G_n(E+i\eta) , \nonumber \\

431: \hat S_n(E) & = & \delta(E - \hat H_n) = \frac {1} {2\pi i} (\hat

432: G_n^{\dagger}(E) - \hat G_n(E)). \label{eq:2.25}

433: \end{eqnarray}

434: By the definition of $\delta(E - \hat H_n)$ one has

435: \begin{equation}

436: \int _{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff E \, \hat S_n(E) = 1. \label{eq:2.26}

437: \end{equation}

438: 

439: Due to the orthogonality between vectors related to different numbers

440: of protons and due to the symmetry properties of the particle and

441: hole components of $\mcg_n(z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.7}) is reduced to the

442: simple expression

443: \begin{equation}

444: \langle \r |\mcg_n(z)|\rf\rangle = \langle n |\alpha_{\mathbf {r}}

445: \hat G_n(z) \alpha_{\mathbf {r'}}|n\rangle . \label{eq:2.27}

446: \end{equation}

447: Thus, $\mcg_n(z)$ is the one-body operator isomorphically

448: corresponding to the many-body operator $P_n\hat G_n(z)P_n$. 

449: Due to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:2.12}) and (\ref{eq:2.25}) it follows that $\mcs_n(E)$

450: corresponds to $P_n\delta(E-\hat H_n)P_n$. Therefore, one has

451: \begin{equation}

452: \langle \r |\mcs_n(E)|\rf\rangle = \langle n |\alpha_{\mathbf {r}}

453: \delta (E - \hat H_n) \alpha_{\mathbf {r'}}|n\rangle . \label{eq:2.28a}

454: \end{equation}

455: As the

456: handling of equations is often simpler when one deals with many-body

457: operators of this type, we introduce, in keeping with the definitions

458: of Sec.~\ref{ssec:2.1}, the many-body definitions of the Green's

459: function, the spectral function and the self-energy:

460: \begin{eqnarray}

461: G_n(z) & =& P_n\hat G_n(z)P_n \quad , \quad G_n(E) = P_n\hat

462: G_n(E)P_n \, , \\

463: S_n(E) & =& P_n\hat S_n(E)P_n = P_n \, \delta(E - \hat H_n)P_n =

464: \frac{1}{2\pi i} [G_n^{\dagger}(E) - G_n(E)], \\

465: h_n(z) & = & P_n\left(z - [\hat G_n(z)]^{-1}\right) P_n \, , \,

466: h_n(E) = P_n\left(E - [\hat G_n(E)]^{-1}\right) P_n \, , \\

467: M_n(z) & = & h_n(z) - P_n \hat T_n P_n \quad , \quad M_n(E) =

468: h_n(E) - P_n \hat T_n P_n \, , \label{eq:2.31}

469: \end{eqnarray}

470: where

471: \begin{equation}

472: \hat T_n \equiv \int \diff \k \, \alpha_{\mathbf {k}} |n \rangle

473: \frac {\k^2} {2m} \langle n |\alpha_{\mathbf {k}} , \label{eq:2.32}

474: \end{equation}

475: is the many-body operator which corresponds isomorphically to the

476: one-body kinetic energy $\mct$.

477: 

478: The closed expression of the many-body self-energy is deduced in

479: Secs.~3.1--3.3 of Ref.~\cite{capma3} and is:

480: \begin{equation}

481: M_n(z) = P_n[\hat H_n - \hat T_n + \hat H_n Q_n (z - Q_n \hat H_n

482: Q_n)^{-1} Q_n \hat H_n]P_n \, . \label{eq:2.33}

483: \end{equation}

484: For a two-body potential

485: \begin{equation}

486: V = \frac {1} {4} \int \diff\r \diff\s \diff\rf \diff\sf \,

487: a_{\mathbf {r}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {s}}^{\dagger} {\mathcal V}

488: (\r,\s,\rf,\sf) a_{\mathbf {s'}} a_{\mathbf {r'}} , \label{eq:2.34}

489: \end{equation}

490: the corresponding one-body self-energy $\mcm_n(z)$ is the sum of the

491: static and dynamical parts

492: \begin{equation}

493: \langle \r| \mcm_n^{(S)}|\rf \rangle =\langle n|J_{\mathbf {r}}

494: a_{\mathbf {r'}}^{\dagger} + a_{\mathbf {r'}}^{\dagger} J_{\mathbf

495: {r}}|n\rangle , \label{eq:2.35}

496: \end{equation}

497: \begin{equation}

498: \langle \r| \mcm_n^{(D)}|\rf \rangle =\langle n|(J_{\mathbf {r}} +

499: J_{\mathbf {r}}^{\dagger})Q_n (z - Q_n \hat H_n Q_n)^{-1}

500: Q_n(J_{\mathbf {r'}} + J_{\mathbf {r'}}^{\dagger})|n\rangle ,

501: \label{eq:2.36}

502: \end{equation}

503: with

504: \begin{equation}

505: J_{\mathbf {r}} \equiv [a_{\mathbf {r}} , V] . \label{eq:2.37}

506: \end{equation}

507: 

508: The structure of $\mcm_n(z)$ is identical to that of the Feshbach's

509: potential, but its one-body expression is different. For instance,

510: the Feshbach's potential is not symmetric for the exchange $\r

511: \longleftrightarrow \rf$. In contrast, $\mcm_n(z)$ is symmetric, as

512: one can check working out the right-hand side of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:2.35})

513: and (\ref{eq:2.36}).

514: 

515: 

516: \section{Green's function approach to inclusive $(e,e')$ reactions

517: \label{sec.green}}

518: 

519: \subsection{Hadronic tensor \label{ssec:3.1} }

520: 

521: In order to avoid complications of minor interest in the present

522: context, we omit recoil corrections, use the one-photon exchange

523: approximation with one-body currents, and consider only spinless

524: point-like protons.

525: 

526: The inclusive cross section for the quasielastic $(e,e')$ scattering

527: on a nucleus of $Z+1$ protons is given by

528: \begin{equation}

529: \sigma = K (2\epsilon_{\mathrm L} R_{\mathrm L} + R_{\mathrm T}) ,

530: \label{eq:3.1}

531: \end{equation}

532: where $K$ is a kinematical factor and

533: \begin{equation}

534: \epsilon_{\mathrm L} = -\frac {q^2} {|\q|^2} \left( 1 - 2 \frac

535: {|\q|^2} {q^2} \tan^2 \frac {\theta} {2} \right)^{-1} \label{eq:3.2}

536: \end{equation}

537: measures the polarization of the virtual photon. In

538: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.2}), $\theta$ is the scattering angle of the electron

539: and $q^2 = \omega^2 - |\q|^2$, where ($\omega,\q$) is the

540: four-momentum transfer. All nuclear structure information is contained

541: in the longitudinal and transverse response functions, defined by

542: \begin{eqnarray}

543:  R_{\mathrm L}(\omega,\q) & = & W^{00}(\omega,\q), \nonumber \\

544:  R_{\mathrm T}(\omega,\q) & = & W^{11}(\omega,\q) + W^{22}(\omega,\q)

545: \label{eq:3.3}

546: \end{eqnarray}

547: in terms of the diagonal components of the hadronic tensor

548: \begin{eqnarray}

549: W^{\mu\mu}(\omega,\q) & = & \langle \psi_0| J^{\mu\dagger}(\q)

550: \delta(\omega + E_0 - H) J^{\mu}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle \nonumber \\

551:  & = & \bint\sum_{\textrm {f}}\langle \psi_0| J^{\mu\dagger}(\q)

552:  |\psi_f\rangle\langle \psi_f|J^{\mu}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle

553:  \delta(\omega + E_0 - E_f).

554: \label{eq:3.4}

555: \end{eqnarray}

556: Here $J^{\mu}(\q)$ is the one-body nuclear charge-current operator,

557: $|\psi_0\rangle$ is the initial state of the ($Z+1$)-protons target

558: nucleus of energy $E_0$ and $|\psi_f\rangle$ is the corresponding

559: final state of energy $E_f=E_0+\omega$. The target ground state

560: $|\psi_0\rangle$ is assumed to be nondegenerate. The sum runs over

561: the target bound states and the scattering states corresponding to a

562: proton scattered from the residual nucleus in a bound state

563: $|n\rangle$ or in an unbound state $|\epsilon \rangle$. For sake of

564: simplicity, the degeneracy indices are suppressed. All the states are

565: properly antisymmetrized. Accordingly, the nuclear Hamiltonian $H$

566: and the current components $J^{\mu}(\q)$ are understood as second

567: quantization operators.

568: 

569: 

570: \subsection{Energy sum rules for the incoherent and the coherent

571: contributions \label{ssec:3.2}}

572: 

573: Acting on $|\psi_0\rangle$ the scalar component

574: \begin{equation}

575: J^0(\q) = \int \diff \r \, \exp (i\q\cdot\r) \, a_{\mathbf

576: {r}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {r}} \label{eq:3.5}

577: \end{equation}

578: yields the wave function

579: \begin{equation}

580: \sum_{i=1}^{Z+1} J_i^0(\q,\r_i) \psi_0 (\r_1,...,\r_{Z+1}) \, , \,

581: J_i^0(\q,\r_i) = \exp (i\q\cdot\r_i). \label{eq:3.6}

582: \end{equation}

583: Similar expressions are obtained for the other components $J^\mu$

584: of the current operator. The hadronic tensor of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.4}) is

585: the sum of the incoherent contribution

586: \begin{equation}

587: W_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mu\mu}(\omega,\q) = (Z+1) \langle \psi_0|

588: J_1^{\mu\dagger}(\q)\delta(\omega + E_0 - H) J_1^{\mu}(\q)|\psi_0

589: \rangle \label{eq:3.7}

590: \end{equation}

591: and the coherent one

592: \begin{equation}

593: W_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mu\mu}(\omega,\q) = (Z+1) \sum_{i=2}^{Z+1}\langle

594: \psi_0| J_1^{\mu\dagger}(\q)\delta(\omega + E_0 - H)

595: J_i^{\mu}(\q)|\psi_0 \rangle . \label{eq:3.8}

596: \end{equation}

597: 

598: The non-energy-weighted electromagnetic sum rule deals with the

599: integrated strength

600: \begin{equation}

601: \Sigma^{\mu\mu}(\q) = \int_{-0}^{\infty}\diff \omega \,

602: W^{\mu\mu}(\omega,\q) = \langle \psi_0

603: |J^{\mu\dagger}(\q)J^{\mu}(\q)|\psi_0 \rangle , \label{eq:3.9}

604: \end{equation}

605: where the lower integration limit means that the integral includes

606: the $\delta$--singularity at $\omega$=0 (full sum rule inclusive of

607: the elastic contribution). In the scalar case one has

608: \begin{equation}

609: \Sigma_{\mathrm{inc}}^{00}(\q) = Z + 1 , \label{eq:3.10}

610: \end{equation}

611: \begin{equation}

612: \Sigma_{\mathrm{coh}}^{00}(\q) = (Z + 1) \sum_{i=2}^{Z+1} \langle

613: \psi_0 |J_1^{0\dagger}(\q)J_i^{0}(\q)|\psi_0 \rangle .

614: \label{eq:3.11}

615: \end{equation}

616: 

617: In the Fermi gas model $\Sigma_{\mathrm{coh}}^{00}(\q)$ is negligible

618: for $|\q| > 2k_{\mathrm F}$, where $k_{\mathrm F}$ is the Fermi

619: momentum. This is still approximately true in presence of

620: correlations [Refs.~\cite{fabro,jourd}]. Therefore one has

621: \begin{equation}

622: \Sigma^{00}(\q) \simeq (Z + 1) \quad \mathrm{for} \quad |\q| > 2

623: k_{\mathrm F} . \label{eq:3.12}

624: \end{equation}

625: 

626: 

627: \subsection{Projection operator method \label{ssec:3.3}}

628: 

629: The approach developed in this Section differs form previous

630: treatments \cite{chinn,capuzzi,capma} for three reasons.

631: 

632: i) We want to include the effects of the final state interaction in

633: terms of the self-energy, rather than in terms of the Feshbach

634: optical potential or of the particle self-energy. In fact, the full

635: self-energy is a more fundamental quantity, has no mathematical

636: drawbacks, and is more closely related to the empirical optical-model

637: potentials. Therefore, we shall not use the Feshbach's projection

638: operators as in Ref.~\cite{capuzzi}, but the extended ones of

639: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.20}), already used in Ref.~\cite{capma}.

640: 

641: ii) We want to include the interference between different channels

642: $|n\rangle$, neglected in Ref.~\cite{capma}, which is useful to

643: express the hadronic tensor in terms of the local potential

644: equivalent to the self-energy. This requires some changes in the

645: approach of Ref.~\cite{capma}, which give in practice the same result

646: when the interference effects are disregarded.

647: 

648: iii) We want to introduce different approximations for the elastic

649: and inelastic contributions to the hadronic tensor, when dealing with

650: the dependence on the state of the residual nucleus.

651: 

652: In order to keep the treatment as simple as possible, we shall only

653: refer to the scalar component $W^{00}(\omega,\q)$, with $J^0(\q)$

654: written in the momentum representation, i.e.

655: \begin{equation}

656: J^{0}(\q) = \int \diff\p \, a_{\mathbf {p}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf

657: {p-q}} . \label{eq:3.13}

658: \end{equation}

659: Disregarding the upper indices of the hadronic tensor and inserting

660: the completeness relation of the residual-nucleus states, Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.4})

661: yields

662: \begin{equation}

663: W(\omega,\q) = \bint\sum_n \int\diff \p \, \langle \psi_0| a_{\mathbf

664: {p-q}}^{\dagger} |n\rangle\langle n| a_{\mathbf {p}} \ \delta(\omega

665: + E_0 - H) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle , \label{eq:3.14}

666: \end{equation}

667: where the sum is understood over $|n\rangle$ and $|\epsilon\rangle$.

668: Equation (\ref{eq:3.14}) was obtained in Ref.~\cite{capma} in a more

669: complicated way. Here, the same result is recovered with the

670: insertion of a completeness relation into the second quantization

671: expression of $J^{0}(\q)$ and has the same generality, i.e. can be

672: applied to every one-body charge-current operator.

673: 

674: As was done in previous papers, we shall now disregard the

675: contribution of the continuum states of the residual nucleus. Although

676: this approximation is correct at the energy and momentum transfers

677: considered here, we shall recover the continuum contribution in

678: Sec.~\ref{sssec:3.4.3}. Equation (\ref{eq:3.14}) is approximated with

679: \begin{equation}

680: W(\omega,\q) = \sum_n \mathrm{Re} \int\diff \p \, \langle \psi_0|

681: a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger} |n\rangle\langle n| a_{\mathbf {p}} \

682: \delta(\omega + E_0 - H) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle , \label{eq:3.15}

683: \end{equation}

684: where the real part has been extracted in order to restore the real

685: nature of $W(\omega,\q)$, which can be lost after the approximation.

686: This is equivalent to introduce the truncated completeness

687: symmetrically in $J^{0\dagger}(\q)$ and in $J^{0}(\q)$.

688: 

689: Now, the treatment of Ref.~\cite{capma} is slightly modified in order

690: to obtain expressions directly related to the self-energy, according

691: to the above items i) and ii). This requires the introduction of the

692: vectors $(a_{\mathbf {p}}^{\dagger} + a_{\mathbf {p}})|n\rangle$,

693: instead of $a_{\mathbf {p}}^{\dagger}|n\rangle$, and the use of

694: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.24}) in order to feature $\hat H_n$. To this extent, we

695: add to the second factor of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.15}), written as

696: \begin{equation}

697: \langle n| a_{\mathbf {p}} \ \delta(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n - \hat

698: H_n) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle , \label{eq:3.15ab}

699: \end{equation}

700: the term

701: \begin{equation}

702: \langle n|a_{\mathbf {p}}^{\dagger}\, \delta(\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_n

703: - \hat H_n)J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle = \langle n|a_{\mathbf

704: {p}}^{\dagger}\, \delta(\omega + E_0 - 2\epsilon_n +

705: H)J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle, \label{eq:3.19c}

706: \end{equation}

707: which is null, since it is a scalar product between states with a

708: different number of protons. Moreover, we add to the terms

709: (\ref{eq:3.15ab}) and (\ref{eq:3.19c}) the corresponding ones with

710: $\omega$ replaced by $-\omega$, i.e.

711: \begin{equation}

712: \langle n|a_{\mathbf {p}}\, \delta(-\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n - \hat

713: H_n) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle = \langle n|a_{\mathbf {p}}\,

714: \delta(-\omega + E_0 - H) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle, \label{eq:3.19b}

715: \end{equation}

716: which is null for $\omega > 0$ because the $\delta$-function is not

717: fed with the eigenfunctions of $H$, and

718: \begin{eqnarray}

719: \langle n|a_{\mathbf {p}}^{\dagger}\, \delta(-\omega + E_0 -

720: \epsilon_n &-& \hat H_n)J^{0}(\q)  |\psi_0\rangle = \nonumber\\

721: \langle n| a_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\, \delta(&-&\omega + E_0 -

722: 2\epsilon_n + H)J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle, \label{eq:3.19a}

723: \end{eqnarray}

724: which is null for the same reason as the term (\ref{eq:3.19c}). The

725: terms (\ref{eq:3.19b}) and (\ref{eq:3.19a}) are

726: necessary to obtain a null sum rule for the interference

727: contribution, as will be apparent below. We emphasize that the term 

728: (\ref{eq:3.19b}) can be added only for $\omega \neq 0$.

729: 

730: After addition of the null terms (\ref{eq:3.19c})--(\ref{eq:3.19a}),

731: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.15}) reads

732: \begin{eqnarray}

733: W(\omega,\q) = A(\omega,\q) + A(-\omega,\q) \label{eq:3.16}

734: \end{eqnarray}

735: with

736: \begin{eqnarray}

737:  A(\omega,\q) &=& \sum_n \mathrm{Re} \int\diff \p \, \langle \psi_0|

738: a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger} |n\rangle \nonumber \\

739: & \times & \langle n| (a_{\mathbf {p}} +

740: a_{\mathbf {p}}^{\dagger})\ \delta(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n - \hat

741: H_n) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle . \label{eq:3.17}

742: \end{eqnarray}

743: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.16}), as well as in the following analogous

744: expressions, it is understood that the $\delta$--singularity at

745: $\omega= 0$ must be retained only in $A(\omega,\q)$ to avoid a double

746: counting. Therefore, one has

747: \begin{equation}

748: \int_{-0}^{\infty} \diff\omega \, W(\omega,\q) =

749: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff\omega \, A(\omega,\q). \label{eq:3.18}

750: \end{equation}

751: 

752: Now we use the extended projection operators, defined in

753: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.20}),

754: \begin{equation}

755: P_n =\int \diff\p \, \alpha_{\mathbf {p}}|n\rangle\langle

756: n|\alpha_{\mathbf {p}} \quad \mathrm{and}\quad Q_n = 1 - P_n

757: \label{eq:3.20}

758: \end{equation}

759: to separate in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.17}) a direct ($A^{\mathrm D}$) and an

760: interference ($A^{\mathrm I}$) term, such that

761: \begin{equation}

762: A(\omega,\q) = A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) + A^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)

763: \label{eq:3.21}

764: \end{equation}

765: with

766: \begin{eqnarray}

767: A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) &=& \sum_n \mathrm{Re} \int\diff \p \,

768: \langle \psi_0| a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger} |n\rangle  \nonumber \\

769: & \times & \langle n|(\alpha_{\mathbf {p}} P_n \, \delta(\omega + E_0

770: -\epsilon_n -\hat H_n) P_n J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle , \label{eq:3.22a}

771: \end{eqnarray}

772: \begin{eqnarray}

773: A^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) &=& \sum_n \mathrm{Re} \int\diff \p \,

774: \langle \psi_0| a_{\mathbf{p-q}}^{\dagger} |n\rangle  \nonumber \\

775: & \times & \langle n|(\alpha_{\mathbf {p}} P_n \, \delta(\omega + E_0

776: -\epsilon_n -\hat H_n) Q_n J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle . \label{eq:3.22b}

777: \end{eqnarray}

778: Accordingly, the hadronic tensor $W(\omega,\q)$ is decomposed into a

779: direct and an interference contribution:

780: \begin{equation}

781: W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) + A^{\mathrm

782: D}(-\omega,\q) \label{eq:3.23a}

783: \end{equation}

784: \begin{equation}

785: W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) = A^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) + A^{\mathrm

786: I}(-\omega,\q) \label{eq:3.23b}

787: \end{equation}

788: We remark that $W^{\mathrm I}$ does not contribute to the sum rule,

789: due to the relation $P_nQ_n=0$ and to the relation

790: \begin{equation}

791: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff\omega \, \delta(\omega + E_0 -

792: \epsilon_n - \hat H_n) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff E \, \delta(E

793: - \hat H_n) = 1 , \label{eq:3.24}

794: \end{equation}

795: which yields

796: \begin{equation}

797: \int_{-0}^{\infty} \diff\omega \, W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) =

798: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff \omega \, A ^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) = 0

799: . \label{eq:3.25}

800: \end{equation}

801: 

802: Note that the terms (\ref{eq:3.19b}) and (\ref{eq:3.19a}), which yield

803: the contribution of the negative energies to the second integral, are

804: essential to fulfill Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.25}).

805: 

806: We emphasize that the insertion of the terms

807: (\ref{eq:3.19c})--(\ref{eq:3.19a}) does not change the expression of

808: $W(\omega,\q)$, but produces an effect on its decomposition into

809: $W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$ and $W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)$. As a

810: consequence, the present decomposition is slightly different form

811: that of Ref.~\cite{capma}. The term~(\ref{eq:3.19c}), absent in

812: Ref.~\cite{capma}, modifies the decomposition at very low energies,

813: i.e. at $\omega \leq 2\epsilon_n - E_0 - \epsilon_0^{A-1}$, where

814: $\epsilon_0^{A-1}$ is the ground state energy of the ($Z-1$)--body

815: Hamiltonian. The term~(\ref{eq:3.19b}) produces no effects. The term

816: (\ref{eq:3.19a}), which is also present in Ref.~\cite{capma}, differs

817: here by a shift of $2(E_o - \epsilon_n)$ in the value of the

818: argument. This shift is the only difference from the treatment of

819: Ref.~\cite{capma} at the energies $\omega$ considered in this paper.

820: The changes introduced here influence only the separation between the

821: direct and the interference contributions, allowing a more

822: appropriate treatment of the latter, which in Ref.~\cite{capma} is

823: totally neglected. The effects of these changes on $W^{\mathrm

824: D}(\omega,\q)$ are in practice negligible at high momentum transfers, 

825: as it will be seen in Sec.~\ref{sssec:3.4.5}.

826: 

827: 

828: \subsection{Direct contribution to the hadronic tensor

829: \label{ssec:3.4}}

830: 

831: \subsubsection{One-body expression of the incoherent and coherent

832: contributions \label{sssec:3.4.1}}

833: 

834: Using (\ref{eq:3.20}), Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.22a}) is expressed in terms of

835: vectors and operators of a s.p. Hilbert space as

836: \begin{equation}

837: A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = \sum_n \mathrm{Re} \langle \phi_n|

838: j^{0\dagger}(\q) \mcs_n(\omega_n)|\Phi_n(\q)\rangle \, , \, \omega_n

839: = \omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n, \label{eq:3.26}

840: \end{equation}

841: where $|\phi_n\rangle$ and $\mcs_n$ represent the hole overlaps and

842: the one-body spectral functions, defined by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:2.1}) and

843: (\ref{eq:2.28a}), respectively, and

844: \begin{equation}

845: \langle \p| j^{0}(\q)|\phi_n\rangle = \langle \p - \q|\phi_n\rangle =

846: \langle n|a_ {\mathbf {p-q}}|\psi_0\rangle , \label{eq:3.27}

847: \end{equation}

848: \begin{equation}

849:  \langle \p| \Phi_n(\q)\rangle = \langle n|a_ {\mathbf {p}}

850:  J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle .

851: \label{eq:3.28}

852: \end{equation}

853: 

854: Using the relation

855: \begin{equation}

856: [a_{\mathbf {p}},J^{0}(\q)] = a_ {\mathbf {p-q}} \label{eq:3.29}

857: \end{equation}

858: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.26}), the contribution to $|\Phi_n(\q)\rangle$ due

859: to the many-body current $J^{0}(\q)$ is split into the contribution of

860: a single proton and that of all the other residual $Z$ protons, as

861: \begin{equation}

862: \langle \p| \Phi_n(\q)\rangle = \langle \p | j^{0}(\q)|\phi_n\rangle

863: + \langle \p |\delta \Phi_n(\q)\rangle , \label{eq:3.30}

864: \end{equation}

865: where

866: \begin{eqnarray}

867: & & \langle \p |\delta \Phi_n(\q)\rangle \equiv \langle n

868: |J^{0}(\q)

869: a_ {\mathbf {p}}|\psi_0\rangle \nonumber \\

870:  = \sqrt {Z+1} & \int & \diff \p_2 ... \diff \p_{Z+1}

871: \langle n|\p_2 ... \p_{Z+1}\rangle\langle\p,\p_2 ... \p_{Z+1}|

872: \sum_{i=2}^{Z+1} J_i^{0}(\q)|\psi_0 \rangle . \label{eq:3.31}

873: \end{eqnarray}

874: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.30}), we express $W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$ as the

875: sum of the terms

876: \begin{eqnarray}

877: W_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) & = &

878: A_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) + A_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm

879: D} (-\omega,\q), \nonumber \\

880: A_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) & = & \sum_n \mathrm{Re}

881: \langle \phi_n |j^{0\dagger}(\q) \mcs_n (\omega_n) j^{0}(\q)|

882: \phi_n\rangle \label{eq:3.32}

883: \end{eqnarray}

884: and

885: \begin{eqnarray}

886: W_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) & = &

887: A_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) + A_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm

888: D} , (-\omega,\q), \nonumber \\

889: A_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) & = & \sum_n \mathrm{Re}

890: \langle \phi_n |j^{0\dagger}(\q)

891: \mcs_n(\omega_n)|\delta\Phi_n(\q)\rangle . \label{eq:3.33}

892: \end{eqnarray}

893: The decomposition (\ref{eq:3.30}) is exactly equivalent to that of

894: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.7}) and (\ref{eq:3.8}). In keeping with this

895: correspondence, we call $W_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm D}$ and

896: $W_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm D}$ the {\lq\lq incoherent\rq\rq} and

897: {\lq\lq coherent\rq\rq} contributions to $W^{\mathrm D}$.

898: 

899: 

900: \subsubsection{Dependence on the state of the residual nucleus}

901: 

902: No information is available concerning the spectral functions

903: $\mcs_n(E)$ related to the excited states of the residual nucleus.

904: Therefore, we are obliged to express $\mcs_n(E)$ in terms of

905: $\mcs_0(E)$. According to previous papers

906: \cite{fesh3,moniz,moniz2}, we assume: i) $\mcs_n(E)$ only

907: differs from $\mcs_0(E)$ by an energy shift $\delta\epsilon_n$, ii)

908: the contributions of the various shifts can be taken into account by

909: means of a single average shift $\tilde \epsilon$. Thus, in

910: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.26}), (\ref{eq:3.32}), and (\ref{eq:3.33}) we set

911: \begin{equation}

912: \mcs_n(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n) \simeq \mcs_0(\tilde\omega) \, ,

913: \, \tilde\omega = \omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0 - \tilde\epsilon .

914: \label{eq:3.34}

915: \end{equation}

916: The choice of $\tilde\epsilon$ will be discussed later.

917: 

918: 

919: \subsubsection{Inclusion of the unbound states of the residual

920: nucleus \label{sssec:3.4.3} }

921: 

922: For a single state $|\epsilon\rangle$ of the continuous spectrum, one

923: can define neither an extended projection operator nor a Feshbach's

924: one. This is the reason why the states $|\epsilon\rangle$ are usually

925: neglected in the treatments based on the Green's function approach.

926: Even if the continuum contribution is negligible at the energy and

927: momentum transfers considered here, the lack of completeness

928: resulting if one considers only the bound states $|n\rangle$ appears

929: unsatisfactory from a conceptual point of view, mainly because the

930: sum rule is not exactly fulfilled. This drawback can be easily

931: eliminated if Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.34}) is used. In fact, from

932: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.26}), by expliciting the scalar products and using

933: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.27}) and (\ref{eq:3.28}), we have

934: \begin{eqnarray}

935: A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) & = & \sum_n \mathrm{Re} \int \diff\p

936: \diff\p' \langle \psi_0 |a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger}|n\rangle \langle

937: n|a_{\mathbf {p'}} J^{0}(\q) |\psi_0\rangle \langle \p|

938: \mcs_0(\tilde\omega)|\p'\rangle , \nonumber \\ \tilde\omega & = &

939: \omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0 - \tilde\epsilon . \label{eq:3.35}

940: \end{eqnarray}

941: 

942: Here, it is quite natural to recover the contribution of the

943: continuous spectrum after making the substitution

944: \begin{equation}

945: \sum_n |n \rangle \langle n| \longrightarrow \sum_n |n \rangle

946: \langle n| + \int \diff\epsilon \, |\epsilon\rangle \langle\epsilon|

947: = 1 \label{eq:3.36}

948: \end{equation}

949: which yields

950: \begin{eqnarray}

951: A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) & = & \mathrm{Re} \int \diff\p \diff\p'

952: \langle \psi_0 |a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {p'}}

953: J^{0}(\q) |\psi_0\rangle \langle \p| \mcs_0(\tilde\omega)|\p'\rangle

954: \nonumber \\ & = & \mathrm{Re}\,\mathrm{Tr} [\, {\overline

955: K}_{\mathbf {q}} \mcs_0(\tilde\omega)], \label{eq:3.37}

956: \end{eqnarray}

957: where

958: \begin{eqnarray}

959: \langle \p'|\,{\overline K}_{\mathbf {q}} |\p\rangle \equiv \langle

960: \psi_0 |a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {p'}} J^{0}(\q)

961: |\psi_0\rangle

962: %\nonumber \\

963:  = \int \diff \k \,\langle \psi_0 |a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger}

964: a_{\mathbf {p'}}a_{\mathbf {k}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf

965: {k-q}}|\psi_0\rangle . \label{eq:3.38}

966: \end{eqnarray}

967: Analogously, using Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.29}), one has

968: \begin{equation}

969: A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = \mathrm{Re}\,\mathrm{Tr}

970: [K_{\mathbf {q}} \mcs_0(\tilde\omega)] \label{eq:3.39}

971: \end{equation}

972: with

973: \begin{equation}

974: \langle \p'| K_{\mathbf {q}} |\p\rangle = \langle \psi_0 | a_{\mathbf

975: {p-q}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {p'-q}}|\psi_0\rangle \label{eq:3.40}

976: \end{equation}

977: and

978: \begin{equation}

979: A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = \mathrm{Re}\,\mathrm{Tr}

980: [\Delta K_{\mathbf {q}} \mcs_0(\tilde\omega)] \label{eq:3.41}

981: \end{equation}

982: with

983: \begin{equation}

984: \langle \p'| \Delta K_{\mathbf {q}} |\p\rangle = \int \diff \k \,

985: \langle \psi_0 | a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf

986: {k}}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf {k-q}} a_{\mathbf {p'}}|\psi_0\rangle .

987: \label{eq:3.42}

988: \end{equation}

989: 

990: Since $K_{\mathbf {q}}$ and $\mcs_0$ are nonnegative (hermitian)

991: operators and $K_{\mathbf {q}}$ is self-adjoint, $\mathrm{Tr}

992: [K_{\mathbf {q}} \mcs_0(\tilde\omega)]$ is nonnegative, as it follows

993: easily by expressing the trace on the basis of the eigenvectors of

994: $K_{\mathbf {q}}$. Thus one has

995: \begin{equation}

996: A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = {\mathrm {Tr}} 

997: \, [K_{\mathbf {q}} \mcs_0( \tilde \omega )] \ge 0 \, . \label{eq:3.45}

998: \end{equation}

999: 

1000: The expression of

1001: \begin{equation}

1002: W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) + A^{\mathrm

1003: D}(-\omega,\q) ,

1004: \end{equation}

1005: obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.37}), and the corresponding expressions

1006: of $W_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$ and

1007: $W_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$, are essentially the same

1008: as those obtained in Secs.~9.1.1 and 9.1.3 of Ref.~\cite{capma}. This

1009: can be easily checked noting that the spectral function $\mcs_0(E)$ is

1010: equal to the particle (hole) spectral function at positive (negative)

1011: energies. The only differences from the results of Ref.~\cite{capma}

1012: are the insertion of the average energy $\tilde \epsilon$ and an

1013: energy shift in $A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q)$ and in

1014: $A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q)$.

1015: 

1016: The problem of defining a projection operator related to a single

1017: continuous eigenvalue $\epsilon$ of the residual nucleus is of

1018: strictly mathematical nature. It is solved in the Appendix

1019: associating with $\epsilon$ a set of approximate eigenvectors

1020: depending on an index $\eta$ which describes the accuracy of the

1021: approximation (increasing for $\eta \rightarrow +0$). They can

1022: replace the exact eigenvectors $|\epsilon \rangle$ in the whole

1023: formalism for two reasons. i) In the limit for $\eta \rightarrow +0$

1024: they satisfy a completeness relation analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.36}).

1025: ii) One can associate with $\epsilon$ a projection operator since the

1026: approximate eigenvectors are normalizable.

1027: 

1028: 

1029: 

1030: \subsubsection{Non-energy-weighted sum rules}

1031: 

1032: We shall prove here that the approximation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.34}),

1033: relating the spectral functions $\mcs_n(E)$ to $\mcs_0(E)$, has no

1034: effect on the sum rules, both for the incoherent and the coherent

1035: contributions to the hadronic tensor. Since in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.25}) we

1036: proved that the interference term $W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)$ does not

1037: contribute to the sum rule, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.37}), (\ref{eq:3.39}), and

1038: (\ref{eq:3.41}) should satisfy the same sum rules as the exact

1039: hadronic tensor.

1040: 

1041: Remembering Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.10}) and using Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.13}), i.e.

1042: \begin{equation}

1043: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff E \, \mcs_0(E) = 1 \, ,

1044: \label{eq:3.46}

1045: \end{equation}

1046: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.37}) yields

1047: \begin{eqnarray}

1048: \Sigma^{\mathrm D}(\q) & \equiv & \int_{-0}^{\infty} \diff \omega \,

1049: W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff \omega \,

1050: A^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) \nonumber \\

1051: & = & {\mathrm {Re}}\, {\mathrm {Tr}} \, \left[\, {\overline

1052: K}_{\mathbf {q}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff \tilde \omega \,

1053: \mcs_0(\tilde \omega) \right] = {\mathrm {Re}}\,{\mathrm {Tr}} \,

1054: [\,{\overline K}_{\mathbf {q}}]. \label{eq:3.47}

1055: \end{eqnarray}

1056: By Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.38}) and (\ref{eq:3.13}), one has

1057: \begin{equation}

1058: {\mathrm {Tr}} \, [\,{\overline K}_{\mathbf {q}}] = \int\diff \p

1059: \diff \k \, \langle \psi_0| a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf

1060: {p}}a_{\mathbf {k}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf {k-q}}|\psi_0\rangle =

1061: \langle \psi_0|J^{0\dagger}(\q) J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle

1062: \label{eq:3.48}

1063: \end{equation}

1064: and so

1065: \begin{equation}

1066: \Sigma^{\mathrm D}(\q) =\langle \psi_0|J^{0\dagger}(\q)

1067: J^{0}(\q)|\psi_0\rangle , \label{eq:3.49}

1068: \end{equation}

1069: according to the exact sum rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.9}). Likewise, using

1070: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.39}) and (\ref{eq:3.40}), one has

1071: \begin{equation}

1072: \Sigma_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\q) \equiv \int_{-0}^{\infty}

1073: \diff \omega \, W_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = {\mathrm

1074: {Tr}} \, [K_{\mathbf {q}}] = {\mathrm {Tr}} \, [K] = Z + 1,

1075: \label{eq:3.50}

1076: \end{equation}

1077: according to the exact sum rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.10}). It follows

1078: that also the sum rule for the coherent part is in accordance with

1079: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.11}).

1080: 

1081: 

1082: \subsubsection{Practical approximations for the direct contribution to 

1083: the hadronic tensor \label{sssec:3.4.5} }

1084: 

1085: We have previously expressed the direct contribution $W^{\mathrm

1086: D}(\q)$ to the hadronic tensor as the sum of the incoherent and

1087: coherent parts

1088: \begin{equation}

1089: W_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm

1090: D}(\omega,\q) + A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q) ,

1091: \label{eq:3.51}

1092: \end{equation}

1093: \begin{equation}

1094: W_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm

1095: D}(\omega,\q) + A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q) .

1096: \label{eq:3.52}

1097: \end{equation}

1098: In this Subsection, we profit from some results of Ref.~\cite{capma}

1099: to simplify $W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$ in view of practical

1100: calculations. We notice that the terms of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.51}) and

1101: (\ref{eq:3.52}) at positive (negative) arguments correspond to the

1102: particle (hole) contributions of the quoted reference.

1103: 

1104: In the calculations based on the Green's function approach, the

1105: coherent part of the hadronic tensor is usually disregarded since it

1106: is too difficult to evaluate. Consequently, only the sum rule

1107: $\Sigma_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\q) = Z + 1$ of (\ref{eq:3.50}) is

1108: relevant. This is considered correct at high momentum transfers,

1109: schematically for $q > k_{\mathrm F}$. In Sec.~10 of

1110: Ref.~\cite{capma}, it was shown that this approximation is excessive

1111: even for uncorrelated systems, since only $A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm

1112: D}(\omega,\q)$ is negligible at $q > k_{\mathrm F}$, whereas

1113: $A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q)$ is still sizable for

1114: $k_{\mathrm F} < q < 2k_{\mathrm F}$. Fortunately, the latter term is

1115: largely cancelled by $A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q)$ and

1116: this produces the simplification

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) = A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)

1119: \quad \mathrm{at} \quad q > k_{\mathrm F}. \label{eq:3.53}

1120: \end{equation}

1121: 

1122: The energy shifts that are introduced here in the arguments of $A_{\mathrm

1123: {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(-\omega,\q)$ and $A_{\mathrm {coh}}^{\mathrm

1124: D}(-\omega,\q)$ do not influence the cancellation found in

1125: Ref.~\cite{capma}.

1126: 

1127: Due to this cancellation, the sum rule for $W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$

1128: is deprived of the contribution of $A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm

1129: D}(-\omega,\q)$, which is positive as shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.45}).

1130: Thus, the sum rule for the total hadronic tensor, which coincides

1131: with that of $W^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q)$ since the interference term

1132: does not contribute, reduces to

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: \Sigma (\q) < Z+1 \quad \mathrm{for} \quad k_{\mathrm F} < q <

1135: 2k_{\mathrm F}. \label{eq:3.54}

1136: \end{equation}

1137: 

1138: 

1139: \subsection{Inclusion of the interference term \label{ssec:3.5}}

1140: 

1141: The interference term $W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)$, defined in

1142: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.22b}) and (\ref{eq:3.23b}), gives no contribution in

1143: absence of final state correlations, since in this case $\delta(E -

1144: \hat H_n)$ does not connect the projection operators $P_n$ and $Q_n$.

1145: In the Green's function approach $W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)$ is

1146: usually disregarded also in presence of final-state correlations,

1147: since it does not seem reducible to a one-body expression. As already

1148: noticed, this approximation does not affect the sum rule. We give

1149: here an approximated expression of $W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)$, which

1150: is reducible to a one-body expression and does not modify the sum

1151: rule. This result has

1152: a conceptual relevance and will be useful to introduce the empirical

1153: optical-model potential.

1154: 

1155: Here, we are only interested in the interference term $A^{\mathrm

1156: I}(\omega,\q)$ to be added to Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.53}). Therefore, we start

1157: from the expression (\ref{eq:3.23b}) of $W^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q)$ and

1158: disregard the contribution $A^{\mathrm I}(-\omega,\q)$. Then, we

1159: introduce an approximation which allows the reduction of $A^{\mathrm

1160: I}(\omega,\q)$ to a one-body expression and, finally, we retain only

1161: its incoherent part.

1162: 

1163: We insert into the expression (\ref{eq:3.22b}) of $A^{\mathrm

1164: I}(\omega,\q)$ the Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.25}), i.e.,

1165: \begin{equation}

1166: \delta(E - \hat H_n) = \frac {1} {2 \pi i} [\hat G_n^{\dagger}(E) -

1167: \hat G_n(E)] , \label{eq:3.55}

1168: \end{equation}

1169: with

1170: \begin{equation}

1171:  \hat G_n(E) \equiv \frac {1} {E - \hat H_n + i \eta} .

1172: \label{eq:3.56}

1173: \end{equation}

1174: Then, we use the approximated relations

1175: \begin{equation}

1176:  P_n \hat G_n(E) Q_n J^0(\q)|\psi_0\rangle = - P_n \hat G_n(E)P_n

1177: M'_n(E) J^0(\q)|\psi_0\rangle,

1178: \label{eq:3.57}

1179: \end{equation}

1180: \begin{equation}

1181:  P_n \hat G_n^{\dagger}(E) Q_n J^0(\q)|\psi_0\rangle = - P_n \hat

1182:  G_n^{\dagger}(E)P_n (M'_n)^{\dagger}(E) J^0(\q)|\psi_0\rangle,

1183: \label{eq:3.58}

1184: \end{equation}

1185: where $M'_n(E)$ is the energy derivative of the many-body self-energy

1186: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.31}), obtaining

1187: \begin{eqnarray}

1188: A^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) & =& - \frac {1} {\pi} \sum_n \mathrm{Re}

1189: \int \diff \p \, \langle \psi_0 |a_{\mathbf {p-q}}^{\dagger}|n

1190: \rangle \nonumber \\

1191: & \times & \langle n| \alpha_{\mathbf {p}}\frac {[\hat G_n^{\dagger}

1192: (M'_n)^{\dagger}] (\omega_n) - (\hat G_n M'_n)(\omega_n)} {2i} J^0

1193: (\q)| \psi_0\rangle \label{eq:3.59}

1194: \end{eqnarray}

1195: with $\omega_n = \omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n$.

1196: 

1197: Equations (\ref{eq:3.57}) and (\ref{eq:3.58}) have the same structure

1198: as Eq.~(59) of Ref.~\cite{Cap} and can be deduced with the same method

1199: replacing the Hamiltonian $H$ by $\hat H_n$ and the Feshbach's

1200: projection operators by the extended ones. As remarked in the quoted

1201: reference, the Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.57}) and (\ref{eq:3.58}) must be used

1202: inside the matrix elements of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.59}) and hold in the

1203: region of the quasielastic peak at intermediate and high energies.

1204: 

1205: Operating as in Sec.~\ref{sssec:3.4.1} and retaining only the

1206: incoherent part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.59}), we obtain 

1207: \begin{eqnarray}

1208:  A_{\mathrm{inc}}^{\mathrm{I}}(\omega,\q) = - \frac {1} {\pi}

1209:  \sum_n & \mathrm{Re} &

1210: \langle \phi_n |j^{0\dagger}(\q) \frac {[\mcg_n^{\dagger}

1211: (\mcm'_n)^{\dagger}]

1212: (\omega_n) - (\mcg_n \mcm'_n)(\omega_n)} {2i} \nonumber \\

1213: & \times & j^0 (\q)|\phi_n\rangle, \label{eq:3.60}

1214: \end{eqnarray}

1215: where $\mcm_n(E)$ is the one-body expression of the self-energy.

1216: Using the relation

1217: \begin{equation}

1218:  \mcg_n(E)= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff E' \, \frac {\mcs_n(E')}

1219:  {E- E' + i\eta} ,

1220: \label{eq:3.61}

1221: \end{equation}

1222: deduced from Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.11}), and the relation [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.17a})]

1223: \begin{equation}

1224:  \mcm_n(E) = E- [\mcg_n(E)]^{-1} - \mct ,

1225: \label{eq:3.62}

1226: \end{equation}

1227: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.34}) is extended to the relations

1228: \begin{eqnarray}

1229: &\mcg_n(\omega+E_0-\epsilon_n) \simeq \mcg_0(\tilde \omega) ,

1230: \,\,\,\,\,\, \mcm_n(\omega+E_0-\epsilon_n) \simeq \mcm_0(\tilde

1231: \omega)\, , \nonumber \\

1232: & \tilde \omega = \omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0 - \tilde \epsilon .

1233: \label{eq:3.63}

1234: \end{eqnarray}

1235: Therefore, the contribution of the continuous spectrum can be included

1236: as in Sec.~\ref{sssec:3.4.3} to yield

1237: \begin{eqnarray}

1238:  A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) = - \frac {1}{\pi}

1239: \mathrm{Re} \, \mathrm{Tr} \,\left[ K_{\mathbf {q}} \left( \frac

1240: {[\mcg_0^{\dagger} (\mcm'_0)^{\dagger}] (\tilde \omega) - (\mcg_0

1241: \mcm'_0)(\tilde \omega)} {2i} \right) \right] . \label{eq:3.64}

1242: \end{eqnarray}

1243: Making explicit the real part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.64}), we have

1244: \begin{eqnarray}

1245: A_\mathrm{inc}^\mathrm{I}(\omega,\q) &=& - \frac{1}{2\pi}

1246: \mathrm{Tr} \, \left[  K_{\mathbf{q}}  \left(  \frac

1247: {[\mcg_0^{\dagger} (\mcm'_0)^{\dagger} +

1248: (\mcm'_0)^{\dagger}\mcg_0^{\dagger}] (\tilde \omega)}

1249: {2i} \right. \right. \nonumber \\

1250: & - & \left. \left. \frac {(\mcg_0 \mcm'_0 + \mcm'_0 \mcg_0)(\tilde

1251: \omega)} {2i} \right) \right] . \label{eq:3.65}

1252: \end{eqnarray}

1253: where $\mcm'_0(E)$ and $\mcg_0(E)$ are symmetrically arranged.

1254: 

1255: Equation (\ref{eq:3.64}) implies

1256: \begin{equation}

1257: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff \omega \, A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm

1258: I} (\omega,\q) = 0 , \label{eq:3.66}

1259: \end{equation}

1260: in keeping with Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.25}). In fact, denoting by $C_{\infty}$

1261: the large circle with center in the origin, one has

1262: \begin{equation}

1263: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \diff E\, [\mcg_0^{\dagger} (E)

1264: (\mcm'_0)^{\dagger}(E) - \mcg_0(E) \mcm'_0(E)] = \int_{C_{\infty}}

1265:  \diff z \, \mcg_0(z)\mcm'_0(z) = 0 ,

1266: \label{eq:3.67}

1267: \end{equation}

1268: where the first equality is due to the analyticity of

1269: $\mcg_0(z)\mcm'_0(z)$ in the complex plane, except for cuts and poles

1270: on the real axis, and the latter one follows from the fast decrease

1271: of $\mcg_0(z)\mcm'_0(z)$ at infinity (more than $1/|z|$).

1272: 

1273: 

1274: 

1275: \subsection{Practical approximation for the total hadronic tensor

1276: \label{ssec:3.6}}

1277: 

1278: In this Subsection we consider the total hadronic tensor as obtained

1279: by the sum of the direct contribution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.53}) with the

1280: interference term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.65}):

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: W(\omega,\q) = A_{\mathrm {inc}}^{\mathrm D}(\omega,\q) + A_{\mathrm

1283: {inc}}^{\mathrm I}(\omega,\q) . \label{eq:3.68}

1284: \end{equation}

1285: Using in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.45}), the relation (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.12}))

1286: \begin{equation}

1287: \mcs_0(E) = \frac {1} {2\pi i} [\mcg_0^{\dagger}(E) - \mcg_0(E)] ,

1288: \label{eq:3.69}

1289: \end{equation}

1290: one has

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: W(\omega,\q) = \frac {1} {2\pi i} \mathrm{Tr} \, \left[ K_{\mathbf q}

1293: \left( \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\dagger}(\tilde \omega) - \mcg_{\mathrm

1294: {eff}}(\tilde \omega)\right) \right] \, , \, \tilde \omega = \omega +

1295: E_0 - \epsilon_0 - \tilde \epsilon , \label{eq:3.70}

1296: \end{equation}

1297: where

1298: \begin{equation}

1299: \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) = [1 - \mcm'_0(E)]^{1/2} \, \mcg_0(E) [1 -

1300: \mcm'_0(E)]^{1/2} . \label{eq:3.71}

1301: \end{equation}

1302: We call $\mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$ \lq\lq effective Greeen's

1303: function\rq\rq.

1304: 

1305: Strictly, Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.71}) should involve in a symmetrical way the

1306: factor $1 - \mcm'_0(E)/2$, instead of the square root operator. The

1307: replacement by the latter has been done to feature the more

1308: fundamental quantity $1 - \mcm'_0(E)$, related to the effective

1309: $\omega$--mass (see Ref.~\cite{mabor}), and is justified by the fact

1310: that $\mcm'_0(E)$ is small in the energy region of interest. For

1311: instance, in the scattering $p-^{40}$Ca the approximation is very

1312: good at proton energies beyond 50 MeV (see Fig. 2 of

1313: Ref.~\cite{tornow}, where the result has been obtained using the

1314: dispersion relation specific of the self-energy). Concerning the

1315: precise meaning of the square root operator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.71}), we

1316: remark that it is trivial if $\mcm'_0(E)$ is local (as supposed in

1317: many models) and that in any case the square root can be defined

1318: without problems as a power series for $\|\mcm'_0(E)\| \leq 1$.

1319: 

1320: The effective Green's function shows an interesting property. While

1321: the energy derivative of $\mcg_0(E)$ satisfies the relation

1322: \begin{equation}

1323: \mcg'_0(E) = - \mcg_0(E) [1 - \mcm'_0(E)] \mcg_0(E), \label{eq:3.72}

1324: \end{equation}

1325: the derivative of $\mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$, performed with the help

1326: of the previous equation and disregarding the contribution of

1327: $\mcm''_0(E)$, as allowed by the quasilinear behavior of $\mcm_0(E)$

1328: (see again Fig. 2 of Ref.~\cite{tornow}), yields

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: \mcg'_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) \simeq [1 - \mcm'_0(E)]^{1/2}\, \mcg'_0(E)

1331: [1 - \mcm'_0(E)]^{1/2}= - \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^2(E) .

1332: \label{eq:3.73}

1333: \end{equation}

1334: This is the typical relation satisfied by the Green's function of an

1335: energy independent Hamiltonian. This property really holds. In fact

1336: $\mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$ is invertible, since $[1 -

1337: \mcm'_0(E)]^{-1/2}$ can be defined as a power series and, therefore,

1338: one can define the related self-energy $\mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$ and

1339: the Hamiltonian $h_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$ as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.17a}):

1340: \begin{equation}

1341: \mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) = h_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) - \mct \, , \,

1342:  h_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) =E - \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^{-1}(E) .

1343: \label{eq:3.74}

1344: \end{equation}

1345: Note that the energy derivative

1346: \begin{equation}

1347: \mcm'_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) = 1 + \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^{-1}(E)

1348: \mcg'_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^{-1}(E) \label{eq:3.75}

1349: \end{equation}

1350: is approximately equal to zero due to Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.73}). This means

1351: that the hadronic tensor can be reduced to a one-body expression by

1352: means of the Green's function associated to an effective self-energy,

1353: nearly energy independent.

1354: 

1355: Equation (\ref{eq:3.70}) holds under the same conditions as

1356: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.53}) and (\ref{eq:3.65}), i.e. at intermediate and

1357: high energies, near the quasielastic peak and for $q > k_{\mathrm

1358: F}$. Now, we arrange Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.70}) in order to feature the role

1359: of the scalar operator $j^0(\q;\r) = \exp(i \q \cdot \r)$. This is

1360: included in $K_{\mathbf q}$ as

1361: \begin{equation}

1362: \langle \r|K_{\mathbf q} |\rf\rangle = \exp(-i \q \cdot \r) K(\r,\rf)

1363: \exp(i \q \cdot \rf) = \langle \r|j^{0\dagger}(\q)Kj^0(\q)|\rf\rangle

1364: . \label{eq:3.76}

1365: \end{equation}

1366: Permuting the factors under the trace symbol and using the property

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: \mathrm{Tr}\,[O^{\dagger}] = {\overline{\mathrm{Tr}\,[O]}} ,

1369: \end{equation}

1370: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.70}) can equivalently be written as

1371: \begin{eqnarray}

1372: &W(\omega,\q) = \mathrm{Tr} \, [Kj^{0\dagger}(\q)\mcs_{\mathrm

1373: {eff}} (\tilde\omega) j^0(\q)]

1374:  = -\frac {1} {\pi} \mathrm{Im}\, \mathrm{Tr}\, [Kj^{0\dagger}(\q)

1375: \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(\tilde\omega)j^0(\q)] \, ,  \nonumber \\

1376: & \tilde\omega = \omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0 - \tilde\epsilon,

1377: \label{eq:3.77}

1378: \end{eqnarray}

1379: where

1380: \begin{equation}

1381: \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}(\tilde\omega) = \frac {1} {2\pi i}

1382: [\mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\dagger}(\tilde\omega) - \mcg_{\mathrm

1383: {eff}}(\tilde\omega)] . \label{eq:3.78}

1384: \end{equation}

1385: 

1386: So far, we have considered only the scalar component $J^0(\q)$ of the

1387: current in the momentum representation. The extension to an arbitrary

1388: one-body operator

1389: \begin{equation}

1390: O(\q) = \int\diff\r\diff\rf a_{\mathbf r}^{\dagger} \, O(\q;\r,\rf)

1391: a_{\mathbf r'} \label{eq:3.79}

1392: \end{equation}

1393: is performed on sight. Thus, Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.77}) is generalized to all

1394: the diagonal components of the hadronic tensor, provided that only

1395: one-body currents are considered:

1396: \begin{eqnarray}

1397: & W^{\mu\mu}(\omega,\q)  =  \mathrm{Tr} \, [Kj^{\mu\dagger}(\q)

1398: \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}(\tilde\omega) j^{\mu}(\q)]

1399:  = -\frac {1} {\pi} \mathrm{Im}\, \mathrm{Tr}\, [Kj^{\mu\dagger}(\q)

1400: \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(\tilde\omega)j^{\mu}(\q)] ,  \nonumber \\

1401: & \tilde\omega = \omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0 - \tilde\epsilon,

1402: \label{eq:3.80}

1403: \end{eqnarray}

1404: 

1405: 

1406: \subsection{Energy shift prescriptions \label{ssec:3.7}}

1407: 

1408: In the literature two types of energy shifts have been proposed to

1409: connect the spectral functions $\mcs_n(E)$.

1410: 

1411: a) Kinetic energy prescription~\cite{hori,chinn,capuzzi,capma}:

1412: \begin{equation}

1413: \mcs_n(\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_n) = \mcs_0(\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0 -

1414: \delta\epsilon_n) \, , \, \delta\epsilon_n = \epsilon_n - \epsilon_0,

1415: \label{eq:3.81}

1416: \end{equation}

1417: which produces an energy shift equal to $\epsilon_n - \epsilon_0$ in

1418: the expression of the hadronic tensor. This approximation keeps the

1419: value of the argument of the spectral function corresponding to the

1420: kinetic energy of the emitted proton. This explains the name.

1421: 

1422: b) Total energy prescription~\cite{capma}:

1423: \begin{equation}

1424: \mcs_n(\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_n) = \mcs_0(\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0 -

1425: \delta\epsilon_n) \, , \, \delta\epsilon_n = 0, \label{eq:3.82}

1426: \end{equation}

1427: which yields no energy shift in the expression of the hadronic

1428: tensor. This approximation keeps the value of the total energy of the

1429: system given by the proton and the residual nucleus in the state

1430: $|n\rangle$.

1431: 

1432: The same prescriptions are applied to $\mcg_n(E)$ and $\mcm_n(E)$

1433: according to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.61}), and (\ref{eq:3.62}).

1434: 

1435: The total energy prescription has the merit of being simple, since it

1436: requires no shift. In contrast, the kinetic energy prescription leads

1437: to an expression of the hadronic tensor which involves a convolution

1438: of $\mcs_0(E)$ with the hole spectral function related to

1439: $|\psi_0\rangle$~\cite{capma}.

1440: 

1441: The kinetic energy prescription is the one that has been adopted by

1442: most authors [Refs.~\cite{hori,chinn,capuzzi}]. Moreover, it is

1443: closely related to an expression proposed for high energy transfers

1444: [Refs.~\cite{benhar,ciofi,benhar2,sick,benhar3,benhar4}]. However,

1445: we decided for an intermediate choice, due to the reasons explained

1446: below.

1447: 

1448: Using the relations (see Eqs.~(\ref{eq:2.12}) and (\ref{eq:2.17}))

1449: \begin{equation}

1450: \mcs_n(E) = \frac {1} {2\pi i} [ \mcg_n^{\dagger}(E) - \mcg_n(E)]\, ,

1451: \, \mcg_n(E) = \frac {1} {E - \mct - \mcm_n(E) + i \eta} ,

1452: \label{eq:3.83}

1453: \end{equation}

1454: the spectral function $\mcs_n(E)$ is decomposed as

1455: \begin{equation}

1456: \mcs_n(E) = \mcs_n^{\mathrm {el}}(E) + \mcs_n^{\mathrm {in}}(E)

1457: \label{eq:3.84}

1458: \end{equation}

1459: with

1460: \begin{equation}

1461: \mcs_n^{\mathrm {el}}(E) = \eta \, \mcg_n^{\dagger}

1462: (E+i\eta)\mcg_n(E+i\eta) , \label{eq:3.85}

1463: \end{equation}

1464: \begin{equation}

1465: \mcs_n^{\mathrm {in}}(E) = - \mcg_n^{\dagger} (E) \mcm_n^{\mathrm

1466: I}(E)\mcg_n(E) \, , \, \mcm_n^{\mathrm I} = \frac {1} {2 i}

1467: [\mcm_n(E) - \mcm_n^{\dagger}(E)] . \label{eq:3.86}

1468: \end{equation}

1469: The limit for $\eta \rightarrow 0$ is understood, as usual, in

1470: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.85}).

1471: 

1472: The pioneering paper of Ref.~\cite{hori} has shown that for $E > 0$

1473: $\mcs_n^{\mathrm {el}}(E)$ yields the elastic contribution, due to

1474: the overlaps $\langle n|a_{\mathbf r}|\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}\rangle$,

1475: where $|\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}\rangle$ describes a proton of kinetic

1476: energy $k^2/2m = E$ scattered by the residual nucleus in the state

1477: $|n\rangle$. The asymptotic condition of incident plane wave imposes

1478: that $\mcs_n^{\mathrm {el}}(E)$ must be related to $\mcs_0^{\mathrm

1479: {el}}(E)$ so as to preserve $\k$ and hence the argument $E$. This is

1480: in favour of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.81}) rather than Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.82}). In

1481: contrast, $\mcs_n^{\mathrm {in}}(E)$ gives the inelastic

1482: contribution, due to the overlaps $\langle n|a_{\mathbf

1483: r}|\psi_{\mathbf{k},m}\rangle$, with $m \neq n$, which do not contain

1484: the plane wave. Therefore, the requirement of preserving $\k$ is not

1485: so stringent in this case, and prevails the exigency of conserving in

1486: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.86}) the size of $\mcm_n^{\mathrm I}(E)$, which is

1487: mainly determined by the number of the inelastic channels which are

1488: open when a proton of kinetic energy $k^2/2m$ is scattered by

1489: $|n\rangle$. This number depends on the total energy $k^2/2m +

1490: \epsilon _n$. Hence, Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.81}) does not correctly yield the

1491: thresholds of the inelastic processes, and Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.82}) is

1492: favoured to relate $\mcm_n^{\mathrm I}(E)$ to $\mcm_0^{\mathrm

1493: I}(E)$. Since the real and the imaginary parts of the self-energy

1494: fulfill a dispersion relation (see Sec.~5.4 of Ref.~\cite{capma2}),

1495: the total energy prescription must be applied to $\mcm_n(E)$ and hence

1496: to $\mcg_n(E)$ and $\mcs_n^{\mathrm {in}}(E)$.

1497: 

1498: Due to the above reasons, we adopt the kinetic energy prescription

1499: for $\mcs_n^{\mathrm {el}}(E)$ and the total energy one for

1500: $\mcs_n^{\mathrm {in}}(E)$, i.e.,

1501: \begin{equation}

1502: \mcs_n(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n) = \mcs_0^{\mathrm {el}}(\omega +

1503: E_0 - \epsilon_0 - \bar \epsilon) + \mcs_0^{\mathrm {in}}(\omega +

1504: E_0 - \epsilon_0) . \label{eq:3.87}

1505: \end{equation}

1506: Here, $\bar \epsilon$ is taken equal to the average excitation energy

1507: of the residual nucleus given in terms of the energies $\epsilon_n$

1508: and the spectroscopic factors $\lambda_n$, as

1509: \begin{equation}

1510: \bar \epsilon = \frac {\sum_n \lambda_n (\epsilon_n - \epsilon_0)}

1511: {\sum_n \lambda_n} . \label{eq:3.88}

1512: \end{equation}

1513: According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.87}), the effective spectral function

1514: $\mcs_{n,\mathrm {eff}}(E)$, defined as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.78}), and

1515: which differs from $\mcs_n(E)$ by corrections involving only

1516: $\mcm'_n(E)$, is related to the ground state effective spectral

1517: function $\mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.78}) as

1518: \begin{equation}

1519: \mcs_{n,\mathrm {eff}}(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n) = \mcs_{\mathrm

1520: {eff}}^{\mathrm {el}}(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0 - \bar \epsilon) +

1521: \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm {in}}(\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0),

1522: \label{eq:3.89}

1523: \end{equation}

1524: where

1525: \begin{equation}

1526: \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm {el}}(E) = \eta \, \mcg_{\mathrm

1527: {eff}}^{\dagger} (E+i\eta) \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E+i\eta),

1528: \label{eq:3.90}

1529: \end{equation}

1530: \begin{equation}

1531: \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm {in}}(E) = - \mcg_{\mathrm

1532: {eff}}^{\dagger} (E) \mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm I}(E)

1533: \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) \, , \, \mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm I}(E)

1534: \equiv \frac {1} {2i} (\mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}

1535:  - \mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\dagger}) ,

1536: \label{eq:3.91}

1537: \end{equation}

1538: and $\mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)$ is the effective mass operator defined

1539: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.74}). Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.80}) becomes

1540: \begin{equation}

1541: W^{\mu\mu} ( \omega , \q) = {\mathrm {Tr}} \, \big\{ Kj^{\mu \dagger}

1542: (\q) \big[\mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm {el}} (\omega + E_0

1543: -\epsilon_0 - \bar\epsilon) + \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}^{\mathrm {in}}

1544: (\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0)\big] j^\mu (\q) \big\}. \label{eq:3.92}

1545: \end{equation}

1546: 

1547: 

1548: \subsection{Hadronic tensor in terms of the local equivalent

1549: potential \label{ssec:3.8}}

1550: 

1551: We have expressed the hadronic tensor in terms of the self-energy,

1552: rather than in terms of the Feshbach's potential as done in

1553: Ref.~\cite{capuzzi}, since the latter has a quite complicated

1554: spatial nonlocality~\cite{capma2} and its kernel is not symmetric in

1555: the coordinate representation. These drawbacks make problematic to

1556: find a local equivalent potential to be compared with the empirical

1557: optical-model potential. In contrast, the self-energy is symmetric,

1558: has a simpler nonlocal structure, and is considered the theoretical

1559: mean field most closely related to the empirical

1560: potential~\cite{capma2}.

1561: 

1562: Here, we want to show that the hadronic tensor can be expressed in

1563: terms of the Perey-Buck local potential, phase equivalent to the

1564: self-energy. To this extent, we investigate the connection between

1565: the Green's function $\mcg_0(E)$ of the self-energy $\mcm_0(E)$ and 

1566: that related to

1567: its local equivalent potential. We start with a simple model of

1568: $\mcm_0(E)$, that is widely used to calculate the self-energy by means

1569: of dispersion relations (see Sec.~4.4 of Ref.~\cite{mabor}). It

1570: takes into account the fact that the nonlocality in the self-energy

1571: is gathered mainly in its statical part, which is hermitian, whereas

1572: the non-hermitian dynamical part has a weaker nonlocal structure.

1573: Thus, one sets

1574: \begin{equation}

1575: \mcm_0(E) = \mcu + \mcd(E), \label{eq:3.93}

1576: \end{equation}

1577: where $\mcd(E)$ is non-hermitian and local, whereas the energy

1578: independent term $\mcu$ is hermitian and has the Frahn-Lemmer

1579: nonlocal structure

1580: \begin{equation}

1581: \mcu (\r , \rf) = H(|\r - \rf|) \, U\left(\frac {1} {2}|\r + \rf|

1582: \right). \label{eq:3.94}

1583: \end{equation}

1584: The precise shape of the nonlocality form factor $H$ is not relevant

1585: for the next equations. Setting

1586: \begin{equation}

1587: F(\q^2) \equiv \int \diff \s \, \exp (-i\q\cdot\s) H(s) ,

1588: \label{eq:3.95}

1589: \end{equation}

1590: the Perey-Buck potential~\cite{PB62,cap-lectnot} is defined by the implicit equation

1591: \begin{equation}

1592: \mcv_{\mathrm L}(E) = U\, F\big( E-\mcv_{\mathrm L} (E)\big) +

1593: \mcd(E) . \label{eq:3.96}

1594: \end{equation}

1595: 

1596: Every eigenvector $|\chi_{\mathrm L}(E)\rangle$ of $\mcv_{\mathrm L}

1597: (E)$ is related to the corresponding eigenvector $|\chi(E)\rangle$ of

1598: $\mcm_0(E)$ by the phase conserving relation

1599: \begin{equation}

1600: |\chi_{\mathrm L}(E)\rangle = f(E)|\chi(E)\rangle , \label{eq:3.97}

1601: \end{equation}

1602: where the inverse Perey factor $f(E)$~\cite{fied,cap-lectnot} multiplies by 

1603: the function

1604: \begin{equation}

1605: f(E;r) = \big[ 1 + U(r)F'\big( E-\mcv_{\mathrm L} (E;r)\big)

1606: \big]^{1/2} . \label{eq:3.98}

1607: \end{equation}

1608: Higher-order corrections~\cite{cap-lectnot}, involving surface terms,

1609: have been disregarded in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.96}) and (\ref{eq:3.98}).

1610: Analogously, the Green's functions related to $\mcv_{\mathrm L}$ and

1611: $\mcm_0$

1612: \begin{equation}

1613: \mcg_{\mathrm L} (E) \equiv [E - \mct - \mcv_{\mathrm L} (E) +

1614: i\eta]^{-1} , \label{eq:3.99}

1615: \end{equation}

1616: \begin{equation}

1617: \mcg_0 (E) \equiv [E - \mct - \mcm_0 (E) + i\eta]^{-1}, \label{eq:3.100}

1618: \end{equation}

1619: are connected by

1620: \begin{equation}

1621: \mcg_{\mathrm L} (E) = f(E) \mcg_0(E) f(E) . \label{eq:3.101}

1622: \end{equation}

1623: The energy derivatives of the two sides of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.96}) yield

1624: \begin{equation}

1625: 1 - \mcm'_0 (E) = f(E) [1 - \mcv'_{\mathrm L} (E)] f(E) .

1626: \label{eq:3.102}

1627: \end{equation}

1628: This relation is analogous to the relation among the effective masses

1629: $m^*$, $m_k$, and $m_\omega$ in the infinite nuclear matter (Sec.~3.6

1630: of \cite{mabor}).

1631: 

1632: In Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.71}), (\ref{eq:3.74}), and (\ref{eq:3.78}), we have

1633: defined the effective Green's function of $\mcg_0$ and the linked

1634: Hamiltonian, self-energy, and spectral function as

1635: \begin{eqnarray}

1636: \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) & = & \, [1 - \mcm'_0(E)]^{1/2} \, \mcg_0 (E) [1

1637: - \mcm'_0(E)]^{1/2} \, , \nonumber \\

1638:  h_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) & = & \, E - \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}^{-1}(E)\, ,

1639: \nonumber \\

1640: \mcm_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) & = & \, h_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) - \mct\, ,

1641: \nonumber \\

1642: \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}(E) & = & \, \frac {1} {2\pi i} [\mcg_{\mathrm

1643: {eff}}^{\dagger}(E) - \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}}(E)] . \label{eq:3.103}

1644: \end{eqnarray}

1645: Likewise, the corresponding quantities related to $\mcg_{\mathrm L}

1646: (E)$ and $\mcv_{\mathrm L} (E)$ are defined as

1647: \begin{eqnarray}

1648: \mcg_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) & = & \, [1 - \mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)]^{1/2}

1649: \, \mcg_{\mathrm L} (E) [1 - \mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)]^{1/2} \, ,

1650: \nonumber

1651: \\

1652:  h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) & = & \, E - \mcg_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{-1}(E)\,

1653: ,

1654:  \nonumber \\

1655: \mcv_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) & = & \, h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) - \mct\, ,

1656: \nonumber \\

1657: \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) & = & \, \frac {1} {2\pi i} [\mcg_{\mathrm

1658: {L,eff}}^{\dagger}(E) - \mcg_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E)] . \label{eq:3.104}

1659: \end{eqnarray}

1660: Inserting Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.102}) in the first Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.103}) and

1661: then using Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.101}), one has

1662: \begin{equation}

1663: \mcg_{\mathrm {eff}} (E) = \mcg_{\mathrm {L,eff}} (E),

1664: \label{eq:3.105}

1665: \end{equation}

1666: and then

1667: \begin{equation}

1668: h_{\mathrm {eff}} (E) = h_{\mathrm {L,eff}} (E) \, , \, \mcm_{\mathrm

1669: {eff}} (E) = \mcv_{\mathrm {L,eff}} (E)\, , \, \mcs_{\mathrm {eff}}

1670: (E) = \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}} (E) . \label{eq:3.106}

1671: \end{equation}

1672: We emphasize that this invariance property, which will be very useful

1673: below, is the mere consequence of having introduced into the hadronic

1674: tensor the contribution of the interference between different

1675: channels.

1676: 

1677: As a consequence of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.105}) and (\ref{eq:3.106}), the

1678: expression (\ref{eq:3.92}) of the hadronic tensor reads

1679: \begin{eqnarray}

1680: W^{\mu\mu} ( \omega , \q) = & {\mathrm{Tr}} \, \left\lbrace

1681: Kj^{\mu \dagger} (\q) \left[  \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm{el}}

1682: (\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0 - \bar\epsilon) \right. \right. \nonumber\\

1683: & + \left. \left. \mcs_{\mathrm{L,eff}}^{\mathrm{in}} (\omega + E_0

1684: -\epsilon_0 ) \right]  j^\mu (\q) \right\rbrace \label{eq:3.107}

1685: \end{eqnarray}

1686: with

1687: \begin{equation}

1688: \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm {el}}(E) \equiv \eta \, \mcg_{\mathrm

1689: {L,eff}}^{\dagger} (E+i\eta) \mcg_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E+i\eta) ,

1690: \label{eq:3.108}

1691: \end{equation}

1692: \begin{equation}

1693: \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm {in}}(E) = - \mcg_{\mathrm

1694: {L,eff}}^{\dagger} (E) \mcv_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm I}(E)

1695: \mcg_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) \, , \label{eq:3.109}

1696: \end{equation}

1697: where $\mcv_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm I}(E)$ is the antihermitian

1698: part of $\mcv_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E)$. Using the first two

1699: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.104}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.99}), one readily obtains

1700: $h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E)$ in terms of $h_{\mathrm {L}}(E)$:

1701: \begin{equation}

1702: h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}(E) = [1 - \mcv'_{\mathrm {L}}(E)]^{-1/2}

1703: [h_{\mathrm {L}}(E) - \mcv'_{\mathrm {L}}(E) E] [1 - \mcv'_{\mathrm

1704: {L}}(E)]^{-1/2} . \label{eq:3.111}

1705: \end{equation}

1706: Therefore, in principle, the hadronic tensor, as well as its elastic

1707: and inelastic parts, can be calculated in terms of quantities related

1708: to $\mcv_{\mathrm {L}}(E)$.

1709: 

1710: 

1711: 

1712: 

1713: \subsection{Practical calculations \label{ssec:3.9}}

1714: 

1715: The local potential $\mcv_{\mathrm {L}}(E)$, phase equivalent to the

1716: self-energy, can be identified with the empirical optical-model

1717: potential. Therefore, the symbol $\mcv_{\mathrm {L}}(E)$ will denote

1718: in the following the empirical potential.

1719: 

1720: The use of two different energy shifts to treat the elastic and

1721: inelastic parts of the hadronic tensor represents a complication. In

1722: order to overcome this difficulty, it is sufficient to find a simple

1723: way of calculating the elastic part.

1724: 

1725: We only deal with positive values of $E$, since we consider only

1726: scattering states. Let $|\chi_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle$

1727: denote the eigenvector of $h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\dagger}(E)$, related

1728: to the eigenvalue $E$, and satisfying the condition of incoming

1729: scattering wave. The right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.108}) can be

1730: handled to obtain

1731: \begin{equation}

1732: \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm{el}}(E) = \sum |\chi_{\mathrm

1733: {L,eff}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle \langle \chi_{\mathrm{L,eff}}^{(-)}(E)| ,

1734: \label{eq:3.112}

1735: \end{equation}

1736: where the sum refers to the understood degeneracy indices. The

1737: nontrivial proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.112}) can be found in Sec.~4.12

1738: of Ref.~\cite{capma2}. We remark that this proof extends, without any

1739: modification, to a general Green's function and its self-energy.

1740: 

1741: Equation (\ref{eq:3.112}) involves the eigenvectors $|\chi_{\mathrm

1742: {L,eff}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle$ of $h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\dagger}(E)$,

1743: which is a complicated Hamiltonian, but can be expressed in terms of

1744: the corresponding eigenvectors $|\chi_{\mathrm {L}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle$

1745: of $h_{\mathrm {L}}^{\dagger}(E)$. In fact, by a simple substitution

1746: in the eigenvalue equation for $h_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\dagger}(E)$ and

1747: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.111}), one checks that these eigenvectors are

1748: related by the phase-conserving relation:

1749: \begin{equation}

1750: |\chi_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle = [ 1 - (\mcv'_{\mathrm

1751: {L}})^{\dagger}(E)]^{1/2} |\chi_{\mathrm{L}}^{(-)}(E) \rangle.

1752: \label{eq:3.113}

1753: \end{equation}

1754: Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.112}) reads

1755: \begin{equation}

1756: \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm{el}}(E) = \sum [ 1 - (\mcv'_{\mathrm

1757: {L}})^{\dagger}(E)]^{1/2} |\chi_{\mathrm {L}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle \langle

1758: \chi_{\mathrm{L}}^{(-)}(E)| [ 1 - (\mcv'_{\mathrm {L}})(E)]^{1/2} .

1759: \label{eq:3.114}

1760: \end{equation}

1761: 

1762: From this equation, the elastic contribution to the hadronic tensor

1763: can be calculated with the same difficulty as for the calculation of

1764: an integrated single-proton knockout. In contrast, no similar way for

1765: directly calculating the inelastic contribution is available. In

1766: order to overcome this difficulty, the hadronic tensor can be

1767: written as

1768: \begin{equation}

1769: W^{\mu\mu} (\omega, \q) = W_1^{\mu\mu} (\omega, \q) + W_2^{\mu\mu}

1770: (\omega, \q) \label{eq:3.115}

1771: \end{equation}

1772: with

1773: \begin{eqnarray}

1774: & & W_1^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q) = {\mathrm {Tr}} \, \big [ Kj^{\mu

1775: \dagger} (\q) \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}} (E) j^\mu (\q) \big]

1776:  \nonumber \\ & = & - \frac {1} {\pi} {\mathrm {Im}}

1777: {\mathrm {Tr}} \big\{ Kj^{\mu \dagger} (\q)[ 1 - (\mcv'_{\mathrm

1778: {L}})(E)]^{1/2} \mcg_{\mathrm {L}} (E)[ 1 - (\mcv'_{\mathrm

1779: {L}})(E)]^{1/2}j^\mu (\q)\big\} , \label{eq:3.116}

1780: \end{eqnarray}

1781: and

1782: \begin{equation}

1783: W_2^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q) = {\mathrm {Tr}} \, \big\{ Kj^{\mu

1784: \dagger} (\q) [\mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm {el}} (E -

1785: \bar\epsilon) - \mcs_{\mathrm {L,eff}}^{\mathrm {el}} (E)] j^\mu (\q)

1786: \big\} , \label{eq:3.117}

1787: \end{equation}

1788: where $E = \omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0$.

1789: 

1790: In the following, $W_2^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q)$ will be calculated

1791: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.114}), and $W_1^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q)$ will be

1792: obtained from the method of Ref.~\cite{capuzzi}, based on the

1793: spectral representation of the s.p. Green's function.

1794: 

1795: 

1796: \section{Spectral representation of the hadronic tensor}

1797: \label{sec.spectral}

1798: 

1799: 

1800: In this Section we consider the spectral representation of the s.p.

1801: Green's function which allows practical calculations of the hadron

1802: tensor of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.116}). Due to the complex nature of

1803: $\mcv_{\mathrm L}(E)$, the spectral representation of $\mcg_{\mathrm

1804: L}(E)$ involves a biorthogonal expansion in terms of the

1805: eigenfunctions of $h_{\mathrm L}(E)$ and $h_{\mathrm

1806: L}^{\dagger}(E)$. We consider the incoming wave scattering solutions

1807: of the eigenvalue equations, i.e.,

1808: \begin{eqnarray}

1809: & & \left(\mathcal{E} - h_{\mathrm L}^{\dagger}(E)\right) \mid

1810: \chi_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle = 0 \ , \label{eq.inco1}

1811: \\

1812: & & \left(\mathcal{E} - h_{\mathrm L}(E)\right) \mid \tilde

1813: {\chi}_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle = 0 \ .

1814: \label{eq.inco2}

1815: \end{eqnarray}

1816: The choice of incoming wave solutions is not strictly necessary, but

1817: it is convenient in order to have a closer comparison with the

1818: treatment of the exclusive reactions, where the final states fulfill

1819: this asymptotic condition and are the eigenfunctions

1820: $\mid\chi_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E)\rangle$ of $h_{\mathrm

1821: L}^{\dagger}(E)$.

1822: 

1823: The eigenfunctions of Eqs.~(\ref{eq.inco1}) and (\ref{eq.inco2})

1824: satisfy the biorthogonality condition

1825: \begin{equation}

1826: \langle\chi_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\mid \tilde

1827: {\chi}_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}'}^{(-)}(E)\rangle = \delta

1828: \left(\mathcal{E} - \mathcal{E}' \right) \ , \label{bicon}

1829: \end{equation}

1830: and, in absence of bound eigenstates, the completeness relation

1831: \begin{equation}

1832: \int_0^{\infty} \diff \mathcal{E}\mid\tilde {\chi}_{\mathrm

1833: L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle\langle \chi_{\mathrm

1834: L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\mid =1 . \label{eq.comple}

1835: \end{equation}

1836: 

1837: Equations (\ref{bicon}) and (\ref{eq.comple}) are the mathematical

1838: basis for the biorthogonal expansions. The contribution of possible

1839: bound state solutions of Eqs.~(\ref{eq.inco1}) and (\ref{eq.inco2})

1840: can be disregarded in Eq.~(\ref{eq.comple}) since their effect on the

1841: hadron tensor is negligible at the energy and momentum transfers

1842: considered in this paper.

1843: 

1844: Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq.comple}) and (\ref{eq.inco2}), one obtains the

1845: spectral representation

1846: \begin{equation}

1847: \mcg_{\mathrm L}(E) = \int_0^{\infty} \diff \mathcal{E}\mid\tilde

1848: {\chi}_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle

1849: \frac{1}{E-\mathcal{E}+i\eta} \langle\chi_{\mathrm

1850: L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\mid \ . \label{eq.sperep}

1851: \end{equation}

1852: Therefore, $W_1^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q)$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.116})) can be

1853: written, after expanding the ODM $K$ in terms of the natural

1854: orbitals, as

1855: \begin{eqnarray}

1856: W_1^{\mu\mu}(\omega , \q) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{\nu} \mathrm{Im}

1857: \bigg[  \int_0^{\infty}  & \diff \mathcal{E} & \frac{1}{\omega + E_0 -

1858: \epsilon_0-\mathcal{E}+i\eta} \nonumber\\

1859: & \times &  T_{\nu}^{\mu\mu} (\mathcal{E} ,\omega + E_0 -

1860: \epsilon_0) \bigg]   \

1861: , \label{eq.pracw}

1862: \end{eqnarray}

1863: where

1864: \begin{eqnarray}

1865: T_{\nu}^{\mu\mu}(\mathcal{E} ,E) & = & n_{\nu}\langle u_{\nu} \mid

1866: j^{\mu\dagger}(\q) \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)}

1867: \mid\tilde{\chi}_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\rangle \nonumber \\

1868: & \times &

1869:  \langle\chi_{\mathrm L,\mathcal{E}}^{(-)}(E)\mid

1870:  \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)} j^{\mu}(\q)\mid u_{\nu} \rangle \ .

1871: \label{eq.tprac}

1872: \end{eqnarray}

1873: The quantities $|u_{\nu}\rangle$ and $n_\nu$ are the natural orbitals

1874: and the occupation numbers, defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.5}), and come

1875: from the natural expansion of the ODM $K$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.116}). The

1876: limit for $\eta \rightarrow +0$, understood before the integral of

1877: Eq.~(\ref{eq.pracw}), can be calculated exploiting the standard

1878: symbolic relation

1879: \begin{equation}

1880: \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} \frac{1}{E-\mathcal{E}+i\eta} =

1881: \mathcal{P} \left(\frac{1}{E-\mathcal{E}}\right) - i \pi \delta

1882: \left(E-\mathcal{E}\right) \ , \label{eq.princ}

1883: \end{equation}

1884: where $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the principal value of the integral.

1885: Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{eq.pracw}) reads

1886: \begin{eqnarray}

1887: W_1^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q) & = & \sum_{\nu} \Bigg[ \mathrm{Re}

1888: T_{\nu}^{\mu\mu} (\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0, \omega + E_0 -

1889: \epsilon_0)

1890: \nonumber \\

1891: & - & \frac{1}{\pi} \mathcal{P} \int_0^{\infty} \diff \mathcal{E}

1892: \frac{1}{\omega + E_0 -\epsilon_0-\mathcal{E}} \mathrm{Im}

1893: T_{\nu}^{\mu\mu} (\mathcal{E},\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0) \Bigg] \ ,

1894: \label{eq.finale}

1895: \end{eqnarray}

1896: which separately involves the real and imaginary parts of

1897: $T_{\nu}^{\mu\mu}$.

1898: 

1899: The contribution coming from Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.117}) can be calculated

1900: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.114}), i.e. as

1901: \begin{eqnarray}

1902: W_{2}^{\mu\mu}(\omega, \q) & = & \sum _{\nu}n_{\nu}\big [\langle

1903: u_{\nu} | j^{\mu\dagger}(\q) \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(\bar E)}

1904: |{\chi}_{\mathrm L,\bar E}^{(-)} (\bar E)\rangle \nonumber \\

1905: &\times& \langle\chi_{\mathrm L,\bar E}^{(-)}(\bar E)|

1906: \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(\bar E)} j^{\mu}(\q)| u_{\nu} \rangle

1907: \nonumber \\

1908: & - & \langle u_{\nu} | j^{\mu\dagger}(\q) \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm

1909: L}(E)} |{\chi}_{\mathrm L, E}^{(-)}(E)\rangle \nonumber \\

1910: &\times& \langle\chi_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E)|

1911: \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)} j^{\mu}(\q)| u_{\nu} \rangle \big ] \

1912: , \label{eq.w2}

1913: \end{eqnarray}

1914: with $E = \omega + E_0 - \epsilon_0$ and $\bar E = E -\bar \epsilon$.

1915: In this equation, only the optical potential wave functions of

1916: Eq.~(\ref{eq.inco1}) appear everywhere, and the calculation is similar

1917: to that of the integral of the exclusive cross section, but for the

1918: different energy values which are involved and the presence of

1919: occupation numbers and natural orbitals.

1920: 

1921: Some remarks on Eq.~(\ref{eq.finale}) are in order. Let us disregard

1922: the square root correction, due to interference effects, and the

1923: minor contribution of the integral over the energy. One has

1924: \begin{equation}

1925: W_1^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q) \simeq \sum_{\nu} n_{\nu} \mathrm{Re}

1926: \big [ \langle \chi_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E) | j^{\mu}(\q) |

1927: u_{\nu}\rangle \langle u_{\nu}| j^{\mu\dagger}(\q) |{\tilde

1928: \chi}_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E)\rangle \big ] . \label{eq:165}

1929: \end{equation}

1930: Let us compare Eq.~(\ref{eq:165}) with the corresponding elastic

1931: contribution due to $\mcs_{\mathrm {L}}^{\mathrm{el}}(E)$, given by

1932: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.114}) without the square root corrections, i.e.

1933: \begin{eqnarray}

1934: W_1^{{\mathrm{el}} \, \mu\mu} (\omega , \q) = \sum_{\nu} n_{\nu}

1935: \langle \chi_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E) | j^{\mu}(\q) | u_{\nu}\rangle

1936: \langle u_{\nu}| j^{\mu\dagger}(\q) |{\chi}_{\mathrm

1937: L,E}^{(-)}(E)\rangle . \label{eq:166}

1938: \end{eqnarray}

1939: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:166}) the attenuation of the strength, mathematically

1940: due to the imaginary part of $\mcv_{\mathrm L}^{\dagger}(E)$, is

1941: related to the flux lost toward the inelastic channels. In the

1942: inclusive response this attenuation must be compensated by a

1943: corresponding gain due to the inelastic contribution to $W_1^{\mu\mu}

1944: (\omega , \q)$. In the description provided by Eq.~(\ref{eq:165}),

1945: including both elastic and inelastic contributions, the attenuation

1946: of strength of the first factor in the square bracket is compensated

1947: by the second factor, where the imaginary part of $\mcv_{\mathrm

1948: L}(E)$ has the effect of increasing the strength. We want to stress

1949: here that in the Green's function approach it is just the imaginary

1950: part of the optical potential which accounts for the redistribution

1951: of the strength among different channels.

1952: 

1953: The main difference of the present approach with the one of

1954: Ref.~\cite{capuzzi} is that now we are able to include in the initial

1955: states the effect of correlations. In Ref.~\cite{capuzzi}, indeed,

1956: the initial states were calculated as the overlaps between the target

1957: nucleus and the residual nucleus described as a hole state,

1958: corresponding to the separation energy taken from phenomenology, or

1959: computed through an independent-particle model. Here, the initial

1960: states are described through a realistic ODM, including correlations.

1961: However, this goal is obtained using a constant separation energy,

1962: i.e. the one corresponding to the ground state of the residual

1963: nucleus, and this produces an undue shift of the cross section. The

1964: contribution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.117}) is added in order to compensate

1965: the shift.

1966: 

1967: 

1968: \section{Realistic one-body density and correlations

1969: \label{sec.density}}

1970: 

1971: The main issue of this paper is, together with a new and completely

1972: antisymmetrized presentation of the Green's function approach, to

1973: investigate the effect of nuclear correlations in the inclusive

1974: quasielastic electron scattering. Correlations are included in the

1975: ODM, which is expressed within the natural orbital representation

1976: \cite{Low55} in the form

1977: \begin{equation}

1978: K(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') \equiv \langle\r|K|\rf\rangle = 

1979:  \sum_\nu n_\nu u^*_\nu(\r') u_\nu(\r).

1980: \label{eq:density}

1981: \end{equation}

1982: 

1983: The calculations presented in the next Section are done and compared 

1984: for different realistic density

1985: matrices which include the contribution of short-range and tensor

1986: correlations and are obtained within different approaches. In

1987: particular, we consider the Jastrow correlation method (JCM)

1988: \cite{SAD93}, the correlated basis function (CBF) method

1989: \cite{NDD+97}, and the Green's function method (GFM) \cite{PMD96}.

1990: 

1991: %\subsection{The Jastrow correlation method}

1992: 

1993: In Ref.~\cite{SAD93} the ODM is obtained within the JCM in its low-order

1994: approximation (LOA).

1995: The JCM incorporates the nucleon-nucleon (NN)

1996: short-range correlations (SRC) starting from the ansatz for 

1997: the wave-function of $A$ fermions \cite{Jas55}:

1998: \begin{equation}

1999: \Psi ^A(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\ldots ,\mathbf{

2000: r}_{A})=(C_{A})^{-1/2} \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq A} F(\mid \mathbf{

2001: r}_{i}-\mathbf{r}_{j}\mid ) \Phi^{A}( \mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{

2002: r}_2,\ldots ,\mathbf{r}_{A}), \label{eq:jas1}

2003: \end{equation}

2004: where $C_A$ is a normalization constant and $\Phi^A$ is a single

2005: Slater determinant wave function built from harmonic-oscillator (HO) s.p.

2006: wave functions which depend on the oscillator parameter

2007: $\alpha_{osc.}$, having the same value for both protons and neutrons.

2008: Only central correlations are included in the correlation factor

2009: $F(r)$, which is state-independent and has a simple Gaussian form

2010: \begin{equation} \label{eq:jas2}

2011: F(r) = 1- \exp (-\beta ^{2}r^{2}),

2012: \end{equation}

2013: where the correlation parameter $\beta $ determines the healing

2014: distance. The LOA \cite{GGR71} keeps all terms up to the second order

2015: in $(F-1)$ and the first order in $(F^2-1)$ in such a way that the

2016: normalization of the density matrices is ensured order by order.

2017: Under the above assumptions analytical expressions for the ODM and

2018: corresponding natural orbitals have been obtained in \cite{SAD93}.

2019: The values of the parameters $\alpha_{osc.}$ and $\beta $ have been

2020: obtained \cite{SAD93} phenomenologically by fitting the experimental

2021: elastic form factor data. Thus, in the present calculations the

2022: following values of the parameters are used: $\alpha_{osc.}=0.59$

2023: fm$^{-1}$, $\beta =1.43$ fm$^{-1}$ for $^{16}$O and

2024: $\alpha_{osc.}=0.52$ fm$^{-1}$, $\beta =1.21$ fm$^{-1}$ for

2025: $^{40}$Ca, respectively.

2026: 

2027: %\subsection{The CBF theory}

2028: 

2029: In the CBF method the trial $A$-particle wave function has the form

2030: \begin{equation} \label{eq:vn1}

2031: \Psi^A (x_{1},...,x_{A})=\mathcal{S}\left[ \prod_{i<j=1}^{A} F

2032: (x_{i},x_{j})\right] \Phi^A (x_{1},...,x_{A}),

2033: \end{equation}

2034: where $x_i$ are particle coordinates which contain spatial, spin, and

2035: isospin variables, $\mathcal{S}$ is a symmetrization operator, and

2036: $\Phi^A$ is an uncorrelated (Slater determinant) wave function

2037: normalized to unity and describing a closed-shell spherical system.

2038: The correlation factor $F$ is generally written as

2039: \begin{equation} \label{eq:vn2}

2040: F(x_{i},x_{j})=\sum_{n}h_{n}(|\mathbf{r}_{i}-{\bf

2041: r}_{j}|)\hat{\mathcal{O}}_n

2042: \end{equation}

2043: with basic two-nucleon operators $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_n$ inducing

2044: central, spin-spin, tensor and spin-orbit correlations, either with

2045: or without isospin exchange.

2046: The ODM generated by a CBF-type correlated wave function for $^{16}$O

2047: has been constructed in \cite{NDD+97}. The LOA,

2048: which keeps terms up to the first order of the function

2049: $h(x_{i},x_{j};x_{i}',x_{j}')= F(x_{i}',x_{j}') F(x_{i},x_{j})-1$, has

2050: been used. The s.p. orbits entering the Slater determinant

2051: $\Phi^A$ are taken from a Hartree-Fock calculation with the

2052: Skyrme-III effective force. The correlation factor $F(x_{1},x_{2})$

2053: obtained in \cite{PWP92} by variational Monte Carlo calculations with

2054: Argonne $v_{14}$ NN forces has been used. The two-nucleon correlation

2055: factors were restricted to the central, spin-isospin and

2056: tensor-isospin operators. 

2057: 

2058: 

2059: %\subsection{The Green function approach}

2060: 

2061: For a nucleus like $^{16}$O with $J=0$ ground state angular momentum

2062: the ODM can easily be separated into submatrices

2063: of a given orbital angular momentum $l$ and total angular momentum

2064: $j$. Within the GFM \cite{DM92,MPD95} the ODM in

2065: momentum representation can be evaluated from the imaginary part of

2066: the s.p. Green's function by integrating

2067: \begin{equation} \label{eq:m1}

2068: K_{lj}(k_1,k_2)=\int_{-\infty }^{\varepsilon_{F}}dE\frac{1}{\pi}

2069: \text{Im} (\mathcal{G}_{lj}(k_1,k_2;E)),

2070: \end{equation}

2071: 

2072: where the energy variable $E$ corresponds to the energy difference

2073: between the ground state of the $A$ particle system and the energies

2074: of the states in the $(A-1)$-particle system (negative $E$ with large

2075: absolute value correspond to high excitation energies of the residual

2076: system) and $\varepsilon _{F}$ is the Fermi energy. The

2077: s.p. Green's function $\mathcal{G}_{lj}$ is obtained from

2078: the solution of the Dyson equation

2079: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:m2}

2080: \mathcal{G}_{lj}(k_1,k_2;E)&= & \mathcal{G}_{lj}^{(0)}(k_1,k_2;E)+

2081: \int dk_3 \int dk_4 \mathcal{G}_{lj}^{(0)} (k_1,k_3;E) \nonumber \\

2082: & \times & \Delta\Sigma_{lj}(k_3,k_4;E) \mathcal{G}_{lj}(k_4,k_2;E),

2083: \end{eqnarray}

2084: where $\mathcal{G}^{(0)}$ refers to the Hartree-Fock propagator and

2085: $\Delta\Sigma _{lj}$ represents contributions to the real and

2086: imaginary part of the irreducible self-energy, which go beyond the

2087: Hartree-Fock approximation of the nucleon self-energy used to derive

2088: $\mathcal{G}^{(0)}$. The results for the ODM have been analyzed in

2089: \cite{PMD96} in terms of the natural orbitals and the occupation

2090: numbers in $^{16}$O. Within the natural orbital

2091: representation they can be determined by diagonalizing the ODM of 

2092: the correlated system.

2093: The numerical results from \cite{PMD96} show that the ODM can be

2094: described quite accurately in terms of four natural orbitals for each

2095: partial wave $lj$. 

2096: 

2097: 

2098: \section{Results and discussion \label{sec.results}}

2099: 

2100: The model presented in this paper has been applied to evaluate the response

2101: functions of the inclusive quasielastic electron scattering for the

2102: nuclei $^{16}$O and $^{40}$Ca. For the nucleus $^{16}$O, no data are

2103: available for the separated longitudinal and transverse response

2104: functions. However, we can compare the results produced by several

2105: realistic ODM, obtained within different correlation methods. For the

2106: nucleus $^{40}$Ca, experimental data are available and we can be

2107: compare our results with them.

2108: 

2109: Calculations are performed in a nonrelativistic approach including

2110: the contributions of both $W_1$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq.finale})) and $W_2$

2111: (Eq.~(\ref{eq.w2})), but disregarding the second term in $W_1$. The

2112: evaluation of this term, which contains the principal value, requires

2113: the integration over all the eigenfunctions of the continuum spectrum

2114: of the optical potential and represents a quite complicate task.

2115: Moreover, it would be useless in a nonrelativistic approach where the

2116: contribution of this term is very small~\cite{capuzzi}. In $W_1$ and

2117: $W_2$ the sum over all the natural orbitals $u_\nu$ is involved and

2118: partial occupation numbers $n_\nu$ are included in the model. All

2119: the results presented in the following are normalized to the number

2120: of nucleons in the nucleus.

2121: The s.p. energies $\epsilon_n$ and the spectroscopic factors

2122: $\lambda_n$ we have used in the calculation of the 

2123: $W_2$ contribution are those corresponding to the overlap states obtained 

2124: in Ref.~\cite{SAD96} for JCM, in \cite{NDD+97} for CBF, and in \cite{GPD+97}

2125: for GFM, following the method of Ref.~\cite{NWH93}.

2126: 

2127: The other ingredients in the matrix elements of Eqs.~(\ref{eq.tprac})

2128: and (\ref{eq.w2}) are the same as those taken in our previous

2129: application of the Green's function approach to the inclusive

2130: electron scattering (Ref.~\cite{capuzzi}) and in our treatment of the

2131: exclusive one-nucleon knockout, which is based on the distorted wave

2132: impulse approximation and was widely and successfully applied to the

2133: analysis of $(e,e'p)$ data~\cite{book,DWEEPY}. The one-body nuclear

2134: current operator is given by the nonrelativistic approximation of

2135: Ref.~\cite{McVoy}, $\tilde \chi$ and ${\chi}$ are eigenfunctions of a

2136: phenomenological spin-dependent optical potential and of its

2137: hermitian conjugate, determined through a fit to elastic

2138: nucleon-nucleus scattering data including cross sections and

2139: polarizations~\cite{Schwandt}. This allows a consistent treatment of

2140: FSI in the inclusive and in the exclusive electron scattering. The

2141: role of FSI in the Green's function approach was already investigated

2142: in Ref.~\cite{capuzzi} in a nonrelativistic framework and, more

2143: recently, in Ref.~\cite{meucci} in a relativistic framework and will

2144: not be discussed later on in this paper.

2145: 

2146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2147: \begin{figure}[ht]

2148: \begin{center}

2149: \includegraphics[height=15cm,width=12cm]{Fig1.eps}

2150: \vskip -0.1cm

2151: \caption {Longitudinal (upper panel) and transverse

2152: (lower panel) response functions for the $^{16}$O$(e,e')$ reaction at

2153: $q = 400$ MeV$/c$. The curves indicated by JCM $W_1$ and JCM

2154: $W_1+W_2$ give the contributions of $W_1$ and of the sum $W_1+ W_2$

2155: (see Eqs.~(\ref{eq.finale}) and (\ref{eq.w2})) with the ODM of the

2156: JCM~\cite{SAD93}. SM is obtained using the SM prescription of

2157: Ref.~\cite{capuzzi} with the phenomenological s.p. wave functions of

2158: Ref.~\cite{ES}. SM $W_1+W_2$ is the sum of the two terms $W_1$ and

2159: $W_2$ where the ODM is replaced by the SM prescription

2160: (Eq.~(\ref{eq.SM2})) with the phenomenological s.p. wave functions. SM

2161: HO $W_1$ gives the contribution of $W_1$ in the SM with harmonic

2162: oscillator wave functions.} \label{fig1}

2163: \end{center}

2164: \end{figure}

2165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2166: A numerical example for the longitudinal and transverse response

2167: functions of the $^{16}$O$(e,e')$ reaction at $q = 400$ MeV$/c$ is

2168: given in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The curves called JCM $W_1$ and JCM

2169: $W_1+W_2$ give the contribution of $W_1$ and of the sum $W_1+W_2$ and

2170: are calculated with the ODM within the JCM in its LOA, 

2171: where only short-range correlations are included. The

2172: SM curve corresponds to the prescription adopted in our previous

2173: applications of the Green's function approach~\cite{capuzzi}, where

2174: correlations are neglected and the components of the hadronic tensor

2175: are given by

2176: \begin{equation}

2177: W^{\mu\mu} (\omega , \q) = \sum_{n} \mathrm{Re} T_{n}^{\mu\mu}

2178: (\omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n, \omega + E_0 - \epsilon_n), \label{eq.SM}

2179: \end{equation}

2180: with

2181: \begin{eqnarray}

2182: T_{n}^{\mu\mu}(E,E) & = & \lambda_{n}\langle \varphi_{n} \mid

2183: j^{\mu\dagger}(\q) \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)}

2184: \mid\tilde{\chi}_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E)\rangle \nonumber \\

2185: & \times &

2186:  \langle\chi_{\mathrm L,E}^{(-)}(E)\mid

2187:  \sqrt{1-\mcv'_{\mathrm L}(E)} j^{\mu}(\q)\mid \varphi_{n} \rangle \

2188: . \label{eq.SM1}

2189: \end{eqnarray}

2190: A pure shell model (SM) is assumed for the nuclear structure: the sum

2191: is over all the occupied states in the SM and a unitary spectral

2192: strength ($\lambda_n=1$) is taken for each s.p. state $\varphi_n$. In

2193: the calculations for the SM curve the wave functions $\varphi_n$ are

2194: taken from a phenomenological Woods-Saxon potential ~\cite{ES} and

2195: $\epsilon_n$ are the experimental excitation energies of the states

2196: $n$.

2197: 

2198: The difference between the correlated JCM $W_1+W_2$ and the

2199: uncorrelated SM results indicates that correlations give a

2200: redistribution of the strength (the total strength is conserved in

2201: all the calculations presented in this paper) and a reduction of the

2202: response functions by $\sim 10\%$ in the peak region. Part of the

2203: difference is however due to the different methods. If the sum

2204: $W_1+W_2$ is calculated in a SM approach, where the ODM is replaced

2205: by

2206: \begin{equation}

2207: \langle\r|K|\rf\rangle = \sum_{n} \lambda_n \varphi^*_n(\r')

2208: \varphi_n(\r), \label{eq.SM2}

2209: \end{equation}

2210: the corresponding result SM $W_1+W_2$, which is also displayed in

2211: the figure, lies between the SM and JCM $W_1+W_2$ curves, and the

2212: reduction produced by SRC in the peak region is

2213: no more than $\sim 5\%$. 

2214: The different position of the peaks of the curves JCM $W_1+W_2$ 

2215: and SM is mainly due to the following reasons. i) In the JCM $W_1+W_2$ 

2216: curve the inelastic part of the spectral function $\mcs_n$ is calculated using 

2217: the total energy prescription of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.82}) which does not produce a

2218: shift, differently from the kinetic energy prescription (\ref{eq:3.81}) 

2219: adopted for the SM curve. The effect of these different prescriptions is

2220: indicated by the distance between the peaks of SM $W_1+W_2$ and SM. 

2221: ii) In the cases JCM $W_1+W_2$ and SM the calculations

2222: use different values of $\epsilon_n$. The resulting effect is indicated 

2223: by the distance between the peaks of JCM $W_1+W_2$ and SM $W_1+W_2$.

2224: 

2225: The term $W_2$ gives a shift of the calculated response functions

2226: that is important to determine the position of the peak and to bring

2227: it close to the SM result. In the previous application of

2228: Ref.~\cite{capuzzi} the SM result was able to give a fair description

2229: of the size and shape of the experimental longitudinal response of

2230: the $^{12}$C$(e,e')$ reaction, in a range of momentum transfer

2231: between 400 and 550 MeV$/c$. In contrast, the experimental transverse

2232: response was generally underestimated. For the transverse response,

2233: however, an important contribution might be given by two-body

2234: meson-exchange currents, which are not included in the present model

2235: based on the s.p. Green's function.

2236: 

2237: The last curve drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig1} gives the contribution of

2238: $W_1$ calculated in the SM approach (Eq.~(\ref{eq.SM2})) and with the

2239: HO single-particle wave functions used in the

2240: calculation of the ODM with the JCM (SM HO $W_1$). The comparison

2241: with the JCM $W_1$ result indicates that correlation effects are

2242: still within $\sim 5\%$, but in this case they enhance the response

2243: functions in the peak region. Phenomenological Woods-Saxon wave

2244: functions certainly represent a more reliable basis for a SM

2245: calculation. A calculation with HO wave functions, however, may allow

2246: a more consistent comparison with the correlated ODM of the JCM and

2247: may give an idea of the uncertainty produced by different s.p. wave

2248: functions.

2249: 

2250: The comparison between the uncorrelated SM and the correlated JCM

2251: results shows that the effects of correlations depend on the

2252: uncorrelated result that is considered for the comparison. The

2253: effects of SRC are however small and within the

2254: range of uncertainty produced by the choice of the theoretical

2255: ingredients. From this point of view our results are in substantial

2256: agreement with those of Ref.~\cite{Co}, where the effects of

2257: SRC on the response functions of the

2258: quasielastic electron scattering were investigated in a different

2259: model. In Fig.~\ref{fig1} correlation effects have a similar behavior

2260: on the longitudinal and transverse responses, while in Ref.~\cite{Co}

2261: correlations act differently on the two responses. This apparent

2262: discrepancy might be explained by the different models used here and

2263: in Ref.~\cite{Co}, by the small effects produced by correlations, and

2264: by the uncertainties related to the other ingredients of the

2265: calculations.

2266: 

2267: 

2268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2269: \begin{figure}[ht]

2270: \begin{center}

2271: \includegraphics[height=15cm,width=12cm]{Fig2.eps}

2272: \vskip -0.1cm

2273: \caption {Longitudinal response functions for the

2274: $^{16}$O$(e,e')$ reaction at $q = 400$ MeV$/c$. The contributions of

2275: $W_1$ and of the sum $W_1+ W_2$ with the ODM of the

2276: CBF~\cite{NDD+97} and of the GFM~\cite{PMD96} are displayed in the

2277: upper and lower panels, respectively. The SM result is the same as in

2278: Fig.~\ref{fig1}.} \label{fig2}

2279: \end{center}

2280: \end{figure}

2281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2282: The longitudinal response functions of the $^{16}$O$(e,e')$ reaction

2283: at $q = 400$ MeV$/c$ obtained with the ODM within the

2284: CBF~\cite{NDD+97} and the GFM~\cite{PMD96} are shown in Fig.

2285: \ref{fig2}. In both calculations the ODM includes both short-range

2286: and tensor correlations. The two density matrices, which are obtained

2287: within different correlation methods, give similar results. In

2288: comparison with the SM curve, correlations produce a redistribution

2289: of the strength and a reduction of the response in the peak region by

2290: $\sim 15\%$. In comparison with the SM $W_1+ W_2$ result (that is

2291: not shown Fig.~\ref{fig2}, but is given in Fig.~\ref{fig1}) the

2292: reduction is within $10\%$, but anyhow larger than for the JCM

2293: density matrix, where only SRC are included. The

2294: term $W_2$ gives a shift of the response function that brings the

2295: position of the maximum toward the SM result.

2296: 

2297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2298: \begin{figure}[ht]

2299: \begin{center}

2300: \includegraphics[height=8cm,width=12cm]{Fig3.eps}

2301: \vskip -0.1cm

2302: \caption {Longitudinal response functions for the

2303: $^{40}$Ca$(e,e')$ reaction at $q = 450$ MeV$/c$. The contributions of

2304: $W_1$ and of the sum $W_1+W_2$ with the ODM of the

2305: JCM~\cite{SAD93} are displayed together with the SM and SM $W_1+

2306: W_2$ results produced by the phenomenological s.p. wave functions of

2307: Ref.~\cite{ES}. The Saclay data (open squares) are from

2308: Ref.~\cite{meziani}, the MIT-Bates (black circles) are from

2309: Ref.~\cite{batesca}. } \label{fig3}

2310: \end{center}

2311: \end{figure}

2312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2313: The longitudinal response functions of the $^{40}$Ca$(e,e')$ reaction

2314: at $q = 450$ MeV$/c$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. The JCM $W_1$ and

2315: JCM $W_1+W_2$ results are compared with the SM and SM $W_1+W_2$ ones

2316: and with the available data~\cite{meziani,batesca}. The main

2317: difference between the different results is in the position of the

2318: maximum. The contribution of $W_2$ shifts the response by $\sim$ 15

2319: MeV at larger values of the energy transfer. The difference between 

2320: the SM $W_1+W_2$ and SM results and between the JCM $W_1+W_2$

2321: and SM $W_1+W_2$ results indicates the sensitivity of the position of the

2322: peak to the different prescriptions used for the energy shifts and to

2323: the values of $\epsilon_n$ used in the calculations. These effects

2324: are more important in a heavier nucleus like $^{40}$Ca than in

2325: $^{16}$O. In comparison with data, our results are closer to the

2326: Saclay data.

2327: 

2328: 

2329: 

2330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2331: \section{Summary and conclusions \label{conc}}

2332: 

2333: In this paper we have presented a completely antisymmetrized Green's

2334: function approach to inclusive quasielastic electron scattering.

2335: The main goals are the following.

2336: 

2337: i) To express the final state interaction in terms of the

2338: self-energy, rather than in terms of the Feshbach optical potential

2339: as was done in previous papers, since the mass operator is more

2340: closely related to the empirical optical-model potentials.

2341: Therefore, we have developed a theoretical approach based on extended 

2342: projection operators, as in Ref.~\cite{capma}.

2343: 

2344: ii) To include an approximated treatment of the interference between

2345: different reaction channels, which is usually disregarded. 

2346: This has required some modifications of the treatment of Ref.~\cite{capma},

2347: resulting in a different separation of the hadronic tensor into a 

2348: direct and an interference part. The latter one is essential to explain the

2349: replacement of the self-energy with the empirical potential.

2350: 

2351: iii) To separate the elastic and inelastic contributions to the

2352: hadronic tensor, in order to introduce different approximations

2353: concerning the dependence on the state of the residual nucleus.

2354: 

2355: iv) To include in the calculation the effects of correlations in the

2356: target nucleus through the use of a realistic one-body density

2357: matrix.

2358: 

2359: The method has been applied to the reactions $^{16}$O($e,e'$) and

2360: $^{40}$Ca($e,e'$). Results produced by density matrices including

2361: short-range as well as tensor correlations have been compared. The

2362: effects of short range correlations are small (within $\sim 5\%$) and

2363: within the range of uncertainty related to the choice of other

2364: ingredients of the calculation (e.g. the s.p. wave functions). This

2365: result is in substantial agreement with previous

2366: investigations~\cite{Co}, but a similar effect is found in the

2367: present work on the longitudinal and the transverse response

2368: functions. Stronger effects are obtained when also tensor

2369: correlations are included. For the $^{16}$O($e,e'$) reaction at $q =

2370: 450$ MeV$/c$ the height of the peak is reduced by $\sim 10\%$ when

2371: both types of correlations are considered. A correction dependent on

2372: the s.p. energies is necessary [the term $W_2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq.w2})]

2373: in order to determine the position of the peak. 

2374: The comparison of the present results

2375: with the available experimental data for the nucleus $^{40}$Ca gives

2376: a better agreement, in the longitudinal response, with the Saclay

2377: data than with the MIT-Bates ones.

2378: 

2379: In order to get deeper insight into the dependence of the inclusive

2380: electron scattering on correlations, one should also compute the

2381: contribution of two-body currents and their interference with tensor

2382: correlations, that seems to give a larger

2383: effect\cite{Leidemann,Fabrocini,Sick}. In order to accomplish this

2384: task, however, a new approach, based on the two-particle Green's

2385: function and including the two-body density matrix, should be

2386: developed.

2387: 

2388: 

2389: \appendix

2390: \section{APPENDIX}

2391: 

2392: A real number $a$ belongs to the continuous spectrum of a

2393: self-adjoint operator $A$ if and only if:

2394: 

2395: i) it does not belong to the discrete spectrum,

2396: 

2397: ii) for every $\eta>0$, one can find a normalizable vector

2398: $|\psi_{a,\eta}\rangle$ and a constant $C_a$ such that

2399: \begin{equation}

2400: \| (a - A)|\psi_{a,\eta}\rangle \|^2 \leq C_a \||\psi_{a,\eta}\rangle

2401: \|^2 \eta . \label{eq:a.1}

2402: \end{equation}

2403: 

2404: The vectors $|\psi_{a,\eta}\rangle$ are called {\lq\lq approximate

2405: eigenvectors of $A$ related to the eigenvalue $a$\rq\rq} [see

2406: Sec.~8.1 of Ref~\cite{richt}]. Now, we construct a set of

2407: approximate eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian $H$ of the residual

2408: nucleus, which, added to the exact bound eigenvectors $|n\rangle$,

2409: satisfy a completeness relation in the limit $\eta \rightarrow +0$.

2410: We remark that this property is not an automatic consequence of

2411: Eq.~(\ref{eq:a.1}).

2412: 

2413: Let $\mch_c$ be the Hilbert subspace spanned by the non-normalizable

2414: eigenvectors $|\epsilon\rangle$ of the continuous spectrum of $H$

2415: which, for simplicity, is assumed to coincide with $[0,+\infty)$. Let

2416: $\{|u_k\rangle\}$ be a basis in $\mch_c$ consisting of normalizable

2417: vectors such that $\langle\epsilon|u_k\rangle$ are functions of

2418: $\epsilon$ bounded, continuous, and everywhere different from zero.

2419: This can be realized weighing the eigenvectors $|\epsilon\rangle$ by

2420: means of a complete orthonormal set of functions having the same

2421: properties. We set

2422: \begin{equation}

2423: |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \equiv \sqrt{\frac {\eta} {\pi}} (\epsilon -

2424: H + i\eta)^{-1} |u_k\rangle . \label{eq:a.2}

2425: \end{equation}

2426: Note that the vectors $|\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle$ and $|n\rangle$ are

2427: orthogonal.

2428: 

2429: \underline{Theorem 1}. The vectors $|\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle$ are

2430: approximate eigenvectors of $H$.

2431: 

2432: \underline{Proof}. One has

2433: \begin{equation}

2434: \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} \| |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \|^2 =

2435: |\langle\epsilon|u_k\rangle |^2 \neq 0 \label{eq:a.3}

2436: \end{equation}

2437: since

2438: \begin{equation}

2439:  \| |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \|^2 = \int_0^{\infty} \diff \, \epsilon'

2440:  L(\epsilon - \epsilon'; \eta) |\langle\epsilon'|u_k\rangle |^2 \, ,

2441: \,

2442:  L(x; \eta) \equiv \frac {\eta} {\pi} \frac {1} {x^2 + \eta^2} ,

2443: \label{eq:a.4}

2444: \end{equation}

2445: and, in the distributional sense of the limit,

2446: \begin{equation}

2447: \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} L(x; \eta) = \delta(x) . \label{eq:a.5}

2448: \end{equation}

2449: Moreover, the following inequality holds:

2450: \begin{equation}

2451:  \|(\epsilon - H) |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \|^2 =

2452:  \frac {\eta} {\pi}\langle u_k| \frac {(\epsilon - H)^2} {(\epsilon -

2453: H)^2 +

2454:  \eta^2} |u_k \rangle \leq \frac {\eta} {\pi}\langle u_k|u_k \rangle

2455: =

2456:  \frac {\eta} {\pi} .

2457: \label{eq:a.6}

2458: \end{equation}

2459: Therefore, one has

2460: \begin{equation}

2461: \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} \frac {\|(\epsilon - H)

2462: |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \|^2} {\||\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \|^2} = 0

2463: \label{eq:a.7}

2464: \end{equation}

2465: and Eq.~(\ref{eq:a.1}) is satisfied. $\square$

2466: 

2467: \vskip 1cm

2468: 

2469: \underline{Theorem 2}. In the limit for $\eta \rightarrow +0$, one

2470: has the completeness relation

2471: \begin{equation}

2472: \sum_n |n\rangle \langle n| + \lim_{\eta \rightarrow +0} \sum_k

2473: \int_0^{\infty} \diff \epsilon \, |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \langle

2474: \epsilon,k;\eta| = 1 , \label{eq:a.8}

2475: \end{equation}

2476: where the convergence is understood in the weak sense, i.e., inside a

2477: scalar product between normalizable states.

2478: 

2479: \underline{Proof}. Due to the orthogonality between the vectors

2480: $|\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle$ and $|n\rangle$, it is sufficient to prove

2481: Eq.~(\ref{eq:a.8}) inside the scalar product between vectors

2482: $|\phi\rangle$ and $|\chi\rangle$ belonging to $\mch_c$, where both

2483: states $\{|\epsilon\rangle\}$ and $\{|u_k\rangle\}$ are complete.

2484: Thus the sum over $n$ does not contribute, and one considers only

2485: \begin{eqnarray}

2486: & & \sum_k \int_0^{\infty}\diff \epsilon \, \langle

2487: \phi|\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \langle \epsilon,k;\eta|\chi\rangle =

2488: \frac {\eta} {\pi} \int_0^{\infty} \diff \epsilon \, \langle \phi|

2489: \frac {1} {(\epsilon - H)^2 +\eta^2}

2490: |\chi \rangle \nonumber \\

2491: & & = \int_0^{\infty}\diff \epsilon \, \int_0^{\infty}\diff

2492: \epsilon' \, L(\epsilon - \epsilon';\eta) \langle

2493: \phi|\epsilon'\rangle

2494: \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle \nonumber \\

2495: & & =\int_0^{\infty}\diff \epsilon' \, \langle \phi|\epsilon'\rangle

2496: \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle \int_{-\epsilon'}^{\infty} \diff x \,

2497: L(x;\eta) , \label{eq:a.9}

2498: \end{eqnarray}

2499: where in the last step we have exchanged the integrals, according to

2500: the Fubini theorem, since $|L(\epsilon - \epsilon';\eta) \langle

2501: \phi|\epsilon'\rangle \langle\epsilon'| \chi\rangle|$ is Lebesgue

2502: summable in $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon'$. Observing that

2503: \begin{eqnarray}

2504: |\langle \phi|\epsilon'\rangle \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle

2505: \int_{-\epsilon'}^{\infty} \diff x \, L(x;\eta) | & < & \, |\langle

2506: \phi|\epsilon'\rangle \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle

2507: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \diff x \, L(x;\eta) | \nonumber \\ & = &

2508: \langle \phi|\epsilon'\rangle \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle ,

2509: \label{eq:a.10}

2510: \end{eqnarray}

2511: where the last term is Lebesgue summable and does not depend on

2512: $\eta$, we can use the dominated convergence theorem to take the

2513: limit for $\eta\rightarrow +0$ within the first integral of the last

2514: term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:a.9}). Thus, using Eq.~(\ref{eq:a.5}), one

2515: obtains

2516: \begin{eqnarray}

2517: & & \lim_{\eta\rightarrow +0}\sum_k \int_0^{\infty}\diff \epsilon \,

2518: \langle \phi|\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle\langle

2519: \epsilon,k;\eta|\chi\rangle = \int_0^{\infty}\diff \epsilon'

2520: \,\langle\phi|\epsilon'\rangle \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle

2521: \int_{-\epsilon'}^{\infty} \diff x \,

2522: \delta(x) \nonumber \\

2523: & & =\int_0^{\infty}\diff \epsilon' \, \langle\phi|\epsilon'\rangle

2524: \langle\epsilon'|\chi\rangle = \langle\phi|\chi\rangle \, , \,

2525: \forall \, |\phi\rangle, |\chi\rangle \in \mch_c .\quad \square

2526: \label{eq:a.11}

2527: \end{eqnarray}

2528: 

2529: \vskip 1cm

2530: 

2531: Substituting the completeness relation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.14}) by

2532: (\ref{eq:a.8}) and introducing the projection operators

2533: \begin{equation}

2534: P(\epsilon,k;\eta) \equiv \int \diff \p \, \alpha_{\mathbf p}

2535: |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle^{\mathrm N} \, ^{\mathrm N}\langle

2536: \epsilon,k;\eta|\alpha_{\mathbf p} \, , \, |\epsilon,k;\eta

2537: \rangle^{\mathrm N} \equiv \frac {|\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle}

2538: {\||\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \|}, \label{eq:a.12}

2539: \end{equation}

2540: the contribution of the continuous spectrum is recovered adding to

2541: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.22a}) the term

2542: \begin{eqnarray}

2543: & & \lim_{\eta\rightarrow +0}\sum_k \int\diff \epsilon \, \mathrm

2544: {Re} \int \diff \p \diff \pf \, \langle \psi_0|a_{\mathbf

2545: {p-q}}^{\dagger}|

2546: \epsilon,k;\eta\rangle \nonumber \\

2547: & \times & ^{\mathrm N}\langle\epsilon,k;\eta|\alpha_{\mathbf p}

2548: \delta (\omega + E_0 -\epsilon - \hat H_{\epsilon})\alpha_{\mathbf

2549: p'} | \epsilon,k;\eta\rangle^{\mathrm N} \, \,

2550: \langle\epsilon,k;\eta|a_{\mathbf p'} J^0(\q)|\psi_0\rangle ,

2551: \label{eq:a.13}

2552: \end{eqnarray}

2553: where $\hat H_{\epsilon}$ is defined analogously to $\hat H_n$ (see

2554: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.24})), i.e. as

2555: \begin{equation}

2556: \hat H_{\epsilon} = H - \epsilon \quad \mathrm{in} \quad \mch^{(Z+1)}

2557: \quad , \quad \hat H_{\epsilon} = \epsilon - H \quad \mathrm{in}

2558: \quad \mch^{(Z-1)} . \label{eq:a.14}

2559: \end{equation}

2560: Thus, using the approximation

2561: \begin{equation}

2562: ^{\mathrm N}\langle\epsilon,k;\eta|\alpha_{\mathbf p} \delta (\omega

2563: + E_0 -\epsilon - \hat H_{\epsilon})\alpha_{\mathbf p'}

2564: |\epsilon,k;\eta\rangle^{\mathrm N} \simeq \langle \p| \mcs_0 (\omega

2565: + E_0 -\epsilon_0 - \tilde\epsilon) |\pf\rangle, \label{eq:a.15}

2566: \end{equation}

2567: analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:3.34}), and using again Eq.~(\ref{eq:a.8})

2568: one recovers Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3.37})--(\ref{eq:3.42}).

2569: 

2570: 

2571: \begin{ack}

2572: 

2573: We would like to thank A. N. Antonov for useful

2574: discussions and continuous encouragement. We are grateful to 

2575: S. S. Dimitrova, H. M\"uther and D. Van Neck for the results 

2576: of the ODM's we have used.

2577: 

2578: \end{ack}

2579: 

2580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2581: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2582: \bibitem{book}

2583: S.~Boffi, C.~Giusti, F.~D.~Pacati, and M.~Radici,

2584: \textit{Electromagnetic Response of Atomic Nuclei}, Oxford Studies in

2585: Nuclear Physics, Vol. 20, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996; S.~Boffi,

2586: C.~Giusti, and F.~D.~Pacati, Phys. Rep. \textbf{226} (1993) 1.

2587: 

2588: \bibitem{batesca}

2589: C.~F.~Williamson, \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{56} 

2590: (1997) 3152.

2591: 

2592: \bibitem{csfrascati}

2593: M.~Anghinolfi, \textit{et al.}, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A602}, (1996) 405.

2594: 

2595: \bibitem{jlabpro}

2596: J.~P.~Chen, S.~Choi, and Z.~E.~Meziani, spokespersons, JLab experiment

2597: E-01-016.

2598: 

2599: \bibitem{Sluys}

2600: V.~Van der Sluys, J.~Ryckebusch, and M.~Waroquier, Phys. Rev. C

2601: \textbf{51}, (1995) 2664.

2602: 

2603: \bibitem{Cenni}

2604: R.~Cenni, F.~Conte, and P.~Saracco, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A623}, 

2605: (1997) 391.

2606: 

2607: \bibitem{Amaro}

2608: J.~E.~Amaro, M.~B.~Barbaro, J.~A.~Caballero, T.~W.~Donnelly, and

2609: A.~Molinari, Phys. Rep. \textbf{368}, (2002) 317; Nucl. Phys.

2610: \textbf{A723} (2003) 181.

2611: 

2612: \bibitem{Amaro2}

2613: J.~E.~Amaro, M.~B.~Barbaro, J.~A.~Caballero, and F.~Kazemi Tabatabaei,

2614: Phys. Rev. C \textbf{68} (2003) 014604.

2615: 

2616: \bibitem{Fabrocini}

2617: A.~Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{55} (1997) 338.

2618: 

2619: \bibitem{Co}

2620: G.~Co' and A.~M.~Lallena, Ann. Phys. \textbf{287} (2001) 101.

2621: 

2622: \bibitem{meucci}

2623: A.~Meucci, F.~Capuzzi, C.~Giusti, and F.~D.~Pacati, Phys. Rev. C

2624: \textbf{67} (2003) 054601.

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{Leidemann}

2627: W.~Leidemann and G.~Orlandini, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A506} (1990) 447.

2628: 

2629: \bibitem{Sick}

2630: I.~Sick, in \textit{Nuclear Theory}, Heron Press Science Series,

2631: Sofia, 2002, p. 16.

2632: 

2633: \bibitem{hori}

2634: Y.~Horikawa, F.~Lenz, and N.~C.~Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C

2635: \textbf{22} (1980) 1680.

2636: 

2637: \bibitem{chinn}

2638: C.~R.~Chinn, A.~Picklesimer, and J.~W.~Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C

2639: \textbf{40} (1989) 790; Phys. Rev. C \textbf{40} (1989) 1159.

2640: 

2641: \bibitem{bouch}

2642: P.~M.~Boucher and J.~W.~Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{43}

2643: (1991) 582.

2644: 

2645: \bibitem{capuzzi}

2646: F.~Capuzzi, C.~Giusti, and F.~D.~Pacati, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A524}

2647:  (1991) 681.

2648: 

2649: \bibitem{capma}

2650: F.~Capuzzi and C.~Mahaux, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{254} (1997) 130.

2651: 

2652: \bibitem{fesh}

2653: H.~Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{5} (1958) 357.

2654: 

2655: \bibitem{fesh2}

2656: H.~Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{19} (1962) 287.

2657: 

2658: \bibitem{capma3}

2659: F.~Capuzzi and C.~Mahaux, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{245} (1996) 147.

2660: 

2661: \bibitem{fabro}

2662: A.~Fabrocini and S.~Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A503} (1989) 375.

2663: 

2664: \bibitem{jourd}

2665: J.~Jourdan, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A603} (1996) 117.

2666: 

2667: \bibitem{fesh3}

2668: H.~Feshbach, \textit{Theoretical Nuclear Physics: Nuclear Reactions},

2669: Wiley, New York, 1992, and references contained therein.

2670: 

2671: \bibitem{moniz}

2672: E.~J.~Moniz, Phys. Rev. \textbf{184} (1969) 1154.

2673: 

2674: \bibitem{moniz2}

2675: E.~J.~Moniz, I.~Sick, R.~R.~Whitney, J.~R.~Ficenec, R.~D.~Kephart,

2676: and W.~P.~Trower, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{26} (1971) 445.

2677: 

2678: \bibitem{tornow}

2679: W.~Tornow, Z.~P.~Chen, and J.~P.~Delaroche, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{42}

2680: (1990) 693 .

2681: 

2682: \bibitem{Cap}

2683: F.~Capuzzi, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A554} (1993) 362.

2684: 

2685: \bibitem{benhar}

2686: O.~Benhar, A.~Fabrocini, S.~Fantoni, G.~A.~Miller, V.~R.~

2687: Pandharipande, and I.~Sick, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{44} (1991) 2328.

2688: 

2689: \bibitem{ciofi}

2690: C.~Ciofi degli Atti and S.~Simula, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{325}

2691: (1994) 276.

2692: 

2693: \bibitem{benhar2}

2694: O.~Benhar, A.~Fabrocini, S.~Fantoni, and I.~Sick, Nucl. Phys. A

2695: \textbf{579} (1994) 493.

2696: 

2697: \bibitem{sick}

2698: I.~Sick, S.~Fantoni, A.~Fabrocini, and O.~Benhar, Phys. Lett. B

2699: \textbf{323} (1994) 267.

2700: 

2701: \bibitem{benhar3}

2702: O.~Benhar, A.~Fabrocini, S.~Fantoni, and I.~Sick, Phys. Lett. B

2703: \textbf{343} (1995) 47.

2704: 

2705: \bibitem{benhar4}

2706: O.~Benhar, A.~Fabrocini, S.~Fantoni, V.~R.~Pandharipande, S.~C.~

2707: Pieper, and I.~Sick, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{359} (1995) 8.

2708: 

2709: \bibitem{mabor}

2710: C.~Mahaux, P.~F.~Bortignon, R.~A.~Broglia, and C.~H.~Dasso,

2711: Phys. Rep. \textbf{120} (1985) 1.

2712: 

2713: \bibitem{capma2}

2714: F.~Capuzzi and C.~Mahaux, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{239} (1995) 57.

2715: 

2716: \bibitem{PB62} F.~G.~Perey and B.~Buck, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{32} (1962) 353.

2717: 

2718: \bibitem{cap-lectnot}

2719: F.~Capuzzi, in \textit{Nuclear Optical Model Potential}, Lecture Notes

2720: in Physics, Vol. \textbf{55}, eds. J. Ehlers, \textit{et al.},

2721: Springer, Berlin, 1976, p. 20.

2722: 

2723: \bibitem{fied} H.~Fiedeldey, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{77} (1966) 149.

2724: 

2725: \bibitem{Low55} P.~-~O.~L\"owdin, Phys. Rev. \textbf{97} (1955) 1474.

2726: 

2727: \bibitem{SAD93} M.~V.~Stoitsov, A.~N.~Antonov, and S.~S.~Dimitrova,

2728: Phys. Rev. C \textbf{47} (1993) R455; Phys. Rev. C \textbf{48}

2729: (1993) 74; Z. Phys. A \textbf{345} (1993) 359.

2730: 

2731: \bibitem{NDD+97} D.~Van Neck, L.~Van Daele, Y.~Dewulf, and

2732: M.~Waroquier, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{56} (1997) 1398.

2733: 

2734: \bibitem{PMD96} A.~Polls, H.~M\"uther and W.~H.~Dickhoff,

2735: \textit{Proceedings of Conference on Perspectives in Nuclear Physics

2736: at Intermediate Energies}, Trieste, 1995, edited by S. Boffi, C.

2737: Ciofi degli Atti, and M.M. Giannini, World Scientific, Singapore,

2738: 1996, p. 308.

2739: 

2740: \bibitem{Jas55} R.~Jastrow, Phys. Rev. \textbf{98} (1955) 1479.

2741: 

2742: \bibitem{GGR71} M.~Gaudin, J.~Gillespie, and G.~Ripka, Nucl. Phys.

2743: \textbf{A176} (1971) 237; M.~Dal R\'{i}, S.~Stringari, and

2744: O.~Bohigas, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A376} (1982) 81.

2745: 

2746: \bibitem{PWP92} S.~C.~Pieper, R.~B.~Wiringa, and V.~R.~Pandharipande,

2747: Phys. Rev. C \textbf{46} (1992) 1741.

2748: 

2749: \bibitem{DM92} W.~H.~Dickhoff and H.~M\"uther, Rep. Prog. Phys.

2750: \textbf{55} (1992) 1947.

2751: 

2752: \bibitem{MPD95} H.~M\"uther, A.~Polls, and W.~M.~Dickhoff, Phys. Rev.

2753: C \textbf{51} (1995) 3040; H.~M\"uther, G.~Knehr, and A.~Polls,

2754: Phys. Rev. C \textbf{52} (1995) 2955.

2755: 

2756: \bibitem{SAD96} M.~V.~Stoitsov, A.~N.~Antonov, and S.~S.~Dimitrova,

2757: Phys. Rev. C \textbf{53} (1996) 1254.

2758: 

2759: \bibitem{GPD+97} M.~K.~Gaidarov, K.~A.~Pavlova, S.~S.~Dimitrova,

2760: M.~V.~Stoitsov, A.~N.~Antonov, D.~Van Neck, and H.~Muether, Phys.

2761: Rev. C \textbf{60} (1999) 024312.

2762: 

2763: \bibitem{NWH93} D.~Van Neck, M.~Waroquier, and K.~Heyde, Phys. Lett.

2764: B \textbf{314} (1993) 255.

2765: 

2766: \bibitem{DWEEPY}

2767: C.~Giusti and F.~D.~Pacati, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A473} (1987) 717;

2768: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A485} (1988) 461.

2769: 

2770: \bibitem{McVoy}

2771: K.~W.~McVoy and L.~Van Hove, Phys. Rev. \textbf{125} (1962) 1034.

2772: 

2773: \bibitem{Schwandt}

2774: P.~Schwandt, H.~O.~Meyer, W.~W.~Jacobs, A.~D.~Bacher, S.~E.~Vigdor,

2775: M.~D.~Kaitchuck, and T.~R.~Donoghue, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{26}

2776: (1982) 55.

2777: 

2778: \bibitem{ES}

2779: L.~R.~B.~Elton and A.~Swift, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{A94} (1967) 52.

2780: 

2781: \bibitem{meziani}

2782: Z.~E.~Meziani, \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{52}

2783: (1984) 2130; \textbf{54} (1985) 1233.

2784: 

2785: \bibitem{richt}

2786: R.~D.~Richtmyer, \textit{Principles of Advanced Mathematical Physics},

2787: Vol. \textbf{1}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978.

2788: 

2789: \end{thebibliography}

2790: 

2791: \end{document}

2792: