1: \tolerance = 10000
2: \documentstyle[preprint,prc,aps,epsf]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title
6: {Approximate Coulomb Distortion Effects in $(e,e'p)$ Reactions.}
7: \author{ K.S. Kim and L.E. Wright}
8: \address{Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics,
9: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens,
10: Ohio 45701}
11:
12:
13: %\receipt{December 27, 1996}
14: \maketitle
15: \begin{abstract}
16: In this paper we apply a well-tested approximation of electron
17: Coulomb distortion effects to the exclusive reaction $(e,e'p)$ in
18: the quasielastic region.
19: We compare the approximate treatment of Coulomb distortion effects
20: to the exact Distorted Wave Born Approximation evaluated by means
21: of partial wave analysis to gauge the quality of our approximate
22: treatment.
23: We show that the approximate M${\o}$ller potential has a
24: plane-wave-like structure and hence permits the separation of the cross section
25: into five terms which depend on bi-linear products of transforms of
26: the transition four current elements.
27: These transforms reduce to Fourier transforms when Coulomb
28: distortion is not present, but become modified with the inclusion of
29: Coulomb distortion.
30: We investigate the application of the approximate formalism to a
31: model of $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ using Dirac-Hartree single particle
32: wavefunctions for the ground state and relativistic optical model
33: wavefunctions for the continuum proton.
34: We show that it is still possible to extract, albeit with some
35: approximation, the various structure functions from the
36: experimentally measured data even for heavy nuclei.
37: \end{abstract}
38: \pacs{25.30.Fj 25.70.Bc.}
39: \narrowtext
40:
41:
42: \section{Introduction}
43: Medium and high energy electron scattering has long been
44: acknowledged as a useful tool in the investigation of nuclear
45: structure and nuclear properties, especially in the quasielastic
46: region.
47: In the plane wave Born approximation (PWBA), where electrons are
48: described by Dirac plane waves, the cross section for the exclusive
49: reaction $(e,e'p)$ on nuclei can be written simply as
50: \begin{eqnarray}
51: {\frac {d^{3}{\sigma}} {dE_{f}d{\Omega}_{f}d{\Omega}_{P}}}
52: &=&{\frac {PE_{P}} {(2{\pi})^{3}}}{\sigma}_{M}[v_L R_{L}+ v_T R_{T}+
53: {\cos {2{\phi}_{P}}} v_{TT} R_{TT} \nonumber \\
54: &+&{\cos {{\phi}_{P}}} v_{LT} R_{LT}
55: +h {\sin {{\phi}_{P}}} v_{LT^{\prime}}R_{LT^{\prime}}] \label{crosep}
56: \end{eqnarray}
57: where $q_\mu ^2 = \omega^2-q^2$ is the four-momentum transfer,
58: $\sigma _{M}$ is the Mott cross section given by
59: $\sigma_{M} = \left(\frac{\alpha }{2E} \right)^2 \frac{\cos^2
60: \frac{\theta}{2}}{\sin^4 \frac{\theta}{2}}$, and $R_L$, $R_T$,
61: $R_{TT}$, $R_{LT}$, and $R_{LT'}$ are the longitudinal, transverse,
62: transverse-transverse, longitudinal-transverse, and polarized
63: longitudinal-transverse structure functions which depend only on
64: the momentum transfer $q$ and the energy transfer $\omega$. The functions $v$ only
65: depend on electron kinematics and are given by
66: \begin{eqnarray}
67: v_L&=&{\frac {q^{4}_{\mu}}{q^{4}}} \nonumber \\
68: v_T&=&{\tan^{2} {\frac {{\theta}_{e}} 2}}-{\frac
69: {q_{\mu}^{2}} {2q^{2}}} \nonumber \\
70: v_{TT}&=&-{\frac {q_{\mu}^{2}} {2q^{2}}} \nonumber \\
71: v_{LT}&=&-{\frac {q_{\mu}^{2}} {q^{2}}}({\tan^{2} {\frac {{\theta}_{e}} 2}}
72: -{\frac {q_{\mu}^{2}} {q^{2}}})^{1/2} \nonumber\\
73: v_{LT^{\prime}}&=&- {\frac {q_{\mu}^{2}} {q^{2}}}
74: {\tan {\frac {{\theta}_{e}} 2}} \label{elecst}
75: \end{eqnarray}
76:
77: Choosing the momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ to define the
78: ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis and using the azimuthal symmetry of the spatial part
79: of the M${\o}$ller potential permits the extraction of the explicit
80: dependence on the azimuthal angle ${\phi}_{P}$ of the outgoing
81: proton as measured with respect to the electron scattering plane. More
82: specifically, we define $\hat {\bf y} = \hat {\bf p}_i \times \hat {\bf p}_f$.
83: These structure functions are defined as:
84: \begin{eqnarray}
85: R_{L}&=&{\frac {q^{4}} {q_{\mu}^{4}}}W_{00} \nonumber \\
86: R_{T}&=&W_{11}+W_{22} \nonumber \\
87: {\cos {2{\phi}_{P}}}R_{TT}&=&W_{11}-W_{22} \nonumber \\
88: {\cos {{\phi}_{P}}}R_{LT}&=&-{\frac {q^{2}} {q_{\mu}^{2}}}
89: (W_{01}+W_{10}) \nonumber\\
90: {\sin {{\phi}_{P}}}R_{LT^{\prime}}&=&-i{\frac {q^{2}} {q_{\mu}^{2}}}
91: (W_{02}+W_{20}) \label{structure}
92: \end{eqnarray}
93: where the nuclear tensors $W_{{\mu}{\nu}}$ are given in terms of a sum over $s_p$ and $\mu_p$
94: the final and initial spin projections of the nucleon,
95: \begin{equation}
96: W_{{\mu}{\nu}}=\sum_{s_{p}{\mu}_{b}}N^{\ast}_{\mu}N_{\nu}.
97: \label{nclten}
98: \end{equation}
99: and we have suppressed the spin labels for clarity.
100: The quantities $N^{\mu}$ are the Fourier transform of the nucleon
101: current density ${\bf J}^{\mu}({\bf r})$ given by
102: \begin{equation}
103: N^{\mu}=\int J^{\mu}e^{i{\bf q}{\cdot}{\bf r}} d^{3}r .
104: \label{frmfac}
105: \end{equation}
106: Current conservation and gauge invariance can be
107: used to eliminate the $z$-components so that only $N_{0}$, $N_{x}$,
108: and $N_{y}$ need to be calculated.
109:
110: By keeping the momentum and energy transfer fixed while varying the
111: electron energy $E$ and scattering angle $\theta_e$, or varying the
112: azimuthal angle of the outgoing proton and the helicity of the
113: incident electron, it is possible to extract from experiment the
114: five structure functions as a function of momentum and energy
115: transfer.
116: However, when the electron wavefunctions are not Dirac plane waves,
117: but rather are distorted by the static Coulomb field of
118: the target nucleus, such a simple formulation as given in
119: Eq.~(\ref{crosep}) is no longer possible. In the full Distorted Wave
120: Born Approximation (DWBA) calculation, it is not possible to express the cross
121: section as a sum of bi-linear products of transforms of transition current matrix elements which only depend on the electron kinematics and the outgoing proton's azimuthal angle. The key point is that the momentum transfer does not enter the analysis in a natural way. Of course, one could pretend that the plane-wave result is still valid and extract the various "structure functions'. However, there is no way in the DWBA approach to investigate these terms separately.
122:
123: Using partial wave analysis, the Ohio University
124: group~\cite{jinphd}--~\cite{jin94}
125: has treated the Coulomb distortion arising from the static Coulomb
126: field of the nucleus exactly.
127: Coupling the distorted waves with the one hard photon exchange approximation
128: (Distorted Wave Born Approximation-DWBA) has allowed this analysis
129: to be compared to data from a range of nuclei.
130: The nuclear model used includes the following ingredients:
131: 1) Relativistic Hartree single particle wavefunctions
132: for the bound orbitals~\cite{horo81,zhang91},
133: 2) Relativistic optical model for the
134: continuum proton~\cite{clark90}, and 3) the free relativistic
135: current operator for the proton with the standard form factors.
136: This simple relativistic ``one-body'' model along with the exact
137: treatment of Coulomb distortion is in excellent agreement with all
138: the data involving knock-out from surface orbitals of nuclei that have
139: been analysed. This includes nuclei as light as
140: $^{16}O$ and as heavy as $^{208}Pb$.
141: However, for cases where the outgoing particle is in the continuum
142: where all multipoles can contribute, the DWBA analysis requires
143: extensive computer codes which require more and more time and
144: precision as the energy increases.
145: Furthermore, as noted above in the exact DWBA analysis, the cross section cannot
146: be written as the sum of five terms which are bi-linear products
147: of transforms of the transition current matrix elements.
148: There two reasons have led researchers to seek an approximate
149: treatment of Coulomb distortion that would permit the extraction
150: of ``structure'' functions from experiment under conditions where the effects of
151: Coulomb distortion in the different terms can be investigated, and could be easily extended to higher energies such as will be available at the Thomas Jefferson
152: National Accelerator Facility.
153:
154: In a previous paper~\cite{kim1} we investigated a rather extreme
155: approximation of Coulomb distortion effects for the inclusive
156: reaction $(e,e')$ in the quasielastic region and using some $ad-hoc$
157: assumptions obtained excellent agreement with the exact DWBA
158: calculations.
159: In this paper, we apply a more exact approximation to the exclusive
160: reaction $(e,e'p)$ and investigate its validity.
161: One of our advantages as compared to previous investigators is that
162: we have the full DWBA calculation to use as a standard in assessing
163: the accuracy of our approximation.
164: In Section II we will give the approximate electron wavefunctions
165: for the incoming and outgoing electron waves and derive the
166: approximate M${\o}$ller potential from these wavefunctions.
167: In Section III we use the approximate M${\o}$ller potential to calculate the
168: differential cross section for $(e,e'p)$ and define the approximate
169: Coulomb deformed structure functions.
170: In Section IV we compare approximate and DWBA $(e,e'p)$ cross
171: sections for so-called parallel and perpendicular kinematics and
172: investigate the extraction from the cross sections of the so-called
173: fourth ($R_{LT}$) and fifth ($R_{LT'}$) structure functions.
174: In Section V we give our conclusions and discuss prospects for
175: the future.
176:
177: \section{Approximate Wavefunctions and the M${\O}$ller Potentials}
178:
179: Following the work of Lenz and Rosenfelder~\cite{lenz}, we propose
180: the following plane-wave-like electron
181: wavefunction~\cite{kim1,kimphd} which contains the effects of the
182: static Coulomb distortion of the target nucleus in an approximate
183: way:
184: \begin{equation}
185: \Psi^{({\pm})}({\bf r})={\frac {p'(r)}{p}}
186: e^{{\pm}i{\delta}({\bf J}^{2})}e^{i \Delta }e^{i{\bf p}^{\prime}(r)
187: {\cdot}{\bf r}}u_{p}. \label{appwv4}
188: \end{equation}
189: The ($\pm$) sign denotes incoming and outgoing boundary conditions for
190: electrons of momentum ${\bf p}$, the phase factor
191: $\delta({\bf J}^{2})$ is a function of the square of the angular
192: momentum operator ${\bf J}$, and the local effective
193: momentum ${\bf p}'(r)$
194: is given in terms of the Coulomb potential of the target nucleus
195: by
196: \begin{equation}
197: {\bf p}'(r)=(p-{\frac 1 r} \int_{0}^{r} V(r) dr){\hat {\bf p}} .
198: \label{lem}
199: \end{equation}
200: We refer to this $r$-dependent momentum as the Local Effective
201: Momentum Approximation(LEMA).
202: Some small higher order corrections have been incorporated into the
203: ${\em ad-hoc}$ term $\Delta = a({\hat p}^{\prime}(r){\cdot}
204: {\hat r})({\bf J}^{2}+{\frac {1} {4}})$ which involves
205: the factor $a$ which is parametrized by
206: $a=-{\alpha}Z({\frac {16} {p}})^{2}$ where $Z$ is the charge of
207: the target nucleus and the number 16 is given
208: in MeV/c and was determined by comparison with the exact result.
209: Inclusion of this term with LEMA is referred to as LEMA + $\Delta$.
210: The electron mass has been neglected in comparison to the electron
211: momentum, so this approximation if not valid at extreme forward and
212: backward electron scattering angles.
213:
214: Previous workers~\cite{giupac,trani} replaced the $r$-dependent
215: momentum $p'(r)$ in Eq.~(\ref{lem}) by the value
216: $p'_{EMA}=p-V(0)$.
217: This approximation is known as the Effective Momentum Approximation
218: (EMA).
219: Unfortunately, as we have known, the EMA describes the Coulomb
220: effects on the wavefunction rather poorly~\cite{kim1,kimphd}.
221: Previous workers~\cite{giupac,trani} also approximated the Coulomb
222: phases by a constant plus a linear term in the operator
223: ${\bf J}^{2}$.
224: While this approximation works well for low partial waves, it does
225: not describe partial waves with angular momenta equal to or greater
226: than $pR$ where $R$ is the nuclear radius.
227: However, it is these partial waves that dominate inelastic electron
228: scattering from the nucleus. We refer to the EMA plus linear fit
229: to the phases as EMA-$\kappa^2$.
230: We avoid this problem by fitting the exact partial wave phase shifts
231: ${\delta}_{\kappa}$, where $\kappa$ is the Dirac quantum number,
232: to an expansion in powers of $\kappa^2$. Retaining terms of second order in $\kappa^2$ for
233: kappa values up to approximately $3(pR)$, we fit
234: the exact phases with the following equation,
235: \begin{equation}
236: {\delta}_{\kappa}=b_{0}+b_{2}{\kappa}^{2}+b_{4}{\kappa}^{4} .
237: \label{apphs}
238: \end{equation}
239: Note that the eigenvalues of ${\bf J}^2$ are $j(j+1)$ which equals ${\kappa}^2 -\frac{1}{4}$.
240:
241: We also investigated the expansion of the phase exponential
242: in Eq. (\ref{appwv4}) into a power
243: series carried out by previous workers~\cite{giupac,trani} and
244: concluded that an accurate description requires
245: many terms.
246: We chose instead to neglect the electron spin dependence of the
247: phases and replace $J^2+\frac{1}{4}$ by the angular momentum squared
248: $L^2$ in the exponential phase term for both incoming and outgoing waves.
249: Further, we replace $L^2$ by its classical value $({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p}^{\prime})^{2}$.
250: With these two
251: approximations,
252: the approximate Coulomb wavefunction is given by
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: \Psi^{({\pm})}({\bf r})&=&{\frac {p'(r)} {p}}
255: e^{{\pm}ib_{0}}e^{{\pm}ib_{2}({\bf r}
256: {\times}{\bf p}(r))^{2}}\nonumber\\
257: &&{\times}e^{{\pm}ib_{4}({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p}(r))^{4}}
258: e^{ia({\hat p}^{\prime}(r){\cdot}{\hat r})({\bf r}
259: {\times}{\bf p}(r))^{2}}e^{i{\bf p}^{\prime}(r){\cdot}{\bf r}}u_{p}.
260: \label{k4led}
261: \end{eqnarray}
262: The merits of this approach are that our approximate distorted
263: Coulomb wavefunctions have an analytic plane-wave-like form and
264: the Coulomb distortion modifications do not
265: depend on the electron spin, but the wavefunctions do have
266: $({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p'}(r))^{2}$ terms in the exponential which
267: carry information about the phase shifts.
268: We will refer to this wavefunction as the approximate analytic Coulomb distorted wavefunction.
269: Based on our investigations, it is a good representation of the exact partial wave solutions
270: for radial coordinates out to about three or four nuclear radii.
271:
272: Using a technique introduced by Knoll \cite{knoll} which approximates the
273: potential in terms of the source current we obtain the following approximate M${\o}$ller-type potential corresponding to our approximate analytic Coulomb distorted wavefunction,
274: \begin{eqnarray}
275: A^{\mu}({\bf r})&=&{\frac {4{\pi}}
276: {4p_{i}p_{f} \sin^{2} {\frac {\theta_{e}} {2}}}}
277: e^{i(b_{0i}+b_{0f})}e^{i[b_{2i}({\bf r}{\times}
278: {\bf p}_{i}^{\prime}(r))^{2}+b_{4i}({\bf r}{\times}
279: {\bf p}_{i}^{\prime}(r))^{4}]} \nonumber \\
280: &{\times}&e^{i[b_{2f}({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p}_{f}^{\prime}(r))^{2}
281: +b_{4f}({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p}_{f}^{\prime}(r))^{4}]} \nonumber \\
282: &{\times}&e^{i[a_{i}({\hat r}{\cdot}{\hat p}_{i}(r))({\bf r}
283: {\times}{\bf p}_{i}^{\prime}(r))^{2}-a_{f}({\hat r}{\cdot}
284: {\hat p}_{f}(r))({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p}_{f}^{\prime}(r))^{2}]}
285: \nonumber\\
286: &{\times}&e^{i{\bf q}^{\prime}(r){\cdot}{\bf r}}{\bar u}_{f}
287: {\gamma}^{\mu}u_{i}. \label{potk4D}
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: The Knoll approach is discussed in detail in previous work \cite{kim1,kimphd} and is
290: a good approximation for momentum transfers greater than about 350 MeV/c. In arriving
291: at Eq. (\ref{potk4D}), we neglected spatial derivatives of the phase factors in the wavefunction and
292: the radial derivative of the local effective momenta ${\bf p'}(r)$.
293:
294: The comparison of the approximate four potentials with the DWBA four
295: potential requires a partial wave expansion since that is the only way the
296: DWBA results can be obtained.
297: However, the partial wave expansion for these potentials is hardly possible
298: because of the $({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p}^{\prime})^{2}$ terms in the
299: exponential.
300: Traini $et$ $al.$,~\cite{trani} expanded the exponential in a power
301: series up to the second order so as to use partial waves, but this
302: series converges very slowly because the value of the phase,
303: $b({\bf r}{\times}{\bf p})^{2}$, is greater than one for regions of space
304: near the nuclear surface. Of course, the origin of our approximations was in
305: a partial wave formalism, so we can go back to that formalism and replace the
306: exact phases and radial wavefunctions by the approximate phases and wavefunctions to obtain a measure
307: of the quality of our approximations. Note, however, that obtaining the
308: plane-wave-like form required some additional approximations including assuming that the asymptotic
309: momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ and the phase factors in the approximate four potential do not
310: explicitly depend on the incoming and outgoing electron spins.
311:
312: With this caveat, we can compare various approximate potentials that
313: have been widely used ~\cite{giupac,trani}
314: and our approximate potential for selected multipoles.
315: Figs.~(\ref{scalar5}) and ~(\ref{scalar15}) show the comparison of
316: two scalar potentials with the DWBA scalar potential by using
317: the partial waves for different multipole $L$ values. The
318: initial spin and the final spin of the electron are
319: $s_{i}=s_{f}=1/2$.
320: The calculations have been done using a Fermi charge distribution of
321: radius $R=6.65$ fm, with total charge $Z=82$ and the angular
322: momentum $L=5$ and $15$.
323: The initial electron energy is $E_{i}=400$ MeV, the final
324: electron energy is $E_{f}=300$ MeV, and the momentum transfer is
325: $q=350.5$ MeV/c.
326: The solid line is the result for the DWBA scalar potential, the
327: dotted line is for the $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ potential, and the dashed
328: line is for our approximate potential of Eq. (\ref{potk4D}).
329: The approximation for $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ has a different magnitude
330: and is also out of phase, but that for our approximate potential almost
331: has the same magnitude and is in phase.
332: The discrepancy at large radii is due to lack of complete convergence
333: of the $\kappa$ series in the DWBA calculation and does not play an important role in
334: calculating the cross section since the bound nucleon wavefunction
335: drops very rapidly with radial distance. We conclude that our approximate potential
336: is in quite good agreement with the exact potential calculated with partial waves (DWBA)
337: for radial coordinates less than three to four nuclear radii, and hence
338: is good enough to replace
339: the full DWBA calculation.
340: We have confirmed with the aid of a simple model\cite{kimphd} that our approximate
341: potential reproduces the cross section calculated with the full partial wave result from DWBA
342: quite well. We will show more realistic comparisons in the following sections that do
343: not utilize a multipole decomposition and therefore is a more direct test of the
344: approximate Coulomb distorted potential given in Eq.~(\ref{potk4D}).
345:
346:
347: \section{Approximate Coulomb Distorted Cross Section}
348:
349: Using the approximate M${\o}$ller potential given in Eq.~(\ref{potk4D}) it is straightforward
350: to derive the cross sections for $(e,e'p)$ reactions from nuclei since apart from
351: the modified spatial dependence the approximate potential has the same
352: Dirac structure as the plane wave M${\o}$ller potential. The result is
353: \begin{eqnarray}
354: {\frac {d^{3}{\sigma}} {dE_{f}d{\Omega}_{f}d{\Omega}_{P}}}
355: &=&{\frac {PE_{P}} {(2{\pi})^{3}}}{\sigma}_{M}[v_L R^{\prime}_{L}+
356: v_T R^{\prime}_{T}+
357: {\cos {2{\phi}_{P}}} v_{TT} R^{\prime}_{TT} \nonumber \\
358: &+&{\cos {{\phi}_{P}}} v_{LT} R^{\prime}_{LT}
359: +h {\sin {{\phi}_{P}}} v_{LT^{\prime}}R^{\prime}_{LT^{\prime}}]. \label{apcross}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: The electron structure functions are unchanged from Eq.~(\ref{elecst}), but the
362: nuclear structure functions, designated with a prime superscript, contain Coulomb
363: distortion effects. They are defined as in Eqs. (\ref{structure})
364: and (\ref{nclten}), except that the ``Fourier'' transforms
365: given in Eq.~(\ref{frmfac}) become
366: \begin{eqnarray}
367: N^{\prime}_{0}&=&\int ({\frac {q'_{\mu}(r)} {q_{\mu}}})^{2}
368: ({\frac {q} {q'(r)}})^{2} e^{i (\delta_i + \delta_f + \Delta_i - \Delta_f)}
369: J_{0}e^{i{\bf q}^{\prime}(r){\cdot}{\bf r}} d^{3}r \nonumber \\
370: N^{\prime}_{x,y}&=&\int e^{i (\delta_i + \delta_f + \Delta_i - \Delta_f)}
371: J_{x,y}e^{i{\bf q}^{\prime}(r){\cdot}{\bf r}} d^{3}r,
372: \label{dfrmfac}
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: where the phase shift $\delta$ and the ad-hoc additional phase
375: $\Delta$ are functions of $\bf r$ given by
376: \begin{eqnarray}
377: \delta &=& b_{0}+b_{2}({\bf r}{\times}
378: {\bf p}^{\prime}(r))^{2}+b_{4}({\bf r}{\times}
379: {\bf p}^{\prime}(r))^{4} \nonumber \\
380: \Delta &=& a({\hat r}{\cdot}{\hat p}(r))({\bf r}
381: {\times}{\bf p}^{\prime}(r))^{2}. \label{phases}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383:
384: The result in Eq. (\ref{apcross}) is our primary finding. Our approximate treatment of
385: Coulomb distortion leads to a ``plane-wave-like'' form for the cross section and thereby opens up the possibility of investigating the various "structure functions" independently.
386: Of course, these more generalized ``structure functions'' do contain some dependence
387: on the electron kinematics, but with the use of theoretical nuclear models,
388: this modification of the structure functions can be investigated.
389:
390: The charge transform in Eq. (\ref{apcross})
391: differs from the transverse current transforms since the
392: continuity equation was used to eliminate the z-component of the current.
393: Note that unlike the case for electron plane waves, the various current transforms
394: are not azimuthally symmetric about the momentum transfer direction
395: $\bf q$, and therefore contain dependencies on the outgoing nucleon
396: azimuthal angle $\phi_P$ over and beyond the explicit dependencies shown in
397: Eq.~(\ref{apcross}). However, some symmetry remains since both $({\bf r}{\times}
398: {\bf p_i}^{\prime}(r))^{2}$ and $({\bf r}{\times}
399: {\bf p_f}^{\prime}(r))^{2}$ are invariant under the transformation $\phi \rightarrow -\phi$
400: which results in the nuclear structure being invariant under
401: $\phi_P \rightarrow -\phi_P$. The consequences of this additional dependence on $\phi_P$
402: will be discussed further in the next section.
403:
404:
405:
406:
407:
408: \section{Results}
409: \subsection{Cross section in parallel and perpendicular kinematics}
410:
411: In our analysis we are looking at one particular shell, and trying to
412: find the reduced cross section ${\rho}_{m}$, which for proton
413: waves in the final state is related to the probability that a bound
414: proton from a given shell with the missing momentum ${\bf p}_{m}$ can
415: be knocked out of the nucleus with asymptotic momentum ${\bf P}$.
416: The reduced cross section as a function of $p_{m}$ is commonly defined by
417: \begin{equation}
418: {\rho}_{m}(p_{m})={\frac 1 {PE_{P}{\sigma}_{eP}}}{\frac
419: {d^{3}{\sigma}} {dE_{f}d{\Omega}_{f}d{\Omega}_{P}}}, \label{rdcro}
420: \end{equation}
421: where the missing momentum can be determined by the kinematics ${\bf
422: p}_{m}={\bf P}-{\bf q}$.
423: The off-shell electron-proton cross section ${\sigma}_{eP}$ is not
424: uniquely defined, but in all cases we use the form
425: ${\sigma}^{cc1}_{eP}$ given by deForest~\cite{defor83}.
426:
427: There are two kinematical situations commonly
428: used in $(e,e'p)$ experiments.
429: They are parallel kinematics where the outgoing proton momentum
430: ${\bf P}$ is along the momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ and
431: perpendicular kinematics where the magnitude of ${\bf P}$ is
432: fixed, but the detected proton makes an angle ${\theta}_{Pq}$ with
433: respect to ${\bf q}$. In perpendicular kinematics, the magnitude of ${\bf P}$
434: is usually equal to the magnitude of ${\bf q}$.
435: All calculations will be carried out in the laboratory
436: frame (target fixed frame).
437: In the parallel case, the three interference terms in
438: Eq.~(\ref{rdcro}) disappear, while in the perpendicular case, all
439: terms remain except the fifth structure function which sums to zero
440: for unpolarized incoming electrons.
441: Our approximate calculations for the $(e,e'p)$ reaction include the
442: approximate phase factors and the correction term $\Delta$ by keeping
443: the exponential form and the transition matrix element is evaluated
444: by three dimensional integration since a multipole expansion is no longer
445: practical.
446: We compare our results to the full DWBA
447: results~\cite{jinphd,jineep92} and the experimental data from
448: NIKHEF~\cite{nikh1,nikh5} in Amsterdam.
449: The electron incoming energy is given by $E_{i}=412$ MeV and the ejected
450: proton kinetic energy $T_{P}=100$ MeV.
451: All calculations include the proton final state interaction by using
452: a relativistic optical potential obtained from fitting to elastic
453: proton scattering data~\cite{clark90}.
454:
455: In Figs.~(\ref{pars412}) and~(\ref{pard412}), we show two results
456: corresponding to knocking out a proton from a $3s_{1/2}$ shell and a
457: $2d_{3/2}$ shell in $^{208}Pb$ for the case of parallel kinematics.
458: For this kinematics, the proton momentum ${\bf P}$ is parallel to the
459: asymptotic momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ which defines the
460: ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis and the missing momentum ${\bf p}_{m}$ is also along
461: the ${\bf q}$ direction.
462: The dotted line is the PWBA result obtained by using a multipole
463: expansion and doing the one dimensional integration over $r$ in the
464: normal way, while the dash-dotted line uses the approximate
465: potential with Z=1 evaluated by three dimensional numerical integration. They are
466: in excellent agreement (to better than $1\%$) as they should be since
467: the approximate calculations approaches the plane wave result as $Z{\rightarrow}0$.
468: The solid line is our approximate Coulomb distorted result obtained by numerical integration while the dashed line is the full DWBA results obtained by using partial waves and multipole analysis. The dash-three-dotted line is the
469: $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ result also
470: obtained by using three dimensional integration.
471: The diamonds are data from NIKHEF. Note that the primary effect of Coulomb distortion
472: is to shift the reduced cross section by about 20 MeV/c in missing
473: momentum to the right as compared to the plane wave results.
474: The approximate DWBA results reproduce the full DWBA results well
475: around the first peak where the difference is less than $2\%$,
476: but deviate somewhat for large missing momentum where the reduced cross section is smaller.
477: The approximate DWBA result breaks down rapidly beyond
478: missing momentum $p_{m}=100$ MeV/c on the right side, but
479: since ${\bf q}={\bf P}-{\bf p}_{m}$, positive
480: $p_{m}$ corresponds to small $q$ and we expect our approximation to
481: become worse for $q$ less than about 350 MeV/c as discussed in
482: Section 2.
483:
484: The $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ result is lower by about $30\%$ around the first peak
485: than the full DWBA result.
486: Note further that the electron distortion affects the positive
487: missing momentum $p_{m}$ and the negative $p_{m}$ differently.
488: The negative $p_{m}$ region shows a large Coulomb
489: distortion effect.
490: %
491: Figs.~(\ref{pers412}) and ~(\ref{perd412}) show the reduced cross
492: sections from $3s_{1/2}$ and $2d_{3/2}$ for $^{208}Pb$ for
493: perpendicular kinematics.
494: We choose ${\bf P}={\bf q}$ which marks the top of the
495: quasielastic peak for s-states. The electron angle corresponding to
496: this momentum transfer is
497: ${\theta}_{e}=74^{0}$ for $E_{i}=412$ Mev and the ejected proton
498: energy $T_{P}=100$ MeV.
499: The dotted line is the PWBA result, the solid line is our approximate
500: result, the dash-three-dotted line is the $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$
501: result, and the dashed line is the full DWBA result.
502: Since the momentum transfer is large,
503: $q=444$ MeV/c, the approximate results are in much better
504: agreement with the full DWBA results than those of the parallel
505: kinematics case discussed above.
506: The difference is less than $2\%$ around the first peak as in
507: the parallel case, and for both side regions the deviation is around $5\%$. The
508: positions of the maxima and minima are in the right places.
509: The discrepancy between the DWBA result and the $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$
510: result is greater than $30\%$ around the first peak.
511: These results confirm previous observations that Coulomb distortion has smaller effects
512: in perpendicular kinematics than in parallel kinematics.
513:
514:
515: From these calculations of two different kinematic cases for
516: the $(e,e'p)$ reaction, the approximate DWBA results reproduce the
517: full DWBA and the experimental results quite well, especially around
518: the first peak.
519: The effect of the Coulomb distortion on the cross section for
520: a knocked-out proton from the
521: $3s_{1/2}$ shell for $^{208}Pb$ is almost $30\%$ but that for
522: knocked-out from the $2d_{3/2}$ shell is only $10\%$ as compared
523: to the PWBA calculation.
524:
525: In the past, $(e,e'p)$ experiments in parallel kinematics have been
526: measured for the reduced cross section in the missing momentum
527: range $-50{\leq}p_{m}{\leq}300$ MeV/c at NIKHEF.
528: Recently, the range of the missing momentum has been extended to
529: $300{\leq}p_{m}{\leq}500$ MeV/c by $(e,e'p)$ measurements for
530: perpendicular kinematics~\cite{bob94}.
531: The new reduced cross section was measured at momentum transfer
532: $q=221$ MeV/c, energy transfer $\omega=110$ MeV, the kinetic energy
533: of the detected proton $T_{p}=100$ MeV, and incident electron energy
534: $E_{i}=487$ MeV as shown in Fig.~(\ref{high}).
535: The dotted line is the PWBA result, the solid line is our approximate
536: DWBA result, and the diamonds are the experimental data from
537: NIKHEF~\cite{bob94}.
538: Our result reproduces the measured reduced cross section very well
539: although the momentum transfer $q$ is small. A similar conclusion
540: has beed drawn~\cite{madrid} by the Madrid group using their DWBA calculation
541: to analyse this same data.
542: The interesting physics point is that our ``single-particle'' relativistic
543: model reproduces the experimental data at large missing momentum
544: quite well and should be compared to an analysis of this same reaction with a
545: non-relativistic
546: approach which uses a non-relavistic current operator and
547: finds it necessary to introduce many different two-body currents to
548: even come close to the data \cite{Belgium}.
549: It should be noted that our calculation only contains one free
550: parameter, the spectroscopic factor which is an overall scale factor of $0.71$
551: which had already been determined~\cite{jinphd}--~\cite{jin94} by the low missing momentum data.
552:
553: \subsection{Interference Structure Functions}
554:
555: In previous work~\cite{jin94}, the effect of Coulomb
556: distortion on the magnitude of the fourth structure function was more
557: than $15\%$ in $^{16}O$, and more than a factor of 2 in $^{208}Pb$.
558: The magnitude effect on the fifth structure function depends on the
559: out-of-plane angle of the knocked out proton used in the extraction
560: and was more than $15\%$ for a small angle (e.g.
561: $10^{0}$) data in $^{16}O$.
562: Since the structure functions appear in the cross section with
563: different electron kinematic factors, one can study them
564: independently, but we will show below that
565: the PWBA formalism is no longer valid in the
566: presence of the static Coulomb field of the nucleus.
567: Even though the separation for the full DWBA calculation with a
568: partial wave expansion is not valid in the presence of the Coulomb
569: distortion, it is possible to calculate the fourth and the fifth
570: structure functions which embody left-right and up-down asymmetries
571: of the cross section measured with respect to the momentum transfer
572: direction.
573: We call a quantity so determined the $apparent$ structure function, and
574: note that it
575: would correspond to a structure function extracted from experiment. In our model,
576: we can also directly calculate the "structure functions" as given by Eq.~(\ref{structure}) when
577: the distorted "Fourier" transforms of Eq.~(\ref{dfrmfac}) are used.
578: One question is to what extent these two results agree with each other.
579:
580:
581: From Eq.~(\ref{crosep}) one can see that the fourth structure
582: function $R_{LT}$ could be obtained experimentally by subtracting
583: the cross sections with ${\phi}_{P}=0$ and ${\phi}_{P}={\pi}$ while
584: keeping other electron and proton kinematic variables fixed.
585: The fourth apparent structure function determined by the left-right
586: asymmetry with respect to the momentum transfer direction is given by
587: \begin{equation}
588: R^{a}_{LT}={\frac {{\sigma}^{L}-{\sigma}^{R}} {2Kv_{LT}}} \label{jinlt}
589: \end{equation}
590: where $L$ (left) indicates ${\phi}_{P}=0$ and $R$ (right)
591: indicates ${\phi}_{P}={\pi}$. The constant $K={\frac{PE_P}{{2\pi}^3}\sigma_M}$
592: and the electron structure functions $v$ are defined in Eq.~(\ref{elecst}).
593: The superscript $a$ means the apparent structure function including
594: the electron Coulomb distortion, and corresponds to what one would extract
595: from experiment.
596: If the incoming electron beam is polarized ($h=1$), one can extract
597: the apparent fifth structure function by the up-down asymmetry of the
598: cross section given by
599: \begin{equation}
600: R^{a}_{LT'}={\frac {{\sigma}^{U}-{\sigma}^{D}} {2Kv_{LT'}{\sin
601: {\phi}_{P}}}} \label{jinltp}
602: \end{equation}
603: where $U$ (up) means $0<{\phi}_{P}<{\pi}$ (above the plane)
604: and $D$ (down) means $-{\phi}_{P}$ (below the plane).
605:
606: We extract the fourth structure functions for the $3s_{1/2}$ orbit
607: of $^{208}Pb$ with incident electron energy $E_{i}=500$ MeV
608: as shown Fig.~(\ref{fours500}).
609: The dotted line and the dashed line are the fourth structure
610: functions calculated directly using Eq.~(\ref{dfrmfac}) for the PWBA
611: and the approximate DWBA result, while the dash-dotted line,
612: the solid line, and the dash-three-dotted line are the apparent
613: fourth structure functions from Eq.~(\ref{jinlt}) for the PWBA, the
614: approximate DWBA and the full DWBA calculation, respectively.
615: We compared our approximate DWBA calculation of the
616: cross section to the full DWBA and found the difference to be
617: less than $2\%$ around the first peak, and around $5\%$ at the
618: second peak.
619: When Coulomb distortion
620: is included the directly calculated fourth structure function differs
621: from the apparent fourth structure function by a factor of
622: 3 at the peaks.
623: Of course for the PWBA calculation the apparent fourth structure
624: function agrees exactly with the directly calculated fourth structure
625: function.
626: Clearly, the standard separation formalism is no longer valid in the
627: presence of the electron Coulomb distortion for the fourth structure function
628: $R_{LT}$. Furthermore, while the
629: effect of the electron Coulomb distortion is on the order of
630: $30\%$ for the cross section, it changes the apparent fourth structure
631: function by more than a factor of 2.
632:
633: In Fig.~(\ref{fours500}) the discrepancy between the directly
634: calculated fourth structure function $R'_{LT}$ and the apparent fourth structure
635: function for the approximate DWBA suggests that the structure functions
636: depend on the azimuthal angle of the ejected proton as expected.
637: In order to reduce this dependence, we investigated changing
638: the definition of the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis,
639: normally defined by asymptotic momentum transfer ${\bf q}$, in order to
640: bring the apparent and direct structure functions into closer agreement.
641: We considered two choices, one where ${\hat {\bf z}}$ is taken to lie along
642: ${\bf q}'(R)={\bf p}'_{i}(R)-{\bf p}'_{f}(R)$ where
643: $p'(R)=p-V(R)$ and $V(R)$ is the value of the Coulomb potential at the
644: nuclear surface, and the second along
645: ${\bf q}'(0)={\bf p}'_{i}(0)-{\bf p}'_{f}(0)$ where $p'(0)=p-V(0)$ and $V(0)$ is the
646: Coulomb potential at the origin. The second case corresponds to the EMA approximation.
647: We carried out our approximate DWBA calculations for both choices and show the
648: results
649: for the $3s_{1/2}$ orbit of $^{208}Pb$ in
650: Fig.~(\ref{mfour500}).
651: The incident electron energy $E_{i}=500$ MeV, the proton kinetic
652: energy $T_{p}=100$ MeV, and the outgoing proton momentum is equal
653: to the momentum transfer q.
654: The solid line is the directly calculated $R'_{LT}$
655: and the dotted line is the apparent fourth structure function obtained
656: when ${\hat {\bf z}}$ is along
657: ${\bf q}'(R)$. The dashed line is the directly calculated $R'_{LT}$ and the dash-dotted line is the apparent fourth
658: structure function obtained by using ${\bf q}'(0)$ to define the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis.
659:
660: When choosing the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along ${\bf q}'(0)$, the apparent structure function is out of phase
661: with the direct structure function and the magnitude is
662: suppressed at the first peak, but by using the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along ${\bf q}'(R)$ the structure
663: functions are in phase and the magnitudes are quite close.
664: Thus, changing the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis to be along the direction of
665: ${\bf q}'(R)$ permits the extraction of a fourth
666: structure function $R^{\prime}_{LT}$. Furthermore, choosing this different ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis
667: largely removes the Coulomb distortion effects on the fourth structure
668: function, at least around the first peak.
669: From these results, we recommend that one can experimentally
670: extract the fourth structure function by choosing the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis
671: along the new modified momentum transfer ${\bf q}'(R)$.
672: Note that ${\theta}_{P}$ of the ejected proton in these plots is the polar angle
673: measured from the differently chosen ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axes.
674:
675:
676: Using a polarized incident electron beam and detecting the knocked
677: out proton out of the scattering plane, the fifth structure function
678: $R'_{LT'}$ can be extracted by measuring the up-down asymmetry of the
679: nuclear response.
680: We also choose the incident electron energy $E_{i}=500$ MeV, the
681: proton kinectic energy $T_{P}=100$ MeV, and the momentum transfer $q$
682: equal to the proton momentum $p$ for this case.
683:
684: We first look at the Coulomb distortion effect on the measurement
685: of the fifth structure function from the $3s_{1/2}$ orbit of
686: $^{208}Pb$ at fixed proton azimuthal angle ${\phi}_{P}=40^{0}$ as
687: shown Fig.~(\ref{fives500}).
688: The direct fifth structure function again agrees with the apparent
689: structure function in PWBA calculation as expected.
690: The dotted line is the fifth structure function for the PWBA, and the
691: solid line is the fifth structure function with the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis
692: along the asymptotic momentum ${\bf q}$ and the dashed line is
693: for the case of the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along the modified momentum
694: transfer ${\bf q}'(R)$.
695: We confirmed that the direct fifth structure function agrees with the
696: apparent structure function for the approximate DWBA calculation as
697: expected from our earlier observation that the approximate
698: structure functions are symmetric under
699: the transformation $\phi_P \rightarrow -\phi_P$. Thus when one calculates
700: $\sigma^U - \sigma^D$ all other terms cancel leaving only the
701: $R'_{LT'}$ contribution. Note that unlike the case for $R'_{LT}$,
702: changing the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis does not affect the shape and magnitude
703: and does not reduce the Coulomb distortion effect significantly.
704: Thus,
705: one can experimentally extract a fifth structure function without
706: redefining the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis. Of course, Coulomb distortion clearly affects the
707: magnitude ot $R'_{LT'}$ as compared to the plane wave result (by approximately
708: 30\% for $^{208}Pb$).
709:
710:
711: In Fig.~(\ref{fif500}), we show the fifth structure function as a function
712: of $\phi_P$ at
713: fixed polar proton angles, ${\theta}_{P}=4^{0}$, for the $3s_{1/2}$
714: orbit of $^{208}Pb$ and the $1s_{1/2}$ orbit of $^{16}O$, and
715: ${\theta}_{P}=14^{0}$ for the $1p_{1/2}$ orbit of $^{16}O$.
716: These polar angles are the first peak position of the fifth structure
717: function for the $s_{1/2}$ orbit of $^{208}Pb$ and the $p_{1/2}$
718: orbit of $^{16}O$ respectively for these kinematics.
719: The dotted line is the PWBA result and the solid line and the dashed
720: line are the approximate DWBA results obtained by choosing the
721: ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along the asymptotic momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ and
722: along the momentum transfer ${\bf q}'(R)$.
723: The approximate DWBA calculation for the $p_{1/2}$ orbit of
724: $^{16}O(e,e'p)$ in Fig.~(\ref{fif500}) reproduces the same shape as
725: the full DWBA calculation~\cite{jin94} for the fifth structure
726: function, but both differ in magnitude from the plane wave result. In this
727: previous
728: paper~\cite{jin94} where the full DWBA calculation was applied to
729: a particular case, it was concluded that extracting the
730: fifth structure function $R_{LT'}$
731: at ${\phi}_{P}=90^{0}$ or averaging over ${\phi}_{P}$ largely removed
732: the Coulomb distortion effects. Clearly that is not the case here.
733: Therefore, it is not true in general that the Coulomb distortion effect can be
734: removed at ${\phi}_{P}=90^{0}$.
735: Furthermore, we again note that choosing a different
736: ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis does not help in
737: removing the Coulomb effect for the fifth structure function unlike
738: the case of the fourth structure function.
739: We also confirmed that the fifth structure function extracted
740: by using the
741: incident electron helicity dependence or the up-down asymmetry agree
742: exactly as expected from the $\phi_p \rightarrow - \phi_P$ symmetry
743: discussed earlier in the approximate Coulomb distorted form factors.
744:
745:
746:
747: \section{Conclusions}
748:
749: We have developed a plane-wave-like approximate solution to the Dirac equation
750: in the presence of the static Coulomb field of a nucleus which agrees rather
751: well with the exact partial wave solutions inside a sphere of approximately three
752: times the nuclear radius. The limited spatial range of the approximation is not
753: a serious restriction for electron induced nuclear processes since the bound state
754: wavefunctions that enter any such process drop off exponentially outside the nuclear
755: radius R.
756: Using this approximate wavefunction, along with a few additional approximations,
757: we also obtained an approximate DWBA potential valid for momentum transfers greater than
758: about $350$ MeV/c. This approximate potential has the same Dirac structure as
759: the plane wave M${\o}$ller potential although it contains some spatially dependent
760: phase factors which destroy the azimuthal
761: spatial symmetry about the momentum transfer direction ${\bf q}$. The basic ingredients in our approximate potential are the static
762: Coulomb potential of the target nucleus and the elastic scattering phase shifts for
763: the incoming and outgoing electron energies in this potential.
764:
765: We have compared wavefunctions, potentials and cross sections for the $(e,e'p)$
766: reaction on nuclei in the quasielastic region calculated with our approximation and
767: previous approximations to the
768: exact partial wave results. We find that the previous
769: approximate results are in serious disagreement with the exact partial wave
770: results. Our approximate results are in good agreement
771: with the full DWBA results, but have a number of
772: advantages over the DWBA results. The biggest advantage is that the
773: plane-wave-like structure of the approximate Coulomb distorted
774: potential allows extraction of structure functions which are bi-linear products
775: of transforms of the transition current components. However, unlike the PWBA
776: analysis, these transforms are not just Fourier transforms, but contain
777: additional spatial dependence on the kinematics resulting from the static
778: Coulomb field of the target nucleus.
779:
780: In this paper, we investigated in some detail the extraction of
781: the so-called fourth structure function $R'_{LT}$ and fifth structure
782: function $R'_{LT'}$ from the full cross section. We showed that this
783: is possible, particularly for kinematics where the structure functions
784: are large. However, for the case of the fourth structure
785: function, $R'_{LT}$, the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis needs to be
786: redefined to lie along the momentum transfer defined at the nuclear surface
787: ${\bf q}'(R)={\bf p}'_{i}(R)-{\bf p}'_{f}(R)$ to obtain agreement between
788: the directly calculated structure function and the extracted structure function.
789: For the fifth structure function $R'_{LT'}$, there is no need to redefine the
790: ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis.
791:
792: The other major advantage of our approximate treatment of Coulomb distortion over the
793: full DWBA partial wave calculation is that it is straightforward to apply it to
794: higher energies. The full DWBA calculation at higher electron energies requires
795: more and more partial waves with increasingly forbidding amounts of computer time needed.
796: Using our approximate treatment, we do find it necessary to perform two additional
797: numerical integrations over angular coordinates $\theta$ and
798: $\phi$ in the interaction matrix element as compared to a treatment that permits
799: a multipole decomposition. However, these numerical integrations are
800: not very time consuming and in a sense are just a replacement for
801: summing over various intermediate angular momenta arising from angular momentum
802: recoupling of the various partial
803: wave expansions of the wavefunction and transition matrix elements.
804: In our particular case, we have an
805: analytic result for the electromagnetic potential so that
806: the three dimensional integration is
807: very fast as compared to a full partial wave analysis and the
808: evaluation of thousands of radial matrix elements.
809:
810: In conclusion, our approximate treatment of Coulomb distortion for electron
811: induced nuclear processes involving continuum nucleons works quite well and
812: is particularly good for momentum transfers greater than 350 MeV/c. It permits
813: the extraction of "structure functions"€which should prove of great use in analysing
814: $(e,e'p)$ experiments at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and other
815: laboratories. Of course,
816: it is an approximation and if one has very high precision data it may be necessary to
817: revert to the full DWBA calculation.
818:
819:
820: \begin{center}
821: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
822: \end{center}
823:
824: We thank the Ohio Supercomputer Center in Columbus for many hours
825: of Cray Y-MP time to develop this calculation and to perform the
826: necessary calculations. This work was supported in part by the U.S.
827: Department of Energy under Grant No. FG02-87ER40370.
828:
829: \newpage
830:
831: \begin{figure}[p]
832: \newbox\figIIa
833: \setbox\figIIa=\hbox{
834: \epsfysize=130mm
835: \epsfxsize=160mm
836: \epsffile{scalar5.eps}}
837: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figIIa
838: \caption{Comparison of the exact scalar potential with approximate scalar potentials for the
839: multipole component L=5, M=0.
840: The initial energy $E_{i}=400$ MeV and the energy loss
841: $\omega=100$ MeV.
842: The solid line is calculated with DWBA, the dotted line with $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ and
843: the dashed line is our approximate potential.}
844: \label{scalar5}
845: \end{figure}
846:
847: \begin{figure}[p]
848: \newbox\figIIb
849: \setbox\figIIb=\hbox{
850: \epsfysize=130mm
851: \epsfxsize=160mm
852: \epsffile{scalar15.eps}}
853: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figIIb
854: \caption{The same as Fig.~(\ref{scalar5}) with multipole $L=15$
855: and $M=0$.}
856: \label{scalar15}
857: \end{figure}
858:
859: \begin{figure}[p]
860: \newbox\figa
861: \setbox\figa=\hbox{
862: \epsfysize=130mm
863: \epsfxsize=160mm
864: \epsffile{pars412.eps}}
865: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figa
866: \caption{Reduced cross sections for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ from the
867: $3s_{1/2}$ shell with parallel kinematics.
868: The kinematics are $E_{i}=412$ MeV, and proton kinetic energy
869: $T_{P}=100$ MeV. The dotted line is the PWBA result and the dash-dotted
870: line (which falls on top of it) is the approximate DWBA result with $Z=1$. The
871: dash-three-dotted line is the $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ result,
872: the solid line is the approximate DWBA result, the dashed line
873: is the full DWBA result, and the diamonds are data from NIKHEF.
874: The same spectroscopic factor of 71\% is used in all curves.}
875: \label{pars412}
876: \end{figure}
877:
878: \begin{figure}[p]
879: \newbox\figb
880: \setbox\figb=\hbox{
881: \epsfysize=130mm
882: \epsfxsize=160mm
883: \epsffile{pard412.eps}}
884: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figb
885: \caption{The same as Fig.~(\ref{pars412}) except for the $2d_{3/2}$
886: shell and the $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ result is not shown.}
887: \label{pard412}
888: \end{figure}
889:
890: \begin{figure}[p]
891: \newbox\figc
892: \setbox\figc=\hbox{
893: \epsfysize=130mm
894: \epsfxsize=160mm
895: \epsffile{pers412.eps}}
896: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figc
897: \caption{Reduced cross sections for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ from the
898: $3s_{1/2}$ shell with perpendicular kinematics.
899: The kinematics are $E_{i}=412$ MeV, and proton kinetic
900: energy $T_{P}=100$ MeV. The dotted line is the PWBA result, the
901: dash-three-dotted line is the $EMA-{\kappa}^{2}$ result,
902: the solid line is our approximate result,
903: and the dashed line is the full DWBA result.}
904: \label{pers412}
905: \end{figure}
906:
907: \begin{figure}[p]
908: \newbox\figd
909: \setbox\figd=\hbox{
910: \epsfysize=130mm
911: \epsfxsize=160mm
912: \epsffile{perd412.eps}}
913: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figd
914: \caption{The same as Fig.~(\ref{pers412}) except the $2d_{3/2}$
915: shell.}
916: \label{perd412}
917: \end{figure}
918:
919: \begin{figure}[p]
920: \newbox\figg
921: \setbox\figg=\hbox{
922: \epsfysize=130mm
923: \epsfxsize=160mm
924: \epsffile{high.eps}}
925: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figg
926: \caption{Reduced cross sections for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ from the
927: $3s_{1/2}$ shell for high missing momentum.
928: The kinematics are $E_{i}=487$ MeV, momentum transfer $q=221$ MeV/c,
929: energy transfer $\omega=110$ MeV, and proton kinetic energy
930: $T_{P}=100$ MeV.
931: The solid line is the approximate DWBA result, the dotted
932: line is the PWBA result, and the diamonds are data from NIKHEF. A
933: previously determined spectroscopic factor of 71\% was used for
934: both curves.}
935: \label{high}
936: \end{figure}
937:
938: \begin{figure}[p]
939: \newbox\figh
940: \setbox\figh=\hbox{
941: \epsfysize=130mm
942: \epsfxsize=160mm
943: \epsffile{fours500.eps}}
944: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figh
945: \caption{The fourth structure function for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ from the
946: $3s_{1/2}$ shell as a function of missing momentum. The kinematics
947: are $E_{i}=500$ MeV, and proton kinetic energy $T_{P}=100$ MeV. The
948: dash-dotted line is the apparent structure function and dotted line
949: is the directly calculated structure function for the PWBA (which fall
950: on top of each other). The solid
951: line is the apparent and the dashed line is the directly calculated
952: structure function for the approximate DWBA result, while the
953: dash-three-dotted line is the apparent structure function for the
954: full DWBA result.}
955: \label{fours500}
956: \end{figure}
957:
958: \begin{figure}[p]
959: \newbox\figi
960: \setbox\figi=\hbox{
961: \epsfysize=130mm
962: \epsfxsize=160mm
963: \epsffile{mfour500.eps}}
964: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figi
965: \caption{The fourth structure function for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ for
966: the $3s_{1/2}$ orbit as a function of the polar angle of the ejected
967: proton. The solid line and the dotted line are the direct
968: and the apparent structure function with the
969: ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along the momentum transfer ${\bf q}'(R)$,
970: and the dashed line and the dash-dotted line are the direct and the apparent
971: structure function for the case of the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis
972: along the EMA momentum ${\bf q}'(0)$.}
973: \label{mfour500}
974: \end{figure}
975:
976: \begin{figure}[p]
977: \newbox\figj
978: \setbox\figj=\hbox{
979: \epsfysize=130mm
980: \epsfxsize=160mm
981: \epsffile{fives500.eps}}
982: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figj
983: \caption{The fifth structure function for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ from
984: the $3s_{1/2}$ shell as a function of the polar angle of the ejected
985: proton. The dotted line is the fifth structure function for the
986: PWBA, while the solid and the dashed lines are approximate DWBA results with
987: the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along the asymptotic momentum ${\bf q}$ and along the
988: modified momentum transfer ${\bf q}'(R)$ respectively.}
989: \label{fives500}
990: \end{figure}
991:
992: \begin{figure}[p]
993: \newbox\figk
994: \setbox\figk=\hbox{
995: \epsfysize=130mm
996: \epsfxsize=160mm
997: \epsffile{fif500.eps}}
998: \noindent\hspace{0mm}\vspace{20mm}\box\figk
999: \caption{The fifth structure function as a function of the azimuthal
1000: angle ${\phi}_{P}$ for $^{208}Pb(e,e'p)$ from the $3s_{1/2}$
1001: shell and for $^{16}O(e,e'p)$ from the $1s_{1/2}$ shell and the
1002: $1p_{1/2}$ shell.
1003: The dotted line is the fifth structure function for PWBA, the solid
1004: line is the fifth structure function with ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along the
1005: asymptotic momentum ${\bf q}$, and the dashed line is for the case
1006: of the ${\hat {\bf z}}$ axis along the momentum transfer ${\bf q}'(R)$ .}
1007: \label{fif500}
1008: \end{figure}
1009:
1010:
1011: \newpage
1012: \begin{references}
1013: \bibitem{jinphd}Yanhe Jin, Ph.D, Dissertation, Ohio University
1014: (1991).
1015: \bibitem{jineep92}Yanhe Jin, D. S. Onley, and L. E. Wright, Phys.
1016: Rev. C {\bf 45}, 1311 (1992)
1017: \bibitem{jinee92}Yanhe Jin, D. S. Onley, and L. E. Wright, Phys. Rev.
1018: C{\bf 45}, 1333 (1992).
1019: \bibitem{jin94}Yanhe Jin, D. S. Onley and L. E. Wright, Phys. Rev.
1020: C{\bf 50}, 168 (1994).
1021: \bibitem{horo81}C. J. Horowitz, and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys.
1022: {\bf A368}, 503 (1981).
1023: \bibitem{zhang91}Jian-Kang Zhang, Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio University
1024: (1991).
1025: \bibitem{clark90}S. Hama, B. C. Clark, E. D. Cooper, H. S. Sherif,
1026: and R. L. Mercer, Phys. Rev. C{\bf 41}, 2737 (1990).
1027: \bibitem{kim1}K. S. Kim, L. E. Wright, Yanhe Jin, and D. W. Kosik
1028: Phys. Rev. C{\bf 54}, 2415 (1996).
1029: \bibitem{kimphd}K. S. Kim, Ph.D, Dissertation, Ohio University
1030: (1996).
1031: \bibitem{lenz}F. Lenz and R. Rosenfelder, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A176}, 513
1032: (1971); \\ F. Lenz, thesis, Freiburg (1971).
1033: \bibitem{knoll} J. Knoll, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A201}, 462 (1974).
1034: \bibitem{giupac}C. Giusti and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A473},
1035: 717 (1987).
1036: \bibitem{trani}M. Trani, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 213}, 1 (1988); \\M.
1037: Traini, S. Turck-Chieze, and A. Zghiche, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 38}, 2799
1038: (1988).
1039: \bibitem{defor83}T. DeForest Jr., Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 392}, 232 (1983).
1040: \bibitem{nikh1}L. Lapik$\acute{a}$s, Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 553},
1041: 297 (1993).
1042: \bibitem{nikh5}G. J. Kramer, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
1043: Amsterdam (1990).
1044: \bibitem{bob94}I. Bobeldijk, $et$ $al.$, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73},
1045: 2684 (1994).
1046: \bibitem{Belgium} V. Van der Sluys, J. Ryckebusch, and M. Waroquiur,
1047: Phys. Rev. {\bf C}54, 1322 (1996).
1048: \bibitem{madrid} J.M. Udias, P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra and J.A. Caballero, Phys.
1049: Rev. {\bf C}53, R1488 (1996).
1050: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1051:
1052: \end{references}
1053:
1054: \end{document}
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058: