1: \documentclass[superscriptaddress,twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3:
4: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8:
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12:
13: %\nofiles
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \preprint{}
18:
19: \title{Probing surface diffuseness of nucleus-nucleus potential\\
20: with quasielastic scattering at deep sub-barrier energies}% Force line breaks with \\
21:
22: \author{K. Washiyama}
23: \affiliation{
24: Department of Physics, Tohoku University,
25: Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
26: \author{K. Hagino}
27: \affiliation{
28: Department of Physics, Tohoku University,
29: Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
30: % \email{Second.Author@institution.edu}
31: \author{M. Dasgupta}
32: \affiliation{
33: Department of Nuclear Physics, Research School of Physical Sciences
34: and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200,
35: Australia}
36:
37: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
38: % but any date may be explicitly specified
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We perform a systematic study
42: on the surface property of nucleus-nucleus potential in heavy-ion
43: reactions using
44: large-angle quasielastic scattering
45: at energies well below the Coulomb barrier.
46: At these energies, the quasielastic scattering can be well described
47: by a single-channel potential model.
48: Exploiting this fact,
49: we point out that
50: systems which involve spherical nuclei
51: require the diffuseness parameter
52: of around 0.60 fm
53: in order to fit the experimental data,
54: while systems with a deformed target
55: between 0.8 fm and 1.1 fm.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \pacs{25.70.Bc,25.70.Jj,24.10.Eq,27.70.+q}
59: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
60: %display desired
61: \maketitle
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64: The Woods-Saxon form,
65: which is characterized by the
66: depth, radius and diffuseness parameters,
67: has often been used for the
68: inter-nuclear potential for heavy-ion reactions.
69: Conventionally,
70: the diffuseness parameter
71: of around 0.63 fm has been employed
72: for calculations of
73: elastic and inelastic scattering,
74: which are sensitive only to the surface region of
75: the nuclear potential \cite{broglia91,Christensen76}.
76: This value of surface diffuseness parameter has been well accepted,
77: partly because it is consistent with
78: a double folding potential \cite{SL79}.
79: In contrast,
80: a recent systematic study has shown that
81: experimental data for heavy-ion fusion reactions at energies
82: close to the Coulomb barrier require
83: a larger value of the diffuseness parameter,
84: ranging between 0.75 and 1.5 fm,
85: as long as the Woods-Saxon
86: parameterization is used as a nuclear potential \cite{newton04}.
87: The origin of the discrepancy in the surface diffuseness parameter
88: between the scattering and fusion processes
89: has not yet been understood.
90:
91: Large-angle quasielastic scattering at deep sub-barrier energies
92: provides an alternative way to look at this problem.
93: Quasielastic scattering and fusion are both inclusive processes and
94: are complimentary to each other. The former is related to the
95: reflection probability at the Coulomb barrier, while the latter
96: to the penetration probability.
97: In heavy-ion reactions at energies near the Coulomb barrier,
98: it is well known that
99: the channel coupling effects caused by the
100: collective inelastic excitations of the colliding nuclei
101: strongly affect the reaction dynamics \cite{nanda98,BT98}.
102: At deep sub-barrier energies, however,
103: the channel coupling effects on
104: quasielastic scattering can be disregarded, since the reflection
105: probability is almost unity at these energies irrespective of
106: the presence of channel couplings, even though inelastic
107: channels themselves may be strongly populated \cite{hagino05}.
108: This is similar to fusion at energies well above the Coulomb barrier,
109: where the penetrability is almost unity \cite{newton04}.
110:
111:
112: The above concept was recently applied
113: to the experimentally measured quasielastic scattering cross sections
114: for the $^{16}$O + $^{154}$Sm system
115: at deep sub-barrier energies \cite{hagino05}.
116: It was found that the larger
117: surface diffuseness parameter of around 1.0 fm
118: is required for this system
119: in order to fit the data.
120: This value is consistent with the one required for
121: fusion.
122:
123: It is apparent that a more systematic study is necessary,
124: in order to clarify whether
125: the quasielastic scattering
126: around the Coulomb barrier generally requires a larger value of surface
127: diffuseness
128: parameter than the conventional value of around 0.63 fm.
129: The aim of this paper is
130: to carry out such systematic study on quasielastic scattering at
131: deep sub-barrier energies.
132: To this end,
133: we calculate the excitation function of
134: the quasielastic cross sections
135: for systems involving both spherical and deformed nuclei.
136: The reactions $^{32,34}$S+$^{197}$Au, $^{32,34}$S+$^{208}$Pb,
137: $^{16}$O+$^{154}$Sm, $^{186}$W, $^{208}$Pb,
138: for which
139: experimental data exist at deep sub-barrier energies, are
140: studied. We show that a surface diffuseness parameter of around 0.6 fm
141: is favored by the data for reactions involving spherical nuclei,
142: whilst those involving deformed nuclei require a larger value of
143: the diffuseness parameter.
144:
145:
146: The paper is organized as follows.
147: In the next section,
148: we briefly review the large-angle quasielastic scattering
149: at deep sub-barrier energies.
150: We also explain the procedure of our analyses which use a
151: one dimensional ion-ion potential, including our definition
152: of deep sub-barrier energies.
153: In Sec. III, we present our results for the $\chi^2$ fitting
154: and discuss its sensitivity to the barrier height energy
155: and to the channel coupling effects.
156: We summarize the paper in Sec. IV.
157:
158: \section{Method of analyses}
159: \subsection{Large-angle quasielastic scattering at deep sub-barrier energies}
160:
161: Our purpose in this paper
162: is to study the surface property of ion-ion potential
163: using
164: heavy-ion quasielastic scattering.
165: Before we explain the method of our analyses,
166: let us first discuss briefly
167: the advantage of exploiting large-angle quasielastic scattering
168: at deep sub-barrier energies.
169:
170: At energies well below the Coulomb barrier,
171: the cross sections of (quasi)elastic scattering are close to the
172: Rutherford cross sections, with small deviations
173: caused by the effect of nuclear interaction.
174: This effect can be taken into account
175: by the semiclassical perturbation theory.
176: The ratio of elastic scattering $\sigma_{\rm el}$
177: to Rutherford cross sections $\sigma_R$ at a backward angle $\theta$
178: is given by \cite{hagino04,LW81}
179: \begin{equation}
180: \frac{d\sigma_{\rm el}(E_{cm},\theta)}{d\sigma_R(E_{cm},\theta)}
181: \sim
182: 1+\frac{V_N(r_c)}{ka}\,
183: \frac{\sqrt{2a\pi k\eta}}{E_{cm}},
184: \label{deviation}
185: \end{equation}
186: %
187: where
188: $E_{cm}$ is the centre-of-mass energy,
189: $k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}}/\hbar$, $\mu$ being the reduced mass,
190: and $\eta$ is the Sommerfeld parameter.
191: This formula is obtained by assuming
192: that the nuclear potential $V_N(r)$ has an exponential form,
193: $\exp(-r/a)$,
194: around the classical turning point
195: $r_c=(\eta+\sqrt{\eta^2+\lambda_c^2})/k$,
196: where
197: $\lambda_c=\eta \cot(\theta/2)$ is the classical angular momentum
198: for the Rutherford scattering.
199: We see from this formula
200: that the deviation of the elastic cross sections
201: from the Rutherford ones is sensitive to the surface region
202: of the nuclear potential, especially to the surface diffuseness
203: parameter $a$.
204: Notice that, for
205: small scattering angles, the Fresnel oscillation
206: may complicate the formula.
207: Also, as mentioned in the previous section,
208: the channel coupling effects on the quasielastic cross sections
209: are negligible at deep sub-barrier energies.
210: We can thus study the effect of the surface diffuseness parameter
211: in a transparent and unambiguous way using the large-angle quasielastic
212: scattering at deep sub-barrier energies.
213:
214: \subsection{Procedure}
215:
216: In order to compare with the experimental data for
217: the quasielastic cross sections
218: at deep sub-barrier energies,
219: we use a one-dimensional optical potential
220: with the Woods-Saxon form.
221: Absorption following transmission through the barrier
222: is simulated by an imaginary potential with
223: $W=30$ MeV, $a_w=0.4$ fm, and $r_w=1.0$ fm.
224: This model calculates the elastic and
225: fusion cross sections, in which the elastic cross sections can be
226: considered as quasielastic cross sections to a good approximation
227: at these deep sub-barrier energies \cite{comment}.
228: Note that the results are insensitive to the parameters of
229: the imaginary part
230: as long as it is well localized inside the Coulomb barrier.
231:
232:
233: In order to carry out a systematic study,
234: we calculate the Coulomb barrier height using
235: the Aky\"uz-Winther potential \cite{akyuz81}.
236: We examine several potentials with different values of surface
237: diffuseness parameter, which give the same calculated barrier height.
238: To this end,
239: we vary the radius parameter $r_0$
240: while keeping the depth parameter $V_0$ to be 100 MeV.
241: This is possible
242: because the effect of variation in $V_0$ and $r_0$
243: on the Coulomb barrier height compensates with each other
244: at the surface region.
245:
246: We define the region of ``deep sub-barrier energies''
247: in the following way.
248: In heavy-ion collisions at energies near the Coulomb barrier,
249: collective inelastic excitations of the colliding nuclei
250: and transfer reactions
251: are strongly coupled to the relative motion.
252: This causes
253: the splitting of the Coulomb barrier into several distributed
254: barriers \cite{rowley91,nanda98}.
255: We define the deep sub-barrier energies as
256: around 3 MeV below the lowest barrier height or smaller.
257: For this purpose, we first use the computer code
258: CCFULL \cite{HRK99} in order to
259: explicitly construct the coupling matrix
260: (which includes the excitation energy for the diagonal components)
261: for the coupled-channels equations
262: for each system by including known low-lying
263: collective excitations.
264: We then diagonalize it to obtain the lowest eigen-barrier.
265:
266: We find that the deep sub-barrier region defined in this way
267: corresponds to
268: the region where
269: the experimental value of the ratio of the quasielastic
270: to the Rutherford cross sections
271: is larger than around 0.94.
272: We therefore include
273: only those experimental data which satisfy
274: $d\sigma_{\rm qel}/d\sigma_R\ge 0.94$
275: in the $\chi^2$ fitting.
276: A few experimental data points with values exceeding unity
277: were excluded while performing the fits,
278: but are shown in the figures below.
279:
280: We apply this procedure to the
281: $^{32,34}$S + $^{208}$Pb,
282: $^{32,34}$S + $^{197}$Au \cite{schuck02},
283: and $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb \cite{timmers96}
284: reactions which involve spherical nuclei, as
285: well as the
286: $^{16}$O + $^{154}$Sm and $^{16}$O + $^{186}$W reactions
287: \cite{timmers95} which involve a deformed target.
288: For the
289: deformed systems the scarcity of data points at deep sub-barrier
290: energies led us to extend the fitting region to somewhat higher
291: energies. This meant that the calculations had to take account of
292: deformation effects as explained in Sec. III. B.
293:
294:
295: \section{Results and discussion}
296:
297:
298: \subsection{Spherical systems}
299:
300: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
301: \begin{center}\leavevmode
302: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{sau.eps}
303: \caption{
304: The ratio of the quasielastic to the Rutherford cross sections
305: at $\theta_{\rm lab}=159^\circ$
306: for the $^{32}$S + $^{197}$Au (the upper panel) reaction
307: and for the $^{34}$S + $^{197}$Au (the lower panel) reaction.
308: The experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{schuck02}.
309: The solid line results from using a diffuseness parameter obtained by
310: performing a least-square fit to the data.
311: The dotted and the dot-dashed lines are obtained with
312: the diffuseness parameter of $a$ = 0.80 fm and $a$ = 1.00 fm,
313: respectively.
314: }
315: \label{fig:SandAu}
316: \end{center}
317: \end{figure}
318:
319: We first present the results
320: for systems involving spherical nuclei.
321: Figure 1 compares the experimental data with
322: the calculated cross sections obtained with
323: different values of the surface diffuseness
324: parameter in the Woods-Saxon potential
325: for the $^{32}$S + $^{197}$Au system (the upper panel)
326: and the $^{34}$S + $^{197}$Au system (the lower panel).
327: The Coulomb barrier height
328: is 141.2 MeV for the $^{32}$S + $^{197}$Au reaction
329: and is 140.2 MeV for the $^{34}$S + $^{197}$Au reaction.
330: The best fitted values for the surface diffuseness parameter
331: are $a=0.57\pm 0.04$ fm and $a=0.53\pm 0.03$ fm
332: for the $^{32}$S and $^{34}$S + $^{197}$Au reactions, respectively.
333: The cross sections obtained with these surface diffuseness
334: parameters are denoted by the solid line in the figure.
335: The dotted and the dot-dashed lines are calculated with
336: the diffuseness parameter of $a$ = 0.80 fm and $a$ = 1.00 fm,
337: respectively.
338: Figure 2 shows the results for
339: the $^{32}$S + $^{208}$Pb (the upper panel)
340: and the $^{34}$S + $^{208}$Pb (the lower panel) reactions.
341: The Coulomb barrier height is 145.1 MeV and
342: 144.1 MeV
343: for the $^{32}$S and $^{34}$S
344: + $^{208}$Pb reactions, respectively.
345: The best fitted values for the surface diffuseness
346: parameter are
347: $a=0.60\pm 0.04$ fm and $a=0.63\pm 0.04$ fm
348: for the $^{32}$S and $^{34}$S
349: + $^{208}$Pb reactions, respectively.
350:
351: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
352: \begin{center}\leavevmode
353: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{spb.eps}
354: \caption{
355: The ratio of the quasielastic to the Rutherford cross sections
356: for the $^{32}$S + $^{208}$Pb (the upper panel) reaction
357: at $\theta_{\rm lab}=170^\circ$
358: and for the $^{34}$S + $^{208}$Pb (the lower panel) reaction
359: at $\theta_{\rm lab}=159^\circ$.
360: The experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{schuck02}.
361: The meaning of each line is the same as in Fig. 1.
362: }
363: \label{fig:s-pb}
364: \end{center}
365: \end{figure}
366:
367:
368: It is evident from Figs. 1 and 2 that
369: these spherical systems
370: favor the standard value of the surface diffuseness parameter,
371: around $a=$ 0.60 fm.
372: The calculations with the larger diffuseness
373: parameters, $a$ = 0.80 fm and 1.00 fm,
374: underestimate the quasielastic cross sections
375: and are not consistent with the energy dependence of the
376: experimental data.
377: We obtain a similar conclusion for the
378: $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb system, where the best fitted value for
379: the surface diffuseness parameter is $a=0.59 \pm 0.10$ fm
380: with the Coulomb barrier height of 76.1 MeV.
381: The result for this system is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:o-pb}.
382:
383: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
384: \begin{center}\leavevmode
385: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{opb.eps}
386: \caption{
387: The ratio of the quasielastic to the Rutherford cross sections
388: for the $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb reaction
389: at $\theta_{\rm lab}=170^\circ$.
390: The experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{timmers96}.
391: The meaning of each line is the same as in Fig. 1.
392: }
393: \label{fig:o-pb}
394: \end{center}
395: \end{figure}
396:
397:
398: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
399: \begin{center}\leavevmode
400: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{32spbcompare.eps}
401: \caption{
402: Comparison of
403: quasielastic cross sections
404: obtained for three different values of the Coulomb barrier height
405: for the $^{32}$S + $^{208}$Pb reaction.
406: The surface diffuseness parameter is determined for each barrier
407: energy by fitting the experimental data.
408: }
409: \label{fig:SandPbcompare}
410: \end{center}
411: \end{figure}
412:
413: The
414: conclusions are not sensitively dependent on the choice of
415: barrier height energy $V_B$.
416: In order to demonstrate this, we vary the barrier height
417: by 1\%, and repeat the same analyses.
418: The result for the $^{32}$S + $^{208}$Pb system
419: is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:SandPbcompare}.
420: The solid line denotes the result obtained
421: with the Aky\"uz-Winther potential, as a reference, which is the same
422: as the solid line in the upper panel of Fig. 2.
423: The best fits and the resulting $a$ values using $V_B$ = 143.6 MeV and
424: $V_B$ = 146.5 MeV are also shown in Fig. \ref{fig:SandPbcompare}.
425: The $a$ value changes by $\pm0.04$ fm
426: for a $\pm 1\%$ change in the barrier energy.
427: The cross sections obtained with these potentials are
428: shown in the figure by the dotted and the dot-dashed lines,
429: respectively.
430: One clearly sees that the effect of the variation of the
431: Coulomb barrier height on
432: the surface diffuseness parameter is small.
433: The barrier energy obtained from the analysis of
434: the above-barrier fusion cross sections is 144.03 MeV \cite{newton04},
435: which is within the range of $V_B$ used in the calculations. Thus, the
436: diffuseness parameter extracted in this work will not change
437: significantly if $V_B$ determined from fusion data, instead of the
438: Aky\"uz-Winther prescription, is used.
439: We have confirmed a similar behavior of the surface diffuseness
440: parameter $a$ for the other systems
441: as well.
442:
443: \subsection{Deformed systems}
444:
445: Let us next discuss the systems with a deformed target,
446: that is, $^{16}$O + $^{154}$Sm, $^{186}$W reactions.
447: For these systems, only a few data points are available at
448: deep sub-barrier energies.
449: We therefore include
450: the experimental data at energies not only well below but also
451: around the lowest barrier
452: in the $\chi^2$ fitting procedure.
453: At these energies,
454: the channel coupling effects start playing an important role in
455: quasielastic reactions,
456: and we
457: include the effect of deformation of the target nucleus
458: in our calculations.
459: Therefore, our analyses for the deformed systems are
460: somewhat more model dependent than
461: those for the spherical systems
462: presented in the previous subsection.
463:
464: In order to account for the deformation effect on the
465: quasielastic scattering,
466: we use the orientation average formula \cite{hagino04,ARN88},
467: in which we neglect the finite excitation energy
468: of the ground state rotational band.
469: With this formula, the quasielastic cross section is given by,
470: %
471: \begin{equation}
472: \sigma_{\rm qel}(E_{cm},\theta)=\int^1_0d(\cos\theta_T)
473: \,\sigma_{\rm el}(E_{cm},\theta;\theta_T),
474: \end{equation}
475: %
476: where $\theta_T$ is the angle between the symmetry axis
477: of the deformed target
478: and the direction of the projectile from the target.
479: In the calculation for
480: both the systems,
481: we take six different orientation angles into account
482: \cite{nagara86}.
483: The results change only marginally even if we include
484: the larger number of orientation angles.
485:
486: \begin{figure}[tbp]
487: \begin{center}\leavevmode
488: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{osm.eps}
489: \caption{
490: The ratio of the quasielastic to the Rutherford cross sections
491: for the $^{16}$O + $^{154}$Sm reaction
492: at $\theta_{\rm lab}=170^\circ$.
493: The solid line is obtained using
494: the best fitted value of the surface diffuseness parameter,
495: $a=1.14$
496: fm.
497: The dotted line denotes the cross sections obtained with
498: the diffuseness parameter of $a$ = 0.60 fm.
499: The experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{timmers95}.
500: }
501: \label{fig:osm}
502: \end{center}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: \begin{figure}[tbp]
506: \begin{center}\leavevmode
507: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{ow.eps}
508: \caption{
509: The ratio of the quasielastic to the Rutherford cross sections
510: for the $^{16}$O + $^{186}$W reaction
511: at $\theta_{\rm lab}=170^\circ$.
512: The meaning of each line is the same as in
513: Fig. \ref{fig:osm}.
514: The experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{timmers95}.
515: }
516: \label{fig:ow}
517: \end{center}
518: \end{figure}
519:
520: The best fitted value for the surface diffuseness
521: parameter obtained in this way is $a=1.14 \pm 0.03$ fm and
522: 0.79 $\pm 0.04$ fm for the $^{16}$O + $^{154}$Sm
523: and $^{16}$O + $^{186}$W reactions, respectively.
524: The deformation parameters which we use in the calculations
525: are
526: $\beta_2=0.306$ and $\beta_4=0.05$
527: for $^{154}$Sm
528: and $\beta_2=0.29$ and $\beta_4=-0.03$
529: for $^{186}$W.
530: Figs. \ref{fig:osm} and \ref{fig:ow} compare the
531: calculated cross sections
532: with the experimental data.
533: The solid line in each figure
534: is obtained using the best fitted value of
535: the diffuseness parameter.
536: The dotted line shows the cross section obtained with
537: the diffuseness parameter of $a=0.60$ fm as a reference.
538: We find that
539: the larger values of the surface diffuseness
540: parameter, $a=1.14$ fm and 0.79 fm,
541: in the nuclear potential
542: are favored for these deformed system,
543: in accordance with our previous conclusion in Ref. \cite{hagino05}.
544: For the $^{16}$O + $^{154}$Sm reaction, the calculated cross sections
545: with the standard value of the surface diffuseness parameter
546: around 0.60 fm are clearly in disagreement with the experimental data.
547:
548:
549:
550: \subsection{Discussion}
551:
552:
553:
554: Figure \ref{fig:systematics}
555: summarizes the results for our systematic study
556: for the surface diffuseness parameter.
557: It shows the best fitted value of diffuseness parameter
558: as a function of the charge product
559: of the projectile and target nuclei for each system.
560: The results for the spherical systems are denoted by the
561: filled circles, while those for the deformed systems the filled
562: triangles. One clearly sees the trend that
563: the best fitted value
564: of the diffuseness parameter
565: is around 0.60 fm for the former, while
566: it is much larger than that for the latter.
567: Also, one sees that the surface diffuseness is almost constant
568: for the spherical systems.
569:
570: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
571: \begin{center}\leavevmode
572: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, clip]{systematics.eps}
573: \caption{
574: The best fitted values of the surface diffuseness parameter
575: $a$ as a function of the charge product
576: of the projectile and target nuclei, $Z_{\rm P}Z_{\rm T}$.
577: The filled circles and triangles are for the spherical and
578: the deformed systems, respectively.
579: The open circles and triangles are the surface diffuseness
580: parameters deduced from
581: the analyses of fusion cross sections \cite{newton04}.
582: }
583: \label{fig:systematics}
584: \end{center}
585: \end{figure}
586:
587: The value of the surface diffuseness parameter obtained in this
588: study for the spherical systems agrees well with the
589: conventionally used value $a\sim$ 0.63 fm.
590: This suggests that the double folding potential is valid at least
591: in the surface region and for systems which do not involve
592: a deformed target.
593: For these systems, the discrepancy between the values
594: of the diffuseness parameter determined from fusion data
595: (open circles and triangles in Fig. \ref{fig:systematics})
596: and those from quasielastic data
597: must be related with the dynamics inside the Coulomb barrier
598: \cite{newton04}.
599:
600:
601: For the deformed systems studied here, the diffuseness parameter
602: extracted from the quasielastic scattering
603: is much larger than the conventional value of $a\sim$ 0.63 fm.
604: Although this value is consistent with that extracted from
605: fusion, the origin of the difference between the spherical and the
606: deformed systems is not clear.
607: One should bear in mind, however, that
608: our analyses for the deformed systems are somewhat model dependent.
609: This is due to the fact that the experimental data
610: in the deep sub-barrier region are sparse for the deformed systems,
611: and we need to include
612: the deformation effect in the calculations in order to
613: reproduce the strong energy dependence of
614: the quasielastic cross sections
615: at energies around the lowest barrier where the data exist.
616: In order to clarify the difference in the diffuseness parameter
617: between the spherical and the deformed systems,
618: further precision measurements for large-angle quasielastic scattering
619: at deep sub-barrier energies will be necessary, especially for
620: deformed systems.
621:
622:
623: \section{summary}
624:
625: Large-angle quasielastic scattering provides a powerful tool
626: not only for the analysis of the barrier distribution
627: around the Coulomb barrier
628: but also for the study of the surface property of the
629: nuclear potential.
630: This is due to the fact that channel coupling effects play a minor role
631: in quasielastic scattering at deep sub-barrier energies, that enables
632: a relatively model independent analysis of ion-ion potential.
633: Using this fact, we have systematically analyzed
634: experimental data for quasielastic scattering at deep sub-barrier
635: energies, with the aim of extracting the surface diffuseness
636: parameter of internuclear potential.
637: We obtained the diffuseness parameter
638: that is consistent with the standard value of around $a$ = 0.63 fm
639: for the systems involving spherical nuclei.
640: In contrast, fits to
641: the data for systems involving deformed nuclei require diffuseness
642: parameter to be in the range of 0.8 to 1.1 fm, similar to that
643: obtained from analyses of the fusion data at above-barrier energies.
644:
645:
646: The origin of the difference between the spherical and the
647: deformed systems is not clear at the moment.
648: In order to clarify this and confirm the systematics found
649: in this paper, more experimental investigations
650: on large-angle quasielastic scattering at deep sub-barrier energies
651: will be certainly helpful, especially for deformed targets.
652:
653: \begin{acknowledgments}
654: We thank discussions with the members of the Japan-Australia Cooperative
655: Scientific Program ``Dynamics of Nuclear Fusion: Evolution Through a
656: Complex Multi-Dimensional Landscape''.
657: This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research,
658: Contract No. 16740139 from the Japanese Ministry of Education,
659: Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.
660: M.D. acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council.
661: \end{acknowledgments}
662:
663:
664:
665: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
666:
667: \bibitem{broglia91}R.A. Broglia and A. Winther, {\it Heavy Ion Reactions},
668: Vol. 84 in Frontiers in Physics Lecture Note Series (Addison-Wesley,
669: Redwood City, CA, 1991).
670:
671: \bibitem{Christensen76}P.R. Christensen and A. Winther, Phys. Lett. {\bf 65B},
672: 19 (1976).
673:
674: \bibitem{SL79}G.R. Satchler and W.G. Love, Phys. Rep. {\bf 55}, 183
675: (1979).
676:
677: \bibitem{newton04}J.O. Newton, R.D. Butt, M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde,
678: I.I. Gontchar, C.R. Morton, and K. Hagino, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 586}, 219
679: (2004); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 70}, 024605 (2004).
680:
681: \bibitem{nanda98}
682: M.~Dasgupta, D.~J. Hinde, N.~Rowley, and A.~M. Stefanini,
683: \newblock Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 48}, 401 (1998).
684:
685: \bibitem{BT98}
686: A.B. Balantekin and N. Takigawa,
687: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70}, 77 (1998).
688:
689: \bibitem{hagino05} K. Hagino, T. Takehi, A. B. Balantekin,
690: and N. Takigawa, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 71}, 044612 (2005).
691:
692: \bibitem{hagino04}K. Hagino and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69},
693: 054610 (2004).
694:
695: \bibitem{LW81}S. Landowne and H.H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A351}, 171
696: (1981).
697:
698: \bibitem{comment}
699: One should bear in mind that the cross sections calculated in
700: this way may not provide a good representation for the cross sections
701: of the elastic scattering themselves. For the description of
702: elastic scattering with a potential model,
703: one has to introduce an optical potential whose
704: imaginary part is extended to the surface region of
705: the real part in order to simulate the inelastic processes.
706:
707: \bibitem{akyuz81} O. Aky\"uz and A. Winther,
708: in {\it Nuclear Structure and Heavy-Ion Physics},
709: Proceedings of the International School of Physics,
710: ``Enrico Fermi,'' Course LXXVII, Varenna,
711: 1979, edited by. R. A. Broglia, C. H. Dasso and R. Richi
712: (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981).
713:
714: \bibitem{rowley91} N. Rowley, G. R. Satchler, and P. H. Stelson,
715: Phys. Lett. {\bf B254}, 25 (1991).
716:
717: \bibitem{HRK99}K. Hagino, N. Rowley, and A.T. Kruppa,
718: Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 123}, 143 (1999).
719:
720: \bibitem{schuck02} T.J. Schuck, H. Timmers, and M. Dasgupta,
721: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A712}, 14 (2002)
722:
723: \bibitem{timmers96}H. Timmers, Ph.D. thesis, The Australian
724: National University, 1996.
725:
726: \bibitem{timmers95}H. Timmers, J.R. Leigh, M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde,
727: R.C. Lemmon, J.C. Mein, C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton, and N. Rowley,
728: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A584}, 190 (1995).
729:
730: \bibitem{ARN88}M.V. Andres, N. Rowley, and M.A. Nagarajan,
731: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 202}, 292 (1988).
732:
733:
734: \bibitem{nagara86}
735: M.~A. Nagarajan, A.~B. Balantekin, and N.~Takigawa,
736: \newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 34}, 894 (1986).
737:
738:
739: \end{thebibliography}
740: \end{document}