-
The principle of the notch technique is to introduce a localized perturbation into either the real or imaginary radial potential, and move the notch radially through the potential to investigate the influence arising from this perturbation on the predicted cross section[12].
The nuclear potential is defined as
$$ U_{\rm{N}} = V(r)+{\rm{i}}W(r) = -V_0f_{V}(r)-{\rm{i}}W_0f_{W}(r), $$ (1) where the
$ V_0 $ and$ W_0 $ are depths of the real and imaginary parts of the potential with Woods-Saxon form$ f_i(r,a,R) $ ,$$ f_{i}(r,a,R) = \Big [1+\exp\Big(\frac{r-R_{i}}{a_i}\Big)\Big ]^{-1}, i = V,W, $$ (2) where
$ R_i = r_{0i}(A^{1/3}_{\rm{P}}+A^{1/3}_{\rm{T}}) $ , and$ A_{\rm{P}} $ and$ A_{\rm{T}} $ represent the mass numbers of the projectile and target, respectively.Taking the real potential
$ V(r) $ as an example, the perturbation of the potential$ V_{\rm{notch}} $ can be expressed as$$ V_{{\rm{notch}}} = {\rm{d}}V_0f_V(R',a,R)f_{{\rm{notch}}}(r,a',R'), $$ (3) where
$ R' $ and$ a' $ represent the position and width of the notch,$ d $ is the fraction by which the potential is reduced, and$ f_{\rm{notch}}(r, a', R') $ is the derivative Woods-Saxon surface form factor:$$ f_{{\rm{notch}}}(r,a',R') = \frac{4\exp\left(\frac{r-R'}{a'}\right)}{\Big[1+\exp\Big(\frac{r-R'}{a'}\Big)\Big]^2}. $$ (4) Thus the perturbed real potential
$ V(r)_{\rm{pert.}} $ is$$ V(r)_{\rm{pert.}} = V_0f_V(r,a,R)-V_{{\rm{notch}}}. $$ (5) The perturbation for the imaginary potential can be derived with the same procedure.
When the perturbation is located in the sensitive region, where the predicted cross section depends strongly on the details of the potential, the calculated elastic scattering angular distribution will change greatly. This means, when compared with the experimental data, there will be a dramatic variation in the
$ \chi^2 $ value. Conversely, at positions where the evaluated cross section is not sensitive to the potential, the perturbation has little influence on the calculated angular distribution. By means of the notch technique, the sensitive region of the nuclear potential can be presented visually and explicitly.Based on our pervious work[13], the values of
$ d $ and$ a' $ are fixed at 1.0 and 0.05 fm, respectively, with the integration step size$ dr $ kept at 0.01 fm. The Woods-Saxon radial form factor is adopted for the nuclear potential. All the optical model (OM) calculations in the present work are performed with the code$ {\texttt{FRESCO}}$ [14]. The reduced radius$ r_0 $ and diffuseness parameter$ a $ of the OMP are fixed at 1.25, 0.65 fm for the 16O+208Pb, and 1.24, 0.63 fm for the 9Be+208Pb, leaving the depths of the real and imaginary parts to be extracted by fitting the elastic scattering angular distributions.The radial sensitivities of 16O+208Pb and 9Be+208Pb at some typical energies are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. As references, several important radii and distances are labeled in the figures, e.g., the radius of the Coulomb barrier
$ R_{\rm{B}} $ , the radius of the nuclear potential$ R_{\rm{int}} $ , as well as$ D_0 $ , at which the nuclear force begins to take effect, defined as where the$ {\rm{d}}\sigma_{\rm{el}}/{\rm{d}}\sigma_{\rm{Ru}} $ drops to 0.98 from the unity.Figure 1. (color online) The sensitivity functions for the real part (full circle) and imaginary part (hallow circle) potentials for 16O+208Pb at some typical energies. The experimental elastic scattering data are taken from Refs. [15–17]. The height of the Coulomb barrier
$V_{B}$ is fixed at 73.39 MeV. The vertical solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves denote the positions of the Coulomb barrier,$D_0$ and$R_{\rm{int}}$ , respectively. See text for the detail.According to the results, one can find that all the radial SRs locate between the
$ R_{\rm{int}} $ and$ D_0 $ , indicating that the nuclear interior can not be probed by the heavy-ion-heavy-ion elastic scattering at low energies. Meanwhile, SR becomes broader as the bombarding energy decreases, demonstrating that the sensitivity of the experimental data on the details of the nuclear potential turns to be weaker, due to the effect of the Coulomb repulsion. It can be confirmed further by the variations of the relative$ \chi^2 $ values, which become larger with the bombarding energy increases.On the other hand, two distinct peaks are present in both the real and imaginary parts within the above barrier energy region. The amplitude of the inner peak decreases rapidly with the energy going down to the sub-barrier, especially for the real part, the inner peak of which is too small to be recognized in the lower energy region. Moreover, the position of the inner peak almost keeps fixed, having no dependence on the bombarding energy: for the real part, the inner peak lies inside of
$ R_{\rm{B}} $ , while that of the imaginary part locates around$ R_{\rm{B}} $ . Therefore the inner peak should be responsible to the process of the barrier penetration, i.e., the inner peak of the real part corresponds to the resonance scattering process, and that of the imaginary part is arising from the fusion reaction. With the energy decreasing towards the barrier, the probability of the barrier penetration reduces, leading to the inner peak becomes weak in the lower energy region. The outer peaks, however, locate away from$ R_{\rm{B}} $ . Thus they should be mainly responsible for the surface interaction, i.e., the direct interaction process. Moreover, the position of the direct reaction peak of the real part always locates inside, about 0.7 fm, of that of the imaginary part, indicating that the imaginary potential owns a larger SR than that of the real potential.The energy dependence of the radial SRs (position of the peak) of both the 16O+208Pb and 9Be+208Pb systems is shown in Fig. 3, where the error bars reflect the width (sigma) of SR. It can be seen that in the above barrier region, the positions of the direct interaction peaks (
$ SR_{\rm{DR}} $ ) locates around the strong absorption radius ($ R_{\rm{sa}} $ ), corresponding to the radius where the observed elastic scattering cross section has fallen to one-fourth of the Rutherford value[18]. In the sub-barrier region, however, the variation trend of$ SR_{\rm{DR}} $ is compatible with closest approach in the Coulomb field$ D_{\rm{min}} $ , as shown by the solid curve. In the case of head-on collision,$ D_{\rm{min}} $ is expressed as$ 2Z_1Z_2e^2 $ /$ \mu v_{\rm{lab}}^2 $ , where$ Z_1 $ and$ Z_2 $ are the charge numbers,$ \mu $ is the reduced mass number,$ v_{\rm{lab}} $ is the incident velocity in the laboratory frame. Therefore, the energy dependence of the location of SR$ _{\rm{DR}} $ can be described by a simple expression, asFigure 3. (color online) Energy dependence of the SRs of (a) 16O+208Pb and (b) 9Be+208Pb. The full and hallow circles represent results of the surface interaction of the real (real
$_{\rm{DR}}$ ) and imaginary (imaginary$_{\rm{DR}}$ ) parts, respectively. The full and hallow squares denote the inner SRs of the real (real$_{\rm{F}}$ ) and imaginary (imaginary$_{\rm{F}}$ ) potentials. The triangles are the$R_{\rm{sa}}$ extracted from the experimental data. And the solid curves represent the theoretical$D_{\rm{min}}$ .$$ \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {SR_{\rm{DR}} = D_{\rm{min}}}&{E_{\rm{c.m.}} < V_{\rm{B}}}\\ {SR_{\rm{DR}} = R_{\rm{sa}}}&{E_{\rm{c.m.}} \geqslant V_{\rm{B}}} \end{array}} \right. $$ (6) The positions of the inner SRs (
$ SR_{\rm{F}} $ ), which corresponds to the barrier penetration process, locates around the Coulomb barrier, and can be expressed as$ SR_{\rm{F}} = R_{\rm{B}} $ .
-
摘要: 应用扰动法提取和研究了紧束缚体系16O+208Pb和弱束缚体系9Be+208Pb 灵敏区域。首次区分了对应于形状散射和共振散射对应的灵敏区域。同时,发现紧束缚体系和弱束缚体系的灵敏区域都存在着强烈的能量相依性:在垒上区域,灵敏区域在强吸收半径附近变化;而在垒下能区,灵敏区域与纯库仑场中的最趋近距离有相似的变化趋势。Abstract: With the application of the notch technique, the radial sensitive regions for the tightly bound system 16O+208Pb, and weakly bound system 9Be+208Pb were investigated. It is the first time that the shape and resonant scattering can be identified from the sensitivity functions. Moreover, strong energy dependence of sensitive regions were found for both the tightly and stable weakly bound systems: in the above barrier region, the sensitive region varies around the strong absorption radius; while below the barrier, the behavior of sensitive region is close to that of the closest approach in the Coulomb field.
-
Figure 1. (color online) The sensitivity functions for the real part (full circle) and imaginary part (hallow circle) potentials for 16O+208Pb at some typical energies. The experimental elastic scattering data are taken from Refs. [15–17]. The height of the Coulomb barrier
$V_{B}$ is fixed at 73.39 MeV. The vertical solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves denote the positions of the Coulomb barrier,$D_0$ and$R_{\rm{int}}$ , respectively. See text for the detail.Figure 3. (color online) Energy dependence of the SRs of (a) 16O+208Pb and (b) 9Be+208Pb. The full and hallow circles represent results of the surface interaction of the real (real
$_{\rm{DR}}$ ) and imaginary (imaginary$_{\rm{DR}}$ ) parts, respectively. The full and hallow squares denote the inner SRs of the real (real$_{\rm{F}}$ ) and imaginary (imaginary$_{\rm{F}}$ ) potentials. The triangles are the$R_{\rm{sa}}$ extracted from the experimental data. And the solid curves represent the theoretical$D_{\rm{min}}$ . -
[1] LILLEY J S, FULTON B R, BANES D, et al. Phys Lett B, 1983, 128: 153. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(83)90379-9 [2] MAHAX C, NGO H, SATCHLER G R. Nucl Phys A, 1986, 449: 354. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(86)90009-6 [3] KEELEY N, BENNETT S J, CLARKE N M, et al. Nucl Phys A, 1994, 571: 326. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(94)90064-7 [4] GARCIA A R, LUBIAN J, PARDRON I, et al. Phys Rev C, 2007, 76: 067603. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.067603 [5] YANG L, LIN C J, JIA H M, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 89: 044615. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044615 [6] YANG L, LIN C J, JIA H M, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2017, 119: 042503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.042503 [7] YANG L, LIN C J, JIA H M, et al. Phys Rev C, 2017, 96: 044615. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044615 [8] YU N, ZHUANG H Q, JIA H M, et al. J Phys G: Nucl Part Phys, 2010, 37: 075108. doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/7/075108 [9] LIN C J, XU J C, ZHUANG H Q, et al. Phys Rev C, 2001, 63: 064606. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.064606 [10] ROUBOS D, PAKOU A, ALAMANOS N, et al. Phys Rev C, 2006, 73: 051603. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.051603 [11] MACFARLANE M H, PIEPER S C. Phys Lett B, 1981, 103: 169. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(81)90733-4 [12] CRAMER J G, DEVRIES R M. Phys Rev C, 1980, 22: 91. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.22.91 [13] YANG L, LIN C J, JIA H M, et al. Chin Phys C, 2016, 40: 056201. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/40/5/056201 [14] THOMPSON I J. Comp Phys Rep, 1988, 7: 167. doi: 10.1016/0167-7977(88)90005-6 [15] SILVA C P, ALVAREZ M A G, CHAMON L C, et al. Nucl Phys A, 2001, 679: 287. doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00347-X [16] PIEPER S C, MACFARLANE M H, GLOECKNER D H, et al. Phys Rev C, 1978, 18: 180. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.18.180 [17] VIDEBAED F, GOLDSTEIN R B, GRODZINS L, et al. Phys Rev C, 1977, 15: 954. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.15.954 [18] BASS R. Nuclear Reactions with Heavy Ion[M]. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1980.