1 / 26

The R -matrix method and 12 C( a,g ) 16 O Pierre Descouvemont Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

The R -matrix method and 12 C( a,g ) 16 O Pierre Descouvemont Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. Introduction The R -matrix formulation: elastic scattering and capture Application to 12 C( a,g ) 16 O Conclusions and outlook. Introduction.

chaz
Download Presentation

The R -matrix method and 12 C( a,g ) 16 O Pierre Descouvemont Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The R-matrix method and 12C(a,g)16OPierre DescouvemontUniversité Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium • Introduction • The R-matrix formulation: elastic scattering and capture • Application to 12C(a,g)16O • Conclusions and outlook

  2. Introduction • Many applications of the R-matrix theory in various fields • “Common denominator” to all models and analyses • Can mix theoretical and experimental information • Two types of applications: data fitting variational calculations • Application to 12C(a,g)16O: nearly all recent papers • References: • A.M. Lane and R.G. Thomas, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30 (1958) 257 • F.C. Barker, many papers

  3. R-matrix formulation • Main idea: to divide the space into 2 regions (radius a) • Internal: r ≤ a : Nuclear + coulomb interactions • External: r > a : Coulomb only Exit channels 12C(2+)+a Entrance channel 12C+a Internal region 16O 12C+a 15N+p, 15O+n Nuclear+Coulomb:R-matrix parameters Coulomb Coulomb • In practice limited to low energies (each Jp must be considered individually). well adapted to nuclear astrophysics

  4. R-matrix parameters = poles Example: 12C+a 1- , ER=2.42 MeV, Ga=0.42 MeV 12C+a Reduced width g2 :Ga=2 g2 P(ER), with P = penetration factor 16O Physical parameters = “observed” parameters Resonances: R-matrix parameters = “formal” parameters Poles: Similar but not equal

  5. Background pole High-energy states with the same Jp Simulated by a single pole = background Energies of interest Isolated resonances: Treated individually Non resonant calculations possible: only a background pole

  6. Derivation of the R matrix (elastic scattering) • Hamiltonian: H Y=E Y • With, for r large: • Il, Ol= Coulomb functions • Ul = collision matrix (→ cross sections) • = exp(2idl) for single-channel calculations • b. Wave functions • Set of N basis functions ul(r) with • Total wave function

  7. Bloch-Schrödinger equation: With L = Bloch operator (restore the hermiticity of H over the internal region) Replacing Yint(r) and Yext(r) by their definition:

  8. Reduced width: proportional to the wave function in a ”measurement of clustering” Dimensionless reduced width “first guess”: q2=0.1 Total width: Solving the system, one has: R matrix P=penetration factorS=shift factor R-matrix parameters Depend on a =reduced width

  9. Penetration and shift factors P(E) and S(E)

  10. Phase shift: • Two approaches: • Fit: The number of poles N is determined from the physics of the problem In general, N=1 but NOT in12C(a,g)16O : N=3 or 4 (or more) are fitted • Variational calculations (ex: microscopic calculations): • N= number of basis functions • are calculated (depend on a,but d should not)

  11. Breit-Wigner approximation: peculiar case where N=1 One-pole approximation: N=1 Resonance energy: Thomas approximation: Then R-matrix parameters(calculated) Observed parameters(=data)

  12. exp(-Kr) Capture cross sections in the R-matrix formalism • New parameters: Gg = gamma width of the polesel= interference sign between the poles • is equivalent to the Breit-Wigner approximation if N=1 • Relative phase between Mint and Mext : ±1 • Mint and Mext are NOT independent of each other: • a must be common • U in Mext should be derived from R in Mint • Sometimes in the literature:

  13. Extension to 12C(a,g)16O: N>1 • Problem: many experimental constraints (energies, a and g widths)→ how to include them in the R-matrix fit? • Previous techniques: fit of the R-matrix parameters 11.52 2+ • 3 poles + background → • 12 R-matrix parameters to be fitted • + constraints (experimental energies, widths) • New technique: start from experimental parameters (most are known) and derive R matrix parameters strong reduction of the number of parameters!

  14. Generalization of the Breit-Wigner formalism: link between observed and formal parameters when N>1C. Angulo, P.D., Phys. Rev. C 61, 064611 (2000) C. Brune, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044611 (2002) • idea: • Information for E2: • 2+ phase shift • E2 S-factor • spectroscopy of 2+ states in 16O: energy a and g widths

  15. Application to 12C(a,g)16O: E2 contribution Main goal: to reduce the number of free parameters Three 2+ states + background 11.52 2+ From phase shift From S factor 3 parameters + interference signs in capture  2 steps: 1) phase shifts: a widths 2) S factor: g width of the background the S-factor is fitted with a single free parameter

  16. First step: fit of the 2+ phase shift 2 parameters:

  17. Phase shift: 11.52 2+ Strong influence of the background!

  18. Second step: fit of the E2 S-factor 1 remaining parameter: 4 poles→4 signs e1, e2, e3, e4, e1=+1 (global sign) e4=+1 (very poor fits with e4=-1) SE2(300 keV)=190-220 keV-b

  19. Paper by Kunz et al., Astrophy. J. 567 (2002) 643 Similar analysis (with new data) SE2(300 keV)=85 ± 30 keV-b  very different result

  20. a-scattering does not provide without ambiguities! Origin: difference in the background treatment Here: background at 10 MeV Kunz et al.: background at 7.2 MeV R matrix: S factor at 300 keV “well” known background Between 1~3 MeV, terms 1 and 4: have opposite signs are large and nearly constant Several equivalent possibilities Consistent with a recent work by J.M. Sparenberg

  21. Recent work by J.-M. Sparenberg: Phys. Rev. C69 (2004) 034601 Based on supersymmetry (D. Baye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 2738) acts on bound states of a given potential without changing the phase shifts Original potential Transformed potential V V r r Supersymmetric transformation Both potentials have exactly the same phase shifts (different wave functions)

  22. With this method: different potentials with • Same phase shifts • Different bound-state properties • Example: V(r)=V0 exp(-(r/r0)2)/r2, with V0=43.4 MeV, r0=5.09 fm No bound state V(r) Supersymmetric partners Identical phase shifts!

  23. Conclusion: • It is possible to define different potentials giving the same phase shifts but different • No direct link between the phase shifts and the bound-state properties • Consistent with the disagreement obtained for R-matrix analyses using different background properties (~ potential) •  the background problem should be reconsidered!

  24. The cross section to the 2+ state is proportional to One indirect method: cascade transitions to the 2+ state F.C. Barker and T. Kajino, Aust. J. Phys. 44 (1991) 369 L. Buchmann, Phys. Rev. C64 (2001) 022801 • Weakly bound: -0.24 MeV • Capture to 2+ is essentially external • Mint negligible

  25. “Final” conclusions What do we know? • 12C(a,g)16O is probably the best example where the interplay between experimentalists, theoreticians and astrophysicists is the most important • Required precision level too high for theory alone  we essentially rely on experiment • E1 probably better known than E2 (16N b-decay) • Elastic scattering is a useful constraint, but not a precise way to derive • Possible constraints from astrophysics? • New project 16O+g→a+12C (Triangle, North-Carolina)

  26. Please avoid this! What do we need? • Theory: reconsider background effects • Precise E1/E2 separation (improvement on E2) • Capture to the 2+ state • Data with lower error bars:precise data near 1.5 MeV are more useful than data near 1 MeV with a huge error

More Related