1 / 17

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION. M.B. Tsang and J. Lee et al., PRL 95, 222501 (2005). SF EXP =SF SM. No short term NN correlations and other correlations included in SM. Why the agreement? Predictions of cross-sections Test of SM interactions Extraction of structure information. Ground state. USDA/USDB.

danika
Download Presentation

DISCUSSION

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. DISCUSSION

  2. M.B. Tsang and J. Lee et al., PRL 95, 222501 (2005) SFEXP=SFSM No short term NN correlations and other correlations included in SM. Why the agreement? Predictions of cross-sections Test of SM interactions Extraction of structure information Ground state USDA/USDB Excited states GXPF1A Excited states

  3. Things to consider in measurements of the single-particle strength for a state • can use single-nucleon transfer and “standard” spectroscopic factor method • can use alternative ANC method that avoids some ambiguities in parameters • can combine the two, to avoid model dependence (TexasA&M, MSU, Surrey) • use high energy removal reactions (e.g. J.A. Tostevin approach) for hole states • Also need to consider • quenching of pure shell model spectroscopic factors for strongly bound nucleons • effect of using realistic wavefunctions for transferred nucleon, or “standard well” • breakup of deuteron (treat with R.C. Johnson approach, “Johnson-Soper” ADWA) • And what do we really compare with? • Clearly, the Large Basis Shell Model, but how exactly? • Using a standard parameter set and ADWA, compare (unquenched) SM values • Using realistic wavefunctions and ADWA, compare quenched values (cf knockout) But, in the presence of all these interesting issues, remember…

  4. A PLAN for how to STUDY STRUCTURE • Use transfer reactions to identify strong single-particle states, • measuring their spins and strengths • Use the energies of these states to compare with theory • Refine the theory • Improve the extrapolation to very exotic nuclei • Hence learn the structure of very exotic nuclei • N.B. The shell model is arguably the best theoretical approach • for us to confront with our results, but it’s not the only one. • The experiments are needed, no matter which theory we use. • N.B. Transfer (as opposed to knockout) allows us to study orbitals • that are empty, so we don’t need quite such exotic beams.

  5. Analysis / Interpretation Conclusion Intro: SpectroscopicFactors Partial conclusion (1) SF and validated radius Ab initio overlap (cf W-S) • Conclusion : • Agreement between standard prescription (WS+SM) and ab-initio • Weakasymmetrydependencewithin the error bars ECT* Trento2013

  6. Analysis / Interpretation Conclusion Intro: SpectroscopicFactors Partial conclusion (2) • a = +0.0004(24)(12) MeV-1 a = -0.0042(28)(36) MeV-1 Coupled-cluster method • a = -0.0039 MeV-1 • between14O points Spec. Factor …the reduction in the SFsis due to the many-body correlationsarisingfrom the coupling to the scattering continuum…. [O. Jensen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 032501 (2011)] ECT* Trento2013

  7. Analysis / Interpretation Conclusion Intro: SpectroscopicFactors Knockout results ECT* Trento2013

  8. Please think about any issues arising from any these talks, that you would like to raise in discussion… (perhaps here in this session, perhaps over dinner/beer so we can leave!) 3 HOURS and FIFTY MINUTES for discussion We will have two short presentations, so far as I am aware, then discussion…

  9. Analysis / Interpretation Conclusion Intro: SpectroscopicFactors Partial conclusion (1) SF and validated radius Ab initio overlap (cf W-S) • Conclusion : • Agreement between standard prescription (WS+SM) and ab-initio • Weakasymmetrydependencewithin the error bars ECT* Trento2013

More Related