Pion Production on Nuclei
Abstract
To characterize the experimental situation on π production on complex nuclei in a few words, one might say that while more experiments certainly are needed if one wishes to understand the details of the reaction mechanism, the quality of the experiments is better and the number of cases studied larger than in some other important areas of pion-nuclear physics. This has, above all, come about through the efforts of the Uppsala [1–3] group, that has studied (P,π+) and (p,π−) reactions on a number of targets (9Be, 10B, 12C, 13C, 16O, 28Si and 40Ca for π+, 9Be and 13C for π−) at 185 MeV incident proton energy. What makes these experiments so important is first of all the fact that the angular distributions have been measured, with rather high accuracy (at least in the π+ case); furthermore, it has been possible to separate the cross sections leading to the various states of the final nucleus, as long as these states are not too closely spaced. Generally speaking, the results of these experiments are that a) the cross section for π+ production is much larger and shows more variation with angle than that for π− production, and that b) the angular distribution and absolute cross section is very noticeably dependent on which final nuclear state is reached in the reaction.
Keywords
Angular Distribution Differential Cross Section Optical Potential Pion Production Pion Form FactorPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [1]S. Dahlgren, B. Höistad and P. Grafström, Phys. Lett. 35B (1971) 219.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [2]S. Dahlgren, P. Grafström, B. Höistad and A. Åsberg, Nucl. Phys. A204 (1973) 53; Phys. Lett. 47B (1973) 439; Nucl. Phys. A211 (1973) 243; Nucl. Phys. A227 (1974) 245.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [3]S. Dahlgren and P. Grafström, Physica Scripta 10 (1974) 104.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [4]J.J. Domingo, B.W. Allardyce, C.H.Q. Ingram, S. Rohlin, N.W. Tanner, J. Rohlin, E.M. Rimmer, G. Jones and J.P. Girardeau-Montaut, Phys. Lett. 32B (1970) 309.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [5]K. Gabathuler, J. Rohlin, J.J. Domingo, C.H.Q. Ingram, S. Rohlin and N.W. Tanner, Nucl. Phys. B40 (1972) 32.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [6]J. Rohlin, K. Gabathuler, N.W. Tanner, C.R. Cox and J.J. Domingo, Phys. Lett. 40B (1972) 539.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [7]Y. Le Bornec, B. Tatischeff, L. Bimbot, I. Brissaud, J.P. Garron, H.D. Holmgren, F. Reide and N. Willis, Phys. Lett. 49B (1974) 434; University of Maryland Annual Report (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
- [8]D.R.F. Cochran, P.N. Dean, P.A.M. Gram, E.A. Knapp, E.R. Martin, D.E. Nagle, R.B. Perkins, W.J. Shlaer, H.A. Thiessen and E.D. Theriot, Phys. Rev. D6 (1972) 3085.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [9]W. Dollhopf, C. Lunke, C.F. Perdrisat, W.K. Roberts, P. Kitching, W.C. Olsen and J.R. Priest, Nucl. Phys. A217 (1973) 381.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [10]J. Amato, R.L. Burman, R. Macek, J. Oostens, W. Shlaer, E. Arthur, S. Sobottka and W.C. Lam, Phys. Rev. C9 (1974) 501.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [11]N.S. Wall, J.N. Craig, R.E. Berg, D. Ezrow and H.D. Holmgren, Proc. Fifth int. conf. on high-energy physics and nuclear structure (Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, 1974), p. 279.Google Scholar
- [12]P.U. Renberg, D.F. Measday, M. Pepin, P. Schwaller, B. Favier and C. Richard-Serre, Nucl. Phys. A183 (1972) 81.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [13]G.A. Miller, Nucl. Phys. A224 (1974) 269.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [14]Il-T. Cheon, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. Extra No. (1968) 146.Google Scholar
- [15]M.V. Barnhill, Nucl. Phys. A131 (1969) 106.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [16]A. Reitan, Nucl. Phys. B29 (1971) 525.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [17]J. LeTourneux and J.M. Eisenberg, Nucl. Phys. 87 (1966) 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [18]W.B. Jones and J.M. Eisenberg, Nucl. Phys. A154 (1970) 49.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [19]J.M. Eisenberg, R. Guy, J.V. Noble and H.J. Weber, Phys. Lett. 45B (1973) 93.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [20]M.P. Keating and J.G. Wills, Phys. Rev. C7 (1973) 1336.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [21]E. Rost and P.D. Kunz, Phys. Lett. 43B (1973) 17.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [22]B. Höistad, S. Dahlgren, P. Grafström and A. Åsberg, Physica Scripta 9 (1974) 201.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [23]G.A. Miller and S.C. Phatak, Phys. Lett. 51B (1974) 129.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [24]I.S. Shapiro, in Proc. Int. School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course 38 (Academic Press, London, 1967).Google Scholar
- [25]N. Austern, Direct nuclear reaction theories (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1970).Google Scholar
- [26]S.T. Butler, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A208 (1951) 559.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [27]A. Reitan, Nucl. Phys. A237 (1975) 465.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [28]I.R. Afnan and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C10 (1974) 109.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [29]C.H.Q. Ingram, N.W. Tanner and J.J. Domingo, Nucl. Phys. B31 (1971) 331.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [30]H.W. Fearing, Phys. Lett. 52B (1974) 407; Phys. Rev. C11 (1975) 1210; Phys. Rev. C11 (1975) 1493; Univ. of Alberta preprint UAE-NPL-1072.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [31]A. Reitan, Nucl. Phys. B50 (1972) 166.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [32]M.P. Locher and H.J. Weber, Nucl. Phys. B76 (1974) 400.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [33]G.W. Barry, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 1441.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [34]V.S. Bhasin and I.M. Duck, Phys. Lett. 46B (1973) 309.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [35]B.R. Wienke, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 1220.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [36]Z. Grossman, F. Lenz and M.P. Locher, Ann. Phys. 84 (1974) 348.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [37]M. Dillig, H.M. Hofmann and M.G. Huber, Phys. Lett. 44B (1973) 484.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [38]M. Dillig and M.G. Huber, Nuovo Cim. Lett. 11 (1974) 728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar