Inversion as a means of understanding nuclear potentials
We have used inversion to link two quite different departures from M3Y folding model systematics to specific coupled channel effects. Evidence was presented to suggest that the systematic tendency for breakup to induce surface repulsion and interior attraction could influence nuclear size measurements with composite particles.
The local potential model of scattering has an important role to play in phenomenology because it is readily adapted to model independent fitting with elaborate searching procedures. As more of the information content of the data is fitted, the extracted potentials depart further from global potentials and we have considered what it means to take these departures as meaningful. Since it is difficult to put elaborate CRC calculations within search codes, and no complete calculable theory of nuclear scattering is in sight, one way of proceeding is to determine local potentials equivalent to S2 derived from theoretical calculations. When such potentials are found they have identifiable features which correspond to characteristics of empirical model-independent potentials.
We have not presented an exhaustive list of the ways inversion can contribute to nuclear physics but it may be worth mentioning that they can always give an exact local equivalent to any non-local potential whenever the S1 from the latter are known.
KeywordsCoulomb Barrier Couple Channel Imaginary Potential Global Potential Inversion Calculation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- R.G.Newton, J.Math. Phys. 3 (1962) 75Google Scholar
- K.Chadan and P.C. Sabatier, inverse Problems in Quantum Scattering Theory (Springer, 1977)Google Scholar
- M.Munchow and W.Scheid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (1980) 1299Google Scholar
- [3a]E.K.May, M.Munchow and W.Scheid, Phys. Lett. 141B (1984) 1Google Scholar
- R.Lipperheide and H.Fiedeldey, Z.Phys. A286 (1978) 45Google Scholar
- R.Lipperheide and H.Fiedeldey, Z. Phys. A301 (1981) 81Google Scholar
- R.Lipperheide, H.Fiedeldey, H.Haberzettl and K.Naidoo, Phys. Lett. 82B (1979) 39Google Scholar
- P.Frobrich, R.Lipperheide and H.Fiedeldey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1147Google Scholar
- R.Lipperheide, S.Sofianos, and H.Fiedeldey, Phys. Rev. C26 (1982) 770Google Scholar
- K.Naidoo, H.Fiedeldey, S.A.Sofianos and R.Lipperheide, Nucl. Phys. A419 (1984) 13Google Scholar
- R.S.Mackintosh and A.M.Kobos, Phys. Lett. 116B (1982) 95Google Scholar
- A.A. Ioannides and R.S.Mackintosh, Nucl.Phys. A438 (1985) 354Google Scholar
- R.S.Mackintosh, Nucl. Phys. A164 (1971) 398Google Scholar
- G.R.Satchler and W.G.Love, Phys. Rep. 55C (1979) 183Google Scholar
- I.J.Thompson and M.A.Nagarajan, Phys. Lett. 106B (1981) 163Google Scholar
- J.S.Lilley, B.R.Fulton, M.A.Nagarajan, I.J.Thompson and D.W.Banes, Phys. Lett B (in press, 1985)Google Scholar
- I.J.Thompson, M.A.Nagarajen, J.S.Lilley, B.R.Fulton and D.W.Banes (to be published)Google Scholar
- A.A.Ioannides and R.S.Mackintosh (submitted to Phys.Lett.B)Google Scholar
- R.S.Mackintosh, Nucl. Phys. A230 (1974) 195Google Scholar
- C.Mahaux, P.F.Bortignon, R.A.Broglia and C.H.Dasso, Physics Reports 120 (1985) 1Google Scholar
- L.F.Hansen, et al Phys. Rev. C31 (1985) 111Google Scholar
- A.M.Kobos and R.S.Mackintosh Ann. Phys. 123 (1979) 296Google Scholar
- R.S.Mackintosh and A.M.Kobos Phys. Lett. 62B (1976) 127Google Scholar