Convection Current Contributions to Spin Excitations

  • G. E. Walker


We first briefly review the role of convection currents in electron scattering and the utility of Rosenbluth plots in separating and studying the familiar longitudinal and transverse form factors defined for electromagnetically induced nuclear transitions. Then, noting that an energy-dependent probe-target-nucleon interaction can often be cast, to a good approximation, as an energy independent leading term plus a “convection current” dominated correction term, we study pion-nucleus and nucleon-nucleus transitions involving these “convection current” corrections. We discuss how, in both pion and nucleon-nucleus interactions, techniques that separate the (q,E,9) dependences of the nuclear response (as the Rosenbluth plot does for electron scattering) can be used to advantage.


Nuclear Transition Magnetization Density Nuclear Response Nucleon Recoil Transverse Form Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    T. deForest, Jr. and J.D. Walecka, Adv. Phys. 15, 1 (1966).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Petrovich, W.G. Love and R.J. McCarthy, Phys. Rev. C21, 1718 (1980).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Heisenberg, invited contribution to this conference.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Heisenberg, J. Lightenstadt, C.N. Papanicolas, and J.S. McCarthy, Phys. Rev. C25, 2292 (1982).ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.R. Siciliano and G.E. Walker, Phys. Rev. C23, 2661 (1981).ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Cottingame et al., private communication;Google Scholar
  7. 6a.
    C.L. Morris, Proceedings of the Workshop on Nuclear Structure with Intermediate-Energy Probes, 1980, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report No. LA-8303-C;Google Scholar
  8. 6b.
    R.J. Peterson et al., Phys. Rev. C21, 1030 (1980). Error bars are indicated only when they extend beyond the symbol used for the data.ADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    F. Lenz, M. Thies and Y. Horikawa, Ann. Phys. 140, 266 (1982) and F. Lenz, invited contribution to this conference.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    C. Wilkin, Nucl. Phys. A220, 621 (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 9.
    A. Picklesimer and G.E. Walker, Phys. Rev. C17, 237 (1978).ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 10.
    W.G. Love and M.A. Franey, Phys. Rev. C24, 1073 (1981).ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.
    F. Petrovich, in The (p,n) Reaction and the Nucleon-Nucleon Force, edited by C.D. Goodman et al. (Plenum, New York, 1980) p. 115.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    F. Petrovich and W.G. Love, Nucl. Phys. A354, 499c (1981).ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 13.
    T. Taddeucci and G. Walker, unpublished.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    K. Nakano and H.V. von Geramb, University of Hamburg preprint.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. E. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Theory Center Physics DepartmentIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations