Phase-Shift and Potential-Model Analysis of Experimental Information

  • P. Signell


First I would like to make a few remarks about potentials and then go on to phase shift analyses and how some of the popular potentials compare to them. Figure 1 shows the sort of progress that has been made in recent years. The 1962 1S0 Hamada-Johnston potential descended to tremendous depths at around 0.5F, just outside an infinitely positive core. Now we have2 much more sensible hard and soft core potentials and they are much easier to use in computer calculations since they do not require such small radial increments for a tabular specification. Finite-core alternatives3, 4 are shown in Figure 2: all three of these give almost identical phase shifts up to 300 MeV, but beyond that their predicted phases diverge. Finally, in Figure 3 we see some momentum-dependent alternatives5. Each of the p2-dependent potentials gives identical phase shifts for all energies, identical also to those from the 0.4F hard-core potential shown. The phases for the O.IF hard (“soft”) core and finite core potentials again diverge from these and from each other above about 300 MeV. That’s all I have to say about recent developments in phenomenological potentials. Now let us turn our attention to phase shifts and see how well the potentials do.


Phase Shift Hard Core Soft Core Phase Shift Analysis Angular Momentum State 
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. Hamada and I. D. Johnston, Nucl. Phys. 34, 382 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Signell, Proc. 1969 Midwest Theory Conference, Physics Dept., Univ. of Iowa, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. S. Sher, P. Signell, and L. Heller, Ann. Phys. 58, 1 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. B. Bressel, A. K. Kerman and B. Rouben, Nucl. Phys. A124, 624 (1969).ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Miller, M. Sher, P. Signell, N. Yoder and D. Marker, Phys. Lett. 30B, 157 (1969).ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Holdeman and P. Signell (to be published)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. H. MacGregor, R. A. Arndt, and R. M. Wright, Univ. of Cal. Rad. Lab Report No. UCRL-50426 (1968), unpublished.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. E. Lassila, M. H. Hull Jr., H. M. Ruppel, R. A. McDonald, and G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 126, 881 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. V. Reid, Jr., Ann. Phys. 50, 411 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. L. Lomon and H. F. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. 48, 94 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Bryan and B. L. Scott, Phys. Rev. 177, 1435 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Tabakin, Ann. Phys. 30, 51 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. H. MacGregor, R. A. Arndt, and R. M. Wright, Phys. Rev. 182, 1714 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Heller and M. S. Sher, Phys. Rev. 182, 1031 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Signell, in Polarization Phenomena in Nuclear Reactions, Ed. H. H. Barschall and W. Haeberli, U. of Wise. Press, Madison, Wise. (1971).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Chemtob and D. O. Riska, Phys. Lett. 35B, 115 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Signell, Mich. State University preprint No. COO-2061–13 (1971), to be published.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Signell and J. Holdeman, Mich. State Univeristy preprint No. COO-2061–14 (1971), to be published.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. H. MacGregor, R. A. Arndt, and R. M. Wright, Phys. Rev. 173, 1272 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. P. Scanlon, G. H. Stafford, J. J. Thresher, P. H. Bowen and A. Langsford, Nucl. Phys. 173, 401 (1963).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. J. Saltmarsh, M. L. Halbert, C. R. Bingham, and A. van der Woude, ORNL Report No. 4649, p. 3 (May, 1971).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The published values had been altered in an angle-dependent way in order to force agreement with a particular total cross section measurement.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. W. Stagat, F. Riewe, and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. C2, 552(1971).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Ingber and Potenza, Phys. Rev. C1, 112 (1970).ADSGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Brueckner, Proc. Int. Conf. on Properties of Nuclear States, Press of University of Montreal, Montreal (1969).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Signell, Phys. Rev. C2, 1171 (1970).ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Signell
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations