Analytic Insights into Intermediate-Energy Hadron-Nucleus Scattering

  • R. D. Amado
Part of the Advances in the Physics of Particles and Nuclei book series (volume 15)

Abstract

Remarkable data exists for intermediate-energy hadron scattering from nuclei; however, the role of theory is not simply to fit that data but to understand it. Nuclear physics is not yet at a stage where the probe + A-body problem can be formulated and solved from first principles to calculate the scattering observables, and even if it could, the numerical complexity might well obscure the simplicity of the underlying physics. In recent years, much progress in fitting data has, in fact, been made in numerically calculating scattering observables by using optical-model approaches and exploiting the power of modern computers. But the underlying physics, the dominant role of the nuclear geometry, and the concomitant relationship among different reactions on the same target do not emerge simply from these calculations. To see all these features requires an analytic approach. Traditionally, physics has been willing to sacrifice some degree of detail and precision for analytic insight, particularly if the approximations involved were part of a systematic scheme with full control over errors. It is just such an analytic approach to intermediate-energy hadron-nucleus scattering that we outline here.

Keywords

Auger 208Pb Summing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. W. HoffmanPhys. Rev. C 21, 1488 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. S. Blanpied,Phys. Rev. C 18, 1436 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. W. Hoffman,Phys. Rev. Lett 40, 1256 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. S. Hussein, K. W. McVoy,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, forth coming.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    c.f. M. Born, E. Wolf,Principles of Optics, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England (1975).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. D. Amado, J. P. Dedonder, F. Lenz,Phys. Rev. C 21, 647 (1980) (ADL).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Blankenbecler and M. L. Goldberger,Phys. Rev 126766 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    c.f. K. W. Ford and J. A. Wheeler,Ann. Phys 7, 259 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    For a full discussion, see R. J. Glauber, inLectures in Theoretical Physics(W. E. Brittin, L. G. Bunham, eds.) Interscience, New York (1959).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. J. Wallace, inAdvances in Nuclear Physics Vol. 12, (J. W. Negele, E. Vogt, eds.) p. 135, Plenum, New York (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The discussion and notation in this section follow Ref. 6 (ADL).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preedom, Corfu, Egger, Gretillat, Lunke, Piffaretti, Schwarz, Junsen, Perrin,Nucl. Phys A326, 385 (1979).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. M. Ikeda, J. A. McNeil,Phys. Rev. C 24, 2754 (1981),CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. and J. A. McNeil,Phys. Rev. C 23, 2791 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 14.
    The discussion and notation in this section follow Amado, Lenz, McNeil, Sparrow,Phys. Rev. C 22, 2094 (1980) (ALMS).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    D. A. Sparrow, R. D. Amado, and J. A. McNeil,Phys. Rev. Lett 48, 124 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    R. D. Amado, J. A. McNeil, and D. A. Sparrow,Phys. Rev. C 23, 2186 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    R. D. Amado, J. A. McNeil, and D. A. Sparrow,Phys. Rev. C 25, 13 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    R. D. Amado, J. A. McNeil, and D. A. Sparrow,Phys. Rev. C 25, 13 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    c.f. G. W. Hoffman,Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1436 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. and M. L. Barlett,Phys. Rev. C27, 682 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 20.
    B. C. Clark, R. L. Mercer, and P. Schwandt,Phys. Lett 122B, 211 (1983).Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    The discussion and notation in this section follow R. D. Amado, J. A. McNeil, D. A. Sparrow,Phys. Rev. C 23, 2114 (1981) (AMS); see also Ref. 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 22.
    J. A. McNeil, D. A. Sparrow, and R. D. Amado,Phys. Rev. C 26, 1141 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 23.
    J. P. Auger and R. J. Lombard,Nucl. Phys A316, 205 (1979).Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    P. Osland and R. J. Glauber,Nucl. Phys A326, 205 (1979).Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    G. Bertsch and R. Schaeffer,J. Phys. (Paris) 40, 1 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 26.
    J. A. McNeil and D. A. Sparrow,Phys. Rev. C 23, 2124 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 27.
    F. Todd Baker,Phys. Rev. Lett 47, 1823 (1981).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    D. A. Sparrow, Phys. Rev. C 29, in pressGoogle Scholar
  31. 29.
    J. R. Shepard, J. A. McNeil, and S. J. Wallace,Phys. Rev. Lett 50, 1473 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 30.
    R. D. Amado, J. Piekarewicz, D. A. Sparrow, J. A. McNeil,Phys. Rev. C 28, 2180 (1983);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. see also R. D. Amado, J. Piekarewicz, D. A. Sparrow, and J. A. McNeil,Phys. Rev. C 28, 1663 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 31.
    J. Piekarewicz, R. D. Amado, D. A. Sparrow, and J. A. McNeil,Phys. Rev. C 28, 2392 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 32.
    L. Ray, G. Blanpied, and R. Coker,Phys. Rev. C 20, 1236 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. and J. A. McGill, private communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Amado
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations