Analytic Insights into Intermediate-Energy Hadron-Nucleus Scattering
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.
KeywordsSine Auger 208Pb Summing
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Notes
- 4.M. S. Hussein and K. W. McVoy, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics,forthcoming.Google Scholar
- 5.c.f. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, Pergamon Press, Oxford England (1975).Google Scholar
- 6.R. D. Amado, J. P. Dedonder, and F. Lenz, Phys. Rev. C 21, 647 (1980) (ADL).Google Scholar
- 9.For a full discussion, see R. J. Glauber, in: Lectures in Theoretical Physics ( W. E. Brittin and L. G. Bunham, eds.) Interscience, New York (1959).Google Scholar
- 11.The discussion and notation in this section follow Ref. 6 (ADL).Google Scholar
- 14.The discussion and notation in this section follow Amado, Lenz, McNeil, and Sparrow, Phys. Rev. C 22, 2094 (1980) (ALMS).Google Scholar
- 18.R. D. Amado and D. A. Sparrow, Phys. Rev. C 29, in press.Google Scholar
- 21.The discussion and notation in this section follow R. D. Amado, J. A. McNeil, and D. A. Sparrow, Phys. Rev. C 23, 2114 (1981) (AMS); see also Ref. 22.Google Scholar
- 24.P. Osland and R. J. Glauber, Nucl. Phys. A326, 205 (1979).Google Scholar
- 28.D. A. Sparrow, Phys. Rev. C 29 in press.Google Scholar
- 32.L. Ray, G. Blanpied, and R. Coker, Phys. Rev. C 20, 1236 (1979); and J. A. McGill, private communication.Google Scholar