saturn hst/ ir 1998, tethys voyager2 1981, uranus hst/ ir 1986 what can we learn from transfer, and...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
SATURN HST/ IR 1998, TETHYS VOYAGER2 1981, URANUS HST/ IR 1986
What can we learn from transfer, and how is best to do it?
Wilton CatfordUniversity of Surrey
A
B
E
Single Particle States;RIB experiments!!
Reaction models
Practicalities;Inverse Kinematics
Results & Perspectives
New London NH June 2008
Nuclear Chemistry
D Experimental setups
C
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
Approach:
To highlight the questions that have to be addressed in doing this work
That is:
As we embark on the new enterprise of working with radioactive beams…
How do we do it? the choices for the experimental setup…
why different experiments/teams will make different choices
How do we interpret the measurements?
what exactly are we measuring and why (and how well)?
Philosophy: … this is the Gordon, so…
Not a traditional review, but a snapshot of thoughts in progress…
… an open discussion…
W.N. CATFORD TRANSFER: WHAT DO WE MEASURE & HOW IS BEST TO DO IT? 16 June 2008
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
Example of population of single particle state: 21O
0d 5/21s 1/2
0d 3/2
The mean field has orbitals, many of which are filled.We probe the energies of the orbitals by transferring a nucleonThis nucleon enters a vacant orbitalIn principle, we know the orbital wavefunction and the reaction theory
But not all nuclear excited states are single particle states…
0d 5/21s 1/2
energy of level measures this gap
J = 3/2+
J = 3/2+
2+
x 1/2+
We measure how the two 3/2+ statesshare the SP strength when they mixA.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES
1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Pure and Mixed States
A. SINGLE PARTICLE STATES – EXAMPLE
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
SINGLE PARTICLE STATES – SPLITTING
A.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Splitting masks the true SP energy
Plot: John Schiffer
If we want to measure the SPE,splitting due to level mixingmeans that all componentsmust be found, to measure the true single particle energy
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
SINGLE PARTICLE STATES
A.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Motivation – monopole migration
Changes – tensor force, p-n
Residual interactions move themean field levels
Magic numbers “migrate”,changing stability, reactions, collectivity…
Similarly…
proton filling affectsneutron orbitals
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
(d, )pSINGLE PARTICLE STATES
A.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Population in an exotic nucleus
Probing the changedorbitals and their energies…
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
(d, )pSINGLE PARTICLE STATES
A.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Population of states in the continuum
As we approach the dripline, we alsohave to worry about the meaningand theoretical methods for probingresonant orbitals in the continuum…
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
• 23O from USD and Stanoiu PRC 69 (2004) 034312 and Elekes PRL 98 (2007) 102502• 25Ne from TIARA, W.N. Catford et al. Eur. Phys. J. A, 25 S1 251 (2005)
Migration of the 3/2+ state creates N=16 from N=20
25Ne TIARA USD modified
23,25O raise further challenges
21O has similar 3/2+-1/2+ gap (same d5/2 situation) but poses interesting question of mixing (hence recent 20O(d,p)@SPIRAL)
exci
tatio
n e
nerg
y (M
eV
) 4.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
4.0
3.5
6 8 10 12
atomic number
1d3/2
1f7/2
27Mg23O 25Ne
Systematics of the 3/2+ for N=15 isotones
(1d5/2)-1
2s1/2
removing d5/2 protons raises d3/2and appears to lower the f7/2
20
1616
SINGLE PARTICLE STATES – AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE
A.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Example case in N=15 revealing N=16
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
fillg9/2
hole f7/2
f5/2
Serge Franchoo PRC 64(2001)054308
SINGLE PARTICLE STATES – ANOTHER EXAMPLE
A.B.C.D.E SINGLE PARTICLE STATES1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Example fp protons Z=28 to 40 for n-rich
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E REACTION MODEL1.2.3. Johnson-Soper & ADWA
Johnson-Soper Model: an alternative to DWBA that gives a simple prescription for taking into account coherent entangled effects of deuteron break-up on (d,p) reactions [1,2]• does not use deuteron optical potential – uses nucleon-nucleus optical potentials only• formulated in terms of adiabatic approximation, which is sufficient but not necessary [3]• uses parameters (overlap functions, spectroscopic factors, ANC’s) just as in DWBA[1] Johnson and Soper, PRC 1 (1970) 976[2] Harvey and Johnson, PRC 3 (1971) 636; Wales and Johnson, NPA 274 (1976) 168[3] Johnson and Tandy NPA 235 (1974) 56; Laid, Tostevin and Johnson, PRC 48 (1993) 1307
Spectroscopic FactorShell Model: overlap of (N+1) with (N) core n ( j)Reaction: the observed yield is not just proportional to this, because the overlap integral has a radial-dependent weighting or sampling
overlap integral
spectroscopic factor
Hence it depends on theradial wave function andthus the geometry of theassumed potential well orother structure model
B. REACTION MODEL FOR (d,p) TRANSFER – the ADWA
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E REACTION MODEL1.2.3. Jenny Lee et al validation of ADWA
REACTION MODEL FOR (d,p) TRANSFER – the ADWA
A CONSISTENT application of ADWA gives 20% agreement with large basis SM
80 spectroscopic factorsZ = 3 to 24Jenny Lee et al.
Tsang et alPRL 5 (2005) 222501
Lee et alPRC 75 (2007) 064320
Delaunay at alPRC 72 (2005) 014610
Is there a SYSTEMATIC effectas seen in knockout?
Results of transfer are consistentbut do not yet explore extremes
Valence nucleon orbitalfrom Hartree-Fock, not juststandard W-S geometryJenny Lee, Jeff Tostevin,Alex Brown et al.
Lee et alPRC 73 (2006) 044608
Kramer et al for (d,3He)NPA 679 (2001) 267
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E REACTION MODEL1.2.3. Other reactions probing single-particle structure
REACTION MODEL FOR (d,p) TRANSFER
Given what we have seen, is transfer the BEST way to isolate and studysingle particle structure and its evolution in exotic nuclei?
Transfer – decades of (positive) experience
Removal – high cross section, similar outputs, requires full orbitals
(e,e’p) – a bit ambitious for general RIB application
(p,p’p) – more practical than (e,e’p) for RIB now, does have problems
Complementary to (d,p)…to be validated with (d,t)
YESAlso: Heavy Ion transfer (9Be),3,4He-induced reactions
tailu(r)
V(r)
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E PRACTICALITIES1.2.3. Transfer at around 10 MeV/A
C. USING RADIOACTIVE BEAMS in INVERSE KINEMATICS
Single nucleon transfer will preferentially populate the states in the real exotic nucleus that have a dominant single particle character.
Angular distributions allow angular momenta and (with gammas) spins to be measured. Also, spectroscopic factors to compare with theory.
Around 10A MeV/A is a useful energy as the shapes are very distinctive for angular momentumand the theory is tractable.
Calculated differential cross sections show that 10 MeV/A is good (best?)
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E PRACTICALITIES1.2.3. Inverse kinematics
USING RADIOACTIVE BEAMS in INVERSE KINEMATICS
f = 1/2 for (p,d), 2/3 for (d,t)q 1 + Q tot / (E/A) beam
(d,t) (d,d)
(d,p)
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E PRACTICALITIES1.2.3. Tackling target thickness limitations
ISSUES ARISING FROM TARGET THICKNESS LIMITATIONS
It turns out that the target thickness is a real limitation on the energy resolution…
Several hundred keV is implicit, when tens would be required,So the targets should be as thin as possible…
But RIBs, as well as being heavy compared to the deuteron target, are:(a) Radioactive(b) Weak
Issues arising:(a) Gamma detection useful for improving resolution(b) Active target (TPC) to minimize loss of resolution(c) Need MAXIMUM efficiency for detection
Experimental solutions can be classed roughly as:(a) For beams < 103 pps ACTIVE TARGET(b) 103 < beam < 106 pps Si BOX in a -ARRAY(c) For beams > 106 pps MANAGE RADIOACTIVITY
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
78Ni(d,p)79Ni at 10 A MeV
MAYANow in use atGANIL/SPIRALTRIUMF
ACTARbeing designedfor futureSPIRAL2
A.B.C.D.E COMPLEMENTARY EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES1.2.3.4.5. Active targets: time projection chambers
D. SOLUTIONS FOR BEAMS IN RANGE 102 to 104 pps USING TPC’s
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
SHARCTIGRESSTRIUMF
TIGRESSCOLLABORATION
YorkSurrey
T-REXMINIBALLREX-ISOLDE
MINIBALLCOLLABORATION
MunichLeuven
A.B.C.D.E COMPLEMENTARY EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES1.2.3.4.5. Silicon boxes inside gamma arrays
SOLUTIONS FOR BEAMS IN RANGE 104 to 106 pps USING GAMMAS
ORRUBA OAK RIDGESTEVE PAIN
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
Forward Annular Si5.6 < lab < 36
Backward Annular Si144 < lab < 168.5
Barrel Si36 < lab < 144
Target Changing Mechanism
BeamVAMOS
A.B.C.D.E COMPLEMENTARY EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES1.2.3.4.5. Silicon for higher beam intensities
SOLUTIONS FOR BEAMS IN RANGE 106 to 109 pps USING GAMMAS
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E COMPLEMENTARY EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES1.2.3.4.5. Silicon for higher beam intensities
SOLUTIONS FOR BEAMS IN RANGE 106 to 109 pps USING GAMMAS
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
Trajectories for 132Sn(d,p) at 8 MeV/AHELIOS: Wuosmaa, Schiffer et al.
avoids thiscompression
Actual solenoid – from MRI
A.B.C.D.E COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES1.2.3.4.5. Solenoidal devices
NOVEL SOLENOID FOR 4 DETECTION to DECOMPRESS KINEMATICS
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E COMPLEMENTARY EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES1.2.3.4.5. Frozen targets
FROZEN TARGETS and not detecting the LIGHT PARTICLE
A. Obertelli et al., Phys. Lett. B633, 33 (2006).
Also:Elekes et al PRL 98 (2007) 10250222O(d,p) to n-unbound 23O SP states
And helium:Especially (,3He) etc. at RIKEN
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E. RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES1.2.3.4.5. Gamma rays as an aid to identification
4030
3330
2030
1680
= 2
= 0
5/2+
3/2+
= –
1/2+
= 2
= 1
( = 3)
7/2 –
3/2 –
0.73
0.80
0.15
0.44
0.75
TIARA
1/2+
3/2+
5/2+
3/2+
5/2+
9/2+
7/2+
5/2+
0.49
0.10
0.11
0.004
n+24Negs
USD
0.63
E. SOME RESULTS and PERSPECTIVES
In 25Ne we used gamma-gamma coincidencesto distinguish spinsand go beyond orbital AM
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
TIARA/MUST2 campaign at GANIL 2007Surrey, LiverpoolOrsay, Saclay, GANIL
SPIRAL: 20O and 26Ne beams… N=16, 28GANIL: 34Si, other frag beams… N=20, 28
A.B.C.D.E. RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES1.2.3.4.5. Recent TIARA+MUST2 campaign
SOME RESULTS and PERSPECTIVES
f 7/2
SPIRAL beam
26Ne (pure) 2300 pps
JEFF THOMAS
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
?
A.B.C.D.E. RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES1.2.3.4.5. On-Line results from SPIRAL + TIARA + MUST2
SOME RESULTS and PERSPECTIVES
Lab angle
Energy proton from(d,p)
beam-like at 0°
Geant4simulation
On-Linedata
Ex
0
765885
1410Sn
?
Several x 100counts
On-Linedata
Geant4simulation
elastic
transfer
3000
beam+ n
“beam”
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E. RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES1.2.3.4.5. WHAT WE MEASURE – example 25Ne
SOME RESULTS and PERSPECTIVES
4030
3330
2030
1680
= 2
= 0
5/2+
3/2+
= –
1/2+
= 2
= 1
( = 3)
7/2 –
3/2 –
0.73
0.80
0.15
0.44
0.75
TIARA
1/2+
3/2+
5/2+
3/2+
5/2+
9/2+
7/2+
5/2+
0.49
0.10
0.11
0.004
n+24Negs
USD
0.63
In 25Ne the 3/2+ state wasfar from a pure SP statedue to other couplings athigher energies, but it wasclear enough in its ID andcould be used to comparewith its SM partner to improvethe USD interaction
It is not always necessaryto map the full SP strengthwhich may be very much splitandwith radioactive beamsit may not often be possible
Includes also (s1/2) (d5/2
2)2+
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
A.B.C.D.E. RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES1.2.3.4.5. GRAPA and GASPARD
SOME RESULTS and PERSPECTIVES
GRAPAGAMMA RAY AND PARTICLE ARRAY
“… WORK IN PROGRESS”
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008
What do we measure and Why? And Where (on the Segre chart)?Single particle states (in amongst, mixed with, other states)Migration of magic numbers – “monopole migration”, implications
What is the best way to measure these things – choice of reactionClassic transferRemoval reactions (sometimes called knockout)Knockout reactions (such as (p,p'p) or (e,e'p)So, what do we really measure?What should we measure? SPE? Full strength?How reliable is what we measure?
What radioactive beams do we need?How good do they have to be? Speed? Purity? Focussing? Timing?
So how do we do it? the choices for the experimental setup…Si arrays (TIARA, MUST/2, ORRUBA, SHARC), Solenoid, Active targetsWays in which it helps to know your gammas
How do we interpret the measurements?ADWA. DWBA. Form factor. Unbound states. Weighted SPE vs SM comparison
W.N. CATFORD TRANSFER: WHAT DO WE MEASURE & HOW IS BEST TO DO IT? 16 June 2008
WIL
TO
N C
AT
FO
RD
J
UN
E 2
008