P. 1
QT in Nuclear Fusion-Advanced

QT in Nuclear Fusion-Advanced

|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by dionyscar
As yet another application of quantum tunneling
As yet another application of quantum tunneling

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: dionyscar on Aug 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Quantum Tunneling in Nuclear Fusion

Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706 U.S.A Department of Physics, Tohoku University 980-77 Sendai Japan

A.B. Balantekin

N. Takigawa

Recent theoretical advances in the study of heavy ion fusion reactions below the Coulomb barrier are reviewed. Particular emphasis is given to new ways of analyzing data, such as studying barrier distributions; new approaches to channel coupling, such as the path integral and Green function formalisms; and alternative methods to describe nuclear structure e ects, such as those using the Interacting Boson Model. The roles of nucleon transfer, asymmetry e ects, higher-order couplings, and shape-phase transitions are elucidated. The current status of the fusion of unstable nuclei and very massive systems are brie y discussed.




Introduction One-Dimensional Model for Fusion

Experimental Observables . . . . . . . . . . One-Dimensional Barrier Penetration . . . Barrier Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Dependence of the E ective Radius Inversion of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

3 4

4 5 5 7 8


Multidimensional Quantum Tunneling in Nuclear Physics
A B C D E Coupled-Channels Formalism . . . . . . . . . . Simpli ed Coupled-Channels Models . . . . . . Path Integral Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adiabatic and Sudden Tunneling . . . . . . . . Intermediate Cases - Dynamical Norm Method

9 10 14 16 19



Description of Nuclear Structure E ects by the Interacting Boson Model 20 Comparison of Current Theory with Data 24

A Linear Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B Higher-Order Couplings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Status of Coupled-Channels Calculations . . . . . . . . Nucleon Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probing Asymmetry E ects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signatures of Nuclear Vibrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . E ect of Non-linear couplings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angular Momentum Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . Probing Shape Phase Transitions with Fusion . . . . . . Di culties in Extracting Barrier Distributions . . . . . Fusion of Unstable Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fusion of Very Massive Systems and Superheavy Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25 26 27 27 28 28 29 30 31



Open Problems and Outlook



Quantum tunneling in systems with many degrees of freedom is one of the fundamental problems in physics and chemistry (Hanggi et al., 1990; Tsukada et al., 1993). One example of tunneling phenomena in nuclear physics is the fusion of two nuclei at very low energies. These reactions are not only of central importance for stellar energy production and nucleosynthesis, but they also provide new insights into reaction dynamics and nuclear structure. Until about fteen years ago, low energy fusion reactions were analyzed in terms of a simple model, where one starts with a local, one-dimensional real potential barrier formed by the attractive nuclear and repulsive Coulomb interactions and assumes that the absorption into the fusion channel takes place at the region inside the barrier after the quantum tunneling. The shape, location, and the height of this potential were described in terms of few parameters which were varied to t the measured cross sections. The systematics of potentials obtained in this way were discussed by Vaz et al. (1981). A number of experiments performed in the early 80's showed that the subbarrier fusion cross sections for intermediatemass systems are much larger than those expected from such a simple picture (Beckerman, 1988; Vandenbosch, 1992). The inadequacy of the one-dimensional model for subbarrier fusion was explicitly demonstrated by inverting the experimental data to directly obtain the e ective one-dimensional fusion barrier under the constraint that it is energy independent (Balantekin et al., 1983). In recent years there has been a lot of experimental e ort in measuring fusion cross sections and moments of compound nucleus angular momentum distributions. A complete compilation of the recent data is beyond the scope of this review. Several recent reviews (Stefanini et al., 1994; Reisdorf, 1994) present an excellent overview of the current experimental situation. This article reviews theoretical developments of the last decade in our understanding the multidimensional quantum tunneling nature of subbarrier fusion. We should emphasize that the large volume of new data and extensive theoretical work does not allow us to provide an exhaustive set of references. The selection we made does not imply that omitted references are any less important than the ones we chose to highlight in discussing di erent aspects of fusion phenomena. The natural language to study fusion reactions below the Coulomb barrier is the coupledchannels formalism. In the last decade coupled channels analysis of the data and the realization of the connection between energy derivatives of the cross section and the barrier distributions (Rowley et al., 1991) motivated accumulation of very high precision data. When the enhancement of the cross section below the barrier was rst observed, many authors pointed out that it is not easy to identify the underlying physical mechanism (Brink et al., 1983b; Krappe et al., 1983). Any coupling introduced between translational motion and internal degrees of freedom enhances the cross section. The recent high-precision data helped resolve some of these ambiguities by studying barrier distributions and mean angular momenta as well. The quality of the existing data now makes it possible to quantitatively explore a number of theoretical issues in the quantum tunneling aspects of subbarrier fusion, such as e ects of anharmonic and non-linear interaction terms. In the next section, after brie y reviewing observables accessible in heavy-ion fusion reactions, and the reasons why a one-dimensional description fails, we present the motivation for studying barrier distributions. In Section III we discuss the standard coupled-channels 3

formalism, and alternative approaches such as the path integral formalism and Green's function approaches along with their various limiting cases. Section IV has a dual purpose: it covers recent attempts to describe nuclear structure e ects using the Interacting Boson Model while illustrating the technical details of these alternative approaches discussed in Section III. In Section V, we survey a representative sample of recent high-quality data with a focus on new physics insights. We conclude in Section VI with a brief discussion of the open problems and outlook for the near future.

In the study of fusion reactions below the Coulomb barrier the experimental observables are the cross section (E ) = and the average angular momenta
1 X
`=0 ` (E );


P1 ` (E ) =0 ` h`(E )i = P`1 : `=0 ` (E )


The partial-wave cross sections are given by

h2 (2` + 1)T (E ); (3) ( E ) = ` ` 2 E where T`(E ) is the quantum-mechanical transmission probability through the potential barrier and is the reduced mass of the projectile and target system. Fusion cross sections at low energies are measured by detecting evaporation residues or ssion products from compound nucleus formation. Evaporation residues can be detected directly by measuring the di erence in velocities between them and the beam-like ions. Velocity selection can be achieved either by electrostatic de ectors or by velocity lters. Alternative techniques include detecting either direct or delayed X-rays and gamma rays. A review of di erent experimental techniques to measure the fusion cross sections is given by Beckerman (1988). Several techniques were developed for measuring moments of the angular momentum distributions. The advent of detector arrays enabled measurement of full gamma-ray multiplicities (Fischer et al., 1986; Halbert et al., 1989), which, under some assumptions, can be converted to ` distributions. It is also possible to measure relative populations of the ground and isomeric states in the evaporation residues to deduce the spin distribution in the compound nucleus (Stokstad et al., 1989; DiGregorio et al., 1990). Finally, the anisotropy of the ssion fragment angular distribution can be related to the second moment of the spin distribution (Back et al., 1985; Vandenbosch et al., 1986a; Vandenbosch et al., 1986b). It is worthwhile to emphasize that moments of angular momenta, unlike the fusion cross section itself, are not directly measurable quantities. One needs to make a number of

Brink. C. the transmission probability can be calculated to be (Hill and Wheeler. The barriers obtained in Eq. o (7) where VB0 is the height and is a measure of the curvature of the s-wave potential barrier. For a one-dimensional barrier transmission probabilities can be evaluated numerically either exactly or using a uniform WKB approximation. where the WKB penetration integral is (5) s Zr " #1=2 2 `(` + 1) 2` 2 h dr V0(r) + 2 r2 ? E : (6) S`(E ) = 2 h r1` In this equation r1` and r2` are the classical turning points for the `-th partial wave potential barrier. 1953) 2 (E ? V ) ?1 : (8) T0(E ) = 1 + exp ? h B0 In the nuclear physics literature Eq. valid for energies both above and below the barrier (Brink and Smilansky. If we assume that the potential barrier can be replaced by a parabola 1 V0(r) = VB0 ? 2 2 2 (r ? r )2 . The ` = 0 barrier is referred to as the Coulomb barrier.assumptions to convert gamma-ray multiplicities or isomeric state populations to average angular momenta. To elaborate on the physical signi cance of this quantity let us consider penetration probabilities 5 . (4) is illustrated in Figure 1 for several `-values. 1983a. B. (8) is known as the Hill-Wheeler formula. Barrier Distributions An alternative way of plotting the total cross section data is to look at the second energy derivative of the quantity E . 1985a) : T`(E ) = 1 + exp (2S`(E ))]?1 . V`(r) = VN (r) + VC (r) + h `2(` r 0 2 2 r2 2 2 (4) where VN and VC are the nuclear and Coulomb potentials. Especially at energies well below the barrier there are signi cant deviations from this formula as the parabolic approximation no longer holds. An elaboration of these assumptions along with a thorough discussion of the experimental techniques is given by Vandenbosch (1992). respectively. sometimes called the distribution of the barriers. One-Dimensional Barrier Penetration The total potential between the target and projectile nuclei for the `-th partial wave is given by + 1) = V (r) + h `(` + 1) .

(5).. Leigh et al.. Obviously one needs rather high precision data to be able to numerically calculate the second derivative of the excitation function. Such high-quality data recently became available for a number of systems. 1995).. (9). 1996). 1995) : 6 . 1991) one nds that the energy derivative of the s-wave transmission probability is approximately proportional to the second energy derivative of the quantity E up to corrections coming from the energy dependence of R(E ): dT0(E ) 1 d2 (E (E )) + O( dR ): (11) dE R2(E ) dE 2 dE Since R(E ) is a slowly varying function of energy. (10) represents the experimental data for the total fusion cross section rather well (Balantekin and Reimer. we can approximate that sum with an integral over `. 1983.. R(E ) was found to be a slowly varying function of energy as depicted in Figure 2. If many values of ` are important in the sum over partial-wave transmission probabilities in Eq. T0 is unity above the barrier and zero below. Quantum mechanically this sharp peak is broadened as the transmission probability smoothly changes from zero at energies far below the barrier to unity at energies far above the barrier (see Figure 3). (10) twice (Rowley et al.for di erent partial waves in the case of a one-dimensional system (coupling to an internal system is neglected). 1991. Under certain conditions.. the rst term in Eq. For a completely classical system. 1986): 2# ` ( ` + 1) h T` ' T0 E ? 2 R2(E ) . (1991) suggested that if many channels are coupled to the translational motion.. 1991. Figure 5 shows the measured cross section and the extracted associated barrier distribution for the 16 O +154 Sm system (Wei et al. in Eq. Balantekin and Reimer. the quantity dT0(E )=dE is further broadened and can be taken to represent the \distributions of the barriers" due to the coupling to the extra degrees of freedom as depicted in Figure 4 for a two-channel case. we can approximate the ` dependence of the transmission probability at a given energy by simply shifting the energy (Balantekin et al. hence the quantity dT0(E )=dE will be a delta function peaked when E is equal to the barrier height. Balantekin and Reimer. 1985. (1).. and. Rowley et al. Di erentiating Eq. (9) and (10) (with the substitution R(E ) ! r0) can also be used to obtain a direct connection between the fusion cross section and the angular momentum distribution (Sahm et al. Consequently. Eq. the position of the s-wave barrier. (11) can be used to approximate the rst derivative of the s-wave tunneling probability. (9) obtain (Balantekin et al. to be elaborated in the next subsection. Ackermann. in many applications R(E ) is replaced by r0 . Balantekin et al. " (9) where R2(E ) characterizes an e ective moment of inertia. 1986.. Dasgupta et al. Eqs. 1983. 1986) E (E ) = R2 (E ) ZE ?1 dE 0T0(E 0 ): (10) It was found that Eq. using Eq. As a speci c example of the quality of recent data. as shown in Figure 3.

Eq. The next term in this expansion can easily be calculated. r` = r0 + c1 + c2 2 + (17) then the height of the barrier is given by VBl = Vl (r`). Let r` denote the position of the peak of the `-wave barrier which satis es @V` (r) @r r=r` = 0 . Eq. where ! 0 or E VB0. We make the ansatz that the barrier position can be written as an in nite series. Further approximating R(E ) by r0 and inserting the penetration probability for the parabolic barrier. one can use the parabolic approximation of Eq. Energy Dependence of the E ective Radius If one sets R(E ) = r0 in Eq. one gets only the leading term in what is actually an in nite series expansion in = `(` + 1). (8). (9) for approximating the `-wave penetrability by the s-wave penetrability at a shifted energy. 0 where is the curvature of the s-wave barrier 7 . T`(E ) = 1 2 r0 dE 0 where 2 )`(` + 1): E 0 = E ? (h2=2 r0 ! (12) (13) For energies well above the barrier. and (16) @ 2 V`(r) @r2 r=r` < 0 .d(E 0 (E 0 )) . in Eq. Expanding all functions in Eq. we nd that the rst coe cient is 2 (19) c1 = ? h r3 . (16) consistently in powers of . . (7) for the potential barrier. (18) where the ci are constants. (14) reduces to the standard geometrical result 2 1 ? VB0 : (E ) = r0 (15) E D. (10) one obtains an approximate expression for the cross section (Wong. 1973) 2 2 (E ? V ) : r0 log 1 + exp h (14) (E ) = h2E B0 In the classical limit.

e. (11) including previously neglected terms dT0(E ) = 1 d2 (E (E )) ? E (E ) d2 R2 (E ) ? 2T0 (E ) d R2 (E ) . we nd that to second order in the `-wave barrier height is given by h2 + h4 2 : (21) VBl = VB0 + 2 2 2 2 r6 r0 0 Therefore.2 (r) = ? @ V0 2 @r r=r0 : (20) Substituting the leading order correction in the barrier position r` into Eq. E. Section III B) as Eq... The energy derivative of the left-hand side of Eq. (11). Eq. Z VB` 8 Using Abelian integrals (Cole and Good. (25) = E E ? E 2 h2 r1` where VB` is the height of the `-wave potential and V0(r) is the s-wave barrier. (4). dT0 =dE ). 1996) 2 R2 (E ) = r0 " 1? 4 2 r0 R E dE 0 T (E 0 )(E ? E 0 ) # 0 R 0 : E dE 0 T (E 0 ) 0 0 (23) This expression is useful in assessing the utility of the second derivative of the quantity E as the distribution of barriers as it gives an estimate of the terms neglected in Eq. but may also shift the position of various peaks in it and change the weights of these peaks. (25) can be integrated by parts to yield. one can show that for energies below the barrier . 1978). This is a useful consistency check even when channel coupling e ects yield a number of eigen-barriers (cf. If we rewrite Eq. an improved approximation for the `-dependence in the penetrability is given by 4 2 ! 2 h h (22) T`(E ) T0 E ? 2 r2 ? 2 2 r6 : 0 0 Comparing Eq. (23) can be used to illustrate that such corrections are indeed small (Balantekin et al. (6). 1996). Inversion of the Data s Zr " # 2 `(` + 1) 0) 2` S ( E 2 h ` 0 dE p 0 dr V0(r) + 2 r2 ? E . (21) with Eq. (24) dE R2 (E ) dE 2 R4(E ) dE 2 R2 (E ) dE we see that a strong energy dependence of R(E ) would not only provide an overall multiplicative factor between the experimental observable d2(E )=dE 2 and the true barrier distribution (i. we nd that the energy-dependent e ective radius can be expressed as (Balantekin et al. (11) still needs to be satis ed for each one-dimensional eigen-barrier to be able to interpret experimentally determined d2 (E )=dE 2 as the distribution of barriers..

(5) and (9). in Figure 6 especially for the heavier systems are inconsistent with the assumption of a single-valued one-dimensional local potential. III. It should be emphasized that this inversion method assumes the existence of a single potential barrier. if one is interested in the e ect of the excitation of the ground state K = 0+ rotational band of the target nucleus. (1983) for six systems are shown in Figure 6. This result was con rmed by the systematic study of Inui and Koonin (1984). if R(E ) is speci ed. `). respectively.(26) = ? 2 2 2 (r2` ? r1`) .`2 (r) = 0: When the coupled-channels formalism is used to study direct reactions the optical potential V (r) contains an imaginary part in order to take into account the e ect of intrinsic degrees of freedom other than the rotational excitation on the scattering. The thickness functions. then each channel can be denoted by a set of indices (I. The coupling form factor F (r) consists of Coulomb and nuclear parts. (1979) are also shown. the thickness of the barrier at a given energy is completely determined from the experimental data using Eqs.. clearly indicating the need for coupling to other degrees of freedom. where I and ` are the angular momentum of the rotational excited states of the target nucleus and that of the relative motion.`1 (r) X J +`2 I2 +`2?I1?`1 " (2`1 + 1)(2I1 + 1)(2I2 + 1) #1=2 + F (r) (?) i 2 +1 I2 . The coupled-channels equations then read " 2 2 # 2 h h d ? 2 dr2 + 2 r2 `1(`1 + 1) + V (r) ? EI1 fI1. one can relate the WKB penetration integral to the experimentally measured cross section as Z VB` ` (E 0 )=@E 0 p dE 0 @S E0 ? E s 2" " ##?1 3 E ( E ) d 1 ? 15 : S0(E ) = 2 log 4 dE R2(E ) (27) Thus. MULTIDIMENSIONAL QUANTUM TUNNELING IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS A. 9 . For example. The multi-polarity of the intrinsic excitation is = 2 if we restrict to quadrupole deformations. 1983). Coupled-Channels Formalism A standard theoretical approach to study the e ect of nuclear intrinsic degrees of freedom on the fusion cross section is to numerically solve coupled-channels equations that determine the wave functions of the relative motion. E h which is used to nd the barrier thickness (Balantekin et al. For comparison.`2 ) ( 1 I1 J (28) < I1 I200j 0 >< `1 00j`20 > ` I2 `2 fI2. (26) and (27). point Coulomb and the phenomenologically determined potential of Krappe et al. t = r20 ? r10 . Using Eqs. The potentials resulting from the analysis of Balantekin et al.

then one can completely decouple the coupled-channels equations into a set of single eigen-channel problems. Stefanini et al. 1988)... which have been explicitly dealt with in the coupled-channels calculation. 1990). 1986. the Coulomb part is (29) (r Rc) (r < Rc) (30) FC (r) = p 3 20 = p3 20 and the nuclear part is 2 c Z1Z2e2 R r3 r2 Z1Z2e2 R 3 c N FN (r) = ? 45 RV dV (31) dr : In most calculations the scale parameters Rc and RV are taken to be 1:2A1=3 . one takes the potential to be real and often solves Eq. The fusion cross section is then obtained based on the unitarity relation as X X (32) = k2 (2` + 1)f1 ? jSa(`)j2g. Lindsay and Rowley. (28) by imposing regular boundary condition at the origin. If one further ignores the nite excitation energy of nuclear intrinsic motion. In the standard coupled-channels calculations.. A path integral approach to no-Coriolis approximation was given by Hagino et al. We take the Hamiltonian to be 10 . One can signi cantly reduce the dimension of the coupled-channels calculations by ignoring the change of the centrifugal potential barrier due to the nite multi-polarity of the nuclear intrinsic excitation (Takigawa and Ikeda. 1985. These two approximations signi cantly simplify the numerical calculations and also give a clear physical understanding of the e ect of channel-coupling in terms of the distribution of potential barriers. An advantage of the coupled-channels method is that one can try to consistently analyze heavy-ion fusion reactions. and other scattering processes such as elastic scattering. Esbensen and Landowne. (28) by imposing the incoming wave boundary condition at some point inside the potential barrier to obtain S-matrices. Simpli ed Coupled-Channels Models Under certain assumptions it is possible to signi cantly simplify the coupled-channels equations described in the previous section. or iso-centrifugal approximation (Gomez-Camacho and Johnson. 1987. Coupled-channels calculations for a number of systems exist in the literature (Dasso et al. Thompson et al. a ` s where the index a designates di erent scattering channels. In contrast. (1995a). B. in the study of heavy-ion fusion reactions. 1983. 1987). This is called the no-Coriolis approximation.F (r) = FC (r) + FN (r): If the coupling is restricted to the quadrupole deformations. Esbensen et al.. rotating frame approximation. one solves Eq. 1984.

F (r). (39) and that the form factor F (r) is a constant (taken by Dasso et al. (1983). In this equation V0(r) is the bare potential and the term H0( ) represents the internal structure of the target or the projectile nucleus. The internal degrees of freedom are taken to be initially in their where h2 kn n ground state labeled by n = 0 and the associated ground state energy is set to be zero. 1983. Jacobs and Smilansky. and an intrinsic part. G( ): Mnm n nm + hnjHint (r. 0 = 0. (38) the re ection and transmission coe cients in each channel are denoted by Rn and Tn.H = Hk + V0 (r) + H0 ( ) + Hint(r. respectively.. r ! rmin kn the time-independent Schroedinger equation is reduced to a set of coupled equations for the relative motion wave functions n . Several groups (Dasso et al. ! (40) 11 . Introducing the eigenstates of H0( ) h2 r2. ( r ) ! n > > . In Eq. # 2 d2 X h ? 2 dr2 + V`(r) ? E n(r) = ? n nm + hnjHint(r. Broglia et al. )jmi = n nm + F (r)hnjG( )jmi.. )jmi] m(r): m These equations are solved under the incoming wave boundary conditions: qk 9 8 > > R exp( ik r ) . 1983) studied various simplifying limits to emphasize salient physical features. : q k Tn exp(?iknr). " (37) (38) 2 =2 = E ? . Hk = ? 2 H0jni = njni. Here we summarize the approach of Dasso et al. r ! + 1 exp( ? ik r ) + n n kn n = < n0 . and expanding the radial wave function as (r) = (35) (36) X n n (r)jni. They assumed that the coupling interaction factors into a relative part. ) with the term Hk representing the kinetic energy (33) (34) where r is the relative coordinate of the colliding nuclei and represents any internal degrees of freedom of the target or the projectile. (1983) to be the value of F (r) at the barrier position). 1983a. Under these approximations the coupled-channel equations decouple to give " 2 d2 h ? 2 dr2 + V`(r) + n?E # X m Unm m (r) = 0.

(40) indicates that the e ect of the coupling is to replace the original barrier by a set of eigen-barriers V`(r) + n. Section V B). while the situation is reversed for positive Q (cf. q (43) = njQj ? F 2=jQj: (44) (45) The total transmission probability can easily be calculated to be Tcc (E ) = 1 X n=0 (F 2n=Q2n n!) exp(?F 2=Q2 )T (E ? njQj + F 2=jQj): In the special case of a two-channel problem the matrix 1 0 0 F C (46) M =B A @ F ?Q has eigenvalues 1 ?Q qQ2 + 4F 2 .where Unm is the unitary matrix which diagonalizes the coupling matrix Mnm to give a set of eigenvalues n. For example.m+1 + p n+1 n.m?1 ). (41) where T`(E ? n) is the transmission probabilities calculated at shifted energies E ? n. one can study coupling to an harmonic mode with a nite Q-value using the model Hamiltonian 1C 2 + F . it can nevertheless be used to get a qualitative understanding of the dependence of the fusion cross section on various physical quantities. =2 (47) with the corresponding weight factors 2 2 F 2 (48) U = 2 2 p 2 2: 4F + Q Q 4F + Q Note that for F=jQj < 1 the lowest e ective barrier carries the largest weight for negative Q. The transmission probability calculated in the incoming-wave boundary conditions is given by T`(E ) = X n jUn0j2T`(E ? n). M = 2 =2D + 2 (42) 0 yielding where ?Q = h C=D is the excitation energy and F = F0 jQj=2C measures the total strength of the coupling and the eigenvalues are n q Mmn = ?nQ mn + F ( pn n. Eq. (1985) pointed out that the constant coupling approximation can overestimate low-energy fusion rates where the coupling e ects are strong and the associated 12 . Even though the constant-coupling approach would overpredict the transmission probability. Tanimura et al.

which might be the position of the unperturbed barrier or the average position of the eigen-barriers. are available in the literature: CCFUS (Dasso and Landowne. (50) can be written as the sums of the eigenvalues of the two 2 2 matrices which represent the coupling of the single one-phonon states.. Dasso and Landowne (1987a) extended their model for strong coupling cases. i.e. The resulting matrix to be diagonalized to yield the eigen-channels is 0 0 F (r) F (r) 0 1 2 3 B F2(r) 2 0 F3 (r) C C C (50) M =B B A: @ F3(r) 0 F ( r ) 3 2 0 F3(r) F2(r) 2 + 3 y 2 2 In CCFUS the double phonon states (by 2 ) j 0i. In CCFUS the basis states included are the ground state j 0i. 1987b) and CCDEF (Fernandez-Niello et al. Both of them treat the vibrational coupling in the constant coupling approximation. (14). In the latter case only the weight factors. the matrices of Eq. simpli ed in this manner.. the octupole one-phonon state b3 j 0i. The approach of CCFUS can be generalized to incorporate n di erent phonons by including the ground state. (51) and (52) are either diagonalized by replacing the form factors F2 (r) and F3(r) with their values at the location of the bare potential barrier. or diagonalized for all values of r. not those 13 . and (b3 ) j 0i are not included for mathematical simpli cation. (49) where T (E. n one-phonon states.e. The eigenvalues of the matrix in Eq. The transmission coe cients for each eigen-barrier are calculated using the Wong formula. They diagonalized the coupled intrinsic system in the barrier region to obtain the eigenstates j (r)i and the eigenvalues (r) as functions of r to obtain the total transmission probability Tscc (E ) = X j h (R) j 0ij2T (E. 1989). n(n ? 1)=2 two-phonon states (i. but not the eigenvalues are evaluated at the position of the bare barrier. and the product two-phonon state b2 b3 j 0i. Two coupled-channels codes.form factors are rapidly varying. and (b3 ) j 0i such a simple relationship between eigenvalues of the 4 4 and 2 2 matrices would not be possible. the quadrupole one-phonon y y y state by 2 j 0i. CCFUS provides two options. V (r) + (r)). M2 = F 0 ( r ) 2 2 and ! (51) (52) F3(r) : M3 = F 0 3 (r) 3 ! y 2 2 If the matrix of Eq. The weighing factors are xed at a chosen radius R. (50) also included the double-phonon states (by 2 ) j 0i. The latter takes into account projectile and target deformations within the sudden approximation and treats coupling to the transfer channels with a constant form factor. V (r) + (r)) is the penetration probability for the potential V (r) + (r).. F2(r) . Eq.

Since no phonon appears more than once. 1985). (9) is taken into account using the prescription of Rowley et al. to obtain a total number of ? 1) + n(n ? 1)(n ? 2) + n(n ? 1)(n ? 2)(n ? 3) + = 2n (53) 1 + n + n(n2! 3! 4! states. but included their double-phonon states as well diagonalizing the resulting 6 6 matrix. V (r)+F (r)G( )] is the transmission probability for the potential V (r)+F (r)G( ) calculated at energy E . (1992) and Kruppa et al. Even though the approach of CCFUS provides an elegant mathematical solution to the matrix diagonalization problem it ignores all the states where the same phonon appears more than once. the double phonon states) may be very important for the dynamics of the analyzed system.g. C. We therefore recommend using these codes only for a qualitative understanding of the data and strongly encourage authors to use full coupled channel codes for any quantitative description. The resulting simpli ed coupled channels code is named CCMOD (Dasgupta et al.g.. Dasgupta et al. For the Hamiltonian given in Eq. the double-phonon states.states where the same phonon appears more than once). When using them it is important to remember the approximations discussed in the previous paragraphs. Z (55) where T E.. (1993) considered quadrupole and octupole phonons. Finally one should point out that in the limit in which the intrinsic energies are small compared to the coupling interaction one can approximate Eq. (1989). Eigen-channel cross sections are again calculated using the Wong's formula. Kruppa et al. Many experimentalists use these simpli ed coupled channel codes. but the energy dependence of R(E ) in Eq. (1992) excluded all multiplephonon states. In CCMOD the weight factors are calculated at the position of the bare barrier. n(n ? 1)(n ? 2)=3! three-phonon states. e. 14 . The transformation amplitude between the ground state and the eigen-channels labeled by is the ground state wave function yielding the transmission probability Trmtotal = d j ( )j2T E. the eigenvalues of the resulting 2n 2n matrix can be written as appropriate combinations of the eigenvalues of n 2 2 matrices. Wong's formula) lead to an overestimate of the cross section. i 6= j . (39) Mnm F (r) hn j G( ) j mi : (54) In this case it is not necessary to require the coupling to be constant.. so for n di erent types of phonons they numerically diagonalized an (n + 1) (n + 1) matrix instead of analytically diagonalizing an 2n 2n matrix. etc. V (r) + F (r)G( )]. Some of the ignored couplings (e. 1992). Path Integral Approach An alternative formulation of the multidimensional quantum tunneling is given by the path integral formalism (Balantekin and Takigawa. Some of these approximations (constant coupling. 2 (1993) pointed out that in some cases the coupling of a state like (by i ) j 0i to the ground y y state can be stronger than the coupling of a state like bi bj j 0i . Dasgupta et al.

the transition amplitude is given by the S -matrix element. T . which can be expressed in terms of the propagator as (Balantekin and Takigawa. T r (t D r(t)] D r ~(t h (62) 15 . T ~)] exp (S (r. T ) is the action for the translational motion and Wnf ni is the propagator for the internal system along a given path of the translational motion: E D ^ (57) Wnf ni (r. (61) which becomes. T ) = X Wnf . T ) ? S (~ r. nf . nf . (56) where S (r. T r (t (63) r (t M (~ nf ! Z1 Z1 p i i pf e exp ? i E T e T`(E ) = rlim dT exp T ET !1 2 i h h r !?1 0 Zf Z 0 i e)) M (~ e. r(t). ri.(33) the propagator to go from an initial state characterized by relative radial coordinate (the magnitude of r) ri and internal quantum numbers ni to a nal state characterized by the radial position rf and the internal quantum numbers nf may be written as Z K (rf . ri. T ) ni : ^int satis es the di erential equation U ^int ^ (58) ih @ U @t = H0 + Hint] Uint. T ): ~). T ). Here we have assumed that the energy dissipated to the internal system is small compared to the total energy and taken pf outside the sum over nal states. 0) = D r(t)] e hi S(r. T. ~). (60) where pi and pf are the classical momenta associated with ri and rf . We identi ed the two-time in uence functional as e 0)Wnf . r(t). T . 1985) !1 1 p i (p r ? p r ) i pf 2 exp Snf .ni (r(t).ni (E ) = ? ih rlim !1 2 i h ff ii Z1 0 rf !?1 dTe+iET=hK (rf . upon substituting Eqs. T.ni (~ ~).T )Wnf ni (r(t). ni. this is T` (E ) = X nf jSnf . For the `th partial wave. (57) and (60). In heavy ion fusion we are interested in the transition probability in which the internal system emerges in any nal state. ^int (t = 0) = 1: U (59) We want to consider the case where ri and rf are on opposite sides of the barrier.ni (E )j2. In the limit when the initial and nal states are far away from the barrier. 0): e. T ) = nf U int (r(t). ni. 0).

The two time in uence functional M re ects the e ects of coupling to the harmonic oscillator and is given by 2 i 0 e e ~ e M (r(t). T . H = ? 2h @r + V0(r) + (aya + 2 (65) 0 2 0 where 0 is the bare mass of the macroscopic motion and V0 (r) is the bare potential. we can simplify this expression to write E y (~ e. The ay (a). (64) is simply a diagonal group matrix element for the lowest-weight state and it can be evaluated using standard group-theoretical methods. T r (t r (t M (~ (64) Eq. T ) ni : ~). Adiabatic and Sudden Tunneling We can discuss the e ects of couplings between nuclear structure and translational motion in two limiting cases. T ~). The quantity 0 = h=2m!]1=2 represents the amplitude of the zero-point motion of the harmonic oscillator. T ) = Dni U ^int ~ )U ^int (r(t). m and f (r) are the creation (annihilation) operators of the oscillator quanta. D. In this case the Hamiltonian is 2 @2 1 )h! + f (r)(a + ay). T ) = exp ? ! (T ? T )] expf? 2 (y1 + y2 + y3 )g 2 h (66) with y1 = ZT Zt dt ds f (r(t))f (r(s))e?i!(t?s) 0 0 ZT e Z t~ ~) ~))f (r ~ ds e(t e(~ ~ f (r s))ei!(t~?s y2 = dt 0 0 e e?T ) Z T dt f (r(t))ei!t Z T ~ f (r ~))e?i!t~: e(t dt y3 = ?ei!(T 0 0 (67) An exact calculation of the in uence functional is possible in this case because of the symmetry of the Hamiltonian under the Heisenberg-Weyl algebra. If the Hamiltonian in Eq. if it can be written in terms of the Casimir operators and generators of a given Lie algebra.e. respectively. (64) shows the utility of the in uence functional method when the internal system has symmetry properties. then the solution of Eq. the frequency and the mass parameter of the oscillator and the coupling form factor. One of these is a harmonic oscillator. !. linearly coupled to the translational motion. r(t). Consequently the two time in uence functional of Eq. Two-time in uence functionals can be calculated exactly for only a limited number of systems..Using the completeness of nal states. (58) is an element of the corresponding Lie group (Balantekin and Takigawa. r(t). This is exactly the reason why the path integral method is very convenient when the internal structure is represented by an algebraic model such as the Interacting Boson Model. i. The rst case is the sudden limit in which the energy levels of the internal system are degenerate. The second case is the adiabatic limit in which the energy 16 . 1985). (58) has a dynamical or spectrum generating symmetry.

(71) T (E ) = p1 2 ?1 where T0 (E. Section III B) or using Green's functions (Takigawa et al. (66) takes the form e. 1981). T ) ~). 1992a). This expression is known as the zero point motion formula and was rst derived by Esbensen (Esbensen. (62) one obtains Z +1 dxe?x2 =2 T0(E. T ) = S (r e . T e(t M (r Using the integral 2 ZT 0 ? 2h2 0 dtf (r(t)) ? ZT e 0 ~f (r ~))]2 e(t dt ! : (68) Z1 ?1 dxe?(ax2 +bx) = r b2 =4a e a (69) we can rewrite the in uence functional as e. r(t).of the rst excited state of the system is very large so that the internal system emerges in the ground state at the other side of the barrier. the total transmission probability is given by an integral of transmission probabilities for a xed value of the internal coordinate. This result can also be derived either using the coupled-channels formalism (cf. with the weight of the integration given by the distribution of the internal coordinate in its ground state. V0(r)+ x f (r)) is the probability of tunneling through the one-dimensional barrier V0(r) + x f (r) at energy E . the in uence functional of Eq. T ~). T ) = exp ~). V0(r) + 45 P2(cos )f (r)A : 0 17 s . Inserting this expression into Eq. to which the reader is referred for further details. r(t). It can be shown that in the sudden limit.. Several examples are worked out explicitly by Balantekin and Takigawa (1985). T e(t e(t M (r Z 1 1 2 1 p d e? 2 ( 0 ) 0 2 ?1 ! ZT ZT e i ~f (r ~))] e(t exp ? h dtf (r(t)) ? dt 0 0 (70) where the lower su x s stands for sudden tunneling. For example for the linearly-coupled harmonic oscillator as the excitation energy gets smaller. if the translational motion couples to a very slow rotational motion through a coupling Hamiltonian given by Hint = 45 P2(cos )f (r) (72) then the net tunneling probability is obtained by rst calculating the tunneling probability for a xed orientation of the principal axis of the deformed nucleus. ! ! 0. and then taking average over all orientations 1 0 s Z1 (73) T (E ) = d cos T0 @E. V0(r) + x 0 f (r)). Similarly. r(t).

(1985). In this limit the e ects of the coupling to internal degrees of freedom can be represented in terms of energy-independent potential renormalization (Balantekin and Takigawa.e. E ects of the polarization potential on the subbarrier fusion cross section were elucidated by Tanimura et al. as illustrated in Figure 7.. In the Caldeira-Leggett formalism the term which renormalizes the potential in Eq. V0(r) ! Vad = V0(r) ? 0 (75) and a mass renormalization (Takigawa et al. Muller and Takigawa. V0(R) + if (r)). ! and being the frequencies of the internal motion and the tunneling barrier. 1987) : 2 f 2 (r)=h!. Typically adiabatic barrier alone overpredicts the transmission probability. (1958) in the study of scattering of rotational nuclei in the sudden approximation. Such a model describing completely general con gurations of two separated nuclei is given by Moller and Iwamoto (1994). (73). one can introduce (Balantekin and Takigawa. respectively. Hence appropriate generalizations of Eqs. (75) and (76) hold not only for a linearly-coupled oscillator. the Hermite and the Gauss integrals in Eqs. 1994a) 2 1 df !2 0 (76) 0 ! ad = 0 + 2 h! !2 dr : This limit is very closely related to the situation investigated by Caldeira and Leggett (1983) in their study of multidimensional quantum tunneling. In the adiabatic limit. i. 1994a).This formula was rst derived by Chase et al. For example.. We can demonstrate this for the constant coupling case ( ad = 0) using the exact coupled-channels result of Eq. respectively (Nagarajan et al. (71) and (73) are replaced by the Hermite and the Gauss quadratures. In these cases. Systematics of the fusion cross sections of 16O with a series of Sm isotopes.. both vibrational and rotational excitations are truncated at nite excited states. Note that the correction term to the potential is the well-known polarization potential and the correction term to the mass is the cranking mass. 1986). the orientations 1 = 70:12 and o 2 = 30:55 contribute with weight factors !1 = 0:652 and !1 = 0:348. (75) is added to the Lagrangian as a counter-term. 1985. Zero point motion formulae then have a simple geometric interpretation: In this approximation fusion of a deformed nucleus with a nite number (N) of levels can be described by sampling N orientations with their respective weights: (E ) = N X i=1 !i (E. was rst given by Stokstad and Gross (1981) using Eq. in a two-level system. (45) !2n 1 1 2f 2 ! X 0f 0 2 2 2 (77) Tcc (E ) = n! h! exp(? 0 f =(h!) )T E ? nh! + h! : n=0 18 . ranging from vibrational to rotational. that of slow tunneling. but for any system (Takigawa et al. respectively. (74) o where PN i=1 !i = 1. deformed heavy ions.. In actual calculations. 1985) an =! expansion. When both target and projectile are heavy and deformed one needs a model describing macroscopic potential energy surfaces for arbitrarily oriented.

An example for this is the treatment of the nuclear structure e ects in subbarrier fusion with the interacting boson model discussed in Section IV. For deformed nuclei. the nite excitation energy leads to a multiplicative dissipation factor which reduces the barrier penetrability estimated in the sudden limit.g.. 1995b) is a technique introduced to give an 19 . can signi cantly reduce the transmission probability to values below the exact coupled-channels result (Takigawa et al. In these cases. for tunneling problems at nite temperature. If the excitation energies of the internal system are large the sudden approximation tends to overestimate the tunneling probability at energies well below the barrier.. (1995b) showed that. sudden approximation can be utilized to reduce the size of the channel coupling. Intermediate Cases .. This latter result also provides a good example of the utility of the path integral method.Inserting the inequality T E ? nh! + h! into Eq. Many authors refer to using only the adiabatic potential as the adiabatic limit. In case of rotation-vibration coupling. Using the path integral approach Hagino et al.g. While for constant coupling it is true that ad = 0. Abe and Takigawa (1988) where particle decay from a hot compound nucleus is investigated and the thermal uctuation of the nuclear surface is shown to amplify the dynamical e ect). (1983) showed that at below the barrier energies sudden approximation provides an upper limit to the tunneling probability. where the excitation energies are very low. (77) we get 2 2! 0f T E + h! 2 2! 0f : (78) (79) Tcc (E ) Tadiabatic (E ): We should emphasize that in the adiabatic limit both the potential and the mass renormalization should be considered together.. Indeed Esbensen et al. e. E. Takigawa et al.Dynamical Norm Method In the intermediate cases between the sudden and the adiabatic tunneling. using the adiabatic correction to the mass in addition to the adiabatic potential. 1985b. for a nearly degenerate system. the e ects of the environment is not straightforward to illustrate in simple physical terms. sudden approximation provides a reasonably good description of the data. Finally coupled channel techniques are not practical as the number of channels gets very large. As we mentioned earlier for Hamiltonians written in terms of the generators of a Lie algebra path integral approach is especially convenient as integrals over paths become integrals over the group manifold and thus are amenable to the standard group theoretical techniques. Adiabatic and sudden approximations are very useful for obtaining analytical results which provide a conceptual framework for understanding the fusion process. even though the former is in the next order in 1=! as compared to the latter. The dynamical norm method (Brink. in most cases of interest to nuclear fusion the coupling form factors rapidly change near the barrier and the di erence between the adiabatic mass and the bare mass can get very large. On the other hand for nite temperature problems path integral techniques can easily be applied (see e. 1994a).

not the renormalized mass of Eq. ): (80) In the same spirit as the WKB approximation for a potential model. is to rst expand (r. ) n(r(t). ) = (r. The deviation of N from 1 gives the measure of non-adiabaticity of the tunneling process. )j2. r(t))] n(r(t). (76). ) = n(r(t)) n(r(t). One way to determine the dynamical norm factor. ) = X n an( ) n (r( ). (84) where b is the time when the tunneling process is completed. ) in the basis of the adiabatic states n(r( ). (84) is calculated with the bare mass.intuitive understanding of the e ects of the environment in the intermediate cases. ) h(r(t). respectively and the action obeys the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (82) (83) Vad (r) = V0 (R) + 0 (r): One can then derive an approximate expression where the net tunneling probability is given by the product of the tunneling probability through the adiabatic potential barrier and a multiplicative factor which represents the non-adiabatic e ect of the intrinsic degrees of freedom : T =T Z 0 (E. N . for the total wave function one can take the ansatz (r. Note that in this approximation the transmission probability in Eq. Vad) N ( b) N ( ) = d j (r( ). ) dW dr !?1=2 ei W (r)=h: (81) ! dW 2 + V (r) = E ad 2 0 dr where Vad is the adiabatic potential de ned by 2 Here the parameter 2 is 1 and ?1 in classically allowed and in classically forbidden regions. This means that the transmission probability calculated with the adiabatic potential is always greater than the actual transmission probability. De ning the adiabatic basis by H0( ) + Hint( . ) (r. One can easily show that N 1. ) (85) and then determine the expansion coe cients an by solving the coupled-channels equations X 1 a _ n( ) ? r _( ) am ( ) (r( )) ? n m (r( )) m6=n ~ 1 h j (86) < nj @ m >= ? ~n (r( ))an ( ) @r h 20 .

1991). one can consider the linearly-coupled oscillator with the coupling form factor given by f (r) = cr. 1987) is one such model which has been successfully employed to describe the properties of low-lying collective states in medium-heavy nuclei. a situation which is not realized in most deformed nuclei.. the SU(3) limit corresponds to a rigid nucleus with a particular quadrupole deformation and no hexadecapole deformation. This technique proved useful in a variety of nuclear structure problems where direct numerical calculations are prohibitively di cult. Thus analytic solutions away from the limiting symmetries of the IBM are needed for realistic calculations of subbarrier fusion cross sections. Using the 1/N expansion technique in the path integral formulation of the fusion problem (Balantekin et al. 1988. generalizing the earlier work done using the SU(3) limit (Ginocchio et al. Takigawa et al. In particular arbitrary quadrupole and hexadecapole couplings can be introduced. we obtain ( 2 ) c 0 R0 (87) N ( b) exp ? 2 h! ! Eq. attempts to use the IBM in describing nuclear structure e ects on fusion are reviewed. Note that Eq. As an example. (33) to be of the form of the most general one-body transition operator for the IBM. requires analytic solutions for the nuclear wave functions. A. However. Kuyucak and Morrison. Linear Coupling We take Hint in Eq. (1995b) applied the dynamical norm method to spontaneous ssion of 234 U. In the rst attempt to use the IBM to describe nuclear structure e ects in subbarrier fusion. DESCRIPTION OF NUCLEAR STRUCTURE EFFECTS BY THE INTERACTING BOSON MODEL An algebraic nuclear structure model signi cantly simpli es evaluation of the path integral. R0 being the length of the tunneling region. Assuming that the tunneling path is given by t( ) = R0 sin( ). The path integral formulation of this problem. The Interacting Boson Model (IBM) of Arima and Iachello (Iachello and Arima.. Later it was applied to medium energy proton scattering from collective nuclei (Kuyucak and Morrison. the SU(3) limit of the IBM was employed (Balantekin et al. as sketched in the next section. 1990. (87) shows that the adiabaticity of the tunneling process is governed not only by a parameter =!. h y i(k) (k) X Hint = b` Y (^ r). a 1/N expansion was investigated (Kuyucak and Morrison. In a parallel development. (88) kj`(r) bj ~ kj` 21 . but also on the coupling strength and on the length of the tunneling region. 1991) for the IBM which provided analytic solutions for a general Hamiltonian with arbitrary kinds of bosons. 1992) makes it possible to go away from the three symmetry limits of the IBM. One needs to modify it with in order to describe a classically allowed region. (86) is correct to describe a classically forbidden region. 1986). In this section.with ~n = n(r( )) ? 0 (r( )). 1989) in the Glauber approximation. Kuyucak and Morrison.. IV.

(88) is an element of the SU (6) algebra for the original form of the Interaction Boson Model with s and d bosons and is an element of the SU (15) algebra when g bosons are included as well (Iachello and Arima. Then making a rotation through ^ = ( . Esbensen et al. 0). M becomes the matrix element of an SU(6) transformation between SU(6) basis states. The form factors kj`(r) represent the spatial dependence of the coupling between the intrinsic and translational motions. in other words it is a representation matrix element for this group and can easily be calculated using standard techniques. 1987. Neglecting the resulting centrifugal and Coriolis terms in this rotating frame is equivalent to ignoring the angular dependence of the original Hamiltonian. for the particular case of SU(3) limit.. To simplify the calculation of the in uence functional. Since the exponents of the two operators in the in uence functional commute. given by (0) ^ )Hint ^ ).where the boson operators are denoted by b` and by j . The k sum runs over k = 2. the coupling form factors become independent of ` and only m = 0 magnetic sub-states of the target are excited (Takigawa and Ikeda. We rst perform a rotation at each instant to a frame in which the z-axis points along the direction of relative motion. j`m s X 2k + 1 m j`m (r) = (?) 4 hjm` ? mjk0i (90) (91) kj`(r): k (92) If we assume now that the form factors kj`(r) are all proportional to the same function of (0) r then the Hamiltonian Hint commutes with itself at di erent times and hence we can write the two-time in uence functional as ! ! + * ZT Z T (0) e (0) i i r(t)) exp ? h dtHint (r(t)) ni (93) M = ni exp h 0 dtHint (~ 0 in the degenerate spectrum limit. =2. The two-time in uence functional for the sd-version of the IBM was calculated by Balantekin et al. Hence we introduce the rotated interaction (0) Hamiltonian Hint (r). The interaction term given in Eq. In this approximation. and the k = 0 term is already included in the bare potential V0(r). Tanimura. For heavy systems the neglected centrifugal and Coriolis forces are small. by Balantekin et al. 1987). (33) H0 and Ht = Hk + V0(r) are rotationally invariant. 1986. Hint is the only term whose form is a ected by the transformation. : : : 2`max. Hint = R(b (r)Ry(b X (0) y Hint (r) = j`m(r)bjm b`m . (1991). (1992) and. 22 . Odd values of k are excluded as a consequence of the re ection symmetry of the nuclear shape. We take the scattering to be in the x-y plane. we use the no-Coriolis approximation. 4. 1987). we can write the full Hamiltonian as the rotation of a the Euler angles b simpler Hamiltonian depending only on the magnitude of r ^ )H (0) (r)Ry(b ^ ): H = R (b (89) Since in Eq.

!!?1 ^ (^ r ? R r . 1988). ) + Vnuc (r. O coordinates and the relative motion ^ = X vk T (k) ( ) Y (k) (^ O r): (97) k The coe cients vk represent the strengths of the various multipole transitions in the target nucleus. where the Coulomb part is 2e ^ ) (r > R1 ). Such a Green's function approach has also been used to study quantum tunneling in a heat bath (Takigawa et al. ) = Z1Z r 5r 2 2 ^ ) (r < R1 ): = Z1Z2 e (1 + 3 r 2 O r 5 R1 The nuclear part is taken to have Woods-Saxon form. ) = ?V0 1 + exp a 2 2 (94) (95) (96) In Eqs. the only possible transition operators have k = 0. In the previous section. T (2) = syd (98) ~](4) : T (4) = dyd (99) We adopt the \consistent-Q" formalism of Casten and Warner (Casten and Warner. one can include the e ects of coupling to all orders. ). 2. (33) is written as Hint(r. 23 . (1 + 3 R21 O VCoul(r. Alternatively. : : : (odd values being excluded as a consequence of the re ection symmetry of the nuclear shape). keeping only the linear term (cf.B. (96) is expanded in powers of the coupling. ) + V0 (r) = VCoul(r. (95) and (96). Eq. The monopole contribution is already included in the Woods-Saxon parameterization and so is not needed. R0 is the sum of the target and projectile radii and R1 is the ^ is a general coupling operator between the internal mean radius of the deformed target. Higher-Order Couplings Up to this point. 1992a). we have utilized only a rst-order coupling between nuclear states and translational motion. (98) is taken to be the same as in HIBM ( tted to reproduce the energy level scheme and the electromagnetic transition rates of the target nucleus) and is thus not a free parameter. ) 0 ? R1 O : Vnuc (r. In the standard IBM with s and d bosons. 4. the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. To include the e ects of couplings to all orders. This can be achieved by exploiting the symmetry properties of the resolvent operator directly without utilizing its path integral representation. we used the usual approximation in which the nuclear potential of Eq. The quadrupole and hexadecapole operators are given by ~ + dys](2) + dyd ~](2) .. in which in Eq.

) : t int n To derive this result we ignore the excitation energies in the target nucleus... This corresponds to setting the term HIBM to be zero in Eqs. 1994b). rii = h f . The total cross section can be calculated by multiplying these eigen-channel cross sections by the weight factors indicated in Eq. but otherwise is not sensitive to the details of the nuclear wave functions. which is an inclusive process. O n X y + = h f jU jnihnjUj iihrf jGn jrii n (104) 1 (105) G+ n (E ) = E + ? H ? H (r. The similarity of the results implies that subbarrier fusion probes the overall coupling strength in nuclei. (104) is the resolvent operator for one-dimensional motion in the potential Hint(r. O ^ The basic idea is to identify the unitary transformation which diagonalizes the operator O ^d = U O ^U y O in order to calculate its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions ^djni = njni: O Assuming the completeness of these eigenfunctions X jnihnj = 1 n (101) (102) (103) one can write the matrix element of the resolvent as h f . The calculation of the matrix element hnjUj ii within the IBM is straightforward (Balantekin et al. Balantekin et al. (104). In order to calculate the fusion cross section to all orders we consider the resolvent operator for the system 1 G+(E ) = + (100) ^) : E ? Ht ? HIBM ( ) ? Hint(r. the fusion cross section of which can easily be calculated within the standard WKB approximation. n). In this case. 1994a. rii = h f . 1993. In this sense subbarrier fusion. 1994b) except for slight di erences in the barrier distributions (which can be made even smaller by ne tuning the coupling strengths).(88)). is in the same category as other static quantities (energy levels. rf jU y E + ? Ht ? Hint(r. there are no visible di erences between the sd and sdg model predictions. rf j G+(E ) j i.. It is also possible to generalize the previous formalism to include arbitrary kinds of bosons in the target nucleus and investigate whether g bosons have any discernible e ects on subbarrier fusion reactions. electromagnetic transition 24 where . (100) and (105). the G+ n (E ) given in Eq. O i h ^d) ?1 X jnihnjUj i. Balantekin et al. rf jU yU E + ? Ht ? Hint (r. ri i h i ^ ) ?1 U yUj i.. One nds that (Balantekin et al.

1995) recently attracted some attention.rates). and for 16 O + 152 Sm by Wuosmaa et al. (1994a) t the existing data on vibrational and rotational nuclei with a consistent set of parameters which are then used to predict the cross-section and < ` >-distributions. (1983) demonstrated that even when there are isotopic di erences in the fusion cross section (Wu et al. or the IBM-based models (Balantekin et al. 1996) and in the vibrational coupling in subbarrier fusion (Hinde et al. 1987). a systematic study of subbarrier fusion of 16 O with rare earth nuclei became possible. Morton.. Leigh et al.. CCDEF (Fernandez-Niello et al. 1989).. The inversion procedure of Balantekin et al. Morton et al. Fusion cross sections for the reactions 16O + 144. 1987b).. 1985). such as neck formation may play an important role. (1991). 1994b). 1994. Leigh et al. The angular momentum distributions for 16O + 154 Sm was measured by Bierman et al. COMPARISON OF CURRENT THEORY WITH DATA A. Balantekin et al.. CCMOD (Dasgupta et al. (1994a) and the angular momentum distribution calculations of Balantekin et al. 1993. As we mentioned earlier it is worthwhile to keep in mind that although these 25 . 1994a..148 Sm were deduced by Baba (1993).. Many experimental groups use simpli ed coupled-channels codes such as CCFUS (Dasso and Landowne. Those for 16O + 144. Figure 8 compares those data with the cross section calculations of Balantekin et al. Status of Coupled-Channels Calculations DiGregorio and Stokstad (1991) presented a systematic analysis of fusion cross sections and average angular momenta for fourteen di erent systems using a barrier penetration model that includes coupling to inelastic channels. as the system penetrates the barrier individual nuclei preserve their character and one can talk about coupling of the states in the target nuclei to the quantum tunneling process. (1965).. Balantekin et al.154 Sm and 16 O + 186 W were measured by the Australian National University group (Wei et al.148.. This assertion was later explicitly con rmed (Aprahamian et al. V. 1994. The barrier is thus formed at a rather large nuclear separation. They concluded that model predictions explain data well for light and asymmetric systems whereas large discrepancies exist for large symmetric systems. (1993). On the other hand... long before two nuclear surfaces start touching.. Balantekin et al. 1991. Lemmon et al.. This feature of the IBM makes it possible to discuss the e ects of anharmonicities in the vibrational coupling in subbarrier fusion using the U (5) limit (Hagino et al. one can still describe the quantum tunneling with a one-dimensional e ective potential for very light systems. 1997b). 1993. Consequently. (1994c). Using this formalism. 1992). 1993.. 1995). for heavier and more symmetric systems other e ects not explicitly included in the coupled-channels calculations. Arima and Iachello (1976) pointed out that the U (5) symmetry limit of the IBM should exhibit in the spectra anharmonicities similar to the geometric anharmonic vibrator model of Brink et al. Indeed for light and asymmetric systems the basic premise of the coupled-channels calculations is justi ed: For these systems the repulsive Coulomb potential is relatively weak and the tail of the attractive nuclear potential has su cient strength to \turn it around" to form the potential barrier. in contrast to exclusive processes such as proton scattering. Finally one should mention that the e ects of anharmonicities both in nuclear spectra (Casten and Zam r. and does not seem to constitute a dynamic probe of nuclei.

it may be sagacious to check what the approximations are and if the observed discrepancies with the data is a result of these simpli cations. 1986. In Section IV B. The source of the energy dependence can be either channel coupling or the non-locality of the exchange contribution (Galetti and Candido Ribeiro. The cross sections measured by Ackermann et al. In the rest of this section we discuss representative data illustrating these e ects. One sees a discernible enhancement for the 58 Ni+64Ni system over the 64 Ni+64Ni system. These cross sections were later measured by Schicker et al. such as two light ions. B. known as \threshold anomaly" (Satchler. Algebraic models. 1997) of the knowledge of the optical potential between even much simpler systems. For example. It is now experimentally possible to observe up to six-nucleon transfer at subbarrier energies (Jiang et al. indicate that many anomalies needed to be resolved before a good theoretical understanding of the elastic scattering data can be achieved. Galetti and Candido Ribeiro (1995) compared non-local e ects and coupled channels calculations in simple models of nuclear fusion. 1993) emerged. 1991). the signi cance of the hexadecapole deformations (RhodesBrown and Oberacker.. Even the choice of the optical potential should be scrutinized. Before one makes a quantitative statement. 1983a. where the energies are normalized to the height of the s-wave potential barrier. (1988) and more recently by Ackermann et al. Hence in the near future systematic studies including nucleon transfer reactions. coupling of multiphonon states (Takigawa and Ikeda. 1994). we explicitly demonstrated the e ect of the higher order couplings. Broglia et al. The very rst coupled-channels calculations for heavy-ion fusion assumed a linear coupling to quadrupole or octupole surface vibrations and quadrupole deformations. For heavier systems. 1989).. the optical potential was shown to have a strong energy dependence.. such as ignoring the radial dependence of the coupling form factor. In the symmetric system 64Ni+64Ni 26 . Section III B). and higher-order couplings (Balantekin et al.codes are quite adequate for qualitative comparisons. (1996) for the 58Ni+64Ni and 64 Ni+64Ni systems are displayed in Figure 9. and elastic scattering may be possible. (1996). a recent survey (Brandan and Satchler. excitation energies and/or higher-order couplings.. Nucleon Transfer Another interesting question is the e ect of the nucleon transfer on subbarrier fusion (cf.. at present do not include the e ects of nucleon transfer.. In particular the role of transfer channels with positive Q-values has been emphasized (Broglia et al. 1983). Indeed these were the pioneering experiments of Beckerman et al. Nagarajan et al. The e ect of nucleon transfer on fusion can be illustrated for example by considering fusion reactions between di erent Ni isotopes. 1993). The crucial ingredient of the coupled-channels calculations is to identify relevant degrees of freedom and to model the appropriate Hamiltonian. they may be making a number of assumptions. from ts to elastic scattering data at energies near the barrier. fusion. neutron transfer (Broglia et al. (1980) where the enhancement of subbarrier fusion cross sections was rst observed. (1985) pointed out that the dispersion relation between the real and imaginary parts of the optical potential should be used in regions where the absorption varies rapidly with energy such as near and below the barrier. Esbensen and Landowne. Kruppa et al. 1983b. 1994). 1983a). such as that described in Section IV. As more precise data became available.

They nd that both fusion cross sections as well as average angular momenta can be explained by coupled channels calculations. One needs to include an additional channel with the Q-value of the two-neutron pick-up reaction to bring the data and theory into agreement. where no transfer channels with positive Q-values are present. 1973). 50 Ti +60 Ni. For example.. C. 1994). (1996) for the systems 46 Ti +64 Ni. These additional channels increase the 58Ni+64Ni cross section (cf. 1996) for the systems 28 Si+100 Mo and 64 Ni+64 Ni leading to the compound nucleus 128 Ba. Furthermore. and 48 Ti+122Sn. are already well reproduced only with coupling to the inelastic channels. in the 58Ni+64Ni system there is an additional coupling of the transfer channel 64 Ni(58Ni. but is not su cient to reproduce the data. and by Charlop et al. In fusion reactions of identical nuclei there are a number of interesting e ects magni ed by the existence of only even partial waves. Such a measurement was recently performed (Ackermann et al.. Hence the data of Ackermann et al. the discussion in Section III B). (1994) showed that the e ect of the neutron-stripping channel in the second reaction is evident in the barrier distribution. as compared to the no-coupling limit. 27 .. (1995) showed that even in cases where no oscillatory structure is visible in cross section.60Ni)62Ni with a Q-value of Q = +3:9 MeV. Signatures of positive Q-value transfer reactions can also be identi ed in fusion barrier distributions. Probing Asymmetry E ects One way to probe the e ects of asymmetry of the system other than nucleon transfer is to measure fusion cross sections and average angular momenta for di erent systems leading to the same compound nucleus. there still is a signature of the elastic transfer in the barrier distributions. 19 F +93 Nb. 32S+138 Ba. (1995) for the systems 28 Si+142Ce. On the other hand. Studies of transfer channel coupling and entrance channel e ects for the near and subbarrier fusion was also given by Prasad et el. These measurements complement a previous measurement for the system 16 O+112 Cd (Ackermann et al. elastic transfer plays an important role in such collisions (von Oertzen and Noremberg.there are no transfer channels with positive Q-values. The data for the symmetric system 64Ni+64Ni. Christley et al. (1996) also provide evidence for the in uence of the two-nucleon transfer channels with positive Q-values on the fusion probabilities. 1983). By comparing barrier distributions for 16 O+144Sm and17 O+144Sm reactions Morton et al. These authors also report no signi cant entrance channel e ects except that the positive Q value for two-neutron pickup shows up as an additional enhancement in the 46 Ti +64Ni system. and only those channels describing inelastic excitations need to be included. the fusion cross sections have an oscillatory structure as a function of energy (Po e et al. For the 28 Si+100Mo system including lowest 2+ and 3? states of both the target and the projectile in the coupledchannels calculation improves the agreement between theory and data.

D. Here the results of coupled-channels calculations to all orders (solid lines) agree with the data very well as opposed to the no-coupling (the dotted lines). (1995c) and by DeWeerd (1996)..100 Mo reactions (Rehm et al. While one-phonon space clearly fails in describing the barrier distribution. (1992). 1993). E. and consequently they were carried out by very few groups. These calculations can be very involved. (1995c). (1993) using the IBM in the limit of zero excitation energy (cf. In these experiments it was also observed that the cross section for the 32 S+110 Pd system is greatly enhanced because of the two-neutron transfer channel. 1991) and then numerically obtained eigenvalues and the associated weights (cf. (96)) up to second order with respect to the deformation parameter obtaining a good agreement between their calculations and data for fusion cross sections between di erent nickel isotopes. (1995c) for this system and by Stefanini et al. (1993). Coupled-channels calculations including coupling to all orders and the nite excitation energy of nuclear surface vibrations were performed for the 58 Ni+60Ni reaction (Stefanini et al. (1997a) for the system 64Ni+96Zr is compared with the data of Stefanini et al. and one has to solve full coupled-channels equations. These e ects were discussed by Balantekin et al. The quadratic coupling approximation was shown to describe well fusion cross sections and angular momentum distributions for the 58. Esbensen and Landowne (1987) expanded the coupling potential (cf. Leigh et al. and quadratic coupling (the dashed lines) cases. the agreement with data successively improves as one includes more phonons in the calculation. Since 110 Pd lies between U (5) and SO(6) symmetry limits of the IBM it cannot be described analytically. In Figure 11 the calculation of Hagino et al. Simpli ed coupled-channels calculations for these systems are performed by Stefanini et al.36 S+110 Pd systems. An important feature of this calculation is that a 28 . His result for the barrier distribution of the 36 S+110 Pd system is displayed in Figure 10 along with the data. assumed a constant coupling explicitly including the nite Q value of the coupled channels. Signatures of Nuclear Vibrations One relatively unexplored aspect of subbarrier fusion is searching for signatures of nuclear vibrations. Section IV B).64 Ni+92. Stefanini et al. (104)). using the method of Kruppa et al. DeWeerd (1996) rst numerically calculated quadrupole matrix elements between di erent states using the PHINT code (Scholten. For nuclear surface vibrations the excitation energies cannot be neglected in most cases. This drastic change in the barrier distribution for di erent numbers of phonons was also noted by Stefanini et al. Eq. To search for signatures of nuclear vibrations Stefanini et al. In this calculation up to double phonon states are included in the coupled channels. (1995) con rmed the e ects of vibrational coupling in the 16 O+144 Sm system. linear-coupling (the dot-dashed lines). 110 Pd is a vibrational nucleus whose twoquadrupole-phonon triplet is well known. (1995c) measured the fusion cross section for 32. E ect of Non-linear couplings An important component in the theoretical description of the subbarrier fusion data is the e ect of non-linear couplings. The upper panel compare theory and calculations for the fusion cross section and the lower panel for the average angular momenta. 1995b). Eq. (1995b) for the 58 Ni+60 Ni system..

(1994a) for the 16 O+194 Pt system agree very well with the evaporation residues measured by Stefanini et al. Rowley et al. G. To understand this e ect of the shape phase transition in the barrier distributions. Moments of angular momenta are related to the moments of fusion cross sections (Balantekin et al... 1986. but with a negative sign (oblate) and a hexadecapole deformation parameter comparable to that of 192 Os in sign and magnitude. which may explain some of the reported discrepancies. The barrier distributions calculated using the IBM based model of Section IV by Balantekin et al.. Probing Shape Phase Transitions with Fusion Until recently little attention was paid to subbarrier fusion on gamma unstable targets.. F. They found that there is good agreement between theory and data obtained from isomer ratio and gamma-ray multiplicity measurements with the exception of more symmetric systems. There have been many attempts to extract average angular momenta directly from the fusion excitation functions (Balantekin and Reimer. Especially if the ` distribution is pushed to higher ` values as a result of coupling to other channels < `2 >1=2 may signi cantly di er from < ` >. the fusion cross sections for transitional nuclei Pt and Os were recently measured using an 16 O beam by the Legnaro group (Stefanini et al.. 194 Pt has a quadrupole deformation parameter similar in magnitude to those of 192 Os. From the ssion fragment angular anisotropy measurements one obtains not < ` >. 192 Os has a positive (prolate) quadrupole deformation parameter and a negative hexadecapole deformation parameter. one needs to include couplings to all order. The e ect of this shape phase transition on the barrier distributions would be noticeable by the skewness toward higher energies for prolate nuclei and toward lower energies for oblate nuclei (Balantekin et al. 1996).truncation of the coupling within the double phonon space even at the quadratic level is not su cient to describe the data. but < `2 >. These relations can help assess the consistency of accurate fusion cross section measurements with measurements extracting angular momentum distributions using di erent methods. Reisdorf et al. 29 . (Since 40Ca is a heavier projectile one expects this e ect to be enhanced). Angular Momentum Distributions DiGregorio and Stokstad (1991) also compared average angular momenta obtained using di erent experimental techniques with theoretical predictions. 1985. The total fusion cross sections calculated by Balantekin et al. The isotopes are similar in all respects other than the 2 sign.. The Os and Pt region is interesting to study since these nuclei go through a shape transition from prolate to oblate as one increases the number of protons from 76 to 78. 1995a) and a 40Ca beam by the Seattle group (Bierman et al. (1995a) once the ssion cross sections estimated by the statistical model calculations are subtracted.. 1993. (1994a) is shown in Figure 12. but not for the ssion fragment measurements. 1996). An excellent review of the e orts to measure angular momentum distributions in fusion reactions was given by Vandenbosch (1992). 1996a). Balantekin et al. 1994a).

Di culties in Extracting Barrier Distributions Since barrier distributions include the second energy derivative of the cross section. One should point out that fusion barrier distribution extracted from the 16 O+186W data of Lemmon et al. 1991).. Esbensen and Landowne.. where the results are also compared with the CCDEF calculations. H. 1996).. one of the main advantages of using barrier distributions is that they bring out important features in the data. very accurate measurements of excitation functions at closely spaced energies are required. 1992) ! d2(E ) = ? 2(E )n ? (E )n+1 ? (E )n?1 : (106) dE 2) n ( E )2 If the statistical errors on the cross section are a xed fraction of their measured values 30 . This problem was recently associated with the contribution of the 2n transfer reactions to the rst excited 2+ state of 42 Ca (Bierman et al.. which are just those expected from a change in sign of the hexadecapole deformation.7 MeV and the two neutron transfer reactions from the target nucleus to the ground state of 42Ca.. 1996b).. 1996). There are pronounced di erences between this distribution and that of 16 O+154 Sm (Wei et al. To illustrate the reason for this behavior consider a set of fusion data measured at a xed energy spacing E . Even with very high precision data. DeWeerd. smooth barrier distributions can only be obtained under certain model dependent assumptions such as ne-tuning the energy spacing for calculating second derivatives (Izumoto et el. while the radial dependence of the form factor of the collective model was used for rotational excitations. Krappe and Rossner (1995) suggested to use integrals. moments of the cross sections are even more featureless than the cross sections themselves (Balantekin et al. (1993) has the shape expected for a target nucleus with a negative hexadecapole deformation. These data hence demonstrate s strong sensitivity of fusion to the hexadecapole deformation. 1996). which is not reproduced by the CCDEF calculations. However. 1986. The predicted skewness of the barrier distribution toward higher energies for the prolate nucleus 194 Os and toward lower energies for the oblate nucleus 194 Pt is observed. rather than the derivatives of the fusion data to improve model independence in the analyses. Even with a very high precision in the fusion cross section it is rather di cult to extract fusion barrier distributions at higher energies as the cross section changes very slowly and the errors on the barrier distribution grow with energy. Dasso et al. 1987. The barrier distributions for both systems also exhibit a tail at the lower energies. moments of the cross section could be useful as they are related to the moments of angular momenta under certain assumptions (Balantekin and Reimer. They also take into account the excitation of the projectile to the 3? state at 3. Balantekin et al. 1995. (1996a) are shown in Figure 13. Unfortunately. The second peak for both systems is due to the excitation of the octupole state in the projectile. The calculations take the excitations of the target nucleus into account within the rotational model including both quadrupole and hexadecapole deformations. The constant coupling approximations have been used for vibrational excitation of the projectile and the transfer reactions.The 40Ca+194 Pt and 40Ca+192 Os cross sections measured and the associated barrier distributions extracted by Bierman et al. The second derivative may be approximated by the point-di erence formula (Rowley. In contrast. 1986.

In deriving this conclusion. 1993). Andres et al. suggesting an enhanced fusion cross section in the case of unstable isotope. Takigawa and Sagawa (1991) and Takigawa et al. 1993. (107) then the error in the second derivative is ! p 6fE : d2(E ) (108) 2 dE ( E )2 Hence the error on the second derivative increases as the cross section increases. its sensitivity is reduced at high energies. (1996) showed that the e ects of strong coupling are present in the barrier distributions from the elastic scattering. Furthermore E must be small enough to resolve any interesting structure..( )n = f n . though it is not clear yet whether the ssion took place via a compound nucleus formation. the existence of a stable soft dipole oscillation of the core nucleons against the halo neutrons was assumed. They found that although this representation of the quasi-elastic scattering data indeed shows the general features of the fusion barrier distributions. which also contributes to the large errors at high energies. (1995) do not show any characteristically di erent behavior for the case of 11 Be projectile. They observed no signi cant di erence in the excitation function for the collision of 11 Be from that of 10Be. but are smoothed out since di erent eigen-barriers have phase di erences. This might explain why the fusion data of Yoshida et al. which appear in rst order in the elastic scattering cross section. Yoshida et al. 1988). Timmers et al. As has been shown by Takigawa and Sagawa (1991). It has been suggested that information about the barrier distributions may be contained in the quasi-elastic scattering excitation functions at backward angles (Kruppa et al. the existence of a physical soft dipole oscillation in light halo nuclei is unlikely (Sagawa et al.. 1995). Fusion of Unstable Nuclei Heavy-ion fusion reactions induced by a halo nucleus or by an unstable neutron rich nucleus are very intriguing current subjects of nuclear physics (Ishihara et el. I. More recently Rowley et al.10. (1995) recently developed a method to extract a representation of the fusion barrier distribution from quasi-elastic excitation functions. On the other hand. (1992b) suggested that the fusion cross section will be signi cantly enhanced if one uses a halo nucleus as the projectile. Furthermore the e ects are also smoothed by weak couplings. (1995) studied the fusion reactions of 11. the neutron halo itself can enhance the fusion cross section by 31 .. It would be important to treat the phase problem properly in order to obtain information on barrier distributions from the elastic scattering data.9 Be with 209 Bi at energies near the Coulomb barrier. Several groups have performed experiments to examine whether the fusion cross section in such cases is signi cantly di erent from that in heavy ion collisions induced by the corresponding stable isotopes. but only in second order in fusion cross section.. Though it is not yet completely settled down. (1994) have reported that the induced ssion cross section near the Coulomb barrier is much larger in the 11Be + 238 U reaction than that in the 9 Be + 238 U reaction. This is a very interesting result. Fukou-Youmbi et al. whereas the second derivative itself gets smaller at higher energies.

It is possible that the response of the projectile in heavy ion collisions induced by a neutron rich unstable nucleus can be formulated in terms of the coupling to a resonance state. Takigawa et al.. As 11 Li and 9 Li approach each other. 1995). Dasso and Vitturi (1994) contended that the break-up channel enhance the fusion probability. (1995a) showed that this cross section is somewhat reduced when di erent initial conditions are used. This e ect alone is. and that consequently there exists a large bond e ect in + this system. but the two neutrons in the halo can be shared by both cores. 11 Be has less pronounced halo property than 11 Li. one needs to know more about the radial dependence of the break-up form factor and has to treat both the real and the virtual break-up precesses in a consistent way including the associated potential renormalization. consisting of 9 Li core and halo di-neutrons. however. Bertulani and Balantekin (1993) studied this problem by using the fusion between 11 Li. 32 . not so drastic. (1995) argued that the fusion cross section of a halo nucleus will be hindered by the break-up e ect. In order to reach a de nite conclusion. the admixture of higher orbits. To the contrary. we wish to remark that a polarization of the wave functions of the valence neutrons. (1993) have shown that although the large enhancement of the fusion cross section is moderated by the break-up. Notice that 11Be has two bound states 1p? 1=2 and 2s1=2 and one low lying resonance state 1d+ 5=2 . One can then investigate the e ect of this molecular bonding on the fusion of 11Li and 9 Li. the halo nucleus 11Li still leads to a larger fusion cross section than the other Li isotopes. i. (1994) showed that nucleon transfer is enhanced for fusion reactions between a stable and an unstable nucleus with neutron halo. One should point out that this conclusion relies on the assumption that there exists a soft dipole resonance in 11 Li. Imanishi and von Oertzen (1995) studied the bond e ect in the fusion between 11Be and 10 Be and showed that a signi cant polarization of the valence nucleons starts to take place even where the core nuclei are still far apart if the binding energy of the valence nucleons is small. Existence of molecular bonding.statically lowering the fusion barrier. The calculations of both groups were done in the adiabatic approximation. Using time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory Kim et al. 1985. Canto et al.. These preliminary calculations indicated (Bertulani and Balantekin. and its e ect on the fusion process remains to be an open question. is essential in order for the bond e ect to be signi cant. and 9Li as an example . Several models exist to calculate the e ect of the width of the resonant state on quantum tunneling (Balantekin and Takigawa. Takigawa et al. In this connection. One interesting subject to be explored is the e ects of the bond formation due to halo neutrons on the fusion cross section. there is a particular separation distance at which both the Coulomb and nuclear potentials between the two cores are small. On the other hand.e. Hussein et al. Some debate exists concerning the e ects of break up of the halo nuclei. 1993) a very signi cant enhancement of the fusion cross section due to molecular bonding. which tends to overestimate the e ect. Moreover. The hybridization of these opposite parity con gurations causes a large polarization.

to assess the conditions for the formation of super-heavy elements. among other things. its origin and the dependence on various parameters of the system.. The incident energy has to be considerably higher than the fusion barrier expected from the Bass potential (Bass. This situation is encountered when the product of the atomic numbers of the projectile and target exceeds about 1800 (Reisdorf.J. but rather hindered. charge. A signi cant advance occurred when Hofmann et el. For such reactions. This indicates the existence of a kind of enhancement mechanism of the fusion cross section in massive systems as well once the hindrance e ect associated with the extra push problem is isolated. while the latter is the energy needed to carry the system inside the unconditional saddle for ssion. ssion becomes an increasingly important de-excitation channel. This is the heaviest element recorded to date and it is only two atomic number away from the predicted magic number Z=114. The former is the energy needed to overcome the conditional saddle. It would certainly be very interesting to look for alternative ways to synthesize super heavy elements. are not fully understood. These authors discussed the advantages such as the larger survival probability of the compound system. (1996) at GSI working with the SHIP velocity lter has succeeded in producing the super heavy element Z=112 by the so called cold fusion method using 70 Zn + 208 Pb reaction.e. A signi cant di erence between the fusion of massive nuclei and the fusion of medium weight nuclei which we discussed so far is that the fusion cross section for very massive systems is not enhanced. mass. Actually. and angular momenta. An interesting question in this connection is to examine whether there are advantages of using neutron rich unstable nuclei. i. fusion starts competing with other reaction channels representing a signi cant exchange of energy. where there exists an extra push. i..e. a problem is that the cross section is very small. lowering of 33 . One should note that the decrease of the fusion cross section with decreasing bombarding energy in massive systems. only two events were identi ed for Z = 112. evaporation residues and ssion fragments must be added to obtain the total fusion cross section. Though there have been quite a number of experimental as well as theoretical studies of the extra push energy. These topics are covered in a recent review by Reisdorf (1994). the saddle under the constraint of mass asymmetry. is also much slower than that expected in the potential model where there exists an extra push. Understanding the dynamics of fusion and competing reactions for very massive systems is essential. An interesting problem concerning the fusion of massive nuclei is the synthesis of super heavy elements. Fusion of Very Massive Systems and Superheavy Nuclei As the compound nuclei formed in the fusion get heavier. As systems get more massive (ZpZt > 1000). (1992b) and Takigawa and Shinozuka (1992c). such as the e ective ssility parameter in the entrance channel. 1994). Bjornholm and Swiatecki (1982) attributed this hindrance phenomena to the fact that the ssion barrier for massive systems locates well inside the potential barrier in the entrance channel. Though the successful synthesis of element 112 after the synthesis of elements 110 and 111 in 1994 seems to indicate that a similar experimental strategy can be used to go further to the realm of the heaviest elements. of the order of 1 pb. and introduced the concepts of the extra push and the extra extra push. A preliminary study in this direction has been undertaken by Takigawa et al. 1974) which was determined to t the fusion data above the barrier for medium weight systems with ZpZt = 64 ? 850 in a potential model. This excess energy is called the extra push energy.

One should nally remark that there are many other tunneling phenomena in nuclear physics besides heavy-ion fusion reactions. 1995). and disadvantages such as the low beam intensity in reactions induced by neutron rich unstable nuclei. such as the path integral and Green function formalisms. Acquisition of high precision. 1982.e. and the possible lowering of the extra-push energies. 1987. 1983. we wish to note the computer simulations for sub-barrier fusion reactions by Bonasera and Kondratyev (1994). 34 . 1981. Krappe et al. 1988).. In passing. VI. 1989. new approaches to channel coupling. we wish to mention that Nomura et al. Yu Denisov and Royer. in addition to testing our present understanding of the fusion dynamics in a new setting. OPEN PROBLEMS AND OUTLOOK Although there still are many unsettled issues even in fusion reactions with stable nuclei. (1997) are introducing a di usion model to theoretically discuss the mechanism of the synthesis of super heavy elements. In connection with the former. transfer reactions.the fusion barrier. asymmetric) systems in terms of inelastic excitations and nucleon transfer. such as those using the Interacting Boson Model. Iwamoto and Takigawa. and that Aritomo et al. were introduced. Several existing and presently under construction experimental facilities providing beams of short-lived radioactive nuclei present new opportunities to explore the dynamics of the fusion reactions below the Coulomb barrier. In such systems inclusion of higher-order coupling is essential. Alpha decay.. xn) reactions to experimentally synthesize super heavy elements using the cooling mechanism by particle emission. 1978. Though there are many pioneering attempts which relate the large enhancement of the fusion cross section to the neck formation (Jahnke et al. Iwamoto and Harada. remarkable progress has been made in the last fteen years. The e ects of neck formation could be formulated in terms of the quantum tunneling in a multi-dimensional space (Landowne and Nix. though both of them treat a thermal process rather than a quantum tunneling process. (1995) is trying to use (HI. and elastic scattering at below and near the barrier should be encouraged as theoretical tools are available to analyze them. In such facilities. higher-order couplings. We can now understand the data for clean (i. a microscopic description of fusion reactions in general and neck formation in particular is still at a very primitive stage and needs to be further developed. On the other hand.. Aguiar et al. conceptually alluring ways of analyzing data. and shape-phase transitions were elucidated. 1994. various rare decays. and alternative methods to describe nuclear structure e ects. ssion. complementary data for fusion. and nuclear structure problems such as the decay of a superdeformed band to a normal band will also be e ected by coupling to the intrinsic degrees of freedom and insight obtained in the study of heavy-ion fusion reactions at subbarrier energies will be a valuable tool to understand these phenomena in more detail. Yu Denisov and Royer.. fusion cross sections for very heavy symmetric systems cannot be reproduced by the present models. such as studying barrier distributions. New. One salient ingredient is a proper description of neck formation. Kodama et al. one can experimentally investigate entirely new facets such as the coupling of resonant states to quantum tunneling and the possibility of molecular bond formation. The roles of nucleon transfer..

08240204. N. 06640368 and No. the Grant-in-Aid for Scienti c Research on Priority Areas. DeWeerd. Hagino for their comments on the manuscript. Science and Culture Contract No. in part by the Japan Society of Promotion of Science. 08640380. S. Contracts No. We are grateful to our collaborators and colleagues J. PHY-9314131 and PHY-9605140. and Monbusho International Scienti c Research Program: Joint Research from the Japanese Ministry of Education. Vandenbosch for many discussions over the years. 35 . Contracts No. R. Bennett. and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. J. It was also supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for General Scienti c Research.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank J. Kuyucak. A. K. National Science Foundation Grants No. 09044051. 05243102 and No. Leigh. Rowley. Hagino.S. Beacom and K. This research was supported in part by the U.

C. B 339.. 535.A. Kuyucak.A. Rev. University of Washington preprint. and P. 1996. and V.S. Spolaore. Bennett. Corradi. M.M.. Bennett. A.B.B. Bennett. P. Phys. A. 1994. Beckerman. 1987. and S.D.. A. Bjornholm. A. Takigawa. 1997. Gindler. R1011. McMahan.. 1991.. G. 1980. 1994. Bass. and N. and R.. 1985. Balantekin. D.. Nucl..R. A. A. 1993. M. Rev. 1269. Takigawa. A. Scarlassara. Ackermann. and R.R. 319 Bierman. DiRienzo. 1988. M. 295. and S. 1047. 719c. H. Balantekin. 1985..B.F. Bertulani. B. P.R. Signorini. J. Bonasera. Gill. Phys. Aguiar. Phys. A. J. C. D..E. N. C. A. Balantekin. Bierman. Rev. Phys. Rev. and C. 1986. M. C 46. 1996. 1994. M. 1997. Brink. J. L. A.B. A 405. Balantekin. DeWeerd. Phys. A. Vandenbosch. C 55. Beghini. A. M. 149. 45. Phys.A. Lett. A 575.M. Petrache. 1988.B. Phys. Andres. 285. Y. Stefanini. Bennett.M. Balantekin. Back. Bednarczyk. A. Donangelo. C 33. D. W. and D.R. Phys. (N. Ackermann. Brenner. 145. Baba. Nucl.. Kelly. Zhang. A.D. R. J. L. Phys. Phys. Scarlassara. D. Rev. C 49. 1995. 1965. 301. and J. 91. S. J. A. Phys. Phys. and G. Arima. Rev. 1992. H. 374. J. J. Barbosa. Balantekin. J. Phys.B.. 51. 1983. 143.. J. Montagnoli. Rev. Stefanini. Abe. T.F. Baisen. J.W. Balantekin.J. Swiatecki. Balantekin. Kuyucak. Phys. Kuyucak. 1565. Casten. 379. Phys.Abe. Kuyucak. J. G. D. Phys. 517. D. A. Phys. Gazes. Phys. 36 REFERENCES . 1472. M. Koonin. 59. Balantekin. (NY) 160. and M.P. Rev. Napoli. 1993. Muller. Smilansky.B.B. 1079. Ye. Reimer. 292 Aprahamian.R. Phys.P.F. C 32. de Toledo Piza. Rep. Nucl.B.. Vandenbosch.M. A 609. Phys. Nucl. and N. Pol. C 48. Signorini.F. 253. Napoli. Lett. Liang. R. 1983. Molitoris.E. Takigawa. Sonzogni and R. 1994.. Spolaore. Charlop. Varier.M.C. Ackermann. C 54. Segato. C. and F. Rev. Saini. Bennett. Kondratyev.J. V. Piotrowski. K.B. Liang. D. Lett. Ball. D. D. Rev. and U. and S. Rev. Phys.A. Phys. and S.. P. S. F. 195.Y. DeWeerd. Corradi. Lynch. Negele.E. C. A.V. 1982.D. Tsang. Nagarajan. 45. Wada.V. 76. 1993. B 209. and C.G. G. L. 1853. L. 2019. R. 1988.F.. Lett. Canto. B 335. M. S. Wilkins.W. 1994. Nai-feng. Acta Phys. and A. A 553. 207. B 26.E. and A. J. 1996. S. Kuyucak. Rowley. S. Beghini. Nucl.) 99. Phys.R. Iachello. J. Lett. 1974. Sperduto.D.. 413. A. Gelbke. Ann. 441. Montagnoli. A. C 44. Betts. B 201. C 48. C 49.K. Kelly. Rev. Petrache.J.R. 275. A. M.M.. B 202. 1587.J. and P. Rep. M. Lett. Phys. G. Chan. Phys. R.B. Prindle. Bennett. Aritomo. Vandenbosch. C. R. 1993.R. S.A. Phys. Lett.B. Kerman. Beckerman. A. and A. 471. 1996.D.. Soramle. P.. and S. Satchler. F. Segato. 1988. M. Chan.E. J. Prog. P. Lett. 22. Sonzogni.F. F. A. Salomaa. C 28. Balantekin. Ann. Rev.L. Phys. Rev. and N. Phys. A 231. Nucl. Brandan.. 19. Enge. A.A. 1976. Lett.F.R. Y.. Balantekin. A 391. Chen. B 314.K. Phys..K.R. and M. Kuyucak. Brink. 1294. Lett. Phys.B.M. and W. Ohta and Y. Phys. Bierman. B. and S.

Rev. 1994. 171. 1983. 397.F. Landowne. Rep. Rev..M.R. Stokstad. and N. Phys. Landowne. 34.R. 1991. and S. 1989.E. Vitturi. Semi-Classical Methods for Nucleus-Nucleus Scattering (Cambridge University Press. and N.B. Nemes. 628. Mod. and G. 147. Caldeira. 187. Landowne. Leggett. Pollarolo. DiGregorio. and A. Fukou-Youmbi. Novotny. 60. P. Christley. Lesko. C. Agarwal. H. J. 1994). P. 389. and R. Silveira Gomes. 1987. Coimbra. Muhlhans. Navin.C. A. Cambridge. A 411. 473. 322. Phys. DiGregorio. C 27. Norman..O. V. Rev. Phys. Dasso. C 52. H. R. A. 171. Roy. A. 1994. Metag. Phys.M. Y. and S. Dasso. A.K.D.. Esbensen. Lotti. Esbensen. England. Rev. Macchiavelli.G. 1983. V. L. Commun. S.R.K. 351. Vitturi. (Plenum Press. Hussein.G. Charlop. Landowne. 305. Donangelo. Phys. Rev. Dasso. Ann. M. A 405. R. Edmonds..K. Gil.O. Vautherin. Lett. (NY) 149.. 1987. Phys. 1988.A. C. Rev. Rev.J. 1992. Jain. 1995. Broglia. 264. R. Nucl. (NY) 147. Wu. 1991. C. Stokstad. R. A. p. 136. A..R. Dissertation.E. Phys. 1983. Jain. 57. D. and D.A.E. and S. 1985). and A. A 18. C. and S. 1986. Esbensen. 141. G.. Nagarajan. Eds. 1978. R. J. Koch. P. Landowne. S. Brink. Phys.M. S. 1990. 1958. Phys. Phys. 81. Chase. Stefanini. 37 . Dasso. Phys. Warner.. N.C. J. Heavy Ion Fusion. C 50. and S. Z. Prindle. M. D. Ruckelshausen. Phys. DeWeerd. Landowne.H. Dasso. J. Vanin. Phys. S. DiGregorio. Sur. and M. 110.H.. L43.M. and C. Landowne. A467.H. Commun. D. 409. 54. Abriola. Esbensen.V.J. C 42. R. Wilets. A 352. G 20. Broglia.. D. Baba. Rev. and C.F. Dasso. Agarwal. 1985). Rev. Exploring the Variety of Nuclear Properties. C. Royer. Yu Denisov. Stokstad. Phys. 1085. 1995. Phys. Garcia. H.H. Liguori Neto. Phys. 381.. Jhingan. and D. Winther. Rev. Nucl.D. Ye. L. Rev. Alamanos. Fernandez-Niello. Comput. Y.M. Roy. 1216. 58. M. J.. Lett. 46. 407. K.A. V. 2108. Broglia. Eds. S.. in Frontiers of Nuclear Dynamics. and D. V. 1989.-Q.K. Atomic Nucl.. and R. Esbensen. Harmon. 1983. Esbensen.O Fernandez Niello. Cole.. J. and A. A 591. V. Bierman.A. Good. Testoni. Brink. R2848. London. and A. p.. et al. B 176. Royer.H. C. Kuhn. 1996. Dasgupta.A. H. Phys. J. B 133. Baba. Landowne. M. J. W. Gil. 374.E. D.W. S. J. Phys. Phys. C35.. Landowne.J. Casten.H. and G. Phys. Phys.F. 66. Landowne. Zam r. Nucl. H. Jhingan.S. Ph. Chan. D. R. Pascholati. and A. Nucl. A. and G.. Pacheco.T. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1983. 1987. A. Rev. 1995.L. Price. M. Nucl. Yu Denisov. Fischer. Navin.. A. C 43. Esbensen. 341. and A. Casten.H. and R. 1983. R. Carlin Filho. 221. Vandenbosch. and A. Rev. and S. Landowne.. Ann. Dasgupta. 1080. Dasso. R.C. Pouliot. Phys.H. Dasso. Phys.D. Bertsch. H.D.Brink. 1498. 1995. 265. 1986. Singapore. Phys. 1414. E. and S. Phys. H. A. R12. C. Dasso. Phys.G. Canto. 1987. B. 1989. H. Lett. Phys.A. and G. Phys. Sonzogni. Nucl. 275. and R. C. C 51. R.L. A 539. Y.H. M. 2433.V. D. Drebi. 1981. A492. (World Scienti c. Phys. D. B 183. D. Comput. Lett. Lett.M. C. 2090. Winther. Sida.H. B.V.. C36. Nucl.F. M. 1996. Phys.L.. H. R.. and A. A. M. C.

1997. Ginocchio. Tohyama. and R. and A. Ann. 48. Phys. J... Phys. Phys. Honkanen. K. 2136. 1991. and S.A. A. 59. Halbert. 1989. Phys.W. Kuyucak. 1989.. Phys. M. C 52. Rehm. V. G. Yeremin. A 560. Takigawa. 1995. M. 845. 251 and references therein. 175. H. 1408. H. 1102. Kruppa. and I. P. N. Ann. 1989. A 314. D. Schott. Galetti. M..T. A. P. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Nuclear Reaction Mechanisms.J. T. P. and I. Z. von Oertzen. Heyng. D. 1984.C. D. and R. Phys.R. and J. Saro. Eds. Phys. Rev. 1996. Phys. de Toledo Piza. Arima. C. T. K. M. C50. and M. Johnson. and M.R. D. Mod. 79.C. B 127. Rowley. Takigawa. D. 89. Rev. Varenna. D. Munzenberg. Hagino. Phys. C 30.J. Phys. Phys. S. Phys.H. The Interacting Boson Model. H. and A. R. Simon. Ninov.C. Italy.J. 3249.. Rev. J. 62.P.. T. Yamaji. R566... and A.. 1995. Candido Ribeiro. 1988.R. Iwamoto. Bennett. Candido Ribeiro. Wuosmaa. Rev. Phys. Gehring.P.M. Beene. A. H. G 12. Singapore. Brink. J. Rev. C 50. Krappe. Rev. 192 Hussein. Nemes. T. Dasgupta.S. Rev. Reisdorf. A 531. Phys. Sarantites. 1993). Nagarajan. C 40. Amado. Phys. Semkov. Rossner. Folger. 313 (1983). Romain. M. J. C 33.S. N. 1997. 1979. Leino. Jahnke. and S. and M. Phys.R. 1987.M. Rhein. Stroher. 1995. A. N. L235.-H.J.. Nix. C 52. Hensley. Dasgupta.. C 51. N. C. Rev. Bennett. 2558. 761. R. and J. Y. R..L. 1994.M. A 354. M. Lett. T. Armbruster. Hagino.. Leigh. K.C. T. Lestone. J. W. and N. and N. Hilscher. Morrison. R. A. M.. Holub. C20. 201. 1983. 33. C 51.E.A.. H. Hanggi.. D. (NY) 181. Hussein. K. p. M. and H. Phys. R. 111. Kuyucak. P.R.R. M.C. (Cambridge. Imanishi. Hagino. Lemmon.R. 17. Talkner. Rossner. Abenante. Kutschera. Otsuka. C 17. C 55. Z. Oganessian et el. 1995. and U.J.S. 329. B 337. A 326.. Rev. V. Mein and H.H. Pato. B. 1995). Jacobs. and S. Phys. J. and K. and D. Li.. Izumoto. Rossner. Phys. Phys. Morrison. K.G. Hinde. and H. 286. 1986.M. Takigawa. J. and J. Phys. S. Phys. Lett. B 219. Nucl. B.B. Phys. in Low Energy Nuclear Dynamics.G. U. 1994. Lett. Heavy-Ion Reactions with Neutron-Rich Beams (World Scienti c. (NY) 195.P. Kodama. Rev. Rev. S. Z. Kuyucak. B 171. 1986. Smilansky. 247. 3190. A. H. Nix. 23 (1983). Eds. 1993. Borkovec. Ishihara. 176. and M.S. and W. Rev. Rev. 1988. Habs.A Sparrow. Repnow. Udagawa. 1995. D. Hill. Krappe.T. 276.D. Krappe. F. Otsuka. 1978. Wheeler. Rev. Hofmann. Phys. Timmers. Jiang. Kim.H. Iachello. Morton. and A. W. Lett. Hagino.V. and Z. Phys. Hinde. Galetti. 846..E. Nucl. Phys. Lett. K. Takigawa.J. S. Rev. Groger.. Tohoku University preprint. D. Moller. and B. Sierk. H. 1995. 992. Schwalm. 1994. Harada. P.R.F. 1987). Takigawa. 38 . Koonin. H. N. June 1994. Nazareth. J. (World Scienti c. D.. Mohring. J. and M. Iwamoto.A. Kim.A. C 51. J. Popeko.N. and E. P. Takigawa. J. K. Inui. M. and J. Janik. Rev. C 51. Gomez-Camacho. 229. R. Singapore. Phys. A. 1990. F. Glagola. He berger. M. 1953. Phys. Leigh. Rev.. Phys. Balantekin. 126.L. K.L. and D.

D. G. M.R. Alamanos. W.. Phys. 1992. Nucl. Nucl. B. Phys. 1991.C. Muller. and A. Phys. N. 1993. Hinde. G 15. 1973.C.R. Rev. Nix. Nomura. Singapore.J.-C. 72. B 373.R. 1989. Morton. A 438. Wei. Gehring. Rowley. Nucl. 1995. Nucl. Rehm. 1988. N. D. J.X. Lett. Rowley. and A. Schneider. J.R. N. 1994. J. S. Rev C 43. Noremberg. 1991). M. and I. M. Phys. H. Morton. J. Langanke.O. von Oertzen. Dasgupta. Rep. 1993.F. Maruhn. Phys. J. R. 50. 1994. 3151. Phys. D. Mein.. 1995). Lindsay.. Hofmann. Phys. C. Dissertation. 32. L269.P. Dasgupta. Schicker. Phys. and G. Dasgupta. Reisdorf. Timmers. Hessberger. Nucl. J. Yazaki. Scholten. J.L Sastry. G. J. G 10. Phys.. J. et al. R. Koonin. J. N. M.. Varier. J. Newton.X.V. Kabir.X. K. Hinde. Braun-Munzinger. Lett. Morton. J. G. N.R. Lett.C. J.A.. Morton. Rowley. pp. Das.O. 1989. N. 1985. Rowley. B. Lestone. France (World Scienti c. Kruppa.D. A 538. Hildenbrand. Sahm. 163. 1985. J.O. Phys. Oberacker. W. Rev. S.H. Takigawa. B 317. 1991. J. Timmers.R Morton.S. G 20. K. K. D. Newton. Rowley. S. 1983. Kuyucak. 498. Balantekin and N. Leigh. C. and N. 1991. Lett. A 575. and K. R. 1187. P. New York. R.C.W.A. Iwamoto.M. Leigh.. D. K. N. Hessberger. Nucl. and V. Takigawa. A 410. 31. Munzenberg. Dasgupta. C.C. 212. and J. Lett. Armbruster. Lemmon. A 207. T. and N. C 52. Phys. and S. and A. Lindsay. Nucl. K. Leigh. P. Glagola. Sinha. 352. Phys. 2936.P.. and J.T. Phys. K.H. J. A 441. Henderson.O.. C. Rev. Nagarajan. Satchler. Satchler. N. A. 1994.. Phys. and L.K.R.R.. Kuyucak. Phys. A. Rowley. Morton. 1995. Wirth. M.. 1994. 1993. and J. H. and G. Lett. 176. Rowley.J. 1981.D.-H. Lidsay..E. Reisdorf. 1435. Nguyen van Giai.E. Phys. Rowley. J. Rev C 41. 1996. R. C. Morrison. 316. and D. Lemmon.R.P. Leigh. J. Reisdorf.R. Sugathan. Z.C.V. Ph.. Phys. B 316. A 351. Ann. Mein. Timmers. 23. N.O. Rowley. Landowne. Rev. 894. D. N. J.G.R. Editors (Springer-Verlag. Proceedings of the Tours Symposium on Nuclear Physics II. G.J. Esbensen. 418-427. D. W. J. Rhodes-Brown. Vinodkumar. C.-G. D. Lindsay. and W. 1996. P. F. Australian National University. Satchler. Wuosmaa. Munzenberg. S. Clerc. Nucl.. Phys. M. Schneider. Rev. Soramel.M.-H. Po e. Hinde. B 206. Madhavan. M. (NY) 173.C. Sagawa. W. Lemmon. Phys.O. 25. Schmidt. Wei. Wei. A. Lemmon. Phys. C 47. Newton. Nagarajan. and R. J.P. and P. Mahaux. M. A. C.J. 385. Phys. and R. R437. N.. Kataria.B. Newton. 1993. and R. Phys.R.E. 381. Kruppe.T. J.X. Phys. 1987.. 1136.J. 1986.R.J.. Phys. Scmidt.H. 1983. 39 . H. Waters. H. Summerer. M. A 368. Morrison. Lett. P. Hinde. Moller. Phys. Wei. W. H. Newton. Rowley. Prasad. 1995. Rev. N.C. 205c. Stelson. N. J. Mein.C. S. 147. Leigh.. 199. Rowley. J.R.A. C34..Kuyucak. H. Hinde. W. and I. Takigawa. 4074. F. Keller. Vermeulen. K. 1984. Mein. Mein. and N. Kutschera.R. Phys. J. Leigh.J. and A. 1985. J. 179. Phys. J. F. 1297. Lett.R. Paul. 113. J. 9. Stachel. Phys. Ishihara. A 603. Tours. B 314. J. C. Lett. 54. and N... 805. B 254. Lestone..R. R. in Computational Nuclear Physics. O.

Signorini. G. and M. 1995. 1985. Ed. C. Lett. J. Singapore. A.. Scarlassara. Rowley. 1995. S. He. Ray. Kaplanis. and T.B. C 45. Takigawa. Zhang. 1981. O.S. 1986. Montagnoli. F. L. C. M. Tokyo. 1995. Phys.M. F. S. J. 1995. Segato. and G. and G. 1990). C. G.R. 1987. K. Prete. Nucl. Newton. Singapore. Moreno. and H. L. DiGregorio.B. C 52.E.. Gross. Y. 187. Sagawa. D. Rev. Acta Phys. Sahm. Spolaore.D. 1995. 1992. Sagawa. F. Nucl. Beghini. Nomura. K. Tanimura. J. Signorini. Segato. Norman. He.B. D. P. 306. Pouliot.. B 183. Soramel. Y. L. R. S. Nomura. G. and H. Takigawa. H. Leigh. Montagnoli. Phys. F.H. Takigawa. B 240. Narayanasamy.-C.M. J. R. Rev. Murphy. 2630. T. Esbensen. A 588.F. Eds. Phys. G. Balantekin. T. Eisen. M. 613-620. A 548. Rev.M. D. 1989. 1234.. Stefanini. 1986. 2427. J. Proceedings of the International Workshop on \Heavy-Ion Fusion: Exploring the Variety of Nuclear Properties". N. and U.F.. Stefanini. Leach. D. Pelte. 74. Stokstad. Proc. Harmon. S. Hagino. and T. J. G. Patra. M.A. Ray.. S. 281. Lemmon. B 26. Pol. (World Scienti c. S. D. Viesti. Murakami.R. and M. Napoli. Segato. and K. Fabris. Sagawa.. 1993. Stokstad. Nebbia.F. and I.G. Timmers. Corradi. Spolaore.Q. Morton. Lett. N. Beghini. C.J. 23. H. Stefanini.1990 Kubono.F. Rev. Montagnoli. Murakami. Lett. Kurihara. P. W.J. A. Thompson.D. Makowka.C. H.C. Phys. and S. Mueller. C 49. Tserruya. Tokyo. Smilansky. Mueller. Proceedings of the 18th INS International Symposium on Physics with High Intensity Hadron Accelerators. and N. Phys. Ackermann. 1995. A. Scarlassara.. Y. Mein. R. 250.R. Phys. N. Abe. Rowley. B.. and A. G. Sahm. Henning et al.. Kobayashi. Corradi. D.. Phys.G. pp. A.S. Phys. A. Rev. 40 . B 157. Padua. Eds.. Symp. Takigawa.. on Many Facets of Heavy Ion Fusion Reactions. Stokstad.M. Rev.. 1994). S. M. A 538.F. Phys. E.M. J. Segato. Shinozuka.F. Chan. Takigawa. G. Rev. Hinde. 317. R. F. 1991. J. Scarlassara. N. C 21. 1994. 453. Gramegna. S. Takigawa. Beghini. F. 221c. D. 62. Lett. Ackermann. Italy. Lesko.A. May 25-27.-C.. S. T. Dasgupta. Takigawa. Phys. Alhassid. (Argonne : ANL-PHY-86-1) (1986).. 864. L. Scarlassara. Lett. Spolaore. P. R.. N. Phys. Moreno..G. K. Petrache. C. 1985. 1850. and A. Murphy. J. Montagnoli. Balantekin. Montagnoli. 91c. Lilley. and M. Nagarajan. 1990.O. Vandenbosch.. Beghini. Rev. Bednarczyk.D. March 14-16. O. Phys. Facco. Soramel and N. A. Corradi. Hagino. Nagashima. Phys. 1994 (World Scienti c.R. and B.E. L. Fulton. L. J. Tanimura. Tsukada. Ackermann. 503.. D. G. S.. Phys. of the 4th International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Nucl. Phys. M. Mueller. G. Proc. Phys. 1993). and E. P.J. A. D.R. L. 1727. Takigawa. C 51. Rev. 1600. S. D.J. B 265. Stefanini. and Y. Rev.T. C 47. N. JJAP Series 9 (Japanese Journal of Applied Physics Publication O ce. M. 1992. Corradi. A. Kuratani. Phys.. Vandenbosch. C. Napoli. Ruiz. Napoli. F. N. Hagino. Abe. Wu. Takigawa... Segato. K. R.R. A. N. D.A. 1980. Shinozuka. H.. Leach. Rev. 190. Lett.K. Landowne. A 584.H. Nucl. Phys. U.. H. Stefanini. Corradi. D. 1992. G. and G. L. 1992. Beghini. and G. Ackermann. C35. C 23.Stefanini. D.M. 56. Phys. Mosel. Lett. Pollarolo. Ikeda. N. R2470. I. Yoshida. H. 399.

Watanabe. Wu. and G. 3368. Phys. B 263. Balantekin. Lett. Nuc.B.Phys.. Wei.. Scarlassara. Yoshida. Phys.. Lett. Mueller. R. and F. A. Leigh.O. Lett. F. Rowley. 1991.G. Rev. Kobinata. C 32. Part.. R. Esbensen.V. Nagashima. Rev. Back. Signorini. 23.C. J. N. D.F.Q. 31. L. M. J. J. J. Moore.X. J. M. L. Lemmon. Phys. 766. 447. J. Nucl.L. Wong. Sci. Vandenbosch. 1432. T. Th. Hirai.B. Ann. C69. Glagola. 373.X.H. B. Aoi.B.P. Betts. Pu. H. Ishihara. Alexander. Rev. Rev. 109c. Bertsch. Chen and N. Hinde. Khoo. Fernandez. 1991.Y. C. Newton. 1981. P. 1499.. 1973. Carpenter. S. Y..F. Fukuda. and A. Elfstrom. 57. Rep. Y. E.M. A 588. T. Rev. C. Wuosmaa. Mizoi. Lett. and Y. Scarlassara..J.R. Janssens. B. 1985.H. G. 42. H. R. Satchler. A. Y. 41 . Nakano. Vaz. Phys. 67. Happ. Phys.R. 1995. 1992. R. Nomura.R.C. M. J. Phys. T.

FIG. The data is from Stefanini et al. The shaded region indicates the error envelope. 1983). 6. 42 . 2. The solid curve is the total potential for the 16 O+154 Sm system when the projectile is taken to be spherical. 7. (1997a). (1995). (1996). FIG. 5. Classical (on the left) and quantum mechanical (on the right) transmission probabilities for a one-dimensional potential barrier. The dot-dashed. FIG. The outer turning points are determined from the phenomenological potential of Krappe et al. 1979). Fusion cross section (upper panel) and the average angular momenta (lower panel) for the 64 Ni+96Zr system. A systematic study of subbarrier fusion of 16 O projectile with rare earth nuclei.13 and 0. The short dashed line denotes the point Coulomb potential and the long-dashed line denoted the potential of (Krappe et al. vibrational and deformed nuclei with quadrupole coupling strengths v2 = 0. respectively. FIG. FIG. (1995c) and the calculation is from DeWeerd (1996). The two-phonon states of the quadrupole surface vibration of both the projectile and the target are taken into account in the coupled channels calculations. FIG. One dimensional potential of Eq.26. (6).. and solid lines correspond to calculations including one-phonon. and three-phonon states. The dashed ( = ?0:327) and dot-dashed ( = +0:613) curves are potentials for the two-level approximation for the target with = 0:25. The distance between the outer and inner turning points is the thickness function inverted from the data.. 1. 0. The curves correspond to spherical. obtained without expanding the nuclear potential. 3. 9. The e ective radius extracted from fusion calculations for the 16 O+154 Sm system using Eq.FIG. two-phonon. The data are from Stefanini et al. respectively. the theoretical calculation is from Hagino et al. Illustration of the geometric interpretation of the sudden approximation. Classical (on the left) and quantum mechanical (on the right) transmission probabilities for a two-channel coupling. V0 is the height of the one-dimensional potential barrier coupled to these channels. The lowest barrier is for ` = 0 (the bare barrier). respectively. FIG. FIG. FIG. 10. Comparison between measured and calculated barrier distributions for 36 S+110 Pd system as more phonons are included in the calculation. Fusion cross section and barrier distribution for the 16 O + 154 Sm system by Leigh et al. Fusion cross sections from Ackermann et al. dashed. 4. (1992). (4) for the 64 Ni+64 Ni system for several ` values. The dot-dashed and dashed lines are the results when the nuclear potential is expanded up to the rst and the second order terms in the deformation parameters.. (1979) to t the peak positions. The dotted line is the result in the absence of channel coupling. The middle and top barriers are for ` = 100 and ` = 150 respectively. FIG. 8. the structure of which is described using the Interacting Boson Model (see text). (1996) for the systems 58 Ni+64 Ni (circles) and 64 Ni+64 Ni (squares) as a function of the energy normalized to the barrier height. From Balantekin et al. 1996). E ective one-dimensional potential barriers from (Balantekin et al. The arrows show the shifts predicted for the barrier peaks (Balantekin et al. 11. The solid line is the result of the coupled channels calculations to all orders.

FIG. 1994a). 12. (1996a) for prolate and oblate nuclei. 13. The dashed curve is the result for a one-dimensional barrier ignoring all the couplings. 43 . The solid curve is the simpli ed coupled channels calculation with the CCDEF code.. Predicted behavior of the barrier distributions for fusion reactions on the prolate (194 Os) and the oblate (194 Pt) nuclei (Balantekin et al. Experimentally determined fusion cross sections by Bierman et al.FIG.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->