The Neutron Microscopic Optical Potential Based On Skyrme Interaction

2nd Reading
February 17, 2016 15:27 WSPC/S0218-3013 143-IJMPE 1650013
International Journal of Modern Physics E

Vol. 25, No. 2 (2016) 1650013 (16 pages)
c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0218301316500130
The neutron microscopic optical potential based

on skyrme interaction
Xu Yong-Li∗,§, Guo Hai-Rui† , Han Yin-Lu‡,¶ and Shen Qing-Biao‡

∗Collegeof Physics and Electronic Science,
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 02/26/16. For personal use only.
Shanxi Datong University,

Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 2016.25. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Datong 037009, P. R. China

†Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics
Beijing 100094, P. R. China
‡Department of Nuclear Physics, China Institute of Atomic Energy,
P. O. Box (275-41), Beijing 102413, P. R. China
§xuyongli776@126.com
¶hanyl@ciae.ac.cn
Received 11 October 2015

Revised 26 December 2015
Accepted 1 January 2016
Published 5 February 2016
The neutron microscopic optical potential (MOP) based on Skyrme interaction has been
achieved by the Green function method in the nuclear matter, and given by the local
density approximation (LDA) for finite nuclei. The total cross-sections, nonelastic cross-
sections, elastic scattering angular distributions and analyzing powers are predicted for
some light nuclei and actinide nuclei below 100 MeV by the obtained neutron MOP
with the Skyrme interaction SkC. These data are also predicted for targets in the mass
range of 148 ≤ A ≤ 194 which are too deformed and have rich nuclear structure prop-
erties. All of the theoretical results give reasonable agreements with the corresponding
experimental data.
Keywords: Neutron microscopic optical potential; total cross-sections; elastic scattering

angular distributions.
PACS Number(s): 24.10.Ht, 24.10.i, 24.10.Cn, 25.40.Dn, 25.70.Bc
1. Introduction
As is well known, the microscopic optical potential (MOP) is achieved on the basis
of nucleon–nucleon interaction and need not adjust parameters to fit the experimen-
tal data. It can provide many information about the theoretical and experimental
studies of nuclear reaction, especially for unstable nuclei.
From the many-body theory standpoint, the nucleon MOP can be equivalent to
the mass operator of the single-particle Green function.1,2 It becomes possible to
§,¶ Corresponding authors.
1650013-1
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
obtain a MOP using the many-body theory without free parameters. However, we
have to make some approximation in the process of calculating the mass operator
which needs to solve the many-body problem. Generally, two approaches are used to
get the MOP. One is nuclear structure approximation. Since this approach is based
on the nuclear ground state properties and especially analyzes a certain target, it
involves more nuclear structure features of target.3,4 The other is nuclear matter
approximation. There are currently two kinds of nucleon–nucleon interactions to
achieve the MOP in this approach, which are the realistic nuclear force, such as
the Reid potential5 and the modern nucleon–nucleon potentials,6 and the effective
nuclear force. The effective Skyrme nucleon–nucleon interactions are widely used in
the calculation.7,8
Using the effective Skyrme nucleon–nucleon interactions, we calculate the mass

operator of single-particle Green function up to the second-order in nuclear matter.

Furthermore, the first-order mass operator and the imaginary part of the second-
order mass operator are respectively taken as the real part and imaginary part
of the nucleon MOP.8 The MOP for finite nuclei is achieved by the local density
approximation (LDA).9 The MOP for some complex particles have also been derived
through this approach.10–12 Up to now, there have been many sets of Skyrme inter-
action parameters. Most of them were obtained by considering some properties of
nuclear matter and ground state for finite nuclei, while the neutron induced reaction
data were not considered. Recently, we have obtained a set of effective Skyrme inter-
action parameters SkC by fitting not only nuclear matter properties and ground
state properties, but also the neutron induced scattering data for (near)spherical
targets in the mass range of 24 ≤ A ≤ 209 below 100 MeV.13 Furthermore, we also
amend the spin-orbit potential for finite nuclei by the results of relativistic MOP
in Skyrme–Hartree–Fock (SHF) approach to consider the correlation with incident
energy.13
In this work, the effective Skyrme interaction parameters SkC are adopted to
obtain the neutron MOP for those data without involving in their fittings and
show the prediction power. The total cross-sections, nonelastic cross-sections, elastic
scattering angular distributions and analyzing powers are predicted by the obtained
neutron MOP for light and actinide nuclei with incident neutron energy below 100
MeV, as well as those targets in the mass range of 148 ≤ A ≤ 194 which are
too deformed and have rich nuclear structure properties. The predicted results are
further compared with the available experimental data.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2, the basic theory and formulas for
the neutron MOP based on effective Skyrme interaction are described. Analysis and
comparison between the theoretical results and the experimental data are shown in
Sec. 3. Finally, a summary is made in Sec. 4.
2. The Neutron Microscopic Optical Potential

By the Green function method, the neutron MOP is equivalent to the mass oper-
ator Mα,α of the single-particle Green function up to the second-order Goldstone
1650013-2
2nd Reading
The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. The first-order Feynman diagram of the one-particle Green function. The dashed line
represents the mean field.
Fig. 2. The second-order Feynman diagram of the one-particle Green function.
diagram. Figures 1 and 2 respectively depict the first- and second-order Feynman
diagrams of the single-particle Green function.
Furthermore, the first-order mass operator has the following form:

(1)
Mα,α = Vαρ,αρ nρ , (1)
ρ
where

1, below the Fermi surface;
nρ = (2)
0, above the Fermi surface.
The term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) comes from the contribution of the
two-body interaction, the matrix element is
Vαρ,αρ = αρ | V | αρA , (3)
where A denotes the anti-symmetrization.
The second-order mass operator is
(2) 1 (1 − nλ )(1 − nµ )nν
Mα,α (ω) = Vαν,λµ Vλµ,αν , (4)
2 εα + εν − ελ − εµ + iη
λµν
where ε is the energies corresponding to different particles, the η is an infinitesimal

and the two-body interaction matrix element Vαν,λµ is
Vαν,λµ = ψα (r1 )ψν (r2 )|V12 (R, r)|(ψλ (r1 )ψµ (r2 ) − ψµ (r1 )ψλ (r2 )). (5)
The V in Eqs. (3) and (5) is the two-body nucleon–nucleon interaction and given
by the Skyrme force. In the nuclear matter, the wave function of nucleon α is the
plane wave.
1650013-3
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
The real part of the neutron MOP is obtained with the first-order mass operator
and the expression is

(1)
Vn = Mα,α = Vαρ,αρ , (6)
ρ≤F
where ρ ≤ F denotes the summation is below Fermi surface. The second-order

diagrams are the lowest order diagrams to contribute to the imaginary part of the
MOP. That means
(2)
Wn = ImMα,α . (7)
The detailed description for the real and imaginary parts of neutron MOP can be
found in Ref. 8.
The MOP for finite nuclei is given by the LDA. It is assumed that the densities
of neutron and proton in a spherical nucleus have the same geometrical distributions
and are expressed by Negele’s empirical formula.9
The real part of spin-orbit potential obtained by the SHF approach has been
amended by the results of relativistic MOP, which is considered the correlation
with incident energy.13 The imaginary part of spin-orbit potential below 100 MeV
provides slight contribution to the neutron MOP and is ignored here.
3. Theoretical Calculations and Analysis

Based on the obtained neutron MOP, many sets of Skyrme interaction param-
eters are recommended to predict the neutron induced reaction data in Refs. 8
and 13. Considering the properties of nuclear matter and nuclear structure, we
choose Skyrme fores SKa,14 SGI,15 SkM,16 Sly4,17 and GS218 to predict the total
cross-sections, nonelastic cross-sections, elastic scattering angular distributions and
analyzing powers in the target mass range of 24 to 209 with incident energy below
100 MeV. The results predicted by these Skyrme forces and calculated by the
Skyrme fore SkC13 are further compared with experimental data. It is found that
the results calculated by SkC are closest to experimental data, GS2 are the sec-
ond. The prediction by SKa and SGI are less agreement with experimental data
than those of GS2 at larger angles. For Sly4 and SkM, too large discrepancies exist
between the predictions and experimental data, although the Sly4 and SkM can well
describe the properties of nuclear matter and nuclear structure. Figure 3 shows the
elastic scattering angular distributions predicted with SKa and Sly4 compared with
the experimental data19–24 and the results calculated by SkC at incident neutron
energy 11.0 MeV for different targets.
Furthermore, the real and imaginary parts of neutron MOP depending the
radius at incident energies 10, 30, 50, 70 and 90 MeV are calculated with SkC for
different targets. The contributions from the imaginary volume absorption potential
increases with the increasing incident energy and radius, while that from the real
part central potential and imaginary part surface absorption potential are opposite.
Figure 4 shows the results for 27 Al.
1650013-4
2nd Reading

Fig. 3. Calculated elastic scattering angular distributions at incident neutron energy 11.0 MeV
compared with experimental data. The results are respectively calculated by Skyrme interaction
parameter SkC (solid line), SKa (short-dash line) and Sly4 (dash line), which are offset by factors
of 10.
Based on the above discussions and analysis, we adopt the Skyrme interac-
tion parameters SkC to obtain the neutron MOP for those data without involving
in their fittings. On this basis, the neutron induced total cross-sections, nonelas-
tic cross-sections, elastic scattering angular distributions and analyzing powers for
some light nuclei and actinide nuclei are predicted with incident energy below 100
MeV. In addition, these data for targets in the mass range of 148 ≤ A ≤ 194 are
also predicted.
First, the total cross-sections for some light nuclei and actinide nuclei are pre-
dicted by the neutron MOP based on the Skyrme force SkC. Figure 5 presents the
predicted total cross-sections for targets 12 C, 14 N, 16 O and 23 Na below 100 MeV.
These results are compared with the experimental data.25–31 Obviously, the theo-
retical results just give the smooth average results from 0.1 to 8 MeV or so, which is
1650013-5
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Radial dependence of the real and imaginary parts of neutron MOP for target 27 Al at
incident energies 10, 30, 50, 70 and 90 MeV. (a) The real part and (b) the imaginary part.
Fig. 5. Comparisons of the neutron total cross-sections with experimental data for targets 12 C,
14 N, 16 O and 23 Na in the energy range from 0.1 to 100 MeV. The results are offset by factors of
10.
the resonance region with large amplitudes. The results for 14 N, 16 O and 23 Na are
in agreement with the experimental data in the whole energy region, while those of
12
C are slightly larger than the experimental data above 70 MeV. Figure 6 shows
the predicted total cross-sections for actinide nuclei 232 Th, 235,238 U and 239 Pu below
100 MeV, which are compared with the experimental data.25,26,32–36 The reasonable
agreements are also obtained between them.
Second, the nonelastic cross-sections are predicted for some light nuclei and
actinide nuclei. For most of targets, the experimental data of nonelastic cross-
sections are given below 20 MeV. Our results for 12 C, 14 N, 16 O and 23 Na are very
close to experimental data below 20 MeV. For actinide, the predicted nonelas-
tic cross-sections are also in reasonable agreements with the experimental data.
1650013-6
2nd Reading

Fig. 6. Same as Fig. 5, but for targets 232 Th, 235,238 U and 239 Pu.
Figure 7 gives the comparisons of the predicted nonelastic cross-sections with the
experimental data37–49 for actinide nuclei 232 Th, 235,238 U and 239 Pu.
Then, the elastic scattering angular distributions are also predicted for some
light nuclei and actinide nuclei. Figures 8 and 9 give the satisfactory agreements
Fig. 7. Comparisons of the nonelastic cross-sections with experimental data for actinide nuclei
232 Th, 235,238 U and 239 Pu in the energy range from 0.1 to 100 MeV. The curve and data points
at the bottom represent true values, while the others are respectively added by 1.5, 3.0, 4.5.
1650013-7
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Comparisons of the elastic scattering angular distributions with experimental data for
target 12 C. The results are offset by factors of 10.
between the predicted results and the experimental data50–72 for 12 C and 23 Na.
For actinide nuclei 232 Th, 235,238 U and 239 Pu, the angular distributions including
the results of elastic and inelastic scattering were given in some experimental data.
Figure 10 shows the comparisons of the predicted elastic scattering angular dis-
tributions with the experimental data73 for 238 U. It is seen that the significant
differences appear near the first minimum, where the inelastic scattering is not
considered in the predicted results. The analogous results are obtained for 232 Th,
235
U and 239 Pu.
Furthermore, those nuclei in the mass range of 148 ≤ A ≤ 194 have been widely
concerned in recent years and there are some new experimental data. So the elastic
scattering angular distributions are also predicted for these target below 100 MeV.
Figure 11 presents the satisfactory agreements between the predicted results and
the experimental data74–76 for 152 Sm and 192 Os.
Figures 12 and 13 show the comparisons between the predicted elastic scattering
angular distributions and different experimental data for 181 Ta and 184 W targets.
There are only the experimental data below about 16 MeV and some experi-
mental data of angular distributions include the results of elastic and inelastic
scattering for them. In Fig. 12(a), it can be seen that the significant differences
between the predicted results and the experimental data77 appear near the first
minimum, where the results of inelastic scattering is not included in the prediction.
1650013-8
2nd Reading

Fig. 9. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 23 Na.
Fig. 10. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 238 U.
1650013-9
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
Fig. 11. Same as Fig. 8, but for targets 152 Sm and 192 Os.
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 181 Ta.
1650013-10
2nd Reading

(a) (b)
Fig. 13. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 184 W.
Figure 12(b) shows the predicted results are reasonable agreements with experi-
mental data24,78–83 except for incident energy 15.2 MeV above 100◦ degree, where
they are a slightly smaller than the experimental data from Ref. 82. In Fig. 13, we
can also see the predicted elastic scattering angular distributions are smaller than
the experimental data84–91 near the first minimum at incident energies 4.34, 6.44,
7.54, 7.76 and 8.56 MeV, where the experimental data include the results of elastic
and inelastic scattering.
Finally, we also perform the predictions of analyzing powers Ay (θ) for some tar-
gets and different incident energies. The reasonable agreements are also achieved
between the predicted results and experimental data. The comparisons of the pre-
dicted analyzing powers with the experimental data86,92–97 for 12 C, 184 W and 238 U
are given in Figs. 14 and 15.
From the above analysis and discussions, we can see that the predicted results
are satisfactorily in agreement with the experimental data for some light nuclei and
actinide nuclei. For targets in the mass range of 148 ≤ A ≤ 194, the predicted results
are slightly smaller than the corresponding experimental data at a few energies. The
reason may be that they be too deformed and have very rich properties of nuclear
structure. So we will apply the coupling theory of optical model to improve the
prediction for those reactions of neutron induced deformed targets in the future
work, which takes into account the strong channel coupling to the first collective
excited states.
1650013-11
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
Fig. 14. Comparisons of the analyzing powers with experimental data for target 12 C. The curves
and data points at the bottom represent true values, while the others are added by 2.0.
Fig. 15. Same as Fig. 14, but for targets 184 W and 238 U.
1650013-12
2nd Reading
4. Summary
The neutron MOP has been obtained by Green function method through nuclear
matter approximation and LDA based on the Skyrme nucleon–nucleon effective
interaction. The Skyrme interaction parameters SkC are adopted to achieve the
neutron MOP for those data without involving in their fittings. Based on the
obtained MOP, the total cross-sections, nonelastic cross-sections, elastic scatter-
ing angular distributions and analyzing powers are predicted for some light nuclei
and actinide nuclei below 100 MeV. In addition, they are also predicted for nuclei
in the mass range of 148 ≤ A ≤ 194. All of the predicted results are satisfactorily in
agreement with the experimental data. The performed calculations show that the
obtained neutron MOP in this paper has a good prediction power and can provide
a reasonable theoretical basis for the experimental research far from β stability
nuclide.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
under Grants Nos. 11347175, 11405099, 11175260 and 11575291.
References
1. J. S. Bell and E. J. Squires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3 (1959) 96.
2. M. K. Weigel, On The General Theory of the Nucleon Optical Potential. Microscopic
Optical Potentials (Heidelberg, Springer Berlin, 1979).
3. V. Bernard and N. V. Giai, Nucl. Phys. A 327 (1979) 397.
4. V. Bernard and N. V. Giai, Nucl. Phys. A 348 (1980) 75.
5. J. P. Jeukenne, A. Lejeune and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rev. C 16 (1977) 80.
6. Z. H. Li, U. Lombardo, H.-J. Schulze, W. Zuo, L. W. Chen and H. R. Ma, Phys. Rev.
C 74 (2006) 047304.
7. Q. B. Shen, J. S. Zhang, Y. Tian, Z. Y. Ma and Y. Z. Zhuo, Z. Phys. A 303 (1981)
69.
8. Q. B. Shen, Y. L. Han and H. R. Guo, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 024604.
9. J. W. Negele, Phys. Rev. C 1 (1970) 1260.
10. H. R. Guo, Y. Zhang, Y. L. Han and Q. B. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 064601.
11. H. R. Guo, Y. L. Xu, Y. L. Han and Q. B. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 044617.
12. H. R. Guo, Y. L. Xu, H. Y. L, Y. L. Han and Q. B. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011)
064618.
13. Y. L. Xu, H. R. Guo, Y. L. Han and Q. B. Shen, J. Phys. G 41 (2014) 015101.
14. H. S. Kohler, Nucl. Phys. A 258 (1976) 301.
15. N. V. Giai and H. Sagawa, Phys. Lett. B 106 (1981) 379.
16. H. Krivine, J. Treiner and O. Bohigas, Nucl. Phys. A 336 (1980) 155.
17. E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer and R. Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys. A 627
(1997) 710.
18. S. Krewald, V. Klemt, J. Speth and A. Faessler, Nucl. Phys. A 281 (1977) 166.
19. S. Mellema, R. W. Finlay, F. S. Dietrich and F. Petrovich, Phys. Rev. C 28 (1983)
2267.
20. J. Rapaport, T. S. Cheema, D. E. Bainum, R. W. Finlay and J. D. Carlson, Nucl.
Phys. A 313 (1979) 1.
1650013-13
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
21. J. Rapaport, M. Mirzaa, H. H. Hadizadeh, D. E. Bainum and R. W. Finlay, Nucl.

Phys. A 341 (1980) 56.
22. D. E. Bainum, R. W. Finlay, J. Rapaport, M. H. Hadizadeh and J. D. Carlson, Nucl.
Phys. A 311 (1978) 492.
23. J. Rapaport, T. S. Cheema, D. E. Bainum, R. W. Finlay and J. D. Carlson, Nucl.
Phys. A 296 (1978) 95.
24. J. C. Ferrer, J. D. Carlson and J. Rapaport, Nucl. Phys. A 275 (1977) 325.
25. W. P. Abfalterer, F. B. Bateman, F. S. Dietrich, R. W. Finlay, R. C. Haight and
G. L. Morgan, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 44608.
26. A. Langsford, P. H. Bowen, G. C. Cox, M. J. M. Saltmarsh and C. M. Newstead,
Prog. Rep., A. E. R. E. Harwell Reports No. 9 (1966).
27. D. C. Larson, J. A. Harvey and N. W. Hill, Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Report No. 5614 (1976).
28. R. W. Finlay, W. P. Abfalterer, G. Fink, E. Montei, T. Adami, P. W. Lisowski,

G. L. Morgan and R. C. Haight, Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 237.
29. F. G. Perey, T. A. Love and W. E. Kinney, Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Repor No. 4823 (1972).
30. J. A. Harvey, N. W. Hill, N. M. Larson and D. C. Larson, Conference on Nuclear
Data for Science and Technology (Juelich, 1991), p. 729.
31. D. G. Foster Jr. and D. W. Glasgow, Phys. Rev. C 3 (1971) 576.
32. J. F. Whalen and A. B. Smith, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 67 (1978) 129.
33. R. B. Schwartz, R. A. Schrack and H. T. Heaton, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 54 (1974) 322.
34. K. A. Nadolny, F. L. Green and P. Stoler, Prog. Rep., Report to the U. S. Nuclear
Data Comm. No. 9 (1973).
35. W. P. Poenitz and J. F. Whalen, Report, Argonne National Laboratory Report No.
80 (1983).
36. K. H. Boeckhoff, A. Dufrasne, G. Rohr and H. Weigmann, J. Nucl. Eng. 26 (1972)
91.
37. M. H. Mac Gregor, R. Booth and W. P. Ball, Phys. Rev. 130 (1963) 1471.
38. H. A. Bethe, J. R. Beyster, R. E. Carter, R. L. Henkel and R. A. Nobles, Report, Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory Reports No. 1939 (1955).
39. R. C. Allen, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 731.
40. Ju. G. Degtjarev and V. G. Nadtochij, At. Eng. 11 (1961) 397.
41. Ju. G. Degtjarev, At. Eng. 19 (1965) 456.
42. V. N. Andreev, Neitronnaya Fizika (Moscow, 1961), p. 287.
43. R. C. Allen, Phys. Rev. 105 (1957) 1796.
44. E. Ennis, Private communication (1952).
45. R. Batchelor, W. B. Gilboy and J. H. Towle, Nucl. Phys. 65 (1965) 236.
46. J. Voignier, Report, Centre dEtudes Nucleaires, Saclay Reports No. 3503 and (1968).
47. J. R. Beyster, M. Walt and E. W. Salmi, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 1319.
48. A. V. Cohen, J. Nucl. Eng. 14 (1961) 180.
49. M. H. Mc Taggart and H. Goodfellow, J. Nucl. Eng. 17 (1963) 437.
50. I. A. Korzh, N. S. Kopytin, M. V. Pasechnik, N. M. Pravdivyj, N. T. Skljar and
I. A. Totskiy, At. Eng. 16 (1964) 260.
51. F. Demanins, L. Granata, G. Nardelli, G. Pauli, U. Abbondanno, F. Demanins, M.
Lagonegro and G. Nardelli, Report, INFN Reports No. 73 (1973).
52. G. V. Gorlov, N. S. Lebedeva and V. M. Morozov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. 158 (1964) 574.
53. U. Fasoli, A. Metellini, D. Toniolo and G. Zago, Nucl. Phys. A 205 (1973) 305.
54. P. Boschung, J. T. Lindow and E. F. Shrader, Nucl. Phys. A 161 (1971) 593.
55. D. W. Glasgow et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 61 (1976) 521.
1650013-14
2nd Reading
56. M. Baba, S. Matsuyama, M. Ishikawa, S. Chiba, T. Sakase and N. Hirakawa, Nucl.

Instrum. Methods A 366 (1995) 354.
57. E. Arai, Private communication (1971).
58. Z. M. Chen, K. Baird, C. R. Howell, M. L. Roberts, W. Tornow and R. L. Walter, J.
Phys. G 19 (1991) 877.
59. M. Baba, M. Ishikawa, N. Yabuta, T. Kikuchi, H. Wakabayashi and N. Hirakawa,
Report, Tohoku University Departments of Nucl. Engineering Reports No. 49 (1987).
60. N. Olsson, B. Trostell and E. Ramstroem, Conference on Nuclear Data for Science
and Technology (Mito, 1988), p. 1045.
61. Y. Yamanouti , M. Sugimoto, S. Chiba, M. Mizumoto, Y. Watanabe and K. Hasegawa,
Report, JAERI-M Reports No. 89 (1989).
62. T. Niizeki, H. Orihara, K. Ishii, K. Maeda, M. Kabasawa, Y. Takahashi and K. Miuba,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 287 (1990) 455.
63. J. H. Osborne et al., Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 054613.

64. M. Ibaraki et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 446 (2000) 536.

65. P. Mermod et al., Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 054002.
66. J. Klug et al., Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 064605.
67. Th. Schweitzer, D. Seeliger and S. Unholzer, Report, IAEA Report, No. 190 (1976).
68. M. V. Pasechnik, V. A. Batalin, I. A. Korzh and I. A. Totskiy, At. En. 16 (1964) 246.
69. J. H. Towle and W. B. Gilboy, Nucl. Phys. 32 (1962) 610.
70. F. G. Perey and W. E. Kinney, Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report No.
4518 (1970).
71. U. Fasoli, D. Toniolo, G. Zago and V. Benzi, Nucl. Phys. A 125 (1969) 227.
72. R. E. Coles, Report, Aldermaston Reports No. 3 (1971).
73. A. B. Smith and S. Chiba, Ann. Nucl. Eng. 23 (1996) 459.
74. D. F. Coope, S. N. Tripathi, M. C. Schell and M. T. Mc Ellistrem, Phys. Rev. C 16
(1977) 2223.
75. M. T. Mcellistrem, R. E. Shamu, J. Lachkar, G. Haouat, Ch. Lagrange, Y. Patin,
J. Sigaud and F. Cocu, Phys. Rev. C 15 (1977) 927.
76. S. E. Hicks, Z. Cao, M. C. Mirzaa, J. L. Weil, J. M. Hanly, J. Sa and M. T. Mcellistrem,
Phys. Rev. C 40 (1989) 2509.
77. A. B. Smith, Report, ANL-NDM No. 160 (2005).
78. L. Rosen, L. Stewart, Phys. Rev. 107 (1957) 824.
79. R. L. Becker, W. G. Guindon and G. J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. 89 (1966) 154.
80. S. C. Buccino, C. E. Hollandsworth and P. R. Bevington, Z. Phys. 196 (1966) 103.
81. B. Holmqvist, T. Wiedling, S. G. Johansson, G. Lodin and A. Kiss, B. Gustavsson
and B. Antolkovic, Report, Aktiebolaget Atomenergi, Stockholm/Studsvik No. 366
(1969).
82. C. I. Hudson Jr, W. S. Walker and S. Berko, Phys. Rev. 128 (1962) 1271.
83. L. F. Hansen, F. S. Dietrich, B. A. Pohl, C. H. Poppe and C. Wong, Phys. Rev. C 31
(1985) 111.
84. I. A. Krzh and N. T. Sklyar, Ukr. Fiz. Zh. 8 (1963) 1389.
85. M. Walt and H. H. Barschall, Phys. Rev. 93 (1954) 1062.
86. A. Begum, R. B. Galloway and F. K. McNiel-Watson, Nucl. Phys. A 332 (1979) 349.
87. P. T. Guenther, A. B. Smith and J. F. Whalen, Phys. Rev. C 26 (1982) 2433.
88. W. E. Kinney and F. G. Perey, Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reports No.
4803 (1973).
89. R. W. Hill, Phys. Rev. 109 (1958) 2105.
90. A. Takahashi, Y. Sasaki, F. Maekawa and H. Sugimoto, Report, JAERI-M Reports
No. 89 (1989).
1650013-15
2nd Reading
X. Yong-Li et al.
91. J. Cao, Y. Dai, D. Wan, X. Liang and S. Wang, Report, Chinese report to the I.N.D.C.
No. 011 (1988).
92. J. Annand and R. Galloway, J. Phys. G 11 (1985) 1341.
93. E. Woye et al., Nucl. Phys. A 394 (1983) 139.
94. W. Tornow, E. Woye and R. L. Walter, J. Phys. G 13 (1987) 177.
95. E. Woye et al., Conf. Symp. Polar. Phen. Nucl. Phys., Vol. 5 (Santa Fe, 1980), p.
1323.
96. W. Tornow et al., J. Phys. G 14 (1988) 49.
97. A. Begum, J. Phys. G 7 (1981) 535.
1650013-16

The Neutron Microscopic Optical Potential Based On Skyrme Interaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Neutron Microscopic Optical Potential Based On Skyrme Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Reading

February 17, 2016 15:27 WSPC/S0218-3013 143-IJMPE 1650013

International Journal of Modern Physics E

The neutron microscopic optical potential based

Xu Yong-Li∗,§, Guo Hai-Rui† , Han Yin-Lu‡,¶ and Shen Qing-Biao‡

Shanxi Datong University,

Datong 037009, P. R. China

Received 11 October 2015

Keywords: Neutron microscopic optical potential; total cross-sections; elastic scattering

PACS Number(s): 24.10.Ht, 24.10.i, 24.10.Cn, 25.40.Dn, 25.70.Bc

§,¶ Corresponding authors.

Using the eﬀective Skyrme nucleon–nucleon interactions, we calculate the mass

operator of single-particle Green function up to the second-order in nuclear matter.

2. The Neutron Microscopic Optical Potential

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

Fig. 2. The second-order Feynman diagram of the one-particle Green function.

where ε is the energies corresponding to diﬀerent particles, the η is an inﬁnitesimal

where ρ ≤ F denotes the summation is below Fermi surface. The second-order

3. Theoretical Calculations and Analysis

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

Fig. 9. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 23 Na.

Fig. 10. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 238 U.

Fig. 12. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 181 Ta.

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

Fig. 13. Same as Fig. 8, but for target 184 W.

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

21. J. Rapaport, M. Mirzaa, H. H. Hadizadeh, D. E. Bainum and R. W. Finlay, Nucl.

28. R. W. Finlay, W. P. Abfalterer, G. Fink, E. Montei, T. Adami, P. W. Lisowski,

The neuron microscopic optical potential based on Skyrme interaction

56. M. Baba, S. Matsuyama, M. Ishikawa, S. Chiba, T. Sakase and N. Hirakawa, Nucl.

63. J. H. Osborne et al., Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 054613.

64. M. Ibaraki et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 446 (2000) 536.

You might also like