- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review C

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Quantifying uncertainties due to optical potentials in one-neutron knockout reactions

C. Hebborn1,2,*, T. R. Whitehead1, A. E. Lovell3, and F. M. Nunes1,4

  • 1Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • 2Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, L-414, Livermore, California 94551, USA
  • 3Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
  • 4Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

  • *hebborn@frib.msu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. C 108, 014601 – Published 5 July, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014601

Abstract

One-neutron knockout reactions have been widely used to extract information about the single-particle structure of nuclei from the valley of stability to the drip lines. The interpretation of knockout data relies on reaction models, where the uncertainties are typically not accounted for. In this work, we quantify uncertainties of optical potentials used in these reaction models and propagate them, for the first time, to knockout observables using a Bayesian analysis. We study two reactions in the present paper, the first of which involves a loosely bound halo projectile, Be11, and the second a tightly bound projectile, C12. We first quantify the parametric uncertainties associated with phenomenological optical potentials. Complementing this approach, we also quantify the model uncertainties associated with the chiral forces that can be used to construct microscopic optical potentials. For the phenomenological study, we investigate the impact of the imaginary terms of the optical potential on the breakup and stripping components of the knockout cross sections as well as the impact of the angular range. For the Be11 case, the theoretical uncertainty from the phenomenological method is on the order of the experimental uncertainty of the knockout observables; however, for the C12 case, the theoretical uncertainty is significantly larger. The widths of the uncertainty bands for the knockout observables obtained for the microscopic study and the phenomenological approach are of similar orders of magnitude. Based on this work we conclude that structure information inferred from the ratio of the knockout cross sections will carry a theoretical uncertainty of at least 20% for halo nuclei and at least 40% for tightly bound nuclei.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (45)

  1. J. A. Tostevin and A. Gade, Phys. Rev. C 90, 057602 (2014).
  2. J. A. Tostevin and A. Gade, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054610 (2021).
  3. M. Gómez-Ramos and A. M. Moro, Phys. Lett. B 785, 511 (2018).
  4. M. B. Tsang, J. Lee, S. C. Su, J. Y. Dai, M. Horoi, H. Liu, W. G. Lynch, and S. Warren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 062501 (2009).
  5. J. Lee, J. A. Tostevin, B. A. Brown, F. Delaunay, W. G. Lynch, M. J. Saelim, and M. B. Tsang, Phys. Rev. C 73, 044608 (2006).
  6. T. Aumann, C. Barbieri, D. Bazin, C. Bertulani, A. Bonaccorso, W. Dickhoff, A. Gade, M. Gómez-Ramos, B. Kay, A. Moro et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 118, 103847 (2021).
  7. R. J. Glauber, in Lecture in Theoretical Physics, edited by W. E. Brittin and L. G. Dunham (Interscience, New York, 1959), Vol. 1, p. 315.
  8. M. S. Hussein and K. W. McVoy, Nucl. Phys. A 445, 124 (1985).
  9. P. G. Hansen and J. A. Tostevin, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 219 (2003).
  10. J. A. Tostevin, D. Bazin, B. A. Brown, T. Glasmacher, P. G. Hansen, V. Maddalena, A. Navin, and B. M. Sherrill, Phys. Rev. C 66, 024607 (2002).
  11. G. B. King, A. E. Lovell, L. Neufcourt, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 232502 (2019).
  12. A. E. Lovell et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 48, 014001(2021).
  13. T. R. Whitehead, T. Poxon-Pearson, F. M. Nunes, and G. Potel, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054611 (2022).
  14. C. Hebborn and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054607 (2019).
  15. C. Hebborn and P. Capel (unpublished).
  16. C. Hebborn, F. M. Nunes, G. Potel, W. H. Dickhoff, J. W. Holt, M. C. Atkinson, R. B. Baker, C. Barbieri, G. Blanchon, M. Burrows et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50, 060501 (2023).
  17. T. R. Whitehead, Y. Lim, and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 182502 (2021).
  18. T. R. Whitehead, arXiv:2210.03031.
  19. K. A. Brueckner, J. R. Buchler, and M. M. Kelly, Phys. Rev. 173, 944 (1968).
  20. D. Baye and P. Capel, in Clusters in Nuclei, Vol. 2, edited by C. Beck (Springer, Heidelberg, 2012), Vol. 848.
  21. T. Aumann, C. A. Bertulani, F. Schindler, and S. Typel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 262501 (2017).
  22. J. Kelley, E. Kwan, J. Purcell, C. Sheu, and H. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A 880, 88 (2012).
  23. L. Zu-Hua and B. Jing-Dong, Chin. Phys. Lett. 21, 457 (2004).
  24. J. H. Kelley, J. E. Purcell, and C. G. Sheu, Nucl. Phys. A 968, 71 (2017).
  25. A. Calci, P. Navrátil, R. Roth, J. Dohet-Eraly, S. Quaglioni, and G. Hupin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 242501 (2016).
  26. J. Yang and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054602 (2018).
  27. C. Hebborn and P. Capel, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024616 (2021).
  28. K. Hencken, G. Bertsch, and H. Esbensen, Phys. Rev. C 54, 3043 (1996).
  29. J. Margueron, A. Bonaccorso, and D. M. Brink, Nucl. Phys. A 720, 337 (2003).
  30. P. Capel, D. Baye, and Y. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 78, 054602 (2008).
  31. A. E. Lovell and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064612 (2018).
  32. M. Catacora-Rios, G. B. King, A. E. Lovell, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064615 (2019).
  33. J. S. Al-Khalili, J. A. Tostevin, and J. M. Brooke, Phys. Rev. C 55, R1018 (1997).
  34. S. P. Weppner, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 45, 095102 (2018).
  35. A. J. Koning and J. P. Delaroche, Nucl. Phys. A 713, 231 (2003).
  36. T. Aumann, A. Navin, D. P. Balamuth, D. Bazin, B. Blank, B. A. Brown, J. E. Bush, J. A. Caggiano, B. Davids, T. Glasmacher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 35 (2000).
  37. A. Gade, P. Adrich, D. Bazin, M. D. Bowen, B. A. Brown, C. M. Campbell, J. M. Cook, T. Glasmacher, P. G. Hansen, K. Hosier et al., Phys. Rev. C 77, 044306 (2008).
  38. V. Maddalena, T. Aumann, D. Bazin, B. A. Brown, J. A. Caggiano, B. Davids, T. Glasmacher, P. G. Hansen, R. W. Ibbotson, A. Navin et al., Phys. Rev. C 63, 024613 (2001).
  39. D. Bazin (private communication).
  40. C. Louchart, A. Obertelli, A. Boudard, and F. Flavigny, Phys. Rev. C 83, 011601(R) (2011).
  41. F. Flavigny, A. Obertelli, A. Bonaccorso, G. F. Grinyer, C. Louchart, L. Nalpas, and A. Signoracci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 252501 (2012).
  42. J. W. Holt and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 95, 034326 (2017).
  43. C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 042501 (2019).
  44. C. Hebborn and G. Potel, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014607 (2023).
  45. M. Gómez-Ramos, J. Gómez-Camacho, and A. M. Moro, Phys. Lett. B 832, 137252 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. C 108, 014601– Published 5 July, 2023
  • Received 13 December 2022
  • Revised 3 February 2023
  • Accepted 11 May 2023
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation