Download Thesis in Pdf Format - Theoretical Nuclear Physics and ...

Chapter 3. IFSI and A(p, pN) Differential Cross Sections 39110.90.90.80.8real part of S IFSI0.70.60.50.40.3real part of S IFSI0.70.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8r (fm)01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8r (fm)real part of S IFSI10.90.80.70.60.50.40.3θ = 0 oθ = 45 oθ = 90 oθ = 135 oθ = 180 oθ = 115 oreal part of S IFSI10.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8r (fm)01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8r (fm)Figure 3.3 The radial dependence of the real part of the IFSI factor S IFSI in the scattering plane (φ = 0 ◦ )for neutron knockout from the Fermi level in 40 Ca. The upper left, upper right, and bottom left panelsdisplay Ŝp1, Ŝ k1 , and Ŝk2, respectively; while the complete IFSI factor is shown in the bottom rightpicture.corresponding IFSI factors for proton knockout and, as expected, the overall effect of IFSI ismore pronounced for heavier target nuclei due to the larger number of scattering centers. Thelatter is illustrated in Fig. 3.5, which shows the ratio of the 40 Ca absolute value of the IFSI factorto the 12 C one.3.1.5 Comparison between ROMEA and RMSGA CalculationsIn this subsection, we investigate the sensitivity of the computed IFSI factors to the adoptedparametrizations for the optical potentials and compare the ROMEA results with the RMSGApredictions. As can be seen in Fig. 3.6, the IFSI factor depends on whether A-dependent(EDAD1/EDAD2) or A-independent (EDAI) fits for the potentials are selected, but the globalfeatures are comparable. Fig. 3.7, as contrasted to Fig. 3.1, demonstrates that the RMSGAmethod adequately describes the ISI of the incoming proton and the FSI of the scattered proton.However, the discrepancies between ROMEA and RMSGA become significant in the calculationof the FSI of the ejected nucleon (note the different scales in the bottom left panels ofFigs. 3.1 and 3.7), and, therefore, also in the complete IFSI factor. The noted difference is at-