4.4 Article

Towards a systematic optical model potential for A=8 projectiles

Journal

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL A
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00405-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2016/17612-7, 2017/05660-0]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico (CNPq) [304961/2017-5, 306433/2017-6]
  3. Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia-Fisica Nuclear e Aplicacoes [464898/2014-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An optical model analysis of the available data for A=8 projectiles on different targets shows a systematic potential set based on a Woods-Saxon potential shape, providing a good description of the elastic scattering angular distributions. Additionally, a more physical model considering the nuclear matter density distributions through microscopic self-consistent relativistic mean field theory leads to reasonable agreement between the calculated and observed angular distributions, with potential for improvement by adjusting sensitive parameters like the imaginary diffuseness parameter.
An optical model analysis of the available data for A = 8 (He-8, Li-8 and B-8) projectiles on different targets with light, medium and heavy mass has been performed. A systematic potential set based on a Woods-Saxon Potential shape was obtained. This potential describes the elastic scattering angular distributions quite well. A more physical model within the framework of a semi-microscopic (a)pproach, where the nuclear matter density distributions of the B-8, 8Li and He-8 projectiles have been calculated by using a microscopic self-consistent relativistic mean field (RMF) theory, was also considered. The agreement of the calculated angular distributions with the data was reasonable. An improvement of the agreement could be achieved by changing the imaginary diffuseness parameter, which is a sensitive parameter in these calculations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available