4.5 Article

Lepton scattering from 40Ar and 48Ti in the quasielastic peak region

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
卷 100, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.062501

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Centro Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
  2. Royal Society under the CNR-Royal Society International Fellowship Scheme [NF161046]
  3. United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) [ST/P005314/1, ST/L005816/1]
  4. US DOE, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  5. Fermi Research Alliance, LLC [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  6. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics
  7. BIS National E-infrastructure Capital Grant [ST/K000373/1]
  8. STFC [ST/K0003259/1]
  9. GENCI-TGCC, France [A005057392]
  10. NUclear Computational Low-Energy Initiative (NUCLEI) SciDAC project
  11. STFC [ST/T001550/1, ST/T001348/1, ST/T001569/1, ST/R001014/1, ST/M006948/1, ST/M007073/1, ST/R001006/1, ST/M007006/1, ST/M007065/1, ST/S002529/1, ST/T001372/1, ST/R00689X/1, ST/R000832/1, ST/P005314/1, ST/L005816/1, ST/R001049/1, ST/M007618/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutron and proton spectral functions of Ar-40, Ca-40, and Ti-48 isotopes are computed using the ab initio self-consistent Green's function approach. The resulting radii and charge distributions are in good agreement with available experimental data. The spectral functions of Ar and Ti are then utilized to calculate inclusive (e, e ') cross sections within a factorization scheme and are found to correctly reproduce the recent Jefferson Lab measurements. Based on these successful agreements, the weak charged and neutral current double-differential cross sections for neutrino-Ar-40 scattering are predicted in the quasielastic region. Results obtained by replacing the (experimentally inaccessible) neutron spectral distribution of Ar-40 with the (experimentally accessible) proton distribution of Ti-48 are compared and the accuracy of this approximation is assessed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据