text:
# Is the Thomas precession a source of SR power?

## 1 Introduction

At present, an analysis of the first quantum corrections to the synchrotron radiation power (SR) is especially topical, because at ultrahigh energy of electrons in modern accelerators and storage rings, the radiation effects begin significantly to influence the dynamics and stability of electron beams.

We consider here polarization and spectral-angular properties of the first quantum spin-orientation–dependent correction to the synchrotron radiation power

$$W=W_{SR}(1\zeta \xi +\mathrm{}),$$
(1)
where $`W_{SR}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_0^2c}{\rho ^2}}\gamma ^4={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_0^2\omega _0^2}{c}}\gamma ^4`$ is the SR power, $`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{m_0c^2}{e_0H}}\gamma `$ is the orbit radius, $`\omega _0={\displaystyle \frac{e_0H}{m_0c\gamma }}`$ is the frequency of electron rotation, and $`\zeta =\pm 1`$. the dimensionless parameter $`\xi `$ can be represented in different ways:

$$\xi =\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{m_0c\rho }=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{m_0c^2}\gamma ^2=\frac{3}{2}\frac{H}{H^{}}\gamma =3\frac{\mu _0}{e_0\rho }\gamma ^2=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_0c^3}\sqrt{w_\mu w^\mu }=inv,$$

where $`H^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2c^2}{e_0\mathrm{}}}`$ is Schwinger’s magnetic field, $`\mu _0={\displaystyle \frac{e_0\mathrm{}}{2m_0c}}`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`w^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{d^2r^\mu }{d\tau ^2}}`$ is the four-dimensional electron acceleration, and $`e=e_0>0`$ is the electron charge.

The first quantum correction was theoretically calculated by I.M. Ternov, V.G. Bagrov, and R.A. Rzaev (1964) . The procedure for experimental observation of the spin dependence of SR power was proposed by V.N. Korchuganov, G.N. Kulipanov et al. in 1977, and the experiment itself was described in detail in . In 1983, the first quantum spin-orientation–dependent correction to the SR power was experimentally detected at the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk) . Later it was found out  that the correction is not simple in its structural composition. In the semiclassical theory, it consists of two significantly different components

$$W_{\mathrm{em}}=\zeta \xi W_{SR}=W_{\mathrm{emL}}+W_{\mathrm{emTh}},$$

where $`W_{\mathrm{emL}}`$ or $`W_{\mathrm{emTh}}`$ is the spontaneous radiation power determined by the Larmor or Thomas precession of the electron spin, respectively. However, the standard classical radiation theory of relativistic magnetic moment confirms the result only for the Larmor precession and don not include the contribution of the Thomas precession. At the same time, all the properties of mixed $`\mathrm{emL}`$-radiation in classical and semiclassical theory completely coincide . Here we try to answer the questions: what is the $`\mathrm{emTh}`$-radiation and why is it absent in the classical radiation theory of the magnetic moment?

## 2 Semiclassical analysis of mixed radiation

In this section, we use the relativistic semiclassical radiation theory (Jackson’s method , see also ). In comparison with the conventional quantum theory of radiation, the method is more simple and more obvious, but at the same time it reproduces all the results of the quantum theory.

In the semiclassical theory, the total interaction Hamiltonian has the form

$$\widehat{U}^{int}=\widehat{U}_\mathrm{e}^{int}+\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{mL}}^{int}+\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{mTh}}^{int},$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{e}^{int}=e_0(𝜷,\stackrel{~}{𝑨})`$ describes the interaction of the electron charge with the radiation field via the vector potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ (ignoring the recoil effects), the other terms correspond to the interaction of the electron magnetic moment with radiation fields

$$\widehat{U}_{mL}^{int}=\mu (𝝈,\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝑯}[𝜷,\stackrel{~}{𝑬}]\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}𝜷(𝜷,\stackrel{~}{𝑯})\right\})=\frac{\mu }{\gamma }(𝝈,\stackrel{~}{𝑯}_0),$$
(3)
$$\widehat{U}_{mTh}^{int}=\mu _0\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}(𝝈,[𝜷,\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝑬}+[𝜷,\stackrel{~}{𝑯}]\right\}])=\frac{\mu _0}{\gamma +1}([𝝈,𝜷],\stackrel{~}{𝑬}_0).$$
(4)
Here $`\mu =(g/2)\mu _0`$ is the total magnetic moment of the electron including anomalous part, $`𝝈`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`𝜷=𝒖/c`$, $`𝒖`$ is the electron velocity, $`\stackrel{~}{𝑬}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝑯}_0`$ are the radiation fields in the rest frame of the electron.

It follows from (3) that $`\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{mL}}^{int}`$ describes the interaction of the total magnetic moment with the magnetic field, whereas $`\widehat{U}_{\mathrm{mTh}}^{int}`$ in (4) corresponds to the interaction induced by the Bohr magneton motion. One can show that in the former case, the Larmor precession of the spin occurs, whereas in the latter case, the Thomas precession of the spin takes place. Physically speaking, this situation is quite obvious, because the Dirac equation involves both interactions, whereas the anomalous part of the Dirac-Pauli equation involves only the $`\mathrm{mL}`$-interaction, in other words, the anomalous magnetic moment undergoes no the Thomas precession.

Calculations of the matrix elements in the semiclassical theory shows that all the mixed radiation is related to the transitions without a spin flip (see ). Omitting details of calculations, we write out the spectral and angular distribution of $`\sigma `$\- and $`\pi `$\- components of mixed radiation:

$$\frac{dW_{\mathrm{em}}^\sigma }{dy}=W_{SR}\zeta \xi \mathrm{cos}\nu \frac{9\sqrt{3}}{16\pi }\left\{\frac{g}{2}\frac{2}{3}y_y^{\mathrm{}}K_{1/3}(x)𝑑x2y\left(\frac{1}{3}_y^{\mathrm{}}K_{1/3}(x)𝑑x+yK_{1/3}(y)\right)\right\},$$

$$\frac{dW_{\mathrm{em}}^\pi }{dy}=W_{SR}\zeta \xi \mathrm{cos}\nu \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8\pi }\left(\frac{g}{2}1\right)y_y^{\mathrm{}}K_{1/3}(x)𝑑x$$
(5)
and

$$\frac{dW_{\mathrm{em}}^\sigma }{d\chi }=W_{SR}\frac{35}{32}\left\{\frac{g}{2}\chi ^2(1+\chi ^2)\right\}(1+\chi ^2)^{5/2},$$

$$\frac{dW_{\mathrm{em}}^\pi }{d\chi }=W_{SR}\frac{35}{32}\left(\frac{g}{2}1\right)\chi ^2(1+\chi ^2)^{9/2}.$$
(6)
Here $`x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\chi ^2)^{3/2}y`$, $`y={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \stackrel{~}{\omega }}{c\gamma ^3}}`$, $`\chi =\gamma \psi `$, $`\psi `$ is the angle between the direction of radiation and the electron velocity, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is the radiation frequency.

One can obtain the total radiation power by integrating (5) over y or (6) over $`\chi `$. Taking into account the main term, which corresponds to the charge radiation but without the recoil effects, we have

$$W^\sigma =W_{SR}\left(\frac{7}{8}+\zeta \xi \mathrm{cos}\nu \left(\frac{g}{2}7\right)\frac{1}{6}\right),W^\pi =W_{SR}\left(\frac{1}{8}+\zeta \xi \mathrm{cos}\nu \left(\frac{g}{2}1\right)\frac{1}{6}\right),$$

$$W=W^\sigma +W^\pi =W_{SR}\left(1+\zeta \xi \mathrm{cos}\nu \left(\frac{g}{2}4\right)\frac{1}{3}\right)|_{g=2}=W_{SR}\left(1\zeta \xi \mathrm{cos}\nu \right).$$
(7)
In the first quantum correction to the SR power, we specially separate the terms with the factor $`g/2`$ that correspond to the $`\mathrm{emL}`$-radiation in the correction. The next terms correspond to the $`\mathrm{emTh}`$-radiation. At $`g=2`$, we obtain well-known result (1) for the Dirac electron . It should be noted that at $`\nu =\pi /2`$ (the spin oriented in the orbital plane), the mixed radiation is absent.

## 3 Classical theory of mixed radiation

In the classical theory, the mixed radiation is calculated on the basis of the general radiation theory of the relativistic magnetic moment (see ). In this section, we use a somewhat different approach.

The energy-momentum density tensor of mixed radiation has the form

$$P_{\mathrm{em}}^{\mu \rho }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{e}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{m}\nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{m}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{e}\nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \rho }\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{e}\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{m}^{\alpha \beta }\right).$$

Here tensors $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{e}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{m}^{\mu \nu }`$ are caused by the radiation field of the charge or the magnetic moment, respectively:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{e}^{\mu \nu }=e\left\{\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^{[\mu }w^{\nu ]}}{\left(\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho v^\rho \right)^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho w^\rho \stackrel{~}{r}^{[\mu }v^{\nu ]}}{\left(\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho v^\rho \right)^3}\right\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{m}^{\mu \nu }=\mu c\left\{\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}_{}{}^{[\mu \lambda }r_{\lambda }^{}\stackrel{~}{r}^{\nu ]}}{\left(\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho v^\rho \right)^2}\frac{3\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho w^\rho \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}_{}{}^{[\mu \lambda }r_{\lambda }^{}\stackrel{~}{r}^{\nu ]}+\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho \stackrel{}{w}{}_{}{}^{\rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{[\mu \lambda }r_\lambda \stackrel{~}{r}^{\nu ]}}{\left(\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho v^\rho \right)^3}+3\frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho w^\rho \right)^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mu \lambda }r_\lambda \stackrel{~}{r}^{\nu ]}}{\left(\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho v^\rho \right)^4}\right\}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=(𝚽,𝚷)`$ is the dimensionless antisymmetric spin tensor which satisfies the condition $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }v_\nu =0`$ and is related to the Frenkel intrinsic magnetic moment tensor by the relationship $`M^{\mu \nu }=\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}^\rho `$ is the light-like position four-vector (charge-observer), $`v^\rho =dr^\rho /d\tau `$ is the four-dimensional velocity, the simbol $``$ denotes the proper time derivative.

Substituting these expressions into the four-dimensional momentum of radiation per unit of proper time

$$\frac{dP_{\mathrm{em}}^\mu }{d\tau }=P_{\mathrm{em}}^{\mu \nu }e_\nu 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an element of solid angle, $`e^\nu =c{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{r}_\rho v^\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}v^\nu `$ is the unit spacelike four-vector, and integrating over the angels by means of the well-known method (see ) we obtain

$$\frac{dP_{\mathrm{em}}^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e\mu }{c^4}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }w_{\nu }^{}\frac{2}{c^2}v^\mu w_\alpha \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }w_{\beta }^{}\frac{1}{c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }w_\nu w_\rho w^\rho ).$$

The same result was obtained by another method in  (see also  and works cited in 8). Substituting here the solution of the spin equation in an uniform magnetic field, we find the mixed radiation power ($`\mu =(g/2)\mu _0`$)

$$W_{\mathrm{em}}=\frac{c}{\gamma }\frac{dP^0}{d\tau }=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e\mu }{c^2}\omega ^3\gamma ^5\beta _{}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_z=\frac{\zeta }{3}W_{SR}\frac{g}{2}.$$

In the case of electron ($`e=e_0`$, $`\mu =(g/2)\mu _0`$, $`\omega =\omega _0`$), this result with consideration of the main term can be represented in the form

$$W=W_{SR}\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\zeta \xi \frac{g}{2}\right)=W_{SR}+W_{\mathrm{emL}}.$$

We see that the Thomas precession makes no contribution to the total radiation power. At the same time, all the properties of the $`\mathrm{emL}`$-radiation in classical and quantum theories completely coincide .

## 4 Physical interpretation of the results obtained

What is a reason for the discrepancy between the expression of the total radiation power in classical and quantum (semiclassical) theories? The situation clears up if we introduce an effective external field $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mu \nu }`$. In this case, the equation of spin precession in the classical theory has especially simple and clear meaning:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }}{d\tau }=\frac{e}{m_0c}H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{[\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\nu ]},$$
(8)
$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mu \rho }=H_\mathrm{L}^{\mu \rho }+H_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\mu \rho },H_\mathrm{L}^{\mu \rho }=\frac{g}{2}\left(H^{\mu \rho }+\frac{1}{c^2}v^{[\mu }v_\lambda H^{\lambda \rho ]}\right),H_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\mu \rho }=\frac{m_0}{ec}v^{[\mu }w^{\rho ]}.$$
(9)
Equation (8) may be simplified using the spin vector $`𝜻`$ specified in the rest frame and related to the components of the tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ by means of the Lorentz transformation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=(\gamma [𝜷,𝜻],\gamma 𝜻\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}𝜷(𝜷,𝜻)).$$

In this representation, the interpretation of both terms in (9) becomes obvious:

$$\frac{d𝜻}{dt}=[𝛀,𝜻],𝛀=𝛀_\mathrm{L}+𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}},$$

$$𝛀_\mathrm{L}=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}\left(𝑯[𝜷,𝑬]\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}𝜷(𝜷,𝑯)\right)=\frac{g}{2}\frac{e}{m_0c\gamma }𝑯_0,$$

$$𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{e}{m_0c}\frac{1}{\gamma +1}[𝜷,𝑬_0]=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}[𝜷,𝒂].$$

Thus, we obtained the well-known expression for the value of the Thomas precession $`𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}}`$.

It is noteworthy that in the classical theory the interaction of the magnetic moment with the Thomas field $`H_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\mu \nu }`$ is absent, that is,

$$U_{\mathrm{mTh}}^{int}=\frac{\mu }{2\gamma }H_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }=0,$$

whereas in both classical and quantum theories the interaction of the magnetic moment with the Larmor field assumes absolutely identical forms and hence, in both theories the interaction has common origin (compare with (2a))

$$U_{\mathrm{mL}}^{int}=\frac{\mu }{2\gamma }H_\mathrm{L}^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }=\mu (𝜻,\left\{𝑯[𝜷,𝑬]\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}𝜷(𝜷,𝑯)\right\})=\frac{\mu }{\gamma }(𝜻,𝑯_0).$$

The correspondence principle can be completely understood if we represent the total radiation power in the semiclassical theory in a somewhat different manner (compare with formulas (7) at $`\nu =0`$):

$$W^\sigma =W_{SR}\left(\frac{7}{8}\left(1\frac{4}{3}\zeta \xi \right)+\frac{g}{2}\zeta \xi \frac{1}{6}\right),W^\pi =W_{SR}\left(\frac{1}{8}\left(1\frac{4}{3}\zeta \xi \right)+\frac{g}{2}\zeta \xi \frac{1}{6}\right),$$

$$W=W_{SR}\left(1\frac{4}{3}\zeta \xi \right)+W_{\mathrm{emL}}.$$

It should be noted that the term $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta \xi `$ cannot be associated with the polarization of radiation. It can be included in $`W_{SR}`$ at the expense of spin renormalization of the particle mass (see  pp.91-93). Indeed, according to the renormalization, the mass of a spin particle moving in a uniform magnetic field $`𝑯=(0,0,H)`$ has the form:

$$M=m_0\left(1\frac{\mu }{2c}H^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\right)|_{\mu =\mu _0}=m_0\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\zeta \xi \right).$$

If we set $`E=Mc^2\gamma `$, the SR power (1) can be represented in the form

$$W_{SR}^{}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^2\omega ^2}{c}\left(\frac{E}{Mc^2}\right)^4=W_{SR}\left(1\frac{4}{3}\zeta \xi \right).$$

Hence we have the relationship $`W=W_{SR}^{}+W_{\mathrm{emL}},`$ from which it follows that classical and quantum theories of mixed radiation are in full agreement. Moreover, this means that the Thomas precession cannot be considered as a source of the SR power.


format: text

text:
# Analytical approximation for the sphere-sphere Coulomb potential

## Abstract

A simple analytical expression, which closely approximates the Coulomb potential between two uniformly charged spheres, is presented. This expression can be used in the optical potential semiclassical analyses which require that the interaction be analytic on and near the real $`r`$-axis.

The semiclassical analyses of the optical potential cross sections play an important role in understanding the scattering mechanism of light- and heavy-ions. The direct evaluation of the semiclassical amplitudes is based on the calculation of the integral actions between the turning points of the radial motion. The turning points of the radial motion are solution of the equation

$$k^2(r,\lambda )=k^2(1\frac{U(r)}{E}\frac{\lambda ^2}{k^2r^2})=0,$$
(1)
where $`k,\lambda ,E,`$ and $`U(r)`$ are, respectively, the wave number, the angular momentum in units of $`\mathrm{}`$, the center of mass energy, and the complex optical potential. The integral actions are defined by

$$S_{ij}(\lambda )=_{r_i}^{r_j}k(r,\lambda )𝑑r,$$
(2)
where $`r_i`$ and $`r_j`$ are appropriate solutions of Eq. (1).

In the semiclassical approximations both these quantities are treated as analytical functions of $`\lambda `$ around the real $`\lambda `$-axis. This is true only if the complex optical potential is an analytical function of $`r`$, on and near the real $`r`$-axis.

In the phenomenological analyses the optical potential between heavy-ions is written in the form

$$U(r)=V(r)+iW(r)+V_C(r),$$
(3)
where $`V(r)`$ and $`W(r)`$ are the real and the imaginary part of the nuclear interaction, and $`V_C(r)`$ is the Coulomb interaction potential.

As a rule, analytic functions are used for the real and the imaginary part of the interaction. On the contrary, the Coulomb part of the interaction is described using either the Coulomb potential of one point charged particle with a uniformly charged sphere of radius $`R_C`$ (in the least recent works) or the Coulomb potential between two uniformly charged spheres of radii, say, $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ (in the more recent ones). These potentials are not analytic functions around the real $`r`$-axis.

This fact, rigorously, excludes the possibility of applying the semiclassical methods which assumes the analyticity of the potential. The lack of analyticity must however be considered accidental. It arises from our preference to use simple expressions for the interaction, and we do not really think that it is connected with some physical fact. Owing to this we expect that this, and similar troubles, can be cured with a little effort.

To do this we here briefly recall some techniques used in the past to treat the point-sphere case, and we present a similar method for the sphere-sphere case.

Both these Coulomb potentials can be written in the form

$$V_C(r)=\frac{Z_1Z_2e^2}{R_C}f_C(x),$$
(4)
where $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ are the charges of the colliding partners, $`x=r/R_C`$, and $`f_C(x)`$ is an appropriate form factor depending on the case considered. For the two sphere case, obviously, $`R_C`$ is the sum of $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$.

The form factor for the point-sphere Coulomb potential is given by

$$f_C^{pS}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}(3x^2)\hfill & x1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{x}\hfill & x>1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
This form factor is continuous, as is its first derivative, on the real $`x`$-axis, but has a discontinuity at $`x=1`$ in the second derivative.

To avoid problems connected with this discontinuity, Knoll and Schaeffer, in their semiclassical analysis, simply described the Coulomb interaction by using the point-point Coulomb potential for all the $`r`$-values. This choice is only justified for strongly absorptive interactions, for which the contributions from the internal region of the interaction are unimportant. In order to be free from this restriction, Brink and Takigawa , in their uniform semiclassical analysis, preferred to approximate the point-sphere form factor given by Eq. 5 with

$$f_{BT}^{pS}(x)=\frac{1}{x}[1\mathrm{exp}(a_1xa_2x^2a_3x^3)].$$
(6)
By imposing the condition that the values of this form factor, and of its first two derivatives, coincide with the corresponding quantities of the exact one at $`x=0`$, one obtains $`a_1=3/2`$, $`a_2=9/8`$, and $`a_3=19/16`$. In this way the analytical form factor closely approximates the point-sphere one, with a maximum relative error smaller than 3%.

A similar analytical form factor, with the additional constraint of being an even function of $`x`$, was also used in the past. The evenness of the potential ensures that the scattering functions, of the multireflection expansion of the Brink and Takigawa approximation, have definite reflection properties in the complex $`\lambda `$-plane. These properties are useful in the semiclassical analysis, and to ensure their validity in Ref. , although not there explicitly given, the following expression was used for the point-sphere form factor

$$f_{AR}^{pS}(x)=\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{tanh}(a_1x+a_3x^3).$$
(7)
Using the same condition used by Brink and Takigawa one obtains for the parameters the values $`a_1=3/2`$, and $`a_3=5/8`$. With this parameter values, the maximum relative error between the approximated and the exact form factors is lower than 4%.

In Fig. 1 the behavior of the exact point-sphere form factor is compared with that of the two above approximations.

The use of the point-sphere Coulomb potential is not, however, appropriate to describe realistically the Coulomb interaction in the heavy-ion scattering processes in which the projectile and the target have similar radii. More than 25 years ago  the role of more realistic descriptions of the Coulomb interaction between two heavy-ions was investigated.

The detailed behavior of the Coulomb interaction depends, obviously, on the properties of the two charge distributions. In any case the potentials obtained using realistic charge distributions can be rather well approximated by the Coulomb potential of two uniformly charged spheres. This is the reason why this potential is used even in the more recent and detailed analyses of the elastic scattering between light heavy-ions .

The sphere-sphere Coulomb form factor in given by

$$f_C^{SS}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}b(3cb^2x^2)\hfill & xx_0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{x}\{13d^2(1x)^4\hfill & \\ \times [1\frac{2}{15}d(1x)(5+x)]\}\hfill & x_0<x1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{x}\hfill & x>1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`b=1+1/a`$, $`c=3/5a^2`$, $`d=(a+1/a+2)/4`$, $`x_0=(a1)/(a+1)`$, with $`a=R_1/R_2`$ and $`R_1R_2`$.

This formula is less popular than the equivalent ones given in Refs. , but is here preferred for its simplicity.

The sphere-sphere Coulomb form factor is continuous for real $`x`$-values up to the third derivative. The first discontinuities appear in the fourth derivative at $`x=x_0`$ and $`x=1`$.

A very good approximation for the sphere-sphere form factor can be obtained by using a slight generalization of Eq. (7)

$$f_A^{SS}(r)=\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{tanh}(a_1x+a_3x^3+a_5x^5),$$
(9)
where the parameters $`a_1,a_3,`$ and $`a_5`$ depends only on the ratio $`a`$ between the larger and the smaller of the two radii. With respect to Eq. (7), only the fifth power term was added in order to preserve the evenness of the form factor. To give more flexibility to this form factor the parameters are allowed to be determined, for each value of $`a`$, by fitting Eq. (9) to points calculated using Eq. (8).

This technique was used to obtain the sphere-sphere form factor parameters in a recent semiclassical analysis  of the optical potential scattering of 16O on 12C at $`E_{\text{Lab}}=132`$ MeV. In the optical potential considered the Coulomb interaction was originally described  using the potential of two uniform charge distributions of radii $`R_1=3.54`$ fm and $`R_2=3.17`$ fm. With these radii, the values obtained for the parameters are $`a_1=2.387,a_3=1.071,`$ and $`a_5=1.683`$. Using our optical code, the differences between the cross sections calculated with the exact and the approximated Coulomb potential are completely negligible. In fact, calculating the cross sections from $`1^{}`$ to $`180^{}`$ with a step of $`0.25^{}`$, the maximum relative error is lower than 0.09%

The need to use a fitting procedure to obtain the best estimate of the parameters may be considered a drawback of the approximation (9). This complication is however unnecessary because the dependence on $`\alpha =1/a`$ of the best fit parameters is rather smooth and, for practical purposes, it is sufficient to know the values of the best fit parameters on a rather sparse grid of $`\alpha `$ values.

The reliability of the fit procedure and the possibility of interpolating the best fit parameter values was tested using 101 $`x`$ values, equally spaced between 0 and 1.5, for 101 values of $`\alpha =1/a`$, equally spaced between 0 and 1. In the worst case ($`\alpha =0`$, which corresponds to the point-sphere case) the maximum relative error of the best fit form factor is less then 0.8%.

The dependence of the fit parameters on the quantity $`\alpha `$ is shown in Fig. 2.

In Fig. 3 we shown the behavior of the exact sphere-sphere form factor for the $`\alpha `$ values from 0.0 to 1.0, with a step of 0.1. The differences between the exact and the approximated form factors cannot be appreciated with the thickness used for the curves. In the inset of the same figure, for the $`\alpha =0.0`$, $`0.5`$, and $`1.0`$ cases, we show the relative errors between the exact and approximated form factors.

In Tab. I we give the values of the best fit parameters for $`\alpha `$ values spaced by 0.1. The last column of the table gives the corresponding maximum relative error. Interpolation methods of the tabulated values can be used to obtain the parameter values at intermediate $`\alpha `$ values. Using a linear interpolation at the middle $`\alpha `$ values the maximum relative error is within the bracketing error values for $`\alpha <5.0`$, and does not exceed the 0.21% for the other $`\alpha `$ values.

In all the tests that we have performed, the substitution of the sphere-sphere form factor with its analytical approximation given by Eq. (9), does not produce observable effects with the thickness of the lines normally used to plot an optical cross section.

In conclusion we can say that the lack of analyticity of the Coulomb potentials, traditionally used in the optical model analyses, can be easily cured without any physically appreciable effect. The same is expected to be true also for the, more or less, similar lacks of analyticity in other term of the optical interactions, which are sometimes used. Using appropriate analytical functions it should be possible to closely approximate these interactions too. These analytical approximations could be used in the semiclassical analyses which requires that the interaction is expressed in terms of analytical functions.


text:
# Breakdown of a conservation law in incommensurate systems

## I Introduction

Measuring friction at an atomic level has recently become experimentally possible. Many studies of the dynamics of appropriate non-linear systems aiming at establishing the mechanisms giving rise to energy dissipation during the sliding of a body onto a crystalline surface have appeared in the literature. The Frenkel-Kontorova (FK) model, which describes a harmonic chain interacting with a rigid periodic substrate, is particularly suitable to study the important case of an incommensurate (IC) lattice parameter ratio of the contacting surfaces. The present study focuses on the effects of discommensuration on the dynamics. It should be kept in mind that a more realistic study of friction would require an extension to two dimensions. Coupling to the third dimension can be provided either by an ad hoc damping term or by coupling to an elastic medium. The ground state properties of this model have been thoroughly studied. At a critical value $`\lambda _c`$ of the coupling to the external potential, the ground state of the system displays a structural transition (Aubry transition) from a floating to a pinned configuration. Below this threshold, the center of mass of the static system can be displaced on the substrate without energy costs. Therefore, one might expect a frictionless regime also in a dynamic situation and a superlubric regime, where the chain would slide indefinitely, has been predicted for this case. In a previous paper we have pointed out that the inherent non-linear coupling of the center of mass (CM) motion to the phonons leads instead to an irreversible decay of the CM velocity. The essential mechanism for the transfer of kinetic energy from the center of mass to the internal vibrations is the parametric resonant excitation of phonons mediated by ordinary resonances with phonons related to the modulating potential.

Here we show that this type of mechanism has another important consequence, namely it causes the appearance of Umklapp terms, signalling a dynamical transition in the system from a floating to a pinned state. We have studied this phenomenon by identifying a new quantity, which we call generalized angular momentum (GAM), which is an integral of motion only if the system is in a floating IC phase, reflecting the invariance of the Lagrangian of the model for a phase shift in this state. We show that this invariance is equivalent to the absence of Umklapp terms. By means of numerical simulations we show that the temporal behavior of the GAM is a powerful probe both of the (in)commensurability of the groundstate configuration and of the dynamical phase in which the system is during motion. Simulations where the incommensurate ground state is given an initial velocity show that the GAM remains conserved up to a well defined time where a sudden jump takes place. We have been able to relate this change of behavior from conserved to non conserved to the appearance of Umklapp terms. An important finding is that this floating-pinned transition does not coincide with the onset of friction. It was recently suggested by Popov that the appearance of Umklapp terms, i.e. the conservation of quasi-momentum instead of momentum for crystalline systems, is the mechanism via which friction occurs in incommensurate contacts. The present result shows that this is not the only mechanism. By monitoring the system via the GAM we can show that decay of the CM velocity may occur already in the floating phase. The onset of friction and the appearance of Umklapp terms are both caused by non-linear couplings and resonant phonon excitations in the system but remain two distinct phenomena occurring at different times.

In Sec. II we describe the construction of the GAM by deriving it from the Lagrangian for the system in Fourier space and define conditions under which it is conserved. In Sec. III A we present results of numerical simulations which confirm the validity of our analytical derivation and underline the usefulness of the GAM to discriminate between commensurate and floating IC and pinned IC phases, respectively. Subsequently, we examine in Sec. III B the relationship between pinning and Umklapp and show the presence of a well-defined transition time. In Sec. IV we present conclusions and perspectives of this work. In the Appendix we provide the reader with an explicit proof that the GAM is an integral of motion in absence of Umklapp.

## II Construction of a Generalized Angular Momentum

In this section we will construct a generalized angular momentum for the dynamical FK model, as described in Ref. . We remind the reader that this model represents a chain of $`N`$ particles which interact with each other via a first-neighbor harmonic potential and are subjected to an external, spatially periodic, potential of strength $`\lambda `$. The FK Hamiltonian reads:

$$=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{p_n^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{n+1}u_nl\right)^2+\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi u_n}{m})\right]$$
(1)
where the $`u_n`$ are the particle positions and $`p_n`$ their momenta. The ratio between the modulation period of the external potential $`m`$ and $`l`$ (the equilibrium distance between the atoms of the chain for $`\lambda =0`$) is taken to be irrational, i.e. the system is incommensurate. In our calculations we take $`m=1`$ and $`l=\tau =\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}`$ (golden mean). In the numerical implementation for a finite system of $`N`$ particles we impose periodic boundary conditions

$$u_{N+1}=Nl+u_1$$
(2)
This implies that we have to choose commensurate approximants for the equilibrium distance $`l`$. By expressing $`l`$ as ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers we obtain approximants which satisfy the condition $`l\times N=M\times 1`$ with $`M`$ and $`N`$ integers. Let us introduce the modulation wavevector $`q=2\pi l=2\pi (M/N)`$ and the position and momentum of the CM of the chain of atoms:

$$Q=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n}{}u_n\text{}P=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n}{}p_n$$
(3)
The equations of motion for the deviations $`x_n=u_nnlQ`$ from the equilibrium positions in the uncoupled chain are then given by:

$$\ddot{x}_n=x_{n+1}+x_{n1}2x_n+\lambda \mathrm{cos}(qn+2\pi x_n+2\pi Q)$$
(4)
As noted in Ref. , in the weak coupling regime it is useful to move to Fourier coordinates $`x_k=\frac{1}{N}_ne^{ikn}x_n`$ with $`k=2\pi K/N`$. The phonon dispersion of the chain for $`\lambda =0`$ is denoted by $`\omega _k\omega (k)=2|\mathrm{sin}(k/2)|`$. The Lagrangian associated with Eq. (1) in transformed space becomes:

$`=N({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{x}_k\dot{x}_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _k^2x_kx_k)+`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i2\pi )^m}{(m!)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1\mathrm{}k_m}{}}(e^{i2\pi Q}x_{k_1}\mathrm{}x_{k_m}\delta _{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_m,q}`$

$$(1)^me^{i2\pi Q}x_{k_1}\mathrm{}x_{k_m}\delta _{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_m,q})+\frac{1}{2}(\dot{Q})^2)$$
(5)
It is important to notice that since wave vectors are defined modulo $`2\pi `$, the Kronecker deltas in Eq. (5) should be read as:

$$k_1+k_2+\mathrm{}+k_m=q+s\times 2\pi $$
(6)
Umklapp is present whenever this relation is satisfied with $`s0`$. It is clear that the occurrence of Umklapp depends on the modes $`x_k`$ which are not negligible, and on the choice of the (extended or reduced) Brillouin zone in which $`k`$ is represented. It is known that in the groundstate, for a coupling $`\lambda `$ well below the critical value $`\lambda _c`$, which for this model assumes the value $`\lambda _c=0.154\mathrm{}`$, the modes with wavevector $`nq`$ have an amplitude which scales as $`\lambda ^{|n|}`$. This number $`|n|`$ is therefore a natural label to represent the modes; we define $`n(k,q)`$ as the smallest (in absolute value) number which satisfies:

$$k=n(k,q)q\text{mod}(2\pi )$$
(7)
For a finite system with $`N`$ particles, where $`k`$ can be represented in the reduced Brillouin zone as $`k=K(2\pi /N)`$, $`K(1/2N,1/2N]`$, this can be rewritten as:

$$K=nM\text{mod}(N)\text{,}n(1/2N,1/2N]$$
(8)
In Fig. 1 we compare the phonon amplitudes for the ground state of the FK model for $`N=377`$, $`\lambda =0.05`$, plotted as a function of the usual wavevector label $`K`$ (panel (a)), as well as reordered according to the label $`n`$ (panel (b)). Note that, due to finite numerical precision, the scaling behavior is hidden in numerical noise after the first fifteen modes.

The use of $`n`$ as a mode label makes apparent the fact that there is no Umklapp in the ground state of the FK model in the modulated phase for $`\lambda <\lambda _c`$. In fact Umklapp would imply the presence of a non vanishing term:

$$x_{n_1q}x_{n_2q}\mathrm{}x_{n_mq}\text{;}n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}n_m=sN\text{ with }s0$$
(9)
The joint amplitude of this term would be:

$$\lambda ^{|n_1|+\mathrm{}|n_m|}\lambda ^{|s|N}$$
(10)
which vanishes for $`N\mathrm{}`$.

The absence of Umklapp terms is directly related to the existence of a free floating phase, which is a well known invariance property of the FK model. In the present notation it amounts to the invariance of the Lagrangian for the transformation:

$`Q`$ $``$ $`Q+q\varphi /2\pi `$ (11)
$`x_k`$ $``$ $`x_ke^{ik\varphi }`$ (12)
This invariance is related to the existence of a zero-frequency Goldstone mode in the system. This mode is also often called phason, and should not be confused with the usual acoustic mode of periodic crystals.

Having found an invariance for the Lagrangian, we can look for the conjugate conserved momentum. We get:

$$p_\varphi =\frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}=i\underset{n}{}nqx_{nq}\dot{x}_{nq}+\frac{q}{2\pi }\dot{Q}L+\frac{q}{2\pi }\dot{Q}$$
(13)
The quantity $`p_\varphi `$ represents a generalized angular momentum (GAM). It is important to realize that the invariance of the Lagrangian only holds in a subspace of the full phase space where Umklapp terms can be neglected as it is the case for the floating (incommensurate) ground state. In order to stress this point, a direct calculation of $`\dot{p}_\varphi `$ is given in the Appendix, showing that the GAM $`p_\varphi `$ is an integral of motion only if Umklapp is not present.

This quantity is therefore an useful tool to discriminate between commensurate and incommensurate structures, and floating and locked states. In the next section we present numerical simulations that we carried out for various values of the parameters of the model, showing how $`p_\varphi `$ is a good indicator of the phase in which the system under examination is.

## III Numerical results

### A Commensurate vs. incommensurate, locked vs. floating

We have performed numerical simulation in order to study the behavior of the GAM, as defined by Eq. (13), integrating by a Runge-Kutta algorithm the $`N`$ Eqs. (4). We assign to the particles of the chain as initial conditions momenta $`p_n=P_0`$ and positions $`x_n(t=0)`$ corresponding to the ground state. Fig. 2 shows simulation results for the same number of particles $`N`$ and potential strength $`\lambda `$, but for a low ($`\tau =5/3`$) and a high ($`\tau =233/144`$) approximant to the golden mean $`\tau `$, producing a commensurate structure and an approximate incommensurate one. The qualitative behavior of the momentum of the center of mass $`P`$ is similar, whereas the behavior of $`p_\varphi `$ in Fig. 3 is remarkably different being conserved only for the case which approximates an incommensurate system. This confirms that $`p_\varphi `$ can be used as a tool to discriminate unambiguously between commensurate and incommensurate structures.

Furthermore, our numerical simulations show a remarkable fact. If we start the simulation with an incommensurate initial condition, $`p_\varphi `$ is indeed conserved, but only up to a critical time $`t_c`$, after which it rapidly deviates from its initial conserved value. This is shown in Fig. 4, where we can examine the behavior of $`p_\varphi `$ and $`P`$ in a weak coupling, highly incommensurate ($`\tau =610/377`$, $`\lambda =0.015`$) case. In order to check that the observed variation of $`p_\varphi `$ only sets in after a critical time $`t_c`$, we have analyzed the behavior of the quantity $`log(p_\varphi C_0)`$, $`C_0`$ being the value of $`p_\varphi `$ at $`t=0`$. It is evident from panel (c) of Fig. 4 that we can identify such a critical time $`t_c`$ where the GAM has a jump in value of various order of magnitude. Besides, this figure shows that, for $`t<t_c`$, $`p_\varphi `$ is conserved within our numerical accuracy, never exceeding variation larger than $`10^{20}`$.

The critical time $`t_c`$ obviously depends on the coupling strength $`\lambda <\lambda _c`$ and on the initial velocity $`P_0`$. We are currently investigating the dependence $`t_c(\lambda ,P_0)`$, which turns out to be rather intricate, and plan to report on it in the near future. Here, we want to concentrate on the mechanism that causes the breakdown of the conservation law, leading to a well-defined $`t_c`$. We show in the next section that the answer lies in the appearance of Umklapp terms, which render the system pinned, thus leading to a non conservation of $`p_\varphi `$.

### B The role of Umklapp processes

As we have pointed out in Sec. II, $`p_\varphi `$ is conserved only in the absence of Umklapp, that is to say when terms of the form given in Eq. (9) have a vanishing amplitude for $`N\mathrm{}`$. As we have seen, this is the case for the groundstate of the incommensurate system. However, starting from the ground state, this may change during the dynamics due to parametric resonances. The movement of the CM with velocity $`P`$ induces a modulation with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi P`$ in the equations of motion of the system. Linear stability analysis shows that a mode $`k`$ grows exponentially (with rise time $`\tau `$) whenever its frequency satisfies:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\omega (k)+\omega (mqk)}{m}$$
(14)
for some $`m`$. The $``$ symbol indicates an instability window of relative width $`w_m`$ that scales with $`\lambda ^{|m|}`$.

Suppose now that a mode $`x_k`$ is unstable. Let $`n(k,q)`$ be its label according to Eq. (7). When $`n(k,q)=𝒪(N)`$, this mode could lead to Umklapp as soon as its amplitude becomes finite. However, since its initial value is of order $`\lambda ^{|n|}`$, it requires an infinite amount of time (as $`N\mathrm{}`$) to render $`\lambda ^{|n|}e^{t/\tau }`$ finite. So we have to look for modes $`k`$ in the instability windows with $`n(k,q)`$ finite. Since the mapping $`n(k,q)k`$ leads to a uniform distribution, one indeed expects to find such a $`k`$ with $`|n(k,q)|<1/w`$, where $`w=_mw_m`$ is the relative width of the joint instabilities windows. Once the amplitude of the mode $`k`$ starts growing (with a behavior given by an exponential law of the form: $`Ae^{t/\tau }`$, with $`A`$ bounded from below via the upper bound on $`n`$), also modes $`k^{}`$ with $`n^{}(k^{},q)=pn(k,q)\pm 1,p=2,3,\mathrm{}`$ start to develop via non linear terms in the equations of motion (see Ref. for details), with the form:

$$x_k^{^{}}\lambda (Ae^{t/\tau })^p$$
(15)
Umklapp can result when repeating this process $`𝒪(N)`$ times (i.e., when $`pnN`$) still gives a finite result. From Eq. (15) it is clear that this will happen when $`x_k(t)`$ exceeds some threshold value, which is the case for $`t`$ larger than the critical time $`t_c`$ introduced in Sec. III A.

Fig. 5 shows this mechanism at work: here we have taken $`P_0=0.15`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi P=\omega _q/2`$, and $`N=377`$ $`(\tau =610/377)`$. For this value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Eq. (14) has approximate solutions for $`n=2`$ for $`k=K(2\pi /N)`$, with $`K=18,19`$. The corresponding values for $`n(k,q)`$ are in the case $`n(18,q)=47`$ and $`n(19,q)=97`$. Panel (a) shows that the phonon amplitudes at $`t=0`$ decay indeed exponentially with $`n`$. Panel (b) shows that the unstable mode $`K=18`$ with the lowest value of $`n`$ starts to grow at $`t=1000`$. Modes at $`n=2\times 47`$ are also present, due to non linear terms, but quadratically smaller, as explained above. At $`t=1500`$ modes at $`n=3\times 47`$ become visible, as shown in panel (c). There is still no Umklapp, as can be seen from the absence of an amplitude at the zone boundary. Such a term, corresponding to $`n=4\times 47`$, finally appears in panel (d), at $`t=2000`$. Indeed, this is also precisely the time at which $`|x_{18}|^2`$ becomes order unity and $`p_\varphi `$ stops being conserved (see panel (e)).

The mechanism described above shows that the appearance of Umklapp terms causes a sudden transition from a floating to a pinned structure. In this respect, this transition represents a dynamical analogue of the Aubry transition taking place in the static model at $`\lambda _c`$. The important difference is that, for the dynamical case, this transition occurs as a function of time at all values $`\lambda <\lambda _c`$.

Before concluding this section it is important to discuss the relation between this ”dynamical Aubry” transition described above and the onset of friction. The onset of friction is driven by the coupling of the CM to the mode with the modulation wavevector $`q`$ or its harmonics and consists in a special kind of parametric resonances involving more than one phonon and where the time dependent driving terms are themselves in resonance. The appearance of Umklapp requires instead a phonon with finite amplitude and very special (zone boundary) wavevector. We could say that the last process is more difficult to achieve. In Fig. 6, it can be seen that the GAM stays conserved, even after the CM momentum has begun its decay. This means that there is an interval of time in which the first mechanism is active whereas the second has not yet taken place. We can identify two times: one which characterizes the onset of friction and one which describes the pinning of the system. In this respect the dynamical model is much richer than the statical one. At the Aubry transition, the appearance of a static friction occurs by definition at the same value of $`\lambda `$ at which the system gets pinned.

## IV Conclusions

We have shown, in the framework of the undamped 1D dynamical FK model, that it is possible to obtain analytical results concerning the existence of a new integral of motion which represents a generalized angular momentum related to a phase invariance in incommensurate systems, and we have confirmed this finding by means of numerical simulations. We have also shown that, during the dynamics, a breakdown of the conservation of the GAM occurs at a well-defined time, signalling a dynamical transition from a floating phase to a locked one. We have been able to prove that this transition is related to the apperance of Umklapp processes, caused by non linear couplings of the system. We are currently trying to further characterize the nature (order) of the transition of the dynamical model. We have furthermore shown that the onset of friction and the pinning of the system are related but distinct phenomena occurring in general at different times, which we have been able to identify.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ted Janssen for interesting discussions and suggestions.

##

We are going to provide in this appendix an explicit derivation that $`\dot{p}_\varphi =0`$. Let us consider the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (13):

$$L=i\underset{n}{}nqx_{nq}\dot{x}_{nq}$$
(16)
In order to simplify the notation, we will adopt from now on the following convention: $`nq\kappa `$. Take the derivative of Eq. (16):

$$\dot{L}=i\underset{\kappa }{}\kappa x_\kappa \ddot{x}_\kappa i\underset{\kappa }{}\kappa \dot{x}_\kappa \dot{x}_\kappa $$
(17)
We can immediately see that for symmetry reasons the second term cancels. Let us now take the equation for $`\ddot{x}_k`$ as follows from the Euler-Lagrange equations:

$`\ddot{x}_\kappa =\omega _\kappa ^2x_\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i2\pi )^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa _1\mathrm{}\kappa _m}{}}[e^{i2\pi Q}x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q+\kappa }`$

$$+(1)^me^{i2\pi Q}x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q+\kappa }]$$
(18)
and the equation for the CM motion:

$`\ddot{Q}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i2\pi )^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa _1\mathrm{}\kappa _m}{}}[e^{i2\pi Q}x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q}`$

$$+(1)^me^{i2\pi Q}x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q}]$$
(19)
Let us insert Eq. (18) in Eq. (17). We get:

$$\dot{L}=i\left\{\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i2\pi )^m}{m!}\underset{\kappa ,\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _m}{}\left[e^{i2\pi Q}\kappa x_\kappa x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q+\kappa }+\mathrm{}\right]\right\}$$
(20)
(Note that the first term in Eq. (18) cancels for the same symmetry reasons given above). We have for simplicity explicitly written down only the first part of the expression in square brackets, since we treat the second part exactly in the same way. Rearranging the delta function and applying the following symmetry transformation:

$$\kappa x_\kappa \delta _\kappa \kappa x_\kappa \delta _\kappa $$
(21)
Eq. (20) becomes:

$$\dot{L}=i\left\{\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i2\pi )^m}{m!}\underset{\kappa ,\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _m}{}\left[e^{i2\pi Q}(\kappa )x_\kappa x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa +\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q}+\mathrm{}\right]\right\}$$
(22)
Because there is no preferential order in the $`\kappa `$-summation, the following equality holds:

$$(\kappa )x_\kappa x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}=(\kappa _1)x_{\kappa _1}x_\kappa \mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}=\mathrm{}=(\kappa _m)x_{\kappa _m}x_\kappa \mathrm{}x_{\kappa _{m1}}$$
(23)
There are $`(m+1)`$ possibilities, thus we can make the substitution:

$$\kappa =\frac{\kappa +\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m}{m+1}$$
(24)
Therefore, Eq. (20) becomes:

$$\dot{L}=i\left\{\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i2\pi )^m}{m!}\underset{\kappa ,\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _m}{}\left[\left(\frac{\kappa +\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m}{m+1}\right)e^{i2\pi Q}x_\kappa x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa +\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q}+\mathrm{}\right]\right\}$$
(25)
Now, under the assumption that there is no Umklapp $`\kappa _1+\mathrm{}\kappa _m=q`$ and can be taken outside the summation. Hence, we get:

$$\dot{L}=\frac{q}{2\pi }\left\{\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i2\pi )^{m+1}}{(m+1)!}\underset{\kappa ,\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _m}{}e^{i2\pi Q}x_{\kappa _1}\mathrm{}x_{\kappa _m}\delta _{\kappa +\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _m,q}+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(26)
The expression in parenthesis is precisely Eq. (19) for $`\ddot{Q}`$ multiplied by $`q/2\pi `$. Hence, we find:

$$\dot{p}_\varphi =\dot{L}+\frac{q}{2\pi }\ddot{Q}=0$$
(27)


text:
# Core excitation in Coulomb breakup reactions

## I Introduction

The single-nucleon transfer reactions, induced by light as well as heavy ions, have been established as a useful tool in probing the single-particle components of the wave functions of stable nuclei (see e.g. ). The theory of these reactions developed within the framework of the distorted wave Born approximation (DWBA)  has been widely used to analyze the absolute magnitudes and shapes of measured cross sections and to deduce the structure information including angular momentum assignments, occupation probabilities and spectroscopic factors of the ground as well as excited states of the residual nuclei.

Nonetheless, transfer reactions are not yet routinely used in probing the structure of exotic nuclei near the neutron and proton drip lines, even though the first theoretical feasibility study  for such investigations with transfer reactions and the first experimental results  for the 11Be(p,d)10Be reaction have been already reported. With the currently available experimental techniques, the measurements of these reactions involving drip line nuclei are performed in the inverse kinematics with low intensity projectile beams. This puts severe experimental restrictions as the corresponding cross sections are usually low. Furthermore, the theoretical analysis of these data in terms of the DWBA gets complicated as the usual well-depth search method to calculate the wave function of the transfered particle becomes unreliable , and the methods such as Skyrme Hartree-Fock theory need to be invoked  for a proper description of these wave functions.

Recently, an alternative new and more versatile technique for investigating the spectroscopy of nuclei near the drip line has been developed . In this method, referred to as the (a,b$`\gamma `$) reaction in the following, one nucleon (usually the valence or halo) is removed from the projectile (a) in its breakup reaction within the field of a target nucleus. The states of the core fragment (b) populated in this reaction are identified by their gamma ($`\gamma `$) decay. The $`\gamma `$-ray intensities are used to determine the partial breakup cross sections to different core states. The signatures of the orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ associated with the relative motion of core states with respect to the valence nucleon (removed from the projectile) are provided by the measured parallel momentum distributions .

This method improves the experimental conditions for working with projectiles of low beam intensities because of: (i) large partial cross sections for transitions to various bound states of the core fragment, even in experiments done with high-energy projectiles, (ii) possibility of using thick targets, and (iii) strong forward focusing. These features may be contrasted with those of the corresponding transfer reactions. In addition, while, in the case of transfer reactions, the angular distributions of the ejectile lose their characteristic $`\mathrm{}`$-dependence at high energies , the longitudinal momentum distributions of the core states in the breakup reactions continue to show a strong dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$.

Most of the studies of the (a,b$`\gamma `$) reaction performed so far involve a light 9Be target, where the breakup process is governed almost entirely by only the nuclear interaction between the projectile fragments and the target. Since, this reaction is essentially inclusive in nature (as the measurements are performed only for the heavy core fragment), the nuclear partial cross sections have contributions from both elastic (also known as diffraction dissociation) and inelastic (also known as stripping or breakup-fusion) breakup modes . Several attempts have been made to calculate the elastic and inelastic nuclear breakup cross sections of halo nuclei and they were either based on the semiclassical methods  or on the eikonal approximation . The fragment-target interactions are dealt with differently in these two approaches which could be important for the light targets . Data of Refs.  have been analyzed in terms of an eikonal model  with core-target and neutron-target interactions treated in the black disc approximation and in the optical limit of the Glauber theory, respectively. In order to extract unambiguous spectroscopic informations from the (a,b$`\gamma `$) type of measurements performed on a light target, it is quite desirable to develop the calculations of nuclear breakup reactions within the DWBA theory as has been done for the breakup of stable projectiles .

However, currently a full quantum mechanical theory of the pure Coulomb breakup reaction, formulated within the framework of the post-form distorted-wave Born-approximation, is well established and has been applied successfully to investigate the breakup of halo nuclei . Finite range effects are accounted for in this theory which can be applied to projectiles of any ground-state orbital angular-momentum structure. Moreover, an alternative theory of the Coulomb breakup reactions within the framework of an adiabatic model has also been formulated . The expressions for the breakup amplitude within this theory are very similar to those of the finite-range DWBA theory, although the two have been derived under quite different assumptions. In the adiabatic model, it is assumed that the excited states of the projectile are degenerate with the ground state. In the studies of the breakup reactions done so far (where the core fragments were assumed to remain in their ground states), the two theories produced almost identical results . However, with the excitation of the core, the one-neutron separation energies increase significantly. It would, therefore, be interesting to see if the two models lead to different results in these cases.

There are no adjustable parameter in either of the theories of pure Coulomb breakup reaction. Assuming that the processes, in which the mutual excitation of the target nucleus takes place due to the Coulomb interaction, contribute negligibly, the inelastic breakup mode is absent in the pure Coulomb breakup reactions. This is an added advantage as there is some ambiguity regarding the calculation of this mode which dominates the partial cross sections for the excited core states in the nuclear breakup process .

In this paper, we present calculations of the pure Coulomb breakup contributions to the partial cross sections and longitudinal momentum distributions of the ground as well as excited states of the core fragments, 10Be and 18C, in the (a,b$`\gamma `$) type of reaction induced by 11Be and 19C projectiles, respectively on a 208Pb target at the beam energy of 60 MeV/nucleon. We assume that the states of the core fragments are the same as those seen in the similar reactions studied on the 9Be target. Our aim is to determine if there are quantitative differences in the $`\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ populations of the core states in the pure Coulomb breakup mechanism, as compared to those observed in the pure nuclear breakup process. We shall also look whether there are differences in the predictions of the finite range DWBA and adiabatic models of the breakup reactions leading to the core excited states.

We want to make it clear from the very beginning that it is not our intention to imply that the nuclear breakup contributions are negligible for the reactions investigated by us. Our results should be viewed as complementing contributions from the nuclear breakup process; in any complete theory both contributions must be considered on an equal footing.

In the next section we briefly present the formalism of the Coulomb breakup reactions. The results of our calculations and discussions are presented in section III. A summary and the conclusions of our work are given in section IV.

## II Formalism

We consider the reaction $`a+tb+c+t`$, where the projectile $`a`$ breaks up into fragments $`b`$ (charged) and $`c`$ (uncharged) in the Coulomb field of a target $`t`$. The chosen coordinate system is shown in Fig. 1.

The position vectors satisfy the following relations:

$`𝐫`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫_i\alpha 𝐫_1,\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_c+m_b}},`$ (1)
$`𝐫_c`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma 𝐫_1+\delta 𝐫_i,\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_b+m_t}},\gamma =(1\alpha \delta ).`$ (2)
The starting point of both the finite-range distorted-wave Born approximation (FRDWBA) and of the adiabatic model of the Coulomb breakup is the post-form $`T`$-matrix of the reaction given by

$`T={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_i\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_b^{}(\xi _b)\chi _c^{()}(𝐤_c,𝐫_𝐜)\mathrm{\Phi }_c^{}(\xi _c)V_{bc}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)}(\xi _a,𝐫_1,𝐫_i)}.`$ (3)
The functions $`\chi `$ are the distorted waves for the relative motions of $`b`$ and $`c`$ with respect to $`t`$ and the center of mass (c.m.) of the $`b+t`$ system, respectively. The functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the internal state wave functions of the concerned particles dependent on the internal coordinates $`\xi `$. The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)}(\xi _a,𝐫_1,𝐫_i)`$ is the exact three-body scattering wave function of the projectile with a wave vector $`𝐤_a`$ satisfying outgoing boundary conditions. The vectors $`𝐤_b`$ and $`𝐤_c`$ are the Jacobi wave vectors of $`b`$ and $`c`$, respectively, in the final channel of the reaction. The function $`V_{bc}(𝐫_1)`$ represents the interaction between $`b`$ and $`c`$. As we concentrate only on the pure Coulomb breakup, the function $`\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫)`$ is taken as the Coulomb distorted wave (for a point Coulomb interaction between the charged core b and the target) satisfying incoming wave boundary conditions, and the function $`\chi _c^{()}(𝐤_c,𝐫_c)`$ is just a plane wave as there is no Coulomb interaction between the target and the neutral fragment $`c`$.

In the distorted wave Born approximation (DWBA), we write

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)}(\xi _a,𝐫_1,𝐫_i)=\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\xi _a,𝐫_1)\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫_i),`$ (4)
The assumption inherent in Eq. (4) is that the breakup channels are very weakly coupled and hence this coupling needs to be treated only in the first order. In this equation the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ on $`𝐫_1`$ describes the relative motion of the fragments $`b`$ and $`c`$ in the ground state of the projectile. The function $`\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫_i)`$ is the Coulomb distorted scattering wave describing the relative motion of the c.m. of the projectile with respect to the target, satisfying outgoing wave boundary conditions. It may be noted that the particular case of the pure Coulomb breakup of a projectile involving one uncharged fragment, where the choice of the coordinate r may appear more natural to describe the relative motion between the projectile and the target, follows from this expression as discussed below.

The integration over the internal coordinates $`\xi `$ in the $`T`$-matrix gives

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_b^{}(\xi _b)\mathrm{\Phi }_c^{}(\xi _c)\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\xi _a,𝐫_1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}mj\mu }{}}\mathrm{}mj_c\mu _c|j\mu j_b\mu _bj\mu |j_a\mu _ai^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫_1),`$ (5)
with

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫_1)`$ $`=`$ $`u_{\mathrm{}}(r_1)Y_\mathrm{}m(\widehat{𝐫}_1).`$ (6)
In Eq. (6), $`\mathrm{}`$ (the orbital angular momentum for the relative motion between fragments $`b`$ and $`c`$) is coupled to the spin of $`c`$ and the resultant channel spin $`j`$ is coupled to the spin $`j_b`$ of the core $`b`$ to yield the spin of $`a`$ ($`j_a`$). The $`T`$-matrix can now be be written as

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}mj\mu }{}}\mathrm{}mj_c\mu _c|j\mu j_b\mu _bj\mu |j_a\mu _ai^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\mathrm{}}\beta _\mathrm{}m(𝐤_b,𝐤_c;𝐤_a),`$ (7)
where

$`\widehat{\mathrm{}}\beta _\mathrm{}m(𝐤_b,𝐤_c;𝐤_a)={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_i\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫)e^{i𝐤_c.𝐫_c}V_{bc}(𝐫_1)u_{\mathrm{}}(r_1)Y_\mathrm{}m(\widehat{r}_1)\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫_i)}.`$ (8)
with $`\beta _\mathrm{}m`$ being the reduced $`T`$-matrix and with $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{2\mathrm{}+1}`$.

Equation (8) involves a six dimensional integral which makes the computation of $`\beta _\mathrm{}m`$ quite complicated. The problem gets further acute because the integrand has a product of three scattering waves that exhibit an oscillatory behavior asymptotically. Therefore, approximate methods have been used, such as the zero range approximation (ZRA) (see e.g. ), in which the product $`V_{bc}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫_1)`$ is replaced by a delta function, or the Baur-Trautmann approximation , where the projectile c.m. coordinate is replaced by that of the core-target system (i.e. $`𝐫_i𝐫`$). Both these approximations lead to a factorization of the reduced amplitude into two independent parts, which reduces the computational complexity. However, the application of both these methods to the reactions of halo nuclei is questionable . The ZRA necessarily restricts the relative motion between $`b`$ and $`c`$ in the projectile to $`s`$-state only. Even for such cases, this approximation may not be valid for heavier projectiles and at higher beam energies (see e.g. ). The Baur-Trautmann approximation is justified if the c.m. of the $`b`$+$`c`$ system is shifted towards $`b`$ (which is indeed the case if $`m_bm_c`$). However, since ri occurs in association with the wave vector ka, whose magnitude is quite appreciable at the higher beam energies, the neglected piece of ri (i.e. $`\alpha `$ r1) may still contribute substantially.

In the FRDWBA theory, the Coulomb distorted wave of particle $`b`$ in the final channel is written as

$`\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha 𝐊.𝐫_1}\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫_i).`$ (9)
Equation (9) represents an exact Taylor series expansion about $`𝐫_i`$ if $`𝐊=i_{𝐫_i}`$ is treated exactly. However, instead of doing this we employ a local momentum approximation , where the magnitude of momentum $`𝐊`$ is taken to be

$`K(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}}(EV(R))}.`$ (10)
Here $`m`$ is the reduced mass of the $`bt`$ system, $`E`$ is the energy of particle $`b`$ relative to the target in the c.m. system and $`V(R)`$ is the Coulomb potential between $`b`$ and the target separated by $`R`$. Thus, the magnitude of the momentum of $`𝐊`$ is evaluated at some separation $`R`$ which is held fixed for all the values of $`r`$. The value of $`R`$ was taken to be equal to 10 fm. For reactions under investigation in this paper, the magnitude of $`K`$ remains constant for distances larger than 10 fm . Due to the peripheral nature of the breakup reaction, the region $`R10`$ fm contributes maximum to the cross section. In fact, the calculated cross sections change by only about 5$`\%`$ if $`R`$ is varied between 5 to 10 fm and with a further increase in R the change is less than 1$`\%`$. Furthermore, the results of the calculations for these reactions, at the beam energies under investigation, are almost independent of the choice of the direction of momentum $`𝐊`$. Therefore, we have taken the directions of $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐤_𝐛`$ to be the same in all the calculations presented in this paper. It may be remarked here that in Ref.  an approximation similar to Eq. (9) was applied to the Coulomb distorted wave of the incident channel. That procedure brings in two difficulties. Firstly, the choice of the direction of the local momentum is somewhat complicated as directions of the both fragments in the final channel will have to be brought into consideration. Secondly, the procedure may produce a deviation from the exact DWBA approximation.

On substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8), we obtain the following factorized form of the reduced amplitude

$`\widehat{\mathrm{}}\beta _\mathrm{}m^{FRDWBA}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1e^{i(\gamma 𝐤_c\alpha 𝐊).𝐫_1}V_{bc}(𝐫_1)u_{\mathrm{}}(𝐫_1)Y_\mathrm{}m(\widehat{r}_1)}\right]`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_i\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫_i)e^{i\delta 𝐤_c.𝐫_i}\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫_i)}\right].`$ (12)
This amplitude differs from those in earlier studies  since it includes the interaction $`V_{bc}`$ to all orders.

Recently, an alternative theory of the Coulomb breakup has been developed within the adiabatic (AD) model . This theory assumes (i) that one of the fragments (the valence nucleon) is neutral so that the projectile interacts with the target only through the Coulomb interaction $`V_{bt}`$ of the core fragment and the target nucleus, and (ii) that the relative excitation energy $`E_{bc}`$ of the b-c system is much smaller than the total incident energy so that $`E_{bc}`$ can be replaced by the constant separation energy of the fragments in the projectile ground state. Following (ii) the continuum spectrum of the $`bc`$ system is assumed to be degenerate with the ground state. Under the above assumptions, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)}(\xi _a,𝐫_1,𝐫_i)`$ is found  in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)AD}(\xi _a,𝐫_1,𝐫_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\xi _a,𝐫_1)e^{i\alpha 𝐤_a𝐫_1}\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫)`$ (13)
It is clear that substitution of Eq. (12) to Eq. (3) will lead to a factored form (similar to Eq. (11)) of the reduced breakup amplitude. However, one limitation of this procedure should be brought into attention. For larger values of $`𝐫_1`$, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)AD}`$ vanishes due to the presence of the factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫_1)`$, whereas there may still be contributions to the breakup from this region. It has been argued  that, due the presence of the interaction $`V_{bc}(r_1)`$, the post form breakup amplitude may not be sensitive to the domain where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{(+)AD}`$ is inaccurate. However, since the wave functions for the relative motion of the fragments for $`\mathrm{}>0`$ values have a large spatial extension, the application of this model to such cases may test the need for the non-adiabatic corrections to the theory.

The reduced amplitude in the adiabatic model is given by,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{}}\beta _\mathrm{}m^{AD}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1e^{i(𝐤_c\alpha 𝐤_a).𝐫_1}V_{bc}(𝐫_1)u_{\mathrm{}}(𝐫_1)Y_\mathrm{}m(\widehat{r}_1)}\right]`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_i\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫_𝐢)e^{i\delta 𝐤_c𝐫_𝐢}\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫_𝐢)}\right]`$ (15)
It is obvious that this amplitude differs from that of the FRDWBA, Eq. (11), only in the form factor part (the first of the factors), which is evaluated here at the momentum transfer of $`(𝐤_c\alpha 𝐤_a)`$. Equation (13) can also be obtained in the DWBA model by making a local momentum approximation to the Coulomb distorted wave in the initial channel of a reaction and by evaluating the local momentum at $`R=\mathrm{}`$ with the momentum direction being the same as that of the projectile. In both of the theories, the Coulomb interaction between the fragments $`b`$ and the target is treated non-perturbatively. The adiabatic model does not make the weak coupling approximation of the DWBA. However, it necessarily requires one of the fragments (in this case $`c`$) to be neutral. In contrast, the FRDWBA model can, in principle, be applied to the cases where both of the fragments $`b`$ and $`c`$ are charged . Furthermore, calculation of the nuclear breakup in the adiabatic model is not as comparatively trivial , as it is in the case of FRDWBA.

The triple differential cross section of the reaction is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{dE_bd\mathrm{\Omega }_bd\mathrm{\Omega }_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}v_a}}\rho (E_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_c){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m}{}}|\beta _\mathrm{}m|^2,`$ (16)
where $`\rho (E_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_c)`$ is the appropriate  three-body phase space factor.

On substituting the Coulomb distorted waves,

$`\chi _b^{()}(𝐤_b,𝐫_i)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pi \eta _b/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\eta _b)e^{i𝐤_b.𝐫_i}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(i\eta _b,1,i(k_br_i+𝐤_b.𝐫_i)),`$ (17)
$`\chi _a^{(+)}(𝐤_a,𝐫_i)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pi \eta _a/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\eta _a)e^{i𝐤_a.𝐫_i}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(i\eta _a,1,i(k_ar_i𝐤_a.𝐫_i)),`$ (19)
into Eqs. (11) and (13), one gets for the triple differential cross section:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{dE_bd\mathrm{\Omega }_bd\mathrm{\Omega }_c}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}v_a}}\rho (E_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_c){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\eta _a\eta _b}{(e^{2\pi \eta _b}1)(e^{2\pi \eta _a}1)}}|I|^24\pi {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}|Z_{\mathrm{}}|^2.`$ (20)
In Eqs. (15–17), $`\eta `$’s are the Coulomb parameters for the respective particles. In Eq. (17), $`I`$ is the Bremsstrahlung integral  which can be evaluated in the closed form:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`i[B(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dD}{dx}}\right)_{x=0}(\eta _a\eta _b)_2F_1(1i\eta _a,1i\eta _b;2;D(0))`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dB}{dx}}\right)_{x=0}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(i\eta _a,i\eta _b;1;D(0))],`$ (22)
where

$`B(x)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k^{2(i\eta _a+i\eta _b+1)}}}\left[(k^22𝐤.𝐤_a2xk_a)^{i\eta _a}(k^22𝐤.𝐤_b2xk_b)^{i\eta _b}\right],`$ (23)
$`D(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2k^2(k_ak_b+𝐤_a.𝐤_b)4(𝐤.𝐤_a+xk_a)(𝐤.𝐤_b+xk_b)}{(k^22𝐤.𝐤_a2xk_a)(k^22𝐤.𝐤_b2xk_b)}},`$ (24)
with

$`𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`𝐤_a𝐤_b\delta 𝐤_c.`$ (25)
The factor $`Z_{\mathrm{}}`$ contains the projectile structure information and is given by

$`Z_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle 𝑑r_1r_1^2j_{\mathrm{}}(k_1r_1)V_{bc}(𝐫_1)u_{\mathrm{}}(r_1)},`$ (26)
with $`k_1=|\gamma 𝐤_c\alpha 𝐊|`$, and $`k_1=|𝐤_c\alpha 𝐤_a|`$ for the cases of FRDWBA and adiabatic model, respectively.

The total pure Coulomb one-nucleon removal cross section for a given $`n\mathrm{}j`$ configuration of the valence nucleon is obtained by integrating Eq. (13) over angles and energy of fragment $`b`$ and over angles of the valence nucleon. Here, $`n`$ is the principal quantum number and $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`j`$ are as defined in Eq. (5).

For calculating the total cross section into a given core-fragment final-state, the projectile ground state is described as having a configuration in which a valence nucleon, with single particle quantum numbers $`n\mathrm{}j`$ and an associated spectroscopic factor $`C^2S`$, is coupled to a specific core state designated with $`j_b`$ in Eq. (5). The total cross section $`\sigma _C`$ is the sum  of the cross sections calculated with configurations (having non-vanishing spectroscopic factors) corresponding to all the allowed values of the channel spin $`j`$

## III Results and Discussions

### A Excitation of the bound states of 10Be in the Coulomb breakup of 11Be.

The one-neutron removal reaction of the type 9Be(11Be,10Be$`\gamma `$)X has been recently studied  at the beam energy of 60 MeV/nucleon. Partial cross sections have been measured for four states of the core fragment 10Be: 0+, 2+, 1-, and 2-. The data were analyzed in terms of an eikonal model of the nuclear breakup reactions , with the spectroscopic factors taken from . It has been concluded in this study that about $`22\%`$ of the total partial cross section went into the excited states, and that the ground state of 11Be consists of an admixture of the 1$`s`$ and 0$`d`$ single particle neutron configurations with the spectroscopic factors of 0.74 and 0.18, respectively.

We have calculated the pure Coulomb partial cross sections $`\sigma _C`$ to the four 10Be final states in the 208Pb(11Be,10Be$`\gamma `$)X reaction at the beam energy of 60 MeV/nucleon. The ground (0+) and excited (3.368 MeV) (2+) states were assumed to correspond to the configurations \[1$`s_{1/2}\nu `$ $``$ 0+(10Be)\] and \[0$`d_{5/2}\nu `$ $``$ 2+(10Be)\], respectively, where $`\nu `$ represents a relative neutron state. The corresponding $`C^2S`$ values for these two configurations were taken  to be 0.74 and 0.20, respectively, i.e. the same as those used in . The excited 1- (5.956 MeV) and 2- (6.256 MeV) states were assumed to stem from the configurations \[0$`p_{3/2}\nu `$ $``$ 1-(10Be)\] and \[0$`p_{3/2}\nu `$ $``$ 2-(10Be)\], respectively, with the corresponding $`C^2S`$ values of 0.69 and 0.58. These states could, in principle, also result from the stripping of a 1$`p_{3/2}`$ neutron from the 10Be(0+) core of the 11Be ground state, producing a \[1s1/2 $``$ 9Be$`(\frac{3}{2})^{}`$\]1- and \[1s1/2 $``$ 9Be$`(\frac{3}{2})^{}`$\]2- types of 10Be core. In the nuclear breakup case, the cross sections to 1- and 2- states calculated with the latter configurations were found  to be about 10-15$`\%`$ smaller than those obtained with the preceding ones. We have carried out our calculations with the former configuration for these states. The one-neutron separation energy for the ground state of 11Be, with the configuration in which 10Be remains in its ground state, is taken to be $`S_n=0.504`$ MeV. For an excited state, the respective separation energy (SE) is assumed to be the sum of $`S_n`$ and the excitation energy of that state with respect to the ground state.

In each case, the neutron single particle wave function is calculated in a central Woods-Saxon well of radius 1.15 fm and diffuseness 0.50 fm. The depth of this well is adjusted to reproduce the corresponding value of SE. By this procedure the root mean square (rms) radius of the ground state of 11Be comes out to be 2.91 fm for the assumed rms radius of the 10Be core of 2.28 fm.

Our results for the partial cross sections are shown in Table I. It is evident from this table that in the case of pure Coulomb breakup of a projectile with a halo ground state, most of the cross section goes to the ground state (0+) of the core. The sum of the partial

cross sections corresponding to all the excited states is less than 1$`\%`$ of that to the ground state. This is in sharp contrast to the observations made on lighter targets where partial cross sections corresponding to all the excited states represent about 22$`\%`$ of the total. While there are no experimental data on the core-excitation reaction induced by 11Be on a heavy target in the vicinity of 208Pb, the measurements  of the (a,b$`\gamma `$) type of reactions with 14B projectile on 197Au gold target at the beam energy of 60 MeV/nucleon may be used to test our results. In this experiment, no core-excited transitions were seen. Therefore, this lends support to our finding that in A(a,b$`\gamma `$)X type of reactions, involving projectiles which have a predominant $`s`$-wave neutron halo ground state, transitions to the excited states of the core corresponding to the non-zero $`\mathrm{}`$-values of the neutron-core relative motion, are quite weak in the pure Coulomb breakup reaction as compared to those in the nuclear breakup process.

The suppression of the cross sections to the higher states can be traced back to the strong dependence of the Coulomb breakup cross sections on SE. The latter enters in the corresponding expressions through the momentum $`𝐤`$ (see Eq. (21)). As was shown in , the modulus square of the bremsstrahlung integral $`I`$ rises very steeply as the $`k`$ approaches zero, which happens as SE goes to zero ($`|I|^2`$ is infinite for $`k`$ = 0). At larger values of SE (i.e. larger $`k`$) the rate of the drop of $`|I|^2`$ becomes less drastic. This is reminiscent of the behavior of the virtual photon numbers in the theory of Coulomb excitation (see e.g. ). The value of $`k`$ is very small for SE equal to $`S_n`$ and larger for SE corresponding to excited states. This explains the reduction in the partial cross-sections to the excited 2+ state of 10Be core as compared to that to its ground state. This also explains why the cross sections to the excited states do not differ much from each other. It may be useful to recall that, due to the centrifugal barrier, the breakup cross sections for non-$`s`$-wave projectiles are lower than those for the $`s`$-wave ones. In case of the nuclear breakup, the dependence of the cross section on SE is comparatively weaker . This could be understood from the fact that nuclear breakup cross sections are sensitive to the $`bc`$ relative wave functions at shorter distances which do not change much with changes in the value of SE.

It should be interesting to compare the calculated pure Coulomb partial cross section for the 197Au(14B,13B(g.s))X reaction, with its experimental value given in Ref. . We performed our calculations with the configurations \[1$`s_{1/2}\nu `$ $``$ $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$(13B)\] and \[0$`d_{5/2}\nu `$ $``$ $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$(13B)\] for the 14B ground state. The resulting cross sections were summed up, after multiplying them with the corresponding spectroscopic factors of 0.663 and 0.306 (taken from ), respectively, to obtain a value of 401 mb for the pure Coulomb partial cross section for this reaction. The corresponding experimental value is 638 $`\pm `$ 45 mb. The difference between the calculated pure Coulomb and experimental partial cross sections suggests that the nuclear, and Coulomb-nuclear interference terms could contribute up to 40-50$`\%`$ in this reaction. This is an interesting finding which underlines the need for extending the FRDWBA theory to include the nuclear breakup effects. It should be stated here, that the partial Coulomb cross sections obtained within the adiabatic model are only a few percent larger than those of the FRDWBA theory and show similar characteristics to those in Table I.

The longitudinal momentum distributions (LMD) for each of the 10Be core state are displayed in Fig. 2. The solid and dashed lines represent the results of the FRDWBA and adiabatic model, respectively. We note that, while for the ground state of the 10Be core, the results of the two theories are almost identical, they differ quite a bit from each other for the excited states. It is for the first time that such big differences are seen between the predictions of the two theories for the momentum distributions.

Although due to unavailability of the experimental data for these cases, it would be premature to comment upon suitability of either theory for these excited states, a few speculative remarks can still be made. It is not unreasonable to think that the adiabatic assumption (as discussed in the previous section) may come under severe pressure for the excited states.

Due to their non-$`s`$-wave nature, the wave functions for the excited-state neutron-core motion peak at larger values in the $`r`$-space yielding possibly a significance to the regime where the asymptotic form of the adiabatic wave function \[Eq. (12)\] becomes inadequate. It would, therefore, be interesting to investigate the importance of the non-adiabatic corrections  to the theory, for these cases.

The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the calculated LMD for the ground state of 10Be is 44 MeV/c which is consistent with the experimental value of (47.5 $`\pm `$ 6) MeV/c seen in the measurements on a 9Be target . This reconfirms that LMDs are independent of the reaction mechanism and provide a very clean way of determining the existence of halo structure in nuclei. The LMDs for the excited states of 10Be are broad which is also consistent with the observations made in . This indicates that the respective states have a non-halo structure.

### B Excitation of the bound states of 18C in the Coulomb breakup of 19C.

Table II displays results of our calculations of the pure Coulomb partial cross sections $`\sigma _C`$ for transitions to ground and three excited bound states of 18C core in the 208Pb(19C,18C$`\gamma `$)X reaction at the beam energy of 60 MeV/nucleon. These states have recently been seen

in the 9Be(19C,18C$`\gamma `$)X reaction at the same beam energy. The states of the 18C core (with excitation energies of 0.0 MeV, 1.6 MeV, 4.0 MeV and 4.9 MeV) are assumed to have the configurations, \[1$`s_{1/2}\nu `$ $``$ 0+(18C)\], \[0$`d_{5/2}\nu `$ $``$ 2+(18C)\], \[1$`s_{1/2}\nu `$ $``$ 0+(18C)\], and \[0$`d_{5/2}\nu `$ $``$ Iπ(18C)\], respectively. The corresponding $`C^2S`$ values were taken  to be 0.58, 0.48, 0.32 and 2.44, respectively, which are the same as those used in . The value of $`S_n`$ for the ground state was taken to be 0.530 MeV. We see that in this case too the ground state of 18C is predominantly excited. The partial cross sections to the excited states are somewhat larger than those seen in the case of 10Be, since the excited $`0^+`$ state of 18C core can have an $`s`$-wave neutron relative motion. Yet, these contributions represent no more than about 2$`\%`$ of the cross section to the ground state.

The LMD for each of the 18C core states is shown in Fig. 3. The solid and dashed lines show the results of the FRDWBA and adiabatic models, respectively. In this case too we note that the predictions of the two models differ for the excited states of the core, while for the ground state they agree very well with each other.

The value of $`S_n`$ for 19C is still an unsettled issue. The weighted average of the atomic mass measurements carried out at Los Alamos and GANIL  suggests a value of 0.16 $`\pm `$ 0.11 MeV. However, from the analysis  of the data on the Coulomb dissociation of 19C, a higher value of 0.530 MeV has been extracted. The interpretation of the recent data  on the 9Be(19C,18C$`\gamma `$)X reaction also suggests a higher value of 0.8$`\pm `$0.3 MeV. Obviously, any conclusion drawn from the breakup data strongly depends on the reaction mechanism and on the theory used for the calculation of the breakup cross sections. With this precaution, we would like to show here that the pure Coulomb breakup has some advantages over the nuclear breakup process in this regard.

It should be mentioned here that one of the reasons for the uncertainty in the value of $`S_n`$ in Ref.  is the fact that, due to the low beam intensity in this experiment, the statistical errors associated with the measured LMD for the ground state of 18C are large. The data do not allow to distinguish between the nuclear breakup calculations of the LMD done within the range $`S_n`$ = 800 $`\pm `$ 300 keV. The difference in the peak value of the nuclear LMD  calculated with $`S_n`$ = 1100 keV and 500 keV is only about 1.6. In contrast, the peak values of the corresponding pure Coulomb LMD calculated with the same values of $`S_n`$ differ by a factor of about 4, as can be seen in Fig. 4. This result is unlikely to be altered by the presence of the nuclear breakup effects, as they tend to show up in the tail regions of the LMDs. Thus A(19C,18C(g.s))X type of reactions on a heavy target may offer a better chance to put more definite constraint on the value of $`S_n`$ for 19C.

Further insight into the value of $`S_n`$ from these reactions can be obtained from the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the LMD. In Fig. 5, we show the $`S_n`$ dependence of the FWHM of the LMD for the 18C(g.s) in the same reaction as in Fig. 4. It can be seen that FWHM increases from 42 MeV/c to about 65 MeV/c as $`S_n`$ increases from 500 keV to 1100 keV. The variation of the corresponding FWHM in the nuclear breakup case is relatively weaker.

## IV Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we calculated the pure Coulomb breakup contributions to the partial cross sections and to the longitudinal momentum distributions for the ground and excited states of the core fragments observed in 208Pb(11Be,10Be$`\gamma `$)X and 208Pb(19C,18C$`\gamma `$)X types of one-neutron removal reactions, at the beam energy of 60 MeV/A. These reactions have recently been studied at the Michigan State University but on the light 9Be target; hence, these data are dominated by the nuclear breakup effects. One of our aims was to see in what way the Coulomb dominated reaction mechanism was different and could supplement the conclusions derived from the pure nuclear breakup studies of the nuclei. The advantage of the pure Coulomb break up process is that the corresponding theory has no free adjustable parameter, and assuming that the mutual excitation of the target by the Coulomb force is negligible, the inelastic breakup mode does not contribute to this process.

As in the previous studies , we assumed that the coupling between the core states is weak and that there is no dynamical excitation of these states. Thus, the reaction can only populate those core states which have a non-zero spectroscopic factor for a given neutron-core configuration in the projectile ground state. We employed both the finite range DWBA and adiabatic model of the Coulomb breakup theory in our calculations. In earlier studies  of the inclusive Coulomb dissociation cross sections, the two theories produced nearly identical results for the momentum distributions of heavy fragments.

We found that in reactions of the type A(a,b$`\gamma `$)X on a heavy target, the core ground state is predominantly excited; higher energy states account for only a few percent of the total cross section. This finding is in contrast to the results obtained on similar reactions on a light target, where about a quarter of the total breakup cross section could be due to transitions to core excited states. Our finding is supported by a recent measurement  of the 197Au($`{}_{}{}^{14}B`$,13B$`\gamma `$)X reaction at the beam energy of 60 MeV. The reason for this difference is attributed to the fact that pure Coulomb breakup cross sections drop very strongly as the separation energy increases. On the other hand, the nuclear breakup cross sections decrease slowly with increasing SE. Therefore, such reactions on a heavy target are potentially a more useful tool for investigating the properties of the ground state of the core fragments.

A rather interesting result of our study is that the finite-range DWBA and the adiabatic theories of Coulomb breakup lead to very different longitudinal momentum distributions for the excited states of the core fragments. It is probably for the first time that such a large difference is seen in the predictions of two theories for the momentum distributions. This should provide some impetus to look for the non-adiabatic corrections to the adiabatic approximation which may come under some pressure for the excited states.

Coulomb dominated breakup reactions may provide a better way for resolving the uncertainty associated with the one neutron separation energy of 19C. The peak value and the full width at half maximum of the longitudinal momentum distributions for the ground state of 18C core are more sensitive to the one-neutron separation energy in the Coulomb breakup process than in the nuclear breakup. In the latter case, the dependence could be so weak that the data with limited statistics may not allow to distinguish between the values of these quantities calculated with quite different one-neutron separation energies.

One of the authors (RS) would like to acknowledge several useful discussions with Gregers Hansen. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-0070818.