Systematic study of neutron density distributionsof Sn isotopes by proton elastic scattering

UNI VE

KY O

O

ITY
RS

T

Satoru Terashima

ND

8
ED 1

U

97

JAPAN

FO

KYOTO

Doctoral Dissertation

Department of Physics
Kyoto University

April, 2008

Abstract
Cross sections and analyzing powers for proton elastic scattering from 116,118,120,122,124 Sn
at 295 MeV have been measured for a momentum transfer up to about 3.5 fm −1 to deduce
systematic changes of the neutron density distribution at Research Center for Nuclear Physics,
Osaka University.
We have analyzed the experimental data based on the relativistic impulse approximation
using the relativistic Love-Franey effective interaction. The interaction is tuned to explain the
proton elastic scattering of a nucleus 58 Ni whose density distribution is well known by changing
the coupling constants and masses of exchanged mesons. This interaction is applied for the
proton elastic scattering of tin isotopes to deduce these neutron density distributions using themodel-independent form densities. We have especially considered how the model uncertainty
affect the neutron density distribution.
The neutron skin thickness is deduced by substituting the well known root mean square radiusof proton density distribution from that of of neutron. The result of our analysis shows theclear systematic behavior of the gradual increase in the neutron skin thicknesses of tin isotopes
with mass number, and these values are in good agreement with the mean field calculation
using SkM∗ parameterization. We have attempted to deduce the symmetry energy coefficient
asym and its density dependent coefficient L which are important components of the equationof state. These symmetry coefficients theoretically have the linear relation against the neutron
skin thickness. The average values of the a sym and the L are 30.0 +0.5
−0.4 ± 2.0sys MeV and 47.9
+7.2
−7.9 ± 15.0sys MeV, respectively.

Contents

1 Introduction

1

1.1

Study of nuclear charge distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.2

Extraction of point proton density distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.3

Investigation of the neutron density distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.4

Symmetry energy and neutron skin thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 Experiment9

2.1

Beam line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.2Beam line polarimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.3

Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4Grand Raiden Spectrometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.5

Angular distribution measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.6

Focal plane detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.7

Trigger system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3 Data Reduction

23

3.1

Analyzer program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.2

Beam polarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3

Beam current monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.4

Particle identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.5

Track reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

i

ii

CONTENTS

3.6

Tracking efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.7

Acceptance of the spectrometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.8

Differential cross sections and analyzing powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.9

Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4 Analysis

41

4.1

Historical background of the relativistic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.2

Relativistic impulse approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.3

Medium effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.4

Proton density distributions of tin isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.5

Relation between scalar and vector density

4.6

58 Ni structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.7

Effective interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.8

Coupled channel effect at the intermediate energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.9

Neutron density distributions of tin isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
58

4.10 Uncertainties of neutron density distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5 Results and discussion

75

5.1

Deduced nucleon density distributions and RMS radii of tin isotopes . . . . . . . 75

5.2

Neutron skin thicknesses of tin isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.3

Nuclear surface diffuseness of tin isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6 Conclusion

85

Acknowledgement

86

A Digital data

88

B Schrodinger Equivalent Form

94

C The SHF and RMF parameterization and the EOS property

95

CONTENTS

iii

D Definition of nuclear surface diffuseness99

E Analytical form factors of a nucleon and a nuclei

103

F Uncertainties of the 58 Ni neutron density distribution

106

G Nucleon swelling and neutron skin thickness109

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1

Study of nuclear charge distributions

Since the earliest days of nuclear physics, distributions of nuclear charge and density have received considerable interests. Information on charge distributions in nuclei is obtained fromexperiments with electron scattering. In 1950s, Hofstader et al. had performed ’High-Energy’
electron scattering experiments at Stanford [1], and the study for charge distributions had
started. At the beginning, experimental data were analyzed using the densities of simple function such as Fermi type or modified Gaussian type [2, 3]. By the end of 1970s, the measurement
extended to the value of 0.1 pb/sr at momentum transfer of 3.5 fm −1 using high-intensity electron beam (∼100 µA), and so-called model-independent method had appeared to analyze thehigh momentum-transfer data [4, 5]. These methods have been improved in many respects andapplied extensively to extract nuclear charge distributions as shown in Fig. 1.1 [6]. Following
numerous efforts to obtain accurate experimental data which includes measurements of absolute cross section data, the application of the methods and procedures has resulted in a rather
clear details of ground-state charge distributions of stable nuclei. The elastic scattering is often
combined with muonic-atom X-ray measurements which lead to precise information of nuclear
mean radius [7].

1.2Extraction of point proton density distributions

Point proton density distribution has been obtained from these ’precise’ charge distributionof nucleus by unfolding charge distributions of proton and neutron themselves. The proton
and the neutron are not point-like but finite-size particles, and these charge distributions canbe described by form factors same as in the case of nuclei. For nucleons, two form factors;
electric GE and magnetic GM form factors; both of which depend on momentum transfer Q 2
are necessary to characterise both the electric and magnetic distributions.

1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

2

Figure 1.1: Nuclear ground state charge distributions, and comparison between the experimental charge distributions of magic nuclei and mean field predictions. The experiment have been
performed at Amsterdam, Darmstadt, Mainz, NBS, Stanford, and Scalay over a period of 30
years [6].

The proton electric GpE and magnetic GpM form factors can be separately determined by
performing cross-section measurements using the Rosenbluth separation technique [8]. The
proton electric form factor and the magnetic form factors of both the proton and the neutron
fall off similarly with Q2 , and their form factors can be described to a good approximation
by a so-called dipole form factor [9]. The observed dipole form factor corresponds to a charge
distribution which falls off exponentially. Recently, the advance of a technology for polarization
has provided more precise proton electromagnetic form factors [10]. At present, we know
precise proton electromagnetic form factors in a wide momentum transfer-range up to 5.6
GeV2 [11, 12]. On the neutron side, the neutron electric G nE and the magnetic GnM form
factors had been measured by quasi-elastic scattering off 2 H or 3 He. Due to the smallness of
GnE , the measurement was very difficult [13]. However, an alternative elegant approach has
been developed to determine the charge radius of the free neutron. The mean squared charge

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

3

radius of the neutron was obtained by measuring the transmission of low-energy neutrons
through liquid 208 Pb and 209 Bi [14]. These results provided information concerning the neutron
charge density. And then, the recent technology for polarization provides more precise neutron
electromagnetic form factors. A series of double polarization measurements of neutron knockout
from a polarized 2 H or 3 He target have provided accurate data on G nE in the past decade [15].
The neutron appears from the outsides to be electrically neutral and it therefore has a small
electric form factor.
In recent years, highly accurate data have established the nucleon electric and magnetic form
factors. Therefore, a large amount of nucleon electric form factor data up to 5.6 (GeV/c) 2
for proton [16] and 1.6 (GeV/c)2 for neutron [17] makes it possible to obtain a precise charge
distribution of both proton and neutron.

1.3

Investigation of the neutron density distribution

Charge distributions in the stable nuclei have been reliably measured by electron elastic scattering and muonic X-ray data [7]. These charge sensitive experiments provided precise information
on charge distributions. On the other hand, neutron density distributions are much more difficult to observe, since the electromagnetic interaction provides little information about neutron
density distributions.
Many experiments have been attempted to extract neutron and matter density distributions. X-ray measurements from exotic atoms, such as pionic, kaonic, and antiprotonic atom
provide information on nuclear periphery. Recently the systematic study using X-ray measurements from antiprotonic atoms was performed at the Low Energy Antiprotonic Ring (LEAR)
of CERN [18]. Trzcinska et al. measured the widths and shifts of X-ray transitions in twentysix antiprotonic atoms, and they deduced a ratio of the annihilation probability on a proton
to that on a neutron at the peripheral region. The ratio is related to an integrated ratio of
neutron to proton density over the peripheral region using the antiproton effective scattering
length [19]. However the measurements do not provide information about the precise shape of
nuclear density due to a little information on the nuclear structure.
Hadronic probes such as pion, kaon, and alpha elastic scattering were also used to deduce aneutron or matter density distribution [20, 21, 22]. The pion-nucleon interaction is very strong
in the ∆-resonance region. The existence of ∆-resonance easily masks information on the nuclear
interior. In order to avoid the region, lower energy pion (< 80 MeV) elastic scattering was
attempted to apply for studying differences between neighboring nuclei under the limited degreeof freedom using the phenomenological Kisslinger potential [20, 21]. The relation between thephenomenological potential and nucleon density distributions at low energy is less clear. It isdifficult to study density distributions using the phenomenological potential. Latter, higher
energy pion (∼1 GeV/c) elastic scattering experiment had been performed at KEK above theCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

4∆-resonance region [23, 24]. Takahashi et al. analyzed the data using the first-order opticalpotential model factorized. They showed the necessity of the modification for the elementary
amplitude to explain the experimental angular distributions and of the Fermi motion correction
to explain total cross section [23]. Thus, the pion-nuclei scattering is microscopically not sounderstood as to study interior density. The kaon-nuclei elastic scattering have also received
considerable attention as capable probe for the interior nuclei [25]. However the experimental
difficulties of its short lifetime, or an impurity of kaon beam limit the high-quality experimental
data and knowledge of the kaon-nucleon scattering amplitude. Rather poor of understanding ofpion-, kaon-, or alpha-nucleus interaction limits their sensitivities for studying nuclear densities.
Compared with the above mentioned hadronic probes, proton elastic scattering at intermediate
energies is suitable for extracting information on nuclear surface and interior, because protons
have a large mean free path in nuclear medium and therefore its reaction mechanism is simple.
In 1970s, pioneering experiments were performed to study nuclear densities by protons ofintermediate energy at Brookhaven [26]. Experiments using around 1 GeV proton beam
was performed at Gatchina and Saclay [27, 28]. Alkhaznov et al. analyzed the data using
the Glauber model neglecting the spin-orbit effect which plays an important role in a large
momentum transfer region [27]. In their analysis, the experimental data at larger scattering
angles were not included in the fit, since the Glauber model is limited to low momentum transfer.
Brussaud and Brussel attempted to study neutron density distributions using the same data,
the Glauber model, and a “model-independent” prescription for the nuclear density [29]. They
found that the limitations are not really due to intermediate energy protons as an experimental
tool but mainly arisen from the Glauber diffraction approximation to small momentum transfer.
The restrictions of the Glauber diffraction approach to a low momentum transfer and the neglectof spin-orbit effects triggered a series of analyses using the multiple scattering theory of opticalmodel potential by Kerman, McManus and Thaler (KMT) [30]. A large amount of new precise
data by 800 MeV polarized protons became available at LAMPF. The dashed lines in Fig. 1.2
are the first-order KMT optical potential calculation by Ray et al. using point proton andneutron densities predicted by the density matrix expansion (DME) Hartree Fock [31]. Twonucleon scattering amplitudes were determined from nucleon-nucleon total cross section andpolarization data [31, 32]. They partially adopted “model-independent” functional form for theneutron density distribution to reduce the constrain from model-dependent functional form suchas simple Fermi function. However, the prediction using the scattering amplitude from nucleonnucleon data could not explain analyzing powers for a proton-nucleus scattering. Therefore in
their analyses two parameters among twelve were phenomenologically adjusted to explain the
scattering for each nucleus as free parameters. The uncertainty for the spin-orbit term still
remains.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

5

Figure 1.2: Proton elastic scattering at 0.8 GeV on targets 58 Ni, 90 Zr, 116,124 Sn, and 208 Pb. The
solid lines are results with use of the KMT optical potential, freely searched neutron densities
and spin-dependent parameters [30].

300 MeV proton was adopted as a probe to obtain information of nuclear interior considering
the following reasons. To deduce nuclear densities using protons, the incident energy has to be
sufficiently high to describe the scattering by a simple reaction mechanism. At energies above
100 MeV, we can describe proton elastic scattering based on the nucleon-nucleon interaction,
because the imaginary part of the optical potential is mainly explained by a quasi-free process
without the need for a renormalization factor. Until recently, energies above 500 MeV have been
applied for proton elastic scattering to study neutron density distributions [31, 32, 33]. However,this energy is sufficiently high to produce mesons, and information on the nuclear interior iseasily masked by the imaginary potential due to the meson-productions. Furthermore, thetotal cross section of nucleon-nucleon scattering shows a minimum at the incident energy of
300 MeV [?]. We thus adopt 300 MeV protons in this work as probes for information on the
nuclear interior. A mean free path of 300 MeV proton is about 3 fm in a normal densityρ=∼0.2(fm−3 ).

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

6

Figure 1.3: The experimental data of nucleon-nucleon total cross section from Ref. [34]. Opencircles show the proton-proton total cross section, and open squares show neutron-proton total
cross section. The adopted energy 300 MeV is indicated by arrows.

In 1980s, relativistic approaches based on Dirac equations applied to the elastic scatteringof intermediate energy protons. Murdock and Horowitz calculated the elastic scattering at theseveral hundred MeV using the relativistic Love-Franey effective interaction based on relativistic
impulse approximation [35]. They well explained experimental data especially polarization
observables for 16 O, 40,48 Ca, 90 Zr, and, 208 Pb by treating the exchange term. Sakaguchi et al.
calibrated the effective interaction including medium effects for the scattering from a nucleus
58 Ni, whose density distribution is well known [36, 37]. The elastic scattering from 58 Ni wasused to tune the interaction, since 58 Ni is the heaviest stable nucleus with N ≈ Z and the density
distribution of neutrons in 58 Ni is well assumed to be the same as the that for proton. In order
to explain the experimental data they have found that they have to modify the scattering
amplitudes of nucleon-nucleon interaction inside the nucleus. For our first systematic search forneutron density distributions, five tin isotopes 116,118,120,122,124 Sn are selected. Tin has many
stable isotopes (112 Sn-124 Sn). Also, unstable tin isotopes have a long isotopic chain including
two double-magic nuclei (100 Sn [N=50], 132 Sn [N=82]). Moreover, its proton number is a magic
number (Z=50). Thus, tin isotopes are suitable for the study of systematic changes in neutron
density distributions. The main purposes of this work are to attempt to deduce information
on neutron density distributions, and to systematically study the neutron skin thickness of tin
isotopes.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.4

7

Symmetry energy and neutron skin thickness

The nuclear equation of state (EOS) is characterized by the following values, a binding energy
per nucleon E/A, a normal saturation density ρ ∞ , an incompressibility of nuclear matter K ∞ ,an effective nucleon mass m∗∞ , and a symmetry energy asym . Recently, K∞ is experimentally
determined by measuring two giant resonances of compressional modes; the isoscalar giant
monopole resonance (ISGMR), the isoscalar giant dipole resonance (ISGDR). Its value of 208 Pb
is K∞ =215±6 MeV [38]. Several components of the EOS, E/A∼ -16 MeV, ρ ∞ ∼0.16 fm−3 ,and m∗∞ /m∼0.8, are well known as empirical saturation properties of symmetric nuclear matter.
Thus, only the symmetry energy asym remains to be solved as an unknown parameter of EOS.

Figure 1.4: The neutron skin thickness of 208 Pb versus the symmetry energy obtained withseveral nonrelativistic and relativistic mean field parameter sets [43].

Recent studies in some unstable nuclei show that differences between proton and neutron
shapes are larger than stable nuclei. Besides, it was indicated that the difference of between
neutron radius and proton one, which is called neutron skin thickness related to the symmetryenergy of the EOS [39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. Brown [39] showed that the unique correlation between
neutron skin Thus we can study the EOS of the neutron matter from the analysis of neutron
skins using this correlation. The neutron skin thicknesses are calculated using effective interactions. Furnstahl [43] showed a direct connection between the neutron skin in the sphericalCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

8nucleus 208 Pb and the symmetry term of the EOS in Fig. 1.4. Reinhard et al. also pointed outthat there is a unique relation between the symmetry energy and the neutron skin thicknessof tin isotopes, and the relation is almost independent on shell structure [44]. He showed thetrends of neutron radii along the tin isotopic chain. A study of the neutron skin thickness ofsuch stable tin isotopes should give understanding of the symmetry energy of the EOS.
In Chapter 2, the experimental setup is presented. The detail of the data reduction is
described in Chapter 3, and the theoretical analysis for the scattering observables is shown in
Chapter 4. The discussion on the result of the deduced densities and the relation to the EOS
properties are shown in Chapter 5. Finally the conclusion is given in Chapter 6.

Chapter 2

Experiment
2.1

Beam line

The measurements have been performed at Research Center for Nuclear Physics (RCNP), Osaka
University. Polarized protons from a high intensity polarized ion source [45] were injected into
AVF cyclotron (K=120), transported to six sector ring cyclotron (K=400) and accelerated up
to 295 MeV. The polarization axis was in the vertical direction. Spin direction and magnitudeof the beam polarization were measured continuously by two sets of sampling-type beam line
polarimeters (BLPs) [46] placed between the ring cyclotron and a scattering chamber. The beam
was then transported to a target center in the scattering chamber. The typical beam spot sizeon the target during measurements was 1 mm in diameter. Finally, the beam was stopped
by an internal Faraday cup inside the scattering chamber (ScFC) in the case of forward-angle
measurements. In the measurements at backward scattering angles, the beam was transported
to another Faraday cup located inside the shielding wall of the experimental room about 25 m
downstream of the scattering chamber (WallFC). The integrated beam current was monitored
using a current digitizer (Model 1000C) made by BIC (Brookhaven Instruments Corporation).
Additionally, the beam current was monitored independently using p-p cross sections at the
BLPs during the backward-angle measurements.

2.2

Beam line polarimeter

Figure 2.2 shows the setup of the BLPs. BLPs are consist of eight plastic scintillator counters.
Four counters are placed on a horizontal plane of beam, the other counters are placed on a
vertical plane. In this experiment, the first BLP (BLP1) placed just after the entrance to thewest experimental room was used to measure the beam polarization with four counters on thehorizontal plane. And the second BLP (BLP2) placed in the middle between BLP1 and target
was used to monitor the beam intensity during this experiments with four counters on thevertical plane. The both BLPs are synchronized controlled and typical sampling ratio is 10% of9CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

Figure 2.1: Overview of the RCNP facility.

10

11

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

z

y

17.0°

70.5°

Plastic
Scintillator
L'

R'

x

R

L

PMT
Polystyrene
TargetBeam
Figure 2.2: Setup of BLPs in the horizontal plane

total DAQ time. BLP1 utilized only left-right asymmetries in p-H scattering from (CH 2 )n foil
to determine the y-axis transverse components p y of the beam polarization. A pair of protons
scattered to the opposite direction in the center of mass system are detected in coincidence by apair of the scintillation detectors. The scattering angle for the forward counters was set to 17.0 ◦where p-p scattering has the maximum analyzing power A y = 0.40. The angle of the backward
counters was 70.5◦ which was determined by the p-p kinematics. Delayed coincidence events
between different beam bunches were also measured to estimate the numbers of accidental
coincidence protons. During the measurement, the analyzing target was periodically inserted
on the beam position for polarization measurement. A typical beam polarization was 65%.

2.3

Targets

Five tin isotope targets (116,118,120,122,124 Sn) in the form of self-supporting metal foils were used
for this experiment. Two different thicknesses were used for each target. Thin targets were used
for the forward-angle measurements to reduce the dead time of the data acquisition system, andthick targets were for the backward-angle measurements to increase the yields. The enrichment
and thicknesses of each target are shown in Table 2.1. The main contaminants of the targets
originated from other tin isotopes. The present energy resolution could not separate the elastic
scattering of other tin isotopes. Thus, the targets including the contamination were analyzed
from other isotopes at all momentum transfer regions. The error of this analysis is estimatedless than 1% for all cross sections and analyzing powers. An automatic target changer system

12

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

Table 2.1: The target enrichment and thicknesses of tin isotopes.
Nuclei
116 Sn118 Sn120 Sn122 Sn124 SnEnrichment
95.5%
95.8%
98.4%
93.6%
95.5%

Thin
10.0mg/cm2
10.0mg/cm2
5.12mg/cm2
10.5mg/cm2
5.00mg/cm2

Thick
100.mg/cm2
100.mg/cm2
39.9mg/cm2
85.4mg/cm2 5A
62.7mg/cm2

was used in this experiment to reduce the systematic errors of relative cross sections between
isotopes. A schematic view of the target changing system is shown in Fig. 2.3. The vertical
position of the target was changed by using a pulse stepping motor, which was controlled
remotely using CAMAC system. A Linux PC was used for this purpose independently fromthe main data acquisition (DAQ) system. A schematic view of the control system for thisexperiment is shown in Fig. 2.4. A stack of three targets is used in a single measurement,
which was moved vertically every 2 min to avoid errors due to the drift of the beam direction
and that of its position on the targets. In a normal experiment using polarized beam, a standalone VME module controlled the direction of beam spin with a time sequence summarized inFig. 2.5. The target control was synchronized with the signal for spin-control from the VME
module as shown in Fig. 2.4. The position information on targets was added to the event header
in event-by-event, and the integrated beam current was measured for each target separately.
The position of the target are always monitored by reading register attached to the moving
system. The time necessary to change target were typically 0.5 sec, and the precision of thetarget position reproducibility is better than 0.1mm. The beam was stopped by sending a signal
to the ion-source during the moving period of the target.

13

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

pulse motor

potentinal meter

magnetic seal

(Air)

Scattering
Chanber(Vacumm)beam direction

Figure 2.3: Schematic view of the target changer system installed on top of the scatteringchamber.

14

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENTCounting RoomExperimental RoomHata
Control

Polarimetertarget changer
DAQ

AVF ion Source RoomSpin up

Strong Field

VME
module Spin down
Weak Field

veto
Beam
CAMAC
Control








(CC7700)   event header
scalarBeam Chopper   

FromFaradayCup

PCI busLinux PC

Automatic
pulse motor control
target changer GPIBHP multimeter

potentional meter

NormalExperimentThis
Experiment

Figure 2.4: Schematic view of the control system for the target changer system. Solid arrow
show the additional parts for this experiment.

1.0 sec
Spin upSpin down

Spin upSpin down
Spin downSpin up

Hata Control

Hata Out
Hata InDAQ Control

DAQ Control






DAQ on
DAQ veto

DAQ onpolarimeter target change
1.0 sec

1.0 sec

DAQ veto
Beam onBeam Control

Beam off

Target Control

target change
Target change

0.5 sec>0.1 msec

Figure 2.5: Timing chart between normal polarization measurement and the target changing
system. Upper four (Spin up, Spin down, BLP Control which was called Hata Control, andDAQ Control) show the standard line for control polarimeter target.

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

2.4

15

Grand Raiden Spectrometer

Figure 2.6 shows a high resolution(p/∆p ∼ 37,000) magnetic spectrometer ’Grand Raiden’(GR). The GR consists of three dipole (D1,D2, and DSR) magnets, two quadrapole (Q1 andQ2) magnets, a sextupole (SX) magnet, and a multipole (MP) magnet. In Table 2.2, thedesigned values of specifications and ion-optical properties of the GR are summarized [47]. MP
magnet is designed for the reduction of higher order aberrations, DSR magnet is designed forthe measurement of the in-plane polarization transfer. These two magnets were not used inthis experiment.

Figure 2.6: Layout of the ’Grand Raiden’ spectrometer and the focal plane.

16

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

Table 2.2: Grand Raiden specifications
Configuration
Mean orbit radius
Total deflection angle
Focal plane length
Focal plane tilting angle
Maximum particle rigidity
Momentum resolving power p/∆p
Momentum broadness
Acceptance angle-vertical
Acceptance angle-horizontal
Horizontal magnification (x|x)
Vertical magnification (y|y)
Momentum dispersion (x|δ)

2.5

QSQD(M)D(D)3m
162◦
120 cm
45.0◦
5.4 Tm37,0005%±70 mrad±20 mrad-0.4175.98
15451 mm

Angular distribution measurements

There are three different settings commonly used for the GR system depending upon experimental conditions, namely ’GR mode’, ’p2p mode’, and ’LAS mode’. Two modes among thesesettings were used in this experiment. A use of a high current beam is needed for low crosssection measurement at a high momentum transfer region. For a high current beam more than
15 nA, we must use the WallFC due to a regulation of a radiation control. The ’p2p mode’ isa setting for the use of both of two spectrometers; the Grand Raiden spectrometer (GR) and a
Large Acceptance Spectrometer (LAS). Only in this mode an additional beam duct transporting beams from the scattering chamber to the WallFC can be attached as shown in Fig. 2.7.
The ’GR mode’ is a setting enable to perform the forward angle measurements including the0◦ scattering. Hence we used the ’GR mode’ for the forward angle measurement (< 28 ◦ ) andthe ’p2p mode’ for the backward angle measurement (> 25 ◦ ).
The GR was rotated for the angular distribution measurement. In the case of the experimentusing high intensity beam like this experiment, the radiation level in the experimental room
is ordinarily high, this situation makes it more difficult to enter the experimental room, when
we rotate the GR. Thus the measurements of the angular distributions for cross sections andanalyzing powers were performed to avoid any remnant radiation dosages to the experimentalist
in the experimentally room.

17

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

Go to the GR

Go to the GR

Go to the Wall FC

Go to the ScFC

From the accelerator

From the accelerator

Figure 2.7: Two operation modes of the scattering chamber. The right figure is ’p2p’ mode
for the backward angle measurement, and the left figure is ’GR mode’ for the forward angle
measurements.

2.6

Focal plane detectors

At the focal plane of the GR, we placed the focal plane counters which consist of two multi wire
drift chambers of vertical-drift type (VDCs) and two plastic scintillating counters (PS1,PS2).
Proton scattered from target were momentum-analyzed by the GR.
Specifications of the VDCs are summarized in Table 2.3. Each VDC consists of two anodewire planes (X and U). The structure of an X-wire plane is schematically illustrated in Fig. 2.9.
The spacing of sense wires is 6mm for X-planes and 4mm for U-planes shown in Fig. 2.8. The
potential wires serve to make a uniform electric field between the cathode plane and the anodeplane. High voltages of -300V were supplied to potential wires in both planes for field shaping,while the cathode voltage was -5.6kV and the sense wires were nearly ground voltage. The gas
multiplications by avalanche processes only occur near the sense wires. A drift time informationfrom several (three or four) wires are obtained and the trajectory of the scattered particles canbe determined.
Gas mixture of argon (71.4%), iso-butane (28.6%), and iso-propyl-alcohol was used. The
iso-propyl-alcohol was mixed in the argon gas with vapor pressure at 2 ◦ C in order to reduce thedeterioration due to the aging effect like the polymerizations of gas on the wire surface. Signals
from the sense wires were pre-amplified and discriminated by LeCroy 2735DC card, which weredirectly connected on the printed bases of the VDCs without cables. Output ECL signals of

18

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

2735DC cards were transfered to LeCroy 3377 multihit TDCs, in which information on the hit
timing of each wire was digitized.
The drift chambers were backed by two plastic scintillation counters with thicknesses of 10
mm, which size were 1200 mm [Wide] × 120 mm [Height]. The scintillation light was detectedby photo-multiplier tubes (PMT: HAMAMATSU H1161) on both sides of PS1 and PS2. Signals
from these scintillators were used to generate a trigger. An aluminum plate with a thickness of
10 mm was placed between PS1 and PS2 to prevent the secondary electrons producted in one
scintillator hit another scintillator.

Table 2.3: Design specification of the VDCs
Wire configuration
Active area
Number of sense wires
Anode-cathode gap
Anode wire spacing
Sense wire spacing
Anode sense wires
Anode potential wires
Cathode film
Applied voltage
Gas mixture
Pre-amplifier
Digitizer

X(0◦ ), U(-48.2◦ )1150W × 120H mm
192 (X), 208 (U)
10 mm
2 mm
6 mm (X), 4 mm (U)20 µmφ gold-plated tungsten wire
50 µmφ gold-plated beryllium copper wire
10 µm carbon-aramid film
-5600 V (cathode), -300 V(potential), 0 V (sense)
argon:iso-butane:iso-propyl-alcohol = 71.4:28.6:∗ 1
LeCroy 2735DC
LeCroy 3377 drift chamber TDC

1 Mixed with the argon gas in 2 ◦ C vapor pressure.

19

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

0

0

y

x

4m

m

6mm

z

VDC-X

VDC-U

z=beam direction

Figure 2.8: Wire configuration of the VDCs for the focal plane detector system of the Grand
Raiden spectrometer.

di 1

2mm

10mm

di
di 1

Figure 2.9: Schematic view of an X-plane structure of the VDC. Ionized electrons verticallydrift from the cathode plane to the anode wires.

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

2.7

20

Trigger system

A schematic diagram of the trigger system of the focal plane scintillators is shown in Fig. 2.10.
The system was placed near the focal planes. Outputs of the plastic scintillators were firstdivided into two signals, one of them was discriminated by a constant fraction discriminator (CFD) (Ortec 935) and the other was sent to a FERA (Fast Encoding and Readout
ADC)(LeCroy 4300B) module. One of the CFD outputs was transmitted to the TDC system consisting of TFCs (Time to FERA Converter)(LeCroy 4303) and FERAs. A coincidence
signal of the two PMT-outputs on both ends of the same scintillator was generated by a Mean
Timer module (REPIC PRN-070), in which the times of two signals were averaged. Thus, theposition dependence of output timing due to the difference of the propagation time in the longscintillator was minimized.
The overview of the DAQ system is illustrated in Fig. 2.11. In order to check the consistencyof data flow, the event header, event number and input register words were attached to thedigitized information from LeCroy 3377, LeCroy 4300B event-by-event in the Flow Controlling
Event Tagger (FCET) [48].
The digitized data were transferred in parallel via ECL buses to high speed memory modules(HSM) in a VME crate. The stored data in the HSMs were moved to a VMIC 5576 reflective
memory modules (RM5576) through the VME bus by an MC68040 based CPU board, and thedata of RM5576 was automatically copied to another RM5576 attached to a SUN work station(SPARC Station 20) in the counting area. The SUN work station plays a important part in
the data transfer. The SUN workstation receives data from the VME system by an opticalfiber-ring, and transfer them to an IBM RS/6000 workstation operated by the AIX Version
4.3 via an FDDI network. The re-construction of event, the accumulation to disk storage, anddistribution of the sampling data for on-line-analysis were managed in this main system.
The live time of the DAQ system was 95% in the case of about 1 kHz trigger events. Beamcurrent was adjusted to maximum current on the condition of more than 90% live time. Experimental condition are summarized in Table 2.4.

21

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

PS1-L

CFD

PS1-R

CFD

LeCroy 2366

Mean
Timer

Universal Logic Module

GR FP Trigger
To TDC (3377)
common stop

PS2-L

CFD

PS2-R

CFD

Mean
Timer

ADC gate

FERA FERATFC

TFC start

Analog signals

Figure 2.10: Schematic diagram of the trigger circuit.

Figure 2.11: Overview of the DAQ system in the West-South (WS) course of RCNP.

22

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT

Table 2.4: Summary of the experimental conditions.
beam
beam energy
beam intensity
beam polarization
targetscattering angle
horizontal acceptance (lab.)vertical acceptance (lab.)energy resolution
FP trigger rate
DAQ live time(typical)
Total data size

polarized proton295
10-3000.55-0.7
116,118,120,122,124 Sn
7-50.5±20±30
100-200
0.5-3
95
80

MeV
nA

deg.
mrad.
mrad.
keV
kHz
%
GByte

Chapter 3

Data Reduction
3.1

Analyzer program

A program code for the data analysis has been developed, which is called ’Yosoi-ana’ and widelyused for analyzing experimental data obtained at WS beam line course of RCNP. The analyzed
results were stored in an HBOOK [49] file and graphically displayed using a program PAW [50].
The data analysis was mainly carried out by using the central computer system at RCNP,
namely, IBM RS/6000SP system.

3.2

Beam polarization

The beam polarization was measured by using beam line polarimeters (BLP1) placed at theentrance of the west experimental room. Yields on the two pairs of scintillators (N R , NL ) for
spin-up(↑) and spin-down (↓) modes are described as follows;↑
NL↑ = NL↑pro. − NL↑acc. = σ0 Nt Nb↑ L ∆ΩL (1 + Aeff.
y Py )

NR↑
NL↓
NR↓

=
=
=

↑
NR↑pro. − NR↑acc. = σ0 Nt Nb↑ R ∆ΩR (1 − Aeff.
y Py )↓
NL↓pro. − NL↓acc. = σ0 Nt Nb↓ L ∆ΩL (1 + Aeff.
y Py )↓
NR↓pro. − NR↓acc. = σ0 Nt Nb↓ R ∆ΩR (1 − Aeff.
y Py ),

(3.1)
(3.2)
(3.3)
(3.4)

where N pro. and N acc. are the numbers of prompt and accidental coincidence events, σ 0 and
Ay are unpolarized cross section and analyzing power for p + p scattering, and N t and N0
are numbers of the target and beam particles. P is the beam-polarization vector.  and ∆Ωare the efficiency and the solid angle of each scintillation detector, respectively. The accidental
coincidence was estimated using the number of forward counter L(R) event coincident with theevent of backward counter L’(R’) in the next beam bunch.
The angular acceptances of the polarimeter were determined by collimating the backward
protons. If there was no instrumental asymmetry, namely  L ∆ΩL = R ∆ΩR = ∆Ω, the beam23

24

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

polarization can be expressed as follows;P y↑ =Py↓=

1 NL↑ − NR↑
↑
↑
Aeff.
y NL + N R(3.5)

1 NL↓ − NR↓
.
↓
↓
Aeff.
y NL + N R(3.6)

Here, the value of Aeff.
y is 0.40±0.01. The relative errors from the statistics are determined to beless than 1%. The instrumental asymmetry  L ∆ΩL /R ∆ΩR statistically fluctuates about 2-3%
in every run. A uncertainty of polarization is typically 2%, whose value is mainly determinedby the uncertainty of ∆Aeff.
y =0.01.

3.3

Beam current monitor

In the case of backward measurements, the thick target and the WallFC were used for the proton
beam of high intensity (∼1-200nA). The beam passing through the tin targets are transported
to Wall FC using five quadrapole magnets. But the transmission of the beam from the target to
the WallFC was less than 100 % because of the multiple scattering in the target. The multiple
scattering are written as shown in the equation
θ =
X0 =

13.6 MeV q
z x/X0 [1 + 0.038(x/X0 )]βcp716.4 g cm−2 A√ ,Z(Z + 1)ln(287/ Z)

(3.7)
(3.8)

where p, β c, z, Z, and A are the momentum (in MeV/c), velocity, charge number of theincident beam, charge, and mass number of the target. Thus a thick (≥ 50 mg/cm 2 ) andheavy (Z=50) target affect a large multiple scattering to the incident proton. In the 116 Sn
case whose thickness is 100 mg/cm2 , for example, the value of θ up to 2.0 mrad in plane. The
protons passing through the targets partly hit the beam pipes. The vertical counters of the
BLP2 were used to monitor the beam current by measuring the ratio of the measured charge by
the FC to the yield of the p-p elastic scattering at the BLP2. The yield of the four scintillatorsof the BLP2 are described as follows;↑
NU↑ = NU↑pro. − NU↑acc. = σ0 Nt Nb↑ ∆Ω(1 + Aeff.
x Px )

↑
↑pro.
↑acc.
↑
− ND
= σ0 Nt Nb↑ ∆Ω(1 − Aeff.
ND= ND
x Px )↓
NU↓ = NU↓pro. − NU↓acc. = σ0 Nt Nb↓ ∆Ω(1 + Aeff.
x Px )
↓
↓pro.
↓acc.
↓
ND
= ND
− ND
= σ0 Nt Nb↓ ∆Ω(1 − Aeff.
x Px ),(3.9)(3.10)(3.11)(3.12)

where, the notations are similar to the Eq. (3.1-3.4), but U(D) means Up(Down) counters.

25

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

Thus we can calculate the number of incident beam N b as follows;↑
NU↑ + ND
= 2σ0 Nt Nb↑ ∆Ω(3.13)↓
NU↓ + ND
= 2σ0 Nt Nb↓ ∆Ω(3.14)

↑(↓)

Nb

↑(↓)

= (NU

↑(↓)

+ ND )/(2σ0 Nt ∆Ω).

(3.15)

By assuming the beam transmission from the BLP2 to the ScFC is constant, the correctedcharge IScFC by the ScFC is proportional to the yield in the BLP2. At first, the normalization
constant RScFC defined by Eq. (3.16) is checked and determined by forward angle measurements
using the ScFC as shown the left side of Fig. 3.1 using the following equation as;
↑(↓)

↑(↓)

↑(↓)

RScFC = IScFC /Nb.

(3.16)The RScFC should be constant if thickness of the target located on the BLP2 and a transmission
from the BLP2 to the target are stable. The standard deviation of the R ScFC is about 0.6%,
which is the same order of the BLP2 statistical uncertainty in the forward angle measurements.
Thus, we can use the normalization constant for the monitor of the transmission from the BLP2
to the WallFC.
Next the ratio the collected charge by the ScFC to the WallFC at low beam current waschecked as follows;
↑(↓)
↑(↓)
RWallFC /RScFC = 0.95 ± 0.02,(3.17)
where,
↑(↓)

↑(↓)

↑(↓)

RWallFC ≡ IWallFC /Nb.

(3.18)

Here, IWallFC is collected charge by the WallFC. The ratio showed a transmissions of about
95% corresponding to a transmission from the target to the WallFC in Fig. 3.1. During thisexperiment we monitored the transmission using the BLP2 and the WallFC as shown in theright side of Fig. 3.1, and we multiplied the beam current using the WallFC for each targets by
RScFC /RWallFC , where RScFC is the normalization constant, RWallFC are calculated by Eq. (3.18)
in each run.

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

26

Figure 3.1: The ratios of forward and backward angle measurements in spin-up. Horizontal
axis shows run-number corresponding to running time. Statistical fluctuations of each points
are less than 0.5%.

3.4

Particle identification

Particle identification (PID) was made using the signals from the two trigger plastic scintillators
PS1 and PS2. Scintillating photons of the scintillators were detected by the PMTs attachedon the left and the right sides of scintillators. The number of photon is attenuated due to theabsorption inside the scintillator during transmission. The photon number I(x) can be described
as a function of the path length x;I(x) = I0 exp(−x/l),(3.19)

where I0 is the initial number of photon and l is the attenuation length of the scintillator.
Suppose the distance between the left(right) PMT and the emitting point of the photons arexL (xR ), a geometrical mean Imean of the photon numbers at both sides is shown a mean energy
deposition without position dependence;
Imean =

r

I0 exp(−xRxL + x R
L
xL) × I0 exp(− ) = I0 exp(−) = I0 exp(− ),
l
l
2l
2l

(3.20)

27

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

where L = xL + xR is the length of the scintillator. The energy deposition of the charged
particle in the scintillator is described by the well-known Bethe-Bloch formula [51] as;
Z z2dE= 2πNA re2 me ρ
−
dx
A β2

(

2me β 2 γ 2 Wmax
ln
I2

!

C
− 2β − δ − 2
Z
2

)

.

(3.21)

Here Wmax is the maximum kinetic energy which can be transfered to a free electron in a single
collision, and the notations of other variables are defined as follows:
re : Classical electron radius (2.817 × 10 −13 cm)
me : Electron mass
NA : Avogadro constant (6.022 × 1023 mol−1 )I: Mean excitation energy
Z: Atomic number of medium
A: Atomic mass of medium
ρ: Density of medium
z: Charge of incident particle
β: velocity of incident particle
δ: Density effect correction to ionization energy loss
C: Shell correction effect.
In this experiment the momenta of scattered particles were limited by the GR momentum acceptance. Thus the velocities of each scattered particle was almost determined [β ∼0.65 (proton),
0.39 (deuteron), and 0.27 (triton)], and the energy deposits of deuterons are from two to threetimes larger than those of protons.
Typical spectrum of particle identification using the PS1 is shown in Fig. 3.2. The gatedregion of the PID spectrum is indicated by arrows to discriminate deuteron events. In thisprocedure, the proton events above the right arrow in Fig. 3.2 are also cut off as shown theright-upper panel of Fig. 3.2. Dashed line shows a estimated tail of the proton events. The
ratio of such events was estimated to be less than 1%. Figure 3.3 shows the time difference
between the main trigger and the AVF cyclotron radio frequency (RF). We can see two peaksin the figure since we have downscaled the RF to a half by a rate divider circuit. The hatchedareas in Fig. 3.3 show the spectrum after applying the proton cut on the analog signal. The
timing signal was additionally used for PID by cut to the 3-σ region which are indicated byarrows in Fig. 3.3. Figure 3.4 shows the mean analog signal of the PS1 versus the focal plane
position. Focal plane measurement will be mentioned in the next section. The mean analog
signal of the PS1 is almost independent on the position of the focal plane as shown in Fig. 3.4.
The magnetic field was adjusted to locate elastically scattered proton onto the central ray ofthe magnetic spectrometer. Then the deuterons entered the focal plane as continuum events at
this magnetic field.

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

28

Figure 3.2: PID for proton analog signal from the PS1. Hatched area shows the gated region
indicated by arrows. Dashed line in the upper-right panel shows a estimated tail of the proton
events.

Figure 3.3: PID for proton timing signal from the PS1. Hatched areas show the spectrum aftergated by the analog signal of the PS1 in Fig. 3.2.

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

29

Figure 3.4: Scatter plot of analog signal of the PS1 versus the focal plane position taken at
θlab. = 35.5◦ . A vertical axis is correspond to Fig. 3.2.

30

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

3.5

Track reconstruction

By using the information of two sets of X- and U-positions of anode planes, we can completely
determine the three dimensional trajectory of the charged particles. The z-axis is defined as thecentral ray of the spectrometer. We have constructed the position for the single cluster drift
events which have more than two hit wires in a cluster. Figure 3.5 shows a schematic view fora typical one cluster event which consists of three hit wires. This figure is the same as Fig. 2.9.
When three or four wires were hit, the position p on the anode plane was calculated using thefollowing equation as;
p = pi + l

di−1 + di+1
, (di−1 > 0 > di+1 )di−1 − di+1

(3.22)

where di−1 and di+1 are drift lengths of the i-1 and i+1-th wires located at both sides of i-th
wire which had the minimum drift length d i in a cluster as shown in Fig. 3.5. pi is the positionon the anode plane of i-th wire, l is the sense wire spacing.

di 1

2mm

10mm

di
di 1

Figure 3.5: Schematic view of an X-plane structure of the VDC. Ionized electrons verticallydrift from the cathode plane to the anode wires.

At the case of two wire hit, the events were in a minority. Each wire was assumed to be locatedopposite side against the anode plane. In the case, the position p was calculated as;
p = pi + ldi, (di−1 > 0 > di )di−1 − di(3.23)

where, the notations are the same as Eq. (3.22).
No cluster events and multi-cluster events were dealt as inefficient events. If an anode planes
has more than two clusters, the position p is calculated for each cluster. In the analysis, we
required that all the anode planes had one cluster or that only one plane had two clusters andCHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

31

the other three planes had one cluster. Since vertical length of the VDC are not large, theX-position and U-position of single event in the same VDC are strongly correlated. Thus, wechose strongly correlated cluster, and dealt the specific two cluster events as the efficient events.

Figure 3.6: Sample spectrum obtained from LeCroy 3377 on X-plane. The TDC signal shownin the upper panel is converted to the drift length shown as the lower panel using time-to-drift
relations.

A typical TDC spectrum for X-plane is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 3.6. The TDC signal
shown in the upper panel of Fig. 3.6 is converted to the drift length as shown in the lower panelof Fig. 3.6 using the time-to-drift relation. The drift velocity is almost constant except near
the sense wires, where drift velocity becomes higher due to the steep gradient of the electricfield. Thus the so called time-to-drift relation for each plane is calibrated by using polynomial
expression to achieve the uniform residual distributions without position dependences. Typicaldrift velocity of the uniform region is about 48 µm/ch(∼ µm/nsec). The residual distribution
is defined as;
Residual : (di−1 + di+1 )/2 − di .
(3.24)
A two-dimensional scatter plot for the residual distribution of near the sense wire is shownin Fig. 3.7, where the vertical axis denotes the distance from the sense wire. Typical residual
resolution was 350 µm in full width at half maximum (FWHM) as in Fig. 3.8. The intrinsic

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

32

Figure 3.7: Scatter plot of residual resolution versus drift starting position. The residual
distributions are almost constant except extremely near the anode wire ( ±0.2 mm).

Figure 3.8: Residual resolution correspond to the horizontal projection of Fig. 3.7.

33

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION√
position resolution of each wire is 6/3 of the residual resolution, which is analytically deduced
if position resolutions of all the wires were same. This position resolution corresponds to lessthan 10 keV of energy resolution in FWHM.
The trajectories of scattering particle were independently determined Z-X planes and Z-U
planes in the central-ray coordinate using X1, X2 planes or U1, U2 planes. The focal plane of
the GR is calculated using X1, X2 planes. The trajectory of Z-Y planes were calculated using
the information of X- and U-position. Thus a vertical position resolution is about two times
worse than a horizontal one. However vertical information hardly affect the energy resolution.
Energy resolution was typically 200 keV in FWHM, and was larger than the expected one
deduced from the detector resolution and the resolving power of the GR. It was due to theenergy resolution of the beam itself. But for our experiment, it was enough to separate elastic
peaks from the inelastic ones.

3.6

Tracking efficiency

For successful reconstruction of the track at each anode plane, it is required that a charged
particle hits at least more than two sense wires and makes one cluster. The efficiency of the
VDC was calculated as follows;
X1 =U 1 =
X2 =U 2 =
total =N (X1 ∩ U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2)
N (U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2)
N (X1 ∩ U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2)
N (X1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2)
N (X1 ∩ U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2)
N (X1 ∩ U 1 ∩ U 2)
N (X1 ∩ U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2)
N (X1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 1)
X1 U 1 X2 U 2 ,(3.25)(3.26)(3.27)(3.28)(3.29)

where N (X1 ∩ U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2) denotes the number of events in which the positions are successfully determined in all four planes, and N (U 1 ∩ X2 ∩ U 2) is the number of events in which theposition are determined in three planes except X1-plane, and so on. These efficiencies are calculated for the elastic proton events because the tracking efficiency is depend on the event rate,particle species, and particle energies. Thus, the region where elastic scattering is dominant are
roughly selected using the time-difference spectra of the trigger scintillator PS1 whose position
resolution was about 2-3 cm at FWHM. Figure 3.9 shows the comparison of the time-difference
spectrum with the position spectra at the PS1 position calculated by VDCs. The typical overall
tracking efficiency total of the elastic dominant region was 97%. According to these method,
the accidental hit which had one cluster at the each plane was not dealt as inefficiency, and theefficiency had prospect of overestimated. Figure 3.10 shows scatter plot of X-positions using
between X1- and X2-position. non-correlated events which are located at the indicated region

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

34

Figure 3.9: Comparison using VDC with the time difference spectrum on the PS1. The hatchedhistogram show using VDC tracking, and bars show using the time difference of the PS1, anda width of bar shows one channel of the TFC-FERA system.

Figure 3.10: Scatter plot of X1- and X2-position using VDCs.

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

35

by arrows in Fig. 3.10 slightly existed as accidental events, however, the accidental events were
estimated to be less than 0.2 %, and were negligible.
Figure 3.12 shows typical spectra of the 116,118,120 Sn run, and the 120,122,124 Sn run at 35.5◦ .
Each run was measured in a single data run using the target changing system. The energy
resolution of the 116,118,120 Sn run in the left panel of Fig. 3.12 is 140 keV in FWHM, andone of the 120,122,124 Sn run in the left panel is 250 keV in FWHM. These values were strongly
dependent on the beam condition. Each target is selected using the event header signal from thetarget changing system. The characteristic first excited states in tin isotopes are shown in the116,118,120 Sn run. The characteristic negative parity states in tin isotopes are also shown in the120,122,124 Sn run. The magnetic field of the GR is adjusted for 118 Sn in the case of 116,118,120 Sn
measurement, and for 122 Sn in the case of 120,122,124 Sn measurement.

Figure 3.11: Energies of typical excited states for tin isotopes around θ lab. = 35.5◦ . The solid,
dashed, dotted, and dot-dashed lines show ground states 0 + , first excited states 2+ , 5− , and3− , respectively [52].

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

36

Figure 3.12: Sample focal plane spectra corresponding to the excitation energy of 116,118,120 Sn,
120,122,124 Sn, taken at a scattering angle θ◦lab. = 35.5 .

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

3.7

37

Acceptance of the spectrometer

The entrance slits are located at the entrance of the GR, whose width is ±20 mrad horizontallyand ±30 mrad vertically. The incident angle of scattered particles to the focal detectors werelimited from the entranced slit. Using the ion-optical matrix, the angles at the detectors canbe traced back up the scattering angles on the target. The angular resolution of this method
was horizontally about 0.05◦ (σ) on target. This value was estimated by folding the squareshape by a Monte Carlo simulation. A typical spectrum of scattering angle on the target isshown in Fig. 3.13. Markers show the results of the simulation with 0.05 ◦ resolution of angle.
This value was overall angular resolution including the tracking resolution of detector itself,
the multiple scattering effect at the GR exit window, the higher order aberration of the GR,
and the edge scattering effect from the entrance slit of the GR. The horizontal acceptance used
±0.75◦ , which was calculated from the angle at the focal plane. On the other hand the verticalacceptance was determined by the entrance slit because the vertical angle resolution of the GR
was worse due a specific feature of vertical magnification. Thus it was determined by the sizeof slit ±30 mrad.

Figure 3.13: Sample spectrum for scattering angle on the target. The symbols show the MonteCarlo simulation considered to angular resolution in this analysis (∼0.05 ◦ ).

38

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

3.8

Differential cross sections and analyzing powers

Number of elastically scattered protons detected by the VDC can be expressed as;
dσ(1 + p↑y Ay )∆ΩNt ↑ λ↑ Nb↑ .
dΩ
dσ
N↓ =
(1 + p↓y Ay )∆ΩNt ↓ λ↓ Nb↓ .
dΩN↑ =(3.30)(3.31)

where, the notations were almost the same as Eq. (3.1-3.4), however ∆Ω, , and λ are the solid
angle , the overall detection efficiency, and the live time ratio of the DAQ system, respectively.
And the signs of the polarizations were opposite as;p↑y ≥ 0 ≥ p↓y .

(3.32)

Cross sections and analyzing powers can be deduced by simultaneous Eq. (3.30);
dσ
dΩ

=

Ay =

1

(
↓

p↑y − pyN ↓ p↓y↓ λ↓ N−↓b

N ↑ p↑y↑ λ↑ Nb↑

)

1
,
∆ΩNt

1−α

(3.33)(3.34)

αp↑y − p↓y

where
α ≡

N↓

/
↓

N↑

Q↓ ↓ λ↓ Nb Q↑ ↑ λ↓ Nb↑.

(3.35)

Statistical errors can be estimated as
∆

dσ
dΩ

=

dσ
1
1
×
× ↑
dΩ p↑y − p↓yαpy − p↓y×(1 − α)2 ((p↓y ∆p↑y )2 + (p↑y ∆p↓y )2 )↓2
α2 p↓2y 1/2↑↓ 2 py)+(py − py ) ( ↑ +
↓

N

∆Ay =

1

(αp↑y − p↓y )2N(3.36)↓2((1 − α)2 (α2 ∆p↑2
y + ∆py )+α2 (p↑y − p↓y )2 (1
1+ ↓ ))1/2 .
↑
N
N
↑(↓)

(3.37)

Here, the statistical fluctuation for number of beam N b
is smaller than number of elasticallydσ↑(↓)
scattered proton N, and is negligible for the statistical error ∆ dΩ
. Uncertainties of analyzing
power ∆Ay are mainly determined by the uncertainty of polarization, typically 2% for ∆p y .
√and the statistical fluctuation term of 1/ N for ∆Ay is relatively small in this measurement.

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

3.9

39

Experimental results

Differential cross sections and the analyzing power were measured up to 50 degrees corresponding to momentum transfer of 3.5 fm−1 in the center-of-mass system. Uncertainties in theexperimental data are mainly due to inhomogeneities of the target foil thickness and are notdue to counting statistics. Therefore, the experimental uncertainties are added ±3% to bothcross sections and analyzing powers as systematic uncertainties. The experimental results ofthe cross sections and the analyzing powers are shown in Fig. 3.14 together with the model
calculations. The details of the calculation are shown in the next chapter, and the digital data
are summarized in Appendix A.

40

116

Sn(x10 )4

118

Sn(x10 )120

Sn(x1)

122

Sn(x10 )124

Sn(x10 )-2

Ay(122Sn)

Ay(120Sn)2-4

Ay(124Sn)dσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

Global Potential

Ay(118Sn)

RMF+RIA

Ay(116Sn)

CHAPTER 3. DATA REDUCTION

θc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure 3.14: Differential cross sections and analyzing powers for proton elastic scattering fromtin target. The solid curves are the original RIA calculations of Murdock and Horowitz [35],while dashed lines are calculations from the Dirac global potential [53, 54].

Chapter 4

Analysis
4.1

Historical background of the relativistic approach

Since 1980s, relativistic approaches based on Dirac equations have been applied to the elastic
scattering of intermediate energy protons, and have been successfully explaining the scattering,
especially polarization observables. Clark et al. have extended the Dirac phenomenology as theglobal potential, which has been able to explain elastic proton scattering of spin zero nuclei forthe mass number of 12 ≤ A ≤ 208 from 20 MeV to 1040 MeV [53, 54]. It was a great successto explain proton elastic scattering in a wide mass- and energy-range, however, the physicalmeaning of the parameters was not clear. More fundamental approach has been presented by
McNeil, Shepard, and Wallece who have also found a dramatic improvements for spin dependent
observables for 16 O and 40 Ca at 500 MeV using the Dirac equation [55]. They have applied
impulse approximation to the Dirac approach, where the Lorentz invariant amplitude has been
expressed as;µ µ55F (q) = F S + F V γ(0)γ(1) + F P S γ(0)
γ(1)
µ 5
µν
5
γ(0)
γ(1) γ(1)µ ,+F T σ(0)σ(1)µν + F A γ(0)(4.1)

and the amplitude has been directly determined from nucleon-nucleon phase shift analyses.
They have showed the superiority of the relativistic impulse approximation than the nonrelativistic t-matrix one.

4.2

Relativistic impulse approximation

Our experimental data have been analyzed on the formalism of the relativistic impulse approximation (RIA) using the relativistic Love-Franey (RLF) interaction [35]. Murdock andHorowitz have calculated the elastic scattering of 16 O, 40,48 Ca, 90 Zr, and 208 Pb at the energies
from 200 MeV to 400 MeV using the RLF interaction treating explicitly the exchange term.
They have introduced ten mesons, for example π, η, σ, ω, and ρ, as exchanged mesons.
41

42

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Each Lorentz invariant amplitude F L in the Eq. (4.1) is described as;
M2[F L (q) + FXL (Q)]
2Ec kc D
X
δL,L(j) (τ0 · τ1 )Ij f j (q),FDL (q) ≡FL = i

(4.2)
(4.3)

j

FXL (Q)≡ (−1)TX
j

BL(j),L (τ0 · τ1 )Ij f j (Q),

(4.4)
(4.5)

Here, T is the total isospin of the two-nucleon state, L(j) denotes the spin and parity of the i-thmeson, Ij is the isospin of the j-th meson. q and Q are direct and exchange momentum transfers,
Ec is the total energy, and kc is the relative momentum in the nucleon-nucleon center of mass
system. B is the Fierz transformation matrix. Each amplitude f i (q) is shown as the sum ofreal and imaginary amplitudes using masses m i , coupling constants gi , and cutoff parameters
λi of the exchanged i-th meson in following equation;f i (q) ≡

ḡi2
λ2i
λ̄2i
gi2
)
−
i
(
(
).
q 2 + m2i λ2i + q 2
q 2 + m̄2i λ̄2i + q 2(4.6)

The first-order Dirac optical potentials for the spherical nuclei are produced by folding thisNN amplitude with the target densities;LL
U L (r, E) = UD(r, E) + UX
(r, E)
Z
4πip0
L
dr 0 ρ(r 0 )tLUD(r, E) ≡ −D (|r − r|, E)
M
Z
4πip
L
0
0
UX
(r, E) ≡ −dr 0 ρ(r 0 )tL
X (|r − r|, E) j0 (p|r − r|),
M

(4.7)
(4.8)
(4.9)

2
L
L
where tLD (|r|, E) are Fourier transforms of t D (q, E) ≡ (iM /2Ec kc )FD (q) and similarly for theexchange pieces tL
X (Q, E), and ρ(r) are target density. For a spin zero nucleus, the only nonzero
densities are scalar, vector, and tensor densities. The tensor contribution is found to be small
and is neglected. Thus only scalar and vector densities are taken into account for the RIA
calculation in this work.

Figure 3.14 shows the results from two theoretical calculations and our experimental data.
Solid lines are the RIA calculations using the RLF interaction, where densities are taken fromthe relativistic Hartree calculations [56]. Dashed lines are calculations using the global potential
based on Dirac phenomenology [53, 54]. The results of the RIA calculations are in agreementwith our data of cross sections at forward angles, but it is overestimated at backward angles.
On the other hand, the analyzing powers are well reproduced. The calculations by the global
potential reproduce cross sections, but there are large deviations in analyzing powers at forward
angle (∼10◦ ).

43

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

4.3

Medium effects

Murdock and Horowitz approximatively introduced a phenomenological energy-dependent “Pauliblocking” factors, whose functional form is considered based on the Bruckner theory [35]. Recently Sakaguchi et al. modified the RIA calculation more microscopically, namely the nucleonnucleon interaction level. It is because that the properties of hadron such as the masses andthe coupling constants can change in the nuclear medium due to the interaction with thehadrons [57]. These changes in the masses and coupling constants are called “medium effects”,
and may be an effect of the presentations of the partial restoration of chiral symmetry [58],Pauli blocking [35], vacuum polarization [59], multistep process [60], and few-nucleon force.
They attempted to explain the experimental data by phenomenologically changing the masses
and coupling constants of exchanged mesons (σ and ω) in the real and the imaginary amplitudes of Eq. (4.6) depending the nuclear densities. They expanded the meson propagator in
the amplitudes of Eq. (4.6) up to second order in q 2 and ρ as;
gi2
q 2 + m2i

=>
=
=
=

gi2
q 2 + m2i + b(ρ/ρ0 ) + a(ρ/ρ0 )q 2
gi2
q 2 (1 + a(ρ/ρ0 )) + m2i + b(ρ/ρ0 )gi2 /(1 + a(ρ/ρ0 ))q 2 + m2i (1 + b0 (ρ/ρ0 ))/(1 + a(ρ/ρ0 ))gi∗2,
q 2 + m∗2

(4.10)

where
g ∗2
m

∗

≡
≡

g2
1 + aρ/ρ0ms

1 + b0 ρ/ρ0
1 + aρ/ρ0∼=m(1 + b00 ρ/ρ0 )
b
b0 ≡
m2i
b0 − a.
b00 ∼2Here, ρ and ρ0 show a matter density distribution and its normal density.
The functional form of density dependence is described as follows;
ḡj2
gj2
,
1 + aj ρ(r)/ρ0 1 + āj ρ(r)/ρ0−→ mj [1 + bj ρ(r)/ρ0 ], m̄j [1 + b̄j ρ(r)/ρ0 ],gj2 , ḡj2 −→mj , m̄j(4.11)

where j refers to the σ and ω mesons. m j , m̄j , gj , and ḡj indicate the masses, and coupling
constants of mesons for real and imaginary amplitudes, respectively. The normal density ρ 0
was taken to be 0.1934 fm−3 [36, 59].

44

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

In this work, we have refined treatments for point proton density to deduce systematic errorsof the neutron density distributions, and the detail is discussed in the following Sec. 4.4. And
we have carefully analyzed effects of several assumptions and errors to calculate the neutron
density distributions; the effect of scalar density is discussed in Sec. 4.5. the effect of ourintroduced modification parameter errors is discussed in Sec. 4.6 and Sec. 4.7.

4.4

Proton density distributions of tin isotopes

In this section, we discuss treatments of the point density distributions of tin isotopes in the
RIA calculation. In the RIA calculations, point proton density distributions derived from charge
distributions are used. To reduce a systematic error of proton density distribution, we need abetter charge distribution. Until now, charge distribution for stable nuclei have been studied
using several model-dependent and -independent densities. Existing charge distribution data
for tin isotopes are summarized in Table 4.1. As for the charge distribution for tin isotopes,
two model-dependent densities and one model-independent density are reported [3, 7].
The model-dependent two-parameter Fermion (2pF) function is written as;
ρch (r) = ρ0

1
1 + e(r−c)/z,(4.12)

where c and z correspond to a radial and a surface parameter, respectively. And anothermodel-dependent three-parameter Gaussian (3pG) function is described as;
ρch (r) = ρ0

1 + wr 2 /c2,
1 + e(r2 −c2 )/z 2(4.13)

where w corresponds to an inner depth parameter, and a normalization condition is shown as;Zρch (r)dr = Z.

(4.14)

a normal density ρ0 is determined to satisfy Eq. (4.14).
Gaussian (SOG) charge distribution is described as;
ρch (r) =Z
2π 3/2 γ 3h

12XThe model-independent Sum-of-Qi
1 + 2Ri2 /γ 2
i=1
2

2

2

× e−(r−Ri ) /γ + e−(r+Ri ) /γ
where, a normalization condition Eq. (4.14) is rewritten as;Zρch (r)dr = Z,⇒Z

Qi = 1.

2i,(4.15)(4.16)In the case of 116,124 Sn model-independent densities are reported. In this case, the SOG
charge distributions of 116,124 Sn are used, which were obtained from the electron scattering up
to the high momentum transfer of 3.6 fm −1 [5].

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

45

Figure 4.1 shows a comparison of charge distribution of 124 Sn between model-independent
density (SOG) with other model-dependent densities (2pF, 3pG) [3, 7].
The model-dependent charge distribution using 3pG is in good agreement with the modelindependent charge distribution at a surface and tail region. However a density using 3pG does
not describe the form factor of model-independent functional shape at the high momentum
transfer region (>2.5 fm−1 ) as shown in Fig. 4.2, since the SOG charge distribution for 124 Sn
reproduces the experimental data up to the high momentum transfer [62]. The deviation iscorresponding to inner region less than 4 fm in Fig. 4.1. And the deviation of 2pF in Fig. 4.1
is corresponding to less than 5 fm. It means that it is difficult to extrapolate toward a highmomentum transfer region using the model-dependent density, and it is not neglected to remain
the constraint of the model-dependent density.

Table 4.1: The summary of exiting charge distributions data using model-dependent and independent functional shapes of even-even tin isotopes.
Nuclei Model RMS radius (fm) q-range (fm −1 ) Year
112 Sn2pF
4.655(23)0.49-1.40
1970 [3, 7]
3pG
4.586(5)0.64-2.37
1972 [3, 7]∗1
114 Sn3pG
4.602(5)0.64-2.37
1972 [3, 7] ∗1
116 Sn2pF
4.551
0.46-1.08
1967 [3]2pF
4.62
0.35-0.59
1969 [3]2pF
4.673(16)0.84-1.98
1972 [3]2pF
4.626(15)0.36-1.00
1976 [3, 7]
3pG
4.619(5)0.64-2.65
1972 [3, 7]∗1
SOG 4.627(3)0.36-3.60
1982 [7]∗2118 Sn2pF
4.64
0.35-0.59
1969 [3]2pF
4.679(16)0.49-1.40
1970 [3, 7]
2pF
4.676(17)0.84-1.75
1972 [3, 7]
3pG
4.634(5)0.64-2.37
1972 [3, 7]∗1
120 Sn2pF
4.640
0.46-1.08
1967 [3, 7]
2pF
4.64
0.35-0.59
1969 [3]3pG
4.646(5)0.64-2.37
1972 [3, 7]∗1
122 Sn3pG
4.658(5)0.64-2.37
1972 [3, 7] ∗1
124 Sn2pF
4.666
0.64-2.37
1967 [7]2pF
4.64
0.35-1.59
1969 [7]2pF
4.695(17)0.84-1.75
1972 [3, 7] ∗1
3pG
4.670(5)0.64-2.65
1972 [3, 7]∗1
SOG 4.677(3)0.36-3.60
1982 [7]∗2∗1∗2Including the result from optical isotope shifts data [61].
Including the result from muonic atom data [62].

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

46

Figure 4.1: The comparison existing charge distributions of 124 Sn using different functional
shapes, 2pF, 3pG, and SOG. The right-upper panel is enlarged view at a shoulder region (2-5 fm) in this figure.

Figure 4.2: The sample calculation of a electric form factor of 124 Sn which is transformed fromexisting charge distributions of Fig. 4.1. Arrows show momentum transfer regions of use data
sets which are shown in Table 4.1.

47

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Figure 4.3: The charge radius of tin isotopes. Squares and triangles are results from electron
elastic scattering using different model distributions [3, 7]. Here, the SOG data of 116,124 Sn
are existing ones from Ref. [7], and the other SOG data for 118,120,122 Sn are interpolated using
Eq. (4.17-4.19). Circles are results from muonic X-ray data [63]. Diamonds are combined resultsfrom both electron scattering and muonic X-ray data [64].

Figure 4.3 shows the existing experimental root mean squared (RMS) radii of the charge distributions for tin isotopes. The charge radius of the tin isotope increases smoothly with mass
number, while the number of protons is constant and magic number. Thus a smooth change inthe charge distributions with the neutron number can be expected. We interpolated the charge
distributions of 118,120,122 Sn using the arithmetic mean of the SOG type charge distributions of
116,124 Sn;
116

124

3ρch Sn (r) + ρch Sn (r)ρch (r) =(4.17)
4124
116
ρch Sn (r) + ρch Sn (r)120ρch Sn (r) =(4.18)
2
124
116
ρch Sn (r) + 3ρch Sn (r)122 Snρch (r) =.
(4.19)
4
As shown in Fig. 4.5, the interpolated charge distributions change smoothly similar to theexperimentally extracted 3pG model densities in Fig. 4.4. The interpolated radii of modelindependent-type charge distributions for 118,120,122 Sn are consistent with other experimental
data obtained from the electron scattering and muonic X-rays as shown in Fig. 4.3. Figure 4.6
shows the differences between interpolated radii and other results from the 3pG electron scattering data, the muonic X-ray data, and the combined analyses of elastic electron scattering [64].
118 SnCHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

48

Figure 4.4: The existing charge distribution of tin isotopes using 3pG functional shape.

Figure 4.5: The existing charge distribution of 116,124 Sn using SOG functional shape, and the
deduced charge distribution of 118,120,122 Sn from Eq. (4.17).

49

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Figure 4.6: The difference of charge RMS radii from SOG charge RMS radius for tin isotopes.
The notations are in same as in Fig. 4.3.

The dependence for the differences with mass number slightly shows, however the differences
are very small as shown in Fig. 4.6. The errors of our interpolated charge radii are estimatedto be 0.003 fm. Their values are in the same value as for 116,124 Sn.
In the report by Sakaguchi et al. [36], the point proton distribution was extracted by unfolding the charge distribution by the charge distribution of proton itself, neglecting the charge
distribution of neutron itself. In this paper, we have also considered the charge distribution ofneutron itself. Thus, a charge distribution is expressed as follows;ρch (r) =Zρp (r 0 )ρproton(r − r 0 )dr 0 +chZρn (r 00 )ρneutron(r − r 00 )dr 00 ,ch

(4.20)

where, ρch , ρp , ρn , ρproton, and ρneutron
indicate charge distribution, point proton densitychchdistribution, point neutron density and charge distribution of proton, and neutron themselves.
And a mean squared (MS) radius of charge distribution can be written using a point proton
MS radius and a MS radius of proton and neutron charge distribution as follows;
D

E

D

E

D

E

proton 22rch= rp2 + (rch) +N D neutron 2 E
(rch
) ,
Z

(4.21)

50

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

where
D

2
rch

D

D
D

E D

D

rp2

proton 2(rch)

neutron 2
)
(rch

E

E

E

E

=
=
=
=

Z

r 2 ρch (r)dr/Z

r 2 ρp (r)dr/Z

r 2 ρneutron(r)dr/chZZ

ρch (r)drZρp (r)drr 2 ρproton(r)dr/chZ

ρproton
(r)dr
ch

Z

(r)dr
ρneutronchE

2 , r 2 , (r proton )2 , and (r neutron )2 are defined as the MS radii of ρ , ρ , ρproton , and
rch
p
ch
p
ch
ch
ch
,
respectively.
ρneutronch

The Eq. (4.20) is calculated using a Fourier transform as;
Fch (q) = Gpch (q) · Fp (q) + Gnch (q) · Fn (q),(4.22)

where, Fch (q), Fp (q), Fn (q), and Gpch (q), Gnch (q) indicate Fourier transforms of charge, point
proton, point neutron, and the charge distribution of proton, neutron themselves, respectively.
Gpch (q), Gnch (q) are also called Sachs electric form factor of proton and neutron [65]. Since
digital data of form factors are not existed, we estimate pseudo data and their errors to solve
the Eq. (4.22). The center value of the pseudo data are estimated to Fourier-transform existing
charge distribution. The errors are estimated from the existing form factor of 124 Sn via an
eye guide in Fig. 4.11 [66]. The SOG density for a point proton ρ p is adopted, and the point
proton density is also analytically Fourier-transformed to the proton form factor F p (q). And
the simple parameterization of nucleon form factors G pch (q), Gnch (q) are used in this analysis asfollows [67];Gpch (q) =Gnch (q) =1 − 0.24τ
1 + 10.98τ + 12.82τ 2 + 21.97τ 3
1.70τ
1
1 + 3.30τ (1 + 4.97τ )2(4.23)(4.24)where2
τ = q 2 /4Mnucleon.

The RMS radius of proton itself is 0.863 ± 0.004 fm [67], and the MS radius of neutron itself is-0.112 ± 0.003 fm2 [67]. This proton radius is consistent with the measurement of the hydrogen
1S Lamb shift [68]. Equation (4.20) shows that an explicit treatment for charge distributionof neutron itself is necessity to deduce point proton density distribution precisely. In case oftin isotope, the contribution from the G nch (q) to the RMS radius of the point proton density
distribution is in the order of 0.02 fm. Thus, the contribution from the neutron form factor issmall but not negligible if we want to discuss the difference of 0.02 fm in RMS radii. These
nucleon form factors Gpch (q), Gnch (q) are in good agreement with existing data of proton andneutron form factors in Fig. 4.7, 4.8. And these parameterizations can also explain the recent
polarization transfer measurement at MIT-Bates [69].

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

51

Figure 4.7: The proton electric form factor shown as Eq. (4.23) and existing experimental data
are taken from electron-proton scattering [16].

Figure 4.8: The neutron electric form factor shown as Eq. (4.24) and existing experimental
data from electron-deuteron or helium-3,4 scattering and sophisticated analysis [17]. On theother hand, the MS charge radius of the neutron had been determined from other literatureexperiments [14].

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

52

The point proton distributions are unfolded using Eq. (4.22) by the following procedure;
1, We have constructed pseudo data and errors of charge form factor F ch (q) on
momentum space using charge distribution ρ ch .
2, We have assumed a initial proton, neutron density distribution, for example
init
ρinit
p (r) = ρch (r), ρn (r) = (N/Z)ρp (r).
3, We have calculated the right-hand side of the Eq. (4.22) using initial nucleonpinitndensities ρinitp , ρn and the nucleon electric form factors G ch (q), Gch (q) fromthe Eq. (4.23) and Eq. (4.24).
4, We have searched point proton density distribution comparing the right-handside of the Eq. (4.22) with the pseudo data.
Figure 4.10 shows the result of the fitting in the case of 124 Sn. The solid line shows calculationfrom the Eq. (4.20). Open circles and bars are pseudo data and errors constructed for the
least-square fitting. The SOG parameters of the point proton density distribution are freely
searched using the MINUIT code [70].

Figure 4.9: Contribution to the RMS radius of point proton density distributions for 124 Sn.
Solid, dashed, and dotted lines show results of charge, proton, and neutron RMS radius using
the propagation of errors for the point proton RMS radius with neutron electric form factor.
Dash-dotted line shows the case of proton RMS radius the without neutron electric form factor.
Open circle and bars show targeted value for uncertainty of point proton RMS radius, ±0.01 fm.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

53

Figure 4.9 shows the contribution from uncertainties of charge, proton itself, and neutron
itself RMS radii to point proton RMS radius. The effect including the neutron electric form
factor is obvious when the accuracy to be 0.01 fm is needed. Since the errors of point proton
RMS radii are mainly determined by errors of charge RMS radii in Eq. (4.21), the errors of
point proton RMS radii of tin isotopes are estimated to be 0.003 fm whose value is the sameorder to charge RMS radius.
Figure 4.12 shows a comparison of our deduced proton density for 124 Sn using the scaled neutron density as an initial one with several theoretical calculations using L-HS, SkM ∗ , and SIII,
respectively. Our deduced density has less oscillatory behavior than three theoretical calculations. Among the calculations, SHF model using SkM ∗ is in good agreement with our deduced
densities for five tin isotopes. Figure 4.13 shows our deduced proton density distributions. The
systematic behavior as shown in Fig. 4.5 has been conserved in the process of unfolding charge
distribution.

Figure 4.10: Calculated by the right-handside of Eq. (4.20) and pseudo data using
SOG charge distributions of 124 Sn.

Figure 4.11: Experimental form factors
and errors of 124 Sn from electron scattering experiments [66].

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

54

Figure 4.12: Point proton density distribution of 124 Sn. Solid, dashed, dotted, and dasheddotted lines show the point proton density distributions deduced from Eq. (4.30) and basedon RMF with L-HS parameterization, SHF with SkM ∗ [71], and SIII [72] parameterization,
respectively. Here, we used the scaled neutron density ρ n (r) = (N/Z)ρp (r) for the initial
density of Eq. (4.20).

Figure 4.13: The deduced initial point proton density distributions of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn using
SOG charge distribution. Here, we used the scaled neutron density ρ n (r) = (N/Z)ρp (r) as theinitial density of Eq. (4.20).

55

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

4.5

Relation between scalar and vector density

In the RIA calculation, two types nucleon density distributions, namely the scalar density ρ S
and the vector density ρV are needed. In our calculation the tensor density ρ T is neglected
because of its smallness. Here ρV (r) indicates the vector density corresponding to the normal
type proton or neutron density. Each density satisfies the normalization condition;ZρVp (r)dr = Z,Z

ρVn (r)dr = N.

(4.25)

It is difficult to determine experimentally the fine structure of scalar densities. However, thefollowing clear relation between scalar and vector densities have been discovered empirically [36].
ρS (r)/ρV (r) ' const.

(4.26)

Thus scalar densities can be calculated using the relation between vector and scalar densities estimated by the relativistic Hartree calculation code TIMORA which are introduced by
Horowitz and Serot [56]. Their parameterization (L-HS) does not include a non-linear term of
σ and ω fields in their Lagrangian. The non-linear terms are described as;11
1 2 2 1m σ + g2 σ 3 + g3 σ 4 − g4 (ωµ ω µ )2 .
2 σ
3
4
4

(4.27)The necessity of those terms to improve the fit for binding energy is already known, but theircontributions to the scalar density is not clear. Thus L-HS calculation is compared with TMA
calculation in 208 Pb, which include the non-linear term introduced by Toki and Sugahara [73,74].
Figure 4.14 and 4.15 show ratios of scalar to vector densities in radial distributions of 208 Pb
for TMA and L-HS, respectively. Both calculations show almost the same ratio in their radial
distributions. We deserve no difference for the ratio scalar to vector densities between L-HS
and TMA, and we expect similar relation holds for other RMF calculation.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

56

Figure 4.14: The radial distribution of the ratio of scalar to vector densities of 208 Pb using
the TMA parameterization calculated by Kaki [74]. Solid and Dashed lines show proton andneutron, respectively.

Figure 4.15: The radial distribution of the ratio of scalar to vector densities of 208 Pb using the
L-HS parameterization which is not included the non-linear term as shown in Eq. (4.27).

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

57

Figure 4.16: Integrated ratio from scalar and vector densities of proton and neutron of typicalstable nuclei calculated of L-HS. Hatched area shows 0.955±0.005.

Figure 4.16 shows a mass dependence of the ratios of integrated scalar and vector densities
using L-HS one. In this region, we can see a small dependence on mass number, but it is lessthan 1%. A slight difference is noticed in the ratios of scalar to vector densities of proton andneutron in the heavy-nuclei case. It is because that the scalar density is related to the averagedensity. In the medium and heavy nuclei, number of neutron is different from protons due to the
Coulomb repulsion. And a difference of a uniform density in a nuclear medium between protonand neutron becomes larger with mass number. However its difference is relatively small (lessthan 1%), and hardly affects experimental observables.

58

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Table 4.2: The exiting theoretical and experimental proton, neutron RMS radius, and its
differences of 58 Ni.
D E1/2
1/2(fm) ∆rnp (fm)(fm)
rn2
Methodrp2
DME+D1[75]
HF-BCS+SIII[76]
HF-BCS+SkM∗ [77]
HF-BCS+SGII[78]
RMF+NL3[79]
RMF+L-HS[56]Glauber, 3pF[27]∗1
Glauber, 3pF[28]∗2
Glauber, 3pF[80]∗1st
1 -order KMT, 3pF+SOG[31] ∗3
2nd -order KMT, 3pF+SOG[32]∗3p̄-Nucleus potential, 2pF[18]∗4This work, SOG

3.68
3.738
3.722
3.719
3.652
3.652
3.763(50)
3.67(5)3.763(50)
3.688
3.686
–
3.672(3)

3.67
3.732
3.720
3.697
3.692
3.691
3.72(5)3.60(5)3.75(10)3.652(74)3.700(50)–
3.672∗5-0.01-0.006-0.002-0.0120.040
0.039-0.043(70)-0.07(7)-0.01(7)-0.035(74)-0.035(50)-0.09+0.09−0.16
0.000∗5∗1 1.044 GeV(p,p) at Gatchina∗2 1.047 GeV(p,p) at Scalay∗3 800 MeV(p,p) at LAMPF∗4 Anti-protonic atom X-ray at LEAR
∗5 assumption in this work.

4.6

58

Ni structure

The information on both proton and neutron density distributions is needed to calibrate theeffective interaction based on RIA calculations. Several theoretical calculations have been
performed to obtain the proton and neutron density distributions of 58 Ni using relativistic or
nonrelativistic mean-field calculations. The results are dependent on parameterizations used in
the calculations but the differences between the RMS radii of point protons and neutrons, theneutron skin, are generally small [75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82], and are given asD∆rnp ≡ rn2

E1/2

D

− rp2

E1/2

.

(4.28)In addition, since the number of neutron for 58 Ni is almost the same as number of proton, theshape of neutron density distribution is expected to be similar to the shape of proton. Thus theneutron density distribution is assumed to be the same shape as the proton density distribution.
And the neutron density distribution can be described as;
ρn (r) ≡ (N/Z)ρp (r).

(4.29)

Thus, the substitution of Eq. (4.29) into Eq. (4.20) gives as;
ρch (r) =Z(r − r 0 ) + (N/Z)ρneutron(r − r 0 )]dr 0 .
ρp (r 0 )[ρprotonchch(4.30)

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

59

Table 4.3: The summary of exiting charge distributions data using model and modelindependent functional shapes of 58 Ni.
Nuclei Model RMS radius (fm) q-range (fm −1 ) Year
58 Ni
2pF
3.823(15)0.68-1.61
1970 [3]2pF
3.783(30)1.02-1.98
1972 [3]3pG
3.760(10)0.51-2.22
1973 [3]3pF
3.764(10)0.58-2.64
1974 [3, 7] ∗1
FB
3.742(24)0.51-2.22
1976 [7]SOG 3.772(4)0.58-3.80
1980 [7]∗1FB3.769(13)0.25-2.65
1983 [7]∗1 Including the result from muonic atom data [83].

The point proton density distribution ρ p (r) of 58 Ni is calculated by unfolding the above equation.
The SOG parameterization is used for the charge distribution of 58 Ni, which covers a higher
momentum transfer region up to 3.80 fm −1 which is considered for the muonic atom result [83].
A lower region (<0.6 fm−1 ) where a Fourier-Bessel (FB) parameterization covers is not included,
however its low-momentum transfer region does not affect charge distribution in Fig. 4.2.
Figure 4.17 shows the comparison between the deduced point proton density distribution andthe calculation based on the Skyrme Hartree Fock (SHF) using SIII and SkM ∗ parameterizations
and the RMF using L-HS parameterization. The RMF density shows an oscillatory behavior
and a stiff surface, however the RMS radius of proton density is only slightly smaller than our
deduced result. The oscillatory behaviors using SHF models are also shown. Their oscillating
amplitudes of SHF models are smaller than the calculations by the RMF, and in good agreementwith our deduced densities. And the RMS radii of point proton density in SHF models arelarger than the deduced density by the order of 0.05 fm, but surface behaviors of SHF models
reproduce our deduced density.

60

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Figure 4.17: Point proton density distribution of 58 Ni. Solid, dashed, dotted, and dashed-dottedlines show point proton density distribution deduced from Eq. (4.30)and based on RMF with
L-HS parameterization, SHF with SkM ∗ [71] and SIII [72] parameterization, respectively.

We adopt the the constant value RSV =0.96 which is the same as in the tin isotope cases.
Using this constant value, a scaled scalar density is simply expressed as;
ρS (r) = RSV · ρV (r).

(4.31)In Fig. 4.19, we compare calculated results for 58 Ni using a microscopic scalar density and thescaled densities with constant values. For the vector density, we used the RMF densities using
the L-HS. We calculate several type scalar density with fixing the vector densities. Solid anddashed lines show the results using the scaled scalar densities and the RMF scalar ones. The
calculation using a constant value of 0.96 is in good agreement with the one using microscopic
densities. And even if a different constant value from 0.95 to 0.97 was taken, the differencesin the cross sections and the analyzing powers would be small (< 2-3%) without momentum
transfer dependence. Therefore, the scaled scalar density is used in the following calculation inthis work.

61

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Figure 4.18: Ratio from vector density and scalar density of proton and neutron of 58 Ni calculated by the RMF calculation code using L-HS.

103

ScaledScalar Density(0.96+-0.01)
Original RMF

1

0.5
10

0

10-1
-0.5

θc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure 4.19: RIA calculations with different scalar density distributions of 58 Ni. Hatched area
are deduced scalar density distributions. Dashed lines are original RIA calculations.

62

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

4.7

Effective interaction

In this section, we discuss the effective interaction to explain proton scattering data by the RIA
calculation. The RLF effective interaction is tuned using medium modification parameters via
proton-58 Ni elastic scattering at 295 MeV, since the RMS radius of neutron density distribution
for 58 Ni is reasonably assumed to be the same as that of proton. Sakaguchi et al. introduced
eight parameters, which consist of coefficients for coupling constants and masses of σ and ω in
Eq. (4.11) to explain the scattering. Since in the case of the eight parameters have too manydegrees of freedom for the fit, we have attempted to obtain a good fit by using four parameters.
By reduction the number of free parameters, we can reduce the ambiguities of neutron density
distributions of the tin isotopes caused by the ambiguities of the effective interaction. In thiswork the same modification parameters are used for both real and imaginary parts of thescattering amplitude (āj = aj , b̄j =bj ) to reduce the number of free parameters. Thus four freeparameters are searched.
These parameters were determined by fitting the experimental data so as to minimize thechi-square (χ2 ) value. χ2 is defined asχ2 ≡X[(xexp. − xtheo. )/∆xexp. ]2(4.32)

where xexp. , ∆xexp. and xtheo. are the experimental data, the error of the data, and the calculated result, respectively. Figure 4.20 shows the experimental data at 295 MeV and the fitting
result with the RIA calculation using the modified effective interaction with the unfolded proton and neutron densities of 58 Ni obtained using Eq. (4.29). Our calculations are in good
agreement with all the data of the cross sections, the analyzing powers, and the spin rotation
parameters for up to 3.5 fm−1 . The minimum chi-square χ2min for 58 Ni data using four freeparameters (χ2min = 801) has almost the same order (∼10% increase) as that in the previous
work using eight free parameters (χ 2min = 692).
A two-dimension mesh-search is performed to estimate uncertainties of these parameters.
Figure 4.21 shows a correlation between a σ and aω . In the case of aσ , aω correlation, theminimum of χ2 is searched bσ , bω with rest two parameters aσ , aω fixed at the mesh pointvalue. The circle point shows the best-fit parameter, and horizontal and vertical bars show theerror bars of aσ and aω , respectively. The correlation is valley like and very strong, and thecorrelations of the other five combinations of these parameters also show similar behaviors asshown in Fig. 4.22. The minimum points indicated by arrows in Fig. 4.22 is located at thecenter of each correlation valley. Thus the modification parameters are uniquely determined.
The uncertainties of the modification parameters from the statistics and the experimental
conditions are estimated as follows;χ2 ≤ χ2min + P.

(4.33)

Here, P (in this work P=4) denotes a number of fitting parameters [84]. Table 4.4 shows asummary of the fitting results. The hatched area in Fig. 4.21 shows the region that satis-

63

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Deduced density+ RIA

dσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

Deduced density+ RIA(medium effect)

Ay

RMF+RIAQ

θc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure 4.20: Experimental data of 58 Ni at 295 MeV. Dashed lines are the result of the original
RIA calculations using Relativistic mean field densities. Dotted lines are represent a similarcalculation as above but using a density distribution deduced from the electron scattering data.
Solid lines are a calculation with the modified effective interaction using deduced densities.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

64

Figure 4.21: Contour plot of χ2 correlation of aσ with aω for 58 Ni. The hatched area represents
the region obtained from Eq. (4.33). The open circle and bars represent the best-fit parameterand the errors shown in Table 4.4, respectively. The magnitude of χ 2 is arbitrary.

fies Eq. (4.33). Since each pair of parameters has a strong correlation, we cannot independently use the entire region defined by the errors in Table 4.4, which means that the usablearea defined by each pair of the parameter set is very narrow. The correlations between a j
and bj of each meson at the middle panels in Fig. 4.22 are stronger than other correlations.
And the reduction ratio of the coupling constant a ∗j at normal density ρ0 has almost same
one of the mass bj . They mean that gσ∗ /gσ = 0.87 ± 0.02, m∗σ /mσ , = 0.88 ± 0.05,gω∗ /gω = 0.69 ± 0.02, m∗ω /mω = 0.70 ± 0.03 at normal density. The result implies thatdensity dependences of real and imaginary parts may have a common origin.

65

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

Table 4.4: Medium-effect parameters at 295 MeV. The error estimation is discussed in thissection
j
aj
bj
a∗j

σ
0.33 ± 0.06
-0.12 ± 0.05
-0.13 ± 0.02

ω
1.08 ± 0.12
-0.30 ± 0.03
-0.31 ± 0.02

Figure 4.22: Contour plot of χ2 correlation for all combination of 58 Ni. The upper-left figure is
the same as Fig. 4.21.

66

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

4.8

Coupled channel effect at the intermediate energy

In this section, we discuss whether in the high-momentum-transfer region, the multistep process may affect the angular distribution of elastic scattering or not [60]. If the contributions
were dominant to experimental observables, its contributions should be explicitly treated foreach nucleus. To estimate the effect of multistep processes, a coupled-channel calculation is
performed by using the coupled-channel code ECIS95 written by Raynal [85]. As the coupledstate, the first excitation 2+ is considered. Table 4.5 shows a summary of the transition probabilities B(E2) and deformation parameters β 2 for the first 2+ discrete level of 58 Ni and tin
isotopes 116−124 Sn, where β2 are calculated using existing B(E2) values as follows [86] ;
β2 =

4π q
B(E2)/e2 ,3ZR02

R0 = 1.20 A1/3 fm.

(4.34)

Table 4.5: Summary of the transition probabilities B(E2) and deformation parameters β 2 ofthe first 2+ discrete level.
Nuclei E(2+ ) (MeV) B(E2) (e2 b2 ) [86] β2
58 Ni
1.454
0.0695(20)0.180
116 Sn1.293
0.209(12)0.1118118 Sn1.229
0.209(12)0.1106120 Sn1.171
0.2020(40)0.1075
122 Sn1.140
0.1920(40)0.1036124 Sn1.131
0.1660(40)0.0953Figure 4.23 shows the calculated cross sections and analyzing powers for 58 Ni with andwithout the coupled-channel. As for the optical potential for the calculation, the Dirac based
global potential [53, 54] is used. The contribution from the coupled-channel for 58 Ni in the
momentum transfer range from 0.7 fm −1 to 3.5 fm−1 is relatively small (1-2%) as shown in
Fig. 4.23, whose values are less than the experimental errors.
In the case of the tin isotopes, the situation is similar to the case of 58 Ni. Figure 4.24 shows
the same calculation as Fig. 4.23, but for the 116,118,120,122,124 Sn. The coupled-channel hardly
affects the cross sections and the analyzing powers. A slight difference appears at the highmomentum transfer region (> 3 fm−1 ). The differences are very small as in the case of 58 Ni.
In addition the coupled-channel effect might be partly included in our medium modification
parameterization because the effect includes on momentum dependence, and its dependence isinvolved by the phenomenological search to explain the experimental data. Therefore the effectof the coupled-channel at this energy is negligible at these momentum transfer regions, and was
not included explicitly in our analysis.

67

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS++

0 +2 CouplingAydσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

Non-couplingθc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure 4.23: Coupling effect of 58 Ni at 295MeV. Solid line show coupled channel calculation
between ground state and first 2+ state. Dashed Line is not included of coupled channel. Lower
panels show that ratios of cross sections and analyzing powers with to without performing thecoupled-channel calculation.

68

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS++

Sn(x10 )4

118

Sn(x10 )120

Sn(x10 )122

Sn(x10 )124

Sn(x10 )Ay(118Sn)

116-2

Ay(122Sn)0

Ay(120Sn)2-4

Ay(124Sn)dσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

non-coupledAy(116Sn)

0 +2 coupledθc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure 4.24: Same as Fig4.23, but for the of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn at 295MeV.

69

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

4.9

Neutron density distributions of tin isotopes

In this section, we attempt to deduce neutron density distributions of tin isotopes by using
the modified effective interaction. Scalar nucleon density distributions ρ S of tin isotopes are
estimated to be the vector nucleon density distributions ρ V multiplied by 0.96 as in the caseof 58 Ni, because the ratio of scalar to vector densities of heavier nuclei has a similar behavior
in medium and heavy nuclei as shown in Fig. 4.16. Figure 4.25, 4.26 show radial dependencesof the scalar to vector density ratios for 116,124 Sn calculated by the relativistic Hartree code
TIMORA. These RMF results are approximated by the constant value of 0.96. The point protondensity distributions of tin isotopes are estimated from Eq. (4.20) with an initial neutron density
distributions ρn = (N/Z)ρp of Eq. (4.17) in the same way as 58 Ni.
The initial neutron density distribution was then calculated from the equationFFρn (r) ≡ ρp (r) + (ρRM(r) − ρRM(r))
np

(4.35)

F
where ρRMn [p] (r) denotes the RMF neutron [proton] density distributions using L-HS parameterization [56]. The SOG type density distribution is used as the fitting function of the point
neutron density using Eq. (4.15);

ρn (r) =N
2π 3/2 γ 3
h

12
X

Ni
1 + 2Ri2 /γ 2
i=1
2

2

2

× e−(r−Ri ) /γ + e−(r+Ri ) /γ

2

i

.

(4.36)

However the normalization condition of Eq. (4.16) is rewritten as;Zρn (r)dr = N,⇒Z

Ni = 1.

(4.37)

Here, the parameters such as γ and Ri are fixed with the results of the charge distribution [7].
Figure 4.27 shows experimental data together with the results of the search and calculations
using initial neutron density distributions.
The corresponding parameters Ni of the neutron density distributions are freely adjusted
to reproduce our experimental data with a range of momentum transfer from 0.7 fm −1 to 3.5
fm−1 using the Monte-Carlo technique. Proton and neutron density distributions are iterated
until self-consistency is achieved with Eq. (4.20). In the iteration, we have achieved less than
0.1% accuracy for the envelops of neutron density distribution. This process has been repeated
two or three times. The process for the iteration hardly affects point proton densities, because
charge distributions are mainly sensitive to point proton density distributions. Finally, thepoint proton and neutron density distributions which satisfy both the proton scattering andthe electron scattering which corresponds to Eq. (4.20) are deduced.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

70

Figure 4.25: The ratio scalar to vector densities of 116 Sn. The dashed and dotted lines show
proton and neutron, respectively. Solid line shows our assumed value 0.96 as the trial ratio.

Figure 4.26: The same as in Fig. 4.25, but for 124 Sn.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

71

As for the medium modification parameters, the same parameters which were defined in theprevious section by the proton-58 Ni data were used . The very forward angle data (θ c.m. < 8◦ )are not included in the fitting minimization procedure due to experimental difficulties for determining absolute cross section values. Figure shows our experimental data and for tin isotopes
and two calculations using the same effective interaction and two different neutron density
distributions. The dashed lines are calculations with the modified effective interaction using
trial density distributions. The solid lines are best-fit calculations with the modified effective
interaction.
The calculations using the initial neutron density and the medium modified effective interaction almost reproduce absolute values of cross sections and amplitude of polarization observables. But both cross sections and analyzing powers are shifted inward in angle because
the RMF neutron density distribution has a tendency to have a larger neutron radius. While,
we have able to deduce neutron density distributions for all the five tin isotopes up to highmomentum transfer 3.5 fm−1 corresponding to θc.m. ∼ 50◦ . These results indicate that our
deduced RMS radii of neutron density distribution are smaller than the RMS radii of trial
density distributions.

72

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

116

Sn(x10 )4

118

Sn(x10 )120

Sn(x1)

122

Sn(x10 )124

Sn(x10 )-2

Ay(122Sn)

Ay(120Sn)2-4

Ay(124Sn)dσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

Search density+ medium effectAy(118Sn)+ medium effectAy(116Sn)

Trial density

θc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure 4.27: Differential cross sections and analyzing powers for proton elastic scattering fromtin isotopes. The experimental data are some in Fig. 3.14. The dashed lines are calculations
with the modified effective interaction using trial density distributions. While the solid lines
are best-fit calculations with the modified effective interaction.

73

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

4.10

Uncertainties of neutron density distributions

In this section, uncertainties of the neutron density distributions of the tin isotopes are estimated. There are generally two types of uncertainties. One originates from the experiment,
and the other originates from the model of calculation. In our case, the reduced chi-squareχ2 /ν is larger than 1, and is typically 7 for 116,118,122,124 Sn. In the case of 120 Sn, not only
the cross sections and analyzing powers but also the spin rotation parameters [37] are used as
experimental data in the analysis. Thus, the errors for 120 Sn resulting from the experimental
conditions, degrees of freedom ν and χ 2 /ν are different from those for other isotopes. χ 2 /ν isabout 10 for 120 Sn. If the model was perfect, it would realize χ 2 /ν=1. Thus, the reason that
χ2 /ν >1 is attributed to the inadequacy of our model. To compensate for this inadequacy ofthe model, we increased the errors artificially by multiplying all the experimental errors by aconstant factor to realize χ2 /ν=1. This means that we must redefine Eq. (4.33) as follows;χ2 ≤ χ2min + P × χ2min /ν.

(4.38)The uncertainties of the neutron density distributions are estimated by the following procedure.
In the estimations, we additionally took account the ambiguity of the medium effect parameter
errors of the effective interaction. First, a new medium-effect parameter set using 58 Ni data is
obtained by the Monte Carlo method. The parameter sets that satisfy Eq. (4.33) are adopted
as “good” medium-effect parameter sets.
Second, the uncertainties of neutron density distributions are estimated using each set of“good” medium-effect parameters. The neutron density distributions are calculated by theMonte Carlo method under the normalization condition of Eq. (4.37). The experimental data
are compared with the result of the calculation using each “good” set of medium-effect parameters and the trial neutron density distributions. All trial neutron density distributions thatsatisfy Eq. (4.38) are adopted as “good” neutron density distributions.
This procedure is repeated until the uncertainty of each “good” neutron density distribution
converged. The uncertainties of the neutron density distributions in this analysis are definedas the outskirts of the density distributions at each radial point. The uncertainties of the RMS
radii of the neutron density distributions were also calculated using all the neutron density
distributions which satisfy Eq. (4.37). The results of deduced point proton and neutron density
distributions of tin isotope are shown in Fig. 4.28. The details of the figure are discussed in thenext chapter.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS

74

Figure 4.28: Point nucleon density distributions for tin isotopes. Solid lines show point protondensity distributions. Dashed lines show best-fit neutron density distributions. Hatched areas
represent the error envelopes encompassing all the trial SOG neutron density distributions
deduced by the modified effective interaction. Not only statistical and experimental errors but
also systematic errors from the model dependence contribute to these regions.

Chapter 5

Results and discussion
5.1

Deduced nucleon density distributions and RMS radii oftin isotopes

Figure 4.28 shows results of the deduced point proton and neutron density distributions of tin
isotopes. Solid and dashed lines show point proton and best-fit neutron density distributions,
respectively. These densities reproduce charge distributions of Eq. (4.22). Hatched areas are
uncertainties of tin isotopes in this analysis, whose area satisfies Eq. (4.38). These uncertainties
are calculated by fixing the point proton densities. Each shape of neutron density distribution
between tin isotopes is similar. The χ 2 /ν for only 120 Sn is worse than other isotopes. Thus theuncertainty is larger than other isotopes.
Figure 5.1 shows the typical uncertainty of neutron density distribution for 116 Sn. This figureis the same as in the upper-left panel of Fig. 4.28. The uncertainties in the middle panel ofFig. 5.1 are 0.5% at from 3 fm to 6 fm corresponding to shoulder region where number ofnucleus per unit radius is maximum, 20% at 0 fm corresponding to nuclear center, and 5% at
8 fm corresponding to tail region of 1-2% of saturation density of neutron, respectively. The
results indicate that the nuclear surface is the region most accurately probed by analysis ofproton-nucleus elastic scattering at the energy, and this region corresponds to the mean freepath in a nucleus of intermediate-energy proton. The lower panel of Fig. 5.1 shows the radial
dependence of number of neutron per unit radius 4πr 2 ρ(r) and its uncertainly. This uncertaintyof 4πr 2 ρ(r) is very small, which corresponds to 0.2 neutrons per fm. The result shows that thesensitivity for the probability of nucleons covers with the whole region of nuclear density.

75CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

76

Figure 5.1: The uncertainty in the deduced neutron density distribution for 116 Sn as a functionof radial position. Upper figure is the same as in Fig. 4.28. Lower figure shows the ratio ofuncertainties to absolute value of neutron densities

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

77

Figure 5.2 shows our results for point proton and neutron RMS radii and theoretical calculations. Solid lines show RMF calculations with NL3 parameterization. Dashed and dottedlines show SHF calculations with the well-used SIII and SkM ∗ parameterizations. All threecalculations include the BCS paring forces. Though the differences from the deduced shapesof neutron density distributions between tin isotopes are not clear due to uncertainties in thisanalysis as shown in Fig. 4.28, the deduced RMS radii of point proton and neutron density
distributions clearly increase with a mass number as shown in Fig. 5.2. This dependence is also
shown by several typical theoretical calculations, and these slopes are consistent with present
experimental results. Among the calculations, the SHF calculation with SkM ∗ parameterization
is in good agreement with the both RMS radii of point proton and neutron density distributions.

Figure 5.2: Point proton and neutron root mean squared radius of tin isotopes. The solid,
dotted, and dashed Line are theoretical calculations with typical mean field model: RMF with
NL3 parameterization [79], Skyrme Hartree Fock(SHF) with SkM* parameterization [77, 71]
and SHF with SIII parameterization [76], respectively. All calculation are included the BCS
pairing effects.

78

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 5.1: Reduced RMS radii and thicknesses of tin isotopes.
Target116 Sn118 Sn120 Sn122 Sn124 Sn

5.2

D

rp2

E1/2

rn2

4.562 ± 0.003
4.575 ± 0.003
4.589 ± 0.003
4.602 ± 0.003
4.615 ± 0.003

1/2

(fm)

∆rnp (fm)4.672 ± 0.018
4.720 ± 0.016
4.736 ± 0.033
4.748 ± 0.016
4.800 ± 0.017

0.110 ± 0.018
0.145 ± 0.016
0.147 ± 0.033
0.146 ± 0.016
0.185 ± 0.017(fm)

Neutron skin thicknesses of tin isotopes

Neutron skin thicknesses of tin isotopes ∆r np have been measured in several experiments. Twotypes of experiments have been performed for the ∆r np of tin isotopes. One is a nucleon-sensitive
probe; proton elastic scattering [31] and antiprotonic X-ray measurements [18]. Another one
is an isospin sensitive probe; giant dipole [87] or spin dipole resonances measurements [88].
Figure 5.3 shows a summary of existing experimental results ∆r np including our data andtheoretical calculations based on the RMF and the SHF. Our results are also summarized inTable 5.1. Proton scattering is a straightforward way to determine the neutron skin thickness∆rnp by subtracting the well-known point proton RMS radius from the neutron one. Both of the∆rnp for 116,124 Sn using 800 MeV proton elastic scattering are slightly larger than our results.
However the point proton RMS used in radii of their analysis are smaller than our analysis
which is tuned with the electron scattering experiment. Because the charge distribution data
used in this work [62] had published latter after Ref. [31]. We think that the proton elastic
scattering is mainly sensitive to the matter density not the neutron. The matter RMS radii
2 1/2 of tin isotopes are compared in Table 5.2. The r 2 1/2 is calculated using the valuesrmmin Table 5.1 and Ref. [31] by the following equation as;
q

2 i ≡
hrm

s

Z D 2E N 2
hr i,
r +
A p
A n

(5.1)

where, Z, N, and A show a number of proton, neutron, and nucleon, respectively. The experi2 1/2 for 116,124 Sn aremental data of the 800 MeV by Ray [31] and our 300 MeV results of rm
consistent regardless of their different analysis as shown in Fig. 5.2. The antiprotonic X-ray
measurement provides information on the peripheral shape of nucleon density. In this method,a functional shape of density was assumed like 2pF, due to a few observed values related nuclear structure, and the uncertainty of antiproton-nucleus potential remains. In the other ways
to derive ∆rnp , some isovector dipole resonance measurements are suggested and applied, like
Giant- (IVGDR) [87], Spin-(IVSDR) [88], and Pygmy-(IVPDR) [89]. However these methods
are model-dependent. And it is not easy to estimate the uncertainty of the model-dependence.
Therefore the systematic errors of ∆r np of tin isotopes can be larger.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

79

Table 5.2: Reduced matter RMS radius of tin isotope.
Target This work∗1 (fm)
Ray [31]∗2 (fm)
116 Sn4.625 ±0.010
4.630±0.029
118 Sn4.659 ±0.009—
120 Sn4.675 ±0.020—
122 Sn4.689 ±0.010—
124 Sn4.725 ±0.010
4.751±0.030∗1 295 MeV (p,p) with RIA.
∗2 800 MeV (p,p) with 2nd-order KMT.
Here, the uncertainties of proton RMS radii
are assumed to 0.005 fm.

Figure 5.3: Neutron skin thicknesses of tin isotopes obtained in various method. Our results
are indicated by solid squares. Results from proton elastic scattering at 800MeV [31], giant
dipole resonances [87], spin dipole resonances [88] and antiprotonic X-ray data [18] are open
triangles, open diamonds, open crosses, open squares, respectively. The lines as describe in
Fig. 5.2.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION80

In Fig. 5.3, our results which indicated by solid squares are more precise than other results,
and are consistent with them within the errors. We notice the gradual increase of the ∆r np
with mass number. But the values of our result are not so large as the predicted ones by the
RMF model. It is because the RMF model predicts the smaller proton RMS radii and thelarger neutron RMS radii as shown in Fig 5.2. On the contrary, our experimental values areslightly larger than the dashed lines of the SHF calculations using SIII parameterization. They
are in agreement with dotted lines of SkM ∗ as shown in Fig 5.2.
The neutron skin thickness ∆rnp is theoretically related to one of the EOS properties; thesymmetry energy asym at the saturation density ρ0 [42, 43, 44, 41]. The EOS properties oftypical mean field calculations used in this work are summarized in Appendix C. If a linear
relation which they suggested between the ∆r np of tin isotopes and the asym is assumed in
the stable region, the value of asym can be deduced. Chen et al. also showed the correlation
between the ∆rnp of various nuclei and the density dependence of the symmetry energy L, whose
correlation is stronger than the one between the ∆r np and the asym [41] as shown in Fig. 5.4.
They calculated neutron skin thicknesses S of 208 Pb, 132,124 Sn, and 48 Ca using twenty-one setsof SHF parameters. They showed the existence of the strong correlation between the S and the
L and of the weaker but significant correlation between the S and the E sym which is written as
asym in this thesis for heavier nuclei 208 Pb, 132,124 Sn. The three parameterizations (SIII, SkM ∗ ,and NL3) are used as theoretical calculations, which guide the ∆r np to the asym and the L.
By the theoretical calculations, we have extracted the a sym and the L for each tin isotope by
assuming the linear relation.

Figure 5.4: Neutron skin thickness S of 48 Ca, 124,132 Sn as a function of symmetry energy
coefficient Esym (asym ) at the saturation density (c) and its first- and second-derivative density
dependence L (a) and Ksym (b), respectively [41].

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

81

Figure 5.5: Symmetry energy coefficient a sym at the saturation density and its density dependence L near the ρ0 as function as the skin thickness of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn. Left and right panels
show the correlation between the asym and the L and the ∆rnp of tin isotopes, respectively. Alllines represent a quadratic fit.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

82

Figure 5.6: The results of the symmetry energy coefficient a sym and its density dependence L
for tin isotopes.

Figure 5.5 shows the asym and the L as function as the neutron skin thickness for 116,118,120,122,124 Sn
in the left and the right panels of this figure, respectively. All panels in Fig. 5.5 represent thatthe asym and the L are strong correlations with the thickness of neutron skin. In order todeduce the asym and the L from Fig. 5.5, we have fitted by a quadratic function using the threetheoretical calculations. Figure 5.6 shows results of the a sym and the L for 116,118,120,122,124 Sn
whose values are interpolated using the quadratic function. The mean values of the a sym andthe L are deduced using the relation in Fig. 5.5 as follows;
asym = 30.0 +0.5
−0.4 ± 2.0sys. (MeV)

L = 47.9 +7.2
−7.9 ± 15.0sys. (MeV),

where, the last values are systematic errors of this procedure. Yoshida et al. [42] and Chenet al. [41] claimed a fluctuation about 2 MeV against to the linear relations between the a sym
and the ∆rnp . The fluctuation is also shown in the case of the L, and its value is estimatedfrom result of fitting for 124 Sn by Chen et al. [41]. The value is about 15 MeV. Thus thesystematic error of determination using this procedure for the a sym and the L are estimatedabout ± 2 MeV and ± 15 MeV, respectively.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.3

83

Nuclear surface diffuseness of tin isotopes

An increase of neutron skin thickness with mass number is observed in tin isotopes. Next thesurface diffuseness is also investigated about a dependence with mass number in this section.
The determination of nuclear surface diffuseness is generally difficult, because there is a small
oscillating behavior from specific shell structures, although a nucleon density at an inner medium
has almost a uniform density. We now define the nuclear surface diffuseness from a nuclear
surface shape of densities by differentiating the density distribution. A way of deducing the
diffuseness is described in detail in Appendix D. The errors of the obtained values of neutron
densities are estimated only from the error envelop of density distribution in Fig. 4.28. But
the errors of the proton and the charge diffuseness are not estimated due to a lack of the error
band information, however these errors from the surface structures might be small.
Figure 5.7 shows the surface diffuseness of tin isotopes. The filled triangles, inverted triangles,
and circles show the deduced surface diffuseness of charge, proton, and neutron, respectively.
Open squares and triangles shows values of diffuseness using existing 3pG and SOG charge
distributions [7] to discuss a systematic behavior of the isotopes. The diffuseness of point
proton distribution is shown in the case of 3pG and SOG charge distribution. The diffusenessof neutron is also shown as a function of mass number in Fig. 5.7. In tin isotopes, the slope ofneutron is larger than that of proton. The diffuseness of charge and proton slightly decrease,but the diffuseness of neutron distinctly increase. These difference between proton and neutron
distribution might be qualitatively reflected from a sign of dependence of one nucleon separationenergy with mass number.
On the other hand, theoretical calculations of the SHF with SkM ∗ parameterizations are also
shown in Fig 5.7. Solid and dashed lines show the surface diffuseness of proton and neutron.
These values are almost constant for both proton and neutron. The results imply that thenuclear diffuseness is not described from only the separation energy of nucleon, and the reason
remains an open question. The calculations using other parameterizations (SIII and L-HS)
also show a similar behavior, but the values are smaller than the case of SkM ∗ . Thus thepoint proton and neutron density distributions using SIII or L-HS parameterizations have stiff
surfaces than experimental results.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

84

Figure 5.7: The surface diffuseness of tin isotopes. Filled circles and triangle are surface diffuseness of proton and neutron density. Squared, and triangles are surface diffuseness of 3pG,
SOG charge distributions, respectively. Here, open symbols show values using existing charge
distribution data [7], and filled symbols show deduced values in this work. Solid and dashedlines show the theoretical calculations for the diffuseness for proton and neutron, respectively.

Chapter 6

Conclusion
Differential cross sections and analyzing powers of the proton elastic scattering at 295 MeV were
measured for the 116,118,120,122,124 Sn targets up to 3.5 fm−1 momentum transfer at WS beamcourse of the RCNP ring cyclotron. The experimental data were analyzed in the framework of
the RIA using the newly tuned RLF interaction obtained for 58 Ni.
With the tuned interaction in the nuclear medium, the neutron density distributions of thetin isotopes are deduced so as to reproduce the proton elastic scattering data of the tin isotopes.
The point proton distribution were unfolded using charge distribution and nucleon electric form
factors which reproduce the existing experimental data in the large momentum transfer region.
The uncertainties of neutron density distributions are estimated in consideration with not only
experimental but also model uncertainty which were not explicitly included previously. It isfound that the dominant component of uncertainties for the neutron density distributions is
the applied effective interaction, not the ambiguity of scalar density nor the multistep process.
The RMS radii of point proton and neutron density distributions are deduced from the point
proton unfolded from the charge distribution and neutron density distributions obtained in thisanalysis, and compared with several theoretical mean field calculations. The clear increase of
RMS radii for point proton and neutron density distributions with mass number is observed.
The neutron skin thicknesses and the surface diffuseness of the tin isotopes are deduced, andare compared with several theoretical calculations. The increase of the deduced skin thicknesses
with mass number is also observed. The SHF calculation using SkM ∗ parameterization is ingood agreement with our results, the RMS radius of proton and neutron and the neutron skin
thickness. The symmetry energy of the EOS, a sym , is deduced from the value of the ∆rnp using
theoretical calculations used typical parameter sets (SIII, SkM ∗ , and NL3). The obtained valueof asym is 30.0 +0.5
−0.4 ± 2.0sys MeV, and the density dependence of the a sym is also discussed.
The obtained value of L is about 47.9 +7.2
−7.9 ± 15.0sys. MeV.

85

Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Harutaka Sakaguchi, whois my supervisor. He has guided me through long periods since the beginning of my research
career and given me good opportunities to study elastic scattering but also many experimental
nuclear physics. I have learned from him not only the knowledge of nuclear physics but also
attitudes to solve scientific problems. And his careful proofreading of the present thesis was
gratefully helpful.
I have spent my graduate school days as a member of the “Experimental Nuclear andHadronic Physics (NH)” group in Kyoto University. I would like to thank acknowledge Prof.
Ken’ichi Imai for his guidance and encouragement. He is one of who guide me to the physics
world. I would like to thank acknowledge Prof. Masaru Yosoi. He has advised me about theexperiments and analysis. I have learned from him skillful experiment and analysis technique.
I would like to thank acknowledge Prof. Tetsuya Murakami for his advise of work and physics.
I have learned from his rich knowledge. I wish to acknowledge the help and encouragement by
Prof. Masanobu Nakamura, Prof. Naohito Saito, Prof. Haruhiko Funahashi for their guidance.
I would like to appreciate helpful discussions with Mr. Juzo Zenihiro. His analysis and discussion affect me very much give some hint for physics. I would like to thank members of NH
group in the same grade, Dr. Yoshinori Fukao, Mr. Terunao Nakura, Dr. Hiromi Okada, Dr.
Shinsuke Ota, Dr. Koji Miwa, Dr. Manabu Togawa for friendships and encouragements. Talk
and discussion with them make my graduate school days fruitful and enjoyable
I express my special thanks to all the collaborators of the RCNP-E147 experiment Prof. H. Sakaguchi, Prof. T. Murakami, Prof. M. Yosoi, Dr. H. Takeda, Dr. M. Itoh, Dr. T. Kawabata,Dr. T. Ishikawa, Dr. M. Uchida, Dr. Y. Yasuda, Prof. T. Noro, Dr. H. P. Yoshida, Dr. S. Ishida,
Mr. S. Asaji, and Mr. Yonemura. I wish to thank again Hidetomo P. Yoshida. He is the specialist of the Grand Raiden trigger system, worked for circuit arrangement of our target system.
I spent many times during graduate student at RCNP. I wish to thank Prof. H. Akimune, Dr.
K. Nakanishi, Dr. K. Kawase. They work together in some experiments at RCNP. We would
like to thank Prof. Hatanaka, Dr. Minomiya, and operating crew of RCNP for their support,
for providing clear, stable, and high intensity beam during the experiment and also for beamtime managements. This analysis are mainly performed RCNP main server.

86

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

87

I have spent invaluable years in RIKEN Nishina Center. I would like to thank acknowledge
Prof. H. Sakurai, who is my adviser for researches at RIKEN. He has encouraged me to complete
the doctoral work. I would like to thank acknowledge Prof. T. Motobayashi, Prof. T. Suda
They have given many supports. I also wish to thanks to all the member of the Radio-Isotope
Physics Laboratory, and the Heavy-Ion Physics Laboratory at RIKEN Nishina Center. Someamong them now collaborates with me for the coming experiment at RIBF.
I would like to express my appreciation to my family at my home town, my sister, brother,
grandmother and my parents; Kiyoshi and Emiko. They have supported and encouraged me.
Finally, I would like to express my special thanks to my wife Sayaka for her cheering and respect
on my work on physics and life.

Appendix A

Digital data
The experimental results of differential cross sections and analyzing powers up to high momentum transfer region 3.5−1 in the 295 MeV proton elastic scattering of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn aresummarized in some tabular form.

88

89

APPENDIX A. DIGITAL DATA

Table A.1: Cross sections and analyzing powers of 116 Sn
θcm(degree)
7.08
8.09
9.10
10.11
11.63
13.14
14.66
16.18
17.69
19.21
20.72
22.24
23.75
25.27
26.79
28.30
29.82
31.33
32.84
34.35
35.87
37.38
38.89
40.41
41.92
43.43
44.94
46.45
47.96
49.48
50.99

dσ/dΩ
(mb/sr)(2.661 ± 0.084)× 103(9.259 ± 0.028)× 103(2.083 ± 0.064)× 102(4.576 ± 0.150)× 101(1.558 ± 0.049)× 102(1.904 ± 0.058)× 102(1.103 ± 0.034)× 102(3.470 ± 0.115)× 101(6.265 ± 0.237)× 100(7.546 ± 0.267)× 100(1.209 ± 0.040)× 101(1.018 ± 0.034)× 101(5.149 ± 0.018)× 100(1.640 ± 0.063)× 100(6.970 ± 0.256)× 100(1.008 ± 0.034)× 100(1.137 ± 0.037)× 100(7.729 ± 0.258)× 10−1
(3.328 ± 0.110)× 10−1
(9.371 ± 0.334)× 10−2
(7.167 ± 0.267)× 10−2
(1.082 ± 0.042)× 10−1
(1.014 ± 0.034)× 10−1
(5.619 ± 0.200)× 10−2
(1.754 ± 0.061)× 10−2
(4.080 ± 0.175)× 10−3
(6.405 ± 0.317)× 10−3
(8.947 ± 0.393)× 10−3
(6.711 ± 0.266)× 10−3
(3.088 ± 0.167)× 10−3
(6.348 ± 0.383)× 10−4Ay0.379 ± 0.033
0.470 ± 0.033
0.533 ± 0.034
0.774 ± 0.038
0.831 ± 0.039
0.842 ± 0.039
0.838 ± 0.039
0.656 ± 0.036-0.400 ± 0.034
0.562 ± 0.035
0.962 ± 0.042
0.887 ± 0.040
0.542 ± 0.035-0.245 ± 0.033-0.412 ± 0.034
0.726 ± 0.037
0.851 ± 0.040
0.638 ± 0.036
0.160 ± 0.031-0.673 ± 0.037
0.122 ± 0.032
0.761 ± 0.039
0.736 ± 0.038
0.567 ± 0.036
0.102 ± 0.032-0.610 ± 0.038
0.677 ± 0.041
0.825 ± 0.041
0.783 ± 0.040
0.625 ± 0.042
0.115 ± 0.041

90

APPENDIX A. DIGITAL DATA

Table A.2: Cross sections and analyzing powers of 118 Sn
θcm(degree)
7.08
8.09
9.10
10.11
11.63
13.14
14.66
16.18
17.69
19.21
20.72
22.24
23.75
25.27
26.79
28.30
29.82
31.33
32.84
34.36
35.87
37.38
38.90
40.41
41.92
43.44
44.95
46.46
47.97
49.48
50.99

dσ/dΩ
(mb/sr)(2.544 ± 0.080)× 103(1.030 ± 0.031)× 103(1.999 ± 0.062)× 102(4.601 ± 0.155)× 101(1.517 ± 0.049)× 102(1.909 ± 0.058)× 102(1.093 ± 0.034)× 102(3.321 ± 0.108)× 101(5.614 ± 0.222)× 100(8.074 ± 0.281)× 100(1.249 ± 0.041)× 101(9.868 ± 0.326)× 100(4.745 ± 0.168)× 100(1.454 ± 0.056)× 100(7.193 ± 0.263)× 10−1
(1.078 ± 0.034)× 100(1.190 ± 0.038)× 100(7.910 ± 0.254)× 10−1
(2.944 ± 0.097)× 10−1
(8.319 ± 0.306)× 10−2
(8.002 ± 0.284)× 10−2
(1.163 ± 0.042)× 10−1
(9.976 ± 0.345)× 10−2
(5.012 ± 0.183)× 10−2
(1.392 ± 0.051)× 10−2
(4.083 ± 0.183)× 10−3
(7.400 ± 0.432)× 10−3
(9.543 ± 0.429)× 10−3
(6.349 ± 0.265)× 10−3
(2.430 ± 0.147)× 10−3
(4.337 ± 0.313)× 10−4

Ay0.417 ± 0.033
0.494 ± 0.034
0.556 ± 0.034
0.818 ± 0.039
0.754 ± 0.038
0.846 ± 0.039
0.810 ± 0.038
0.617 ± 0.035-0.492 ± 0.035
0.655 ± 0.037
0.971 ± 0.042
0.874 ± 0.040
0.519 ± 0.034-0.400 ± 0.034-0.244 ± 0.032
0.725 ± 0.037
0.826 ± 0.039
0.573 ± 0.035
0.061 ± 0.031-0.777 ± 0.039
0.308 ± 0.033
0.770 ± 0.039
0.705 ± 0.038
0.498 ± 0.035-0.039 ± 0.032-0.427 ± 0.037
0.702 ± 0.043
0.862 ± 0.042
0.772 ± 0.040
0.553 ± 0.043-0.097 ± 0.047

91

APPENDIX A. DIGITAL DATA

Table A.3: Cross sections and analyzing powers of 120 Sn
θcm(degree)
10.11
11.63
13.14
14.66
16.17
17.69
19.20
20.72
22.24
23.75
25.27
26.78
28.30
29.81
31.32
32.84
34.35
35.87
37.38
38.89
40.41
41.92
43.43
44.94
46.45
47.96
49.48

dσ/dΩ
(mb/sr)(4.336 ± 0.190)× 101(1.474 ± 0.060)× 102(1.585 ± 0.055)× 102(8.291 ± 0.263)× 101(2.224 ± 0.079)× 101(4.308 ± 0.210)× 100(7.718 ± 0.323)× 100(1.074 ± 0.041)× 101(8.237 ± 0.329)× 100(3.969 ± 0.167)× 100(1.214 ± 0.075)× 100(7.631 ± 0.252)× 10−1
(1.158 ± 0.045)× 100(1.065 ± 0.039)× 100(6.186 ± 0.251)× 10−1
(2.087 ± 0.090)× 10−1
(7.199 ± 0.329)× 10−2
(9.703 ± 0.401)× 10−2
(1.185 ± 0.050)× 10−1
(8.402 ± 0.374)× 10−2
(3.418 ± 0.156)× 10−2
(8.632 ± 0.519)× 10−3
(4.877 ± 0.287)× 10−3
(9.283 ± 0.501)× 10−3
(9.537 ± 0.497)× 10−3
(5.487 ± 0.278)× 10−3
(1.780 ± 0.116)× 10−3Ay0.858 ± 0.042
0.786 ± 0.040
0.868 ± 0.040
0.825 ± 0.039
0.555 ± 0.035-0.494 ± 0.038
0.742 ± 0.039
0.990 ± 0.043
0.834 ± 0.041
0.400 ± 0.035-0.531 ± 0.043
0.040 ± 0.031
0.823 ± 0.040
0.822 ± 0.040
0.488 ± 0.036-0.186 ± 0.034-0.618 ± 0.039
0.599 ± 0.037
0.740 ± 0.039
0.678 ± 0.039
0.333 ± 0.036-0.406 ± 0.042
0.204 ± 0.041
0.829 ± 0.044
0.822 ± 0.043
0.706 ± 0.041
0.376 ± 0.043

92

APPENDIX A. DIGITAL DATA

Table A.4: Cross sections and analyzing powers of 122 Sn
θcm(degree)
11.62
13.14
14.65
16.17
17.69
19.20
20.72
22.23
23.75
25.26
26.78
28.29
29.80
31.32
32.83
34.35
35.86
37.37
38.88
40.40
41.91
43.42
44.93
46.45
47.96
49.47

dσ/dΩ
(mb/sr)(1.882 ± 0.061)× 102(1.937 ± 0.061)× 102(9.531 ± 0.292)× 101(2.408 ± 0.078)× 101(4.796 ± 0.188)× 100(9.685 ± 0.334)× 100(1.337 ± 0.044)× 101(1.022 ± 0.035)× 101(4.661 ± 0.166)× 100(1.258 ± 0.066)× 100(9.276 ± 0.358)× 10−1
(1.367 ± 0.048)× 100(1.236 ± 0.041)× 100(6.601 ± 0.233)× 10−1
(2.156 ± 0.081)× 10−1
(8.261 ± 0.338)× 10−2
(1.201 ± 0.042)× 10−1
(1.358 ± 0.054)× 10−1
(9.228 ± 0.345)× 10−2
(3.536 ± 0.135)× 10−2
(8.290 ± 0.391)× 10−3
(7.053 ± 0.297)× 10−3
(1.176 ± 0.048)× 10−2
(1.119 ± 0.045)× 10−2
(6.046 ± 0.242)× 10−3
(1.640 ± 0.083)× 10−3Ay0.749 ± 0.038
0.783 ± 0.038
0.792 ± 0.038
0.517 ± 0.034-0.480 ± 0.035
0.811 ± 0.039
1.007 ± 0.043
0.783 ± 0.039
0.361 ± 0.033-0.636 ± 0.041
0.175 ± 0.033
0.821 ± 0.039
0.756 ± 0.038
0.432 ± 0.034-0.294 ± 0.033-0.496 ± 0.036
0.652 ± 0.037
0.778 ± 0.040
0.640 ± 0.037
0.245 ± 0.033-0.563 ± 0.039
0.350 ± 0.035
0.804 ± 0.040
0.785 ± 0.040
0.662 ± 0.038
0.200 ± 0.037

93

APPENDIX A. DIGITAL DATA

Table A.5: Cross sections and analyzing powers of 124 Sn
θcm(degree)
10.11
11.62
13.14
14.65
16.17
17.68
19.20
20.71
22.23
23.74
25.26
26.77
28.29
29.80
31.31
32.83
34.34
35.85
37.37
38.88
40.39
41.90
43.41
44.93
46.44
47.95
49.46

dσ/dΩ
(mb/sr)(5.062 ± 0.175)× 101(1.593 ± 0.044)× 102(1.562 ± 0.042)× 102(7.456 ± 0.176)× 101(1.835 ± 0.052)× 101(4.413 ± 0.178)× 100(8.625 ± 0.281)× 100(1.120 ± 0.033)× 101(7.886 ± 0.258)× 100(3.579 ± 0.127)× 100(1.035 ± 0.038)× 100(9.141 ± 0.348)× 10−1
(1.326 ± 0.043)× 100(1.114 ± 0.028)× 100(5.710 ± 0.153)× 10−1
(1.785 ± 0.057)× 10−1
(8.373 ± 0.297)× 10−2
(1.241 ± 0.034)× 10−1
(1.324 ± 0.041)× 10−1
(8.313 ± 0.253)× 10−2
(2.830 ± 0.096)× 10−2
(6.959 ± 0.304)× 10−3
(8.072 ± 0.278)× 10−3
(1.244 ± 0.042)× 10−2
(1.076 ± 0.038)× 10−2
(5.148 ± 0.184)× 10−3
(1.227 ± 0.063)× 10−3Ay0.808 ± 0.041
0.773 ± 0.039
0.829 ± 0.040
0.836 ± 0.039
0.482 ± 0.035-0.347 ± 0.037
0.853 ± 0.041
0.986 ± 0.043
0.814 ± 0.040
0.322 ± 0.035-0.693 ± 0.038
0.312 ± 0.034
0.856 ± 0.040
0.755 ± 0.038
0.378 ± 0.033-0.408 ± 0.035-0.283 ± 0.035
0.692 ± 0.037
0.747 ± 0.039
0.573 ± 0.036
0.118 ± 0.034-0.681 ± 0.041
0.486 ± 0.036
0.782 ± 0.040
0.770 ± 0.040
0.583 ± 0.038
0.061 ± 0.044

Appendix B

Schrodinger Equivalent FormIn this appendix, the Schrodinger equivalent potential for the Dirac equation which contains
Lorentz potentials is shown. The Dirac equation for the projectile is written as;(−α · ∇ + U V (r, E) + β[M + U S (r, E)])ψ(r) = Eψ(r),(B.1)

where ψ is the incident projectile wave function, E is the total energy in center of mass coordinate system, and M is the mass of the proton α, β is Dirac matrix. This equation contains
local, spin-orbit, and non-local potentials, but the non-locality can be removed by rewriting theupper wave function as;
A1/2 (r, E)u(x),A(r, E) ≡ 1 +

U S (r, E) − U (r, E)
E+M

(B.2)

After same algebra, the equation for the new two-component function u(x) becomes(−∇2 + VC + VSO σ · L + VD )u(x) = (E 2 − M 2 )u(x),(B.3)

where, the energy-dependent optical potentials are written as;
VC (r, E) ≡ 2M U S + 2EU V + (U S )2 + (U V )2 ,1
B0
VSO (r, E) ≡ − + (U S )2 ,r
B
3 B 0 2 1 B 0 1 B 00
( ) −
−
,
VD (r, E) ≡
4 B
rB
2 B

(B.4)
(B.5)
(B.6)
(B.7)

where, B(r, E) ≡ (E +M )A(r, E). The prime ’ denotes a radial derivative, and the small tensor
and Coulomb potentials which are ignored. These potentials are similar to Schrodinger potentials, and are called a Schrodinger equivalent potential. These potentials using the relativistic
approach can be compared with with the non-relativistic potentials.

94

Appendix C

The SHF and RMF
parameterization and the EOS
propertyIn this thesis, we discuss some effective interactions and asymmetry energies. The Skyrme
force is a effective zero-range force with density-dependent and momentum-dependent terms.
Hamiltonian density for Skyrme Hartree-Fock calculation is shown as;
H(ρn , ρp ) =

h2
1
1
1
1
(τn + τp ) + t0 (1 − x0 )(ρ2n + ρ2p ) + t0 (1 + x0 )ρn ρp + t3 (1 + x3) ρα+2
2m
4
2
12
2
1
1
1
α 2
2
− t3 ( + x3 )]ρ (ρn + ρp ) + (t1 )(1 − x1 ) + 3t2 (1 + x2 ))(ρn τn + ρp τp )
12 2
8
1
1
1
3
+ (t1 (1 + ) + t2 (1 + ))(ρn τp + ρp τn ) − (t1 (1 − x1 )
4
2
2
32
1
1
2
2
−t2 (1 + x2 ))(ρn ∇ ρn + ρp ∇ ρp ) − (3t1 (1 + )
16
2
1
1−t2 (1 + x2 ))(ρn ∇2 ρp + ρp ∇2 ρn ) − W (ρ∇)(ρ∇ · J + ρn ∇ · Jn2211+ρp ∇ · Jp )q + HCoul − (t1 x1 + t2 x2 )J 2 + (t1 − t2 )(J 2n + J 2p ),
(C.1)
16
16

where ρn (ρp ) is the density of neutron (proton) and ρ = ρ n + ρp , while τn (τp ), and J n (J p )are the kinetic energy and the spin-orbit densities of neutron (proton), respectively.
On the other hand, the RMF model with nonlinear meson couplings is consist of nucleons,scalar σ, vector ω, charged ρ mesons, and photons. The relativistic Lagrangian is expressed as;
L = ψ̄(iγ µ ∂µ − M − gσ σ − gω γ µ ωµ − gρ γ µ τ bµ − eγ µ

1 − τ3
Aµ )ψ
2

1
1
1
1
+ (∂µ ∂ µ σ − m2σ σ 2 ) − g1 σ 3 − g2 σ 4 + m2ω ωµ ω µ
2
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
− Fµν F µν + m2σ bµ bµ − Gµν Gµν − Hµν H µν ,
4
2
4
4

(C.2)

where, Fµν = ∂µ ων − ∂ν ωµ , Gµν = ∂µ bν − ∂ν bµ , Hµν = ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ , and the σ, ωµ , bµ and Aµ95

APPENDIX C. THE SHF AND RMF PARAMETERIZATION AND THE EOS PROPERTY96

are the σ, ω, ρ mesons and the electromagnetic field, respectively. At the case of the RMF
model, M and mi (i = σ, ω, ρ) are real nucleon and meson masses, and are not free parameters. Thus, the number of free parameters in the RMF models is generally small than the SHF
models. These values of meson masses are slightly different from the recommended values ofParticle Data Group [34], however the differences do not affect processes to determined fromother parameters. The variable coupling constants g j are treated as free parameters for thefit. Table C.1 shows parameterizations for each typical interactions, and the properties of thenuclear EOS. The symmetry energy term a sym (ρ) is defined as the second derivative of the
Hamiltonian density H as;
∂2 H
1
(C.3)
asym (ρ) = lim 2 ( )2∂I ρwith respect to the asymmetry parameter I=(N-Z)/A. In this case, the symmetry energy coefficient asym and its density dependent L are expressed as;asym = asym (ρ∞ )∂L = 3ρ asym (ρ).
∂ρ

(C.4)
(C.5)

Thus in the SHF models, the asym is given by;1h̄ 3π 2 2/3 2/3 1() ρ − t0 (1 + 2x0 )ρ − t3 (1 + 2x3 )ρα+1
6m 2
8
48
1 3π 2 2/3) {3t1 x1 − t2 (4 + 5x2 )}ρ5/3 ,
− (
24 2

asym =(C.6)

while, in the RMF models it becomes;
asym =

M∗ 2
3π 2 A
2
2
3
[3(m
φ
+
g
φ
+
g
φ
)
−
(mσ + 2g1 φ + 3g2 φ2 )]12σ
16gσ kF3gσ+gρ2 kF3
5kF2
1
kF4
9M ∗ A++[−+],3π 2 m2ρ 24 B 3
B
B

(C.7)

where A and B are given by;
M ∗2
2kF5 M ∗ 2gσ kF
{
(B
−
)
9B 3
π2
B
3
1
+ ∗ (m2σ φ + g1 φ2 + g2 φ3 ) − (m2σ + 2g1 φ + 3g2 φ2 )}−1
M
gσ

A ≡ −

B ≡

q

kF2 + M ∗2 .

(C.8)
(C.9)

And in the SHF models, the density dependent coefficient L is simply expressed as;
L =h̄ 3π 2 2/3 2/3 3
1() ρ − t0 (1 + 2x0 )ρ − t3 (1 + 2x3 )(α + 1)ρα+1
3m 2
8
16
3π 2 2/3 5/35) ρ .
− {3t1 x1 − t2 (4 + 5x2 )}(24
2(C.10)

APPENDIX C. THE SHF AND RMF PARAMETERIZATION AND THE EOS PROPERTY97

Table C.1: Some parameter sets on non-relativistic and relativistic mean field model, and theEOS properties of their parameters sets.
Force
SIII
SkM*
L-HS
NL3
TMA
3
t0 (MeVfm ) -1128.75 -2645.00
938.9
938
938.9
M (MeV)t1 (MeVfm5 )
395.0
410.0
520.0
508.194519.151m σ (MeV)
783.0
782.501
781.950m ω (MeV)
t2 (MeVfm5 )-95.0-135.0t3 (MeVfm3 )14000.
15595.
770.0
763.000
768.100m ρ (MeV)
0.4
x0
0.45
0.09
10.4814 10.217
10.055+3.050/A
gσ
x1
0.00
0.00
13.8144 12.868
12.842+3.191/A 0.4
gω
x2
0.00
0.00
8,084884.474
3.800+4.644/A 0.4
gρ
0.4
x3
1.00
0.00
0.0
-10.431-0.328 -27.879/A
g2 (fm−1 )
0.4
σ
1
1/6
0.0
-28.885 38.862 -184.191/A
g3
50.4
W0 (MeVfm )
120.0
130.0
0.0
0.0
151.590-378.004/A
g4
E/A(MeV)-15.851-15.770-15.73-16.299-16.025–
ρ∞ (fm−3 )
0.145
0.160
0.148
0.148
0.147
–
K∞ (MeV)
355.4
216.6
544.4
271.76318.146–m∗∞ /m
0.76
0.79
0.56
0.60
0.635
–
as (MeV)
28.16
30.03
34.9
37.4
30.661–
L(MeV)
9.96
45.80—
118.83—–In the case of the RMF models, the L can analytically be calculated, but the expression is not
simple. Thus we do not express L in the RMF models here.
Figure C.1 displays a distribution of for 35 sets of Skyrme interaction parameters, i.e., SI-SIV,(∗)
Ska, Skb, SkM(∗) , E(σ) , Gσ , Rσ , Z(σ) , MSKa, MSk7, BSk1, SkT6, SkSC4, SkP, SkX, SLy, and
SkI1-5 and relativistic mean field models, NL1-3, NL-Z, NL-SH, TM1, TM2, and TMA. Hatchedareas show the restricted region in this work and in Ref. [38]. The only parameterizations which
are often used or are recently determined; SIII, SkM (∗) , SGII, SkP, SkX, SLy, NL3, and TMA,
indicated in Fig. C.1, where K∞ and the asym values of these parameter sets are taken from
Ref. [90] except TMA, and these values of TMA parameter set are taken from Ref. [91]. The
SkM(∗) parameterizations are in good agreement with both the K ∞ and the asym . The SkP and
SLy are also in better agreement with the both quantities. However the SGII parameterization
only reproduce the K∞ , and the SkX parameterization only reproduce the a sym . And thecorrelations between the asym and the density dependence coefficient L of the a sym are shown in
Fig. C.2. The tendency is similar behavior to the Fig. C.1, but SGII is also in good agreementwith both values.

APPENDIX C. THE SHF AND RMF PARAMETERIZATION AND THE EOS PROPERTY98

Figure C.1: The EOS property distribution using variable parameter sets. Hated areas show
the restricted region in this work. Its values are 215±6 MeV of the incompressibility K ∞ [38]and 30.0±0.5 (2.0) MeV of the symmetry energy a sym .

Figure C.2: The EOS property distribution using variable parameter sets. Same as Fig. C.1,
but vertical axis is the density dependence coefficient L. Its value is 47.9±7.0 (15.0) MeV.

Appendix D

Definition of nuclear surface
diffusenessIn general, nuclear surface diffuseness is defined as a length from 90% to 10% of a normal nuclear
density ρ0 . In the case of theoretical calculations or model-independent density functions as
Fourier-Bessel or sum-of-Gaussian, it is difficult to define the normal nuclear density without
a constraint using a functional shape. We attempt to define the nuclear surface diffusenessby differentiating density function. If we use a Wood-Saxon functional shape (two-parameter
Fermion; 2pF) of a nucleon density, a nuclear diffuseness t is unique determined as follows;t = 4 · ln 3 · a,(D.1)

where,
ρ(r) =

ρ0,
1 + exp((r − c)/a)where, the parameters c and t are the half-density radius and the surface diffuseness, respectively.
A differential function of density is expected to have a specific character in a surface regionof density. The differential function of 2pF is shown as follows;dρ0
dr 1 + exp((r − c)/a)ρ0= − (exp((r − c)/2a) + exp(−(r − c)/2a)) −2
a
ρ0
(D.2)
= − (2cosh((r − c)/2a))−2 .
aThen, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of this differential function is described as;√√
FWHM = 2a (ln( 2 + 1) − ln( 2 − 1))√= 4a ln( 2 + 1)√
= ln( 2 + 1)/ln3 × tdρ(r) =
dr∼ 0.8022 t.
99

(D.3)

APPENDIX D. DEFINITION OF NUCLEAR SURFACE DIFFUSENESS

100

We can see a clear relation between the width of differential function and the surface thicknesst.
Figure D.1 shows a result from charge distribution of 124 Sn. The parameter set of 2pF is
taken from Ref. [7]. The width region indicated by lower arrows almost corresponds to thesurface diffuseness one indicated upper arrows. Therefore, the width is expected to indicate thet, even when any functional shape as a density is used.
The different model-dependent density called a two-parameter Gaussian (2pG) is calculated
in a comparison with the 2pF function. This model-dependent density is usually not used,however it is more easy to define the normal density than 3pG which is usually used as amodel-dependent density. The 2pG density is expressed as;
ρ(r) =

ρ0,
1 + exp((r 2 − c2 )/a2 )(D.4)

and in this case, the surface diffuseness t is described as follows;t = r(ρ(r) = 0.1ρ0 ) − r(ρ(r) = 0.9ρ0 )=p

A derivative of 2pG is described as;

c2 + 2a2 ln 3 −pc2 − 2a2 ln 3.

dρ0
dr 1 + exp((r 2 − c2 )/a2 )2ρ0= − 2 r(exp((r 2 − c2 )/2a2 ) + exp(−(r 2 − c2 )/2a2 ))−2a2ρ0
= − 2 r(2cosh((r 2 − c2 )/2a2 ))−2 .
a

(D.5)

d
ρ(r) =
dr(D.6)

In the case of the 2pG, the width in FWHM of the differential function can not be expressed a
simple form differently the 2pF case. The value of the width for the derivative of the density
are numerically calculated as;
FWHM ∼ 0.7532 t.
(D.7)
This ratio is in disagreement with the result for 2pF about 5%. The result shows that it is moredifficult to define a normal density of the 2pG than the 2pF, because a flat region of the 2pG
density is very narrow compared with the 2pF case. In this work, we adopt the ratio of the 2pF
case (=0.8022) as the surface thickness. Figure D.2 shows a result from charge distribution of
124 Sn using the 2pG form. The parameter set of the 2pG density is taken whose density has thesame RMS radius and t as the 2pF case. The width region almost corresponds to the surface
diffuseness one.

APPENDIX D. DEFINITION OF NUCLEAR SURFACE DIFFUSENESS

101

Figure D.1: A two-parameter Fermion (2pF) charge distribution of 124 Sn, and the differential
shape of the distribution. Solid line is charge distribution by using 2pF function. Dashed line
is differential function of the 2pF function

Figure D.2: A two-parameter Gaussian (2pG) charge distribution of 124 Sn, and the differential
shape of the distribution. Two parameters of 2pG are used same RMS and the surface thicknessof Fig. D.1. Solid line is charge distribution by using 2pG function. Dashed line is differentialfunction of the 2pG functionAPPENDIX D. DEFINITION OF NUCLEAR SURFACE DIFFUSENESS

102

Figure D.3 shows derivatives of the charge distributions for 124 Sn. The three charge distributions are used; 2pF, 3pG, and SOG which are in the same as in Fig 4.1. The surface diffusenesst of the 2pF is expected to be smaller than other two distributions from the slope of form factor
distributions in Fig. 4.2, and the t of the 3pG is also expected to be slightly smaller than oneof the SOG.
The results of t using three densities are deduced using the widths of the derivatives asfollows;t = 2.34 ± 0.25 (fm) [2pF]= 2.57 ± 0.09 (fm) [3pG]= 2.67 (fm) [SOG],
where, these values are multiplied by 0.8022 −1 . The above three results are in good agreementwith the expectations from in Fig. 4.2.

Figure D.3: The differential shapes of various charge distributions. Charge distributions for
The solid, dashed, and dotted lines are the derivative
function of SOG, 3pG, and 2pF, respectively.
124 Sn are in the same as in Fig. 4.1.

Appendix E

Analytical form factors of a nucleon
and a nuclei
Here, I summarize the useful analytical expressions for the nucleon or nuclear charge form
factors which are used in this work or were often used. The density ρ(r) and the form factor
F (q) are correlated by the Fourier transform as follows;
F (q) ==

I

ρ(r)e−iqr drZ ∞0

ρ(r) ==

sin(qr)ρ(r)drqr
I
F (q)e+iqr dq

4πr 2

1
(2π)3
Z ∞
sin(qr)1
4πq 2
F (q)dq.
3(2π) 0
qr

(E.1)

(E.2)

For the nuclear charge density, a hard sphere like a realistic ball is given as follows;(ρ0 for r < R
0 otherwise,

(E.3)

4πρ0
[sin(qR) − qRcos(qR)].
q3

(E.4)

ρ(r) =
the form factor is expressed as;
F (q) =The symmetrized Fermi distribution;cosh(R/a),cosh(R/a) + cosh(r/a)(E.5)

4πρ0 a cosh(R/a) Rcos(qR) πdsin(qR)cosh(πqa)[−].
q sinh(R/a) sinh(πqa)
sinh2 (πqa)(E.6)

ρ(r) = ρ0leads to the following form factor;
F (q) = −103

APPENDIX E. ANALYTICAL FORM FACTORS OF A NUCLEON AND A NUCLEI

104

The Fermi distribution;
ρ(r) = ρ0 /[1 + e(r−R)/a ],(E.7)

with the central density ρ0 , the diffraction radius R, and the surface diffusenesses a gives agood description of the densities for medium-heavy nuclei. This form factor can be calculated
approximately as;
F (q) =πqa
4πρ0(πqa · coth(πqa)sin(qR) − qR · cos(πqa)).
3
q sinh(πqa)(E.8)

The form factor is a approximated equation not an analytic one, however the agreement of thisequation is very good.
For light nuclei, it is more appropriate to use the Gaussian density shown as;
1

ρ(r) =

π 3/2 a3p2e−(r/ap ) ,(E.9)

the form factor is;2

F (q) = e−(ap q/2) .

(E.10)

Above all, model-independent densities, so-called a sum-of-Gaussian and Fourier-Bessel are
expressed as follows;ρ(r) =

1
2π 3/2 γ 3

X2Qi
1 + 2Ri2 /γ 2222×(e−(r−Ri ) /γ + e−(r+Ri ) /γ ),XQi
F (q) =
1 + 2Ri2 /γ 2

(E.11)

2

×(cos(qRi ) + 2Ri /qγ 2 sin(qRi ))e−(γq/2) ,(E.12)

andsin(vπr/R)
vπr/R
X 2R2 av sin(vπ − qR)
sin(vπ + qR)
F (q) =(−).
qv
vπ − qRvπ + qR
ρ(r) =

X

av(E.13)(E.14)The nucleon electric and magnetic form factor except the neutron electric form factor iswell expressed using the famous form; so-called a dipole form factor, which corresponds to twopoles with opposite sign close to each other in the time-like region. The dipole form factor isexpressed as;
F (q) =

1.
(1 + q 2 /a2 )2(E.15)

APPENDIX E. ANALYTICAL FORM FACTORS OF A NUCLEON AND A NUCLEI105

The density so-called a Yukawa distribution corresponds to the dipole form factor as follows;ρ(r) =

a3 −are ,8π(E.16)

Then, to examine the higher momentum transfer region, the form factors a sum-of-monopole
form factor is introduced. This equation is described as;
F (q) =X

Qi,
1 + q 2 /m2i

(E.17)

a corresponding density is simply described as;
ρ(r) =1 X 2
mi Qi e−mi r .
4πr(E.18)On the other hand, the electric form factor of neutron is usually used so-called the Galster
parameterization as follows;
F (q) =

1q 2 /a2,
1 + q 2 /b2 (1 + q 2 /c2 )2(E.19)

the density can be analytically transformed as;
ρ(r) =b2
8π(1 − b2 /c2 )2 a2 r

×(cr(c2 − b2 )e−cr + 2b2 (e−cr − e−br )).

(E.20)

Appendix F

Uncertainties of the 58Ni neutron
density distribution
In this work, the neutron density distribution of 58 Ni is assumed as Eq. (4.29) by neglecting a microscopic structure of 58 Ni. According to the systematics obtained by solving the
Schroedinger equation for one-particle motion in a spherical potential [92], the last two neutron of 58 Ni might occupy 2p3/2 state as shown in Fig. F.1. Some theoretical calculations, forexample SHF(SkM∗ ), RMF(L-HS), and the experimental results [93] support this picture.

Figure F.1: Energies of neutron orbits in a spherical potential [92].

106APPENDIX F. UNCERTAINTIES OF THE 58 NI NEUTRON DENSITY DISTRIBUTION107

A different neutron density distribution can be calculated to compare the neutron densityfrom Eq. (4.29). The neutron density are described as;
ρn (r) = ρp (r) + (ρnSHF (r) − ρpSHF (r)),(F.1)

where ρn (p) is point neutron (proton) density distribution. The SHF calculation with BCS
force using the SkM∗ parametrization is used, because its neutron skin thickness ∆r np is verysmall as shown in Table 4.2, and it gives the almost same neutron RMS radius.
Figure F.3 shows the fitting result for 58 Ni and a comparison with results using different
neutron density distributions. The solid and dashed lines show the fitting results using Eq. (F.1)
and Eq. (4.21), respectively. Dashed lines are in the same as in Fig. 4.20. And the correlation
between same parameter sets as Fig 4.21 is shown in Fig. F.2. The open symbol and errors
show in the same one in Fig. 4.21. The best values from in Fig. F.2 are smaller than the values
from in Fig. 4.21, however the trend of this correlation is very similar as shown in Fig 4.21.
The modification ratios of coupling constants at normal density are also almost same as onesof masses using Eq. (F.1). However the best reduced chi-square χ min using neutron densities
of Eq. (F.1) is worse than the case of Eq. (4.29) about 10%. Therefore finally in this work, theneutron density distribution of Eq. (4.29) not Eq. (F.1) is adopted.

Figure F.2: Correlation between aσ and aω using the neutron densities described in Eq. (F.1).

APPENDIX F. UNCERTAINTIES OF THE 58 NI NEUTRON DENSITY DISTRIBUTION108

ρn=ρp+(ρnSHF-ρpSHF)

Aydσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

ρn=(N/Z)ρpθc.m. (degree)θc.m. (degree)

Figure F.3: Fitting results with two different densities. Solid, and dashed lines show thecalculation using Eq. (F.1), and Eq. (4.29), respectively.

Appendix G

Nucleon swelling and neutron skin
thickness
In our analysis, we assume that the properties of proton in the nuclei do not change, whichcorresponds to satisfy Eq. (4.21). Some time ago the European Muon Collaboration (EMC)
collaboration discovered that the structure function for iron F 2F e differs substantially from thecorresponding deuteron structure function F 2d [94], far beyond trivial Fermi motion corrections.
Since then many experiments dedicated to a study of nuclear effects in deep inelastic scattering
have been carried out at CERN, SLAC, and FNAL. Figure G.2 presents a compilation of data
for the structure function ratio F2A /F2d over range 0 < x < 1 in the Bjorken scaling variable x.
Here F2A is the structure function per nucleon of a nucleus with mass number A, and F 2d refers
the deuteron. Neglecting small nuclear effects in the deuteron, F 2d can approximately standfor the isospin averaged nucleon structure function F 2N . However, the more detailed analysis
must include two-nucleon effects in the deuteron. Then the ratio F 2A /F2d would have become
one. Several distinct regions with characteristic nuclear effects can be identified: at x < 0.1 one
observes a systematic reduction of the ratio, the so-called nuclear shadowing [95]. For x > 0.8
the observed enhancement of the nuclear structure function is associated with nuclear Fermi
motion. Unlike the two regions, 0.1 < x < 0.8 region is often refereed to as the traditional“EMC effect”, which are still not fully understood. One of models which explains the ratio in
the region is modifications of bound nucleon structure functions. The intrinsic properties ofnucleons bound in nuclei can be modified as compared to free nucleons [95]. The modificationis related to possible “swelling” of nucleon inside nuclei.

109

APPENDIX G. NUCLEON SWELLING AND NEUTRON SKIN THICKNESS

110

Figure G.1: The ratio of nuclear and nucleon structure function, F 2A /F2d for 40 Ca, 56 Fe [95].
The data are taken from EMC, SLAC.

The experimentally observed y-scaling also indicates a rather small increase of the charge radius for bound nucleons. For example, the study of Sick [96, 97] comes to the conclusion that
any increase of the nucleon radius in nuclei should be less than 6% of its free radius in 3 He.
Barone et al. presented the nucleon swelling ratios in wide mass region from A=4 ( 4 He) to
A=208 (208 Pb), which varies 3.8% (4 He), and 9.9% (208 Pb) [98]. However only the “swelling”
effect can not explain the ratio in the “EMC effect” region. Other explanations have considered
the existence of multi-quark clusters [99], or an excess of pions [100], or of dynamical rescaling [101]. Therefore, we have estimated how the nucleon “swelling” phenomenon affect to theneutron skin thickness. We have taken 6 ± 1 % in A∼120 as the swelling ratio of proton tin
isotopes whose number corresponds to tin isotopes.
Recently Sick suggested the larger RMS radius (0.895(18) fm) for the proton charge thanthe present obtained value (0.863(4) fm) [102]. He introduced a new type parameterization
Continued Fraction expansions, and fitted using low-q data up to 1.2 fm −1 only to avoid theeffect of the higher moments.

111

APPENDIX G. NUCLEON SWELLING AND NEUTRON SKIN THICKNESS

Figure G.2: Comparison with neutron skin thickness using different proton RMS radius.

We can not deduce the point proton density distributions using these proton charge RMS radii,
because both cases do not provide for the proton electric form factor G pch . Thus we have simply
calculated the neutron skin thickness ∆r np . The ∆rnp are calculated substituting of Eq. (4.28)
into Eq. (5.1) as;∆rnp =

s

A
Z
p 2
n 2
) + rchhrm i2 − (hrp i2 − rch
N
N
p

−

s

p
hrch i2 − rch

2

−

N
n 2
( rch
Z

(G.1)

2 i of Table 5.2 as experimental results inwhere, we have used the matter RMS radii hrm
this work, because the proton elastic scattering is most sensitive to the matter distribution.
The systematic error of matter distribution might be relatively small. Figure G.2 shows thecomparison of neutron skin thicknesses using different proton RMS radii. The results of ∆r np
using the larger proton RMS radius are slightly larger than the values in this analysis. The
order of these differences are about 0.015 fm, the difference is almost in the same order as theerror of the ∆rnp .

Bibliography[1] Beat Hahn, D. G. Ravenball, and Robert Hofstadter Phys. Rev. 101, 1131(1956), andreferences therein.
[2] G. A. Jones, Rep. Prog. Phys. 33, 645 (1970).
[3] C. W. de Jager, H. de Vries, and C. de Vries, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 14,479 (1974).
[4] B. Dreher, J. Friedrich, K. Merle, H. Rothhaas, and G. Luhrs, Nucl. Phys. A235, 219(1974).
[5] I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A218, 509 (1974).
[6] C. J. Batty E. Friedman, H. J. Gils, and H. Rebel, in Advances in Nuclear Physics, edited
by J. W. Negele and E. Vogt (Plenum, New York, 1989), Vol. 19, p. 1. and references
therein.
[7] H. de Vries, C. W. de Jager, and C. de Vries, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 36,
495 (1987).
[8] M. N. Rosenbluth, Phys. Rev. 79, 615(1950).
[9] E. B. Hughes, T. A. Griffy, M. R. Yearian, and R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. 139, B458(1965).
[10] B. Milbrath et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 452(1998).
[11] M. K. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1398(2000).
[12] O. Gayou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 092301(2002).
[13] S. Galster, H. Klein, J. Moritz, K. H. Schmidt, and D. Wegener, Nucl. Phys. B32,
221(1971).
[14] S. Kopecky, J. A. Harvey, N. W. Hill, M. Krenn, M. Pernicka, P. Riehs, and S. Steiner,
Phys. Rev. C 56, 2229 (1997).
[15] J. Golak, G. Ziemer, H. Kamada, H. Witala, and W. Glockle, Phys. Rev. C 63, 034006(2001).
112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

113[16] L. E. Price, et al., Phys. Rev. D 4, 45 (1971); G. G. Simon, Ch. Schmitt, F. Borkowski,
and V. H. Walther, Nucl. Phys. A333, 381 (1980); L. Andivahis et al., Phys. Rev. D 50,
49 (1994).
[17] Charles Earl Hyde-Wright, and Kees de Jager, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54, 217 (2004),
and references therein.
[18] A. Trzcinska, J. Jastrzebski, P. Lubinski, H. J. Harfmann, R. Schmidt, T. von Egidy, andB. Klos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 082501 (2001).
[19] C. J. Batty, E. Friedman, and A. Gal, Nucl. Phys. A592, 487 (1995).
[20] R. R. Johnson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 844 (1979).
[21] B. M. Barnett et al., Phys. Lett. B156, 172 (1984).
[22] H. J. Gils, H. Rebel, and E. Friedman, Phys. Rev. C29, 1295 (1984).
[23] T. Takahashi, H. Sakaguchi, K. Aoki, T. Hasegawa, O. Hashimoto, T. Nagae, M. Sekimoto,
A. Ohkusu, H. Bhang, H. Yu, and Y. Gavrilov, Phys. Rev. C51, 2542 (1995).
[24] K. Aoki, H. Sakaguchi, N. Nose-Togawa, T. Takahashi, T. Hasegawa, O. Hashimoto, T. Nagae, M. Sekimoto, A. Ohkusu, H. Bhang, H. Yu, and Y. Gavrilov, Phys. Rev. C76, 024610(2007).
[25] J. D. Lumpe and L. Ray, Phys. Rev. C33, 665 (1986).
[26] E. T. Boschitz, W. K. Roberts, J. S. Vincent, K. Gotow, P. C. Gugelot, C. F. Perdrist,and L. W. Swenson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1116 (1968).
[27] G. D. Alkhazov et al., Phys. Lett. B67, 402 (1977).
[28] A. Chaumeaux, V. Layly, and R. Schaeffer, Phys. Lett. B72, 33 (1977).
[29] I. Brissaud, M. K. Barussel, Phys. Rev. C 15, 452 (1977).
[30] A. K. Kerman, H. McManus, and R. M. Thaler, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 8, 551 (1959).
[31] L. Ray, W. R. Coker, and G. W. Hoffmann, Phys. Rev. C 18, 2641 (1978).
[32] L. Ray, Phys. Rev. C 19, 1855 (1979).
[33] V. E. Starodubsky and N. M. Hintz, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2118 (1994).
[34] W. M. Yao et al.(Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).
[35] C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C 31, 1340 (1985); D. P. Murdock and C. J. Horowitz, Phys.
Rev. C 35, 1442 (1987); C. J. Horowitz, D. P. Murdock, and Brian D. Serot Computational
Nuclear Physics 1 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), Chap. 7.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

114[36] H. Sakaguchi et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 1749 (1998).
[37] H. Takeda, Doctor Thesis (2002), Kyoto University.
[38] M. Uchida et al., Phys. Lett. B557, 12 (2003); M. Uchida, Doctor Thesis (2003), Kyoto
University.
[39] B. Alex Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5296(2000).
[40] P. Danielewicz, Nucl. Phys. A727, 233 (2003).
[41] Lie-Wen Chen, Che Ming Ko, and Bao-An Li, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064309 (2005).
[42] S. Yoshida and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 69, 024318(2004).
[43] R. J. Furnstahl, Nucl. Phys.. A706, 85 (2002).
[44] P. G. Reinhard, T. Brvenich, T. Cornelius, P. Fleischer, P. Klupfel, and J. A. Maruhn,
Nucl. Phys. A746, 76(2004).
[45] K. Hatanaka, K. Calais, H. Tamura, M. Sato, and I. Miura, Nucl. Instr. and Methods
A384, 575 (1997).
[46] T. Ichihara, H. Sakaguchi, K. Hatanaka, M. Fujiwara and K. Hosono, RCNP Annual
Report 1981, p. 194.
[47] M. Fujiwara et al., Nucl. Instr. and Methods A422, 484 (1999).
[48] T. Kawabata, H. Sakaguchi, A. Tamii, H. Takeda, T. Taki, and H. Yoshida, RCNP Annual
Report 1996, p. 161.
[49] HBOOK, CERN Program Library entry Y250.
[50] PAW, CERN Program Library entry Q121.
[51] W. R. Leo, Techniques for Nuclear amd Particle Physics Experiments (Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1987).
[52] R. B. Firestone and V. S. Shirley, Table of Isotope, 8th ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1996).
[53] S. Hama, B. C. Clark, E. D. Cooper, H. S. Sherif, and R. L. Merceri, Phys. Rev. C 41,
2737 (1990).
[54] E. D. Cooper, S. Hama, B. C. Clark, and R. L. Mercer, Phys. Rev. C 47, 297 (1993).
[55] J. A. McNeil, J. R. Shepard, and S. J. Wallace, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1439 (1983).
[56] C. J. Horowitz and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A368, 503 (1981).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

115[57] G. E. Brown and Mannque Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2720 (1991).
[58] Tetsuo Hatsuta and Su Houng Lee, Phys. Rev. C. 46, 34 (1991).
[59] A. Kato, S. Kimpara, and T. Kohmura, Prog. Theor. Phys. 94, 657 (1995); T. Nagata,
A. Kato, and T. Kohmura, Nucl. Phys. A601, 333 (1996).
[60] S. Shim, B. C. Clark, S. Hama, E. D. Cooper, R. L. Mercer, L. Ray, and G. W. Hoffmann,
Phys. Rev. C 38, 1968 (1988).
[61] J. R. Ficenec, L. A. Fajardo, W. P. Trower, and I. Sick, Phys. Lett. B42, 213 (1972).
[62] J. Cavedon, J. B. Bellicard, B. Frois, D. Goutte, M. Huet, P. Leconte, X.-H. Phan, andS. K. Platchkov, Phys. Lett. B118, 311 (1982).
[63] C. Piller et al., Phys. Rev. C 42, 182 (1990).
[64] I. Angeli, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 87, 185 (2004).
[65] R. G. Sachs, Phys. Rev. 126, 2256(1962).
[66] Ingo Sick, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 11, 411(1984).
[67] J. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. C 70, 068202 (2004).
[68] S. Bourzeix, B. de Beauvoir, F. Nez, M. D. Plimmer, F. de Tomasu, L. Julien, and
F. Biraben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 384 (1996).
[69] C. B. Crawford, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 052301 (2007).
[70] MINUIT, CERN Program Library entry D506.
[71] J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H. B. Hakansson, Nucl. Phys. A386, 79(1982).
[72] M. Beiner, H. Flocard, Nguyen Van Giai, and P. Quentin, Nucl. Phys. A238, 29 (1975).
[73] Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A579, 557 (1994).
[74] K. Kaki, H. Toki, and I. Tanihata, Nucl. Phys. A724, 99 (2003).
[75] J. Decharge and D. Gogny Phys. Rev. C 21, 1568 (1980).
[76] Naoki Tajima, Satoshi Takahashi, and Naoki Onishi, Nucl. Phys. A603, 23 (1996).
[77] J. Friedrich and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C 33, 335 (1986); P.-G. Reinhard, Computational Nuclear Physics 1 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), Chap. 2.
[78] A. N. Antonov et al., Phys. Rev. C 72, 044307 (2005).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

116[79] G. A. Lalazissis, S. Raman, and P. Ring, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 71, 1(1999).
[80] R. M. Lombard, G. D. Alkhazov, and O. A. Domchenkov, Nucl. Phys. A360, 233 (1981).
[81] J. Dobaczewsi, W. Nazarewicz, and T. R. Werner, Z. Phys. A 354, 27 (1996).
[82] F. Hofmann, C. M. Keil, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 64, 034314 (2001).
[83] J. M. Cavedon Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris-Sud, Centre d’Orsay, 1980 (unpublished).
[84] R. P. Bevington and D. K. Robinson, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the PhysicalSciences, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003).
[85] J. Raynal, computer cide, ECIS95, NEA0850-14.
[86] S. Raman, C. W. Nestor, and P. Tikkanen, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 78, 1(2001).
[87] A. Krasznahorkay et al., Nucl. Phys. A567, 521 (1994).
[88] A. Krasznahorkay et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3216 (1999).
[89] A. Klimkiewica et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 051603 (2007).
[90] Kazuhiro Oyamatsu and Kei Iida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 109, 631 (2003).
[91] L. Geng, Doctor Thesis (2005), Osaka University.
[92] A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, NUCLEAR STRUCTURE vol 1,2, (World Scientific, 1998).
[93] R. Sherr, B. F. Bayman, E. Rost, M. E. Rickey, and C. G. Hoor, Phys. Rev. 129, B1272(1965).
[94] J. J. Aubert et al., Phys. Lett. B123 275 (1987).
[95] G. Piller, W. Weise, Phys. Rep. 330 1 (2000).
[96] I. Sick, Phys. Lett. B157 13 (1985).
[97] I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A434 677 (1985).
[98] V. Varone, M. Genovese, N. N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi, and B. G. Zakharov. Z. Phys. C 58
541 (1993).
[99] R. L. Jaffe, F. E. Close, R. G. Roberts, and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B134 449 (1983).
[100] M. Ericson and A. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B128 112 (1983).
[101] F. E. Close, R. G. Boberts, and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B129 346 (1983).
[102] I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A434 677 (1985).

List of Tables
2.1

The target enrichment and thicknesses of tin isotopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2Grand Raiden specifications

2.3

Design specification of the VDCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4

Summary of the experimental conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.1

The summary of exiting charge distributions data using model-dependent and-independent functional shapes of even-even tin isotopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.2

The exiting theoretical and experimental proton, neutron RMS radius, and its
differences of 58 Ni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.3

The summary of exiting charge distributions data using model and model-independentfunctional shapes of 58 Ni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.4

Medium-effect parameters at 295 MeV. The error estimation is discussed in thissection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.5

Summary of the transition probabilities B(E2) and deformation parameters β 2of the first 2+ discrete level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.1

Reduced RMS radii and thicknesses of tin isotopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.2

Reduced matter RMS radius of tin isotope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A.1 Cross sections and analyzing powers of 116 Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
A.2 Cross sections and analyzing powers of 118 Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.3 Cross sections and analyzing powers of 120 Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A.4 Cross sections and analyzing powers of 122 Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A.5 Cross sections and analyzing powers of 124 Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
117

LIST OF TABLES

118

C.1 Some parameter sets on non-relativistic and relativistic mean field model, andthe EOS properties of their parameters sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

List of Figures
1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Nuclear ground state charge distributions, and comparison between the experimental charge distributions of magic nuclei and mean field predictions. The
experiment have been performed at Amsterdam, Darmstadt, Mainz, NBS, Stanford, and Scalay over a period of 30 years [6]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

Proton elastic scattering at 0.8 GeV on targets 58 Ni, 90 Zr, 116,124 Sn, and 208 Pb.
The solid lines are results with use of the KMT optical potential, freely searchedneutron densities and spin-dependent parameters [30]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5The experimental data of nucleon-nucleon total cross section from Ref. [34].
Open circles show the proton-proton total cross section, and open squares show
neutron-proton total cross section. The adopted energy 300 MeV is indicated byarrows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

The neutron skin thickness of 208 Pb versus the symmetry energy obtained withseveral nonrelativistic and relativistic mean field parameter sets [43]. . . . . . . .

7

2.1

Overview of the RCNP facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2

Setup of BLPs in the horizontal plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3

Schematic view of the target changer system installed on top of the scatteringchamber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4

Schematic view of the control system for the target changer system. Solid arrow
show the additional parts for this experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.5

Timing chart between normal polarization measurement and the target changing
system. Upper four (Spin up, Spin down, BLP Control which was called Hata
Control, and DAQ Control) show the standard line for control polarimeter target. 14

2.6

Layout of the ’Grand Raiden’ spectrometer and the focal plane. . . . . . . . . . . 15

119

120

LIST OF FIGURES

2.7

Two operation modes of the scattering chamber. The right figure is ’p2p’ mode
for the backward angle measurement, and the left figure is ’GR mode’ for theforward angle measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.8

Wire configuration of the VDCs for the focal plane detector system of the Grand
Raiden spectrometer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.9

Schematic view of an X-plane structure of the VDC. Ionized electrons verticallydrift from the cathode plane to the anode wires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.10 Schematic diagram of the trigger circuit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.11 Overview of the DAQ system in the West-South (WS) course of RCNP. . . . . . 21
3.1

The ratios of forward and backward angle measurements in spin-up. Horizontal
axis shows run-number corresponding to running time. Statistical fluctuationsof each points are less than 0.5%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2

PID for proton analog signal from the PS1. Hatched area shows the gated region
indicated by arrows. Dashed line in the upper-right panel shows a estimated tailof the proton events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3

PID for proton timing signal from the PS1. Hatched areas show the spectrum
after gated by the analog signal of the PS1 in Fig. 3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.4

Scatter plot of analog signal of the PS1 versus the focal plane position taken at
θlab. = 35.5◦ . A vertical axis is correspond to Fig. 3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.5

Schematic view of an X-plane structure of the VDC. Ionized electrons verticallydrift from the cathode plane to the anode wires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.6

Sample spectrum obtained from LeCroy 3377 on X-plane. The TDC signal shownin the upper panel is converted to the drift length shown as the lower panel using
time-to-drift relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.7

Scatter plot of residual resolution versus drift starting position. The residual distributions are almost constant except extremely near the anode wire ( ±0.2 mm). 32

3.8

Residual resolution correspond to the horizontal projection of Fig. 3.7.

3.9

Comparison using VDC with the time difference spectrum on the PS1. The
hatched histogram show using VDC tracking, and bars show using the timedifference of the PS1, and a width of bar shows one channel of the TFC-FERA
system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.10 Scatter plot of X1- and X2-position using VDCs.

. . . . . 32

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

LIST OF FIGURES

121

3.11 Energies of typical excited states for tin isotopes around θ lab. = 35.5◦ . The solid,
dashed, dotted, and dot-dashed lines show ground states 0 + , first excited states
2+ , 5− , and 3− , respectively [52]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.12 Sample focal plane spectra corresponding to the excitation energy of 116,118,120 Sn,
120,122,124 Sn, taken at a scattering angle θ◦. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
lab. = 35.5 .
3.13 Sample spectrum for scattering angle on the target. The symbols show theMonte-Carlo simulation considered to angular resolution in this analysis (∼0.05 ◦ ). 37
3.14 Differential cross sections and analyzing powers for proton elastic scattering fromtin target. The solid curves are the original RIA calculations of Murdock andHorowitz [35], while dashed lines are calculations from the Dirac global potential [53, 54]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1

The comparison existing charge distributions of 124 Sn using different functional
shapes, 2pF, 3pG, and SOG. The right-upper panel is enlarged view at a shoulder
region ( 2-5 fm) in this figure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.2

The sample calculation of a electric form factor of 124 Sn which is transformed
from existing charge distributions of Fig. 4.1. Arrows show momentum transfer
regions of use data sets which are shown in Table 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.3

The charge radius of tin isotopes. Squares and triangles are results from electron
elastic scattering using different model distributions [3, 7]. Here, the SOG data of
116,124 Sn are existing ones from Ref. [7], and the other SOG data for 118,120,122 Sn
are interpolated using Eq. (4.17-4.19). Circles are results from muonic X-ray
data [63]. Diamonds are combined results from both electron scattering andmuonic X-ray data [64]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.4

The existing charge distribution of tin isotopes using 3pG functional shape. . . . 48

4.5

The existing charge distribution of 116,124 Sn using SOG functional shape, andthe deduced charge distribution of 118,120,122 Sn from Eq. (4.17). . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.6

The difference of charge RMS radii from SOG charge RMS radius for tin isotopes.
The notations are in same as in Fig. 4.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.7

The proton electric form factor shown as Eq. (4.23) and existing experimental
data are taken from electron-proton scattering [16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.8

The neutron electric form factor shown as Eq. (4.24) and existing experimental
data from electron-deuteron or helium-3,4 scattering and sophisticated analysis [17]. On the other hand, the MS charge radius of the neutron had been
determined from other literature experiments [14]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

LIST OF FIGURES

4.9

122

Contribution to the RMS radius of point proton density distributions for 124 Sn.
Solid, dashed, and dotted lines show results of charge, proton, and neutron RMS
radius using the propagation of errors for the point proton RMS radius withneutron electric form factor. Dash-dotted line shows the case of proton RMS
radius the without neutron electric form factor. Open circle and bars show
targeted value for uncertainty of point proton RMS radius, ±0.01 fm. . . . . . . 52

4.10 Calculated by the right-hand side of Eq. (4.20) and pseudo data using SOG
charge distributions of 124 Sn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.11 Experimental form factors and errors of 124 Sn from electron scattering experiments [66]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.12 Point proton density distribution of 124 Sn. Solid, dashed, dotted, and dasheddotted lines show the point proton density distributions deduced from Eq. (4.30)
and based on RMF with L-HS parameterization, SHF with SkM ∗ [71], and
SIII [72] parameterization, respectively. Here, we used the scaled neutron densityρn (r) = (N/Z)ρp (r) for the initial density of Eq. (4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.13 The deduced initial point proton density distributions of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn using
SOG charge distribution. Here, we used the scaled neutron density ρ n (r) =(N/Z)ρp (r) as the initial density of Eq. (4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.14 The radial distribution of the ratio of scalar to vector densities of 208 Pb using
the TMA parameterization calculated by Kaki [74]. Solid and Dashed lines show
proton and neutron, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.15 The radial distribution of the ratio of scalar to vector densities of 208 Pb using
the L-HS parameterization which is not included the non-linear term as shownin Eq. (4.27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.16 Integrated ratio from scalar and vector densities of proton and neutron of typicalstable nuclei calculated of L-HS. Hatched area shows 0.955±0.005. . . . . . . . . 57
4.17 Point proton density distribution of 58 Ni. Solid, dashed, dotted, and dasheddotted lines show point proton density distribution deduced from Eq. (4.30)andbased on RMF with L-HS parameterization, SHF with SkM ∗ [71] and SIII [72]parameterization, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.18 Ratio from vector density and scalar density of proton and neutron of 58 Ni calculated by the RMF calculation code using L-HS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.19 RIA calculations with different scalar density distributions of 58 Ni. Hatched area
are deduced scalar density distributions. Dashed lines are original RIA calculations. 61

LIST OF FIGURES

123

4.20 Experimental data of 58 Ni at 295 MeV. Dashed lines are the result of the original RIA calculations using Relativistic mean field densities. Dotted lines are
represent a similar calculation as above but using a density distribution deduced
from the electron scattering data. Solid lines are a calculation with the modified
effective interaction using deduced densities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.21 Contour plot of χ2 correlation of aσ with aω for 58 Ni. The hatched area represents
the region obtained from Eq. (4.33). The open circle and bars represent the bestfit parameter and the errors shown in Table 4.4, respectively. The magnitude ofχ2 is arbitrary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.22 Contour plot of χ2 correlation for all combination of 58 Ni. The upper-left figureis the same as Fig. 4.21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.23 Coupling effect of 58 Ni at 295MeV. Solid line show coupled channel calculation
between ground state and first 2+ state. Dashed Line is not included of coupledchannel. Lower panels show that ratios of cross sections and analyzing powers
with to without performing the coupled-channel calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.24 Same as Fig4.23, but for the of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn at 295MeV.

. . . . . . . . . . 68

4.25 The ratio scalar to vector densities of 116 Sn. The dashed and dotted lines show
proton and neutron, respectively. Solid line shows our assumed value 0.96 as thetrial ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.26 The same as in Fig. 4.25, but for 124 Sn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.27 Differential cross sections and analyzing powers for proton elastic scattering fromtin isotopes. The experimental data are some in Fig. 3.14. The dashed lines arecalculations with the modified effective interaction using trial density distributions. While the solid lines are best-fit calculations with the modified effective
interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.28 Point nucleon density distributions for tin isotopes. Solid lines show point protondensity distributions. Dashed lines show best-fit neutron density distributions.
Hatched areas represent the error envelopes encompassing all the trial SOG neutron density distributions deduced by the modified effective interaction. Not only
statistical and experimental errors but also systematic errors from the model dependence contribute to these regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.1

The uncertainty in the deduced neutron density distribution for 116 Sn as a function of radial position. Upper figure is the same as in Fig. 4.28. Lower figure
shows the ratio of uncertainties to absolute value of neutron densities . . . . . . . 76

LIST OF FIGURES

124

5.2

Point proton and neutron root mean squared radius of tin isotopes. The solid,
dotted, and dashed Line are theoretical calculations with typical mean fieldmodel: RMF with NL3 parameterization [79], Skyrme Hartree Fock(SHF) with
SkM* parameterization [77, 71] and SHF with SIII parameterization [76], respectively. All calculation are included the BCS pairing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.3

Neutron skin thicknesses of tin isotopes obtained in various method. Our results are indicated by solid squares. Results from proton elastic scattering at
800MeV [31], giant dipole resonances [87], spin dipole resonances [88] and antiprotonic X-ray data [18] are open triangles, open diamonds, open crosses, open
squares, respectively. The lines as describe in Fig. 5.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5.4

Neutron skin thickness S of 48 Ca, 124,132 Sn as a function of symmetry energy
coefficient Esym (asym ) at the saturation density (c) and its first- and secondderivative density dependence L (a) and K sym (b), respectively [41]. . . . . . . . 80

5.5

Symmetry energy coefficient asym at the saturation density and its density dependence L near the ρ0 as function as the skin thickness of 116,118,120,122,124 Sn.
Left and right panels show the correlation between the a sym and the L and the∆rnp of tin isotopes, respectively. All lines represent a quadratic fit. . . . . . . . 81

5.6

The results of the symmetry energy coefficient a sym and its density dependence
L for tin isotopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.7

The surface diffuseness of tin isotopes. Filled circles and triangle are surface
diffuseness of proton and neutron density. Squared, and triangles are surface
diffuseness of 3pG, SOG charge distributions, respectively. Here, open symbols
show values using existing charge distribution data [7], and filled symbols show
deduced values in this work. Solid and dashed lines show the theoretical calculations for the diffuseness for proton and neutron, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . 84

C.1 The EOS property distribution using variable parameter sets. Hated areas show
the restricted region in this work. Its values are 215±6 MeV of the incompressibility K∞ [38] and 30.0±0.5 (2.0) MeV of the symmetry energy a sym . . . . . . . 98
C.2 The EOS property distribution using variable parameter sets. Same as Fig. C.1,
but vertical axis is the density dependence coefficient L. Its value is 47.9±7.0 (15.0) MeV. 98
D.1 A two-parameter Fermion (2pF) charge distribution of 124 Sn, and the differential
shape of the distribution. Solid line is charge distribution by using 2pF function.
Dashed line is differential function of the 2pF function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

LIST OF FIGURES

125

D.2 A two-parameter Gaussian (2pG) charge distribution of 124 Sn, and the differential shape of the distribution. Two parameters of 2pG are used same RMS andthe surface thickness of Fig. D.1. Solid line is charge distribution by using 2pGfunction. Dashed line is differential function of the 2pG function . . . . . . . . . 101
D.3 The differential shapes of various charge distributions. Charge distributions for
124 Sn are in the same as in Fig. 4.1. The solid, dashed, and dotted lines are thederivative function of SOG, 3pG, and 2pF, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
F.1 Energies of neutron orbits in a spherical potential [92]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
F.2 Correlation between aσ and aω using the neutron densities described in Eq. (F.1).107
F.3 Fitting results with two different densities. Solid, and dashed lines show thecalculation using Eq. (F.1), and Eq. (4.29), respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
G.1 The ratio of nuclear and nucleon structure function, F 2A /F2d for 40 Ca, 56 Fe [95].
The data are taken from EMC, SLAC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
G.2 Comparison with neutron skin thickness using different proton RMS radius.

. . 111