Advertisement

The Nucleus pp 121-126 | Cite as

Probing Highly-fragmented Giant Resonances: Coincidence Experiments in the New Millennium

  • J. Carter
Chapter
  • 153 Downloads

Abstract

Electric isoscalar and isovector giant resonances are excited strongly by inelastic electron and hadron scattering. In particular, the isoscalar giant monopole resonance (ISGMR) and the isoscalar giant quadrupole resonance (ISGQR) have been found both experimentally and theoretically to be highly fragmented in medium mass nuclei. The use of a coincidence technique to measure the angular correlations of decay products after inelastic excitation of the target nucleus is a powerfull tool for determining the multipolarity of the resonance excited. Only recently with the advent of continuous wave electron accelerators has this been possible for the (e,e’x) reaction. Results will be presented on experiments done at the National Accelerator Centre for40Ca(p,p’x=p,α) and 48Ca(p,p’n)., This work compliments similar experiments performed using electrons at S-DALINAC (Darmstadt) and MAMI A (Mainz) in Germany. It will be shown that decay by a non-zero spin particle to a non-zero spin state in the residual nucleus leads to simple angular correlations from which the relative strengths of the various multipoles excited can be extracted unambiguously. This is unexpected since up to now a-particle decay has been studied, where channel spin plays no role.

Keywords

Angular Correlation Residual Nucleus Giant Resonance Magic Nucleus Channel Spin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Zwarts, A.G. Drentje, M.N. Harakeh and A. van der Woude, Nucl. Phys. A 439 (1985) 117.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Kamerdzhiev, J. Speth and G. Tertychny, Nucl. Phys. A 624 (1997) 328.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Carter, A.A. Cowley, H. Diesener, R.W. Fearick, S.V. Förtsch, M.N. Harakeh, J.J. Lawrie, S.J. Mills, P. von Neumann-Cosel, R.T. Newman, J.V. Pilcher, A. Richter, K. Schweda, F.D. Smit, G.F. Steyn, S. Strauch and D.M. Whittal, Nucl. Phys. A 630 (1998) 631.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Puehlhofer, computer programme TL, GSI (1979).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Kohl, P. von Neumann-Cosel, A. Richter, G. Schrieder and S. Strauch, Phys. Rev. C57 (1998) 3167.ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Y. Fujita, M. Fujiwara, S.Morinobu, T.Yamazaki, T. Itahashi, H. Ikegami and S.I. Hayakawa, Phys. Rev. C 37 (1988) 45.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Carter
    • 1
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations