Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Andrey Shirokov (Moscow State Univ.) In collaboration with Alexander Mazur (Pacific National Univ.) Pieter Maris and James Vary (Iowa State Univ.) INT, Seattle, June 8, 2011
2
* Conventional: bound state energies are associated with variational minimum in shell model, NCSM, etc., calculations * Is it also true for resonant states? Can we get resonance width from such calculations?
3
* Resonant states: should we, probably, study excitation energies instead? Or the energies E = E A − E A − 1 for n−(A−1) scattering (or, generally, with A 1 + A 2 = A)? * Is it important for them to be stable with respect to ħΩ or N max variation?
4
* Would be nice to have a simple answer from conventional calculations without doing, say, complicated NCSM−RGM calculations. * So, what are the general properties of eigenstates in continuum consistent with resonance at the energy E r and width Γ? * Some observations, examples follow; this is still work in progress.
5
* So, what are the general properties of eigenstates in continuum consistent with resonance at the energy E r and width Γ? * Some observations, examples follow; this is still work in progress. * I discuss some general properties for oscillator basis calculations; this is the only relavance to NCSM
6
* O.Rubtsova, V.Kukulin, V.Pomerantsev, JETP Lett. 90, 402 (2009); Phys. Rev. C 81, 064003 (2010): * I.M.Lifshitz (1947):
7
* O.Rubtsova, V.Kukulin, V.Pomerantsev, JETP Lett. 90, 402 (2009); Phys. Rev. C 81, 064003 (2010): * I.M.Lifshitz (1947): So, the phase shift at the eigenenergies E j can be easily calculated!
8
* O.Rubtsova, V.Kukulin, V.Pomerantsev, JETP Lett. 90, 402 (2009); Phys. Rev. C 81, 064003 (2010): * I.M.Lifshitz (1947): Unfortunately, this does not work: The dimensionality of the matrix is small, the average spacing between the levels is not well- defined. One needs sometimes D j value below the lowest E j 0
9
Direct and inverse problem
15
* J-matrix inverse N-nucleus scattering analysis suggests values for resonant and non-resonant states that should be compared with that obtained in NCSM
22
* J-matrix: Let us try to extract resonance information from E λ behavior only
23
E λ should increase with ħΩ Within narrow resonance E λ is nearly ħΩ-independent The slope of E λ (ħΩ) depends however on N max, l, E λ value
25
* Breit-Wigner: * Simple approximation: φ=0 Derivatives calculated through
26
* Breit-Wigner: * Simple approximation: φ=0 Derivatives calculated through Do not expect to get a reasonable result for E r or Γ if Γ/2Δ is small! If |Γ/2Δ| is large, we get good results for E r, Γ and φ.
31
* What can we do if we obtain E λ in a non- resonant region above the resonance? * We can extrapolate energies to larger (finite) N max value when E λ is in the resonant region. * Expected dependence is
32
This works. However this extrapolation seems to be unstable and inconvenient
33
More convenient is an exponential extrapolation.
34
* We get stable E r and Γ; Γ is too small as compared with experiment.
35
* I discussed general features of continuum states obtained in many-body calculations with oscillator basis. * The best way to compare the calculated results with experiment is to use “experimental” phase shifts and get E λ consistent with scattering data using simple inverse scattering technique. * Studying ħΩ dependence of E λ obtained in NCSM, one can get resonance energy and width. However, usually an extrapolation to a reasonable N max value is required.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.