2. Direct Reactions for Angela Bonaccorso Some ideas from Task 10: Physics and Instrumentation. Learder: Rober Page, Liverpool.

3. Introduction by Wolfgang Mittig. Abano Terme Town Meeting 2002

4. transparency of the optical potential 1. Deep inelastic transfer & breakup ( transparency of the optical potential ). 2. Unbound exotic nuclei. 3. Giant resonances ( see Chomaz’s talk ).

5. Data on heavy neutron rich - lacking! Produce them with Deep Inelastic React. like 209 Bi (10-25 MeV/u) on 65 Cu Use magnetic separators (not only Ge arrays) 75 Cu Courtesy of Livius Trache

6. Ge Target N/Z 124 Sn 1.48 n-rich 112 Sn 1.24 n-poor 64 Ni 1.29 n-rich DIT mechanism can produce neutron-rich heavy residues and quasi projectiles with a diversity in N/Z Souliotis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 022701 (2003) Mass Distribution of Germanium from 86 Kr(25MeV/u) + 124 Sn, 112 Sn, 64 Ni MARS data Courtesy of Livius Trache Calculations with DIT/GEMINI +neutron skin distributions reproduce well the 124 Sn and 64 Ni data. Data using targets:  124 Sn  112 Sn  64 Ni ------ EPAX2

9. Data for projectiles with different proton separation energies: 12 N S p =601 keV 8 B S p =137 keV 13 N S p =1943 keV 7 Be S p =5606 keV 11 C S p =8689 keV (not shown) Coverage: ~ 4 – 29 deg. (lab) Experimental data from MARS group at Texas A&M Univ. RNB produced with MARS: 12 MeV/u, ~10 4 -10 6 pps projectile ~ 12 MeV/u All breakup data unpublished. 7Be, 8B, 11C and 13N elastic scattering and transfer data published in A. Azhari et al., PRL 82, 3960 (1999), G. Tabacaru et al., PRC 73, 025808 (2006), X. Tang et al. PRC 67, 015804 (2003) and PRC 69, 055807 (2004), respectively. Courtesy of Livius Trache One-proton removal from loosely bound nuclei at low(er) energies

10. TAMU-MARS experiment, June 2006; A. Banu et al, to be published. 12 N @12 MeV/u on melamine ( 14 N+0.5 12 C) 11 C ~200 MeV/c 55 MeV/c 11 C momentum distributions Proj mom  4-15 deg.  =13-29 deg. S p = 601.42 ± 1.38 KeV

11. ~200 MeV/c

13. 8 B : S p = 137.46 ± 1.00 KeV

14. PG Hansen, PRL77(1996)1016

15. 8 B @ 12 MeV/u on 12 C TAMU exp 2001 8 B elastic +.. 7 Be EE E PID =  E*E Counts (log) 7 Be @ 12 MeV/u on melamine TAMU exp 2003 7 Be elastic 6 Li S p =137 keV S p =5,605 keV

16. 13 N @12 MeV/u on melamine and C

18. Deep inelastic

19. Excited states of 7 He, 5 H 26,28 O: limits of stability island of inversion) (N=20, island of inversion) Unbound exotic nuclei.

20. Patricia Russel-Chomaz

22. N. Orr, Seattle workshop Nov. 2005

24. INPC2003

25. 1/2 +

26. 2p knockout from 28,30 Ne 26,28 O: 2p knockout from 28,30 Ne 28 O 24 O last particle stable, doubly magic?(N=16) only weakly unbound 31 F N=16 new magic Limits of stability island of inversion) (N=20, island of inversion) deformed ground state intruder fpsd fp orbitals vs. sd spherical, reduced shell gaps

27. Status of art 10 Li

28. GSI (U. Datta Pramanik)( 2004). Unpublished 14 B ( 12 C,X) 12 Be+n 14 Be ( 12 C,X) 12 Be+n H. Simon et al. N.P.A734 (2004) 323, and private communication. G. Blanchon, A. Bonaccorso, D. M. Brink, A.Garcia-Camacho and N. Vinh Mau Unbound exotic nuclei studied by projectile fragmentation projectile fragmentation reactions. nucl-th/0611049. NPA (2006) in press. 13 Be: an example of creation by the reaction mechanism G. Blanchon, A. Bonaccorso and N. Vinh Mau Unbound exotic nuclei studied transfer to the continuum by transfer to the continuum reactions Nucl. Phys. A739 (2004) 259. 12 Be (d,p) 14 B 14 B fragmentation: GANIL ( Lecouey, Orr) (2002). transfer to the continuumtransfer to the continuum: 12 Be (d,p) RIKEN ( Korsheninnikov ) (1995).

29. in preparation, private communication in preparation, private communication. Core excitation via imaginary potential wash out d-resonance effect

30. All orders breakup of heavy exotic nuclei

31. End of Talk

32. sudden vs final state interaction

33. Brink et al. since 1978 similar to Alder& Winther for Coulomb excitations Seeking a clear physical interpretation of DWBA (Brink et al. since 1978 H. Hasan). similar to Alder& Winther for Coulomb excitations. - Transfer between bound states and spin coupling (L. Lo Monaco, I. Stancu, H. Hashim, G. Piccolo, 1985). - Transfer to the continuum (1988). - Coulomb breakup to all orders and coupled to nuclear breakup: interference effects. (J. Margueron, 2002). - Full multipole expansion of Coulomb potential, proton breakup (A. Garcia-Camacho, 2005/2006). - Projectile fragmentation (G. Blanchon, 2005/06). Analytical methods for transfer and breakup

34. INELASTICDiffraction Fourier transform of the overlap TRANSFER Stripping & Diffraction Overlap of momentum distribution (Fourier transforms) Broglia and Winther book

35. cf. Transf. Inel.

36. Differences Transfer to the continuum.Transfer to the continuum. Long range form factor. Overlap of momentum distributions On shell n-N S-Matrix Projectile fragmentation.Projectile fragmentation. Short range form factor. Momentum distribution of overlap Off-the-energy-shell n-N S-matrix

37. Neutron - core potential must be studied in order to understand borromean nuclei. 11 Li, 14 Be and 13 Be From structure theory point of view: S 1/2 g.s? relevant p and d components ? Core excitation effects? From reaction theory point of view: i) Scattering with threshold resonances. ii) Sudden approximation and one- or two step processes. Dripline position: from bound nuclei to nuclei unstable by neutron/proton decay.

38. transfer to the continuum: 12 Be (d,p) RIKEN ( Korsheninnikov ) (1995). 14 B 14 B fragmentation: GANIL ( Lecouey, Orr) (2002). GSI (U. Datta Pramanik)( 2004). 14 Be 14 Be nuclear breakup, GSI ( Simon ), 287AMeV, n-core angular correlations 14 Be 14 Be nuclear and Coulomb breakup: GANIL (K. Jones thesis, 2000). 14 C+ 11 B 14 C+ 11 B multinucleon transfer: (Berlin Group,1998). 18 O fragmentation 18 O fragmentation MSU (Thoennessen, 2001) n-core relative velocity spectra. 14 Be 14 Be nuclear breakup: RIKEN (Nakamura, Fukuda) (2004). Resumee: 13 Be has been obtained from: Transfer to the continuum and projectile fragmentation Do they convey the same information?… the same n-core phase shifts? the same n-core phase shifts? Is the overlap of resonances the same? Is the overlap of resonances the same?

39. 2s d5/2 p1/2 p3/2 1s1/2 2s d5/2 p1/2 p3/2 1s1/2 d5/2 p1/2 2s p3/2 1s1/2     ...... 14 B g.s. = 2 - =  p3/2+ 2s It is not a GOOD CORE 12 Be g.s. = 0 + 14 Be g.s. = 0 + (?)....  ... d3/2 2s d5/2 p1/2 p3/2 1s1/2 inversion threshold.. Breakdown of shell closure * *A.Navin et al, PRL85,266 (2000)

40. Potential corrections due to the particle-vibration coupling ( N. Vinh Mau and J. C. Pacheco, NPA607 (1996) 163. also T. Tarutina, I.J. Thompson, J.A. Tostevin NPA733 (2004) 53 ) can be modeled as: … can be modeled as: n+ 12 Be: d3/2 2s d5/2 p1/2 p3/2 1s1/2 inversion threshold U( r ) = V WS + V so +  V  V ( r ) = 16  e (r-R)/a / (1+e (r-R)/a ) 4

41. Bound to unbound transitions E inc : independent  if : important check of sudden approximation Results sudden q=0sudden

42. Final s-state: continuum vs bound

43. effective range theory (1 0 order) k cotan  = - 1 asas + 1 2 r o k 2 Peak positions of continuum states are not low enough to make accurate predictions by the

45. Consistent results only if: All bound to continuum transitions are considered (final state effects vs. sudden). Correct form factor. Optical model phase shifts. Final state interaction effect seems MORE important than sudden effect for not very developed haloes

46. Fourier transform of the overlap

47. p-state potential:long range subtracted s-state potential:long range added