Determination of the 3 P j Phase Shifts from Nucleon-Nucleon Data: A Critical Evaluation and a Surprising Result

1999 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Tornow ◽  
W. Tornow
Keyword(s):  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Phase Shifts ◽  
Surprising Result

First Determination of the Nucleon-Nucleon Response Functions in the Timelike Region

1999 ◽  
Vol 83 (13) ◽  
pp. 2530-2533 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. G. Messchendorp ◽  
J. C. S. Bacelar ◽  
M. J. van Goethem ◽  
M. N. Harakeh ◽  
M. Hoefman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Response Functions ◽  
Timelike Region

Behavior of Nucleon-Nucleon Singlet Phase Shifts

1961 ◽  
Vol 124 (4) ◽  
pp. 1269-1273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Greenberger ◽  
B. Margolis
Keyword(s):  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Phase Shifts

scholarly journals Nucleon-Nucleon Phase Shifts in the Extended Quark-Delocalization Colour-Screening Model

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Xi-Feng ◽  
Ping Jia-Lun ◽  
Wang Fan
Keyword(s):  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Phase Shifts ◽  
Screening Model ◽  
Colour Screening

Nucleon-nucleon phase shifts near 50 MeV

1964 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.J. Batty ◽  
J.K. Perring
Keyword(s):  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Phase Shifts

Nucleon-antinucleon interaction in the new Tamm-Dancoff approximation

1960 ◽  
Vol 257 (1288) ◽  
pp. 59-73
Keyword(s):  
Integral Equation ◽  
Wave Function ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Phase Shifts ◽  
Exchange Term ◽  
Total Cross Sections ◽  
Nucleon Wave Function ◽  
Usual Manner ◽  
Order Of Magnitude

The nucleon-antinucleon ( N-N ) problem is formulated in the new Tamm-Dancoff (NTD) approximation in the lowest order, and the integral equation for N-N̅ scattering derived, taking account of both the exchange and annihilation interactions. It is found convenient to represent the N-N̅ wave-function as a 4 x 4 matrix, rather than the usual 16 x 1 matrix for the nucleon-nucleon wave-function, and a complete correspondence is established between these two representations. The divergences associated with the annihilation interaction and their renormalization are discussed in detail in the following paper (Mitra & Saxena 1960; referred to as II). The integral equation with the exchange interaction alone, is then separated into eigenstates of T, J, L and S in the usual manner and the various phase shifts obtained. The results of II for the contribution of the annihilation term are then used to calculate the complete phase shifts from which the various cross-sections (scattering and charge exchange) are derived. The results indicate that while the exchange term alone gives too small values for the total cross-sections versus energy, inclusion of the annihilation interaction without renormalization effects makes the cross-sections nearly three times larger than those observed. On the other hand, inclusion of the finite effects of renormalization (which manifest themselves essentially as a suppression of the virtual meson propagator) brings down these cross-sections to the order of magnitude of the observed ones.

The phase-functions method and scalar amplitude of nucleon–nucleon scattering

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (11) ◽  
pp. 1650088
Author(s):  
V. I. Zhaba
Keyword(s):  
Single Channel ◽  
Scattering Amplitude ◽  
Nucleon Nucleon ◽  
Phase Shifts ◽  
Computational Method ◽  
Nucleon Scattering ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Scalar Scattering ◽  
Scalar Amplitude ◽  
Phase Functions

A known phase-functions method (PFM) has been considered for calculation of a single-channel nucleon–nucleon scattering. The following partial waves of a nucleon–nucleon scattering have been considered using the phase shifts by PFM: 1S0-, 3P0-, 3P1-, 1D2-, 3F3-states for nn-scattering, 1S0-, 3P0-, 3P1-, 1D2-states for pp-scattering and 1S0-, 1P1-, 3P0-, 3P1-, 1D2-, 3D2-states for np-scattering. The calculations have been carried out using phenomenological nucleon–nucleon Nijmegen group potentials (NijmI, NijmII, Nijm93 and Reid93) and Argonne v18 potential. The scalar scattering amplitude has been calculated using the obtained phase shifts. Our results are not much different from those obtained by using the known phase shifts published in other papers. The difference between calculations depending on a computational method of phase shifts makes: for real (imaginary) parts 0.14–4.36% (0.16–4.05%) for NijmI. 0.02–4.79% (0.08–3.88%) for NijmII. 0.01–5.49% (0.01–4.14%) for Reid93 and 0.01–5.11% (0.01–2.40%) for Argonne v18 potentials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document