Paper detail

Relativity versus exchange currents in 16O(e,e'p)

The 16O(e,e'p) reaction in the quasi-elastic region has been studied in several experiments to determine spectroscopic factors, hence, the degree to which $^{16}$O looks like a closed shell. By varying the kinematics, experimentalists are able to extract response functions which comprise the cross section. However, analysis of the response functions separately produces very different spectroscopic factors. Two calculations led to different conclusions as to whether exchange currents can eliminate the discrepancies. Neither calculation considered relativistic corrections. The purpose of the article is to investigate the disagreement as to whether exchange currents are the solution to obtaining consistent spectroscopic factors, and to show that relativistic corrections have a much greater influence on providing this consistency. This calculation employs the recoil corrected continuum shell model, a model that uses a realistic interaction, and produces non-spurious scatterings states that are solutions to the coupled channels problems. Pionic and pair contributions to the exchange currents were calculated as developed by Dubach, Koch, and Donnelly. Relativistic effects are included by use of the direct Pauli reduction. Contributions of the exchange currents are shown to be insufficient to provide consistent spectroscopic factors. However, the inclusion of relativistic corrections, that can be large, lead to more consistent spectroscopic factors and cross sections. The influence of channel coupling is also shown to be significant. Tests of current conservation show that inclusion of the direct Pauli reduction produces small increases in its violation. Response functions which depend on the transverse current are sensitive to the lower component of relativistic wave functions, and hence, would provide a measure of the appropriateness of any relativistic model.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.