CHINESE JOURNAL OF PHYSICS VOL. 16, NO.

1 SPRING, 1978

An Investigation of the Charge Distributions*

C H I N G- LI A N G L IN (iM;-%s)
Department of Physics, National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan

(Received March 9, 1978)

In a Corialis band-mixing approach, a macroscopic model calculation is per-

formed for the C2 transition form factors and their relative ratios in order to
investigate the transition charge distributions. The results are compared with the
experimental measurements of *‘Al in the momentum transfer range from 1.0 to
1.9 fm-1 at M. I. T. Bates Accelerator Laboratory. We find that the data is in
much favour of Tassie’s model for the charge distribution, and also that the core
of Z’Al has a tendency to have its charge more uniformly distributed throughout
its volume with shape approaching to a spherical one with increasing excitation.

I. INTRODUCTION
T is a well known fact that the electron scattering is one of the powerful methods in investigating
II the nuclear structrure and the electromagnetic radiation sources. Since the electromagnetic in-
teraction is the best understood one, and the small coupling constant allows one to use the method
of perturbation. Consequently a great deal of works have been done(l’. However, we still need
information of the charge distribution, current density and magnetization for analizing electro-
magnetic transitions. The complexity of this investigation arises from the lack of information on
the nucleon-nucleon correlations inside the nucleus, in addition to the state dependent character of
the electromagnetic transition sorces which are also model dependent. Besides, there exists difficulties
in obtaining microscopic results of the energy scheme, spectroscopic factors and form factors unless
sufficient transition data, reliable approximations in calculation and information on nuclear force:
inside the nucleus are all available. Therefore, instead of pursuing microscopic calculation which
needs high dimensional numerical calculations, and getting a better physical insight of the nucleus
we present a macroscopic model that is easy to analyze the state dependent character of the charge,
current and magnetization density distributions.
The purpose of this work is to apply our model to the case of 27A1 for a specific calculation
of the Coulomb form factors. The reason that we perticularly choose 27A1 nucleus is’ because of its
complex structure that to the present date even we have not had any acceptable explanation on its
low-lying states@). Coulomb form factors are sensitive to the states just as the distribution of charges
depends on the interaction between the projectile and the target nucleus. So in calculating Coulomb
form factors and their relative ratios, two different kinds of approaches are discussed so as to lead
further understanding of the charge distribution. In sectien II we describe our formulation for
Coulomb form factors and compare our results of calculation with experimental data in lhe succesive
section.

II. FORMULATION FOR COULOMB FORM FACTORS

2-l. Coulomb Multipole Transition Operator
Using inelastic electron scattering, we can study transition densities of the charge, current and
* Work supported by NSC, Republic of China.
( 1) H. Uberall, Electron Scattering from Complex Nuclei (Academic Press, New York, 1971).
(2) C. L. Lin and F. J. Kline, Proceedings of the Sendai Conference on Electra and Photoexcitations P181
(Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, 1977), and following papers.

45
46 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE DISTRIBUTIONS

magnetization just as the elastic scattering is used to determine the distributions of the ground-state
densities. The momentum transfer q, in the electron scattering, is taken as variable of form factors
in calculating scattering cross-section by the Born approximation. The form factors depend on the
density operators as well as on the wave functions of the initial and final states of the target nucleus.
The nucleus generally has different kinds of modes of motion, however, if we neglect the exchange
effect of nucleons between two different modes, then the form factors can be expressed by adding
form factors of each individual modes. So we can independently investigate charge densities of
different modes by comparing calculated Coulomb form factors with those of experiments. In
multipole expression, the Coulomb transition operators is given bye):

(1)
where symbols have their usual meaning. The charge density operator i(r) consists of two parts
corresponding to two dynamical modes: the collective motion of the core and single-particle motion
of the valence nucleon. Since nuclear excited states in general possess spherically unsymmetric shape,
so we assume that at least two different kinds of dynamical modes exist in order to maintain the
stabilities of the nucleus.
As to the density operator, special attention should be paid on the single-particle part while its
density is obtained from the shell-model wave function. Since the density obtained from the shell-
model represents the distribution of the center of valence nuleon, therefore a correction. for the finite
size of that valence nucleon should be made for the form factor. The convolution method is one
of the useful method for this purpose, that is:
‘L,
bp(r)=Sdr’P~~(r’)pj(r-rr), (2)

where ,&,,, is the density operator given in shell-model calculation and p d represents the distribution
of that nucleon. Two defferent distributions for Pd are considered, one is the gaussian distribution:

the other is the exponential distribution:

Pd(r-r’)=Qo -$- e-PI r--I’] G(cos 8-cos 0/)6(~-@), (4)

where EL-’ is taken as the Compton wave length of the positive pion and a-l is given by Q.59 fm in
accord with the electron-proton scattering experiments(*), and p. is the normalization constant. As
to the distribution of the center of valence nucleon, we also assume the following two different forms:
the often used single-particle operator:

iL&) = ep Z$l _Lk!+&L J(r-ri) (5)

with +,(i) the Z-component of the isospin operator of i-th valence nucleon, and the multipole ex-
pansion operator:
L(r)= z h&P%(Q~). (6)

For the charge distribution of the core we use two different models too. First, we assume a uniform
distribution expressed as follows:

(7)

( 3 ) T. de-Forest, Jr. and J. D. Walecka, Adv. in Phys. 15, 1 (1966).

(4) R. Hofstadter, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 7, 231 (1957).
 CHING-LIANG LIN 41

with
f o r x>O
W- {; (8)
f o r x<O
The second is that the core behaves like a conductor with its charge distributing on the surface during
interaction with the projectile. This is given by:
a&)- X i%,(r)%(Q,). (9)
The Coulomb multipole transition operators are then obtained by substituting these distributions
into Eq. (1). For the collective part, when we use the uniform distribution, the expression becomes:

(10)
and when the core is treated as a conductor, we obtain:
.

the subscripts u and s stand for uniform and surface charge distribution respectively. For the single-
particle part, first we consider the exponential distribution with the center of the valence nucleon
given by Eq. (5):

(12)

where the summation is taken over the valence nucleons. Second, the gaussian distribution with the
center given by Eq. (6) we obtain results as follows:
_-.-
tigP(q)a=e :I2 iJsdr r’ f iJ&jJ(qr)r (13)

where the subscripts E and G indicate exponential and ganssian distribution respectively for the finite
size of each valence nucleon.
2-2. Coulomb Multipole Transition Matrix
In the Born approximation, the form factors of multipolarity J are given as the following:

1 FJ(q) I’==&- I <I/ II *J<d II Ii> I2

where Ii and Zt are respectively nuclear spins of initial and final states. The reduced matrix element
in Eq. (14), consisted of two parts corresponding to two dynamical modes, can be calculated straight
forwards from Eqs. (10) to (13) when the nuclear wave functions are given. We take 27A1 as an
example, since the data on e7A1 are available from M. I. T. Bates Accelerator Laboratory as well as
nuclear wave functio@. Further the data were obtained at relatively forward scattering angle, so
that we assume that the observed transition are dominated by Coulomb contributions. For the
reduced matrix elements of the single-particle part in the body-fixed frame we obtain respectively to
the exponential distribution:
(1, 11 $fJsp(q)E 11 Zi>= iJpo( -)‘i-‘f/2Z,+ 1 2 C*K/~,“, CKiQiYi a*J,Q,f’f*JiQi.i

X ow R~,~,(r)rer’R ,iL,(r)drr
J
X
J
(5) C. L. Lin, Chinese J. Phys. 14(4), 95 (1976).
48 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE DlSTRIBUTIONS

where CKDv and aKnv are defined in ref. 5, RJr) is the radial wave function@) of the isortopic
harmonic oscillator wave function and zF,, the Gauss’ hypergeometric function, and to the gaussian
distribution:

<I/ 11 tiJ’p(q)G 11 Zi)=4ep(-)‘i-‘~/2Z,f 1 ~c;;/K/“, cKiKi.ia3,K/v/aJiKiyi

x(-)‘i -%+Ji/2J,+l W(ji, Ji, ei, J,; +J)

x {<I/, J, Ii I K/y Ki-K/, Ki) <J/v Jy Ji I K,, Ki- Kf, Ki>

+ (-)‘~ -‘~ <Z/, J, Ii 1 - K,, Ki + K,, K;) <J/t J, Ji 1 - KJ, Ki +K,, Ki))

(16)
for K#O, w h e r e w(e,, J,, E,, J2; L, J) a n d <11, J?,, L /ml, m,, M> are the Racah and Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients respectively, and b is the size parameter of the isotropic harmomic oscillator wave fUnC-
tions@). Also we have used the following relationships:

x driR*,,Pi)rlR.ili(ri)Sd~~~(r)rzj~(9r), (17)
. r.
where the single-particle wave function I (&)JQIJ>~ is abbreviated by 4JQ. In order to evaluate the
integral on the right hand side we have used the Tassie’s model (0 to obtain our expression for pi/.
That is:

(r II &At-) II r>+(r) = PorJ-’ -ir 6%. ,.(r), (18)

then for 27A1 we get:

(19)

where Cl”,;“.’ is the ground state expansion coefficients. And the p0 in Eqs. (15) and (19) is nor-
malized so as to give unity proton charge.
As to the reduced matrix element for the core, an axially symmetric deformation with A=2 is
assumed, so integrating Eq. (10) by using Tayler series expansion up to second order in the collective
coordinate al,, we obtaine

where the function l7$:“’ is as defined in ref. (2). The reduced matrix element with all charges
involved in the interaction being uniformly distributed on the surface is given as follows:
(6 ) A. de-Shalit and I. Talmi, Nuclear Shell Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1963).
(7) L. J. Tassie, Austr. J. Phys. 9, 407 (1956).
 CHING-LIANG LIN

(21)
where we have used the following relation:

(24
so the equilibrium deformation parameter j3,, takes part in our calculation as we expand the collective
coordinate az,, around their equilibrium valves.

III. RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS

3-l. Coulomb Form Factors

The data obtained at the M. I. T. Bates Accelerator Laboratory on 27A1 were taken at scattering
angle of 70” for varying incident energies, and the predominant contribution to the excitation is due
to the longitudinal E2 transition. So we calculate the electric quadrupole form factors and their
relative ratios by regarding the nuclear radius R,, the core charge Ze, and e, for the valence proton
as the parameters. The nuclear wave functions are taken from ref. (5). Since shell-model wave
functions are used, the correction for the center-of mass motion is made(‘) approximately multiplying
exp(bzqZ/4A) to the right-hand side of Eqs. (15) and (16), where A is the mass number of the target.
The valence proton in Nilsson orbit #5, is treated as the single particle as we assume 27A1 is consisted
of ZsMg core and one proton, then this proton can take on all neighbouring Nilsson orbits #9, #g
and #ll in excitation. The radial wave function R,,(r) which affects the shape of the form factor
most is &r(r), however, after summation over all n and e the effect of Rz, disappears even by varying
the parameters, so the shape of the form factor is essentially given by the hypergeometric function
SF1 which is a slowing decreasing function when J= 2. One of our results is shown in Fig. 1. How-

Fig. 1. Single-particle form factors are obtained by using the exponential

distribution for the valence proton moving in the Nillson’s orbit
given by parameters as shown in the figure. The full and dash-dot
lines give the calculated value while the dashed line is normalized
at qz1.5 fm-1 to the full line, FIThere ep is equal to one and 6 is
the size parameter of the harmonic oscillator.
50 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE DISTRIBUTIONS

- 'J/2+ 2.211uev
__-_ 3/2+ 1.014MeV
---_ l/2+ O.&WeV

K = 0.075
tL=o.zs
b =1.727 f,
R.=3.74 fm
a-‘= 0.5 9 fm

1. 1
i
\
\
1
\
\ /-.
\ / ‘\
\ ,+.\ \\\
\ ‘\
\ i: \
\ il ‘\ ’
\
I i: ‘\
:, if ‘1.
:I
13 ’ ,.b 1 I 1 I ..
‘LOQ(fm3
I
1.2 j.4 1.6 1.8
Fig. 2. Single-particle form factors are obtained by using the Gaussian distribution
for the valence proton moving in the Nillson’s orbit given by parameters
as shown in the figure. The full line gives the calculated value while the
dashed and dash-dot lines are normalized at q=l.S fm-r to the full line,
where e,, is equal to one and b is the size parameter of the harmonic
oscillator.

ever, the situation is quite different for the gaussian distribution function, the shape of the form
factor is coutrolled by the factor {[(J+3/2)-b2q2/4]2-(J+3/2)) that has a definite diffraction pattern,
and diffraction minima depend on the multipolarity J. In order to compare with the exponential
distribution of the valence proton as shown in Fig. 1, we show in Fig. 2 the single-particle form
factor for the gaussian distribution. There exist a distinction between Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The former
is the convolution of Eqs. (4) and (5) that describes a proton with its size represented by exponential
form should be presented at the very position at which the electromagnetic interaction taies place.
The latter, the convolution of Eqs. (3) and (6), does not demand the proton to be at the point where
the electromagnetic interaction occurs, the proton was only at the particular position with a pro-
bablity given by Eq. (19). This rehresentation seems to be a more realistic picture in describing
nuclear phenomena. Therefore we adopt the latter case in calculating the form factors.
As to the form factor of the collective motion, both uniform and surface charge distribution have
diffractive patterns as shown in Fig. 3. The diffraction minimum of the form factor is insensitive to
any parameter involved in Eqs. (20) and (21) except the nuclear radius R,. Since the uniform charge
distribution given by Eq. (7) does not indicate ‘that the interaction between the projectile and the
core is equal probable over the whole core, there is a predominant region to the interaction, the
sharp boundary of the nuclear surface is such region. This is the reason why form factors for both
the surface and uniform charge distribution depend similarly on the nuclear radius R,, which is the
most important parameter of all.
The resultant form factors are obtained by adding together the form factors of the single-particle
motion and those of collective motion by neglecting the core and valence proton. We combine only
the gaussion distribution of the valence proton to either the uniform charge distribution given by
Eq. (20) or the surface distribution given by Eq. (21), and then compare our calculated results with
52 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE DISTRIBUTIONS

1/z+ 0.a44MeV _
Surface
- R.=3.70 f, z-
__-_ 3.14 b =
---_-_ 394 * I
Experiment -

Fig. 4. The variation of theresultant form factors with respect to the charge
distributions. We vary the size parameter u-1 of the valence proton
in order to fit the experiment, where we fix ep=ec=l. The full line
gives the calculated value and the dashed jline is normalized at q=
1.2 fm-1 to the full line.

-
1/z.+ 0.844 MeV
Surface
$ .
----_ Uniform
P Experiment

Fig. 5. The variation of the resultant form factors with respect to the nuclear
radius R,,. The dash-dot line gives the calculated value while the full
and dashed lines are normalized at q=l.Ofm-1 to the dash-dot line
where we use ep=es=l.
 CHING-LIANG LIN 53

3_
z - Ratio R
I Experiment -
s-
;5-- Y = 0.075
VL r. = 415
cd
b = 1.727
f.
R. =3.74 fm
4-- =0.707 g
a* = 0.31
ph.= 0.324Mev

Fb::
P_

0 P _
0
II I I I I I I I I I I I
45 0.7 a9 I.1 1.3 15 \.7Q&,,I
Fig. 6. The ratio of the resultant form factors. We use eC=ep=I for the l/2+,
0.844 MeV state and ec =42=Z/A, ep = 1 for the 3/2+, 1.014 MeV state.

the ratios, although we have better to calculating the factors with the distorted wave approximation,
since the ratios are relatively insensitive to the distortion effect. We show our calculated results with
those of experiments in Fig. 6.
3-3. Conclusion:
Merely varying the nucleus radius, we can easily reproduce the diffraction minima of experimental
form factors, means that our model is qualitatively correct. And correct magnitudes of the form
factors and their relative ratios indicate the importance of correlations among different dynamical
modes as we considered bandmixing effect due to Coriolis force for calculating nuclear wave functions
which are used in this paper. However, there is discrepancy at the higher momentum transfer region,
that may be due to several possible effects: higher multipolarities, transverse contributions, distortion
effects or other dynamical modes. Generally, the higher multipolarities and transverse effect more
important the higher the momentum transfer q, so we should take those effects into account besides
the guadrupole Coulomb multipole. These works will be reported in the forth coming papers. How-
ever, it is fair to state that we have obtained a better and clearer picture inside the nucleus of 2’A1.
Y
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

c The author is thankful to Professor K. L. Chang for his comments and illuminating discussions.