This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Proton-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at intermediate energies

A. Watanabe1 [email protected]    S. Nakai1,2 [email protected]    Y. Wada1    K. Sekiguchi1 [email protected]    A. Deltuva3    T. Akieda1    D. Etoh1    M. Inoue1    Y. Inoue1    K. Kawahara1    H. Kon1    K. Miki1    T. Mukai1    D. Sakai1    S. Shibuya1    Y. Shiokawa1    T. Taguchi1    H. Umetsu1    Y. Utsuki1    M. Watanabe1    S. Goto4    K. Hatanaka5    Y. Hirai4    T. Ino6    D. Inomoto4    A. Inoue5    S. Ishikawa7    M. Itoh8    H. Kanda5    H. Kasahara4    N. Kobayashi5    Y. Maeda9    S. Mitsumoto4    S. Nakamura5    K. Nonaka9    H. J. Ong5,10    H. Oshiro4    Y. Otake11    H. Sakai12    A. Taketani11    A. Tamii5    D. T. Tran5    T. Wakasa4    Y. Wakabayashi11    T. Wakui13 1 Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan 2 Graduate Program on Physics for the Universe (GP-PU), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan 3 Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astronomy, Vilnius University, Saulėtekio al. 3, LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania 4 Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan 5 Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki 567-0047, Japan 6 High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan 7 Science Research Center, Hosei University, Tokyo 102-8160, Japan 8 Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan 9 Faculty of Engineering, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan 10 Institute of Modern Physics (IMP), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China 11 RIKEN Center for Advanced Photonics, Wako 351-0198, Japan 12 RIKEN Nishina Center, Wako 351-0198, Japan 13 National Institute of Radiological Science, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
Abstract

We present a precise measurement of the cross section, proton and He3\rm{}^{3}He analyzing powers, and spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} for pp-He3\rm{}^{3}He elastic scattering near 65 MeV, and a comparison with rigorous four-nucleon scattering calculations based on realistic nuclear potentials and a model with Δ\Delta-isobar excitation. Clear discrepancies are seen in some of the measured observables in the regime around the cross section minimum. Theoretical predictions using scaling relations between the calculated cross section and the He3\rm{}^{3}He binding energy are not successful in reproducing the data. Large sensitivity to the NNNN potentials and rather small Δ\Delta-isobar effects in the calculated cross section are noticed as different features from those in the deuteron-proton elastic scattering. The results obtained above indicate that pp-He3\rm{}^{3}He scattering at intermediate energies is an excellent tool to explore nuclear interactions not accessible by three-nucleon scattering.

I Introduction

One of the open questions in nuclear physics nowadays is a complete knowledge of the interactions acting among nucleons. Modern nucleon-nucleon (NNNN) potentials reproducing the NNNN observables up to 350 MeV with very high precision do not describe that well various nuclear phenomena, e.g., some few-nucleon scattering observables, nuclear binding energies, and nuclear matter properties Glöckle, et al. (1996); Carlson, et al. (2015). The three-nucleon forces (3NNFs), arising naturally in the standard meson-exchange picture Fujita and Miyazawa (1957) as well as in the chiral effective field theory (χ\chiEFT) van Kolck (1994); Epelbaum, et al. (2009), have been suggested as possible candidates to improve the situation. Few-nucleon reactions offer good opportunities to investigate the nature of the nuclear interactions since rigorous numerical calculations with two-nucleon (2N2N) and 3N3N forces and high-precision experiments are feasible.

Nucleon-deuteron (Nd)(Nd) elastic scattering at energies above 60MeV/nucleon\approx 60~{}\rm MeV/nucleon has been considered as a solid basis to explore the nuclear interactions focusing on the 3NNFs. Sizable discrepancies between the data and rigorous numerical calculations with realistic NNNN potentials were found in the cross section minimum Sakamoto, et al. (1996). They were successfully explained by inclusion of the two-π\pi exchange 3N3NF models that reproduce the binding energies of H3{}^{3}\rm H and He3{}^{3}\rm He Witała, et al. (1998); Sakai, et al. (2000); Witała, et al. (2001), or substantially reduced by calculations in an extended Hilbert space which allow the explicit excitation of a nucleon to a Δ\Delta isobar, yielding an effective 3N3NNemoto, et al. (1998); Deltuva, et al. (2003). It has been recently reported that the deuteron-proton (dd-pp) elastic cross section at 70 MeV/nucleon Sekiguchi, et al. (2002) constrains low-energy constants of 3NNFs in χ\chiEFT Epelbaum, et al. (2019).

The four-nucleon (4N4N) system has also become a test field for modern nuclear forces. It is the simplest system of investigating the nuclear interactions in 3N3N subsystems with the total isospin T=3/2T=3/2, whose importance is suggested in asymmetric nuclear systems, e.g., neutron-rich nuclei Pieper, et al. (2001) and pure neutron matter Gandolfi, et al. (2014); Lynn, et al. (2016). In recent years remarkable theoretical studies in solving the 4N4N scattering problem with realistic Hamiltonians have been reported Deltuva and Fonseca (2007); Lazauskas (2009); Viviani, et al. (2013) even above the 4N4N breakup threshold Deltuva and Fonseca (2013); Fonseca and Deltuva (2017), opening new possibilities for nuclear force study in the 4N4N system at intermediate energies.

Thanks to developments in technology for high quality polarized and unpolarized proton beams together with sophisticated techniques for the polarized He3{}^{3}\rm He target system, pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering has an experimental advantage that allows high precision measurements of the cross section and a variety of spin observables. Indeed, at proton energy below 50MeV50~{}\rm MeV rich data sets for pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering are available, covering the cross section Lovberg (1956); Famularo, et al. (1954); Brolley, et al. (1960); Clegg, et al. (1964); McDonald, et al. (1964); Kim, et al. (1964); Drigo, et al. (1966); Harbison, et al. (1970); Hutson, et al. (1971); Murdoch, et al. (1984); Viviani, et al. (2001); Fisher, et al. (2006), proton analyzing power McDonald, et al. (1964); Harbison, et al. (1970); Baker, et al. (1971); Jarmie and Jett (1974); Birchall, et al. (1984); Alley and Knutson (1993); Viviani, et al. (2001); Fisher, et al. (2006), He3\rm{}^{3}He analyzing power Baker, et al. (1971); Alley and Knutson (1993); Müller, et al. (1978); McCamis, et al. (1985); Daniels, et al. (2010), and spin-correlation coefficients Baker, et al. (1971); Alley and Knutson (1993); Daniels, et al. (2010). However, the existing data basis is rather poor at higher energies, mostly limited to the cross section Votta, et al. (1974); Goldstein, et al. (1970); Wesick, et al. (1985); Langevin-Joliot, et al. (1970) and the proton analyzing power Wesick, et al. (1985). Few data exist for the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power and the spin correlation coefficients Shimizu, et al. (2007).

As for the theoretical descriptions of pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering, calculations taking into account the 2N2N and 3N3N forces are reported in the framework of the Kohn variational approach up to 5.54 MeV (below 3N3N breakup threshold)  Viviani, et al. (2013). At these lower energies, the data are well explained by the calculations with the 2N2N interactions. The exception is the proton analyzing power AyA_{y}, for which the so-called AyA_{y} puzzle exists as seen in the NdNd elastic scattering. At higher energies, calculations in the framework of the Alt-Grassberger-Sandhas (AGS) equation are presented using various realistic NNNN potentials up to 35 MeV Deltuva and Fonseca (2013); Fonseca and Deltuva (2017). Although calculations including 3N3NFs have not been done for energies above the breakup threshold so far, these works performed coupled-channel calculations with the Δ\Delta-isobar degree of freedom as an alternative source of 3N3N and 4N4N forces. At incident energies above 20 MeV, the calculations with realistic NNNN potentials underpredict the cross section data in the minimum, as observed also in the NdNd elastic scattering but at higher center-of-mass energy. The Δ\Delta-isobar effects slightly improve the agreement with the data for the cross section. In line with this feature it would be interesting to see how the theoretical calculations based on realistic nuclear potentials explain the data for pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at intermediate energies.

In this paper we present the first precise data set for pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at intermediate energies, the cross section dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega and the proton analyzing power AyA_{y} at 65 MeV, and the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power A0yA_{0y} at 70 MeV spanning a wide angular range. In addition, we present the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} at 65 MeV at the angles of 46.646.6^{\circ}, 89.089.0^{\circ}, 133.2133.2^{\circ} in the center-of-mass system. The data are compared with rigorous numerical calculations for 4N4N-scattering based on various realistic NNNN potentials as well as with the Δ\Delta-isobar excitation, in order to explore possibilities of pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering as a tool to study nuclear interactions. However, the Coulomb force is omitted this time, thus the theoretical predictions of the present work in fact refer to the mirror reaction nn-H3{}^{3}\rm H.

In Sec. II, we describe the experimental procedure and the data analysis. Section III presents a comparison between the experimental data and the theoretical predictions, and discussion follows in Sec. IV. Finally, we summarize and conclude in Sec. V.

II Experimental procedure and data analysis

II.1 Measurement of the cross section and the proton analyzing power AyA_{y} at 65 MeV

The measurement of the cross section dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega and the proton analyzing power AyA_{y} was performed with a 65 MeV polarized proton beam in the West Experimental Hall at the Research Center for Nuclear Physics (RCNP), Osaka University. The measured angles were θlab.=20.0\theta_{\rm lab.}=20.0^{\circ}165.0165.0^{\circ} in the laboratory system which corresponds to θc.m.=26.9\theta_{\rm c.m.}=26.9^{\circ}170.1170.1^{\circ} in the center-of-mass system. Figure 1 shows the schematic layout of the experimental setup around the He3{}^{3}\rm He target. The polarized proton beam provided by an atomic beam type polarized ion source Hatanaka, et al. (1997) was accelerated up to 65 MeV by the AVF cyclotron. The beam was transported Wakasa, et al. (2002) to the He3{}^{3}\rm He gas target at the center of the scattering chamber of the magnetic spectrometer Grand Raiden Fujiwara, et al. (1999) that was used to monitor the luminosity by observing the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering events at a laboratory angle of 4141^{\circ}. The beam was stopped in a Faraday cup located downstream of the scattering chamber. The beam intensity was 20–100 nA. The beam polarization was monitored with a beamline polarimeter of the West Experimental Hall by using pp-C12{}^{12}\rm C elastic scattering Ieiri, et al. (1987). During the measurement, the beam polarization was typically 53%. The He3{}^{3}\rm He gas target was contained in the cell of a cylinder of 99 mm diameter with a 50-μm\mu\rm m-thick Al window with a pressure of 1 atm at room temperature. The absolute gas density was determined with uncertainty of less than 0.8% by continuously monitoring the pressure as well as the temperature during the measurement. Scattered protons from the He3{}^{3}\rm He target were detected with two sets of counter telescopes which were placed in the scattering chamber and positioned 20 cm away from the center of the target cell. Each counter telescope consisted of a NaI(Tl) scintillator with dimensions 50 mm (thickness) ×\times 31 mm (width) ×\times 31 mm (height) and a 0.5-mm-thick plastic scintillator. A double-slit system was used to define the target volume and the solid angle. Each slit was made of 5-mm-thick Ta. The effective target thickness and the solid angle were calculated by Monte Carlo simulations. Elastically scattered protons from the He3{}^{3}\rm He target were identified using the correlation between energy loss of a plastic scintillator and the remaining energy deposited in a NaI(Tl) scintillator. Figure 2 shows the light output spectrum for the scattered protons obtained by a NaI(Tl) scintillator at the laboratory angle of 70(θc.m.=89.070^{\circ}(\theta_{\rm c.m.}=89.0^{\circ}). The peak corresponding to protons elastically scattered from He3{}^{3}\rm He was well separated from the inelastic scattering events. The background events obtained with the empty target cell showed a nearly flat distribution. After subtracting the background contributions the yields of the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering were extracted by fitting with skewed Gaussians. The effects of nuclear reactions in the NaI(Tl) scintillators were interpolated from the published results Sourkes, et al. (1977); Goulding and Rogers (1978). The absolute values of the cross section for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering were deduced by normalizing the data to the pp-pp scattering cross section as given by the phase-shift analysis program SAID Workman, et al. (2016). The normalization factors were obtained from the measurement for the pp-pp scattering with hydrogen gas by using the same detection system for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering. The statistical error of dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering is better than ±2%\pm 2\%. The systematic uncertainty, which is the quadratic sum of the uncertainty in the normalization factor, the uncertainty in the background contamination, the fluctuation in the luminosity, and the uncertainty in the beam polarization is estimated to be 3%3\%. For AyA_{y}, the statistical error is 0.02 or less and the systematic uncertainty is estimated to be 0.02.

II.2 Measurement of the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power A0yA_{0y} at 70 MeV

The measurement of the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power A0yA_{0y} was performed with a 70 MeV proton beam in conjunction with the polarized He3\rm{}^{3}He target at the Cyclotron Radioisotope Center (CYRIC), Tohoku University. The experiment consisted of several separate measurements by using two different polarized He3{}^{3}\rm He target cells. The experimental setup around the target is shown in Fig. 3. A proton beam with an intensity of 5–10 nA bombarded the polarized He3{}^{3}\rm He target and it was stopped in a Faraday cup. Relative beam intensity was monitored by a beam monitoring system installed in the vacuum chamber, by which scattered protons from a polyethylene film with a thickness of 20 μ\mum were detected. The polarized He3{}^{3}\rm He target and the detector system for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering were operated in atmosphere. The vacuum was separated by a Kapton film with thickness of 50 μ\mum which was attached to an aluminum made beam pipe connected to the vacuum chamber. Scattered protons from the He3{}^{3}\rm He target were detected using sets of counter telescopes which were positioned 73 cm away from the center of the target cell symmetrically on each side of the beam axis at laboratory angles of 35.035.0^{\circ}125.0125.0^{\circ} (θc.m.=46.6\theta_{\rm c.m.}=46.6^{\circ}141.4141.4^{\circ}). Each counter telescope consisted of a NaI(Tl) scintillator and a plastic scintillator. The NaI(Tl) scintillator was the same type as was used for the cross section measurement. For the plastic scintillators, different thicknesses, namely 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 mm, were used depending on the measured angles. A double-slit collimator, which was made of 20-mm-thick Al for the front part and 15-mm-thick brass for the rear part, was used to define the target volume and the solid angle for each counter telescope. The method to polarize a He3{}^{3}\rm He nucleus was based on the principle of spin-exchange optical pumping (SEOP) Bouchiat, et al. (1960); Babcock, et al. (2003). A target cell was one-piece GE180 glassware which consisted of a pumping chamber and a target chamber, connected by a thin transfer tube. This design prevented the depolarization of alkali-metal atoms due to the incident beam Coulter, et al. (1989). In addition to this, undesirable energy loss of the scattered protons passing through a material, which is used to heat the target cell for SEOP, can be avoided. The target cell contained He3{}^{3}\rm He gas with a pressure of 3 atm at room temperature, a small amount of N2\rm N_{2} gas (0.1 atm), and a mixture of Rb and K alkali metals. The pumping chamber was heated up to about 500K\rm 500~{}K to provide sufficient high alkali-metal vapor density and maintain the He3{}^{3}\rm He polarization. Circularly polarized laser light at 794.7 nm polarized Rb atoms in the pumping chamber. 3He nuclei were polarized through spin exchange interactions in the pumping chamber and then diffused into the target chamber. A 12 G magnetic field, provided by a pair of Helmholtz coils 100 cm in diameter, defined the direction of the He3{}^{3}\rm He nuclear polarization. The target chamber of the target cell had a diameter of 4 cm and was 15 cm long along the beam path. The entrance and exit windows were made as thin as 0.4 mm, and the thickness of the side surfaces where scattered protons passed was about 1 mm. During the measurement the target polarization was measured by the adiabatic fast passage nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method, which was calibrated using the electron paramagnetic resonance technique Romalis and Cates (1998). Additionally, the absolute values of the target polarization were measured by the thermal neutron transmission using the RIKEN Accelerator-Driven Compact Neutron Source (RANS)  Otake (2018). The typical target polarization was 40% with an uncertainty of 2%. A more detailed description of the target system is found in Ref. Watanabe (2020). The statistical error of the A0yA_{0y} is 0.02 or less. The systematic uncertainty which mainly came from the uncertainty of the target polarization is 0.02 or less. The data taken independently with the different target setups at the same angles are consistent each other within the estimated uncertainty.

II.3 Measurement of the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} at 65 MeV

The measurement was extended to the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y}. The experiment was performed in the East Experimental Hall at RCNP. A 65 MeV polarized proton beam with an intensity of 10 nA bombarded the polarized He3{}^{3}\rm He target installed at the ENN beam line Watanabe (2020). The beam polarizations monitored by using the proton-deuteron elastic scattering Shimizu, et al. (1982) were 50% for spin-up and 20% for spin-down, respectively. The same polarized He3{}^{3}\rm He target system and the same detection system as those for the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power measurement at CYRIC were applied. The target polarization was 40% during the measurement. The measured angles were θlab.=35.0\theta_{\rm lab.}=35.0^{\circ}, 70.070.0^{\circ}, and 115.0115.0^{\circ} (θc.m.=46.6\theta_{\rm c.m.}=46.6^{\circ}, 89.089.0^{\circ}, and 133.2133.2^{\circ}). The statistical error of the Cy,yC_{y,y} varies 0.03–0.06 depending on the measured angles, and the systematic error does not exceed the statistical one.

III Comparison of Data with Theoretical Calculations

The measured cross section dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega, the proton analyzing power AyA_{y}, the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power A0yA_{0y}, and the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} are shown in Fig. 4 as a function of the center-of-mass (c.m.) scattering angle θc.m.\theta_{\rm c.m.} together with the theoretical calculations. The observables for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering were calculated from the solutions of exact AGS equations as given in Refs. Deltuva and Fonseca (2013); Fonseca and Deltuva (2017) using a number of NNNN potentials: the Argonne v18v_{18} (AV18) Wiringa, et al. (1995), the CD Bonn Machleidt (2001), and the INOY04 Doleschall (2004). The calculations based on two semilocal momentum space regularized chiral NNNN potentials of the fifth order (N4LO\rm N^{4}LO) with the cutoff parameters Λ=400MeV/c\Lambda=400~{}{\rm MeV}/c (SMS400) and Λ=500MeV/c\Lambda=500~{}{\rm MeV}/c (SMS500) Reinert, et al. (2018) are also presented. In addition, to test the importance of 3N3N and 4N4N forces in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering, the calculations based on the CD Bonn+Δ+\Delta model Deltuva, et al. (2003), which allows an excitation of a nucleon to a Δ\Delta isobar and thereby yields effective 3N3NFs and 4N4NFs, are presented.

The AGS equations for 4N4N transition operators are solved in the momentum-space partial wave representation Deltuva and Fonseca (2013) including NNNN waves with total angular momentum below 4. Since the rigorous treatment of the Coulomb force requires the inclusion of much higher partial waves, the Coulomb force is omitted in the present study. Given relatively high energy, it is expected to be significant at small angles up to θc.m.40\theta_{\rm c.m.}\sim 40^{\circ} only.

As shown in Fig. 4, the calculations with the NNNN forces underestimate dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega at the backward angles θc.m.80\theta_{\rm c.m.}\gtrsim 80^{\circ}. It is also found that there is a large sensitivity of the calculations to the input NNNN forces at the minimum region. INOY04, which is fitted to reproduce the He3{}^{3}\rm He binding energy, provides a better description of the data, but it still underestimates the data. In addition, Δ\Delta-isobar contributions in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering, which are estimated by the difference between the CD Bonn+Δ\Delta and CD Bonn calculations, are clearly seen to the limited angles θc.m.110\theta_{\rm c.m.}\lesssim 110^{\circ}. In the NdNd elastic scattering, the Δ\Delta-isobar effects increase dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega to reduce the discrepancy from the data over all angles Deltuva, et al. (2003).

The calculated AyA_{y} has a relatively small sensitivity to NNNN forces, and the description of AyA_{y} is moderate. Small but visible effects of the Δ\Delta isobar are predicted by CD Bonn+Δ\Delta, which leads to a better agreement with the data depending on the measured angles.

As for A0yA_{0y}, the calculations based on the NNNN potentials are close to each other. The A0yA_{0y} data deviate largely from the NNNN force calculations at the minimum θc.m.90\theta_{\rm c.m.}\sim 90^{\circ} as well as the maximum θc.m.140\theta_{\rm c.m.}\sim 140^{\circ}, which was not seen at lower energies Viviani, et al. (2013); Deltuva and Fonseca (2013); Fonseca and Deltuva (2017). The Δ\Delta-isobar effects shift the calculated results slightly but in the wrong direction at θc.m.100\theta_{\rm c.m.}\sim 100^{\circ}.

For Cy,yC_{y,y}, the angular dependence looks quite different from that at lower energies Viviani, et al. (2013); Deltuva and Fonseca (2013); Fonseca and Deltuva (2017), and large Δ\Delta-isobar effects are predicted at the angles θc.m.=100\theta_{\rm c.m.}=100^{\circ}140140^{\circ}. The data at the limited angles have moderate agreements to all the calculations with no definite conclusions for the Δ\Delta-isobar effects.

IV Discussion

In Refs. Deltuva and Fonseca (2013); Fonseca and Deltuva (2017), it was found that dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering calculated with the AV18, CD Bonn, and INOY04 NNNN potentials at lower energies of 7–35 MeV scale with the binding energy (B.E.) of 3He. Inspired by this fact we investigate the scaling relation between B.E.(3He) and the cross section at 65 MeV in panels (a)–(c) of Fig. 5. In the minimum region of angles θc.m.=80\theta_{\rm c.m.}=80^{\circ}150150^{\circ} the calculated dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega, normalized by the corresponding experimental data, are plotted as a function of B.E.(3He). Linear correlations, shown as red straight lines in the figure, exist for the calculations based on the NNNN potentials including the two chiral NNNN potentials, i.e., SMS400 and SMS500. From the correlation lines one can predict the dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega corresponding to the NNNN potential that reproduces the experimental B.E.(He3{}^{3}\rm He), which almost coincides with the INOY04 result. As shown in the figure, the predictions underestimate the experimental dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega by 20–30%. Note that the calculations with CD Bonn+Δ\Delta, that will be discussed later, are not included in the fitting of the correlation lines.

In panels (d)–(f) of Fig. 5, we also demonstrate the scaling relation between B.E.(H3{}^{3}\rm H) and the cross section for the deuteron-proton (dd-pp) elastic scattering at 70 MeV/nucleon. The calculated dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega at 70 MeV/nucleon, normalized by the experimental data of the dd-pp elastic scattering Sekiguchi, et al. (2002), are plotted as a function of B.E.(H3{}^{3}\rm HDeltuva ; Witała, et al. (2003); the Coulomb interaction is not taken into account. A similar scaling also exists in the dd-pp elastic scattering as seen in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering. The red straight lines are obtained by fitting the calculations with NNNN potentials: AV18, CD Bonn, Nijmegen I, II Stoks, et al. (1994), and INOY04. These lines, as in the case of the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering, allow us to predict dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega with a NNNN potential that reproduces the experimental B.E.(H3{}^{3}\rm H). The panels (d)–(f) of Fig. 5 show that the predictions underestimate the experimental dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega by 10–20%. In the figure, the calculations taking into account the Tucson-Melbourne’99 2π\pi-exchange 3N3NF (TM99-3N3NF) Coon and Han (2001) in which the cutoff parameter is fitted to reproduce the experimental B.E.(H3{}^{3}\rm H) for each combined NNNN potential, i.e., AV18, CD Bonn, Nijmegen I and II, are presented Witała, et al. (2003); Sekiguchi, et al. (2017). In addition, calculations including an irreducible 3N3N potential contribution to CD Bonn+Δ\Delta which reproduces the experimental B.E.(H3{}^{3}\rm H), the model U2 of Ref. Deltuva and Sauer (2015), are also shown. The calculated results provide good agreements with the experimental data, indicating strong evidence for the need to include the 3N3NFs. The discrepancy between the data and the predictions with a NNNN potential that reproduces the experimental B.E.(3N3N) for the ppHe3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at the cross section minimum angles is similar in size or even larger than that for the dd-pp elastic scattering at a similar incident energy. It should be interesting to see whether the combinations of 2N2N and 3N3N forces, that give good descriptions of the dd-pp scattering cross section, explain the data for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering.

An interesting feature found in the above mentioned correlations is that dependence of the calculated dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega on B.E.(3N3N) for the dd-pp scattering is smaller than that for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering. It is quantified by the gradients of the correlation lines: 0.1/MeV\sim 0.1/\rm MeV for the dd-pp scattering and 0.3/MeV\sim 0.3/\rm MeV for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering. There is a speculation that a weaker sensitivity for the dd-pp elastic cross section is related to dominance of the total 3N3N spin S=3/2S=3/2 state (quartet state) in the nucleon-deuteron elastic scattering Koike and Taniguchi (1986). As for the neutron-deuteron ss-wave scattering length, the quartet state is insensitive to the difference of NNNN potentials because of the Pauli principle, which prevents two neutrons getting close to each other Bahethi and Fuda (1972); Witała, et al. (2003). Therefore it is expected that relatively large dependence seen in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic cross sections is a reflection of medium- and short-range details of the nuclear interactions including 3N3NFs.

In the following, we discuss the Δ\Delta-isobar effects. As shown in panels (a)–(c) of Fig. 5, the calculations of the CD Bonn+Δ\Delta model for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering are off from the correlation lines at backward angles and move in a direction opposite to the experimental data. Thus, the Δ\Delta-isobar effects do not improve the agreement with the data. Meanwhile, as shown in panels (d)–(f) of Fig. 5, the calculations of the CD Bonn+Δ\Delta model for the NdNd elastic scattering are off from the correlation lines, but the Δ\Delta-isobar effects provide a better agreement with the data.

It is known that effective 3N3N and 4N4N forces due to the excitation of a nucleon to a Δ\Delta isobar are often partially canceled by Δ\Delta-isobar effects of 2N2N nature, the so-called 2N2N dispersion Nemoto, et al. (1998); Deltuva, et al. (2003, 2008); Nemoto (1999). To study Δ\Delta-isobar effects more in detail, the effects of the 2N2N dispersion, and those of 3N3N and 4N4N forces, are singled out separately as in Ref. Deltuva and Fonseca (2007); Deltuva, et al. (2008). The results for the cross sections are shown in Fig. 6(a) as a ratio to the calculation based on the CD Bonn potential. At the minimum angles, large contributions of the Δ\Delta-generated 3N3N and 4N4N forces increase the cross section values. However, together with this, there is a strong dispersive Δ\Delta-isobar effect, which is opposite to the 3N3NF and 4N4NF effects. As a result, the net effects of the Δ\Delta isobar are small, and their effects are even reversed at θc.m.140\theta_{\rm c.m.}\approx 140^{\circ}. In the NdNd elastic scattering the dispersive Δ\Delta-isobar effect is smaller than that of the Δ\Delta-generated 3N3NFs, and then the net contributions of the Δ\Delta isobar increase the cross section Nemoto, et al. (1998); Nemoto (1999). Since the calculated 3N3N binding energy with CD Bonn+Δ\Delta is still smaller than the experimental value by about 0.2MeV0.2~{}\rm MeV Deltuva, et al. (2003, 2008), further attractive effects attributed to the irreducible 3N3NFs in NNNNNN-NNNNΔ\Delta model space Deltuva and Sauer (2015) should be considered. It will be interesting to study in the future how such attractive contributions affect the cross sections for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering.

Regarding the spin observables, large Δ\Delta-isobar effects are predicted for the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} (see Fig. 4). Interestingly, Fig. 6(b) shows that the predicted Δ\Delta-isobar effects are mainly due to the 2N2N dispersion. Experimental data of the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} in a wide angular range are needed for a detailed discussion of the Δ\Delta-isobar effects.

V Summary and conclusion

We have reported the precise data set for pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at intermediate energies: dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega and the proton analyzing power AyA_{y} taken at 65 MeV in the angular regime θc.m.=26.9\theta_{\rm c.m.}=26.9^{\circ}170.1170.1^{\circ}; the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power A0yA_{0y} at 70MeV70~{}\rm MeV in the angular regime θc.m.=46.6\theta_{\rm c.m.}=46.6^{\circ}141.4141.4^{\circ}, and the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} at 65MeV65~{}\rm MeV for θc.m.=46.6\theta_{\rm c.m.}=46.6^{\circ}, 89.089.0^{\circ}, and 133.2133.2^{\circ}.

For the cross section the statistical error is better than ±2%\pm 2\% and the systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 3%. The absolute values of the cross section were deduced by normalizing the data to the pp-pp scattering cross section given by the phase-shift analysis program SAID. For the proton and He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing powers the statistical uncertainties are less than 0.02. They are 0.03–0.06 for the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y}. The systematic uncertainties for all the measured spin observables do not exceed the statistical ones.

The data are compared with rigorous 4N4N-scattering calculations based on various realistic NNNN nuclear potentials without the Coulomb force. Clear discrepancies have been found for some of the measured observables, especially in the angular regime around the dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega minimum. Linear correlations exist between the calculations of the He3{}^{3}\rm He binding energy and those of dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega, which enables us to evaluate dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega with a NNNN potential that reproduces B.E.(He3{}^{3}\rm He). Predicted values of dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega in the minimum region clearly underestimate the data. A similar tendency is obtained in the NdNd elastic scattering, where discrepancies are largely resolved by incorporating 3N3NFs. The NNNN potential dependence for the cross section in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering is found to be larger than that in the dd-pp elastic scattering, which could allow us to anticipate a wealth of information on the nuclear interactions from further investigation of the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He scattering at these energies.

The Δ\Delta-isobar effects in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He observables are estimated by the NNNN+NΔN\Delta coupled-channel approach. They do not always remedy the difference between the data and the calculations based on the NNNN potentials. In the case of dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega, large contributions of the effective 3N3N and 4N4N forces are largely canceled by the dispersive Δ\Delta-isobar effect, that leads to a rather small total Δ\Delta-isobar effect. The results are in contrast to those in the dd-pp scattering, where the cancellation is less pronounced. Since this approach still misses the 3N3N binding energies, its extensions, e.g., the irreducible 3NN potential combined with the NNNN+Δ\Delta model Deltuva and Sauer (2015), are needed. Together with this, large dispersive Δ\Delta-isobar effects predicted in the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} should be investigated experimentally in the future.

From these obtained results we conclude that pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at intermediate energies is an excellent tool to explore the nuclear interactions including 3N3NFs that could not be accessible in 3N3N scattering. Recent study of the χ\chiEFT nuclear potentials intends to use the dd-pp scattering data at intermediate energies to derive the higher-order 3N3NFs Epelbaum, et al. (2020). It would be interesting to see how the predictions with such 3N3NFs explain the data for the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering, which will enable us to perform detailed discussions of the effects of 3N3NFs including the T=3/2T=3/2 isospin channels.

Acknowledgements.
We acknowledge the outstanding work of the accelerator groups of CYRIC and RCNP for delivering excellent proton beams, and the RANS team for providing high quality neutron beams. We thank T. Uesaka, W. Kim, S. Shimoura, S. Ota, Y. Shimizu, T. Kobayashi, N. Chiga, M. Ohgi, M. Fujita, T. Averett, and S. Yanagawa for their strong support of the experiments. S. N. acknowledges support by GP-PU at Tohoku University. This work was supported finally in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grants No.JP25105502, No.JP16H02171, and No.JP18H05404.

References

  • Glöckle, et al. (1996) W. Glöckle, H. Witała, D. Hüber, H. Kamada, and J. Golak, Phys. Rep. 274, 107 (1996).
  • Carlson, et al. (2015) J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1067 (2015).
  • Fujita and Miyazawa (1957) J. Fujita and H. Miyazawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 17, 360 (1957).
  • van Kolck (1994) U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2932 (1994).
  • Epelbaum, et al. (2009) E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009).
  • Sakamoto, et al. (1996) N. Sakamoto, H. Okamura, T. Uesaka, S. Ishida, H. Otsu, T. Wakasa, Y. Satou, T. Niizeki, K. Katoh, T. Yamashita, et al., Phys. Lett. B 367, 60 (1996).
  • Witała, et al. (1998) H. Witała, W. Glöckle, D. Hüber, J. Golak, and H. Kamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1183 (1998).
  • Sakai, et al. (2000) H. Sakai, K. Sekiguchi, H. Witała, W. Glöckle, M. Hatano, H. Kamada, H. Kato, Y. Maeda, A. Nogga, T. Ohnishi, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5288 (2000).
  • Witała, et al. (2001) H. Witała, W. Glöckle, J. Golak, A. Nogga, H. Kamada, R. Skibiński, and J. Kuroś-Żołnierczuk, Phys. Rev. C 63, 024007 (2001).
  • Nemoto, et al. (1998) S. Nemoto, K. Chmielewski, S. Oryu, and P. U. Sauer, Phys. Rev. C 58, 2599 (1998).
  • Deltuva, et al. (2003) A. Deltuva, R. Machleidt, and P. U. Sauer, Phys. Rev. C 68, 024005 (2003).
  • Sekiguchi, et al. (2002) K. Sekiguchi, H. Sakai, H. Witała, W. Glöckle, J. Golak, M. Hatano, H. Kamada, H. Kato, Y. Maeda, J. Nishikawa, et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 034003 (2002).
  • Epelbaum, et al. (2019) E. Epelbaum, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, T. Hüther, H. Kamada, H. Krebs, P. Maris, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, R. Roth, et al. (LENPIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99, 024313 (2019).
  • Pieper, et al. (2001) S. C. Pieper, V. R. Pandharipande, R. B. Wiringa, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 64, 014001 (2001).
  • Gandolfi, et al. (2014) S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. Reddy, A. W. Steiner, and R. B. Wiringa, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 10 (2014).
  • Lynn, et al. (2016) J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062501 (2016).
  • Deltuva and Fonseca (2007) A. Deltuva and A. C. Fonseca, Phys. Rev. C 76, 021001(R) (2007).
  • Lazauskas (2009) R. Lazauskas, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054007 (2009).
  • Viviani, et al. (2013) M. Viviani, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, and L. E. Marcucci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 172302 (2013).
  • Deltuva and Fonseca (2013) A. Deltuva and A. C. Fonseca, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054002 (2013).
  • Fonseca and Deltuva (2017) A. C. Fonseca and A. Deltuva, Few-Body Syst. 58, 46 (2017).
  • Lovberg (1956) R. H. Lovberg, Phys. Rev. 103, 1393 (1956).
  • Famularo, et al. (1954) K. F. Famularo, R. J. S. Brown, H. D. Holmgren, and T. F. Stratton, Phys. Rev. 93, 928 (1954).
  • Brolley, et al. (1960) J. E. Brolley, T. M. Putnam, L. Rosen, and L. Stewart, Phys. Rev. 117, 1307 (1960).
  • Clegg, et al. (1964) T. Clegg, A. Barnard, J. Swint, and J. Weil, Nucl. Phys. 50, 621 (1964).
  • McDonald, et al. (1964) D. G. McDonald, W. Haeberli, and L. W. Morrow, Phys. Rev. 133, B1178 (1964).
  • Kim, et al. (1964) C. Kim, S. Bunch, D. Devins, and H. Forster, Nucl. Phys. 58, 32 (1964).
  • Drigo, et al. (1966) L. Drigo, C. Manduchi, G. Nardelli, M. Russo-Manduchi, G. Tornielli, and G. Zannoni, Nucl. Phys. 89, 632 (1966).
  • Harbison, et al. (1970) S. Harbison, R. Griffiths, N. Stewart, A. Johnston, and G. Squier, Nucl. Phys. A 150, 570 (1970).
  • Hutson, et al. (1971) R. L. Hutson, N. Jarmie, J. L. Detch, and J. H. Jett, Phys. Rev. C 4, 17 (1971).
  • Murdoch, et al. (1984) B. T. Murdoch, D. K. Hasell, A. M. Sourkes, W. T. H. van Oers, P. J. T. Verheijen, and R. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 29, 2001 (1984).
  • Viviani, et al. (2001) M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, E. A. George, and L. D. Knutson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3739 (2001).
  • Fisher, et al. (2006) B. M. Fisher, C. R. Brune, H. J. Karwowski, D. S. Leonard, E. J. Ludwig, T. C. Black, M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, and S. Rosati, Phys. Rev. C 74, 034001 (2006).
  • Baker, et al. (1971) S. D. Baker, T. Cahill, P. Catillon, J. Durand, and D. Garreta, Nucl. Phys. A 160, 428 (1971).
  • Jarmie and Jett (1974) N. Jarmie and J. H. Jett, Phys. Rev. C 10, 57 (1974).
  • Birchall, et al. (1984) J. Birchall, W. T. H. van Oers, J. W. Watson, H. E. Conzett, R. M. Larimer, B. Leemann, E. J. Stephenson, P. von Russen, and R. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 29, 2009 (1984).
  • Alley and Knutson (1993) M. T. Alley and L. D. Knutson, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1890 (1993).
  • Müller, et al. (1978) D. Müller, R. Beckmann, and U. Holm, Nucl. Phys. A 311, 1 (1978).
  • McCamis, et al. (1985) R. H. McCamis, P. J. T. Verheijen, W. T. H. van Oers, P. Drakopoulos, C. Lapointe, G. R. Maughan, N. T. Okumusoglu, and R. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 31, 1651 (1985).
  • Daniels, et al. (2010) T. V. Daniels, C. W. Arnold, J. M. Cesaratto, T. B. Clegg, A. H. Couture, H. J. Karwowski, and T. Katabuchi, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034002 (2010).
  • Votta, et al. (1974) L. G. Votta, P. G. Roos, N. S. Chant, and R. Woody, Phys. Rev. C 10, 520 (1974).
  • Goldstein, et al. (1970) N. P. Goldstein, A. Held, and D. G. Stairs, Can. J. Phys. 48, 2629 (1970).
  • Wesick, et al. (1985) J. S. Wesick, P. G. Roos, N. S. Chant, C. C. Chang, A. Nadasen, L. Rees, N. R. Yoder, A. A. Cowley, S. J. Mills, and W. W. Jacobs, Phys. Rev. C 32, 1474 (1985).
  • Langevin-Joliot, et al. (1970) H. Langevin-Joliot, P. Narboni, J. Didelez, G. Duhamel, L. Marcus, and M. Roy-Stephan, Nucl. Phys. A 158, 309 (1970).
  • Shimizu, et al. (2007) Y. Shimizu, K. Hatanaka, Y. Tameshige, T. Adachi, K. Fujita, H. Matsubara, H. Okamura, A. Tamii, A. P. Kobushkin, T. Kawabata, et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 044003 (2007).
  • Hatanaka, et al. (1997) K. Hatanaka, K. Takahisa, H. Tamura, M. Sato, and I. Miura, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. A 384, 575 (1997).
  • Wakasa, et al. (2002) T. Wakasa, K. Hatanaka, Y. Fujita, G. Berg, H. Fujimura, H. Fujita, M. Itoh, J. Kamiya, T. Kawabata, K. Nagayama, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. A 482, 79 (2002).
  • Fujiwara, et al. (1999) M. Fujiwara, H. Akimune, I. Daito, H. Fujimura, Y. Fujita, K. Hatanaka, H. Ikegami, I. Katayama, K. Nagayama, N. Matsuoka, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. A 422, 484 (1999).
  • Ieiri, et al. (1987) M. Ieiri, H. Sakaguchi, M. Nakamura, H. Sakamoto, H. Ogawa, M. Yosol, T. Ichihara, N. Isshiki, Y. Takeuchi, H. Togawa, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. A 257, 253 (1987).
  • Sourkes, et al. (1977) A. M. Sourkes, M. S. D. Jong, C. A. Goulding, W. T. H. V. Oers, E. A. Ginkel, R. F. Carlson, A. J. Cox, and D. J. Margaziotis, Nucl. Instrum. and Methods 143, 589 (1977).
  • Goulding and Rogers (1978) C. A. Goulding and J. G. Rogers, Nucl. Instrum. and Methods 153, 511 (1978).
  • Workman, et al. (2016) R. L. Workman, W. J. Briscoe, and I. I. Strakovsky, Phys. Rev. C 94, 065203 (2016).
  • Bouchiat, et al. (1960) M. A. Bouchiat, T. R. Carver, and C. M. Varnum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 373 (1960).
  • Babcock, et al. (2003) E. Babcock, I. Nelson, S. Kadlecek, B. Driehuys, L. W. Anderson, F. W. Hersman, and T. G. Walker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 123003 (2003).
  • Coulter, et al. (1989) K. Coulter, A. McDonald, G. Cates, W. Happer, and T. Chupp, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. A 276, 29 (1989).
  • Romalis and Cates (1998) M. V. Romalis and G. D. Cates, Phys. Rev. A 58, 3004 (1998).
  • Otake (2018) Y. Otake, in Applications of Laser-Driven Particle Acceleration, edited by P. Bolton, K. Parodi, and J. Schreiber (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2018), Chap. 19, p. 291.
  • Watanabe (2020) A. Watanabe, Ph.D. thesis, Tohoku University, 2020 (unpublished).
  • Shimizu, et al. (1982) H. Shimizu, K. Imai, N. Tamura, K. Nisimura, K. Hatanaka, T. Saito, Y. Koike, and Y. Taniguchi, Nucl. Phys. A 382, 242 (1982).
  • Wiringa, et al. (1995) R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995).
  • Machleidt (2001) R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 63, 024001 (2001).
  • Doleschall (2004) P. Doleschall, Phys. Rev. C 69, 054001 (2004).
  • Reinert, et al. (2018) P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 86 (2018).
  • (64) A. Deltuva (private communications).
  • Witała, et al. (2003) H. Witała, A. Nogga, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle, J. Golak, and R. Skibiński, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034002 (2003).
  • Stoks, et al. (1994) V. G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, C. P. F. Terheggen, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2950 (1994).
  • Coon and Han (2001) S. Coon and H. Han, Few-Body Syst. 30, 131 (2001).
  • Sekiguchi, et al. (2017) K. Sekiguchi, H. Witała, T. Akieda, D. Eto, H. Kon, Y. Wada, A. Watanabe, S. Chebotaryov, M. Dozono, J. Golak, et al., Phys. Rev. C 96, 064001 (2017).
  • Deltuva and Sauer (2015) A. Deltuva and P. U. Sauer, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034002 (2015).
  • Koike and Taniguchi (1986) Y. Koike and Y. Taniguchi, Few-Body Syst. 1, 13 (1986).
  • Bahethi and Fuda (1972) O. P. Bahethi and M. G. Fuda, Phys. Rev. C 6, 1956 (1972).
  • Deltuva, et al. (2008) A. Deltuva, A. C. Fonseca, and P. U. Sauer, Phys. Lett. B 660, 471 (2008).
  • Nemoto (1999) S. Nemoto, Ph.D. thesis, Hannover University, 1999 (unpublished).
  • Epelbaum, et al. (2020) E. Epelbaum, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, H. Kamada, H. Krebs, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, P. Reinert, R. Skibiński, K. Topolnicki, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 92 (2020).
Refer to caption
Figure 1: Schematic layout of the experimental setup for the measurement of the cross section and the proton analyzing power AyA_{y}.
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Light output spectrum of scattered protons obtained by the NaI(Tl) scintillator at θlab.\theta_{\rm lab.} = 75. The hatched region indicates events obtained with the empty target cell.
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Schematic layout of the experimental setup for the measurement of the He3{}^{3}\rm He analyzing power A0yA_{0y}.
Refer to caption
Figure 4: (Color online) Angular distributions of dσ/dΩd\sigma/d\Omega as well as AyA_{y} at 65 MeV, A0yA_{0y} at 70 MeV, and Cy,yC_{y,y} at 65 MeV for pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering. Experimental data (solid circles) are compared with the calculations from the solutions of exact AGS equations. Only statistical errors are indicated. Calculations based on the NNNN potentials are shown with magenta dash-dotted (AV18), black solid (CD Bonn), red dot-dot-dashed (INOY04), green solid (SMS400), and green dashed (SMS500) lines. Black dashed lines are calculations based on the CD Bonn+Δ\Delta potential.
Refer to caption
Figure 5: (Color online) Relation between the He3{}^{3}\rm He binding energy and the cross section for pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at around 65 MeV in panels (a), (b), and (c); and that between the H3{}^{3}\rm H binding energy and the cross section for dd-pp elastic scattering at 70 MeV/nucleon in panels (d), (e), and (f). The result of the cross section for each nuclear potential is shown as a ratio to the corresponding experimental data. The dashed vertical straight lines denote the experimental binding energy of the He3{}^{3}\rm He in panels (a)–(c) and that of H3{}^{3}\rm H in panels (d)–(f). For the scattering data the statistical (systematic) errors are shown with bars (bands). Correlation lines obtained with the results of the NNNN potentials are shown with red lines.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 6: (Color online) Effects of the 2N2N dispersion (dash-dotted lines), those of 3N3N- and 4N4N-forces (dotted lines), and the total Δ\Delta-isobar effects (solid lines) in the pp-He3{}^{3}\rm He elastic scattering at 65 MeV are shown as a function of the c.m. scattering angle for the cross section in panel (a) and the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y} in panel (b). For the cross section, the result of each contribution is shown as a ratio to the calculation based on the CD Bonn potential. For the spin correlation coefficient Cy,yC_{y,y}, the differences from the calculation of the CD Bonn potential are presented.