arxiv: v2 [nucl-th] 8 Mar 2016

Transcription

1 Probing surace distributions oαcusters in 20 Ne viaα-transer reaction Tokuro Fukui, 1, Yasutaka Taniguchi, 2, Tadahiro Suhara, 3, Yoshiko Kanada-En yo, 4, and Kazuyuki Ogata 5, 1 Nucear Data Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai, Ibaraki , Japan 2 Department o Medica and Genera Sciences, Nihon Institute o Medica Science, Moroyama, Saitama , Japan 3 Matsue Coege o Technoogy, Matsue, Shimane , Japan 4 Department o Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto , Japan 5 Research Center or Nucear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki, Osaka , Japan (Dated: March 1, 2018) arxiv: v2 [nuc-th] 8 Mar 2016 Background: Direct evidence o the α-custer maniestation in bound states has not been obtained yet, athough a number o experimenta studies were carried out to extract the inormation o the custering. In particuar in conventiona anayses o α-transer reactions, there exist a ew signiicant probems on reaction modes, which are insuicient to quaitativey discuss the custer structure. Purpose: We aim to veriy the deveopment o the α-custer structure rom observabes. As the irst appication, we pan to extract the spatia inormation o the custer structure o the 20 Ne nuceus in its ground state through the cross section o the α-transer reaction 16 O( 6 Li,d) 20 Ne. Methods: For the anaysis o the transer reaction, we work with the couped-channe Born approximation (CCBA) approach, in which the breakup eect o 6 Li is expicity taken into account by means o the continuumdiscretized couped-channe method based on the three-bodyα+d+ 16 O mode. The two methods are adopted to cacuate the overap unction between 20 Ne andα+ 16 O; one is the microscopic custer mode (MCM) with the generator coordinate method, and the other is the phenomenoogica two-body potentia mode. Resuts: We show that the CCBA cacuation with the MCM wave unction gives a signiicant improvement o the theoretica resut on the anguar distribution o the transer cross section, which is consistent with the experimenta data. Empoying the PM, it is discussed which region o the custer wave unction is probed on the transer cross section. Concusions: It is ound that the surace region o the custer wave unction is sensitive to the cross section. The present work is situated as the irst step in obtaining important inormation to systematicay investigate the custer structure. PACS numbers: Gx,24.10.Eq I. INTRODUCTION It is common knowedge that nucei are we described by the atomic ike picture in which nuceons are considered as independent partices moving in a mean potentia, and the she mode based on this picture has achieved great success. On the other hand, the moecuar ike picture can aso be one with important aspects o nucei. It is the basic concept o the custer mode in which nuceons are regarded as strongy correated partices orming custers, or exampe, α partices, and then the custers in nucei weaky interact with each other. Theoreticay, the custer structure is predicted (or instance, in Res. [1 6] and reerences therein) to appear at the surace o not ony ight-stabe nucei but aso sd-she or unstabe nucei. At this moment, however, there is no direct evidence rom experimenta studies o the nucear custer phenomena except or the decay width o the resonance states. So ar, a arge number o measurements o α-transer reactions such as ( 6 Li, d), ( 7 Li, t), and their inverses have been made in order to veriy the existence o α-custer structure. For exampe, the α-custer structure (α+ 16 O) o ukui.tokuro@jaea.go.jp yasutaka@nims.ac.jp suhara@matsue-ct.jp yenyo@ruby.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp kazuyuki@rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp the 20 Ne nuceus was experimentay studied rom the α- transer reaction 16 O( 6 Li, d) 20 Ne [7 9] and its inverse reaction 20 Ne(d, 6 Li) 16 O [10] at severa incident energiese in. In their works, the α-custer structure o 20 Ne at the jth excited state is discussed by using the normaization actor S j in the orm o the ratio S j /S 0. The actor S j is the phenomenoogicay adjusted normaization one conventionay caed a spectroscopic actor (SF) in cacuations with reaction modes, athough it is not necessariy the physica SF. Here j = 0 stands or the ground state. The reason why the reative vaue was used is that the absoute one is not abe to be determined rom the anayses with the conventiona distorted-wave Born approximation (DWBA) cacuation, some o which use a normaization actor greaty exceeding unity on the cacuated cross section. This unphysica normaization, which strongy depends on E in, is mainy due to the ambiguities o, in the DWBA anayses [7 10], the optica potentia o 6 Li and the α- 16 O reative wave unction. The 6 Li optica potentias used in the DWBA anayses are not goba ones, which have inconsistent parameter sets depending on bothe in and target nucei. It is necessary to work with a goba rame work regarding the optica potentia in order to systematicay investigate the α- custer structure. In view o this situation, our goa is to extract the inormation about the spatia distribution, the surace distribution in particuar, o α custers rom observabes. For this purpose, it is important to cariy how the α-custer structure is probed by the reaction. Because the so-caed SF is the in-

2 2 cusive quantity deined as a norm o a custer wave unction, it is not suitabe to discuss the maniestation o the custer at the surace. Indeed, the SF can reach unity even i there is no spatia maniestation o custers because wave unctions o the owest aowed states o the SU(3) she mode are equivaent to that o the custer mode wave unctions as stated by Bayman and Bohr [11]. This means that the SF is not appropriate or discussing the custering phenomena. Thereore direct comparison o cacuated cross sections with measured ones is important, and it is necessary to construct a numericay reiabe theoretica ramework. In this paper, we anayze the α-transer reaction 16 O( 6 Li, d) 20 Ne in order to probe the surace distribution o theα-custer structure o 20 Ne in its ground state by means o the couped-channes Born approximation (CCBA) [12, 13]. The CCBA ramework is abe to avoid the aorementioned ambiguity o the 6 Li optica potentia by considering the three-body (α + d + 16 O) mode, in which the breakup eect o 6 Li into α and d is expicity taken into account by empoying the method o the continuum-discretized coupedchanne (CDCC) [14 16]. As the custer mode or the cacuation o the α- 16 O wave unction, we adopt the microscopic custer mode (MCM) with the generator coordinate method (GCM) [17 19], which gives properties o 20 Ne consistent with experimenta ones. Empoying the MCM, in our ramework, the aorementioned ambiguity o theα- 16 O wave unction does not matter. Through the CCBA approach with the MCM, we show a signiicant improvement o the theoretica resut, which is then consistent with experimenta data. Then, in order to cariy which region o the custer wave unction is probed on the cross section, we anayze the dependence o the cross section on the custer wave unction using the conventiona potentia mode, in which a phenomenoogica two-body potentia is assumed as the interaction between the custers. The breakup eect o 6 Li is aso discussed. This artice is outined as oows. In Sec. II the ormuation o our ramework invoving both the reaction and structure modes is given. Section III contains the expanation o the mode setting. In Sec. IV the resut o our cacuation is given. How the α- 16 O wave unction is probed on the cross section is discussed. In Sec. V, we summarize this work. II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A. Formuation o the CCBA mode with CDCC Here, or the stripping reaction 6 Li(α+d)+A d+b(α+ A), we ormuate the CCBA mode, in which the channe coupings regarding the continuum states o the projectie 6 Li are taken into account by adopting the CDCC. In this study we choose 16 O as the target nuceus A, and hence the residua nuceusb corresponds to 20 Ne. We assume the reaction system to be described by the three-body (α + d + A) mode shown in Fig. 1. The transition matrix (T matrix) T CCBA or the reaction is written as T CCBA = Ψ ( ) Ψ (+) V tr, (1) i FIG. 1. Iustration o the three-body system. whereψ (+) i andψ ( ) are the three-body wave unctions in the initia and ina channes, respectivey, and the transition rom the ormer to the atter is induced by the residua interaction V tr. Their expicit orms are given beow. The Schrödinger equation o the three-body wave unction is given by Ψ (+) i [H i E]Ψ (+) i (r,r i ) = 0, (2) H i = h i +T ri + (r )+ da (r da)+v (C) LiA (r i), (3) where E is the tota energy o the system. In the three-body Hamitonian H i, h i is the interna Hamitonian o 6 Li, and T ρ is the kinetic-energy operator in reation to the coordinate ρ (ρ = r, r, r da, r i, or r ). The interaction V XY is the nucear or Couomb component between partices X and Y (X, Y = α, d, A, 6 Li, or B). Note that the superscripts (N) and (C) stand or the nucear and Couomb interactions, respectivey. As one can see, we disregard the Couomb breakup, which is justiied [20] because the eective charge o the α-d system or the eectric dipoe transition is amost zero. In this work we expressψ (+) i by means o the CDCC as Ψ (+) i (r,r i ) c ψ c (r )χ cc0(+) i (r i ), (4) where the interna wave unctionψ c o 6 Li satisies [h i ε c i ]ψc (r ) = 0, (5) h i = T r +V (N+C) (r ), (6) with the energy eigenvaue ε c i. Here the superscript (N+C) expresses the interaction containing both the nucear and Couomb parts. The index c represents the discretized-energy states; c = c 0 or the ground state, and c c 0 or the discretized-continuum (DC) states. In this work we disregard the intrinsic spin o d. Mutipying Eq. (2) by ψ c rom the et whie inserting Eq. (4) and integrating over r, we obtain the couped-channe equation, the so-caed CDCC equation [14 16]. The distorted wave χ cc0(+) i can be obtained by

3 3 soving the CDCC equation under the standard boundary condition [20]. We adopt the residua interactionv tr o the postorm representation given by V tr = V (N+C) (r )+V (N+C) da We choose the auxiiary potentiau as (r da )+V (N+C) (r ) U. (7) U = V (C) (r )+V (N+C) da (r da )+V (N+C) (r ), (8) which triviay eads tov tr =. The three-body wave unction Ψ (+), which is the timereversa one oψ ( ), is described byu as [H E]Ψ (+) (r,r ) = 0, (9) H = T r +T r +U. (10) In this paper we approximateψ (+) as Ψ (+) (r,r ) ψ (r )χ (+) (r ). (11) The distorted wave χ (+) is generated by the eective distorting potentiaũ deined by Ũ = da (r )+V (C) db (r ), (12) which corresponds to the no-recoi imit in the ina channe. The detai o the cacuation o the wave unction ψ describing the ground state ob is given in the next section. B. Custer mode wave unction We deine the radia part φ o ψ with the anguar momentum as ψ (r) = φ (r)y m (ˆr), (13) where the coordinate r expresses the reative distance between the custers andmis thez component o the anguar momentum. In the oowing, how to prepareφ is expained. In the MCM with the GCM, the tota wave unction o the two-body custer system betweenαandais written as Φ GCM = MA [ ] (r)y 0 (ˆr)ϕ α ϕ A ϕ c.m., (14) Mα!M A! M, (15) M B! where ϕ α and ϕ A are the interna wave unctions o α and A, respectivey, and the wave unction ϕ c.m. represents the motion o the tota center o mass (c.m.). The operator A is the antisymmetrizer which exchanges nuceons beonging to dierent custers, and M α, M A, and M B stand or the mass numbers o each partice. The wave unction contains Paui orbidden (unphysica) states which are eiminated by the antisymmetrizer and does not directy equa to φ (MCM), but it can be transormed to φ (MCM) by taking into account the antisymmetrization eect between the custers. Hereφ (MCM) corresponds toφ in the MCM. We adopt a deinition o φ (MCM), or which φ (MCM) 2 r 2 dr = 1. Note that this deinition o φ (MCM) is dierent rom that in a conventiona MCM, in which the norm is usuay reduced to be smaer than unity by the antisymmetrization eect. See the Appendix or more detai. The PM is aso used to investigate in detai what the reaction probes. The radia partφ, which corresponds toφ in the PM, is obtained as a soution o the Schrödinger equation, { [ 2 1 d 2 } ] (+1) 2µ B r dr2r r 2 +V (N+C) (r) φ (r) = ε φ (r), (16) with the energy eigenvaue ε o B in its ground state and the reduced massµ B = M α M A /(M α +M A ). We adopt the α-a nucear interaction with the standard Woods-Saxon distribution (r) = V 0 ( ). (17) r r 1+exp 0 a 0 Paui orbidden states are eiminated by conirming the numbers o nodes oφ. It shoud be noted that, in genera, these custer-mode wave unctions, φ (MCM) and φ, are deined as φ in Eq. (13) with a normaization actor: φ (r) = (S MCM ) 1/2 φ (MCM) (r) (18) or the MCM case, whereas or the PM case it is given by φ (r) = (S PM ) 1/2 φ (r). (19) Here S MCM expresses the probabiity o the tota many-body wave unction o B contains the pure α-a custer coniguration and is regarded as a quenching actor because o, or exampe, the poarization eect o the core nuceus A. In principe, it corresponds to the physica SF, and it shoud be unity or an idea α-a system without the poarization. On the other hand,s PM is the phenomenoogica normaization actor usuay adjusted to it the cross sections. It is not necessariy the physica SF but can invove an artiicia renormaization actor in addition to the physica SF. III. MODEL SETTING For the CDCC cacuation, we use the two-range Gaussian interaction [21], abeed, which depends on the orbita anguar momentum i between α and d. The DC states o 6 Li are described by empoying the pseudostate method with the rea-range Gaussian basis unctions [22]. In this mode

4 4 we have the spin-degenerate resonance state o 6 Li in the i = 2 state at 2.00 MeV with a width o 0.46 MeV. The number o Gaussian basis unctions we take is 30, with a minimum (maximum) vaue or 1.0 (35.0) m o the Gaussian range parameters. The partia waves o ψ c with respect to i = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 are taken into account with up to ε c i = 50, 60, 55, 60, and55 MeV, respectivey. We cacuate ψ c with a maximum vaue o r o m. A uniormy charged sphere potentia is used or the Couomb interaction (C) with a charge radius o 3.0 m, as we as or V V (C) V (C) db LiA and with charge radii o 3.1 and 4.6 m, respectivey. Furthermore, this Couomb potentia is aso adopted or V (C) in the PM with a charge radius o 3.1 m. In the cacuation o the distorted wave χ cc0(+) i, we adopt the goba optica potentia [23] On the other hand, da. is evauated as the sum o the proton- and neutronoptica potentias oded by the ground-state wave unction o the deuteron [24]. In Res. [25, 26] it is shown that this prescription aows the three-body CDCC based on the d+α two-body picture o 6 Li to eectivey reproduce 6 Li eastic cross sections cacuated with the our-body CDCC based on the p+n+α three-body picture o 6 Li. We take the parameter set o Dave and Goud [27] or the nuceon goba optica potentia, whereas the one-range Gaussian interaction [28] between p and n is adopted to evauate the deuteron wave unction. We use the deuteron goba optica potentia [29] or da in the ina channe. To cacuate the T matrix, the doube integra over r i and r is done up to 25.0 m or both variabes. The maximum vaue o the tota anguar momentum J regarding the partia waves o χ cc0(+) i and χ ( ) is 35. In the present cacuation, the transition rom the 6 Li channes with i 0 into the d channe is omitted. Note, however, that the channe coupings among a the states with0 i 4 are taken into account in soving the CDCC equation. It is vaidated that the T -matrix eements o the transer process rom the higher partia-wave states are expected to be sma [30] since, within the range o, the product ov(n) andψc or i 0 is much smaer than that or i = 0. The GCM cacuation or φ (MCM) o the = 0 ground state o 20 Ne is perormed with the Vokov number 2 eective interaction o the Majorana parameterm = 0.62 [31] and with the width parameterν = 0.16m 2 [32] or both α and 16 O. The Couomb interaction between the custers is expicity taken into account by expanding it with the mutirange Gaussian basis unctions. To obtain φ (MCM), the number o the Brink-Boch (BB) custer wave unctions k max is set to 10, and we take theα-a reative distances k = 1, 2,..., 10 m. As shown in Re. [33], not ony the energy spectra or the ground-state band o 20 Ne but aso the root-mean-square radius o 16 O cacuated with the present setups are consistent with the measured ones. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Resut o CCBA cacuation with MCM We compare in Fig. 2 the theoretica resuts with the experimenta data [7, 8] or the cross section o the transer reaction 16 O( 6 Li, d) 20 Ne as a unction o the deuteron emitting ange θ in the c.m. rame at E in = 20.0 MeV (soid ine) and 42.1 MeV (dashed ine). For the ormer the cacuated and measured cross sections are shown ater being mutipied by 10. The cacuation is perormed with the MCM wave unction. At each incident energy the ine is normaized by mutipying by S MCM, which is determined rom the χ 2 it o the cacuation to the experimenta data within the region 0 < θ < 80. The vaue os MCM is given in the egend. One o the main consequences o this work is that our cacuation improves the coincidence o the theoretica resut with the experimenta data on the anguar distribution o the cross section compared to the previous DWBA anayses [7, 8] o the same reaction as that in the present anaysis. It is remarkabe that the cacuation aithuy describes the diraction pattern around the irst peak o the cross section at the angesθ 10 and the second one in the region15 θ 35. Furthermore, we obtain the reasonabe vaue o S MCM o (0.769) or E in = 20.0 (42.1) MeV compared to the vaue o the normaization actor o 2.70 [8] (2.59 [7]) extracted rom the previous DWBA anaysis, athough the energy dependence sti remains. Note that the physica SF must not be greater than unity, and thereore these actors reported in the previous works are the phenomenoogica normaization actors invoving artiicia renormaization actors. In Res. [7, 8], theα- 16 O wave unction is cacuated empoying the PM, i.e., the soution o Eq. (16) with a certain interaction (mb/sr) Anantaraman et a. Becchetti et a MeV ( 0.261) 42.1 MeV ( 0.769) (deg) FIG. 2. Cacuated transer cross section o 16 O( 6 Li, d) 20 Ne at 20.0 MeV (soid ine) and 42.1 MeV (dashed ine) as a unction o the deuteron emitting ange θ in the c.m. rame by using the MCM wave unction. The vaue os MCM, which is determined rom theχ 2 -it o the cacuation to the experimenta data [7, 8], is given in the egend. At 20.0 MeV the ine and the dots are mutipied by 10.

5 5 o Eq. (17). However, dierent parameters o V (N) are adopted in each previous work. Thus it is ound that the appearance o the unphysica normaization actor in the DWBA anaysis mainy comes rom the ambiguity o theα- 16 O wave unction. That two dierent DWBA anayses have consistent vaues o the phenomenoogica normaization actor is expected to be accidenta. The meaning o the phenomenoogica normaization actor in the PM is discussed in the next section. Another important inding is that at 42.1 MeV the DWBA cacuation empoying a 6 Li optica potentia provides an unphysica vaue o S MCM, even i the MCM wave unction is adopted. As mentioned above, in this work we do not need any 6 Li optica potentia. In order to obtain a physica vaue os MCM, thereore, the description o the 6 Li scattering based on a three-body mode is ound to be crucia. B. Discussion o the cacuation with the PM Here we introduce the PM in order to cariy which region o the α- 16 O wave unction is probed on the transer cross section, and to eucidate the physica meaning o the normaization actor. For this purpose, we prepare three types o φ as tria α- 16 O wave unctions by varying the parameters r 0 and a 0 as isted in Tabe I. Note that the depth V 0 or each setup is adjusted to reproduce the α- 16 O binding energy o 4.73 MeV. In Fig. 3, the MCM wave unction φ (MCM) is shown aong with φ. The norm o each wave unction is consistenty chosen to be unity. The PM1 parameters are chosen to it the behavior o the MCM wave unction in the tai region, say, r 5.0 m, whereas the PM2 (PM3) parameters are chosen to shit the behavior to inside (outside), in particuar at the surace region. In Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) we show the theoretica resuts empoying the MCM and PM wave unctions with the χ 2 it to the measured anguar distribution at 20.0 and 42.1 MeV, respectivey. The actors S MCM and S PM extracted rom the it are isted in Tabe II. At both incident energies, the MCM and the PM1 give consistent resuts or not ony the anguar distribution in Fig. 4 but aso S MCM and S PM in Tabe II. Thereore we can regard the resuts o the MCM and PM1 as neary identica. PM3 (PM2) at 20.0 (42.1) MeV gives an anguar distribution consistent with the experimenta data at the orward anges θ < 40. On the other hand, PM2 (PM3) at 20.0 (42.1) MeV underestimates the data at the second (irst) peak. Obviousy, the anguar distribution ands PM depend on the PM parameters at both energies. This act indicates the high sensitivity o the transer cross section to the spatia distribution o theα- 16 O reative wave unction. Now, we introduce the wave unctions φ(mcm) (S MCM ) 1/2 φ (MCM) and φ (S PM ) 1/2 φ, where the vaues o(s MCM ) 1/2 and(s PM ) 1/2 are isted in Tabe II; they behave as shown in Fig. 5. The normaization actors extracted rom the transer reaction ate in = 20.0 and 42.1 MeV are adopted in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), respectivey. In each pane, the ampitudes o the PM1 and PM3 wave unctions at the TABLE I. The potentia parameters o. Its depth V0 is determined so as to reproduce the binding energy 4.73 MeV. r 0 (m) a 0 (m) PM (16) 1/ PM (16) 1/ PM (16) 1/ (m -1/2 ) MCM PM1 PM2 PM (m) FIG. 3. (Coor onine) The radia part o the α- 16 O reative wave unction: φ (MCM) o the MCM (soid ine) and φ o the PM with the setups PM1 (dashed ines), PM2 (dotted ine), and PM3 (dash-dotted ine). Each wave unction is normaized to have the norm one. surace region, r 6 m, are simiar, whie that o PM2 is smaer. At r 4 m, there is a arge dierence in the ampitude o each wave unction. In the oowing, through Fig. 5, φ we argue we discuss what region o is sensitive to the anguar distribution shown in Fig. 4. When we ook at Fig. 4(a) or E in = 20.0 MeV, we can see that, in terms o how we the cacuation describes the behavior o the experimenta cross section at the orward angesθ 40, the resuts o PM1 and PM3 are consistent with the measured one. In contrast, the diraction pattern o the cacuation with PM2 is signiicanty dierent rom the experimenta one. On the other hand, in Fig. 5(a), we can ind that φ the behaviors o o PM1 and PM3 are simiar in the region or 5 m, in which PM2 has a sma ampitude. These acts indicate that the cross section ate in = 20.0 MeV probes the surace region o φ, and hence its interior or 5 m is insensitive to the cross section. At 42.1 MeV, as shown in Fig. 4(b), PM2 has a the reasonabe shape, but PM3 is inconsistent with the measured distribution. In particuar, or PM3, it is remarkabe that the irst peak o the cross section at θ = 0 is signiicanty smaer than the second one aroundθ 20. These can be interpreted as oows. For PM1 and PM2, athough each magnitude o φ at the surace region r 4 m is quite dierent, we ind the integrated vaues o over r in this region are φ

6 TABLE II. Normaization actor extracted rom the χ 2 -it o the cacuated cross section. E in (MeV) S MCM S PM (PM1) S PM (PM2) S PM (PM3) ( 10 0 (a) 20.0 MeV Anantaraman et a. MCM PM1 PM2 PM3 (b) 42.1 MeV Becchetti et a. (m -1/2 ) (m -1/2 ) MCM PM1 PM2 PM3 (a) 20.0 MeV (b) 42.1 MeV (m) FIG. 4. (Coor onine) Cacuated cross section with the χ 2 it to be consistent with the experimenta data at (a) 20.0 and (b) 42.1 MeV. Each ine corresponds to the cross section cacuated with the α- 16 O wave unction shown in Fig. 3. consistent with each other. This act eads to the coincidence o the cross sections cacuated with PM1 and PM2. On the other hand, it can be seen that the integrated vaue o φ or PM3 in the region r 4 m is signiicanty smaer than that o other PM setups. This yieds the decrease o the cross section o PM3 at the orward anges. Thus, ore in = 42.1 MeV, we can concude that the surace region r 4 m is probed on the cross section. Next, we cariy the physica meaning o the normaization actor. In Fig. 4(b), the resuts o both the PM1 and the PM2 are consistent with the experimenta data. Nevertheess, or E in = 42.1 MeV, both PM parameters give inconsistent vaues or S PM ; one diers rom the other by about a actor o 2. Furthermore it shoud be especiay mentioned that S PM o PM2 exceeds unity. When S PM > 1, it is not the physica (MCM) φ FIG. 5. (Coor onine) = (S MCM) 1/2 φ (MCM) o the MCM (soid ine) and φ = (S PM) 1/2 φ o PM1 (dashed ine), PM2 (dotted ine), and PM3 (dash-dotted ine). The vaues os MCM ands PM are adopted rom Tabe II in the case o (a)e in = 20.0 and (b) 42.1 MeV. SF, which expresses the probabiity o the α- 16 O custer coniguration in 20 Ne. This unphysica vaue arises rom the act that, in Fig. 3, the ampitude o φ o PM2 in the surace region that is sensitive to the reaction is consideraby smaer than that oφ o PM1. Consequenty we need an artiicia enhancement o the ampitude. Simiary, both PM1 and PM3 describe we the anguar distribution in Fig. 4(a), whie S PM o PM3 ore in = 20.0 MeV is about 40% smaer than that o PM1. Then an artiicia reduction is necessary in order to decrease the tai ampitude oφ o PM3 in Fig. 3. Hence the phenomenoogica normaization actor S PM, which is conventionay adopted in DWBA anayses empoying a PM, invoves an artiicia renormaization actor originating rom the improper distribution o the α- 16 O wave unction, even i it has correct asymptotic behavior. Ony when we have a reiabe wave unction such that it gives appropriate properties or 20 Ne, i.e., the MCM or PM1, does the normaization have a physica meaning. It is equivaent to the SF because the normaization actor determining the tai ampitude o the MCM or PM wave unction is consistent with that o the whoe ampitude. Thus we ind that the α-transer reaction probes not the SF but the ampitude o the custer wave unction at the

7 7 surace region. For a uture work, a systematic anaysis o the reaction at other incident energies is desired in order to judge which φ is proper without reying on φ (MCM). This procedure is expected to be important or the veriication o the custer structure in sd-she or unstabe nucei. Moreover, we hope this kind o systematic anaysis brings us knowedge that resoves thee in dependence os MCM.. / -, + ) * (a) 20.0 MeV F E B N C. Break eect o 6 Li As mentioned above, one o the advantages o the present ramework is that, by adopting the three-body CCBA mode, we can avoid using the 6 Li optica potentia, or which there is itte reiabiity or the α-transer reaction at severa incident energies. Here we show the breakup eect o 6 Li on the cross section and discuss the appicabiity o the conventiona DWBA mode, in which the phenomenoogica 6 Li optica potentia is used. We decompose thet -matrix equation (1) into two terms by using the CDCC wave-unction equation (4): T CCBA = T ET +T BT, (20) T ET = Ψ ( ) ψ c V 0 tr (r )χ c0c0(+) i (r i ), (21) T BT = Ψ ( ) V tr ψ(r c )χ cc0(+) i (r i ). (22) c c 0 T ET describes the eastic transer (ET), which is the transer process o the α partice rom the ground state o 6 Li to the ground state o 20 Ne. Note that the ET invoves the breakup eect as the back couping (BC), the channe coupings between the ground state o 6 Li and its DC states. On the other hand, T BT expresses the breakup transer (BT), in which the α partice transers rom the DC states to the ground state o 20 Ne. In Fig. 6(c) we show the intuitive picture o these processes. Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the resuts o the CCBA cacuation with T CCBA (soid ine), T ET (dashed ine), and T BT (dotted ine) at E in = 20.0 and 42.1 MeV, respectivey. The MCM wave unction is empoyed or these resuts. The dashdotted ine corresponds to the ET without the BC, that is, the one-step cacuation. At each incident energy, the soid and dashed ines coincide with each other in the whoe region oθ, whie the dash-dotted ine deviates rom them. This indicates that the breakup eect o 6 Li, the BC eect in particuar, is signiicanty important. In contrast to that, the contribution o the BT is negigiby sma. These eatures were reported [20] aso or the 6 Li-induced subbarrier α-transer reaction [34]. This can intuitivey be understood to be due to the hindrance o the BT by theα-d Couomb interaction [30]. It shoud aso be noted that the importance o this breakup eect does not mean the aiure o the DWBA because the BC is eectivey taken into account as an absorption due to the imaginary part o the 6 Li optica potentia. In genera, ?@ 10 GH 10 AC (b) 42.1 MeV :;<=> D$ %&' L! 20 "# IJ KM OP QR ST UV FIG. 6. (Coor onine) Transer processes described by the ET (dashed ine) and the BT (dotted ine) on the cross section at (a) 20.0 and (b) 42.1 MeV. The soid ine stands or the resut invoving both ET and BT, whie the dash-dotted ine is that o the ET without the BC. (c) The intuitive expression o the breakup eect. See the text or detais. however, the optica potentia is phenomenoogicay determined, and it is diicut to propery evauate the breakup eect in such a way. Thereore the CCBA cacuation shoud be perormed to systematicay investigate the α-custer structure through 6 Li-inducedα-transer reactions. V. SUMMARY In order to make cear the spatia maniestation o the α- custer structure o 20 Ne rom observabes, we have anayzed theα-transer reaction 16 O( 6 Li,d) 20 Ne at 20.0 and 42.1 MeV by means o the CCBA approach based on the three-body mode. In the CCBA mode the tota wave unction o the system in the initia channe has been described by the CDCC. This mode enabes us to use the optica potentias o the subsystems α- and d- 16 O instead o that o 6 Li, which invoves a arge ambiguity. As or the cacuation o the reative wave unction between theα- 16 O custers, the MCM with the GCM is adopted. It is a great advantage o our procedure over the conventiona approach in which the DWBA cacuation is per-

8 8 ormed with the 6 Li optica potentia and a phenomenoogica PM or theα- 16 O wave unction. We have shown that our ramework greaty improves the coincidence o the theoretica resut with the experimenta data on the anguar distribution o the transer cross section. Furthermore, we have obtained the physica vaue o S MCM, or which unphysica vaues were reported in the previous DWBA work [7, 8]. These improvements o the resut have been brought about because we adopted the three-body CCBA mode with the reiabe MCM wave unction. Next, the PM wave unction has been empoyed in order to revea which region o the α- 16 O wave unction is probed on the transer cross section. Through the comparison o the cacuated cross section and the behavior o the PM wave unction, it has been concuded that the surace region o the wave unction is probed on the cross section; the region r 4 and 5 m has been ound to be sensitive to the reaction at E in = 42.1 and 20.0 MeV, respectivey. We have aso cariied the physica meaning o the normaization actor. As a consequence, it has been ound that DWBA anayses empoying a PM can have a normaization actor invoving an unphysica component originating rom the improper distribution o theα- 16 O wave unction, even i it has correct asymptotic behavior. Ony when we have a reiabe wave unction, the normaization is equivaent to the SF. For uture work, in order to judge whichφ is proper, it is necessary to systematicay anayze the reaction at severa incident energies. The present work can provide useu knowedge or the veriication o the custer structure in sd-she or unstabe nucei. We have investigated in detai the breakup eect o 6 Li. It has been ound to pay an important roe as the BC. Since it is diicut to propery incude the BC eect in the imaginary part o the 6 Li optica potentia used in a conventiona DWBA, we need to carry out the three-body CCBA cacuation or the systematic investigation o the α-custer structure through α- transer reaction. Appendix A: Formuation o MCM with GCM In the GCM mode, the tota wave unction o the two-body custer system, which consists o spiness partices α and A, can be written as Φ GCM = k c k Φ BB (S k ), (A1) where Φ BB (S k ) is the Brink-Boch (BB) custer-mode wave unction [19] deined by ( Φ BB (S) = {ψ MA α M ) ( )} A Mα S ψ A S. M B M B (A2) The wave unction ψ α (ψ A ) o α (A) is expressed by the harmonic osciator (HO) she-mode wave unction with a shited center at S = (0,0,S). The width parameters o the HO wave unctions or α and A are assumed to be common. The expansion coeicient c k is obtained by soving the discretized Hi-Wheeer equation or the spin-parity eigen states projected rom Φ BB (S), and it is normaized to satisy Φ GCM Φ GCM = 1. Since the reative wave unction between α and A can be expressed by a ocaized Gaussian wave packet, Φ GCM is written as Φ GCM = MA [ (r) = k ] (r)y 0 (ˆr)ϕ α ϕ A ϕ c.m., (A3) 2+1 4π c kγ (r,s k,ν ), (A4) where the unction Γ is the reative wave unction with its partia wave expansion [35] deined by ( )3 2ν Γ (r,s,ν 4 ) 4π i (2ν Sr)e ν (r 2 +S 2 ). (A5) π Here i is the modiied spherica Besse unction, and ν = M α M A ν/m B. By taking into account the antisymmetrization eect, we can obtain two kinds o reative wave unctionsu andy rom as u (r) = n y (r) = n e n µ2n+ R n (r,ν ), e n µ 2n+ R n (r,ν ), (A6) (A7) whereµ N (N = 2n+) is the eigen vaue o the norm kerne, R n is the radia part o the HO wave unction, and e n is the coeicient or the R n expansion o, = n e n R n (r,ν ). (A8) Note that, in the asymptotic region where the antisymmetrization eect between custers vanishes, three unctions,,u, andy, are identica to each other. The wave unction u is constructed by mutipying by the square root o the norm kerne matrix and is a normaized wave unction, u (r) 2 r 2 dr = 1, (A9) which can be regarded as a custer wave unction. We adopt u as an input o the reaction cacuation, φ (MCM) = u. The so-caed reduced-width ampitudey is deined as y (a) 1 M δ(r a) r 2 Y 0 (ˆr)ϕ α ϕ A ϕ c.m. Φ GCM (A10) at a certain point a. In microscopic custer modes, the socaed S actor is usuay deined by the reduced-width ampitude as S = y (r) 2 r 2 dr. (A11) TheS actor can be ess than 1 even or the normaized GCM wave unction because o the antisymmetrization eect. For detais, the reader is reerred to Re. [35].

9 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are deepy grateu to T. Tchuvi sky or ruitu discussions and critica comments on our study and appreciate M. Kimura and Y. Kikuchi or their vauabe comments that consoidated and cariied our argument. This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid o the Japan Society or the Promotion o Science (JSPS) with Grants No , No , No. 15K17662, No , and No [1] K. Ikeda, H. Horiuchi, and S. Saito, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 68, 1 (1980). [2] S. Ohkubo, M. Fujiwara, and P. E. Hodgson, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 132, 1 (1998). [3] Y. Kanada-En yo and H. Horiuchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 142, 205 (2001). [4] W. von Oertzen, M. Freer, and Y. Kanada-En yo, Phys. Rep. 432, 43 (2006). [5] H. Horiuchi, K. Ikeda, and K. Kat ō, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 192, 1 (2012). [6] Y. Kanada-En yo, M. Kimura, and A. Ono, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2012, 01A202 (2012). [7] F. D. Becchetti, J. Jänecke, and C. E. Thorn, Nuc. Phys. A305, 313 (1978). [8] N. Anantaraman and H.E. Gove and R.A. Lindgren and J. Tōke and J.P. Trenteman and J.P. Draayer and F.C. Jundt and G. Guiaume, Nuc. Phys. A313, 445 (1979). [9] T. Tanabe, M Yasue, K. Sato, K. Ogino, Y. Kadota, Y. Taniguchi, K. Obori, K. Makino, and M. Tochi, Phys. Rev. C 24, 2556 (1981). [10] W. Oeert, W. Chung, M. Betigeri, A. Djaoeis, C. Mayer- Boricke, and P.Turek, Phys. Rev. C 20, 459 (1979). [11] B. F. Bayman and A. Bohr, Nuc. Phys. 9, 596 (1958/1959). [12] S. K. Penny and G. R. Satcher, Nuc. Phys. A53, 145 (1964). [13] P. J. Iano and N. Austern, Phys. Rev. 151, 853 (1966). [14] M. Kamimura, M. Yahiro, Y. Iseri, Y. Sakuragi, H. Kameyama, and M. Kawai, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 89, 1 (1986). [15] N. Austern, Y. Iseri, M. Kamimura, M. Kawai, G. Rawitscher, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rep. 154, 125 (1987). [16] M. Yahiro, K. Ogata, T. Matsumoto, and K. Minomo, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2012, 01A206 (2012). [17] D. L. Hi and J. A. Wheeer, Phys. Rev. 89, 1102 (1953). [18] J. J. Griin and J. A. Wheeer, Phys. Rev. 108, 311 (1957). [19] D. M. Brink, in Internationa Schoo o Physics Enrico Fermi, XXXVI (Academic, New York, 1966), p [20] T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro, Prog. Theor. Phys. 125, 1193 (2011). [21] Y. Sakuragi, M. Yahiro, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 89, 136 (1986). [22] T. Matsumoto, T. Kamizato, K. Ogata, Y. Iseri, E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 68, (2003). [23] F. Miche, J. Abinski, P. Beery, T. Debar, G. Gregorie, B. Tasiaux, and G. Reidemeister, Phys. Rev. C 28, 1904 (1983). [24] S. Watanabe, Nuc. Phys. 8, 484 (1958). [25] S. Watanabe, T. Matsumoto, K. Minomo, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 86, (R) (2012). [26] S. Watanabe et a., Phys. Rev. C 92, (2015). [27] J. H. Dave and C. R. Goud, Phys. Rev. C 28, 2212 (1983). [28] T. Ohmura, B. Imanishi, M. Ichimura, and M. Kawai Prog. Theor. Phys. 43, 347 (1970). [29] Y. Han, Y. Shi, and Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 74, (2006). [30] T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 91, (2015). [31] A. B. Vokov, Nuc. Phys. 74, 33 (1965). [32] T. Matsue, M. Kamimura, and Y. Fukushima, Prog. Theor. Phys. 53, 706 (1975). [33] Y. Kanada-En yo, T. Suhara, and Y. Taniguchi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2014, 073D02 (2014). [34] E. D. Johnson, G. V. Rogachev, A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, L. T. Baby, S. Brown, W. T. Cu, A. M. Crisp, E. Dienderer, V. Z. Godberg, B. W. Green, T. Hinners, C. R. Homan, K. W. Kemper, O. Momotyuk, P. Pepowski, A. Pipidis, R. Reynods, and B. T. Roeder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, (2006). [35] H. Horiuchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 62, 90 (1977).