arxiv: v1 [nucl-th] 7 Apr 2011

Transcription

1 1 Three-Body Model Analysis o Subbarrier α Transer Reaction Tokuro Fukui, 1 ) Kazuyuki Ogata, 1 ) and Masanobu Yahiro 1 1 Department o Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka , Japan arxiv: v1 [nucl-th] 7 Apr 2011 Subbarrier α transer reaction 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O(6.356 MeV, 1/2 + ) at 3.6 MeV is analyzed with a α + d+ 13 C three-body model, and the asymptotic normalization coeicient (ANC) or α+ 13 C 17 O(6.356 MeV, 1/2 + ), which essentially determines the reaction rate o 13 C(α,n) 16 O, is extracted. Breakup eects o 6 Li in the initial channel and those o 17 O in the inal channel are investigated with the continuum-discretized coupled-channels method (CDCC). The ormer is ound to have a large back-coupling to the elastic channel, while the latter turns out signiicantly small. The transer cross section calculated with Born approximation to the transition operator, including breakup states o 6 Li, gives (C 17 O α 13 C )2 = 1.03±0.29 m 1. This result is consistent with the value obtained by the previous DWBA calculation. 1. Introduction Transer reactions below Coulomb barrier energies are known to be a powerul technique to determine asymptotic properties o the overlap between the initial and inal state wave unctions, essentially ree rom uncertainties associated with optical potentialsandstructuralcomplexityowaveunctionsinthenuclearinteriorregion. 1) Recently, subbarrier α transer reactions have been used to indirectly measure cross sections o α-induced reactions o astrophysical interest. 2),3) In Re. 2), Johnson and collaborators determined the reaction rate o 13 C(α,n) 16 O by measuring the 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O(6.356 MeV, 1/2 + ) reaction; or simplicity, we henceorth denote the inal state o 17 O as 17 O. The 13 C(α,n) 16 O reaction is considered to be important as a neutron source or the slow neutron capture process (s-process) taken place in the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars. 4) Inthecrosssection ormula, Eq.(1) ore.2), othe 13 C(α,n) 16 Oreaction based on R-matrix approach, 5) the asymptotic normalization coeicient (ANC) or α+ 13 C, is the only missing quantity. Throughout this study we consider the ANC with Coulomb-modiication, 2) i.e., a value divided by the Gamma unction Γ(2 + η), where η is the Sommereld parameter or the α- 13 C system. In Re. 2), the α transer reaction 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O was analyzed with DWBA, disregarding the 17 O, C 17 O α 13 C breakup eects o 6 Li and 17 O, and (C 17 O α 13 C )2 = 0.89±0.23 m 1 was extracted. The ground state energy o 6 Li is, however, just 1.47 MeV below the α+d threshold. Furthermore, the binding energy o 17 O, i.e., 17 O(6.356 MeV, 1/2 + ), rom the α+ 13 C threshold is only 3 kev. Thereore, to extract a reliable value o C 17 O α 13 C, one should investigate how important 6 Li and 17 O breakup are in the α transer reaction. The purpose o the present Letter is to analyze the 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O reaction at 3.6 MeV (or the incident energy o 6 Li) with the three-body (α+d+ 13 C) model and ) ukui@phys.kyushu-u.ac.jp ) Present address: Research Center or Nuclear Physics, Osaka University typeset using PTPTEX.cls Ver.0.9

2 2 T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro to determine C 17 O α 13 C accurately. Roles o 6 Li breakup in the initial channel and 17 O breakup in the inal channel are investigated with the continuum-discretized coupledchannels method (CDCC). 6),7) As shown in 3.2, the ormer is ound important as a large back-coupling to the elastic channel, while the latter is conirmed much less important. CDCC was proposed and developed by Kyushu group and has been highly successul in quantitatively reproducing observables o reaction processes in which virtual or real breakup eects o the projectile are signiicant. 8),9) CDCC treats continuum states o the projectile nonperturbatively, with reasonable truncation and discretization, and thus can describe the breakup eects with very high accuracy. Note that theoretical oundation o CDCC was established in Res. 10) 12). The transition rom the 6 Li+ 13 C channel to the d+ 17 O channel is described with Born approximation; the breakup states o 6 Li are explicitly taken into account in the calculation o the transer process. The ANC thus extracted is compared with the result o the previous DWBA analysis. This paper is constructed as ollows. In 2 we ormulate the three-body wave unctions in the initial and inal channels and the transer cross section o the 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O reaction. Numerical setting is described in 3.1. Breakup eects o 6 Li and 17 O are investigated in 3.2, and the transer cross section is analyzed and the ANC is extracted in 3.3. In 3.4 we see the convergence o the modelspace o CDCC, and in 3.5 we discuss the present result in comparison with the previous DWBA result. Finally, we give a summary in Formulation α R αc α 17 O* d r 6 Li R R dc 13 C R αc 13 C R do R dc d Initial channel Final channel Fig. 1. Illustration o the three-body system in the initial and inal channels. In the present calculation, we work with the α+d+ 13 C model shown in Fig. 1. The transition matrix (T matrix) or the transer reaction 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O is given by T i = Sexp 1/2 Ψ ( ) V tr Ψ (+) i, (2.1) where Ψ (+) i and Ψ ( ) are the three-body wave unctions o the system in the initial and inal channels, respectively, and V tr is the transition operator o the transer process. We put a normalization constant Sexp 1/2 in T i, physics meaning o which is discussed below. The three-body wave unction Ψ (+) i in the initial state satisies the Schrödinger

3 equation Three-Body Model Analysis o Subbarrier α Transer Reaction 3 (H i E)Ψ (+) i (r,r) = 0, (2.2) where E is the total energy o the system in the center-o-mass (c.m.) rame and r (R) is the coordinate o α ( 6 Li) relative to d ( 13 C). The Hamiltonian H i is given by H i = T R +V (N) dc (R dc)+v (N) αc (R αc)+v Coul (R)+h i, (2.3) where T R is the kinetic energy operator associated with R and h i is the internal Hamiltonian o 6 Li. We use V (N) XY or the nuclear interaction between X and Y; each o X and Y represents a particle, i.e., d, α, or C ( 13 C). Similarly, R XY denotes the relative coordinate between X and Y. V Coul is the Coulomb interaction between 6 Li and 13 C. Note that we neglect the Coulomb breakup o 6 Li, which can be justiied by the act that the eective charge o the α+d system or electric dipole transition is almost zero. Furthermore, as shown in 3.2, it is numerically conirmed that Coulomb breakup processes due to electric quadrupole and higher multipoles are negligibly small. As the partial wave Ψ i;jm o Ψ (+) i, we adopt the ollowing CDCC wave unction: Ψ CDCC i;jm (r,r) = j max j=0 l max J+l l=0 L= J l ˆφ j,l (r) ˆχ J j,l,l (R) r R [ i l Y l (ˆr) i L Y L ( ˆR) ], (2.4) JM where J and M are the total angular momentum and its z-component, respectively, and l (L) is the orbital angular momentum between α and d ( 6 Li and 13 C). We disregard the intrinsic spin o each particle or simplicity. The radial part o the 6 Li wave unction is denoted by ˆφ j,l (r)/r, where j is the energy index; j = 0 corresponds to the ground state and j 0 to discretized continuum states obtained by the momentum-bin discretization. 6) The internal wave unction ˆΦ j,l,m given by ˆΦ j,l,m (r) = ˆφ j,l (r) i l Y lm (ˆr) (2.5) r satisies ˆΦj,l,m (r) h i ˆΦ j,l,m (r) = ǫ j,l δ j jδ l lδ m m. (2.6) Inserting Eqs. (2.3) and (2.4) into Eq. (2.2) and making use o Eq. (2.6), one obtains the ollowing CDCC equation: [ 2 d 2 ] 2µ dr L(L+1) 2µ R 2 +V Coul (R) E j,l ˆχ J c (R) = F cc (R)ˆχ J c (R), (2.7) cc where µ is the reduced mass o the 6 Li- 13 C system, E j,l = E ǫ j,l, and ˆφj F cc (R) =,l (r) ] [i l Y l i L Y L V (N) ˆφ j,l (r) [ ] r dc JM +V(N) αc i l Y l i L Y L r JM r, ˆR. (2.8)

4 4 T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro Forsimplenotation, wedenotethechannelindices{j,l,l}asc. TheCDCCequation is solved numerically up to R = R max and ˆχ c is connected with the usual boundary condition { ˆχ J c (R) U ( ) L,η j,l (K j,l R)δ cc0 K 0,l0 /K j,l Ŝcc J 0 U (+) L,η j,l (K j,l R) or E j,l 0 ŜJ cc 0 W ηj,l,l+1/2( 2iK j,l R) or E j,l < 0, (2.9) where K j,l = 2µE j,l /, U ( ) L,η j,l (U (+) L,η j,l ) is the incoming (outgoing) Coulomb wave unction with the Sommereld parameter η j,l, and W ηj,l,l+1/2 is the Whittaker unction. The subscript 0 o l and c represents the incident channel. With the S- matrix elements ŜJ cc 0 in Eq. (2.9), one may obtain any physics quantities with the standard procedure except that one needs to make the discrete results smooth when breakup observables are investigated. Since the CDCC wave unction Ψi CDCC can be regarded as, with very high accuracy, an exact solution to Eq. (2.2) in evaluation o T-matrix elements that contain a short range interaction, one may deine V tr by V tr = V αd (r)+v dc (R dc )+V αc (R αc ) V aux (2.10) with any choice o the auxiliary potential V aux. In Eq. (2.10), V αd, V dc, and V αc contain both nuclear and Coulomb parts. Note that V aux determines the inal state wave unction Ψ ( ). In the present study, we adopt which trivially gives V aux = V dc (R dc )+V αc (R αc )+V (C) αd (r), (2.11) V tr = V (N) αd (r). (2.12) The superscript (C) o V αd in Eq. (2.11) represents the Coulomb part o the interaction. We then have (H E)Ψ (+) (R αc,r do ) = 0 (2.13) with H = T RdO +V dc (R dc )+V (C) αd (r)+h, (2.14) where T RdO is the kinetic energy regarding R do and h is the internal Hamiltonian o 17 O. Note that we here consider a Schrödinger equation or Ψ (+), which is the time-reversal o Ψ ( ). One can easily obtain the orm o Ψ (+) based on CDCC, Ψ CDCC(+), just in the same way as in the initial channel, except that i) we should include Coulomb breakup o 17 O, ii) we have no nuclear part o V αd, and iii) the bound state o 17 O at MeV is a p-wave that generates both monopole and quadrupole interactions between d and 17 O; the latter causes also change in the d- 17 O angular momentum that is called reorientation. Note that V dc in Eq. (2.14) contains both nuclear and Coulomb parts, as mentioned above.

5 Three-Body Model Analysis o Subbarrier α Transer Reaction 5 It is shown in 3.2 that 17 O breakup channels have very small ( 5%) eects on the d- 17 O elastic scattering. Furthermore, the quadrupole interaction is ound negligibly small (see Fig. 2). Then we can approximate Ψ CDCC( ) ϕ 0 (r)ξ ( ) 0 (R do ) Ψ 1ch( ), (2.15) whereϕ 0 (r)istherelativewaveunctionbetweenαand 13 Cin 17 O,andξ ( ) 0 (R do )is the distorted wave unction obtained by the single-channel calculation, in which both the breakup channels and the aorementioned quadrupole interaction are switched o. In the calculation o T i, we make zero-range approximation; the strength D j,l o the zero-range α-d interaction is given by D j,l = ˆφ (N) j,l (r)v αd (r)ˆφ j,l (r)dr. (2.16) The inite-range correction to the zero-range calculation o T i is made with the standard prescription. 1) One may examine the validity o this approximation by the magnitude o the correction. We use Ψ (+) i calculated with CDCC, while Ψ 1ch( ) o Eq. (2.15) is adopted as Ψ ( ), in the evaluation o T i Numerical input 3. Results and discussion Theα-dwave unctioninψi CDCC is constructed by ollowing Re. 13), except that we do not use the orthogonal condition model (OCM) but exclude Pauli s orbidden states by hand. We include l = 0, 1, and 2 states. As or the nuclear part o the α-d interaction or l = 0, we use For l = 2, V (N) αd;l=0 (r) = 105.5exp[ (r/2.191)2 ]+46.22exp[ (r/1.607) 2 ]. (3.1) V (N) αd;l=2 (r) = 85.00exp[ (r/2.377)2 ]+30.00exp[ (r/1.852) 2 ] (3.2) is adopted. We neglect the intrinsicspins o d, and wehave only oneresonancestate at MeV (measured rom the ground state energy) with a width o 0.45 MeV. It is ound that, however, i we include S and a spin-orbit interaction that reproduces the 1 +, 2 +, and 3 + resonance states, the resulting value o the ANC shown below changes by only 0.2%. Thus, the separation o the l = 2 resonance state to 1 +, 2 +, and 3 + resonance states by the spin-orbit interaction plays no role in the present subbarrier α transer reaction. For l = 1, we adopt 14) V (N) αd (r) = 74.19exp[ (r/2.236)2 ], (3.3) which isusedalso or l > 2whenwecheck theconvergence o CDCCcalculation with respect to l max (see 3.4). The Coulomb interaction between α and d is evaluated

6 6 T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro by assuming a uniormly charged sphere with the charge radius R C o 3.0 m; see Eq. (3.5) below. We take the maximum value k max (r max ) o the relative wave number k (coordinate r) between α and d to be 2.0 m 1 (60 m); the maximum relative energy ǫ max is 62.4 MeV. We use j max = 100 or each o the l = 0, 1, and 2 states and the width k o the momentum bin is thus 0.02 m 1. The number o channels, N ch, in the CDCC equation (2.7) is 601. When we see the eects o Coulomb breakup in Fig. 2, we take r max = 300 m. As or the interactions o the α- 13 C and d- 13 C systems, we use the parameters shown in Table I. The standard Woods-Saxon orm is adopted: V(x) = V 0 V (x) iw 0 W (x)+v C (x), (3.4) where V (x) = (1+exp[(x R V )/a V ]) 1 and W (x) = (1+exp[(x R W )/a W ]) 1. The Coulomb interaction V C (x) is given by Z 1 Z 2 e 2 ) (3 x2 V C (x) = 2R C RC 2 x R C Z 1 Z 2 e 2, (3.5) x > R C x where Z 1 Z 2 is the product o the atomic numbers o the interacting particles. These parameters are used in the calculation o both initial and inal state wave unctions. The parameter set or the d- 13 C system is determined to reproduce the elastic scattering cross section obtained with the parameters in Re. 2) that contains a spin-orbit part. We determine V 0 or the α- 13 C system to reproduce ε 0 assuming that the orbital angular momentum is 1 and the number o orbidden states is 2. Note that we use Eq. (3.5) with R C = 2.94 m or the 6 Li- 13 C Coulomb interaction unless we include Coulomb breakup o 6 Li. Table I. Potential parameters used in the present calculation. System V 0 R V a V W 0 R W a W R C (MeV) (m) (m) (MeV) (m) (m) (m) α+ 13 C d+ 13 C In the calculation o Ψi;JM CDCC, we use R max = 15 m and J max = 7. Note that we explicitly include closed channels, in which E j,l < 0, in CDCC calculations. In the evaluation o T i, we set the maximum value o R dc to be 30 m; we use the asymptotic orm o ˆχ J c, Eq. (2.9), to obtain Ψi;JM CDCC or R > 15 m. When we include Coulomb breakup, we set R max to 200 m. For the inal channel, the relative energy between α and 13 C in the 1/2 + state at MeV is ε 0 = 3 kev rom the α- 13 C threshold. In the calculation o Ψ CDCC( ), we include the p-wave bound state and the s-, p-, d-continua o the α+ 13 C system up to the relative momentum o 1.2 m 1 (relative energy o 39.6 MeV) with the momentum bin with a common width 0.06 m 1. The maximum values o R αc and

7 Three-Body Model Analysis o Subbarrier α Transer Reaction 7 R do are both set to 100 m, and we put J max = 10. We include all closed channels in the CDCC calculations as in the initial channel Breakup eects o 6 Li and 17 O Rutherord ratio no BU 0.8 CDCC CDCC with Coulomb BU θ (deg) no BU 0.8 CDCC no BU with λ = 0 only θ (deg) Fig. 2. (color online) Elastic cross sections o 6 Li- 13 C at 3.6 MeV (let panel) and d- 17 O at 1.1 MeV (right panel). In each panel, the dashed line shows the result o CDCC and the solid line is the result without breakup channels. The dotted line in the let panel is the result o CDCC with both nuclear and Coulomb breakup, while that in the right panel shows the result without breakup including only the monopole interaction between d and 17 O. Figure 2 shows the elastic cross sections o 6 Li- 13 C at 3.6 MeV (let panel) and d- 17 O at 1.1 MeV (right panel) corresponding to the initial and inal channels, respectively, o the 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O reaction. In each panel, the dashed line shows the result o CDCC and the solid line is the result without breakup channels. One sees rom the let panel signiicant breakup eects on the elastic cross section, i.e., a large back-coupling to the elastic channel. Another inding is the inclusion o Coulomb breakup (the dotted line in the let panel) little aects the cross section. One can thus iner that nuclear breakup plays important roles in the 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O reaction, and conclude that neglect o the Coulomb breakup in the calculation o is justiied. On the other hand, in the inal channel, eects o nuclear and Coulomb breakup are ound very small as shown in the right panel; they change the cross section or θ > 60 by 5% at most. We urther investigate the breakup eects on the d- 17 O wave unction in the elastic channel. The absolute value (argument) o the wave unction or J = 0 at R do = 10 m, which is ound to have the main contribution to the transer amplitude, is and (278.8 and ) when the breakup states o 17 O are included and neglected, respectively; the breakup eects are about 3%. Thereore, we can disregard the breakup channels o the d- 17 O system in the calculation o T i with the error o 5% at most. The dotted line in the right panel shows the result with neglecting both the breakup channels and the quadrupole interaction between d and 17 O, which is almost identical to the solid line. Thus, one can use Eq. (2.15) in the calculation o the inal state wave unction; we estimate the error due to this approximation to be 5% as mentioned above. It should be noted that breakup cross sections in the initial and inal channels are both ound smaller than the nuclear part o the elastic cross section by about our orders Ψi;JM CDCC

8 8 T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro o magnitude. The very small breakup eects in the inal channel are because the incoming energy o d is suitably below the Coulomb barrier, and the interaction that causes breakup in Eq. (2.14) is signiicantly weaker than in Eq. (2.3); note that V (N) αd (r) is deined as V tr and does not appear in Eq. (2.14) Transer cross section and ANC dσ/dω (mb/sr) S exp = 1 itted Johnson et al θ (deg) Fig. 3. (color online) Cross section o the transer reaction 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O at 3.6 MeV. The solid line is the result o calculation with S exp = 1. The dashed line is the result o the χ 2 it to the experimental data taken rom Re. 2). We show in Fig. 3 the cross section o the transer reaction 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O at 3.6 MeV as a unction o the outgoing angle θ o d in the c.m. rame. The solid line represents the result with S exp = 1 and the dashed line shows the result o the χ 2 it to the experimental data. 2) The resulting value o S exp is Note that S exp cannot be regarded as a spectroscopic actor. Indeed, S exp has strong dependence on the model wave unction o the α- 13 C system; typically, it varies by a actor o 2 with changing the geometric parameters o V (N) αc by 30%. This clearly shows that it is not easible to determine S exp rom the present analysis o the experimental data. On the other hand, the ANC C 17 O α 13 C given by C 17 O α 13 C = S1/2 exp Csp α 13 C (3.6) with the single particle ANC C sp α 13 C o the α-13 C wave unction, is robust against changes in the potential parameters. This shows that the reaction process considered is peripheral with respect to R αc, i.e., only the tail o the α- 13 C wave unction contributes to the transition amplitude. Note that C sp is deined by α 13 C C sp α 13 C = R αc ϕ 0 (R αc ) W η,3/2 (2κ 0 R αc )Γ(2+ η) at R αc R N, (3.7) where ϕ 0 is the radial parto ϕ 0, η is thesommereld parameter o the α- 13 C system,

9 Three-Body Model Analysis o Subbarrier α Transer Reaction 9 κ 0 = 2µ α 13 Cε 0 / with µ α 13 C the reduced mass o α and 13 C, Γ is the Gamma unction, and R N represents the range o V (N) αc. Thevalue o (C 17 O α 13 C )2 extracted by the present calculation is 1.03 m 1. We then evaluate the uncertainty o (C 17 O α 13 C )2 associated with the α- 13 C and d- 13 C potential parameters shown in Table I by changing each value by 30%. Note that V 0 or α- 13 C has a constraint that it must reproduce ε 0. The uncertainty is ound to be 22%. We take into account also the uncertainty due to the use o Eq. (2.15) (5%) and that coming rom the zero-range approximation to V (N) αd (8%), and conclude that the theoretical uncertainty is totally 24%. Including the ambiguity o experimental inormation 2) together, we inally obtain (C 17 O α 13 C )2 = 1.03±0.25 (theor) ±0.15 (expt), (3.8) where (theor) and (expt) respectively represent theoretical and experimental uncertainties Convergence o the CDCC wave unction in the initial channel dσ/dω (mb/sr) k max (ε max ) 0 (0) 0.26 (1.05) 0.40 (2.50) 1.6 (39.9) 2.0 (62.4) 2.4 (89.9) s, p, d; k = 0.02 s, p, d; k = 0.01 s, p, d,, g, h; k = 0.02 without breakup θ (deg) θ (deg) Fig. 4. (color online) The dependence the cross section or 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O at 3.6 MeV on the modelspace o CDCC or Ψi CDCC. In the let panel, k max is varied. The values o k max are shown in unit o m 1 and the corresponding values o ǫ max are given in the parentheses in unit o MeV. Here, the l = 0, 1, and 2 breakup continua are taken with k = 0.02 m 1. In the right panel, the dashed line stands or the result o the l = 0, 1, and 2 breakup continua with k max = 2.0 m 1 and k = 0.01 m 1. The dotted line shows the result o the 0 l 5 continua with k max = 2.0 m 1 and k = 0.02 m 1. The thick solid line (the solid line) in the let (right) panel is the result o the l = 0, 1, and 2 breakup continua with k max = 2.0 m 1 and k = 0.02 m 1 and the same as the solid line in Fig. 3. The result without breakup channels is also shown by the dash-dotted line in each panel. Figure4showsthedependenceothecrosssectionor 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O at3.6mev on the modelspace o CDCC or Ψi CDCC. In the let panel, we show the convergence o thecross section withrespectto increasingk max, wherethel = 0, 1, and2breakup continua are taken with k = 0.02 m 1. One can see that the convergence is very slow and obtained at k max = 2.0 m 1. In usual CDCC calculation, one takes only the open channels, i.e., channels with E j,l > 0. The result thus obtained (the thin

10 10 T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro solid line) is, however, sizably dierent rom the converged one (the thick dotted line), at backward angles in particular. Thus, inclusion o the breakup channels is important. In the right panel o Fig. 4, the dashed line is the result including the l = 0, 1, and 2 breakup continua with k = 0.01 m 1 and k max = 2.0 m 1 (N ch = 1201), and the dotted line is the result including the l = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 breakup continua with k = 0.02 m 1 and k max = 2.0 m 1 (N ch = 2101). The dashed and solid lines both agree well with the solid line, which is the same as in Fig. 3. In act, the resulting values o (C 17 O α 13 C )2 dier rom each other by less than 1%. Thus, the modelspace used in the solid line o Fig. 3 gives good convergence o the calculated cross section, hence C 17 O α 13 C Discussion on the comparison with the previous DWBA analysis dσ/dω (mb/sr) with breakup (el) T i only without breakup θ (deg) Fig. 5. (color online) 6 Li-breakup eect on the transer reaction 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O at 3.6 MeV. The solid and dash-dotted lines show the results o calculations with and without 6 Li breakup channels, respectively. The dashed line stands or the result o the elastic transer process only. The solid and dash-dotted lines are respectively the same as those in the right panel o Fig. 4. Figure 5 shows the 6 Li-breakup eect on the transer reaction. The solid and dash-dotted lines are the results o the calculation with and without the breakup channels, respectively; they are shown also in the right panel o Fig. 4. The two results largely deviate rom each other, indicating that the breakup eect is important, as mentioned in 3.4. This does not necessarily mean, however, inadequacy o DWBA, as discussed below. The transition matrix elements o the transer reaction can be separated into two parts, with T i = S 1/2 exp T (el) i = T (br) i = [ ] T (el) i +T (br) i (3.9) Ψ ( ) V tr Ψ (+) el, (3.10) Ψ ( ) V tr Ψ (+) br, (3.11)

11 Three-Body Model Analysis o Subbarrier α Transer Reaction 11 where Ψ (+) el and Ψ (+) br are the elastic and breakup parts o the CDCC wave unction Ψi CDCC. The transition matrix T (el) i describes the transer reaction rom the elastic channel, i.e., the elastic transer process, which includes the back-coupling eect o the breakup channels to the elastic channel. On the other hand, T (br) i describes the transer reaction rom 6 Li breakup channels, i.e., the breakup transer process. Thus, there are two kinds o breakup eects on the transer reaction; one is the backcoupling eect in the elastic transer process and the other is the presence o the breakup transer process. The dashed line is a result o the elastic transer transition only. The result agrees with the solid line, indicating that the breakup transer transition is much smaller than the elastic transer one. This is consistent with the small breakup cross section o 6 Li by 13 C as mentioned in 3.2. Hence, only the backcoupling eect is important in the present subbarrier transer reaction. In DWBA, the back-coupling eect is expected to be included by using the 6 Li optical potential, which describes the elastic scattering by deinition, as the distorting potential. The ANC, (C 17 O α 13 C )2, extracted in the preceding DWBA calculation 2) is 0.89±0.23 m 1. This value agrees well with the present result Eq. (3.8) within the uncertainties. 4. Summary Insummary,weanalyzethe 13 C( 6 Li,d) 17 O(6.356MeV,1/2 + )reactionat3.6mev by the three-body (α + d+ 13 C) model. The breakup eects o 6 Li and 17 O are investigated by CDCC. Those o 6 Li are ound important as a large back-coupling to the elastic channel, while those o 17 O turns out negligible with an error o 5%. The transer cross section is calculated with Born approximation to the transition interaction, and includingonly thebreakup o 6 Li. TheANC extracted by the three-body reaction model is (C 17 O α 13 C )2 = 1.03±0.25 (theor) ±0.15 (expt). The back-coupling eect o 6 Li breakup on the transer reaction is large, while the breakup transer transition is negligible compared with the elastic transer transition. The preceding DWBA calculation implicitly treated the back-coupling eect by using a 6 Li optical potential that described the elastic scattering as the distorting potential. The value o (C 17 O α 13 C )2 extracted bydwba is0.89±0.23 m 1, whichisconsistent withthepresent value within the uncertainties. It can be conjectured that in the DWBA calculation, the aorementioned back-coupling eect in the initial channel was properly included. However, this will not always be the case, since the optical potential is determined phenomenologically. Furthermore, breakup transer processes may be important in other subbarrier α transer reactions. The present three-body approach, thereore, should be applied systematically to these reactions. From theoretical point o view, inclusion o CDCC wave unctions in both initial and inal channels will be an important subject; to achieve this, one should treat, in principle, very large coordinate space in the calculation o the T matrix, since there is no damping in the overlap kernel. It will be interesting to use our-body CDCC 15) based on a p+n+α+ 13 C model to obtain the wave unction in the initial channel. At this stage, however, the modelspace required is too large or our-body CDCC to be applied.

12 12 T. Fukui, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro One o the authors (K. O.) wishes to thank G. V. Rogachev and E. D. Johnson or valuable discussions and providing detailed inormation on their DWBA calculation. The authors are grateul to Y. Iseri or providing a computer code rana or calculation o transer processes. The computation was carried out using the computer acilities at the Research Institute or Inormation Technology, Kyushu University. Reerences 1) G. R. Satchler, Direct Nuclear Reactions (1983). 2) E. D. Johnson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006), ) E. D. Johnson, G. V. Rogachev, J. Mitchell, and K. W. Kemper, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009), ) I. Iben, Astrophys. J. 196 (1975), ) A. M. Mukhamedzhanov and R. E. Tribble, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999), ) M. Kamimura, M. Yahiro, Y. Iseri, Y. Sakuragi, H. Kameyama, and M. Kawai, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. No. 89 (1986), 1. 7) N. Austern, Y. Iseri, M. Kamimura, M. Kawai, G. Rawitscher and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rep. 154 (1987), ) K. Ogata, M. Yahiro, Y. Iseri, and M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003), (R). 9) K. Ogata, S. Hashimoto, Y. Iseri, M. Kamimura, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006), ) N. Austern, M. Yahiro and M. Kawai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989), ) N. Austern, M. Kawai and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 53 (1996), ) R. A. D. Piyadasa, M. Yahiro, M. Kamimura and M. Kawai, Prog. Theor. Phys. 81 (1989), ) Y. Sakuragi, M. Yahiro, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. No. 89 (1986), ) T. Matsumoto, T. Kamizato, K.Ogata, Y. Iseri, E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, andm. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003), ) T. Matsumoto, T. Egami, K. Ogata, Y. Iseri, M. Kamimura, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006), (R).