Microscopic DWIA Study of the ⁴⁰Ca(p,2p)³⁹K Reaction at 392 MeV with Melbourne g-Matrix Optical Potentials
Marhabo Q. Beymamatova
1,*
,
Alisher Y. Sanetullaev
1
1 New Uzbekistan University , Movarounnahr str. 1, Tashkent 100000, Uzbekistan
Abstract
Microscopic distorted-wave impulse approximation (DWIA) calculations are presented for the ⁴⁰Ca(p,2p)³⁹K reaction at an incident proton energy of 392 MeV. The calculations were carried out with PIKOE using Melbourne g-matrix folding optical potentials. Proton removal from the 1d₃⁄₂ and 2s₁⁄₂ orbitals was examined in the same coplanar kinematics, with T₁=250 MeV and θ₁=30°, so that the orbital dependence could be compared without changing the reaction conditions. Woods–Saxon bound states were generated with a common benchmark binding energy of 8.33 MeV, and full shell occupancies, S=4 and S=2, were retained as reference normalizations. The calculated triple differential cross section (TDX) is strongly configuration dependent: the 1d₃⁄₂ channel develops two maxima, 216.14 and 234.22 μb/(MeV sr²), at θ₂=39° and 62°, whereas the 2s₁⁄₂ channel is dominated by a much larger single peak of 1203.9 μb/(MeV sr²) at θ₂=49°. The vector analyzing power also shows a clear difference between the two proton-hole configurations. Replotting the same calculation against signed recoil momentum separates the two recoil branches and places the principal 2s₁⁄₂ strength closer to the minimum-recoil region. Published spectroscopic strengths at 392 MeV are smaller than the full occupancies used here; the present results are therefore intended as a controlled microscopic DWIA benchmark of orbital- and spin-sensitive reaction patterns rather than as a fit to absolute experimental yields.
References
[1] Jacob, G. and Maris, T. A. J., Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 121 (1966)
[2] Jacob, G. and Maris, T. A. J., Rev. Mod. Phys. 45, 6 (1973)
[3] Wakasa, T., Ogata, K. and Noro, T., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 96, 32 (2017)
[4] Ogata, K., Yoshida, K. and Chazono, Y., Comput. Phys. Commun. 297, 109058 (2024)
[5] Aumann, T., Barbieri, C., Bazin, D. et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 118, 103847 (2021)
[6] Hatanaka, K., Kawabata, M., Matsuoka, N. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1014 (1997)
[7] Yasuda, Y., Sakaguchi, H., Asaji, S. et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 044315 (2010)
[8] Noro, T., Wakasa, T., Ishida, T. et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 093D02 (2020)
[9] Yoshida, K., Atkinson, M. C., Ogata, K. and Dickhoff, W. H., Phys. Rev. C 105, 014622 (2022)
[10] Aumann, T., Bertulani, C. A. and Ryckebusch, J., Phys. Rev. C 88, 064610 (2013)
[11] Cowley, A. A., Arendse, G. J., Visser, R. F. et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 3185 (1998)
[12] Noro, T., Baba, T., Hatanaka, K. et al., Nucl. Phys. A 629, 324c (1998)
[13] Panin, V., Taylor, J. T., Paschalis, S. et al., Phys. Lett. B 753, 204 (2016)
14] Atar, L., Paschalis, S., Barbieri, C. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 052501 (2018)
[15] Gómez-Ramos, M. and Moro, A. M., Phys. Lett. B 785, 511 (2018)
[16] Chant, N. S. and Roos, P. G., Phys. Rev. C 15, 57 (1977)
[17] Franey, M. A. and Love, W. G., Phys. Rev. C 31, 488 (1985)
[18] Amos, K., Dortmans, P. J., von Geramb, H. V. et al., in Advances in Nuclear Physics, Vol. 25, edited by J. W. Negele and E. Vogt (Springer, 2000), pp. 276–536
[19] Kawase, S., Uesaka, T., Tang, T. L. et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2018, 021D01 (2018)
[20] Arellano, H. F., Brieva, F. A. and Love, W. G., Phys. Rev. C 52, 301 (1995)
[21] Cooper, E. D., Hama, S., Clark, B. C. and Mercer, R. L., Phys. Rev. C 47, 297 (1993)
[22] Koning, A. J. and Delaroche, J. P., Nucl. Phys. A 713, 231 (2003)
[23] Toyokawa, M., Minomo, K. and Yahiro, M., Phys. Rev. C 88, 054602 (2013)
[24] Chant, N. S. and Roos, P. G., Phys. Rev. C 27, 1060 (1983)
[25] Perey, F. and Buck, B., Nucl. Phys. 32, 353 (1962)
Beymamatova, M. Q. and Sanetullaev, A. Y., Microscopic DWIA Study of the ⁴⁰Ca(p,2p)³⁹K Reaction at 392 MeV with Melbourne g-Matrix Optical Potentials, Turanian J. Vol. 2, No. 3 (020306), 2026.