Core Polarization Effects With M3Y-Sigma

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education

And Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Science
Core Polarization Effects with M3Y-Sigma

Meson Interaction for Longitudinal Form
Factors of 48Ca Nucleus.
A Thesis
Submitted to the Department of Physics, College of
Science, University of Baghdad, in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Physics.
By
SADEQ SALTAN MASHAAN
B.Sc. Babylon University (2001)
Prepared under the Supervision of

Dr. Firas Zuhair Majeed
Jan 2014
1st Rabee 1435
Acknowledgements
First of all profusely and all thanks are due to Allah lord of the
whole creation who enabled me to achieve this research and peace is upon
his messenger Mohammad.
To acknowledge the pleasure of my supervisor Dr. Firas Zuhair
Majeed from suggesting this project, help, guidance, and advice
throughout the work.
I would like to thank the Head and the staff of Physics Department
for all the assistance they gave. My thanks are also extended to the Dean
of the College of Science for his support to perform this work.
Authors would like to express their thanks to prof. Dr. Raad A. Radhi
for his assistance to provide us the original versions of interaction and
form factors algorithm and they are expressing their thanks to
prof.B.A.Brown for his international code OXBASH.
Many thanks go to all my colleagues and all the members of the

nuclear group for their support.
I am grateful to the staff of the library of the college of science and
staff of the central library of the University of Baghdad for providing
references.
With my regards for all
Sadeq
Certificate
I certify that the preparation of this thesis, entitled "Core Polarization Effects
with M3Y-Sigma Meson Interaction for Longitudinal Form Factors of 48Ca
Nucleus'' was prepared under our supervision by Sadeq Saltan Mashaan. At the
College of science University of Baghdad in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in physics.
Signature:
Name: Dr. Firas Z. Majeed
Title: Assistant Professor
Date: 16 / 01/ 2014
In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for debate by the
examining committee.
Signature:
Name: Dr. Raad M.S AL-Haddad
Title: professor
Head of Physics Department, College of Science
Date:
/ 01/ 2014
We certify that we have read this thesis, entitled "Core Polarization Effects
with M3Y-Sigma Meson Interaction for Longitudinal Form Factors of 48Ca
Nucleus'' and as examining committee, examined the student Sadeq Saltan
Mashaan on its contents, and that in our opinion it is adequate for the partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Physics.
Signature:
Name: Dr. Zaheda A. Dakhil
Title : Professor
(Chairman)
Date : / 01/ 2014
Signature:
Signature:
Name: Dr. Khalid S. Jassim

Title : Assistant Professor
(Member)
Date : / 01/ 2014
Name: Dr. Gaith .N .Flaiyh

(Member)
Date : / 01/ 2014
Signature:
Name: Dr. Firas Z. Majeed
(Supervisor)
Date : / 01/ 2014
Approved by the University Committee of Postgraduate Studies.

Signature:
Name: Dr. Saleh Mahdi Ali
Title : Professor
Dean of the College of Sciences, University of Baghdad
Date : / 01/ 2014
) / ( 85
TABLE OF CONTENTS
No.
Subjects
Page
No.
English Cover
Arabic Cover
Acknowledgements
Certificate

TABLE of CONTENTS
TABLE of Tables
TABLE of Figures
Abstract
I
III
IV
VI
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1
Introduction.
1
1.1
Electron scattering.
1
1.2
Aim of the Present Work.
9
CHAPTER TWO
ELECTRON SCATTERING
2.1
General Theory.
10
2.2
The Reduced Single-Particle Matrix Elements.
12
2.3
Many-Particle Matrix Elements.
15
The Reduced Single-Particle Matrix Elements of the
2.4
16
Longitudinal Operator ( = L) .
2.5
Correction to the Form Factor.
18
CHAPTER THREE
CORE-POLARIZATION EFFECTS
3.1
Introduction.
21
Effective and Residual Interaction(exchange M3Y by
3.2
23
sigma meson).
3.3
Relative and center of mass transformation coefficient.
30
3.4
Some Properties of Brody-Moshinisky coefficient.
33
3.5
Energy Matrix Element with Oscillator Function.
33
3.6
The realistic Sigma meson (S=0 T=0) effective NucleonNucleon interactions.
36
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1
Introduction.
41
4.2
The 48Ca Nucleus.
42
4.2.1
The Charge Form Factor for J T= 0+ 4 State.
43
4.2.2
The C2 Charge Form Factor For J T= 2+ 4 state.
4.2.2.1 The first J T= 2 1 + 4 state with Ex=3.658 MeV.
4.2.2.2 The second J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=5.949MeV.
4.2.2.3 The third J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=6.557 MeV.
4.2.2.4 The fourth J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=7.275 MeV.
4.2.2.5 The fifth J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=7.363 MeV.
4.2.3
The Inelastic Longitudinal C4 form factors (4+) State.
4.2.3.1 The first J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=4.134 MeV.
4.2.3.2 The second J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=6.387 MeV.
4.2.3.3 The third J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=6.838 MeV.
4.2.3.4 The fourth J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=7.283 MeV.
4.2.3.5 The fifth J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=7.435 MeV.
4.3
Conclusions.
4.4
Futurisms Research.
References
46
46
48
50
52
54
56
56
58
60
62
64
66
67
68
Table of Tables
No.
Subjects
(3-1)
The values of the best fit to the potential parameters.

The OBDM elements for the C0 transition with FPD6
(4-1)
interaction for ground state (Ex=0 MeV).
The interaction OBDM elements for the C2 transition with
(4-2)
FPD6 for 21+ state (Ex=3.658 MeV).
(4-3)
FPD6 for 2+
2 state (Ex=5.949 MeV).
(4-4)
FPD6 for 2+
(4-5)
FPD6 for 2+
(4-6)
FPD6 for 2+
(4-7)
FPD6 for 41+ state (Ex=4.134 MeV).
(4-8)
FPD6 for 4+
(4-9)
FPD6 for 4+
(4-10)
FPD6 for 4+
(4-11)
FPD6 for 4+
Table of Figures
Page
No.
40
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Subjects
Elastic charge form factor (C0) for the ground state 0+
0.
Charge
(21+ ).
Charge
(2+
2 ).
Charge
(2+
3 ).
Charge
(2+
4 ).
Charge
(2+
5 ).
Charge
( 41+ ).
Charge
(4+
2 ).
Charge
(4+
3 ).
Charge
(4+
4 ).
Charge
(4+
5 ).
form factor for the C2 state, with Ex=3.658 MeV

Page
No.
45
47
49
51
53
55
form factor for theC4 state, with Ex=4.134 MeV
57
59
61
63
65
Abstract
Inelastic longitudinal electron scattering form factors of 48Ca has been
investigated in the framework of Microscopic theory. The investigations have been
performed in terms of the configuration mixing shell model with limiting number of
orbital in the model space outside the inert core. The discarded space has been
included, which is called core-polarization effects, which considers particle-hole
excitations from the core orbits and from the model space orbits into the higher orbits
with 2 excitation energy.
The sigma meson of two body Michigan sum of three range Yukawa potential
(M3Y) interaction has been utilized as a residual interaction. The FPD6 model space
was used as an effective interaction to generate the model space wave functions. The
simple harmonic oscillator potential is used as a single particle wave functions where
an analytical solution is possible.
The effective fitting interaction parameter was produced using the sigma()
mesons exchange between two nucleons by using inelastic electron scattering from
the multiple transition (C0,C2 and C4) to five excitation energy levels for C2 and C4,
in fp-model space of
48
P
Ca by seven(E,P0,P1,P2,P3,P4 and P5) Yukawa potential

P
interaction (M3Y-type).
The C0, C2 and C4 form factors are enhanced by including core-polarization
effects, where previous studies give effective charges greater than those of free space,
to account for the core polarization effects.
Introduction
1.1Electron scattering
Inelastic electron scattering has been confirmed to be a powerful tool for
studying properties of excited states of nuclei, in particular, their spins, parities and
the strength, and structure of the transition operators connecting the ground and the
excited states. Although some of this information is available from experiments, the
electron scattering method has certain unique features that indicate its continued use.
The information existing from experiments is certain to increase in quantity and
quality[1].
Born approximation calculations, is based on realistic shell model wave
functions, which should be carried out for those light elements available as suitable
targets for experiments. Efforts to make realistic theories for heavy nuclei have
already made large progress and should continue to do so [1]. It is clear that the
enhanced theories, need extensive computer capabilities. It would be necessary that
specialist modifying the theories and calculations to be in attachment so that an
efficient program, without extensive duplication of effort may be carried out.
There are two fundamental reasons why electron scattering is such an efficient
tool for studying nuclear structure. The first is that the basic interaction between the
electron and the target nucleus is well defined. The electron interacts with the
electromagnetic charge and current density of the nucleus. Since the interaction is
relatively weak one can make calculations on the target nucleus without greatly
affecting its structure. This is in difference to the situation with strongly interacting
projectiles where the scattering mechanism cannot be clearly known and separated
from structure effects in the target. By using electron scattering, one can directly join
the cross section to the transition matrix elements of the local charge and current
density operators, and thus directly to the structure of the target itself. Of course, the
same concepts take an action involving real photons, but electrons have the second
great advantage that for a fixed energy loss of the electron. One can vary the threemomentum transferred to the nucleus (q) [1].
Electron scattering is an efficient tool for spectroscopy of bound and unbound
states in nuclei. Since transitional form factors have different q dependence with
different multi-polarity by varying the momentum transfer, specific multi-poles can
be excited and thus selectivity to spins is done.
Modern inelastic electron scattering experiments have produced well defined

data as well as multi-pole transitions in some of doubly even 2p-lf shell nuclei within
a measured momentum-transfer range up to q=3.0 fm-1 [1].
P
Theoretical solutions to the nuclear many-body problem are partly

phenomenological, and thus theory and experiment are closely related to each other.
Theory takes its inspiration from experiment in guiding the frame work of the models
and their criteria; the nuclear shell model is the primary example [2,3,4]. Nuclear
experiment takes its inspiration from theory in helping to choose which experiments
are most important to coincide or disprove model assumptions. The nuclear shell
model codes like OXBASH[5], MSHELL[6], ANTOINE[7], RETSSCHIL[8],
VECSSE[9], and NATHAN[10] are globally used.
Besides the single particle wave function, the two body matrix element (TBME)
has a most important action in the calculation of the nuclear properties named above,
so that different shell model space effective interactions have been introduced
depending on two body interaction strength, where fitting parameters are obtained
from real nuclear interactions and fitting process [1].
After we have chosen the model space and searching for the most suitable model
space effective interaction depending on literature, moreover through microscopic
theory, the discarded space has been included as a first order correction, that is
particle hole state (p-h), and using the mixing interaction in order to calculate these
effects, as a residual interaction. Some of the most widely mixing interactions used to
calculate this effect are; (modified-surface delta function interaction (MSDI)[11,12],
density dependence Michigan sum of three-range Yukawa potential (M3Y-DD)[13,
14,, 24], Skyrme-type Hamiltonian ( SKX) [25, 12, 26, 27], modified Skyrmetype Hamiltonian (MSK7) [28,12], Dirac-Hartree Hamiltonian (NL3)[29], Gogny
interactions D1S[30, 26], .etc.) and the process is called (Core polarization).
For Nuclei of A>40, Z, N 20, the fp-shell model space is the suitable space
[12], where the nucleus 40Ca is considered as a core.
The fp-shell model space consists of the 1f 7/2 ,2p 3/2 ,1f 5/2 and 2p 1/2 valence orbits.
The potential model, modified-surface one-boson exchange potential (MSOBEP),
developed for the sd-shell [31, 32, 33] was successfully applied to obtain FPD6 ( six
parameter density-dependent interaction for the lower part of the fp shell) [34,, 41].
The effective SPE obtained for FPD6 for 48Ca , however can be improved by the
inclusion of monopole interactions (beyond that already contained in FPD6) [42].
R
The full Effective two body matrix elements (ETBME) approach to the fp shell
interaction has been feasible by the (the group matrix fitted to fp shell nuclei with
density dependence parameters) GXPF1 and has been applied to all fp shell nuclei
(A= 47-65 )[43, 44, 45, 46].
The theoretical calculation of electron scattering cross section multipole form
factors, multi-pole transition probability, .etc. are calculated by the use of nuclear
shell model wave functions, which produced from the solution of Schrodinger
differential equation and consisted of varies suggested potential energy function such
as Harmonic Oscillator (HO)[11].
So, the electron scattering form factor had an interest during the past century and
one can review them as related to the present work as follows:
In (1929) Mott [47] studied the electron scattering where he derived an
expression of the cross-section for the scattering of accelerated electrons by a point
nucleus. Collines and Waldman (1940) [48] established the first experiment on
electron excitation of nuclei to discrete levels.
Inclusion of the so-called form factor is done first by Lyman et al (1951) [49];
they have made the first experiment, which is sensitive to nuclear size. The nuclear
size can be found by multiplying the Motts cross-section by the nuclear form factor
which depends on the charge, current and magnetization distribution in the target
nucleus, where this factor can be found experimentally as a function of the
momentum transfer (q), by knowing the energies of the incident and scattered
electrons, and the scattering angle. Electron scattering may be classified into two
kinds; Elastic and inelastic electron scattering, the elastic is the electrons are scattered
from the nucleus, leaving the nucleus in its ground state and study the ground-states
properties such as static distributions of charge and magnetization which are feasible.
The latter kind which determines transition densities corresponding to the initial and
final nuclear state in question, for the three quantities in the nucleus that interact with
the passing electron, namely the distribution of charge, current, and magnetization
had studied by Uberall and Ugincius (1969)[50]. The electron scattering process can
be explained according to the first Born-approximation as an exchange of a virtual
photon carrying a momentum (q) between the electron and the nucleus, by Deforest
and Walecka (1966) [51]. The first Born-approximation is being valid only if Z <<1,
where Z is the atomic number and is the fine structure constant ( = 1/137).
According to this approximation, the interaction of the electron with the charge
distribution of the nucleus is considered as an exchange of a virtual photon with zero
angular momentum along the direction of the momentum-transfer (q). This is called
Coulomb or longitudinal scattering.
The possibility of studying single-particle nuclear transition charge densities
with inelastic electron scattering have discussed by Walecka and Willey(1963) [52],
and they have pointed out that such experiments lead to important background about
the nature of the effective charge. A few simple calculations of cross sections are
carried out for various models of the effective charge and it is shown that the
momentum transfer dependence of the cross section distinguishes between them.
40 , 48
Bellicard et al (1967) [53] measured elastic electron scattering form factor for
Ca using 750 MeV-electrons.
The low lying states of the calcium isotopes 42 Ca through 50Ca were discussed
within the framework of the conventional shell model by Mc Grory et al (1970) [54]
and they considered 40Ca as an inert core, and best results had been obtained in the
range of 0 q 2.5 fm-1 .
Differential cross sections for inelastic electron scattering from 40, 42, 44Ca and 50Ti
had been measured by Heisenberg et al (1971) [55].
Vautherin and Brink (1972) [56] verified that many of the nuclear ground-state
properties are well reproduced by the Hartree-Fock calculations using the Skyrme
effective forces (SHF).
De Jager (1974) [57] calculated the radii of 42, 44Ca theoretically and compared
the results with the experimental values of the foregoing nuclei.
Relative sizes of 40, 48Ca from the scattering of 79 MeV electrons had been
calculated by Hiebert (1975) [58].
40 , 42.44 , 48
Ca had
Backward-angle high resolution inelastic electron scattering on
been carried out by Steffen et al (1978) [59], they observed of a very strong magnetic
dipole ground state transition in Ca isotopes.
Monopole transitions from the 1+0 ground states to 2+0 excited states for
42
40
Ca
(3.353 MeV), Ca (1.837 MeV) , 44 Ca (1.884 MeV) and 48Ca (4.272 MeV) had
been investigated by Grf et al (1978) [60] with high resolution inelastic electron
scattering (FWHM 30 keV) at low momentum transfer (0.29fm-1<q<0.53fm-1).

These results are used together with known ground state charge radii and the average
number of holes in the sd shell in the ground state to estimate the number of particlehole excitations in the wave functions of the excited 0+ states .
P
Bellicard et al (1980) [61] studied the elastic electron scattering cross section for
48
Ca at 757.5 MeV, the results are compared with experimental data specially in the
range of q 2 and they obtained a good estimated results.

Itoh et al (1983) [62] studied the electro excitation of giant electric dipole and
electric quadruple cross section of
had been produced.
42.44 ,
Ca by electron scattering, good agreement
Coulomb form factors for the 0+ to 2+ transitions in the even-even 1f 7/2 -shell
nuclei were studied by Iwamoto et al (1982) [63] in terms of the shell model within
the 1 f 7n/ 2 ,1 f 7n/ 12 2 p3 / 2 configurations and with the effective interactions, it was proven
P
that the characteristics of the C2 form factors in the higher-momentum-transfer

region, have not shown by the simple model, but can be explained by the mixing of
the one-particle excitations into the 2p 3/2 orbit in the shell-model wave functions. E2
transition strengths and q moments were also discussed in connection with the C2
R
48
form factors. Ca had been widely studied experimentally by Wise et al (1985) [64]
utilizing inelastic electron scattering, they completed the measurements over a
momentum transfer range q=(0.6 to 3)fm-1 for a wide variety of multiple transitions
for normal and abnormal transitions.
P
The modeling of the mean square charge radii of nuclei in the Calcium
region was determined by Emrich et al (1983) [65] for several proton and
neutron shell closures, measurements on the six stable Calcium isotopes (Z =
20),where there isotopes covered the 1f 7/2 shell between the doubly magic
R
40
48
nuclei Ca (N = 20) and Ca (N = 28). The charge radii of these Calcium

nuclei have been studied by electron scattering.
Heisenberg (1983) [66] through his work on charge and current transition
densities reviewed a few examples to explain how electron scattering modified our
picture of nuclear physics, and he said The measurement of electron scattering from
nuclei has been a major contribution to the advancement of the field of nuclear
structure.
Also, a review for inelastic electron scattering from nuclei was published by
Heisenberg and Block (1983) [67].
Inelastic electron scattering form factors for the excitation of 2+ states in some
2p-1f shell nuclei has been carried out by Mukherjee and Sharma (1984) [68]. The
quadruple moments of the first excited states as well as the reduced transition
probabilities for E2 transitions are also discussed in connection with the C2 form
factors. The overall agreement between the calculated and the experimental results is
quite good.
Sick (1984) [69] introduced a brief study of electron scattering form factor for
wide range of mass number (A).
Brown et al (1985) [70] concluded that the inelastic electron scattering on 48Ca
is one of the key experiments in making the association between experimental and
theoretical energy levels. They had used the shell-model multi-particle transition
densities together with the SKX HF single-particle radial wave functions to calculate
the longitudinal and transverse electron scattering form factors.
Horie and Yokoyama (1987) [71] carried out a study on inelastic electron
scattering form factor in some closed shell nuclei within the framework of the firstorder perturbation theory, which is included core polarization (particle-hole) effect,
for studying inelastic electron scattering form factor in some closed shell nuclei. It
was shown that the suppression of transition strength, which had been observed in
electron scattering and harmonic reaction, can be obtained theoretically in all the
closed shell nuclei.
Platchkov et al (1988) [72] measured the radius of (1f 7/2 ) neutron orbit by the
use of elastic electron scattering experiment, and he obtained r=3.960.05.
Form factors and transition charge densities for the quadruple and hexadecupole
electro excitation of some lf-2p shell nuclei have been carried out by Raina and
Sharma (1988) [73]. It turns out that the available form factor data out to about
2.5fm-1 could be reproduced in most of the eases in a fairly satisfactory manner in
terms of reasonable values of effective charges.
Zheng and Zamick(1989) [74] studied the relations between polarized-protonnucleus and un polarized-transverse-electron-nucleus scattering and their
applications in 42 Ca .
The electron scattering form factors has been measured by Itoh et al (1989)
[75], for 2+ ,3+ and 5+ states up to 7 MeV excitation in
the incident electron energy were (62.5250) MeV.
42
Ca and
44
Ca , the range of
Frois and Sick (1991) [76], at World Scientific introduced general review on
electron scattering form factor for nuclei with the mass region from A=3 209.
Effects of the neutron spin-orbit density on the nuclear charge density, in
relativistic models, have been investigated by Kurasawa and Suzuki (2000) [77].
They explained the difference between the cross sections of elastic electron scattering
of 40 Ca and 48 Ca , which is not reproduced in the non-relativistic models.
Results on ongoing research of elementary electric and magnetic nuclear
excitations at the superconducting Darmstadt electron linear accelerator (S-Dalinac)
were presented by Richter (2000) [78].
Precise measurements of charge form factor for some fp shell nuclei have been
carried out by Denyak et al (2004) [79] for 0 q 2.5 fm-1.
The electron scattering form factor in 48Ca with the same theoretical framework
and use M3Y of Bertsch as a residual interaction had studied by Majeed (2009) [80].
and used the shell model codes M3Y interaction had studied by Jassim (2012) [81].
and use M3Y of Nakada and MSDI interaction had studied by Kasim (2012) [82].
Al-lamy (2013) [83] used separate (N-N)channel to study the electron scattering
form factor in 48Ca and proved that S=0 T=0 channel has the major effect.
The theoretical part of the present work includes the formulations of the inelastic
electron scattering and will be performed in chapter two.
The derivation of Core Polarization (CP) effects with higher configuration in the
first order perturbation theory and the two-body matrix elements of three parts of the
realistic interaction: central, spin orbit and strong tensor force will be introduced in
chapter three, where the two-body matrix elements calculation in harmonic oscillator
single-particle basis using Moshinisky transformation.
The results, discussion and conclusions will be demonstrated in chapter four.
A computer program is written in FORTRAN 90 language to include realistic
interaction M3Y in the original code which calculates the model space form factors
(zero-order) and the first-order core polarization effects. This code is written by prof.
R.A.Radhi.
1.2 Aim of the Present Work

The aim of present work is to use electron scattering formalism (theoretical) to
study the difference between sigma() meson exchange interaction belongs to M3YDD with different sets of fitting parameters as function of momentum transfer, with
use of 48Ca as a testing nucleus, with C0, C2 and C4 longitudinal form factors as a
transitional multipolarties, with five exited states for C2 and C4, the reason behind
the selection of this nucleus and in the same time the transitional multipolarities are
to give the model space part no contribution and to make the core part dominant so
reflecting to the effects of residual interactions and its sets of fitting parameters.
Sigma() meson of Michigan sum of three-range Yukawa potential (M3Y)
interaction of Nakada et al (2008) [84] will be adopted as a residual interaction for
the core polarization matrix elements.
Electron Scattering
2.1 General Theory
The differential scattering cross-section for the scattering of an electron into a solid
angle (d) from a nucleus of charge (Ze) and mass (M) in the plane-wave Born
approximation (PWBA) is given by [51,85,86]:
d
d
=
rec
d d Mott
R
F ( q, )
(2-1)
d
where
is the Mott cross-section for high-energy scattering electron from a
d Mott
R
point spineless nucleus, which is given by:
Z cos( / 2)
d
d Mott 2E sin 2 ( / 2)
i
(2-2)
where = e 2 c = (1 / 137 ) is the fine structure constant [51], Z is the atomic

number of the target nucleus, is the scattering angle and E i is the energy of
R
incident electron.
The recoil factor of the nucleus is given by:
rec
R
2 Ei
2
1
sin
(
/
2
)
=
M
(2-3)
where M is the mass of the target.

the total nuclear form factor F J (q,) which is containing two parts the longitudinal
R
L
J
(Coulomb) part F and the transverse (electric and magnetic) part FJ with multipolarity J as a function of momentum transfer q is given by:
F J (q)
q

=
q
4
2
L
F J (q)
2
q
+ 2
2q
+ tan (
2
/ 2)
F J (q)
(2-4)
The four-momentum transfer q is given by, (with =c=one for abbreviation):
q2 = q 2 ( Ei E f ) 2
(2-5)
with
q 2 = 4Ei E f sin 2 ( / 2) + ( Ei E f ) 2
= 4Ei E f sin 2 ( / 2) + 2
where
Ei
and
(2-6)
E f are the initial and final total energy of the electron scattering
respectively and is the energy transfer from the electron to the nucleus.
The squared transverse form factor is given as the sum of the squared electric and
magnetic form factors as follows:
T
El
mag
F J (q) = F J (q) + F J (q)
(2-7)
The form factor of the given multipolarity J as a function of momentum transfer (
) is given as:
2
FJ (q) =
4
2
Z (2 J i +1)
(2-8)
J f T J (q ) J i
The subscript represents longitudinal (L) or transverse (T) (electric( El) or

magnetic (mag)), J i and J f are the total angular momentum of the initial and the final

states, respectively, and
(q ) is the electron scattering multipole operator.
By the use of Wigner-Eckart theorem in isospin space, the form factor can be
written in terms of the matrix element reduced in both angular momentum (J) and
isospin (T) (triple-bar matrix elements) and is given as[87]:
4
FJ (q) = 2
Z (2 J i +1)
T
f
T f T zf
(1)
T = 0,1
T
Zf
T Ti
M T T
Zi
J f T f T J ,T J iTi
(2-9)
where:
Tz =
Z N
2
The bracket
..........
...........
) denotes the 3j-symbol. Since T zf=Tzi for electron scattering, then
M T =zero.
2.2 The Reduced Single-Particle Matrix Elements:

The single-particle wave functions
are specified by:
= n l j m tt z
(2-10)
Where n is the principal quantum number, l is the orbital angular momentum

quantum number and
number. The state tt z
and
j is the total single-particle angular momentum quantum

is the single-particle isospin state, with t z =
1
for proton
2
1
for neutron.
2
The radial part n l = R (r ) is normalized as:

nl
2
2
Rnl (r )r dr = 1
0
(2-11)
The single particle transition operator depends on the single nucleon, which is a
proton or a neutron and it can be written as:
1
(
1
)
(
1
)
=
+
z Tp
z T n
T tz 2
(2-12)
where:
Tp,n is the single particle operator for proton/neutron.

By rearranging equation (2-12), the transition operator can be written as:
1
1
Tt = (Tp + Tn ) + z (Tp Tn ) = TT=0 + TT=1
z
2
2
(2-13)
where TT= 0 is the isoscalar part of the operator and TT=1 is the isovector part of the
operator.
The reduced single-particle matrix element of the isoscalar and isovector parts
between two single-particle states () and () are [11]:
TJT
TJT
=0
TJT
=1
n l j t TJT
n l j t = n l j TJp
+TJn
n l j t 1 t
2
+
TJn
n l j TJp
n l j t z t
2
(2-14)
Since:
|1| = (1)
and
0
0
then:
1=
1
=
2+1
0
||1|| ,
0
(2-15)
(2-16)
111
2t +1 2 2
(2-17)
hence:
1 1 1 = 2t +1 = 2
2 2
(2-18)
and:
| | = (1)
where:
1
0
1
0
|| ||
= (1)
(2+1)(+1)
(2-19)
(2-20)
Then:
tz
1 1
z
t (2t +1)(t +1) 2 2
1=
1 z 1 = 6
2 2
The reduced single particle matrix element becomes:
2T +1
TJT
=
I T (t z ) n l j TJt n l j
2
tz
(2-21)
where:
for T =0
1
I T (t z ) =
1
t z for T =1
(1) 2
(2-22)
The reduced single-particle matrix elements in proton-neutron formalism could be

rewritten as:
TJt n l j TJtz n l j
(2-23)
2.3 Many Particle Matrix Elements

U
Many particle matrix elements of the electron scattering operator
are
expressed as the sum of the product of the one-body density matrix elements
(OBDM) times the single-particle transition matrix elements [88]:
f T i = OBDM i , f , , T
,
(2-24)
where = JT is the multi-polarity in spin and isospin in respectively and the states
i J i Ti and f J f T f are the initial and final states of the nucleus, while and
denote the final and initial single-particle states, respectively (isospin is included).
In isospin representation, the value of OBDM JT can be written as a sum of isoscalar
and isovector parts of the OBDM J ,t z as [89]:
OBDM J ,t z = (1)
Tf
+ (2t z ) 6
Tzf
where OBDM
Where;
tz =
J,
a+ , a ~
J [a
f
0 Ti OBDM J ,T =0
0 Tzi
2
Tf
2
Tzf
T f Ti
1 Ti OBDM J ,T =1
0 Tzi
2
J
a j ', ]
j ,t
tz
z
~
2J + 1
OBDM
J ,T
(2-25)
[a
f
+
j
a j']
~
(2 J + 1)(2T + 1)
and are making, destructing and coupling the particle in initial
and final states respectively.

The elements of the OBDM for longitudinal C0 (J=zero) form factor are given by:
OBDM (T = 0 ) = n j ( p + n )
2Ti + 1 2 J i + 1
2
2 j +1
OBDM (T = 1) = n j ( p n )
Ti (2Ti + 1)(Ti + 1)
6Tz
(2-26)
2J i + 1
2 j +1
(2-27)
where n j ( p + n ) and n j ( p n ) are the occupation numbers .
2.4 The Reduced Single-Particle Matrix Elements of The Longitudinal

U
Operator ( = L ):
U
The longitudinal form factor describes the spatial distribution of the charge (the
transition charge densities), so the longitudinal scattering can be considered as a
result of the interactions of the incident electrons with the charge distribution of the
nucleus [51].
The longitudinal form factor operator is defined as [90, 51]
L
TJMt
(q) = dr j J (qr )YJM ( r ) (r , t z )
(2-28)
where jJ (qr ) is the spherical Bessel function, YJM ( r ) is the spherical harmonic
function and (r ,t z ) is the nucleon charge density operator, which is given by :
(r , tz ) = e(tz ) (r ri )
(2-29)
with
e(t z ) =
1+ z (i)
2
, z = 2t z
and
(r ri ) is Dirac delta function

From equations (2-29) and (2-30), one obtains:
L
TJMt
(q) = e(t z ) j J (qr )Y JM ( r )
(2-30)
The reduced single-particle matrix element of the longitudinal operator between the
initial and final states can be written as[51]
TJtLz = e(t z ) n l j J (qr ) n l l
1
1
j YJ ( r ) l j
2
2
(2-31)
For the spherical harmonic, the reduced matrix element, is given by [11]
1
j +
l 1 j YJ ( r ) l 1 j = 1 1 2 1+ (1)l + l + J
2
2
2
(2 j +1)(2 j +1)(2 J +1)

4
J
0
1
2
(2-32)
Relation (2-32) could be expressed as:
T LJt = e(t z )PJ (el, l l )C J ( j , j ) n l j J (qr ) n l

z
(2-33)
where PJ and C J represent the coefficients of the electric parity-selection rules given
by,
l +l + J
PJ (l , l ) = 1 1+ (1)
2
(2-34)
j + 1 (2 j +1)(2 J +1)(2 j
C J ( j , j ) = (1) 2
4
1
+1) 2 j J j
1 0
1
2
2
(2-35)
while
n l j J (qr ) n l = drr 2 j J (qr ) Rn
(r ) Rn
(r )
(2-36)
The solution of Schrodinger equation using harmonic oscillator will generate the
radial component of the single particle wave function and the size parameter b, which
is set to the value b rms that reproduces the root-mean square (rms) charge radii.
Therefore, with these wave functions, the radial matrix elements of Bessel function
can be treated analytically as:
J
J
n l j J (qr ) n l = 2
y 2 exp( y)(n 1)!(n 1)! 2
(2 J +1)!!
(n +l + 1 )(n +l + 1 )
2
2
1
2
m +m
(1)
1

m = 0 m = 0 m !m ! (n m 1)!(n m 1)!
n 1 n 1
( 1 (l + l + 2m + 2m + J + 3))
2
(m + l + 3 )(m + l + 3 )
2
2
F ( 1 ( J l l 2m 2m ); J + 3 ; y)
2
2
(2-37)
where:
2
bq
y = ,
2
is gamma function
and F (.......) is the confluent hypergeometric function, which can be
evaluated
using [51]:
F , , y = 1+
( +1) y 2
y+
+ .......
( +1) 2!
(2-38)
2.5 Corrections to The Form Factor:

Nucleon- Nucleon experiments show that the nucleon is not a point but has a finite
size that must be corrected for, so the nuclear form factor of equation (2-9) must be
multiply by this correction, which is found to be as[91],
F f .s
0.43q 2
(q ) = e 4
(2-39)
On the other hand, there is a non-physical excited states called spurious states, due
to the fact that the interaction potential represents an average potential with respect to
a fixed origin. The problems of removing spurious states have been investigated
previously [92]. It has been shown that the calculated shell-model form factors for the
non- spurious ground state should be multiplied by the center-of-mass(. )
correction [91]:
Fc.m
q 2b 2
= e 4A
(2-40)
Where; b is the harmonic-oscillator size parameter, and A is the nuclear mass

number.
For nuclei in which 1, the Plane Wave Born Approximation (PWBA) is
expected to describe the electron scattering data very well, except in the region of the
diffraction minima, where the PWBA goes to zero. The Coulomb distortion of the
electrons increases the q, and an effective momentum transfer can be used to include
these effects. The effective momentum transfer( q
eff
3
qeff = q 1+
2
Ze 2
Ei Rc
Rc =
)is given by [93]:
5
rrms
3
(2-41)
In the realistic calculation of the form factor, it is necessary to take into account the
effects of finite proton size, center of mass motion and Coulomb distortion of
electron waves. Thus, the form factor for a given multipolarity J can be written in
terms of the matrix elements reduced both in angular momentum and in isospin
spaces as [94]:
2
FJ (q) =
T
f
4
T f Tzf
(1)
Z 2 (2 J i +1) T =0,1
T
Zf
Fc.m (q) F f .s (q)
T Ti
M T T
Zi
f T J ,T (q) i
(2-42)
Core-Polarization Effects
3.1 Introduction
U
The shell-model theory has shown that the true space may be divided into three
separated spaces which are: model space, inert core and higher configurations. Higher
orbits might be included or excluded according to the choice of the researcher and the
model that uses, but core orbits as have been proved [95], has an active contribution
in the calculation of form factors. The main problem is that the inclusion of core
orbits makes the space (Hilbert Space) very vast so, it must be separate between the
two spaces ( a core part and a valence part) to express the interaction between the
core and the valence particles, and that among the valence particles.
Through microscopic theory, the core polarization effect on the form factor
combines shell-model wave functions and configurations with higher energy as first
order perturbations; these are called "core-polarization effects".
In the shell model, it is unable to solve Schrodinger equation in the full Hilbert
space, because of the huge number of configurations, so one must trnucate it to a
smaller part of the configurations with finite dimenstions Hilbert space. This is
called the shell model-space or simply the model space. For this reason, it must use
effective interactions and operators. The effective interaction is used to measure the
nuclear properties microscopically, starting with realastic N-N interaction using
quantum mechanical many-body theory. For light nuclei, there are different effective
interactions such as the FPD6 [42], GXPF1[43], interactions for fp-shell. Some
special types of model space effective interactions are tabulated in the code
OXBASH, V.2005 [5].
The reduced matrix elements of the electron scattering operator ( T ) consist of

two parts, one is for the "Model space" matrix elements, and the other is for the
"Core-polarization" matrix elements,
f T i = f T i
+ f T i
MS
Where,
f T i
(3-1)
CP
are the model-space matrix elements ,

MS
f T i
and,
are the discarded space matrix elements.

CP
and
are described by the model-space wave functions.
The model-space in the light fp-shell nuclei is defined by the following

configuration: (1f 7/2 ,2p 3/2 ,1f 5/2 ,2p 1/2 ).
The fp-shell model-space matrix elements are written as the sum of the product of
the one-body density matrix elements (OBDM) multiplied by the single-particle
matrix elements, which is expressed by:
f T i
= OBDM (i , f , , ) T
MS
where
(3-2)
MS
and denote the final and initial single particle orbits, respectively
(isospin is included) for the 1f 2p-shell model-space.

The core-polarization matrix elements in equation (3-1) can be written as [95]:
f T i
= OBDM (i , f , , ) T
cp
(3-3)
cp
3.2 Effective and Residual Interaction(exchange M3Y by sigma

meson):
The so-called Michigan 3-range Yukawa (M3Y) interaction [14] has been derived
from the bare N-N interaction, by fitting the Yukawa functions to the G-matrix. It is
represented by the sum of the Yukawa functions. The M3Y-type interactions will be
tractable in various models. It has been shown that the M3Y interaction gives matrix
elements similar to reliable shell model interactions [31]. Moreover, with a certain
modification, M3Y-type interactions have successfully been applied to nuclear reactions
[84], including electron scattering. A class of the M3Y-type interactions have been
applied to electron scattering form factor calculations, with Paris and Ried fitting[86]. In
this work, we shall use M3Y- Paris and Ried type interaction has been used as a
Residual interaction and investigate the modification of the calculations. Once a reliable
interaction is obtained, one can describe various nuclear properties accurately and
systematically, which helps us to understand the underlying structure, and to make
predictions for unobserved properties. The fp shell is a region where the shell model can
play an indispensable role, and is at the frontier of our computational abilities. In the fp
shell one can find the interplay of collective and single-particle properties, both of
which the shell model can describe within a unified framework. Since the protons and
neutrons occupy the same major shell, the proton-neutron interaction is relatively strong
and one can study the relative collective effects such as T = 0 pairing. For all these
applications, a suitable effective interaction for fp-shell nuclei is required. Because of
the spin-orbit splitting, there is a sizable energy gap between the 1f 7/2 orbit and the other
three orbits (1f 7/2 ,2p 3/2 ,1f 5/2 ,2p 1/2 ). Thus, there exists an N or Z = 28 magic number
inside the major shell. For shell-model calculations around this magic number,
56
Ni has
often been assumed as an inert core. However, it has been shown that this core is
rather soft [97] and the closed shell model for the magic number 28 provides a very
limited description, especially for nuclei near N or Z=28 semi-magic. It is necessary to
assume essentially the full set of fp shell configurations and the associated unified
interaction in order to describe the complete set of data and to have some predictive
power. The effective interaction can, in principle, be derived from the free nucleon-
nucleon interaction. In fact, such microscopic interactions have been suggested for the
fp shell.
Quantum mechanics predicts that the inclusion of effective interaction might be
carried out through the perturbation theory and correcting the model space wave
functions and excitation energies. The first step is to define the effective interaction
between the two particles and adding it to the total Hamiltonian as follows [98,11].
H = H ( 0 ) +V
where H (0)
(3-4)
represents the unperturbed Hamiltonian and V
is the effective
nucleon-nucleon interaction.
The H (0)
might be described by a complete orthonormal basis which are
unperturbed wave functions , which satisfy Schrdinger equation:
H (0) i = Ei i
i = 1,2,.
(3-5)
In Hilbert space the true wave function can be written in terms of the unperturbed
basis wave function as:
= ai i
(3-6)
i =1
Where;
ai the amplitude of eignfunction of ,however, the summation runs over a
complete orthonormal set of eigenfunctions .
The model space wave function can be obtained from the expansion,
' = ai i
(3-7)
iM
The effective Hamiltonian H
eff
is required to reproduce the true eigenvalue E for the
model wave function ' , and the effective interaction is defined by [87]:
H eff P = ( H (0) + Veff ) P
(3-8)
where the eigenvalues are a subset of the eigenvalues of the original Hamiltonian in
the full space, = 1, 2, . d, where d denoting the dimension of the model space.
P is a projection operator.
The division of the Hilbert space into a model-space (MS) and a discarded part can be
accomplished by the construction of the so called projection operators (P) that is
optionally built which is a small part of the Hilbert space, where the remaining part is
the discarded space (core + higher configurations) obtained by the effect of operator Q
and they were expressed as:
P = i i
(3-9)
Q = i i
(3-10)
iM
iM
where P projects onto the model space and Q projects off the model space, and
they have the properties:
2 =Q
, PQ = QP = 0
P + Q = 1, P2 = P , Q
P
(3-11)
and Q are expressed in terms of the eigenfunctions of the unperturbed
Hamiltonian H (0), they satisfy the commutation relations:

(0)
P ,H
=0
,H ( 0 ) = 0
, Q
(3-12)
So the application of these operators does not change the properties of the
unperturbed hamiltonian.
The true wave function can be written as:
where:
=(P +Q ) = ' +Q
(3-13)
' = P
(3-14)
For a particular state the true wave function satisfies Schrdinger equation:
H = (H (0) +V rms) = E
(3-15)
where V is the free nucleon-nucleon interaction and E represents the true energy of
the system.
Making simplifications in order to get the most familiar sort of the effective
interaction [11]:
Veff = V + V
Q
Q
Q
V
V
V
V + .....
+
EH (0)
EH (0) EH (0)
(3-16)
One can derive the expression for the true wave function in terms of model
'
wave function [87,3,11]:
= ' +
(0) V rms
EH
(3-17)
and it can be iterated to give:
Q
'+ Q V Q
' + .....
V
rms
(0)
(0)
(0) V rms
EH
EH
EH
projects off the model-space, i.e.:
Since the operator Q
= ' +
Q = 0
(3-18)
(3-19)
Therefore, the true wave function is normalized to the relation:
= =1
(3-20)
By using equation (3-13) and equation (3-15) one can verify the relation:
Veff ' = V rms
(3-21)
Equation (3-21) shows that the action of the effective interaction on the modelspace wave function yields the same result as the action of realistic nucleon-nucleon
interaction on the true wave function.
The first order perturbation theory says that the single-particle matrix element for
the higher-energy configurations can be expressed as [11]:
Q
+ T Q V
T
J
J
res
E H (0)
E H (0)
TJ = Vres
(3-22)
Vres represents a residual nucleon-nucleon interaction, and might be
where
simplified as fallows [11]:
TJ
1
Q
p
V
=
h
T
p Vres h
res
J
e e e p + eh
p,h
E H (0)
(3-23)
Vres
1
Q
= p T h
T
h Vres p
J
(0) J
e
e
+
e
p,h
EH
p
h
(3-24)
the summation includes all possible particle-hole states and ek is the single-particle
energy (k , , p, h).
In equations (3-23) and (3-24), the energy denominators are the excitation
energies of the intermediate states with respect to the unperturbed valance states
and .
In order to reduce the single-particle matrix elements, Wigner-Eckart theorem [88]
is used, with taking care of the proper normalization of the angular momentum
coupled two-particle states one can obtain from equation (2-23) the expression:
j m T
J,M
E H (0)
res
j m
j m JM j m
j ,m , j ,
p
p h
2 j +1
h
m , J,M
h
j T j
h
1
j m j m JM
p p
e e e +e
j m j m JM j j V
res
(1+ )(1+ )
j j
(3-25)
where the summation over the three Clebsch-Gorden coefficients can be performed
to yield a 3j-symbol and 6j-symbol, which is given as (from the relations those couple
the Wigner symbols)[11]:

j m T
J,M
Q
EH
V
j m
(0) res
j
m
= (1)
m
J'
M m
j + j + J ' j
(
2
'
1
)
J
+
h
(1)
j T j
h J
p
e e e +e
j
j , j , J'
p
h
p h
h
j j p Vres j jh
j
J '
p
(1+ p )(1+ h )
(3-26)
...
where is the 6j-symbol.
...
In space and isospace coordinates, equation (3-26) becomes:

j t TJ,T
Q
j + j +J '
(2 J '+1)(2T '+1)
V j t =
(1) p h
(0) res
EH
j p , jh , J e e e p + eh
t p ,th ,T
t p +th +T '
(1)
jh
j
jp
J t t T

j j p Vres j jh

J ' t h t p T '
J ',T '
jh t h TJ,T j p t p (1+ p )(1+ h )
(3-27)
The Greek-symbols is used to denote quantum numbers in space and isospace

coordinates, Equation (3-27) becomes:
+ +
(1) 2
Q
=
V
T
res
E H (0)
, , e e e + e
1 2
(2 +1)
Vres 2 T (1+ )(1+ )

1
(3-28)
where the index
1 j p t p runs over particle states and 2 jht h runs over hole
states and ek is the single-particle energy,
j t
and j t are the final and

initial single-particle states, J 'T ' correspond to the total spin in both spaces,
respectively, T denotes the single-particle transition operator of rank J in space
coordinate and rank T in isospace ( JT ) , T = 0 or 1 are denoting the isoscalar or
isovector contribution [99].
Similarly one can find the contribution of the second term of equation
(3-24)
as:
+ 2 +

Q
(
1
)
T =
(2 + 1)
Vres
(0)
E H
1 , 2 , e e e1 + e 2
1 2
2 Vres 1 1 T 2 (1+ 2 )(1+ 1 )
(3-29)
The core-polarization form factor can be evaluated by replacing the single-particle

matrix elements in equation (3-3) with the two matrix- elements which are given in
equations (3-28) and (3-29).
The single-particle energies are calculated according to [11]:
e =( 2n +l 1
nlj
2
1
( l +1 ) f ( r )
2
)+
1l f ( r )
nl
2
with:
f (r )
nl
1
nl for j =l 2
20 A 2 / 3MeV
= 45 A 1 / 3 25 A 2 / 3
(3-30)
for j =l + 1
2
(3-31)
For the two-body matrix elements of the residual interaction 1 Vres 2 and
2 Vres 1 , which appear in equations (3-28) and (3-29), the Michigan sum of
three range Yukawa potential (M3Y) interaction of Berstch et. al [14] is adopted. A
transformation of the wave function from jj to LS coupling must be done to get the
relation between the two-body shell model matrix elements and the relative and
center of mass coordinates, using the harmonic oscillator radial wave functions with
Brody-Moshinsky transformation.
3.3 Relative and center of mass transformation coefficient:

For a two-particle system in a harmonic-oscillator potential, it shall characterize by
their coordinates and quantum numbers . For the purpose of our discussion, two
systems of coordinates are introduced:
1.Laboratory frame, where the two particles are described by their intrinsic
coordinates with respect to the center of the potential well,
and
, and
corresponding radial quantum numbers, n 1 , n 2 and l1 , l2 , respectively.

2.Center of mass frame, where the system is characterized by the relative
coordinate r and the coordinate R of the center of mass of the two-particles,
defined as [100]:
r = (r1 r2 ) ,
R=
1
2
(r1 + r2 )
(3-32)
The wave functions in the two coordinate systems can be written as follows
[100,101]:
Laboratory frame:
Ho
Ho
{n1l1 (1), n2l2 (2)} = n1l1 (r1 ) n2l2 (r2 )

Ho
m1m2
l1m1l2 m2 n l (r1 )n l (r2 )

11
2 2
(3-33)
The notation n1l1 (1), n2 l 2 (2) means particle number 1 is in the orbit n1l1 and particle
number 2 is in the n2 l 2 orbit, nHol and nHol are the wave functions for particle 1 and 2,
11
2 2
respectively.
Center of mass frame:
Ho
Ho
{lL} = nl ( r ) NL ( R) = lmLM nl ( r ) NL ( R)
mM
Ho
(3-34)
Ho
where nlHo , NL
are the wave functions of relative and center of mass, respectively.
The principal and the radial quantum numbers n, are corresponding to the relative
motion, and N, L to that of the center of mass motion.
Eq (3-33) can be wrirren in terms of eq (3-34) as:
Ho
Ho
n1l1 ( r 1 ) n2l2 ( r 2 ) = M nlNL n1l1n2l2
nlNL
Ho
Ho
nl ( r ) NL ( R )
(3-35)
The coefficient M nlNL n1l1n2l2
that appears in equation (3-35) is called the
transformation braketts (Brody-Moshinisky brackets).

The square of M gives the propability that the two particle systems will be found
in a state of relative motion characterized by the oscillator function Rnl (r )Ylm ( , ) and
center of mass motion R NL ( R)YLM (, )
The transformation braket vanishes for all combinations of its parametres which
do not satisfy the total angular momentum
= l1 + l2 = l + L
and the degenerated eigen value (energy) in this case is:
3
3
E (n1l1 , n2 l 2 ) = (2n1 + l1 + ) + (2n2 + l 2 + )
2
2
3
3
E (nl , NL) = (2n + l + ) + (2 N + L + )
2
2
(3-36)
it follows from the conservation law of energy that [101]:

E (n1l1 , n2l2 )
E (nl , NL)
2n1 + l1 + 2n2 + l 2 = 2n + l + 2 N + L
(3-37)
Therefore, the transformation of Moshinsky bracket vanishes for all combinations

of its parameters which do not satisfy the energy condition of equation (3-37), and
any summations over will be restricted to [101,100],
l1 l2 l1 + l2
l L l + L
(3-38)
3
2
The wave functions nl (r ) describe states with energy (2n + l + ) and have the
form:
nl (r ) = Rnl (r )Ylm ( , )
(3-39)
Where,
2 l n+ 2 (2l + 2n + 1)!! 2l +3
Rnl (r ) =
[(2l + 1)!!]2
k =0
1/ 2
[exp( r )] r
( 1)k 2k n!(2l + 1)!!( 2 r 2 ) k

k!(n k )!(2l + 2k + 1)!!
is the radial wave function
Yl m ( , ) is the angular wave function and 2 =
m
.
Thus the (nl,NL) sum in equation (3-35) is finite.
3.4 Some properties of Brody-Moshinisky coefficient:

The Brody-Moshinisky transformation coefficient has symmetry properties in a
certain calculation, one reviewd them as [101]:
1-
M (nlNL; n1l1n2 l 2 ) = ( 1)
M (nlNL; n2 l 2 n1l1 )
(3-40)
2-
M (nlNL; n1l1n2 l 2 ) = ( 1) 1 M ( NLnl ; n1l1n2 l 2 )
(3-41)
3-
M (nlNL; n1l1n2 l 2 ) = ( 1)
(3-42)
L l2
M (NLnl ; n2 l 2 n1l1 )
The Moshinisky transformation coefficients are real and independent of .
3.5 Energy matrix element with oscillator function:

TheHamiltonian of the harmonic oscillator potential is the only potential that can
be separated into relative and center of mass coordinate system, this property also
important in order to get the matrix element of the residual interaction as it is a
function of relative coordinate ( r ).
In order to make the two body wave functions compatable with the LS-scheme of
the residual interaction , because of the strong two-body spin-orbit force in nuclei,
which leads to the required shell structure, and the orginal two body wave function is
represented with jj scheme, it is necessary to transform the two body wave function
from jj scheme to LS scheme as follows [101]:
[
jl
1 1
jl
JM
2 2
l
1
(2 j +1)(2 j +1)(2 +1)(2S +1) l
1
2
2
[ {n1l1 (1), n2 l 2 (2)} s (1,2)]JM

Where {
Thus:
} is 9j-symbol.
1/ 2
1/ 2
S
j
1
j
2
J
(3-43)
JM { j1n1l1 (1), j2 n2l2 (2)} = [ j1l1 (1) j2l2 (2)] JM

= ( sJ ) ( j1l1 ; j2l2 ) [ {n1l1 (1), n2l2 (2)} s (1,2)]JM
(3-44)
where
(1,2) =
SM
1
2
SM (1) (2)
2
(3-45)
and is the spatial part of the two particle orbital wave function given by equation
(3-44).
(I )
The coefficient s ( j1l1; j2l2 ) is the j-j to L-S transformation coefficient[11].
l1 1 / 2
(I )
( j l ; j l ) = (2 j + 1)(2 j + 1)(2 + 1)(2S + 1) l 1 / 2
s 1 1 2 2
1
2
2
S
j
1
j
2
J
(3-46)
and when squared it gives the probability that the state [ S ]JM will be realized
in the original j-j coupled eigenfunction.
Thus instead of equation (3-44) we use:
JM ( j1n1l1 , j2 n2 l 2 ;T ) =
1
2(1 + j1 j2 l1l2 n1n2
(J )
S
( j1l1 , j2 l 2 )
([ {n1l1 (1), n2l2 ( 2)} s (1,2)]JM

+ ( 1)T [ {n1l1 (1), n2l2 ( 2)} s ( 2,1)]JM )
(3-47)
As a consequence of the defining equation (3-45):
SM (2,1) = (1)1+ s SM (1,2)
(3-48)
and from equation (3-45) it follows that [107] :
{n1l1 (2), n2 l 2 (1)} = (1) l +l {n1l1 (1), n2 l 2 (2)}

1
(3-49)
Furthermore, from the properties of the Moshinisky coefficient [101]:
M (nlNL; n1l1n2l2 ) = (1) L M (nlNL; n2l2 n1l1 )
l +l2 L
If one combine these results together with the fact that [92]: (1) 1
= (1) l ,
which follows from equation (3-37), one see that JM can be written as:
JM ( j1n1l1 , j2 n2l2 ; T ) =
(J )
S
1
(2(1 + j1 j2 l1l2 n1n2 )
( j1l1 , j2 l 2 ){1 (1) S +T +l } M (nlNL; n1l1n2 l 2 )
nlNL
([ {n1l1 (1), n 2 l 2 (2)} s (1,2)] JM
(3-50)
In this equation, the terms involving the phase factors show that even l wave
function, which are symmetric under the interchange of the two particles, must go
with S=1,T=0 and S=0,T=1, where as antisymmetric spatial states (l odd) are
(J )
associated with S=1,T=1 and S=0,T=0. Thus, if we merely replace S by
S( J ) ( j1l1 , j 2 l 2 ) =
{1 (1) S +T + l }
(2(1 + j1 j2 l1l2 n1n2 )
( SJ ) ( j1l1 ; j 2 l 2 )
(3-51)
Matrix elements of general energy operators V between basis states given by

equation (3-50) have the form [101,102]:
JM ( j1 n1l1 , j 2 l 2 n 2 ; T ) V JM ( j 3 n3 l 3 , j 4 l 4 n 4 ; T )
=
nl N L nlNL S S
(J )
S
( j1l1 , j2l2 )(SJ ) ( j3l3 , j4l4 )
M (nl N L; n1l1n2l2 ) M (nlNL; n3l3 n4l4 )

[[ nl (r ) N L ( R)] S ] JM V [[ nl (r ) N L ( R)] S ]JM
(3-52)
One can abbreviate the two-body matrix element of a general operator as:
JM ( j1 n1l1 , j 2 l 2 n 2 ; T ) V JM ( j 3 n3 l 3 , j 4 l 4 n 4 ; T ) = j1 j2 V j3 j4
3.6 The realistic Sigma meson (S=0 T=0) effective Nucleon-Nucleon

U
interactions:
The two-body matrix elements which are used in the present work to calculate the
core-polarization effect are not obtained from a fit to spectroscopic data such as
modified surface delta interaction (MSDI), but they are calculated from free nucleonnucleon interaction. It can be reasonably well-understood in terms of the mesonexchange current models, so that the usual procedure is to start with theoretical forms
of the N-N interaction, based on varying degrees of meson-exchange theory, such as
Paris, Bonn and Ried potentials [103]. Basically, one wants analytical form of the NN potential, which is in general obtained by fitting some set of potential parameters,
i.e., strength and ranges to the ground state (g.s) properties of deuteron and the lowenergy N-N scattering phase-shift (up to 300 MeV), so that one can then
extrapolated to the off-energy shell behavior that required by many-body systems.
For higher energies, description in terms of a potential looses its meaning due to
meson exchange.
Potentials derived from the description of free nucleon-nucleon scattering are
customarily referred to as a realistic N-N effective interaction. One of the interactions
of this type, which is frequently used in shell-model calculations, is the one obtained
by Hamada-Johnston [104]. In another approach one-derived two-body matrix
elements in a particular single-particle basis directly from the scattering phase-shift.
In this case, interaction of the explicit form of the realistic interaction is avoided by
Elliott et al [105].
The direct application of a realistic interaction in a shell-model calculation does
not lead to an acceptable agreement with spectroscopic data. This is due to the fact
that a shell-model calculation is necessarily restricted to a finite, truncated model
space. For a reasonably complete description in terms of a realistic interaction, one
should take into account the scattering of nucleons into many more single-particle
states. In particular, also the presence of the core assumed to be inert in the model
calculation has a strong modifying influence of the interaction between the nucleons
outside the core. This means that for a model calculation one needs the so-called
effective interaction. For a given configuration space this effective interaction can,
in principle, be constructed from the nucleon-nucleon interaction when all processes

that take place outside the chosen configuration space is accounted for in term of
perturbation theory.
The realistic M3Y effective N-N interaction, which is used in electron scattering
(V res =v12) is expressed as the central potential part
( c)
v [103]:
12
= v12
( c)
12
(3-53)
The four potentials are expressed as: [100]
(c)
12
= (t n
( SE )
(C )
P f
SE
(3-54)
(r12)
The relative coordinate is denoted by r 12 = r 1 r 2 and r 12 = r12 Correspondingly,

(P P )
the relative momentum is defined by

, L12 is the relative orbital
P =
2
angular momentum, L12 = r 12 P12 as[103,101]:

1
12
(r12) =
r
n
r
n
(3-55)
12
12
where tn(SE ) is the strength parameter in central part for (singlet-even) nucleonnucleon interaction, ( n =1/Rn) [84].
where: =
is the exchange meson wavelength.
The two-body matrix elements of the realistic M3Y effective N-N interaction
consist of four parts: the central matrix element, the spin-orbit matrix element, the
tensor matrix element and the density dependance matrix elements, therefore, one
have:
j1 j2 Vres j3 j4 = j1 j2 VC j3 j4
(3-56)
Where:
j1 j2 VC j3 j4
are the two-body matrix elements of the centeral potential.
The two-body matrix elements of the centeral potential are given as [100,101]:
j1 j2 VC j3 j4
nnlNL
( j1l1 , j2 l2 ) ( SJ ) ( j3l3 , j4l4 )
(J )
S
M (nl N L; n1l1n2l2 ) M (nlNL; n3l3 n4 l 4 ) Rnl (r ) VS ( 2 r ) Rnl (r )

(3-57)
According to this fitting, the radial integral is:
3
Rnl (r ) V ( 2 r ) Rnl (r ) =
2 i
i =1
V1
21
Rad (nl , nl , 1 ) +
Vi
V2
2 2
nl
(r ) Rnl (r )e
2 i r
r dr
Rad (nl , nl , 2 ) +
V3
2 3
Rad (nl , nl , 3 )
(3-58)
where
Rad (n l , nl , 1 )
is the radial part at 1
Rad (n l , nl , 2 ) is the radial part at 2

Rad (nl , nl , 3 ) is the radial part at 3
where: = =1/R,
and
is the range parameter of the nucleon-nucleon
interaction.
The first range parameters of the interaction (R 1 ) between two nucleons in centeral
and spin-orbit force is 0.25 fm, the second range (R 2 ) is 0.4 fm, and the longest range
(R 3 ) is 1.414fm. But the longest range of the interaction (R 3 =0.7 fm) is only used in
r2Y(x) fit to the tensor force.
There are four different ways in which pairs of protons and/or neutrons can be
combined, and the nuclear force is different in each case.
The "even" part of N-N interaction, i. e., is applied when the relative wave
function is even (symmetric) under exchange of two particles. Notice that it is
attractive as described above with a short range repulsion.
The "odd" part of the N-N interaction is applied when the relative wave
function is odd (anti-symmetric) under exchange of the radial wave function.
Notice that it basically consists of only the short-range repulsion.
The SE shows the Singlet-Even (S=0, T=0) part applied to an L=1 (p state) of the np system with anti-parallel spins.
The values of the best fit to the potential parameters ( tn(SE ) ) are shown in table (31) in [84].
Table (3-1). Shows the values of the best fit to the potential parameters [28].
Parameters
Unit
M3Y-E
M3Y-P0
M3Y-P1
M3Y-P2
M3Y-P3
M3Y-P4
M3Y-P5
R 1 (c)
Fm
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
t 1 (SE)
Mev
9958
11466
8599.5
8027
8027
8027
8027
R 2 (c)
Fm
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
t 2 (SE)
Mev
-3556
-3556
-3556
-2880
2637
2637
2650
R 3 (c)
fm
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
t 3 (SE)
Mev
-10.463
-10.463
-10.463
-10.463
10.463
10.463
10.463
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
Results, Discussion and Conclusions

4.1 Introduction
The calculation of electron scattering form factor needs a lot of matters to be
included in order to make this calculation feasible and fast in time because of large
amount of terms represent the problem under study. These matters are mathematics,
quantum mechanical theories, nuclear shell model theories and formulas. These
different matters must be transformed into a computer program to be used by a
computer having the capability to run these huge calculations.
The abnormal phenomena inherent with the calculated form factor need an
experience and know how thats related to the fp-shell nuclei and their strange,
mystery, abnormal, and unexpected results. It make the calculations deviate from the
experimental one and many efforts were exhausted in order to give a possible
analysis and justifications about these cases.
The calcium nucleus( 48Ca ) can be considered as dual behavior nucleus under the
effect of two nucleon interaction in fp-shell model space which consist of four
orbitals which is 1f 7/2 , 2p 3/2 , 1f 5/2 and 2p 1/2 with single particle energies (calculated
by use equations (3-30), (3-31) and (3-36)) equal to 48.2440 MeV,49.9261 MeV,
54.1312 MeV and 59.1879 MeV respectively. The two nucleons interaction in of 48Ca
can be affected by the really and the nature of 48Ca which can be considered as an
inert core for some isotopes with mass number larger than 48Ca like Cr isotopes, Fe
isotopes, Ti isotopes, Co isotopes and Ni isotopes beside Ca isotopes with mass
number larger than 49. But sometimes 48Ca will be considered as an active nucleus
with eight nucleons distributed in fp-shell. The 40Ca as an inert core at sometimes this
behavior might be extended to involve the eight nucleons in the orbit (1f7/2) in the
32
interaction process and makes S as an inert core for an active nucleus like 48Ca . It
dual behavior of 48Ca is reproduced from the excitation energy of incident particles
of the nuclear reaction and the response energy function of the nucleus.
The discarded space effects have been included in order to account the contribution
of configurations from outside of the model space in the transition calculation.
The model space effective interaction (FPD6) [34, 35] has been used to give the
(1f 7/2 ,2p 3/2 ,1f 5/2 ,2p 1/2 ) shell model wave functions for 48Ca because it is derived from
real N-N model space interaction in fp shell nuclei.
R
The core polarization effects are calculated by the realistic effective interaction
(exchange M3Y by sigma meson) as a residual interaction. In this interaction, the
Paris and Ried fitting [96] have been used to calculate the radial integral in equation
(3-66). In this approach one-derived two-body matrix elements in a particular singleparticle basis directly from the scattering phase shift. The HO potential is used to
calculate the radial part of the single-particle wave functions, with size parameter (b)
fitted to get the root mean square radius (rms) of each nuclei.
4.2 The 48Ca Nucleus

U
UP
UP
48
The nucleus Ca is the lightest doubly magic nucleus with a neutron excess. It is
known to be a good shell-model nucleus and thus provides an excellent testing
48
40
48
ground of nuclear models. In fact, the nucleus Ca is more inert than Ca , Ni and
56
Ni because of the closed sub shell neutron1f7/2 so that it is an interesting one in fp

R
shell nuclei. The single particle wave functions of the harmonic oscillator (HO) with
size parameter b= 1.988 fm are used [25] .
The linking processes of the sigma meson interaction and linking of the interaction
intensity with fitting parameters of nucleon interaction have been swing in the middle
of q values and qualitative constant of q < 2fm-1. These matter will be certain, it have
quantum tails of the N-N matrix elements interaction. It will be causing that there is
interference region between high mass sigma() meson that have low wavelength
P
( =
) with middle mass sigma() meson that have high wavelength.
It is known that the high mass sigma meson is a repulsive type, however, the middle
mass sigma meson is attractive type, according to the table (3-1) of fitting parameters
[25].
The sigma () meson interaction is a suitable channel to study fitting parameters of
core polarization effect as a residual interaction.. It just through previous technology
from two nucleon matrix elements, adding to it might be swing from orbit to another,
and negative to positive behavior value which make it difficult behavior predictive of
the interaction, especially. If we know that the total number of exchange nucleon
matrix elements interaction from the fp shell has up to 12,000 elements which makes
it difficult to predict using the extrapolation process of matrix elements in its normal
form.
One can use the energy levels or multiple of gamma emission as a method to study
the fitting parameters effective to the meson exchange process, but also, it is known
that the properties mention (energy levels and multiple gamma emission) are
dependent on the very small point ( 0) in a momentum space, so there is no study
provided of accurately fitting parameters effective, finally, the inelastic electron
scattering can be using to create the possibility to build study of meson exchange.
The OBDM for the model space orbits are obtained from the OXBASH code [5],
using the FPD6 [34, 35] interaction where the OBDM for the core orbits are obtained
from the occupation numbers according to equations (2-27), (2-28).
4.2.1 The Charge Form Factor for J T= 0+ 4 State

U
UP
PU
UP
PU
Elastic coulomb form factors (C0) are displayed in figure (1) in comparison with the
experimental data from ref.[106].
In Fig (1), the form factors are calculated by using M3Y(for E,P0,P1,P2,P3,P4 and
P5) as a residual interaction.
There is no difference between reaction and another because they do not depend on
the interaction as a transition, than :
E=P0=P1=P2=P3=P4=P5
The OBDM elements are given in table (4-1).
Table (4-1): The OBDM elements for the C0 transition with FPD6 interaction
for ground state (Ex=0 MeV).
N lj
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0)
OBDM (T=1)
1S 1/2
1/2
1/2
6.0
0.0
1P 3/2
3/2
3/2
8.4853
0.0
1P 1/2
1/2
1/2
6.0
0.0
1d 5/2
5/2
5/2
10.3923
0.0
1d 3/2
3/2
3/2
8.4853
0.0
2S 1/2
1/2
1/2
6.0
0.0
1f 7/2
7/2
7/2
5.76985
3.72442
2P 3/2
3/2
3/2
0.17066
0.11016
1f 5/2
5/2
5/2
0.10164
0.06561
2P 1/2
1/2
1/2
0.04290
0.02769
1E-1
48
Ca
+
C0 charge form factor

EX=0.000 Mev
1E-2
Exp.
___ E
___ P0
___ P1
___ P2
___
___ P3
P4
___P5
IF(q)I2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
Fig.(1) Elastic charge form factor for (C0) for the ground state +
. The
experimental data are taken from ref. [28].
4.2.2 The C2 Charge Form Factor For J T= 2+ 4 state
4.2.2.1 The first J T= 2 1 + 4 state with Ex=3.658 MeV

Inelastic (C2) longitudinal form factors have been calculated using sigma meson as
a residual interaction, it is obvious that the amplitudes of different scattering patterns
are in phase with slightly different a moment in
especially for q1.4 fm-1, but
they were inclined between each authors when q increased and the amplitudes are
arranged from bigger to smaller as follow:
P0> P1> E> P3> P5> P4> P2 (the first peak)
P0> E> P4> P2> P1> P5 = P3 (second )
The OBDM elements are given in table (4-2).
Table (4-2): The interaction OBDM elements for the C2 transition with FPD6
for +
state (3.658 MeV).
OBDM (T=0)) OBDM (T=1))
Ji
Jf
7/2
7/2
7/2
3/2
0.07960
0.30835
0.05138
0.19904
7/2
5/2
0.11637
0.07512
3/2
3/2
7/2
3/2
1.95301
0.04680
1.26066
0.03021
3/2
5/2
0.00256
0.00165
3/2
5/2
1/2
7/2
0.01778
-0.27266
0.01148
-0.17611
5/2
3/2
-0.01412
-0.00911
5/2
5/2
5/2
1/2
0.03051
0.01765
0.01970
0.01139
1/2
3/2
-0.04228
-0.02729
1/2
5/2
0.01848
0.01193
1E+0
1E-1
___ E
___ P0
___P1
___P2
___P3
___P4
___P5
48
Ca
C2+1 charge form factor

EX= 3.658 MeV
IF(q)I2
1E-2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
Fig.(2) Charge form factor for the C2 state with Ex=3.658 MeV (+
).
4.2.2.2 The second J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=5.949MeV
Fig(3) presents C2 form factors that the relation between q=(0.1 - 3)fm-1 with
P
|()|2 =(110-9 110-3).

P
At range of q=(0 0.5)fm-1 there are lowing different between scattering patterns ,
P
but they were inclined between each others when q increased (q=(0.5 1.5)fm-1),
P
and the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as follows:
P0> P1> P3 =
P5> E> P4> P2

One have maximum values of the amplitudes(|()|2 =110-3) at q=1.5 fm-1.
P
At range of q=(1.6 3)fm-1, the amplitudes are devolved slightly with q increased,
P
and the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as follows: P0> E> P2 = P4>
P1> P3 = P5
for +
state (5.949 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
-0.11819
-0.07629
7/2
3/2
0.04547
0.02935
7/2
5/2
-0.00837
-0.00540
3/2
7/2
0.29438
0.19002
3/2
3/2
-0.26976
- 0.17413
3/2
5/2
-0.01156
-0.00746
3/2
1/2
-0.01532
-0.00989
5/2
7/2
-0.02310
-0.01491
5/2
3/2
0.01530
0.00988
5/2
5/2
-0.00743
-0.00480
5/2
1/2
-0.00094
-0.00060
1/2
3/2
0.06802
0.04391
1/2
5/2
-0.00374
-0.00242
1E+1
1E+0
___E
___
___P0
___P1
P2
___P3
___ P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=5.949 Mev
1E-1
IF(q)I
1E-2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
1E-7
1E-8
1E-9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
3.50
4.2.2.3 The third J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=6.557 MeV

In fig(4), one can be represent the relation between q=(0 - 3)fm-1 with
|()|2 =(110-9 110-4).
P
At the range of q=(0 0.2)fm-1 the amplitudes of the seven sets of fitting parameters
are increased slightly. But at the range of q=(0.5 1.4)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-5
110-4), there are splitting between each others of the seven sets of fitting
parameters, with maximum amplitudes of |()|2 =110-4 at q=0.9 fm-1.the
amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as follows:
P
P0> E> P1> P3 = P5> P4> P2

At q=1.5 fm-1 the diffraction minimum value with |()|2 =110-7 is lower value.
P
at the range of q=(1.7 3)fm-1 there are splitting between each others of the seven
sets of fitting parameters, with .the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as
follows:
P
P0> E> P4> P2> P1> P3 = P5

for +
state (6.557 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
0.23143
0.14939
7/2
3/2
0.01477
0.00953
7/2
3/2
5/2
7/2
0.02670
0.06763
0.01723
0.04365
3/2
3/2
-0.39544
-0.25526
3/2
3/2
5/2
1/2
0.00317
-0.04782
0.00204
-0.03087
5/2
7/2
-0.20087
-0.12966
5/2
5/2
3/2
5/2
0.00749
-0.01038
0.00484
-0.00670
5/2
1/2
-0.01217
-0.00785
1/2
3/2
0.02408
0.01554
1/2
5/2
-0.00453
-0.00292
1E+1
1E+0
1E-1
___E
___P0
___
___P1
P2
___P3
___ P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=6.557 Mev
1E-2
IF(q)I
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
1E-7
1E-8
1E-9
1E-10
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
4.2.2.4 The fourth J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=7.275 MeV

Fig(5) represents C2 form factors for the fourth excited state
In the first peak: At range of q=(0 0.2)fm-1 there are small difference between
scattering patterns, but they are inclined between each others when q increased
(q=(0.4 1.6)fm-1 ) , and the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as
follows: P0> E> P1> P2 = P3 = P4 = P5
One have maximum values of the amplitudes (|()|2 =110-2) at q=1 fm-1 .
P
At q=(2, 2.8) fm-1 the diffraction minimum values with |()|2 =(110-10, 110-9)
are lower values.
P
At the second peak: At the range of q=(2.2 2.8)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-7 1105
),one can show the amplitudes of its are lowering with first peak , but at same shape.
P
.the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as follows:

P0> P1> E> P3 = P5> P4> P2
for +
state (7.275 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
7/2
3/2
3/2
3/2
3/2
5/2
5/2
5/2
5/2
1/2
1/2
7/2
3/2
5/2
7/2
3/2
5/2
1/2
7/2
3/2
5/2
1/2
3/2
5/2
0.06266
-0.05720
-0.08568
0.24400
-0.02814
-0.03463
-0.03560
1.91335
0.03926
-0.03004
-0.00592
0.05899
-0.00137
0.04045
-0.03693
-0.05531
0.15750
-0.01817
-0.02236
-0.02298
1.23506
0.02534
-0.01939
-0.00382
0.03808
-0.00088
1E+1
1E+0
1E-1
___E
___P0
___
___P1
P2
___P3
___ P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=7.275 Mev
1E-2
IF(q)I
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
1E-7
1E-8
1E-9
1E-10
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
4.2.2.5 The fifth J T= 2+ 4 state with Ex=7.363 MeV

In fig(6), one can be represented(C2) the relation between q=(0 - 3)fm-1 with
|()|2 =(110-10 110-3).
P
In the first peak: At range of q=(0 0.2)fm-1 with |()|2 =(110-9 110-6)there are
different between scattering patterns, but they are inclined between each others when
q=(0.4 1.8)fm-1 increased, and the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller
as follows:
P
P0> E > P1> P3 = P5> P4 = P2

One have maximum values of the amplitudes (|()|2 =110-3) at q=1 fm-1 .
P
At q=(2.3, 2.6) fm-1 diffraction minimum values with

values.
P
|()|2 =110-10 are lower

P
At the second peak: At the range of q=(2.3 3)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-10 1106
),one can show different between scattering patterns (splitting, rippling and swing).
The amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as follows:
P
P0> E> P4 = P2> P1> P3 = P5

for +
state (7.363 MeV).
Ji
7/2
7/2
7/2
3/2
3/2
3/2
3/2
5/2
5/2
5/2
5/2
1/2
1/2
R
Jf
7/2
3/2
5/2
7/2
3/2
5/2
1/2
7/2
3/2
5/2
1/2
3/2
5/2
R
OBDM (T=0))
-0.34331
0.02567
-0.01734
0.39721
0.07856
0.07061
0.00427
0.15140
0.00767
-0.01432
0.01000
-0.03347
0.01138
OBDM (T=1))
-0.22160
0.01657
-0.01119
0.25640
0.05071
0.04558
0.00276
0.09773
0.00495
-0.00925
0.0064
-0.02160
0.00735
1E+1
1E+0
1E-1
___E
___P0
___P1
___P2
___P3
___ P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=7.363 Mev
1E-2
IF(q)I
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
1E-7
1E-8
1E-9
1E-10
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
4.2.3 The Inelastic Longitudinal C4 form factors (4+) State
4.2.3.1 The first J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=4.134 MeV

The fig(7) can be represents C4 form factors for the first excited state with excitation
energy Ex=4.134 MeV. The relation between q=(0.2 - 3)fm-1 with |()|2 =(110-6
110-4).
P
In the first peak: At range of q= ( 0.2-0.4)fm-1 with |()|2 =(110-6110-4) there is

low different between scattering patterns, but they are inclined clearly between each
others when q=(0.4 1.8)fm-1 increased, and the amplitudes are arranged from
bigger to smaller as follows:
P
P0> E> P4 = P2> P1> P3 = P5

One have maximum values of the amplitudes at q=1.4 fm-1 .
P
The diffraction minimum values are located at 2 q 2.4 fm-1.

P
At the second peak: At the range of q=(2.2 3)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-6 1104
),one can show difference between scattering patterns (splitting, rippling and swing).
P
P0> E> P4> P2> P1> P3 = P5

for +
state (4.134 MeV).
Ji
7/2
7/2
7/2
7/2
3/2
3/2
5/2
5/2
5/2
Jf
7/2
3/2
5/2
1/2
7/2
5/2
7/2
3/2
5/2
OBDM (T=0))
0.04377
0.08460
0.05917
0.04564
1.93714
0.01240
-0.22510
-0.03311
0.01130
OBDM (T=1))
0.02825
0.05461
0.03820
0.02946
1.25042
0.00801
-0.14530
-0.02137
0.00729
1/2
7/2
-0.10962
-0.07076
1E-1
1E-2
___ E
___ P0
___
___ P1
___ P2
P3
___ P4
___ P5
48
Ca
+
EX=4.134 MeV
IF(q)I 2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
Fig.(7) Charge form factor for theC4 state with Ex=4.134 MeV ( +
).
4.2.3.2 The second J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=6.387 MeV
The fig(8) has the same behavior of the fig(7),but the diffraction minimum points at
q=(2.2, 2.4)fm-1 are different. The amplitudes of peaks greater than that of fig(7), and
swing scattering patterns values. At the region q = (0.2-2) fm-1, the amplitudes are
arranged from bigger to smaller as follows: P0> E> P4 = P2> P1> P3 = P5
In the region q = (2-3) fm-1 , the amplitudes are arranged from bigger to smaller as
follows: P0> E> P4> P2> P1> P3 = P5
for +
state (5.387 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
-0.01533
-0.00990
7/2
3/2
-0.03712
-0.02396
7/2
5/2
-0.11524
-0.07439
7/2
1/2
-0.11657
-0.07525
3/2
7/2
0.18408
0.11882
3/2
5/2
-0.02367
-0.01528
5/2
7/2
0.83569
0.53943
5/2
3/2
0.05093
0.03288
5/2
5/2
-0.01981
-0.01279
1/2
7/2
1.78712
1.15358
1E-1
___ E
___ P0
___ P1
___ P2
___
___ P3
P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=6.387 Mev
1E-2
IF(q)I2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
4.2.3.3 The third J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=6.838 MeV
The fig(9) presents C4 form factors with the relation between q=(0.3 - 3)fm-1 with
|()|2 =(110-6 110-2).
P
One can show there is low difference between scattering patterns at low values of
q=(0.3 0.5)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-6 110-4). but they are inclined between each
others when q increased slightly, and have max. value at q=1.5 fm-1, the peak is
decreased.
P

P0 > E > P4 = P2 > P1 > P3 = P5
for +
state (6.838 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
-0.01989
-0.01284
7/2
3/2
-0.01058
-0.00683
7/2
5/2
-0.10051
-0.06488
7/2
1/2
-0.01122
-0.00724
3/2
7/2
0.19484
0.12577
3/2
5/2
-0.00247
-0.00160
5/2
7/2
1.73102
1.11737
5/2
3/2
0.01277
0.00824
5/2
5/2
-0.00477
-0.00308
1/2
7/2
-0.83072
-0.53623
1E-1
48
Ca
+

EX=6.838 Mev
IF(q)I
1E-2
___E
___P0
___ P1
___ P2
___ P3
___P4
___P5
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
4.2.3.4 The fourth J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=7.283 MeV
4.00
The fig(10) shows that there is low difference between scattering patterns at low
values of q=(0.4 0.7)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-6 110-5). but they are inclined
between each others when q increased slightly, and have max. value at q=1.4 fm-1,
the peak is decreased.
P

P0 > E > P1 > P2 = P4 > P3 = P5
for +
state (7.283 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
-0.31344
-0.20232
7/2
3/2
0.00648
0.00418
7/2
5/2
-0.00024
-0.00016
7/2
1/2
0.00103
0.00067
3/2
7/2
0.06681
0.04313
3/2
5/2
0.00865
0.00559
5/2
7/2
-0.06003
-0.03875
5/2
3/2
-0.02035
-0.01314
5/2
5/2
0.00201
0.00130
1/2
7/2
0.09233
0.05960
1E-1
___ E
___ P0
___ P1
___ P2
___
___ P3
P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=7.283 Mev
1E-2
IF(q)I2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
4.2.3.5 The fifth J T= 4+ 4 state with Ex=7.435 MeV

The fig(11) shows that there is low difference between scattering patterns at low
values of q=(0.4 0.6)fm-1 with|()|2 =(110-6 110-5). but they are inclined
between each others when q increased slightly, and have max. value at q=1.4 fm-1,
the peak is decreased.
P

P0 > E > P4 = P2 = P1 > P3 = P5
One can show that the max. value of scattering patterns at q=(1 1.5)fm-1, because of
it nucleus range center.
P
for +
state (7.435 MeV).
Ji
Jf
OBDM (T=0))
OBDM (T=1))
7/2
7/2
0.02983
0.01926
7/2
3/2
-0.02639
-0.01703
7/2
5/2
-0.01538
-0.00993
7/2
1/2
-0.00915
-0.00591
3/2
7/2
-0.13709
-0.08849
3/2
5/2
-0.04067
-0.02625
5/2
7/2
0.36736
0.23713
5/2
3/2
0.02302
0.01486
5/2
5/2
0.00077
0.00050
1/2
7/2
0.07519
0.04853
1E-1
___ E
___ P0
___ P1
___ P2
___P3
___ P4
___P5
48
Ca
+

EX=7.435 Mev
1E-2
IF(q)I2
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
-1
q(fm )
).
The interaction equation for sigma() meson
when T=0, S=0, which is
expressed as () ,by using the table(3-1)[28]which represents fitting parameter for
nucleon interaction in this channel can be written as follows:

3
()
12 () =
=1
()
12 () = 1
12
12
( 12 )
112
12
112
()
+ 2
( 12 )
212
12
212
()
+ 3
( 12 )
312
12
312
Note: One can use table (3-1), and sum process of the fitting parameter (1() +
()
( 12 )
12
) and negligence of
()
to their small value and equal to the value of all the
interactions we find at the time of the collection process (1() + 2()) devolve
Descending and digital output as follows:
P0=7910Mev>E=6853Mev>P3=P4=5390Mev>
P5=5377Mev>P2=5147Mev>P1=5043.5Mev
4.3 Conclusions
U
We can conclude that the concentration of N-N interaction correspond with the
fitting parameters, where q<2fm-1 in the inelastic electron scattering form factors are
sweeping with a reaction and other with f(q) in region f(q)=(2-2.5), that means it have
quantum tails for short range reflective mesons with the middle attractive mesons
P
according to the relation( =
One gets the fitting parameter values from the table(3-1).
P0=7910Mev, E=6853Mev,
P1=5043.5Mev
P3=P4=5390Mev,
P5=5377Mev,
P2=5147Mev,
4.4 Future Research:

42,44
1. Study of inelastic electron scattering form factors from

Ca and how
to known the relation effective between a neutron numbers of model space
with meson exchange matrix element and fitting parameters have it to all
interactions.
2. Using inelastic electron scattering form factors of multiple form factor to
study mesons behavior (like -meson, -meson and -meson).
References
1.
J. D. Walecka, Electron Scattering for Nuclear and Nucleon Structure

Cambridge monographs on physics, Nuclear physics and cosmology,( 2004)
2.
M. G. Mayer, Phys. Rev. 75, 1969 (1949).
3.
O. Haxel, J. H. D. Jensen and H. E. Suess, Phys. Rev. 75, 1766 (1949).
4.
B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal, Ann. Rev. of Nucl. Part. Sci. 38, 29 (1988).
5.
B. A. Brown, A. Etchgoyen, N. S. Godwin, W. D. M. Rae, W. A. Richter, W. E.

Ormand, E. K. Warburton, J. S. Winfield, L. Zhao and C. H. Zimmerman, MSUNSCL report number1289 (2005) .
6.
T. Mizusaki, RIKEN Accel. Prog. Rep. 33, 14 (2000).
7.
E. Caurier, D. Bucurescu, S. M. Lenzi, shell-model code ANTOINE, CRN,

Strasbourg, 1989; C. A. Ur et al, Phys. Rev. C 58, 3163 (1998).
8.
D. Zwarts, Comp. Phys. Comm. 38, 365 (1985).
9.
Schmidt, A. F. Lisetskiy, T. Sebe, P. Von Brentano Phys. Rev. C 62, 044319

(2000).
10. E. Caurier, D.M.Brink shell-model code NATHAN, unpublished.

11. P.J. Brussaard and P. W. M. Glademans, "Shell-model Application in Nuclear
Spectroscopy", North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1977).
12. B. A. Brown, Prog. in Part. and Nucl. Phys. 47, 517 (2001).
13. N. Anantaraman, H. Toki and G. F. Berstch, Nucl. Phys. A398, 269 (1983).
14. G. Berstch, J. Borysowicz, H. McManus and W. G. Love, Nucl. Phys. A284,
399 (1977).
15. L. C. Chamon, B. V. Carlson, L. R. Gasques, D. Pereira, C. De Conti, M. A. G.
Alvarez, M. S. Hussein, M. A. Candido Ribeiro, E. S. Rossi Jr., and C. P. Silva,
Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 33, no. 2, June (2003).
16. T. Khoa , W. von Oertzen , A.A. Ogloblin, Nuclear Physics A 602 98132(1996).
17. D. N. Basu, T. Mukhopadhyay, Acta physica Polonica B, V38, 1 (2007).

18. P. Roy Chowdhury, D.N. Basu, Acta physica Polonica B, V37, 6 (2006).
19. J. J. S.Alves, P. R. S. Gomes, J. Lubian, L. C. Chamon, D.Pereira, R. M. Anjos,
E. S. Rossi, Jr., C. P. Silva, M. A. G. Alvarez, G. P. A. Nobre, L. R. Gasques Nucl.Phys. A748, 59 (2005).
20. A. M. Kobos, B. A. Brown, R. Lindsay, and G. R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. A425,
205 (1984).
21. B. A. Brown, W. A. Richter, R. E. Julies and B. H. Wildenthal, Ann. Phys.
(N.Y.) 182, 191(1988).
22. M. Avrigeanu, { Report WP12 IDRANAP 01-01/2001}.
23. D. T. Khoa, W. von Oertzen and A. A. Ogloblin, Nucl. Phys. A602, 98 (1996).
24. D. T. Khoa, G. R. Satchler and W. von Oertzen, Phys. Rev. C 56, 954 (1997).
25. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C58, 220 (1998).
26. H. Nakada, and M. Sato, Nucl. Phys. A 699, 511 (2002); A 714, 696 (2003).
27. M. Zalewski, W. Satua, W. Nazarewicz, G. Stoitcheva, and H. Zdunczuk,
Phys. Rev. C 75, 054306 (2007).
28. S. Goriely, F. Tondeur and J. M. Pearson, At. Data Nucl. Data Sheets 77, 311
(2001).
29. G. A. Lalazissis, J. Konig and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997).
30. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 58, 220 (1998).
31. A. Brown, W. A. Richter, R. E. Julies and B. H. Wildenthal, Ann. Phys. 182, 191
(1988).
32. A. G. M. van Hees and P. W. M. Glaudemans, Z. Phys. A315, 223 (1984).
33. I. Talmi, Helv. Phys. Acta 25, 185 (1952).
34. W. A. Richter, M. G. Van der Merwe, R. E. Julies and B. A. Brown, Nucl. Phys.
A577, 585 (1994).
35. T. Mizusaki, T. Otsuka, Y. Utsoni, M. Honma and T. Sebe, Phys. Rev. C59.
R1846 (1999).
36. F. A. Majeed and A. A. Auda, Brazilian Journal of Physics, v 36, 1, (2006).

37. M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. C 69,
034335 (2004).
38. W.A. Richter, D.R.Napoli, Nucl. Phys. A 253, 325 (1991).
39. K. H. Speidel, R. Ernst, O. Kenn, J. Gerber, P. Maier-Komor, N. BenczerKoller, G. Kumbartzki, L. Zamick, M. S. Fayache, and Y. Y. Sharon, Phys.
Rev. C62, 031301, (2000).
40. M S. Schielke, K. H. Speidel, O. Kenn, J. Leske, N. Gemein, M. Offer, Y. Y.
Sharon, L. Zamick, J. Gerber, P. Maier-Komor, Physics Letters B 567, 153
158, (2003).
41. S. Schielke, D. Hohn, K. H. Speidel, O. Kenn, J. Leske, N. Gemein , M. Offer,
J. Gerber , P. Maier-Komor , O. Zell, Y.Y. Sharon, L. Zamick, Physics Letters
B 571, 2935 (2003).
42. J. Sanchez-Solano, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Nucl. Phys. A694, 157 (2001).
43. M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. C65, 061301(R)
(2002).
44. M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Eur. Phys. J. A 25, 1,
(2005).
45. M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Phys., Rev. C 65,
061301(R), (2002).
46. D. C. Dinca, R.V.Janssens, A.Gada, D.Bazin, Phys. Rev. C 71, 041302(R)
(2005).
47. N. F. Mott, Proc. Roy, Soci, Ser, A124, 425, (1929).
48. B. Collins and B. Waldman, Phys. Rev. 57, 1083 (1940).
49. E. M. Lyman, A. O. Hanson and M. B. Scott, Phys. Rev. 84, 626, (1951).
50. H. Uberall and P. Ugincius, Phys. Rev. 178, 4, 1565, (1969).
51. T. de Forest and J. D. Walecka; Advan.Phys. 15, 1, (1966).
52. J. D. Walecka and R. S. Willey, Nucl. Phys. 40, 282, (1963).
53. J. B. Bellicard, E. P. Bounin, R. F. Frosch, R. Hofstadtr, J. S. McCarthy, F. J.

Uherhane, M. R. Yearian, B. C. Clark, R. Herman, and D. J. Ravenhall, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 19, 527, (1967).
54. J. B. Mc Grory, B. H. Wildenthal and E. C. Halbert, Phys. Rev. C2, 186,
(1970).
55. J. Heisenberg, J. S. McCarthy and I. Sick. Nucl. Phys. A. 164, 353,(1971).
56. D. Vautherin, and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972).
57. W. de Jager et al, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 14, 479 (1974).
58. G. C. Hiebert, Phys. Rev, C12, 778, (1975).
59. V. Steffen, H. D. Graf , W. Gross, D. Meuer , A. Richter , E. Spamer, O.
Titze, and W. Knipfer, Phys. Lett. B95, 23, (1978).
60. H. D. Grf, H. Feldmeier, P. Manakos, A. Richter, E. Spamer, and D.
Strottman, Nucl. Phys. A295, 319, (1978).
61. J. B. Bellicard, E. P. Bounin, R. F. Frosch, R. Hofstadtr, J. S. McCarthy, F. J.
Uherhane, B. C. Clarck, and R. Herman, Phys. Rev. C21, 1652, (1980).
62. K. Itoh, Y. M. Shin, T. Saito and Y. Turizuka, Phys. Rev. C24, 1969, (1983).
63. T. Iwamoto, H. Horie and A. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. C25, 658, (1982).
64. J. E. Wise, J. S. Mc Carthy, R. Altemus, B. E. Norum, R. R. Whitney, J.
Hiesenberg, J. Dawson and O. Schwentker, Phys. Rev. C31, 1699, (1985)
65. H. J. Emrich, G. Fficke, G. Mallot, H. Miska, H.G. Sieberling, J.M. Cavedon,
B. Frois and D. Goutte, Nucl. Phys. A396, 401, (1983).
66. J. Heisenberg, Nucl. Phys. A396, 391, (1983).
67. J. Heisenberg and
33, 569, (1983).
H. P. Blok, Ann. Rev. of Nucl. and Part. Sci.
68. G. Mukherjee and S. K. Sharma, Phys. Rev. C29, 2101, (1984)

69. I. Sick, Prog. in Part. and Nucl. Phys, 11, 411,(1984).
70. B. A. Brown, B. H. Wildenthal, C. F. Williamson, F. N. Rad, S. Kowalski, J.
Heisenberg, H. Crannell, and J. T. OBrien, Phys. Rev. C 32, 1127, (1985).
71. H. Horie and A. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. C36, 4, (1987).

72. S. Platchkov, A. Amroun, P. Bricault, J. M. Cavedon, P. K. A. de Witt Huberts,
P. Dreux, B. Frois, C. D. Goodman, D. Goutte, J. Martino, V. Meot, G. A.
Peterson, X. H. Phan, S. Raman and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1465, (1988).
73. P. K. Raina and S.K. Sharma, Phy. Rev. C37, 1427, (1988).
74. C. Zheng and L. Zamick, Phys. Rev. C40, 1120 ,(1989)
75. K. Itoh, Y. M. Shin, W. J. Gerace and Y. Torizuka, Nucl. Phys. A492, 426,
(1989).
76. B. Frois and I. Sick, { general reviews on electron scattering at
Scientific}, (1991).
World
77. H. Kurasawa and T. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C62, 054303, (2000).

78. A. Richter, Progress in Part. and Nucl. Phys. 44, 3, (2000).
79. V. Denyak, V. M. Khvastunov, V. Likhachev, A. A. Nemashkalo, S. Pashuk,
H. R. Schelin, Phys. of Atomic Nuclei, USA, 67, 906, (2004).
80. F. Z. Majeed, Ph. D. Thesis, College of Science, University of Baghdad,
(2009).
81. K. S. Jassim, Phys. Scr. V86, 35202, (2012).
82. A. Kasim Msc. Thesis, College of Science, University of Baghdad, (2012).
83. A. Al-lamy Msc. Thesis, College of Science, University of Baghdad, (2013).
84. H.Nakada, phys.Rev. C78, 054301(2008).
85. H. Uberal, "Electron scattering from complex nuclei", part A, Academic Press,
New York, (1971).
86. T. W. Donnely and J. D. Walecka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 25, 329, (1975).
87. A. de Shalit and H. Feshbach, "Theoretical Nuclear Physics", Vol.1: Nuclear
Structure, John and Sons, New York, (1974).
88. R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics Princeton
University Press, Third printing, (1974).
89. A. Brown, R. Radhi, and B.H. Wildenthal, Phys. Lett. B133, 5-8, (1983).
90. R. A. Radhi, Ph. D. Thesis, Michigan State University (1983).

91. T. Tassie and F. C. Barker, Phys. Rev. 111, 940, (1958).
92. P. Elliott and T.H.R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. A323. 561 (1955).
93. T. W. Donnelly and J. D. Walecka, Nucl. Phys. A201, 81,(1973).
94. T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Rev-Mod. Phys. 56, 461, (1984).
95. R. A. Radhi, A. Bouchebak, Nucl. Phys. A716, 87, (2003).
96. H. Nakada and M. Sato, Nucl. Phys. A699, 511 (2002); ibid. A714, 696 (2003).
97. T. Otsuka, M. Honma and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1588 (1998).
98. K. L. G. Heyde, The Nuclear Shell Model Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, (1994).
99. T. S. H. Lee and D. Kurath, Phys. Rev. C21, 293, (1980).
100. B. Mihaila, Ph.D. Thesis, University of New Hampshire ,(1998).
101. R. D. Lawson, "Theory of the nuclear shell model", Clarendon press. Oxford,
(1980).
102. T. Brody, and M. Moshinisky, "Table of Transformation Brackets". Instituto
DeFisica, Mexico, (1960).
103. H. Nakada, Phys. Rev. C68. 014316, (2003).
104. T. Hamada and I. D Johnston, Nucl. Phys. 43, 382, (1962).
105. J. P. Elliott, A. D. Jackson, H.A. Mavromatis, B.A. Sandeson and B. Singh,
Nucl. Phys. A121, 241, (1968).
106. R. F. Frosch, R. Hofstadtr, J. S. McCarthy, G. K. Nldeke, K. G. van Oostrum,
M. R. Yearian, B. C. Clark, R. Herman and D. J. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. 174,
1380, (1968).

48Ca
.
)-( .2w
P
)(
)(C0,C2,C4
C2,C4 )(fp )(48Ca
)(E,P0,P1,P2,P3,P4,P5 ).(M3Y
P
)(FPD6 48Ca
C0,C2,C4

)(H.O ) (single particle .
P
M3Y ) (
48
Ca
P

)(2001
.. .
20141-
14351-

Core Polarization Effects With M3Y-Sigma

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Core Polarization Effects With M3Y-Sigma

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

Core Polarization Effects with M3Y-Sigma

Prepared under the Supervision of

1st Rabee 1435

Many thanks go to all my colleagues and all the members of the

With my regards for all

Name: Dr. Khalid S. Jassim

Name: Dr. Gaith .N .Flaiyh

Approved by the University Committee of Postgraduate Studies.

Energy Matrix Element with Oscillator Function.

The realistic Sigma meson (S=0 T=0) effective NucleonNucleon interactions.

RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The 48Ca Nucleus.

The Charge Form Factor for J T= 0+ 4 State.

The values of the best fit to the potential parameters.

form factor for the C2 state, with Ex=3.658 MeV

form factor for the C2 state, with Ex=7.363 MeV

form factor for theC4 state, with Ex=4.134 MeV

form factor for the C4 state, with Ex=6.387 MeV

form factor for the C4 state, with Ex=6.838 MeV

form factor for the C4 state, with Ex=7.283 MeV

form factor for the C4 state, with Ex=7.435 MeV

Ca by seven(E,P0,P1,P2,P3,P4 and P5) Yukawa potential

Modern inelastic electron scattering experiments have produced well defined

Theoretical solutions to the nuclear many-body problem are partly

scattering (FWHM 30 keV) at low momentum transfer (0.29fm-1<q<0.53fm-1).

range of q 2 and they obtained a good estimated results.

Ca by electron scattering, good agreement

that the characteristics of the C2 form factors in the higher-momentum-transfer

nuclei Ca (N = 20) and Ca (N = 28). The charge radii of these Calcium

1.2 Aim of the Present Work

point spineless nucleus, which is given by:

where = e 2 c = (1 / 137 ) is the fine structure constant [51], Z is the atomic

where M is the mass of the target.

The four-momentum transfer q is given by, (with =c=one for abbreviation):

The form factor of the given multipolarity J as a function of momentum transfer (

The subscript represents longitudinal (L) or transverse (T) (electric( El) or

states, respectively, and

(q ) is the electron scattering multipole operator.

) denotes the 3j-symbol. Since T zf=Tzi for electron scattering, then

2.2 The Reduced Single-Particle Matrix Elements:

are specified by:

Where n is the principal quantum number, l is the orbital angular momentum

j is the total single-particle angular momentum quantum

The radial part n l = R (r ) is normalized as:

Tp,n is the single particle operator for proton/neutron.

The reduced single-particle matrix elements in proton-neutron formalism could be

2.3 Many Particle Matrix Elements

Many particle matrix elements of the electron scattering operator

and are making, destructing and coupling the particle in initial

and final states respectively.

where n j ( p + n ) and n j ( p n ) are the occupation numbers .

2.4 The Reduced Single-Particle Matrix Elements of The Longitudinal

function and (r ,t z ) is the nucleon charge density operator, which is given by :

(r ri ) is Dirac delta function

TJtLz = e(t z ) n l j J (qr ) n l l

(2 j +1)(2 j +1)(2 J +1)

Relation (2-32) could be expressed as:

T LJt = e(t z )PJ (el, l l )C J ( j , j ) n l j J (qr ) n l

n l j J (qr ) n l = drr 2 j J (qr ) Rn

2.5 Corrections to The Form Factor:

Where; b is the harmonic-oscillator size parameter, and A is the nuclear mass

)is given by [93]: