Skip to main content

Full text of "Three-Nucleon Electroweak Capture Reactions"

See other formats

Few-Body Systems Suppl. 0, 1-12 (2008) 

© by Springer- Verlag 2008 
Printed in Austria 

Three-Nucleon Electroweak Capture Reactions 

L.E. Marcucci 1 ' 2 , M. Viviani 2 ' 1 , A. Kievsky 2 * 1 , S. Rosati 1 ' 2 , R. Schiavilla 3 ' 4 

1 Physics Department, University of Pisa, Via Buonarroti 2, 1-56100 Pisa, 

2 INFN, Sezione di Pisa, Via Buonarroti 2, 1-56100 Pisa, Italia 

3 Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA 

4 Physics Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA 

Abstract. Recent advances in the study of the p — d radiative and fi — 3 He weak 
capture processes are presented and discussed. The three-nucleon bound and 
scattering states are obtained using the correlated-hyperspherical-harmonics 
method, with realistic Hamiltonians consisting of the Argonne V14 or Argonnc 
iii8 two-nucleon and Tucson-Melbourne or Urbana IX three-nucleon interac- 
tions. The electromagnetic and weak transition operators include one- and 
two-body contributions. The theoretical accuracy achieved in these calculations 
allows for interesting comparisons with experimental data. 

1 Introduction 

A number of electromagnetic (EM) and weak transitions in light nuclei have 
interesting astrophysical implications. They are also very important for an un- 
derstanding of nuclear structure and dynamics. The theoretical description of 
these processes requires the knowledge of the initial and final nuclear states, 
which can be either bound or in the continuum. Furthermore, it is important 
to use a realistic model for the EM and weak current operators. The three- 
nucleon systems, in particular, provide a unique "laboratory" due to the ca- 
pability, achieved in the last few years, of obtaining very accurate bound and 
continuum wave functions. The accuracy of the calculated three-nucleon wave 
functions has been verified by comparing results for a variety of observables 
obtained by a number of groups using different techniques jL|. At present, good 
overall agreement exists between the theoretical and experimental N — d elastic 
and inelastic scattering observables (a notable exception, however, is the A y 
analyzing power at low energies) ||. Therefore the study of EM and weak 
transitions in the three-nucleon system does not suffer of uncertainties related 


to the computation of the nuclear wave functions and it is a direct test of the 
nuclear Hamiltonian H from which these wave functions are obtained, and of 
the model used to describe the nuclear currents. Since the nuclear EM current 
is related to H through current conservation, it is clear that the two topics are 
inter-related. Furthermore, it is interesting to understand whether relativistic 
corrections as well as Z\-isobar and additional sub-nucleonic degrees of freedom 
play a role in these processes. 

The model for the nuclear EM and weak current considered here has been 
recently reviewed in Refs. [Q, [g, ^| and has been tested in numerous few-nucleon 
processes. It includes one- and two-body operators. The one-body operators are 
obtained directly from the non-relativistic limit of the covariant single-nucleon 
vector and axial currents. In the study of the muon capture, the contribution 
coming from the induced pseudo-scalar term of the nuclcon axial current has to 
be included (it gives a negligible contribution to /3-decay processes). However, 
the experimental value of the corresponding form factor Gps(q&) is rather 
uncertain. Assuming pion-pole dominance, the partially conserved axial current 
(PCAC) hypothesis, and the Goldberger-Treiman relation, Gps is predicted to 
be |, 1 [11 

n PCACi „2\ 2 rrifj, mjv 2 
"'it ' go- 
where q a is the four-momentum transferred to the nuclear system, m^, 
and TO^r indicates the nucleoli, muon and pion mass, respectively, and G a is 
the axial form factor. In our calculation, we have assumed 

G PS {ql) = R PS G p P c s AC {ql) , (2) 

where Rps is a parameter which has been varied to study the sensibility of our 
results to this form factor and to investigate to which extent Gp*^ — Gp§ Ac . 
However, most of the calculations have been performed with the choice Rps — 

The two-body EM current is separated in two terms. There is a "model- 
independent" part which is constructed consistently with the nuclcon-nucleon 
interaction, in order to satisfy the current conservation relation fL2[ . Current 
conservation is only approximate for the momentum dependent terms. The sec- 
ond part includes "model-dependent" contributions which come from the pnj 
and W7T7 processes and the A degrees of freedom. The latter contribution is 
included in the current and in the nuclear medium in an approximate way, by 
following the procedure described in Ref. [|l3) . The two-body weak vector cur- 
rent is then obtained from the isovector part of the EM current, in accordance 
with the conserved- vector-current hypothesis. 

Two-body terms have been taken into account in both the axial charge 
and current operators. The two-body axial charge operator has been obtained 
consistently with the two-nuclcon interaction model, following the methods of 
Ref. fT4|| . The two-body axial current operators are derived from a meson- 
exchange model, including n- and p-exchanges and the p7r-transition processes, 


as well as Z\-isobar excitation fL5|. The latter process gives the dominant 
contribution. However, its magnitude depends critically on the value adopted 
for the N A axial coupling constant g* A . In the quark model, g* A is related in 
a simple way to the axial coupling constant of the nucleon gA (gA ~ 1-26). 
However, given the uncertainties inherent in quark model predictions, a more 
reliable estimate for g* A is obtained by adjusting its value to reproduce the 
experimental value of the Gamow- Teller matrix element in tritium /3-decay J?], 
|l5| . In this way, the model dependence of the weak axial current is significantly 
reduced, as shown by previous studies of proton weak captures on 'H |]l5|| and 
3 He [Q. It is important to note that the value of g* A depends on how the A- 
isobar degrees of freedom are treated. Moreover, given the procedure used to 
determine g* Al the latter cannot be naively interpreted as the N A axial coupling 
constant, since the contributions of additional resonances not included in the 
present study will contaminate its value. 

The 3 He, 3 H bound and the p — d continuum wave functions have been 
calculated by expanding on a basis of pair-correlated hyperspherical harmonic 
(PHH) functions flrj|| . Such a technique has been proven to be very accurate. 
Various n — d elastic scattering observables calculated by solving the Faddeev 
equations are in remarkable agreement with the corresponding results ob- 
tained with the PHH technique. For example, the phase shift and mixing angle 
parameters calculated by the two methods at the center-of-mass (cm.) energy 
E c .m. — 2 MeV have been found to differ at level of 0.1%, at most |Q. It should 
be pointed out that with the PHH technique the inclusion of the Coulomb po- 
tential, clearly very important in the energy range considered here, does not 
present any difficulty. 

This paper is organized as follows. The p — d radiative capture and the muon 
capture on 3 He are discussed in Sect. || and ||, respectively. The last section 
contains a summary and some concluding remarks. 

2 Radiative p — d Capture 

The applications of our formalism for cm. energies ranging from zero to 2 MeV, 
namely below the deuteron breakup threshold (DBT), were already presented 
in Refs. jlTj and p8[ . Recently we have extended the PHH technique, in order 
to compute also p — d scattering wave functions above the DBT (l^] . We can 
therefore compute p — d capture observables at higher energies than previously 
published. We present here in Fig. [j] a preliminary study at -E c .m. = 3.33 MeV, 
where high-quality data, including differential cross sections, vector and tensor 
analyzing powers |2(| exist. Results for differential cross sections at -E c .m. = 6.67 
and 9.87 MeV and deuteron tensor analyzing powers at -E c . m . = 5.83 MeV are 
given in Figs. and ^ respectively. The corresponding experimental data are 
taken from Refs. §l| and §§]. 

All the theoretical calculations reported in this section have been obtained 

using the Argonne vis (AV18) |23|] two-nucleon and Urbana IX (UIX) |24 three- 
nucleon interactions. By inspection of Fig. [IJ we can conclude that our results 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i~i _q 02 ri 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

30 60 90 120 150 180 ' 30 60 90 120 150 180 

e c.m. 9 c.m. [ de d 

Figure 1. Differential cross section, proton vector analyzing power, and the four 
deuteron tensor analyzing powers for p— d capture at E c . m . = 3.33 MeV, obtained with 
the AV18/UIX Hamiltonian model and one-body only (thick dashed lines) or both 
one- and two-body currents (thin solid lines), are compared with the experimental 
values of Ref. |20| . The results obtained in the LWA approximation for the spin- flip 
Ei RME's are also shown (thick solid lines). In the first panel, ao = j dfi <r/(47r). 

(thin solid lines) for the differential cross section and the observables A y and 
iTn are in good agreement with the experimental data. On the contrary, for the 
observables T20 and T21, significant discrepancies can be observed. A similar 
situation was found for the E c . m . — 2 MeV observables 1 18 . The same situation 
is present also at higher energies. In fact the differential cross sections in Fig. || 
are well reproduced by our full calculation, as well as the A y (d) observable 
in Fig. ||, which is basically proportional to iTn. Also at E c . m . = 5.83 MeV, 
as can be seen from Fig. 0, discrepancies are present for the deuteron tensor 


1600 L J 

6 [dee] 

cm. L OJ 

Figure 2. Differential cross section for p~ d capture at E c . m , = 6.67 MeV (top panel) 
and -Ec.m. = 9.87 MeV (lower panel). Notation as in Fig. |l|. Thick and thin solid lines 
are on top of each other. The data are from Ref. [fell] . 

observables A xx , A yy and A zz , which are a linear combination of T20, T21 an d 
T22 (the latter observable is however rather small) . 

The analysis of the E c ra , = 2 MeV results in Ref. ju| traced back the 
problem to an overprediction of the spin-flip electric dipole E\ reduced matrix 
elements (RME's) (namely, those arising from the transitions where the p — d 
spins in the incident channel are coupled to S = 3/2). In fact, when the same 
RME's are computed in the long wavelength approximation (LWA) at leading 
order (thick solid line), the observables T20 and T21 are better reproduced (see 
Figs. [I] and||). Interestingly, an analysis of the next-to- leading order terms in 
the LWA performed in Ref. [Q , has shown that they give a sizeable contribu- 
tion to the spin- flip E\ RME's, showing the inadequacy of the use of the leading 
order only for the calculation of this small spin-flip transition matrix elements. 
The origin of the discrepancies observed in the deuteron tensor polarization 

observables is currently under investigation. 
3 Muon Capture 

The fj,~ weak capture on 3 He can occur through three different hadronic chan- 

- 3 He 
- 3 He 
- 3 He 



n + n+p+u^ (10%) 


The focus of the present section is on the first process H . Some of the nuclear 
physics issues in muon capture have been reviewed recently in Ref . [^5| . When 
the triton polarization is not detected, the differential capture rate for the 
reaction (0) is given by 

d(cos(9) 2 



+ A A P A 


where Jo is the total capture rate, A v , A t and A A angular correlation pa- 
rameters and 9 is the angle between the muon polarization and the leptonic 


momentum transfer. The coefficients P v , Pt and Pa are linear combinations of 
the probabilities P{f, f z ) of finding the /i~ 3 He system in the total-spin state 
\f f z ), and are defined as |^6|, |2?J 

P v = P(l,l)-P(l,-1) , 

P t = P(1,1)+P(1,-1)-2P(1,0) , (7) 
P A = P(1,1) + P(1,-1) + P(1,0)-3P(0,0) . 

Therefore, P v and Pt are proportional to the vector and tensor polarizations 
of the /=1 state, respectively, while Pa indicates the deviation of the f—Q 
population density from its statistical factor 1/4. Because of the small energy 
splitting between the /=0 and /=1 hyperfine states (1.5 eV) compared to the 
\jT 3 He binding energy, and hence small deviation of P(/, f z ) from its statistical 
value, direct measurements of the angular correlation parameters are rather 
difficult ||, fH |f]. 

The results reported here have been obtained using either the AV18 and 
AV18/UIX interactions or the older Argonne V14 (AV14) two-nucleon interac- 
tion |2!| in conjunction with the the Tucson-Melbourne (TM) three-nucleon 
interaction |50|. Note that both three-nucleon interactions have been adjusted 
to reproduce the triton binding energy. 

Particular care has been put in the calculation of the Is wave function 
ipi s (x) of the muon in the electric field of the 3 He nucleus. Since the Bohr 
radius of the muonic atom is about 130 fm, i.e. much larger than the nuclear 
radius, it is well justified to approximate ipi s (x) in the computation of the weak 
transition matrix elements with an average value V'il> defined as: 

,/,«y _ / rfx e iq - x ^i s (x)p(x) 

where p{x) is the 3 He nucleus charge distribution and q is the leptonic momen- 
tum transfer. Finally, it is common to introduce the factor 1Z defined as El pi : 

|^| 2 ^hM0)| 2 = 0) 


where ipi s (0) denotes the Bohr wave function evaluated at the origin for a point 
charge 2e, and m r is the reduced mass of the pT 3 He system. The factor 1Z has 
been calculated with the following procedure: for a given Hamiltonian model 
we have calculated p(x). Knowing p(x), the Poisson equation has been solved 
to obtain the static electric potential. Finally we have solved the Dirac equation 
and found ipi s (x). Using Eqs. (JsJ) and (||), we have calculated 71 for the three 
nuclear Hamiltonian models considered here. The results are given in Table 0. 
They are in rather good agreement with the values given in literature p6| . 

Results for the capture rate Po and angular correlation parameters A v , 
A t , and A a are presented in Table ||. The uncertainty (in parentheses) in the 
predicted values is due to the uncertainty in the determination of the N A 


Table 1. Values for 1Z as defined in Eq. (|9|) for three different Hamiltonian models 









transition parameter g* A , as discussed in the Introduction. The latter reflects 
the experimental error in the Gamow- Teller matrix element of tritium /3-decay. 

Inspection of Table || shows that the theoretical determination of the total 
capture rate Jo, when the AV18/UIX and AV14/TM Hamiltonian models are 
used, is within 1 % of the recent experimental result fl3l"| . Furthermore, the 
model dependence in the calculated observables is very weak: the AV18/UIX 
and AV14/TM results differ by less than 0.5 %. The agreement between theory 
and experiment and the weak model dependence mentioned above reflect, to 
a large extent, the fact that both the AV18/UIX and AV14/TM Hamiltonian 
models reproduce: i) the experimental binding energies as well as the charge 
and magnetic radii (32j of the three-nucleon systems; ii) the Gamow- Teller 
matrix element in tritium /3-decay. In this respect, it is interesting to note 
that the capture rate predicted by the AV18 Hamiltonian model is about 4 % 
smaller than the experimental value. The same result has been found with the 
two-nucleon AV14 Hamiltonian model [B. 

The value for the angular correlation parameter A v listed in Table is also 
in reasonable agreement with the corresponding experimental result which has 
however a rather large error. Note that the polarization observables are not 
sensitive to the inclusion of the three-nucleon force, as can be seen comparing 
the AV18 and AV18/UIX lines of Table § 

The contributions of the different components of the weak current and 

Table 2. Capture rate To (sec -1 ) and angular correlation parameters A v , At, and 
Aa calculated using PHH wave functions corresponding to the AV18, AVI8/UIX 
and AV14/TM Hamiltonian models are compared with the experimental results. The 
theoretical uncertainties, shown in parentheses, reflect the uncertainty in the deter- 
mination of the NA transition axial coupling constant g* A . The experimental values 
of _To and A v have been taken from Ref. ]3l]] and |2j|, respectively. Here, we have 
assumed Rps — 1 in Eq. (B). 











A v 





A t 




A A 





Table 3. Effects of the inclusion of the two-body currents for the muon capture rate 
i~b (in sec -1 ) and angular correlation parameters A v , At, and A a- The PHH wave 
functions are obtained using the AV18/UIX Hamiltonian model. The column labeled 
"One-body" lists the contributions associated with the one-body vector and axial 
charge and current operators. The column labeled "Mesonic" lists the results obtained 
by including, in addition, the contributions from meson-exchange mechanisms. Finally 
the column labeled "A" lists the results obtained by including also the Z\- excitation 
contributions. The experimental vaues of _To and A v are taken from Ref. and [ pi[ , 
respectively. Here, we have assumed Rps = 1 in Eq. (0). 















A t 




A A 




charge operators to the observables are reported for the AV18/UIX model in 
Table [| The column labeled "One-body" lists the contributions associated 
with the one-body terms of the vector and axial charge and current operators, 
including relativistic corrections proportional to 1/m 2 . The column labeled 
"Mesonic" lists the results obtained by including, in addition, the contribu- 
tions from two-body vector and axial charge and current operators, associated 
with pion- and vector-meson-exchanges. Finally, the column labeled "A" lists 
the values of the observables obtained by including the contributions arising 
from A excitation. 

Among the observables, Jq and A^ are the most sensitive to two-body 
contributions in the weak current. These are in fact crucial for reproducing the 
experimental capture rate, see Table ||. 

An important motivation of the present work is to test the sensitivity of 
the muon capture observables to the induced pseudo-scalar form factor Gps 
and, eventually, infer its value from the Jo measurement. Therefore, we have 
repeated the calculation using AV18/UIX PHH wave functions and several dif- 
ferent values of the parameter Rps, defined in Eq. (|J). The variation of each 
observable in terms of Rps is displayed in Fig. ||. The angular correlation pa- 
rameters, in particular A t and Aa, are more sensitive to changes in Rps than 
the total capture rate, as first pointed out in Ref. [^7). A precise measurement 
of these polarization observables could therefore be useful to ascertain the ex- 
tent to which the induced pseudo-scalar form factors deviate from their PCAC 

By enforcing perfect agreement between the experimental and theoretical 
values, taken with their uncertainties, for the total capture rate To, it is possible 
to obtain an estimate for the range of values allowed for Rps, and we have found 

R PS =0.94 ±0.06 



Figure 4. Variation of the capture rate i~b and angular correlation parameters A v , 
A t , and A a with the parameter Rps entering the expression for the induced pseudo- 
scalar coupling Gps given in Eq. (^. The AV18/UIX PHH wave functions are used. 
For each observable, the ratio between the result obtained with the given value of 
Rps and that one with the PCAC value Rps — 1 is plotted as function of Rps- 

This 6 % uncertainty is significantly smaller than that found in previous stud- 
ies [|(| H|, |34| . This substantial reduction in uncertainty can be traced back to 
the procedure used to constrain the (model-dependent) two-body axial currents 
discussed in the Introduction. 

4 Summary and Outlook 

We have reported new calculations of p — d radiative capture observables at en- 
ergies above the DBT, and of observables in the process 3 He(/i~, z^) 3 H. These 
calculations have been based on the Argonne V\s two-nucleon and Urbana IX 
three- nucleon interactions. For the muon capture reaction also the older Ar- 
gonne «i4 two-nucleon and Tucson-Melbourne three-nucleon interactions have 
been used. Accurate bound and continuum wave functions have been obtained 
with the PHH method. The model for the EM and weak transition operators 
has been taken to consist of one- and two-body components. In recent studies, 
this theory has been shown to correctly predict the static properties of the 
three-nucleon systems [^2|, as well as their associated elastic and transition 
electromagnetic form factors. 

A satisfactory description of measured p — d capture observables at -E c . m . = 
3.33 MeV has emerged with the exception of the T20 and T21 tensor analyzing 
powers. Interestingly, the very same discrepancies were observed also below the 
DBT, namely at E c , m , = 2 MeV. Similarly, at higher values of£ c . m ., differential 
cross sections and A y {d) seem to be well reproduced, while the tensor analyzing 
powers A xx , A yy and A zz at E c . m . — 5.83 MeV present the same discrepancies 
mentioned above. 


In order to clarify the origin of these discrepancies, we plan to extend the 
calculation of p — d capture observables at even higher energies, and to inves- 
tigate alternative models for short-range two-body EM currents. 

In regard to the muon capture process, we have found that the predicted 
total rate is in agreement with the experimental value, and has only a weak 
model dependence: the AV18/UIX and AV14/TM results differ by less than 

0. 5 %. As discussed above, the weak model dependence comes about because 
both Hamiltonians reproduce the binding energies, charge and magnetic radii 
of the three-nucleon systems, and the Gamow- Teller matrix element in tritium 

It is important to note that, if the contributions associated with two-body 
terms in the axial current were to be neglected, the predicted capture rate 
would be 1316 (1318) sec" 1 with AV18/UIX (AV14/TM), and so two-body 
mechanisms are crucial for reproducing the experimental value. The present 
work shows that the procedure adopted for constraining these two-body con- 
tributions leads to a consistent description of available experimental data on 
weak transitions in the three-body systems. It also corroborates the robustness 
of our recent predictions for the cross sections of the proton weak captures on 
X H H and 3 Hc §, which were obtained with the same model for the nuclear 
weak current. 

Finally, it would be interesting to extend our investigation to the 
3 He(/i - ,i^)nd and 3 He(n~ ,Vp,)nnp processes, both of which have been stud- 
ied experimentally in Ref. and theoretically in Ref . |56| . Work along these 
lines is vigorously being pursued. 

The work of R.S. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy con- 
tract number DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the Southeastern Universities 
Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accel- 
erator Facility. 


1. A. Kievsky et al.: Phys. Rev. C58, 3085 (1998) 

2. W. Glockle et al: Phys. Rep. 274, 107 (1996) 

3. A. Kievsky et al.: Nucl. Phys. A607, 402 (1996) 

4. R. Schiavilla et al.: Phys. Rev. C40, 2294 (1989) 

5. R. Schiavilla and D. O. Riska: Phys. Rev. C43, 437 (1991) 

6. J. Carlson and R. Schiavilla: Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 743 (1998) 

7. L.E. Marcucci et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5959 (2000); Phys. Rev. C63, 
015801 (2001) 

8. L.E. Marcucci et al.: Phys. Rev. C66, 054003 (2002) 

9. T.R. Hemmert et al.: Phys. Rev. D51, 158 (1995) 


10. J.D. Walecka: In: Muon Physics; Weak Interactions, edited by V.W. 
Hughes and C.S. Wu, p. 114. New York: Academic Press 1975 

11. J.D. Walecka: Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics New York: Ox- 
ford University Press 1995 

12. D.O. Riska: Phys. Scr. 31, 471 (1985); A. Buchmann ct al.: Nucl. Phys. 
A443, 726 (1985) 

13. R. Schiavilla et al.: Phys. Rev. C45, 2628 (1992) 

14. M. Kirchbach et al.: Nucl. Phys. A542, 616 (1992) 

15. R. Schiavilla et al.: Phys. Rev. C58, 1263 (1998) 

16. A. Kievsky et al.: Nucl. Phys. A551, 241 (1993); Nucl. Phys. A577, 511 

17. M. Viviani et al.: Phys. Rev. C54, 534 (1996) 

18. M. Viviani ct al.: Phys. Rev. C61, 064001 (2000) 

19. A. Kievsky et al.: Phys. Rev. C64, 024002 (2001) 

20. F. Goeckner et al.: Phys. Rev. C45, R2536 (1992) 

21. B.D. Belt et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1120 (1970) 

22. H. Akiyoshi et al.: Phys. Rev. C64, 034001 (2001) 

23. R.B. Wiringa ct al.: Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995) 

24. B.S. Pudlincr ct al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4396 (1995) 

25. D.F. Measday: Phys. Rep. 354, 243 (2001) 

26. J.G. Congleton and H.W. Fearing: Nucl. Phys. A552, 534 (1992) 

27. W.-Y.P. Hwang: Phys. Rev. C17, 1799 (1978) 

28. P.A. Soudcr ct al.: Nucl. Instr. and Mcth. in Phys. Res. A402, 311 (1998) 

29. R.B. Wiringa ct al.: Phys. Rev. C29, 1207 (1984) 

30. S.A. Coon et al.: Nucl. Phys. A317, 242 (1979) 

31. P. Ackerbauer et al.: Phys. Lett. B417, 224 (1998) 

32. L.E. Marcucci et al.: Phys. Rev. C58, 3069 (1998) 

33. J.G. Congleton and E. Truhlik: Phys. Rev. C53, 956 (1995) 

34. J. Govaerts and J.-L. Lucio-Martincz: Nucl. Phys. A678, 110 (2000) 

35. S.E. Kuhn ct al.: Phys. Rev. C50, 1771 (1994) 

36. R. Skibinski et al.: Phys. Rev. C59, 2384 (1999)