NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS1,2

By NORMAN K. GLENDENNING
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 191
2. SINGLE-NuCLEON STRIPPING REACTIONS. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. 193
2.1 General form of the cross section.... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193
2.2 A ntisymmetrization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 196
2.3 Plane-wave calculation-Butler formula. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 197
2.4 Distorted-wave method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206
2.5 Distorting potential in stripping reactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 212
2.6 Some examples of distorted-wave calculations.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 215
2.7 Nuclear structure and spectroscopic factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 216
2.8 Polarization and angular correlation ............................. , 2 2 9
2.9 Rearrangement stripping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3 7
3. SINGLE-NuCLEON TRANSFER REACTIONS OTHER THAN (d, P). . . . . . . . . . . .. . 239
4. Two-NUCLEON TRANSFER REACTIONS................................... 2 40
4.1 General features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 240
4.2 Interpretation of some experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 50
ApPENDIX. . . . . n n n n + . + 253
1. INTRODUCTION
The transmutation of elements by bombardment with slow deuterons,
followed by the emission of protons, and the interpretation of the reaction
as a stripping process date from 1935. Oppenheimer & Phillips (138) ex
plained the experimental results of Lawrence, McMillan & Thornton
(113)
in terms of the penetration of the neutron into the tar
g
et nucleus while the
proton remaned outside, beyond the Coulomb barrier. In these experiments
the cross section was found to increase less rapidly over the energy region
measured (up to 3.6 MeV) than was anticipated from the Gamow penetration
factor for transmission of a charged particle through the Coulomb barrier
of the nucleus. The physical picture treated shows a deuteron moving in the
feld of the nucleus, being stretched by the action of the Coulomb repulsion
on the proton, while the neutron attracted by the i nteraction with the
nucleus is captured. Because the deuteron binding energy is small, it is
easily polarized, and the reaction can occur without the proton having to
enter the Coulomb barrier. Hence the variation of the cross section with
energy is quite diferent from that of reactions in which a charged particle
must actually enter the nucleus.
^ The survey of literature for this review was concluded in early 1963.
Written while the author was a visitor during 1962-63 at Centre d'Etudes
Nucleires, Saclay, and Institut du Radium, Orsay, France. The author expresses his
appreciation to Professors C. Block and M. Jean for the opportunity of mHking that
sojourn.
191
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Quick links to online content
Further
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
192 GLENDENNING
However, the importance of stripping reactions relevant to the study of
nuclear states was not rfcognized until at higher energies the angular distri
butions of resolved groups of protons corresponding to particular energy
levels of the residual nucleus were measured (30, 93) . These angular distri
butions exhibit a pronounced structure at forward angles, which Butler
recognized as implying the importance of high angular momenta (14, 31, 32,
33) . Since high angular momenta must correspond to large impact parame
ters, he concluded that the reactions proceed, at least in part, by a stripping
process in which one of the particles of the deuteron is absorbed into the
nucleus, while the other merely carries of the balance of energy and momen
tum. Moreover, since the reaction connects the ground state of the target
to a specifc fnal state, the stripped particle can have carried into the nucleus
only such angular momentum and parity as are consistent with their conser
vation. Their subtraction from the incident wave is refected in the angular
distribution of the outgoing protons.
That a connection exists between the angular distribution of the out
going proton and the angular momentum of the state into which the neutron
is stripped can be understood in the light of the following classical argument
(36, 100). Let the momenta of the incident deuteron, the outgoing proton,
and the stripped neutron be lkd, lk
p, and lq, respectively. Energy conserva
tion specifes the magnitude of kp, and momentum conservation requires that
q=kd-kp' If the neutron is stripped into a state of orbital angular momen
tum ll and if we suppose that the deuteron is broken up at the point R,
then 1 equals R Xq. Consequently
Ik-kI Rl 1.
For 1 O this inequality can be satisfed only for scattering angles greater
than some minimum value which depends on 1. In any case, because of the
small deuteron binding, the deuteron is broken up preferentially with the
proton moving in the forward direction.
For single-nucleon transfer reactions the angular momentum 1 of the
bound state, which accordi ng to the above argument can be deduced by a
measurement of the angular distribution, is uniquely connected with the
parity of the fnal nuclear state and determines within limits its spin, if the
initial state is known. This establishes the importance of stripping reactions
and their inverse, pickup reactions, as a means of studying the properties of
nuclear energy levels, as emphasized by Butler, and as confrmed subse
quently by the abundance of information emanating from stripping experi
ments.
The stripping reaction is discussed in this review from the point of view
of its usefulness as a probe of the structure of nuclear states. The foundations
of the theory are not examined. However, some heuristic derivations of
i mportant results are given.
In Section 2, the (d, p) reaction is discussed in considerable detail because
it is the most thoroughly studied reaction and it serves to illustrate many
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 193
points relevant to other direct reactions. This reaction by its nature popu
lates and has been used to identify single-particle states in the fnal nucleus
[cf. (41,42,43, 128, 163)]. The inverse reaction (p, d) can be used to study the
hole-states [d. (41, 73)]; and these reactions, together with several other sin
gle-nucleon transfer reactions, are discussed briefy in Section 3. In Section 4,
reactions involving the transfer of two nucleons are considered. These re
actions make levels of two-particle or hole excitation accessible for study
[d. ( 10, 79)].
The literature on stripping reactions is vast. I have not seen, let alone
read, all that has been published on the subject. Undoubtedly much interest
ing work has been overlooked, and to the reader thus cheated I make my
apologies. Other reviews which impinge upon the subject have been written
by Huby ( 100), Horowitz (98), Butler (36) , Breit (27), Banerjee ( 1 1), French
(61), Macfarlane & French ( 117), Tobocman (178), and Austern (8) .
2. SINGLE-NuCLEON STRIPPING REACTIONS
2. 1 General form of the cross section.-The angular distribution of out
going particles from the (d, p) stripping reaction was frst obtained by
Butler (31, 32, 33, 36). His method involves matching, at the nuclear
boundary, the wave function for the system in the interior and exterior
regions of the nucleus, found after certain simplifying assumptions are made.
However, the method is lengthy and involved. Other authors soon gave alter
native treatments of the reaction, which under the appropriate assumptions
gave the same or similar results (7, 34, 40, 44, 45, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 74, 75,
94,95,99,173,174,184,185).
In this section we shall develop the general form of the diferential cross
section for single-particle stripping reactions and discuss the spectroscopic
signifcance of the results. I n subsequent sections the several current forms
of the theory will be discussed together with its application to the analysis
of experiments.
The exact transition matrix element for the (d, p) reaction can be written
(d. 64)
2.
where\ d<+> is the exact-state vector for the system and has outgoing spherical
waves of deuterons at infni ty; tP is the wave function for the fnal system
comprising proton and residual nucleus (A + 1) with no interaction between
these two parts; Vpn is the proton-neutron interaction and VpA is the proton
target interaction. Since the exact solution q d is not available, an approxi
mate expression for T has to be found (see Appendix) :
T(d. p),.. (p(-) I V = +(1 P) V
pAP I xP 3.
where P is an operator which projects onto the ground state of the target
nucleus.
The wave functions appearing in Equation 3 may be written in more
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
194
detail as
where
GLENDENNING
Xd(+) = !d(+)(k, R),d(r)X1Id(dn, dp)'J.M.(A)
XpH
=
!p
(
-
)
(k rp')Xl/f'(dp)'J
,
M/(A, rA, dn)
r " r" Zg 2R " r,+ r"
4.
5
Here Cd is the internal wave function of the deuteron, Xl is its spin function
[we consider only the S state since the Sand D states contribute incoher
ently, and the D state admixture in the deuteron is less than 10 percent (45));
Ji is the target wave function; Xl/2 is the proton spin function and J
/
i s
the wave function for the fnal nucleus. The functions i+) and p() are
elastic scattering wave functions to be computed by use of a one-body inter
action between the deuteron and target, and proton and target. The (+)
and (-) refer to their asymptotic behavior: i+) has outgoing spherical
waves and 11(-) incoming spherical waves. The coordinate 7
6.
is the coordinate of the proton referred to the center of mass of the fnal
nucleus.
Because of the physical picture we have of the stripping procCss, we ex
pand the wave function for the fnal nuclear state on a basis exhibiting the
target plus the stripped nucleon.
7.
where. is a wave function constructed by vector coupling the extra nucleon
in the spin-orbit state Cli to a target wave function with angular momentum
Jc. [Aside from the ground state Jc=Ji, the wave functions for the core
nucleons do not necessarily correspond to unique states of the target nucleus
(117).]
i
(
Jc1I
)
J!
M
,
"
L (JeM.,jmj I J,M!) 'JeMc(A)cI/"f(
r
", ,dn)
M.mj
,
8.
where the bracket i s a Clebsch-Gordan coefcient. Other representations
than the spin orbit could have been used, such as the L-S or channel-spin
representations. They are all connected by a unitary tra
n
sformation, and
the choice in any situation could be governed by requiring'that Equation 7
have a minimum of terms.
The expansion coefcients { represent the degree to which the fnal state
has the confgurations indicated by ., and they are directly related to the
reduced widths of the state.
.
If we insert the above expressions into Equation 3, it is apparent that
the Vpn term is nonvanishing only if the fnal state contains;components cor
responding to the core (comprising the target nucleons), being in its ground
state. In contrast, the term in Vp is nonvanishing only if te fnal state does
contain components corresponding to core excitations. In the literature scant -
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 195
attention has been paid to the second term. It is often neglected for incorrect
reasons. However, it may be intrinsically smaller than the frst term, becom
ing important only when the fnal state is almost purely a core excited state.
The success of the current treatment of stripping suggests that this is so.
We shall therefore devote most attention to what we call simple stripping,
corresponding to the frst term in Equation 3, and reserve for Section 2.9 a
brief discussion of the rearrangement stripping process. Accordingly we drop
the index on (;z(JcJ/) referring to the core, and obtain for the simple strip
ping amplitd
TCd.,
)
=
L (J;M"jmj I J,M,)(lm!m. 1 jmj)
il"'
j
"'
l
".
X (
l-.l.]1.)vt/+ 1 (jlBI ml
where we have used for the spin-orbit functions
<z;
"
i(r", d,,) = L (lml, lm. l
jm
j
)i
l
<,
m
l(r")x1I
2
,.(d,)
ml".
",-'(T . )
=
u,(r,,)y,-,(r,,)
9.
10.
The quantity Br, which is the amplitude for the absorption of a neutron
with quantum numbers (1m), contains the dependence on the scattering
angle and i s
Blm(k, k) = :!(t/+ 1)-112 |."C-)*(k, T"')<,"'*(T,,)V,,(r)
X .d(+
)
(k, R),r)dr"dr"
1
1
.
The diferential cross section is found from Equation 9 by averaging
(2'/n) r|over the spin directions in the initial state, and summing over
the fnal spin directions, multiplying by the density-of-states factor and
dividing by the incident fux:
d k 1
.
-. ma m" 2
'
lT 12
dO
-
(
21n2)
2
kd 3(2
J,
+ 1) M,d
p
Cd.,)
12.
where md
*
, mp
*
are the reduced masses and kd, kp are the wave numbers for
relative motion in the initial and fnal states, respectively:
kp
l = 2m
,
*
E,/nl, kdl = 2
md*Ed/nl
Ep = Ed + Q Ed + B, - Bd
13.
where Q is the usual symbol for the increase in kinetic energy, Bn and Bd are
respectively the binding energy of the neutron in the fnal nucleus and of
the deuteron, and Ep and Ed are center-of-mass energies.
The magnetic sums in Equation 12 can be explicitly executed yielding
_ md*mp* k
"
t
,
l

.
]

14
dO
-
2 (t1n2
)
2 kd 2
J
, + 1 f {"
,

The amplitude Br depends, in general, very sensitively on the value of l.

To this fact the stripping reaction owes its value as a source of spectroscopic
information (31, 32, 33). For the transition matrix, Equation 9, exists only
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
1 96 GLENDENNING
for values of 1 and j for which
J,
=

j
=

t
J = U~)`
15.
16.
are satisfed. Here T is the parity of the initial state. If, because of the sensi
tivity of the angular dependence of rl.one can identify which 1 (or 1's)
are involved, the parity of the residual level is given uniquely, while the spin
is specifed, at least within limits (see, however, Sec. 2.9). Also, since the
spin-orbit partners are considerably separated in energy, reference to the
shell-model level ordering often reduces any ambiguity (47, 120).
We should remark that the above discussion and Equation 14 refer to
the simple stripping process and not to rearrangement stripping. In the
latter, more general selection rules apply which will, be discussed in
Section 2.9.
2.2 Antisymmetrization.-So far we have treated the nucleons in the in
cident deuteron as though they were distinguishable from the others. The
efect of antisymmetrizing the total wave function is to introduce exchange
integrals. However, the exchange integrals, because they involve the overlap
between bound and free states, will be smaller than the direct term. The
only evaluation of such efects has been done in the plane-wave approxi
mation and agrees with our assertion (51, 59). We shall therefore ignore them
in our considerations of the simple stripping reactions (see, however, Sec. 2.9).
There is, however, an important way in which the equivalence of nucleons
makes itself felt. This is through statistical factors, which of course are of no
signifcance for the angular distribution but must be included if the theory
is used to extract reduced widths from the experimental data (61). These
factors can be easily constructed. Since we shall be interested later in reac
tions such as (He3, d), we shall consider the reaction A (a, a -1)A + 1
where A is the atomic mass of the target and U the atomic mass of the projec
tile. In the initial state we want to construct an antisymmetrical wave
function from the product of the target A and projectile a wave functions.
There will be
A .

(A ...
N.
. ....
17.
such product terms in the antisymmetrical function corresponding to the
diferent ways in which the particles can be distributed' between the two
groups. Similarly, for the fnal-state wave function
.., (A ...
N,
= .. =

....i..
18.
Schematically, therefore, the matrix element looks like
T(A, ." A 1, .
.= (
N,
N.)-1I2
X 1<,[,A+l(l, 2, ... A + 1
),al(A .2

A ..., 19.
X V a ...
2, .....
. A + ..i
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 197
where at and a . are antisymmetrization operators. The N; terms in the
initial wave function will each connect with a terms in the fnal wave function
to form the direct in tegrals we are in teres ted in. Accordingly there are Ni eq ual
integrals which, together with the normalizing factors, give us va(A + 1) as
the factor by which the integral evaluated with nonsymmetrized wave
functions should be multiplied. Moreover, in the reduction of the integral
to the form we considered earlier, the overlap between ,a-l and ,u will con
tribute a factor
(td I til) (tp,,, !n, I tim,,) 20.
where . )is a fractional parentage coefcient for the isospin. For a 2, 3,
or 4 this product is i,:.Similarly the overlap between ,A+l and ,A will
contribute.
21.
being the Clebsch-Gordan coefcient for the isospin, where WJ is the Z com
ponent for the outgoing particle (-t for protons). The fractional parentage
coefcient from the overlap we absorb into the defnition of f.
With these results we now have for the diferential cross section
22.
where
S(l)

S(jl)
23.
and
S
1I
2(
j
l
)
= (A +
1
) 1/2;1
=
(
A
+ 1
)
1/
2 |i(J.jI)J//J(A +
1
)
24.
The symbol d(A+l) denotes integration over the A+l nucleons in the fnal
nucleus. Here S is called the spectroscopic factor or relative reduced width.
We shall discuss it at greater length in Section 2.7.
2.3 Plane-wave calculation-Butler formula.-The general form of the dif
ferential cross section for single-particle stripping has been derived above in
Born approximation. There remains now the explicit evaluation of the ampli
tudes Br. There are two current methods employed in their evaluation,
known commonly as the plane-wave and distorted-wave calculation. In the
latter, the scattering of the incident deuteron and outgoing proton by the
nucleus is taken into account. In this section we shall discuss the frst method.
It leads us to the Butler formula for the angular distribution which has been
used extensively in the literature as a means of extracting spectroscopic in
formation from stripping reactions [see for example (117) and references con
tained therein).
To obtain the wave functions describing the relative motion between
deuteron and target nucleus, and proton and fnal nucleus, we assume that
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
198 GLENDENNING
the interaction between the two parts of the system can be neglected. They
then satisfy the feld-free Schroedinger equation and are therefore the plane
waves:
25.
In this approximation we are able to obtain a closed foim expression for
Br.
We must anticipate of course that the result will have only a limited
range of applicabilitye
By changing the variables of integration in Equation 1 to and we
obtain
where
B
,m
=
;-'(21 +
1)-112 +e-' K.rV
n
l(r)qd(r)dr
X
|u,(r
n
)Y,"*(Tf)e,q't
n
drf
q = k (MT/MF)kp
is the momentum carried into the nucleus by th neutron, and
K kp (!)k
26.
27.
28.
is the momentum transferred to the .proton by its interaction with the
neutron.
The frst integral can be simplifed by using the Schroedinger equation
for the deuteron:
v .
(-

+ Vnp(r) + Ed)qa(
r) = 0
2m*
29.
where m* is the nucleon reduced mass in the deuteron and Bd is the binding
energy. Defne O by
then
where
(b)2 = 2m*B
d
G(K = +e-iK.rVnp(r)qa(r)dr
II
= (K2 + a?P(K
2m"
P(K = |e-iKrqd(r)dr
30.
31.
32.
The integral P(K) is (21)3/2 times the probability amplitude that the momen
tum K is to be found in the deuteron. Not unexpectedly, this factor damps
the cross section at large angles since the deuteron does not contain large
momentum components in the abundance of the smaIl ones: The quantity
P(K) is a smoothly varying function of angle and dependsJor its spe
C
ifc
form on the choice of wave function for the deuteron. For several choices i t
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS
is shown below:
(
a)
1
/2 e
-o
<a(r) =
-
~+
2.. 7
|
..
)
1
/2
1
P
(
K
) =
a
3 1 + (K/
a
)2
P(K) = | T/|'
a
') ) '

1 +
.

,
1 +
.

199
3 3.
34.
[See also Banerjee (11).] Corresponding to the deuteron binding energy
:.::: MeV, a=0.2317 pl while the parameter a' is usually taken to be
a' 7a. We may note that the wave function Equation 33 corresponds to a
zero-range force and that the corresponding function G(K) is a constant.
The second integral in Equation :eis the one which depends on the
orbital angular momentum transferred in the reaction, and whose variation
with scattering angle is sensitive to 1. To evaluate it we use the expansion
of a plane wave
eq.r = 4;i
L
jL(qr) L YJ*(q) YLMG)
L_O
M
35.
The orthogonality of the spherical harmonics selects the L = 1 term. Then
f ul(r)Y,"*()
e
iq.rdr = 4IYlm*(q) f
o
"u1(r)jl(qT)r2dr 36.
Some early work approximated this integral by its value at rRN, near the
nuclear surface, yielding the angular dependence j,(qR) (15). We shall, how
ever, introduce the so-calJed cutof approximation by neglecting the contri
bution to the integral from the inner region r <R? RN. The cutof approxi
mation is certainly better founded than the surface approximation. In fact,
it simulates in a rough way the absorption of the deuteron into compound
nucleus state and is therefore also better than a complete evaluation of the
integral. To best see this, one would make the partial-wave expansion Equa
tion 35 separately for deuteron and proton waves (Eq. :s.Then for 1=0,
as an example, one has a sum of integrals
j"jL(kpr) Uo (r)jL(kar)T2dr 37.
Now the partial wave L corresponds to an impact parameter L/ka. To simu
late the absorption of particles penetrating the nuclear interior, we might
therefore set all integrals with L <Lc equal to zero, where Lc is chosen so
that Lc/kRN. But it is just these integrals (whose integrands are plotted
in Fig. 1) which receive the largest contribution from the interior. Therefore,
neglecting the contribution to the integral, Equation se,from the interior,
simulates roughly the absorption of the lower partial waves. Of course it is
essential that a sufcient number of partial waves be involved for these con
siderations to be valid.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
200 GLENDENNING
l
I
ro

I
3
A ~
1\1f
'

/ 1
K
1/
/
Y X
' '

l
/
'`
j.y \
`

\
\"
\
'
/ ~ >
/\

`
`
`
'
,
'
Z 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
r(1 OU ems)
FIG. 1. The integrand of Eq. 37 for various values of the angular momentum of the
incident deuteron partial waves. Note that the principal contribution for the low
partial waves comes from the interior region. In this eXmple, 1=0, Ed=8 MeV,
Q=2 MeV, and R=5 F. [From Butler (36).]
We can evaluate the cutof integral by introducing the Schroedinger
equations
d2 1(1 + 1
) .
--+ --- q2 rjl(qr) 0
dr2 r2
d2 1(1 + 1)
--+ --+ t2 rUI(r) = 0,
dr2 r2
38.
39.
where h2t2/2M*=Bn is the binding energy of the neutron in the residual
nucleus, and M* is the reduced mass of the neutron-target system. We note
that W] satisfes the Bessel equation only for RN where RN is so large that
the nuclear potential is zero. After an obvious manipulation
(q2 + t2) r
"
jz(qr)ul(r)r2dr = - r" i (rul) .. (rjl) - (Tjl) .. (
rul)

dT
JR JR dr dr dr

d
. jl(qR) d

= R2UI(R) -jl(qR) - --
-
hl(ztR)
dR hl(itR) dR
4.
where we have used the fact that the Hankel function of the frst kind hl
satisfes the Equation 39 and has the bound-state boundary condition that it
vanishes at i nfnity ( 162, p. 79).
Gathering together the above results, we have:
h2
E
lm -
4(21 + 1
)
-
1/2_ ylm*(q)Rul(R)P(K)WI(q,
R)
41
.
2M*
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
where
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS
[d. NqR)
d
. +
WI(q, R) R
dR
JI(qR)
h!(itR) dR
h!(zR)
and we have used energy conservation to show that
K2 + O" 1 MF mp 1
q2 + t2 m* M/ md m*
=
M*
201
42.
43.
We may now introduce this value of Br into Equation 22. Before doing
so, however, we generalize the results somewhat so that they will also be
valid for single-nucleon stripping from projectiles heavier than the deuteron.
In the notation of Section 2.2 the reduced masses are
A + 1
m *-+-(a - I)M
P
A + a
A
M*-"M
A + 1
where M is the nucleon mass. Then we fnd
where
82(/)
=
S(/)802(/)
802(1) = iR3UI2(R)
4.
46.
47.
which are respectively the reduced width of the level for angular momentum
l, and the single-particle reduced width. In general, P(K) is to be interpreted
as the Fourier transform of the wave function for the nuclide with respect
to the relative motion between the stripped nucleon, and U-1, and
a-I
K kl - k
a
48.
The expression for the diferential cross section, Equation 45, has the de
pendence on the scattering angle frst found by Butler. Both the difraction
like pattern, which it usually yields, and the magnitude are strong functions
of the orbital angular momentum l of the state into which the neutron is
captured, as Figure 2 and Table I show. The strong preference for smalll's
shown in the table led Bethe & Butler (14) to point out that small admixtures
in the bound-state wave function of angular momentum smaller than the
dominant one can be detected easily in stripping reactions.
There appears in the Butler theory a radius parameter R (Eq. 42), whose
value afects the positions of the maxima and minima in the angular distri
butions. One customarily seeks a value of R lying reasonably close to the
nuclear radius R1.3 Alia such that for some value of I, the theoretical and
experimental main stripping peaks coincide. The radius so determined is
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
202
-
.
MW

:
>
.
f
-
:
.
c
.. .
s:
o
4
W
W
.
II
1
o
.
U
'
W
M


.
J
-
Q
`/
z
,
I

"
.
o
GLENDENNING
`

0
/
`

|
\
/
\


1
` V
!
/
.
\
\
/
/
\
I
\
` `
,
\
/
\

`
`
-
I
/'
"
."
\
" -- ..
20
40 60 80
Angle of Scattering (Degrees)
FIG. 2. Angular dependence of the Butler formula for several values of 1, with
parameters Ed=8.8 MeV, Q=3.2 MeV, R=5 F. Relative heights. of the frst peaks
are not shown in the fgure, but are listed in Table II. [From Butler (36). ]
Height
TABLE I
RELATIVE HEIGHTS OF THE FIRST PEAKS IN THE BUTLER
THEORY FOR THE REACTION OF FIGURE 2
o 1 2
0.223 0.065
3
0.022
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 203
called the stripping radius. (Of course it is necessary that R be equal to or
greater than RN for the use of Hankel functions in Equation 42 to be correct.)
In general one considers the agreement between the Butler theory and ex
periment to be acceptable if, when the radius R is chosen as above, the width
of the main stripping peak and the position, but not the magnitude of the
second peak are approximately reproduced. Data with which the Butler
theory is in acceptable agreement are illustrated for several reactions in
Figures 3 and 4 (140, 189).
The stripping radii found empirically are roughly given (8, 117, 145) by
the formula
R = (4.37 + O.042A)F
R P (1.7 + 1.22A 1/8)F
for light nuclei and bombarding energies above the Coulomb barrier. Recent
data indicate that R is energy dependent; decreasing as the bombarding
energy increases (77, 125, 167). It appears that for bombarding energies
greater than i sMeV on light and intermediate nuclei, the Butler theory gives
less satisfactory agreement than for lower energies. At the higher energies
the second peak of the Butler curve falls at too large an angle (see Fig. 10).
Evidently distortion efects from the interaction of the incident and outgoing
particles with the nucleus are no longer adequately simulated by the cutof.
In fact the cutof simulates principally the absorption, but not the elastic
scattering in the entrance and exit channels. The latter becomes relatively
more important at higher energies where the mean free patiin the nuclear
tail becomes longer.

e" GROUND STATE

O9.24Mev

0
0

0 40 10 120 110

0 40 80 120 160
CUTU-Of-MASS ANGLE IN DEGREES
FIG. 3. Angular distribution for BIO(d, p)Bll ground-state reaction is for incident
energy Ed=10 MeV, Q=9.24 MeV. The stripping radius is R=S.2 F and l
=
1.
[rom Zeidmanet al. (189).1 The second part of the fgure refers to the anomalous
frst excited state referred to in 2.9.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
204
GLENDENNING
5-
4
'P
&
e
"
D
E
%
z
3
0
m
t
o
W
P
I
. ,

|
C
C
C
2
0
0
0
a:
0
-
o
<
..
Z
w
a:
w
u
L.

C
o

0
Zr
90
|
,p)Zr
"
O=5.0ZMeV
-BUTLER CURVE
|*Z
ro 6.5x 10-15 em

0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0

90 120
B
L
A
B
|
e
g
)

FIG. 4. Angular distribution for the Zr90(d, p)Zr91 ground-state reaction for inci
dent deuterons of energy Ed=10.85 MeV, Q=4.91 MeV. Stripping radius of the
Butler cure is R=6.S F and 1=2. [From Preston et al. (140).]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 205
The low energy limit on the valid region of the Butler theory is obviously
connected with the Coulomb barrier. As Butler points out, the classical de
fection angle in the Coulomb feld for the stripping process is small at
bombarding energies larger than the barrier height (36).
It has been observed, however, that for (d, p) reactions leading to levels
for which the neutron is loosely bound (i.e., small Q=Bn-Bd), the Butler
theory reproduces the observed angular distributions even at very low
eergies (166, 167, 183) (see Fig. s.Wilkinson suggests two reasons for this:
(U) The wave function for the loosely bound neutron extends out some
considerable distance from the main distribution of matter in the nucleus,
so that the neutron can be stripped at a large distance where the distortion
of the free-particle wave functions from plane waves is slight. [The stripping
radius found in (166, 167) is 6.S Fat Ea= 1.5 MeV while it is R=4.2 F at
Ea=14.4 MeV .i:s.i
(b) At low energy and low Q, the outgoing momentum of the proton will
be close to one half of the momentum carried by the incident duteron. No
demand is made for momentum from the internal motion of the deuteron,
therefore, and the neutron and proton can be far apart (c1 =4.32 F) at the
time of stripping, again a situation for which distortion is small. The con
dition that the proton momentum be one half the deuteron momentum
is fulflled when E-tQ and, as Warburton & Chase (180) point out, cor
responds to the condition for closest approach to the stripping pol U where,
Amado (4) argues, the distortion efects should be at their minimum. To test
these conjectures, Gibbs & Tobocman (66) have done a series of calculations
in which the Q of the reaction was varied and in which the interactions in
the incident and exit channels are taken into account. They found that these
interactions were most important in producing deviations from the Butler
theory just where the above argument suggests they should be least im
portant. The apparent success of the Butler theory for these low energies,
they claim, is due merely to the very simple shape of the angular distri
bution. However, Wilkinson has pointed out that the distorted-wave calcu
lations (see next section) have always employed a zero-range force between
neutron and proton to reduce the integrations (141) . Therefore the second
efect depending on the separation of neutron and proton is not taken into
account at all . Indeed, Oppenheimer & Phillips (138) found that the deuter
on's large size is important at these low energies.
Generally speaking, the Butler theory does not yield a particularly de
tailed account of the angular distributions. However, in spite of this it gives
reliable spectroscopic assignments for levels in light nuclei within a certain
energy range, when handled in the fashion we have discussed. Its fruitfulness
as measured by the wealth of spectroscopic information derived from its use
cannot be chronicled. We merely cite several references. In the review by Mac
farlane & French (117) , reduced widths (discussed in Sec. 2.7) for levels of
light nuclei are tabulated and discussed from the point of view of their con
tent of nuclear structure information, and a compilation of energy levels was
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
206
C
Q
:
Q
40
:30

o
e
,20
-

o
l 10
b
1.0
GLENDENNING
.NGLAR DISTRIBUTIONS
Li' (d.p) Lie
_I': o.'.'. U1LICIOI
'"TI. "cY. lit, IIIU"
o 40 60 80 100 .2 '40 160"" 180
L4
CENTER-OFMASS PROTON ANGLE
1
10
4'
flCITATION
CURVE
INTERACTON
AADIUS
1.8 2.2 2.6 1.0 1.4 I.'
2.2
DEUTERON ENERGY IN MeV
z .
FIG. . Angulr distribution for Li'(c, p)Li8 reaction for bombarding "energies
between 1.2 and 1.9 MeV. The reaction Q
=
-0.192 MeV. Soli9 lines are Butler
cures for l = 1 coresponding to stripping radii shown in fgure. Excitation cUre is
also shown. [From SeIlschop (167).]
made by Ajzenberg-Selove & Lauritsen (1) and Endt & Va der Leun (49)
for which spectroscopic information from stripping reactions is given.
2.4 Distorted-wave method.-To obtain a detailed agreement between
theory and experiment for stripping reactions involving iight and inter
mediate nuclei, and to extract spectroscopic information in the heavy-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 207
element region where the Coulomb force at the bombarding energies usually
available is too important to be ignored, it is necessary to take proper account
of the interactions in the entrance and exit channels. That is to say, the
scattering and partial absorption of the deuteron before the actual stripping
event, and of the proton after this event, can have an important efect on
the diferential cross section. We saw that the cutof procedure used in the
plane-wave treatment simulates distortion efects due to absorption of the
lower partial waves. However, the optical-model analysis of elastic scattering
of nucleons from nuclei indicates that the nucleus is not a perfect absorber
(53, 54, 67). The incident particles may interact without being absorbed.
Moreover, the elastic cross section is usually much larger than the stripping
cross section. Thus, although the lower partial waves may still be strongly
absorbed, the higher ones, which are of importance for stripping, may be
distorted from the plane-wave form.
The distortion of the wave functions is caused by two interactions, the
long-range repulsive Coulomb force and the short-range attractive nuclear
force. At energies sufciently below the top of the Coulomb barrier, the
deuteron and proton will not come close enough to the nucleus to be much
afected by the nuclear force. In this case, most readily attainable with heavy
targets, the distortion can be treated as purely Coulomb (12, 17, 114, 171).
(vVe avoid the misnomer "Coulomb stripping," which implies a conceptually
dilIerent process.) The angular distributions are backward peaked, and devoid
of structure (50, 169). Above the limit for pure Coulomb distortion the nu
clear force becomes important also (176). However, for light and inter
mediate nuclei at energies in the vicinity of the top of the Coulomb barrier,
it is apparently possible for the two interactions, one attractive, the other
repulsive, to approximately cancel each other for the partial waves of most
importance in stripping. In such cases the Butler theory gives a good account
of the angular distibution (but not the magnitude of the cross section).
This cancellation is illustrated in calculations by Tobocman (175) for
Ca44(d p) and is shown in Figure 6. The Coulomb barrier is about
E1.08 ZZ'/Al/3=6.1 MeV, and the bombarding energy is Ed
=
7.01 MeV.
Indeed, there will always be a partial cancellation of the efects of the two
interactions, but in heavier nuclei it is not so exact that the angular distri
bution has a Butler-like form. The appropriateness of the various calculations
is roughly summarized in Figure 7 where we plot the boundaries of the several
types of calculations in the energy-mass plane. The boundaries are Q de
pendent: that is, the larger the Q of the reaction, the more energetic is the
outgoing proton. Thus, for a bombarding energy at which the angular dis
tribution of the protons is of the pure Coulomb type for an excited-state
transition, the more energetic protons from the ground state may penetrate
sufciently into the interior region to feel the nuclear force. Their angular
distribution may therefore deviate from the pure Coulomb type. This phe
nomena can be seen in the data of Stokes, for example (169).
The distorted-wave method
f
or taking into account the scattering of the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
W

C
a
=
T
i

AIlW91W

I
I
O

g
:
Q
a
s
FIG. 6. Cross section and polarization for Ca44(d, p)Ca45 calculated for Ed=7.01
MeV, Q
=
3.3 MeV, 1= 1, and R
=
6 F. (a) Butler theory, (b) Coulomb distortion with
cutof, (c) Coulomb and nuclear distortion with cutof, (d) Coulomb and nucler
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
W
4
9
without cutof. Experimental points are normalized to calculations since the magni
tude of cross section is not measured. Optical-model parameters are listed in the
original paper. [From Tobocman (175).]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
210
20
IS
16
14
Ed
12
(AEWl
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
GLENDENNING
.... (+ :...-..
s..
40 80

\
.-...

.
.
.

+...

. :...-.
.

.
.
.

.
.

Pure :...-.
120 160
A
200
FIG. 7. The energy-mass plane is divided into various regions according to what
treatment need be accorded the nuclear and Coulomb distortions. Boundaries are
only roughly defnable and are somewhat Q dependent as discu
s
sed in the text.
incident and outgoing particles by the nuclear feld was frst used for t
h
e
scattering of electrons by Mott & Massey (127)A preliminary investigation
of the role played by distortion in stripping reactions was carried out by
Horowitz & Messiah (95) who replaced the plane-wave function for the
proton with that of a proton scattered by a hard sphere. Tobocman (174,
177) formulated the complete calculation and, in a series, of papers, investi
gated the distortion efects over a wide range of energies and atomic masses
(66, 175, 176, 177).
A formal derivation of the distorted-wave method is given in the Appen
dix. In Section 2.1 we saw that the diferential cross section depends on a
set of amplitudes Br for the capture of a neutron with quantum numbers
(lm) (Eq. 11). These amplitudes are matrix elements containing the wave
functions for the free parti<les. By neglecting their interaction with the nu
cleus, we obtain the plane-wave or Butler theory of Section 2.2. Here we
want to include these efects. In this case the wave fu

ctions ip and id
satisfy Schroedinger equations containing the interaction of these particles
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 211
with the nucleus, and they are therefore distorted from the feld-free plane
wave solutions. Assuming that the interactions are central, the Schroedinger
equation separates in spherical coordinates. Therefore, we expanded the
wave functions ( analogous to Eq. 35).
ta<+) = h L i)!(k,) YI
(R) YI*
(
kd)
N
t,(-)
=
4 L .(k,,') YI(;,)Y1(,)
N
49.
and the radial functions satisfy
d2 1(1 + 1) 2!j zZe.)
--+ + - Vj
(r) + - kjt r/kf) = 0
dr' r
2
I' r
50.
with /j, kj the mass and wave number in the channel j d or p. Here Vi is
the nuclear interaction of particle j with the nucleus while zZe2/r is the
Coulomb interaction. Solutions to this equation are obtained by numerical
integration, but we shall not discuss the execution of this purely technical
problem.
Upon substitution of the above expansion into the expression for Br
CEq. 11), it is at once apparent that the integrations are much more difcult
than in the plane-wave case. In the latter, the fact that Rand are con
tained in the exponentials of the plane waves meant that we could easily
transform to new variables of integration Tn and on which the bound-state
and deuteron wave functions depend, respectively. Here no such easy trans
formation is possible and all published results based on the distorted-wave
treatment of stripping employ the zero-range approximation. Calculations
for a fnite-range force have been reported to be in progress (76). We intro
duce a zero-range force defned by
I"
Vnp(r)4d(r) = (8,.,)11
2
aCT) 51.
2m*
where oCr) is the Dirac delta function and O and m* were defned in Section
2.3. (The wave function Eq. 33 is the corresponding deuteron wave function.)
We are now able to transform the integration in Equation 11 to new co
ordinates Tp' and R on which the distorted waves depend. The volume ele
ment and i function tr ans form t o
52.
th e
53.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
212
where
GLENDENNING
J

,
...
R)/ z)
=
1'
,
r uz(r)!>(kd)r2dr 54.
In the plane-wave treatment, the only efect of the fnite range of the
force was to introduce a monotonically decreasing function of angle G(K)
(Eq. 31). Under the above assumption of a zero-range force, this becomes
simply a constant
G
o = - (81O) 1/2/2m*
55.
The damping of the cross section at l arge angles due to the distribution of
momentum in the deuteron should be present. If this were the only efect
of the fnite range, we could correct our result for Br by multiplying it by
the factor
G(K) K2 +O
2

=
(&
O
)1/
2
P(K) 56.
Undoubtedly there will be other efects on the angular distribution, particu
larly at energies near or below the Coulomb barrier, as discussed near the
end of Section 2. 3. For higher energies we hope that the success of the
distorted-wave calculations in reproducing in detail the experimental angular
distributions means that the fnite-rangc efects are of minor i mportance.
2.5 Distorting potential in stripping reactions.-The optical model has
proved to be a successful way of describing the el astic scattering of light
nuclides from complex nuclei (53, 54, 67). Accordingly, in performing a
distorted-wave calculation, one usual ly adopts the optical. potential as a rep
resentation of the interaction in the entrance and exit channels (Eq. 50) .
Generally one employs the optical-model parameters which best represent
the elastic scattering at the energies relevant to the reactions. Although
elastic scattering data are not always available at the required energies, the
slow variation with energy of the optical model allows one to interpolate.
In this way no new free parameters are introduced, in principle. However,
there are often several sets of optical-model parameters that yield an equally
satisfactory account of any given set of elastic scattering data. The reason
for this is that the elastic scattering determines the phase shifts at infnity
that the scattered waves have experienced. But these are not sufcient to
determine the potential uniquely. On the other hand, the reactions are sensi
tive to the wave functions in the vicinity of the nucleus. This is j ust the
region where wave functions belonging to diferent potentials that have the
same phase shifts will themselves be diferent. Accordingly reactions impose
additional constraints on the optical-model parameters.
Several groups of workers have illustrated the sensitivity of stripping re
actions to potentials which are equivalent in the sense that they yield the
same elastic scattering (5, 85). This can be seen in Fi gure 8.
The role that the various optical-model parameters play in determining
the shape of angular distributions has been investigated by Tobocman &
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Z5
20
M
!:

W
I S


Il
t
t
C
Il

10
Q
b
f
I
f
5
I
I
I
I
I
f
f
0 20
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS
Se
1
6
[
+
. a[Se
77
GROUND STATE
E
+
-1. 8MeV . 0 5. | 9 MeV
I PLANE WAVE
I D.W.B.A., MEASURED PARMETERS
m D. W.BA., BEST FIT
n
I
213

.
e
.....
"^ ==m
40
6
0 80 100 120 140 160 180
ANGLE | e.I DEGREES
FIG. 8. The distorted-wave calculations were obtained with diferent deuteron
optical potentials which give essentially the same elasti c scattering. (II) V = 75.8
MeV, W=16 MeV, fo =1 .48, a=.55 F; ( I I I ) V=65 MeV, W=16 MeV, Yo =1.35 F,
a=.6 F. [From Hindb et al. (85).1
Gibbs ( 176) for the reaction Ca4(d, p) Ca41 at Ed =4. 13 MeV, Q=4. 19 MeV.
In Figure 9 a comparison is made between the three calculations : Butler,
the distorted wave, and the distorted wave with cutof (that is, the radial
integrations are not carried throughout the nuclear volume as in Sec. 2. 3).
I n this calculation we see that the formation of the second maxi mum i s due
pri ncipally to contri butions from the nuclear i nterior. A strong second
maxi mum i s not uncommon at energies below the Coulomb barrier but not
so low as to fall within the pure Coulomb region [see, for example, Pb207 and
Ti48 in (175)]. Since the second peak is caused mainly by contributions from
the nuclear interior, it is very sensitive to changes in the optical potentials,
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
214 GLENDENNING

` !'.tJ .

...
.
%m... M
.: -U, -I I. S" g .. r
, t -1, -" " . .
FIG. 9. Diferential cross section and polarization for Ca'(d, p)Ca41, Ed =4.13
MeV, Q=4. 12 MeV, and 1= 1. Solid curve is distorted-wave calc:ulation, dashed curve
is same except with cutof, and dash-dot curve is the Butler curve. [From Tobocman
& Gibbs (1 76) . ] '
and p ar ti c ul arly to th e i m aginary p art. Th e i m agi n ary p ar t, of co ur se,
govern s th e m agnitud e of th e inter i or con tr i b uti on s i nc e it de term i ne s ho w
m uch of th e fux is absorbed i n to o th er re ac ti on s. Reac
t
i ons in th i s ener gy
re gi o
,
a (s ee Fig. 7) prov i de , therefor e, a me an s of study i n g th e op ti c al - mo del
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 21 5
parameters. The above results should not be construed as invalidating our
earlier arguments for introducing a cutof in the plane-wave calculation to
simulate absorption of the lower partial waves. In the above reaction the
incident momentum is very low kpO.5 Fl. The total number of partial
waves that can contribute is bounded by 2kRN which for this case is about
fve. In the above low energy reaction, only a very few partial waves can
interact with the nucleus ( ::5) ; and i f we use a crude device, the cutof, to
simulate the absorption of the lower ones, it not unexpectedly will yield
poorer results than if many partial waves are involved, which is the case i n
the region of applicability of the Butler theory.
2. 6 Some examples of distorted-wave calculations.-The distorted-wave
method usually gives a satisfactory account of the angular distributions i n
stripping reactions and we shall illustrate this by a few examples drawn
from the considerable number of calculations which have been done.
We have already seen in Figure 3 a comparison of the Butler theory with
the data for the BlO(d, p) B10 ground-state reaction at Ea
=
10 MeV. At this
. energy the agreement is satisfactory; but at higher energies, as shown i n
Figure 10, a considerable adjustment i n stripping radius from R = 5. 2 F to
"
I
I
I
o 20
FIG. 10. Angular distribution of BIO(d, P)Bll at several energies. Compare with
Fig. 3 at lower energy. The curves are from distorted-wave calculations except for the
one marked 'Butler.' Optical-model parameters are given in original paper. [From
ZeidIlanet al. ( 190.)]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
GLENDENNING 216

za,ai
Ed 10.85 MeV
4
2
o 160 180
FIG. 11 . Distorted-wave calculation for Zr90(d, p)Zr91 ; compare with Fig. 4. Optical
model parameters are listed in original paper. [From Smith & !vash (168). ]
3. 5 F has to be made to retain agreement with the principal peak. But now
the second peak of the theory falls at an experimental minimum. The dis
torted-wave calculation, however, i s in very good agreement with the experi
ments (190) . The optical-model parameters for the calculations illustrated
were allowed to vary linearly with the energy in a fashion expected from
experience.
In Figure 4 we saw a comparison of the Butler theory with the
Zr
9
(d, p)Zr
9
1 reaction. A distorted-wave calculation for this reaction by
Smith & Ivash is shown i n Figure 1 1 . These authors have published a
number of calculations in the mass region A59 ( 1 68).
For the heavy elements we show the Pb206 Cd, p) Pb2
0
7 results at an energy
near the Coulomb barrier in Figure 12. Miller et al . have compiled data for
this reaction for incident energies ranging from 8.3 to is MeV, and report
distorted-wave calculations which generally confrm the usefulness of these
experiments at the higher energies ( 124) . At lower energies the Coulomb
force causes the angular distributions to become backward peaked and they
lose their structure (12, 17, 1 14, 1 7 1) . This is illustrated in Figure 13 by
Erskine et al. (SO) whose experiments we shall discuss i n Section 2.7.
2. 7 Nuclear structure and spectroscopic factor.-Because stripping reac
tions like all direct processes are characterized by the fact that only several
nucleons are actively involved in the reaction, overlap i ntegrals involving
the passive nucleons must always enter in the expression for the cross section.
Such an overlap measures the degree to which the passive nucleons occupy
the same confguration in the initial and fnal states. This overlap for
stripping, called the spectroscopic factor ( 1 17), i s denoted by S and was
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 217
introduced in Section 2. 2.
S
'I2(l) =
(A + 1
) ^'|i1fJ,iIlJ'd(A + 1) 57.
Here . is a wave function constructed by the vector coupling to spin J, of
a particle in the state lj to the target wave function of spin J,.
If the radial cutof approximation is made, a second factor, the single
particle reduced width
58.
also appears as a multiplying factor. We recall that in the cutof approxi
mation, the radial function of the bound neutron, MJ. is required only at the
one point R, where it normalizes the Hankel function to which it is propor
tional outside the nucleus. The cross section, i n this approximation, is pro
portional to the reduced width
A
W

e
3

*
b.
'
I'P ,---
-.
-.
0'2
01
0'08
0'06
a--
0
-

-
.
( d
ai
>-
--
Q= 4'51 MeV
Ex ' 0
PI1Z Ln * I
Ed = 1 4'0 MeV
59.
:-:
-
a
8 ( OeQrees)
FIG. 12. AOgular distribution for Pb0(d, p)pb,07 reaction for Ed = 14 MeV,
Q=4. 51 MeV. Solid curve is distorted-wave calculation for 1 =1 . (From Miller et al.
(124). ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
218
c
.2
1.0
o
GLENDENNING
ANGULAR DISTRI BUTIO
8i
2
0 (d, p)
Bi
2
10
REACTION
Ed S.OMeV
Q
* - 0.203 MeV, . : 0
6 Q 0. 397 MeV, ' " 2
Q :
1 . 936 MeV, .= 4
/
180
FIG. 13. Angular distribution for Bi209(d, p)B210 reaction at Et
=
8 MeV. The
Coulomb barrier is about 15 MeV; consequently it is the dominating distorting
interaction. Under such circumstances the angular distribution is backward peaked.
Solid cures are distorted-wave calculations. [From Erskine et al. (50). ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 21 9
which i s related to the width of Lane & Thomas ( 1 12) through
3
h'
.2 . m 8
2
2 MR'
6.
In the noncutof theory of stripping, the single-particle reduced width
does not appear, of course, because the wave function W| is required at all
points, not j ust those exterior to R. Therefore the non cutof theory, insofar
as the i nterior region is actually important, is capable of yielding more de
tailed information than (0
2
contains. As we have already implied in our dis
cussion at the end of Section 2, the interior region may be more or less im
portant depending on where in the energymass plane of Figure 7 the experi
ment is done. Tobocman has ill ustrated how the angular distribution can be
infuenced by the shape of the wave function for the neutron under favorable
circumstances [Fig. 13 of ( 1 75)] .
The analysis of reduced widths falls into two parts. First, empirical
values of the widths are determined by computing the other factors in the
cross section and adj usting the factor S as required to obtain agreement with
experiment. The frst systematic attempt to measure spectroscopic factors
was performed by Holt & Marsham (8 8-92) ; see also (2 5, 1 17). The second
part of the analysis consists in attempting to interpret the signifcance of
the spectroscopic factors for the nuclear wave functions. This may be done
by computing them on the basis of a nuclear model and comparing the
answers with the empirical results ( 6 , 41, 61, 117, 1 18, 144).
The extraction of reduced widths from experiments can be efected
through use of either the Butler or distorted-wave theory. Until the recent
accessibility of electronic computers, the Butler theory was used almost ex
clusively ( 1 17). It is appealing because of its simplicity. However, it is in
adequate in several ways as has already been discussed elsewhere ( 1 17). First,
it is limited to the l ight and intermediate elements at the energies currently
available. Second, the Butler theory overestimates the cross section, some
times by an order of magnitude, and therefore underestimates the reduced
width (2 (9 4, 1 72). Figure 14 illustrates this point. Third, because of the ap
proximations made to obtain a simple result, the cross section does not
possess the correct dependence on energy, nuclear charge, and Q value;
therefore corresponding artifcial dependences are introduced into the widths.
Accordingly, when one extracts the widths via the Butler theory one aban
dons the interpretation of 002 as a single-particle reduced width. Instead it
is to be determined from experiment as a function of various parameters in
cluding its proper dependence on the single-particle quantum numbers, etc.,
and its artifcial dependence on bombarding energy, etc. [See ( 1 1 7; Sec. 111-2)
or ( 7 7). ] By its artifcial dependences it is supposed to compensate for the
shortcomings of the theory. Having once established the relevant 002, possi bly
by extrapolation from neighboring nuclei, one can then deduce the spectro
scopic factor S. Aside from the loss of information (the actual value of (02),
the philosophy is good. Indeed, as has been emphasized by Cohen (4 1, 124)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
220
4
z
GLENDENNING
/`
/ '
i \
0
'6
, .. , ) 0
"
L" 2
E -I MeV
i \
i
,(N DISOTIO
;
CuTOFF & F
|
.

|
.
.
\
|
.
|
\
jNUEA \
\ DISTORTION
tC
M8 DI STOTIN
OY
|
' .... . OLY .,-
/
f I \x/
-'
, / \ --

/
.
, I \
\
j / / \
COULOMB AND
, /
\NUCEAR DISTORTIS
/1
`
* d
-----
-.
---
,
1 . 16 1 8
CNTR-O;MASS ANGL : DGREES
FIG. 14. Calculations for OUCd, P)017, illustrating reduction of cross section by
the distortion efects. In this case the Coulomb and nuclear distortions together
retrieve the Butler shape but with a magnitude reduced by 5.
[
From Buck & Hodgsen,
(29). ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 221
from thc point of view of spectroscopy, i f one knew the diferential cross
section corresponding to all relevant angular momenta transfers as a function
of bombarding energy, Q, Z, etc., one would not need a theory by which to
calculate the amplitudes Br. Their squares would be experimentally avail
able. So much data is not, however, available except in isolated regions.
Now that high speed computers have become available to a greater
number of researchers, undoubtedly the extraction of spectroscopic factors
will be efected ever increasingly through use of distorted-wave calculations.
Even here there remain ambiguities, especially concerning the absolute values
of the spectroscopic factors. The obvious sources of uncertainty are as follows :
(U) The optical-model parameters characterizing the distortion are not
always unique. The stripping reaction may then serve to discriminate be
tween several sets of parameters that ft the elastic scattering equally as well
(recall Sec. 2. 5). If, however, the stripping cross section is not measured to
high precision, this discrimination may be not possible. The cross sections
calculated with the several sets of parameters may difer by a factor of two
or so (103) with a corresponding uncertainty in S.
(b) The wave functions W[ for the captured neutron are not known. This
together with S is an object of i nterest in the analysis. Even if the shell model
of the nucleus can be used to suggest which orbit is in question, uncertainty
in the wave function remains; what is the shape of the nuclear feld and its
radius, for example?
(c) Use of the zero-range force approximation underestimates the cross
section (expecially at energies much below the Coulomb barrier) . One can
estimate the efect on the distorted-wave calculation by noting that for plane
waves the cross section would be underestimated by (see Sec. 2. 3) :
"ma[t + (K/7a)2]2
which at the main peak is typically a 20-30 percent correction. If the pre
scription suggested in Section 2. 4 for approximating the correction duc to
fnite-range force has been applied, this efect is already accounted for.
However, at energies much below the Coulomb barrier such approximate
ways of simulating fnite-range efects probably are poor.
Scott has reported the extraction of reduced widths in the nickel isotopes
by use of the distorted-wave method (164) . In Table II we show his results.
For the Butler analysis, (2J,+1)0
2
is shown, which has to be divided by the
appropriate value of the single-particle width 00' before a comparison can be
made with the distorted-wave evaluation of (2J, + l)S. The relative values are
roughly comparable, although here again variation of ( with radius R
should be taken into account before the comparison can be taken seriously.
The absolute values of (21/ + l)S are subject to the uncertainties discussed
above. For example, Cohen reports values of the spectroscopic factor which
difer by almost a factor of two from Scott's, presumably because diferent
optical-model parameters and possibly radial functions M], were used (43).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
222
Final
nucleus
Ni
6
9
Ni
0I
N
i
6
9
N
iBI
N
i69
Ni
8I
Na
2
4
GLENDENNING
TABLE II
EXTRACTION OF REDUCED WIDTHS IN NICKEL ISOTOPES
WITH DISTORTED-WAVE METHOD"
Butler Distorted-wave
Excittion
Q
l (2J,+1)0 (2J, +l)S
(MeV) (MeV)
R
Absolute Relative Absolute Relative
.0 6 . 779 1 6 . 4 .035 100 1 . 61 100
. 466 6. 313 1 6. 4 o 019 54 ' .79 49
.888 5 .899 1 6. 4 . 0039 1 1 . 20 1 2
. 0 5 . 598 1 5 . 7 .024 69 1 . 1 1 69
. 284 5 . 314 1 5 . 1 . 019 54 .82 51
1.104
1 . 137 4 . 45 1 4 . 8 . 0073 21 . 31 19
1 . 190

.-
5 . 69 1 . 09 0 4 . 0 .0077 100 . 1 8 100
t
3 .07 2 .53 0 5 . 1 . 0022 29 .052 28
4. 91 . 69 0 3 .75 .0086 112 .25 133
.
.341 6. 438 3 6. 4 .023 100 2 . 64 100
.068 5. 530 3 5 .7 . 037 161 2 . 87 109
. 0 4.731 2 5 . 2 100

100
.472 4. 259 2 5 . 2 51 . 5 57
" See Scott (165).
The i nterpretation of the spectroscopic factors in terms' of nuclear struc
ture has been discussed by a number of authors on the basis of the several
models of the nucleus : the shelI model (9, 20, 21 , 41, 42, 48, 6a, 61, 1 10, 1 1 1, 1 17,
1 18, 136, 137, 144, 146, 153), the rotational model ( 1 16, 154, 155, 161, 186) ,
and the vibrational model (187). In particular, the work of Macfarlane &
French ( 1 1 7) and of Lane ( 1 1 1) contains large sections devoted to the cal
culation of reduced widths from specifc-model wave functions. In general
such calculations involve recoupling of angular momenta and fractional
parentage expansions and consequently are exercises in the techniques of
Racah (46, 142, 143, 150). We shall be brief in our discussion since the sub
ject has already been treated extensively.
We have chosen to discuss nuclear wave functions on the basis of j-j
coupling but as already mentioned our results are general, being related to
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 223
other coupling schemes by a unitary transformation. The spectroscopic
factor for stripping into the j orbit is, according to Equation 24,
S(
jl) = (A + 1) (P X
j I mal = n(P X j I D)
2
61 .
where we have introduced a more schematic notation. Here A+1 denotes
the number of nucleons in the heavier nucleus, D) denotes the wave func
tion of the daughter nucleus (fnal nucleus i n d, p) while P Xj) is its parent,
being formed by vector coupling the lighter nucleus (target for d, p) to the
extra nucleon i n the j orbit to give the spin of D. The subscript denotes
that P) and D) are antisymmetrized wave functions for A and A + 1
nucleons, respectively. The extra nucleon j is not i ncluded in this anti
symmetrization, account of this neglect being taken by the factor (A + 1) as
concerns the simple direct strippi ng (see Sec. 2. 2). The second overlap inte
gral i n Equation 61 is to be computed with wave functions that are anti
symmetrized only with respect to nucleons in the same shells. The two over
lap integrals are connected by the factor (n;/(A + 1))1/2 where nj is the num
ber of nucleons of the heavier nucleus which occupy the j shell (61, 1 1 7) .
Obviously i t i s more convenient t o work with the second overlap. In case
the isotopic spin formalism is not used, A and n
j
refer to the number of
particles of the type that is stripped.
We take from the literature ( 21, 1 17) the following example for which
the spectroscopic factor can be deduced from inspection of the wave function.
The reaction i s 0'7(d, p)0'8from the 5/2 +ground state to the 2 + excited state
at 1.98 MeV. The Butler theory was used to analyze the experiment, and
it was concluded that the transition i nvolved two fs, namely, 1 =0 and 2,
and the ratio of the reduced widths was deduced as 82(2)/82(0)"4.4. I n the
region of oxygen the Id5/2 and 2S1/2 levels lie close to each other. The authors
postulated that the wave function for 018 is
i
0
18) " a
I (<6/22)2) + b I (<6/2S1l2)2)
while that for 017 is simply d6/2). The spectroscopic factors are:
therefore
S(2) 2(0'7 X d6/
2
1 0'8)2 2a2
S(O) = (0'7 X S1I
2
1 0'8) = b'
82(2)
=
2a2 802(2)
82(0)
b2 802(0)
Macfarlane & French ( 1 1 7) estimate that
2 < 802(0) < 3
- 802(2) -
which yields for the wave function
0.43 l|
]
0.36, 0.89 :: I a l ::0.93
As another example, consider a simple situation: beyond the closed shells
of the nucleus P, n neutrons occupy the state j and have total angular mo-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
224 GLENDENNING
mentum Jp. A nucleon is stripped (or picked up) from the same shell, the
daughter nucleus being in the confguration (j
n
+l)J T. Then
S(lj)
= .1)
j
n)'J X j I (jn+!)aJ D)'
62
.
where O denotes any additional quantum numbers that may be required
to form a complete set (for example, the seniority) . To evaluate the integral,
we introduce the fractional parentage expansion
I (r
+
!)aJD) = L j
n
)c"J, jj JD I I (r+!)aJD) I (
n
)c"J X j)
63 .
J
where . | : are fractional parentage coefcients which have the ortho
normality property
L
r)c'J, j; JD I I (jn+!)aJD)! 1
6.
='J
Then we obtain at once
S(jl) = (n +
..
jn)c'J
,
jj J D I |(jn+!)aJ D)'
65.
I n the case of pickup reactions, JD is the target and we obtain a sum rule
for the fnal states
L S(l n + . 66.
o'J
This provides a check on the empirical reduced widths. The application of
many types of sum rules to stripping reactions may be found in the review
of Macfarlane & French ( 1 17).
For the states of lowest seniority (even particles coupled to zero) , an
explicit formula exists for the fractional parentage coefcients ( 165)
.
n
.
n+
!
.
.1 n
, .
J )O,}iJ I } (J )J) =
.1
)(
2j ..
. even
j
n)j
,
j
, I
I (
j
n
+l
)O)
1,
.
=
odd
which yield at once
S (
..
. . .... ..
j n +n =
..
. C\CO
.= odd
67.
68.
If one takes into account the residual interaction between nucleons in the
shell model, there will always be some confguration mixing in the wave
functions. If one adopts the pairing force as an approximation to this re
sidual interaction ( 13, 108) , one can also obtain simple expressions for S which
for even targets is proportional to the probability that the level j is unoccu
pied in the target, and for odd targets, that it is occupied in the fnal nucleus
.. 187).
As a fnal example of the calculation of spectroscopic factors which in
volves the use of the Racah techniques, consider the C)35(d, p) C)36 ground
state transition analyzed by Okai & Sano ... For the target wave
function they postulate
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS
' ClM: 3/2 +) = l ?dm, "[(S1l2
2
)0, (da/2
2
)0]0: 3/2)
2
+ L MJ l ?dw
,
"[S1I2, (d3/23)3/Z]J; 3/Z)
JI
and for the residual nucleus
I ClM; 2+) l 'd'/2, "[(S1l.
2
)0, (d3i23)3/2]3/2; 2)
225
where T and P indicate proton and neutron confgurations, respectively, and
the vector coupling notation used for the wave functions is obvious. The
observed diferential cross section, Figure 15, when analyzed with the Butler
theory, requires an admixture of l = 0 and 2 contributions. The residual state
is reached by l =2 stripping from the frst term in the Cpo wave function and
by l =O from the second. We now derive the expression for the S connecting
the two states :
I P)

I Jp', [(j,
n
,)h', (N,-')Jz']J
n
' ; Ip)
I D)
=
I Ip, [U,
n
,)l1 (j,
n
,)l.]ln; ID)
69.
Applying the fractional parentage expansion to (j.n) and using twice the
recoupling coefcient
Ca, (be)B, J
I
(ab)A, e
; J) U(abJc; AB)
= 2
A
+ 1) (2B + l '/'W(abJc; AB)
where Wis a Racah coeficient (142, 143), we fnd
I D)
=
L N
z
-')J.", h; J2 1 I CN,)Jz) U(J,J
z
"Jnh; IJ2) U(JpIDh; KJn)
J IK
I {Ip,
[
(N
,
)] (j2
n
,-I)U'jIIK, j2; ID)
The wave functions on the right are in the form P' Xi.) which is what we
sought because the overlap 'can now be calculated immediately:
Thus we fnd
(P X j. , D) aJpJp,aJ,J
,
' N-)J.', j
2; J2 1 1 (ib)J.)
U(J,Jz'J
n
j.; In'J2) U(JpJ
n
'Ij2; Ipn) 70.
Sed) = 3d3l2
2
)0, d3l2; 3/2 1 I cd3l2')3/2)
2
U
2
(00 3/Z 3/2; 0 3/2) U
2
(0 3/2 3/2 2; 3/2 3/2)
= 1/2
and
S(s) = 2 OJ( -)JU(1/2 3/2 1/2 3/2; JO) U(J3/2 1/2 2; 3/2 3/2)|
1 &
- (v
3
O1 - 0.) 2
5
The authors estimate Oj and O9 by perturbation theory to be O = 0. 061
and a. =0. 389, using an energy di ference sl/. -da/. =0.841 MeV to obtain
S(s) = 0. 016.
To estimate the single-particle reduced widths Oo'(s) , 0
0
' (d) , the authors
use a square well ( 1 36) . Thus the reduced widths 0
2
(S) , 0
2
(d) are calculated
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
226 GLENDENNING
" 20
' S
:
>
til-O)-Hi" ~zi
w
el
&

. -
.

15 C
"
C
0
. -

1,-2
M

10
C
. -
C
"
B

I\
,
\-
//-0
/
..
20 40 60
80
FIG. 15. Angular dhitributions for CI3(d, P)Cl"i, Ed =6. 9 MeV, Q=6.3 MeV.
Butler curve is a combination of 1 =0 and 2 with very small amplitude for 1 =0.
Radius is R=5.5 F. [From Okai & Sano (136) . ]
and can be inserted :lnto Equation .sto obtain the solid curve shown i n
Figure 15. We see here an example of how a very small spectroscopic factor
for the state can nonetheless be detected in the presence of the d state
because of the larger .intiinsic probability (measured by Br) of the former.
The interpretation given above for the CI35(d, p) C136 r:.eaction is not the
only one possible. An alternative one has been suggested (121) based on the
possibility that CIM if: a spheroidal nucleus. In this case the single-particle
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 227
wave function has several values of particle angular momentum mixed into
it, there being a sharing of the total angular momentum between the particle
motion and the rotational motion of the nucleus (134). The cross section for
stripping into such states therefore has contributions from the several l' s that
are mixed (154, 155, 161, 186).
We conclude this section with a discussion of the Bi209(d, p)B20 reaction
and its interpretation. In the most recent, high resolution experiments, some
40 levels were observed in Bi210 up to an excitation of 3. 2 MeV (50). Early
low resolution experiments exhibited four groups of particles which were
interpreted as stripping of the neutron into the g9/2, d
6/2, g7/2, and d3/2 orbits
(80). Better resolution experiments identifed two additional groups attrib
uted to iU/2 and S1/2 capture (87). Within each group there are many levels
arising out of the diferent spin states of the nucleus that can be formed
by the odd proton in the k9/2 level and the stripped neutron. The spectro
scopic factor is unity for all levels, and the amplitude B,m is the same for all
members of a given group aside from the diferent proton energies. Since
the width of each group is typically .5 MeV and the bombarding energy i s
10 MeV, the variation in proton energy across a group is not expected to
afect Br. Hence each level in a group should be excited with an intensity
proportional to 2J,+1 according to Equation 22. The shapes of the groups
in the lower resolution experiments were i nterpreted on this basis (87), and
results consistent with shell-model calculations (130) were obtained. The
results of the high resolution experiments are shown in Figure 16. The group
at lowest excitation contains ten levels (the level labeled 5 has such a width
as to indicate that it contains two). They are attributed to neutron capture
into the g9/2 level in agreement with the shell-model sequence of single
particle states (47). The resulting proton-neutron confguration k9/2g9/2 i s
split into ten levels with spins from zero to nine. The spin assignments are
made according to the relative intensities of the levels and the latter are
compared with (2J, +1) in Table I I I . The agreement is excellent.
The intensities of the various groups vary considerably. The two levels
at Q",-0. 2 MeV which are attributed to S1/2 capture are the strongest in
the spectrum. The group at Q+1. 1 MeV, most of whose levels are attrib
uted to
ill
/2 capture, are the weakest. (Note that the lines in the right half
of Figure 16 are multiplied by 10. ) This dependence on the orbital angular
momentum is. of course. expected. The incident energy. 10 MeV, is far below
the Coulomb barrier of 15 MeV.
-
The classical trajectories under these cir
cumstances do not approach the nucleus sufciently closely for the neutron
to be captured, except for small i mpact parameters, and for these the de
fection is very large. For large scattering angles the linear momentum trans
fer is large. kp+k1. 5 Fl ; but because the impact parameter is small.
small angular momentum transfer is highly favored. The angular distribu
tions for three values
'
of 1 are hown in Figure 13. The characteristic dif
fraction-like pattern which allows an identifcation of the angular momentum
for bombarding energies above the "pure Coulomb" region (see Fig. 7) is
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
20

G
W
i
:O
.
8
m
O
j
e
-W
!IOO
.8

5
C

w
8
o
2
26
'
3
31
3
4 3
3
2
29
ENERGY LEVELS IN Bi
2
10 FROM
THE Bi
2
0 (d, p) Bi
2
10 REACTION
Ed " S.OMeV e - 172.5
5
18,1
2
8
7
20
22
6
N
2
5
24
2
1
17
3
10
0
.ID -Q 0 '.05 .1.00 1.5 '.20 '.z
o Value (MeV
3' is
- + 2'
-
1.5
1.0 05 b
Extitction Eeqy ( MeV
F
IG. 16. Proton groups corresponding to levels in Bi210. Absolute diferential cross sections measured at 1 72.5
d
e and
S.O-MeV
bombarding energy are indicated by height of lines. [From Erskine et al. (50). ]

Z
t:
t
Z
Z
Z
Q
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Level
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS
TABLE III
SPINS OF B
2
10 LEVELS OF h9/. gO/
2
CONFIGURATION
[After Erskine, Buechner & Enge (50)]
Excitation Spin
229
Experimental
energy (MeV)
J
I
2J,+1
relative intensity
0 1 3 2 . 7 0 . 3
0. 047 0 1 0 . 7 0. 2
0 . 268 9 19 18 . 3 0. 6
0 . 320 2 5 4. 3 0. 3
0. 347 3 7 7 . 1 0. 4
0 . 433 5+8 28 28 . 4 0 . 8
0 . 501 4 9 10 . 00. 5
0 . 547 6 13 1 3. 4 0. 5
0 . 581 7 15 15 . 2 0 . 6
Refers to diferential cross section at 172. 5 deg and 8.0-MeV bombarding energy.
here absent because of the dominating importance of the Coulomb barrier.
In addition to the variation of intensity with 1, discussed above, the difer
ential cross section also shows a weak angular dependence on 1: Erskine et al.
were able to show that the width of the backward peak varies with 1, and in
a way that can be reproduced by the distorted-wave calculations (SO) .
2.8 Polarization and angular correlation.-In earlier sections we saw that
the angular distribution is characterized by the orbital angular momentum
transfers 1 (which act incoherently when more than one contributes) but does
not depend on which of the spin-orbit states j =1 ! is involved. The addi
tional information is desirable. To obtain it, the angular correlation between
the outgoing proton in Cd, p) and the de-excitation ' ray was suggested by
several authors shortly after the appearance of Butler's papers (16, 63, 158).
Newns ( 131) suggested measuring the polarization of outgoing protons for
the same reason, and gave a simple qualitative picture by which its origin
can be understood. The polarization has subsequently been calculated by a
number of authors (39, 70, 71 , 86, 96, 101, 147, 148, 160, 175, 181, 1 84) and
there exist several reviews of the subject (19, 72) .
We shall briefy recall the classical picture of Newns, pointing out frst
that it assumes the absence of any spin-dependent interaction in either the
incident or outgoing channels. In this case the possibility of polarization of
the proton spin is due to the fact that it is correlated in the deuteron with
the neutron spin through sp+S, =Sd and through the neutron spin it is cor
related to the neutron orbital angular momentum 1 because of the spin-orbit
interaction. In the limit of j-j coupling, the single-particle states are char
acterized by j=l +s". We shall assume that the neutron is captured into a
specifc state j=l+! CI I -i. Then any mechanism which tends to prefer
a particular orientation of l with respect to the scattering plane will cause
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
230 GLENDENNING
the outgoing protons to be polarized, while no polarization is possible if 1 =0.
Referring to Figure 1 7 where q =ka -kp is the linear momentum carried by
the neutron, we note that the orbital angular momentum l = r Xq of the
neutron is oppositely directed in the two regions I and II.' Thus if more of
the protons which reach the counting apparatus have come from one region
than the other, they wiII be polarized. The sign of the polarization i s deter
mined by which spin-orbit state j=l ! is populated in the reaction, and
which region contributes the greatest number of protons. If; for example, the
protons are strongly absorbed as they traverse the nuclear interior, then the
fux of protons reaching the counting apparatus that were liberated in
stripping events in region I will be smaller than the fux ,coming from II.
The neutrons stripped in II have their orbital momentum directed into the
plane of the fgure and Bince Sd = 1, then the sign of the polarization is given by
1 +, j = l - l
.
p =
.
1 (strong proton absorption)
'-
,
J = 1 +
l ,
where we take kd X kp as the direction of positive polarization. If the
deuteron absorption is strongest, the opposite conclusion is reached. Classi
cally the proton and deuteron absorption are additive in th.eir efects on the
polarization. Quantummechanically this is not generally true, but can under
appropriate circumstances be approximately correct as we shall see later
(133). Moreover, the polarization may change sign as a function of scattering
angle, though the quantum-mechanical calculations confrm the results of
the classical argument iin the vicinity of the stripping peak (133) .
FIG. 17. Schematic di.,gram for classical polarization argument showing nucleus
divided into two regions by a line passing through the center and parallel to q.
Consequently, the stripped neutron whose momentum is q has angular momentum
oppositely oriented in I and II
.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 231
Once the relative importance of deuteron and proton distortion is estab
lished, the above model of Newns shows that a measurement of the sign of
polarization near the stripping peak measures the spin-orbit state j into
which the neutron has been captured, provided that only one such state is
involved, and that the orbital angular momentum I has been determined,
say, from the angular distribution. The experimental results (81) indicate
that usually the sign of polarization is positive or negative according to
whether j 1 t. This corresponds to the dominance of the deuteron distor
tion. Indeed, Satchler has shown that the optical potential well depth is
about twice as efective for the deuteron as for the proton in producing
polarization, and that if V2 Vd and kp =kd (where the V's are the distort
ing potentials) , they cancel each other : the polarization is zero (19, 135, 157) .
The magnitude of the polarization caused by such a mechanism as de
scribed above must be less than 33 percent (96, 131). Indeed we can carry
further the semiclassical treatment, deriving this limit, and showing the
efect of a mixture of the spin-orbit douhlets in the fnal wave function. From
the vector model of angular momentum we fnd that if j 1 +Sn and I has the
projection (ml) on the Z axis, then the average projection of is
(
) _ (

/(/+ 1) + s W (S, + 1) j(
j + 1)
s" m, .
t/(/+ 1)
71 .
Similarly, i f Sd +p and + has the projection () , then the average
projection of q is :
(
)
(
)
s"(s, +
1) + s"(s, + 1) - Sd(Sd + 1)
Sp - Sn
ts.(:.+ 1)
72 .
Combining these two equations we have for the polarization of the proton
p =
1 (ml)
,
/+ 1
1 (
m,)
-
3 I
j " 1 + 1/2
73.
j = / - 1/2
I n case (m/) =1 this gives us the limit
"

l. If both spin-orbit partners

contribute to the reaction with amplitudes i+ and i-, respectively, then
.5 f
+
' f-' t
(
m,)
P(O) =
/ + 1 /f
+
' + f-'
74.
a formula obtained quantum-mechanically by Horowitz & Messiah (96). The
quantum-mechanical value for the average Z projection of 1 is
75.
since we have already learned that Br' is the amplitude for stripping of a
neutron with the state 1m, (see Sec. 2. 1). We note the important point that,
whereas the diferential cross section is proportional to (+2+._2) ,. S( =1+t)
+S(=l -t) and yields us the sum (d. Eq. 23), a measurement of the polari-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
232 GLENDENNING
zation yields us a second combination from which we can obtain the indi
vidual factors S( +: S( -) .
I n practice, because of the large spin-orbit splittings, only one member
of each spin-orbit doublet will contribute to a given stripping reaction.
Nevertheless, the polarization always gives us a diferent combination of
spectroscopic factors from that given by the diferential cross section when
ever more than one sp:in-orbit state is involved. We indicate briefy how the
polarization is obtained from our previous results. The expression obtained
for T(d.p) corresponds to the transition JiMifrJ/M/fp. The probability
that the proton will ha.ve spin fp is therefore proportional to
2:() = L I T(d.p)(M'Jd M) I I
76.
M,M
,
l
d
and hence the polariza.tion is given by
P = (2(+) - 2(- /(2(+) +
2(- 77.
By employing the explicit expressions for Clebsch-Gordan coefcients having
t as one of the angular momenta, the expression for P can be reduced to
the simple form (96)
L (2
j + I)-Ie ) i-ll12S(l) |L m I Bl
m
I ')
2 Jl m
P(O) =
"
L S(l) I Bl
m
I I
78.
Im
from which Equation 74 follows immediately as a special case. Thus whereas
the cross section depends on _,SUl), the polarization depends on
_,.:;+i :.) H-l/2SUl) . We note, however, that Equation 78 holds only
in the absence of spin-dependent interactions in the distorting potentials.
In this situation the polarization is zero for 1 =0. If spin-dependent inter
actions are present, the expression for rbecomes
where
T(d.p) (Mi/>d -Mp) = E (J;M;, jm;I J,M,
)
jlmjm,m
.
Po
p
'P
d
'
(lml, 1/2m.Jjmi) (1/2Jp', 1/2m.I IJi)
79.
y(21 + l)fjJhmtPIP
'
II
d
' (k, k)
Blmr-'I' (kl, k
p
) _(4r)3/2(87a) 1I2 f'*
E
i"-" -IY.,/(kp) y>o
(
ka
)
2m
\
[(2X' + 1)/(2X + l)]I
/2
E (X'J', !Jpl J'M/)
JM.mJ
'
M
J'
m'
(A'm', lJ/ I J'M/) (X'm', lmz l Xm) (X
'
O, 10 I XO) (XJ, IJd l JMJ) (Xm, IJ' 1 JMJ)

|
Mlk
p
) . !W'
MF
r 1lI(r)!M (ka) r'dr
80.
Here j"J are the solutions to the radial Schroedinger equation which now
contains a spin-dependent optical potential. No reduction of the polarization
in this case to a simple form such as Equation 78 has been found.
The Butler theory, because it embraces no mechanism that favors one
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
0
1 0
1 0
, 0
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 233
orientation of angular momentum over another, predicts zero polarization.
(One can see that the Butler theory gives zero polarization because
I Brl = I B
l-ml in this theory.) The polarization is caused in fact by the
distortion and therefore, in addition to its spectroscopic interest, is a sensitive
probe of the optical-model parameters causing the distortion. Several investi
gations of this sensitivity have been published (133, 1 75, 181) and some ex
amples can be seen in Figure 6.
It has been discovered experimentally that the polarization in several
reactions is much larger than the limit of 33 percent derived earlier (2, 3, 24,
82, 105). For the C12(d, p) C13 reaction, we show in Figure 18 a summary of
polarization data compiled by Goldfarb (72) . In this reaction, polarizations
as large as 60 percent are observed. Indeed, polarization corresponding to
stripping of the neutron into an 1 =0 orbit has been reported for several
nuclei (81, 104), an example of which is shown in Figure 19. Both these ob-
I
I
I
iiJ;
60 1 100 120
o .<
0
8cII
0 . 05 MeY
6 '
I 7 ' 1
0 8 '

10' 0
H
6 t 1
II
I I ' II
15 0
II
FIG. 18. Protons polarization for C1(d, p)Cla measured at several bombarding
energies. Note values in excess of 33% limit. [Compiled by Goldfarb (72). ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
234 GLENDENNING
20
1 6
-.4
1 2

N
M
..
.
E
8

' '
4
'e..
FIG. 19. Polarization and angular distribution for Si27(d, p)Si28, Ed-IS MeV.
This is an 1 =0 transitil)fi for which polariztion can occur only if spin-dependent
distortion afects either or both the proton and deuteron. Note that polarization
changes sign near minima of angular disttibutions. [From Isoya & Marrone (104). ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 235
servations require an additional polarizing mechanism besides the orbital
angular momentum alignment, and they have been explained in terms of
spin-orbit terms in the optical model (70, 147, 148) . Such an interaction is
well known from the optical-model analysis of elastic sctattering of nucleons
or deuterons, where its presence is required to provide the observed polari
zations (23, 122). Although it is a small term and does not much afect the
diferential cross section, it can give rise to the large polarizations observed.
A qualitative picture of the polarization in the presence of a spin-orbit
interaction in the optical potential has been given by Butler (35) .
Some attempts have been made to fnd relationships between the angular
distribution and polarization such as those that exist in the elastic scattering
of nucleons from nuclei (149) . For the reactions in which l =O, a derivative
rule has been suggested such thatP(O) djdO(da/dO) (19, 107) . The experi
mental results for Si28 (d, p)Si29 shown in Figure 19 do not confrm the rule
except at the minima of the angular distribution ( 104) . Such a change in sign
of the polarization near the minima of the angular distribution has been
predicted for all stripping reactions, not j ust those for which 1 =0, and indeed
it appears sometimes in the calculations ( 133) while sometimes it does not
(175) . Evidently any connection of this type is rather sensitive to the various
conditions of the reaction. The most likely circumstance for its existence is
that in which the angular distribution has a well-developed Butler-like pat
tern. For this situation we may imagine the amplitude for the reaction
divided into two types of terms. The frst is proportional to the Butler
amplitude. If it alone were present, no polarization would exist, as already
pointed out. The other terms are those arising from distortion efects. If the
angular distribution has a Butler-like pattern, evidently these efects are
small. Such a division is particularly appropriate if, by virtue of strong ab
sorption in the interior, the reaction is concentrated i n the surface region.
The polarization now contains two types of terms, the cross terms between
Butler and each of the distortion terms, and the square of the distortion
terms. In the present circumstance, the latter are small compared to the
former. Since the Butler amplitude changes sign at the minima of the angular
distribution, which are zeros in the Butler theory, the polarization also
changes sign. However, since in the amplitude we can write the non-Butler
part as a sum of parts arising from the various distortion efects, that is, the
proton absorption and deuteron absorption, and spin-orbit distortion, each
of these appears additively in the interference term of the polarization. This
has already been remarked upon by Newns ( 133). (In addition there are
terms in the amplitude whose presence cannot be attributed to only one dis
tortion efect.)
Satchler has pointed out that i nformation equivalent to that obtained in
observing the polarization of outgoing protons from an unpolarized deuteron
beam can be obtained by observing the left-right asymmetry in the angular
distribution of protons when a polarized deuteron beam is used (156) . If all
spin dependence in the distorting potentials is neglected, the following
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
236 GLENDENNING
relation holds
81 .
where (du/dQ)unpol is the angular distribution obtained when un polarized
deuterons are used, E.nd (du/dO)pol is the angular distribution when the
deuteron vector polarization is Pd. Since the proton polarization is perpendic
ular to the reaction plane, the maximum asymmetry is obtained when the
deuteron polarization is perpendicular to the same plane. Whereas the proton
polarization (because of the poor alignment provided by the small spin of the
deuteron) cannot exceed 33 percent, we see that here a 100 percent efect is
possible. The above simple connection becomes complicated, however, if
spin-dependent interactions are present in the entrance or exit channels. It
becomes dependent LI1 the tensor polarization of the deuteron as well as on
the kinematics of the reaction (70, 148) . Thirion, Beurtey and collaborators
have commenced experiments with tensor-polarized deuterons at Saclay.
We discuss now very briefy the angular correlation between the out
going proton, and the de-excitation " ray that may follow if the stripping
process has left the residual nucleus in a excited state. The correlation func
tion in the plane-wave approximation is ( 16, 63, 97, 158)
W(k., kp, ky) = L [(21 + 1) (21' + 1) ] 112PilPJ' I'BzBl'"
lil'i'
L CLCL' L 'x(jj'J,J)(LL'JjJ)Px(cos 0)
1J' x
82 .
Here 8 is the angle between the proton and "-ray direction and Bz is defned
by
8.
and Equation 41, CL are the amplitudes for the Lth pole radiation, fA and 1A
are geometric parameters for the ' and neutron radiations which are defned
and tabulated elsewhere (18, 152). The sum on A is over even values satisfying
o h l + l', j + j', L + L', 2J 8.
In general the correlation function depends on stilI another combination
of the overlaps parameters {il and so may give information on the coupling
scheme additional to what can be obtained from the diferential cross section
and pLlHriZation.
The correlation in the plane-wave approximation is predicted to have cer
tain symmetries with respect to the recoil direction q. There is a7ial sym
metry about q (i .e. , W is independent of cy in Fig. 20) and forward-back
symmetry through the plane to which q is normal (invariance to (y--(y) .
If, however, the distortion of the incident and outgoing particles is taken
into account, these symmetries are modifed or destroyed (101). The axial
symmetry is reduced to refection symmetry through the reaction plane
(
cy -
-cy) . However, if the sum on A in Equation 82 is limited to A =0 and 2,
there remains an axis of symmetry 8, which is rotated away from q and lies
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 237
in the reaction plane (101, 159) . About this axis the distortion introduces an
anisotropy, but the forward"back symmetry through the plane to which it
is normal remains.
It has been pointed out that the assumption of the stripping mechanism
for (d, p) reactions implies certain connections between the cross section,
polarization, and angular correlation which do not exist a priori (97, iai.
[Specifcally there are relations between the elements of the density matrix
Pkq
(101).] This led to the suggestion that the form of the theory Lluld be tested
independently of such details as the distorting potentials and n-p interaction
by exploiting these relationships. Some work along these lines has been done
(109, 1 19, 159) ; however, this work assumed that there are no spin-dependent
distortions present. Since polarizations much in excess of the limit allowed
when they are absent have been observed, the signifcance of such analysis
becomes obscured.
2.9 Rearrangement stripping.-The simple stripping process that we have
been discussing so far is characterized by the fact that the confguration of
the core, comprising the nucleons in the target, is unchanged in the fnal
state. The fnal state may not be pure in this respect; it can have components
in which the core is rearranged. Such components can be excited by the inter
action of the outgoing proton with the core nucleons. This process, which
we call rearrangement stripping, is represented by the second term in Equa
tion 2. The tacit assumption has been made that, when the fnal state of a
nucleus has components of both types, the simple stripping amplitude domi-
(0)
.. -J
y
( Ll
I
z
I
k
y
I
I
__.
I
_ . _.. Y
FIG. 20. (a) In (d, p, ') reaction, a neutron Nwith angular momentumj is stripped
by the target of spin Ji to form an excited state J. This decays by emission of an
L-pole ' ray to fnal state of spin J,. (b) Coordinate system for the reaction showing
the angles of various radiations.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
238 GLENDENNING
nates. The validity of such an assumption obviously depends on one or both
of the following: (a) the rearrangement amplitude is intrinsically small ; (b)
the components in the wave function corresponding to core rearrangement
happen to be small. For most nuclear states at low excitation the second
statement is often true. There are exceptions, the frst e

cited state of B
ll
being an interesting example. This state at 2. 14 MeV is excited by the
B
I
O(d, p) Bll reaction. The spins involved are J. = 3+ and J
,
=t - ( 182).
The ordinary selection rules in this case require that /= 3. Not only i s this
an unlikely assignment in view of the fact that the h/2 orbit should fall at a
much higher excitation, but the angular distribution measured at Ed = 7. 7
MeV suggests that / - J (52), which is in fact expected fr
q
m the shell-model
sequence. The angular distributions vary considerably at energies so high
that Coulomb efects cannot be held responsible. The diferential cross sec
tions at 20 for the ground state (3/2 -) , the frst excited state ( 1/2 -) , and a
state at 9. 19 MeV ( 1/2 +) are excited in the ratios 5 : 1 : 23 when the statistical
factor 2Jt+ 1 is removed (20) . The intensity of the state in question appears
smaller than normal. It is signifcant that the same lev
e
l is excited in the
Be9(He8, p) Bll reaction and appears normal compared to neighboring states
(84) . This would be consistent -with an interpretation of this level as having
a proton excited relative to the ground state. It then could not be excited by
the simple (d, p) stripping reaction, a view consistent with the anomalous
results mentioned above.
Several mechanisms have been suggested which lead .o a relaxation of
the simple selection rules and thus allow the above transition to proceed by
stripping of an 1 = 1 neutron. French & Evans suggested a process i n which
the proton in the deuteron is exchanged with one in the target (51 , 59) . The
ejection of a P3/2 and capture of. a Pl/2 proton satisfes the ;known initial and
fnal spins. A similar relaxation
o
f the selection rules could follow if the de
parting proton exCited a proton from the P
I
/2 to the Pa/2 le
v
el. This has been
referred to as spin-fip stripping in the literature (26, 182) but obviously is
only a special event of the type that falls within our defnition of rearrange-
ment stripping.
t
French estimates that the exchange stripping, which must always be
present because of the equivalence principle, is smaller than -simple stripping
by a factor of about te:n. No reliable estimates of the importance of rearrange
ment stripping have been made.
The selection rules for rearrangement stripping in which a core nucleon is
excited from lij, to IdJ are
= Ji + l + t +j, +j
f,f/
(-) l'
There is now so much fexibility in satisfying these rules that spin and
parity assignments will be difcult if not impossible to make
. The angular distributions from rearrangement stripping are expected to
difer from the usual simple stripping. I n particular, the. structure will be
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 239
less pronounced if the rearrangement amplitude alone is present. If the fnal
state is such as to admit both amplitudes, they are coherent. If the rearrange
ment term has contributions from several l
'
s, these are again coherent, in
contrast with simple stripping.
Evidently no positive spectroscopic information can, in general, be ex
tracted for states believed to have been populated substantially by the re
arrangement process.
Examples, in addition to the BID(d, p)Bll reaction, in which simple
stripping is not expected to contribute because the known spins would re
quire stripping into an unlikely orbit, have been listed elsewhere (8, Sec.
V. D) . The experiments of Middleton & Hinds on Mg24(d, p) Mg25 may ex
hibit a number of examples of rearrangement stripping (123). In their work
at 10 MeV, some 44 levels were excited. These levels fall into two groups :
those that are strongly excited and have stripping like angular distributions
of which there are 16, and those that are weakly excited and whose angular
distributions possess little structure.
We now mention briefy the so-called heavy-particle stripping process.
This process was introduced to explain the backward peaks occasionally ob
served in stripping reactions (139) . In this process one envisages the target
divided into a proton and the rest of the nucleus, which is called the heavy
particle. The incident deuteron "strips" the heavy particle from the proton.
Since in the center-of-Iass system the target is moving backward, the pro
ton is observed at a backward angle. While this is a valid physical picture,
its i mportance has not so far been properly evaluated. The experiments
which inspired the concept and from which the heavy-particle stripping
amplitudes have been extracted were performed at very low energies. Under
such circumstances, which we have discussed several times, the Coulomb
repulsion is of great importance and cannot be neglected. However, the
analysis of such experiments in terms of heavy-particle stripping has always
done so (cL 55). At higher energies the angular distributions have normal
stripping patterns (d. 37).
3. SINGLE-NUCLEON TRANSFER REACTIONS OTHER THAN (d, p)
I t is clear that much of the discussion of the (d, p) reactions contained
in the preceding sections can be carried over to other stripping reactions such
as (d, n) or (He3, d) , or to pick up reactions such as (p, d) or (d, t) where one
nucleon is transferred. Of course, the same type of information is obtained
from all single-particle stripping reactions. I nformation of a new type, con
cerning the hole-states, is obtained from pickup reactions (41 , 73, 1 18, 128) .
We shall not discuss these here, save to indicate briefy how the previous
formulas may be adapted to them. For this purpose we re-Iabel the reaction
as follows
85.
where the spins of the nucleus and light nuclide are indicated by J and I and
their mass numbers by A and , Iespectively. Defne for transfer of a spin-t
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
240 GLENDENNING
particle
86.
Then for stripping reactions
~

2JA+I + 1 ka_1
(

,
dn 2h + 1 ka dn ||I
87.
while for pickup
+
d 2Ia + l ka dU ,
dn = 2I a-I + 1 ka_1 dn If!
88.
The amplitude Br is calculated in a similar way for all reactions. The
center-of-mass correction is ka-1 -(Aj A + l)ka-l for the wave number in the
distorted wave. The wave function for the nuclide which is needed for the
calculation of Br is subject to greater uncertainty in magnitude when
refers to a mass-three or -four particle since these wave functions are less
well known than the deuteron function ( 1 18) . As a result, only relative
values of the spectroscopic factors can be extracted. In ca\e the plane-wave
theory is used, the general defnitions of the momenta transfer q and K are
A
q
=
Je - A + l k. -
l
,
a - l
K
k. -
l
- III
a
4. Two-NuCLEON TRANSFER REACTIONS
89.
4. 1 Generalfeatures.-In this section, reactions in which two nucleons are
transferred will be discussed. The obvious interest in these stems from the
fact that nuclei can be produced that cannot otherwise be studied, because
of the absence of suitable targets. Further, such reactions can reach states
which are characterized by the fact that they have two particles or holes
excited relative to the ground state, so that additional states not excited in
single-nucleon transfer reactions can be investigated.
As was the case for single-nucleon transfer reactions, our interest is the
spectroscopy and structure of the nuclear states; therefore we shall discuss
reactions in which the light nuclide has a mass number not greater than four.
The reason for this restriction is that the interpretation in terms of the nu
clear coupling scheme of the heavy nucleus is more direct : simple selection
rules follow because of the simple structure of the light nuclides.
The spectrum of olltgoing particles from a two-nucleon transfer reaction
shows that it is strongly selective in the levels that are excited. In 016 there
are some 30 levels known up to an excitation of 1 7 MeV, yet less than a third
of them are excited with an appreciable cross section in the N
1
4(a, d)
01
6
reaction (38) . For the levels that are excited the intensities vary widely,
partly because of stati stical factors. After such trivial factors have been re-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 241
moved, the residual fuctuations refect the structure of the excited levels
including the degree to which they are characterized by confgurations con
sisting of an unexcited core (the target nucleus) plus two additional particles
or holes, depending on whether the reaction is a stripping or a pickup process
(38, 78, 106) .
The angular distributions of the outgoing particles corresponding to the
formation of the strongly excited levels are peaked at a forward angle which,
together with the high selectivity of the reactions, is characteristic of direct
reactions (38, 78, 83, 106) .
In addition to the selectivity that we mentioned above, and that is
analogous to the selectivity exhibited by single-nucleon transfer reactions,
there may exist in two-nucleon transfer reactions an additional selectivity
that depends upon the degree to which the transferred nucleons are corre
lated in the nucleus. Such correlations can be imposed by the angular mo
mentum coupling as well as by the internucleon force. To illustrate what is
meant by a correlation imposed by angular momentum coupling, we may
consider two particles of angular momentum j coupled to total angular
momentum I. The classical orbits of such particles are coplanar if I is zero
or has its maximum value 2j. Otherwise they move in planes that are tilted
with respect to each other. Obviously their motion is spatially more highly
correlated in the frst two situations. Additional correlation can be induced
by the attractive nuclear force. In shell-model language, this takes the form
of confguration-mixed wave functions. If the correlation is one which has a
large overlap with the correlation possessed by the two nucleons in the light
nuclide, we may expect an unusually strong transition.
In this subsection we shall sketch the derivation of the diferential cross
section, leaving for the following part a discussion of some experimental
results. We may write for the transition matrix [analogous to the (d, p) reac
tion]
90.
where V is the interaction between the outgoing deuteron and the fnal
nucleus. As in Equation 2, V is made up of two parts : one is nondiagonal in
the core nucleons and leads to rearrangement stripping; the other is the
interaction between the two parts of the incident nuclide that are separated
by the stripping reaction. The second part causes excitation of states in the
fnal nucleus in which the core nucleons retain the same confguration they
occupied in the target. This we shall again refer to as simple stripping and
we focus attention on it. 'Ve shall for the sake of defniteness refer to (a, d)
reactions, indicating at certain places how the results would be altered for
other reactions such as (He3, p) or (He3, n) reactions.
The wave functions in Equation 90 may be written in more detail as
xi-) = IdH(k, Ri)<d(rd)x,l
d
(dd)'J?I(A + 2)
X(
+
)

I,(+)(k, R,)<,(T,)xoO(db, dd)'JiMi(A) 91 .

A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
242 GLENDENNING
Here we use the subscripts b and d to denote, respectively, the nucleons that
have been stripped and that are contained in the outgoing deuteron. The
notation for spins is schematic; i. e. , dd stands for dn and dp while Ta denotes
internal coordinates of the O particle. All parts of ., were defned in
Section 2. 1 except
92 .
the center-of-mass coordinate of the outgoing deuteron referred to the center
of mass of the residual nucleus with the center of the core defning the origin.
In the wave function for the initial state, 1a(+) is the elastic scattering wave
function of the O particle, ca is its internal space wave function, and xoo is
its spin function.
For the wave function of the fnal nucleus we introduce the expression
analogous to Equatio:l 7
93.
where c is a wave function constructed by the vector coupling of the wave
function ' J
c
(A) for the core to wave functions for the stripped pair of
nucleons. The basis we shall use is the L-S representation. The reason for this
will be evident shortly. The symbols r and l stand for all other quantum
numbers required to defne the basic states of core and stripped nucleons,
respectively, incl uding: the single-particle quantum numbers. Thus
where
i('LSJ)J;MI L (JcMc, JMJI J,MI)>JcM
c
(A)iLSJ(7), Rb, db) 94.
Mc
M
J
'
iLS
J = i
L
L (LML, SMsI JMJ)xsM.(db)iLM
L
(b' Rb) 95.
M
LMB
s the spin-orbit wave function for the stripped nucleons. (We have written
the center-of-mass and relati

e coordinates as arguments although the usual

shell-model wave function would refer to the single-particle coordinates.
This may be regarded simply as a convenient notation to distinguish the
four nucleons.)
.
Concerning the O particle, we note that, except for sm411 admixtures in
duced by noncentraI forces, the space wave function corresponds to relative
s-state motion among all the particles and is hence symmetric. The spin wave
function must therefore be antisymmetric upon the interchange of the
protons or neutrons. That is,
XOO( db, dd) XOo( dp, dP')xoO( dn, dn ')
= .. L (_1)8'+MS'Xs,-M
S'
(db)X
S
,-
'
Cdd)
2 B'
B
t
where S' is summed over 0 and 1.
96.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 243
Inserting the above expansions in Equation 90, we fnd
T(.d
=
.. L fr.LSJ L
(
J
.
M., JMJ \ hM,) ('J
.
M'\ 'J.M,) L
(L
M, SMs \ JMJ)
2 r.LSJ M
"J
MM
S
L (-)
S
'
+
M
S'
(
x,1 I X
S
,
M
S
'
)
(Xs
\
XB,-M
S'h/(2L + I)B.L
M 97 .
SIM
S
'
where
B.LM(ka, k) " i-L(2L + 1)-1/2 +[.d(-) (kd, Ri)crd)<.LM(rb, Rb) ]*
98.
X V[.a(
+
)(k, Ra)<a(ra)]dr"R"rddRd
We note that the overlap .+.. +.-.....-,states that the core nu
cleons retain their original confgurations. The spin overlap requires that
S 1 i that is
, only the triplet part of the wave function for the stripped
nucleons can be excited.
For other two-nucleon transfer reactions the spin selection rule is difer
ent. Thus, for example, in He', because the spin function for the protons
must be antisymmetric, they are in an s=o state. Therefore, in (He3, n) re
actions, only singlet components of the fnal state are excited. On the other
hand, in (He3, p) reactions, because the spin state of neutrons and either
proton is mixed, both S 0 and icomponents of the fnal states can be ex
cited. In summary, the spin states in the fnal state that can be excited in
the various two-nucleon transfer reactions are
S = 1
s = o
S = 0, 1
for (O d)
for (He", n), (t, p)
for (He3, p), (t, n)
99.
We have till now distinguished between the nucleons in the a particle
and those in the target. The equivalence principle introduces two modifca
tions, similar to those discussed in Section 2. 2. According to that discussion,
we should mUltiply our r.,, by a suitable statistical factor which in the
notation of that section is je where
and
f

.. .

.+ 2)

.- 2) ' A '
100.
C " (TiM T{ TM T
\
T,M T,) 101 .
is a Clebsch-Gordan coefcient referring to the isotopic spin. For (a, d) re
actions, the isotopic spin of the transferred pair is T=O so that only states i n
the fnal nucleus which have the same isotopic spin as the target can be
excited. With these results
(
)
l
+
T(a.c)

-- fC
:
f.,LIJ(JM., JMJ I J,M,
)
2 ZJ_
: (LML, 1 -II J
MJ
)v(2L + I)B.
L
ML
ML
102.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
244 GLENDENNING
where we can now drop reference to r, understanding that { refers to the
core ground state.
The cross section is now given by
d" 1 ma *md* kd 2Jt + 1 "

"

12
dO
=
" (2"2) 2 ka 2J;
+
1
(CI
L
7t
fLIJBL
103 .
Again the diferent L, J, and M contribute incoherently. But the sum on
' introduces a coherent efect. This sum might refer, for example, to con
fguration mixing in the wave function. In the case of collective states this
coherence can give ri:;e to an enhancement of the cross section relative to a
pure state, as discussed by Yoshida ( 188) .
For the two nucleon stripping reaction the cross section can be summa
rized by
where
b11
(a, d)
2S .0

(t, p) UI (ReS, n)
Hoso
+
os,), (t, n) OI (Hea, p)
104.
105.
The cross section for pickup reactions is similar except that the factor
(2J,+1)/(2J; +1) is replaced by (21,+1)/(21; +1) where Ii and I, are the
spins of the incident and outgoing nuclides. This factor has the value t for
(d, a) and unity for the other reactions. Also the frst and last indices on the
isotopic spin factor C are interchanged.
The selection rule on the total orbital angular momentum L transferred
in the reaction is
106.
The connection of L with the single-particle states into which the nucleons
are stripped is
L + S
=
J
=
jn
+
j
p
107.
In general, several values of L for any given fnal state and particle confgu
ration Un
'
jp) can contribute to the reaction.
The connection of L with the parity is not immediately obvious as it
was in the case of Hingle-nucleon transfer reactions. There the angular
momentum transferred in the reaction was that of a single particle. Here the
parity change is obviously given by
108.
However, we note tha,t the angular momentum L can be written as the sum
of the relative, A, and center of mass, A, angular momenta of the stripped
nucleons with ( _)h+A =( _) !
n
+1p. Now in the a particle the neutron and
proton have zero relative angular momentum, A=O. This has nonzero over-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 245
lap with the bound-state function in the fnal nucleus only for those com
ponents that also have A =O. Hence only the A =O, L=A components of the
wave function are reached in the reaction. This establishes the parity selec
tion rule (69) :
109.
In special cases additional selection rules hold. If both particles are
stripped into the same spin-orbit state with the confguration (P) J, then the
terms in the L-S expansion of this state satisfy
L + S + J = even 110.
Since for the P confguration the parity is unchanged, L must be even. For
(a, d) reactions, because only S = 1 components can be excited, J must be
odd (the same conclusion can be reached by considering the isotopic spin) .
For a (He3, n) or (t, p) reaction, on the other hand, J must be even, while
for (Hes, p) or (t, n) there is no such selection rule.
We shall illustrate with a few examples how the nuclear structure co
efcients ( can be found in some typical situations. First consider an even
even target nucleus, and let the nucleons be stripped into spin-orbit states
jn and jp. In this case their total spin is the spin of the fnal nucleus, and the
form of the fnal states excited in simple stripping is
'J,(A +
2
)
=
'O(A)iCinip)J,
1 1 l .
We want to express this in terms of L-S wave functions and then compare
it with Equations 93 and 94 to fnd (. This transformation involves the
9 -j symbols (46)
where
[
1
'
lp
L
1/2
1/2
S
1/2

1
1
"
1/2 jp =
[(
2jn +
1
) (2jp +
1
) (2L +
1
) (2S + 1)]1/2 1p
S
h
L
112.
1/2 jn)
1/2 jp 113.
S J,
and { } is the 9 -j symbol. We see at once that ( is equal to this transfor
mation coefcient X OJr If the wave function is confguration mixed, then
1 14.
where, in this example, ' includes the single-particle quantum number j"jp
(in this usage, j symbolizes nlj) . Then
115.
For an odd-odd target in which the two odd nucleons occupy jn'jP' and
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
246 GLENDENNING
lie outside of closed subshells so that the target spin is Ji = in' + ip', then
i" i,' '' In
ILSJ =
i" i/ '"
I"
, J ',
L
1/2
in
1/2 jp
S J
116.
Here the fnal state i s assumed to be described by the coupling scheme
[U
,
"
'
)J
,,
,
Up
p
'
) Jp
]J
.. If the fnal state is a sum over such wave function,
say over JnJ
p
, such sums are coherent and are symbolized by ' in Equation
103.
.
Finally, for an odd-proton nucleus in which the even 'core has spin zero,
the odd proton is :in jP
'
, and the fnal state has the coupling scheme
[U
P
'
j
p
) J
p
, j
n
]J
,
1/2
in
1/2
i
"
S ,
117.
Again, if the fnal nucleus contains several such components, corresponding
to variousj,pJp, such sums are the coherent ' sum in the cross section. (The
connection between tr and the coefcients CL
2 in (69) is CL2 =
7:.s::
The explicit evaluation of the transfer amplitude BLM has been performed
by several authors in the plane-wave approximation (22, 69, 129, 132, 151) .
We shall not reiterate any of the details of that work. Depending on the
approximations or the model that is adopted for the reaction, the angular
distribution takes on several forms, all of which lead to similar results. The
gross character of the angular distribution is given by
B
LM i-
L
(2L -- 1)-1I2cMO[(
2
1
"
+ 1) (21" + 1) ]1/2(10, 110 I L)G(K)
i
L(qR) 118.,
when the nucleons are stripped into orbitals In and lp. (The connection of
ELM with F{ln1pL; M, Equation 14 of (69) , is F=iLV(2L+l) B.) Here q and
K are defned in a manner analogous to Equation 89, and G(K) is a mono
tonically decreasing function of angle and depends on themomentum distri
bution in the alpha particle. The interesting angle dependence is contained
in jL' There is a correction term to this result arising fro
m
the fact that the
stripped nucleons do not adhere as a unit in the nucleus ( 132) ; it is, however,
usually small. In place of the Bessel function one could as well use the
wronskian Butler form of angle dependence (78) .
The distorted-wave calculation of the amplitude B'L
M
is done in much
the same way as for (d, p) reactions. Indeed the form of B'LM is the same for
all direct reactions. A few distorted-wave calculations have been reported.
They are based on the approximation that the two nucleons are stripped as
a lump. That is, reference to the single-particle orbits I
n
, /,into which the
nucleons are stripped is suppressed. The reaction is characterized by the
total angular momemum L that is transferred, which, as we have discussed,
is also the center-of-mass angular momentum of the pair for those states
(or components thereof) which can be excited. This allows one to introduce
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 247
a wave function M} for the center-of-mass motion of the pair, which is analo
gous to the function MJfor the stripped neutron in (d,p) reactions. The angular
distribution calculations for single and double stripping are identical in this
approximation aside from the trivial changes in masses and charges. It will
be recognized that the above description is the same as that one would apply
for a cluster description of the fnal state. Therefore, if the independent
motion of the particles in their shell-model states has only a small efect on
the cross section, a cluster and shell-model description of the fnal state
cannot be distinguished by the angular distribution.
The efect produced on the calculated angular distribution by allowing
the nucleons to be stripped independently has not been investigated in dis
torted-wave approximation. In the plane-wave approximation the efect does
not appear to be very important. To see more clearly how the independent
motion enters into the calculation, we recall that v,contains the wave
function eof the stripped pair. In the usual shell-model description this
represents the vector coupling of the single-particle angular momentum /.
and Ip to L. Such a wave function can be transformed to the relative and
center-of-mass coordinates of the pair.
<(I,I,)L I nlllnJ.; L)

: (nX, NA; Ll n1llnJ.; L) l nX, NA; L)

119.
n
where nln2 are the principal quantum numbers for the single-particle states
and n, N for the relative and center-of-mass motion with A, A the correspond
ing angular momenta. Explicit expressions for the transformation coefcients
can be obtained only for harmonic oscillator wave functions (126, 170) and
they are tabulated in (28). The summation in Equation 1 19 is restricted by
120.
We have already pointed out that the relative s-state motion in the incident
nuclide overlaps only with the ).=0 terms. Introducing the following wave
function for the O particle,
N
" 2_ 2
N
" 2 2 0
+
0
'

--e- ri " -- e-
2
(, +rd I
P
)
"
(
4
)
3/.
(
4
)8/'
where p

Rd-Rb, we obtain
B,
L
M i-L(2
L + 1)-II2"
+"d(Td)B-2rlTd2dTd : (no, NL; L I nlll, nol.; L)
n N
121 .
+
[Ii-)(k,
R
l)UNL(Rb) YLM(Rb)]*VI,<+)(k. R")
e-
4'
P
'dR,,Rd 122.
Here M and MW} are harmonic oscillator functions (126). The last i ntegral
has exactly the same form as Equation 1 1 for (d, p) reactions. Now, however,
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
248
0
C
C
C
J
C
L
W
L
0
4
C

0
U
0
C
C
C
A
C
A
0
L
0
+
L
C
0
u
GLENDENNING
1400
9.0
I ZOO
1 000
800 5.7+58
600
400
6.Zt6.4
..
3.95
1
2.31
|
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Channel number
1 400
7.6 MeV
1 200
0
1
7
1 000
800
600
9.0 M6V
NIa. d ) 016 (8.88 MeV!
5.70+5.73
I
400
1
4.56
3.85
| |
200

o L --
o 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 80 90 100
Channel num ber
FIG. 21. Deuteron energy spectra at 15" corresponding to levels produced in N14,
0', 017, and p. by bombardment with 47-MeV O particles (from left to right). Note
that of the many levels known to exist in the energy range spanned only a few are
excited. [From Harvey et al. ( 79). ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Q
C
1 000
C
0
.
0
BOO
L
W
C
600
W
+
C
:
400
8
200
0
0
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS
'
I
>
U
10
L
w
O
20
o
1 4. 7
l
30
1 1 .0 B.9 7.06.1
|
| ||
40 50 60 70
Channel number
40 80 1 20
Channel nur ber
FIG. 21-Continued
0
|
0
1 6
90
F18 .l N0V
F' 0l0u00
8!0!c
100
160 200
249
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
250 GLENDENNING
B"LM is a sum of such integrals corresponding to diferent states of motion
of the center of mass of the stripped pair; i. e. , to diferent principal quantum
numbers N. Aside from the structure factors f which depend on the nuclear
coupling scheme, this is the way in which the single-particle character of the
bound states expresses itself. The frst two integrals are overlap integrals
with respect to the pair that forms the outgoing deuteron and the relative
motion of the pair of nucleons that is stripped, respectivel y.
The bracket ( ) is the amplitude of the relative motion i n the bound
state of the pair (28). This factor tends to favor single-particle states for
which L=O or 1
1
+l
2
Additional overlap with the motion i n the a particle
[e-2.T
2
] can be efected through confguration mixing. This is contained i n
the sum on '.
4. 2 Interpretation of some experiments.-We have seen that the two
nucleon transfer reactions are expected to be very sele
c
tive in the type of
states that are excited. Strongly excited states will be those for which the
core nucleons are unexcited. The state of relative motion of the stripped
nucleons will be largely s-state, and the spin state will be predominantly the
one indicated in Equation 99. Thus the mere fact that a level is strongly
excited already indicates that its structure has some special characteristics.
We consider as an example of these ideas the work of :Harvey et ai . , who
studied the reaction:3 Cl
2
(a, d) NU, NU(a, d) 016, NI6(a, d)017, and 016(0, d) p8
with 47-MeV a particles (79) . The spectrum of outgoing' deuterons is shown
in Figure 21 . The striking thing about these spectra is that of all the leels
in the energy range covered, only a few are excited and, of these, several
levels are much more i ntense than the others. The Q value corresponding
to the most intense levels varies from one nucleus to another in a regular
fashion, decreasing with i ncreasing mass as can be seen' in Figure 22. This
behavior would follow if the nucleons were stripped into the same single
particle states which are such that they are at high exc
i
tations in the light
nucleus but, as the lower shells become flled, approach the ground state in
the heavier nuclei. The angular distributions are all similar; a typical one is
shown in Figure 23. Harvey interprets these levels as having the structure
[Ii, (d6/
2
2hlI,: that i, the neutron and proton go into the d5/2 single-particle
state with their spins coupled to 5, and this subunit for
m
s, with the target
whose spin is Ii, levels of spin I, =5 -li to 5+1 - The states that can be
formed in this way are shown in Table IV. The basi on which the identi
fcation of the d6/2 state as the one that is involved, aside from the fact that
it gives a consistent interpretation of the data, is twofold. In Fl8 the shell
model predicts that the last neutron and proton occupy the d6/2 state, and
there is known to be a 5 + level at the energy observed in the experiment.
Of the shell-model states availUble in this mass region, ,d5/2 is the only one
which can give rise to a 5 + state in fi8, In addition, a shell-model calculation
of the states of N
1
4 predicts a level at about 9 MeV j u

t where the strong

level is observed ( 1 79) . Furthermore, the overlap argument mentioned in
Section 4. 1 suggests that the total orbital angular momeri tum L should have
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
FIG. 22. Reaction Q, corresponding to the most strongly excited levels of Fig. 21
as discussed i n the text. [From Harvey et al. (79) . ]
7
6
O
O
+
5
W
O
U
..
.
E
4
O

c
3

O
"
..
b
2

O
O

O O

OL - mL= - m = m
o 1 0 20 30 40 50 100
Angl e ( deg
,
c. m. )
FIG. 23. Angular distributions of deuteron groups corresponding to the 7.6- and
9.0-MeV levels produced in NIG(l, d)017 by 47-MeV l particles. These are typical of
all the strongly excited groups in Fig. 21. [From Harvey et al. (79) . ]
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
252
Reaction
CI2(a, d)
N
14
NI4(a, d)018
N16(a, d)0
17
018(a, d)F18
GLENDENNING
TABLE IV
J;
0+
1 +
1/2 -
0+
J
,
5
+
4+,
5
+, 6 +
9/2 -, 1 1/2
-
5
+
a mi nimum (0) or maxi mum (4) value. In a grazing collision on the surface,
the latter is dynamically favored according to the following considerations :
Classically, angular momentum 'rXqis transferred in the reaction if i t
occurs at the point r. For the above reactions, q"1 F-l i n the forward direc
tion so that in a classical reaction with i mpact parameter RN the angular
momentum transferred is 3 to 4. [Of course this sort of argument should be
supported by a quantum-mechanical calculation i n which the particles i nter
act with the nuclew; through optical potentials, as we have discussed for
(d, p) reactions, for it depends upon the assumption that the particles are
strongly absorbed if they must traverse the nuclear interior.] Now, if we
expand the wave functions for the confguration (dS!
2
2)J, J = 1 , 3, 5 i n terms of
the L-S wave functions, we fnd (see Eq. 1 12) :
I J =
5) = BG
.
/
10
8 . /
4
. /
63
I
J
= 3
)
=
1
1 75
3D
-
1
1
7
5
3
G
+
1
1
7
5 'F
I
J
= 1 ) = .
/
..3S - .
/
3D + .
/
Ip
1
25
1
25
1
25
The only s tate with a large S =1, L=4 component (i. e. , 3G) is the J=S.
A rough calculation of the form of the cross section for these states yields
(schematically)
un 100 1
B. 1 2
P3 2 . 3 1
B
. I
'
+ 4.
5
1 B2
1
'
Cl 1 .
2 I
B2
1
2 +
4. 0 I Bo
l
'
According to our classical argument
I
B
.
I
'
>
I
B
,
I
' >
I
B
o
l
'
so that we are led to conclude that of the states of d5!22 confguration, J = 5
should be most strongly populated.
The consistency of the above i nterpretation with other experimental re
sults has also been di.5cussed by Harvey. The strongly excited levels in (a, d)
which have two nucleons excited should not be strongly excited by inelastic
scattering of nucleons or O particles because the internucleon force is a two
body force and the incident particle can therefore only excite one nucleon
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 253
at a time (68) . I n N14(a, a') experiments, levels whose confgurations are
believed to correspond to single-particle excitations are indeed strongly popu
lated while those corresponding to double excitation are not. The 9-MeV
level made so strongly in the (O. d) reaction is not observably populated in
the (O. a') reaction. Similar evidence on the two-particle excitation char
acter of this level is provided because it is not populated in the OI6(d, a)N14
reactions.
Ball & Goodman have studied the (p, t) reaction at 22 MeV on nuclei
near the neutron closed shell N 50 (10) . This reaction can excite two
neutron hole states. The single-particle states in this region are 199/
2
which
is closed at N 50, the 2d5/2 which lies above, and the 2Pl/
2
which lies below
it. The energy spectrum of the tritons is shown in Figure 24. The groups at
Q= -12. 8, -1 1. 2, and -8 MeV correspond, respectively, to pickup of
neutrons from g2, dg, and d2 confgurations, respectively. In Zr90 only the g2
group corresponding to the ground state is observed since the d orbit is
empty. In 2r91 the d orbit has one neutron so that the ground-state transition
now involves pickup of a d and g neutron. while the g2 group is present also,
corresponding to an excited state. The nuclei 2r92 and Nb93 each have two
d neutrons so that the d2 and g2 groups are both seen. The dg group does not
appear, however. In these nuclei there are two d particles and, because of
their i nteraction energy, the dg transition will be shifted and is therefore
unIesolved from the g2 group.
In Zr9
2
(p, t) the d
2
group is very broad because of the thick target used in
the experiment; however, it probably hides other transitions involving the
pickup of d
2
neutrons. We know that Zr90 has two 0+ states whose wave
functions are orthogonal mixtuIes of p2 and g2 protons (56) . Therefore, Zr9
2
can have these two proton states mixed into the groundstate wave function
by the neutron-proton i nteraction. Thus the protons can be left in the excited
0+ state of Zr90 by the pickup of two neutrons from Zr9
2
. In Zr90 these states
are separated by 1. 75 MeV. In addition the 2r92 ground state could have also
the component ['(g2) ., v(d2) z]O and the pickup of the neutrons would excite
the 2 + level in Zr90. This broadening is largely absent for Nb(p. t) although
there may be a weak group at Q,,-10.5 MeV. The presence of the odd
proton in this nucleus reduces the mixing in the wave functions.
The transition involving pickup from diferent orbitss the d and g, appears
to be of lower intensity than for pickup from the same orbit. This is expected
since for the latter the appropriate correlation discussed earlier can more
easily be built up.
ApPENDIX
Here we shall derive the approximation to the transition matrix intro
duced in Section 2. 1 . Our starting point is the expression obtained by Gell
Mann & Goldberger (64) which for (d, p) reactions is
T <I
p
I V
np
+ V
p
I 'P ('p(-) I V
p
+ V" I Id) 123.
Here VP and Vn denote the interaction of the proton and neutron respectively
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
254
-

.
W
W
Q
'
:

:
.
:
.
W
'
.
D
w
.
w
-
i-

,
I
I
/
/

.
1
\
|

i
_ I
I
,-
I
|

..
/
I
\

GLENDENNING
8
'
..
. .
/
..

|
t
1 11\.
I
/ r
,
. ;:
,. I
! ..
1 J : f
:
. , / I ,
\
fo
/ Y \
V
|

|
\
/
.
I
.
I
; , ! "
=
j
(e
' l \
l I
\
I
0

,
I
'

;(10"
, .
, , \
v \
.'

(
Po
"
.
-

.

(p,
f,
,
. .
f
z,t
O
(p,
f'_
,
I
,
i

" '2
-I CM.V)
" t, '1
FIG. 24. Triton groups corresponding to pickup of two neutrons from confgura
tions d2(Q---8 MeV), dg(Q"-l 1 MeV), and g2(Q"-13 MeV) from various tar-
gets. [From Ball & Goodman (10). ]
.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING _ REACTIONS
wi th the n ucleon s i n the ta rge t
The Hamiltonian H for the system is written in two alternate forms
H
Hd + V" + V"
H" + V" + V",
255
124.
where Ha is the Hami lto nian fo r the in te rnal s tructure of the nucleus and
deuteron, and their relative motion, and a similar defnition applies to H".
The functions <d and <" are plane waves in the relative motion in the en
trance and exit channels, respectively,
(H
I -
E)c"
0
, 12
5
.
The exact-state vector for the system of A +2 nucleons is denoted by \
(E - H)'

0 126.
The subscript d or p refers to a boundary condition at infnity. For example,
\a means that there is a plane wave of deuterons. The i ntegral equation
which exhibits the boundary condition is
1
'i+) = cd + (VI + V")'i+)
E(+) - Hd 121.
E(+) " E + iT
where 1 15 a small positive number. The (+) or ( -) refers to a boundary con
dition of outgoing or incoming spherical waves. A formal solution to Equa
ti on 127 i s
128.
We now introduce the identity
VI

(Q + P)VP(Q + P)

VQ + Vp + VQpI + Vppl
129.
where Q+P= 1 and P is a projection operator onto the ground state. Intro
d uce also the solution to
(H
I
+ Vpp
" Ex
p
0 130.
We recognize tha t Vp1 is the frst term of the optical potential. We can
write \1 in terms of this function
131.
where
132.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
256 GLENDENNING
Then
T = (x,(-) i V" + v
"
l <d) + (x,(-) 1 v + v", 1 'i+) - <d)
= (x"<-) I v + V "" I 'i
+
)} + (xp(-) 1 V
p
+ y
n
+ VI' - v i <d}
the hermiticity of the i:tentials being assumed. The last term is
(xp(-) 1 V p + V" - V" W I <d}

(xp(-) 1 Hp + V ppP - He 1 <e)

H
"
+ V pp )x,(-) 1 <e} (x,(-)
I
He 1 <e)

(E -
E) (x"<
-) 1
<
d
)
0
So
133 .
134.
Since
x
,-satisfes a Schroedinger equation containing the frst term of the
optical potential, we shall calculate i t from an optical potential. (This means
that higher-order terms should be substracted from the operator in Eq. 134.
We shall ignore them.)
We can i ntroduce an optical potential Uc for the deuteron and the cor
responding optical-model function
x.
(E He - Ue)xe = 0
in terms of which \c<+> can be written
1
'a
<
+
)
~'
x
a<+) + (V
p
+ V" - Ud)xa
<+)
.
E(+) H
Then in Born appro7i Iation
T
(xp(-) I Vp
n
+ v I xa<+
However, we note from Equation 132 that
v i xa
<
+)}
=
V QP
"
I xP
sCcause
. x>=0. SO
T" (xp(-) I v"" + V QPP I xP
which is the result quoted i n Section 2. 1.
135 .
136.
137.
138.
139.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 257
LITERATURE CITED
L Ajzenberg-Selove, F., and Lauritsen,
T., Nucl. Phys., 11, 1 (1959)
2. Alias, R. G., and Schull, F. B., Phys.
Rev. , 116, 996 (1959)
3. Alias, R. G., and Schull, F. B., Phys.
Rev., 125, 941 (1962)
4. Amado, R. D., Phys. Ref. Letters, 2,
399 (1959)
5. Andrews, P. T., Clift, R. W., Green,
L. L., and Sharpy-Schafer, J. F.,
Phys. Letters, 3, 97 (1962)
6. Armstrong, J. C., and Quisenberry,
K. S., Phys. Rev., 122, 150 (1961)
7. Austern, N., Phys. Rev., 89, 318 (1953)
8. Austem, N., "Direct Reaction
Theories" in Marion, J. B.t Ed.,
Fast Neutron Physics (To be pub
lished by Interscience, New York)
9. Auerbach, T., and French, J. B., Phys
. Rev., 98, 1276 (1955)
10. Ball, J. B., and Goodman, C. D.,
Phys. Rev., 120, 488 (1960)
1 1 . Banerjee, M. K., "Theory of Stripping
and Pickup Reactions" in Ajzen
berg Selove, F., Ed., Nuclear
Spectroscopy (Acdemic, New York,
19(0)
12. Barfeld, W. D., Bacon, B. M. , and
Biedenharn, L. C., Phys. Rev., 125,
964 (1962)
13. Belyaev, S. T., Kgl. Danske Videnskab.
Selskab, Mat.-Fys. Medd., 31, No.
H (1959)
14. Bethe, H. A., and Butler, S. T., Phys.
Rev., 85, 1045 (1952)
15. Bhatia, A. B., Huang, K., Huby, R.,
and Newns, H. C., Phil. Mag., 43,
485 (1952)
16. Biedenhar, L. C., Boyer, K., and
Charpie, R. A., Phys. Rev., 86, 619
(1952)
17. Biedenham, L. C., Boyer, K., and
Goldstein, M., Phys. Rev .. 104, 383
(1956)
18. Biedenharn, L. C., and Rose, M. E.,
Rev. Mod. Phys., 25, 729 (1953)
19. Biedenharn, L. C., and SatChler,
G. R., Helv. Phys. Acta, Suppl. 6,
373 (1960)
20. Bilaniuk, O. M. , and Hensel, J. C.,
Phys. Rev . 120, 21 1 (1960)
21. Bilaniuk, O. M., and Hough, P. V. C.,
Phys. Rev., 108, 305 (1957)
22. Bilhom, D. E . Two Nucleon Stripping
Reactions and the Role of the Tensor
Forte (Doctoral thesiS, Rice Univ.,
Houston, Texas, 19(2)
23. Bjorklund, F., and Fernbach, S.,
Phys. Rev., 109, 1295 (1958)
24. Bokar, M. S., Cookson, J. A., Hird.
B., and Weesakul, B . Prot. Phys.
Soc. (London), 72, 88 (1958)
25. Bowcock, J. E., Proc. Phys. Soc.
(London), A, 68, 512 (1955)
26. Bowcock, J. E., Phys. Rev., 1 12, 923
(1958)
27. Breit, G., "Theory of Resonance Re
actions and Allied Topics" in H and
buch der Physik, XLI!1 (Flilgge, S.
Ed., Springer, Berlin, 1959)
28. Brody, T. A., Moshinsky, M., Tables
of Transformation Brackets (Mono
grafas del Inst. de Fis., Mexico,
1960)
29. Buck, B., and Hodgsen, P. E., Phil.
Mag., 6, 1371 (1961)
30. Burrows, H. B., Gibson, W. H., and
Rotblat, J., Phys. Rev. , 80, 1 095
(1950)
31. Butler, S. T., Phys. Rev., 80, 1095
(1950)
32. Butler, S. T., Proc. Roy. Soc. (London),
A, 208, 559 (1951)
33. Butler, S. T., Phys. Rev., 89, 685 (1952)
34. Butler, S. T., and Auster, N., Phys.
Rev., 93, 355 (1954)
35. Butler, S. T., in Proc. Rutherford
Jubilee Conf., 492 (Birks, J. B., Ed.,
Heywood and Co., London, 1961)
36. Butler, S. T., and Hittmair, O. H., Nu
clear Stripping Reactions (Horowitz
Publications, Sydney, Australia,
1957)
37. Calvert, J. M., Jafe, A. A., and
Maslin, E. E., Proe. Phys. Soc.
(London), A, 68, 1017 (1955)
38. Cerny J., Harvey, B. G., and Pehl,
R. H., Nucl. Phys., 29, 120 (1962)
39. Cheston, W. B., PhY$. Rev., 96, 1 590
(1954)
40. Clementel, E., Nuovo Cimento, 11, 412
(1954)
41. Cohen, B. L., and Price, R. F., Phys.
Rev., 121, 1441 (1961)
42. Cohen, B. L., Phys. Rev., 125, 1 358
(1962)
43. Cohen, B. L., Fulmer, R. H., and
McCarthy, A. L., Phys. Rev., '126,
698 (1962)
44. Daitch, P. B., and French, J. B.,
Phys. Rev., 87, 900 (1952)
45. Dalitz, R. H., Proc. Phys. Soc.
(London), A, 66, 28 (1953
)
46. Edmonds, A. R., Angular Momentum
in Quantum Mechanics (Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J., 1957)
47. Elliott, J. P., and Lane, A. M., "The
Nuclear Shell Model" in Handbuch
der Physik, XXXIX (Flilgge, S., Ed.,
Springer, Berlin, 1957)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
258 GLENDENNING
48. Endt, P. M., and Braams, C. M.,
Physica, 21, 839 (1955)
49. Endt, P. M., and Van der Leun, C.,
Nucl. Phys., 34, 1 (1962)
50. Erskine, J. R., Buech:ner, W. W., and
Enge, H. A., Phys. Rev., 128, 720
(1962)
51. Evans, N. T. S., and French, A. P.,
Phys. Rev., 109, 1 272 (1958)
52. Evans, N. T. S., and Parkinson, W. C.,
Proe. Phys. Soc. (London), A, 67,
684 (1954)
53. Feshbach, H., Porter, C. E., and
Weisskopf, V. F., Phys. Rev., 98,
448 (1954)
54. Feshbach, H., Ann. R,. Nucl. Sci., 8,
49 (1958)
55. Finky, R. W., and Owen, G. E., Phys.
Rev., 128, 2309 (1962)
56. Ford, K. W., Phys. Rev., 98, 1516
(1955)
57. Francis, N. C., and 'iatson, K. M. ,
Phys. Rev., 93, 313 (1954)
58. Friedman, F. L., and Tobocman, W.,
Phys. Rev., 92q 93 ( 1953)
59. French, A. P., Phys. Rev., 107, 1655
(1957)
60. Frenc, J. 1.. and IB, . J., Phys.
Rev., 104, 1411 (19S6)
,
61. French, J. B., The Analysis of Re
duced Widths" in Ajzenberg-Se
love, F., Ed., N ucl.ar Spectroscopy
(Acdemic, New York, 1960)
62. Fujimoto, Y., Hayakawa, S., and
Nishijima, K., Progr. Theoret.
Phys. (Kyoto), 10, 113 (1953)
63. Gallagher, L. J.. and Cheston, W. B.,
Phys. Rev., 88, 684 (1952)
64. Gell-Mann, M., and Goldberger,
M. L., Phys. Rev., Il, 398 (1953)
65. Gerjuoy, E., Phys. Rev., 91, 645 (1953)
66. Gibbs, W. R., and Tobocman, W.,
Phys. Rev., 124, 1496 (1961)
67. Glassgold, A. E., Progr. Nucl. Phys.,
7, 123 (1959)
68. Glendenning, N. K., Phys. Rev. , 1 14,
1297 (1959)
69. Glendenning, N. K., Nucl. Phys., 29,
109 (1962)
70. Goldfarb, L. J. B., and Johnson. R. C.,
Nucl. Phys., 18, 353 (1960)
71. Goldfarb, L. J. B., and Johnson, R. C.,
Nucl. Phys, 21, 462 (1960)
72. Goldfarb, L. J. B., in Proc. Ruther/ord
Jubilee Con/., 479 (Birks, J. B., Ed.,
Heywood and Co., London, 1961)
73. Goodman, C. D., and Ball, J. B., Phys.
Rev., 118, 1062 (1960)
74. Grant, T. P., Proe. Phys. Soc. (Lon
don), A, 67, 981 (1954)
75. Grant, . 1., Proc. Phys. Soc. (L
don), A, 68, 244 (1955)
76. Halbert, E. C.,
'
Drisko, R. M.,
Satchler, G. R., and Auster, N.,
in Proe. Ruther/ord Jubilee Con/. ,
555 (Birks, J. B. , Ed., Heywood and
Co., London, 1961)
77. Hamburger, E. W., Phys. Rev., 123,
619 (1961)
"
78. Harvey, B. G., and Cery, J., Phys.
Rev., 120, 2162 (1960)
79. Harvey, B. G., Cerny, J., Pehl, R. H. ,
and Rivet, R., Nucl. Phys., 39; 160
(1962)
80. Harvey, J. A., Can. J. Phys., 31, 278
(1953)
81. Hensel, J. C., and Parkinson, W. C.,
Phys. Rev., 1 10, 128 (1958)
82. Hillman, P., Phys. Rev., 104, 176
(1956)
83. Hinds, S., and Middleton, R., Proe.
Roy. Soc. (London), 74, 762 (1959)
84. Hinds, S., and Middleton, R., Proe.
Roy. Soc. (London), 75, 754 (1960)
85. Hinds, S., MidQleton R., and Pullen,
D. J., Phys. Letters, 1; 12 (1962)
86. Hittmair, O. H., Z. Physik, 144, 449
(1956)
87. Holm, G. B., Burwell, J. R., and
Miller, D. W., Phys. 1c9., 1 1247
(1960)
88. Holt, J. R., and:, Marsham, T. N.,
Proe. Phys. Soc. (London), A, 66,
49 (1953)
89. Holt, J. R., and : Marsham, T. N.,
ibid., A, 66, 258 (1953)
90. Holt, J. R., and Marsham, T. N.,
ibid., A, 66, 467'(1953)
91. Holt, J. R., and Marsham, T. N.,
. ibid., A, 66, 565 (1953)
92. Holt, J. R., and ' Marsham, T. N.,
ibid., A, 66, 1032 (1953)
93. Holt, J. R., and Young, C. T., Proe.
Phys. Soc. (London), A, 63, 835
(1950)
94. Horowitz, J., and Wessih, /. M. L.,
Phys. Rev., 92, 1326 (1953)
95. Horowitz, J., and Messiah, A. M. L.,
J. Phys. Radium, 14, 695 (1953)
96. Horowitz, J., and Messiah, A. M. L.,
ibid., 14, 731 (1953)
97. Horowitz, J., and Messiah, A. M. L.,
ibid., 15, 142 (1954)
98. Horowitz, J., proe. Intern. Con!.
Nucl. Reactions,' Amstedam, 1956
(Physica, 22, 1956)
99. Huby, R., Proe. Roy. Soc. (London),
A, 215, 385 (1952)
100. Huby, R., Progr. Nue!. Phys., 3, 177
(1953)
.
101. Huby, R., Refai. M. Y., and Satchler,
G. R., Nucl. Ph)s., 9, 94 (1958)
102. U. M. .. and Breit, G., "Coulomb
Wave Functions" in Handbuch der
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
NUCLEAR STRIPPING REACTIONS 259
Physik, XLII (FlUgge, S. , Ed.,
Springer, Berlin, 1959)
103. Ilakovac, K., Kuo, L. G., Petrvic,
M. , Slaus, 1. , Tomas, P., and
Satchler, G. R., Phys. Rev., 128,
2739 (1962)
104. Isoya, A., and Marrone, M. J., Phys.
Rev., 128, 800 (1962)
105. Isoya, A., Micheletti, S., and Reber,
L., Phys. Rev., 128, 806 (1962)
106. Jafe, A. A., Barrosq F. S., Forsyth,
P. D. , Huto, J., Taylor, I. J., and
Ramavataram, S., Proc. Phys. Soc.
(London), 76, 914 (1960)
107. Johnson, R. C. , in Proc. Rutherford
Jubilee Conf., 601 (Birks, J. B., Ed.,
Heywood and Co., London, 1961)
108. Kisslinger, L. S., and R. A. Sorensen,
R. A., Kgl. Danske Videnskab.
Selskab, Mat.-Fys. Medd., 32, No. 9
(1960)
109. Kuehner, J. A., Almqvist, E., and
Bromley, D. A., Nucl. Phys., 19,
614 (1960)
1 10. Lane, A. M. , Proc. Phys. Soc. (Ln
don), A, 66, 977 (1953)
1 1 1 . Lane, A. M., Rev. Mod. Phys., 32, 519
(1960)
112. Lane, A. M., and Thomas, R. G., Rev.
Mod. Phys., 30, 257 (1958)
1 13. Lawrence, E. 0., McMillan, E., and
Thornton, R. L., Phys. Rev., 48, 493
(1935)
1 14. Lemmer, R. H., Nutl. Phys., 39, 680
(1962)
115. Levine, S. H., Bender, R. S., and
Mc Gruer, T. N., Phys. Rev., 97,
1249 (1955)
1 16. Litherland, A. E., Me Manus, H.,
Paul, E. B., Bromley, D. A., and
Gove, H. E., Can. J. Phys., 36, 378
(1958)
1 17. Macfarlane, M. H., and French, J. B.,
Rev. Mod. Phys., 32, 567 (1960)
1 18. Macfarlane, M. H., Raz, B. J.,
Yntema, J. L., and Zeidman, B.,
Phys. Rev., 127, 204 (1962)
1 19. Martin. J. P., Quisenberry, K. S., and
Low, C. A., Jr., Phys. Rev., 120, 492
(1960)
120. Mayer, M. G., and Jensen, J. H. D.,
Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell
Structure (Wiley, New York, 1955)
121. Mehta, M. L., and Warke, C. S.,
Nucl. Phys., 13, 451 (1959)
122. Melkanof. M. A., Sawada, T., and
Cindro, N., Phys. Letters, 2, 98
(1962)
123. Middleton, R., and Hinds, S., Nucl.
Phys., 34, 404 (1962)
124. Miller, D. W., Wegner, H. E., and
Hall, W. S., Phys. Rev., 125, 2054
(1962)
125. Morita, S., Kwai, N., Takano, N.,
Goto, Y. , Hanada, R., Nakajima.
Y., Takemoto, S., and Yaegashi,
Y., J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 15, 550s
(1960)
126. Moshinsky, M. , Nucl. Phys., 13, 104
(1959)
127. Mott, N. .. and Massey, H. S. W.,
The Theory ofAtomic Collisions, 144
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd ed. ,
1949)
128. Mukerjee, P., and Cohen, B. L., Phys.
Rev., 127, 1284 (1962)
129. El Nadi M., Proc. Phys. Soc. (London),
70, 62 (1957)
130. Newby, N., and Konopinski, E. J.,
Phys. Rev., 1 15, 434 (1959)
131. Newns, H. C., Proc. Phys. Soc. (Lon
don), A, 66, 477 (1953)
132. Newns, H. C., Proc. Phys. Soc. (Lon
don), 76, 489 (1960)
133. Newns, H. C., and Refai, M. Y.,
Proc. Phys. Soc. (London), 71, 627
(1958)
134. Nilsson. S. G., Kgl. Danske Videnskab.
Selskab, Mat.-Fys. Medd., 29, No.
16 (1955)
135. Okai, S., Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto),
22, 620 (1959)
136. Okai, S., and Sano, M., Progr. Theoret.
Phys. (Kyoto), 14, 399 (1955)
137. Okai, S., and Sano, M., Progr. Theoret.
Phys. (Kyoto), 15 203 (1956)
138. Oppenheimer, J. R., and Phillips, M. ,
Phys. Rev., 9, 500 (1935)
139. Owen, G. E., and Madansky, L.,
Phys. Rev., 105, 1 766 (1957)
140. Preston, R. L., Martin, H. J" and
Sampson, M. B., Phys. Rev., 121,
1 741 (1961)
141. Pullen, D. J., Wilkinson, D. H., and
Whitehead, A. B., in Proc. Ruther
ford Jubilee Conf. , 565 (Birks, J.,
Ed., Heywood and Co., London,
1961)
142. Racah, G., Phys. Rev., 62, 438 (1942)
143. Racah, G., Phys. Rev., 63, 367 (1943)
144. Raz, B. J" Zeidman, B e and Yntema,
J. L., Phys. Rev., 120, 1730 (1960)
145. Reynolds, J. B., and Standing, K. G.,
Phys. Rev., 101, 1157 (1956)
146. Rietjens, L. H. Th., Bilaniuk, O. M. ,
and Macfarlane, M. H., Phys. Rev. ,
120, 527 (1960)
147. Robson, D., Nucl. Phys, 22, 34 (1961)
148. Robson, D., Nucl. Phys. , 22, 47 (1961)
149. Rodberg, L. I., Nucl. Phys., 15, 72
(1960)
150. Rose, M. E., Elementary Theory of
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
260 GLENDENNING
Angular Momentum (Wiley, New
York, 1957)
151. Rustigi, M. L., NMcl. Phys. , 25, 196
(1961)
152. Satchler, G. R., Pmc. Phys. Soc.
(London), A, 66, 1081 (1953)
153. Satchler, G. R., Proc. Phys. Soc.
(London), A, 67, 4:rt (1954)
154. Satchler, G. R., Phys. Rev., 97, 1416
(1955)
155. Satchler, G. R., Ann. Phys., 3, 275
(1958)
156. Satchler, G. R. , Nucl. Phys., 6, 543
(1958)
157. Satchler, G. R. , Nucl. Phys., 18, 110
(1960)
158. Satchler, G. R., and Spiers, J. A"
Proc. Phys. Soc. (London), A, 65,
980 (1952)
159. Satchler, G. R., and Tobocman, W.,
Phys. Rev., 1 18, 1566 (1960)
160. Sawicki, J., Phys. Rev., 106, 172 (1957)
161. Sawicki, J., Nucl. Phy.;., 6, 575 (1958)
162. Schif, L. I., Quanium Mechanics
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949)
163. Schifer, J. P. Lee, L. i.., and Zeidman,
B., Phys. Rev., 1 15, l27 (1959)
164. Scott, H. D., Nucl. Phys., 27, 490
(1961)
165. Schwarz, c., and de-Shalit, A. , Phys.
Rev., 94, 1257 (1954)
166. Sellschop, J. 1. F., Phys. Rev. Letters,
3, 346 (1959)
167. Sellschop, J. P. F., Phys. Rev., 1 19, 251
(1960)
168. Smith, W. R., and Ivash, E. V., Phys.
Rev., 128, 1 1 75 (1962)
169. Stokes, R. H., Phys. Rev., 121, 613
(1961)
1 70. Talmi, 1.. H elv. Phys. A eta, 25, 185
(1952)
171. Ter-Martirosian, K. A. , Soviet Phys.
JETP, 2, 620 (1956)
1 72. Thomas, R. G., Phys. Rev., 91, 453
(1953)
1 73. Thomas, R. G., Phys. Rev., 100, 25
(1955)
1 74. Tobocman, W., Phys. Rev., 94, 1655
(1954)
1 75. Tobocman, W., Phys. Rev., 1 15, 98
(1959)
1 76. Tobocman, W., and Gibbs, W. R.,
Phys. Rev., 126, 1076 (1962)
177. Tobocman, W., and KaloSq M. H.,
Phys. Rev., 97, 132 (1955)
1 78. Tobocman, W., Theory of Direct
Nuclear Reactions (Oxford, London,
1961)
1 79. True, W. W., Phys. Rev. , 130, 1530
(1963)
180. Warburton, E. K., and ChaBe, L. F.,
Jr., Phys. Rev., 120, 2095 (1960)
181. Weidenmuller, H. A., Z. Phy3ik, 150,
389 (1958)
182. Wilkinson, D. H. , Phys. Re9. 105, 666
(1957)
183. Wilkinson, D. H., Phil. Mag., 3, 1 105
(1958)
184. Yoccoz, J., Proc. Phys. Soc. (London),
A, 67, 813 (1954)
185. Yoshidaq S., Progr. Theoret. Phys.
(Kyoto), 10, 1 (1953)
186. Yoshida, S., Progr. Theoret. Phys.
(Kyoto) , 12, 141 (1954)
187. Yoshida, S., Phys. Rev, 123, 2122
(1961)
188. Yoshida, S., Nucl. Phys., 33, 685
(1962)
189. Zeidman, B., and Fowler, J. M., Phys.
Rev., 1 12, 2020 (1958)
190. Zeidman, B., Yntema, J. L., and
Satchler, G. R., in Proc. Rutherford
Jubilee Conf., 515 (Birks, J. B. ,
Ed. , Heywood and Co. , London,
1961)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

N
u
c
l
.

S
c
i
.

1
9
6
3
.
1
3
:
1
9
1
-
2
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

o
n

0
5
/
0
8
/
1
1
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.