High-Energy Electron Scattering and Nuclear Structure Determinations

Hofstadter, R.; Fechter, H. R.; McIntyre, John A.

doi:10.1103/physrev.92.978

Cited by 155 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The values for distribution (d) were obtained for b/a=0'4 by graphical integration of f2 (X,y). For b/a=O '4, this distribution is a reasonable approximation to the smoothed uniform charge distribution, for which the calculated elastic scattering of high energy electrons by gold (Brown and Elton 1955) agrees with experiment (Hofstadter, Fechter, and McIntyre 1953;Hofstadter et al 1954). …”

Section: '1supporting

confidence: 57%

“…This confines our treatment to nuclei with spin 0 in the ground state. (To treat other nuclei similar modifications to those used to incorporate the liquid drop model in the collective model (Bohr 1952;Bohr and Mottelson 1953) From the analysis (Yennie, Ravenhall, and Wilson 1954;Brown and Elton 1955) of high energy electron scattering experiments (Hofstadter, Fechter, and McIntyre 1953;Hofstadter et al 1954) S is given approximately by S=(3f5)lX1'20At X 10-13 cm.…”

Section: Formulation Of the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…INTRODUCTION The liquid drop model (Fierz 1943;Bohr 1952;Jekeli 1952) of the nucleus involves the assumption that the nucleus has a well-defined surface and a uniform charge and mass density. Experiments on the elastic scattering of high energy electrons (Hofstadter, Fechter, and McIntyre 1953;Hofstadter et al 1954) have demonstrated that these assumptions are not valid even for heavy nuclei. An attempt is made to obtain a modified hydro dynamical model which allows for non-uniform nuclear charge and mass density distributions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Model of Nuclear Shape Oscillations for g?Transitions and Electron Excitation

Tassie¹

1956

Aust. J. Phys.

293

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. INTRODUCTION The liquid drop model (Fierz 1943;Bohr 1952;Jekeli 1952) of the nucleus involves the assumption that the nucleus has a well-defined surface and a uniform charge and mass density. Experiments on the elastic scattering of high energy electrons (Hofstadter, Fechter, and McIntyre 1953;Hofstadter et al. 1954) have demonstrated that these assumptions are not valid even for heavy nuclei. An attempt is made to obtain a modified hydro dynamical model which allows for non-uniform nuclear charge and mass density distributions. In the liquid drop model distortions of the surface of the nucleus are considered; in this model similar distortions are considered not of the surface but of the shape of the nucleus, the distortions having effect throughout the whole nucleus. Excited states of the nucleus are then due to oscillations of the shape of the nucleus, i.e. oscillations involving: departures from spherical symmetry of the mass and charge distributions of the nucleus.Longitudinal compressional waves may be expected in the nucleus, involving nodes in the radial density distributions. As in the liquid drop model (Bohr 1952), the energy of excitation of these modes of radial oscillation should be' much greater than the energy of excitation of the shape oscillations. Thus, in treating low-lying nuclear energy levels, it is assumed that the radial dependence of the density distributions does not alter appreciably. This shape oscillation model is then used to consider y-transitions and electron excitation of nuclei. For a uniform charge distribution this model reduces to the usual liquid drop model.

show abstract

Section: '1supporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Formulation Of the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Model of Nuclear Shape Oscillations for g?Transitions and Electron Excitation

Tassie¹

1956

Aust. J. Phys.

293

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electron and hadron scattering [1][2][3][4][5] give us a uniquely precise picture of the mean-field topology, while transfer reactions to immediately neighboring nuclei establish the location and purity of single-particle states and inform on the role of residual interactions [6][7][8][9]. It is surprising that the spectroscopic properties of excited states in nuclides only two or three nucleons removed from this bastion are almost totally unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

γ -ray spectroscopy of Tl209

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

States in 209 Tl were populated using a multi-nucleon transfer reaction with a 136 Xe beam impinging on a thick 208 Pb target at E = 785 MeV. The beam was pulsed at 825 ns intervals in order to perform isomer decay spectroscopy. The known J π = 17/2 + isomer in 209 Tl was located at 1228(4) keV and measured to have a half-life of T 1/2 = 146(10) ns. A second isomer with J π = 13/2 + was found to have T 1/2 = 14(5) ns. The previously suggested low-energy "X" and "Y" transitions were found to have energies 57(2) and 47(2) keV respectively, while the measurement of conversion coefficients and a new decay path make the spin assignments below the isomers experimentally firm. Correlating the delayed γ-transitions with the prompt beam flash allowed the decay of states above the isomer to be found. The longer-lived isomer represents full alignment of the simplest two-particle, one-hole configuration, and illuminates the remarkably weak coupling of the proton hole to the 210 Pb core.

show abstract

“…The investigation of the spatial distributions of the charge and magnetism carried by nuclei started in the early nineteen fifties; it was profoundly affected by the original work of one of its earliest pioneers, Hofstadter and his team of researchers [Hof53b], at the Stanford University High Energy Physics Laboratory. Quite early the interest turned to the nucleon; the first FF measurements of the proton were reported in 1955 [Hof55], and the first measurement of the neutron magnetic FF was reported by Yearian and Hofstadter [Yea58] in 1958.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nucleon electromagnetic form factors

Perdrisat

Punjabi

Vanderhaeghen

2007

Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics

475

583

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been much activity in the measurement of the elastic electromagnetic proton and neutron form factors in the last decade, and the quality of the data has been greatly improved by performing double polarization experiments, in comparison with previous unpolarized data. Here we review the experimental data base in view of the new results for the proton, and neutron, obtained at MIT-Bates, MAMI, and JLab. The rapid evolution of phenomenological models triggered by these high-precision experiments will be discussed, including the recent progress in the determination of the valence quark generalized parton distributions of the nucleon, as well as the steady rate of improvements made in the lattice QCD calculations.

show abstract

High-Energy Electron Scattering and Nuclear Structure Determinations

Cited by 155 publications

References 16 publications

A Model of Nuclear Shape Oscillations for g?Transitions and Electron Excitation

A Model of Nuclear Shape Oscillations for g?Transitions and Electron Excitation

γ -ray spectroscopy of Tl209

Nucleon electromagnetic form factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About