AI 中文总结
研究$^{15}$C从基态$1/2^+$到第一激发态$5/2^+$的非弹性激发，采用三体模型结合CDCC方法求解散射问题，对比不同方法结果，发现$^{15}$C破裂效应重要，CDCC能正确预测弹性角分布，但不能完全描述非弹性角分布。
AI 中文摘要
背景：在阿贡国家实验室，通过以7.1 A MeV的能量让$^{15}$C撞击氘化靶，测量了单中子晕核$^{15}$C从基态$1/2^+$到第一激发态$5/2^+$的激发。然后在扭曲波玻恩近似中使用刚性转子模型对该数据进行分析。目的：作为单中子晕核，预期单粒子激发比集体过程能更好地描述$^{15}$C的激发。由于单中子分离阈值低，接近$^{15}$C的第一激发态能量，预期$^{15}$C的破裂会影响反应机制。本工作的目标是探索各种反应机制以重新解释参考文献[1]中$^{15}$C非弹性激发的数据。方法：假设三体模型$^{14}$C$+n+d$求解散射问题。使用连续介质离散耦合通道方法（CDCC），并将结果与原始实验分析中采用的带四极形变的一步DWBA结果进行比较。还使用贝叶斯不确定性量化来估计预测中来自$n$-$d$相互作用的不确定性。结果：分析了7.1 A MeV下$^{15}$C(d,d')$^{15}\text{C}^*$的弹性和非弹性角分布。结果表明$^{15}$C破裂效应很重要。结论：虽然CDCC正确预测了弹性角分布，但不能完全描述实验非弹性角分布。讨论了可能导致剩余差异的其他效应。
英文摘要
Background: The excitation of one-neutron halo nucleus $^{15}$C from the $1/2^+$ ground state to the $5/2^+$ first excited state was measured at Argonne National Laboratory by impinging $^{15}$C on a deuterated target at $7.1 A$ MeV. This data was then analyzed in the Distorted Wave Born Approximation using a rigid rotor model for the excitation. Purpose: Being a one-neutron halo, we expect a single-particle excitation to better represent the excitation of $^{15}$C rather than a collective process. We expect the breakup of $^{15}$C to influence the reaction mechanisms because of the low one-neutron separation threshold, which is close in energy to $^{15}$C's first excited state. The goal of this work is to explore various the reaction mechanisms to reinterpret the data of Ref.[1] for the inelastic excitation of $^{15}$C. Method: We solve the scattering problem assuming a three-body model $^{14}$C$+n+d$. We use the Continuum Discretized Coupled Channel method (CDCC) and compare the results with those obtained assuming 1-step DWBA with quadrupole deformation, as done in the original experimental analysis. We also use Bayesian uncertainty quantification to estimate the uncertainties in our predictions coming from the $n$-$d$ interaction. Results: We analyze both the elastic and inelastic angular distributions for $^{15}$C(d,d')$^{15}\text{C}^*$ at $7.1 A$ MeV. Our results show that $^{15}$C breakup effects are important. Conclusions: While CDCC predicts the elastic angular distribution correctly, it is not able to fully describe the experimental inelastic angular distribution. We discuss additional effects that may be responsible for the remaining discrepancy.
