Nuclear form factor, the graph F2(q) vs. q (fm-1)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Yuen
  • Start date Start date
Yuen
Messages
22
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
How to obtain the graph F2(q) vs. q (fm-1) from the graph F2(q2) vs. q2 (fm-2)?
In the article J. R. Ficence, ,,,, I. Sick, Phys. Lett. B 32, 460 (1970), Fig. 1, there is graph F(q) vs. q (fm-1).
In the article J. S. McCarthy, I. Sick, …, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 884 (1970), Fig. 1, there is graph F2(q2) vs. q2 (fm-2).
How to obtain the graph F2(q) vs. q (fm-1) from the graph F2(q2) vs. q2 (fm-2)?

In the book Subatomic Physics (E. M Henley, A. Garcia, 3rd ed. (2007)), p. 137, it is spherically symmetric, Eq. (6.6). Since f no longer depends 0n the direction of q but only on its magnitude, it is now written as f(q2).
In the book Particles and Nuclei (P. Povh et al., 5th ed. (2006), p. 62, spherical symmetric …, the form factor only depends on the momentum transfer q. We symbolise this fact by writing the form factor as F(q2).
How to obtain the graph F2(q) vs. q (fm-1) from the graph F2(q2) vs. q2 (fm-2)?

I think in the graph F2(q2) vs. q2 (fm-2), q2 is a dummy variable. We can just replace F2(q2) by F2(q), and q2 (fm-2) by q (fm-1).
In the book Subatomic Physics, p. 137, ‘it is now written as f(q2)’ , and the book Particles and Nuclei, p. 62, ‘We symbolize
this fact by writing the form actor as F(q2)’ are unnecessary.

Could someone please give me the answer? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In fact, In the book Subatomic Physics, p. 137, Eq. (6.6), we can just use f(q) where q is a scalar.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K