I Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)

jhonconnor
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I made a simulation of neutron-proton scattering phase shift to find the total cross-section, but the sim and exp data have a large difference of magnitude between them.
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is
$$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$
##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first find both scattering phase shift in degrees, putting ##y_{i+1} = 180/\pi## to make tables and graphs. Later, for ##\ell = 0## state the equation that relates phase shift with partial cross-section is
$$ \sigma_p = \frac{4\pi}{k^2}(\sin \delta_p)^2$$
At least, total cross-section is expressed as
$$ \sigma_{total} = \frac{3}{4}\sigma_t + \frac{1}{4}\sigma_s$$
where ##\sigma_t## and ##\sigma_s## is triplet and singlet cross-section respectively. But for some energy range is there such a large difference between sim and exp cross-section. I verify using "exp phase shift" and putting them into the equations, but the order of magnitude are the same that I obtain with my simulation. What is the reason for that? Note: ##k## have units of ##1/\mathrm{fm}## and in the table data is in Barn units.

Just try it with ##E_{lab}=##300 MeV ##\delta_t = 6.60## and ##\delta_s = –4.46## in degrees (with ##E_{cm} = m_pE_{lab}/(m_p+m_n)##)
 

Attachments

  • 1757103971017.webp
    1757103971017.webp
    62.9 KB · Views: 1
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top