We systematically analyze total reaction cross sections of carbon isotopes with N = 6-16 on a 12 C target for wide range of incident energy. The intrinsic structure of the carbon isotope is described by a Slater determinant generated from a phenomenological mean-field potential, which reasonably well reproduces the ground state properties for most of the even N isotopes. We need separate studies not only for odd nuclei but also for 16 C and 22 C. The density of the carbon isotope is constructed by eliminating the effect of the center of mass motion. For the calculations of the cross sections, we take two schemes: one is the Glauber approximation, and the other is the eikonal model using a global optical potential. We find that both of the schemes successfully reproduce low and high incident energy data on the cross sections of 12 C, 13 C and 16 C on 12 C. The calculated reaction cross sections of 15 C are found to be considerably smaller than the empirical values observed at low energy. We find a consistent parameterization of the nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitude, differently from previous ones. Finally, we predict the total reaction cross section of 22 C on 12 C.

We systematically study total reaction cross sections of carbon isotopes with N = 6-16 on a proton target for wide range of incident energies, putting an emphasis on the difference from the case of a carbon target. The analysis includes the reaction cross sections of 19,20,22 C at 40 AMeV, the data of which have recently been measured at RIKEN. The Glauber theory is used to calculate the reaction cross sections. To describe the intrinsic structure of the carbon isotopes, we use a Slater determinant generated from a phenomenological mean-field potential, and construct the density distributions. To go beyond the simple mean-field model, we adopt two types of dynamical models: One is a core+n model for odd-neutron nuclei, and the other is a core+n+n model for 16 C and 22 C. We propose empirical formulas which are useful in predicting unknown cross sections.

No abstract

with a conversion error in Table I. The last numbers of the sixth column should read as −0.24, −0.35, −0.38, −0.2, and −0.46. The table has been corrected as of December 28, 2009. The table is incorrect in the printed version of the journal.