# Low Energy Behavior of the 7Be (𝑝,𝛾)⁸B reaction

## Abstract

Three related features of the astrophysical S-factor, $`S_{17}`$, for low energies are an upturn as the energy of the proton goes to zero, a pole at the proton separation energy and a long-ranged radial integral peaking at approximately 40 fm. These features, particularly the last, mean $`S_{17}`$ at threshold is largely determined by the asymptotic normalization of the proton bound-state wave function. In this paper we identify the pole contribution to the S-factor without any explicit consideration of the asymptotic behavior of the bound-state wave-function. This allows us to calculate, $`S_{17}`$ in terms of purely short range integrals involving the two-body potential. Much of the discussion is relevant to other radiative capture processes with weakly bound final states.

The decay of <sup>8</sup>B in the sun produces high-energy neutrinos that are observed by earth based detectors. In fact, water detectors are mainly sensitive these neutrinos. The <sup>8</sup>B is produced in the <sup>7</sup>Be$`(p,\gamma )^8`$B reaction. In the sun this reaction is peaked for protons with an energy of about 18 keV. The reader is referred to Adelberger et al for a review. Unfortunately the low cross-sections make it highly unlikely that earth based experiments will allow for measurements below 100 keV and even measurements at that low an energy are very difficult. Thus the experimental results have to be extrapolated from above 100 keV to 18 keV in order to be useful. This extrapolation would not seem like much of a problem, except that $`S_{17}`$ has an upturn near threshold and that upturn does not play an important role in the region accessible to experiment. Thus the upturn has to be determined by purely theoretical considerations — a worrisome situation. In this paper we will present a very simple derivation of the pole contribution that causes the upturn. This new derivation does not explicitly rely on the asymptotic behavior of the bound-state wave-function. It does, however, show a remarkable and intimate connection between the short distance part of the wave function and the asymptotic normalization. Furthermore, in addition to increasing our confidence in our understanding of the low energy behavior of the $`S`$-factor, it may provide a useful computational technique.

The long range of the radial integrals needed for determining the <sup>7</sup>Be$`(p,\gamma )^8`$B S-factor at low energies makes the calculations more difficult then might be naively expected. For example, shell model calculations are rarely valid in the extreme tail region where the integrals are peaked. The long range of the integrals can also make the calculation numerically difficult or time consuming, even if the tail of the wave function is well determined.

On the other hand the long range of the integrals can be turned into an advantage. Since most of the contribution at the low energies required in the solar calculations comes from the asymptotic region outside the range of the nuclear force, the low energy $`S`$-function, $`S_{17}`$, is determined mainly by the asymptotic normalization of the bound-state wave-function and properties of Coulomb wave-functions. Thus $`S_{17}(0)`$ is given once the asymptotic normalization is known without the need for additional calculations. From ref.  one infers that $`S_{17}(0)=38A_n`$ where $`A_n`$ is the asymptotic normalization. This is accurate to about 1%.

As has been recently pointed out, ref. , the asymptotic normalization also determines the pole of the t-matrix for the elastic scattering of protons on <sup>7</sup>Be. Using this as a starting point we will derive expressions for the asymptotic normalization and the $`S`$-factor that depend only on the wave-function in the nuclear interior. We start by writing the t-matrix as:

$$k|T|k=k|V|k+k|VGV|k$$
(1)   
where $`|k`$ is a plane wave, $`T`$ is the t-matrix, $`V`$ is the potential and $`G`$ is the full (not free) Greens function. Inserting the eigenstates, $`|\psi _i`$, of the full Hamiltonian as a complete set of states, we have:

$$k|T|k=k|V|k+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left|k|V|\psi _i\right|^2}{E_kE_i}$$
(2)   
where the $`E_i`$ are the eigen-energies of the full Hamiltonian and $`E_k`$ is the energy corresponding to the plane wave $`|k`$. In the continuum the sum becomes an integral. The t-matrix, $`k|T|k`$, has a pole at each of the bound-state energies. The residues of these poles can be identified from eq. 2. For the $`i`$-th state it is $`\left|k|V|\psi _i\right|^2`$. Since the potential limits the radial integral to relatively small values of $`r`$, this results shows that the residue is determined purely by short-ranged parts of the wave function; seemingly in contradiction with the claim of  that the residue is determined by the asymptotic normalization of the bound-state wave function. This apparent contradiction can be overcome only if there is a relation between the short-range and long-range parts of the wave-function. This is indeed that case as can be seen using the equation:

$$k|V|\psi _i=k|HH_o|\psi _i=(E_iE_k)k|\psi _i$$
(3)   
where $`H`$ is the full Hamiltonian and $`H_o`$ is free Hamiltonian. In deriving the last expression on the right we have used the fact that $`|k`$ is an eigenstate of $`H_o`$. If we want $`V`$ to be just the nuclear potential, excluding the Coulomb potential, then the Coulomb potential must be included in $`H_o`$ and $`|k`$ becomes the Coulomb distorted wave. This is useful in restricting the range of the integral to range of the nuclear potential. A technique similar to that leading to eq. 3 was used in ref. in the context of R-matrix theory.

Rewriting the last equation we have:

$$k|\psi _i=\frac{k|V|\psi _i}{(E_iE_k)}$$
(4)   
The right hand side of this equation has an explicit pole at $`E_i=E_k`$. On the left hand side the pole is not explicit but is due to the radial integral diverging at $`k=\pm i\kappa =\pm i\sqrt{2m|E_i|}`$. Near the pole the bound-state wave-function can be replaced by its asymptotic form for large $`r`$, $`A_n\mathrm{exp}[\kappa r]/r`$, since the integral is dominated by large $`r`$. For simplicity we have ignored the Coulomb potential. With the asymptotic approximation for $`|\psi _i`$, $`k|\psi _i`$ becomes:

$`k|\psi _i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}[ikr]A_n\mathrm{exp}[\kappa r]/rd^3r}`$ (5)   
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2A_n}{(2\pi )^{1/2}(\kappa ^2+k^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{m(2\pi )^{1/2}(E_i+E_k)}},`$ (6)   
where $`E_i`$ is the energy of the bound state and is negative. The integral in the first line can be carried out analytically and the leading contribution to the integral for $`k`$ near $`\pm i\kappa `$ is given in the second line. Thus, in this limit $`k|\psi _i\frac{A_n}{E_iE_k}`$ and we have $`A_n=(2\pi )^{1/2}mi\kappa |V|\psi _i`$. Near $`k=\pm i\kappa `$, $`E_k`$ is negative and as noted above for a bound state $`E_i`$ is also negative. Combining eq. 2 and eq. 3 we get:

$`k|T|k`$ $`=`$ $`k|V|k+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(E_kE_i)\left|k|\psi _i\right|^2`$ (7)   
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi m^2}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{E_kE_i}}\right|^2`$ (8)   
where the second line is valid near the pole. The residue of the pole in the t-matrix is now seen to be proportional to $`|A_n|^2`$ or the square of the absolute value of the asymptotic normalization. This is in agreement with ref. .

The key to the above result is Eq. 4, which is just the momentum-space bound-state Lippmann-Schwinger equation. It has the amazing property of relating short and long-range properties of the wave-function — an integral over the interior of the nucleus to the asymptotic normalization. In fact, if we take $`|k`$ to be a Coulomb distorted wave function rather than a plane wave then the $`V`$ in eq. 4 is just the nuclear potential and the range of the integral is the range of the nuclear potential. A similar technique was used in ref.  for proton and neutron emission. Eq. 4 can easily be extended to the case of a two body potential which is needed for realistic calculations. Again the integrals will be short-ranged but will contain two-body matrix elements.

As has been stressed by Mukhamedzhanov and collaborators, the asymptotic normalization is sufficient to determine $`S_{17}`$ near threshold. By explicitly identifying the pole, eq. 4 leads to an expression for the asymptotic normalization in terms of an integral over the interior of the nucleus. This may be useful in theoretically calculating the asymptotic normalization and hence $`S_{17}`$ . For example, the shell model can give a good approximation to the wave function in the interior while it typically does not do a good job in describing the tail of the wave function. By construction the scattering wave in eq. 4 is the eigenstate of $`H_o`$ and thus independent of the nuclear potential. Thus we can evaluate $`k|V|\psi _i`$ with $`|\psi _i`$ obtained from the shell model and use eq. 4 to determine the asymptotic normalization.

Eq. 4 is of use in determining $`S_{17}`$ only in the low energy region where the integrals are long ranged and the S-factor is determined mainly by the asymptotic normalization. It is, however, possible to derive an expression that is short-ranged and valid for all energies. This is done by identifying the singularity in the full expression for $`S_{17}`$. At low energies the reaction is predominately E1 and we take the dipole approximation. Starting with the matrix element of the dipole operator and considering first the case of a single particle in a one-body potential, the matrix element can be written:

$$M=\psi _i(k)|r|\psi _f$$
(9)   
where $`\psi _i(k)`$ is the fully-distorted wave in the initial channel (contrast with eq, 4) and $`\psi _f`$ is the wave-function of the final-state bound proton. This matrix element has a second order pole as the energy of the scattering state goes to the unphysical energy corresponding to the bound state. To explicitly identify the singularity we proceed as follows:

$$M=\frac{\psi _i(k)|HrrH|\psi _f}{E_kE_f}=\frac{\psi _i(k)|\frac{}{m}|\psi _f}{E_kE_f}$$
(10)   
where $`E_k`$ and $`E_f`$ are the energies of the initial and final states respectively and we have assumed a local potential. Since $`V`$ is local it commutes with $`r`$. Thus $`HrrH=[H,r]`$ reduces to the commutator of $`r`$ with the kinetic energy. This gives the result shown above. Repeating this procedure of introducing the commutator with $`H`$ gives (again assuming a local potential):

$$M=\frac{\psi _i(k)|H\frac{}{m}\frac{}{m}H|\psi _f}{\left(E_kE_f\right)^2}=\frac{\psi _i(k)|\frac{V}{m}|\psi _f}{\left(E_kE_f\right)^2}$$
(11)   
The second order pole is now explicitly shown. This equation differs from eq. 4 in having a higher power divergence and in using the fully interacting wave-function for both the initial and finial state.

The integral in the matrix element on the right hand side of eq. 11 is restricted to the range of the potential. For a proton the potential has a $`1/r`$ tail from the Coulomb potential so the integrand will fall off a factor of $`r^3`$ faster then that in eq. 9. The integral in eq. 9 typically peaks at 40 fm with non-negligible contributions coming from beyond 100fm. Repeating the S-factor calculations of ref.  with eq. 11 indicates that the integrals can now be cut off at about 50–60fm at threshold. While this is a definite improvement, the integrals still extend far into the tail region. As we will see shortly, when a two-body potential is used this changes dramatically.

The physical case, of course, does not involve a one-body potential but rather a two or more body interaction. For a many-body system the dipole interaction is $`_{i=1}^Ae_ir_i`$ and for a local two-body interaction the potential is $`\frac{1}{2}_{j,k}V(r_jr_k)`$. Repeating the above procedure of introducing the second order commutator we have :

$$M=\frac{\psi _i(k)|_{j,k}\frac{e_j_jV(r_jr_k)}{m_j}|\psi _f}{\left(E_kE_f\right)^2}$$
(12)   
For a two-body interaction Newton’s third law (conservation of momentum) gives us $`_jV(r_jr_k)=_kV(r_kr_j)`$. Thus if $`e_1/m_1=e_2/m_2`$, the $`j=1`$,$`k=2`$ term cancels the $`j=2`$,$`k=1`$ term. Applying this result for all like pairs the matrix element reduces to :

$$M=\frac{e_p}{m_p}\frac{\psi _i(k)|_{j,k}_jV(r_jr_k)|\psi _f}{\left(E_kE_f\right)^2}$$
(13)   
where $`j`$ is restricted to protons and $`k`$ to neutrons, $`e_p`$ is the charge of the proton and $`m_p`$ is its mass. Thus the matrix element depends only on the neutron-proton potential and not on the proton-proton potential.

In one-body models (see Christy and Duck) a factor of $`\frac{e_p}{m_p}\frac{e_7}{m_7}`$, where $`e_7`$ and $`m_7`$ are the charge and mass of the target nucleus, is included to take into account that the photon can couple either to the proton or to the nucleus. Ignoring the binding energy this factor is just $`\frac{e_p}{m_p}\frac{N}{A}`$. The factor of $`e_p/m_p`$ is explicitly present in eq. 13. The factor of $`N/A`$ can be recovered if the sum over the neutrons can be replaced by $`N/A`$ times a sum over all nucleons. This would be possible if the neutron-proton and proton-proton potentials were the same and if the neutron and proton density distribution in the target nucleus were also the same. For the valence particle the sum, $`_kV(r_jr_k)`$, in this case, would reduce to the mean-field potential for this particle and we recover the one body approximation.

However, because of the Coulomb potential, the proton-proton and proton-neutron potentials are very different. In contrast to eq. 11, the potential in eq. 13 is short-ranged and does not have a Coulomb tail; the integrals will be restricted to the range of the nuclear potential. This difference suggests that one-body models cannot be used to accurately calculate the asymptotic normalization. They should, however, still give the correct energy dependence for low energies since they have the correct singularity structure and asymptotic $`r`$ dependence.

The cancellation of Coulomb potential contributions in eq. 13 is unique to dipole transitions. If $`e_i`$ were proportional to the particle mass, $`m_i,`$ then the dipole operator would be just the center-of -mass coordinate which can not change the internal structure of the nucleus and the total cross-section would be zero.

Eq. 13 may lead to significant gains in computing $`E_1`$ transitions since the range of the integral has decreased to less then 10 fm from over 100 fm. Part of gain is lost since the new expression involve two-body rather then one-body matrix elements. There is another less obvious drawback. For the <sup>7</sup>Be$`(p,\gamma )^8`$B reaction the scattering wave function has a node in the nuclear interior. This leads to large negative and positive contributions to the integrals in eqs. 11 and 13. There is a large cancellation between the negative and positive contributions. This will make the numerical calculation of these matrix elements less stable.

We now illustrate the points made above by using a single particle model. We take the potential to have a Woods-Saxon shape and include the Coulomb potential. In the direct calculation, i.e. using eq. 9, of the s-wave contribution to the S-factor the upper bound on the integral must be 300fm for a 2% accuracy. The accuracy is determined by first using a large upper limit on the integral and then reducing it until a 2% error is observed. The calculation of the matrix element was then done using eq. 11. The results, as expected, agree within numerical errors to those from eq. 9. Using eq. 11 the upper limit can be reduced to 50fm while still maintaining 2% accuracy. This is still quite a large radius and is due to the long range nature of the Coulomb potential and the previously noted cancellation in the integral.

In calculations with a two body potential the Coulomb contribution cancels so we have used eq. 11 to carry out a calculation but only included the nuclear potential in the $`V`$. In this case it is only necessary to integrate to 7fm in order to have 2% accuracy. This is the range we would expect from the size of the nucleus. Dropping the Coulomb contribution from $`V`$ in eq. 11 also causes the integral to increases by more than a factor of 2. This sensitivity to the presence of the Coulomb potential in eq. 11 indicates that a single particle model cannot be used to determine the absolute value of the S-factor; or at a minimum the underlying two-body nature of the interaction must be explicitly taken into account in calculations that rely on single-particle wave-functions.

The proton distribution in <sup>7</sup>Be probably has a larger radius than the neutron distribution. This is due to the Coulomb potential and the presence of an extra proton. Taking this into account by reducing the potential radius in eq. 11 (remember that for a two-body potential only the neutron-proton potential comes in) we find extreme sensitivity of the S-factor matrix element to the exact radius used. Reducing the potential radius by just 0.12fm causes the integral to vanish. In varying the radius of the potential we have kept the same wave-function since the distortion is due to both the protons and neutrons. We note that in ref.  the result was also strongly sensitive to the potential used. The sensitivity to theoretical input may not be just a shortcoming of the technique but may have a deeper origin indicating that the asymptotic normalization may, in the end, have to be determined experimentally.

Eq. 13 was derived on the assumption that the two-body potential had a simple local form. Non-localities or charge exchange potentials will change this. Consider a general many body Hamiltonian, $`H=_i\frac{_i^2}{2m_i}+\frac{1}{2}_{i,j}V_{i,j}`$. In eq. 10, we take the commutator of the Hamiltonian with the dipole operator. This will, in general, give two terms. One comes from the kinetic energy and is just $`_i\frac{e_i_i}{m_i}`$. The second contribution is from the commutator of the potential with the dipole operator. Since the second term is already short ranged we take the second commutator only with the first term This gives:

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _i(k)|_j\frac{e_j_j}{m_j}|\psi _f}{E_kE_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _i(k)|[V,_je_jr_j]|\psi _f}{E_kE_f}}`$ (14)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _i(k)|[V,_j\frac{e_j_j}{m_j}]|\psi _f}{\left(E_kE_f\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _i(k)|[V,_je_jr_j]|\psi _f}{E_kE_f}}`$ (15)   
This equation will be correct for any two-body potential. Since the Coulomb potential is local it will not contribute to the second commutator and, as we saw above, cancels in the first commutator. All the remaining contributions in either term will be of the same range as the nuclear potential. Thus we see that even in the more general case the relevant expression can be reduced to matrix elements of short ranged potentials.

Strictly speaking, neither eq. 4 nor 15 prove that the matrix elements on the left hand sides have singularities since the matrix elements on the right hand side may go to zero. For capture from the d-wave in the <sup>7</sup>Be$`(p,\gamma )^8`$B reaction the Coulomb wave function has a zero near the pole location so the pole is effectively canceled and the d-wave contribution to the s-factor is almost linear in the low energy region. In other derivations of the existence of the pole such accidental zeros must also be checked for. With the exception of such special cases the procedures outlined in this paper provide the cleanest and simplest method to show the existence of the pole in the S-factor and to isolate its residue.

To summarize we have shown that the asymptotic normalization needed to calculated $`S_{17}`$ can be obtained from an integral over the nuclear interior. This relies on the intimate connection between the wave-function in the nuclear interior and the asymptotic normalization that follows directly from the bound-state Lippmann-Schwinger equation. The matrix element needed in the calculation for $`S_{17}`$ at any energy can also be reduced to a form that involves only integrals over the nuclear interior. These expressions make the singularity structure of the S-factor explicit and may simplify calculating $`S_{17}`$.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The author thanks S. Gurvitz, S. Karataglidis, S. Scherer and H.W. Fearing for useful discussions. J. Escher is thanked for carefully reading the manuscript and useful discussion. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Sciences Research Council is thanked for financial support.