research

Astrophysical SS factor for the 15N(p,γ)16O{}^{15}{\rm N}(p,\gamma){}^{16}{\rm O} reaction from RR-matrix analysis and asymptotic normalization coefficient for 16O15N+p{}^{16}{\rm O} \to {}^{15}{\rm N} + p. Is any fit acceptable?

Abstract

The 15N(p,γ)16O^{15}{\rm N}(p,\gamma)^{16}{\rm O} reaction provides a path from the CN cycle to the CNO bi-cycle and CNO tri-cycle. The measured astrophysical factor for this reaction is dominated by resonant capture through two strong Jπ=1J^{\pi}=1^{-} resonances at ER=312E_{R}= 312 and 962 keV and direct capture to the ground state. Recently, a new measurement of the astrophysical factor for the 15N(p,γ)16O^{15}{\rm N}(p,\gamma)^{16}{\rm O} reaction has been published [P. J. LeBlanc {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 82}, 055804 (2010)]. The analysis has been done using the RR-matrix approach with unconstrained variation of all parameters including the asymptotic normalization coefficient (ANC). The best fit has been obtained for the square of the ANC C2=539.2C^{2}= 539.2 fm1{}^{-1}, which exceeds the previously measured value by a factor of 3\approx 3. Here we present a new RR-matrix analysis of the Notre Dame-LUNA data with the fixed within the experimental uncertainties square of the ANC C2=200.34C^{2}=200.34 fm1{}^{-1}. Rather than varying the ANC we add the contribution from a background resonance that effectively takes into account contributions from higher levels. Altogether we present 8 fits, five unconstrained and three constrained. In all the fits the ANC is fixed at the previously determined experimental value C2=200.34C^{2}=200.34 fm1{}^{-1}. For the unconstrained fit with the boundary condition Bc=Sc(E2)B_{c}=S_{c}(E_{2}), where E2E_{2} is the energy of the second level, we get S(0)=39.0±1.1S(0)=39.0 \pm 1.1 keVb and normalized χ~2=1.84{\tilde \chi}^{2}=1.84, i.e. the result which is similar to [P. J. LeBlanc {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 82}, 055804 (2010)]. From all our fits we get the range 33.1S(0)40.133.1 \leq S(0) \leq 40.1 keVb which overlaps with the result of [P. J. LeBlanc {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 82}, 055804 (2010)]. We address also physical interpretation of the fitting parameters.Comment: Submitted to PR

    Similar works