format: text

text:
# An integrable system on the moduli space of rational functions and its variants

## 1 Introduction

Moser’s work  on the open finite Toda lattice will be presumably the earliest attempt in the literature to relate a moduli space of rational functions to an integrable system. The idea is to construct a rational function

$$f(\lambda )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\rho _j}{\lambda \alpha _j}$$

from the $`L`$-matrix of the Toda lattice, which can be reproduced from $`f(\lambda )`$ by a continued fraction. Moser discovered that the dynamics of the Toda lattice is linearized in the new variables $`\rho _j`$ and $`\alpha _j`$ (i.e., moduli of the rational function), so that an explicit formula of solutions of the Toda lattice can be obtained by inverting the map $`Lf(\lambda )`$. The mechanism of linearization was elucidated (and generalized) by Kostant  in the language of representations of Lie groups.

It was soon noticed that Moser’s method resembles mathematical techniques of the system control theory in engineering. An analogue of Moser’s rational function emerges therein as a fundamental quantity (the rational transfer function) that characterizes the input-output relation of a linear control system. Following Moser’s construction, Krishnaprasad  introduced dynamical flows on the moduli space of such rational functions, and solved some geometrical problems raised by Brockett . Krishnaprasad’s work was further refined by Nakamura , who thus obtained a few variants of the open finite Toda lattice.

Another notable example where a moduli space of rational functions plays a role, is the monopole moduli space of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory. According to Donaldson’s result , the monopole moduli space is isomorphic to a space of rational functions (though with complex coefficients, as opposed to Moser’s case). It is not difficult to infer the existence of an integrable system on this moduli space from Donaldson’s work (and the subsequent progress in the book of Atiyah and Hitchin ). Firstly, although Donaldson mentioned nothing, Donaldson’s construction of the rational function is actually very similar to the rational transfer function in the system control theory. Secondly, Atiyah and Hitchin  introduced a symplectic structure on Donaldson’s space of rational functions, which can be the first step towards the construction of an integrable system. From the first point of view, Nakamura  extended his previous work  to this space of complex rational functions. The second point of view was sought by Faybusovich and Gekhtman , who recently reported the existence of a multi-Hamiltonian structure therein .

In this paper, we take up this relatively well understood integrable system from two new aspects:

1. Action-angle variables of Seiberg-Witten type. Needless to say, the existence of action-angle variables is the most fundamental aspect of integrable systems. The so called Seiberg-Witten integrable systems  are characterized by a special set of action-angle variables that are associated with a special differential $`dS`$ (the Seiberg-Witten differential) on the spectral curve. We shall show that the integrable system on the moduli space of rational functions has a similar property.
2. Separation of variables. Another remarkable aspect of many finite-dimensional integrable systems is separation of variables (SoV). In the modern version of SoV due to Sklyanin , an integrable system is mapped to a dynamical system of a finite number of points on the spectral curve, and the coordinates of these moving points are nothing but separated variables. (A prototype of this interpretation of SoV can be found in Moser’s work on classical integrable systems  and its generalization by the Montreal group .) The integrable system on the moduli space of rational functions turns out to have a similar set of separated variables.

The role of the spectral curve is now played by a rational curve of the form

$$C=\{(\lambda ,z)z=A(\lambda )\},$$

where $`A(\lambda )`$ is the denominator of the expression

$$f(\lambda )=\frac{B(\lambda )}{A(\lambda )}$$

of $`f(\lambda )`$ as the quotient of two polynomials. The separated variables are given by the zeros $`\lambda _j`$ of $`B(\lambda )`$ and the values $`z_j=A(\lambda _j)`$ of $`A(\lambda )`$ at these zeros. In the context of Seiberg-Witten integrable systems, this kind of rational spectral curves emerge in the weak coupling limit of the supersymmetric gauge theory .

We construct two variants of this integrable system on the basis of these observations. The new integrable systems live on a moduli space of trigonometric or elliptic functions, and inherit most of the properties of the rational case. We show that these integrable systems can be formulated in a unified way, which will be useful for higher genus generalization.

Further generalization can be sought in the perspective of complex surfaces with symplectic or Poisson structure . All the three (rational, trigonometric and elliptic) cases are associated with a complex surface $`X`$ with rational fibration over a (rational or elliptic) curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The curve $`C`$ is embedded in $`X`$. A natural idea of generalization is to replace the rational fibration by elliptic fibration. A few examples of that kind of integrable systems have been constructed . We reexamine these examples in the present context.

A few more comments on the rational case are in order. Firstly, Morosi and Tondo  considered a very similar example of separation of variables. Their example is picked out from Calogero’s many-body systems describing motion of zeros (or poles) of solutions of a partial differential equation . This example, too, can be reformulated as an integrable system on the moduli space of rational functions except that the degree of the denominator $`B(\lambda )`$ is different from our case. Secondly, Krichever and Vaninsky  developed an algebro-geometric approach to the finite open Toda lattice using Baker-Akhiezer functions on a singular rational curve. The Seiberg-Witten structure and separated variables can be reproduced from their results as well.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we show an outline of our construction. Section 3 reviews the case of rational functions from the new points of view. Integrable systems on a space of trigonometric and elliptic functions are constructed in Sections 4 and 5. Section 6 seeks generalizations in the context of symplectic surfaces. We show our conclusion in Section 7.

## 2 Outline of construction

Our strategy of constructing the integrable systems is summarized in the following way. We do not consider global nature of the phase space and restricted ourselves to generic situation.

1. The phase space is the moduli space of meromorphic functions of certain class on a fixed Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is either a sphere, a cylinder or a torus. We factorize each meromorphic function as $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$, where $`A(\lambda )`$ and $`B(\lambda )`$ are holomorphic functions (or holomorphic sections of a line bundle) on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
2. Let $`\{\alpha _j\}`$ be the set of poles of the meromorphic function $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$, i.e., zeros of $`A(\lambda )`$. We have a canonical coordinate system on the phase space $`(\alpha _j,\psi _j)_{j=1,\mathrm{},N}`$. Hence the canonical $`2`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the phase space has the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\alpha _jd\psi _j.$$
(1)
3. The Hamiltonians of the system $`u_n(\alpha )`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$) are given. Not containing the variables $`\psi _j`$, they mutually commute; $`\{u_n,u_m\}=0`$. By coordinate transformation, we can rewrite $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}du_nd\varphi _n.$$
(2)
Namely $`\varphi _n`$ is the angle variable corresponding to the action variable $`u_n`$. In this sense, the system is trivially solved.
4. There exists another set of canonical variables $`(\lambda _j,\mu _j)_{j=1,\mathrm{},N}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mu _jd\lambda _j,$$
(3)
where $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ is the set of zeros of $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$, i.e., zeros of $`B(\lambda )`$. Each pair $`(\lambda _j,z_j=e^{\mu _j})`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$) satisfies a relation,

$$z_j=A(\lambda _j;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N).$$
(4)
5. The generating function $`S(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)`$ of the canonical transformation

$$(\lambda _j,\mu _j)_{j=1,\mathrm{},N}(u_n,\varphi _n)_{n=1,\mathrm{},N}$$
(5)
is defined by the integral

$$S(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _i}\mathrm{log}A(\lambda ;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)𝑑\lambda .$$
(6)
Hence the variables $`\mu _j`$ and $`\varphi _n`$ are expressed as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu _j& =\frac{S}{\lambda _j},\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _n& =\frac{S}{u_n}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _i}\frac{A}{u_n}(\lambda ;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)\frac{d\lambda }{A(\lambda ;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
6. By the interpolation formulae we can solve the equation (4) and express the Hamiltonian $`u_n`$ in terms of the variables $`(\lambda _j,z_j)_{j=1,\mathrm{},N}`$; $`u_n=u_n(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n;z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$. Thus we obtain a non-trivial integrable (or integrated) system.

We have three canonical coordinate systems, $`(\alpha _j,\psi _j)`$, $`(u_n,\varphi _n)`$ and $`(\lambda _j,\mu _j)`$. The first two are of action-angle type while the third are separated variables. In fact, (4) may be interpreted as the equation of the common level set $`u_n=u_n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ of the Hamiltonians expressed in separated variables (see ). Note that, in general, if one solves the equations of the common level set by the implicit function theorem, the result would be

$$z_j=\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N).$$

We emphasize that the right hand side of (4) contains only $`\lambda _j`$ among all $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$. This is the key point in the SoV method.

Usually the SoV method requires a relation of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z_j,\lambda _j;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)=0`$ for each $`j`$. Our assumption (4) says more than that; $`N`$ points $`(\lambda _j,z_j)`$ lie on one and the same curve $`C_u:=\{(\lambda ,z)z=A(\lambda ;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)\}`$ parametrized by $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_N`$.

In this respect, the definition (6) of the generating function of the canonical transformation is the Abelian integral of the Seiberg-Witten differential $`\mathrm{log}A(\lambda ;u)d\lambda `$ on the curve $`C_u`$. We can also interpret the coordinate transformation $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)`$ as the inverse map of the period integral,

$$\alpha _j=_{a_j}\lambda d_\lambda \mathrm{log}A(\lambda ;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N),$$
(8)
where $`a_j`$ is the cycle on the curve $`C_u`$ encircling a zero of $`A(\lambda ;u)`$ on the $`\lambda `$-plane. The interpolation formulae $`u_n=u_n(\lambda ;z)`$ determines the moduli of the curve $`C_u`$ from the points lying on it.

## 3 Rational case

Let us consider the moduli space of rational functions $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$ where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are polynomials of the form:

$`A(\lambda )`$ $`=\lambda ^N+u_1\lambda ^{N1}+u_2\lambda ^{N2}+\mathrm{}+u_N={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\lambda \alpha _j),`$ (9)
$`B(\lambda )`$ $`=\rho {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\lambda \lambda _k).`$ (10)
For simplicity, we assume that all roots of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are distinct. Since $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$ has a partial fraction expansion,

$$\frac{B(\lambda )}{A(\lambda )}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\rho _j}{\lambda \alpha _j},\rho =\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _j,\rho _j=\frac{B(\alpha _j)}{A^{}(\alpha _j)},$$
(11)
there are two coordinates of this $`2N`$-dimensional moduli space, $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N,\rho ,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1})`$ and $`(\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _N,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)`$.

Following Atiyah and Hitchin , we introduce the symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{log}B(\alpha _j)d\alpha _j$$
(12)
on this space. Since each $`u_n`$ is the elementary symmetric function of $`\alpha _j`$, they commute with each other; $`\{u_m,u_n\}=0`$.

By an easy residue calculus, we can rewrite this form as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\alpha _j}\left(\frac{\delta A(\lambda )}{A(\lambda )}\frac{\delta B(\lambda )}{B(\lambda )}d\lambda \right),$$
(13)
where $`\delta `$ is the exterior derivation with respect to the moduli coordinates, i.e., $`\delta =dd\lambda (/\lambda )`$. The 3-form inside the bracket is rational on the $`\lambda `$-sphere with poles at $`\lambda =\alpha _j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$), $`\lambda =\lambda _k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},N1`$) and $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$. The residues at $`\lambda =\lambda _k`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ are

$`\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\lambda _k}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta A(\lambda )}{A(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta B(\lambda )}{B(\lambda )}}d\lambda \right)`$ $`=d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k,`$
$`\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta A(\lambda )}{A(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta B(\lambda )}{B(\lambda )}}d\lambda \right)`$ $`=du_1d\mathrm{log}\rho .`$
By the residue theorem, we have another expression of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from (13),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k+du_1d\mathrm{log}\rho .$$
(14)
Let us consider the restricted moduli space $`\{\rho =1,u_1=0\}`$ (the “reduced monopole space”; see , p.19) and the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|_{\rho =1,u_1=0}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k.$$
(15)
Substituting the explicit expression (9), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }|_{\rho =1,u_1=0}& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\lambda _k^{Nj}du_jd\lambda _k}{A(\lambda _k)}\hfill \\ & =\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}du_j\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\lambda _k^{Nj}}{A(\lambda _k)}d\lambda _k\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
We introduce the generating function of the canonical transformation by

$$S(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1};u_2,\mathrm{},u_N):=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}^{\lambda _k}\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )𝑑\lambda .$$
(17)
The form $`dS=\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )d\lambda `$ is a Seiberg-Witten differential on the curve $`C_u=\{(\lambda ,z)z=A(\lambda )\}`$ and the right hand side of (17) is an Abelian integral of $`dS`$ corresponding to the divisor $`_{k=1}^{N1}(\lambda _k,z_k)`$ on $`C_u`$.

The variable $`\mu _k=\mathrm{log}z_k`$ and the “angle variable” $`\varphi _n`$ corresponding to $`u_n`$ is expressed as

$$\mu _k=\frac{S}{\lambda _k},\varphi _n=\frac{S}{u_n}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}^{\lambda _k}\frac{\lambda ^{Nj}}{A(\lambda )}𝑑\lambda ,$$
(18)
and we can rewrite (16) as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|_{\rho =1,u_1=0}=\underset{j=2}{\overset{N}{}}du_jd\varphi _n.$$
(19)
The Hamiltonians $`u_n`$ ($`n=2,\mathrm{},N`$) are explicitly written down in terms of the coordinate system $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1},z_1,\mathrm{},z_{N1})`$, where $`z_k=A(\lambda _k)`$. This is a simple application of the Lagrange interpolation formula,

$$\frac{A(\lambda )\lambda ^N}{B(\lambda )}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{A(\lambda _k)\lambda _k^N}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _k}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{z_k\lambda _k^N}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _k}.$$
(20)
(Note that the left hand side has poles at $`\lambda =\lambda _k`$ by (10).) For example, $`u_2`$ is read off directly from the residue of (20) at $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$:

$$u_2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{z_k\lambda _k^N}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{z_k\lambda _k^N}{_{lk}(\lambda _k\lambda _l)}.$$
(21)
If we denote the coefficients of $`B`$ by $`v_j`$,

$$B(\lambda )=\lambda ^{N1}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_j\lambda ^{Nj1},$$
(22)
other $`u_j`$’s can be expressed as

$$u_{j+1}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{z_k\lambda _k^N}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\frac{v_j}{\lambda _k},$$
(23)
for $`j=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. (This expression recovers (21), since $`v_1=_{k=1}^{N1}\lambda _k`$.)

## 4 Trigonometric (hyperbolic) case

In the trigonometric case, we consider the moduli space of meromorphic functions $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$ where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are trigonometric polynomials:

$`A(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \alpha _j),`$ (24)
$`B(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \lambda _k).`$ (25)
For simplicity, we assume that $`\lambda _k`$’s and $`\alpha _j`$’s are distinct. Since $`B(\lambda )/A(\lambda )`$ has a period $`\pi i`$, $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\lambda _k`$ are regarded as points on the cylinder, $`/\pi i`$.

The symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{log}B(\alpha _j)d\alpha _j$$
(26)
is a trigonometric analogue of the form (12). The expression (13) holds also in this case. To obtain the formula like (14) or (15), we can apply the residue formula which expresses the sum of the residues as the contour integral, but the following argument is simpler: the logarithmic derivative of $`\mathrm{sinh}\lambda `$ is the hyperbolic cotangent, $`\mathrm{coth}\lambda `$, which is an odd function, $`\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )=\mathrm{coth}\lambda `$. Therefore it follows from the definition (26) that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }& =\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\alpha _j\lambda _k)d\lambda _kd\alpha _j\hfill \\ & =\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda _k\alpha _j)d\alpha _jd\lambda _k\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
As in the rational case the coefficients of $`A(\lambda )`$ become action variables. Let us denote $`e^\lambda `$ by $`x`$ and expand $`A(\lambda )`$ as

$$A(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2^N}(u_0x^Nu_1x^{N2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{N1}u_{N1}x^{2N}+(1)^Nu_Nx^N).$$
(28)
Each coefficient $`u_n`$ is expressed explicitly as

$$u_n=\underset{\begin{array}{c}I_1I_2=\{1,\mathrm{},N\}\\ |I_1|=n\end{array}}{}\underset{iI_1}{}e^{\alpha _i}\underset{jI_2}{}e^{\alpha _j}.$$
(29)
In particular,

$$u_0=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _j\right),u_N=u_0^1.$$
(30)
Since $`u_n`$’s are functions of $`\alpha _j`$, they commute with each other with respect to the Poisson bracket defined by the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, (26).

Taking the formula (30) into account, we have

$$d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k=\frac{1}{2^N}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}du_n\frac{(1)^nx_k^{N2n}}{A(\lambda _k)}d\lambda _k+\frac{du_0}{u_0}\frac{u_0x_k^N(1)^Nu_0^1x_k^N}{A(\lambda _k)}d\lambda _k\right),$$
(31)
where $`x_k=e^{\lambda _k}`$. Summing them up, we have from (27) that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}du_nd\varphi _n+\frac{du_0}{u_0}d\varphi _0,$$
(32)
where $`\varphi _n`$’s are angle variables defined by

$$\varphi _n=\frac{1}{2^N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _k}\frac{(1)^ne^{(N2n)\lambda }}{A(\lambda )}𝑑\lambda ,$$
(33)
for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$ and

$$\varphi _0=\frac{1}{2^N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _k}\frac{u_0e^{N\lambda }(1)^Nu_0^1e^{N\lambda }}{A(\lambda )}𝑑\lambda .$$
(34)
The generating function of the canonical transformation $`(\lambda _k,\mu _k=\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k))_{k=1,\mathrm{},N}(u_n,\varphi _n)_{n=1,\mathrm{},N}`$ is

$$S(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N;u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _k}\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )𝑑\lambda ,$$
(35)
and the variable $`\mu _k`$ and $`\varphi _n`$ are expressed as

$$\mu _k=\frac{S}{\lambda _k},\varphi _n=\frac{S}{u_n}.$$
(36)
The right hand side of (35) is again the Abelian integral of the Seiberg-Witten differential $`\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )d\lambda `$ on the curve $`C_u=\{(\lambda ,z)z=A(\lambda )\}`$ parametrized by $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_N`$.

Explicit expressions of the Hamiltonians $`u_n`$ ($`n=0,\mathrm{},N1`$) in terms of the coordinate system $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1},z_1,\mathrm{},z_{N1})`$, $`z_k=A(\lambda _k)`$, are obtained from the interpolation formula. By comparing the periodicity, position of poles and their residue, it is easy to see that

$$\frac{A(\lambda )}{B(\lambda )}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{z_k}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \lambda _k)+c_0,$$
(37)
where $`c_0`$ is a constant independent of $`\lambda `$ but dependent on $`\lambda _k`$ and $`\alpha _j`$. Let us expand $`B(\lambda )`$ as

$$B(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2^N}(v_0x^Nv_1x^{N2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{N1}v_{N1}x^{2N}+(1)^Nv_Nx^N),$$
(38)
where

$$v_n=\underset{\begin{array}{c}I_1I_2=\{1,\mathrm{},N\}\\ |I_1|=n\end{array}}{}\underset{iI_1}{}e^{\lambda _i}\underset{jI_2}{}e^{\lambda _j}.$$
(39)
In particular, $`v_0=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{k=1}^N\lambda _k\right)`$, $`v_N=v_0^1`$. Summing up the asymptotics of the both hand sides of (37) in the limit $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda \pm \mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\frac{u_0}{v_0}+\frac{v_0}{u_0}=2c_0,\text{ i.e., }c_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_0}{v_0}+\frac{v_0}{u_0}\right)=\mathrm{cosh}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _k\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _j\right),$$
(40)
because $`\mathrm{coth}\lambda \pm 1`$ ($`\mathrm{Re}\lambda \pm \mathrm{}`$). Expansion of (37) around $`x=e^\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}& u_0u_1x^2+\mathrm{}+(1)^{N1}u_{N1}x^{22N}+(1)^Nu_Nx^{2N}\hfill \\ \hfill =& (v_0v_1x^2+\mathrm{}+(1)^{N1}v_{N1}x^{22N}+(1)^Nv_Nx^{2N})\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \left(c_0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1+2x^2e^{2\lambda _k}+2x^4e^{4\lambda _k}+\mathrm{})\frac{z_k}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
(Note that $`\mathrm{coth}\lambda =1+_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}2x^{2n}`$ for $`|x|>1`$.) By comparing the coefficients of $`x^{2n}`$ we obtain the expression of $`u_n`$. For example, the coefficients of $`x^0`$ is

$$u_0=v_0\left(c_0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{z_k}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\right),$$
(42)
which is equivalent to

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{z_k}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_0}{v_0}\frac{v_0}{u_0}\right)=\mathrm{sinh}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _j\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _j\right)$$
(43)
due to (40)<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We can derive this relation directly from the interpolation formula (37). In fact, the left hand side of (43) is the sum of residues of (37). The right hand side is the result of a contour integral of $`A(\lambda )/B(\lambda )`$ along the rectangle with vertices $`R`$, $`R+\pi i`$, $`R+\pi i`$, $`R`$. Since $`lim_{\mathrm{Re}\lambda \pm \mathrm{}}A(\lambda )/B(\lambda )=_{j=1}^N\mathrm{exp}(\pm (\lambda _j\alpha _j))`$, this contour integral becomes $`2\pi i`$ times the right hand side of (43).. Therefore $`u_0`$ is the solution of the quadratic equation

$$u_0^22\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{z_k}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\right)v_0u_0v_0^2=0.$$
(44)
The coefficients of $`x^2`$ of (41) gives the expression of $`u_1`$ as follows:

$$u_1=2v_0\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{e^{2\lambda _k}z_k}{B^{}(\lambda _k)}\frac{v_1}{v_0}u_0,$$
(45)
and other $`u_n`$’s are determined recursively.

## 5 Elliptic case

In the elliptic case, we take the following elliptic polynomials $`A(\lambda )`$ and $`B(\lambda )`$:

$`A(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma (\lambda \alpha _j),`$ (46)
$`B(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma (\lambda \lambda _k),`$ (47)
where $`\sigma (\lambda )=\sigma (\lambda ;2\omega _1,2\omega _3)`$ is the Weierstrass $`\sigma `$ function with periods $`2\omega _1`$ and $`2\omega _3`$. The symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{log}B(\alpha _j)d\alpha _j$$
(48)
is defined as in the rational and the trigonometric cases. Due to the oddness of the Weierstrass $`\zeta `$ function $`\zeta (\lambda )=\zeta (\lambda )`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }& =\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\zeta (\alpha _j\lambda _k)d\lambda _kd\alpha _j\hfill \\ & =\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\zeta (\lambda _k\alpha _j)d\alpha _jd\lambda _k\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
We set $`u_0=_{j=1}^N\alpha _j`$ and regard $`u_0`$ and the coefficients in expansion of $`A(\lambda )`$,

$$A(\lambda )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}u_nf_n(\lambda ;u_0),$$
(50)
as commuting Hamiltonians, where each $`f_n(\lambda ;u_0)`$ has the same quasi-periodicity with $`A(\lambda )`$, namely,

$$f_n(\lambda +2\omega _i;u_0)=(1)^Ne^{2\eta _i(N\lambda u_0)}f_n(\lambda ;u_0),\eta _i:=\zeta (\omega _i),$$
(51)
for $`i=1,3`$. (The space of functions with quasi-periodicity (51) is $`N`$-dimensional.) For example, the functions

$$f_n(\lambda ;u_0)=\sigma (\lambda )^N\varphi _{u_0}^{(Nn)}(\lambda ),n=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(52)
fit our purpose, where $`\varphi _c(\lambda )=\sigma (\lambda c)/\sigma (\lambda )\sigma (c)`$, but in the following we do not need the explicit form.

The coefficients $`u_0,\mathrm{},u_N`$ in the expansion (50) are functions of the variables $`\alpha _j`$’s and do not depend on $`B(\lambda )`$. Hence they commute with each other with respect to the Poisson bracket; $`\{u_m,u_n\}=0`$.

But they cannot be independent because $`A(\lambda )`$ depends on $`N`$ parameters $`\{\alpha _j\}`$. Regarding, for example, $`u_N`$ as a function of independent parameters $`u_0,\mathrm{},u_{N1}`$, we rewrite the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{log}A(\lambda _k)d\lambda _k=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{dA(\lambda _k)}{A(\lambda _k)}d\lambda _k\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}du_n\frac{A(\lambda _k)}{u_n}\frac{d\lambda _k}{A(\lambda _k)}\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}du_0\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}u_l\frac{f_l}{u_0}(\lambda _k;u_0)+\frac{u_N}{u_0}f_N(\lambda _k;u_0)\right)\frac{d\lambda _k}{A(\lambda _k)}\hfill \\ & +\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}du_n\left(f_n(\lambda _k;u_0)+\frac{u_N}{u_n}f_N(\lambda _k;u_0)\right)\frac{d\lambda _k}{A(\lambda _k)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
Hence, introducing the generating function of the canonical transformation as the Abelian integral of the Seiberg-Witten differential $`\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )d\lambda `$ on the curve $`C_u=\{(\lambda ,z)z=A(\lambda )\}`$ (a subvariety of the total space of the line bundle over the elliptic curve defined by the quasi-periodicity (51)),

$$S(\lambda _0,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1};u_0,\mathrm{},u_{N1})=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _k}\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )𝑑\lambda ,$$
(54)
we can express the “angle variable” $`\varphi _n`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi _0& =\frac{S}{u_0}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _k}\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}u_l\frac{f_l}{u_0}(\lambda ;u_0)+\frac{u_N}{u_0}f_N(\lambda ;u_0)\right)\frac{d\lambda }{A(\lambda )},\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _n& =\frac{S}{u_n}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}^{\lambda _k}\left(f_n(\lambda ;u_0)+\frac{u_N}{u_n}f_N(\lambda ;u_0)\right)\frac{d\lambda }{A(\lambda )}\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. The canonical $`2`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}du_nd\varphi _n.$$
(56)
Hamiltonians $`u_n`$ have similar expressions as the trigonometric case in terms of the coordinates $`\lambda _k`$, $`z_k=A(\lambda _k)`$. There are $`N`$ equations to be satisfied:

$$z_j=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}u_nf_n(\lambda _j;u_0)$$
(57)
for $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, or equivalently,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}z_1\\ z_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ z_N\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}f_1(\lambda _1;u_0)& f_2(\lambda _1;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _1;u_0)\\ f_1(\lambda _2;u_0)& f_2(\lambda _2;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _2;u_0)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ f_1(\lambda _N;u_0)& f_2(\lambda _N;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _N;u_0)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1\\ u_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ u_N\end{array}\right).$$
(58)
The determinant of the matrix in the right hand side factors as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N;u_0)& :=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}f_1(\lambda _1;u_0)& f_2(\lambda _1;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _1;u_0)\\ f_1(\lambda _2;u_0)& f_2(\lambda _2;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _2;u_0)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ f_1(\lambda _N;u_0)& f_2(\lambda _N;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _N;u_0)\end{array}\right|\hfill \\ & =(\text{non-zero constant})\times \sigma \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _iu_0\right)\underset{1i<jN}{}\sigma (\lambda _i\lambda _j),\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
The proof is given in Appendix A. Therefore the equation (58) is generically non-degenerate and solved as:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A(\lambda )=& u_1f_1(\lambda ;u_0)+u_2f_2(\lambda ;u_0)+\mathrm{}+u_{N1}f_{N1}(\lambda ;u_0)\hfill \\ \hfill =& D(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N;u_0)^1\left|\begin{array}{cccc}0& f_1(\lambda ;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda ;u_0)\\ z_1& f_1(\lambda _1;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _1;u_0)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ z_N& f_1(\lambda _N;u_0)& \mathrm{}& f_N(\lambda _N;u_0)\end{array}\right|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
In this formula $`u_0`$ has not yet been expressed as the function of $`\lambda _k`$ and $`z_k`$. It is determined as an implicit function. Taking the logarithm of (46), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{log}A(\mu )& =\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{log}\sigma (\mu \alpha _j)=\underset{\lambda =\text{root of }A(\lambda )}{}\mathrm{log}\sigma (\mu \lambda )\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{log}\sigma (\mu \lambda )d_\lambda \mathrm{log}A(\lambda ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the integration contour surrounds each $`\alpha _j`$ once but not $`\mu +2\omega _1n_1+2\omega _3n_3`$ ($`n_1,n_3`$). Hence, e.g., fixing $`\mu `$ to $`0`$, we have an equation

$$\mathrm{log}A(0)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{log}\sigma (\lambda )d_\lambda \mathrm{log}A(\lambda ).$$
(61)
Substituting (60) into this equation, we have an equation which fixes $`u_0`$.

## 6 Perspective from symplectic surfaces

Let us reconsider the integrable systems of the three types from the point of view of symplectic or Poisson surfaces .

The complex surface $`X`$ for the rational case is essentially the $`(z,\lambda )`$ plane with the line $`z=0`$ deleted. The symplectic structure is defined by the 2-form

$$\omega =\frac{dzd\lambda }{z}.$$
(62)
This surface is the affine part of a rational surface fibered over $`^1`$. $`dz/z`$ is a holomorphic differential on the fibers $`^{}=\{0\}`$ (i.e., cylinders). The symplectic structure on $`X`$ induces a symplectic structure on the (smooth part of) ($`N1`$)-fold symmetric product $`X^{(N1)}=X^{N1}/S_{N1}`$ with the symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{dz_jd\lambda _j}{z_j},$$
(63)
where $`(z_j,\lambda _j)_{j=1}^{N1}`$ is an $`(N1)`$-tuple of points of $`X`$ that represent a point of $`X^{(N1)}`$. The interpolation formulae (21) and (23) imply that an $`(N1)`$-tuple of points of $`X`$ in general position uniquely determines a curve of the form $`C_u=\{(\lambda ,z)z=A(\lambda )\}`$ that passes the $`N1`$ points. We thus obtain a mapping

$$(\lambda _j,z_j)_{j=1}^{N1}(u_2,\mathrm{},u_N)$$
(64)
from an open subset of $`X^{(N1)}`$ to $`^{N1}`$, the fibers of which are Lagrangian subvarieties with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is a geometric interpretation of the integrable system on the moduli spaces of rational functions.

The same interpretation carries over to the trigonometric and elliptic cases. The symplectic surface $`X`$ for these cases is also cylindrically fibered over a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (cylinder or torus), and the symplectic form can be written in the same form

$$\omega =\frac{dzd\lambda }{z}$$

except that $`\lambda `$ is a coordinate on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

We now turn to integrable systems associated with an elliptically fibered symplectic surface . It should be noted that some part of the structure outlined in Section 2 is no longer retained or largely modified. In particular, there is no counterpart of the first system of canonical coordinates $`(\alpha _j,\psi _j)`$; it is the second and third systems of canonical coordinates (i.e., action-angle variables and “separated variables”) that play a central role.

The first example is a specialization of Beauville’s integrable systems  to a K3 surface $`X`$ with elliptic fibration $`X^1`$. An affine model of this surface is defined by the equation

$$y^2=4z^3+g_2(\lambda )z+g_3(\lambda )$$
(65)
of the Weierstrass normal form. $`g_2(\lambda )`$ and $`g_3(\lambda )`$ are (generic) polynomials of degrees $`8`$ and $`12`$, respectively. The complex symplectic structure is defined by the 2-form

$$\omega =\frac{dzd\lambda }{y}.$$
(66)
Note that the differential $`dz/z`$ along the cylindrical fibers is now replaced by $`dz/y`$ on the elliptic fibers. A canonically conjugate variable of $`\lambda `$ is given by the elliptic integral (along the fibers of $`X^1`$)

$$\mu (z,\lambda )=_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}^{(\lambda ,z)}\frac{dz}{y},$$
(67)
the inversion of which is given by the Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$ function $`z=\mathrm{}(\mu )`$ with $`\lambda `$-dependent primitive periods.

The construction of the integrable system proceeds as follows :

1. Choose a five-parameter family of curves $`C_u`$ in $`X`$ cut out by the equation

$$z=A(\lambda )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{5}{}}u_n\lambda ^{5n}.$$
(68)
$`C_u`$ is thus a hyperelliptic curve of genus $`5`$ defined by the equation

$$y^2=4A(\lambda )^3+g_2(\lambda )A(\lambda )+g_3(\lambda ).$$
(69)
2. The phase space of the integrable system is (an open subset of) the five-fold symmetric product $`X^{(5)}`$ equipped with the symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{dz_jd\lambda _j}{y_j},$$
(70)
where the $`5`$-tuple $`(\lambda _j,y_j,z_j)_{j=1}^5`$ of points of $`X`$ represents a point of $`X^{(5)}`$. A set of canonical coordinates are given by $`\lambda _j`$ and $`\mu _j=\mu (A(\lambda _j),\lambda _j)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},5`$. If $`\lambda _j`$ are mutually distinct, the equations

$$z_j=A(\lambda _j)$$
(71)
can be solved for $`u_j`$, which are thus defined as functions on an open subset of $`X^{(5)}`$.
3. Plugging the equations $`z_j=A(\lambda _j)`$ into the expression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and doing some algebra, one finds that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{5}{}}du_nd\varphi _n,$$
(72)
where $`\varphi _n`$ are defined by the Abel-Jacobi integrals

$$\varphi _n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}^{(\lambda _j,y_j)}\frac{\lambda ^{5n}d\lambda }{y},$$
(73)
of the the holomorphic differentials $`\lambda ^{5n}d\lambda /y`$ on $`C_u`$. This expression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ shows that $`u_n`$ and $`\varphi _n`$ are action-angle variables. In particular, the fibers of the mapping $`(\lambda _j,y_j,z_j)_{j=1}^5(u_1,\mathrm{},u_5)`$ on an open subset of $`X^{(5)}`$ turns out to be Lagrangian subvarieties.

The “separated variables” $`(\lambda _j,\mu _j)`$ and the action-angle variables $`(u_n,\varphi _n)`$ are connected by a canonical transformations. The generating function takes the form

$$S=\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\lambda _j}\mu (A(\lambda ),\lambda )𝑑\lambda $$
(74)
and the canonical transformation is defined by

$$\frac{S}{\lambda _j}=\mu _j,\frac{S}{u_n}=\varphi _n.$$
(75)
Behind this construction is the Seiberg-Witten differential

$$dS=\mu (A(\lambda ),\lambda )d\lambda .$$
(76)
The logarithmic factor $`\mathrm{log}A(\lambda )`$ in the cylindrically fibered case is thus replaced by the elliptic integral $`\mu (A(\lambda ),\lambda )`$.

A variant of this integrable system is obtained from a rational surface with elliptic fibration . Such a surface, too, can be defined by the Weierstrass normal form (65); $`g_2(\lambda )`$ and $`g_3(\lambda )`$ in this case are polynomials of degree $`4`$ and $`6`$. The symplectic form $`\omega `$ (66) has poles along a compactification divisor at infinity. As a family of curves, we choose the two-parameter family $`C_u`$ cut out by the equation

$$z=A(\lambda )=c\lambda ^2+u_1\lambda +u_2.$$
(77)
$`C_u`$ is a hyperelliptic curve of genus $`2`$. Note that the setting is slightly different from the case of the elliptically fibered K3 surface – whereas $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are moduli, $`c`$ should be treated as a central element (Casimir function) of a Poisson structure. Apart from this difference, the construction of an integrable system is fully parallel: The phase space is realized as (an open subset of) the two-fold symmetric product $`X^{(2)}`$; the Hamiltonians $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are defined on an open subset of $`X^{(2)}`$ by the equations $`z_j=A(\lambda _j)`$; angle variables conjugate to $`(u_1,u_2)`$ are given by the Abel-Jacobi integrals

$$\varphi _1=\underset{j=1,2}{}_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}^{(\lambda _j,y_j)}\frac{\lambda d\lambda }{y},\varphi _2=\underset{j=1,2}{}_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}^{(\lambda _j,y_j)}\frac{d\lambda }{y}$$
(78)
of holomorphic differentials on $`C_u`$; a generating function $`S`$ for these action-angle variables can be defined in exactly the same way.

These two examples can be thought of as a generalization of the integrable system on the moduli space of rational functions. In particular, the Hamiltonians $`u_n`$ are constructed by the same Lagrange interpolation formula, so that they take the same form (21) and (23), once written in the (local) coordinates $`(\lambda _k,z_k)`$ on the symmetric product of $`X`$. One will be further tempted to increase the degrees of $`A(\lambda )`$, $`g_2(\lambda )`$ and $`g_3(\lambda )`$ to, say, $`2m`$, $`4m`$ and $`6m`$ ($`m=2,3,\mathrm{}`$). This is somewhat problematical: The genus $`3m1`$ of the (still hyperelliptic) curve $`C_u`$ then exceeds the number $`2m+1`$ of the moduli of the polynomial $`A(\lambda )`$. One thus has to construct an integrable system from at most $`(2m+1)`$-tuple of points on a family of curves of genus greater $`2m+1`$ — a considerably unusual setting. Nevertheless the construction seems to work at least formally.

One can conversely start from the systems associated with an elliptically fibered surface, and consider the system on the moduli space of rational functions as a kind of degeneration. From this point of view, we find some other types of degeneration in accordance with degeneration of the elliptic function $`z=\mathrm{}(\mu )`$ (and the associated singular rational curve), e.g.,

1. trigonometric (hyperbolic) function

$$\mu =^z\frac{dz}{2\sqrt{z}(z1)},z=\mathrm{coth}^2\mu ,$$
(79)
2. quadratic function

$$\mu =^z\frac{dz}{2\sqrt{z}},z=\mu ^2,$$
(80)
3. exponential function

$$\mu =^z\frac{dz}{z},z=e^\mu ,$$
(81)
4. linear function

$$\mu =^z𝑑z,z=\mu ,$$
(82)

which are also known to emerge in a correspondence between the Painlevé equations and the (generalized) Calogero systems . The third one in this list is nothing but the case of the moduli space of rational functions. The construction of an integrable system for the other cases is fully parallel to that case, except that the canonical coordinates $`(\alpha _j,\psi _j)`$ are no longer given by the zeros of $`A(\lambda )`$ etc.

We can further seek generalization to elliptic fibration over a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ other than the sphere. Of particular interest is the case of an elliptically fibered surface over an elliptic curve. Recent work of Braden et al.  appears to provide a lot of material on this issue.

## 7 Conclusion

Starting from an integrable Hamiltonian system on the moduli space of rational functions, we constructed several integrable systems. As we have seen in §6, the phase spaces of them are the symmetric product $`X^{(N)}`$ of a complex symplectic surface $`X`$. The surface for the systems considered in §§35 are the fibration over Riemann surfaces (the Riemann sphere, a cylinder and a torus) with the cylinder as a fiber, while the systems reviewed in §6 are based on the symplectic surfaces elliptically fibered over $`^1`$.

These systems have other common features besides their algebro-geometric nature.

* They have two specific sets of canonical variables: the action-angle variables $`(u_n,\varphi _n)`$ and the separated variables $`(\lambda _k,z_k)`$.
* The generating function of the canonical transformation between $`(u_n,\varphi _n)`$ and $`(\lambda _k,z_k)`$ is the Abel-Jacobi integral of the Seiberg-Witten differential on the spectral curve.
* The Hamiltonians $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)`$ are explicitly described by the interpolation formula in terms of the separated variables $`(\lambda _k,z_k)`$. The map $`(\lambda _k,z_k)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)`$ gives a Lagrangian fibration of the phase space $`X^{(N)}`$.

Our construction is quite explicit and easy to generalize. One would have many other variants, using other symplectic surfaces, but the explicit description of the system would be more difficult.

### Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Harry Braden, Takeshi Ikeda, Yoshimasa Nakamura and Orlando Ragnisco for their interests and comments. The authors are partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 12640169 and No. 13740005), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

## Appendix A Proof of (59)

In this appendix, we prove the formula (59).

Let us denote the space of meromorphic functions $`f(\lambda )`$ of $`\lambda `$ with the following properties by $``$:

* the poles of which are located only on the lattice $`2\omega _1+2\omega _3`$ and of order not greater than $`N`$.
* $`f(\lambda +2\omega _i)=e^{2\eta _iu_0}f(\lambda )`$ for $`i=1,3`$.

The linear space $``$ is spanned by the functions,

$$\varphi (\lambda ),\varphi ^{}(\lambda ),\mathrm{},\varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda ),$$
(83)
where $`\varphi (\lambda )=\varphi _{u_0}(\lambda )`$. (See (52).) Assume that $`_{i=0}^{N1}\lambda _i=u_0`$ and set $`f(\lambda )=\sigma (\lambda )^N_{i=0}^{N1}\sigma (\lambda \lambda _i)`$, which belongs to $``$. Expanding $`f(\lambda )`$ by the basis (83), we have a system of $`N`$ linear equations,

$$0=a_{N1}\varphi (\lambda _j)+a_{N2}\varphi ^{}(\lambda _j)+\mathrm{}+a_0\varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda _j)$$
(84)
for $`j=0,\mathrm{},N1`$, which has a non-trivial solution $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_{N1})`$. Therefore the function of $`\lambda `$ defined by

$$d_N(\lambda )=d_N(\lambda ;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1}):=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda )& \mathrm{}& \varphi ^{}(\lambda )& \varphi (\lambda )\\ \varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda _1)& \mathrm{}& \varphi ^{}(\lambda _1)& \varphi (\lambda _1)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda _{N1})& \mathrm{}& \varphi ^{}(\lambda _{N1})& \varphi (\lambda _{N1})\end{array}\right|$$
(85)
has a zero at $`\lambda =\lambda _0=c_A_{i=1}^{N1}\lambda _i`$. In addition, there are $`N1`$ trivial zeros of $`d_N(\lambda )`$ at $`\lambda =\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1}`$. Hence, from the periodicity with respect to the lattice $`2\omega _1+2\omega _3`$ and the order of poles, it follows that

$$d_N(\lambda ;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1})=\stackrel{~}{d}_N(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1})\sigma (\lambda )^N\sigma \left(\lambda +\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\lambda _iu_0\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\sigma (\lambda \lambda _j),$$
(86)
where $`\stackrel{~}{d}_N`$ does not depend on $`\lambda `$. To determine the function $`\stackrel{~}{d}_N`$, we have only to compare the coefficient of $`\lambda ^N`$ of the Laurent expansion of both sides at $`\lambda =0`$, and by induction we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda _1)& \mathrm{}& \varphi ^{}(\lambda _1)& \varphi (\lambda _1)\\ \varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda _2)& \mathrm{}& \varphi ^{}(\lambda _2)& \varphi (\lambda _2)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \varphi ^{(N1)}(\lambda _N)& \mathrm{}& \varphi ^{}(\lambda _N)& \varphi (\lambda _N)\end{array}\right|\hfill \\ \hfill =& \sigma (u_0)^1\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}j!\right)\sigma \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _iu_0\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma (\lambda _i)^N\underset{1i<jN}{}\sigma (\lambda _i\lambda _j),\hfill \end{array}$$
(87)
from which follows (59) with $`f_n`$ defined by (52). In general, the determinant differs from this case only by a non-zero constant factor. Q.E.D.

A similar formula with the derivatives of Weierstrass’ $`\mathrm{}`$ function instead of $`\varphi `$ was found in the 19th century. See , p.458.


text:
# 3C 129 at 90cm: Evidence for a Radio Relic?

## 1 Background

The radio galaxy 3C 129 and its companion 3C 129.1 are part of an X-ray galaxy cluster at z=0.021 (4U 0446+44). The cluster lies in the galactic plane (b$`=0.5^o`$, l$`=160^o`$) and is only known to include one other member galaxy (WEIN 048) which lies to the south of 3C 129 (Nilsson et al., 2000). Because of their latitude, the cluster and the radio sources have been excluded from many optical studies.

Both radio sources have jets extending beyond their elliptical host galaxies and into the intracluster medium (ICM). 3C 129 shows prototypical narrow-angle-tail (NAT) morphology, with a plume-like double-tail extending nearly 30’ at $`\lambda 90`$ cm. It has a total flux density of $`5.3`$ Jy at 1400 MHz (White & Becker, 1992). 3C 129.1, although considerably smaller, is a wide-angle-tail (WAT) source, with a total flux density of $`1.9`$ Jy at 1400 MHz (Condon et al., 1998).

ROSAT X-ray data place the cluster center just to the southwest of 3C 129.1. The X-ray contours are slightly elongated in the East-West direction, suggesting that the cluster may have undergone recent merger activity. In addition, the X-ray contours are distorted near the brightest part of 3C 129; Leahy and Yin (2000) suggest that this may be caused by the radio plasma moving through the ambient cluster gas at speeds greater than the local speed of sound. The large-scale morphology of 3C 129 bends in a manner which is inconsistent with a naive tracing of its trajectory in the cluster potential. Cowie and McKee (1975) propose that buoyancy of the radio plasma in the ICM atmosphere may have helped shape the radio tail. This would imply that 3C 129 can be used to test the mechanical properties of radio plasma.

## 2 Data

During the late 1990’s we obtained roughly 175 “snapshot” observations of this source using the Very Large Array (VLA)111operated by The National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc., each lasting a few minutes. The data at 330 MHz were intended to provide phase-referencing information for simultaneous observations at 74 MHz. Slightly more than half of the data were taken in A-array; the rest are nearly equally divided between B- and C-arrays. Standard calibration observations were used, and the data were mapped using wide-field imaging techniques in AIPS. The resulting image, shown in Figure 1 has nearly complete UV-coverage and roughly 8” resolution at a frequency of 330 MHz. The rms noise in the map is $`0.75`$ mJy, and the signal-to-noise ratio is S/N$`400`$

## 3 Sources A, B, and C

The two faint sources marked A and B also appear in low resolution 74 MHz maps of this source (K. Blundell 2002, in prep.). Comparison with the 74 MHz image gives a spectral index $`\alpha 2.4`$ for both sources ($`S\nu ^\alpha `$). Neither source appears in the NVSS catalogue (Condon et al., 1998). The 2.5 mJy detection limit of that catalogue implies spectral indices $`\alpha 1.7,2.1`$ for sources A and B respectively, in agreement with the 74 MHz index. We suggest that these faint sources are two buoyant radio lobes produced by earlier activity of 3C 129.1. Their comparable sizes, luminosities, and similar distances to 3C 129.1 support this conclusion. Future measurements of their high frequency radio spectral cutoffs would provide a date for the corresponding phase of 3C 129.1, and provide an estimate of the buoyant rise velocity of these old lobes.

Source C is too faint to be detected in the existing 74 MHz data. It is identified in the NVSS catalogue as a 3.2 mJy point source. In our 330 MHz map it is slightly extended, and has an integrated flux of 27.8 mJy. Combining these two fluxes we calculate a spectral index $`\alpha =1.5`$. This source is coincident with the optical galaxy WEIN 047, and is also an IRAS source.

## 4 The Crosspiece

Figure 2 shows a contour image of the region near the head of 3C 129. There is a very clear feature just behind the head of the radio source, and running perpendicular to the tails. Its nature is still uncertain, but it appears to extend over both tails, so we will refer to this as the Crosspiece.

The contours in figure 2 are at multiples of the 3$`\sigma `$ noise level in the map itself: it is clear both that the Crosspiece is highly significant and that there are no other suspiciously deep holes or bright regions in the area. Further confirmation of the reality of this feature was found in a paper by Jägers & de Grijp (1983) who made an early map of this source using the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope at a wavelength of $`\lambda 50`$ cm. They identify a small projection on one side of 3C 129 which corresponds in position to the Crosspiece. Using a zeroth order beam size correction, we estimate a spectral index between 330 MHz and 600 MHz of $`\alpha 3`$ ($`S\nu ^\alpha `$).

Although the estimate is imprecise, it is clear that this feature is very steep spectrum. Few other radio maps of this source exist at intermediate frequencies, but there are some high quality maps at $`\lambda 6`$ cm (Taylor et al., 2001). Not unexpectedly if the feature is truly steep spectrum, these show no hint of the Crosspiece. The only existing map at 1400 MHz (Jägers, 1987) is of very poor quality; we have recently received time to make a new one (Harris et al. 2002, in prep.).

### 4.1 A Scenario for the Crosspiece’s Genesis

What then is the nature of the Crosspiece? It is always possible that it is simply a background radio source which happens to lie along the same line of sight as 3C 129. Given its steep spectrum nature, it would most likely be a high-redshift radio galaxy or possibly even a cluster. However its large angular extension (3’-4’) makes this seem somewhat unlikely. The location and orientation of the Crosspiece near the head of 3C 129 suggests a physical connection between the two. In the following we introduce a possible formation scenario and discuss its implications.

The morphology, the low surface brightness, and the steep spectrum clearly distinguish the Crosspiece from the usual radio plasma outflow of 3C 129. It has more similarities with a so called cluster radio relic. Cluster radio relics are steep spectrum radio sources, typically located in peripheral regions of galaxy clusters, which need not be associated with any parent galaxies (for a review of the observations, see Feretti & Giovannini (1996)). These radio relics are believed to trace shock waves in the ICM and most likely consist of shock compressed fossil radio plasma (Enßlin, Biermann, Klein, & Kohle, 1998; Roettiger, Burns, & Stone, 1999; Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna, 2001; Kassim et. al., 2001; Enßlin & Brüggen, 2001).

Remnant radio plasma which is not too old is able to revive its radio emission after a shock compression (Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna, 2001). Because the fossil’s radio plasma internal sound speed is likely to be much higher than a typical cluster shock speed, the compression is adiabatic. Nevertheless, the compression factor can be high due to the soft equation of state of relativistic plasma (Pressure $``$ densityγ with a soft $`\gamma _{\mathrm{rel}.}4/3`$ instead of the nonrelativistic less compressable $`\gamma _{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{rel}.}=5/3`$), and the high energy cooling cutoff of the still relativistic electron population can be shifted adiabatically to observable energies. The simultaneous amplification of the magnetic fields during the compression also increases the characteristic synchrotron frequency of the highest energy electrons. This relic formation scenario has recently been supported by the morphological agreement between numerically simulated and observed cluster radio relics (Slee et al., 2001; Enßlin & Brüggen, 2001).

### 4.2 Theoretical Considerations

Here we propose that the bow shock of 3C 129 itself might have revived the radio emission of the Crosspiece. In order to explain the bending of 3C 129’s jets, a velocity of 3C 129 with respect to the ICM of $`v_{\mathrm{gal}}=5003000`$ km s-1 is assumed by various authors (Cowie & McKee, 1975; Doe, Ledlow, Burns, & White, 1995; Leahy & Yin, 2000). The ICM sound velocity is $`c_\mathrm{s}=1217\pm 22`$ km s-1 for the cluster temperature of $`kT_{\mathrm{ICM}}=5.5\pm 0.2\mathrm{keV}`$ (Leahy & Yin, 2000), and a Helium mass fraction of $`\chi _{\mathrm{He}}=0.25`$, so 3C 129 could have a Mach number as large as $`M=v/c_\mathrm{s}2.5`$. 3C 129’s Mach cone should therefore have a minimum opening angle of $`\theta _{\mathrm{Mach}}2\mathrm{arcsin}(M^1)50^{}`$. This angle would increase if 3C 129’s velocity is lower.

In order to heat a cold infalling plasma to the cluster temperature, $`kT_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$, in an accretion shock wave, the typical infall kinetic energy per particle has to be $`E_{\mathrm{inf}}=\frac{\mu }{2}v_{\mathrm{inf}}\frac{3}{2}kT_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$, where $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular mass of the gas. Therefore the infall velocity of matter onto the cluster must be $`v_{\mathrm{inf}}\sqrt{3kT_{\mathrm{ICM}}/\mu }=1630`$ km s-1. This corresponds to a (post-accretion shock) Mach number of $`M=1.34`$. 3C 129 is a member of an infalling galaxy cluster and could have an additional velocity component due to the infalling cluster’s internal velocity dispersion. Nevertheless, we believe that a velocity close to the typical infall velocity is more likely than $`v_{\mathrm{gal}}>2500`$ km s-1.

3C 129’s line-of-sight velocity $`v_{}`$ should be given by the difference between its redshift ($`z_{3\mathrm{C}129}=0.020814`$) and that of 3C 129.1 ($`z_{3\mathrm{C}129.1}=0.022265`$). The latter is located at the cluster’s X-ray center, has a nearly symmetrical radio appearance, and is therefore very likely to be at rest with respect to the cluster. Because the line-of-sight velocity for 3C 129 estimated in this way, $`v_{}=435\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, is low compared to the typical infall velocity, the supersonic motion of 3C 129 should be close to the plane of the sky ($`19^{}`$ for Mach number $`M=1`$, $`13^{}`$ for $`M=1.4`$, and $`7.5^{}`$ for $`M=2.5`$). Therefore, if the Mach cone can be assumed to be fully visible, projection effects of the revived fossil radio plasma should not have significantly altered its apparent (sky-projected) opening angle.

A visual inspection of the radio map (see Fig. 2) suggests an opening angle of $`\theta _{\mathrm{Mach}}90^{}`$, corresponding to $`M=1.4`$ or $`v_{\mathrm{gal}}=1720`$ km s-1. We note that that the underlying assumption of this estimate, the full appearance of the Mach cone in the radio map, is not necessarily true, because the radio morphology can be affected by the morphology of the revived radio plasma. Nevertheless, the Crosspiece’s morphology looks suggestive, and the derived velocity seems reasonable because it is close to the typical infall velocity of the cluster.

In order for the radio emission to be revived at a frequency of at least $`\nu =1420`$ MHz, where we see part of the Crosspiece (Harris et al. 2002, in prep.), the radio plasma must be younger than

$$t_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{39\mathrm{Myr}C^{2/3}}{(u_B+u_{\mathrm{cmb}})/(\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{cm}^3)}\sqrt{\frac{B/\mu \mathrm{G}}{\nu /\mathrm{GHz}}}.$$
(1)
(Enßlin et al., 2001). Otherwise the spectral cutoff is below the observing frequency. The terms $`u_{\mathrm{cmb}}=0.26(1+z)^4\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`u_B=B^2/(8\pi )=0.025(B/\mu \mathrm{G})^2\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ denote the CMB energy density and the magnetic field energy density before the radio plasma compression. The compression factor is called $`C`$, and can be estimated from pressure equilibrium with the environment before and after the passage of the fossil radio plasma through the shock wave. With a non-relativistic environment, and an ultra-relativistic fossil radio plasma gas equation of state, we find

$$C=\left(\frac{5M^21}{4}\right)^{\frac{3}{4}},$$
(2)
where we assume that the shock has the same Mach number as 3C 129. This gives $`C=1.8`$ for $`M=1.4`$, and $`C=4.6`$ for $`M=2.5`$. Inserting this into Eq. 1, we find that that the fossil radio plasma has to be younger than $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=160`$ Myr for $`M=1.4`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=350`$ Myr for $`M=2.5`$. These maximal ages are estimated assuming an optimal initial field strength of $`B=2\mu `$G, and would decrease for lower or higher field strengths. This estimate also neglects the increased electron cooling during the compression by the shock wave, or during earlier stages of the fossil radio plasma history (as discussed below). Therefore we expect the radio plasma to be significantly younger than $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

### 4.3 Possible Origins for the Crosspiece Radio Plasma

The fact that the weak bow shock wave of 3C 129 could only have revived relatively young fossil radio plasma gives us a good chance to identify its origin, because the corresponding radio galaxy could still be active. There are two candidate sources in our 90cm radio map: 3C 129.1 and object C.

3C 129.1 resides at the cluster center. Its radio lobes should be highly buoyant in the cluster atmosphere, similar to those of M87 (Churazov et al., 2001). Such buoyant bubbles of former activity from 3C 129.1 are a possible explanation for sources A and B in our 327 MHz map. The faintness of these sources can be naturally understood as the effect of adiabatic expansion during the buoyant rise in the cluster atmosphere; using the derived spectral indices $`\alpha 2.4`$, the synchrotron luminosity decreases by a factor $`D^{(2+4\alpha )/3}D^{3.87}`$ due to volume expansion by a factor $`D`$.

The time required for radio lobe emission to travel from 3C 129.1 to the Crosspiece’s position is $`310\mathrm{Myr}/M_{\mathrm{bubble}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{bubble}}<1`$ is the Mach number of the buoyant bubble’s rise. This is long compared with the maximal fossil radio plasma age, and probably too long to allow 3C 129.1 to be the Crosspiece’s origin. Additionally, in such a scenario the maximal age of the radio plasma as calculated should also be significantly corrected downwards due to increased radiative cooling and adiabatic losses during the early (more compressed) stage of the rising bubble (see Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna (2001) for a formalism for detailed calculations of the spectra of aging and expanding radio plasma).

Source C as the origin of the Crosspiece’s radio plasma would not have this difficulty, because it could have passed the present position of the Crosspiece relatively recently. The source itself is asymmetric with an elongation pointing directly towards the Crosspiece. Although it has a somewhat steeper than normal spectrum for an AGN ($`\alpha 1.5`$), it is coincident with a known galaxy. Therefore we consider source C a more likely origin of the radio plasma revived by 3C 129’s bow shock.

## 5 Conclusion

We present a 330 MHz ($`\lambda 90`$ cm) radio map of 3C 129 and its companion 3C 129.1. In addition to the spectacular structure of this long NAT source, we also note a small perpendicular object near the head of the galaxy, which we call the Crosspiece. This object has a steep spectrum, and may be a fossil radio plasma revived by 3C 129’s bow shock.

This is only one possible explanation for this feature, but it makes a couple of predictions which can be tested by future observations. First, the compression of a fossil radio plasma should align the magnetic fields with the shock surface. Because this surface is roughly perpendicular to the line of sight at its front edges, a relatively clear polarization signature should be visible (see Enßlin & Brüggen (2001) for numerical simulations of the radio polarization of shocked radio plasma). Second, if source C is the origin of the Crosspiece’s radio plasma, there may be a low frequency trail connecting the two. During shock compression, the maximum frequency is shifted by only $`C^{4/3}=2.2\mathrm{}6.4`$ (for $`M=1.4\mathrm{}2.3`$, see the change of $`\nu `$ with $`C`$ in Eq. 1 for $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ fixed), so a low surface brightness radio emission at and below 100 MHz is expected. Detailed radio spectra of the pre- and post-shock radio plasma would give an independent measurement of the shock compression and geometry in this case.

We note that if this scenario passes the proposed tests, it would help to disentangle the geometry of the infall of 3C 129 into the X-ray cluster, because the 3-dimensional velocity can be estimated from the structure of the Mach cone and the galaxies’ redshifts. This would be an important step forward in our understanding of the peculiar morphology of 3C 129 in specific, and the nature of radio plasma in general.

WML is a National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellow. Basic research in astronomy at the Naval Research Laboratory is funded by the Office of Naval Research. DEH acknowledges support from NASA grant GO1-2135A. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


text:
# Predictions of total and total reaction cross sections for nucleon-nucleus scattering up to 300 MeV

## I Introduction

Reaction cross sections from the scattering of nucleons by nuclei (stable and radioactive) are required in a number of fields of study; some being of quite current interest Deb et al. (2001). An example is the transmutation of long lived radioactive waste into shorter lived products using accelerator driven systems (ADS). These systems are being designed in the US, Europe, and Japan with the added objective of providing an intense neutron source to a sub-critical reactor as a new means of energy production and for which nucleon-nucleus reaction cross sections are required as well. The technology takes advantage of spallation reactions Wlazlo et al. (2000) within a thick high-$`Z`$ target (such as Pb or Bi), where an intermediate energy proton beam induces nuclear reactions. The secondary nuclear products, particularly lower energy neutrons and protons Ledoux et al. (1999), in turn induce further nuclear reactions in a cascade process. The total reaction cross sections of nucleon-nucleus scattering plays a particularly important role since the secondary particle production cross sections are directly proportional to them. Also they are inputs to intra-nuclear cascade simulations that guide ADS design. As well, nucleon-nucleus ($`NA`$) cross section values at energies to 300 MeV or more are needed not only to specify important quantities of relevance to proton and neutron radiation therapy Jones (2001), but also as they are key information in assessing radiation protection for patients.

In basic science, these total reaction cross sections are important ingredients to a number of problems in astrophysics, such as nucleosynthesis in the early universe and for aspects of stellar evolution, especially as the density distribution of neutrons in nuclei are far less well known than that of protons. Recently a link has been made between the neutron distribution in heavy nuclei, such as 208Pb, and properties of neutron stars Brown (2000); Horowitz and Piekarewicz (2001) so heightening the need for analyses to ascertain the optimal neutron distributions in such nuclei. Analyses of proton elastic scattering angular distributions particularly for 200 MeV protons seem to be one such method Karataglidis et al. (2002). Considering the integral observables of both proton and neutron scattering from a given nucleus is another and certainly it will give direct information on the neutron rms radius; a property sought in new parity-violating electron scattering experiments Karataglidis et al. (2002); Brown (2000).

However, most $`NA`$ reaction cross sections cannot be, have not been, or are unlikely to be, measured. Thus a reliable method for their prediction is required. The usual vehicle for specifying these $`NA`$ total reaction cross sections has been the $`NA`$ optical potential; a potential most commonly taken as a local parametrized function, usually of Woods-Saxon (WS) type. However, it has long been known that the optical potential must be nonlocal and markedly so, although it has been assumed also that such nonlocality can be accounted by the energy dependence of the customary (phenomenological) models Amos et al. (2000). Of more concern is that the phenomenological approach is not truly predictive. The parameter values chosen, while they may be set from a global survey of data analyses, are subject to considerable uncertainties and ambiguities. This is especially true for the optical potentials for nucleon scattering from $`0p`$-shell nuclei where no such global approach is valid.

We consider a predictive theory of $`NA`$ scattering to be one that is “direct” in that all quantities required are defined a priori. Thus each result must come from just one run of relevant codes, and there should be no post evaluation adjustments save for allowance of known a priori uncertainties in the specification of the input information.

With the nucleus viewed as a system of $`A`$ nucleons, $`NA`$ scattering is determined to first order by an optical potential formed by folding, with a suitable specification of the ground state density of the target, appropriate interactions of that projectile with each and every nucleon within the nucleus. Over the past decade or more, such microscopic approaches defining the $`NA`$ optical potential have been quite successful in predicting elastic scattering data (differential cross sections in particular). Studies forming the optical potential in both momentum and coordinate space have been made with success Amos et al. (2000). In the coordinate space approach, and for analyses that are based upon the DWBA programs of Raynal Raynal (1991, 1998), the projectile-target nucleon interaction takes the form of a complex, energy and density dependent, effective $`NN`$ interaction. Of those programs, DWBA98 has been used to evaluate all of the cross sections shown later herein. Appropriate effective interactions can and have been defined that, upon folding with good structure wave functions of nuclei, give credible optical potentials. Using those optical potentials, differential cross sections and spin observables such as the analyzing powers for proton scattering at many energies in the range 40 to 800 MeV (65 and 200 MeV in particular) and from diverse targets ranging from 3He to 238U have been predicted and found to have excellent agreement with data. Moreover, and very recently Karataglidis et al. (2002), it has been shown that analyses of differential cross sections of proton elastic scattering can select between alternative model predictions of the neutron rms radius in 208Pb; such are sensitive also to the surface distribution of its neutron matter.

The microscopically formed optical potentials are complex and energy dependent from the like properties of the effective $`NN`$ interaction Amos et al. (2000). Such properties arise from mapping the effective interactions to $`NN`$ $`g`$ matrices that are solutions of the Bruckner-Bethe-Goldstone (BBG) equations for nuclear matter. The BBG equations carry medium modification of the $`NN`$ scattering due to Pauli blocking and to a background mean field. Details of the effective interactions, of the folding process that gives the (nonlocal) optical potential, and of the successful predictions found therefrom of differential cross sections and analyzing powers from the scattering of protons at diverse energies and from diverse targets, are given in the literature Amos et al. (2000).

## II Elements of the optical potential for nucleon scattering

Formally, the nonlocal optical potentials from a first order folding model can be written

$`U(𝒓_1,𝒓_2;E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\zeta _n\left\{\delta (𝒓_1𝒓_2){\displaystyle \phi _n^{}(𝒔)v_D(𝒓_{1s})\phi _n(𝒔)𝑑𝒔}+\phi _n^{}(𝒓_1)v_{Ex}(𝒓_{12})\phi _n(𝒓_2)\right\}`$ (1)
$``$ $`U_D(𝒓_1;E)\delta (𝒓_1𝒓_2)+U_{Ex}(𝒓_1,𝒓_2;E),`$
where $`v_D`$, $`v_{Ex}`$ are combinations of the components of the effective $`NN`$ interactions, $`\zeta _n`$ are ground state nucleon shell occupancies (more generally they are the ground state OBDME), and $`\phi _n(𝒙)`$ are nucleon bound state wave functions; denoted SP functions hereafter. All details and the prescription of solution of the associated nonlocal Schrödinger equations are given in the review Amos et al. (2000).

The results to be discussed have been found by solving the actual nonlocal Schrödinger equations defined with potentials as given (formally) by Eq. (1). Two formulations of those optical potentials have been used. They and the results are identified by the appellations, $`g`$\- and $`t`$\- folding, according that the effective $`NN`$ interactions have been defined by their mapping to the BBG $`g`$ matrices or to the basic free $`NN`$ scattering $`t`$ matrices respectively. The latter are solutions of Lippmann-Schwinger (LS) equations. In both cases, the driving $`NN`$ interaction has been the Bonn-B $`NN`$ potential Machleidt et al. (1987).

From practical necessity the model descriptions of nuclei in the mass range 3 to 238 vary in complexity. With the light mass nuclei ($`A12`$ for example), quite large and complete shell model spaces with potentials either fitted or formed as $`G`$-matrix elements have been made Zheng et al. (1995); Navrátil and Barrett (1998); Karataglidis et al. (2000). While large space model studies of heavier nuclei are being sought, the dimensions of the problem preclude our use of all but $`0\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model specifications for most heavier nuclei. Indeed, for targets heavier than mass 90 we have used an even simpler, packed shell, definition of their ground states. Nevertheless with such model prescriptions and using harmonic oscillator (HO) SP functions with oscillator energies selected according to an $`A^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ rule, very good predictions of the scattering of 65 and 200 MeV protons have been obtained for all but the light mass nuclei Amos et al. (2000). However, 208Pb and 40Ca are special cases. Recently Brown (2000); Karataglidis et al. (2002), a Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF) model of those nuclei was made and OBDME required in our folding procedure were extracted. The associated density distributions vary noticeably from that given by the HO (packed) shell model and, not surprisingly, so do proton differential cross sections.

For nuclei with $`A12`$ typically, better spectroscopy is needed. So also are more realistic matter distributions for studies with light mass exotic nuclei, such as of radioactive beam scattering from hydrogen. For example, the reaction cross section for $`40.9A`$ MeV 6He scattering from hydrogen Lagoyannis et al. (2001) varies from 350 mb, found when 6He has a neutron skin as expected with a standard shell model description, to 406 mb when that distribution is extended further to be classified as a halo by choosing valence neutron SP functions consistent with the single neutron separation energy in 6He. The measured value is $`409\pm 21`$ mb De ; Lagoyannis et al. (2001).

## III Phase shifts, S-matrices, and observables

Irrespective of the means used to define $`NA`$ optical potentials, the objective is to define the $`S`$ matrix, or equivalently the (complex) phase shifts $`\delta _l^\pm (k)`$, where the superscripts identify the values $`j=l\pm 1/2`$. These relate by

$$S_l^\pm (k)=e^{2i\delta _l^\pm (k)}=\eta _l^\pm (k)e^{2i\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^\pm (k)\right]}$$
(2)
where

$$\eta _l^\pm (k)=\left|S_l^\pm (k)\right|=e^{2\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^\pm (k)\right]}.$$
(3)
With $`Ek^2`$, the elastic, reaction (absorption), and total cross sections respectively then are given by

$`\sigma _{\text{el}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{\left(l+1\right)\left|S_l^+(k)1\right|^2+l\left|S_l^{}(k)1\right|^2\right\},`$
$`\sigma _\text{R}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{\left(l+1\right)\left[1\eta _l^+(k)^2\right]+l\left[1\eta _l^{}(k)^2\right]\right\},`$
and

$`\sigma _{\text{TOT}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\text{el}}(E)+\sigma _\text{R}(E)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{\left(l+1\right)\left[1\eta _l^+(k)\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^+(k)\right]\right)\right]+l\left[1\eta _l^{}(k)\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^{}(k)\right]\right)\right]\right\}.`$
The scattering amplitudes are then $`2\times 2`$ matrices in the nucleon spin space and have the form,

$$f(\theta )=g(\theta )+h(\theta )𝝈\widehat{𝒏}.$$
(4)
where

$`g(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{}}\left\{\left(l+1\right)\left[S_l^+(k)1\right]+l\left[S_l^{}(k)1\right]\right\}P_l(\theta ),`$
$`h(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ik}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{}}\left[S_l^+(k)S_l^{}(k)\right]P_l^1(\theta ).`$ (5)
In terms of these (complex) amplitudes, the (elastic scattering) differential cross section is defined by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left|g(\theta )\right|^2+\left|h(\theta )\right|^2,$$
(6)
and the analyzing power $`A_y(\theta )`$ by

$$A_y(\theta )=\frac{2\mathrm{}\left[g^{}(\theta )h(\theta )\right]}{d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(7)
## IV Results of calculations

All results we show have been evaluated using the DWBA98 program Raynal (1998), input to which are density dependent and complex effective $`NN`$ interactions having central, two-nucleon tensor, and two-nucleon spin-orbit components. The effective interactions we use have been generated for energies from 10 MeV to over 300 MeV in 10 MeV steps by an accurate mapping to $`NN`$ $`t`$\- and $`g`$ matrices found by solutions of the LS and BBG equations respectively and based usually upon the Bonn $`NN`$ potentials. Details are given in the review Amos et al. (2000).

Other input to DWBA98 are the ground state occupancies (or OBDME) and the associated SP functions. The SP functions used in most of the calculations for nuclei of mass 20 and above at best come from a $`0\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model which has been adopted to describe their ground state occupancies. For the lighter mass nuclei considered, larger shell model spaces were used to define their ground states, and in some cases the interaction potentials defined as $`G`$ matrix elements of a realistic interaction Zheng et al. (1995). In shell model studies using those $`G`$-matrix elements, the oscillator energy ($`\mathrm{}\omega `$) for the SP functions also is specified. As stated earlier, the cases of 208Pb and 40Ca are special in that we have used structure information taken from recent SHF studies Brown (2000); Karataglidis et al. (2002).

### IV.1 Energy variation of proton total reaction cross sections

In this subsection we present our predictions of the total reaction cross sections for proton scattering up to 300 MeV for diverse nuclei, ranging in mass from 6Li to 238U. In all cases, at least two calculations were made. The first of these used the effective interaction defined from the $`t`$ matrices of the Bonn-B interaction while with the second, that built upon the associated $`g`$ matrices was used. Comparison of the results of each pair of calculations demonstrates the effects in predictions due to the medium modification to the free NN interaction that define the $`g`$ matrices. The ensuing $`t`$\- and $`g`$-folding results are portrayed in the figures by the dashed and solid curves respectively.

As noted, the structure models of the light mass nuclei involve diverse complete $`N\mathrm{}\omega `$ bases. For the lightest, 6Li, a complete $`(0+2+4)\mathrm{}\omega `$ model of structure has been used, while for 9Be and 12C the OBDME have been defined from complete $`(0+2)\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model calculations Karataglidis et al. (1995). In addition we have calculated the reaction cross sections from 118Sn and 159Tb allowing the outer (neutron) shell to have a smaller (15-20%) harmonic oscillator energy. By that means, the neutron surface of each is slightly more extended than with the base (packed shell) model forms; a very simple allowance for any effect of ground state deformations. This idea for varied surface SP functions within an HO model has been used in the guise of a two frequency shell model Corragio et al. (2001). Our wave functions are not so well determined of course.

The results for scattering from 6Li, 9Be, 12C and from 16O are displayed respectively in segments (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Fig. 1. The experimental data shown therein were taken from the references listed against those nuclei in the data table, Table 1; which also lists the sources of the data that are shown in the figures to follow.

The data from the four lightest mass nuclei are well reproduced by $`g`$-folding calculations made with large space shell model structure (solid curve), but they are not with $`t`$-folding calculations (dashed curve). However, large space structure calculations are necessary if one is to describe the physics even adequately. As indicated above, for 6Li, such structure was found from a shell model calculation Karataglidis et al. (1997) made using a compete $`(0+2+4)\mathrm{}\omega `$ space while those for 9Be, 12C and 16O were made using complete $`(0+2)\mathrm{}\omega `$ models. Results found using the simpler $`0\mathrm{}\omega `$ structure model of Cohen and Kurath Cohen and Kurath (1965) within $`g`$-folding, underestimate the data at most energies, and for 9Be particularly. This reflects the too compressed density profile for the nuclei given by the simpler model.

Results are displayed for proton energies from 10 MeV. Although experimental data exist to lower energies in these cases, we do not consider the first order folding prescription for the optical potential to be appropriate in the low energy regime of scattering from these nuclei. Up to and over 20 MeV excitation, their spectra have numerous distinguishable states. Excitations to regions of low level density are not taken into account forming the optical potentials. We have confidence in the optical potentials when the input energy coincides to excitations to regions of high level density and where particle emission is feasible.

The 12C results in particular are worth comment. For this nucleus, as with the others, the reaction cross sections obtained from those $`g`$-folding calculations for 12C are in very good agreement with the experimental data up to 300 MeV. Most evidently, the medium effects differentiating the $`g`$\- from the $`t`$\- matrices used in the folding scheme defining the optical potentials are required for predictions to match observation. The $`t`$-folding model overestimates the data by 20-40% within the energy regime below 200 MeV. But some data, notably at 61 MeV Meyer et al. (1960) and at 77 MeV Goloskie and Strauch (1962) MeV with 12C, are in disagreement with both calculated results.

Predictions for proton scattering from 19F, 27Al, 40Ca, and from 63Cu respectively are compared with the data in the segments (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Fig. 2.

(As noted above the wave functions for 40Ca were obtained from an SHF model Karataglidis et al. (2002).) Again all data are well reproduced by the $`g`$-folding calculations. With 27Al however, three data points between 180 and 300 MeV are in better agreement with the results of $`t`$-folding calculations while one data point, at 61 MeV Meyer et al. (1960), is in disagreement with both calculations.

Data are shown in this figure again from 10 MeV but with 40Ca in particular, the folding model approach is not expected to be reliable at the energies in the range 10 to 20 MeV. Those excitations energies correspond to a region of low level density in 40Ca. Indeed the reaction data from 40Ca show rather sharp resonance-like features below 20 MeV. For 63Cu however, no such sharp structures are evident in the reaction cross section data and our prediction with a $`g`$-folding potential at 10 MeV gives a value in quite reasonable agreement with observation. With both 40Ca and 63Cu, the $`g`$-folding results are in very good agreement with the data for energies above 20 MeV. That is in stark contrast to the $`t`$-folding results. The $`t`$-folding results underestimate the data below 20 MeV and overestimate considerably the data above 40 MeV. In the 20 to 40 MeV zone, both calculations give results in reasonable agreement. Such trends are evident for most heavy nuclei.

In Fig. 3, we present the data and our

predictions of the total reaction cross sections for proton scattering from 90Zr, 118Sn, 140Ce and 159Tb. They are shown in segments (a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively and compared against data taken from the relevant references given in Table 1. Again results from $`g`$-folding calculations are in very good agreement with the data while the $`t`$-folding results are overestimates at and above 40 MeV and underestimates the data below 20 MeV. The third $`p`$-118Sn total reaction cross section result given in segment (b) of Fig. 3 and portrayed in that figure by the dotted curves, was obtained from a $`g`$-folding optical potential formed by varying the surface neutron orbit ($`h_{11/2}`$) to be that for an oscillator length increased by 10% from our basic calculation. With the (slightly) extended neutron distribution that results, the $`g`$-folding potential total reaction cross sections then are in very good agreement with the data; save for the ubiquitous 61 MeV value. Likewise there is a datum at 32 MeV at odds with our results. But that point also is at odds with other data. Also in the mismatch collection, the datum at 17.5 MeV $`p`$-140Ce scattering is underestimated. For 159Tb, the $`g`$-folding result (solid curve) is still a quite good replication of data but the calculations obtained from $`g`$-folding optical potentials formed by varying the surface neutron orbit ($`h_{9/2}`$) to be that for an oscillator length increased by 10% (dotted curve) are better.

In segments (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Fig. 4, we

compare the calculated total reaction cross sections with proton scattering data from 181Ta, 197Au, 208Pb, and 238U. Again all data are best and well described by the predictions we make with the $`g`$-folding model. There is a cross over regime in energy where the predictions of our $`t`$\- and $`g`$-folding potential equate. The differential cross sections do not however and when such are also considered Amos et al. (2000), preference is given to the $`g`$-folding potential results at all energies.

The dotted curve in the case of 208Pb \[segment (c)\] results when the oscillator length for the outer neutron shell ($`i_{13/2}`$) of the simple packed shell model we have used to describe the nucleus is increased by 8%. The associated increase in the matter profile brings the predicted reaction cross sections then in very good agreement with observation. Using the SHF wave functions Brown (2000), gives the result displayed by the dot-dashed curve in this figure. Clearly using these new functions has made a slight change to the predictions found with the simple HO packed model (solid curve); the modified HO model result is in better agreement with that of the SHF model.

Exceptional data points are found at 19.8 MeV in 181Ta where that data point is underestimated with our calculation by 20%, at 29 MeV in 197Au, and in 208Pb near 30, 61 and 77 MeV. Such exceptional points were also noted in the data from lighter mass nuclei. But in most cases, those exceptional point values do not agree with other measurements made at close values of energy. For example other data from 208Pb taken at 60.8 MeV Menet et al. (1971) and at 65.5 MeV Ingemarsson et al. (1999) give different results and in fact reaction cross section values that are consistent with our predictions. We note that Menet et al. Menet et al. (1971) argue for a much larger systematic error in the studies reported in the relevant earlier experiments.

### IV.2 Mass variation of proton total reaction cross sections

The mass variations of total reaction cross sections for the scattering of 25, 30, 40, 65, 100 and 175 MeV protons are shown in the different segments (as labeled) of Fig. 5. From that

figure, it is evident that the $`g`$-folding results are in quite good agreement with data while the $`t`$-folding results underestimate most of the 25 MeV data, are in reasonable agreement with the 30 and 40 MeV data but overestimate most of the 65 MeV data. Note that the extended matter SP states have been used with the 208Pb and the Sn isotopes calculations.

The disparities between the $`t`$\- and $`g`$-folding potential results for the reaction cross sections are more evident at higher energies. In segments (e) and (f) of Fig. 5 we display the mass variation of the total reaction cross sections measured Carlson (1996) at 100 and 175 MeV. Again, the $`g`$-folding model predictions are in excellent agreement with the measured values, while the $`t`$-folding results overestimate observations typically by 150 mb. At 100 MeV proton scattering, proton total reaction cross sections from many nuclei in the mass range to 238U have been measured and it is very clear that the $`g`$-folding model predictions are in good agreement with them. Fewer measurements have been made at 175 MeV, but they too span the mass range to 238U and the results of those measurements also are in very good agreement with the $`g`$-folding optical model predictions.

We have seen in most of the previous figures that, at some energy point, the total reaction cross sections obtained by the $`t`$-folding and $`g`$-folding calculations are same. In Fig. 6 we

display those crossing energy values as a function of $`A^{1/3}`$; the energy is in MeV. It clearly indicates that there is a line in mass and energy above and below which the $`g`$-folding calculation results are smaller and larger respectively than the corresponding $`t`$-folding ones.

### IV.3 Energy/mass variations of neutron total cross sections

Accurate measurements of neutron total reaction cross sections are far more difficult to achieve than their proton counterparts. Indeed usually those cross sections are obtained by subtracting the elastic from the total scattering cross section. While both of those cross sections can be measured with some accuracy, the subtraction of two large numbers with attendant uncertainties is subject to numerical problems. We note, however, that a new technique from Japan for measuring neutron total reaction cross sections utilizing in-beam and out-beam methods similar to those used in proton scattering shows promise. Nevertheless, herein, we concentrate on analyses of total scattering cross section data.

The data we have chosen to analyze have been taken from a recent survey by Abfalterer et al. Abfalterer et al. (2001). That survey includes data measured at LANSCE that are supplementary and additional to those published earlier by Finlay et al. Finlay et al. (1993). From that recent data compilation, we have selected cases for study having target masses that span the stable mass range and which includes as many of the nuclei as possible for which we have analyzed proton scattering data. Specifically we calculate neutron total scattering cross sections for 6Li, 12C, 19F, 40Ca, 89Y, 184W, 197Au, 208Pb and 238U. In some cases the data taken were from natural targets; we indicate those as discussion of them occurs in the text. Given that analyses with the $`g`$-folding optical potential has been found the more appropriate with the proton scattering analyses, we only present in the ensuing figures, results obtained from the $`g`$-folding optical models for neutron scattering. In forming those neutron optical potentials, the structure models used were those that defined proton scattering. The effective $`NN`$ interactions were as well.

Predictions of the total cross sections for neutrons scattered from 6Li, 12C, 19F, and 40Ca are compared to the data in Fig. 7.

The models for 6Li, 12C, and 40Ca to specify the densities were those used in the calculations of proton scattering. The model for 19F was a $`0\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model calculation using the WBT interaction of Warburton and Brown Warburton and Brown (1992). The oscillator parameter for the HO SP functions in that case was 1.855 fm, chosen to reproduce the rms radius of 19F (2.9 fm de Vries et al. (1987)). In all cases except for 40Ca, there is excellent agreement with the data, and the turnover in the cross sections at $`20`$ MeV for natural carbon and 19F are predicted. The low-energy structure in the cross section for 40Ca is reproduced, although the peak at 40 MeV is underpredicted by 10%. Also for 40Ca the cross section at 300 MeV is underpredicted.

Our predictions of the total cross sections for neutrons scattering from 89Y, 184W, 197Au, and 238U are compared to the data in Fig. 8.

In the case of 184W, the data were taken from scattering using natural tungsten as the target. The structure of three of these nuclei was obtained from a simple packed model as used previously. For 89Y, however, the shell model of Ji and Wildenthal Ji and Wildenthal (1989) was used to specify the density. The four results exhibit the same features. The predicted cross sections agree well with the experimental results between 70 and 200 MeV, with the peak cross section values slightly underpredicted. Below 70 MeV the cross sections are overpredicted but the structural character exhibited in the data is found. To obtain better agreement at energies 40 to 70 MeV at least, improvements in the SP functions are required. Improvements such as by using a SHF model seem needed, given the results we shall present next for 208Pb. Above 200 MeV, all results underpredict the data. We believe that this indicates that our present effective interaction for those energies at and about the pion production threshold need be improved. Possibly more explicit contributions from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the $`NN`$ interaction in defining the effective $`NN`$ force to be used in the $`g`$-folding giving the optical potentials are needed Funk et al. (2001).

As stated above in the case of proton scattering, 208Pb is a special case. To specify the density of 208Pb we have used the SHF calculation of Brown Brown (2000); Karataglidis et al. (2002). The results of our calculations of the total neutron scattering cross section from 208Pb using that model are given in Fig. 9.

Therein, we compare our prediction with the data of Finlay et al. Finlay et al. (1993) and of Abfalterer et al. Abfalterer et al. (2001). The latter set correspond to scattering from natural Pb. From 60 to 200 MeV, the agreement with the data is excellent, as it was for the other nuclei also. Below 60 MeV, the energy dependence is reproduced, although the minimum at 50 MeV is slightly overpredicted. Note that when the oscillator model is used, the calculated results do not reproduce the data in this energy regime as adequately Deb et al. (2001). Above 200 MeV, the predicted cross section falls too sharply as it did for the other scattering cases. The variation of the structure model from HO to SHF did not influence much the result above 200 MeV. Again we think that our effective force may be at fault for this data at these energies. The mismatch above 200 MeV is influenced by the mass of the target however, with little problem evident in the light mass results as shown in Fig. 7. Given that those light mass nuclei as characterized as mostly “surface”, we also believe that the problems with the effective interactions at the higher energies relates to the character of the force at central densities.

## V Conclusions

A microscopic model of the nucleon-nucleus optical potential in coordinate space has been used to predict successfully the total reaction cross sections of nucleons from nuclei. That optical potential has been formed by folding complex energy- and density-dependent effective $`NN`$ interactions with OBDME of the target obtained primarily from shell models of the nuclei. As the approach accounts for the exchange terms in the scattering process, the resulting complex and energy dependent optical potential also is non-local. We have found that it is crucial to use effective $`NN`$ interactions which are based upon realistic free $`NN`$ interactions and which allow for modification from that free $`NN`$ scattering form due to nuclear medium effects of Pauli blocking and an average mean field. For optimum results, and for the light masses in particular, it is essential also to use the best (nucleon based) model specification of nuclear structure available. Marked improvement in results were obtained when, for 9Be and 12C in this study, complete $`(0+2)\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model calculations were used to define the OBDME required in the folding processes. For scattering from heavy nuclei at around 300 MeV, our results indicate the need for improvement in the effective $`NN`$ force possibly by explicit inclusion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ effects but also of those associated with the interaction at central field densities.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by a research grant from the Australian Research Council, and also by DOE contract no. W-7-405-ENG-36.