Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Liquid Drop Model
Fission Process
The National Superconducting
Cyclotron Laboratory@Michigan State University
Bet ty Tsang, Tohoku University , Sendai, Japan
Dual Nature of Nuclei – from Shell model to Isospin Diffusion
Shell Model
Magic numbers
N=2
N=10
N=20
Magic number
N=2
N=10
N=20
Maria Goeppert-Mayer & Hans
Jensen, 1963 Noble Prize
winners for the Nuclear Shell
Model.
Spectroscopic Factors:
measure the single
structure of the
valence nucleons.
Spectroscopic factors from transfer reactions
RM
EX
jl
d
dd
d
S
)(
)(
,
Pros:
We know the exact state of the
nucleon transferred.
Good understanding of the
experimental technique and
reaction theory (DWBA).
Lots of data from past 40 years.
Cons:
Do we measure the “absolute”
spectroscopic factors?
Data appear to give inconsistent
results
14.3 MeV Ca40(d,p)Ca41
0
1
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
angle (deg)
d.c
.s (
mb
/sr)
CH
DWBA
Hjorth
One of the important technique
to understand the structure of
the rare nuclei.
• Published spectroscopic factors show large fluctuations from analysis to analysis
• Consequence of using different optical model potentials and parameters for the
DWBA reaction model.
Spectroscopic Factors from literaturesExample: 1p1/2 neutron SF in 13C = 12C+n
Basic assumptions
of DWBA
The reaction is dominated by 1-step direct transfer.
Elastic Scattering is the main process in the entrance and
exact channels.
A(d,p)B B(p,d)A
TDWBA = <Apf|V|Bdi>
DWBA
EX
jl
d
dd
d
S
)(
)(
,
Extraction of
Spectroscopic Factor
For each angular distribution:
1. Fit first peak only (emphasize on maximum and shape)
2. Require more than 1 data point
3. Use global proton optical potential and standardized parameters.
4. Construct d potential from p & n potential using the Adiabatic
Approximation (Soper-Johnson).
14.3 MeV Ca40(d,p)Ca41
0
1
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
angle (deg)d
.c.s
(m
b/s
r)
CH
DWBA
Hjorth
RM
EX
jl
d
dd
d
S
)(
)(
,
Procedure
1. Digitize (p,d)
and (d,p)
angular
distribution
data from
literature.
2. Run DWBA
calc’s with
“standard”
parameter set.
3. Extract SF
12C(d,p)13Cgs
The spectroscopic factors deduced in a systematic and consistent way show that we can extract spectroscopic factors within the measurement uncertainties.
Apply the technique to a large data set
Liu et al, PRC 69, 064313 (2004)
Systematic extraction of SF’s
We studied 79
nuclie by digitizing
~ 430 angular
distributions from
literature
for (p,d) & (d,p)
reactions on target
from Z=3-24
Z=3 Li 6, 7, 8Z=4 Be 9, 10, 11Z=5 B 10, 11, 12Z=6 C 12, 13, 14, 15Z=7 N 14, 15, 16Z=8 O 16, 17, 18, 19Z=9 F 19, 20Z=10 Ne 21, 22, 23Z=11 Na 24Z=12 Mg 24, 25, 26, 27Z=13 Al 27, 28Z=14 Si 28, 29, 30, 31Z=15 P 32Z=16 S 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Z=17 Cl 35, 36, 37, 38Z=18 Ar 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Z=19 K 39, 40, 41, 42Z=20 Ca 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49Z=21 Sc 45, 46Z=22 Ti 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51Z=23 V 51Z=24 Cr 50, 51, 52, 53, 55
Digitization of ~430 angular distributions from literature
for (p,d) & (d,p) reactions on target from Z=3-24
Data come from many groups over 40 years.
-- Require quality control
How to assess the uncertainties of the procedure?
A+pB+d S+
B+dA+p S-
Equivalent processes S+ = S-
Self Consistency Checks
Sn 79 nuclei from Li to Cr
(p,d) : S+ 47 nuclei
(d,p) : S- 55 nuclei
(p,d) & (d,p) 18 nuclei
Comparison of (p,d) and (d,p) reactions
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10
SF(p,d)
SF
(d,p
)
pd vs. dp
line
By requiring the chi-square per degree of freedom is 1, we
obtain nominal uncertainty of 20% for each measurement.
Comparison with Endt’s resultsEndt in 1977 compiled SF’s of the s-d shell nuclei from
(p,d), (d,p) – 50% uncertainty
(p,d), (d,p), (d,t), (3He, a) – 25% uncertainty
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10
Endt's best SF
Data
line
Endt vs. Data
There are some scattering of the values but there is a strong
correlation between present analysis and Endt values
Textbook Example: Spectroscopic factors of Ca isotopesDirect Nuclear Reaction Theories by Austern; pg 291
l=7/2, S=1, 2, 0.75, 4, 0.5, 6, 0.25, 8ACa = 40Ca +(A-40)n Assume 40Ca is a good inert core.
IsotopeS_n s valence-nIPM Endt shell Expt
Ca40 15.51 1d3/2 4 4 4 4.31
Ca41 9.367 1f7/2 1 1 0.85 1 1.03
Ca42 11.12 1f7/2 2 2 1.6 1.81 1.82
Ca43 8.04 1f7/2 3 0.75 0.58 0.75 0.63
Ca44 11.27 1f7/2 4 4 3.1 3.64 3.82
Ca45 7.761 1f7/2 5 0.5 0.5 0.41
Ca47 6.546 1f7/2 7 0.25 0.256 0.25
Ca48 8.846 1f7/2 8 8 7.38 7.06
Ca49 4.43 2p3/2 1 1 0.918 0.66
Sc45 12.27 1f7/2 4 4 0.6 0.35 0.32
Sc46 8.687 1f7/2 5 0.5 0.34 0.36 0.57
Ti46 13.14 1f7/2 4 4 2.58 2.6
Ti47 9.578 1f7/2 5 0.5 0.025
Ti48 11.89 1f7/2 6 6 0.09
Ti49 8.438 1f7/2 7 0.25 0.24
Ti50 10.76 1f7/2 8 8 6.4
Ti51 5.721 2p3/2 1 1 1.21
V51 0 1f7/2 8 8 1.06
Cr51 10.21 1f7/2 7 0.25 0.35
Cr52 12.49 1f7/2 8 8 6.3
Cr53 7.115 2p3/2 1 1 0.36
Cr54 9.421 2p3/2 2 2
Cr55 2p3/2 3 0.75 0.85
Ca 0.1
1
10
39 41 43 45 47 49
A
sp
ec
tro
sc
op
ic f
ac
tor
Data
Austern IPM model
Shell model
nS 12
11
j
nS
IPM (Austern, pg 291)For n even
For n odd
40-48Ca isotopes have good single particle states with spherical cores
SF for 49Ca is lower than IPM and shell model predictions.
Comparison with Austern’s IP Model
Most experimental SF values are less than predictions.
There are no constant quenching even for close shell nuclei.
Discrepancies may be explained by including interaction
between nucleons and core
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10
IPM SF
Ex
pt
SF
Be
line
B
C
N
O
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
20% line
-20% line
Li
F, Ne
Compare with Modern Shell Model (Oxbash)
Good agreement with most isotopes
Outliners: deformed nuclei and isotopes with small SF’s
(Ne)
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10
Shell Model SF
Ex
pt
SF
Be
line
B
C
N
O
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
20% line
-20% line
Li
F
(e,e’p) – sensitive to interior of the wave-functions
Quenched by 35% compared to IP(S)M
Other measurements of Spectroscopic Factors
Knockout – sensitive to the tail of the wave-functions
Depends on Separation energy compared to SM
Conclusions
1. We have extracted ground state neutron
spectroscopic factors for 79 (Z=3-24) nuclei.
2. 40Ca to 48Ca isotopes follow the simple IPM
predictions Good valence nucleons around spherical cores
No quenching for gs n-orbital for the closed shell
nuclei of 40Ca?
3. Most SF’s fall short of IPM predictions but
agree with modern day shell model
calculations – SM interactions take care of
most of the long-range interactions.
4. There are puzzling differences of these values
compared with the SF’s obtained from (e,e’p)
and knockout reactions.
Discrepancies larger than the quoted experimenttal errors.
Shape of 1st peak is not the same
0.1
1
10
0 50 100 150
Problem : Disagreement between measurements
11.8 MeV PRC64(2001)034312
12 MeV PR164(1967)1274
11B(d,p)12B
qcm
Data from Lee (PR136(1964)B971) are consistently high
Cross-comparisons weed out “bad” data
40Ca(d,p)41Ca
1
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ed=12 MeV
1
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ed=11 MeV
qcm
3/2AaAaB SV 3/1
)1(
A
ZZaC
A
ZAasym
2)2(
Neutron Number N
Pro
ton
Nu
mb
er Z 3/2
AaAaB SV 3/1
)1(
A
ZZaC
A
ZAasym
2)2(
asym=30-42 MeV for infinite NM
Inclusion of surface
terms in symmetry
2
23/2 )2()(
A
ZAAaAa SV
symsym
5o
EOS ? ?
0 o
exotics10 km
Relevance to dilute and dense n-rich objects
Sizes of nuclei with
n-halo and n-skin
Stability of Neutron
Star and its structure
• Prospects are good
for improving
constraints further.
• Relevant for
supernovae - what
about neutron stars?
What is known about the EOS of symmetric matterE(, ) E(, 0) Ssym() 2
Danielewicz, Lacey, Lynch (2002)
Experimental setup
MSU, IUCF, WU collaboration
Sn+Sn collisions involving 124Sn, 112Sn at E/A=50 MeV
Miniball + Miniwall
4 multiplicity array
Z identification, A<4
LASSA
Si strip +CsI array
Good E, position,
isotope resolutions
Ring Counter
Annular Si+CsI array
Z of projectile-like residue
HiRA group picture, 1999
Isoscaling constructed from Measured Isotopic yieldsT.X Liu et al. PRC 69,014603
P T
Isoscaling from Relative Isotope Ratios
R21=Y2/ Y1
TZTN pne//
MB Tsang et al. PRC 64,054615
Simple derivation of the isoscaling law
• Basic trends from Grand Canonical ensemble:
– Yields term with exponential dependence on the chemical potentials.
• Ratios to reduce sensitivity to secondary decays:
• Scaling parameters C,
( )
( )
),(),(),(
)/exp(12
),(/),(exp),(
*
int
int
ZNfZNYZNY
TEJZwhere
ZNZTZNBZNZNY
HOTCOLD
i
ii
pnHOT
feeding correction
( ) TZTNC
ZNY
ZNYZNR
//
1
221
pne),(
),(,
TT pn /,/ a
Isoscaling in statistical models
Primary distributions show good isoscaling
A2=186, Z2=75; A1=168, Z1=75
WCI statistical model working group (2004)
Isoscaling in
Antisymmetrized
Molecular Dynamical
model
A. Ono et al. PRC 68,051601 (2003)
Isoscaling observed in many reactions
Y2/ Y1
TZN pne/)(
PRL, 86, 5023 (2001)
86Kr+116Sn,124Sn86Kr+58Ni,64NiE/A=35 MeV
More Data
58Ni+58Ni58Fe+58FeE/A=30,40,47
Souliotis et al(2003)
Shetty et al (2003)
p,4He+116Snp,4He+124SnE/A>1 GeV
Botvina,Trautmann (2002)
b
P T
P T
P T
Q Value, Sep. E
ECoul Esym
Separation Energy
ECoul Esym
Chemical Potentials
ECoul Esym p n
R21exp[(-Sn·N- Sp·Z)/T]
R21exp[((-Sn+ fn*)·N+(-Sp +fp
*+ )·Z)/T]
R21exp[(-n·N- p·Z)/T]
Symmetry energy from AMD
a depends on symmetry term interactions
A. Ono et al. PRC 68,051601 (2003)
40Ca+40Ca
48Ca+48Ca
60Ca+ 60Ca
Isospin diffusion in the projectile-like region
Basic ideas:
• Peripheral reactions
• Asymmetric collisions 124Sn+112Sn, 112Sn+124Sn
-- diffusion
Lijun Shi
Projectile
Target
)/()( ZNZN
Isospin diffusion in the projectile-like region
Basic ideas:
• Peripheral reactions
• Asymmetric collisions 124Sn+112Sn, 112Sn+124Sn
-- diffusion
• Symmetric Collisions 124Sn+124Sn, 112Sn+112Sn
-- no diffusion
• Relative change between
target and projectile is the
diffusion effect
Target
)/()( ZNZN
Isoscaling of mixed systems
Y21 exp(aN+Z)
Experimental: isoscaling;Y21 exp(aN+Z)
Theoretical : = (N-Z)/(N+Z)
x=experimental or theoretical isospin
observable
x=x124+124 Ri = 1.
x=x112+112 Ri = -1.
112112124124
1121121241242
xx
xxxR
i
Rami et al., PRL, 84, 1120 (2000)
Isospin Transport Ratio
a 1 – 2 (EES,SMM,AMD)
BUU predictionsLijun Shi
Experimental
results are in
better
agreement with
predictions
using hard
symmetry
terms
E(, ) E(, 0)Ssym() 2
Ssym()
Summary
A lot of work has been done on isoscaling.
Robust observable
Seen in many different reactions
Promising tool to study symmetry energy with
heavy ion collisions – Isospin Diffusion
Acknowledgements
P. Danielew icz , C.K. Gelbke, T.X. Liu, X.D. Liu, W.G. Lynch,
L.J. Shi, R. Shomin, M.B. Tsang, W.P. Tan, M.J. Van
Goethem, G. Verde, A. Wagner, H.F. Xi, H.S. Xu, Akira Ono,
Bao-An Li, B. Davin, Y. Larochelle, R.T. de Souza, R.J.
Charity, L.G. Sobotka , S.R. Souza, R. Donangelo
Bill Friedman
Spectroscopic factors:
Jenny Lee, Xiaodong Liu
Isospin Diffusion
BUU predictions E(, ) E(, 0)Ssym() 2
Ssym() ()
Including the
momentum
dependence in
the mean-field
in BUU changes
the agreement
Need more
experimental
constraints
B.-A. Li, C. B. Das,
S. Das Gupta, and C.
Gale
Phys. Rev. C 69,
011603 (2004)
Isospin Diffusion from BUU
Symmetry Energy
Esym() = ee sym
kin
sym
int
)( 0
32
25.12
MeVekin
sym
0 = 0.16 fm-3
14MeV (/0)2
14MeV (/0)
14MeV (/0)1/3
38.5(/0)21(/0)2
esym
int
/0
esym
int
The density dependence
of asymmetry term is
largely unconstrained.
E(, ) E(, 0)Ssym() 2
Pressure and collective flow dynamics
• Both the elliptical and transverse flow reflect the pressure created in the collisions
density
contours
pressure
contours
Danielewicaz, Lacey, Lynch Science, Dec 2002
Discrepancies in the data is larger than that quoted
by the authors
1
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
11B(d,p)12B
11.8 MeV Liu at al, PRC64(2001)034312
12 MeV Schiffer et al, PRev164(1967)1274
Discrepancies in the data is larger than the
uncertainties quoted by the authors
33S(d,p)34S
12 MeV Van Der Baan, NPA173(1971)456
12 MeV Crozier et al, NPA198(1972)209
0.01
0.1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Problems with small SF determinations
19F(d,p)20F SF<0.1
16 MeV Fortune et al, PRC6(1972)21
Cross-sections are small and data fluctuate
0.01
0.1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
qcm
Compare with Shell Model (Oxbash)
Good agreement with most isotopes within +20%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
5 15 25 35 45
A
Ex
pt
SF
/Sh
ell
Be
B
C
N
O
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
Li
F,Ne
Compare with Shell Model (Oxbash)
No n-separation energy dependence quenching
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-5 0 5 10 15
S_n
Ex
pt
SF
/Sh
ell
Be
B
C
N
O
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
Li
F,Ne
Take A(d,p)A+1 stripping reaction as an example:
can be expressed in terms of summation
over the complete set of :
is the overlap function defined as :
The theoretical spectroscopic factor is given by
A
i1
A
f
f
A
f
i
f
A
i r 1)(
)(ri
f
A
i
A
f
i
f r 1)(
i
fS
2))(( drS i
f
i
f
Calculation
The theoretical differential cross sections for a particular reaction were
calculated by the modified version of code TWOFNR based on the
DWBA model. Global Optical Model Potential and JLM Optical
Model Potential were used.
DWBA Theory
For the reaction of A(a,b)B, the transition amplitude (T) is :
For (d,p) reaction in zero-range approximation
baaiABbf rdrdrVrT
),(),( )(*)(
)()()(*
0 nA
m
lpnBBABAA rYrrDMJMMMjJ
342
0 105.1 fmMeVD
))()((21
ddpdppnAjljlAB msmmsmsjmlsmrRSV
Optical-Model potential
where and
Thus 13 parameters are needed to be adjusted to reproduce the observed
elastic scattering experiment.
• Different sets of parameters were used for the same reaction at different
energies.( Parameters are quite sensitive to the fitting procedure)
• Global optical model potential is used to avoid such sensitivity
)(4)()(
1)1.(0.2)()( 0 D
D
WVSOSOc xfdx
dWxfWixf
dr
d
rVxfVVrU
1)1()( xi
i exfiii aArrx /)( 3
1
DWBA Adiabatic CH JLM
Proton potential Chapel-Hill [43] Chapel-Hill [43] JLM [47,48]
Deuteron potential Daehnick [45] Adiabatic [53] from CH Adiabatic [53] from JLM
Target r.m.s radius /density Shell model
n-binding potential Woods-Saxon
r 0 =1.25, a=0.65
Woods-Saxon
r 0 =1.25, a=0.65
Woods-Saxon
r 0 =1.25, a=0.65
Hulthen finite range factor 0.7457 0.7457 0.7457
Vertex constant D02 15006.25 15006.25 15006.25
JLM potential scaling λ N/A N/A λ v =1.0 and λ w =0.8 [54]
Non-Locality potentials p 0.85; n N/A; d 0.54 p 0.85; n N/A; d 0.54 p 0.85; n N/A; d 0.54
Summary of the input parameters used in DWBA code
TWOFNR (Surrey version)Source : PRC 69 (2004) 064313
No adjustment of parameters for the entire range of isotopes
Digitization of ~430 angular distributions from literature
for (p,d) & (d,p) reactions on target from Z=3-24
Strength lies in the numbers.
To test the method in the quality control:
1. Compare to Endt’s “Best” values when
available.
2. Compare SF’s derived from (p,d) and (d,p)
reactions separately to estimate the
uncertainties in our method.
Nuclear
physics
can be
fun