1: \documentstyle[preprint,pre,aps,eqsecnum]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \title{Comparison of Canonical and Grand Canonical Models for
5: selected multifragmentation data}
6:
7: \author{C. B. Das$^1$, S. Das Gupta$^1$, X. D. Liu$^2$ and M. B. Tsang$^2$}
8:
9: \address{
10: $^1$Physics Department, McGill University, Montr{\'e}al, Canada H3A 2T8\\
11: $^2$National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, East Lansing, MI 48824,
12: USA}
13:
14: \date{\today}
15:
16: \maketitle
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: Calculations for a set
20: of nuclear multifragmentation data are made using a Canonical
21: and a Grand Canonical Model. The physics assumptions are identical
22: but the Canonical Model has an exact number of particles, whereas,
23: the Grand Canonical Model has a varying number of particles, hence,
24: is less exact. Interesting differences are found.
25: \end{abstract}
26:
27: \pacs{25.70.-z,25.75.Ld,25.10.Lx}
28:
29:
30: \section{Introduction}
31: In experiments whose goals were to investigate the role of isospin
32: in fragment yields \cite{Xu00}, the following interesting features have been
33: observed. If we compare the central collisions of two heavy ion systems, 1
34: and 2, which are similar in all aspects of the reactions except for the
35: neutron and proton composition, the isotope yield ratios,
36: Y$_2$(n,z)/Y$_1$(n, z),
37: where Y$_i$(n,z) is the yield of the isotope with neutron number n, and proton
38: number z, from reaction $i$, is found to exhibit an exponential relationship
39: as a function of n and z \cite{Xu00,Tsang}
40: \begin{eqnarray}
41: Y_2(n,z)/Y_1(n,z)=Cexp(\alpha_nn+\alpha_pz)
42: \end{eqnarray}
43: where $C$ is an overall normalization constant and $\alpha_n$ and $\alpha_p$
44: are fitting
45: parameters. This phenomenon is termed isoscaling, a strong evidence that
46: the processes are statistical.
47:
48: Related to isoscaling is the exponential dependence of the mirror nuclei
49: ratios on the binding energy. In Figure 1,
50: the ratios of yields of mirror nuclei: $Y_i(t)/Y_i(^3He)$, $Y_i(^7Li)/
51: Y_i(^7Be)$ and $Y_i(^{11}B)/Y_i(^{11}C)$ for central collisions of
52: $^{124}Sn+^{124}Sn$ (solid points) and $^{112}Sn+^{112}Sn$ (open points)
53: at 50 MeV per nucleon are plotted
54: as a function of the binding energy difference, $\Delta E_B$.
55: These ratios fall approximately on an exponential.
56: Many statistical models such as the
57: grand canonical model \cite{Randrup,Albergo} of
58: multifragmentation predict
59: both the isoscaling and mirror-nuclei ratio dependence.
60:
61: Experimental evidence suggests that multifragmentation occurs when the
62: heated matter expands to density about 1/3 of nuclear matter density
63: \cite{Bowman} and the time scale for the
64: emission of fragments is short, between 50 to 100 fm/c \cite{Cornell}.
65: Most successful statistical models that describe multifragmentation data
66: assume a freeze-out volume at which
67: composite yields are to be calculated entirely according to phase-space
68: \cite{Bondorf,Gross}.
69: If the dissociating system is very large, then grand canonical
70: simplification
71: can be employed \cite{Randrup,Albergo}. According to this model, the average
72: number of composites
73: with neutron number $i$ and proton number $j$ is
74: \begin{eqnarray}
75: <n_{i,j}>=\exp(\beta(i\mu_n+j\mu_p))\omega_{i,j}
76: \end{eqnarray}
77: where $\mu_n,\mu_p$ are neutron and proton chemical potentials and
78: \begin{equation}
79: \omega_{i,j}=\frac{V}{h^3}(2\pi (i+j)mT)^{3/2}(2s+1)z_{int}
80: \exp(\beta E_B) \nonumber
81: \end{equation}
82: is the partition function of one composite. $\beta$ is the inverse
83: temperature.
84: For mirror nuclei: $i=k+1,k$ and $j=k,k+1$ we should simply have
85: \begin{eqnarray}
86: \frac{<n_{k+1,k}>}{<n_{k,k+1}>}=\exp(\beta\mu_n-\beta\mu_p)\exp(\beta\Delta
87: E_B)
88: \end{eqnarray}
89: Thus the log of the ratios of the yield will be linear with respect
90: to $\Delta E_B$ which is approximately obeyed by data.
91: However a more close inspection raises another issue.
92:
93: According to Eq. 1.4, one can deduce the value of $\beta=1/T$ from the slope of the line.
94: Indeed for the lines drawn in Fig.1, the temperature $T$ is less than
95: 2 MeV. For such a low temperature, the model of
96: simultaneous breakup model [7,8]
97: should not be appropriate. In addition, such low values
98: are in direct contradictions with temperature measurements
99: obtained from isotope yield ratios.
100: The isotope yield temperature is about 5 MeV for the Sn+Sn systems
101: \cite{Xu01,Kunde}.
102: To resolve the discrepancies between temperatures observed,
103: it is necessary to explore details of the exponential behaviour of the
104: mirror nuclei.
105:
106: \section{Canonical {\it vs.} Grand Canonical Models}
107: In recent years, the grand canonical model has been replaced by a
108: canonical model. The physics assumptions are still the same but
109: we no longer have to assume that the system is large. This is a
110: technical advancement; the details have already been described in several
111: places \cite {Dasgupta,Majumder,Bhattacharyya} so we will not
112: repeat these here. The model has been used
113: to fit the isotope data \cite{Majumder,tsang}. Surprisingly,
114: isoscaling which follows naturally from the Grand Canonical model, emerges
115: also in canonical model \cite{tsang}.
116: In this article, we will investigate why certain results from the canonical
117: model
118: resemble those from the grand canonical model and what are the differences.
119: We will also investigate the
120: relation between the canonical temperature and the temperature obtained
121: based on the simpler grand canonical rules.
122:
123:
124: The yield of the composite which has $k+1$ neutrons and $k$ protons is given
125: in the canonical model by
126: \begin{eqnarray}
127: <n_{k+1,k}>=\omega_{k+1,k}\frac{Q_{N-k-1,Z-k}}{Q_{N,Z}}
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: Here $N,Z$ refer to the number of neutrons and protons of the
130: disintegrating system. $Q_{N,Z}$ is the canonical partition function of
131: this system. Similarly, $Q_{N-k-1,Z-k}$ is the canonical partition function
132: of the residue system which has $N-k-1$ neutrons and $Z-k$ protons.
133: The ratio of the yields in the canonical model is then given by
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: \frac{<n_{k+1,k}>}{<n_{k,k+1}>}=\frac{\omega_{k+1,k}}{\omega_{k,k+1}}\times
136: \frac{Q_{N-k-1,Z-k}}{Q_{N-k,Z-k-1}}
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: The first factor leads to $\exp(\beta\Delta E_B)$. We note
139: in passing that for mirror nuclei $\Delta E_B=\Delta E_C$,
140: the change in Coulomb energy. If we assume a uniformly charged sphere,
141: then $\Delta E_c=\frac{3}{5}\frac {e^2}{R_0a^{1/3}}[(z+1)^2-z^2]=.72a^{2/3}$
142: MeV where $a$ is the composite mass number.
143: For light nuclei $0.72a^{2/3}$ MeV does not fit the data very well.
144: We note for later use that $ 0.235a$ MeV fits $\Delta E_B$ between
145: $a=7$ and $a=15$ better.
146:
147: The exact expression for the canonical partition function $Q_{N,Z}$
148: used in \cite {tsang} does not allow us to investigate easily the
149: features we want to study. Since the ratios
150: are very simple in the grand canonical ensemble and since there is a
151: connection between grand canonical partition function $Z_{gr}(\lambda_n,
152: \lambda_p)$ and the canonical partition function $Q_{N,Z}$, we find it
153: convenient to exploit this relation. In the present problem, the
154: grand canonical partition function is given by
155: \begin{eqnarray}
156: Z_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)=\sum_{k,l,n_{k,l}}
157: e^{(k\lambda_n+l\lambda_p)n_{kl}}
158: \times\frac{\omega_{k,l}
159: ^{n_{k,l}}}{n_{k,l}!}
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: The expression for $logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)$ is
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)=\sum_{k,l}\exp(k\lambda_n+l\lambda_p)\times
164: \omega_{k,l}
165: \end{eqnarray}
166: The canonical partition function can be obtained from $Z_{gr}$ by Laplace
167: inverse:
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: Q_{N,Z}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\int_{-\pi}^\pi
170: e^{-(\lambda_n+i\tilde{\lambda}_n)N}e^{-(\lambda_p+i\tilde{\lambda}_p)Z}
171: e^{logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n+i\tilde{\lambda}_n,\lambda_p+i\tilde{\lambda}_p)}
172: d\tilde{\lambda}_nd\tilde{\lambda}_p
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: While this expression is true for any $\lambda_n$ and $\lambda_p$, the
175: saddle-point approximation consists in choosing the values of $\lambda_n$ and
176: $\lambda_p$ such that the kernel maximizes at $\tilde{\lambda}_n=0$ and
177: $\tilde{\lambda}_p=0$ and making a Gaussian approximation for the integrand
178: around this maximum. The result is
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: Q_{N,Z}\approx
181: e^{-(\lambda_nN+\lambda_pZ)}e^{logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)}/
182: (2\pi *|det|^{1/2})
183: \end{eqnarray}
184: where the values of $\lambda_n$ and $\lambda_z$ are such that the average
185: numbers of neutrons and protons as obtained from the grand canonical
186: ensemble
187: are $N$ and $Z$, i.e.,
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: N=\frac{\partial logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)}{\partial \lambda_n};
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: Z=\frac{\partial logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)}{\partial \lambda_p}
193: \end{eqnarray}
194: The elements of the determinant are given by:
195: $a_{1,1}=\frac{\partial^2log Z_{gr}}{\partial^2\lambda_n}, a_{1,2}=a_{2,1}=
196: \frac{\partial^2log Z_{gr}}{\partial\lambda_n\partial\lambda_p}$ and
197: $a_{2,2}=\frac{\partial^2log Z_{gr}}{\partial^2\lambda_p}$.
198:
199: Eq. (2.2) now takes the form
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: \frac{<n_{k+1,k}>}{<n_{k,k+1}>}\approx e^{\beta\Delta E_B}\times\frac{
202: e^{-(\lambda_n(N-k-1)+\lambda_p(Z-k))+logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)}}{
203: e^{-(\lambda_n'(N-k)+\lambda_p'(Z-k-1))+logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n',\lambda_p')}}
204: \end{eqnarray}
205: Here we have omitted the ratios of the determinants $|det|^{1/2}$ because
206: their effects will be negligible.
207: Eq. (2.9) will reduce to the standard grand canonical result if
208: we set $\lambda_n=\lambda_n'; \lambda_p=\lambda_p'$ and take
209: these values from a system which has the average number of neutrons
210: to be $N$ ( rather than $N-k-1$ to get $\lambda_n$ and $N-k$ to get
211: $\lambda_n'$ ) and the average number of protons to be $Z$ ( rather than
212: $Z-k$ to obtain $\lambda_p$ and $Z-k-1$ to obtain $\lambda_p'$).
213:
214: For a better estimate, let us write $\lambda_n'=\lambda_n+\Delta\lambda_n;
215: \lambda_p'=\lambda_p+\Delta\lambda_p$. Assuming lowest order expansion
216: is valid we can get (depending upon whether we expand $logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,
217: \lambda_p)$ in terms of $logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n',\lambda_p')$ or vice versa):
218:
219: $e^{(logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,
220: \lambda_p)-logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n',\lambda_p'))}=e^{-\Delta\lambda_n(N-k-1)-
221: \Delta\lambda_p(Z-k)}$ or
222: $e^{-\Delta\lambda_n(N-k)-\Delta\lambda_p(Z-k-1)}$.
223:
224: Eq. (2.9) can be reduced to
225: $\frac{<n_{k+1,k}>}{<n_{k,k+1}>}\approx e^{\beta\Delta E_B} \times
226: e^{\lambda_n-\lambda_p}
227: \approx e^{\beta\Delta E_B}\times e^{\lambda_n'-\lambda_p'}$
228:
229: We will use
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: \frac{<n_{k+1,k}>}{<n_{k,k+1}>}\approx e^{\beta\Delta E_B}\times e^{(\lambda_n+
232: \lambda_n'-\lambda_p-\lambda_p')/2}
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: Eq. (2.10) looks just like a grand canonical result but with an important
235: difference. In the usual grand canonical model $\lambda_n,\lambda_p$
236: would be calculated just once, from eqs. (2.7) and (2.8) where
237: $N$ and $Z$ are the neutron and proton numbers
238: of the disintegrating system. By contrast, $\lambda_n,\lambda_p$ etc. of
239: eq. (2.10) are calculated from eqs (2.7) and (2.8) for each $k$
240: and the left hand sides
241: of eqs.(2.7) and (2.8) are given by $N-k-1$ and $Z-k$ respectively.
242: The quantity $\lambda_n-\lambda_p$ etc. increases with $k$ with the result
243: that if we try to interpret the canonical results within a usual grand
244: canonical framework one ends up with a larger $\beta$, that is, a lower $T$.
245: This is demonstrated in Fig. 2 where it is shown that although the
246: temperature
247: used for the canonical calculation (hence the true temperature) is 5 MeV,
248: deducing the temperature from the slope of the mirror isotope yield
249: ratios (as one would do in a grand canonical
250: formalism) one would arrive at a significantly lower temperature.
251: The best fit (solid line) to the calculated values from the canonical
252: model (solid points) yield a temperature of 3.395 MeV.
253: In the figure we also show that the approximation of Eq.(2.10)
254: as shown by the star points, works quite well.
255:
256: The dependence of $\lambda_n-\lambda_p$ on $k$ and $N,Z$ where $2k+1$
257: is the mass number of the emitted particle and $N,Z$ gives the size
258: of the emitting system can be pinned down further. Let
259: $\Lambda_N,\Lambda_P$
260: be the fugacities of the system $N,Z$. We will write $\lambda_n=
261: \Lambda_N+d\lambda_N$ and $\lambda_p=\Lambda_P+d\lambda_P$. We then
262: have
263: $N-k-1=\sum i\omega_{i,j}\exp(i\lambda_n+j\lambda_p)$. Expressing
264: $\lambda_n,\lambda_p$ in terms of $\Lambda_N,\Lambda_P$
265: and approximating $\exp(d\Lambda_P)\approx
266: (1+d\Lambda_P)$ etc. we get $-k-1=Ad\Lambda_N+Bd\Lambda_P$
267: where $A$ and $B$ are constants:
268: $A=\sum i^2\omega_{i,j}\exp(i\Lambda_N+j\Lambda_P)$ and $B=
269: \sum ij\omega_{i,j}\exp(i\Lambda_N+j\Lambda_P)$. Similarly starting
270: from $N-k=\sum j\omega_{i,j}\exp(i\lambda_n+j\lambda_p)$ and expanding
271: as above we get $-k=Bd\Lambda_N+Cd\Lambda_P$ where $C=
272: \sum j^2\omega_{i,j}\exp(i\Lambda_N+j\Lambda_P)$. One can now
273: express $d\Lambda_N, d\Lambda_P$ in terms of the constants $A, B$
274: and $C$. We get
275: \begin{eqnarray}
276: \lambda_n-\lambda_p=\Lambda_N-\Lambda_P+\frac{C-A}{B^2-AC}k+
277: \frac{C+B}{B^2-AC}
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: We can do a similar analysis for $\lambda_n'-\lambda_p'$. Finally
280: we get (compare eq.(2.10))
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: (\lambda_n+\lambda_n'-\lambda_p-\lambda_p')/2=\Lambda_N-\Lambda_P+
283: \frac{1}{2}\frac{C-A}{B^2-AC}(2k+1)
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: Eq.(2.12) says that the correction grows like $2k+1=a$, the mass
286: of the composite. The correction
287: would diminish as the disintegrating system ($N,Z$) grows. The
288: constants $A, B$ and $C$ are positive definite and each will become
289: larger and larger as the disintegrating system becomes larger. The
290: correction would disappear in the thermodynamic limit. The actual
291: values of the constants $A, B$ and $C$ for a finite system depend
292: on many factors: the symmetry energy, the Coulomb energies and $N,Z$
293: of the disintegrating system.
294:
295: \section{The Albergo Temperature}
296: The Albergo formula \cite {Albergo} has often been used to extract
297: a temperature from experimental data. The formula is exact if
298: the following two assumptions are valid: (1) the populations
299: of various states are given by the grand canonical model and (2)
300: the secondary decays which will alter these primary populations can
301: be neglected. Define a ratio $R$
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: R=\frac{Y(A_i,Z_i)/Y(A_i+1,Z_i)}{Y(A_j,Z_j)/Y(A_j+1,Z_j)}
304: \end{eqnarray}
305: where the $Y$'s are the yields in the ground state.
306: Then, the temperature is given by
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: T=\frac{B}{ln(sR)}
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: where $B$ is related to binding energies and $s$ to the ground state spins:
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: B=BE(A_i,Z_i)-BE(A_i+1,Z_i)-BE(A_j,Z_j)+BE(A_j+1,Z_j)
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: s=\frac{[2S(A_j,Z_j)+1]/[2S(A_j+1,Z_j)+1]}
316: {[2S(A_i,Z_i)+1]/[2S(A_i+1,Z_i)+1]}
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: Even if the grand canonical model is exact, the change of populations
319: due to secondary decays can cause eq.(3.2) to give significantly
320: different temperatures from the true grand canonical temperature.
321: This was studied in
322: detail in \cite{Tsang97}. It was shown that for large values of $B$
323: (eq.(3.3)), the difference between apparent temperature and the true
324: grand canonical temperature decreases. This suggests that while
325: using the Albergo formula to deduce a temperature from experimental
326: data, it is advisable to use pairs that will lead to a large value of $B$.
327:
328: Our objective here is different and is complimentary to the study made
329: in \cite{Tsang97}. The canonical model is obviously more rigorous than
330: the grand canonical model. However, if canonical values for $R$ are used,
331: eq. (3.2) is no longer strictly correct. Using the primary yields, we explore the differences between the
332: deduced temperatures from
333: eq.(3.2) compared to the actual temperature used in a canonical model.
334: This is shown in Fig.3, we find that the
335: errors decrease with increasing $B$.
336: The inset in Figure 3 shows the deviation of the canonical
337: Albergo temperature for B greater than 10 MeV. Most of the predicted
338: temperatures are slightly lower than the actual temperature of 5 MeV.
339: The deviations arise from the differences between isotope
340: yields predicted by the canonical and grand canonical models
341: Not surprisingly, the conclusions of \cite {Tsang97} can be applied here.
342:
343:
344: \section{The scaling Law}
345:
346: The last quantity we want to investigate is a ratio of two ratios:
347: $\frac{<n_{l+m,k}>_2}{<n_{l+m,k}>_1}\div \frac{<n_{l,k}>_2}{<n_{l,k}>_1}$
348: and see if this falls on an exponential as in the grand canonical ensemble.
349: Here the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to two systems : ( for example: 2 refers
350: to central collisions of $^{124}$Sn+$^{124}$Sn and 1 to central collisions
351: of $^{112}$Sn+$^{112}$Sn at 50 MeV/A energy). As this involves two
352: ratios and two different systems, the analysis is considerably more
353: complicated than what we considered before. The ratio $R$ we are after
354: is given by
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: R=\frac{\omega^{(2)}_{l+m,k}}{\omega^{(2)}_{l,k}}
357: \frac{\omega^{(1)}_{l,k}}{\omega^{(1)}_{l+m,k}}
358: \frac{Q_{N2-l-m,Z2-k}}{Q_{N2-l,Z2-k}}
359: \frac{Q_{N1-l,Z1-k}}{Q_{N1-l-m,Z1-k}}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: For central collisions at the same beam energy per particle, the $\omega$
362: factors will give unity. Employing the saddle-point approximation
363: and setting the ratios of the $det$'s as unity as before, we can consider
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: \frac{Q_{N2-l-m,Z2-k}}{Q_{N2-l,Z2-k}}=\frac{e^{-(\lambda_n(N2-l-m)+
366: \lambda_p(Z2-k))+
367: logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)}}{e^{-(\lambda'_n(N2-l)+\lambda'_p(Z2-k))+
368: logZ_{gr}(\lambda'_n,\lambda'_p)}}
369: \end{eqnarray}
370: Similarly,
371: \begin{eqnarray}
372: \frac{Q_{N1-l-m,Z1-k}}{Q_{N1-l,Z1-k}}=\frac{e^{-(\tilde{\lambda}_n(N1-l-m)+
373: \tilde{\lambda}_p(Z1-k))+
374: logZ_{gr}(\tilde{\lambda}_n,\tilde{\lambda}_p)}}
375: {e^{-(\tilde{\lambda}'_n(N1-l)+\tilde{\lambda}'_p(Z1-k))+
376: logZ_{gr}(\tilde{\lambda}'_n,\tilde{\lambda}'_p)}}
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: We can now indicate how the grand canonical results are recovered. We set
379: $\lambda_n=\lambda'_n; \tilde{\lambda}_n=\tilde{\lambda}'_n$ and
380: $\lambda_n-\tilde{\lambda}_n=\Delta\lambda_n$ then the ratio achieves the
381: exponential character: $R=\exp(m\Delta\lambda_n)$. Experimentally
382: it is found that the relationship $R=\exp(\alpha m)$ where $\alpha$ is
383: a constant independent of $l$ and $k$ is quite well respected. This is
384: not so obvious from eqs. (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3). We are therefore
385: required to investigate this near independence of the constant $\alpha$.
386:
387: If we write in Eq.(4.2) $\lambda_n'=\lambda_n+\Delta\lambda_n$ and expand
388: $logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n',\lambda_p')$ in terms of
389: $logZ_{gr}(\lambda_n,\lambda_p)$
390: and keep lowest order corrections, the right hand side of eq.(4.2) is simply
391: $e^{m\lambda_n'}$. In a similar fashion, the right hand side of eq.(4.3) is
392: $e^{m\tilde{\lambda}_n'}$, so that the ratio $R$ of eq.(4.1) is
393: $\exp(m(\lambda_n'-\tilde{\lambda}_n'))$
394: where, of course, the values of $\lambda_n',\tilde{\lambda}_n'$ are
395: chosen to give neutron numbers $N2-l$ and $N1-l$ and proton numbers
396: $Z2-k$ and $Z1-k$ respectively. Our
397: next task is to verify that $\lambda_n'-\tilde{\lambda}_n'$ is approximately
398: independent of $l$ and $k$.
399:
400: We have four equations:
401: \begin{eqnarray}
402: \sum ie^{i\lambda_n'+j\lambda_p'}\omega_{i,j}=N2-l
403: \end{eqnarray}
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: \sum je^{i\lambda_n'+j\lambda_p'}\omega_{i,j}=Z2-k
406: \end{eqnarray}
407: \begin{eqnarray}
408: \sum ie^{i\tilde{\lambda}_n'+j\tilde{\lambda}_p'}\omega_{i,j}=N1-l
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \sum je^{i\tilde{\lambda}_n'+j\tilde{\lambda}_p'}\omega_{i,j}=Z1-k
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: Let $\lambda_n'=\tilde{\lambda}_n'+\delta\lambda_n$ and $\lambda_p'=
414: \tilde{\lambda}_p'+\delta\lambda_p$. From Eqs. (4.5) and (4.7), retaining
415: terms to lowest order in $\delta\lambda_p$ and $\delta\lambda_n$ we obtain
416: \begin{eqnarray}
417: \delta\lambda_p\sum
418: j^2e^{i\tilde{\lambda}_n'+j\tilde{\lambda}_p'}\omega_{i,j}
419: +\delta\lambda_n\sum
420: ije^{i\tilde{\lambda}_n'+j\tilde{\lambda}_p'}\omega_{i,j}
421: =Z2-Z1
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: In a similar fashion from Eqs. (4.4) and (4.6) we can obtain
424: \begin{eqnarray}
425: \delta\lambda_n\sum
426: i^2e^{i\tilde{\lambda}_n'+j\tilde{\lambda}_p'}\omega_{i,j}
427: +\delta\lambda_p\sum
428: ije^{i\tilde{\lambda}_n'+j\tilde{\lambda}_p'}\omega_{i,j}
429: =N2-N1
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: Eqs (4.8) and (4.9) can be solved for $\delta\lambda_n$ and $\delta\lambda_p$
432: and in the lowest order these value are independent of $l$ and $k$ but
433: depend upon $N2, Z2, N1$ and $Z1$.
434: To this order $R$ of eq.(4.1) is independent of $l$ and $k$ as it
435: is in the usual grand canonical ensemble. This is seen to be obeyed in
436: experiments to a good approximation.
437:
438: Instead of eqs.(4.4) to (4.9), one may also consider the following
439: approximation
440: trying to relate to the grand canonical ensemble. Recall that $\lambda_n',
441: \lambda_p'$ are the fugacities of a system which has $N2-l$ neutrons
442: and $Z2-k$ protons. If we denote the fugacities of the system which
443: has $N2$ neutrons and $Z2$ protons by $\Lambda_{N2},\Lambda_{Z2}$ and
444: employ the same approximate methods used in the discussion leading to
445: eq.(2.11), we get $\lambda_n'=\Lambda_{N2}+\frac{lC_2-kB_2}{B_2^2-A_2C_2}$
446: Similarly $\tilde{\lambda}_n', \tilde{\lambda}_p'$
447: refers to a system which has $N1-l$ neutrons and $Z1-k$ protons. In an
448: obvious notation we also get $\tilde{\lambda}_n'=\Lambda_{N1}+\frac
449: {lC_1-kB_1}{B_1^2-A_1C_1}$. The quantity of interest is
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \lambda_n'-\tilde{\lambda}_n'=\Lambda_{N2}-\Lambda_{N1}+\frac{lC_2-kB_2}
452: {B_2^2-A_2C_2}-\frac{lC_1-kB_1}{B_1^2-A_1C_1}
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: Because of cancellations in the above equation, results again approximate
455: the grand canonical result quite closely.
456:
457: \section{Summary}
458: In summary, we have explored several experimental observables which are
459: sensitive to the isospin effects in multifragmentation. We find that
460: the mirror ratios, isoscaling
461: and temperatures calculated in canonical model behave similarly as
462: those predicted with the grand canonical model with one significant
463: difference: the temperature deduced from the calculated observables
464: with the canonical model using the rules based on the grand canonical
465: model can be significantly different from the true temperatures.
466:
467: \section{Acknowledgment}
468: This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
469: Research Council of Canada, by {\it le Fonds pour la Formation
470: de Chercheurs et l'aide \`a la Recherche du Qu\'ebec} and the National
471: Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-95-28844.
472:
473: \begin{references}
474: \bibitem{Xu00} H. Xu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 716 (2000)
475:
476: \bibitem{Tsang} M. B. Tsang, W. A. Friedman, C. K. Gelbke, W. G. Lynch,
477: G. Verde and H. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5023 (2001)
478:
479: \bibitem{Randrup} J. Randrup and S. E. Koonin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A356},
480: 223(1981)
481:
482: \bibitem{Albergo} S. Albergo et al., Nuovo Cimento {\bf A89}, 1 (1985)
483:
484: \bibitem{Bowman} D. R. Bowman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67}, 12527 (1991)
485:
486: \bibitem{Cornell} C. Williams et al., Phys. Rev {\bf C55}, R2132 (1997)
487:
488: \bibitem{Bondorf} J. P. Bondorf, A. S. Botvina, A. S. Iljinov, I. N.
489: Mishustin, and K. Sneppen, Phys. Rep. {\bf 257}, 133 (1995)
490:
491: \bibitem{Gross} D. H. E. Gross, Phys. Rep. {\bf 279}, 119 (1997)
492:
493: \bibitem{Xu01} H. S. Xu, private communication.
494:
495: \bibitem{Kunde} G. J. Kunde et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B416}, 56 (1998)
496:
497: \bibitem{Dasgupta} S. Das Gupta and A. Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. {\bf C57}, 1361
498: (1998)
499:
500: \bibitem{Majumder} A. Majumder and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rev. {\bf C59}, 845
501: (1999)
502:
503: \bibitem{Bhattacharyya} P. Bhattacharyya, S. Das Gupta and A. Z. Mekjian,
504: Phys. Rev. {\bf C60}, 54616 (1999)
505:
506: \bibitem{tsang} M. B. Tsang, C.K. Gelbke, X.D. Liu, W.G. Lynch, W.P. Tan,
507: G. Verde, H.S. Xu, W. A. Friedman, R. Donangelo, S. R. Souza, C.B. Das,
508: S. Das Gupta, and D. Zhabinsky, Phys. Rev. C, and nucl-ex/0105020.
509:
510: \bibitem{Tsang97} M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, H. Xi and W. A. Friedman,
511: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3836 (1997)
512: \end{references}
513:
514: \begin{figure}
515: \caption{Isobar ratios for three pairs of mirror nuclei obtained from the
516: central collisions of $^{124}$Sn+$^{124}$Sn (solid points) and
517: $^{112}$Sn+$^{112}$Sn (open points) collisions. The lines are best
518: fit of Eq. 1.4.}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: \begin{figure}
522: \caption{Exact Canonical Model calculations for a system of neutron number
523: N=104 and Z=70 using a freeze-out density of one-quarter of normal density.
524: This simulates central $^{124}$Sn+$^{124}$Sn collisions.
525: Lower values of N and Z used in this calculation reflect effects of
526: pre-equilibrium emissions.
527: The ratios of yields of mirror nuclei are plotted for $a=1,3,7,9,11$ and 13.
528: The results for 3,7 and 11 can be compared with the experimental results
529: (Fig.1). $T_{actual}$=5 MeV is the temperature used in the canonical model
530: calculation; $T_{best fit}$ would be the temperature deduced if one
531: fit the solid points obtained from the canonical calculations,
532: using the grand canonical formula, Eq. (1.4). The
533: results from a saddle-point Eq. (2.10) approximation are also shown.}
534: \end{figure}
535:
536: \begin{figure}
537: \caption{The inverse Albergo temperature, Eq. (3.2), from the canonical model
538: is plotted as a function of the binding energy difference, B.
539: The inset shows the predicted temperature in an expanded scale.
540: The dash line at T=5 MeV is the input temperature to the calculation.}
541: \end{figure}
542: \end{document}
543: