1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %The final version from J.A. submitted to PRL (June 17 2003)
3: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: \input{epsf.tex}
5: \def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}
6: \def\BibTeX{\rm B{\sc ib}\TeX}
7: %*************************************
8: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
9: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
10: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
11: \def\ea{\end{array}}
12: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
14: %*************************************
15: \begin{document}
16: \draft
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: \title {Disappearance of Transverse Flow in Central Collisions for
19: Heavier Nuclei}
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \author{Aman D. Sood,$^{1}$ Rajeev K. Puri,$^{1}$ and J\"org
22: Aichelin$^{2}$\\
23: \it $^1$Department of Physics, Panjab University, Chandigarh -160 014, India\\
24: \it $^2$SUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, \it 4 rue Alfred Kastler, F-44070
25: Nantes Cedex, France}
26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: \begin{abstract}
28: Using the Quantum Molecular Dynamics model,
29: we analyze the disappearance of
30: flow in heavier colliding nuclei. A power law mass dependence
31: ($\propto{\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}}}$) is obtained in
32: all cases. Our results are in excellent
33: agreement with experimental data which allows us to
34: predict the balance energy for
35: $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U collision around 37-39 MeV/nucleon.
36: \end{abstract}
37: \maketitle
38: Thirty years ago it was predicted by Scheid and Greiner \cite{Sch68} that
39: in heavy ion reactions the nuclei will be compressed and heated and that this
40: yields for non central reactions to in-plane flow $\langle p_x^{dir} \rangle$.
41: More than a
42: decade later, this conjecture was confirmed by the Plastic Ball group
43: \cite{pb}. In the following investigations it turned out that this in-plane flow
44: carries information on the nuclear equation of state \cite{ho}. If the nuclear
45: equation of state is stiffer, more compressional energy will be stored in
46: semi-central reactions and, when released, more in-plane flow will be given
47: to the nucleons.
48:
49: The maximal density which is reached in a reaction depends on the beam
50: energy as well as on the system size. The lower the beam energy the less is the
51: compression. At very low energies, the repulsive part of the nuclear equation
52: of state, which appears at densities above the normal nuclear matter
53: density, is not tested anymore and the nucleons feel only the attractive mean
54: field. A typical example is the deep inelastic reactions in which the two
55: nuclei rotate around a common center. This rotation creates in-plane flow as
56: well but in opposite direction: Due to the common rotation the nucleons
57: stick together for a while and will be emitted into the direction opposite to
58: the impact parameter whereas the in-plane flow which is caused by compression
59: will be in the direction of the impact parameter.
60:
61: There is a beam energy at which the in-plane flow disappears when changing from
62: the direction into that opposite to the impact parameter.
63: It has been shown in the simulation of heavy ion reactions that this beam
64: energy called balance energy, $E_{bal}$,
65: \cite{3a,1a,2a} depends on the nucleon-nucleon (nn) cross-section
66: in the medium as well as on the potential \cite{1a,2a}. With the very recently
67: measured $E_{bal}$ in $^{197}$Au + $^{197}$Au collisions \cite{4a} (earlier only estimated values
68: were available \cite{5a}),
69: a renewed interest has emerged in the field \cite{6a}. In addition to
70: the Au system, balance energies $E_{bal}$ of $^{12}$C + $^{12}$C \cite{7a},
71: $^{20}$Ne + $^{27}$Al \cite{7a}, $^{36}$Ar + $^{27}$Al \cite{8a},
72: $^{40}$Ar + $^{27}$Al \cite{9a}, $^{40}$Ar + $^{45}$Sc \cite{4a,7a,14a},
73: $^{40}$Ar + $^{51}$V \cite{2a,10a}, $^{64}$Zn + $^{27}$Al \cite{11a},
74: $^{40}$Ar + $^{58}$Ni \cite{6a}, $^{64}$Zn + $^{48}$Ti \cite{8a},
75: $^{58}$Ni + $^{58}$Ni \cite{4a,6a}, $^{64}$Zn + $^{58}$Ni \cite{8a},
76: $^{86}$Kr + $^{93}$Nb \cite{4a,7a},
77: $^{93}$Nb + $^{93}$Nb \cite{3a}, $^{129}$Xe + $^{118}$Sn \cite{6a}
78: and $^{139}$La + $^{139}$La \cite{3a} are also available.
79: It is worth mentioning that most of the above studies were for
80: the central collisions only. A few, however, also searched for the
81: impact parameter dependence of the balance energy \cite{4a,9a,14a,11a}.
82:
83: Apart from the directed in-plane flow, differential as well as elliptic flow
84: has also been predicted very recently \cite{12a}.
85:
86: The measurements of the balance energy over wide range of
87: system sizes provide an excellent opportunity to pin down the role
88: of the mass dependence, where only preliminary studies \cite{4a,7a}
89: have been performed yet. These preliminary studies
90: suggest a power law dependence $\propto{A^{\tau}}$ of the balance energy on
91: the mass number of the system. Interestingly, most of the theoretical studies
92: are done within the Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) model
93: \cite{3a,1a,2a,4a,7a,9a,11a,12a,13a,15a,16a,17a,18a}. Some attempts, however,
94: also exist within the framework of Quantum
95: Molecular Dynamics (QMD) model \cite{14a,19a,soff95,21a}.
96: Heavy systems are rather rarely analyzed in these approaches.
97:
98: Our present aim is therefore to study the mass dependence of the balance
99: energy in heavy colliding nuclei and to predict for the first time
100: the disappearance of the collective in-plane flow in
101: central $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U collision. We shall show that the mass
102: dependence of $E_{bal}$ for heavier nuclei scales approximately more as
103: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}}$ rather than as
104: $A^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ as has been suggested for light and medium colliding nuclei
105: \cite{7a}. The present study is made
106: within the framework of QMD model which is described in detail in refs.
107: \cite{19a,soff95,21a,22a,23a}.
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109:
110: %\section{The Model}
111: In the QMD model, each nucleon propagates under the
112: influence of mutual interactions. The propagation is governed by the
113: classical equations of motion:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \begin{equation}
116: \dot{{\bf r}}_i~=~\frac{\partial H}{\partial{\bf p}_i};
117: ~\dot{{\bf p}}_i~=~-\frac{\partial H}{\partial{\bf r}_i},
118: \end{equation}
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%555
120: where H stands for the Hamiltonian which is given by:
121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
122: \begin{equation}
123: H = \sum_i^{A} {\frac{{\bf p}_i^2}{2m_i}} + \sum_i^{A} ({V_i^{Skyrme} + V_i^{Yuk} +
124: V_i^{Coul}}).
125: \end{equation}
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127: Here $V_{i}^{Skyrme}$, $V_{i}^{Yuk}$ and $V_{i}^{Coul}$ are, respectively,
128: the Skyrme, Yukawa and Coulomb potentials. Momentum dependent
129: interactions are not important at these low beam energies as Zhou et al.
130: \cite{18a} have shown. It is worth mentioning that
131: both the soft and hard equations of state have been employed
132: in the literature. Following \cite{3a,1a,9a,14a,11a,12a,17a,18a,19a,soff95,21a,24a},
133: we shall also use a hard equation of state.
134: For the nn cross-section we chose an
135: isotropic and energy independent cross-section of 40 mb for the
136: present analysis. This seems to us a reasonable choice in view of the
137: fact that cross-sections based on G-Matrix calculations differ widely and
138: because at this energy most of the collisions are
139: Pauli blocked. Hence different cross-sections do not produce a large effect if
140: they are not too small.
141:
142: Since we plan to study the heavier colliding nuclei, different nn
143: cross-sections should not have much effect \cite{4a}.
144: Further,
145: it has been shown in ref. \cite{15a} that the nucleons in the present energy
146: domain ($\leq$ 80 MeV/nucleon) collide with average $\sigma$=55 mb.
147: The isotropy of the cross-section also does not affect
148: the reaction dynamics \cite{25a}. Similar assumptions were also made in
149: refs. \cite{1a,9a,11a,17a,21a,26a,27a}.
150: One should, however, keep in the mind that
151: different nn cross-sections may affect the dynamics in lighter systems.
152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
153:
154: %\section{Results and Discussion}
155: Using the above description, we simulated the central
156: collisions with system mass A ($=A_{T}+A_{P}$; $A_{T}$ being the target
157: mass, and $A_{P}$ being the projectile mass)
158: $\geq175$. In particular, we simulated
159: $^{86}$Kr + $^{93}$Nb (b = 4.07 fm) \cite{7a}, $^{93}$Nb + $^{93}$Nb
160: (b = 3.104 fm) \cite{3a}, $^{129}$Xe + $^{118}$Sn (b = 0-3 fm) \cite{6a},
161: $^{139}$La + $^{139}$La (b = 3.549 fm) \cite{3a},
162: $^{197}$Au + $^{197}$Au (b = 2.5 fm) \cite{4a} and
163: $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U (b = 0-3 fm)
164: at incident energies between
165: 30 MeV/nucleon and 80
166: MeV/nucleon at a step of 10 MeV. A straight line interpolation between steps
167: was used to calculate
168: the energy of vanishing flow $E_{bal}$. The reaction was followed till transverse flow
169: saturates which is close to 300 fm/c for heavier colliding nuclei whereas it
170: is $\leq200$ fm/c for lighter colliding nuclei.
171: %It should, however, be kept
172: %in mind that impact parameter plays little role in heavy colliding nuclei
173: %\cite{4a}.
174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%??
175:
176: In fig. 1, we display the average directed
177: transverse momentum $\langle p_{x}^{dir}\rangle$ defined as:
178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
179: \begin{equation}
180: \langle p_{x}^{dir}\rangle~=~\frac{1}{A} \sum_{i=1}^{A} sign\{Y(i)\}p_{x}(i),
181: \end{equation}
182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
183: where $Y(i)$ and $p_{x}(i)$ are, respectively, the rapidity and the
184: transverse momentum of the $\it{ith}$ particle for the reactions
185: $^{93}$Nb + $^{93}$Nb, $^{139}$La + $^{139}$La, $^{197}$Au + $^{197}$Au
186: and $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U. We see that the collective in-plane flow for
187: $^{93}$Nb + $^{93}$Nb changes sign between
188: 55-60 MeV/nucleon whereas it is already positive around 40 MeV/nucleon for
189: $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U system. Further, the saturation time
190: increases with the size of the colliding nuclei.
191: %This indicates towards the low incident energies and ongoing interactions
192: %in heavier colliding nuclei.
193: The early onset of the
194: flow in heavier colliding nuclei is due to the Coulomb forces that
195: are much stronger in heavier systems compared to lighter nuclei. In addition,
196: a large collision rate in heavier
197: systems also contributes towards the early onset of the flow.
198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
199:
200: In fig. 2, we display
201: the energy of vanishing
202: flow ($E_{bal}$) as a function of the combined mass of the system.
203: As stated earlier, $E_{bal}$ is extracted using a straight line interpolation
204: between the calculated values of the in-plane flow. Here
205: open squares represent our calculations whereas solid stars are the experimental
206: findings. The dotted and dash-double-dotted lines are, respectively, the power law
207: fits ($\propto{A^{\tau}}$) to the theoretical values including
208: $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U in one case and
209: excluding $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U in the other case. The fit to the experimental
210: points is represented by a solid line. All fits are obtained with
211: $\chi^{2}$ minimization. The values of
212: $E_{bal}$ (obtained with a stiff equation of state and 40 mb cross-section) are
213: very close to the experimentally measured $E_{bal}$.
214: The fit to the experimental data yields $\tau=-0.52451\pm0.06261$,
215: whereas that to
216: theory yields $\tau=-0.53261\pm0.16373$. Once $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U is included,
217: the $\tau$ decreases to $-0.50872\pm0.10883$.
218: In other words, we observe a $\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}}$ dependence in the
219: $E_{bal}$. Similar dependence can also be obtained
220: with a least square fit.
221: Based on the above findings, we predict $E_{bal}$ for the central
222: $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U reaction
223: around 37-39 MeV/nucleon (according to power law fits, it is around
224: 37-38 MeV/nucleon whereas QMD simulation predicts around 39 MeV/nucleon).
225: It is worth mentioning that most of the earlier mass dependence
226: calculations \cite{4a,7a,18a} could not
227: reproduce the experimentally extracted slopes \cite{4a,7a}. Zhou
228: et al. \cite{18a} could reproduce the slope, however their analysis
229: was only done for lighter nuclei $\leq200$. Our calculations can reproduce the
230: experimentally extracted slope very closely, therefore, we can predict the
231: energy of vanishing flow in the $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U system. The large
232: deviation of our $\tau$ value from the standard value ($\approx{-\frac{1}{3}}$)
233: reflects the increasing importance of the Coulomb repulsion with the size
234: of the system, as noted in ref. \cite{4a}. There the
235: $\tau$ value is close to $-\frac{1}{3}$ for masses $\leq200$ \cite{7a,18a},
236: whereas
237: it increases to $\approx{-0.45}$ when heavier systems like
238: $^{139}$La + $^{139}$La and $^{197}$Au + $^{197}$Au are
239: included. In the present analysis, we took only heavier nuclei ($A\geq175$).
240: Therefore the slope is steeper than the above cited values.
241: If one also takes the lighter nuclei into
242: consideration, our value also decreases to $-0.4$. In other words,
243: for lighter and medium
244: nuclei, the balance energy $E_{bal}$ emerges due to the interplay between
245: the mean field
246: and nucleon scattering. However, for heavier colliding nuclei, Coulomb
247: interaction is as well an important factor. It is of
248: interest to see the
249: contributions of the mean field (that includes the Coulomb interaction) and nn
250: collisions towards the transverse flow at the balance energy $E_{bal}$.
251: Following ref. \cite{19a},
252: we decomposed both these contributions in the simulations itself. At each time
253: step during the reaction, the momentum transferred due to the two- body
254: collisions and mutual mean field potential
255: is calculated separately using equation (3).
256: The separation was done
257: at each simulated incident energy and a straight line interpolation was used.
258: The decomposition is plotted in fig. 3 as a function
259: of the total mass of the system. We find that the contribution of mean field
260: towards transverse momentum is negative whereas it turns repulsive for the
261: collision part. Both these contributions again obey a power law
262: behavior with $\tau=-0.70931\pm0.24234$.
263:
264: %\section{Summary}
265: Summarizing, we present the
266: disappearance of flow in heavier colliding nuclei with a prediction of
267: balance energy for $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U around 37-39 MeV/nucleon. Our calculations
268: (with a stiff
269: equation of state and $\sigma=40$ mb) are in a very close agreement with
270: experimentally extracted values ($\tau_{th}=-0.53261\pm0.16373$;
271: $\tau_{expt}=-0.52451\pm0.06261$).
272: Both these findings suggest a power law mass
273: dependence $\propto\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}}$. The contribution of the mean field
274: towards flow at $E_{bal}$ is negative whereas it is positive for the
275: collision part. Both contributions can be parameterized in terms of a
276: power law.\\
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278:
279: {\it This work is supported by the grant (No. SP/S2/K-21/96)
280: from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.}
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
282:
283: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
284: {\small
285: \bibitem{Sch68} W. Scheid, R. Ligensa, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21,}
286: 1479 (1968).
287: \bibitem{pb} H.A. Gustafsson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52,} 1590 (1984).
288: \bibitem{ho} H. St\"ocker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rep. {\bf 137,} 277 (1986).
289:
290: \bibitem{3a} D. Krofcheck {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 46,} 1416 (1992).
291:
292: \bibitem{1a} J.J. Molitoris and H. St\"ocker, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 162}, 47
293: (1985); G.F. Bertsch, W.G. Lynch, and M.B. Tsang, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 189,}
294: 384 (1987).
295:
296: \bibitem{2a} C.A. Ogilvie {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 42,} R10 (1990).
297:
298: \bibitem{4a} D.J. Magestro, W. Bauer, O. Bjarki, J.D. Crispin, M.L. Miller,
299: M.B. Tonjes, A.M. Vander Molen, G.D. Westfall, R. Pak, and E. Norbeck,
300: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61,} 021602(R) (2000);
301: D.J. Magestro, W. Bauer, and G.D. Westfall, ibid.
302: {\bf 62,} 041603(R) (2000); G.D. Westfall, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A681,} 343c (2001).
303:
304: \bibitem{5a} W.M. Zhang {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 42,} R491 (1990);
305: M.D. Partlan {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75,} 2100 (1995);
306: P. Crochet {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A624,} 755 (1997).
307:
308: \bibitem{6a} D. Cussol {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65,} 044604 (2002).
309:
310: \bibitem{7a} G.D. Westfall {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71,} 1986
311: (1993).
312:
313: \bibitem{8a} A. Buta {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A584,} 397 (1995).
314:
315: \bibitem{9a} J.P. Sullivan {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 249,} 8 (1990).
316:
317: \bibitem{14a} R. Pak {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54,} 2457 (1996);
318: R. Pak {\it et al.}, ibid. {\bf 53,}
319: R1469 (1996).
320:
321: \bibitem{10a} D. Krofcheck {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 43,} 350 (1991).
322:
323: \bibitem{11a} Z.Y. He {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A598,} 248 (1996).
324:
325: \bibitem{12a} Y.M. Zheng, C.M. Ko, B.A. Li, and B. Zhang,
326: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83,} 2534 (1999);
327: B.A. Li and A.T. Sustich, ibid. {\bf 82,} 5004 (1999).
328:
329: \bibitem{13a} R. Pak {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78,} 1022 (1997).
330:
331: \bibitem{15a} B.A. Li, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 48,} 2415 (1993).
332:
333: \bibitem{16a} V. de la Mota, F. Sebille, M. Farine, B. Remaud, and P.
334: Schuck, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 46,} 677 (1992).
335:
336: \bibitem{17a} H.M. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67,} 2769 (1991); H.M. Xu, Phys.
337: Rev. C {\bf 46,} R389 (1992).
338:
339: \bibitem{18a} H. Zhou, Z. Li, and Y. Zhuo, Phys. Rev. C
340: {\bf 50,} R2664 (1994).
341:
342: \bibitem{19a} E. Lehmann, A. Faessler, J. Zipprich, R.K. Puri, and
343: S.W. Huang, Z. Phys. A {\bf 355,} 55 (1996).
344:
345: \bibitem{soff95} S. Soff, S.A. Bass, C. Hartnack, H. St\"ocker, and
346: W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51,} 3320 (1995).
347:
348: \bibitem{21a} S. Kumar, M.K. Sharma, R.K. Puri, K.P. Singh, and I.M. Govil,
349: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58,} 3494 (1998).
350:
351: \bibitem{22a} J. Aichelin, Phys. Rep. {\bf 202,} 233 (1991).
352:
353: \bibitem{23a} C. Hartnack, R.K. Puri, J. Aichelin, J. Konopka, S.A. Bass,
354: H. St\"ocker, and W. Greiner, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 1,} 151 (1998).
355:
356: \bibitem{24a} J.J. Molitoris and H. St\"ocker, Phys. Rev. C
357: {\bf 32,} 346 (1985).
358:
359: \bibitem{25a} S. Kumar, R.K. Puri, and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58,}
360: 1618 (1998).
361:
362: \bibitem{26a} H.W. Barz, J.P. Bondorf, D. Idier, and I.N. Mishustin, Phys.
363: Lett. B {\bf 382,} 343 (1996).
364:
365: \bibitem{27a} C. Roy {\it et al.}, Z. Phys. A {\bf 358,} 73 (1997).}
366:
367: \end{thebibliography}
368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
369: \newpage
370: {\Large \bf Figure Captions}\\
371:
372: {\bf FIG. 1.} The time evolution of $\langle p_{x}^{dir} \rangle$ for four
373: different reactions: (a) $^{93}$Nb + $^{93}$Nb, (b) $^{139}$La + $^{139}$La,
374: (c) $^{197}$Au + $^{197}$Au
375: and (d) $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U. Here a stiff equation of state along
376: with constant nn cross-section of 40 mb strength is used.\\
377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
378:
379: {\bf FIG. 2.} The $E_{bal}$ as a function of the total mass of the system. Solid stars
380: are the experimental data whereas open squares are the present theoretical
381: results. The solid line is a $\chi^{2}$ minimization fit of power law
382: ($\propto{A^{\tau}}$) for
383: experimental data whereas dash-double-dotted line is a fit for
384: the corresponding theoretical result. The theoretical fit
385: that includes $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U reaction is represented by dotted line.\\
386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
387:
388: {\bf FIG. 3.} The decomposition of $\langle p_{x}^{dir} \rangle$ at $E_{bal}$
389: into mutual mean field part and collision part as a function of the system size.
390: The lines are the $\chi^{2}$ fit of power law $\propto{c.A^{\tau}}$.
391: \end{document}
392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
393:
394:
395:
396:
397:
398:
399:
400:
401:
402:
403:
404:
405: