1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \input{epsf.tex}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx}
4: %\textwidth 5.8 in
5: %\textheight 8 in
6: %\topmargin 0.1 in
7: \newlength{\dinwidth}
8: \newlength{\dinmargin}
9: \setlength{\dinwidth}{21.5cm}
10: \setlength{\textheight}{24.2cm}
11: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.0cm}
12: \oddsidemargin .1 in
13: \setlength{\dinmargin}{\dinwidth}
14: \addtolength{\dinmargin}{-\textwidth}
15: \setlength{\dinmargin}{0.5\dinmargin}
16: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.9in}
17: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{\dinmargin}
18: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.9\dinmargin}
19: \setlength{\marginparsep}{8pt}
20: %\setlength{\marginparpush}{5pt}
21: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}
22: \setlength{\topmargin}{-55pt}
23: \setlength{\headheight}{12pt}
24: \setlength{\headsep}{20pt}
25: %\baselineskip 1.5 cm
26: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
27: %\setcounter{page}{1}
28: %\setlength{\footskip}{24pt}
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: \title {Nuclear Dynamics at the Balance Energy}
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32: \author {Aman D. Sood and Rajeev K. Puri\\
33: \it Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh -160 014, India\\}
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: \begin{document}
36: \maketitle
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We study the mass dependence of various quantities (like the average and
39: maximum density, collision rate, participant-spectator matter, temperature as
40: well as time zones for higher density) by simulating the reactions at the
41: energy of vanishing flow.
42: This study is carried out within the framework of
43: Quantum Molecular Dynamics model. Our findings clearly indicate an existence
44: of a power law in all the above quantities calculated at the balance energy. The only
45: significant mass dependence was obtained for the temperature reached in the central
46: sphere. All other quantities are rather either insensitive or depend weakly on
47: the system size at balance energy. The time zone for higher
48: density as well as the time of maximal density and
49: collision rate follow a power law inverse to the energy of vanishing flow.
50: \end{abstract}
51: \section{Introduction}
52: \par It is now well established that the interactions at low
53: incident energies are dominated by the attractive part of the nuclear mean
54: field causing the emission of particles in the backward angles.
55: These interactions, however, become repulsive at higher incident energies
56: that pushes the particles in the forward (positive) angles. While going from the
57: low incident energies to higher incident energies, there is a particular energy at which
58: the net flow disappears \cite {mol85}. This energy, (termed as
59: ``balance energy'') $E_{bal}$ has been found to be of significant importance for the
60: understanding of the nature of nuclear interactions and related dynamics
61: [2-24].
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63: \par Recently, the $E_{bal}$ was measured in $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au collisions
64: \cite{mag0061,mag0062}, extending the mass range of $E_{bal}$ between 24 and 394
65: units. In addition to $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au collisions,
66: one has also measured the $E_{bal}$ in
67: $^{12}$C+$^{12}$C \cite{west93}, $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al \cite{west93},
68: $^{36}$Ar+$^{27}$Al \cite{ang97,buta95}, $^{40}$Ar+$^{27}$Al\cite{sull90},
69: $^{40}$Ar+$^{45}$Sc \cite{mag0062,west93,pak97},
70: $^{40}$Ar+$^{51}$V \cite{krof91}, $^{64}$Zn+$^{27}$Al \cite{he96},
71: $^{40}$Ar+$^{58}$Ni \cite{cus02}, $^{64}$Zn+$^{48}$Ti \cite{buta95},
72: $^{58}$Ni+$^{58}$Ni \cite{mag0062,cus02,pak97}, $^{58}$Fe+$^{58}$Fe \cite{pak97},
73: $^{64}$Zn+$^{58}$Ni \cite{buta95},
74: $^{86}$Kr+$^{93}$Nb \cite{mag0062,west93}, $^{93}$Nb+$^{93}$Nb \cite{krof92},
75: $^{129}$Xe+$^{118}$Sn \cite{cus02} and $^{139}$La+$^{139}$La \cite{krof92}
76: collisions. Most of the above reactions are symmetric and
77: central in nature. Some attempts are also reported in the
78: literature that deal with the impact parameter dependence of the balance
79: energy $E_{bal}$ \cite{mag0062,cus02,sull90,he96,pak97,xu92,soff95,suneel98}.
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
81: \par Interestingly, most of the theoretical attempts for disappearance of flow
82: are within the Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) model
83: \cite{mol85,krof92,mag0061,mag0062,west93,sull90,he96,pak97,li93,mota92,xu92,zhou94}.
84: Some attempts, however, are also made within the framework of Quantum
85: Molecular Dynamics (QMD) model
86: \cite {pak97,leh96,soff95,suneel98,soodprl,sood03,soodsym}. Note that
87: among all these attempts, only a few
88: deal with the mass dependence of the disappearance of
89: flow \cite {mag0061,mag0062,west93,zhou94,soodprl,sood03,soodsym}. There one reported a
90: power law behavior ($\propto$$A^{\tau}$) in the $E_{bal}$. For the first
91: time, a complete study of the mass dependence of balance
92: energy was presented by us where as many as sixteen systems, with
93: mass between 47 and 476 were analyzed \cite {soodprl,sood03,soodsym}.
94: The excellent agreement between the experimental measurements
95: and theoretical calculations
96: allowed us to predict the balance energy in
97: $^{238}$U+$^{238}$U collision around 37-39 MeV/nucleon \cite {soodprl}.
98: None of the above studies was extended to other heavy-ion phenomena
99: at balance energy. Refs. \cite{he96,li93,zhou94,soff95,suneel98},
100: give some information about the nature of other variables at the
101: balance energy.
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103: \par We here present a complete
104: analysis of the nuclear dynamics at balance energy by analyzing
105: more than 14 (nearly symmetric) reactions as reported in ref.
106: \cite {sood03,soodsym}. Our present motivation is to investigate
107: whether other dynamical variables (apart from the disappearance of flow) show
108: a mass dependence at the balance energy or not. This present study is made within
109: the framework of Quantum Molecular Dynamics (QMD) model
110: \cite{leh96,soff95,suneel98,soodprl,sood03,soodsym,aich,hart98,pei89,singh00,khoanpa}.
111: Section II describes the
112: model in brief. Our results along with the discussion are presented
113: in section III. We summarize the results in section IV.\
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%555
115: \section{The Model}
116: The present study is made within the framework of the
117: Quantum Molecular Dynamics (QMD) model
118: \cite{suneel98,aich,hart98} where each nucleon interacts
119: via two- and three-body
120: interactions that preserve the nucleon-nucleon (nn) correlations and fluctuations.
121: Here each nucleon is represented by a Gaussian wave packet with width $\sqrt{L}$
122: centered around the mean position $\vec r_i(t)$ and the mean momentum
123: $\vec p_i(t)$:
124: \begin{equation}
125: \phi_i(\vec{r}, \vec{p}, t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi L)^{3/4}}e^{\left[-(\vec{r}-
126: \vec{r}_i (t))^2 /4L \right]}e^{\left[i{\vec p}_i (t)\cdot \vec{r}/\hbar
127: \right]}.
128: \label{e1}
129: \end{equation}
130: The Wigner distribution of a system with ($A_{T}$+$A_{P}$) nucleons is given by:
131: \begin{eqnarray}
132: f(\vec{r},\vec{p},t)& =& \sum_{i=1}^{A_T+A_P} \frac{1}{(\pi \hbar)^3}
133: e^{\left[-(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_i (t))^2/2L \right]}\times
134: \nonumber\\
135: & & {e^{\left[-(\vec p-\vec p_i (t))^{2}2L/{\hbar}^2 \right]}.}
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: The nucleons propagate under the classical equations of motion:
138: \begin{equation}
139: \frac{d\vec r_i}{dt} = \frac{\partial \langle H \rangle }{\partial \vec p_i};
140: \end{equation}
141: \begin{equation}
142: \frac{d\vec p_i}{dt} = - \frac{\partial \langle H \rangle}{\partial \vec r_i}.
143: \end{equation}
144: The Hamiltonian $\langle H \rangle$ is given by:
145: \begin{eqnarray}
146: \langle H \rangle &=& \langle T \rangle + \langle V \rangle; \nonumber \\
147: &=& \sum_i \frac{\vec{p}_i^2}{2m_i} + \sum_i \sum_{i<j} V_{ij}^{total},
148: \end{eqnarray}
149: with
150: \begin{equation}
151: V_{ij}^{total} = V_{ij}^{local} + V_{ij}^{Yuk} + V_{ij}^{Coul}.
152: \end{equation}
153: Here $V_{ij}^{local}$, $V_{ij}^{Coul}$ and $V_{ij}^{Yuk}$ stand, respectively,
154: for the Skyrme, Coulomb and Yukawa parts of the nn interaction.
155: Following refs. \cite{soodprl,sood03,soodsym}, we use a hard equation of state
156: along with energy independent cross-section of 40 mb strength. This combination
157: is reported to explain the experimental balance energy nicely \cite{sood03}.
158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55
159: \section{Results and Discussion} As stated in ref. \cite {sood03},
160: a hard equation of state along with energy
161: independent nn cross-section of 40 mb strength yields a power law behavior
162: $\propto$A$^{\tau}$. The power law ($c.A^{\tau}$) over the experimental points
163: yields $\tau=-0.42079\pm0.04594$, whereas our theoretical calculations with nn
164: cross-section of 40 mb strength had $\tau=-0.41540\pm0.08166$
165: \cite{sood03}. It is worth mentioning that this was the closest agreement
166: obtained so far. For the present mass dependent analysis,
167: we simulated the reactions of $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al (b=2.6103 fm),
168: $^{36}$Ar+$^{27}$Al (b=2 fm), $^{40}$Ar+$^{27}$Al (b=1.6 fm),
169: $^{40}$Ar+$^{45}$Sc (b=3.187 fm), $^{40}$Ar+$^{51}$V (b=2.442 fm),
170: $^{40}$Ar+$^{58}$Ni (b=0-3 fm), $^{64}$Zn+$^{48}$Ti (b=2 fm),
171: $^{58}$Ni+$^{58}$Ni (b=2.48 fm), $^{64}$Zn+$^{58}$Ni (b=2 fm),
172: $^{86}$Kr+$^{93}$Nb (b=4.07 fm), $^{93}$Nb+$^{93}$Nb (b=3.104 fm),
173: $^{129}$Xe+$^{Nat}$Sn (b=0-3 fm), $^{139}$La+$^{139}$La (b=3.549 fm) and
174: $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au (b=2.5 fm) at their corresponding theoretical
175: balance energy$\footnote{The theoretical balance energy was calculated
176: by extrapolating the flow at two different energies with a step of $\pm$10
177: MeV/nucleon \cite{sood03}.}$ which is, respectively, 119, 74, 67.3, 89.4, 67.8, 64.6,
178: 59.3, 62.6, 56.6, 69.2, 57, 49, 51.6, and 43 MeV/nucleon.
179: The reactions were followed till nuclear transverse flow saturates. As
180: noted from the above, the balance energy is smaller in heavier
181: colliding nuclei, compared to lighter one. As a result, one would expect
182: early saturation in lighter colliding nuclei compared to heavy one.
183: Though, the transverse flow saturates much early in lighter nuclei,
184: some of the quantities, however,
185: keep changing, therefore, we follow all the reactions uniformly till 300 fm/c.
186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
187: \par In the following,
188: we shall first study the time evolution and then shall present the mass dependence
189: of different quantities.
190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
191: \par\subsection{\bf The Time Evolution} One of the motivations behind studying a
192: heavy-ion
193: collision is to extract the information regarding the hot and dense
194: nuclear matter. In our approach, the matter density is calculated by
195: \cite {khoanpa};
196: \begin{equation}
197: \rho(\vec{r},t)=\sum_{i=1}^{A_{T}+A_{P}}\frac{1}{(2\pi L)^{3/2}}
198: e^{(-(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{i}(t))^{2}/2L)}.
199: \end{equation}
200: Here $A_{T}$ and $A_{P}$ stand, respectively, for the target and projectile.
201: In actual calculations,
202: we take a sphere of 2 fm radius around the center-of-mass and compute the
203: density at each time step during the reaction using eq. (7).
204: Naturally, one can either extract an average density $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle$
205: over the whole sphere
206: or a maximal value of the density $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle$ reached anywhere in
207: the sphere. In fig. 1(a), we display the
208: $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle$/$\rho_{0}$
209: whereas fig. 1(b) shows the $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle$/$\rho_{0}$
210: as a function of the reaction time.
211: The displayed reactions are $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al (A=47), $^{40}$Ar+$^{45}$Sc
212: (A=85), $^{64}$Zn+$^{58}$Ni (A=122), $^{93}$Nb+$^{93}$Nb (A=186),
213: $^{139}$La+$^{139}$La (A=278) and $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au
214: (A=394) spreading over the whole mass range. We see that the maximal
215: $\rho^{avg}$ is slightly higher for lighter systems compared to heavy ones.
216: A similar trend can also be seen for the evolution of $\rho^{max}$.
217: Further, the maximal value of the density for medium and heavy systems
218: is comparable with the average one. This clearly indicates
219: that the dense matter is formed widely and uniformly in the central region
220: of 2 fm radius. On the other hand, substantial difference in two densities
221: for lighter colliding nuclei indicate that the dense matter is not
222: homogenous and uniform in these reactions. Due to high incident energy,
223: $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al reaction
224: finishes much early compared to $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au which is simulated at
225: a relatively lower incident energy.
226: Similarly,
227: the peaks in (the maximum $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle$ and average
228: $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle$) densities are
229: also delayed in heavier nuclei compared to lighter one. The spreading of the
230: high density zone in heavier colliding nuclei over the long time span indicates
231: the on going interactions among nucleons.
232: This result is in agreement with \cite{khoanpa}.
233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
234: \par Another quantity
235: directly linked with the density is the collision rate. In fig. 2, we
236: display the $dN_{coll}/dt$ versus time. This rate represents the net
237: collisions after fulfilling the Pauli principle. Naturally, the attempted rate
238: will be much higher than the allowed one.
239: Due to larger interaction volume, the interactions among nucleons
240: in heavy nuclei continue for a long time.
241: This effect should be obvious if one looks the density
242: profile (see fig. 1). A finite density zone will naturally lead to more and
243: more nn collisions
244: and as a result, the collision rate will be more for heavy colliding nuclei.
245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
246: \par As stated above, all the reactions are simulated at the balance energy where
247: attractive forces counter balance the repulsive forces. This fact should also be
248: reflected in the quantities like the spectator and participant matter.
249: All nucleons having experienced at least one collision are
250: counted as {\it participant matter}. The remaining matter is labeled as
251: the {\it spectator matter}. The nucleons with more than one collision are labeled as
252: {\it super-participant matter}. This definition gives us possibility to analyze the
253: reaction in terms of participant-spectator fireball model.
254: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
255: \par In fig. 3, we display
256: the normalized spectator matter (upper part) and participant matter (lower part)
257: as a function of the time. At the start of the reaction, all nucleons constitute
258: spectator matter. Therefore, no participant matter exists at
259: t=0 fm/c. Since the $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al reaction happens at a
260: relative higher energy
261: (=119 MeV/nucleon), the transition from the
262: spectator to participant matter is swift and fast.
263: On the other hand, due to low bombarding energy,
264: the transition from the spectator to
265: participant matter in heavier colliding nuclei is rather slow and gradual.
266: Interestingly, at the end,
267: all reactions (that happen between incident energy 43 and 119
268: MeV/nucleon) lead to nearly same participant matter indicating the
269: universality in the balancing of attractive and repulsive forces.
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271: \par From the above facts, it is clear that heavier colliding nuclei (at
272: $E_{bal}$) have delayed and expanded evolution of the density and
273: participant-spectator
274: matter. It will be of more interest to see how their mass dependence
275: behaves like. This will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
277: \par\subsection {\bf The Mass Dependence} In fig. 4, we display the maximal
278: value of $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle$
279: and $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle$ versus composite mass of the system.
280: Note that all the reactions, considered here, are symmetric i.e.
281: $\eta~(\begin{array}{c}\left|
282: {\frac {A_{T}-A_{P}}{A_{T}+A_{P}}}\right|\end{array})<0.2$.
283: Very interesting, we see
284: that the maximal value follows a power law $\propto$$A^{\tau}$ with $\tau$
285: being $-0.05182\pm0.00776$ for average density $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle$
286: and $-0.11477\pm0.01217$ for maximum density
287: $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle$.$\footnote{A small deviation can be seen in
288: the cases where $\eta\ne{0}$.}$
289: In other words, a slight decrease in the density occurs with the size of
290: the system. This decrease is much smaller compared to the $E_{bal}$
291: ($\tau_{expt}=-0.42079\pm0.04594$ and $\tau_{th}=-0.41540\pm0.08166$).
292: Had these reactions being
293: simulated at a fixed incident energy, the trend would
294: have been totally different \cite{khoanpa}. Since lighter nuclei cannot
295: be compressed easily, their maximal density at a fixed incident
296: energy will be less compared to heavy nuclei.
297: Since $E_{bal}$ in the present case scales as $A^{\tau}$, a weak mass dependence
298: is also observed in density profiles.
299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
300: \par The mass dependence of the (allowed) nn collisions is depicted
301: in fig. 5. Here one sees a (nearly) linear enhancement in the nn
302: collisions with the
303: size of the interacting system. This enhancement can be explained mainly using
304: a power law $\propto$$A^{\tau}$; with $\tau=0.87829\pm0.01833$. If
305: one keeps the incident energy fixed (e.g. in the figure, we kept E=50 MeV/nucleon),
306: the nn collisions should scale as ``A''. Our fitting gives $\tau=1.04633\pm0.01712$,
307: which is very close to unity.
308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
309: \par A dynamical quantity that can serve as an indicator of the role of repulsive and
310: attractive forces is the participant and spectator matter. Naturally, the
311: possibility of a collision will depend upon the mean free path of nucleons.
312: Similar is the case of spectator and participant matter. In fig. 6, we
313: display the spectator, participant and super-participant matter (obtained at
314: 300 fm/c) as
315: a function of the total mass of the system. Very interesting, we see a nearly
316: mass independent behavior of the participant matter
317: ($\tau=-0.03621\pm0.00954$).
318: Similar behavior occurs in the case of spectator matter ($\tau=0.08323\pm0.02232$).
319: A slight deviation occurs in the case of
320: $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al. Some small fluctuations can also be due to the variation in
321: the impact parameter, which is not fixed in the present study. The choice of
322: impact parameter is
323: guided by the experimental measurements.
324: As noted in ref. \cite {suneel98}, the variation in the impact parameter can have
325: drastic influence on the participant/spectator matter.
326: The super-participant matter shows a little more dependence on the mass of the
327: system ($\tau=-0.14241\pm0.04184$). This can be understood again by looking at
328: the density profile (fig. 4).
329: There one concluded that the lighter nuclei lead to higher densities. In other
330: words, the mean free path will be smaller in lighter nuclei that results
331: in more nn collisions. One should keep in the mind that the mass
332: independent nature of the participant matter is not a trivial
333: observation. For a fixed
334: system mass, the participant matter depends linearly
335: on the incident energy. In the present case, though the mass of the system
336: increases, their corresponding energy decreases, resulting in the net mass
337: independent nature.
338: This also suggests that the repulsive and attractive forces at $E_{bal}$
339: counter-balance each other in such a manner that the net
340: participant matter remains the same. One may also say that since the contribution
341: of the mean field towards transverse flow is nearly mass independent
342: \cite{sood03,blat91}, one needs same amount of participant matter to counter
343: balance the attractive forces. In other words, the participant matter can
344: act as a barometer to study the balance energy in heavy-ion collisions.
345: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
346: \par The associated quantity linked with the dense matter is the temperature. In
347: principle, a true temperature can be defined only for a thermalized and
348: equilibrated matter. Since in a heavy-ion collision, the matter is non-equilibrated,
349: one can not talk of ``temperature''. One can, however, look in
350: terms of a local environment only. In our present
351: case, we follow the description of the temperature given in
352: refs. \cite{khoanpa,purinpa,khoanpa1}.
353: Several different authors have given different descriptions
354: of the local or global temperatures \cite{bert88,stoc86,neise90,lang90}.
355: Some studies of temperature are based on the fireball model \cite{bert88},
356: whereas others take the hydrodynamical model into account \cite{stoc86}. In refs.
357: \cite{stoc86,neise90}, the thermalization is directly connected with the
358: non-diagonal elements of the stress tensor. One has even defined the
359: ``transverse'' temperature in terms of $\langle P_{I}^{2}/2m \rangle$;
360: $P_{I}^{2}$ is the average transverse momentum squared \cite{stoc86}. In the
361: present case, the extraction of the temperature ``T'' is based on the local density
362: approximation i.e. one deduces the temperature in a volume element surrounding
363: the position of each particle at a given time step \cite {khoanpa,purinpa,khoanpa1}.
364: Here, we postulate that each local volume element of nuclear matter in coordinate
365: space and time has some ``temperature'' defined by the diffused edge of the deformed
366: Fermi distribution consisting of two colliding Fermi spheres which is typical for
367: a non-equilibrium momentum distribution in heavy-ion collisions.
368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
369: \par In this formalism, (dubbed as hot Thomas-Fermi approach \cite{khoanpa}),
370: one determines the
371: extensive quantities like the density, kinetic energy, as well as the
372: entropy with the help of
373: momentum distributions at a given temperature. For more details, reader is
374: referred to refs. \cite{khoanpa,purinpa,khoanpa1}. Using this formalism, we also
375: extracted the average and maximum temperature within a central sphere of 2 fm
376: radius as described in the case of density.
377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
378: \par In fig. 7, we plot the maximal
379: value of $\langle T^{avg} \rangle$ and $\langle T^{max} \rangle$
380: as a function of the composite mass of the system.
381: Some fluctuations can be seen in these plots that can be due to the choice of
382: impact parameter as well as incident energy \cite{khoanpa,khoanpa1,stoc86,puri94,purihirschegg}.
383: As stated above, the impact parameter choice is guided by the experimental
384: constraints. Further, the $E_{bal}$ was extracted using a straight line
385: interpolation, therefore, both
386: these factors may add to the present fluctuations.
387: One sees that both quantities can be parameterized in terms of a
388: power law function $\propto$$A^{\tau}$; The power factor
389: $\tau$ is rather quite large (being equal to $-0.83743\pm0.11355$ and
390: $-0.51079\pm0.08218$), respectively, for the average and maximal temperature.
391: This sharp mass dependence in the temperature is rather in
392: contradiction to the mild mass dependence obtained in all other quantities.
393: This is not astonishing since
394: temperature depends, crucially, on the kinetic energy
395: (or the excitation energy) of the system \cite{khoanpa,purinpa,khoanpa1,puri94,purihirschegg}.
396: It was shown in ref. \cite{puri94,purihirschegg} that
397: for a given colliding geometry, the maximal value of the
398: temperature does not depend
399: upon the size of the interacting source. Rather it depends only on the
400: bombarding energy.
401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
402: \par In fig. 8, we display the time of maximal collision rate and
403: average density. We see a power law behavior in both the quantities.
404: The small balance energy in heavy nuclei delays the maximal compression.
405: Interestingly, the power factor $\tau$ is close to (1/3) in both the cases.
406: The
407: $E_{bal}$ was shown to scale with power factor $\tau\approx{-0.4}$.
408: In other words, the time of
409: maximal collision rate and density
410: varies approximately as a inverse of the $E_{bal}$.
411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
412: \par Apart from the maximal quantities,
413: another interesting quantity is the dense zone at the balance energy.
414: This is depicted in fig. 9 where we display the time interval for which
415: $\rho$$\geq$$\rho_{0}$ (upper part) and $\rho$$\geq$$\rho_{0}/2$. Again
416: both quantities follow a
417: power law behaviour. Interestingly, the time intervals for the high density
418: have a power law dependence with $\tau=0.33853\pm0.05358$ and
419: $\tau=0.46833\pm0.04265$, respectively, for $\rho$$\geq$$\rho_{0}$ and
420: $\rho$$\geq$$\rho_{0}/2$ which is again very
421: close to the inverse of the mass dependence of $E_{bal}$.
422: This also points toward the fact that the formation and identification
423: of the fragments is delayed in heavier nuclei compared to lighter nuclei. This
424: conclusion is in agreement with earlier
425: calculations \cite {singh00,purihirschegg}.
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427: \section {Summary}
428: \par Using the QMD model, we presented the mass dependence of
429: various quantities (such as average and maximum central density, temperature,
430: collision dynamics, participant and spectator matter as well as the time zone
431: for hot and dense nuclear matter) at the energy of vanishing flow ($E_{bal}$).
432: This study was conducted using a hard equation of state along with nn
433: cross-section of 40 mb strength. This combination is reported to explain the
434: experimentally extracted balance energy for large number of
435: cases \cite{sood03}.
436: Our calculations present several interesting facts:
437: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
438: \par The reaction saturation time is smaller for lighter nuclei compared
439: to heavy nuclei. The maximal values of density, temperature and collision rate is
440: also shifted accordingly. In all the cases (i.e. in average and maximum central density,
441: temperature, participant and spectator matter etc.), a power law dependence can
442: be seen. The only quantity where power factor $\tau$ is significant
443: (with $\tau$$\geq$$|0.2|$) is the temperature reached in the central zone.
444: Other quantities are nearly mass independent.
445: The mass independent nature of the participant matter makes it a good
446: alternate indicator for determining the balance energy. The existence of
447: dense zone scales as inverse of the energy of vanishing flow.\\
448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
449:
450: {\it This work is supported by the grant (No. SP/S2/K-21/96)
451: from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.}
452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
453:
454: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
455:
456: \bibitem{mol85} J.J. Molitoris and H. St\"ocker, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 162,} 47
457: (1985); G.F. Bertsch, W.G. Lynch, and M.B. Tsang, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 189,}
458: 384 (1987).
459:
460: \bibitem{ogi90} C.A. Ogilvie {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 42,} R10 (1990).
461:
462: \bibitem{krof92} D. Krofcheck {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 46,} 1416 (1992).
463:
464: \bibitem{mag0061} D.J. Magestro, W. Bauer, O. Bjarki, J.D. Crispin, M.L. Miller,
465: M.B. Tonjes, A.M. Vander Molen, G.D. Westfall, R. Pak, and E. Norbeck,
466: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61,} 021602(R) (2000).
467:
468: \bibitem{mag0062} D.J. Magestro, W. Bauer, and G.D. Westfall, Phys. Rev. C
469: {\bf 62,} 041603(R) (2000).
470:
471: \bibitem{cus02} D. Cussol {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65,} 044604 (2002).
472:
473: \bibitem{west93} G.D. Westfall {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71,} 1986
474: (1993).
475:
476: \bibitem{sull90} J.P. Sullivan {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 249,} 8 (1990).
477:
478: \bibitem{ang97} J.C. Angelique {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A614,} 261
479: (1997).
480:
481: \bibitem{krof91} D. Krofcheck {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 43,} 350 (1991).
482:
483: \bibitem{he96} Z.Y. He {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A598,} 248 (1996).
484:
485: \bibitem{buta95} A. Buta {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A584,} 397 (1995).
486:
487: \bibitem{pak97} R. Pak {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78,} 1022 (1997);
488: R. Pak, O. Bjarki, S.A. Hannuschke, R.A. Lacey, J. Lauret,
489: W.J. Llope, A. Nadasen, N.T.B. Stone, A.M. Vander Molen, and G.D. Westfall,
490: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54,} 2457 (1996); R. Pak
491: {\it et al.}, ibid. {\bf 53,} R1469 (1996).
492:
493: \bibitem{zhang90} W.M. Zhang {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 42,} R491 (1990);
494: M.D. Partlan {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75,} 2100 (1995);
495: P. Crochet {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A624,} 755 (1997).
496:
497: \bibitem{li93} B.A. Li, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 48,} 2415 (1993).
498:
499: \bibitem{mota92} V. de la Mota, F. Sebille, M. Farine, B. Remaud,
500: and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 46,} 677 (1992).
501:
502: \bibitem{xu92} H.M. Xu, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 46,} R389 (1992);
503: H.M. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67,} 2769 (1991).
504:
505: \bibitem{zhou94} H. Zhou, Z. Li, Y. Zhuo, and G. Mao, Nucl. Phys.
506: {\bf A580,} 627 (1994).
507:
508: \bibitem{leh96} E. Lehmann, A. Faessler, J. Zipprich, R.K. Puri, and
509: S.W. Huang, Z. Phys. A {\bf 355,} 55 (1996).
510:
511: \bibitem{soff95} S. Soff, S.A. Bass, C. Hartnack, H. St\"ocker, and
512: W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51,} 3320 (1995).
513:
514: \bibitem{suneel98} S. Kumar, M.K. Sharma, R.K. Puri, K.P. Singh, and I.M. Govil,
515: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58,} 3494 (1998); S. Kumar, Ph. D. Thesis, Panjab University,
516: Chandigarh (1999).
517:
518: \bibitem{soodprl} A.D. Sood and R.K. Puri, Phys. Rev. Lett., (2003)- submitted.
519:
520: \bibitem{sood03} A.D. Sood and R.K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C, (2003)- submitted.
521:
522: \bibitem{soodsym} A. Sood and R.K. Puri, Symposium on Nuclear Physics,
523: {\bf 45B,} 288 (2002); A. Sood and R.K. Puri, VIII Int. Conf. on
524: Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions, Moscow, Russia, June 17-21 (2003)-accepted.
525:
526: \bibitem{aich} J. Aichelin, Phys. Rep. {\bf 202,} 233 (1991).
527:
528: \bibitem{hart98} C. Hartnack, R.K. Puri, J. Aichelin, J. Konopka, S.A. Bass,
529: H. St\"ocker, and W. Greiner, Eur. Phys. J A {\bf 1,} 151 (1998).
530:
531: \bibitem{pei89} G. Peilert, H. St\"ocker, W. Greiner, A. Rosenhauer, A. Bohnet,
532: and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 39,} 1402 (1989); S. Kumar, R.K. Puri, and
533: J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58,} 1618 (1998); S. Kumar and R.K. Puri,
534: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58,} 2858 (1998).
535:
536: \bibitem{singh00} J. Singh, S. Kumar, and R.K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62,}
537: 044617 (2000); J. Singh and R.K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62,} 054602 (2000).
538:
539: \bibitem{khoanpa} D.T. Khoa, N. Ohtsuka, A. Faessler, M.A. Matin, S.W. Huang,
540: E. Lehmann, and R.K. Puri, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A542,} 671 (1992).
541:
542: \bibitem{blat91} B. Bl\"attel, V. Koch, A. Lang, K. Weber, W. Cassing,
543: and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 43,} 2728 (1991).
544:
545: \bibitem{purinpa} R.K. Puri, N. Ohtsuka, E. Lehmann, A. Faessler,
546: M.A. Matin, D.T. Khoa, G. Batko, and S.W. Huang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A575,}
547: 733 (1994).
548: \bibitem{khoanpa1} D.T. Khoa, N. Ohtsuka, M.A. Matin, A. Faessler,
549: S.W. Huang, E. Lehmann, and R.K. Puri, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A548,} 102 (1992).
550:
551: \bibitem{bert88} G.F. Bertsch and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rep. {\bf 160,} 189 (1988).
552:
553: \bibitem{stoc86} H. St\"ocker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rep. {\bf 137,} 277 (1986);
554: R. Clare and D. Strottman, Phys. Rep. {\bf 141,} 177 (1986).
555:
556: \bibitem{neise90} L. Neise, M. Berenguer, C. Hartnack, G. Peilert, H. St\"ocker,
557: and W. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A519,} 375c (1990).
558:
559: \bibitem{lang90} A. Lang, B. Bl\"attel, V. Koch, K. Weber, W. Cassing, and
560: U. Mosel, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 245,} 147 (1990); A. Lang, B. Bl\"attel,
561: W. Cassing, V. Koch, U. Mosel, and K. Weber, Z. Phys. A {\bf 340,} 287 (1991).
562:
563: \bibitem{puri94} R.K. Puri, E. Lehmann, A Faessler, and S.W. Huang, J. Phys.
564: G. {\bf 20,} 1817 (1994).
565:
566: \bibitem{purihirschegg} R.K. Puri, E. Lehmann, N. Ohtsuka, A Faessler, and
567: S.W. Huang, Proceedings of the International Workshop XXII on Gross Properties
568: of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations, Hirschegg, Austria, 262 (1994).
569: \end{thebibliography}
570:
571: \newpage
572: {\large \bf Figure Captions:}\\
573:
574:
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576: {\bf Fig. 1:} The evolution of (a) average density $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle$ and
577: (b) the maximum density $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle$
578: reached in a central sphere of radius 2 fm as a function of time. Here
579: reactions of $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al (b=2.6103 fm), $^{40}$Ar+$^{45}$Sc
580: (b=3.187 fm), $^{64}$Zn+$^{58}$Ni (b=2 fm),
581: $^{93}$Nb+$^{93}$Nb (b=3.104 fm), $^{139}$La+$^{139}$La (b=3.549 fm)
582: and $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au (b=2.5 fm) are simulated at their corresponding
583: theoretical balance energies (for details, see the text). The shaded area
584: represents the reaction of $^{20}$Ne+$^{27}$Al.\\
585:
586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
587: {\bf Fig. 2:} Same as fig. 1(a), but the rate of allowed collisions
588: $dN_{coll}/dt$ versus reaction time.\\
589:
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: {\bf Fig. 3:} Same as fig 1, but the time evolution of normalized
592: spectator matter (upper part) and participant matter (lower part).\\
593:
594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55
595: {\bf Fig. 4:} The maximal value of the average density
596: $\langle \rho^{avg} \rangle_{max}$ (upper part) and maximum density
597: $\langle \rho^{max} \rangle_{max}$ (lower part) as a function
598: of the composite mass of the system. The solid lines are the fits
599: to the calculated
600: results using $c.A^{\tau}$ obtained with $\chi^{2}$ minimization.\\
601:
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: {\bf Fig. 5:} The total number of the allowed collisions (obtained at the final stage)
604: versus composite mass of the system. The solid squares and open diamonds are the
605: results obtained at $E_{bal}$ and 50 MeV/nucleon, respectively. The solid
606: and dashed lines are the fits obtained with procedure explained in fig. 4.\\
607:
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55
609: {\bf Fig. 6:} Same as fig. 5, but for the final saturated participant,
610: spectator and super-participant matter.\\
611:
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: {\bf Fig. 7:} Same as fig. 5, but for the maximal value of the average temperature
614: (upper part) and maximum temperature (lower part).\\
615:
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: {\bf Fig. 8:} Same as fig. 5, but for the time of maximal value of collision
618: rate (open stars) and average density (solid squares). The solid and
619: dashed lines represent the $\chi^{2}$ fits with power law $c.A^{\tau}$.\\
620:
621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
622: {\bf Fig. 9:} Same as fig. 8, but for the time zone for
623: ($\rho$$\geq$$\rho_{0}$) (upper part) and for ($\rho$$\geq$$\rho_{0}/2$)
624: (lower part) as a function of composite mass of the system.
625:
626: \end{document}
627:
628:
629:
630:
631:
632:
633:
634:
635:
636:
637:
638:
639: