1: \documentclass[showpacs,preprint,aps,superscriptaddress,floatfix,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{amsmath}

3: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx,epsfig,color}

4: \newcommand{\oxygen}{{${}^{16}$O}}

5: \newcommand{\carbon}{{${}^{12}$C}}

6: \newcommand{\carbonn}{{${}^{13}$C}}

7: \newcommand{\calcium}{{${}^{48}$Ca}}

8: \definecolor{grey}{rgb}{0.93,0.93,0.93}

9: 

10: \begin{document}

11: 

12: \title{Spin-Excitation Mechanisms in Skyrme-Force Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock}

13: \author{J.~A.~Maruhn}

14: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Frankfurt, 

15: Max-von-Laue-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany}

16: \author{P.-G.~Reinhard}

17: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik II, Universit\"at

18:   Erlangen-N\"urnberg, Staudtstrasse 7, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany}

19: \author{P.~D.~Stevenson}

20: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford,

21:   Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom}

22: \author{M.~R.~Strayer}

23: \affiliation{Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6373, USA}

24: \date{\today}

25: \begin{abstract}

26: We investigate the role of odd-odd (with respect to time inversion) couplings in the Skyrme force on

27: collisions of light nuclei, employing a fully three-dimensional numerical treatment without any

28: symmetry restrictions and with modern Skyrme functionals. We demonstrate the necessity of these

29: couplings to suppress spurious spin excitations owing to the spin-orbit force in free translational

30: motion of a nucleus but show that in a collision situation there is a strong spin excitation even in

31: spin-saturated systems which persists in the departing fragments. The energy loss is considerably

32: increased by the odd-odd terms.

33: \end{abstract}

34: \pacs{24.10.-i,25.70.-z,25.70.Lm}

35: 

36: \maketitle

37: 

38: Time-dependent Hartree--Fock (TDHF) enjoyed a period of large attention in nuclear physics about

39: thirty years ago; for reviews see e.g. \cite{Sve79a,Neg82aR,Dav85a}. These early calculations

40: delivered a great number of useful insights into the basic mechanisms of heavy-ion collisions, even

41: with the large practical restrictions of that time concerning the model, degrees of freedom, and

42: symmetries. However, it was soon recognized not to be as comprehensive a description as originally

43: expected. For example, widths in the distributions of fragments and kinetic energies are

44: systematically underestimated, a fact which had been traced back in parts to missing correlations

45: \cite{Rei83a,Mar85d}. More puzzling was that average quantities, such

46: as fusion cross sections, did not come out all that well although they should be predictable by

47: mean field dynamics. Already at that time there were indications that the many restrictions in the

48: calculations spoil their predictive value and that, for example, simply the proper handling of the

49: spin-orbit (l*s) force can improve the results considerably towards the experimentally observed

50: dissipation \cite{Uma86a,Rei88a}. Computer limitations halted these developments for a while. The

51: subsequent dramatic advance in computational power now allows three-dimensional TDHF calculations

52: with a full-fledged Skyrme force, without any symmetry restrictions, and for any nuclear size.

53: Accordingly, there is a renewed interest in TDHF studies as seen from recent publications on

54: resonance dynamics \cite{Nak05a,Rei05c,Sim03a} and heavy-ion collisions \cite{Uma06a}.  The present

55: manuscript also deals with recent 3D TDHF calculations and aims to investigate the importance of a

56: full treatment of the l*s force and related dissipation mechanisms.

57: 

58: TDHF in a nuclear context means a time-dependent mean-field theory derived from an effective energy

59: functional. Most widely used is the Skyrme functional which was proposed long ago as a quantitative

60: self-consistent model for the nuclear ground state \cite{Vau72a} and dynamics \cite{Eng75a}.  The

61: Skyrme energy-density functional consists of free kinetic energy, Coulomb energy with exchange in

62: the Slater approximation, and an effective-interaction part depending on density $\rho$, kinetic

63: density $\tau$, l*s density $\vec{J}$, current $\vec\jmath$, and spin density $\vec\sigma$, for a

64: detailed explicit expression see e.g. \cite{Ben03aR}.  Pairing is not considered in the present case

65: where we deal mostly with closed shell nuclei.  For the purpose of later discussions, we display

66: here the l*s part of the functional

67: \begin{eqnarray}

68:   E_{\rm ls}^{\rm(even)}

69:  \! &=&\!

70:      -\!\int\!d^3r\,\big( b_4\rho\nabla\!\cdot\!\vec{{J}}

71:      +b'_4\sum_q  \rho_q(\nabla\!\cdot\!\vec{J}_q)\big),

72: \label{eq:lseven}\\

73:   {E}_{\rm ls}^{\rm(odd)}

74:   \!&=&\!

75:   -\!\int\!{d}^3r

76:   \big(b_4\vec\sigma\!\cdot\!(\nabla\!\times\!{\vec\jmath})

77:   +b_4'\sum_q\vec\sigma_q\!\cdot\!(\nabla\!\times\!{\vec\jmath}_q)\big).

78:   {\rm~~}

79: \label{eq:lsodd}

80: \end{eqnarray}

81: The index $q\in \{p,n\}$ labels protons and neutrons. The specification of the energy-density

82: functional fixes all that is needed for TDHF and the stationary initial states.  The TDHF equations

83: are derived by time-dependent variation with respect to the single-nucleon wavefunctions

84: $\varphi^+_{\alpha}$ and the corresponding stationary HF equation by analogous stationary variation.

85: 

86: The full Skyrme functional and the subsequent TDHF equations meet all

87: symmetries of space-time, in particular invariance under Galilei

88: transformations, a condition which must be fulfilled for a meaningful theory

89: of heavy-ion reactions \cite{Eng75a}. Galileian invariance imposes restrictions on the form of the

90: odd-odd terms, i.e. those terms containing the time-odd pieces, current

91: $\vec\jmath$ and spin density $\vec\sigma$.  This means that the kinetic term

92: always appears in the boost-invariant combination $\rho\tau-\vec\jmath^2$.  Of

93: particuar importance here is the correct interplay between the even-even

94: and odd-odd parts of the l*s term, eqs. (\ref{eq:lseven}) with

95: (\ref{eq:lsodd}). Studies of rotational states confirmed

96: the large influence of the time-odd pieces, but concluded that better

97: agreement with experiment is obtained when some or all of these are omitted

98: \cite{Dob95c,Mol00a}.  We shall now discuss their effect on heavy-ion

99: collisions and, in particular, show that their omission leads to

100: inconsistencies. 

101: 

102: The Skyrme functional allows a very precise description of nuclear ground state properties and

103: excitations \cite{Ben03aR}.  There exists, in fact, a great variety of parametrizations of the

104: Skyrme functional in the literature which differ in quality and bias of fitted data.  In order to

105: distinguish generic effects from particularities of a certain parametrization, we considered several

106: different Skyrme forces and show results for two: SkM* \cite{Bar82a} and SLy6

107: \cite{Cha97a}. Calculations with other forces did not differ significantly for the purposes of this

108: work.

109: 

110: The practical solution of the TDHF equations employs a representation of wavefunctions, potentials,

111: and densities on a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate-space grid. Derivatives are evaluated in

112: Fourier-transformed space using the fast Fourier transformation (FFT) \cite{Blu92a}. We work with a

113: grid spacing of 1 fm. The accelerated gradient iteration is employed to find the stationary ground

114: state solution \cite{Blu92a,Rei82a}.  The Coulomb field is calculated by solving the Poisson

115: equation on a grid which is twice as large as the physical grid and with periodic boundary

116: conditions with the method of \cite{Eas79a}. Note that the reflection of emitted nucleons from the

117: boundaries of the numerical box lead to an uncertainty of 2-3~MeV in the final relative-motion

118: energy, an effect which is also seen in giant resonance calculations \cite{Rei06a}.  A Taylor series

119: expansion up to sixth order of the unitary mean-field propagator is used for the dynamical time

120: stepping \cite{Flo78a}. The conservation of particle number and total energy provides a rather

121: stringent check of numerical accuracy. In practice, we tune our numerical parameters such that we

122: observe over all time a change in the particle number of less than 0.01, and a drift in the total

123: energy of less than 0.1~MeV. A time step of $\Delta t=0.2{\rm fm}/c$ was found adequate in all cases

124: considered, independent of the bombarding energy and also of whether the odd-odd l*s couplings were

125: included or not.

126: 

127: The standard test case throughout this paper is an \oxygen+\oxygen\ collision at $E_{\rm

128: cm}=$75--150~MeV. This system is one of the most frequently studied with TDHF and has also been the

129: focus of investigations of the effect of the l*s force on dissipation \cite{Rei88a}.  The fragment

130: wave functions are placed symmetrically on the grid to an initial c.~m. distance of 16~fm and then

131: boosted to the desired relative center-of-mass (c.m.)  energy. This prepares the initial state from

132: which the TDHF propagation is calculated. We also compare results for systems including \carbon,

133: \carbonn, and \calcium\ in order to get a first impression of the systematic variations.

134: 

135: The most interesting observable in heavy-ion collisions is the kinetic energy of relative motion of

136: the two fragments. This quantity is deduced using a two-body analysis of the time-dependent density

137: distribution. For this purpose, we calculate the principal axes of the mass quadrupole tensor, then

138: examine the density along the axis of minimum quadrupole moment to find whether it shows the

139: characteristics of two maxima separated by a low-density region. The point of lowest density along

140: this line then defines a dividing plane perpendicular to this axis, and two fragments are assumed to

141: exist on both sides of this plane. Calculating the centers of mass of each fragment yields a new

142: straight line connecting them, which is used to repeat the process. This is iterated until the

143: definitions of the fragment centers of mass and the dividing plane have stabilized. The principal

144: result of this analysis are the fragment masses and charges $M_i$, $Q_i$, $i=1,2$, the separation

145: distance $R$ of the fragments, the relative velocity $\dot R$ as well as the angular velocity of

146: rotation in the scattering plane $\dot\theta$ calculated from the positions in two successive time

147: steps.  The energy of relative motion can then be calculated from the radial kinetic and rotational

148: energy of the fragment minus the remaining Coulomb interaction.  The Coulomb energy is approximated

149: by the expression for two point charges, which should be good for larger distances. By comparing

150: this with the full numeric calculation of the Coulomb interaction energy, we could establish that

151: for $R\geq12$~fm it is accurate within about 0.02~MeV.

152: \begin{figure}

153: \begin{center}

154: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{1.eps}

155: \end{center}

156: \caption{The c.m. energy of a single free nucleus moving through the grid

157: for three different test cases as inidicated.  The nearly

158: constant lines correspond to the full Skyrme treatment, while the

159: other results were calculated omitting the odd-odd l*s coupling.

160: \label{fig:transv}}

161: \end{figure}

162: 

163: As a first critical test, we consider the free translational motion of a

164: nucleus.  The results for three different nuclei shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:transv}

165: strikingly illustrate, on the one hand, the accuracy of the code, and on the

166: other, the need for odd-odd couplings. If the full Skyrme force is used, the

167: kinetic energy of the c.m.\ just shows small oscillations by $|\Delta T|<0.2$~MeV 

168: in the period covered, while with the

169: odd-odd couplings omitted there is an immediate deceleration followed

170: by large oscillations. At this point we can already conclude

171: that {\em the omission of these terms leads to unacceptable physical

172: behaviour}.

173: 

174: The spurious dissipation is caused by the intrinsic excitation of a

175: spin-twist mode.  For a nucleus moving with constant velocity $\vec v$, the

176: coupling term contains

177: \begin{equation}

178:   \nabla\!\times\!\vec\jmath=(\nabla\rho)\!\times\!\vec v=\frac{{\rm

179:       d}\rho}{{\rm d}r}\frac{\vec r\!\times\!\vec v}{r},

180: \label{eq:coupl}

181: \end{equation}

182: where spherical symmetry was assumed for simplicity. This is an

183: azimuthal vector field which thus couples to a spin field of the same

184: character. {\em Omitting the odd-odd coupling thus leads to a spurious

185:   excitation of a ring-like spin density}, which with the full Skyrme

186: force is suppressed by the odd-odd terms.

187: An examination of the spin density in the cases without the odd-odd l*s terms

188: shows that the actual excitation of this mode accounts for about 95\% of the

189: energy loss. The rest is due to additional excitations caused by the

190: deceleration (note that the total energy is conserved in any case).

191: \begin{figure}

192: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{2.eps}

193: \caption{\label{fig:einit} 

194: Relative c.m. energy (top) and odd-odd l*s

195: energy (bottom) in a head-on \oxygen+\oxygen\ collision at 125~MeV. The

196: energies values loose their meaning in the contact regime, which is between

197: about 50 and 120~fm/c. ``odd'' and ``no-odd'' refer to calculation with and

198: without the odd-odd l*s couplings.}

199: \end{figure}

200: 

201: Fig.~\ref{fig:einit} shows the relative c.m. energy for a collision.  The initial phase (up to 40

202: fm/c) is free c.m. motion of the two nuclei, and we see again the spurious dissipation of

203: c.m. energy as soon as the odd-odd l*s term is omitted.  In contrast, the full Skyrme interaction

204: preserves the relative motion energy very well until contact.  The bottom part of the figure shows

205: the energy contained in the odd-odd l*s term (\ref{eq:lsodd}). The ``no-odd'' case shows a

206: substantial increase in that energy which is obviously properly compensated in the full

207: treatment. The energetic relations are reversed in the exit channel. The unphysical case without

208: odd-odd l*s departs with more residual c.m. energy while the full interaction produces more true

209: dissipation.  This is caused again by the mechanism sketched in the spin-coupling term

210: (\ref{eq:coupl}), but {\em now is not spurious:} it occurs because the l*s

211: terms in the single-particle Hamiltonian and the counterbalancing odd-odd l*s coupling come out of

212: synchronization due to the physical change in current pattern during the collision, so that a net

213: spin-twist excitation remains.

214: \begin{figure}

215: \begin{center}

216: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{3.eps}

217: \end{center}

218: \caption{\label{spinex}

219: Artist's view of the spin excitation generated in a central

220: collision of two \oxygen\ nuclei. Closely based on the numerical spin-density vectors produced in

221: the calculations.}

222: \end{figure}

223: Fig.~\ref{spinex} visualizes the pattern of the spin-twist excitation in a stage where the two

224: fragments start interacting. This spin density distribution pattern was observed in the numerical

225: results. The excitation persists after full separation. The extra amount of energy stored in this

226: mode explains the enhanced dissipation observed in the exit stages of Fig.~\ref{fig:einit}.  The

227: spin-twist mode and the unambigous detection of its dexcitation following a collision certainly

228: deserves further detailed investigations.

229: 

230: We have investigated a great variety of central and non-central collisions at various collisional

231: energies. They all show similar effects.  As one example, Fig.~\ref{fig:noncentral} shows the loss

232: of c.~m. energy versus impact parameter, mainly for SkM* at various levels of approximation, one

233: result from SkI3 for comparison, and results from older TDHF studies in axial approximation

234: \cite{Uma86a,Rei88a}.  The old calculations were done with a variant

235: of SkM* replacing the gradient terms by finite folding. At that time,

236: it was great success to include the even-even l*s term. This brought a

237: substantial jump in dissipation and resolved the puzzle of too much

238: transparency in the then older TDHF calculations. The present

239: calculations without odd-odd terms still differ from the previous ones

240: in that they are now fully triaxial. This makes no effect at low impact

241: parameter (the minor difference is probably due to the folding

242: approximation) but a visibly enhanced dissipation for grazing

243: collisions which is reasonable because non-central collisions

244: break axial symmetry and call for a triaxial treatment. The most

245: interesting effect here is the additional dissipation caused by the

246: step to the full Skyrme functional (compare up-triangles with full

247: dots). It remains very similar up to an impact

248: parameter of to about 5~fm which is, not suprisingly, close to the

249: nuclear radius. For larger $b$, it rapidly vanishes as we get to

250: peripheral collisions. The spin-twist mode thus leads to excitations

251: in the final fragments that remain relevant for a large range of

252: impact parameters.

253: \begin{figure}

254: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{4.eps}

255: \caption{\label{fig:noncentral}

256: The final c.~m.\ kinetic energies in noncentral collisions of

257: \oxygen\ on \oxygen\ at 100~MeV. at the impact parameters given, and

258: with or without the inclusion of the odd-odd $l*s$ terms.  The Skyrme

259: force used was SkM*. For comparison, results from Ref.~\cite{Rei88a}

260: are shown, with and (completely) without $l*s$-force.}

261: \end{figure}

262: The most striking effect is the qualitative difference that thew new calculations without symmetry

263: restrictions and with all odd-odd terms included predict a large regime of fusion whereas all the

264: other do not. We can estimate a fusion cross section for the system $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O at collisional

265: energy of 100 MeV to be somewhat larger than 500 mb. This compares very well with 550 mb deduced

266: from the systematics of \cite{Bir79a} while all approximate calculations fail in that respect.

267: Fig.~\ref{fig:noncentral} also shows the result for full SkI3, which is very similar to SkM*. The

268: same similarity is seen for other forces investigated.  Calculations with older Skyrme forces showed

269: a much more dramatic and systematic force dependence \cite{Mar85a,Uma86a,Rei88a,Uma89}.

270: 

271: The dependence of the additional dissipation (as compared to restricted

272: calculations) on the mass of the colliding nuclei was tested by a few

273: calculations for other collision partners. For \carbon\ on \carbon\ the

274: additional energy loss was similar and possibly even larger reaching 30~MeV, and

275: similarly for \carbon\ on \oxygen. On the other hand, for \calcium\ on

276: \calcium\ it was almost negligible with about 1~MeV. The reason for this

277: is not yet clear and needs to be investigated.  

278: 

279: In this work we have investigated the energy loss in

280: heavy-ion collisions as described by TDHF handled in full 3D and including consistently all terms of

281: the given Skyrme functional. Particular attention was paid to the time reversal odd-odd spin-orbit

282: (l*s) term which is often neglected in TDHF calcuations. The main findings can be concluded in

283: brief: The odd-odd l*s terms establish full Galileian invariance of the functional and they are

284: crucial to provide properly free translation of a nucleus over the grid.  The odd-odd l*s terms add

285: substantially to the dissipation observed in heavy-ion collisions. That effect persists up to impact

286: parameters of order of the nuclear radius. It is large for small nuclei and seems to decrease for

287: heavier ones.  The enhanced dissipation is associated with the strong excitation of a pronounced

288: spin-twist mode which is present even in the collision of spin-saturated nuclei and persists after

289: separation in both fragments.  The two main tasks for future research are: first, large scale

290: investigations of dissipation under varying scattering conditions, and second, a closer inspection

291: of that most interesting spin-twist mode, working out directions for an experimental assessment.

292: 

293: \noindent

294: This work was supported by BMBF under contracts no. 06 F 131 and 06 ER

295: 808 and the UK EPSRC grant GR/96425/01. We gratefully acknowledge support by the

296: Frankfurt Center for Scientific Computing.

297: 

298: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

299: 

300: \bibliography{tdhf}

301: \end{document}

302: 

303: