1: \documentclass[aps,prc,twocolumn,amsmath,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,prc,showpacs,amsmath,floatfix,preprint]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Reply to comment ``On the test of the modified BCS at finite
8: temperature''}
9:
10: \author{V.~Yu.~Ponomarev$^{1,2}$ and A.~I.~Vdovin$^{1}$}
11: \affiliation{
12: $^1$Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,
13: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,
14: 141980 Dubna, Russia \\
15: $^2$Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Technische Universit\"at Darmstadt,
16: D--64289 Darmstadt, Germany}
17: \date{\today}
18:
19: \pacs{21.60.-n, 24.10.Pa}
20:
21: \maketitle
22:
23: The applicability, predictive power, and internal consistency of
24: a modified BCS (MBCS) model suggested by Dang and Arima
25: have been analyzed in details in \cite{pv}.
26: It has been concluded that ``The $T$-range of the MBCS applicability can
27: be determined as far below the critical temperature $T_c$'', i.e.,
28: $T<<T_c$.
29: Unfortunately, the source of our conclusions has been misrepresented
30: in \cite{DA06} and referred to MBCS predictions at $T>>T_c$.
31:
32: Since above $T_c$ particles and holes contribute to an MBCS gap with
33: opposite signs, the model results are rather
34: sensitive to details of a single particle spectra (s.p.s.)
35: (e.g., discussion in Sec.~IV.~A.~1. of \cite{DA03b}).
36: As so, it is indeed possible to find conditions when the MBCS simulates
37: reasonable thermal behavior of a pairing gap. This can be achieved,
38: e.g., by introducing some particular $T$-dependence of the s.p.s.
39: (entry 1 in \cite{DA06}) or by adding an extra level to a picket
40: fence model (PFM) (entry 2 in \cite{DA06}). But such results are
41: very unstable and accordingly, the model has no predictive
42: power.
43:
44: Dang and Arima explain poor MBCS results for the PFM
45: (${\rm N}=\Omega=10$) discussed in \cite{pv} by referring to strong
46: asymmetry in the line shape of the quasiparticle-number fluctuations
47: $\delta {\cal N}_j$ above $T \sim 1.75$~MeV
48: (symmetry of $\delta {\cal N}_j$ is announced as a criterion of
49: the MBCS applicability.)
50: The space limitation is blamed for that in \cite{DA06}.
51: Remember, particle-hole symmetry is an essential feature of the
52: PFM with $N=\Omega$.
53: Thus, strong asymmetry is reported from the MBCS calculation in an
54: ideally symmetric system.
55:
56: It has been found that a less symmetrical example $N=10,\, \Omega=11$
57: satisfies better the MBCS criterion \cite{DA06}.
58: Indeed, the model mimics behavior of a macroscopic theory in
59: this case (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}b).
60: But this example is the only one where the MBCS does not
61: break, in a long row of physically very close examples with more limited
62: or less limited s.p.s..
63: In all other examples we witness either negative heat capacity $C_{\nu}$
64: (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a) or negative gap $\bar{\Delta}$
65: (Fig.~\ref{fig1}c) at rather moderate $T$ (see also \cite{Civ89}).
66:
67: Unfortunately, conclusion in \cite{DA06} that ``within extended
68: configuration spaces $\ldots$ the MBCS is a good approximation up to
69: high $T$ even for a system with $N=10$ particles'', is based on a
70: single example while in all other $N=10$ examples the MBCS
71: yields unphysical predictions.
72:
73: \begin{figure}
74: \epsfig{figure=fig1.eps,width=85mm,angle=0}
75: %\epsfig{figure=fig1.eps,width=100mm,angle=0}
76: \caption{\label{fig1}
77: (Color online) The MBCS pairing gap $\bar{\Delta}$ (top panels) and
78: specific heat $C_{\nu}$ (bottom panels) for the PFM with $N=10$
79: and (a) $\Omega=8,9,10$, (b) $\Omega=11$, and (c) $\Omega=12,13,14$.
80: The pairing strength $G = 0.4$~MeV in all cases.
81: }
82: \end{figure}
83:
84: The most serious problem of the MBCS is its thermodynamical inconsistency.
85: It is not sufficient to declare two quantities $<H> = {\rm Tr}(HD)$ and
86: $\cal{E}$ representing the system energy, analytically equal by definition
87: (as is done in footnote [8] of \cite{DA06}) to prove the model consistency.
88: It is easy to find that expression for $\cal{E}_{\rm MBCS}$
89: (in the form of Eq.~(83) in \cite{DA03b}) can be obtained
90: in the same way as all other MBCS equations have been derived:
91: straightforwardly replacing the Bogoliubov $\{u_j,\ v_j\}$ coefficients
92: in $\cal{E}_{\rm BCS({\it T}=0)}$ expression
93: by $\{\bar{u}_j,\ \bar{v}_j\}$ coefficients.
94: Numeric results in Fig.~9 of \cite{pv} show that
95: $<H>_{\rm MBCS}$ and $\cal{E}_{\rm MBCS}$ have nothing in common
96: while $<H>_{\rm BCS} \approx \cal{E}_{\rm BCS}$
97: as it should be for thermodynamically consistent theory.
98:
99: Another example of the MBCS thermodynamical inconsistency is shown below.
100: We calculate the system entropy $S$ as
101: \begin{equation}
102: S_1 = \int_0^T \, \frac{1}{t} \,\cdot \,
103: \frac{\partial \cal{E}}{\partial t} \,dt
104: \nonumber
105: \end{equation}
106: and
107: \begin{equation}
108: S_2 = - \sum_j \, (2j+1)\, \left [ \, n_j \, {\rm ln} \, n_j + (1-n_j) \,
109: {\rm ln} \, (1-n_j) \right ]
110: \nonumber
111: \end{equation}
112: where $n_j$ are thermal quasiparticle occupation numbers.
113: In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we compare $S_1$ and $S_2$ quantities which refer to
114: thermodynamical and statistical mechanical definition of entropy,
115: respectively.
116: The calculations have been performed for neutron system of $^{120}$Sn
117: with a realistic s.p.s.
118:
119: It is not possible to distinguish by eye $S_1$ and $S_2$ in the FT-BCS
120: calculation (solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig2} represents both quantities)
121: as it should be for thermodynamically consistent theory.
122: The MBCS $S_1$ and $S_2$ quantities are shown by dashed and dot-dashed
123: lines, respectively.
124: They are different by orders of magnitude in the MBCS prediction.
125:
126: We stress that low $T$ part is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
127: Dramatic disagreement between $S_1({\rm MBCS})$ and $S_2({\rm MBCS})$
128: representing the system entropy remains at
129: higher $T$ as well but we do not find it necessary to extend the
130: plot: the model obviously does not describe correctly a heated system
131: even at $T \sim 200$~keV.
132:
133: \begin{figure}
134: %\epsfig{figure=fig2.eps,width=65mm,angle=0}
135: \epsfig{figure=fig2.eps,width=85mm,angle=0}
136: \caption{\label{fig2}
137: Entropy of the neutron system in $^{120}$Sn calculated within
138: the FT-BCS (solid curve) and MBCS (dashed and dot-dashed curves).
139: Notice the logarithmic $y$ scale of the main figure and linear $y$ scale
140: of the insert.
141: See text for details.}
142: \end{figure}
143:
144: We show in the insert of Fig.~\ref{fig2} another MBCS prediction:
145: entropy $S_1$ decreases as temperature increases.
146: This result is very stable against variation of the pairing strength
147: $G$ within a wide range and contradicts the second law of
148: thermodynamics.
149:
150: Finally, we repeat, the conclusion in \cite{pv} that ``The $T$-range
151: of the MBCS applicability can be determined as far below the critical
152: temperature $T_c$'' is based on the analysis of the model predictions
153: from $T<<T_c$ and not on $T>>T_c$ results as presented in \cite{DA06}.
154:
155: The work was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
156: (SFB 634).
157:
158: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
159:
160: \bibitem{pv}
161: V.Yu. Ponomarev and A.I. Vdovin
162: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 72}, 034309 (2005).
163:
164: \bibitem{DA06}
165: N. Dinh Dang and A. Arima,
166: arXiv: nucl-th/0510004.
167:
168: \bibitem{DA03b}
169: N. Dinh Dang and A. Arima,
170: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 68}, 014318 (2003).
171:
172: \bibitem{Civ89}
173: Dang and Arima put in doubts the validity of the PFM calculations
174: in \cite{pv} claiming that ``The limitation of the configuration space
175: with $\Omega = 10$ causes a decrease of the heat capacity $C$ at
176: $T_{\rm M} > 1.2$~MeV $\ldots$
177: Therefore, the region of $T>1.2$~MeV, generally speaking, is
178: thermodynamically unphysical.''~\cite{DA06}.
179: It is well-known that such a behavior of the heat capacity is a
180: characteristic feature of finite systems of bound fermions and ``does
181: not concern the validity of statistical mechanics''
182: [O.~Civitarese, G.G.~Dussel, and A.P.~Zuker,
183: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 40}, 2900 (1989)].
184:
185: \end{thebibliography}
186:
187: \end{document}
188: