logo

Probing the density dependence of the symmetry energy with central heavy ion collisions

Special Section on International Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics in Heavy-Ion Reactions (IWND 2012)

Probing the density dependence of the symmetry energy with central heavy ion collisions

XIE Wenjie
ZHANG Fengshou
Nuclear Science and TechniquesVol.24, No.5Article number 050502Published in print 01 Oct 2013
40501

An improved isospin dependent Boltzmann Langevin model, in which the inelastic channels and momentum dependent interactions are incorporated, is used to investigate the high-density behavior of nuclear symmetry energy. By taking several forms of nuclear symmetry energy, we calculate the time evolutions of neutron over proton ratio, π multiplicity and π/π+ ratio, and the kinetic energy and transverse momentum spectra of π/π+ ratio in the heavy ion collisions at 400A MeV. It is found that the neutron over proton ratio and π/π+ ratio are very sensitive to the nuclear symmetry energy, and the π is more sensitive to the nuclear symmetry energy than the π+. A supersoft symmetry energy results in a larger π/π+ ratio.

Improved isospin dependent Boltzmann-Langevin modelNuclear symmetry energyNeutron over proton ratioPion production

1 Introduction

Constraints on the nuclear symmetry energy Esym(ρ) have been an very interesting subject in the last few years. The Esym(ρ)which is an estimate of the energy cost to convert all protons to neutrons at the fixed density in the symmetric nuclear matter, is very important both in nuclei, such as the binding energy, and in neutron stars, such as the nature and stability of the phases within the star[1,2]. The energy per nucleon in asymmetric nuclear matter can usually be expressed as

E(ρ,δ)=E(ρ,δ=0)+Esym(ρ)δ2+O(δ4), (1)

where δ=(ρnρp)/ρ and ρn, ρp and ρ are the neutron, proton and total nucleon densities, respectively. The first term in Eq.(1) is the symmetric contribution and the second term is the symmetry energy contribution. The higher-order terms O(δ4) in δare commonly negligible[3]. Generally, there are two forms of Esym(ρ) predicted by various theoretical models. The one is that the Esym(ρ) increases with the increasing nucleon density and the other is that Esym(ρ) increases up to the saturation density ρ0 and then decreases with the increasing density.

At supra-saturation densities (ρ>ρ0), the form of the Esym(ρ) is very controversial. Even the trend of theEsym(ρ) with increasing density is not constrained yet. A lot of probes have been proposed to constrain the Esym(ρ)at supra-saturation density, such as the neutron over proton ratio of squeezed-out nucleons[4], the neutron-proton differential flow[5], the π/π+ratio[6,7,8,9,10], the K0/K+ratio[10], the Σ/Σ+ratio[11] and so on. Among above probes, the π/π+ ratio as a promising one is motivated by the Δ(1232)resonance model[12], in which a primordial relation between π/π+ ratio and N/Z is predicted. That is

π/π+=(5N2+NZ)/(5Z2+NZ)(N/Z)2, (2)

where the N and Z are the neutron and proton numbers in the participant region of the reaction. The N/Z is determined by the Esym(ρ)by the dynamical isospin fractionation[6]. Therefore, one can use the π/π+ ratio to constrain the Esym(ρ).

Using the π/π+ ratio as a probe of the Esym(ρ), a larger uncertainty exists. By comparing with the FOPI data[15], a very soft Esym(ρ)was suggested by the isospin-dependent Boltzmann Uehling Uhlenbeck model (IBUU04)[7] and improved isospin dependent Boltzmann Langevin model (ImIBL)[9], and a hard Esym(ρ)was suggested by the improved isospin dependent quantum molecular dynamics model (ImIQMD)[8].

At sub-saturation densities (ρ<ρ0), the trend of the Esym(ρ) with increasing density is almost constrained but the quantitative results are not obtained yet. There are also a lot of probes to constrain the Esym(ρ)in sub-saturation density region, such as the isospin diffusion[14,15], the neutron skin thickness[16], the single and double neutron over proton ratios[14,17,18,19,20], the heavy fragment mass distribution[21] and so on. The IBUU04 model[15] suggested an almost linear Esym(ρ)by analyzing the isospin diffusion data. Also the constrained molecular dynamics II model (CoMDII) suggested a linear one by calculating the heavy fragment mass distribution[21]. However, the improved quantum molecular dynamics model (ImQMD)[14] and the isospin dependent quantum molecular dynamics model (IQMD)[17] predicted a soft Esym(ρ) by analyzing the double neutron over proton ratio. Recently, a quantum statistical approach predicted the Esym(ρ)at low temperature and low density limit[22].

As a kind of ensemble-averaged theory, the usual BUU model have been very successful in describing the various phenomena in heavy ion collisions. However, the fluctuations, which are very important in preequilibrium particle emission, subthreshold particle production and multifragmentation are not included in the BUU model. In the QMD-like model which is a kind of many-body theory, the reactions are simulated event by event. Though the fluctuations are realized in the QMD simulations, the correlations among the events are uncertain. Moreover, the QMD model fails to explain the subthreshold kaon production[23].

In this paper, we will use the ImIBL model to investigate the Esymρ using the neutron over proton ratio and π/π+ ratio in the 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV. The paper is organized as follows. We introduce our model in Section 2. The calculated results are given in Section 3. Finally, we will give some conclusions.

2 Theoretical model

The ImIBL model used in this paper is an updated version of the Boltzmann-Langevin model(BL)[24]. According to the BL model, the fluctuating phase space single particle density fulfills the following equation[24]:

(t+pmrrU(f^)p)f^(r,p,t)=K(f^)+δK(r,p,t). (3)

The left-hand side describes the Vlasov propagation determined by nuclear mean field U(f^). K(f^) is the collision term of the usual BUU form but is characterized by the fluctuating density f^(r,p,t). δK(r,p,t) is the fluctuating collision term, which can be explained as a stochastic force acting on the f^(r,p,t), and is characterized by the following correlation function:

δK(r1,p1,t1)δK(r2,p2,t2)=C(p1,p2)δ(r1r2)δ(t1t2), (4)

where the angle brackets denote a local average, performed over fluctuating densities generated during a time interval δt. The correlation function C(p1,p2)can be reduced and expressed as in the weak-coupling limit and determined by the one-body properties of the locally averaged distribution as indicated in Ref.[25]. The numerical simulation method used in BL model is the projection method[24,25] which projects the fluctuations on a set of low order local multipole moments QLM of order L with magnetic quantum numbers M of the momentum distribution. The fluctuations of these multipole moments can be characterized by a diffusion matrix and can be deduced from the correlation matrix C(p,p)as[25]

CLMLM(r,t)=dpdpQLM(p)QLM(p)C(p,p)=dp1dp2dp3dp4ΔQLMΔQLM×W(12,34)f1f2(1f3)(1f4) (5)

with ΔQLM=QLM(p1)+QLM(p2)QLM(p3)QLM(p4).According to the Refs.[24-27], the stochastic component of the dynamics can be reduced to the following two equations:

Q20(r,t+δt)=Q2(r,t+δt)+δtC2(r,t)W2,Q30(r,t+δt)=Q3(r,t+δt)+δtC3(r,t)W3, (6)

where W2 and W3 are Gaussian random numbers. The Q20 and Q30 are the fluctuating quadrupole and octupole moments. The fluctuations are inserted into the momentum space through a scaling procedure as indicated in Ref.[25].

Fig.1
(Color online) Time evolution of the ensemble-averaged quadrupole moment Q20, Q20±σ20 and Q20±2σ20 of the momentum distribution in the ImIBL model (upper) and the associated variance σ20 (bottom) for central 40Ca+48Ca collisions at 100A MeV.
pic

In Fig.1, we show the time evolution of the ensemble-averaged total quadrupole moment Q20, Q20±σ20 and Q20±2σ20 of the momentum distribution and the associated variance σ20 from central 40Ca+48Ca collisions at 100A MeV in the ImIBL and BUU models, where σ20=Q202Q202 is the standard deviation function. For a Gaussian distribution, Q20±σ20 and Q20±2σ20 correspond to 84.3 and 99.5 percent of the number of events respectively[27]. From the upper panel of Fig.1, we can see that the Q20 value of the ImIBL model has a larger range of variation as compared with the BUU model. From the bottom panel of Fig.1, there is a bump in the early collision stage for BL model. But this phenomenon does not happen in the BUU simulations. This phenomenon suggests that there is a larger difference between the real quadrupole moment and averaged quadrupole moment, especially in the early collision stage. We think this phenomenon is important in the dynamical evolution process.

Fig.2
(Color online) Symmetry energy as a function of the reduced density in this work (solid line), Ref.[8] (dashed line) and Ref.[14] (dotted line).
pic

In the Vlasov part of Eq.(3), we work with an isospin and momentum dependent single nucleon potential, which reads

Uτ(ρ,δ,p)=αρρ0+β(ρρ0)γ+Esymloc(ρ)δ2+Esymloc(ρ)ρρδ2+Esymloc(ρ)ρδ2ρτ+UMDI, (7)

the bulk parameters α, β, and γ taken here are −390 MeV, 320 MeV and 1.14 for the soft EOS plus MDI as SM and −130 MeV, 59 MeV and 2.09 for the hard EOS plus MDI as HM[28]. The compressibilities K are 200 and 380 MeV for the SM and HM, respectively. The Esymloc(ρ), which is the local part of the Esymρ, taken here are the following two forms

Esymloc(ρ)=12Csym(ρρ0)γs (8)

and

Esymloc(ρ)=a(ρρ0)+b(ρρ0)2+c(ρρ0)5/3. (9)

In Eq.(8), the γs=0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 correspond to the soft, linear and hard symmetry energy respectively. The parameters Csym, a, b and c are 33.4, 38.9, –18.9, and –3.8 MeV, respectively. Eq.(9) gives the supersoft symmetry energy. The curvature parameters Ksym=9ρ02(2Esym/ρ2)|ρ0 are 275.2, –25.4, –62.9, –403.6 MeV for the hard, linear, soft, and supersoft symmetry energy, respectively. Shown in Fig.2 is the comparison of the Esymρ for different cases from Eqs.(8) and (9), and also from the Refs.[8,14].

The momentum dependent potential can be expressed as[28]

UMDI=1.57ln2[0.0005(pipj)2+1]ρρ0. (10)

The inelastic channels and the parameterized cross sections of each channel are taken from Ref.[29]. We take the free space and in-medium cross sections for the elastic and inelastic channels, respectively. The in-medium effects are the medium correction of ρ mass[30].

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Neutron over proton ratio

Figure 3 shows the time evolution of the free neutron over proton ratio and the corresponding central point density in central 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV. The calculations are performed by using the supersoft and hard symmetry energies, respectively. The solid and dashed lines denote the results in the angle interval 70o<θ<110o and in the rapidity interval 0.2<yo<0.2. The dotted and dotted-dashed lines show the results without any cuts.

From Fig.3, we can see that the supersoft behavior of the symmetry energy leads to a low neutron emission in the high-density region. In low-density region, an inversion of this trend is observed because of contributions to the nucleon emission in the expansion phase while fragments are forming. Our results are consistent with the one of Ref.[31].

Fig.3
(Color online) (Upper) Time evolution of free neutron over proton ratio for central 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV in the central rapidity and in the emission angle interval as indicated. (Bottom) Time evolution of the corresponding central point density.
pic
3.2 Pion multiplicity

In the left panel of Fig.4, we show the time evolution of π± multiplicity in central 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV. The calculations are performed by taking four different forms of the Esym(ρ). From the left panel of Fig.4 and the bottom panel of Fig.3, one can see that the π is mainly produced in the high density region. Therefore, the π production will take useful information of the high density phase space. Most interestingly, the produced π is more sensitive to the Esymρ than the π+. In order to further shed light on this point, we show in the right panel of Fig.4 the π± multiplicity as a function of the curvature parameter Ksym. From the right panel of Fig.5, we can see that the π yield strongly varies with different Esym(ρ) from soft to stiff case. This is because the π is mainly produced in neutron-neutron collisions. In the high density region a softer Esym(ρ) will result in a low neutron emission, and then there will be more neutron rich as compared with the case of a hard Esym(ρ). We can conclude that the π yield play an important role in investigating the Esym(ρ).

3.3 π+ ratio

To further understand the dependence of the Esym(ρ) on the π production, we show in Fig.5 the differential π/π+ ratios as functions of the kinetic energy and transverse momentum in the 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV with the impact parameter b=1 fm. One can see that in the low energy and low transverse momentum regions the π/π+ ratio is very sensitive to the Esym(ρ). Therefore, we do not need to measure the high energy and high transverse momentum pions to constrain the density dependence of the symmetry energy. This will be useful in designing the experimental facilities with an aim of investigating the density dependent symmetry energy. From Fig.5, it is found that a supersoft symmetry energy results in a larger π/π+ ratio, which is consistent with the results of Refs.[7,9] and inconsistent with the one of Refs.[8,10].

Fig.4
(Color online) (Left) Time evolution of π± multiplicity and (Right) the π± multiplicity as a function of the Ksymin the 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV with the impact parameter b=1 fm.
pic
Fig.5
(Color online) (Left) Kinetic energy spectra and (Right) transverse momentum spectra of the π/π+ ratio for the 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV with the impact parameter b=1 fm.
pic

4 Conclusion

In summary, the Esym(ρ) has been investigated by using the free neutron over proton ratio and the π production in the 48Ca+48Ca collisions at 400A MeV in the framework of ImIBL model. It is found that both the free neutron over proton ratio and the π/π+ ratio are sensitive to the Esym(ρ). A soft Esym(ρ) results in a low emission of neutron component in the high density region. The π yield is strongly dependent on the Esym(ρ) and the π+ yield is almost independent on the Esym(ρ). The π/π+ ratio in the low kinetic energy and low transverse momentum region is sufficient to constrain theEsym(ρ). The π/π+ ratio becomes lager when the Esym(ρ) varies from the stiff to the soft.

Meson production as a probe of the Esym(ρ) is still an open question. It is known that the threshold effect is important in the K meson production. For π meson, the threshold effect, which is not concluded in the present calculations, may also play an important role in the whole evolution stage. We will incorporate the threshold effect into the ImIBL model in the future work.

References
1 Li B A, Chen L W, Ko C M. Phys Rep, 2008, 464: 113-281.
2 Danielewicz P and Lee J. Nucl Phys A, 2009, 818: 36-96.
3 Zhang F S and Chen L W. Chin Phys Lett, 2001, 18: 142-144.
4 Yong G C, Li B A, Chen L W. Phys Lett B, 2007, 650: 344-347.
5 Li B A. Phys Rev Lett, 2002, 88: 192701.
6 Li B A, Yong G C, Zuo W. Phys Rev C, 2005, 71: 014608.
7 Xiao Z G, Li B A, Chen L W, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2009, 102: 062502.
8 Feng Z Q and Jin G M. Phys Lett B, 2010, 683: 140-144.
9 Xie W J, Su J, Zhu L, et al. Phys Lett B, 2013, 718: 1510-1514.
10 Ferini G, Gaitanos T, Colonna M, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2006, 97: 202301.
11 Li Q F, Li Z X, Zhao E G, et al. Phys Rev C, 2005, 71: 054907.
12 Stock R. Phys Rep, 1986, 135: 259-315.
13 Reisdorf W, Stockmeier M, Andronic A, et al. Nucl Phys A, 2007, 781: 459-508.
14 Tsang M B, Zhang Y, Danielewicz P, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2009, 102: 122701.
15 Chen L W, Ko C M, Li B A. Phys Rev Lett, 2005, 94: 032701.
16 Centelles M, Roca-Maza X, Viñas X, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2009, 102: 122502.
17 Kumar S, Ma Y G, Zhang G Q, et al. Phys Rev C, 2011, 84: 044620.
18 Li B A, Ko C M, Ren Z Z. Phys Rev Lett, 1997, 78: 1644-1647.
19 Zhang Y X, Danielewicz P, Famiano M, et al. Phys Lett B, 2008, 664: 145-148.
20 Li B A, Chen L W, Yong G C, et al. Phys Lett B, 2006, 634: 378-382.
21 Amorini F, Cardella G, Giuliani G, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2009, 102: 112701.
22 Natowitz J B, Röpke G, Typel S, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2010, 104: 202501.
23 Germain M, Hartnack Ch, Laville J L, et al. Phys Lett B, 1998, 437: 19-23.
24 Abe Y, Ayik S, Reinhard P G, et al. Phys Rep, 1996, 275: 49-196.
25 Zhang F S and Suraud E. Phys Rev C, 1995, 51: 3201-3210.
26 Suraud E, Ayik S, Belkacem M, et al. Nucl Phys A, 1992, 542: 141-158.
27 Suraud E, Ayik S, Belkacem M, et al. Nucl Phys A, 1994, 580: 323-334.
28 Aichelin J. Phys Rep, 1991, 202: 233-360.
29 Huber S and Aichelin J. Nucl Phys A, 1994, 573: 587-625.
30 Li Q F, Li Z X, Mao G J. Phys Rev C, 2000, 62: 014606.
31 Rizzo J, Colonna M, Di Toro M. Phys Rev C, 2005, 72: 064609.