1 / 28

Coherence and Decoherence in Collisions of Complex Nuclei

Quantum Information and Many-body Physics , PITP (UBC), Vancouver, Dec’07. Coherence and Decoherence in Collisions of Complex Nuclei. D.J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, A. Diaz-Torres Department of Nuclear Physics Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering Australian National University

abra-barker
Download Presentation

Coherence and Decoherence in Collisions of Complex Nuclei

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quantum Information and Many-body Physics, PITP (UBC), Vancouver, Dec’07 Coherence and Decoherence in Collisions of Complex Nuclei D.J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, A. Diaz-Torres Department of Nuclear Physics Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering Australian National University G.J. Milburn Department of Physics University of Queensland

  2. + + + + + + Atomic nucleus – a complex many-body system • ~ 6 to 250 constituent nucleons • Protons, neutrons - Fermions • Well-defined internal excitations • Single-particle excitations (one n or p to new orbital) • Coherent collective excitations – many nucleons • Many collective modes (0.06 -20 MeV) • Vibrational excitations – surface or volume modes • Rotational excitations – nuclear deformation (shapes) • Vary systematically – nuclear structure • Shells gaps play crucial role – magic (extra-stable) nuclei • Nuclear structure, interactions from first principles? - NO

  3. + + + + + + + + + + Nucleus-nucleus collisions • Long-range Coulomb repulsion • Short-range nuclear attraction • Potential barrier – capture or fusion barrier Fusion Barrier (typically 100 MeV) VB Coulomb repulsion rB Nuclear attraction VC a Z1*Z2/R Potential Energy Z1 Z2 R R

  4. Inter-nuclear potential • Coulomb potential exactly calculable • Nuclear potential is not so easy • Options: • Double folding model (also for Coulomb interaction) Fold matter densities with phenomenological n-n interaction Exponential at and outside barrier radius (not closed expression) • Simple, convenient expression VN(r)=V0/(1+exp(r-R0)/a) [Woods-Saxon potential] Exponential at and outside barrier radius Find parameters by fitting experimental data • Fit peripheral part of double-folding potential with Woods-Saxon form • Problem in region inside barrier radius: • Re-organization of nuclear matter to find lowest energy configuration • Does system have time to “find” this configuration – adiabatic?

  5. Nucleus-nucleus collisions • Currently two theoretical approaches • Classical or semi-classical – trajectory (Sommerfeld parameter) • Coherent time-independent quantum description (1980s-1990s) • Classical trajectory model • Distance of closest approach defines minimum surface separation • Kinetic energy loss – macroscopic friction - irreversible • No quantum tunnelling • Coupled-channels model • Time-independent Schrodinger eqn • Radial separation r is key variable • Coupling of relative motion to specific internal excitations • No energy loss – reversible • Trapping inside barrier by playing a trick ..

  6. 6037 Coupled-channels model Etc. keV Many excited states 279 269 77 ground state 0 197Au 16O 197Au 16O Interacting nuclei are in a linear superposition of various states Effectively changes the interaction potential C.H. Dasso et al., Nucl. Phys. A405 (1982) 381

  7. Coupled-channels model VJ(r) = VN + VC +J(J+1)h2/2mr2 [ ] h2 d2  Vnm (r) ym(r) = 0 + VJ(r) +en – E yn(r) + 2 dr2 m=n / • Each combination of energy levels (m) is a “channel” • Collective, strongly-coupled channels should be included (Vnm= Vmn) • Isocentrifugal approximation • The centrifugal energy is independent of the channel • It is incorporated in the inter-nuclear potential (up to J~100, E~100 MeV) • Boundary conditions at two positions: • Distant boundary: • Incoming Coulomb wave in channel “0” (nuclei in ground states) • Outgoing Coulomb waves in all channels • Inside the barrier only an incoming wave (or imaginary potential)

  8. Coupled-channels model • Simplifying approximations for illustration: • Two channels • en << Vnm (e.g rotational nuclei) • Solve coupled equations at each value of r • Then VJ(r) {VJ(r) + VCoupling(r)} and {VJ(r) – VCoupling(r)} • The potential barrier is “split” into two barriers (eigenchannel picture) • More channels, more barriers • Coupling matrix elements proportional to Z1*Z2 • like the uncoupled barrier energy itself • Width of barrier distributions ~ 0.1 VB – large effect!

  9. Fusion barrier distribution 1 Single-barrier Probability E nuclei in a superposition of states VB0 Probability Distribution of barrier energies - eigenchannels E VB2 VB3 VB1

  10. Coupled-channels model • Energy E below VJ(rB) • Incoming wave b.c. inside rB plays no role • Reaction processes are elastic and inelastic scattering • Observables are the populations and energies of “physical” channels m • Shows the strongly coupled channels • Energy E above VJ(rB) • Incoming wave b.c. inside rB acts like a black hole calculate fusion • Irreversibility inside rB - BUT - no effect on coherence! • Always assumed irreversibility does not reach out to rB “invisible” • Potential (fusion) barrier acts as a filter at rB • Measuring the distribution of barrier energies and probabilities allows us to see the eigenchannels of the system at the barrier radius

  11. Concept: Review: Dasgupta et al., Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci 48 (1998) 401 Rowley et al., Phys. Lett. B254 (1991) 25 Z1Z2 = 496 3- 12+ 10+ 8+ 6+ 4+ 2+ 0+ 0+ Wei et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (1991) Morton et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (1994)

  12. Fusion barrier distribution 58Ni + 60Ni : Z1Z2 = 784 2+ 2+ 0+ 0+

  13. Fusion barrier distribution 2+ 2+ 58Ni + 60Ni : Z1Z2 = 784 2+ 0+

  14. Fusion barrier distribution 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 58Ni + 60Ni : Z1Z2 = 784 2+ 0+ Looks pretty good! What’s the problem? – why should we treat decoherence explicitly? Doesn’t it seem to be “invisible” inside the barrier?

  15. Problem area #1 • Breakup of weakly-bound nuclei • Excited to energy above breakup threshold outside rB • Coupling to continuum - and back again! (Vnm= Vmn) • No irreversibility in CC model –wavefunction exists in linear superposition of fragmented and not fragmented at all distances

  16. Radioactive neutron-halo nucleus 6He (E < VB) Scattering Breakup, no capture - Irreversible ? Slow neutrons Breakup+capture - irreversible Hot target nucleus - irreversible Excitation of low-E state - reversible Stable target nucleus Classical trajectory model with stochastically sampled breakup function A. Diaz-Torres et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (2007)

  17. Problem area #2 • Probing inside the fusion barrier • High J values (larger Vn to counter centrifugal pot) • High Z1*Z2 (larger Vn to counter Coulomb pot) • Deep sub-barrier tunnelling

  18. Probing larger nuclear density overlap J=100 J=100 Large Z1*Z2 E J=70 J=0 J=0 r large matter overlap small

  19. High E,J, large Z1*Z2 • High E,J and large Z1*Z2 (Classical limit) • No potential pocket • Large overlap of matter distributions • Dominant process is KE loss, J-loss, no capture • Deep-inelastic scattering – up to hundreds of MeV E loss • Energy dissipated into heat – irreversible! • Modelled classically – trajectory, friction (1970’s) • High E,J or large Z1*Z2 at low E,J • Less matter overlap • Dominant process is capture (fusion) • Still see deep-inelastic products with finite probability

  20. A new model is needed • Treat irreversibility in a consistent way • Include effect of irreversibility on coherent superpositions • Decoherence • Need to identify mechanism(s) for decoherence • Must be internal to colliding nuclear system (mini universe) • Associated with density of levels of system (size of environment) • i.e. lowest energy excited states will not lead to decoherence • Fermi gas level density r: exp[2(AU/k)1/2] U=thermal energy • A=200, k=8 MeV, U=20 MeV 1015 levels/MeV ! • U = E - V • At inner turning point U = 0, at top of barrier U=0 • Coupling to high energy collective vibrations can result in decoherence even when U=0 – how?

  21. Coupling to Giant Resonances • Giant Resonances: volume oscillations – dipole, quadrupole…. • Highly collective (large coupling strength ~ 80% of sum-rule) • High energy (10-20 MeV) • Identified as likely doorways for energy loss already in 1976 (semi-classical picture) R.A. Broglia, C.H. Dasso, Aa. Winther, Phys Lett 61B(1976)113 • Giant resonance states have ~ 10 MeV width • Rapidly decay to 1015 non-collective states in same energy range! • Environment even when “classically” U=0! • Lindblad equation, wave packet (A. Diaz-Torres, ANU) • Quantitative coupling to environment • Energy loss • Trapping inside fusion barrier • Wave packet is currently wide (8% energy spread – want <1%) • Need additional decoherence where U>0 inside fusion barrier

  22. Measurements sensitive to decoherence? • Fusion barrier distributions for larger Z1*Z2 • Lose sharp structures in barrier distributions – decoherence? 32S+208Pb: Z1Z2=1312

  23. Measurements sensitive to decoherence? • Deep-sub-barrier tunnelling probability (next talk) • Reduced tunnelling probability – decoherence? • Deep-inelastic probabilities and energy spectra • Evidence for role of giant resonances in decoherence • Measure properties of reflected flux (next talk)

  24. Measurements sensitive to decoherence? • Mott scattering of identical nuclei • Loss of amplitude of interference fringes – decoherence? Rmin Probability of excitation depends exponentially on Rmin Weak measurement distinguishing paths

  25. Mott scattering 36S + 36S : Z1Z2 = 256 208Pb +208Pb : Z1Z2 = 6724 Below fusion barrier Above fusion barrier Need to account for flux loss to fusion

  26. Conclusions • Irreversibility needs to be correctly incorporated into quantum mechanical picture of nuclear collisions • Decoherence through couplings with giant resonance • Quantitative couplings to resonances and environment • Breakup of weakly-bound nuclei • Irreversibility is clearly necessary • Decoherence in fusion • Next talk • Deep-inelastic reactions – irreversible energy loss • Complementary to fusion (scattered back from barrier) • Decoherence in Mott scattering • May be a sensitive probe?

  27. Wrong Way Go Back

  28. Fusion barrier radius (absorption) Breakup probabilities vs. Rmin Extrapolated prompt breakup probability at fusion barrier radii: PBU = 0.36 to 0.58 (Depends on L) Incomplete fusion probability: PICF = 0.32 (Average over L) (Hinde et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 272701)

More Related