Multifragmentation and the phase transition: A systematic study of the multifragmentation of 1A GeV Au, La and Kr
Abstract
A systematic analysis of the multifragmentation (MF) in fully reconstructed events from 1A GeV Au, La and Kr collisions with C has been performed. Detailed comparisons of the various fragment properties are presented as a function of excitation energy, E*th. The charged particle multiplicity from MF stage shows a saturation beyond E*th ∼ 8 MeV/nucleon for Kr. The universal behavior of intermediate mass fragment yields and of the size of the largest fragment is observed only for Au and La when scaled with size of the system. The Kr data are found to lack this property. Moments of the fragment size distribution show that the Kr MF is different than the MF of Au and La. A power law behavior is observed for Au and La with exponent τ>2, while for Kr τ<2. The results are compared with the statistical multifragmentation model (SMM). A single value of all the parameters of the model fits the data for all the three systems. The breakup of Au and La is consistent with a continuous phase transition. The data indicate that both E*th and the isotope ratio temperature T Hc-DT decrease with increase in system size at the critical point. The breakup temperature obtained from SMM also shows the same trend as seen in data. This trend is attributed primarily to the increasing Coulomb energy with finite size effects playing a smaller role. The percolation and Ising model studies for finite size neutral matter show behavior which is opposite to the one seen in the present work.
Keywords
Multifragmentation phase transitionPACS Nos
25.70.-z 24.10.PaPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [1]J E Finn et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1321 (1982)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- [2]R W Minich et al, Phys. Lett. B118, 458 (1982)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [3]M E Fisher, Physica 3, 255 (1967)Google Scholar
- [4]N T Porile et al, Phys. Rev. C39, 1914 (1989)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [5]M L Gilkes et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1590 (1994)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- [6]J A Hauger et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 235 (1996)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- [7]J B Elliott et al, Phys. Lett. B381, 35 (1996)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [8]J A Hauger et al, Phys. Rev. C57, 764 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [9]J B Elliott et al, Phys. Lett. B418, 34 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [10]B K Srivastava et al, Phy. Rev. C60, 064606 (1999)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [11]J A Hauger et al, Phys. Rev. C62, 024616 (2000)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [12]R P Scharenberg et al, submitted to Phys. Rev. C Google Scholar
- [13]J Bondorf et al, Phys. Rep. 257, 133 (1995)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- [14]D H E Gross, Phys. Rep. 279, 119 (1997)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- [15]S Das Gupta and A Z Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C57, 1361 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [16]S Das Gupta et al, Nucl. Phys. A621, 897 (1997)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [17]J M Carmona et al, Nucl. Phys. A643, 115 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [18]F Gulminelli and Ph Chomaz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1402 (1999)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- [19]R P Scharenberg, Proceedings of the International Workshop XXVII on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations (Hirschegg, Austria, GSI 1999) p. 237Google Scholar
- [20]B K Srivastava, Proceedings of the International Workshop XXVII on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations (Hirschegg, Austria, GSI 1999) p. 247Google Scholar
- [21]Y Yariv and Z Frankel, Phys. Rev. C24, 488 (1981)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [22]X Campi, Phys. Lett. B208, 351 (1988)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [23]W Bauer et al, Nucl. Phys. A452, 699 (1986)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [24]D Stauffer and A Aharony, Introduction to percolation theory (Taylor and Francis, London, 1992)Google Scholar
- [25]S Albergo et al, Nuovo Cimento A89, 1 (1985)Google Scholar
- [26]H R Jaqaman et al, Phys. Rev. C29, 2067 (1984)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [27]S Levit and P Bonche, Nucl. Phys. A437, 426 (1985)ADSGoogle Scholar
- [28]D W Heerman and D Stauffer, Z. Phys. B44, 339 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [29]J M Lattimer et al, Nucl. Phys. A432, 646 (1985)ADSGoogle Scholar