1 / 37

Nuclear fission within the mean-field approach (PRC 77, 064610 (2008)):

Nuclear fission within the mean-field approach (PRC 77, 064610 (2008)): Instanton method as the Gamow approach to quantum tunneling in TDHF. 2) Various forms of action & equations 3) Variational principle 4) Adiabatic limit = ATDHF

noe
Download Presentation

Nuclear fission within the mean-field approach (PRC 77, 064610 (2008)):

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. Nuclear fission within the mean-field approach (PRC 77, 064610 (2008)): • Instanton method as the Gamow approach to quantum tunneling in TDHF. • 2) Various forms of action & equations • 3) Variational principle • 4) Adiabatic limit = ATDHF • 5) GCM mass does not respect instanton constraints • 6) Inclusion of pairing leads to imaginary time TDHFB. • Conclusions

  2. Gamow method: motion with imaginary momentum. Formally: In general: the stationary phase approximation to the path-integral expression for the propagator TD variational principle Decay rate proportional to: with S action for the periodic instanton called bounce.

  3. In field theory: S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2929 In nuclear mean-field theory: S. Levit, J.W. Negele and Z. Paltiel, Phys. Rev. C22 (1980) 1979 Some simple problems solved: G. Puddu and J.W. Negele, Phys. Rev. C 35 (1987) 1007 J.W. Negele, Nucl. Phys. A 502 (1989) 371c J.A. Freire, D.P. Arrovas and H. Levine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 5054 J.A. Freire and D.P. Arrovas, Phys. Rev. A 59 (1999) 1461 J. Skalski, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 033626 No connection to other approaches to the Large Amplitude Collective Motion.

  4. :

  5. (1)

  6. The Eq. (1) without the r.h.s. conserves E and The full Eq. (1) preserves diagonal overlaps, the off-diagonal are equal to zero if they were zero initially. The boundary conditions: This + periodicity: Decay exponent:

  7. To make Eq. (1) local in time one might think of solving it together with: However, this is the equation of inverse diffusion – highly unstable.

  8. There are two sets of Slater determinants: GCM energy kernel on [0,T/2]

  9. (A) (B)

  10. It follows from (A) that The drag is necessary and the result of the dragging is fixed. The measure provided by S is the scalar product of the dragging field with the change induced in the dragged one. Thus, one may expect a minimum principle for S that selects the bounce. What is left is to fix the constraints.

  11. Antihermitean part of h = Thouless-Valatin term. Within the density functional method the generic contribution to the antihermitean part of h comes from the current j: (note that: and this differs by a factor (-i) with respect to the real-time TDHF). As a result, the related time-odd contribution to the mean field becomes: and appears as soon as the real parts of start to differ.

  12. Definition of a coordinate along the barrier, say Q: in general. Neither Q nor q are sufficient to label instanton: it depends also on velocity; even for the same q (or Q)

  13. atoms Collapse of the attractive BEC of

  14. leave S invariant; The equation changes:

  15. N invertible,

  16. There are various representations of bounce with different overlaps

  17. If fulfil equations (A) with If energy is kept constant

  18. Since Constraints: Boundary conditions E=const. Fixed overlaps Set (A) of equations. Then S minimal for bounce As the Jacobi principle in classical mechanics.

  19. Time-even coordinates and time-odd momenta:

  20. Similarity to cranking, but the self-consistency changes a lot.

  21. Another representation & adiabatic limit: The analogue of density matrix: but there is no density operator for instanton.

  22. connection with ATDHF

  23. GCM results from energy condition and lack of any dependence on velocity Integrand:

  24. Including pairing:

  25. ,

  26. = S =

  27. Adiabatic limit:

  28. Conclusions: as in the first viewgraph One could also consider decay of excited states • Problems: • Finding solution: possible in very simple models; maybe one could solve within artificially constrained subspace, then removing constraints gradually. • Odd particle number systems • - Phases (?)

More Related