On some spectral properties of billiards and nuclei similarities and differences
Download
1 / 38

Lund 2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 276 Views
  • Uploaded on

On some spectral properties of billiards and nuclei – similarities and differences* Lund 2005 ● Generic and non-generic features of billiards and nuclei ● The Scissors Mode and regularity ● The Pygmy Dipole Resonance (PDR) and “mixed“ statistics

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Lund 2005' - omer


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
On some spectral properties of billiards and nuclei similarities and differences l.jpg
On some spectral properties of billiards and nuclei – similarities and differences*

Lund 2005

●Generic and non-generic features of billiards and nuclei

● The Scissors Mode and regularity

● The Pygmy Dipole Resonance (PDR) and “mixed“ statistics

●Resonance strengths in microwave billiards of mixed dynamics

●Isospin symmetry breaking in nuclei and its modelling

with coupled billiards

* Supported by the SFB 634 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

C. Dembowski, B. Dietz, J. Enders, T. Friedrich, H.-D. Gräf, A. Heine, M. Miski-Oglu, P. von Neumann-Cosel, V.Yu. Ponomarev, A. R., N. Ryezayeva, F. Schäfer, A. Shevchenko and J. Wambach (Darmstadt)

T. Guhr (Lund), H.L. Harney (Heidelberg)

SFB 634 – C4: Quantum Chaos


Slide2 l.jpg

Stadium billiard similarities and differences* n +232Th

Transmission spectrum of a 3D-stadium billiard

T = 4.2 K

Spectrum of neutron resonances in 232Th + n

●Great similarities between the two spectra: universal behaviour


Slide3 l.jpg

Properties of spectral fluctuations I similarities and differences*

P(s)

P(s)

s

s

Ensemble of 1726 highly excited

nuclear states of the same spin and parity:

`Nuclear Data Ensemble´

Ensemble of 18764 resonance

frequencies of a 3D-microwave resonator

●Highly excited nuclei (many-body quantum chaos) and chaotic microwave resonators

(one-body quantum chaos) exhibit a universal (generic) behaviour


Slide4 l.jpg

P(s) similarities and differences*

P(s)

s

s

Regular (integrable) elliptic billiard

Scissors Mode in deformed nuclei

∆3(L)

∆3(L)

L

L

Ensemble of 300

resonance frequencies

Ensemble of 152 1+ states

in 13 heavy deformed nuclei between 2.5 and 4 MeV

Properties of spectral fluctuations II

●The low-lying Scissors Mode and integrable microwave resonators

exhibit the same universal (non-generic) behaviour


Slide5 l.jpg

Properties of spectral fluctuations III similarities and differences*

p, n

n

P(s)

P(s)

s

s

Limaçon billiard of mixed dynamics

Pygmy Dipole Resonance in 138Ba, 140Ce, 144Sm and 208Pb

∆3(L)

∆3(L)

L

L

Ensemble of 800 reso-

nance frequencies

Ensemble of 154 1- states in three semimagic (N=82) nuclei and

one magic (Z=82, N=126) nucleus

between 5 and 8 MeV

● Short and long range level-level correlations lie between Poisson (integrable) and

GOE (chaotic) behaviour. Do we understand this coexistence ?


Slide6 l.jpg

Definition: `generic´ similarities and differences*

  • 2nd Concise Edition of Webster's New World

  • Dictionary of the American language (1975):

    • `referring to a whole kind, class, or group´

    • `something inclusive or general´

  • 2. Oriol Bohigas:

  • `opposite of specific´

    • `non-particular´

    • `common to all members of a large class´

    • more specific (Bohigas‘ conjecture):

    • `A classical chaotic system after being quantized results in

    • a quantum system which can be described by Random Matrix Theory.

    • All systems for which this is true are called generic, the behaviour

    • of the rest is called non-generic´.

  • 3. Thomas Seligman:

    • `structurally stable against small perturbations´


Slide7 l.jpg

Definition: `generic´ similarities and differences*

4. Hanns Ludwig Harney:

`there is a minimal number of symmetries in the system´

  • Example:

    • (i) An ensemble of levels with given isospin is generic.

  • (ii) An ensemble of levels without taking notice of

  • the isospin quantum number is non-generic.

  • (iii) An ensemble of levels with broken isospin is

  • non-generic too, and the deviation from the

  • generic behaviour yields the isospin breaking

  • matrix element (→ 26Al, 30P and its modelling

  • with coupled billiards).


Slide8 l.jpg

Generic and non-generic features of similarities and differences*

billiards and nuclei

Generic

Non-generic

● Certain POs (BBOs)

● Collective rotations

and vibrations, i.e.

`ordered motion´

● Level statistics

● Width distributions

  • The Scissors mode

    DALINAC 1984

  • The PDR mode

    S-DALINAC 2002


Slide9 l.jpg

The nuclear electric dipole response similarities and differences*

E (MeV)

p

n

GDR

15

PDR

(2+ x 3-)1-

3

B(E1)


Slide10 l.jpg

Electric dipole response of neutrons and protons similarities and differences*

in QPM calculations for 138Ba

neutrons

protons

r2ρ(r)

● Evidence for surface neutron density oscillations

● “Soft dipole mode“ at 7 MeV is dominantly isoscalar

● Influence on the spectral fluctuation properties ?


Slide11 l.jpg

Photon scattering off similarities and differences*138Ba

138Ba

Emax = 9.2 MeV

E1 excitations

A. Zilges et al., Phys. Lett. B 542, 43 (2002)

● Large number of resolved J = 1-states


Slide12 l.jpg

E1 strength distribution in N = 82 nuclei: similarities and differences*

experiment  QPM calculation (1p1h-2p2h)

● Experimental # of levels (~ 50 per nucleus) < # of levels in the QPM (~ 300 per nucleus)

● B(E1)exp< B(E1)QPM

● Missing levels and strengths


Slide13 l.jpg

Ensemble of E1 transitions: similarities and differences*138Ba, 140Ce, 142Nd, 144Sm

If the PDR is a truly collective mode one may see this in the spectral

properties: 184 levels of J = 1-

● Experiment and QPM show spectral properties in between GOE and

Poisson statistics.

● The strengths show Porter-Thomas (PT) statistics for the QPM, while

the experimental distribution deviates from PT.


Slide14 l.jpg

Possible interpretations of the observed similarities and differences*

fluctuation properties

● Coexistence of regular nuclear and chaotic nuclear motion: intermediate

or “mixed“ statistics.

● The missing levels destroy spectral correlations.

● Limited statistics (low number of levels) affect the

spectral fluctuation properties.


Slide15 l.jpg

Qualitative modelling of the missing level effect similarities and differences*

1200 levels

184 levels

184 levels

Obtain a subset of the states calculated within the QPM

by cutting away the weakest transitions below the experimental

detection limit of about 10-3 e2 fm2

● All three distributions show similar behaviour for experiment,

truncated QPM and full QPM.

● They are close to Poisson with some remnants of level repulsion

(limited to the lowered probability in the first bin).


Slide16 l.jpg

Transition strength distributions similarities and differences*

1200 levels

184 levels

184 levels

RMT predicts in case of GOE correlations that

the wave function components or, equivalently, their squares

follow a Gaussian or Porter-Thomas distribution, respectively.

● Strength distribution of the full QPM agrees with PT, while experiment

and truncated QPM deviate from PT statistics, but in a similar way.

● If the large fraction of missing levels (~30% in the QPM and ~90% in the experiment)

is taken into account the deviation from PT statistics can be explained qualitatively by

including into the PT distribution an appropriate threshold function for detection.


Slide17 l.jpg

QPM matrix elements and missing strength similarities and differences*

● Overall distribution of coupling

matrix elements (for 2p2h-2p2h

and 1p1h-2p2h interactions)

is not a Gaussian

● Few large matrix elements indicative of

collective configurations lie in the

tails of the distribution

● Many extremely small non-collective

matrix elements (almost pure 2p2h

phonon states which do not interact

with each other and which cannot be

excited easily electromagnetically)

● Nevertheless: we have been able

to understand certain statistical

features of the PDR

( J. Enders, Nucl. Phys. A741 (2004) 3)


Slide18 l.jpg

How can the problem of the missing strength similarities and differences*

be overcome?

● Remember: highly excited nuclei (many-body quantum chaos)

and chaotic microwave resonators (one-body chaos) exhibit

a universal (generic) behaviour

● For flat microwave resonators the scalar Helmholtz equation

is mathematically fully equivalent to the Schrödinger equation:

e.m. eigenfrequencies q.m. eigenvalues and

● Superconducting microwave resonators (Q  106) shaped as billiards

allow the determination of all eigenfrequencies and

resonance strengths


Slide19 l.jpg

Resonance strengths in microwave billiards of mixed dynamics similarities and differences*

● Direct measurement of the wavefunctions in terms of the intensity distributions of

the - field is presently only possible in normal conducting billiards

● However, information on wavefunction components can also be extracted from the

shape of the resonances in the measured spectra of superconducting billiards

● Resonance strengths are directly related to the squared wavefunction components at

the positions of the antennas for microwave in- and output


Slide20 l.jpg

Resonance parameters similarities and differences*

Very high signal to noise ratio

● Transmission measurements: relative power from antenna a  b


Slide21 l.jpg

Resonance parameters similarities and differences*

small for superconducting resonators

● Open scattering system: a  resonator  b

● Frequency of m‘th resonance: fm

● Partial widths: Gma, Gmb

●Total width:

(+ dissipative terms)

● Resonance strengths: Gma·Gmbdetermined from transmission measurements


Slide22 l.jpg

● Boundary of similarities and differences*Limaçon billiards given byamapping from zw

w = z + l z2

Billiards of mixed and chaotic dynamics

● l controls the degree of chaoticity


Slide23 l.jpg

Total widths and strengths of the Lima similarities and differences*çon billiard

● Secular variation of the Gm‘s and strengths due to rf losses in the cavity walls and

to the frequency dependence of the coupling of the antennas to the cavity

● Large fluctuations of widths and strengths

● Measurements for altogether6 antenna combinations  about 5000 strengths

were determined


Slide24 l.jpg

Resonance strengths distributions similarities and differences*

=log10(GmaGmb)

● GOE prediction corresponds to the distribution of the product of two PT distributed

random variables Gma and Gmb: modified Bessel function K0

● Strong deviations from GOEfor thebilliards with mixed dynamics demonstrated for

the first time

● Agreement with RMT prediction over more than 6 orders of magnitude for the fully

chaotic billiard ( in nuclei a comparison over only about 2 orders of magnitude is

possible)


Slide25 l.jpg

Modified strength distribution similarities and differences*

K0 - distribution

modified strength distribution

due to experimental detection

limit

l=0.3

● Very good agreement between the theoretical and the experimental strength distribution

● Strength distributions provide a statistical measure for the properties of the

eigenfunctions of chaotic systems

● RMT models must be developed to describe systems of mixed dynamics


Slide26 l.jpg

Strength distribution and symmetry breaking similarities and differences*

● Isospin symmetry breaking in nuclei

● RMT model for symmetry breaking

● Coupled microwave billiards as an analog system for symmetry breaking

● Experimental results

● Strength distribution for systems with a broken symmetry


Slide27 l.jpg

Isospin mixing in similarities and differences*26Al

3+; T=0

1+; T=0

2+; T=1

4+; T=0

2+; T=0

1+; T=0

3+; T=0

0+; T=1

5+; T=0

75 levels: T=0

32 levels: T=1

mixing: <Hc>

● Observed statistics between 1 GOE and 2 GOE

(Mitchell et al., 1988)

(Guhr and Weidenmüller, 1990)


Slide28 l.jpg

Transition probabilities in similarities and differences*26Al and 30P

PT distribution

PT distribution

● GOE prediction for the distribution of reduced transition probabilities

( partial widths) of systems without or with complete symmetry breaking

is a Porter-Thomas distribution

● For both nuclei deviations from GOE prediction  signature of isospin mixing

(Mitchell et al., 1988, Grossmann et al., 2000)

● Study of strength distributions of resonances in coupled microwave billiards


Slide29 l.jpg

RMT model for symmetry breaking similarities and differences*

● RMT model for Hamiltonian of a chaotic system with a broken symmetry

● l=a / D is the relevant parameter governing symmetry breaking;

D is the mean level spacing

  • ● a = 0 no symmetry breaking: 2 GOE‘s

  • ● 0 < a <1  partial symmetry breaking

  • ● a =1 complete symmetry breaking: 1 GOE


Slide30 l.jpg

Coupled billiards as a model for symmetry breaking similarities and differences*

  • ● Large number of resonances (N1500)

  • ● Variable coupling strength resp. degree of symmetry breaking


Slide31 l.jpg

Experimental set-up similarities and differences*

● Coupling was achieved by a niobium pin introduced through holes

into both resonators


Slide32 l.jpg

Changing the coupling strength similarities and differences*

uncoupled

weakly coupled

strongly coupled


Slide33 l.jpg

S similarities and differences*2-statistics for different coupling strengths

uncoupled

weakly coupled

strongly coupled


Slide34 l.jpg

Analysis of spectral properties similarities and differences*

● largest coupling achieved in experiment:

a

a

/

D

=

0

.

21

(in

Al:

/

D

=

0

.

26)

26

 Coulomb matrix element

● normalized spreading width:

  • every fourth state influenced

    by the coupling


Slide35 l.jpg

RMT model for the strength distributions similarities and differences*

K0-Distribution

l=0.3

l=0.13

=0.04

experimentalthreshold

● Position of central maximum depends on coupling strength, i.e. on the

symmetry breaking

● Resonances with small strengths cannot be detected

 experimental threshold of detection


Slide36 l.jpg

l similarities and differences*=0.04

l=0.09

l=0.14

l=0.21

Experimental strength distribution for different couplings

● Examples for one antenna combination show very good agreement with RMT fits


Slide37 l.jpg

Comparison of results for coupling parameters similarities and differences*

Antenna combination

● Symmetry breaking parameters extracted from spectral statistics (circles) agree with

those from strength distribution (crosses)


Slide38 l.jpg

Summary on symmetry breaking effects similarities and differences*

● Generic properties of the eigenfunctions of a chaotic billiard can be studied

experimentally using the strength distributions for a microwave billiard.

● Changing the coupling strength influences the level and strength distributions of

the coupled stadiums.

● Various spectral measures can be used to extract the coupling strength and give

consistent results.

● Maximum normalized spreading width, i.ethe deviation from generic behaviour,

observed G / D = 0.20 - 0.25 corresponds to the nuclear case of 26Al.

● Precise and significant tests of present RMT models for symmetry breaking are

possible.

● Symmetry breaking in nuclei ( J.F. Shriner et al.,Phys. Rev. C71 (2005) 024313)

can be very effectively modelled through billiards.


ad