Caloric curve for mononuclear configurations

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 13, 2004, Pages

  Sobotka, L G ^a   Charity, R J ^a   Toke J ^b   Schroder W U ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; CHEMICAL REACTIONS; DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); ELECTRIC EXCITATION; ENTROPY; FERMI LIQUIDS; FISSION REACTIONS; FREE ENERGY; POTENTIAL ENERGY; QUANTUM THEORY; SUPERCONDUCTING TRANSITION TEMPERATURE; THERMOANALYSIS;

CALORIC CURVE; EXCITATION ENERGY; FESHBACK RESONANCE; MONONUCLEAR CONFIGURATIONS; TRANSITION STATE;

CALORIFIC VALUE;

EID: 19644362667     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.132702     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. V. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. 52, 295 (1937).
2. W. Hauser and H. Feshbach, Phys. Rev. 87, 366 (1952).
3. H. Erying, J. Chem. Phys. 3, 107 (1935).
4. L. G. Moretto, Nucl. Phys. A247, 211 (1975).
5. R. J. Charity, computer code GEMINI, http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~rc (unpublished).
6. D. Hilscher and H. Rossner, Ana Phys. (Paris) 17, 471 (1992).
7. J.W. Clark and T.P. Wang, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 40, 127 (1966).
8. B. Friedman and V. R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A361, 502 (1981).
9. Ph. Chomaz, M. Colonna, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rep. 389, 263 (2004).
10. R. Wada et al., Phys. Rev. C 39, 497 (1989).
11. J. Pochodzalla et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1040 (1995).
12. J. Natowitz et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 034618 (2002).
13. C. Mahaux et al., Phys. Rep. 120, 1 (1985).
14. C. Mahaux and R. Sartor, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 20, 1 (1991).
15. J. Tõke, J. Lu, and W.U. Schröder, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034609 (2003); 67, 044307 (2003).
16. J. Tõke, J. Lu, and W.U. Schröder, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034609 (2003); 67, 044307 (2003).
17. J. Natowitz et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, 031601(R) (2002).
18. H.A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 50, 332 (1936).
19. The major problem with the LDA is its sensitivity to the tails of the density profile. The profile chosen should be less sensitive than the standard Woods-Saxon. Our choice of a heavy nucleus also reduces this problem. See S. Shlomo, Nucl. Phys. A539, 17 (1992).
20. M. Barranco and J. Treiner, Nucl. Phys. A351, 269 (1981).
21. M. Prakash, J. Wambach, and Z. Y. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 128, 141 (1983).
22. W. A. Friedman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2125 (1988).
23. W.D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. A587, 92 (1995); Phys. Rev. C 57, 3020 (1998).
24. W.D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. A587, 92 (1995); Phys. Rev. C 57, 3020 (1998).
25. J. N. De, S. Shlomo, and S. Samaddar, Phys. Rev. C 57, 1398 (1998).
26. R.W. Hasse and P. Schuck, Phys. Lett. B 179, 313 (1986).
27. D.S. Bracken et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034612 (2004); Viola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 132701, (2004).
28. D.S. Bracken et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034612 (2004); Viola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 132701, (2004).
29. J. B. Natowitz et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, 031601 (2003).
30. J.P. Bondorf et al., Phys. Rep. 257, 133 (1995).
31. MF, the thermodynamics problem is not well posed.
32. C. B. Das, S. Das Gupta, and A. Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C 67, 064607 (2003).
33. M. D'Agostino et al., Nucl. Phys. A699, 795 (2002).
34. W. Thirring, H. Narnhofer, and H. A. Posch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130601 (2003).