Effect of $N/Z$ equilibration on multinucleon-transfer yields in $^{48}$Ca+$^{197}$Au

A. Yeginbay; K. Mendibayev; T. M. Shneidman; A. Rahmatinejad

doi:10.63907/ansa.v2i3.97

Authors

A. Yeginbay Al Farabi Kazakh National University; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9700-2211
K. Mendibayev Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia; Institute of Nuclear Physics, Almaty, Kazakhstan
T. M. Shneidman Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
A. Rahmatinejad Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63907/ansa.v2i3.97

Keywords:

multinucleon transfer, dinuclear system model, master equation, nucleon exchange

Abstract

We study multinucleon transfer in the $^{48}\mathrm{Ca}+{}^{197}\mathrm{Au}$ reaction at a beam energy of 400 MeV within the dinuclear system model. Nucleon exchange and competing DNS separation are described by a master equation with transition rates determined by the level densities of the dinuclear configurations. Calculations with and without imposed $N/Z$ equilibrium give similar overall charge distributions, although differences remain in individual channels. When compared with the experimentally extracted DIC-like charge component, both treatments overpopulate the region near $Z=20$ and underpopulate more distant transfer channels. The calculated primary-fragment yields are concentrated near the entrance-channel partitions, with a pronounced maximum at $Z=20$ in the $N=28$ isotonic distribution. For the system and parameters considered, the overall charge distribution is only weakly sensitive to the $N/Z$ equilibrium assumption. Isotope-resolved comparisons and a treatment of secondary decay are needed to assess the accuracy of the predicted final-fragment yields.

References

V. I. Zagrebaev, B. Fornal, S. Leoni, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054608 (2014).

V. V. Volkov, Yadernye reaktsii glubokoneuprugikh peredach [Deep-Inelastic Transfer Reactions] (Energoizdat, Moscow, 1982) [in Russian].

V. V. Volkov, Phys. Rep. 44, 93 (1978).

N. V. Antonenko, A. K. Nasirov, T. M. Shneidman, and V. D. Toneev, Phys. Rev. C 57, 1832 (1998).

S. M. Lukyanov et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 62, 158 (2026).

A. Rahmatinejad, A. V. Andreev, A. N. Bezbakh, A. V. Isaev, R. S. Mukhin, and T. M. Shneidman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2441018 (2024).

A. V. Andreev, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, S. P. Ivanova, and W. Scheid, Rom. Rep. Phys. 59, 217 (2007).

G. G. Adamian et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 5, 191 (1996).

G. G. Adamian, A. K. Nasirov, N. V. Antonenko, and R. V. Jolos, Phys. Part. Nucl. 25, 583 (1994) [original Russian: Fiz. Elem. Chastits At. Yadra 25, 1379 (1994)].

P. Möller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109–110, 1 (2016).

A. B. Migdal, Teoriya konechnykh fermi-sistem i svoistva atomnykh yader [Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Properties of Atomic Nuclei], 2nd ed. (Nauka, Moscow, 1983) [in Russian].

L. G. Moretto and J. S. Sventek, Phys. Lett. B 58, 26 (1975).

A. N. Bezbakh, T. M. Shneidman, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and S.-G. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 353 (2016).

A. S. Zubov, G. G. Adamian, and N. V. Antonenko, Phys. Part. Nucl. 40, 847 (2009).