Role of fluctuations on the pairing properties of nuclei in the random spacing model
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 1812.09988
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% author.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
% sample root file for your "contribution" to a proceedings volume
%
% Use this file as a template for your own input.
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\documentclass{svproc}
%
% RECOMMENDED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
% to typeset URLs, URIs, and DOIs
\usepackage{url}
\def\UrlFont{\rmfamily}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{footmisc}
\begin{document}
\mainmatter % start of a contribution
%
\title{Role of fluctuations on the pairing properties of nuclei in the
random spacing model}
%
\titlerunning{Random Spacing Model} % abbreviated title (for running head)
% also used for the TOC unless
% \toctitle is used
%
\author{M. A. A. Mamun\inst{1}, C. Constantinou\inst{2} \and M. Prakash\inst{3}}
%
\authorrunning{M. A. A. Mamun et al.} % abbreviated author list (for running head)
%
%%%% list of authors for the TOC (use if author list has to be modified)
\tocauthor{C. Constantinou, M. Prakash}
%
\institute{
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA\\
\email{ma676013@ohio.edu}
%,\\ WWW home page
%\texttt{http://www.phy.ohio.edu/\~{}al-mamun/}
\and
Department of Physics, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA\\
\email{cconsta5@kent.edu},
\and
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA\\
\email{prakash@ohio.edu}
%,\\ WWW home page
%\texttt{http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/\~{}prakash/}
}
\maketitle % typeset the title of the contribution
\begin{abstract}
The influence of thermal fluctuations on fermion pairing
is investigated using a
semiclassical treatment of fluctuations. When the average pairing gaps
along with those differing by one standard deviation are used, the
characteristic discontinuity of the specific heat at the critical temperature $T_c$ in the BCS
formalism with its most probable gap becomes smooth. This indicates the
suppression of a second order phase transition as experimentally
observed in nano-particles and several nuclei. Illustrative calculations using
the constant spacing model and the recently introduced random spacing model are presented.
\keywords{Pairing Fluctuations, Superfluidity and Superconductivity, Random Spacing Model}
\end{abstract}
%
\section{Pairing in Systems of Large and Small Numbers of Particles}
%
The Bardeen-Cooper-Schriffer (BCS) theory of superconductivity [1,2] predicts a sharp
discontinuity in the constant-volume specific heat $C_V$ at a certain critical temperature
$T_c$ for which the pairing gap $\Delta$ of fermions determined from the
gap and number equations [3,4]
%
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gapeq}
{\cal G} &\equiv& \sum_k \frac {1}{E_k} \tanh \left(\frac{E_k}{2T} \right) - \frac 2G \\
N &=&
\sum_k \left[ 1 - \frac{\epsilon_{k} - \lambda}{E_{k}} \tanh \left(\frac{E_{k}}{2T}\right) \right] + \frac {\Delta} {T} \frac {\partial \Delta}{\partial \alpha}~{\cal G}
\label{neq}
\end{eqnarray}
%
vanishes.
Above, $G$ is the strength of the pairing interaction, $T$ is the temperature, $\lambda$ is the chemical potential,
$\alpha=\lambda/T$, $E_k={\sqrt{(\epsilon_k-\lambda)^2 + \Delta^2}}$ is the quasiparticle energy, and
$\epsilon_k$ are the single particle (sp) energies. The corresponding energy $E$ and entropy $S$
are obtained from
%
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Efluc}
E &=&
\sum_k \epsilon_{k} \left[ 1 - \frac{\epsilon_{k} - \lambda}{E_{k}} \tanh \left(\frac{E_{k}}{2T}\right) \right]
- \frac{\Delta^{2}}{G}
- \left(\Delta^2 - \Delta T \frac {\partial \Delta}{\partial T} \right) {\cal G} \\
%S &=& (E-\lambda N - \Omega)/T \nonumber \\
S &=&2 \sum_k \left\{\ln \left[1 + \exp \left(-\frac {E_k}{T}\right)\right] + 2~ \frac{E_k/T}{1 + \exp(E_k/T)} \right\} \nonumber \\
&-& \frac {\Delta}{T} \left( \frac {\lambda}{T} \frac {\partial \Delta}{\partial \alpha} - T \frac {\partial \Delta}{\partial T} \right) {\cal G} \,.
% \left[ \sum_k \frac {1}{E_k} \tanh \left(\frac{E_k}{2T} \right) - \frac 2G \right] \,. \nonumber \\
\label{Sfluc}
\end{eqnarray}
%
These relations enable the evaluation of $C_V = dE/dT|_{V,N} = T(\partial S/\partial T)|_{V,N}$.
In a mean field description of the BCS theory, $(\partial \Omega/\partial \Delta)|_T = 0={\cal G}$ which leads to the most probable gap $\Delta_{\rm mp}$.
%in which fluctuations in $\Delta$ at each $T$ are small.
For systems with large numbers of particles, fluctuations in the order parameter $\Delta$ are very small as the probability distribution %
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{PDelta}
P(\Delta) &\propto& \exp[ -\Omega(T,\Delta) / T ] \,, \\
\Omega(T,\Delta) &=& \sum_k (\epsilon_k - \lambda - E_k) - 2T \sum_k \ln \left[ 1 + \exp \left(-\frac {E_k}{T} \right) \right]
+ \frac {\Delta^2}{G} \,,
\label{Omega}
\end{eqnarray}
%
where $\Omega$ is the grand potential, is very sharply peaked at $\Delta_{\rm mp}$. In this case, Eqs. (\ref{neq})-(\ref{Sfluc}) revert back to the standard mean field BCS equations.
For $\Delta \neq \Delta_{\rm mp}$, ${\cal G}\neq 0$, and Eqs. (\ref{neq})-(\ref{Sfluc}) and hence $C_V$ receive additional contributions.
In systems with small numbers of particles, fluctuations in $\Delta$ are not small.
As first noted by Anderson in his paper ``Theory of Dirty Superconductors'' [5], the pairing phenomenon is suppressed due to large fluctuations in $\Delta$ which in turn leads to a ``shoulder-like'' or ``S-shaped'' smooth curve for $C_V$ vs $T$. That a similar suppression would occur in nuclei also was first noted by Moretto in Ref. [3].
Experimental verifications of the absence of a sharp second order phase transition due to pairing in nanoparticles and nuclei
are shown in Fig. \ref{Cvrnp197}, which also contains results of Auxiliary Field Monte Carlo (AFMC) calculations for $C_V$ vs $T$ including fluctuations by Alhassid et al [6].
%
\begin{figure}
%\vskip - 1.0 cm
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{alhassid.png}
\caption{Specific heat in gold nano particles (left) and iron isotopes (right) demonstrating the
disappearance of a second order phase transition present in the mean field BCS formalism. Figure adapted from Alhassid [6]. }
\label{Cvrnp197}
\end{figure}
%
%
\section{Fluctuations in the Order Parameter $\Delta$}
%
Fluctuations can arise from many sources. When $T$ is too low or $\Delta$ varies too rapidly with time, a thermodynamic treatment becomes inadequate and a fully quantum approach that accounts for correlations beyond mean field theory, pairing vibrations and suppression of pairing due to rotational motion, etc., becomes necessary [7-17]. A semiclassical treatment of thermal fluctuations based on Eq. (\ref{PDelta}) and ${\cal G}\neq 0$ in Eqs. (\ref{gapeq})-(\ref{Sfluc})
is afforded when $\Delta$ is strongly coupled to all other intrinsic degrees of freedom, that is
when $\Delta >> \delta$, where $\delta=1/g$ is the mean level spacing of the sp energy levels near the Fermi sea [3,7].
For infinite systems
(e.g., bulk nuclear matter) $P(\Delta)$ approaches
a delta function, $\delta << \Delta$, whence fluctuations are negligible and mean field BCS with ${\cal G}= 0$ is a
reasonable description. In contrast, for small systems such as nanoparticles or light-to-medium heavy nuclei,
$\delta \sim \Delta$ or $\delta \geq \Delta$ particularly at $T\neq 0$, fluctuations in $\Delta$ are large and suppress superconductivity and superfluidity. In this case, the mean field BCS approach is no longer applicable as it neglects
the influence of fluctuations.
Figure \ref{probdist} illustrates the role of fluctuations in the constant spacing (CS) model with
$g=5~{\rm MeV}^{-1}$ for doubly degenerate sp energy levels for $N=144$ and $\Delta(0)=1$ MeV at $T=0$.
For this choice, $G=0.0581$ MeV, $\hbar\omega \simeq 41 N^{-1/3} = 7.78$ MeV, with levels uniformly distributed between $\pm 2\hbar\omega$ around $\lambda_{\rm mp}(0) = -1.3471$ MeV at $T=0$. The probability $P(\Delta)$ is normalized such that
$P(\Delta_{\rm mp})=1$ for all $T$. For all curves shown, $\lambda(T)$ vs $T$ is calculated for each $\Delta\neq\Delta_{\rm mp}$ using Eq. (\ref{neq}) thus ensuring number conservation.
The results in this figure are similar to those of Ref. [3] where $g=7~{\rm MeV}^{-1}$ was used.
%
\begin{figure}
%\vspace{2.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{CS_pdelta.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{CS_Gap.png}
\caption{Probability distribution of the pairing gap (left) and the gap as a function of
temperature (right) in the constant spacing (CS) model. Figure adapted from [18]. }
\label{probdist}
\end{figure}
%
The salient features in the left panel of Fig. \ref{probdist} are (i) for $T\simeq 0$, $P(\Delta)$ is symmetrical around $\Delta_{{\rm mp}}$, (ii) with increasing $T$, $P(\Delta)$ becomes increasingly asymmetrical, and (iii) for $T\geq T_c\simeq 0.57$ MeV, $P(\Delta)$ is peaked at $\Delta=0$. For all $T \neq 0$, the term involving the nonzero ${\cal G}$ in Eq. (\ref{neq}) gives significant contributions. As
$P(\Delta)$ is very broad for $T\rightarrow T_c$ and beyond, use of average thermodynamic quantities
$<\tilde O> = {\sum \tilde O P(\Delta)}/{\sum P(\Delta)}$ is more appropriate than those
with $\Delta_{\rm mp}$. The right panel of Fig. \ref{probdist} provides contrasts between $\Delta_{\rm mp}$ and $\Delta_{\rm av}$ as well as for gaps differing by $\pm 1\sigma$ from $\Delta_{\rm av}$. The latter gaps are nonzero for $T>T_c$, unlike $\Delta_{\rm mp}$, indicating that pairing correlations persist beyond $T_c$.
The excitation energies $E_x = E(T) - E(0)$ and $C_V$ with the gaps shown in Fig. \ref{probdist} are shown in Fig. \ref{CSExCv}.
As noted in Refs. [3], and confirmed here, the second order phase transition present for
$\Delta_{\rm mp}$ is considerably altered by fluctuations. Notably, the $C_V$ vs $T$ curve is devoid of a discontinuity at $T_c$ with smoothly varying gaps.
%
\begin{figure}
%\vspace{2.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{CS_ExEnergy5.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{CS_Cv.png}
\caption{Excitation energies (left) and specific heats at constant volume (right) with the gaps shown in Fig. \ref{probdist}. Figure adapted from [18]. }
\label{CSExCv}
\end{figure}
%
\section{The Random Spacing Model}
Recently, the random spacing (RS) model in which the sp energy levels are randomly distributed around the Fermi energy to mimic those of nuclei obtained via the use of different energy density functionals (EDF's) was introduced [18].
In a set consisting of a very large number of randomly generated sp levels for a given nucleus, some are likely to represent the true situation especially considering the variation that exists when different EDF's and pairing schemes are used.
Figure \ref{RS} presents an illustration of the similarity between the sp energy levels of nuclei from Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations using a Skyrme EDF (SkO$^\prime$) [19-21] and those of the RS model.
One advantage of this model is that using easily generated sp levels, statistically based bounds can be placed on the pairing properties of each nucleus.
%
\begin{figure}
%\vspace{2.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{EnergyLevels.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{random.pdf}
\caption{(Left) Single particle energy levels of nuclei from HFB calculations using a Skyrme EDF (SkO$^\prime$) [19-21].
(Right) Results of HFB calculations for $N=76$ and three realizations from the RS model. Dotted lines represent the Fermi surface. Figure adapted from [18]. }
\label{RS}
\end{figure}
%
Including fluctuations using $\Delta_{\rm av}$ as outlined in Sec. 2, the specific heat $C_V$ as a function of temperature is shown
in Fig. \ref{cvrs} using a large number of the RS model sp energy levels.
The levels were randomly distributed within a window of $2\hbar \omega$ around the Fermi level
for $N=144$. Each level was endowed with the degeneracy $d=2j+1$ characteristic of shell model sp energy levels
with angular momentum $j$. Increasing the number of random realizations in the ensemble
makes the band denser, but the borders remain more or less the same. This feature indicates that
results obtained using realistic EDF's would lie within the band shown. This feature is particularly useful for performing sensitivity tests in astrophysical settings that harbor exotic nuclei. Note also the absence of a second order phase transition as evidenced by the shoulder-like or S-shaped structure of $C_V$ around $T_c$ of the mean field BCS model.
\begin{figure}
%\vspace{2.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Cv_rand.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Rs_cv.png}
\caption{Specific heat obtained using the RS model with the inclusion of fluctuations
(left). Two independent realizations of the RS model with use of the
most probable and average gaps including 1-$\sigma$ deviations (right). Figure adapted from [18]. }
\label{cvrs}
\end{figure}
Results of $C_V$ using $\Delta_{\rm mp}$, $\Delta_{\rm av}$ and $\Delta_{\rm av} \pm \sigma$ for two realizations
among hundreds of individual random realizations of sp energy levels are shown in the right panel of Fig. \ref{cvrs}.
Although the overall features in this figure are similar to those of the CS Model, quantitative differences exist
owing to the different bunching and degeneracy of the individual sp energy levels of the RS model.
\section{Outlook}
Calculations of level densities and the spin distributions of nuclei including fluctuations in the RS model are in progress and will be reported elsewhere.
A semiclassical treatment of fluctuations is strictly valid only when the mean sp level spacing around the Fermi surface is smaller or nearly equal to the zero temperature pairing gap and a fully quantum treatment of fluctuations becomes necessary otherwise to overcome the limitations of the mean field BCS formalism [7-17]. Contrasting the semiclassical and quantum treatments of fluctuations in the canonical and grand canonical approaches [11,17] as well as
investigations of fluctuations in highly neutron-rich isotopes with more advanced techniques
in the context of the RS model are other investigations under study.
\section{Acknowledgements}
Beneficial communications with P.-G. Reinhardt, Steve Grimes, Alexander Voinov and Tom Massey are gratefully acknowledged. This work was performed with research support from the U.S. DOE grant No. DE-FG02-93ER-40756.
% ---- Bibliography ----
%
\begin{thebibliography}{6}
%
\bibitem{BCS1}
J.~{Bardeen}, L.~N. {Cooper}, and J.~R. {Schrieffer},
\newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf 106}, 162 (1957).
\bibitem{BCS2}
J.~{Bardeen}, L.~N. {Cooper}, and J.~R. {Schrieffer},
\newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf 108}, 1175 (1957).
\bibitem{Morettoplb}
L.~G. Moretto,
\newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf 40}, 1 (1972).
\bibitem{Morettonucl}
L.~G. Moretto,
\newblock Nuclear Physics A {\bf 185}, 145 (1972).
\bibitem{Anderson59}
P.~W. Anderson,
\newblock J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 411}, 26 (1959).
\bibitem{Al13}
Y.~Alhassid,
\newblock Thermal signatures of pairing correlations in nuclei and metal
nanoparticles,
\newblock in {\em 50 years of Nuclear BCS: Pairing in Finite Systems}, edited
by R.~A. Broglia and V.~Zelevinsky, p. 608, Singapore, 2013, World
Scientific.
\bibitem{LLI}
L.~D. Landau and E.~M. Lifshitz,
\newblock {\em Statistical Physics Part 1} (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980).
\bibitem{Falci00}
G.~Falci, R.~Fazio, F.~W.~J. Hekking, and A.~Mastellone,
\newblock Journal of Low Temperature Physics. {\bf 118}, 355 (2000).
\bibitem{Shimizu00}
Y.~R. Shimizu, P.~Donati, and R.~A. Broglia,
\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 2260 (2000).
\bibitem{quenching}
A.~Schiller {\em et~al.},
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 021306 (2001).
\bibitem{Alhassid05}
Y.~Alhassid, G.~F. Bertsch, L.~Fang, and S.~Liu,
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 72}, 064326 (2005).
\bibitem{Kaneko07}
K.~Kaneko and A.~Schiller,
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 76}, 064306 (2007).
\bibitem{sn116}
U.~Agvaanluvsan {\em et~al.},
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 79}, 014320 (2009).
\bibitem{toft}
H.~K. Toft {\em et~al.},
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 81}, 064311 (2010).
\bibitem{pygmy}
H.~K. Toft {\em et~al.},
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 83}, 044320 (2011).
\bibitem{Kargar13}
Z.~Kargar and V.~Dehghani,
\newblock J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {\bf 40}, 045108 (2013).
\bibitem{Alhassid16}
Y.~Alhassid, G.~F. Bertsch, C.~N. Gilbreth, and H.~Nakada,
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 93}, 044320 (2016).
\bibitem{Mamun18}
M.~A.~A. Mamun, C.~Constantinou and M.~Prakash,
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 97}, 064324 (2018).
\bibitem{Reinhardpaper}
J.~Friedrich and P.-G. Reinhard,
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 33}, 335 (1986).
\bibitem{Reinhardbook}
K.~Langanke, J.~A. Maruhn, and S.~E. Koonin, editors,
\newblock {\em Computational Nuclear Physics I} (Springer-Verlag, London, UK,
1991),
\newblock Chap. 2.
\bibitem{reinhardShape}
P.-G. Reinhard {\em et~al.},
\newblock Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60}, 014316 (1999).
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
%Exploiting the similarity between the bunched single-particle energy levels
%of nuclei and of random distributions around the Fermi surface, pairing
%properties of the latter are calculated to establish statistically-based
%bounds on the basic characteristics of the pairing phenomenon. When the
%most probable values for the pairing gaps germane to the BCS formalism
%are used to calculate thermodynamic quantities, we find that
%while the ratio of the critical temperature $T_c$ to the zero-temperature
%pairing gap is close to its BCS Fermi gas value, the ratio of the
%superfluid to the normal phase specific heats at $T_c$ differs
%significantly from its Fermi gas counterpart. The largest deviations
%occur when a few levels lie closely on either side of the Fermi energy
%but other levels are far away from it.
%Contrasting semiclassical and quantum treatments of fluctuations for the random
%spacing model is currently underway.
% We would like to encourage you to list your keywords within
% the abstract section using the \keywords{...} command.
There has been a long standing discrepancy in the application of BCS theory
at the mean field level for finite nuclei that the BCS gap
(order parameter) disappears at a certain critical temperature
signifying a second order phase transition. The corresponding observable
could be a sharp discontinuity in the response functions (e.g. specific
heat) which has never been observed experimentally.
\begin{eqnarray}
%\label{gapeq}
%{\cal G} &=& \sum_k \frac {1}{E_k} \tanh \left(\frac{E_k}{2T} \right) - \frac 2G \\
\label{neq}
N &=&
%\frac {\partial \Omega}{\partial \alpha} =
\sum_k \left[ 1 - \frac{\epsilon_{k} - \lambda}{E_{k}} \tanh \left(\frac{E_{k}}{2T}\right) \right] + \frac {\Delta} {T} \frac {\partial \Delta}{\partial \alpha}~{\cal G} \\
% \left[\sum_k \frac {1}{E_k} \tanh \left(\frac{E_k}{2T} \right) - \frac 2G \right] \\
%\frac 2G &=& \sum_k \frac {1}{E_k} \tanh \left(\frac{E_k}{2T} \right)
E &=&
%T^2 \frac {\partial \ln {\cal Z}}{\partial T} =
\sum_k \epsilon_{k} \left[ 1 - \frac{\epsilon_{k} - \lambda}{E_{k}} \tanh \left(\frac{E_{k}}{2T}\right) \right]
- \frac{\Delta^{2}}{G}
- \left(\Delta^2 - \Delta T \frac {\partial \Delta}{\partial T} \right) {\cal G}
%\left[ \sum_k \frac {1}{E_k} \tanh \left(\frac{E_k}{2T} \right) - \frac 2G \right]
\label{Efluc}
\end{eqnarray}
To quantify the current
understanding let's denote the mean level spacing of the single particle
energy levels as $\delta$ and pairing gap as $\Delta$. For infinite systems
(e.g., bulk nuclear matter) at zero temperature when
$\delta << \Delta$, the fluctuation is negligible and mean field BCS is a
reasonable description. On the contrary, for finite temperatures or small
system size with few particles $\delta \sim \Delta$ or even
$\delta \geq \Delta$, the quantum fluctuations suppress
superconductivity and MBCS is no longer able to describe the actual
physical scenario. For applications in nuclear physics often time
$\delta \geq \Delta$ is the case and hence the second order phase
transition predicted by MBCS gets suppressed by the large fluctuations in
the gap parameter.
What is the meaning of having large fluctuations in the order parameter?
It means that for a given system with small number of particles the gap
doesn't have a fixed value for a certain temperature. Instead the gap
acquires a certain probability distribution and the width of that
distribution becomes the measure of the fluctuation.
To incorporate the fluctuations in order parameter, we define a
probability distribution as $P(\Delta) \propto \rm{exp}[\Omega(T,\Delta)]$.
The probability distribution is shown for a few different temperatures in
left panel of Fig. \ref{probdist}.
What is the meaning of having large fluctuations in the order parameter?
It means that for a given system with small number of particles the gap
doesn't have a fixed value for a certain temperature. Instead the gap
acquires a certain probability distribution and the width of that
distribution becomes the measure of the fluctuation.
To incorporate the fluctuations in order parameter, we define a
probability distribution as $P(\Delta) \propto \rm{exp}[\Omega(T,\Delta)]$.
The probability distribution is shown for a few different temperatures in
left panel of Fig. \ref{probdist}.
Using MBCS would mean that one is
using the ``peak'' values of the gap for each temperature which is true if
the distribution is ``most probable (MP)'' i.e. a delta function. But that is not
the case for atomic nucleus and hence there is a finite probability that
the gap posses numerical values other than the MP value.
The evolution of the probability distribution is being demonstrated in the
same figure and the interesting point to notice here is that the distribution
is not strictly zero even beyond critical temperature.
The consequence is
a non-zero gap beyond $T_c$ as shown in the right panel of
Fig. \ref{probdist}. $\Delta_{av}$ being finite for $T>T_c$ indicates
that pairing correlation persists in that region. This effect has been
thoroughly studied by Alhassid and Falci et. al. The sharp discontinuity
in specific heat is a direct consequence of the $\Delta_{mp}$ curve on the
right panel of Fig. \ref{probdist} going to zero beyond $T_c$. The
$\Delta_{av}$ curve tells us that the loss of collective correlation is
not a sudden process, rather it happens gradually and hence the use of
the average gap might lead to smooth behavior in specific heat.
\section{Semiclassical Approach to Pairing Fluctuations}
%
Fluctuations can arise from many sources.
One would have to perform a full shell model Monte Carlo calculation with
inclusion of all possible auxiliary fields to capture the full effect
(static/thermal gap, dynamic/rotational gap, etc) of fluctuations in
nuclear systems. Instead, we propose a simple approach to incorporate
the fluctuations in order parameter via the probability distribution and
by generalizing the BCS number equation.
%
%
The first term alone in Eq. (\ref{neq}) is known as the regular BCS number equation and
Eq. (\ref{gapeq}) is the regular gap equation. The second term in Eq. (\ref{neq})
is absent when gap equation is satisfied. We notice that the gap equation
is only satisfied for most probable values of the gap i.e. for a probability
distribution that looks like a delta function. But for average gap as
defined in previous section, the gap equation is not satisfied and there is some
contribution coming from the second term of the number equation without
which the number of particles are no longer conserved. So, in order to
go beyond BCS and include fluctuations, we keep the second term in number
equation which in turn conserves the total number of particles by including
the appropriate probability distributions.
An atomic nucleus is a strongly correlated many body system and single
particle energy levels are the manifestation of the underlying interactions
in the system. According to density functional theory, there exists a
universal energy density functional which captures the essence of the
strong and weak nuclear force. In practice, all the energy density
functionals are obtained by fitting this or that nuclear ground state
properties and hence they work well for the region where they were fitted
and fail in other regions. Moreover, performing calculations for nuclei
away from stability would be extrapolation for the EDFs and hence
the prediction is not very reliable. Moreover, in calculating thermodynamic
quantities such as pairing properties, entropy, level density, etc varies
significantly with use of different EDFs.
In the left panel of Fig.
\ref{RS}, s.p. energy levels are shown for three nuclei which were obtained
by performing HFB calculation using SkO' EDF. The remarkable fact to notice
here is that for a given nucleus, the single particle energy levels change
their location in energy space based on what EDF is being used. With this
observation we ask the question, if the s.p. energy levels are changing
their location in energy space based on which EDF is being used and if
each EDF captures part of the original interaction that is happening in
nature, then what if we could sample the whole energy space by generating
energy levels randomly? The heuristic here is that for a specific nucleus,
by generating millions of different set of s. p. energy levels, one can
sample all possible EDF there exists and go beyond to exhaust all
possibilities. The result would be to have a band for each thermodynamic
quantity which can be treated as a theoretical uncertainty for that
quantity. The right panel of Fig. \ref{RS} shows four such realizations for
the particle number $N=76$.
The calculations were performed for millions of such realizations with
a cutoff window of $2\hbar \omega$ around the Fermi level. The generalized
expressions, keeping the gap equations part intact, have been used to
include the fluctuations and determine average quantities. In left panel of
Fig. \ref{cvrs}, the specific heat as a function of temperature is shown.
The band becomes more and more dense with increase of the size of the
ensemble but the border remains more or less same. Any known EDF
calculation with Skyrme (contact) or Gogny (finite range) interaction
should fall within this band.
The right panel of Fig. \ref{cvrs} demonstrates two such realizations.
The smoothing of the sharp second order phase transition seen
in the $\Delta_{mp}$ curve becomes smooth in the $\Delta_{av}$ curve
which is a consequence of including the fluctuations.
%\section{Level densities in Random Spacing Model}
%As was alluded in the talk, a level density calculation has been performed
%using the RS model with the fluctuations included. In Fig. we present \dots
\bibitem{BMP58}
A.~Bohr, B.~M. Mottelson, and D.~Pines,
\newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf 108}, 936 (1958).
\bibitem{BM1}
A.~Bohr and B.~R. Mottelson,
\newblock {\em Nuclear Structure, Vol. I: Single-Particle Motion} (World
Scientific Publishing, 1969).
\bibitem{Bethe36}
H.~A. Bethe,
\newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf 50}, 332 (1936).
\bibitem{Ericson60}
T.~Ericson,
\newblock Adv. Phys. {\bf 9}, 425 (1960).
\bibitem{Migdal59}
A.~Migdal,
\newblock Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 13}, 655 (1959).
\bibitem{RB13}
L.~M. Robledo and G.~F. Bertsch,
\newblock Pairing in finite systems: Beyond the {HFB} theory,
\newblock in {\em 50 years of Nuclear BCS: Pairing in Finite Systems}, edited
by R.~A. Broglia and V.~Zelevinsky, Singapore, 2013, World Scientific.
\bibitem{DH03}
D.~J. Dean and M.~Hjorth-Jensen,
\newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 607 (2003).
\bibitem{BB05}
D.~M. Brink and R.~A. Broglia,
\newblock {\em Nuclear Superfluidity: Pairing in Finite Systems} (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2005).
\bibitem{NSFS}
K.~H. Benneman and J.~B. Ketterson, editors,
\newblock {\em Novel Superfluids, Vol. I and II} (Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2015).
\bibitem{Guttormsen16}
M.~Guttormsen,
\newblock private communication.
\bibitem{SY63}
M.~{Sano} and S.~{Yamasaki},
\newblock Progr. Theor. Phys. {\bf 29}, 397 (1963).
\bibitem{Blom67}
J.~Blomquist and A.~Molinari,
\newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf A106}, 545 (1967).
\bibitem{AS}
M.~Abramowitz and I.~A. Stegun,
\newblock {\em Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Applied Mathematical Series
55} (National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C., 1972).
\bibitem{RG27}
L.~F. Richardson and J.~A. Gaunt,
\newblock Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A {\bf 226}, 229 (1927).
\bibitem{ll9}
E.~M. Lifshitz and L.~P. Pitaevskii,
\newblock {\em Statistical Physics Part 2} (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980).
\bibitem{Blom67}
J.~Blomquist and A.~Molinari,
\newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf A106}, 545 (1967).
\bibitem{Morettonucl}
L.~G. Moretto,
\newblock Nuclear Physics A {\bf 185}, 145 (1972).
\bibitem{SY63}
M.~{Sano} and S.~{Yamasaki},
\newblock Progr. Theor. Phys. {\bf 29}, 397 (1963).
\bibitem{GFB13}
G.~F. Bertsch,
\newblock Nuclear pairing: Basic phenomena revisited,
\newblock in {\em 50 years of Nuclear BCS: Pairing in Finite Systems}, edited
by R.~A. Broglia and V.~Zelevinsky, Singapore, 2013, World Scientific.
\bibitem{Fiftyyrs}
R.~A. Broglia and V.~Zelevinsky, editors,
\newblock {\em 50 years of Nuclear BCS: Pairing in Finite Systems} (World
Scientific, Singapore, 2013).