text:
# Comparison of the normal state properties of 𝜅-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 and its deuterated analogue in high magnetic fields and under high hydrostatic pressures

## Abstract

Details of the Fermi-surface topology of deuterated $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 have been measured as a function of pressure, and compared with equivalent measurements of the undeuterated salt. We find that the superconducting transition temperature is much more dramatically suppressed by increasing pressure in the deuterated salt. It is suggested that this is linked to pressure-induced changes in the Fermi-surface topology, which occur more rapidly in the deuterated salt than in the undeuterated salt as the pressure is raised. Our data suggest that the negative isotope effect observed on deuteration is due to small differences in Fermi-surface topology caused by the isotopic substitution.

: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter

The nature of superconductivity in quasi-two dimensional crystalline organic metals is the subject of current debate in the literature . The close proximity of an antiferromagnetic to a superconducting groundstate in the temperature-pressure phase diagram has spurred theoretical suggestions of d-wave Cooper pairing mediated by antiferromagnetic fluctuations . Such an idea, which implies nodes in the superconducting order parameter, is strongly supported by NMR (13 and 1), tunnelling , thermal conductivity  and magnetic penetration depth experiments , and by the form of the superconducting phase diagram deduced from magnetometry and NMR . The coupling of Raman modes to the antiferromagnetic fluctuations has also been observed , suggesting interactions between the lattice and the magnetic fluctuations. On the other hand, it has been suggested that specific heat measurements may be interpreted using a BCS-like model . The observed hardening of low energy, intramolecular vibrations at the superconducting transition in Raman  and inelastic neutron scattering experiments  has been interpreted as further evidence for the involvement of phonons in superconductivity. However, similar phonon self-energy effects have also been observed in the non-BCS like Cuprate superconductors  and perhaps merely indicate very strong electron-phonon coupling.

In this context, the observation of a “negative isotope effect” in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 may be of great importance ; on replacing the terminal hydrogens of the BEDT-TTF molecule in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 by deuterium, it was found that a small but consistent increase in the superconducting critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ occurred . By contrast, isotopic substitutions of other heavier atoms in the BEDT-TTF molecule or in the anion layer exhibit a very small, normal isotope effect or no significant isotope effect at all, respectively . We have therefore studied the changes in Fermi-surface parameters of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 on deuteration using the Shubnikov-de Haas effect. Data were recorded both at ambient pressure and as a function of hydrostatic pressure. Taken in conjunction with very recent millimetre-wave magnetoconductivity experiments , our data suggest that it is primarily the changes in the detailed topology of the of the Fermi surface brought about by deuteration that cause the observed isotope effect. This would tend to support models for superconductivity involving pairing via electron-electron interactions .

The experiments involved single crystals of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 ($`0.7\times 0.5\times 0.1`$ mm3; mosaic spread $`\stackrel{<}{}0.1^{}`$), produced using electrocrystallization . In some of the crystals, the terminal hydrogens of the BEDT-TTF molecules were isotopically substituted by deuterium; we refer to these deuterated samples as d8, and conventional hydrogenated samples as h8. In order to check for extrinsic effects, independently-prepared batches of both types of crystal were made at Argonne, Strasbourg and Sendai; no extrinsic effects were found. Note that, to all intents and purposes, the crystallographic unit cells of h8 and d8 seem to be indistinguishable in size and shape .

The magnetoresistance of the samples was measured using standard 4 wire AC-techniques (frequency $`f=15180`$ Hz, current $`I=120\mu `$A) . Contacts were applied to the upper and lower large surfaces of the crystals, so that the current was directed and the voltage measured in the interlayer direction; such a configuration gives a resistance which is accurately proportional to the interlayer component of the magnetoresistance, $`\rho _{zz}`$ .

In the ambient-pressure experiments, crystals of d8 and h8 were simultaneously studied in a 3He/4He cryostat which allowed rotation of the samples to all possible angles in the magnetic field . The magnetoresistance was measured with the samples at many orientations in the magnetic field, so that any errors due to slight differences of mounting of the d8 and h8 crystals could be eliminated; the quasiparticle effective masses and Shubnikov-de Haas oscillation frequencies discussed below are corrected to $`\theta =0`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the normal to the sample’s conducting planes and the magnetic field. Temperatures were monitored using ruthenium oxide sensors, with additional checks carried out using the 3He and 4He vapour pressures. Quasistatic magnetic fields were provided by a 15 T superconductive magnet at Los Alamos and by the 45 T Hybrid magnet at NHMFL Tallahassee.

The high-pressure experiments were carried out on three d8 crystals using a non-magnetic piston-cylinder cell; the pressure medium was Fluorinert FC75 . The exact crystal orientation with respect to the field was determined by comparison with ambient pressure data and corrections to the measured Shubnikov-de Haas frequency made accordingly . The cell was placed in a large volume 3He cryostat capable of temperatures down to 700 mK within a 17 T superconductive magnet at Oxford. The pressure inside the cell was determined using a manganin wire . Temperatures were measured with a Pt thermometer above 50 K and a ruthenium oxide thermometer at low temperatures. All pressures quoted were measured at 4.2 K. $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ was taken to be the resistive midpoint of the normal-superconducting transition during cool down.

The left-hand side of Figure 1 shows typical low-field ambient-pressure magnetoresistance data for an h8 sample. Similar data were recorded simultaneously for a d8 sample. Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations caused by the quasi-two-dimensional $`\alpha `$ pocket of the Fermi surface (see lower inset of Figure 1). are visible. At these low fields, the oscillatory magnetoresistance is much less than the non-oscillatory component, and magnetic breakdown is a relatively minor consideration . Hence, the Lifshitz-Kosevich formula may be used to extract the effective mass $`m^{}`$  from the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude $`A`$; a typical fit is shown as the upper inset in Figure 1.

Data such as those in Figure 1 suggest that the $`\alpha `$ Fermi-surface pockets of h8 and d8 are rather similar; as an example, the magnetic quantum oscillation frequencies of the $`\alpha `$ pocket at $`\theta =0`$ were $`F_\alpha =600\pm 1`$ T (h8) and $`F_\alpha =597\pm 1`$ T (d8); the former is in good agreement with the accepted value . Although the d8 and h8 frequencies are very close, consistently smaller values were obtained for the d8 samples, and so we believe that the stated difference is real. The corresponding $`\alpha `$ pocket effective masses ($`\theta =0`$) are $`m^{}=3.5\pm 0.1m_\mathrm{e}`$ (h8) and $`m^{}=3.4\pm 0.1m_\mathrm{e}`$ (d8); the difference between the masses is around the experimental error. The average interlayer transfer integrals for d8 and h8 were measured in a separate experiment ; both were found to be very close to 0.04 meV .

The only significant difference between the magnetotransport of d8 and h8 at ambient pressure occurs in the magnetic breakdown between the $`\alpha `$ pocket and quasi-one-dimensional sheets, which gives rise to a semiclassical orbit with the same cross-sectional area as the Brillouin zone . As shown in the right-hand side of Figure 1, which displays magnetoresistance data recorded in the hybrid magnet, the breakdown is significantly stronger in d8, leading to a plethora of high frequency oscillations in the magnetoresistance due to the Shiba-Fukuyama-Stark quantum interference effect . Following the method set out in Reference , analysis of the breakdown oscillations suggests a breakdown field of $`B_0=30\pm 5`$ T in d8, compared to a value of $`B_0=41\pm 5`$ T  in h8.

We now turn to the high pressure experiments. Figure 2(a) shows the pressure dependence of the effective mass $`m_\alpha ^{}`$ of the d8 $`\alpha `$ Fermi-surface pocket, extracted from the temperature dependence of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations . At pressures of less than 0.25 GPa, $`m_\alpha ^{}`$ decreases very sharply with increasing pressure $`P`$ ($`\mathrm{d}m_\alpha ^{}/\mathrm{d}P10m_\mathrm{e}`$/GPa); above this pressure, the mass decreases much more gently as $`P`$ is raised. The d8 masses are compared with the h8 data of Caulfield et al.  in Figure 2(a); note that the initial rate of decrease of $`m_\alpha ^{}`$ with $`P`$ is significantly less in h8, but that the variation of $`m_\alpha ^{}`$ is very similar in h8 and d8 at higher $`P`$.

Figure 2(b) shows the superconducting critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2as a function of $`P`$ for both d8 (this work) and h8 (Reference ). In the case of d8, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is very rapidly suppressed with increasing $`P`$ $`(\mathrm{d}T_\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{d}P80`$ K/GPa). By contrast, $`\mathrm{d}T_\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{d}P30`$ K/GPa for h8 . As in the case of the effective mass, the pressure seems to have a much more marked effect for d8 that for h8.

Weiss et al. suggested that there may be some universal relationship between $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`m_\alpha ^{}`$ in $`\kappa `$-phase BEDT-TTF superconductors  (see also References ). Figure 2(c) shows such a plot for d8 (this work) and h8 (Reference ). Whilst the data for the two salts vary in a qualitatively similar fashion, the slope of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ versus $`m_\alpha ^{}`$ seems to be somewhat steeper for d8.

Figures 3(a) and (b) show the pressure dependence of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillation frequencies for d8 and h8. As has been mentioned above, the $`\beta `$-orbit frequency $`F_\beta `$ (Figure 3(b)) reflects the size of the Brillouin zone in the conducting bc plane; it is therefore a direct measure of the in-plane compressibility. Figure 3(b) shows that the pressure dependence of $`F_\beta `$ is almost identical in h8 and d8. This suggests that any lattice softening effects due to deuteration do not affect the intraplane compressibility, and are thus, if present, only effective in the interplane direction. By contrast, the $`\alpha `$ Fermi-surface pocket frequency grows much more quickly with $`P`$ in d8 than in h8 (Figure 3(a)); interestingly, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ tends to zero in both d8 and h8 at pressures where the $`\alpha `$-orbit frequencies reach approximately the same value, $`F_\alpha 770\pm 15`$ T.

To examine the effect of pressure more deeply, we turn to the effective dimer model which has been shown to represent the intralayer quasiparticle dispersion $`E(𝐤_{||})`$ in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 accurately (see Reference  and references therein);

$$E(𝐤_{||})=\pm 2\mathrm{cos}(\frac{k_𝐛b}{2})\sqrt{t_{𝐜1}^2+t_{𝐜2}^2+2t_{𝐜1}t_{𝐜2}\mathrm{cos}(k_𝐜c)}+2t_𝐛\mathrm{cos}(k_𝐛b).$$
(1)
Here $`k_𝐛`$ and $`k_𝐜`$ are the intralayer components of k (see Figure 1, inset) and $`t_𝐛`$, $`t_{𝐜1}`$ and $`t_{𝐜2}`$ are effective interdimer transfer integrals ; the $`+`$ and $``$ signs result in the quasi-one-dimensional sheets and the $`\alpha `$ pocket of the Fermi surface respectively. The cross-sectional area of the $`\alpha `$ pocket is determined by the ratio $`t_𝐛/t_𝐜`$, where $`t_𝐜`$ is the mean of $`t_{𝐜1}`$ and $`t_{𝐜2}`$ . Using this approach , we can convert the frequencies $`F_\alpha `$ from Figure 3(a) into values of $`t_𝐛/t_𝐜`$; the result is shown for both h8 and d8 as the inset in Figure 3(a). The inset shows that $`t_𝐛/t_𝐜`$ increases with $`P`$ more rapidly in d8 than in h8.

Reference  shows that an increase of $`t_𝐛/t_𝐜`$ elongates the overall Fermi-surface cross-section in the $`k_𝐜`$ direction by “fattening” the $`\alpha `$ pocket. As a consequence, the corrugation of the quasi-one-dimensional sheets changes somewhat; the regions next to the breakdown gap become slightly more pointed, whilst away from the gap, the sheets flatten slightly. Our data suggest that these changes occur much more rapidly with increasing pressure in d8 than in h8.

With this in mind, we suggest that the more rapid suppression of superconductivity in d8, compared to h8, is linked to the fact that the Fermi surface topology changes more drastically with pressure in d8 (Figure 3). This strongly suggests that the superconducting mechanism is very sensitively influenced by the exact topology of the Fermi surface, and hence that this effect is also responsible for the inverse isotope effect in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 observed on deuteration. Additional support for this proposal is provided by the difference in magnetic breakdown strength seen in d8 and h8 at ambient pressure (Figure 1), suggesting slightly different Fermi-surface topologies for the two salts.

An alternative explanation for the inverse isotope effect invokes a softening of the bonds upon deuteration and a concurrent increase in the electron-phonon interaction . Comparative Raman studies on on deuterated and undeuterated $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 may also be interpreted in this way . It might also be possible to simulate the size and direction of change of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ experienced upon deuteration from the anisotropic compressibility  of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, and the strongly anisotropic uniaxial pressure dependence of its superconducting transition temperature . However, neither of these explanations can shed any light on the very obvious relationship between the details of the Fermi-surface shape and $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, shown by our data (Figures 2 and 3).

Instead, our data support models for exotic d-wave superconductivity in the organics which invoke electron-electron interactions depending on the topological (i.e. nesting) properties of the Fermi surface . Similar interactions probably contribute to the relatively large values of the quasiparticle mass observed in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 . Hence, the changes in Fermi-surface topology may cause both the suppression of the superconducting transition temperature and the effective mass (see Figure 2); the causal relationship between $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`m^{}`$ suggested in earlier works  is perhaps an oversimplification.

Support for our interpretation comes from recent millimetre-wave magnetoconductivity experiments which give information about the corrugations of the quasi-one-dimensional sheets of the Fermi surface  in the interlayer direction. It was found that the corrugations on the Fermi sheets of h8 (lower $`T_\mathrm{c}`$) were relatively large compared to those on the sheets of d8 (higher $`T_\mathrm{c}`$). This again suggests that it is primarily details of the Fermi-surface topology, and in particular its nestability, that determine $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.

In summary, we have measured details of the Fermi-surface topology of deuterated $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 as a function of pressure, and compared them with equivalent measurements of the undeuterated salt. We find that the superconducting transition temperature is much more dramatically suppressed by increasing pressure in the deuterated salt. This may be linked to pressure-induced changes in the Fermi-surface topology, which occur more rapidly in the deuterated salt as the pressure is raised. Our data support models for exotic d-wave superconductivity in the organics which invoke electron-electron interactions depending on the topological properties of the Fermi surface.

The work is supported by EPSRC (UK). We should like to thank Steve Blundell and Ross McDonald for stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# Bulk Nuclear Properties from Reactions

## 1 Introduction

I shall discuss the extraction of bulk nuclear properties from reactions. Of particular interest will be central reactions of heavy nuclei, characterized by a multitude of emitted particles and by a multitude of competing physical effects. These reactions are commonly described in terms of phase-space distributions $`f`$ that follow the Boltzmann equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_𝐩}{𝐩}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{𝐫}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_𝐩}{𝐫}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{𝐩}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d𝐩_2{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}v_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}((1f_1)(1f_2)`$ (1)
$`\times f_1^{}f_2^{}(1f_1^{})(1f_2^{})f_1f_2).`$
Here, $`ϵ(𝐩,\{f\})`$ is the single particle energy. The terms on the l.h.s. of the equation account for the changes of $`f`$ due to the motion of particles in the average potential field produced by other particles; the particle velocity is $`𝐯=ϵ/𝐩`$. The r.h.s. of (1) accounts for changes of $`f`$ due to collisions.

The transport relying on (1) has been quite successful in applications, describing a multitude of measured single-particle spectra, among other. With a confidence stemming from the success of predictions, the transport theory allows for a good insight into the history and mechanism of reactions. The theory is fairly flexible allowing one to include new particles as energy domain changes and to incorporate new collision processes if these become important.

Despite successes of the theory, there are significant uncertainties in the underlying Boltzmann equation. Thus, the dependence of the single-particle energies on momentum and density is generally not known. In terms of the net system energy, the single-particle energies are:

$$ϵ=\frac{\delta E}{\delta f},$$
(2)
and they relate to particle optical potentials with

$$U_{opt}=ϵϵ_{kin}.$$
(3)
The cross sections utilized in the collision integral in (1) are usually such as in free-space, but different cross sections may need to be utilized in the medium. An issue may be the very validity of the Boltzmann equation in a dense system. What if the theory is only phenomenological?

The indicated uncertainities represent difficulties but also opportunities to learn about nuclear systems. The opportunities related to uncertainties include e.g. the nuclear equation of state (EOS) generally related to single-particle energies, and the nuclear transport coefficients related to in-medium cross sections. For progress, it is necessary to identify observables from reactions, or combinations thereof, that are sensitive to a specific uncertainty. It is necessary to understand which particular features of the nuclear system are explored in a reaction and why an outcome may be well described in spite of the uncertainties. In the following, I shall give examples of the inference of bulk properties of nuclear matter from comparing the transport results to reaction data, emphasizing the above points.

## 2 Stopping, Cross Sections and Viscosity

Observables describing stopping of nuclei on each other in reactions might be used to extract information on in-medium cross sections. However, are the cross sections an objective characterization of a system? Can one talk about isolated collisions when the medium is dense and excited so that Pauli principle does not suppress the frequency of collisions? What about macroscopic system properties? Within the Boltzmann description, the cross-sections are related to the viscosity, proportional to the mean free path and inversely proportional to the cross sections:

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}T\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩p^2f}\right]^2/{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩_1𝑑𝐩_2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}v_{12}\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}q_{12}^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{}}`$ (4)
$`\times f_1f_2(1f_1^{})(1f_2^{}),`$
with the relative momentum equal to $`q_{12}=|𝐩_1𝐩_2|/2`$. When manipulating the cross sections within simulations, one alters the nuclear viscosity and one can hope that stopping observables probe the viscosity even while a link to cross sections remains ambiguous.

The stopping observables utilized for collisions include the linear momentum transfer (LMT) and ERAT. In the LMT measurements, central ($`b0`$) mass asymmetric reactions are assessed within the laboratory frame, cf. Fig. 1.

The velocity component along the beam of the most massive fragment stemming from a reaction is identified, and its average over reaction events is compared to the cm velocity. A proximity of the average component to the net cm velocity, $`v_{}v_{cm}`$, indicates fusion in a reaction and, thus, a large level of stopping and, potentially, large elementary cross sections. On the other hand, low values of the average component, $`v_{}0`$, indicate little stopping and, potentially, low elementary cross sections.

The Stony Brook group  has investigated central ($`bb_{max}/4`$) collision events of Ar with several targets, Cu, Ag and Au, and has determined $`v_{}/v_{cm}`$ as a function of bombarding energy; the results from the Ag target are represented by filled circles in Fig. 2.

At low energies, the projectile and target appear to fuse. As energy is raised, the transparency sets in and it increases with the increase in energy. Results of transport simulations assuming free nucleon-nucleon cross sections and different forms of optical potentials are represented, respectively, by stars, diamonds and filled squares in the figure. It is seen that all those calculations overestimate the stopping. The fusion continues too high up in energy and at high energies the residue velocity remains too high. Notably, the results are rather insentive to the assumed form of nucleon single-particle energies. In consequence, these results point to the in-medium cross-sections reduced compared the free-space, or increased viscosity.

There may be different reasons for an in-medium reduction of cross sections. Thus, it may be reasonable to assume that the geometric cross-section radius should not exceed the interparticle distance,

$$\sigma y\rho ^{2/3},$$
(5)
with $`y1`$, since, otherwise, the nucleon-nucleon scatterings can get multiply counted. The requirement may be implemented in practice with the following in-medium cross section:

$$\sigma =\sigma _0\mathrm{tanh}(\sigma _{free}/\sigma _0),\text{where}\sigma _0=y\rho ^{2/3}.$$
(6)
There may be other reasons for the cross-section reduction, such as the effects of Pauli principle and of single-particle energy modifications for intermediate states. In the calculations that include those effects (but not the overlap of binary collision regions), such as of the Rostock group , a general reduction of the in-medium cross sections is found. In the following, we utilize a crude parametrization of the Rostock cross sections:

$$\sigma =\sigma _{free}\mathrm{exp}\left(0.6\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}\frac{1}{1+(T_{cm}/150\mathrm{MeV})^2}\right)$$
(7)
where $`T_{cm}`$ is the c.m. kinetic energy of a scattering nucleon pair.

The results of the simulations using the two types of reduced in-medium cross-sections are shown in Fig. 2 with open squares and open circles, respectively. It is seen that the stopping is reduced now at higher energies and in a much better agreement with data.

While similar reductions are obtained with the two in-medium cross sections, the two cross sections are actually quite different. This is illustrated in Fig. 3 that shows the number of collisions for the different cross sections, as a function of time.

It is seen that the number of collisions for the Rostock cross sections is reduced by $`25`$% compared to the free cross-sections. However, the number of collisions for the cross sections screened with the interparticle distance is reduced by a factor of 4. How come those two cross sections lead to the same reduction in stopping when the collision numbers are so vastly different?

Clearly, not all collisions are the same. If e.g. the scattering angle in collision is small, the collision may matter little for the reaction dynamics. Notably also such collisions are also most peripheral and most ambigous within a many-body system. In the expression for viscosity (4), the collisions are weighted with the weight $`q_{12}^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{}`$, suppressing the collisions at low scattering angle, and weighting most those that take place at large relative momentum and lead to $`\theta ^{}90^{}`$.

While the two different parametrizations of cross sections yield different results regarding the collision number, it is interesting to ask whether they also yield different results for collisions weighted with their importance in the expression for viscosity. This is examined in Fig. 4 and it is seen that the two parametrizations, that yield a right reduction in stopping, also practically agree with regard to the weighted collision number. These parametrizations may be then expected also to agree with regard to an (increased) viscosity of the system.

Another nuclear stopping observable has been the reaction cross section for different values of $`ERAT=E_{}/E_{}`$, examined in central Au + Au collisions by the FOPI Collaboration . Here, $`E_{}`$ and $`E_{}`$ are the transverse and longitudinal energy, respectively. Generally, a value of $`ERAT<2`$ indicates a transparency (2 because of two transverse dimensions and only one longitudinal), $`ERAT>2`$ indicates a system splashing in the directions transverse to the beam axis, and $`ERAT=2`$ indicates isotropy. However, finite-multiplicity fluctuations spread out and modify those results and likewise do the detector inefficiencies. After correcting for the fluctuations and inefficiencies, the FOPI Collaboration concluded that the head-on Au + Au collisions at 250 MeV/nucleon were consistent with isotropy. Figure 5 shows the results for the expected value of $`ERAT`$ in simulations, with the variation of the inverse of parameter $`y`$ in the first of our in-medium cross-section parametrizations, together with the result for the second parametrization and for data (with 10% uncertainty). The value of $`1/y=0`$ corresponds to free cross sections and these again yield too much stopping. The compatibility with data requires $`y1`$. In the analysis, the Rostock and screened cross-section parametrizations yield again very different collision numbers, but similar numbers for collisions entered with viscous weight, when those parametrizations yield a similar stopping. The number of weighted collisions is again reduced by about 30% compared to the case of free cross sections.

Based on the simulations, we can conclude that the stopping observables indicate reduced in-medium cross sections. Details of the reduction appear ambiguous but the stopping primarily appears sensitive to the nuclear viscosity. The very different parametrizations of the cross sections that yield an agreement with data appear relatively consistent with regard to the enhanced nuclear viscosity at densities and temperatures such as explored in the reactions, see Fig. 6.

After tackling the viscosity and in-medium cross-sections, we now turn to the features of the nuclear EOS.

## 3 Nuclear Incompressibility

From the binding-energy formula and from electron scattering, we know that the energy per nucleon in symmetric nuclear matter, under the effects of nuclear forces alone, minimizes at the normal density $`\rho _0=0.16`$ fm<sup>-3</sup> at -16 MeV. The curvature around the minimum is quantified in terms of incompressibility $`K`$, first introduced as a curvature of the energy with respect to the nuclear radius for considered sharp-sphere nuclei,

$$K=9\rho _0^2\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}\left(\frac{E}{A}\right)=R^2\frac{d^2}{dR^2}\left(\frac{E}{A}\right).$$
(8)
The simplest way to determine the incompressibility may seem to induce volume oscillations in a nucleus. This could be done by scattering $`\alpha `$ particles off a nucleus, Fig. 7. For the lowest excitation, the excitation energy $`E^{}`$, deduced from the final $`\alpha `$ energy, would be related to the classical frequency through $`E^{}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the latter would be related to $`K`$. Let us examine the classical energy of an oscillating nucleus:

$`E_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\rho \frac{m_Nv^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AK(RR_0)^2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Am_Nr^2_A\dot{R}^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AK(RR_0)^2,`$
where we use the fact that, for a nucleus uniformly changing its density, the velocity is proportional to the radius, $`v=\dot{R}(r/R)`$. We then obtain the energy of a simple harmonic oscillator; the frequency is a square root of the spring constant divided by mass constant, yielding:

$$E^{}=\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{K}{m_Nr^2_A}}.$$
(10)
There are complications regarding this reasoning. Thus, the nucleus is not a sharp-edged sphere and the Coulomb interactions play a role in the oscillations in addition to the nuclear interactions different in isospin asymmetric matter than in symmetric. These effects may be accounted for in time-dependent Hartree-Fock or in the random-phase-approximation calculations allowing for meaningful comparisons to data. The above approaches include also shell effects but, if one wants to study just average features of excitations, then the model based on (1) may be employed, provided that the net energy includes contributions from the finite-range of interactions besides Coulomb, isospin and symmetric volume terms . If a nucleus is expanded, by increasing distances from the center by a small fraction, then oscillations result, illustrated in Fig. 8, with a distinct dependence on $`K`$.

Figure 9 shows next the power spectrum for the oscillations from the Boltzmann equation as well as the $`0^+`$ spectra from precise analyses of alpha scattering , in the scattering angle and energy loss.

Next, Fig. 10 compares the mass dependence of the resonance energy with the results from the Vlasov equation. The data favor $`K=225\pm 15`$ MeV, represented by the intermediate line.

## 4 EOS at Supranormal Densities from Flow

Features of EOS at supranormal densities can be inferred from global features of flow in collisions of heavy nuclei at high energies. At low impact parameters, relatively large regions of high density are formed and matter is best equilibrated. The collective flow can provide access to pressure generated in the collision.

To see how the flow relates to pressure, we may look at the hydrodynamic Euler equation for the nuclear fluid, an analog of the Newton equation, in a local frame where the collective velocity vanishes, $`v=0`$:

$$(e+p)\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{}p.$$
(11)
The collective velocity becomes an observable at the end of the reaction. In comparing to the Newton equation, we see that the pressure $`p=\rho ^2\frac{(e/\rho )}{\rho }|_{s/\rho }`$ plays the role of a potential for the hydrodynamic motion, while the density of enthalpy $`w=e+p`$ plays the role of a mass. In fact, at moderate energies, the enthalpy density is practically the mass density, $`w\rho m_N`$. We see from the Euler equation that the collective flow can tell us about the pressure in comparison to enthalpy. In establishing the relation, we need to know the spatial size where the pressure gradients develop and this will be determined by the nuclear size. However, we also need the time during the hydrodynamic motion develops and this can represent a problem.

Notably, the first observable that one may want to consider to extract the information on EOS is the net radial or transverse collective energy. That energy may reach as much as half of the total kinetic energy in a reaction. Despite its magnitude, the energy is not useful for extracting the information on EOS because of the lack of information on how long the energy develops. Large pressures acting over a short time can produce the same net collective energy as low pressures acting over a long time. This makes appearent the need for a timer in reactions.

The role of the timer in reactions may be taken on by the so-called spectators. The spectator nucleons are those in the periphery of an energetic reaction, weakly affected by the reaction process, proceeding virtually at undisturbed original velocity, see Fig. 11. Participant nucleons, on the other hand, are those closer to the center of the reaction, participating in violent processes, subject to matter compression and expansion in the reaction. As the participant zone expands, the spectators, moving at a prescribed pace, shadow the expansion. If the pressures in the central region are high and the expansion is rapid, the anisotropies generated by the presence of spectators are going to be strong. On the other hand, if the pressures are low and, correspondingly, the expansion of the matter is slow, the shadows left by spectators will not be very pronounced.

There are different types of anisotropies in the emission that the spectators can produce. Thus, throughout the early stages of a collisions, the particles move primarily along the beam axis in the center of mass. However, during the compression stage, the participants get locked within a channel, titled at an angle, between the spectator pieces, cf. Fig. 11. As a consequence, the forward and backward emitted particles acquire an average deflection away from the beam axis, towards the channel direction. Another anisotropy is the ellipticity $`v_2`$, that we already examined as a function of $`p^{}`$ in midperipheral collisions. Now we will consider global $`v_2`$ values at lower impact parameters.

The different anisotropies have been quantified experimentally over a wide range of bombarding energies in Au + Au collisions. Figure 12 shows the measure of the sideward forward-backward deflection as a function of the beam energy, with symbols representing data. Lines represent simulations assuming different EOS. On top of the figure, typical maximal densities are indicated which are reached at a given bombarding energy. Without interaction contributions to pressure, the simulations labelled cascade produce far too weak anisotropies to be compatible with data. The simulations with EOS characterized by the incompressibility $`K=167`$ MeV yield adequate anisotropy at lower beam energies, but too low at higher energies. On the other hand, with the EOS characterized by $`K=380`$ MeV, the anisotropy appears too high at virtually all energies. It should be mentioned that the incompressibilities should be considered here as merely labels for the different utilized EOS. The pressures resulting in the expansion are produced at densities significantly higher than normal and, in fact, changing in the course of the reaction.

Figure 13 shows next the anisotropy of emission at midrapidity, with symbols representing data and lines representing simulations. Again, we see that without interaction contributions to pressure, simulations cannot reproduce the measurements. The simulations with $`K=167`$ MeV give too little pressure at high energies, and those with $`K=380`$ MeV generally too much. A level of discrepancy is seen between data from different experiments.

We see that no single EOS allows for a simultaneous description of both types of anisotropies at all energies. In particular, the $`K=210`$ MeV EOS is the best for the sideward anisotropy, and the $`K=300`$ MeV EOS is the best for the elliptic anisotropy. We can use the discrepancy between the conclusions drawn from the two types of anisotropies as a measure of inaccuaracy of the theory and draw broad boundaries on pressure as a function of density from what is common in conclusions based on the two anisotropies. To ensure that the effects of compression dominate in the reaction over other effects, we limit ourselves to densities higher than twice the normal. The boundaries on the pressure are shown in Fig. 14 and they eliminate some of the more extreme models for EOS utilized in nuclear physics, such as the relativistic NL3 model and models assuming a phase transition at relatively low densities, cf. Fig. 15.

## 5 Conclusions and Outlook

Comparisons of transport model calculations to data can yield information on bulk nuclear properties. However, the progress has been difficult due to the need to sort out competing physical effects. Optimal observables are those which are mostly sensitive to one uncertain nuclear property.

Though the stopping observables are sensitive to the in-medium cross sections, they probe cross sections weigthed with scattering angle, such as appear in the expression for nuclear viscosity. These appear reduced in lower-energy reactions by $`30`$ % compared to free space and the nuclear viscosity appears increased respectively by $`50`$ % compared to that calculated with free cross sections.

Most straightforward determination incompressibility is by analyzing the excitation of density oscillations. The far more precise measurements of giant monopole resonances than in the past suggest a value $`K225`$ MeV.

The flow in energetic reactions allows to place meanigful constraints on the nuclear pressure within the density range $`2\rho /\rho _05`$. The most extreme models for EOS can be eliminated.

## Acknowledgement

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-0070818.