This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Neutron-proton differential transverse flow in 132Sn + 124Sn collisions at 270 MeV/nucleon

Xin Huang School of Physics and Electronic Science, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550025, China    Gao-Feng Wei [email protected] School of Physics and Electronic Science, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550025, China Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory of Radio Astronomy and Data Processing, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550025, China    Qi-Jun Zhi School of Physics and Electronic Science, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550025, China Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory of Radio Astronomy and Data Processing, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550025, China    You-Chang Yang Guizhou University of Engineering Science, Bijie 551700, China Zunyi Normal University, Zunyi 563006, China    Zheng-Wen Long College of Physics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
Abstract

Within a transport model, we study the neutron-proton differential transverse flow and its excitation function in central 132Sn + 124Sn collisions at 270 MeV/nucleon. To more accurately evaluate effects of the high-density behavior of symmetry energy Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) on this observable, we also consider the uncertainties of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) around the saturation density ρ0\rho_{0}. It is shown that the neutron-proton differential transverse flow and its excitation function are mainly sensitive to the slope LL of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at ρ0\rho_{0}. However, the effects of low-density behavior of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) on this observable should also be considered. Therefore, it is suggested that measurements of the neutron-proton differential transverse flow and its excitation function may provide useful complements to the constraints on LL extracted from the spectral pion ratio in Sπ\piRIT experiments.

I introduction

Heavy-ion collisions (HICs) can directly generate high density nuclear matter, and thus provide the opportunity to explore the properties of strong interacting matter at extreme conditions. As an important input in simulations of HICs, the isovector component of nuclear mean field, i.e., symmetry/isovector potential, is rather uncertain because of the extreme challenge of relatively direct detection of isovector potential in experiments. Using the nucleon-nucleus scattering and (pp,nn) charge-exchange reactions  Hoff72 ; Pat76 ; Kwi78 ; Rap79 ; Jeu91 ; Kon03 , one can only extract limited information of isovector potential at ρ0\rho_{0}. As a result, the determination of the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) term of the equation of state (EoS) of asymmetric nuclear matter (ANM) is still unsatisfactory compared to the relatively good determination of the isospin-independent part of the EoS of ANM Dan02 ; Oert17 . Presently, the best knowledge of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) is around 2ρ0/32\rho_{0}/3, for which its value is determined to be 25.5±1\pm 1 MeV from nuclear masses and isobaric analog states Wang13 ; Brown13 ; Dan14 . At densities greater than 2ρ0/32\rho_{0}/3, the uncertainties in Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) grow monotonically. For example, the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at ρ0\rho_{0}, that is commonly used as one of the criterion in fitting the parameters of the isovector potential, still has greater uncertainties than that at 2ρ0/32\rho_{0}/3, e.g., 32±2\pm 2 MeV Cozma18 and 32.5±3.2\pm 3.2 MeV Wang18 . Also, the uncertainties for Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at suprasaturation densities are rather larger, such as the reported value L=106±37L=106\pm 37 MeV Bren21 by a calculation of LL correlated to the improved RskinPb208R_{\rm skin}^{{}^{208}{\rm Pb}} in the PREX-II experiment PREX-II .

Very recently, the Sπ\piRIT collaboration reported the results of pion production in Sn + Sn collisions at 270 MeV/nucleon Estee21 ; Jhang21 . Moreover, through comparing the spectral pion ratio with the simulation from a dcQMD model Cozma21 , they deduced that the value of LL is within the range from 42 to 117 MeV Estee21 . Obviously, this value is consistent with that deduced from the correlated calculation Bren21 . However, the uncertainty for LL is still rather larger and thus need to be further constrained. We note that the motions of energetic nucleons are directly influenced by the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) and its LL value, and thus might provide a more direct detect of the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at suprasaturation density. This is because these energetic participants can originate in the regions that are compressed during the violent early stages of HICs and be accelerated by the symmetry potential, resulting in their momenta reflecting the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) and its LL value. Naturally, studies on the observables relavant to these nucleons, as an important complement to the pion spectra Tsang17 and/or spectral pion ratio Estee21 , may shed more lights on the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at suprasaturation densities. Actually, as one of this kind of observable, elliptic folw is more suitable to probe the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at suprasaturation density, and the corresponding studies in Au + Au collisions have already placed constraints on the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) and its LL value Cozma18 ; FOPI . As another candidate of this kind of observable, the free neutron-proton differential transverse flow has also been found to be more sensitive to the high-density behavior of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) LiBA00 ; LiBA02 ; Yong05 ; Yong06 . Therefore, we attempt to predict the sensitivities of this observable to the symmetry energy, and thus to benefit for the upcoming or ongoing measurements in Sπ\piRIT experiments.

II The Model

This study is carried out within an isospin- and momentum-dependent Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (IBUU) transport model that has incorporated constraints Wei21b on the momentum dependence of isovector potential from the recently reported pion data in Sπ\piRIT experiments Jhang21 . Specifically, the nuclear interaction is an improved momentum-dependent interaction (IMDI) expressed as

U(ρ,δ,p,τ)\displaystyle U(\rho,\delta,\vec{p},\tau) =\displaystyle= Auρτρ0+Alρτρ0+B2(2ρτρ0)σ(1x)\displaystyle A_{u}\frac{\rho_{-\tau}}{\rho_{0}}+A_{l}\frac{\rho_{\tau}}{\rho_{0}}+\frac{B}{2}{\big{(}}\frac{2\rho_{\tau}}{\rho_{0}}{\big{)}}^{\sigma}(1-x) (1)
+\displaystyle+ 2Bσ+1(ρρ0)σ(1+x)ρτρ[1+(σ1)ρτρ]\displaystyle\frac{2B}{\sigma+1}{\big{(}}\frac{\rho}{\rho_{0}}{\big{)}}^{\sigma}(1+x)\frac{\rho_{-\tau}}{\rho}{\big{[}}1+(\sigma-1)\frac{\rho_{\tau}}{\rho}{\big{]}}
+\displaystyle+ 2Clρ0d3pfτ(p)1+(pp)2/Λ2\displaystyle\frac{2C_{l}}{\rho_{0}}\int d^{3}p^{\prime}\frac{f_{\tau}(\vec{p}^{\prime})}{1+(\vec{p}-\vec{p}^{\prime})^{2}/\Lambda^{2}}
+\displaystyle+ 2Cuρ0d3pfτ(p)1+(pp)2/Λ2,\displaystyle\frac{2C_{u}}{\rho_{0}}\int d^{3}p^{\prime}\frac{f_{-\tau}(\vec{p}^{\prime})}{1+(\vec{p}-\vec{p}^{\prime})^{2}/\Lambda^{2}},

where τ=1\tau=1 for neutrons and 1-1 for protons, and AuA_{u}, AlA_{l}, Cu(Cτ,τ)C_{u}(\equiv C_{\tau,-\tau}) and Cl(Cτ,τ)C_{l}(\equiv C_{\tau,\tau}) are expressed as

Al\displaystyle A_{l} =\displaystyle= Al0+Usym(ρ0)2Bσ+1\displaystyle A_{l0}+U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0})-\frac{2B}{\sigma+1} (2)
×\displaystyle\times [(1x)4σ(σ+1)1+x2],\displaystyle\Big{[}\frac{(1-x)}{4}\sigma(\sigma+1)-\frac{1+x}{2}\Big{]},
Au\displaystyle A_{u} =\displaystyle= Au0Usym(ρ0)+2Bσ+1\displaystyle A_{u0}-U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0})+\frac{2B}{\sigma+1} (3)
×\displaystyle\times [(1x)4σ(σ+1)1+x2],\displaystyle\Big{[}\frac{(1-x)}{4}\sigma(\sigma+1)-\frac{1+x}{2}\Big{]},
Cl\displaystyle C_{l} =\displaystyle= Cl02(Usym(ρ0)2z)pf02Λ2ln[(4pf02+Λ2)/Λ2],\displaystyle C_{l0}-2\big{(}U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0})-2z\big{)}\frac{p_{f0}^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}\ln\big{[}(4p_{f0}^{2}+\Lambda^{2})/\Lambda^{2}\big{]}}, (4)
Cu\displaystyle C_{u} =\displaystyle= Cu0+2(Usym(ρ0)2z)pf02Λ2ln[(4pf02+Λ2)/Λ2].\displaystyle C_{u0}+2\big{(}U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0})-2z\big{)}\frac{p_{f0}^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}\ln\big{[}(4p_{f0}^{2}+\Lambda^{2})/\Lambda^{2}\big{]}}. (5)

In the framework, the present IBUU model originates from the IBUU04 Das03 ; IBUU and/or IBUU11 CLnote models. However, the present version has been greatly improved to more accurate simulations of HICs as briefly discussed in the following.

First, a separate density-dependent scenario Xu10 ; Chen14 for in-medium nucleon-nucleon interaction has been adopted for a more delicate treatment of the in-medium many-body force effects Chen14 , which also affects significantly the pion production in HICs Wei20 . Therefore, the BB-terms in Eq. (1) as well in the expressions of AuA_{u} and AlA_{l} are different from those in Refs. Xu15 ; Xu17 .

Second, a quantity Usym(ρ0)U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0}) proposed in Ref. CLnote , i.e., the value of symmetry potential at infinitely large nucleon momentum, is used to characterize the momentum dependence of the symmetry potential at ρ0\rho_{0} as in Refs. Xu15 ; Xu17 . It should be mentioned that this quantity is treated as a free one in Refs. Xu15 ; Xu17 . However, considering that the symmetry potential with different Usym(ρ0)U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0}) even with the identical Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) can also lead to different pion yields in HICs, we have carried out a study to constrain the Usym(ρ0)U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0}) through comparing the pion observables of theoretical simulations for reactions 108Sn + 112Sn and 132Sn + 124Sn with the data in Sπ\piRIT experiments Jhang21 , the central value of Usym(ρ0)U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0}) is constrained approximately to be 160-160 MeV, see, Ref. Wei21b for the details.

Table 1: The parameters xx and zz as well the corresponding LL values for Case-I and Case-II.
Parameters Case-I Case-II L (MeV)
xxzz 0.40.42.149-2.149 0.4910.4910 30.330.3
xxzz 00.7670.767 0.032-0.0320 62.062.0
xxzz 0.4-0.43.7123.712 0.557-0.5570 93.893.8
xxzz 0.8-0.86.6566.656 1.081-1.0810 125.6125.6
Refer to caption
Figure 1: (Color online) Density dependence of the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) for Case I and Case II.
Refer to caption
Figure 2: (Color online) Upper: Kinetic-energy dependent isoscalar potential (a) at ρ0\rho_{0} in comparison with the Schrödinger-equivalent one obtained by Hama et al. Lower: Kinetic-energy dependent isovector potential (b) at ρ0\rho_{0} for Case I and Case II.

Third, considering that the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at ρ0\rho_{0} still has greater uncertainties than that at 2ρ0/32\rho_{0}/3, we therefore introduce a parameter zz for CC terms in the expressions of CuC_{u} and ClC_{l} as in Refs. Xu15 ; Xu17 to adjust the Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at ρ0\rho_{0}. As the first case, i.e., Case I, we take the value for the zz parameter to ensure Esym(2ρ0/3)E_{sym}(2\rho_{0}/3) is 25.525.5 MeV. For comparison, we also set the value of zz as zero and take the value for Esym(ρ0)E_{sym}(\rho_{0}) of 32.5 MeV, as commonly used; this case is denoted as Case II. The parameters embedded in IMDI interactions are determined by fitting identical experimental/empirical constraints on properties of nuclear matter at ρ0\rho_{0} for both Case I and Case II, except the value of 25.5 MeV for Esym(2ρ0/3)E_{sym}(2\rho_{0}/3) used in Case I and 32.5 MeV for Esym(ρ0)E_{sym}(\rho_{0}) used in Case II. Specifically, the values of these parameters are Al0=Au0=66.963A_{l0}=A_{u0}=-66.963 MeV, B=141.963B=141.963 MeV, Cl0=60.486C_{l0}=-60.486 MeV, Cu0=99.702C_{u0}=-99.702 MeV, σ=1.2652\sigma=1.2652, Λ=2.424pf0\Lambda=2.424p_{f0} and Usym(ρ0)=160U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0})=-160 MeV, where pf0p_{f0} is the nucleon Fermi momentum in symmetry nuclear matter (SNM) at ρ0\rho_{0}. Moreover, to study the effects of high-density behavior of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho), we adjust the xx parameter to obtain four different LL values for both Case I and Case II. The parameters xx and zz as well the corresponding LL values are listed in Table 1. It is seen that except for the value of 6.656 for the zz parameter being slightly larger than the uncertainties of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at ρ0\rho_{0}, the values are all basically within the allowed uncertain range of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at ρ0\rho_{0} Cozma18 ; Wang18 . This feature can also be seen in the density dependent Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) as shown in Fig. 1. It should be mentioned that except the different symmetry energy criterion the parameters for Case I and Case II can lead to identical properties for nuclear matter at ρ0=0.16\rho_{0}=0.16 fm-3, i.e., the binding energy 16-16 MeV, the incompressibility K0=230K_{0}=230 MeV for SNM, the isoscalar effective mass ms=0.7mm^{*}_{s}=0.7m, the isoscalar potential at infinitely large nucleon momentum U0(ρ0)=75U^{\infty}_{0}(\rho_{0})=75 MeV as well Usym(ρ0)=160U^{\infty}_{sym}(\rho_{0})=-160 MeV. Shown in Fig. 2 are the isoscalar and isovector potentials at ρ0\rho_{0} for Case I and Case II. Since the parameters xx and zz only affect the isovector properties of ANM, the isoscalar potentials for Case I and Case II are the same and also compatible with the results of Hama et al Hama90 ; Buss12 . Moreover, since the xx parameter only affects the isovector properties of ANM at nonsaturation densities for both Case I and Case II, as well the identical zz values used for Case II, we can observe that the isovector potentials at ρ0\rho_{0} even with different LL values for Case II are also identical to each other. In contrast, since the zz parameter is used to ensure Esym(2ρ0/3)E_{sym}(2\rho_{0}/3) to be 25.525.5 MeV for Case I by adjusting Esym(ρ0)E_{sym}(\rho_{0}), it naturally affects isovector potentials at ρ0\rho_{0}. Therefore, we can see that the isovector potentials at ρ0\rho_{0} with different LL for Case I are slightly different due to the different zz values used for different LL in Case I. However, the differences of isovector potentials in Case I from those in Case II are very tiny.

Fourth, to more accurately simulate HICs, we also give detailed consideration of the Δ\Delta and pion potentials as well as electromagnetic effects in HICs, see, Refs. Wei18a ; Wei18b ; Wei21 ; Wei21b for more details.

III Results and Discussions

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (Color online) Differential transverse flows of free neutrons pxnp_{x}^{n} and protons pxpp_{x}^{p} as a function of the center-of-mass rapidity yc.m.y_{c.m.}.

Now, we present the results for the 132Sn + 124Sn reaction at 270 MeV/nucleon with an impact parameter of b=3b=3 fm. The free neutron-proton differential transverse flow is measured by LiBA00 ; LiBA02 ; Yong05 ; Yong06

pxnp(y)\displaystyle p_{x}^{np}(y) =\displaystyle= 1N(y)i=1N(y)pxiτi\displaystyle\frac{1}{N(y)}\sum_{i=1}^{N(y)}p_{x_{i}}\tau_{i} (6)
=\displaystyle= Nn(y)N(y)<pxn(y)>Np(y)N(y)<pxp(y)>,\displaystyle\frac{N_{n}(y)}{N(y)}<p_{x}^{n}(y)>-\frac{N_{p}(y)}{N(y)}<p_{x}^{p}(y)>,

where Nn(y)N_{n}(y), Np(y)N_{p}(y) and N(y)N(y) denote, respectively, the number of free neutrons, protons, and total nucleons with local densities less than ρ0/8\rho_{0}/8 at rapidities yy, and τi\tau_{i} is 11 for neutrons and 1-1 for protons. From this formula, we can see that the isospin fractionation effects are incorporated into the collective flow Dan85 of both neutrons and protons through Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) and Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y). To understand this effect, we show first in Fig. 3 the collective flow of free neutrons and protons as a function of the center-of-mass rapidity. First, it is seen that, consistent with the previous result in Ref. LiBA00 , the proton flow is less sensitive to LL but higher than the neutron flow due to the Coulomb repulsive effects. Second, with a certain LL, we can observe that the transverse flows either for neutrons or protons are not changed essentially in the left and righ panels of Fig. 3. This means that the transverse flow is relatively insensitive to the actual value for Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at any given density, but is mainly sensitive to the slope of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) , which governs the pressure that the symmetry energy provides in a neutron-rich system as well dense astrophysical environments such as neutron stars. It should be mentioned that this finding is similar to that observed in the ratios/differences of neutron vs proton elliptic flows in Refs. Cozma18 ; Cozma11 as well that observed much earlier in Ref. Dan02 . Nevertheless, the sensitivities of transverse flows to LL are not obvious either for neutrons or protons. Shown in Fig. 4 are Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) and Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y) as a function of the center-of-mass rapidity, respectively. First, since the mass between the target and projectile has a little difference, we thus observe that the shapes of both Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) and Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y) are a little asymmetric between the target and projectile rapidities. Second, it is seen that varying LL from 30.330.3 to 125.6125.6 MeV causes more (less) free neutrons (protons) on the whole for both Case I and Case II. Certainly, we can also find that effects of LL on either Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) or Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y) are reduced somewhat in mid-rapidities for Case II compared to those for Case I. Also, the effects even reverse at the target and/or projectile rapidities. To understand these observations, we show in Fig. 5 the isovector potential of Case I and Case II at both 0.5ρ00.5\rho_{0} and 2ρ02\rho_{0}. First, it is seen that LL affects the isovector potentials mainly at high densities, and thus the high-density behavior of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) dominates Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) and Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y). Moreover, varying LL from 30.330.3 to 125.6125.6 MeV, the neutrons feel stronger repulisve effects while the protons feel stronger attractive effects on the whole for both Case I and Case II. Naturally, we can observe more free neutrons but less free protons with larger values for LL. Second, we observe that the differences of isovector potentials at 2ρ02\rho_{0} between Case I and Case II are negligible, while the differences of isovector potentials at 0.5ρ00.5\rho_{0} with different LL are smaller in Case I than those in Case II. This is exactly due to the more accurate criterion, i.e., Esym(2ρ0/3)=25.5E_{sym}(2\rho_{0}/3)=25.5 MeV, used in Case I that reduces the effects of LL on the isovector potentials and Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) at subsaturation densities. Moreover, since the effects of LL on the isovector potentials at low densities are opposite to those at high densities, the effects of high-density symmetry energy/potential on observables at compress stages are likely to be smeared out by low density symmetry energy/potential at the expansion stages. In particular, nucleons with target and/or projectile rapidities experience longer time in the expansion stages and emit later compared to those at midrapidities, the effects of low density symmetry energy/potential on observables are naturally considerable. This is the reason we observe in Case II that the isospin fractionation effects are reduced slightly at midrapidities but reversed at target and/or projectile rapidities.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: (Color online) Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) and Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y) with L=30.3L=30.3 MeV and 125.6125.6 MeV as a function of the center-of-mass rapidity yc.m.y_{c.m.}.
Refer to caption
Figure 5: (Color online) Kinetic-energy dependent isovector potential at ρ=0.5ρ0\rho=0.5\rho_{0} and ρ=2ρ0\rho=2\rho_{0} for Case I and Case II.
Refer to caption
Figure 6: (Color online) Neutron-proton differential transverse flows as a function of the center-of-mass rapidity yc.m.y_{c.m.}.
Refer to caption
Figure 7: Excitation function of the neutron-proton differential transverse flows at the mid-rapidity |yc.m.|0.1|y_{c.m.}|\leq{0.1} as a function of LL. The lines are drawn to guide the eye.

Now, we turn to the free neutron-proton differential transverse flows in the same reaction. Shown in Fig. 6 are the free neutron-proton differential transverse flows as a function of the center-of-mass rapidity. First, it is observed that the free neutron-proton differential transverse flow inherits the asymmetry in shapes from Nn(y)/N(y)N_{n}(y)/N(y) and Np(y)/N(y)N_{p}(y)/N(y). Second, it is seen that this observable indeed combines constructively the in-plane transverse momenta generated by the isovector potentials while reducing significantly influences of the isoscalar potentials of both neutrons and protons as indicated in Ref. LiBA02 , and thus it is more sensitive to LL. Moreover, comparing observations between Case I and Case II, we can find that the sensitivities of this observable to LL are indeed reduced in Case II. Therefore, to show clearly this observation and facilitate the experimental measurement, we calculate the excitation function of this observable, which is defined as LiBA02b

F=(d<pxnp>dyc.m.)yc.m.=0.F={\Big{(}}\frac{d<p_{x}^{np}>}{dy_{c.m.}}{\Big{)}}_{y_{c.m.}=0}. (7)

Shown in Fig. 7 is the excitation function of neutron-proton differential transverse flows as a function of LL. It is seen that effects of LL on the excitation function are rather obvious for both Case I or Case II, and thus can be used to further verify the extracted LL from the spectral pion ratio in Sπ\piRIT experiments Estee21 . Nevertheless, we can also find that the curve of excitation function in Case I indeed is more steeper compared to that in Case II due to fewer effects of low-density Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho). This feature indicates that the uncertainties of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) around the ρ0\rho_{0} should also be considered when using this observable to probe the high-density behavior of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho). Actually, the authors of Ref. Stone17 have already discussed systematically the effects of uncertainties of low density Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) on the determination of high-density Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho).

Before ending this part, we give two useful remarks. First, the value of 160-160 MeV used for Usym(ρ0)U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0}) in this study is more negative than that used in other models, e.g., 115-115 MeV, used in Refs. Xu15 ; Xu17 . This large and negative Usym(ρ0)U_{sym}^{\infty}(\rho_{0}) appears to have the feature that interactions between two protons or two neutrons with relatively large velocity will be far more attractive than those between a neutron and proton moving at the same relative velocity. The reasons might be due to different isospin states in the former and latter that may originates from the different constituent quarks between neutrons and protons. This issue also deserves serious consideration. Second, we predict the emission of nucleons as free particles and do not consider the clustering effects of nucleons that may change the quantitative results of the present study. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how clusters change the quantitative results of the present study.

IV Summary

In conclusion, we have studied the free neutron-proton differential transverse flow and its excitation function in 132Sn + 124Sn collisions at 270 MeV/nucleon within a transport model. It is found that the sensitivities of free neutron-proton differential transverse flow and its excitation function to LL are rather obvious, and thus can be used to further verify the extracted LL from the spectral pion ratio in Sπ\piRIT experiments. Therefore, we conclude that measurements of the neutron-proton differential transverse flow and its excitation function may provide useful complements to the constraints on LL extracted from measurements of the spectral pion ratio in Sπ\piRIT experiments. Moreover, after examining the effects of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) around ρ0\rho_{0} on this observable, it is also suggested that the uncertainties of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho) around ρ0\rho_{0} should also be considered when using the free neutron-proton differential transverse flow to probe the high-density behavior of Esym(ρ)E_{sym}(\rho).

Acknowledgements.
G.-F. Wei would like to thank Profs. Wei Zuo and Bo-Chao Liu for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant Nos.11965008, 11405128, 11865019 and Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Foundation under Grant No.[2020]1Y034, and the PhD-funded project of Guizhou Normal university (Grant No.GZNUD[2018]11).

References

  • (1) G. W. Hoffmann, and W. R. Coker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 227 (1972).
  • (2) D. M. Patterson et al., Nucl. Phys. A 263, 261 (1976).
  • (3) K. Kwiatkowski et al., Nucl. Phys. A 301, 349 (1978).
  • (4) J. Rapaport et al., Nucl. Phys. A 330, 15 (1979).
  • (5) J. P. Jeukenne, C. Mahaux, and R. Sartor, Phys. Rev. C 43, 2211 (1991).
  • (6) A. J. Koning et al., Nucl. Phys. A 713, 231 (2003).
  • (7) P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 (2002).
  • (8) M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. KIähn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017).
  • (9) N. Wang, L. Ou, and M. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034327 (2013).
  • (10) B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 232502 (2013).
  • (11) P. Danielewicz, J. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A 922, 1 (2014).
  • (12) M. D. Cozma, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 40 (2018).
  • (13) R. Wang, L. W. Chen, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054618 (2018).
  • (14) B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172503 (2021).
  • (15) D. Adhikari et al. (PREX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172502 (2021).
  • (16) G. Jhang, J. Estee, J. Barney, G. Cerizza, M. Kaneko, J. W. Lee, W. G. Lynch, T. Isobe et al. (Sπ\piRIT Collaboration), M. Colonna, D. Cozma, P. Danielewicz, H. Elfner, N. Ikeno, C. M. Ko, J. Mohs, D. Oliinychenko et al. (TMEP Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 813, 136016 (2021).
  • (17) J. Estee, W. G. Lynch, C. Y. Tsang, J. Barney, G. Jhang, M. B. Tsang, R. Wang, M. Kaneko et al. (Sπ\piRIT Collaboration), and M. D. Cozma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162701 (2021).
  • (18) M. D. Cozma, and M. B. Tsang, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 309 (2021).
  • (19) M. B. Tsang, J. Estee, H. Setiawan, W. G. Lynch, J. Barnery, M. B. Chen, G. Cerizza, P. Danielewicz et al., Phys. Rev. C 95, 044614 (2017).
  • (20) W. Reisdorf et al. (FOPI Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 781, 459 2007; Nucl. Phys. A 848, 366 (2010); Nucl. Phys. A 876, 1 (2012).
  • (21) B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4221 (2000).
  • (22) B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 192701 (2002).
  • (23) G. C. Yong, B. A. Li, and W. Zuo, Chin. Phys. Lett. 22, 2226 (2005).
  • (24) G. C. Yong, B. A. Li, and L. W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 74, 064617 (2006).
  • (25) G. F. Wei, X. Huang, Q. J. Zhi, A. J. Dong, C. G. Peng, and Z. W. Long, arXiv: 2112.13518.
  • (26) C. B. Das, S. Das Gupta, C. Gale, and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034611 (2003).
  • (27) B. A. Li, C. B. Das, S. Das Gupta, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 69, 011603(R) (2004).
  • (28) L. W. Chen, B. A. Li, A note of an improved MDI interaction for transport model simulations of heavy ion collisions , Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2010 (Unpublished).
  • (29) C. Xu, B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044603 (2010).
  • (30) L. W. Chen, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, C. Xu, and J. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 29 (2014).
  • (31) G. F. Wei, C. Xu, W. Xie, Q. J. Zhi, S. G. Chen, and Z. W. Long, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024614 (2020).
  • (32) J. Xu, L. W. Chen, and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 91, 014611 (2015).
  • (33) H. Y. Kong, J. Xu, L. W. Chen, B. A. Li, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 95, 034324 (2017).
  • (34) S. Hama, B. C. Clark, E. D. Cooper, H. S. Sherif, and R. L. Mercer, Phys. Rev. C 41, 2737 (1990).
  • (35) O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionoov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rep. 512, 1 (2012).
  • (36) G. F. Wei, C. Liu, X. W. Cao, Q. J. Zhi, W. J. Xiao, C. Y. Long, and Z. W. Long, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054607 (2021).
  • (37) G. F. Wei, B. A. Li, G. C. Yong, L. Ou, X. W. Cao, and X. Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034620 (2018).
  • (38) G. F. Wei, G. C. Yong, L. Ou, Q. J. Zhi, Z. W. Long, and X. H. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 98, 024618 (2018).
  • (39) P. Danielewicz, and G. Odyniec, Phys. Lett. B 157, 146 (1985).
  • (40) M. D. Cozma, Phys. Lett. B 700, 139 (2011).
  • (41) B. A. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 708, 365 (2002).
  • (42) J. R. Stone, P. Danielewicz, and Y. Iwata, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014612 (2017).